Talk:Tanking

rewrite

I rewrote this article because it's previous incarnation was quite tedious and had no real structure (no pun intended). I think it has had bits tacked on here and there, so the article feels quite piecemeal. The article also only had two sections dealing with shield tanking and armour tanking. I don't like theis because there are a lot of common ideas for shield and armour tanking so these two article duplicate that information. The article also goes into too much detail about the specifics of modules. This also makes it hard to read.
The new article has sections for shield/armour/hull tanking (to discuss the differences), hit point buffers, active tanking, passive tanking, and meta tanking. I think this is a more appropriate structure as it allows the merits of each philosophy to be discussed disctinctly and clearly. It should also keep the article more managable in future. Sandy Brown 15:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of active and passive tanking

Could be I've picked it up wrongly, but I thought the primary difference between active and passive tanking was whether or not the tank relied on capacitor power? The article seems, at the moment, to indicate that passive tanking is always shield tanking.
--Damith d'Estelas 02:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit ambiguous. I suspect that there is no standard definition of the term. Different people will probably give lots of different answers. Sandy Brown 01:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather, while passive tanking in general refers to not using active hp regeneration modules, passive armour and shield tanking are different because a passive armour tank is always a buffer tank, while a passive shield tank can achieve considerable hp/sec values. Disambiguation in main article p'rhaps? --keepiru 02:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new subtopic here to help define what passive and active tanking is. Passive taking breaks down into two different categories:

Passive shield

Passive shield tanking relies on high shield regeneration with NO CAPACITOR USE. If you add even a single EM hardener, you then have a Hybrid tank. The tank becomes active when you add a booster. --Siigari Kitawa 07:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Passive shield tanking is only defined by the use of shield boosters or not. The degree to which it is capacitor dependent or not is entirely unrelated. Sky Grunthor

Passive armor

Pure passive armor tanking involves what traditionally would be called a 'buffer', which is plates, energized membranes (adaptives are EANM), nano platings (adaptives are ANP) and a damage control (DC). While the DC costs one capacitor every 30 seconds, it is often not thought of as an active module because of its requirement on almost every passive armor tanked ship. At any rate, an active buffer tank uses plates and hardeners with a DC. A full active tank involves any mixture of armor repairers, armor hardeners, energized platings and a damage control. --Siigari Kitawa 07:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are incorrect in your definition. Active tanking is the use of HP booster modules, for armor this would be Armor Reppers. Capacitor dependency and Capacitor use is unrelated. Contributor name: Sky Grunthor: Sky Grunthor

Active armor and shield tanking

I added a bit of info on active armor and active shield tanking that I think was needed to help show the pros and cons of them.

Kiljaedenas, Oct 14 2009