Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 12:06:00 -
[31]
ôWhile still pretty poor, they might not be totally useless like thatö Can everyone please stop saying they are totally useless. They are limited to the setups they work on but when they work they work great. A module that works great some of the time is not useless.
I do agree they need tweaking. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 12:10:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Pottsey ôWhile still pretty poor, they might not be totally useless like thatö Can everyone please stop saying they are totally useless. They are limited to the setups they work on but when they work they work great. A module that works great some of the time is not useless.
I do agree they need tweaking.
When I find such a setup without going to the ends of the earth and back, I will stop saying it
I do admit they will work on dreadnoughts or if you are willing to spend more than the cost of a tier 1 battleship getting faction ones and using them on a passive tanked ship, although faction modules shouldn't really be used for balance .. heck I think the devs usually say you should use tech I modules for balance consideration . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 12:16:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Pottsey on 09/10/2005 12:16:58 ôyou are willing to spend more than the cost of a tier 1 battleship getting faction ones and using them on a passive tanked ship, although faction modules shouldn't really be used for balance ..ö Are you aware the T2 module came out a few weeks ago and you no longer need faction modules? The T2 one drains less cap then the faction modules and give a nice resistance boost
My Dominix has 21,977 hitpoints and a number of cap Neutralizes that drain 2.5 more cap then Nos along with Invulnerability field(s) for resistance. My cap holds steady.
If you think being hit by a Nos Dominix is bad you should give me a go. The full setup with BS cost is under 100 or was it 110million.
_________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 12:24:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 09/10/2005 12:16:58 ôyou are willing to spend more than the cost of a tier 1 battleship getting faction ones and using them on a passive tanked ship, although faction modules shouldn't really be used for balance ..ö Are you aware the T2 module came out a few weeks ago and you no longer need faction modules? The T2 one drains less cap then the faction modules and give a nice resistance boost
My Dominix has 21,977 hitpoints and a number of cap Neutralizes that drain 2.5 more cap then Nos along with Invulnerability field(s) for resistance. My cap holds steady.
If you think being hit by a Nos Dominix is bad you should give me a go. The full setup with BS cost is under 100 or was it 110million.
I wasn't aware, although 16 cap/s is still a massive amount of cap for most active battleships (which probably make up what 95% of shield tanks?).
I'm pretty staunchly minmatar myself, although my second account main is a maxed drone/gallente battleship pilot.
I think, in the end my definition of a shield tanking ship is the vagabond or maybe the cyclone, If the devs choose to start giving us less gimped shield tankers I can change my mind . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 13:44:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm
Originally by: Bruchpilot So 3 nanos will give more res than 3 50% hardener for a lot less cpu? Is that right?
What about shieldtankers? Invulnerability field should be passive and get this bonus as well and use a bit less CPU (like 50tf).
I was wondering that, will these changes mean the invuln fields give 12-15% resist across the board when turned off?
That is correct. ------------- Fight against the filo-communist t2 monopolies! Down with CCCP's one-week plan! Viva la revoluci¾n! o/
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 13:50:00 -
[36]
It's entirely possible that CCP will take this opportunity to tweak invuln fields too. If you know you're going to revisit hardners in the near future it makes sense to hold off hardner changes until then. Which is now "now".
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 13:57:00 -
[37]
"It's entirely possible that CCP will take this opportunity to tweak invuln fields too. If you know you're going to revisit hardners in the near future it makes sense to hold off hardner changes until then. Which is now "now"."
Aye; but seeing how the dev blog thingie takes time to spell out changes for all types of hardeners except the fields... well, not holding my breath :<
They're likely to get that silly passive effect when turned off along with other active stuff... which will make them similar to adaptive nano plating (the non-energized kind) except costing 60 cpu to fit as opposed to just single unit of grid... ¼¼;
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 14:37:00 -
[38]
2 units of grid and 25CPU
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 14:40:00 -
[39]
Edited by: j0sephine on 09/10/2005 14:41:44
"2 units of grid and 25CPU"
i said "similar to adaptive nano plating (the non-energized kind) ^^
the tech.2 non-energized nano gives 12.5% resistances and costs single grid unit, no cpu... so the invulnerability field providing passive resistance of 12-15% depending on skill would be pretty much the same thing, but way more expensive to fit...
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 15:32:00 -
[40]
Ah, k
|
|
Andarias
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 01:37:00 -
[41]
Any updates?
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 02:17:00 -
[42]
"Any updates?"
It appears there's a change to how the new skills affect the adaptive nanos on the test server... they now simply add flat bonus of 1% to relevant resistance per level. So tech.1 nano with all skills maxed gives 20% bonus, tech.2 nano gives 25% etc. The single resistance type modules get the bigger bonus, like before.
Not sure if this change is a good idea actually, being that the insane 90+ across the board stuff people were getting was likely a result of broken stacking penalty on test server... but oh well. Maybe it'll be changed to something yet different eventually. o.O;
|
Andarias
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 02:36:00 -
[43]
Ugh. Well, it still looks like the energized adaptive nano will be king, compared to anything on the shield tanking side. I'm pretty sure 4 energized adaptive nanos will be better than 4 active hardeners
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 02:44:00 -
[44]
"Ugh. Well, it still looks like the energized adaptive nano will be king, compared to anything on the shield tanking side. I'm pretty sure 4 energized adaptive nanos will be better than 4 active hardeners"
With their reduced cap usage the invulnerability fields are really nice now, to the point where it actually makes sense to use them ^^
(tech.1 field gives 25% resistances and uses 4 cap/sec, tech.2 field gives 30% resistances and costs 3.2 cap/sec ... fitting requirements are higher than nanos, but all things considered they come very comparable)
|
Stuart Price
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 02:53:00 -
[45]
Dear CCP, it's not fair that all races get way more slots to tank with than Caldari. Our best battleship only gets 5 tanking slots, whereas other races battleships get loads more, 7 or 8 in a few cases. How are we meant to defend outselves?
Stuart Price stops for a moment as someone whispers in his ear.
Sorry but what now? You can actually tank with shields? I never knew that. But you say it's pretty broken? The shield extenders are gonna make me take more damage? Ok, so they're gonna be worse than plates but what about the hardeners? Oh right. So armour tankers get more types to choose from because none of them are broken. What about repairers, or 'boosters' as you crazy kids call them. I see. They require tons more cap to run per second on ships that have loads less cap to start with. But they boost at the start of the cycle right? Oh yeah, I have THOUSANDS of hit point. If i die before the rep cycles, it was never gonna help to start with.
Passive shield tanking you say? And that's good? Ah yes, it uses up pretty much all my slots and anyone dealing EM damage will kill me fairly quick anyhow.
There's more? If we want to tank we can't use scramblers, webbers or EW modules? Which are part of our racial makeup in the case of EW, entirely chance based, which is brilliant when risking millions of isk of ship? Whereas am armour tanker can tank at full strength and STILL keep someone in place while they kill them? Amazing.
Stuart Price asks if he can kindly swap his Caldari bs 5 skill for Amarr bs 5. And doesn't wish to even get started on launchers that aren't rocket launchers. He's currently stuck with gank/ew setups or stupid-amounts-of-heavy-nos setups.
Oh look, shield compensation skill! 2% per level?!? BUT MY CAP IS RUBBISH TO START WITH! THAT'S why shield tanking should be MORE cap efficient than armour tanking. Boost the cap on a Megathron while you're at it to counter that argument. "I got soul but I'm not a soldier" |
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 12:09:00 -
[46]
Dude, keep up :P
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 12:52:00 -
[47]
:( me needs to get himself on testserver to play with the new toys
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 13:18:00 -
[48]
armor tanking beats shieldtanking on ravens, caras, frigs - everything?
|
lmaolmaoatyou
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 14:14:00 -
[49]
1 damage control in lows helps shield tanking quite alot and is a mch more viable optioon for shield tankers rather than armor tankers. But with the changes it actually feels like Battleships are actually battleships instead of dieing in 2 seconds.
|
Trelennen
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 15:03:00 -
[50]
Originally by: lmaolmaoatyou 1 damage control in lows helps shield tanking quite alot and is a mch more viable optioon for shield tankers rather than armor tankers.
How is it more viable for shield tankers than armor tankers? Armor resist on damage control is higher than shield resist...
Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle
When I started EVE, I thought EVE would require dedication and long term planning. I could never dream that the third ship I piloted would be the end of the line.
|
|
Kcel Chim
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 15:31:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Trelennen
Originally by: lmaolmaoatyou 1 damage control in lows helps shield tanking quite alot and is a mch more viable optioon for shield tankers rather than armor tankers.
How is it more viable for shield tankers than armor tankers? Armor resist on damage control is higher than shield resist...
Because they are low slot modules. This means they will add to shield resistances in slots you couldnt have used for it before. While using them an an armor tank will fill slots you used for armortanking regardless.
|
R31D
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 15:55:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Jim Raynor Why does CCP refuse to unnerf the Invul Field? :\
They say they will, and have provided stats for it (It's also effective on Sisi)
Free bumpage for all |
DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 16:11:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Stuart Price Dear CCP, it's not fair that all races get way more slots to tank with than Caldari. Our best battleship only gets 5 tanking slots, whereas other races battleships get loads more, 7 or 8 in a few cases. How are we meant to defend outselves?
Stuart Price stops for a moment as someone whispers in his ear.
Sorry but what now? You can actually tank with shields? I never knew that. But you say it's pretty broken? The shield extenders are gonna make me take more damage? Ok, so they're gonna be worse than plates but what about the hardeners? Oh right. So armour tankers get more types to choose from because none of them are broken. What about repairers, or 'boosters' as you crazy kids call them. I see. They require tons more cap to run per second on ships that have loads less cap to start with. But they boost at the start of the cycle right? Oh yeah, I have THOUSANDS of hit point. If i die before the rep cycles, it was never gonna help to start with.
Passive shield tanking you say? And that's good? Ah yes, it uses up pretty much all my slots and anyone dealing EM damage will kill me fairly quick anyhow.
There's more? If we want to tank we can't use scramblers, webbers or EW modules? Which are part of our racial makeup in the case of EW, entirely chance based, which is brilliant when risking millions of isk of ship? Whereas am armour tanker can tank at full strength and STILL keep someone in place while they kill them? Amazing.
Stuart Price asks if he can kindly swap his Caldari bs 5 skill for Amarr bs 5. And doesn't wish to even get started on launchers that aren't rocket launchers. He's currently stuck with gank/ew setups or stupid-amounts-of-heavy-nos setups.
Oh look, shield compensation skill! 2% per level?!? BUT MY CAP IS RUBBISH TO START WITH! THAT'S why shield tanking should be MORE cap efficient than armour tanking. Boost the cap on a Megathron while you're at it to counter that argument.
Hi, I'm the raven. I have 6 slots to tank with, not 5. Now meet my counterpart, the tempest. I have 5 mids and 6 lows, and can't tank either good. WHEEE!
|
John Blackthorn
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 16:25:00 -
[54]
The problem with invulablity field is it's high fiting cost and the such a short cyle time.
The cycle time is like 2 seconds with 50 cap per cycle.
My experance tells me that damage seeps through during the cycle. So not only does it cost a lot of cap to use, but damage seeks through during the cycle change as well.
Furthermore the invulablity can't be used on anything smaller than battleships due to the power requirements. I want be able to use them effectfly on shild tanking frgates etc etc. A two slot shild tank on frigates would make frigates marginly better for fighting with. with bringing the lowests resists up to 40% and highest of about 65%.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 16:27:00 -
[55]
"Hi, I'm the raven. I have 6 slots to tank with, not 5. Now meet my counterpart, the tempest. I have 5 mids and 6 lows, and can't tank either good. WHEEE!"
But there's more things that go in mid slots, not just the tank... and wanting to put at least a scrambler *or* sensor booster *or* propulsion module in there... well, it's not really too unreasonable, is it? ^^;;;
(same applying to Tempest of course, but thought regular armour tank is 4 slots, or 5 if one really wants to push it..?
|
Haniblecter Teg
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 16:57:00 -
[56]
I lol when people call OP for things not even implemented yet.
Go back to your hole you ****ing troll.
Friends Forever |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 07:11:00 -
[57]
ôThe problem with invulablity field is it's high fiting cost and the such a short cyle time. The cycle time is like 2 seconds with 50 cap per cycle.ö
The new fields have a 10 second cycle time, less cap per cycle so it only drains 3cap per second ish.
_________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |