Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 04:05:00 -
[1]
same as a invol shield hardener but for armor
roughly the same cap per sec, SAME resistances gained, fitting modified to how ever CCP decides the difference between armor and shields
atm a energized adaptive nano adds 25% to everything with maxed skills for no cap use. a invol field T2 adds 30% but uses 3.2 cap per sec
please add a invol armor version with similar stats
Currently u need 3 energized adaptives with maxed out skill to match 2 invol fields.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE CCP add a 30% to all armor hardener that is similar to invol fields.
let me know what everyone thinks, why u agree or why it shouldnt happen
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 04:07:00 -
[2]
forgot to mention
please make the t2 version not require more than 1 skill to lvl 4 with a rank no higher than 4
since invol field t2 only require tactical shield manip to lvl 4
thanks,
|
Arti K
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 04:12:00 -
[3]
No.
|
jbob2000
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 04:13:00 -
[4]
They already have this... I forget what its called, adaptive nano or something, but it does what you're asking.
|
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 04:18:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Vishnej on 05/12/2005 04:23:42 The one takes cap, the other takes lowslots, which are plentiful, especially with the new stacking penalty and no gank-fitted ships. ---------------------------- T2 Destroyers: a proposal Requested Changes: An alphabet's worth |
Sentani
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 05:13:00 -
[6]
you allready have addaptive nano... ____________ The cargo bay is overloaded and cannot be made to fit Expanded Cargohold I. It is currently only capable of fitting 8772.12 units and it is currently jammed full with 9558.33 units. |
Phelan Lore
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 06:12:00 -
[7]
I'd like to see a passive shield equivailent to the energised adaptive nano...
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 06:25:00 -
[8]
Give us shield tankers mid slots to compare with your low slots and we will talk.
~General Sobeseki Pawi, HFS Razor's Kiss Strategic Commander, ISC Highguard Fleet
Biomass fears me.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=237738Sovere |
danneh
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 06:30:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Give us shield tankers mid slots to compare with your low slots and we will talk.
NP, ill take my shield amp and my recharging armor with me.
Thanks.
|
Grimwalius d'Antan
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 06:44:00 -
[10]
How about removing Invulnerability Fields and, heck, every other shield module there is? FFS you're giving armor tankers a bad name. Armor tanking is already superior, and now you're asking for a resistance module that matches a shield resistance mod. Shields, which are more dependant upon resistances than HP boosting, since they are hard to make cap sustainable with shield boosters.
|
|
dantes inferno
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 06:59:00 -
[11]
how childish..armour tanking has is advantages as does shield tanking..last thing i want to see is them been identical...i personaly have done both and like the differences adds flavour..so stop making idiotic wines just because another style of play has something you dont. _____
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:25:00 -
[12]
Originally by: dantes inferno how childish..armour tanking has is advantages as does shield tanking..last thing i want to see is them been identical...i personaly have done both and like the differences adds flavour..so stop making idiotic wines just because another style of play has something you dont.
adaptive nanos t2 = 25% with maxed out skills. invol = 30% with not many skills at all
anyone want to point out how armor is better in any way what so ever to shields. becuase i can show u that its worst in every department
shields recover a lot more per sec. shields are MORE CAP EFFICENT, shields are easier to fit, shields recover themselfs
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:26:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Give us shield tankers mid slots to compare with your low slots and we will talk.
freking scorp
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:31:00 -
[14]
NO
ALL ships shield's have 20% less base recistance then armour.
|
DarK
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:33:00 -
[15]
Armour has better base resists. Its lowest resist being explosive(10%) which is the least common damage type, whereas shields have 0% EM resist.
Armour tankers typically have more tankable slots than shield tankers, and shield tanking uses slots designed for web/scrambler/AB.
Armour tank is more cap efficient.
Shield tank isn't easier to fit, it uses way more CPU and is generally fit on ships with high CPU/LOW PG, whereas armour tanking is used on ships with low CPU/high PG. The fitting ratio is fine.
Lol.
|
DarK
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:34:00 -
[16]
Originally by: without
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Give us shield tankers mid slots to compare with your low slots and we will talk.
freking scorp
The scorp is an EW ship, a tank scorp is practically useless as it has 0 firepower and thus no purpose other than to tank.
That's 1 ship, and a bad example at that. GG sir.
|
Hugh Ruka
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:37:00 -
[17]
Originally by: without
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Give us shield tankers mid slots to compare with your low slots and we will talk.
freking scorp
Yeah one ship ... and fitting an all out shield tank uses the midslots so no EW. No EW on Scorp = wasted Scorp. Take a Raven, web+scram (PvP mandatory), and you are left with 4 mids for a light tank (booster, amp, 2xhardener) and you have to use EMP hardener, so you have not much choice.
But ok, remove the adaptive nanos as they are today and create invul field equivalent armor hardeners. Armor tankers will scream NERF :-)
Try using invul fields on something smaller than a battleship and you wasted your capacitor. Adaptive nanos are perfect for cruisers.
------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum
I realy liked my signature. Oh well ... |
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:40:00 -
[18]
Originally by: DarK Armour has better base resists. Its lowest resist being explosive(10%) which is the least common damage type, whereas shields have 0% EM resist.
Armour tankers typically have more tankable slots than shield tankers, and shield tanking uses slots designed for web/scrambler/AB.
Armour tank is more cap efficient.
Shield tank isn't easier to fit, it uses way more CPU and is generally fit on ships with high CPU/LOW PG, whereas armour tanking is used on ships with low CPU/high PG. The fitting ratio is fine.
Lol.
u want to do the math got school in a few mins, id show u shields are more cap efficnet and easier to fit
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:41:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: without
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Give us shield tankers mid slots to compare with your low slots and we will talk.
freking scorp
Yeah one ship ... and fitting an all out shield tank uses the midslots so no EW. No EW on Scorp = wasted Scorp. Take a Raven, web+scram (PvP mandatory), and you are left with 4 mids for a light tank (booster, amp, 2xhardener) and you have to use EMP hardener, so you have not much choice.
But ok, remove the adaptive nanos as they are today and create invul field equivalent armor hardeners. Armor tankers will scream NERF :-)
Try using invul fields on something smaller than a battleship and you wasted your capacitor. Adaptive nanos are perfect for cruisers.
why do u need a web? not like ur missiles do much more dmg with a web
so u got 5 slots in mids. plus a low slot in the form of a DCU
k thanks bye
|
Dark PIne
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:44:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Phelan Lore I'd like to see a passive shield equivailent to the energised adaptive nano...
Mee too. Since active modules are med slot and passives low slot, this one should be 25% all around resist low slot passive module.
Originally by: without adaptive nanos t2 = 25% with maxed out skills. invol = 30% with not many skills at all
Not true, the 30% invulnerability field module is tech 2, and it requires Engineering IV and Tactical shield manipulation (rank 4) IV.
|
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:45:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: without
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Give us shield tankers mid slots to compare with your low slots and we will talk.
freking scorp
Yeah one ship ... and fitting an all out shield tank uses the midslots so no EW. No EW on Scorp = wasted Scorp. Take a Raven, web+scram (PvP mandatory), and you are left with 4 mids for a light tank (booster, amp, 2xhardener) and you have to use EMP hardener, so you have not much choice.
But ok, remove the adaptive nanos as they are today and create invul field equivalent armor hardeners. Armor tankers will scream NERF :-)
Try using invul fields on something smaller than a battleship and you wasted your capacitor. Adaptive nanos are perfect for cruisers.
fine i dont mind shields getting passive version of invol fields (like our nanos) as long as it takes 4 skills each rank 2 to make the most of the item
oh and at 3.2cap per sec. a crusier HAS NO PROBS AT ALL fitting this mod
frigs will have a tougher time, but still be able to fit it.
THOSE arguing aboutarmor having a LITTLE more base resistances. the DCU which is a low slot sorts that out. giving u 15% res (more with skills) to your shields
WHY shouldnt armor get a 30% to all mod? u think its overpowered? explain so how
|
DarK
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:46:00 -
[22]
So you concede the other points?
Try me.
School, we didn't see that coming.
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:47:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Dark PIne
Originally by: Phelan Lore I'd like to see a passive shield equivailent to the energised adaptive nano...
Mee too. Since active modules are med slot and passives low slot, this one should be 25% all around resist low slot passive module.
Originally by: without adaptive nanos t2 = 25% with maxed out skills. invol = 30% with not many skills at all
Not true, the 30% invulnerability field module is tech 2, and it requires Engineering IV and Tactical shield manipulation (rank 4) IV.
well the nano t2 is 20% to all base. and its 25% to all with maxed out skills, each one at rank 2 and ofcourse 4 of them. thats a months training or more, invol fields take less than 2 days to train for
passive isnt low slot and active mid slot where did u make that up think of active armor hardeners
THERE is no reason not to have armor invol version.
|
Hugh Ruka
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:48:00 -
[24]
Originally by: without
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: without
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Give us shield tankers mid slots to compare with your low slots and we will talk.
freking scorp
Yeah one ship ... and fitting an all out shield tank uses the midslots so no EW. No EW on Scorp = wasted Scorp. Take a Raven, web+scram (PvP mandatory), and you are left with 4 mids for a light tank (booster, amp, 2xhardener) and you have to use EMP hardener, so you have not much choice.
But ok, remove the adaptive nanos as they are today and create invul field equivalent armor hardeners. Armor tankers will scream NERF :-)
Try using invul fields on something smaller than a battleship and you wasted your capacitor. Adaptive nanos are perfect for cruisers.
why do u need a web? not like ur missiles do much more dmg with a web
so u got 5 slots in mids. plus a low slot in the form of a DCU
k thanks bye
on yeah ... large missile vs inties is a rather nice topic :-) But I look forward to the drone changes so light drones can actualy take down frigs.
now count the CPU usage and post again ... BCU II = 40 CPU ... even BCU I = 35 CPU not to mention the launchers and the actual shield tank.
But that was not the main point. As I said before, when you change the actual adaptive nanos for the invul fields, I have no problem with that. Passive tank shields with no cap using all resist hardener is a dream of mine. I hapily give you the invul field in it's current form in exchange for your adaptive hardeners. ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum
I realy liked my signature. Oh well ... |
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:48:00 -
[25]
Originally by: DarK So you concede the other points?
Try me.
School, we didn't see that coming.
university Physics with math one of the best in the uk
|
Dark PIne
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:49:00 -
[26]
Originally by: without why do u need a web? not like ur missiles do much more dmg with a web
so u got 5 slots in mids. plus a low slot in the form of a DCU
k thanks bye
I take it you are not a missile user? You need a web if you are going to deal with interceptors. When they orbit you with MWD on, your drones can't catch them and your missiles will do 0.1 damage per hit (regardless what missiles you use).
|
Dark PIne
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 08:58:00 -
[27]
Originally by: without fine i dont mind shields getting passive version of invol fields (like our nanos) as long as it takes 4 skills each rank 2 to make the most of the item
I'd like that too.
Originally by: without THOSE arguing aboutarmor having a LITTLE more base resistances. the DCU which is a low slot sorts that out. giving u 15% res (more with skills) to your shields
This is not true. Check out the DCU II. It gives more resist to armor than shield. And I have not heard that you could increase the resistances that DCU gives with skills. It'd be great if true...
|
Dark PIne
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 09:04:00 -
[28]
Originally by: without
passive isnt low slot and active mid slot where did u make that up think of active armor hardeners
THERE is no reason not to have armor invol version.
Sorry, you are right about armor hardeners. I was thinking about other modules, like tracking and signal amps. They usually have a passive low slot and active med slot versions.
I'd be willing to give active armor invul, if we'd get a passive one for shields, too.
|
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 09:05:00 -
[29]
Dark Pine, your arguments are flawed: DCU sux for armor tank as it gives less than adaptive nano.
You don't need web on scorp/raven as you can fit heavy nosf.
Originally by: WildCard "NOW Flyzone" before after
Be back in a year or so |
Dark PIne
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 09:10:00 -
[30]
Originally by: LUKEC Dark Pine, your arguments are flawed: DCU sux for armor tank as it gives less than adaptive nano.
Yes, it sux for shield tank as well, it gives so little shield resistance that you won't fit it because of that. You would fit it to get 60% all around resistance to hull.
But my argument was not about whether the DCU is good/bad for any tank, I was pointing out that the original poster had his facts wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |