Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Denrace
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 14:19:00 -
[31]
Learn to spell!
And no, I don't think such a module should be added. At all. ____________________________________________
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 14:31:00 -
[32]
Edited by: The Wizz117 on 05/12/2005 14:31:06
Originally by: Denrace Learn to spell!
And no, I don't think such a module should be added. At all.
and if they do i want a module increasing shield recistance to 45% on all damage types
lol, look how he named the other topic:
closed cos nubs in tis game dont know that large armor rep is a BS mod hilariouse! ( how ever u spell that)
|
Fogy
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 14:46:00 -
[33]
u said you hafe to train up 4 rank 2 skills to be able to get 100% out of your armor tank.. "over a month of training" OMG! add 4 skills after RMR with the 5% resistans to each damage type skills. same goes for shields.
a shield tanker has to do: shield compensation rank: 2 shield management rank: 3 shield operation rank: 1 shield upgrades rank: 2 tactical shield manipulation rank: 4
as for a shield tanker, he needs the armor related skills aswell to have a better survival rate, while a armor tanker doesnt rely much on his shields exept the time buffer to turn on his hardeners.
and as some one else said, if they put in a 30%cross all active armor hardener.. shield tankers should get a cross all pasive shield hardener!
all that beeing said. i think you should stepp down from your big horse, and stopp trolling/flaming n00bs and beeing such a wannabeehottshott! N00bs are the players of the future! help them insted of beating them down, inform them insted of turning to the "OMGWTFSTFUN00B"!! atitude.
Cheers! Fogy
"From my rotting boddy flowers shall grow and I am in them, and that is eternity" ♥RUBRA♥
|
Hugh Ruka
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 14:47:00 -
[34]
I would like to appologize to without for hijacking his previous thread. It is sometimes hard to explain the thing properly in English for me. ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum
I realy liked my signature. Oh well ... |
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:03:00 -
[35]
I have no idea what this thread is about, due to most of it being in some language that only vaguely resembles English...
...but whatever it is, I'm against it.
|
Jaketh Ivanes
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:20:00 -
[36]
Statement: Large t2 armor reppers are a cruiser module!!!!!
(just couldn't resist )
And for the topic: No.
|
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:34:00 -
[37]
large reps are for cruisers, i always fit a large on my cruiser the medium ones just dont keep up and with some power grid extenders it can fit just fine.
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:34:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Fogy u said you hafe to train up 4 rank 2 skills to be able to get 100% out of your armor tank.. "over a month of training" OMG! add 4 skills after RMR with the 5% resistans to each damage type skills. same goes for shields.
a shield tanker has to do: shield compensation rank: 2 shield management rank: 3 shield operation rank: 1 shield upgrades rank: 2 tactical shield manipulation rank: 4
as for a shield tanker, he needs the armor related skills aswell to have a better survival rate, while a armor tanker doesnt rely much on his shields exept the time buffer to turn on his hardeners.
and as some one else said, if they put in a 30%cross all active armor hardener.. shield tankers should get a cross all pasive shield hardener!
all that beeing said. i think you should stepp down from your big horse, and stopp trolling/flaming n00bs and beeing such a wannabeehottshott! N00bs are the players of the future! help them insted of beating them down, inform them insted of turning to the "OMGWTFSTFUN00B"!! atitude.
Cheers! Fogy
how do u help people that say
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
you forgot: 1. how much cap does the armor rep use per cycle ? 2. you are comparing a LARGE armor rep and an EXTRA LARGE shield booster. compare same class please. 3. try to figure out how long the shiled/armor tank lasts ... 4. armor tank can use cap rechargers to boost it's sustainability, shield tank cannot. cap power relats have shield boost penalty, cap rechargers use midslots.
stuff like that just wast time and space
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:36:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka I would like to appologize to without for hijacking his previous thread. It is sometimes hard to explain the thing properly in English for me.
its NP, ur english is fine
i was just a lil anygry at ppl trying to flame the post by useing really dumb examples, and wrong information
seems urs was a honest mistake so its no big deal
|
Virxe
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:38:00 -
[40]
i think without just got ganked by some guy in a shield tank and he is to concieded to blame it on himself.
|
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:40:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Denrace Learn to spell!
And no, I don't think such a module should be added. At all.
why not, saying i dont think........ isnt that helpfull
tell us why u disagree, i mean if u have a good point it may even change my mind
armor tankers have the normal 50% to one dmg type, shields have the same armor has the 37.5% to passive one type, shields have the same
armor has a passive 25% to all with maxed skills , shields have 30% to all
whats wrong with armor getting a version of invol field with cap useage???? why is it bad? what does it unbalance??
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:42:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Virxe i think without just got ganked by some guy in a shield tank and he is to concieded to blame it on himself.
this is my alt, my main is in a pvp corp, mainly flys galante ships and has 30mil SP i dont think i have ever lost a megathron to a raven (dont fly the domi)
but i do know that shields are getting a 30% to all mod while armor gets 25% to all. that is a big difference. armor should get a active version of energized adaptives that gives 30% to all T2 version
|
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:46:00 -
[43]
this is the strangest thred ever
no one that says NO to a armor active 30% to all will say why will it make armor tanking overpowered??? and if a +30% makes armor tanks overpowered why doesnt a 30% invol makes shields overpowered
ppl have been compairing shields to armor, lets leave that, leave the raven and all otehr ships
concentrate on the question. should armor get a version of invol fields. some cap useage for +30% res across the bord
simple yes and good reason, or simple no and why not would be enough
|
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:47:00 -
[44]
Armor tanked ships have more low slots than shield-tanked ships have medium slots. 3 energized adaptive II's to equal 2 invulnerability field II's is fair in this regard. -Wrayeth
Go away. |
Magunus
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:49:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Magunus on 05/12/2005 15:50:53
Originally by: without
armor has a passive 25% to all with maxed skills , shields have 30% to all
What skills are we talking about here? The new skills on Sisi? I was under the impression those only took effect if you actually had a hardener installed, and they didn't work with active hardeners? So, if that's all true, it seems to me that armor tankers have the advantage in that they have a passive hardener which hardens everything, while shields only have an active hardener and therefore doesn't benefit from the new skills.
edit - I guess I should have said it seems even, not that armor had the advantage. I guess adding an active armor hardener wouldn't change much, since it wouldn't benefit from the new skills either. /me shrugs. ---
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe' |
Dark PIne
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:50:00 -
[46]
Originally by: without but i do know that shields are getting a 30% to all mod while armor gets 25% to all. that is a big difference. armor should get a active version of energized adaptives that gives 30% to all T2 version
Actually, there's been 30% invuln fields for a long time. They are just going to be un-nerfed in RMR. But they are already being used in TQ for example in passively tanked Dominixes (ask Pottsey).
|
Virxe
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:50:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Wrayeth Armor tanked ships have more low slots than shield-tanked ships have medium slots. 3 energized adaptive II's to equal 2 invulnerability field II's is fair in this regard.
Yes. And everyone else agrees. Thats why everyone, or the majority of the people are saying no.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:52:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 05/12/2005 15:53:04
Originally by: without but i do know that shields are getting a 30% to all mod while armor gets 25% to all. that is a big difference. armor should get a active version of energized adaptives that gives 30% to all T2 version
Shield tanking get a bit of much needed love (maybe not needed for the raven and one or two ships out there, but that's hardly every ship that should shield tank yet can't because it's so much better being armor tanked right now) and you cry all you can because "it's unfair"? Do you even have a remote clue of how the situation for at least one year was unfair to most shield tankers?
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. --- Spreadsheet - Damage @ range. |
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:52:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Wrayeth Armor tanked ships have more low slots than shield-tanked ships have medium slots. 3 energized adaptive II's to equal 2 invulnerability field II's is fair in this regard.
2 dmg mods is pretty much needed on most turret boats.
that leaves 5 slots to tank with, whereas the main shield tanking bs, the raven has 6 mids to tank with, and 1 low (DCU adding shield res) and can also fit the 2 BCU in its lows
yes most armor tanking ships have more lows, most only have 1 more low
but if u add 2 dmg mods, then most armor tankers have 5 low slots free for other while raven or tempest can fit 2 dmg mods plus have 6mids to tank or 5 mids to tank
more low slots doesnt mean we should have less efficent mods
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:56:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 05/12/2005 16:03:21
Originally by: without but if u add 2 dmg mods, then most armor tankers have 5 low slots free for other while raven or tempest can fit 2 dmg mods plus have 6mids to tank or 5 mids to tank
Don't leave the tackling gear out of the equation. Or if you do, factor other EW mods (jammers, tracking disruptors) in the mid of the armor tanker. Otherwise, it's not fair. A concept you claim to understand the necessity.
I've never seen someone so angerly willing to prove his skewed "theory" despite the sheer amount of evidence that things are not working that way.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. --- Spreadsheet - Damage @ range. |
|
Fogy
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:59:00 -
[51]
whats the stats on the damagecontrol thingies agian? 12.5% cross over to shield, 15% cross over to armor?
that evens it out doesnt it? :P
Cheers! Fogy "From my rotting boddy flowers shall grow and I am in them, and that is eternity" ♥RUBRA♥
|
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 15:59:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Naughty Boy Edited by: Naughty Boy on 05/12/2005 15:56:59
Originally by: without but if u add 2 dmg mods, then most armor tankers have 5 low slots free for other while raven or tempest can fit 2 dmg mods plus have 6mids to tank or 5 mids to tank
Don't leave the tackling gear out of the equation. Or if you do, factor other EW mods (jammers, tracking disruptors) in the mid of the armor tanker. Otherwise, it's not fair. A concept you claim to understand the necessity.
I've never seen someone so angerly willing to prove his skewed "theory" despite the sheer amount of evidence that things are not working that way.
Sinecrly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
Exactly. After fitting a warp scrambler, my raven only has 5 medium slots, not 6. My tempest? Only 4 medium slots after scrambler. -Wrayeth
Go away. |
The Wizz117
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 16:06:00 -
[53]
if u would fit an armour tank on the raven u would have more cap, more (base) recistance and u would hav 6 meds for cap/EW that must be pwnage
|
Cynet K405
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 16:17:00 -
[54]
YEs i am a noob, still less than a week old, am i missing something here? but looking at my ship, armor has better default base resistant compared to shield.(not confining to damage type)
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.12.05 16:28:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 05/12/2005 16:31:48 So, you "close" this one too?
Nicely done, Gronsak.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. --- Spreadsheet - Damage @ range. |
Emiug
|
Posted - 2005.12.06 03:43:00 -
[56]
u missed the point that it takes 2 slots to be as effiecent as 1 mod
-------------------------------------------- 2005.11.12 01:12:17combatYour Medium Modal Pulse Laser I barely scratches Hoarder [ASW]<G>(Hoarder), causing 288.2 damage. |
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.12.06 03:53:00 -
[57]
Originally by: The Wizz117 if u would fit an armour tank on the raven u would have more cap, more (base) recistance and u would hav 6 meds for cap/EW that must be pwnage
The problem here is that a dual large rep setup with three hardeners doesn't FIT on a raven. You don't have any lows left over for fitting mods to allow you to fit a full rack of siege (or even cruise, which have lesser fitting requirements). -Wrayeth
Go away. |
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2005.12.06 05:17:00 -
[58]
Originally by: without
Originally by: Hugh Ruka I would like to appologize to without for hijacking his previous thread. It is sometimes hard to explain the thing properly in English for me.
its NP, ur english is fine
i was just a lil anygry at ppl trying to flame the post by useing really dumb examples, and wrong information
seems urs was a honest mistake so its no big deal
He's talking about your skilled rapeage of the english language.
Originally by: without
Originally by: Wrayeth Armor tanked ships have more low slots than shield-tanked ships have medium slots. 3 energized adaptive II's to equal 2 invulnerability field II's is fair in this regard.
2 dmg mods is pretty much needed on most turret boats.
that leaves 5 slots to tank with, whereas the main shield tanking bs, the raven has 6 mids to tank with, and 1 low (DCU adding shield res) and can also fit the 2 BCU in its lows.
The raven, in it's mids will have: a shield booster, most likely XL 2-3 Invuln fields (going by your rant) Cap injector (unless you plan to tank for about 30 seconds)
That leaves 1 slot. Now in that 1 slot you have to choose between...
A cap recharger (those lowslot ones aren't very practical. -10% to Shield boosting can hurt your tank consideribly), A webber, a scrambler, an AB/MWD(unless you're a fan of going the speed of snail), a Sensor booster for those people who like to be able to use the range of cruise missiles, or a few other things. Oh yeah, looks like they'll have tons of room for things other than a Tank.
*t00t t00t*
You hear that? It's the clue train. I suggest you hop on board before you miss it again. ------------------------------------
Quote: 1 Billion isk currently sells on ebay for about $225 90 day GTC $38.95 Currently selling for 300mill
Therefore 1Bill isk costs you $129.50. |
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2005.12.06 06:40:00 -
[59]
The OP is also neglecting the fact that shield tanks can only fit 15% (eff) Power Diag Units, rather than the 25% (eff) Cap Power Relays (Cap Relays, as they reduce recharge time by 20% give an effective 1/0.8 or 25% bonus to recharge rate).
The net effect is, for a given number of slots, a shield tank has between 59% to 71% the energy available to it that a compairable armour tank does. RMR only changes that gap to 74% to 88%, and it does that at a 5% expense to key resistances.
As shield tanking is only 8% more effecient than armour tanking (and then only with a Rank 2 skill to lvl 5), and shield tanking occupies midslots needed for afterburners, tackle and EWar gear, it's only advantages are that it leaves your low slots free for damage mods and WCS, and that it leaves your grid free for heavy weapons.
That's it.
Harry Voyager ____________________ I'm not an idiot; I just play one on the forums. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |