Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anasur
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 11:29:00 -
[1]
Shield Extenders are great on BCs. They do give a sig penalty true, but with a BCs low recharge time they also give it an insane passive tank. However the problem is their use on a BS.
The best named t1 extender is about 2900 shield points. Best named t1 armor plate is about 5400. Huge difference, almost double. Now, this is balanced for the most part on bcs as the shield extenders allow a passive tank. But this is NOT balanced for BS, since BS have far slower shield recharge times. I can already see plated armor tankers butchering shield tanks.
I have a suggestion, introduce X-Large Shield extenders, just like there is an X-Large booster. Give the best named perhaps 5000 hp. Not quite as much as an armor plate, but there is some passive recharge benefit. This gives shield tanking BS roughly equivalent hp, and the PG requirements can be set high enough to keep them from being used on Battlecruisers.
Thoughts?
|
Buttford
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 13:16:00 -
[2]
/signed - and about time soemone brought this up!!
|
Zingu
Gallente Crafty Productions
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 13:18:00 -
[3]
A better solution would just be for them to raise your shield recharge time for the percentual amount that it gives extra shield HP.
|
Zarch AlDain
Friends of Everyone
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 14:04:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Zingu A better solution would just be for them to raise your shield recharge time for the percentual amount that it gives extra shield HP.
Which removes passive tanks as an option and makes shield identical to armour? Yeeh, that's a good step for diversity!
I think the OP has the right idea, there should be XL shield expanders with the same proportional increase in expansion as battleship to cruiser HP is.
Zarch AlDain
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 14:07:00 -
[5]
The problem is that "micros" are useless (nobody in their right mind would fit them), smalls are barely useful for some frigates (medium is almost the norm), large are USEFUL for cruisers and *NOT* for BSs, and there's no BS-sized SIGNIFICANTLY USEFULL module.
Originally by: Zingu A better solution would just be for them to raise your shield recharge time for the percentual amount that it gives extra shield HP.
...but then give them *2 (or even *3) HP buffer amounts to bring them in line with plates (and account for the sigradius penality).[/sarcasm] Congratulations, you just killed most possibilities for passive shield tanking.
XL shield extenders, and XL sized loads-of-everything-else, that's what I kept saying for a long, long time. XL cap batteries (bye PG, hello cap recharge) and 3200mm plates (harder to fit and heavier as 2x1600 but hey, one free slot) to name but two others than XLarge shield extenders. And while you're at it, CAPITAL shield extenders, plates and cap batteries, obviously for dreads/carriers/titans PG sizes. The obvious way to prevent "exploitation": increase fitting cost and drawbacks the same way it's done for the other tiers. ___
Scrap micros while you're at it, and switch descriptions on the rest to fit their actual use. OR BETTER STILL make it so that descriptions stay the same, but INCREASE stats and fittings of micros to those of smalls, those of smalls to medium, medium to large, and boost the "new" large to actually aid BS-class. Then have a new set of XLs that are useful for capships.
Either way, we need something with at least double the stats (and more than double the sig/mass/fit drawbacks) of current extenders/plates. _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Pottsey
Gallente Acme Shipping Inc
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 14:19:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Pottsey on 26/10/2006 14:19:08 Shield extenders are fine for battleships and dont need changeing. Shield Recharges on the other hand do need looking at. No point in useing them over extenders. Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 14:54:00 -
[7]
The only battleships where passive shield tanking is feasable NOW are drone/missile ships, with a VERY strong bias towards ships with more lowslots, because SPRs are the BEST passive shield-tanking option (then PDU IIs coming right after them in terms of pure tank).
Hmm, what do you know, the only one that comes out of this as "feasable" compared to active shield tanking is the Dominix. No surprise you argue that "extenders are fine". Try a SPR tank on any other ship, no chance. And a PDU II passive shield tank is vastly inferior to an active shield tank using same modules... not even starting to argue the fact you use a Tech2, (still) very expensive module as opposed to dirt-cheap SPR Is.
The shield recharger issue, that's true, sadly. At least partially.
BUT any change to shield rechargers that would make BS-sized passive shield tanks feasable WITHOUT XL extenders would blow cruiser-sized passive tanks effectiveness out of proportion, due to the fact you can compound rechargers and large (presumably "oversized", even if that's where they're actually used) shield extenders.
So the "solution" would be to have shield rechargers do the same thing that shield power relays do. EITHER have them identical in function (kind of weird if you ask me)... or make them act differently.
For instance, you could MAKE THEM ACTIVE MODULES, they use capacitor in order to increase passive shield recharge rate (no stack nerf please). All in all, they should function the same way as SPRs do, but with the difference that they only work the same way if you HAVE enough capacitor, and that they shouldn't be used in conjunction with SPRs but rather with PDUs. So, it's actually pseudo-passive shield tanking, and also vulnerable to NOS.
Still better as a completely useless module (as they are now), I would say. _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Anasur
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 20:26:00 -
[8]
Its hardly without precedent too. The Large Shield Booster for instance can't compete with the Large Armor Repairer, you really need to jump to X-Large to do so.
|
2SecondsTilMidnight
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 21:01:00 -
[9]
I'm for this idea. After BC sized ships its impossible to passive shield tank for a reasonable amount of dps.
|
ragewind
Caldari VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 23:21:00 -
[10]
yes extnders do seem a bit weak to plates also the mid-large extender sig penalty is mad 7-25
would be good if they moved ever class down one so smalls get named micro ect and then add a new large with a boost so it is of real use to BS. lets remember here that medium extenders seem to find ther ways in to some T2 fig set ups isnt the wolf often used with 2 of these show that they are the wrong size as it is for each ship type they need realineing and making the large BS copaterbel.
the shire lack of cap recharge on a pasive set up means that for a bs the current extenders are too small. ------------------------------------ Dragon the patch to optimise EVE. Welcome to Tranquillity the optimised snail Please wait 4 minuets to jump war targets are 2 seconds away. |
|
Luric Vizjier
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 23:42:00 -
[11]
No.
-----------------------------------------------
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.10.26 23:49:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Akita T on 26/10/2006 23:55:48
Originally by: Anasur Its hardly without precedent too. The Large Shield Booster for instance can't compete with the Large Armor Repairer, you really need to jump to X-Large to do so.
Not really. 1 LSB gives 160 shield every 4 seconds (40/second, 52/sec with boost amplifier) while 1 LAR gives 600 armor every 15 seconds (same 40/second, 44.44 per second for maxed out repair systems skill).
The only issue here is the 1.5:1 vs 1:1 capacitor usage, but with -10% cap usage from shield compensation and one shield boost amplifier you get to 1.5:1 vs 1.44:1, which is kind of almost the same (sure you use two slots instead of one, but you also use a lot less PG and a bit more CPU for that).
The difference is even smaller in tech 2 items, where you get 60/sec with booster (78/sec with amplifier) for 1.5 point/cap (1.66 shield/cap unit with compensation skills) and about 53.3 armor/sec with LAR II (59.26/sec with RS-5) for 2 repaired/cap. Two large and one amplifier means 156/sec, same as one XL plus amplifier. If you go XL plus amplifier, you beat 2xLAR in sheer recharge rate badly. Sure, cap usage is a bit nasy, but you wanted repair amounts, didn't you ? You almost need 3xLAR to make that work out as same recharge rate.
Oh, and I keep forgetting pirate implants. Well, they're up for a rework, so it doesn't really matter. BUT remember pirate shield boosters. Now, those might not be the best recharge beasts, but they sure can spare you a lot of capacitor... do you have some version of armor repairer that repairs 3 armor per capacitor ? What about 4 per capacitor ? Didn't think so. _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Vicious Phoenix
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 00:19:00 -
[13]
You can have XL extenders. But give each one a 50% shield recharge time nerf.
CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. |
Anasur
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 00:21:00 -
[14]
Yeah, an X-Large Tech 2 Shield booster only uses 230cpu, lol. Thats almost as much as all my guns combined, and there are NO skills that reduce that cpu usage. A pair of large are easier to fit by far.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 01:07:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Vicious Phoenix You can have XL extenders. But give each one a 50% shield recharge time nerf.
Why do people keep saying that nonsense ? PASSIVE shield setups are not only about half as good as active shield setups even with SPRs (that kill your cap recharge), or much weaker as active shield setups (with PDUs)... but also need ALL med/lowslots to work, AND use more CPU. Oh, and did I mention the sigradius penality yet ?
Adding a shield recharge penality to shield extenders would be about as good (if not worse) as fitting several armor plates and a small armor repairer. _____ -sig-
This is my only char. These are my skills
Always question everything, including yourself |
Apollyonn
Caldari R.O.G.U.E
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 02:00:00 -
[16]
Agreed.
Add in some X-Large Shield Extenders and other XL mods for battleships.
Disagree.
Don't give those same mods a recharge rate penatly for shields.
Undecided.
XXL Shield Extenders for Capital ships? It seems like if CCP is already going to increase their overall HP, maybe the rest of it should be left alone. But I can't honestly be sure sine I've never flown one |
voidvim
Minmatar Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 02:40:00 -
[17]
/signed
|
Anasur
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 21:03:00 -
[18]
Some people have complained that X-Large Shield Extenders for BS would be unbalanced due to passive regen. But look at it this way, even if a X-Large Shield Extender "Best Named" gives say 5000 hp, 400 less than the best named Large Armor plate, it would take a BS with average skills over 2 minutes for the difference in pre-shield extender recharge rate and current to make up the 400hp difference, roughly. How many fights last that long, lol, even with the change.
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 01:26:00 -
[19]
/no need to sign totally borked idea: large extenders aren't all that cute to begin with ('cept on cruisers mayhap). after that, the whole start of this thread falls. the increase in signature is just too evil and kills the entire bonus; only the vagabond can make that up with its speed. everything else just starts glowing: a battle cruiser on extenders mimicks just a weak BS and can be shot well with large boomsticks. so if we take this desired step further and look at BS, it's just another attempt to create something bigger than necessary: it'll be nothing more than trying to mimick a weak capital ship. just use those evil nosferatus and XL shield boosters. that's enough of a shield tank. but a boring passive shield tank on an already boring F1-F6 raven is not an option
|
Anasur
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 04:26:00 -
[20]
Roemy, look at the kali changes. Shield Extenders and Plates are about to become very important to pvp, lol.
|
|
Pottsey
Gallente Acme Shipping Inc
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 08:47:00 -
[21]
๔the increase in signature is just too evil and kills the entire bonus;๖ Most people are over exaggerating the sig increase it has next to no impact on combat. Its no where near as bad as you think.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
gfldex
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 10:57:00 -
[22]
Passive tanks dont need cap. As it is for now passive tanks are way to powerfull compared to active tanks for anything but BS. If you change this there will not be any good reason to fly an armor tank.
If there is any change needed then a penalty change for extenders to something that is a real penalty.
-- $ perl -n -e 'print "Stop blameing pirates! Oveur is the root of all evil!\n" if m/podkill|lost my ship|gank|gate camp|Verone/;'
|
ragewind HQ
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 19:31:00 -
[23]
if pasive tanks are to be an option then there needs to be a an XL extender its the only way to give BS an option of a pasive tank, that or you have to leave the old recharge rats on all ships which will just make BC pasive to strong
|
Faricar
Caldari Infinite Innovations Astral Wolves
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 19:54:00 -
[24]
/signed
Xlarge shield extender needed
|
DeODokktor
Caldari Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:58:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Pottsey “the increase in signature is just too evil and kills the entire bonus;” Most people are over exaggerating the sig increase it has next to no impact on combat. Its no where near as bad as you think.
No, I know you love passive tanking but that's not true. If you use a MWD then it does make a HUGE difference. If someone is using painters on you then again you see a nice little difference.
No painters/Mwd then it's not a huge downside.
|
Harlock666
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 23:03:00 -
[26]
/signed
need xlarge extender of course
|
Anasur
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 01:13:00 -
[27]
I think the basis of the problem with plates is this, they haven't been useful on battleships for awhile now. Its much better to run a pure boost/rep setup with resists than to use any plates. They were useful on battlecruisers though, and sometimes cruisers. Plates v. Extenders were balanced there, because small ships low shield recharge time made up for the difference in plate and extender hp.
However BS recharge shields like pigs. So now that this 50% increase is going through, shield extenders need to be brought on par with armor plates, or at least very close, in hp in order to compete. Hence my x-large shield extender idea:)
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |