EVE Search - Shield tanking battleships and the active/buffer question

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Shield tanking battleships and the active/buffer question

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Topic
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.07 00:43:00 - [1] A thought has occured to me as of late. It has become common practice in this day and age to ignore the active tank in PVP in favor of the buffer tank. The common logic being used behind this movement revolves around the simple fact that in many PVP scenarios your survival time is better extended by fitting a module that boosts HP quantity rather than a module that actively regenerates HP. This logic is of course born from armor tankers, who are saddled with the LAR's wretchedly long cycle time and the boon of the 1600mm plate - essentially the HP equivalent of an XL Shield Extender. Because of this, a single LAR can take a full minute of cycling to generate the same quantity of HP as the 1600mm plate offers up front - and in many circumstances if you're going to go down the plate keeps you in the fight longer. But with Shields, these two hurdles do not exist. We have instead an XL booster and a large extender. This in short means an XL booster II needs less than 20 seconds to deliver the same quantity of HP that the extender provides - and I'm left to assume that in most scenarios where you aren't going to be murdered in a volley or two you'll actually be better off with the booster in place of the extender. Of course, I'm not advocating a complete dismissal of the extender's place in the PVP shield tank - such a move is folley. I'm not even advocating adding in a boost amp - instead, I'm saying perhaps the best route in most cases of smaller gang combat you'll find that replacing one LSE with an XL booster will drastically improve your lifespan. If you can cycle the booster three times it's paid for itself - and it's only in the most brutal engagements where you couldn't expect to accomplish this feat. It seems that this trend of buffer tanking has been started by the Armor tanked ships of the game - and since most of those are legendary PVP ships in their own right it simply made sense for the less reknowned shield tankers to follow suit. I could be entirely wrong of course, but unless my math skills are failing me here the logic makes sense to me. I guess the real question is does it make sense to anyone else?
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.10.07 01:01:00 - [2] Originally by: Derek Sigres I could be entirely wrong of course, but unless my math skills are failing me here the logic makes sense to me. I guess the real question is does it make sense to anyone else? You're forgetting that an XL Booster further cuts into your mid slots by requiring a cap booster... something that many shield buffer tanked fits forego. Thus, you're down by two slots instead of just one... and now you should probably just fit an all out active tank and hope for the best. -Liang --
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.07 01:18:00 - [3] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Derek Sigres I could be entirely wrong of course, but unless my math skills are failing me here the logic makes sense to me. I guess the real question is does it make sense to anyone else? You're forgetting that an XL Booster further cuts into your mid slots by requiring a cap booster... something that many shield buffer tanked fits forego. Thus, you're down by two slots instead of just one... and now you should probably just fit an all out active tank and hope for the best. -Liang My point is it doesn't NEED to be sustained Liang On my scorpion for example it takes just over 5 cycles of the booster to give me all the HP the LSE gives. This amounts to a cap cost of roughly 1/3 of the scorpions fairly flimsy cap. Even under neut action, in a scenario you might even HOPE to survive the booster seems like it'd give you an edge. And my math was off in the first post - it's not 20 seconds it's 25 seconds (at 30 seconds you've gotten MORE hp than the extender provides). Let's take a torp raven that looks like this: 6 Torp II MWD Painter 2 LSE 2 Invul 3 BCS DC PDS According to EFT this non tackling raven yields a total shield hp of 16,734. If I remove 1 LSE this becomes 13289 - a difference of 3445HP. The XL booster II delivers 600 HP in 5 seconds meaning it will take 5.75 cycles to get more HP (thus at 6 cycles, 30 seconds into a battle you will have delivered more HP). This amounts to about 1/2 the total cap available to the Raven. In short, it seems to me if the amount of firepower incomming will tanke more than 30 seconds to destroy the ship, you're BETTER off with an XL booster in place of the LSE. Like I said - it only has to run for 6 cycles - easily doable even when under a heavy neut. I can think of a dozen scenarios where the LSE is better than the booster sure, but at the end of the day you were going to lose your ship one way or another. It's more of a mental exercise really - there is a legitmate argument to go both ways. The LSE route plans against the worst case scenario, the buffer tank protects against the generally more common scenarios.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.07 01:33:00 - [4] Keep in mind the huge fitting difference between a LSE II and an X-LSB II. A buffer-tanked torp Raven, for example, does not have enough CPU to fit the booster.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.07 01:36:00 - [5] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Keep in mind the huge fitting difference between a LSE II and an X-LSB II. A buffer-tanked torp Raven, for example, does not have enough CPU to fit the booster. Mine does, as long as I don't want to fit anything in those high slots. Failing that, one can always use a Co-Proc :). In fact I certainly don't have perfect skills but the fit I listed is still 21 cpu shy of being over the limit.
Disco Flint The Flaming Sideburn's	Posted - 2008.10.07 01:39:00 - [6] But where am I gonna transport all the yummy loot if my hold is filled with 800s? :( X-Large needs too much CPU, about twice as much as 2 large extenders. If you run with X-Large + Cap Injector, the PG need becomes quite a problem. With a dual extender tank I can easily fit 4 BCUs + DCU + MWD, if I go X-Large + cap injector it becomes 3 BCU without DCU; and iirc without MWD as well, 2 BCU + MWD. On top of that 3x CDFE rigs add a lot of tankability to your dual extender tank, while the rigs that help the X-Large tank are rather "meh".
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.07 01:42:00 - [7] Edited by: Derek Sigres on 07/10/2008 01:45:04 Originally by: Disco Flint But where am I gonna transport all the yummy loot if my hold is filled with 800s? :( X-Large needs too much CPU, about twice as much as 2 large extenders. If you run with X-Large + Cap Injector, the PG need becomes quite a problem. With a dual extender tank I can easily fit 4 BCUs + DCU + MWD, if I go X-Large + cap injector it becomes 3 BCU without DCU; and iirc without MWD as well, 2 BCU + MWD. On top of that 3x CDFE rigs add a lot of tankability to your dual extender tank, while the rigs that help the X-Large tank are rather "meh". Once again - I'm not advocating a sustainable setup. I'm not advocating a GOOD active tank - I'm agrguing that all you need is 6 cycles and the XL booster is more valuable than a single LSE. You have the CPU to fit one, and if you aren't worreid about keeping it on for more than 10 cycles or so you don't have any need for a cap booster. This is my point - people keep trying to crawl back into the box by harping about sustainablity and fitting issues when neither is at the heart of the matter. At the core of the argument is this simple fact: if you can run your XL booster for 30 seconds, you will have better spent that mid slot than if you used an LSE. And on the not of rigs - I agree once you ad CDFE's to the situation the XL booster becomes unappealing. Afterall, it will acount for nearly 5k EHP - meaning it will take nearly a minute to overcome the value. But lets face it - rigs are an exensive ISK sink. I'll nearly always rig a shield tanked ship with resist rigs because they cost as much as a t2 hardner (give or take a few hundred k). Resist rigs don't upset the equation - only pure HP. And, on the futher note of rigs, the CDOS rig can cut the time down to about 20 seconds required to make the XL booster better than an extender, for about the same cost per rig as the CDFE. I'm not advocating this move but keep in mind the argument goes both ways.
6Bagheera9 Slacker Industries	Posted - 2008.10.07 02:04:00 - [8] I generally find it better to actively tank shield tanking BSs. My reasons are several: 1. High recharge time greatly reduces the passive recharge effect of LSE II. They mostly just add to EHP. 2. BSs have the cap and mid-slots to sustain an XL SB II, a cap injector, and full set of hardeners. You'll be able booster enough hp to surpass that which would be added by LSE IIs during the course of a typical battle. 3. Since your cap needs are met by the injector, you can go nuts with damage mods, signal amp, and back-up sensor arrays in the low-slots. No need to fit spr IIs. 4. Blue Pill + Overload = MASSIVE TANK. My Maelstrom has stood up to stupid amounts of firepower through properly timed dose of BP and overloading my mid-rack. If you're wealth enough to pvp with faction/dead-space/officer modules, you can tank the multiplicative effects to absurd level. I've calculated that with 2 DG Invls, a Pith X-type XL SB, 2 Pith X hardeners, HG crystals, and strong BP you could tank about 5K dps while overloading in a Maelstrom. Now that's an extreme case, but it definetely raises eyebrows.
Disco Flint The Flaming Sideburn's	Posted - 2008.10.07 02:08:00 - [9] Edited by: Disco Flint on 07/10/2008 02:15:32 Edited by: Disco Flint on 07/10/2008 02:10:54 Edited by: Disco Flint on 07/10/2008 02:10:34 Originally by: Derek Sigres Once again - I'm not advocating a sustainable setup. I'm not advocating a GOOD active tank - I'm agrguing that all you need is 6 cycles and the XL booster is more valuable than a single LSE. You have the CPU to fit one, and if you aren't worreid about keeping it on for more than 10 cycles or so you don't have any need for a cap booster. I tried to swap a LSE on my setup for a XLarge, if I do that I have 6 CPU left with lows empty :( 2 lowslots for Co-Procs II and I can squeeze in 3 BCU II, which is 1 BCU and 1 DCU II less than my buffer tank. With dual LSE buffer + CDFEs I have around 24k shield HP, swapping one LSE for an XLarge II with 3 CDOSs I have around 12k shield HP. To make up for that the XLarge II has to run for slightly over 60 seconds, burning just about 7000 capacitor in the process, Raven without cap mods has 5000 cap. EFT says I can sustain that for 30 seconds, but seeing how your cap is usually at around 75% when the engagement starts (hardeners running, warping, whatever) it's probably closer to 20-25 seconds. I just can't see how a X-Large can beat the LSE, it tanks more if you can run it for 60 seconds, but you dont have the cap for that. On top of that I'd sacrifice a damage mod and a DCU which would add 20k EHP even on the active setup. The fittings and the cap use break the X-Large tank, even if you don't aim for sustainability. NINJA EDIT: That's all before crystals, if I had crystals in my head I'd go and active tank anything :) Not so ninja edit: 43 seconds... I had MWD toggled on, I fail at EFT. Still, not much better.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.10.07 02:09:00 - [10] Originally by: Derek Sigres My point is it doesn't NEED to be sustained Liang It doesn't need sustained to give you better survivability, but also it leaves you in a **** poor situation as far as your cap goes: you don't have the cap to MWD to get out of trouble, it becomes trivially easy to neut your cap to nothing, and you lack the cap to even run your hardeners effectively. On top of that, how long does it take you to "recover" your capacitor? What happens in a jam cycle (you get 20 seconds of HITPOINTS back, but with the cap booster you're waiting 20 seconds and you may or may not get enough cap for a single cycle of the booster). Oh, and if you have the CPU to run an XL booster on your PVP Raven... you're doing it wrong. It's just not worth it (IMO). :) -Liang --

Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.10.07 02:14:00 - [11] [Raven, PvP_torp_active] Damage Control II Co-Processor II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II X-Large C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I Shield Boost Amplifier II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II 100MN MicroWarpdrive II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Semiconductor Memory Cell I Semiconductor Memory Cell I Semiconductor Memory Cell I =========== vs =================== [Raven, PvP_torp_passive] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II 100MN MicroWarpdrive II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I ======== No, you can't fit a T2 XL booster on the active version, no CPU even with the T2 coproc, and even if you downsize to named SBAmp, named DC, named MWD and so on. Also, needs a 3% PG implant (slot 6, the one where torpedo damage implant goes) with T2 MWD, you can downsize to a 1% PG implant with a named MWD. The passive fit needs no fiting implant, so you can use a ZMT implant instead. Ok, you COULD use Arbalest siege, but then again, why forego the nifty damage extra from spec RoF ? Yeah, sure, you CAN use a T2 booster then, and you can drop the PG implant and use a torp damage implant, but you're still behind damage-wise. WITH all 3% implants (PG4 vs ZMT1000, both ships with ZMM100, KVA1000, KYA1000) and faction ammo (you can switch to T2 if you like, ratio of damages is the same), using no drones (add your fav. flavor of drones to the DPS figures) and assuming L4 torp spec, L4 warhead upgrades, rapid launch 5, and assuming even damage type incoming damage, you get : PASSIVE : 851 DPS output, 115k EHP, 120 DPS peak tank (only passive recharge) ACTIVE : 826 DPS output, under 65k EHP, 488 DPS peak tank (40 from peak recharge, 448 from booster), caps out in under 2 minutes with only booster, caps out in under a minute with both booster and MWD Now, no idea about you, but even if you completely neglect passive recharge, (115k-65k)/448 = 111 seconds until the booster is better off compared to the buffer. Granted, your sig is also larger in the buffer setup, but still... and also, you just can't really neglect the passive recharge completely for the "breakeven" point, almost 2 minutes of combat there's some passive recharge to be considered for sure. Bottom line, yeah, if you're NOT using rigs, active easily beats passive. If you're using the proper rigs... not so clear-cut. _ Alternate resist display \|\| Mission reward revamp \|\| better nanofix
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.10.07 02:21:00 - [12] Edited by: Akita T on 07/10/2008 02:23:11 Ok, just in case you want to protest that "you can just add extender rigs to the active setup"... well, ok... [Raven, PvP_torp_weird] Damage Control II Co-Processor II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II X-Large C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I Shield Boost Amplifier II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II 100MN MicroWarpdrive II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Same (lower) 880 output DPS, a bit under 80k EHP, 509 DPS peak tank (61 DPS peak passive recharge tank, 448 from booster). Caps out in slightly over 1 minute with the booster on, caps out in under 40 seconds with both booster and MWD on. In this case, the difference is, neglecting passive recharge (115k-80k)/448 = aprox 78 seconds breakeven. If you consider an average recharge of around 1/2 of peak (quite plausible actually), you get 35k/(448+30-60) = aprox 84 seconds breakeven. In both cases however (no matter how you calculate the breakeven), YOUR BOOSTER ALREADY CAPPED OUT by the time the breakeven point occurs. _ Alternate resist display \|\| Mission reward revamp \|\| better nanofix
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.07 02:29:00 - [13] There is no SBA involved in my suggestions - that would require TWO slots and the scenarios that exist where you can get say 8 - 9 XL booster cycles from are going to be less commonplace than the scenarios where you can get 5 - 6. I will place the caveat here now - it appears I actually installed a C5-L XL booster on my raven rather than an XL. Turns out, I can STILL fit the XL booster thanks to my implants I have already but without them it is inded over the limit. At any rate, this is my essential suggestion: [Raven, Test] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Co-Processor II 100MN Digital Booster Rockets Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron X-Large C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Juggernaut Torpedo [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] Hammerhead II x5 Warrior II x5 It does not sacrifce DPS in any form, either by losing the painter or the BCS. Yes, it loses the tackle (an expected sacrifice for most caldari ships). This isn't even the best incarnation of the idea: it's just an example. The above setup requies 30 seconds of time under fire for that XL booster to be more valuable than an LSE, and given it's more than 70k EHP (versus about 80k) it would take 2 gankships worth of firepower to achieve this feat, or an average of 3 - 4 gank BC's or 4 - 5 gank cruisers. Yes there are times when you'll run against these odds, but if you have two gank BS's on you, clearly you were going to die either way and the LSE isn't even going to give you enough lifespan to fire an extra volley from your torpedo launchers.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.10.07 02:32:00 - [14] Edited by: Akita T on 07/10/2008 02:33:20 See above Without rigs, you're right. WITH rigs, things change a bit. Also, CDFEs are quite cheap (around 10 mil a piece)... SMCs are "ouch". P.S. Lol @ 100mn Digital booster rockets. Good luck finding any. Use T1, T2 or Quad LiF, those are the types you're likely to have on. _ Alternate resist display \|\| Mission reward revamp \|\| better nanofix
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.07 02:33:00 - [15] Originally by: Liang Nuren It doesn't need sustained to give you better survivability, but also it leaves you in a **** poor situation as far as your cap goes: you don't have the cap to MWD to get out of trouble, it becomes trivially easy to neut your cap to nothing, and you lack the cap to even run your hardeners effectively. On top of that, how long does it take you to "recover" your capacitor? What happens in a jam cycle (you get 20 seconds of HITPOINTS back, but with the cap booster you're waiting 20 seconds and you may or may not get enough cap for a single cycle of the booster). Oh, and if you have the CPU to run an XL booster on your PVP Raven... you're doing it wrong. It's just not worth it (IMO). :) -Liang[/quote All the cap I'm asking for is 6 cycles worth. That's 1/2 the raven's cap supply. Remember, we're worried about survivng the battle and if it comes down to that slim (maybe 1 - 2k under good circumstances) HP margin the XL booster could give you the alternative was exploding. In short, is it better to survive the first round and be left with a heap of troubles or explode in the first round and not have to worry about them?
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.07 02:38:00 - [16] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 07/10/2008 02:33:20 See above Without rigs, you're right. WITH rigs, things change a bit. Also, CDFEs are quite cheap (around 10 mil a piece)... SMCs are "ouch". P.S. Lol @ 100mn Digital booster rockets. Good luck finding any. Use T1, T2 or Quad LiF, those are the types you're likely to have on. You're entirely correct (and I have conceeded this point) - with CDFE rigs the LSE makes sense in all but the rarest situations (how often will you really assume you'll have 1 minute and a half under fire to pull a solution out of your ass?) But when using resist rigs the inherit arugment remains - all you're really looking it as how long it takes to replace that base shield HP and finding out if you can survive longer than that. Then you have the option of Core Defense Field Solidifiers. Yep, using those you'll pretty much cap out in a minute or so, but it only takes 20 seconds for an XL booster to yield a greater bonus than the LSE. My aruguement is not that it's always better - it's simply a counter to the usual logic that the buffer is better. The buffer tank is good against the worst case scenario, the active tank in my view is more effective in most of the more common scenarios. And the Raven as not the end all incarnation of the idea, it's simply one example (and the most logical one people would bring up) of what I'm talking about.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.10.07 02:52:00 - [17] Originally by: Derek Sigres All the cap I'm asking for is 6 cycles worth. That's 1/2 the raven's cap supply. Remember, we're worried about survivng the battle and if it comes down to that slim (maybe 1 - 2k under good circumstances) HP margin the XL booster could give you the alternative was exploding. In short, is it better to survive the first round and be left with a heap of troubles or explode in the first round and not have to worry about them? So let's take your fit: 6x Siege II 100mn MWD II, PWNAGE, LSE II, C5-L XL, 2x Invuln II 3x BCU II, Co-Proc II, DC II 3x CDFE I 93.8K EHP [104.2K / 3 mins] + 407 DPS / 72s 1158 DPS OR 6x Siege II 100mn MWD II, PWNAGE, LSE II, C5-L XL, 2x Invuln II 3x BCU II, Co-Proc II, DC II 3x CDOS I 73.7K EHP [80.5K / 3 mins] + 587 DPS / 44s 1158 DPS Then let's compare it with mine: 6x Siege II 100mn MWD II, PWNAGE, 2x LSE II, 2x Invuln II 3x BCU II, PDU II, DC II 3x CDFE I 112.8K EHP [126.5K / 3 mins] + 113DPS / inf 1158 DPS So then we see that you have to make up (neglecting damage): 112.8K - 93.8K = 19K EHP, 19000 / (407 - 113) = 64.6 seconds for breakeven Ok well that rather sucks.... considering you only have 72s worth of capacitor. This means that you must start the fight with full capacitor (no MWD'ing to get into range!) or you're SOL. Ok, well let's take a look at the other fit: 112.8K - 73.7K = 39.1K EHP, 39100 / (587 - 113) = 82.5 seconds for breakeven This is especially unfortunate because you don't have that much capacitor. I think I can pretty soundly debunk this idea here and now. It's a good try, and an excellent out of the box thought experiment though. Keep up the good work! :) BTW, the situation gets alot worse for you when you factor in leadership skills and gang bonuses. -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.10.07 02:53:00 - [18] Originally by: Derek Sigres My aruguement is not that it's always better - it's simply a counter to the usual logic that the buffer is better. The buffer tank is good against the worst case scenario, the active tank in my view is more effective in most of the more common scenarios. And the Raven as not the end all incarnation of the idea, it's simply one example (and the most logical one people would bring up) of what I'm talking about. You should take note of the recent surge in LAR/Plate fits recommended on the forums. :) -Liang --
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.07 03:18:00 - [19] Liang - note that in each instance the LSE is almost undeniably better you used CDFE rigs and I have already conceded these push the LSE to the front in most situations. If you went with the prole friendly resist rigs, my argument stands. Besides, it's not out of the box - I just picked up an old box and jumped inside it instead.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.10.07 03:43:00 - [20] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 07/10/2008 03:44:08 Originally by: Derek Sigres Liang - note that in each instance the LSE is almost undeniably better you used CDFE rigs and I have already conceded these push the LSE to the front in most situations. If you went with the prole friendly resist rigs, my argument stands. Besides, it's not out of the box - I just picked up an old box and jumped inside it instead. So, you really mean that if you only use resist rigs (an admittedly suboptimal choice). I can't really agree with the idea of making choices like that for battleships. Maybe it's why I'm always broke - I buy something and I fit it right by golly. 93.8K - 79.5K = 14.3K, 14300 / (437 - 85) = 40.6s -> 45s breakeven. Again: You can't afford to MWD into place or do anything except stand on a totally full cap and hope to be better off in the end. On the flip side, with a full extender setup, you can run the MWD to get into and out of position as you please or even run a 4th BCU. Adding just regular joe siege 5: 15716 / (443 - 94) = 45s Mindlink: 16431 / (446-98) = 47->50s Mindlinked Vulture, Shield resist gang mod: 18094 / (492 - 108) = 47s -> 50s Mindlinked Vulture, 3 gang mods: 18094 / (637 - 108) = 34s -> 37s Still not really worth it.... you have to totally give up mobility to make it effective. :-/ Maybe with a Cruise Raven? -Liang --

Amarrbone	Posted - 2008.10.07 03:55:00 - [21] My Brain Hurts from Reading This Thread...
6Bagheera9 Slacker Industries	Posted - 2008.10.07 03:59:00 - [22] Pro-tip(s): Get someone else to paint the target for you, armor-buffer tanked BS frequently have spare mid-slots since they don't need to bother with a cap injector. Better yet have a Vigil/Hyena/Rapier/Huggin do it; 49.5% sig. radius boost with spec lvl 4. XL SB <=> Cap Injector, otherwise you might as well just use a large SB and SBA. Raven = missile spewing brick. Raven + MWD = missile spewing brick with 25% less cap. Seriously, how likely is it that you're gonna be able to escape defeat because you can slowly accelerate to just under 1km/s. You also got 25-30km range on the torps and much more if you switch to Javelins, so getting close to do damage isn't a huge problem. So why even bother with a mwd, moar tank!
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.07 03:59:00 - [23] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 07/10/2008 03:44:08 Originally by: Derek Sigres Liang - note that in each instance the LSE is almost undeniably better you used CDFE rigs and I have already conceded these push the LSE to the front in most situations. If you went with the prole friendly resist rigs, my argument stands. Besides, it's not out of the box - I just picked up an old box and jumped inside it instead. So, you really mean that if you only use resist rigs (an admittedly suboptimal choice). I can't really agree with the idea of making choices like that for battleships. Maybe it's why I'm always broke - I buy something and I fit it right by golly. 93.8K - 79.5K = 14.3K, 14300 / (437 - 85) = 40.6s -> 45s breakeven. Again: You can't afford to MWD into place or do anything except stand on a totally full cap and hope to be better off in the end. On the flip side, with a full extender setup, you can run the MWD to get into and out of position as you please or even run a 4th BCU. Adding just regular joe siege 5: 15716 / (443 - 94) = 45s Mindlink: 16431 / (446-98) = 47->50s Mindlinked Vulture, Shield resist gang mod: 18094 / (492 - 108) = 47s -> 50s Mindlinked Vulture, 3 gang mods: 18094 / (637 - 108) = 34s -> 37s Still not really worth it.... you have to totally give up mobility to make it effective. :-/ Maybe with a Cruise Raven? -Liang If i'm not mistaken you are in error - it appears you're doing the shield boosts by EHP rather than pure HP. If you base it in EHP the resulting figure is unpleasantly large. In reality, an LSE II gives about 3500 HP once skills are taken into account (and just shy of 4k if you're in a gang with a good booster). This is one of the biggest reasons I think people side with the EHP fit over the mild active tank fit I am describing here: the loss of a single extender/plate causes a MASSIVE drop in EHP. They don't look at how long it takes to actually rep up the base HP it takes to generate that exact same EHP. I'm not certain this is tanking place here - it just looks like it to me is all.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.07 04:04:00 - [24] Originally by: 6Bagheera9 Pro-tip(s): Get someone else to paint the target for you, armor-buffer tanked BS frequently have spare mid-slots since they don't need to bother with a cap injector. Better yet have a Vigil/Hyena/Rapier/Huggin do it; 49.5% sig. radius boost with spec lvl 4. XL SB <=> Cap Injector, otherwise you might as well just use a large SB and SBA. Raven = missile spewing brick. Raven + MWD = missile spewing brick with 25% less cap. Seriously, how likely is it that you're gonna be able to escape defeat because you can slowly accelerate to just under 1km/s. You also got 25-30km range on the torps and much more if you switch to Javelins, so getting close to do damage isn't a huge problem. So why even bother with a mwd, moar tank! Because I'm realistic enough to realize that my 30km reach with torpedos isn't nearly long enough to pretend I can just slow boat around at 147m/s and hope for the best? You'll note that my propsed fitting of a Raven (just one of several shield tanked battleships remember) includes an MWD AND a Painter - both modules considered must haves on a Torpedo Raven. Thus the ultimate issue again comes to this: if you can survive for 30 seconds under fire an XL booster (and only an XL booster) gives you MORE hp than the single LSE I'm advocating replacing. This isn't discarding the buffer tank it's simply playing on the odds. Odds are good in a Torp raven if you were going to do any good in a fight you'll have 30 seconds of life expectancy under fire. Odds are ALSO good that you'll have the 2 - 2.5k cap required to cycle the booster the required 6 times to get the boost. People seem to think I'm advocating crazy things here - it's nothing revoltuionary or absurd. It's simply replacing a single module with a different one. If there's an argument to be had in my book it's about the true probability that the booster will be more effective than the LSE - and that by and large boils down to how and where you play more than anything.
6Bagheera9 Slacker Industries	Posted - 2008.10.07 04:12:00 - [25] You consider them must haves, but I don't. The TP is nice, but its better to have someone else in the gang with a spare mid fit it. You only need one TP on the target to get full torp damage. Even with the mwd, a raven is inherently a slow boat. You will never make it fast, only less slow, and at the cost of 25% of your cap. An AB is actually a better choice for those impatient to re-approach a gate/station.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.07 04:24:00 - [26] Originally by: 6Bagheera9 You consider them must haves, but I don't. The TP is nice, but its better to have someone else in the gang with a spare mid fit it. You only need one TP on the target to get full torp damage. Even with the mwd, a raven is inherently a slow boat. You will never make it fast, only less slow, and at the cost of 25% of your cap. An AB is actually a better choice for those impatient to re-approach a gate/station. The MWD is there because it's a short ranged ship. Everyone recognizes that and they also realize it carries a tremendous payload of unbelievable pain. Yes, the TP is somewhat optional but the MWD really isn't - you NEED that MWD to have gurantee of getting close enough to murder things. But the fitting above is little more than a cookie cutter Torp Raven with an LSE replaced with a booster. The point in doing this is argument doesn't require a vast reworking of how the ship works or the modules used - just a simple module swap is all.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.10.07 04:36:00 - [27] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 07/10/2008 04:35:52 Originally by: Derek Sigres If i'm not mistaken you are in error - it appears you're doing the shield boosts by EHP rather than pure HP. If you base it in EHP the resulting figure is unpleasantly large. In reality, an LSE II gives about 3500 HP once skills are taken into account (and just shy of 4k if you're in a gang with a good booster). This is one of the biggest reasons I think people side with the EHP fit over the mild active tank fit I am describing here: the loss of a single extender/plate causes a MASSIVE drop in EHP. They don't look at how long it takes to actually rep up the base HP it takes to generate that exact same EHP. I'm not certain this is tanking place here - it just looks like it to me is all. Formula = (Buffer EHP - Reppin EHP) / (Repping [Rep + Regen] EDPS Tanked - Buffer EHP Regen) This is a valid way of looking at it (and in fact the only valid way). -Liang --
Stuart Price Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2008.10.07 05:32:00 - [28] To be honest there are two reasons I buffer my blokh's to 32k shields: 1. That's still a damn large amount of shields with some tasty resists. Lasts a while if primaried. 2. Thanks to shield regen, Teamwork Crow can't solo me, unlike armour buffers. Although with regards to point 2, I tend to fit plates and a LAR on my Abaddons, which I'm preferring to the Rokh atm thanks to better dps, the ability to cram ECCM's on it without compromising tank and the fact that nobody primaries Abaddons when juicy shield tankers are around. They try to jam them out instead (see the bit about cramming ECCM's on). "I got soul but I'm not a soldier"
Gorefacer Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works	Posted - 2008.10.07 07:07:00 - [29] I've thought about this. Personally I'd rather use that cap for other things though. Lately I've been using this fit: High: 6x Siege II - 1x Unstable Heavy Neut Mid: 2x Invul II - 2x LSE II - 1x PWNGE TP - 1x Quad LIF MWD Lows: 3x BCU II - 1x DCU II - 1x RCU II For easy use the torps and neut have similar range. Helps break active tanks and protect against nanos without giving up any DPS and very little tank. Also I've stopped rigging these because with no rigs the replacement cost per Raven (Fully insured/T2 fit Raven -> Raven blown up -> fully insured/T2 fit Raven) is around 30m each and I hate being cautious with my ships. I'm sure there are RR fit/scenarios where the buffer tank is more useful than X-L mod fit. Of course each person has his own tastes. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.10.07 08:36:00 - [30] Originally by: 6Bagheera9 ven with the mwd, a raven is inherently a slow boat. You will never make it fast, only less slow, and at the cost of 25% of your cap. An AB is actually a better choice for those impatient to re-approach a gate/station. No, no. no. Stop mindlessly repeating this tired old myth. A Raven has comparable agility and speed to plated, armour-rigged BS. They're slightly superior in some cases, and slightly inferior in others.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.