EVE Search - Suggested Fix for Shield Tanking

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.08.17 12:05:00 - [1] Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 17/08/2004 12:11:19 A fix? for what? Shield tanking takes slighly more cap but is used on ships which spend all the cap for tanking. Armor tanking is more cap efficient but is used on ships which need cap for their weapon systems. What exactly is broken with Shield Tanking that needs fixing? I like how people in this thread complain about the CPR penalty as if it wasn't intentionaly implemented to counter the imbalance of shield tanking. Ca0 Ca0 do EVE a favour and stop trying to FIX things that are not BROKEN. Pain is meant to be felt
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.08.17 12:05:00 - [2] Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 17/08/2004 12:11:19 A fix? for what? Shield tanking takes slighly more cap but is used on ships which spend all the cap for tanking. Armor tanking is more cap efficient but is used on ships which need cap for their weapon systems. What exactly is broken with Shield Tanking that needs fixing? I like how people in this thread complain about the CPR penalty as if it wasn't intentionaly implemented to counter the imbalance of shield tanking. Ca0 Ca0 do EVE a favour and stop trying to FIX things that are not BROKEN. Pain is meant to be felt
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.08.17 12:38:00 - [3] Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 17/08/2004 12:41:00 Originally by: Hakera i agree with cao cao, or a reduction in the cpr nerf, or make the mwd affect armour tankers. Shield tanking is just massivelly dis-advantaged between the mwd and cpr nerf. Increase recharge to compensate or reduce the nerfs on shield tanks. Here we go again... the CPR "nerf" was introduced in order to BALANCE shield tanking and armor tanking, which it achieved. I also would like to know how exactly MWD benefits the Armor Tanks more than the Shield tanks (apart from being a Med slot Item of course)? Everyone gets the same cap penalty of 25% wether an armor tank or not. Losing 25% of your shield is pointless if you are planning on being a tank. The issue is not how big your shield or armor is but how fast you can repair it and how hight you can raise it's resistances. What is the difference when you have 300 max shields and can repair 300 per sec when you have 1000 max shields and you can repair 300 per sec? P.S. Tanking is already quite powerful in terms of damage dealing. Making tanking, in general, even better is poitless and utterly boring. Pain is meant to be felt
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.08.17 12:38:00 - [4] Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 17/08/2004 12:41:00 Originally by: Hakera i agree with cao cao, or a reduction in the cpr nerf, or make the mwd affect armour tankers. Shield tanking is just massivelly dis-advantaged between the mwd and cpr nerf. Increase recharge to compensate or reduce the nerfs on shield tanks. Here we go again... the CPR "nerf" was introduced in order to BALANCE shield tanking and armor tanking, which it achieved. I also would like to know how exactly MWD benefits the Armor Tanks more than the Shield tanks (apart from being a Med slot Item of course)? Everyone gets the same cap penalty of 25% wether an armor tank or not. Losing 25% of your shield is pointless if you are planning on being a tank. The issue is not how big your shield or armor is but how fast you can repair it and how hight you can raise it's resistances. What is the difference when you have 300 max shields and can repair 300 per sec when you have 1000 max shields and you can repair 300 per sec? P.S. Tanking is already quite powerful in terms of damage dealing. Making tanking, in general, even better is poitless and utterly boring. Pain is meant to be felt
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.08.17 13:27:00 - [5] Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 17/08/2004 13:29:06 Originally by: Hakera Edited by: Hakera on 17/08/2004 12:52:07How about we make cap rechargers reduce armour repair rate by 20% per module? Lol, funny, that would be 10% per module though :). Quote: The only thing the cpr nerf did do was stop apocs from being the best shield tankers, ruin the tempest and make a mess of trying to use ravens or scorps. 1)CPR is not the reason the Tempest was ruined. 2)Fitting Raven's and Scorps is the same as before only with better cap rechargers and a bit less effective cap boosting low modules (power diags). 3)Has it occured to you that it still might be viable to plug in 2-3 CPR with a bit more varied med slots? Quote: yes, your quite right, your total shield/armour is not a primary condern, but it is secondary of course, Quote: Not really. Even if both you and your opponent are slowly overcoming each others tanking shield tank is still better off as it has at least 4.5k of armor to rely on while the armor tank moves straight into unresisted structure. Take into consideration as well that the MWD ensures that you stay in optimal range or at a range where your opponent can't harm you them most which benefits your defence in general. Quote: a shield tank will always lose to an armour tank currently under normal conditions. I won't dignify this with an answer. Pain is meant to be felt
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.08.17 13:27:00 - [6] Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 17/08/2004 13:29:06 Originally by: Hakera Edited by: Hakera on 17/08/2004 12:52:07How about we make cap rechargers reduce armour repair rate by 20% per module? Lol, funny, that would be 10% per module though :). Quote: The only thing the cpr nerf did do was stop apocs from being the best shield tankers, ruin the tempest and make a mess of trying to use ravens or scorps. 1)CPR is not the reason the Tempest was ruined. 2)Fitting Raven's and Scorps is the same as before only with better cap rechargers and a bit less effective cap boosting low modules (power diags). 3)Has it occured to you that it still might be viable to plug in 2-3 CPR with a bit more varied med slots? Quote: yes, your quite right, your total shield/armour is not a primary condern, but it is secondary of course, Quote: Not really. Even if both you and your opponent are slowly overcoming each others tanking shield tank is still better off as it has at least 4.5k of armor to rely on while the armor tank moves straight into unresisted structure. Take into consideration as well that the MWD ensures that you stay in optimal range or at a range where your opponent can't harm you them most which benefits your defence in general. Quote: a shield tank will always lose to an armour tank currently under normal conditions. I won't dignify this with an answer. Pain is meant to be felt
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.08.20 19:01:00 - [7] Originally by: Ca0 Ca0 How many times need it be said ONE VS ONE DOES NOT MATTER . . . and try fitting some defender and smartbombs and u will see how useful a raven is. Cao Onardian is in my Researcher account btw and i accidentally posted with him. Even if you don't want to accept 1 v 1, the point made stands. In larger skirmishes than 1 v 1 the tank will find itself in the situation where it can't keep up with the damage being dealt, similar situation that both tanks faced in Chaos. Hence the conclusions which was derived from those 8 test fights stands. P.S. The Megathron was using sbombs. Pain is meant to be felt
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.08.20 19:01:00 - [8] Originally by: Ca0 Ca0 How many times need it be said ONE VS ONE DOES NOT MATTER . . . and try fitting some defender and smartbombs and u will see how useful a raven is. Cao Onardian is in my Researcher account btw and i accidentally posted with him. Even if you don't want to accept 1 v 1, the point made stands. In larger skirmishes than 1 v 1 the tank will find itself in the situation where it can't keep up with the damage being dealt, similar situation that both tanks faced in Chaos. Hence the conclusions which was derived from those 8 test fights stands. P.S. The Megathron was using sbombs. Pain is meant to be felt

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.