| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ca0 Ca0
   |
Posted - 2004.08.16 17:51:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Ca0 Ca0 on 16/08/2004 17:54:37
I suggest that, as a potential fix for shield boosting as it relates to armor repairing, that natural shield recharge rate be increased. This would have the effect of benefiting shield tankers to the extent that their shields are hardened and take less damage. Moreover, it would make the shield recharge bonus to power diags less useless than it currently is.
I recommend doubling or tripling the natural shield recharge rate for all ships. This would actually make it a somewhat viable addition to the defenses of shield tanked ships in hot combat. As it is now, the recharge rate of shields is worthless when you are in hot combat - with such an increase, it would become a "natural" bonus to using your shields as primary defense. At the same time, however, it would not "penalize" armor tankers to any extent - in effect, they too would also benefit from the change. If this was done, in my opinion shield tanking would be somewhat balanced with armor tanking, not to mention such a change would "make sense" in a real life kinda way (to use a friend's language from another thread).
Part of the "apoc problem" is that armor tanking is far more effective than shield tanking. Natural armor resistances, coupled with the efficiency of armor repairers, and the abundance of low slots on non-Caldari ships makes armor tanking a imbalanced when compared to shield tanking.
This would also make now-useless modules that affect shield recharge time worthwhile to look into using.
Cao
PS(edit): this would also make an apoc setup of tachyons + power diags + shield tanking much more attractive alternative to the current mandatory-armor tank.
|
Ca0 Ca0
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 17:51:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Ca0 Ca0 on 16/08/2004 17:54:37
I suggest that, as a potential fix for shield boosting as it relates to armor repairing, that natural shield recharge rate be increased. This would have the effect of benefiting shield tankers to the extent that their shields are hardened and take less damage. Moreover, it would make the shield recharge bonus to power diags less useless than it currently is.
I recommend doubling or tripling the natural shield recharge rate for all ships. This would actually make it a somewhat viable addition to the defenses of shield tanked ships in hot combat. As it is now, the recharge rate of shields is worthless when you are in hot combat - with such an increase, it would become a "natural" bonus to using your shields as primary defense. At the same time, however, it would not "penalize" armor tankers to any extent - in effect, they too would also benefit from the change. If this was done, in my opinion shield tanking would be somewhat balanced with armor tanking, not to mention such a change would "make sense" in a real life kinda way (to use a friend's language from another thread).
Part of the "apoc problem" is that armor tanking is far more effective than shield tanking. Natural armor resistances, coupled with the efficiency of armor repairers, and the abundance of low slots on non-Caldari ships makes armor tanking a imbalanced when compared to shield tanking.
This would also make now-useless modules that affect shield recharge time worthwhile to look into using.
Cao
PS(edit): this would also make an apoc setup of tachyons + power diags + shield tanking much more attractive alternative to the current mandatory-armor tank.
|
Hematic
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 18:14:00 -
[3]
I'd actually take this one further and remove the MWD penalty to shields the cap hit is plenty deterrent to using them.
I agree that natural shield recharge should be more of a factor and you're right it would benefit shield tanks only to the degree of hardening.
If the shield recharge time of all ships was to be cut in half that would be about what you needed.
As it stands shield operation is a bit of a useless skill as under good circumstances 14 DPS is the peak natural shield recharge which even a frigate can outdo with a single turret.
|
Hematic
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 18:14:00 -
[4]
I'd actually take this one further and remove the MWD penalty to shields the cap hit is plenty deterrent to using them.
I agree that natural shield recharge should be more of a factor and you're right it would benefit shield tanks only to the degree of hardening.
If the shield recharge time of all ships was to be cut in half that would be about what you needed.
As it stands shield operation is a bit of a useless skill as under good circumstances 14 DPS is the peak natural shield recharge which even a frigate can outdo with a single turret.
|
Ca0 Ca0
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 18:56:00 -
[5]
Hematic,
I've long advocated removal of both the shield AND capacitor nerf for the MWD. I personally think that the penalty should be sig radius and agility nerf while the module is active. Halfway there, TomB, halfway there.
Making shield recharge worth something is NOT a pro-Caldari topic . . . ffs, how many times do I have to say I fly a megathron? Making shield recharge a worthwhile statistic would benefit ALL ships, and only benefit shield tanks to the extent that their resistances reduce the damage done to shields.
Like I said before, it would even give a reason for apocs and megathrons to use their shields as a defense if they want to fit a full rack of 425mm / tachyons or similar outfit using power diags. And why not? Apocs have shields, what would be the purpose of them if there is no use for an apoc shield tanking at any point?
Think of an Apoc outfit like:
8x tachyon
1x shield booster
1x em ward
1x thermal ward
1x kinetic ward
1x co-processor
3x heat sink II
3x power diag II
(note: I am not sure if this would fit, but something like this would . . .) How is benefiting this setup a pro-Caldari position?
Cao
|
Ca0 Ca0
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 18:56:00 -
[6]
Hematic,
I've long advocated removal of both the shield AND capacitor nerf for the MWD. I personally think that the penalty should be sig radius and agility nerf while the module is active. Halfway there, TomB, halfway there.
Making shield recharge worth something is NOT a pro-Caldari topic . . . ffs, how many times do I have to say I fly a megathron? Making shield recharge a worthwhile statistic would benefit ALL ships, and only benefit shield tanks to the extent that their resistances reduce the damage done to shields.
Like I said before, it would even give a reason for apocs and megathrons to use their shields as a defense if they want to fit a full rack of 425mm / tachyons or similar outfit using power diags. And why not? Apocs have shields, what would be the purpose of them if there is no use for an apoc shield tanking at any point?
Think of an Apoc outfit like:
8x tachyon
1x shield booster
1x em ward
1x thermal ward
1x kinetic ward
1x co-processor
3x heat sink II
3x power diag II
(note: I am not sure if this would fit, but something like this would . . .) How is benefiting this setup a pro-Caldari position?
Cao
|
Hellspawn01
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 19:07:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
Edited by: Ca0 Ca0 on 16/08/2004 17:54:37
Part of the "apoc problem" is that armor tanking is far more effective than shield tanking. Natural armor resistances, coupled with the efficiency of armor repairers, and the abundance of low slots on non-Caldari ships makes armor tanking a imbalanced when compared to shield tanking.
First of all armor tanking is NOT better than shield tanking because when u activate ur shield booster, u get instantly shield boosted. When u activate ur armor repairers, it takes about 12 seconds till ur armor gets boosted. Armor repairers have a bonus unlike normal shield boosters, ok. But in larger battles would a armor tanked ship warp out before a shield tanked ship.
---------------------------------------------
Eve is not game, it¦s a way of life! |
Hellspawn01
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 19:07:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
Edited by: Ca0 Ca0 on 16/08/2004 17:54:37
Part of the "apoc problem" is that armor tanking is far more effective than shield tanking. Natural armor resistances, coupled with the efficiency of armor repairers, and the abundance of low slots on non-Caldari ships makes armor tanking a imbalanced when compared to shield tanking.
First of all armor tanking is NOT better than shield tanking because when u activate ur shield booster, u get instantly shield boosted. When u activate ur armor repairers, it takes about 12 seconds till ur armor gets boosted. Armor repairers have a bonus unlike normal shield boosters, ok. But in larger battles would a armor tanked ship warp out before a shield tanked ship.
---------------------------------------------
Eve is not game, it¦s a way of life! |
Moah
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 19:20:00 -
[9]
First of all armor tanking is NOT better than shield tanking because when u activate ur shield booster, u get instantly shield boosted.
how about activate your rep when you see that you will get into armor soon? sry but thats a irrelevant point for me...
Fancy. |
Moah
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 19:20:00 -
[10]
First of all armor tanking is NOT better than shield tanking because when u activate ur shield booster, u get instantly shield boosted.
how about activate your rep when you see that you will get into armor soon? sry but thats a irrelevant point for me...
Fancy. |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 19:44:00 -
[11]
psscht, your destroying his point 
yeah this delayed repair with armor repairs isnt that big malus cause you see when your shield is going down, you can activate them in time
Wanna fly with me?
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 19:44:00 -
[12]
psscht, your destroying his point
yeah this delayed repair with armor repairs isnt that big malus cause you see when your shield is going down, you can activate them in time
Wanna fly with me?
|
Mitchman
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:23:00 -
[13]
To fix shield tanking:
Give Caldari ships a 10% shield boost bonus per level. This will make CPRs viable for use on shield tanks too, and not just on armor tanks.
|
Mitchman
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:23:00 -
[14]
To fix shield tanking:
Give Caldari ships a 10% shield boost bonus per level. This will make CPRs viable for use on shield tanks too, and not just on armor tanks.
|
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:27:00 -
[15]
Actually ca0 ca0, I like this idea a lot. It would certainly give shield tankers an advantage and help balance everything out, while not nerfing armor Tankers.
And Mitchman, current bonuses for caldari ships are fine.
................. |
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:27:00 -
[16]
Actually ca0 ca0, I like this idea a lot. It would certainly give shield tankers an advantage and help balance everything out, while not nerfing armor Tankers.
And Mitchman, current bonuses for caldari ships are fine.
................. |
Shadowsword
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:28:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
Edited by: Ca0 Ca0 on 16/08/2004 17:54:37
Part of the "apoc problem" is that armor tanking is far more effective than shield tanking. Natural armor resistances, coupled with the efficiency of armor repairers, and the abundance of low slots on non-Caldari ships makes armor tanking a imbalanced when compared to shield tanking.
I agree with your proposal, shield recharge is much too low ATM. 2000 seconds for a battleship is simply too much.
I use a Megathron, too (armor tanked), and I don't like to wait to have at least half my shield back before jumping from one belt to another.
However I'd just point out that non-caldari ships suffer a lot, too, from their little number of med slots. I'd gladly sacrifice one of my Mega high slots for another med one.
|
Shadowsword
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:28:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
Edited by: Ca0 Ca0 on 16/08/2004 17:54:37
Part of the "apoc problem" is that armor tanking is far more effective than shield tanking. Natural armor resistances, coupled with the efficiency of armor repairers, and the abundance of low slots on non-Caldari ships makes armor tanking a imbalanced when compared to shield tanking.
I agree with your proposal, shield recharge is much too low ATM. 2000 seconds for a battleship is simply too much.
I use a Megathron, too (armor tanked), and I don't like to wait to have at least half my shield back before jumping from one belt to another.
However I'd just point out that non-caldari ships suffer a lot, too, from their little number of med slots. I'd gladly sacrifice one of my Mega high slots for another med one.
|
Rob Mattacks
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:29:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Mitchman
To fix shield tanking:
Give Caldari ships a 10% shield boost bonus per level. This will make CPRs viable for use on shield tanks too, and not just on armor tanks.
Yes and make the Tempest long range shield tank even weaker in comparison 
|
Rob Mattacks
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:29:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Mitchman
To fix shield tanking:
Give Caldari ships a 10% shield boost bonus per level. This will make CPRs viable for use on shield tanks too, and not just on armor tanks.
Yes and make the Tempest long range shield tank even weaker in comparison
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:34:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
Hematic,
Think of an Apoc outfit like:
8x tachyon
1x shield booster
1x em ward
1x thermal ward
1x kinetic ward
1x co-processor
3x heat sink II
3x power diag II
(note: I am not sure if this would fit, but something like this would . . .) How is benefiting this setup a pro-Caldari position?
Cao
You really need to get in an apoc sometime
Besides that, i think the idea is fantastic. It benefits both shield and armor tanking.
I think your last thread was a bit too anti-amaar, you went to far. I like this one
________________________________________________________
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:34:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
Hematic,
Think of an Apoc outfit like:
8x tachyon
1x shield booster
1x em ward
1x thermal ward
1x kinetic ward
1x co-processor
3x heat sink II
3x power diag II
(note: I am not sure if this would fit, but something like this would . . .) How is benefiting this setup a pro-Caldari position?
Cao
You really need to get in an apoc sometime
Besides that, i think the idea is fantastic. It benefits both shield and armor tanking.
I think your last thread was a bit too anti-amaar, you went to far. I like this one
________________________________________________________
|
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:42:00 -
[23]
Very good idea, I really do like it
another solution:
Give the Power Diagnostic mods a SHIELD BOOST BONUS instead of their shield reacharge rate bonus! The actual shield boost percentage is a subject to discuss and test since 7,5 % would be quite too much.
(Same thing what happend to the CPR's, just the other way round )
Greetings Grim |
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 20:42:00 -
[24]
Very good idea, I really do like it
another solution:
Give the Power Diagnostic mods a SHIELD BOOST BONUS instead of their shield reacharge rate bonus! The actual shield boost percentage is a subject to discuss and test since 7,5 % would be quite too much.
(Same thing what happend to the CPR's, just the other way round )
Greetings Grim |
Shimatu
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 21:21:00 -
[25]
the way i think armour and shield tanking *should* work (note: speaking from a realism perspective, which i know is silly, but some elements of it may make sense):
armour is the main defense of *any* ship. armour cant be repaired fast, but once its up, its up to stay. things have trouble hurting armour.
shields are an extra layer. they recharge fast, they go down fast. theyre just so you dont have to spend time repairing armour between every single fight.
now. to look at the specialist races then.
Caldari have taken the 'extra' shield layer to an extreme. using all theyre hi-tech stuff, theyve got fasty recharging, and highly powered, shields.
Amarr use basically no shields. after all, amarr (in an RP sense) favour quick strikes, shredding the opposition before it has a chance to fight back (this is why minmater could fight them back btw - amarians wernt ready for guerilla warfare...).
So an apoc would storm into a fight, blasting away, and taking thousands of shots in return, steadily losing a lot of armour. but the point is, it has a lot of armour to lose. it shouldnt repair during the fight - unless its a *very* long fight - but it should be able to last well, and then repair after the fight.
a raven on the other hand, once it starts getting attacked would be relying on its fast recharge rates, maybe warpping in and out of combat to give hte shield time to recharge. This wouldnt be viable for an apoc, as armour should take several minutes to repair (i'd suggest at a gradual rate btw, not every 15 seconds or whatever, but every 1 second, to represnet the nanite thingies restoring armour plates and stuff).
rapid shield recharguing (Boosting) should take a lot of energy, since its an energy shield.
Armour repairing should take almost no energy (since its just nanites running around fixing stuff), but should take up *mass*, to replace what has been blasted off into space by stuff hitting the ship. this could be done by the form of 'armour platings' in the cargohold perhaps. it wouldnt take vast amounts to repair a ship, since a lot of the work would be in moving existing armour plates back into the correct positions and suchlike.
the other races ships would be somewhere in between these 2 extremes.
and i know it wont happen now, but it might be nice if a few of these ideas were considered :)
3-I's T2 sales can be found HERE
|
Shimatu
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 21:21:00 -
[26]
the way i think armour and shield tanking *should* work (note: speaking from a realism perspective, which i know is silly, but some elements of it may make sense):
armour is the main defense of *any* ship. armour cant be repaired fast, but once its up, its up to stay. things have trouble hurting armour.
shields are an extra layer. they recharge fast, they go down fast. theyre just so you dont have to spend time repairing armour between every single fight.
now. to look at the specialist races then.
Caldari have taken the 'extra' shield layer to an extreme. using all theyre hi-tech stuff, theyve got fasty recharging, and highly powered, shields.
Amarr use basically no shields. after all, amarr (in an RP sense) favour quick strikes, shredding the opposition before it has a chance to fight back (this is why minmater could fight them back btw - amarians wernt ready for guerilla warfare...).
So an apoc would storm into a fight, blasting away, and taking thousands of shots in return, steadily losing a lot of armour. but the point is, it has a lot of armour to lose. it shouldnt repair during the fight - unless its a *very* long fight - but it should be able to last well, and then repair after the fight.
a raven on the other hand, once it starts getting attacked would be relying on its fast recharge rates, maybe warpping in and out of combat to give hte shield time to recharge. This wouldnt be viable for an apoc, as armour should take several minutes to repair (i'd suggest at a gradual rate btw, not every 15 seconds or whatever, but every 1 second, to represnet the nanite thingies restoring armour plates and stuff).
rapid shield recharguing (Boosting) should take a lot of energy, since its an energy shield.
Armour repairing should take almost no energy (since its just nanites running around fixing stuff), but should take up *mass*, to replace what has been blasted off into space by stuff hitting the ship. this could be done by the form of 'armour platings' in the cargohold perhaps. it wouldnt take vast amounts to repair a ship, since a lot of the work would be in moving existing armour plates back into the correct positions and suchlike.
the other races ships would be somewhere in between these 2 extremes.
and i know it wont happen now, but it might be nice if a few of these ideas were considered :)
3-I's T2 sales can be found HERE
|
ProphetGuru
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 21:57:00 -
[27]
Shield tanking vs armor tanking.
The only real factor is how fast you turn cap into hp, and how much cap you spend per hp.
Armor has an advantage there.
I agree with cao cao.
Evolution..... Just when you thought you were winning.
|
ProphetGuru
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 21:57:00 -
[28]
Shield tanking vs armor tanking.
The only real factor is how fast you turn cap into hp, and how much cap you spend per hp.
Armor has an advantage there.
I agree with cao cao.
Evolution..... Just when you thought you were winning.
|
Aequitas Veritas
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 22:15:00 -
[29]
Like that idea as well :) Maybe even a doubling is a bit too much though, but down to say 1200-1500 sec or something pre skills would be nice.
Don't like the idea of adding a shield boost bonus to PDU's though. That module is very nice for shield tankers the way it is, could maybe do with 1% more PG boost.
|
Aequitas Veritas
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 22:15:00 -
[30]
Like that idea as well :) Maybe even a doubling is a bit too much though, but down to say 1200-1500 sec or something pre skills would be nice.
Don't like the idea of adding a shield boost bonus to PDU's though. That module is very nice for shield tankers the way it is, could maybe do with 1% more PG boost.
|
Pitt
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 22:39:00 -
[31]
I like the idea Cao, I fly gallante and caldari. Other than the mega and raven it would help the domi as well (tomb say's it's supposed to be a shield tank?) And it does't mean a nerf for armor tanking ships. no nerf=good
Lack of preparation on your part does not constitute greifing on mine |
Pitt
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 22:39:00 -
[32]
I like the idea Cao, I fly gallante and caldari. Other than the mega and raven it would help the domi as well (tomb say's it's supposed to be a shield tank?) And it does't mean a nerf for armor tanking ships. no nerf=good
Lack of preparation on your part does not constitute greifing on mine |
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 22:49:00 -
[33]
Originally by: ProphetGuru
Shield tanking vs armor tanking.
The only real factor is how fast you turn cap into hp, and how much cap you spend per hp.
Armor has an advantage there.
... which is almost 0 if you use a shield amp. and as 2 L armor reps ~ 1 XL SB + amp, this is very balanced. the only big drawback shiels have is the CPR nerf, but it has many advantages over armor. but if you want to fully tank, armor is more efficient, yes. if you want to use only few slots on a half-decent tanking, for maximizing your damage, shields are very nice.
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 22:49:00 -
[34]
Originally by: ProphetGuru
Shield tanking vs armor tanking.
The only real factor is how fast you turn cap into hp, and how much cap you spend per hp.
Armor has an advantage there.
... which is almost 0 if you use a shield amp. and as 2 L armor reps ~ 1 XL SB + amp, this is very balanced. the only big drawback shiels have is the CPR nerf, but it has many advantages over armor. but if you want to fully tank, armor is more efficient, yes. if you want to use only few slots on a half-decent tanking, for maximizing your damage, shields are very nice.
|
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 23:00:00 -
[35]
This seems like a good idea. Or just make shield boosters a little bit better. Armor tanking definitely is a little better than sheild tanking these days.
Shamis
|
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2004.08.16 23:00:00 -
[36]
This seems like a good idea. Or just make shield boosters a little bit better. Armor tanking definitely is a little better than sheild tanking these days.
Shamis
|
agentsmitty
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 00:29:00 -
[37]
Perhaps making tech 2 power diags a little better would be a good idea, 7.5% to powergrid, 6.5% to cap and shield size and 10% to cap and shield recharge rate would make it a much better module and help shield tanks a lot.
|
agentsmitty
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 00:29:00 -
[38]
Perhaps making tech 2 power diags a little better would be a good idea, 7.5% to powergrid, 6.5% to cap and shield size and 10% to cap and shield recharge rate would make it a much better module and help shield tanks a lot.
|
EveJunkie
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 04:13:00 -
[39]
How about this for a crazy twist on the idea. Remove shield boosters and armour repairs as we know it. Give base shield regen a big boost and give us modules that passive repair armour. Would certainly make PvP more decisive, bit of a drastic change tho so theres no way It'll happen unless we all scream for it (doubt that too)
|
EveJunkie
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 04:13:00 -
[40]
How about this for a crazy twist on the idea. Remove shield boosters and armour repairs as we know it. Give base shield regen a big boost and give us modules that passive repair armour. Would certainly make PvP more decisive, bit of a drastic change tho so theres no way It'll happen unless we all scream for it (doubt that too)
|
Glyphe Temare
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 04:30:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 20/08/2004 04:17:20
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 17/08/2004 04:35:46
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 17/08/2004 04:35:02
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 17/08/2004 04:33:14
Let's not forget one thing here... a very important thing.
I keep hearing people saying that armor tanking is more efficient cap wise.
Yes, it is, and for a good reason.
Caldari ships can use their main guns without cap usage ( launchers ) and they shield tank ( balanced ).
Minmattar ships can also use their main guns without cap usage and they shield tank too ( tho a typhoon can armor tank, but with less efficiency than say a Gallente or Amarr Battleship ) ( balanced ).
Gallente ships main guns rely on a significant amount of cap to function, but can armor tank ( balanced ).
Amarr ships main guns use insane amounts of cap to function, but Amarr ship skills help alleviate that problem enough so that with good skills it compares to a Gallente battleship, they also use armor tanking and can do it better than Gallente if they don't fire ( seems balanced to me ).
Now what we would need to do before arguing about specifics here would be to look at the whole picture first, I know Apocs are a problem atm, but asking to nerf armor tanking won't fix it. Armor tanking doesn't need to be nerfed since it's an integral part of the balance and different flavors of guns preferred by each race and the bonuses they have for each of them.
If you make armor tanking as inneficient as shield tanking, you're asking everyone to train for Ravens since they can ALREADY kick both the Apoc and the Thron back to their graves with cap to spare.
Note : Spare me the CPR argument... I use one or 2 max on a Thron setup and I cant fit any cap rechargers in solo setups making my natural cap recharge crappy, the only thing that keeps armor tanks together are cap boosters, which CAN be outlasted in one on one. In fleet battles it is more or less irrelevant since 10 BS pounding a tanked Raven or Apoc will make them blow up in seconds, no matter the tanking flavor.
|
Glyphe Temare
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 04:30:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 20/08/2004 04:17:20
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 17/08/2004 04:35:46
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 17/08/2004 04:35:02
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 17/08/2004 04:33:14
Let's not forget one thing here... a very important thing.
I keep hearing people saying that armor tanking is more efficient cap wise.
Yes, it is, and for a good reason.
Caldari ships can use their main guns without cap usage ( launchers ) and they shield tank ( balanced ).
Minmattar ships can also use their main guns without cap usage and they shield tank too ( tho a typhoon can armor tank, but with less efficiency than say a Gallente or Amarr Battleship ) ( balanced ).
Gallente ships main guns rely on a significant amount of cap to function, but can armor tank ( balanced ).
Amarr ships main guns use insane amounts of cap to function, but Amarr ship skills help alleviate that problem enough so that with good skills it compares to a Gallente battleship, they also use armor tanking and can do it better than Gallente if they don't fire ( seems balanced to me ).
Now what we would need to do before arguing about specifics here would be to look at the whole picture first, I know Apocs are a problem atm, but asking to nerf armor tanking won't fix it. Armor tanking doesn't need to be nerfed since it's an integral part of the balance and different flavors of guns preferred by each race and the bonuses they have for each of them.
If you make armor tanking as inneficient as shield tanking, you're asking everyone to train for Ravens since they can ALREADY kick both the Apoc and the Thron back to their graves with cap to spare.
Note : Spare me the CPR argument... I use one or 2 max on a Thron setup and I cant fit any cap rechargers in solo setups making my natural cap recharge crappy, the only thing that keeps armor tanks together are cap boosters, which CAN be outlasted in one on one. In fleet battles it is more or less irrelevant since 10 BS pounding a tanked Raven or Apoc will make them blow up in seconds, no matter the tanking flavor.
|
Shia Dai
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 05:44:00 -
[43]
The thing I like about this suggestion is that it enables the devs to fine-tune armor tanking vs. shield tanking by tweaking the shield recharge rate. Basically you can simply adjust the natural recharge rate until you achieve the desired balance.
Very simple solution, imo.
Shia
|
Shia Dai
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 05:44:00 -
[44]
The thing I like about this suggestion is that it enables the devs to fine-tune armor tanking vs. shield tanking by tweaking the shield recharge rate. Basically you can simply adjust the natural recharge rate until you achieve the desired balance.
Very simple solution, imo.
Shia
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 09:16:00 -
[45]
nice solution I agree
perhaps even better, just add a new skill that increases natural shield recharge by maybe 5% per level
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 09:16:00 -
[46]
nice solution I agree
perhaps even better, just add a new skill that increases natural shield recharge by maybe 5% per level
|
DarK
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 10:04:00 -
[47]
That skill has been there since the beginning of time, its called shield operation.
But I agree that this would be an interesting solution, and seems very easy to do.
|
DarK
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 10:04:00 -
[48]
That skill has been there since the beginning of time, its called shield operation.
But I agree that this would be an interesting solution, and seems very easy to do.
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 10:19:00 -
[49]
Originally by: DarK
That skill has been there since the beginning of time, its called shield operation.
But I agree that this would be an interesting solution, and seems very easy to do.
ohh, its one of those skills you train for the hell of it :D
maybe change the 5% value to 10%
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 10:19:00 -
[50]
Originally by: DarK
That skill has been there since the beginning of time, its called shield operation.
But I agree that this would be an interesting solution, and seems very easy to do.
ohh, its one of those skills you train for the hell of it :D
maybe change the 5% value to 10%
|
Artegg
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 10:45:00 -
[51]
Cao Cao i have to say i think this is one of the better ideas and as someone has already said it would be very easy to make slight tweaks that will result in balencing with out nerfing and unnerfing all the time
|
Artegg
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 10:45:00 -
[52]
Cao Cao i have to say i think this is one of the better ideas and as someone has already said it would be very easy to make slight tweaks that will result in balencing with out nerfing and unnerfing all the time
|
Xtro 2
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 11:40:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Xtro 2 on 17/08/2004 11:43:25
Cap power relays give shield tankers a penalty to their shield boost amount, id suggest that shield recharge and the currently useless shield recharge boost mods would give a larger increase to your shield boost, like a weaker version of a shield boost amp, then tie in your useless shield recharge skill and you have a shield tank option that doesnt also benefit a armour tanker as you wouldnt want the armour tanker to also have a natural fast shield recharge.
__________________________________________
Hell is nothing more than an office with fluorecent lights. |
Xtro 2
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 11:40:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Xtro 2 on 17/08/2004 11:43:25
Cap power relays give shield tankers a penalty to their shield boost amount, id suggest that shield recharge and the currently useless shield recharge boost mods would give a larger increase to your shield boost, like a weaker version of a shield boost amp, then tie in your useless shield recharge skill and you have a shield tank option that doesnt also benefit a armour tanker as you wouldnt want the armour tanker to also have a natural fast shield recharge.
__________________________________________
Hell is nothing more than an office with fluorecent lights. |
King Dave
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 11:54:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Mitchman
To fix shield tanking:
Give Caldari ships a 10% shield boost bonus per level. This will make CPRs viable for use on shield tanks too, and not just on armor tanks.
This is a stupid idea mitchman, as caldari would then be the ultimate ships, the raven would be using 400 cap, to give like 1000 shield (with a SB amp), also doing it every 5 seconds and dealing tons of damage. The amarr are meant to be able to take alot of damage, but not give much, caldari are meant to be able to do hi-tech stuff and a fair bit of damage...
|
King Dave
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 11:54:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Mitchman
To fix shield tanking:
Give Caldari ships a 10% shield boost bonus per level. This will make CPRs viable for use on shield tanks too, and not just on armor tanks.
This is a stupid idea mitchman, as caldari would then be the ultimate ships, the raven would be using 400 cap, to give like 1000 shield (with a SB amp), also doing it every 5 seconds and dealing tons of damage. The amarr are meant to be able to take alot of damage, but not give much, caldari are meant to be able to do hi-tech stuff and a fair bit of damage...
|
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 12:05:00 -
[57]
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 -
[58]
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** |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 12:24:00 -
[59]
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.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 12:24:00 -
[60]
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.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 12:38:00 -
[61]
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 -
[62]
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** |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 12:48:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Hakera on 17/08/2004 12:52:07
the CPR nerf did a pretty poor job of balancing shield/armour tanking and yes the MWD shield reduction DOES affect shield tanking. How about we make cap rechargers reduce armour repair rate by 20% per module?
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.
yes, your quite right, your total shield/armour is not a primary condern, but it is secondary of course, and a shield tank will always lose to an armour tank currently under normal conditions.
I cant think of ay shield tanks that can withstand an armour tanker now, and yes I do both before you ask.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 12:48:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Hakera on 17/08/2004 12:52:07
the CPR nerf did a pretty poor job of balancing shield/armour tanking and yes the MWD shield reduction DOES affect shield tanking. How about we make cap rechargers reduce armour repair rate by 20% per module?
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.
yes, your quite right, your total shield/armour is not a primary condern, but it is secondary of course, and a shield tank will always lose to an armour tank currently under normal conditions.
I cant think of ay shield tanks that can withstand an armour tanker now, and yes I do both before you ask.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 13:27:00 -
[65]
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 -
[66]
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** |
Ca0 Ca0
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 15:12:00 -
[67]
Juan A.,
Seriously, what are you on? An armor tanked raven is more effective than a shield tanked raven. I've tested both against each other and believe me, its true. That to me is proof that armor tanking is far better.
Cao
|
Ca0 Ca0
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 15:12:00 -
[68]
Juan A.,
Seriously, what are you on? An armor tanked raven is more effective than a shield tanked raven. I've tested both against each other and believe me, its true. That to me is proof that armor tanking is far better.
Cao
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 15:16:00 -
[69]
Yup, unfortunately it's like that.
Armor tank > shield tank.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 15:16:00 -
[70]
Yup, unfortunately it's like that.
Armor tank > shield tank.
|
Toran Mehtar
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 15:21:00 -
[71]
Ignoring the whole tanking issue for a moment, is there any reason why shield recharge times should not be reduced ?
|
Toran Mehtar
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 15:21:00 -
[72]
Ignoring the whole tanking issue for a moment, is there any reason why shield recharge times should not be reduced ?
|
Spektral
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 17:00:00 -
[73]
Ok, people if you are gonna talk about armor, then at least read the description of the armor, it isnt plates per se. It is massives quantities of nanites all programmed to assume plate form. when hit by a weapon they absorb the energy by moving out of the way, shrinking from heat, being blasted away in a cloud, which with a slight magnetic filed would be attracted back to the ship. Come on people this is millenia from now, they have conquered FTL travel, and have armors that reject nuclear blasts. This isnt the uss missouri.
Armor tanks do have an advantage because they need them, once you start repairing armor, thats the last ditch, you have structure left, and that has no resistances at all. a shield tank can warp out when shield goes down, which makes shield tanking a bit tedous but much easier to deal with, one armor repairer on the ship to repair what armor damage does happen and you can farm untill the ammo runs out, my buddy in a raven yesterday took out a 1 bs spawn, then a commander spawn 1 commander and 2 dominix 1 mill spawns he owned it only need to warp out once. a armor tanked must be much more careful with a spawn of that level.
please reply after you have thought of the ramifications of this thread.
|
Spektral
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 17:00:00 -
[74]
Ok, people if you are gonna talk about armor, then at least read the description of the armor, it isnt plates per se. It is massives quantities of nanites all programmed to assume plate form. when hit by a weapon they absorb the energy by moving out of the way, shrinking from heat, being blasted away in a cloud, which with a slight magnetic filed would be attracted back to the ship. Come on people this is millenia from now, they have conquered FTL travel, and have armors that reject nuclear blasts. This isnt the uss missouri.
Armor tanks do have an advantage because they need them, once you start repairing armor, thats the last ditch, you have structure left, and that has no resistances at all. a shield tank can warp out when shield goes down, which makes shield tanking a bit tedous but much easier to deal with, one armor repairer on the ship to repair what armor damage does happen and you can farm untill the ammo runs out, my buddy in a raven yesterday took out a 1 bs spawn, then a commander spawn 1 commander and 2 dominix 1 mill spawns he owned it only need to warp out once. a armor tanked must be much more careful with a spawn of that level.
please reply after you have thought of the ramifications of this thread.
|
Hematic
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 17:29:00 -
[75]
Well as far as the whole shield vs armor tanking they both have drawbacks and plus points.
Armor has better cap to DPS. Armor has a little better stock resistances.
Shield has better DPS to ship slot ratio. ie 2 slots dedicated to shield boosting (xl + amp) produces more raw DPS than can be achieved via armor tanking.
Ironically, the apoc is better suited (cap wise) to doing the shield tanking.
Kind of interested to see how things work out once the XL batteries and either tech II large armor repairers or xl armor repairers come out.
|
Hematic
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 17:29:00 -
[76]
Well as far as the whole shield vs armor tanking they both have drawbacks and plus points.
Armor has better cap to DPS. Armor has a little better stock resistances.
Shield has better DPS to ship slot ratio. ie 2 slots dedicated to shield boosting (xl + amp) produces more raw DPS than can be achieved via armor tanking.
Ironically, the apoc is better suited (cap wise) to doing the shield tanking.
Kind of interested to see how things work out once the XL batteries and either tech II large armor repairers or xl armor repairers come out.
|
Harisdrop
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 17:44:00 -
[77]
As the owner of one of the Medium Armor Repairer II bpo I applaud CCP for Armor tanking enhances...
--------------------------
Garsh ma it soo cool killing people in there space thingies |
Harisdrop
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 17:44:00 -
[78]
As the owner of one of the Medium Armor Repairer II bpo I applaud CCP for Armor tanking enhances...
--------------------------
Garsh ma it soo cool killing people in there space thingies |
Shimatu
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 18:07:00 -
[79]
an idea i had a while ago about shield tanking was to make it so that shield boosters basically boosted a time periods worth of shields.
So if you normally recharge 1000 shields in 30, and you used a shield booster that gave 15 seconds of shields, youd get 500 shields. Of course, these wouldnt then be class based. using the smallest of them, a frigate might get say 100 shields back, while a BS would get 1000 for the same cap use and fitting reqs.
i guess theyd have to be made ship class restricted.
would require some thinking, but it would make it so that recharge rate was again an important ship stat, and would also encourage people with high base shields to shield tank.
3-I's T2 sales can be found HERE
|
Shimatu
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 18:07:00 -
[80]
an idea i had a while ago about shield tanking was to make it so that shield boosters basically boosted a time periods worth of shields.
So if you normally recharge 1000 shields in 30, and you used a shield booster that gave 15 seconds of shields, youd get 500 shields. Of course, these wouldnt then be class based. using the smallest of them, a frigate might get say 100 shields back, while a BS would get 1000 for the same cap use and fitting reqs.
i guess theyd have to be made ship class restricted.
would require some thinking, but it would make it so that recharge rate was again an important ship stat, and would also encourage people with high base shields to shield tank.
3-I's T2 sales can be found HERE
|
Paddyman
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 18:09:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Paddyman on 17/08/2004 18:11:36
If i remember correctly Tomb stated many moons ago that he intended to boost sheild recharge rates but this was tied in with a suggestion to make sheild boosters boost recharge rate instead of giving blocks of sheild each cycle.
Although this idea was never developed further he stated that he wanted to make sheild recharge rates actually mean something cause he agreed that ATM its not even brought into consideration. One of the reasons he wanted this was to allow a ship which is out of cap to not be without defences.
TBH i think it became one of his many Soon TM things, but its something i'd love to see implemented.
|
Paddyman
|
Posted - 2004.08.17 18:09:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Paddyman on 17/08/2004 18:11:36
If i remember correctly Tomb stated many moons ago that he intended to boost sheild recharge rates but this was tied in with a suggestion to make sheild boosters boost recharge rate instead of giving blocks of sheild each cycle.
Although this idea was never developed further he stated that he wanted to make sheild recharge rates actually mean something cause he agreed that ATM its not even brought into consideration. One of the reasons he wanted this was to allow a ship which is out of cap to not be without defences.
TBH i think it became one of his many Soon TM things, but its something i'd love to see implemented.
|
Ca0 Ca0
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 03:19:00 -
[83]
Paddyman,
I remember it. I think he mentioned it would be tied to Shiva, but again as you say it was one of the SoonÖ type things so nothing was definite.
Cao
|
Ca0 Ca0
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 03:19:00 -
[84]
Paddyman,
I remember it. I think he mentioned it would be tied to Shiva, but again as you say it was one of the SoonÖ type things so nothing was definite.
Cao
|
Detaurus
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 08:58:00 -
[85]
1. The Existence of shield boost amplifiers is indicative of the disparity, though they are wholly useless
2. Their is no 1 Power 0 cpu equivalent of Armor Coating, the closest equivalent are shield hardeners which eat capacitor
unlike the coating. Shield amplifiers apply only to one damage type, unlike the coating.
3. Shield Extenders require more power, cpu, and protect much
less than their armor equivalents
4. Comparing the large and supposedly comparitive medium armor repairer reveals the following
Large Shield Booster- 150 Power Grid, 100 CPu
160 Cap Per Use For 160 Shield Bonus
40 Cap Per Second/40 Boost Per Second
Invulnerability Field II- 1 Power, 50 Cpu
30% Resistance Across All Damage Types
20 Cap Per Second
Medium Armor Repairer- 150 Power Grid, 25 Cpu
160 Cap Per Use For 240 Armor Bonus
13 Cap Per Second/20 Boost Per Second
2 Energized Adaptive Nano Plating
30% Resistances Across All Damage Types
4 Total Power 50 Total Cpu
Tank Type Powergrid Use CPU Use Cap/second
Shield 151 150 60
Armor 154 75 17
2 Cruisers With 1100 Cap
Shield Tanker(With Field) Will Exhaust Cap in 18 Seconds Boosting 720
Armor Tanker Will Exhaust Cap In 84 Seconds, Boosting 1659
At The Same Resistance Levels
|
Detaurus
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 08:58:00 -
[86]
1. The Existence of shield boost amplifiers is indicative of the disparity, though they are wholly useless
2. Their is no 1 Power 0 cpu equivalent of Armor Coating, the closest equivalent are shield hardeners which eat capacitor
unlike the coating. Shield amplifiers apply only to one damage type, unlike the coating.
3. Shield Extenders require more power, cpu, and protect much
less than their armor equivalents
4. Comparing the large and supposedly comparitive medium armor repairer reveals the following
Large Shield Booster- 150 Power Grid, 100 CPu
160 Cap Per Use For 160 Shield Bonus
40 Cap Per Second/40 Boost Per Second
Invulnerability Field II- 1 Power, 50 Cpu
30% Resistance Across All Damage Types
20 Cap Per Second
Medium Armor Repairer- 150 Power Grid, 25 Cpu
160 Cap Per Use For 240 Armor Bonus
13 Cap Per Second/20 Boost Per Second
2 Energized Adaptive Nano Plating
30% Resistances Across All Damage Types
4 Total Power 50 Total Cpu
Tank Type Powergrid Use CPU Use Cap/second
Shield 151 150 60
Armor 154 75 17
2 Cruisers With 1100 Cap
Shield Tanker(With Field) Will Exhaust Cap in 18 Seconds Boosting 720
Armor Tanker Will Exhaust Cap In 84 Seconds, Boosting 1659
At The Same Resistance Levels
|
Zarquon Beeblebrox
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 10:32:00 -
[87]
Just add the same penalty for armour repairs as it is for shield repairs in power diags and cap power relays.
This is the base of the problem. a armour tanker can have a good cap recharge with out any penalties to the armour repairs. Shield tankers can not.
--
Lady Beeblebrox
Teddybears movies
|
Zarquon Beeblebrox
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 10:32:00 -
[88]
Just add the same penalty for armour repairs as it is for shield repairs in power diags and cap power relays.
This is the base of the problem. a armour tanker can have a good cap recharge with out any penalties to the armour repairs. Shield tankers can not.
--
Lady Beeblebrox
Teddybears movies
|
Uchikage
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 12:24:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Moah
First of all armor tanking is NOT better than shield tanking because when u activate ur shield booster, u get instantly shield boosted.
how about activate your rep when you see that you will get into armor soon? sry but thats a irrelevant point for me...
How about you make all your moves 12 seconds before they're required, and try to fight someone who can hit their buttons and instantly get what they want? Maybe you have a crystal ball or something, but the rest of us are in the real world and can't see the future.
You can plan what you think may happen, but a lot can happen in 12 seconds. Like I can put nine EMP shells in your hide with my Claw. Or my corpmates can lance you with 21 megapulse blasts.
_______________________________________________
"...which will become my sword in the very near future."
"Bish, you don't have a future."
Who Dares, Wins -SAS |
Uchikage
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 12:24:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Moah
First of all armor tanking is NOT better than shield tanking because when u activate ur shield booster, u get instantly shield boosted.
how about activate your rep when you see that you will get into armor soon? sry but thats a irrelevant point for me...
How about you make all your moves 12 seconds before they're required, and try to fight someone who can hit their buttons and instantly get what they want? Maybe you have a crystal ball or something, but the rest of us are in the real world and can't see the future.
You can plan what you think may happen, but a lot can happen in 12 seconds. Like I can put nine EMP shells in your hide with my Claw. Or my corpmates can lance you with 21 megapulse blasts.
_______________________________________________
"...which will become my sword in the very near future."
"Bish, you don't have a future."
Who Dares, Wins -SAS |
Tar om
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 12:36:00 -
[91]
Edited by: Tar om on 18/08/2004 12:38:26
yep, increase shield recharge base rates. Its worth a try at least. Gotta say tho, its probably too subtle a change for TomB.
--
We are the Octavian Vanguard www.octavianvanguard.net
http://www.serenitymovie.com |
Tar om
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 12:36:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Tar om on 18/08/2004 12:38:26
yep, increase shield recharge base rates. Its worth a try at least. Gotta say tho, its probably too subtle a change for TomB.
--
We are the Octavian Vanguard www.octavianvanguard.net
http://www.serenitymovie.com |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 13:14:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Uchikage
Originally by: Moah
First of all armor tanking is NOT better than shield tanking because when u activate ur shield booster, u get instantly shield boosted.
how about activate your rep when you see that you will get into armor soon? sry but thats a irrelevant point for me...
How about you make all your moves 12 seconds before they're required, and try to fight someone who can hit their buttons and instantly get what they want? Maybe you have a crystal ball or something, but the rest of us are in the real world and can't see the future.
You can plan what you think may happen, but a lot can happen in 12 seconds. Like I can put nine EMP shells in your hide with my Claw. Or my corpmates can lance you with 21 megapulse blasts.
maybe you should train repair systems, my only need about 10 seconds 
Wanna fly with me?
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 13:14:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Uchikage
Originally by: Moah
First of all armor tanking is NOT better than shield tanking because when u activate ur shield booster, u get instantly shield boosted.
how about activate your rep when you see that you will get into armor soon? sry but thats a irrelevant point for me...
How about you make all your moves 12 seconds before they're required, and try to fight someone who can hit their buttons and instantly get what they want? Maybe you have a crystal ball or something, but the rest of us are in the real world and can't see the future.
You can plan what you think may happen, but a lot can happen in 12 seconds. Like I can put nine EMP shells in your hide with my Claw. Or my corpmates can lance you with 21 megapulse blasts.
maybe you should train repair systems, my only need about 10 seconds
Wanna fly with me?
|
tenp1
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 13:35:00 -
[95]
An increase in natural shield recharge rates would be nice. However, as far as the Raven is concerned I have no real probs shield tanking. 6x siege, 1xXL Clarity, 1x Shield Boost amp, 3x Hardners, 1x Cap Recharger II and 5x PDU II. This gives me good shields, cap, and pg with only cap recharge looking a bit sick (siege use alot less cap than lasers or rails so it's not too bad), though a couple of nosferatu in the 2 remaining highs can help there. Now I can't run the XLSB constant but I can run it when needed and the increased shield HP means it can take a fair bit of punishment if I need to let the cap top up.
I think one of the probs is that most people expect to be able to run the XLSB constant which doesn't work for extended periods. It seems equal to an apoc running 2 armour repairers, 1 can in some case run constant but 2 cannot and needs to be run when needed. The raven can fire all weapons and rapair similar shield hp to 2 armour repairers but needs to be run intermitently, this is made up for by the quicker cycle time and instant boost.
The best comparison would be to compare an Apoc with full guns firing both and repairers runing constant, to a raven doing the same. Both will run out of cap quite quickly. The main difference being the Apocs cap will last a bit longer and the raven will be dealing more damage. That to me, as a pilot of both ships, is balanced.
|
tenp1
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 13:35:00 -
[96]
An increase in natural shield recharge rates would be nice. However, as far as the Raven is concerned I have no real probs shield tanking. 6x siege, 1xXL Clarity, 1x Shield Boost amp, 3x Hardners, 1x Cap Recharger II and 5x PDU II. This gives me good shields, cap, and pg with only cap recharge looking a bit sick (siege use alot less cap than lasers or rails so it's not too bad), though a couple of nosferatu in the 2 remaining highs can help there. Now I can't run the XLSB constant but I can run it when needed and the increased shield HP means it can take a fair bit of punishment if I need to let the cap top up.
I think one of the probs is that most people expect to be able to run the XLSB constant which doesn't work for extended periods. It seems equal to an apoc running 2 armour repairers, 1 can in some case run constant but 2 cannot and needs to be run when needed. The raven can fire all weapons and rapair similar shield hp to 2 armour repairers but needs to be run intermitently, this is made up for by the quicker cycle time and instant boost.
The best comparison would be to compare an Apoc with full guns firing both and repairers runing constant, to a raven doing the same. Both will run out of cap quite quickly. The main difference being the Apocs cap will last a bit longer and the raven will be dealing more damage. That to me, as a pilot of both ships, is balanced.
|
Hematic
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 15:10:00 -
[97]
Quote:
maybe you should train repair systems, my only need about 10 seconds
Maybe for the med. and small units you are at 10 but the large pulse at base 15 seconds which at repair level 5 = 15 x .75 = 11.25 seconds per pulse.
Since the med. and small ones just got a bonus (pulse at 12 now base) = 12 x .75 = 9 seconds.
But while although it's nicer to have pulses more frequent that is not the issue so much.
The only thing that makes shield boosting truly superior to armor tanking right now is the fact that you can get more Damage Per Second returned per slot on your ship. Of course the Apoc is probably the only ship out there who could reasonably perma an xl so shield boosters 'bonus' becomes by and large unachievable.
The only thing that may change that in the near future is xl cap batteries. Which are obviously planned.
The other option imo would be to take the skill shield upgrades or shield operation and make that effect the cap use of shield boosters. At level 5 that brings the cap/sec of the XL down to 75, which is something that other ships could probably achieve if they kitted for it.
|
Hematic
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 15:10:00 -
[98]
Quote:
maybe you should train repair systems, my only need about 10 seconds
Maybe for the med. and small units you are at 10 but the large pulse at base 15 seconds which at repair level 5 = 15 x .75 = 11.25 seconds per pulse.
Since the med. and small ones just got a bonus (pulse at 12 now base) = 12 x .75 = 9 seconds.
But while although it's nicer to have pulses more frequent that is not the issue so much.
The only thing that makes shield boosting truly superior to armor tanking right now is the fact that you can get more Damage Per Second returned per slot on your ship. Of course the Apoc is probably the only ship out there who could reasonably perma an xl so shield boosters 'bonus' becomes by and large unachievable.
The only thing that may change that in the near future is xl cap batteries. Which are obviously planned.
The other option imo would be to take the skill shield upgrades or shield operation and make that effect the cap use of shield boosters. At level 5 that brings the cap/sec of the XL down to 75, which is something that other ships could probably achieve if they kitted for it.
|
Bobby Wilson
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 19:10:00 -
[99]
A big increase to shield recharge is a neat idea.
On the shield vs. armor tank issue (and I speak from experience, flying Calidari BSes mostly on 1 account and Gallente on the other), armor tanking is currently better, mostly because the current uuber gun is a laser (natural resistances armour > shields). If the 1400 was still king, it wouldn't make such a difference, and might make the minnie pilots feel less like homeless orphans.
I should also note since this thread is at least partly highjacked into a Raven vs. Apoc thread, that Apoc currently owns the Raven not primarily due to armor tanking, but because of small smartbomb IIs. Maybe 1/4 to 1/2 of the Raven's damage gets to hit the Apoc while the rest explodes harmlessly, while 100% of the Apoc's damage hits the raven. Otherwise, balance isn't bad, since the shield capacity bonus of the Power Diag has no analogue for armour in mid slots.
BW
Originally by: Selim
Cool, congrats.
Oh, stupid idea by the way.
|
Bobby Wilson
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 19:10:00 -
[100]
A big increase to shield recharge is a neat idea.
On the shield vs. armor tank issue (and I speak from experience, flying Calidari BSes mostly on 1 account and Gallente on the other), armor tanking is currently better, mostly because the current uuber gun is a laser (natural resistances armour > shields). If the 1400 was still king, it wouldn't make such a difference, and might make the minnie pilots feel less like homeless orphans.
I should also note since this thread is at least partly highjacked into a Raven vs. Apoc thread, that Apoc currently owns the Raven not primarily due to armor tanking, but because of small smartbomb IIs. Maybe 1/4 to 1/2 of the Raven's damage gets to hit the Apoc while the rest explodes harmlessly, while 100% of the Apoc's damage hits the raven. Otherwise, balance isn't bad, since the shield capacity bonus of the Power Diag has no analogue for armour in mid slots.
BW
Originally by: Selim
Cool, congrats.
Oh, stupid idea by the way.
|
Ca0 Ca0
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 20:55:00 -
[101]
How does XL cap battery make shield tanking better than armor tanking? Last I checked cap batteries fit into medium slots, which would benefit armor tanking, except perhaps on a scorpion.
I think Detaurus' breakdown of the numbers is damn scary, and is conclusive of the argument of shield tanking vs. armor tanking. Let's also not forget that armor has better natural resistances, including to two of the most common damage types (thermal and electromagnetic).
Tweaking the natural shield recharge rate to make it USEFUL and a VIABLE DEFENSE is the perfect way to balance the shield vs. armor disparity. You can lower the recharge rate as much as needed, until you achieve the desired balance. I would think 1/3 or 1/4 of the recharge time that we have right now is appropriate, because lets not forget that most of the recharge time takes place at the very end, when the cap/shields are very close to "full."
Anyway, I REALLY think TomB needs to look into this . . .
Cao
|
Ca0 Ca0
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 20:55:00 -
[102]
How does XL cap battery make shield tanking better than armor tanking? Last I checked cap batteries fit into medium slots, which would benefit armor tanking, except perhaps on a scorpion.
I think Detaurus' breakdown of the numbers is damn scary, and is conclusive of the argument of shield tanking vs. armor tanking. Let's also not forget that armor has better natural resistances, including to two of the most common damage types (thermal and electromagnetic).
Tweaking the natural shield recharge rate to make it USEFUL and a VIABLE DEFENSE is the perfect way to balance the shield vs. armor disparity. You can lower the recharge rate as much as needed, until you achieve the desired balance. I would think 1/3 or 1/4 of the recharge time that we have right now is appropriate, because lets not forget that most of the recharge time takes place at the very end, when the cap/shields are very close to "full."
Anyway, I REALLY think TomB needs to look into this . . .
Cao
|
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 21:05:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Cruz on 18/08/2004 21:07:06
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
I think Detaurus' breakdown of the numbers is damn scary, and is conclusive of the argument of shield tanking vs. armor tanking. Let's also not forget that armor has better natural resistances, including to two of the most common damage types (thermal and electromagnetic).
I dunno about his numbers because there are much more numbers to factor in, when I get back home ill give you a much nicer breakdown of shield tanking vs armor tanking. But IMO, Shield tanking can work very well, Ive shield tanked a caracal and it can last for a very damned long time without running out of cap. Moa is an even better tanker.
And yes, I completely support your idea ca0 ca0, increase shield recharge rate, it would kick ass.
................. |
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.08.18 21:05:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Cruz on 18/08/2004 21:07:06
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
I think Detaurus' breakdown of the numbers is damn scary, and is conclusive of the argument of shield tanking vs. armor tanking. Let's also not forget that armor has better natural resistances, including to two of the most common damage types (thermal and electromagnetic).
I dunno about his numbers because there are much more numbers to factor in, when I get back home ill give you a much nicer breakdown of shield tanking vs armor tanking. But IMO, Shield tanking can work very well, Ive shield tanked a caracal and it can last for a very damned long time without running out of cap. Moa is an even better tanker.
And yes, I completely support your idea ca0 ca0, increase shield recharge rate, it would kick ass.
................. |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 00:08:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Cruz
Edited by: Cruz on 18/08/2004 21:07:06
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
I think Detaurus' breakdown of the numbers is damn scary, and is conclusive of the argument of shield tanking vs. armor tanking. Let's also not forget that armor has better natural resistances, including to two of the most common damage types (thermal and electromagnetic).
I dunno about his numbers because there are much more numbers to factor in, when I get back home ill give you a much nicer breakdown of shield tanking vs armor tanking. But IMO, Shield tanking can work very well, Ive shield tanked a caracal and it can last for a very damned long time without running out of cap. Moa is an even better tanker.
And yes, I completely support your idea ca0 ca0, increase shield recharge rate, it would kick ass.
were not talking about cruisers here, and you cannot really tanka caracal
you cap recharge sucks, so its not a "real" tank
Wanna fly with me?
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 00:08:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Cruz
Edited by: Cruz on 18/08/2004 21:07:06
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
I think Detaurus' breakdown of the numbers is damn scary, and is conclusive of the argument of shield tanking vs. armor tanking. Let's also not forget that armor has better natural resistances, including to two of the most common damage types (thermal and electromagnetic).
I dunno about his numbers because there are much more numbers to factor in, when I get back home ill give you a much nicer breakdown of shield tanking vs armor tanking. But IMO, Shield tanking can work very well, Ive shield tanked a caracal and it can last for a very damned long time without running out of cap. Moa is an even better tanker.
And yes, I completely support your idea ca0 ca0, increase shield recharge rate, it would kick ass.
were not talking about cruisers here, and you cannot really tanka caracal
you cap recharge sucks, so its not a "real" tank
Wanna fly with me?
|
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 00:14:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Nafri
were not talking about cruisers here, and you cannot really tanka caracal
you cap recharge sucks, so its not a "real" tank
It lasts long enough to kill everything else. And the Shield Booster doesnt need to be run 24/7, only when you get to like 50% shields.
................. |
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 00:14:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Nafri
were not talking about cruisers here, and you cannot really tanka caracal
you cap recharge sucks, so its not a "real" tank
It lasts long enough to kill everything else. And the Shield Booster doesnt need to be run 24/7, only when you get to like 50% shields.
................. |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 00:16:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Cruz
Originally by: Nafri
were not talking about cruisers here, and you cannot really tanka caracal
you cap recharge sucks, so its not a "real" tank
It lasts long enough to kill everything else. And the Shield Booster doesnt need to be run 24/7, only when you get to like 50% shields.
i know it, but fitting a shield booster on a ship doesnt make it a valid tank
my Jamming scorp has also a shieldbooster on, and its not a real tank, and the shieldbooster can also run for a bit
a shield tanked cruiser should have a large shieldbooster on and a decent recharge time
Wanna fly with me?
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 00:16:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Cruz
Originally by: Nafri
were not talking about cruisers here, and you cannot really tanka caracal
you cap recharge sucks, so its not a "real" tank
It lasts long enough to kill everything else. And the Shield Booster doesnt need to be run 24/7, only when you get to like 50% shields.
i know it, but fitting a shield booster on a ship doesnt make it a valid tank
my Jamming scorp has also a shieldbooster on, and its not a real tank, and the shieldbooster can also run for a bit
a shield tanked cruiser should have a large shieldbooster on and a decent recharge time
Wanna fly with me?
|
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 00:24:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Cruz on 19/08/2004 00:26:32
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Cruz
Originally by: Nafri
were not talking about cruisers here, and you cannot really tanka caracal
you cap recharge sucks, so its not a "real" tank
It lasts long enough to kill everything else. And the Shield Booster doesnt need to be run 24/7, only when you get to like 50% shields.
i know it, but fitting a shield booster on a ship doesnt make it a valid tank
my Jamming scorp has also a shieldbooster on, and its not a real tank, and the shieldbooster can also run for a bit
a shield tanked cruiser should have a large shieldbooster on and a decent recharge time
Yeah I know, I was taking on 2 110k sanshas in my caracal with this setup, along with the frigates, they couldnt get my shields down ever. Even with their laser goodness.
Hi: 5x Named Heavy Launcher
Med: EM Hardener, Thermal Hardener, Med Shield Booster II, Med Cap Battery II
Lo: PDU, Ballistic Control Unit.
Caracal probally needs another mid slot though... but Moa is good, 3 hardeners 1 Shield Booster, and 4 PDUs in the lows.
................. |
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 00:24:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Cruz on 19/08/2004 00:26:32
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Cruz
Originally by: Nafri
were not talking about cruisers here, and you cannot really tanka caracal
you cap recharge sucks, so its not a "real" tank
It lasts long enough to kill everything else. And the Shield Booster doesnt need to be run 24/7, only when you get to like 50% shields.
i know it, but fitting a shield booster on a ship doesnt make it a valid tank
my Jamming scorp has also a shieldbooster on, and its not a real tank, and the shieldbooster can also run for a bit
a shield tanked cruiser should have a large shieldbooster on and a decent recharge time
Yeah I know, I was taking on 2 110k sanshas in my caracal with this setup, along with the frigates, they couldnt get my shields down ever. Even with their laser goodness.
Hi: 5x Named Heavy Launcher
Med: EM Hardener, Thermal Hardener, Med Shield Booster II, Med Cap Battery II
Lo: PDU, Ballistic Control Unit.
Caracal probally needs another mid slot though... but Moa is good, 3 hardeners 1 Shield Booster, and 4 PDUs in the lows.
................. |
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 00:33:00 -
[113]
Edited by: YuuKnow on 19/08/2004 00:41:12
Originally by: EveJunkie
How about this for a crazy twist on the idea. Remove shield boosters and armour repairs as we know it. Give base shield regen a big boost and give us modules that passive repair armour. Would certainly make PvP more decisive, bit of a drastic change tho so theres no way It'll happen unless we all scream for it (doubt that too)
Actually, I would sorta agree with you. The whole thing of boosting and repairing basically shifts all small skirmishes to a cap duration race. You fight, and fight and then someone runs outta cap and its like, "i'm outta cap, you win" Not very interesting combat really, kindof dull actually. Cap wins, no cap looses. What's worse is that these uber cap recharges that you get with recharger II's and cap relays allow armor tanks to recharge forever and it basically becomes impossible to kill them 1on1.
If you run upon a pure damage dealer then its not even about cap, its becomes a race of who can click on their modules first.
So I would agree with EveJunkie, give both shield and armor a huge gain in base level, make skilled sheild recharge the real factor, and reintroduce repairers as a slow passive module and reduce the shield boosting to a "after battle module."
but like evejunkie said, this will never happen though. it would be to much of a change and people would complain about having to adapt.
Btw, did anyone notice the cap relay II's on chaos? That's going to make it so that armor tanks can turn on 2 repairers and their lasers/blasters forever. Armor tanking will become EVEN more superior to shield tanking.
yk
|
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 00:33:00 -
[114]
Edited by: YuuKnow on 19/08/2004 00:41:12
Originally by: EveJunkie
How about this for a crazy twist on the idea. Remove shield boosters and armour repairs as we know it. Give base shield regen a big boost and give us modules that passive repair armour. Would certainly make PvP more decisive, bit of a drastic change tho so theres no way It'll happen unless we all scream for it (doubt that too)
Actually, I would sorta agree with you. The whole thing of boosting and repairing basically shifts all small skirmishes to a cap duration race. You fight, and fight and then someone runs outta cap and its like, "i'm outta cap, you win" Not very interesting combat really, kindof dull actually. Cap wins, no cap looses. What's worse is that these uber cap recharges that you get with recharger II's and cap relays allow armor tanks to recharge forever and it basically becomes impossible to kill them 1on1.
If you run upon a pure damage dealer then its not even about cap, its becomes a race of who can click on their modules first.
So I would agree with EveJunkie, give both shield and armor a huge gain in base level, make skilled sheild recharge the real factor, and reintroduce repairers as a slow passive module and reduce the shield boosting to a "after battle module."
but like evejunkie said, this will never happen though. it would be to much of a change and people would complain about having to adapt.
Btw, did anyone notice the cap relay II's on chaos? That's going to make it so that armor tanks can turn on 2 repairers and their lasers/blasters forever. Armor tanking will become EVEN more superior to shield tanking.
yk
|
Mitchman
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 01:14:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
Anyway, I REALLY think TomB needs to look into this . . .
I agree completely with you, Cao Cao. Anyone that has actually tested a "unbeatable" shield tank setup vs. a good armor setup knows shield tanking is inferiour.
On the TomB subject, I asked him on irc if they would fix shield tanking, and he said something like "we're looking into it". Seems to me CCP knows this is a problem right now. Oh, and people saying how much they can own npc in this or that shield tanked ship should really get out and do some PvP in a shield tank vs. an armor tank and see if they still think the same. Chaos is open for all, go there and test.
|
Mitchman
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 01:14:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
Anyway, I REALLY think TomB needs to look into this . . .
I agree completely with you, Cao Cao. Anyone that has actually tested a "unbeatable" shield tank setup vs. a good armor setup knows shield tanking is inferiour.
On the TomB subject, I asked him on irc if they would fix shield tanking, and he said something like "we're looking into it". Seems to me CCP knows this is a problem right now. Oh, and people saying how much they can own npc in this or that shield tanked ship should really get out and do some PvP in a shield tank vs. an armor tank and see if they still think the same. Chaos is open for all, go there and test.
|
T'el'Alana Luathin
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 01:27:00 -
[117]
I believe that inherent shield boosting is a valid point to check out in comparing game balance. Probably more difficult than it looks as shield booster modules today are discrete in their boosting, while basic boosting is analogous.
Tomb will come to the rescue, the master of the universe, he who has the power! (insert manly chorus chanting "Tomb-man" every 3-4 seconds).
T.
--
always look on the bright side of the cloning facility. |
T'el'Alana Luathin
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 01:27:00 -
[118]
I believe that inherent shield boosting is a valid point to check out in comparing game balance. Probably more difficult than it looks as shield booster modules today are discrete in their boosting, while basic boosting is analogous.
Tomb will come to the rescue, the master of the universe, he who has the power! (insert manly chorus chanting "Tomb-man" every 3-4 seconds).
T.
--
always look on the bright side of the cloning facility. |
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 07:37:00 -
[119]
I very much agree with Cao Cao. Nerfing armor would be a really bad idea, but this idea you thought up would benefit shield in such a way that its not unbalancing.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 07:37:00 -
[120]
I very much agree with Cao Cao. Nerfing armor would be a really bad idea, but this idea you thought up would benefit shield in such a way that its not unbalancing.
|
Shadowsword
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 09:07:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Zarquon Beeblebrox
Just add the same penalty for armour repairs as it is for shield repairs in power diags and cap power relays.
This is the base of the problem. a armour tanker can have a good cap recharge with out any penalties to the armour repairs. Shield tankers can not.
/me sigh
However much you debunk some ideas, they keep coming back
FYI, I tested a shield tanked Raven and an armor tanked Megathron, both with MWD and one damage mod, cap rechargers and cap relays and power diags, and what do it show?
The megathron recharge it's cap a little faster, but it's cap reserve is lower than the Raven's. They have almost exactly the same cap/sec regeneration rate
Now I'm sure than in 2-3 hours someone will still say that armor tanked have a good cap recharge and shield tanks doesn't.
And about the fact that armor tanking is more cap efficient than shield tanking, it's true, read the first post of the second page to know why.
|
Shadowsword
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 09:07:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Zarquon Beeblebrox
Just add the same penalty for armour repairs as it is for shield repairs in power diags and cap power relays.
This is the base of the problem. a armour tanker can have a good cap recharge with out any penalties to the armour repairs. Shield tankers can not.
/me sigh
However much you debunk some ideas, they keep coming back
FYI, I tested a shield tanked Raven and an armor tanked Megathron, both with MWD and one damage mod, cap rechargers and cap relays and power diags, and what do it show?
The megathron recharge it's cap a little faster, but it's cap reserve is lower than the Raven's. They have almost exactly the same cap/sec regeneration rate
Now I'm sure than in 2-3 hours someone will still say that armor tanked have a good cap recharge and shield tanks doesn't.
And about the fact that armor tanking is more cap efficient than shield tanking, it's true, read the first post of the second page to know why.
|
onardian
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 10:32:00 -
[123]
Damage dealer Megathron with some armor tanking vs
1) 2 Kinetic 1 thermal Hardened, 2 Large Repairer 8 Pulses Apoc, every other slot was allocated to cap enhancement. Apoc pilot cap skills 5/5. Repair systems level 4.
2) Various Raven loadouts Tanked vs Kinetic & Thermal with varying low slots and cap enhancing meds, as pilot was not the same. Pilot cap skills unknown... names were Veantur and Tank CEO.
Mega vs Apoc had 5 fights. Apoc lost all 5.
Mega vs Raven 3 fights. Ravens lost all 3.
Mega was cap boosting. Cap boosters needed vs Apoc fight 3-4. Cap boosters needed vs Ravens 8-9.
Apoc cap levels when it died : 30-40% for all fights.
Raven cap levels when it died: 0% for all fights.
Conclusion: A shield tanker fares better vs Damage dealers then Armor tankers do. Reason being the Armor Tanker cannot keep up with the damage being dealt regardless of the fact his cap is holding. On the other hand a Shield tanker can keep up with most of the damage, has the luxury to let damage sip to armour, and will only die once his cap has been drained entirely, which takes way longer.
The fact that Armor Tanking is more efficient cap wise doesn't imbalance it. The activation delay is more crucial than people understand.
|
onardian
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 10:32:00 -
[124]
Damage dealer Megathron with some armor tanking vs
1) 2 Kinetic 1 thermal Hardened, 2 Large Repairer 8 Pulses Apoc, every other slot was allocated to cap enhancement. Apoc pilot cap skills 5/5. Repair systems level 4.
2) Various Raven loadouts Tanked vs Kinetic & Thermal with varying low slots and cap enhancing meds, as pilot was not the same. Pilot cap skills unknown... names were Veantur and Tank CEO.
Mega vs Apoc had 5 fights. Apoc lost all 5.
Mega vs Raven 3 fights. Ravens lost all 3.
Mega was cap boosting. Cap boosters needed vs Apoc fight 3-4. Cap boosters needed vs Ravens 8-9.
Apoc cap levels when it died : 30-40% for all fights.
Raven cap levels when it died: 0% for all fights.
Conclusion: A shield tanker fares better vs Damage dealers then Armor tankers do. Reason being the Armor Tanker cannot keep up with the damage being dealt regardless of the fact his cap is holding. On the other hand a Shield tanker can keep up with most of the damage, has the luxury to let damage sip to armour, and will only die once his cap has been drained entirely, which takes way longer.
The fact that Armor Tanking is more efficient cap wise doesn't imbalance it. The activation delay is more crucial than people understand.
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 10:44:00 -
[125]
at which range you start guys? normally you already in megathrons armor if he mwds towards you from 20km +
Wanna fly with me?
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 10:44:00 -
[126]
at which range you start guys? normally you already in megathrons armor if he mwds towards you from 20km +
Wanna fly with me?
|
onardian
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 11:05:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Nafri
at which range you start guys? normally you already in megathrons armor if he mwds towards you from 20km +
Starting Range was 20-25km for all fights vs Apoc.
Starting Range was 30km for 1st out of 3 Raven fights. 20km for the other 2.
P.S. Megathron was using 2 Med Sbombs in all 8 fights, otherwise it would have lost Vs Raven everytime.
|
onardian
|
Posted - 2004.08.19 11:05:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Nafri
at which range you start guys? normally you already in megathrons armor if he mwds towards you from 20km +
Starting Range was 20-25km for all fights vs Apoc.
Starting Range was 30km for 1st out of 3 Raven fights. 20km for the other 2.
P.S. Megathron was using 2 Med Sbombs in all 8 fights, otherwise it would have lost Vs Raven everytime.
|
Glyphe Temare
|
Posted - 2004.08.20 04:10:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 20/08/2004 04:12:08
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 20/08/2004 04:11:19
Quote:
And about the fact that armor tanking is more cap efficient than shield tanking, it's true, read the first post of the second page to know why.
Could it be that someone finally saw the light?
On another note... any damage dealer will kill a tank, any tank. Doesn't matter if that damage dealer is armor or shield tanking. ( Assuming efficient smart setups on both sides )
|
Glyphe Temare
|
Posted - 2004.08.20 04:10:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 20/08/2004 04:12:08
Edited by: Glyphe Temare on 20/08/2004 04:11:19
Quote:
And about the fact that armor tanking is more cap efficient than shield tanking, it's true, read the first post of the second page to know why.
Could it be that someone finally saw the light?
On another note... any damage dealer will kill a tank, any tank. Doesn't matter if that damage dealer is armor or shield tanking. ( Assuming efficient smart setups on both sides )
|
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.08.20 04:21:00 -
[131]
Edited by: YuuKnow on 20/08/2004 04:25:30
Edited by: YuuKnow on 20/08/2004 04:23:31
Originally by: onardian
Originally by: Nafri
at which range you start guys? normally you already in megathrons armor if he mwds towards you from 20km +
Starting Range was 20-25km for all fights vs Apoc.
Starting Range was 30km for 1st out of 3 Raven fights. 20km for the other 2.
P.S. Megathron was using 2 Med Sbombs in all 8 fights, otherwise it would have lost Vs Raven everytime.
Its also important to know if any named stuff is used. and what was the repairer skills of the armor tank. As well as which shield hardeners were used by the shield tank (some pilots equip kinetic, some don't)
A armor tank at repairer 5 will do more repair/second than a shield+amp. If the pilot was a noob, then the armor repairers are inferior to the shield tank.
yk
|
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.08.20 04:21:00 -
[132]
Edited by: YuuKnow on 20/08/2004 04:25:30
Edited by: YuuKnow on 20/08/2004 04:23:31
Originally by: onardian
Originally by: Nafri
at which range you start guys? normally you already in megathrons armor if he mwds towards you from 20km +
Starting Range was 20-25km for all fights vs Apoc.
Starting Range was 30km for 1st out of 3 Raven fights. 20km for the other 2.
P.S. Megathron was using 2 Med Sbombs in all 8 fights, otherwise it would have lost Vs Raven everytime.
Its also important to know if any named stuff is used. and what was the repairer skills of the armor tank. As well as which shield hardeners were used by the shield tank (some pilots equip kinetic, some don't)
A armor tank at repairer 5 will do more repair/second than a shield+amp. If the pilot was a noob, then the armor repairers are inferior to the shield tank.
yk
|
Ca0 Ca0
|
Posted - 2004.08.20 16:18:00 -
[133]
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
|
Ca0 Ca0
|
Posted - 2004.08.20 16:18:00 -
[134]
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
|
Grosvenor Corama
|
Posted - 2004.08.20 16:35:00 -
[135]
This is a nice thread, lots of nice constructive posts, lets keep it that way and not resort to name calling.
~{Forum Rules}~ ♥ ~{contact us}~ |
Grosvenor Corama
|
Posted - 2004.08.20 16:35:00 -
[136]
This is a nice thread, lots of nice constructive posts, lets keep it that way and not resort to name calling.
~{Forum Rules}~ ♥ ~{contact us}~ |
GsDaddy
|
Posted - 2004.08.20 16:35:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
How many times need it be said ONE VS ONE DOES NOT MATTER . . .
Of course one vs one matters. It's the easiest way to get some idea of damage dealing + damage absorption performance.
|
GsDaddy
|
Posted - 2004.08.20 16:35:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Ca0 Ca0
How many times need it be said ONE VS ONE DOES NOT MATTER . . .
Of course one vs one matters. It's the easiest way to get some idea of damage dealing + damage absorption performance.
|
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.08.20 19:01:00 -
[139]
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 -
[140]
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** |
tenp1
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 00:02:00 -
[141]
Edited by: tenp1 on 21/08/2004 03:51:56
Edited by: tenp1 on 21/08/2004 00:13:29
Edited by: tenp1 on 21/08/2004 00:08:43
I am currently testing shield tanking on chaos. I am using highs - all siege with the last 2 slot using heavy nosferatu 2, mids - large shield boosters, 3 hardners, all the other free mids cap recharger II's, all the lows have PDU II's.
I am using 2 large boosters due to the fact that they can be used in the same way as 2 large armour repairers (1 at a time or to save cap or 2 constant to maximise repair), they also repair about the same amount in the same time (so long as u have repair lvl 4/5). Large armour repairers repair a little more, but the Large SB does 3 cycles in the same time so it's pretty balanced. Also low repair skills means that the large SB can do 4 cycles in the same time as a Large armour repairers 1 cycle, so making the SB repair more (balanced again as there is no skill to increase SB cycle time).
With my skills :-
Electronics lvl 5
Engineering lvl 5
Shield ops lvl 4
Shield management lvl 4
Energy system Ops lvl 5
Energy managements lvl 4
mechanic Lvl 5
Hull Upgrades lvl 4
Weapon upgrades Lvl 4
With the above config I have the following -
Raven
875 CPU
15155 PG
5312 Structure
5100 Armour
7351 Shields with 1026.18 Recharge rate
6509 Capacitor with 355.53 recharge rate
Scorpion
937 CPU
13674 PG
4375 Structure
4200 Armour
7128 Shields with 1121.51 recharge rate
6199 Capacitor with 248.88 recharge rate
Not too bad HP wise on either ship and base cap, both similar cap wise to a lvl 3 amarr BS apoc. just for a rough comparrison here are my LvL 4 amarr BS Apoc stats. It is using, 4 Cap recharger 2's in mid, in lows 2x large armour repairers 3 hardners and 2 cap relays, 6xMegabeams and 2 small medium beams in high
Apoc
625 CPU
24375 PG
5312 Structure
5760 Armour
4770 Shields with 1600 recharge rate
6912 Capacitor with 181.65 recharge rate
I found i could run 1 SB constant on the scorp whilst keeping the cap around 55%. When i use the second the cap drains quite quickly but as the launchers use little cap it can run quite low before i need to deactivate the second booster to recharge the cap, which is also helped by the high shield hp to soak up the damage. On the raven I couldn't run 1 large Booster constant as it would completely drain the cap, tho very slowly. Running the second can drain the cap quite quickly, though again the extra HP and low launcher cap use helps when I need to deactivate the SB to recharge cap. The heavy nosferatu helped in both cases but is not somthing i would like to rely on. There was also the option to use cap boosters but Iwanted this to be similar to the self sustaining armour tank.
It seems to me that the easiest solution to fix shield tanking would be to either.
1. Tweak the cap recharge rate on the ships so that with the above config would give similar results to the scorp if not a little better. It would only effect the idividual ships, so no negative/positives for other ships like a mod change, and wouldn't be difficult to impliment either. Admitedly this means using expensive tech 2 mods (well not much different to what would be needed to do decently tank an apoc using 4xCap recharger 2's) but thats the price u pay if you want the best.
or
2. Decrease the cap use of shield boosters a touch, 10-15 less cap per cycle on large SB would probably do the trick (down from 160 to 150 or 145). They will still use alot more cap than an armour repairer (sheild tanks use less cap intensive weapons than armour tanks so in general cap usage is similar). This would benefit all ships though more so in the case of shield tanks.
I'm off to test the dominix now
|
tenp1
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 00:02:00 -
[142]
Edited by: tenp1 on 21/08/2004 03:51:56
Edited by: tenp1 on 21/08/2004 00:13:29
Edited by: tenp1 on 21/08/2004 00:08:43
I am currently testing shield tanking on chaos. I am using highs - all siege with the last 2 slot using heavy nosferatu 2, mids - large shield boosters, 3 hardners, all the other free mids cap recharger II's, all the lows have PDU II's.
I am using 2 large boosters due to the fact that they can be used in the same way as 2 large armour repairers (1 at a time or to save cap or 2 constant to maximise repair), they also repair about the same amount in the same time (so long as u have repair lvl 4/5). Large armour repairers repair a little more, but the Large SB does 3 cycles in the same time so it's pretty balanced. Also low repair skills means that the large SB can do 4 cycles in the same time as a Large armour repairers 1 cycle, so making the SB repair more (balanced again as there is no skill to increase SB cycle time).
With my skills :-
Electronics lvl 5
Engineering lvl 5
Shield ops lvl 4
Shield management lvl 4
Energy system Ops lvl 5
Energy managements lvl 4
mechanic Lvl 5
Hull Upgrades lvl 4
Weapon upgrades Lvl 4
With the above config I have the following -
Raven
875 CPU
15155 PG
5312 Structure
5100 Armour
7351 Shields with 1026.18 Recharge rate
6509 Capacitor with 355.53 recharge rate
Scorpion
937 CPU
13674 PG
4375 Structure
4200 Armour
7128 Shields with 1121.51 recharge rate
6199 Capacitor with 248.88 recharge rate
Not too bad HP wise on either ship and base cap, both similar cap wise to a lvl 3 amarr BS apoc. just for a rough comparrison here are my LvL 4 amarr BS Apoc stats. It is using, 4 Cap recharger 2's in mid, in lows 2x large armour repairers 3 hardners and 2 cap relays, 6xMegabeams and 2 small medium beams in high
Apoc
625 CPU
24375 PG
5312 Structure
5760 Armour
4770 Shields with 1600 recharge rate
6912 Capacitor with 181.65 recharge rate
I found i could run 1 SB constant on the scorp whilst keeping the cap around 55%. When i use the second the cap drains quite quickly but as the launchers use little cap it can run quite low before i need to deactivate the second booster to recharge the cap, which is also helped by the high shield hp to soak up the damage. On the raven I couldn't run 1 large Booster constant as it would completely drain the cap, tho very slowly. Running the second can drain the cap quite quickly, though again the extra HP and low launcher cap use helps when I need to deactivate the SB to recharge cap. The heavy nosferatu helped in both cases but is not somthing i would like to rely on. There was also the option to use cap boosters but Iwanted this to be similar to the self sustaining armour tank.
It seems to me that the easiest solution to fix shield tanking would be to either.
1. Tweak the cap recharge rate on the ships so that with the above config would give similar results to the scorp if not a little better. It would only effect the idividual ships, so no negative/positives for other ships like a mod change, and wouldn't be difficult to impliment either. Admitedly this means using expensive tech 2 mods (well not much different to what would be needed to do decently tank an apoc using 4xCap recharger 2's) but thats the price u pay if you want the best.
or
2. Decrease the cap use of shield boosters a touch, 10-15 less cap per cycle on large SB would probably do the trick (down from 160 to 150 or 145). They will still use alot more cap than an armour repairer (sheild tanks use less cap intensive weapons than armour tanks so in general cap usage is similar). This would benefit all ships though more so in the case of shield tanks.
I'm off to test the dominix now
|
tenp1
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 00:59:00 -
[143]
With the dominix I used 6x350 rails or Large Ions, Mids 2 large shield Boosters and 3xhardners, Lows 7x PDU 2's. Considering the amount of complaints I see about being a bad gun platform I am suprised as that is pretty damn good, even more so with all the drones.
750 CPU
15829 PG
5312 Structure
4770 Armour
5909 Shield with 859.15 recharge rate
6754 Capacitor with 350.37 Recharge rate
I found the tanking ability was similar to that of the raven in that I couldn't run 1 Booster on constant and 2 eat alot of cap. The Armour/shield total HP are slightly less than the raven and scorps as well (which incidently beat my Apoc in total shield/armour hp) but it does ahve a fair bit moore cap. Again the there is only a minor faliure with the shield tank that my previously mentioned idea would remedy.
On a side note all 3 of these ships are far more flexible in fitting than the armour tanks that are the Apoc, Geddon and Mega. This has to also be factored in when making a fiting comparison as just saying that 1 thing is better than another without taking into account all other factors is pointless. The Gankgeddon for instance, awsome damage dealer but such poor defence that any ship that even a lightly armed frig can kill it.
Anyway, i'm off to TQ to buy myself a Dominix, I can't belive it gets made out to be a poor gunship yet is evidently no such thing
|
tenp1
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 00:59:00 -
[144]
With the dominix I used 6x350 rails or Large Ions, Mids 2 large shield Boosters and 3xhardners, Lows 7x PDU 2's. Considering the amount of complaints I see about being a bad gun platform I am suprised as that is pretty damn good, even more so with all the drones.
750 CPU
15829 PG
5312 Structure
4770 Armour
5909 Shield with 859.15 recharge rate
6754 Capacitor with 350.37 Recharge rate
I found the tanking ability was similar to that of the raven in that I couldn't run 1 Booster on constant and 2 eat alot of cap. The Armour/shield total HP are slightly less than the raven and scorps as well (which incidently beat my Apoc in total shield/armour hp) but it does ahve a fair bit moore cap. Again the there is only a minor faliure with the shield tank that my previously mentioned idea would remedy.
On a side note all 3 of these ships are far more flexible in fitting than the armour tanks that are the Apoc, Geddon and Mega. This has to also be factored in when making a fiting comparison as just saying that 1 thing is better than another without taking into account all other factors is pointless. The Gankgeddon for instance, awsome damage dealer but such poor defence that any ship that even a lightly armed frig can kill it.
Anyway, i'm off to TQ to buy myself a Dominix, I can't belive it gets made out to be a poor gunship yet is evidently no such thing
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 01:05:00 -
[145]
dominix has incredible low PG and not really enough shield for beeing a Shield tank
best usage is as blastership cause drones want to have a target 20km from you, closer = better
and fitting a mwd will hurt your tanking ability a lot
Wanna fly with me?
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 01:05:00 -
[146]
dominix has incredible low PG and not really enough shield for beeing a Shield tank
best usage is as blastership cause drones want to have a target 20km from you, closer = better
and fitting a mwd will hurt your tanking ability a lot
Wanna fly with me?
|
tenp1
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 01:40:00 -
[147]
When compared to an Armageddon the dominix doesn't look too bad. Infact only the improved cap recharge keeps the geddon tanking. Using UV crystals helps as you use 40% less cap and stll get good damage/range, just like iridium ammo.
With this setup 7xMegapulse, 3xCap Recharger II's, 2 Large armour repairers, 3 hardners, 1 PDU II and 2xcap relays, I get the following :-
562 CPU
21656 PG
4968 Structure
5100 Armour
4410 Shield with a 1464 sc recharge rate
5355 Capcitor with 195.64 sec recharge rate
This setup is close to the edge CPU and PG wise, wheras the Dominix has about 70 cpu and 2000pg left. add to that the fact that this is more or less "the" geddon setup. You can fit other guns etc. but, in my opinion, it seriously gimps the ship in one way or another.
Armour tanks are tank gunships only, Shield tank ships are tank gunships or EW Gunships (I still count missile boats when I say gunships). That is an advantage that cannot be ignored, which in my opinion, means a shield tank should never be as good as an armour tank, as armour tanks specialise. That said shield tanks do need a slight boost like I have mentioned so that they can tank but on a knife edge around that 50-55% cap mark.
|
tenp1
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 01:40:00 -
[148]
When compared to an Armageddon the dominix doesn't look too bad. Infact only the improved cap recharge keeps the geddon tanking. Using UV crystals helps as you use 40% less cap and stll get good damage/range, just like iridium ammo.
With this setup 7xMegapulse, 3xCap Recharger II's, 2 Large armour repairers, 3 hardners, 1 PDU II and 2xcap relays, I get the following :-
562 CPU
21656 PG
4968 Structure
5100 Armour
4410 Shield with a 1464 sc recharge rate
5355 Capcitor with 195.64 sec recharge rate
This setup is close to the edge CPU and PG wise, wheras the Dominix has about 70 cpu and 2000pg left. add to that the fact that this is more or less "the" geddon setup. You can fit other guns etc. but, in my opinion, it seriously gimps the ship in one way or another.
Armour tanks are tank gunships only, Shield tank ships are tank gunships or EW Gunships (I still count missile boats when I say gunships). That is an advantage that cannot be ignored, which in my opinion, means a shield tank should never be as good as an armour tank, as armour tanks specialise. That said shield tanks do need a slight boost like I have mentioned so that they can tank but on a knife edge around that 50-55% cap mark.
|
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 02:19:00 -
[149]
tenp1, two large armor reps would eat a geddons cap away
................. |
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 02:19:00 -
[150]
tenp1, two large armor reps would eat a geddons cap away
................. |
tenp1
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 02:41:00 -
[151]
2 will but 1 armour repairer will run constant with all guns firing with no real probs. The Cap sticks at about 65% so it's pretty decent. The second one only needs to be used when needed for that extra boost, which which was the same way I was testing the shield tanks. Using low cap usage ammo always helps as well, for both the apoc and geddon I tend to use mainly UV crystals as they do decent range/damage but use 40% less cap.
|
tenp1
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 02:41:00 -
[152]
2 will but 1 armour repairer will run constant with all guns firing with no real probs. The Cap sticks at about 65% so it's pretty decent. The second one only needs to be used when needed for that extra boost, which which was the same way I was testing the shield tanks. Using low cap usage ammo always helps as well, for both the apoc and geddon I tend to use mainly UV crystals as they do decent range/damage but use 40% less cap.
|
Cutter John
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 10:11:00 -
[153]
Edited by: Cutter John on 21/08/2004 10:12:47
i still say change the pdu from a 7.5% shield charge bonus to a 5-7.5% shield boost bonus. would be a very nice mod for shield tankers to fit then.
My Idea Thread
Give Drones Love! |
Cutter John
|
Posted - 2004.08.21 10:11:00 -
[154]
Edited by: Cutter John on 21/08/2004 10:12:47
i still say change the pdu from a 7.5% shield charge bonus to a 5-7.5% shield boost bonus. would be a very nice mod for shield tankers to fit then.
My Idea Thread
Give Drones Love! |
King Dave
|
Posted - 2004.11.16 14:46:00 -
[155]
Edited by: King Dave on 16/11/2004 14:57:17
stupid forum..
|
King Dave
|
Posted - 2004.11.16 14:46:00 -
[156]
Edited by: King Dave on 16/11/2004 14:57:17
stupid forum..
|
King Dave
|
Posted - 2004.11.16 14:51:00 -
[157]
Originally by: tenp1
With the dominix I used 6x350 rails or Large Ions, Mids 2 large shield Boosters and 3xhardners, Lows 7x PDU 2's. Considering the amount of complaints I see about being a bad gun platform I am suprised as that is pretty damn good, even more so with all the drones.
750 CPU
15829 PG
5312 Structure
4770 Armour
5909 Shield with 859.15 recharge rate
6754 Capacitor with 350.37 Recharge rate
I found the tanking ability was similar to that of the raven in that I couldn't run 1 Booster on constant and 2 eat alot of cap. The Armour/shield total HP are slightly less than the raven and scorps as well (which incidently beat my Apoc in total shield/armour hp) but it does ahve a fair bit moore cap. Again the there is only a minor faliure with the shield tank that my previously mentioned idea would remedy.
On a side note all 3 of these ships are far more flexible in fitting than the armour tanks that are the Apoc, Geddon and Mega. This has to also be factored in when making a fiting comparison as just saying that 1 thing is better than another without taking into account all other factors is pointless. The Gankgeddon for instance, awsome damage dealer but such poor defence that any ship that even a lightly armed frig can kill it.
Anyway, i'm off to TQ to buy myself a Dominix, I can't belive it gets made out to be a poor gunship yet is evidently no such thing
U use 2 Large shield boosters!!! U should armor tank dominixs with 3 med tech II armor reps it works out at the same cap usage, but way less fitting of PG, then u can fit all large ion blasters.. and have way better cap recharge time... U fly that setup and ure cap dies instantly.... Use this u should be able to last alot longer.. also deal alot more damage...
|
King Dave
|
Posted - 2004.11.16 14:51:00 -
[158]
Originally by: tenp1
With the dominix I used 6x350 rails or Large Ions, Mids 2 large shield Boosters and 3xhardners, Lows 7x PDU 2's. Considering the amount of complaints I see about being a bad gun platform I am suprised as that is pretty damn good, even more so with all the drones.
750 CPU
15829 PG
5312 Structure
4770 Armour
5909 Shield with 859.15 recharge rate
6754 Capacitor with 350.37 Recharge rate
I found the tanking ability was similar to that of the raven in that I couldn't run 1 Booster on constant and 2 eat alot of cap. The Armour/shield total HP are slightly less than the raven and scorps as well (which incidently beat my Apoc in total shield/armour hp) but it does ahve a fair bit moore cap. Again the there is only a minor faliure with the shield tank that my previously mentioned idea would remedy.
On a side note all 3 of these ships are far more flexible in fitting than the armour tanks that are the Apoc, Geddon and Mega. This has to also be factored in when making a fiting comparison as just saying that 1 thing is better than another without taking into account all other factors is pointless. The Gankgeddon for instance, awsome damage dealer but such poor defence that any ship that even a lightly armed frig can kill it.
Anyway, i'm off to TQ to buy myself a Dominix, I can't belive it gets made out to be a poor gunship yet is evidently no such thing
U use 2 Large shield boosters!!! U should armor tank dominixs with 3 med tech II armor reps it works out at the same cap usage, but way less fitting of PG, then u can fit all large ion blasters.. and have way better cap recharge time... U fly that setup and ure cap dies instantly.... Use this u should be able to last alot longer.. also deal alot more damage...
|
Shadowsword
|
Posted - 2004.11.16 15:20:00 -
[159]
Originally by: King Dave
Edited by: King Dave on 16/11/2004 14:57:17
stupid forum..
King Dave is a mentalist piloting for the Curse Alliance he will destroy the pilots of the Enemy Alliance and Celestial Apocaypse and may attack any Enemies he perceives as a threat or n0obish picking
If you so badly wanted to troll on this forum, was it really necessary to dig for a three-month old thread?
|
Shadowsword
|
Posted - 2004.11.16 15:20:00 -
[160]
Originally by: King Dave
Edited by: King Dave on 16/11/2004 14:57:17
stupid forum..
King Dave is a mentalist piloting for the Curse Alliance he will destroy the pilots of the Enemy Alliance and Celestial Apocaypse and may attack any Enemies he perceives as a threat or n0obish picking
If you so badly wanted to troll on this forum, was it really necessary to dig for a three-month old thread?
|
Iratus Caelestis
|
Posted - 2004.11.16 16:39:00 -
[161]
Bumping threads is bad.
Also the Cap relay nerf is on there for Apoc's as far as I can work out.
If it wasn't there you could have a Cap recharge of 93 seconds on an Apoc and be able to run a 4 Slot Shield Tank for ever. Which isn't a good thing.
|
Iratus Caelestis
|
Posted - 2004.11.16 16:39:00 -
[162]
Bumping threads is bad.
Also the Cap relay nerf is on there for Apoc's as far as I can work out.
If it wasn't there you could have a Cap recharge of 93 seconds on an Apoc and be able to run a 4 Slot Shield Tank for ever. Which isn't a good thing.
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2004.11.16 17:24:00 -
[163]
ôthat natural shield recharge rate be increased. This would have the effect of benefiting shield tankers to the extent that their shields are hardened and take less damage. Moreover, it would make the shield recharge bonus to power diags less useless than it currently isà..
I recommend doubling or tripling the natural shield recharge rate for all ships.ö
Very bad idea that would give my passive shield setup over 300 shield points per second. ThatÆs 1200 shield points over 4 second making me invincible. Add in 60% resistance and would would need a lot of firepower to kill a passive shield tank.
My ships rely on a full passive shield setupÆs if you triple the passive speed there is not a single ship in game not even with T2 weapon that could kill me 1 v 1. Even 2 v 1 would be hard.
Passive shields are already powerful no need to make them that much better.
_________________________________________________
Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source. |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2004.11.16 17:24:00 -
[164]
ôthat natural shield recharge rate be increased. This would have the effect of benefiting shield tankers to the extent that their shields are hardened and take less damage. Moreover, it would make the shield recharge bonus to power diags less useless than it currently isà..
I recommend doubling or tripling the natural shield recharge rate for all ships.ö
Very bad idea that would give my passive shield setup over 300 shield points per second. ThatÆs 1200 shield points over 4 second making me invincible. Add in 60% resistance and would would need a lot of firepower to kill a passive shield tank.
My ships rely on a full passive shield setupÆs if you triple the passive speed there is not a single ship in game not even with T2 weapon that could kill me 1 v 1. Even 2 v 1 would be hard.
Passive shields are already powerful no need to make them that much better.
_________________________________________________
Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source. |
Mabelrode
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 05:51:00 -
[165]
My sh*t detector just went off. Mind sharing some of that set up with us?
|
Mabelrode
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 05:51:00 -
[166]
My sh*t detector just went off. Mind sharing some of that set up with us?
|
RollinDutchMasters
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 07:06:00 -
[167]
As a guess... a scorp with:
4x Siege
2x Medium Nos
3x Hardeners
2x Large Shield Extender IIs
3x Shield Recharger IIs
4x Shield Power Relays
Just guessing as to the best possible passive tank. Looks pretty terrible to me, tbh. With scorp 4, it'll probably have 13k or so shield HP, with a ~300 second recharge. Assuming shields regenerate in the same way as cap, that might get 80 hp/s or so back. Slightly more then a large shield booster II + amp, at the cost of using every mid and lowslot for the tank. Its not a terrible tank for a scorp, but compared to a real tank like an apoc, raven, or even a mega/dominix, its not even in the same ballpark.
Originally by: Sochin
CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
|
RollinDutchMasters
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 07:06:00 -
[168]
As a guess... a scorp with:
4x Siege
2x Medium Nos
3x Hardeners
2x Large Shield Extender IIs
3x Shield Recharger IIs
4x Shield Power Relays
Just guessing as to the best possible passive tank. Looks pretty terrible to me, tbh. With scorp 4, it'll probably have 13k or so shield HP, with a ~300 second recharge. Assuming shields regenerate in the same way as cap, that might get 80 hp/s or so back. Slightly more then a large shield booster II + amp, at the cost of using every mid and lowslot for the tank. Its not a terrible tank for a scorp, but compared to a real tank like an apoc, raven, or even a mega/dominix, its not even in the same ballpark.
Originally by: Sochin
CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 07:53:00 -
[169]
Edited by: Pottsey on 17/11/2004 07:59:55
Edited by: Pottsey on 17/11/2004 07:58:57
ôMy sh*t detector just went off. Mind sharing some of that set up with us?ö
I posted it in lots of treads now and I am getting fed up of people saying I am wong or making stupid comments. Do a search or click my name and look though the past 10 posts. I fly a dominix.
Passive might not be the most powerfull setup but its powerfull now so if you triple it your never going to die. Triple and add in T2 low slots and you can tank crasy amounts of damage. Thats why I dont think tripling the passive charge is a good idea.
ôWith scorp 4, it'll probably have 13k or so shield HP, with a ~300 second recharge. Assuming shields regenerate in the same way as cap, that might get 80 hp/s or so back.ö
That cap with a 300 second recharge is 104 hit points per second. Thats also over 1 second while the booster + amp is over 4 seconds. So thats 416 shield points over 4 seconds.
_________________________________________________
Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source. |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 07:53:00 -
[170]
Edited by: Pottsey on 17/11/2004 07:59:55
Edited by: Pottsey on 17/11/2004 07:58:57
ôMy sh*t detector just went off. Mind sharing some of that set up with us?ö
I posted it in lots of treads now and I am getting fed up of people saying I am wong or making stupid comments. Do a search or click my name and look though the past 10 posts. I fly a dominix.
Passive might not be the most powerfull setup but its powerfull now so if you triple it your never going to die. Triple and add in T2 low slots and you can tank crasy amounts of damage. Thats why I dont think tripling the passive charge is a good idea.
ôWith scorp 4, it'll probably have 13k or so shield HP, with a ~300 second recharge. Assuming shields regenerate in the same way as cap, that might get 80 hp/s or so back.ö
That cap with a 300 second recharge is 104 hit points per second. Thats also over 1 second while the booster + amp is over 4 seconds. So thats 416 shield points over 4 seconds.
_________________________________________________
Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source. |
archangel sean
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 08:51:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Pottsey
ôthat natural shield recharge rate be increased. This would have the effect of benefiting shield tankers to the extent that their shields are hardened and take less damage. Moreover, it would make the shield recharge bonus to power diags less useless than it currently isà..
I recommend doubling or tripling the natural shield recharge rate for all ships.ö
I do over 405 damage per sec using 6 limos siege and 2 modulated dual heavy beams onthe raven. And i recharge 187 shield per sec.
I think I can kill your passive tank even after 2 folds or even 3 .:)
Very bad idea that would give my passive shield setup over 300 shield points per second. ThatÆs 1200 shield points over 4 second making me invincible. Add in 60% resistance and would would need a lot of firepower to kill a passive shield tank.
My ships rely on a full passive shield setupÆs if you triple the passive speed there is not a single ship in game not even with T2 weapon that could kill me 1 v 1. Even 2 v 1 would be hard.
Passive shields are already powerful no need to make them that much better.
|
archangel sean
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 08:51:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Pottsey
ôthat natural shield recharge rate be increased. This would have the effect of benefiting shield tankers to the extent that their shields are hardened and take less damage. Moreover, it would make the shield recharge bonus to power diags less useless than it currently isà..
I recommend doubling or tripling the natural shield recharge rate for all ships.ö
I do over 405 damage per sec using 6 limos siege and 2 modulated dual heavy beams onthe raven. And i recharge 187 shield per sec.
I think I can kill your passive tank even after 2 folds or even 3 .:)
Very bad idea that would give my passive shield setup over 300 shield points per second. ThatÆs 1200 shield points over 4 second making me invincible. Add in 60% resistance and would would need a lot of firepower to kill a passive shield tank.
My ships rely on a full passive shield setupÆs if you triple the passive speed there is not a single ship in game not even with T2 weapon that could kill me 1 v 1. Even 2 v 1 would be hard.
Passive shields are already powerful no need to make them that much better.
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 09:46:00 -
[173]
ôI do over 405 damage per sec using 6 limos siege and 2 modulated dual heavy beams onthe raven. And i recharge 187 shield per sec.
I think I can kill your passive tank even after 2 folds or even 3 .:)ö
My point was if you triple the recharge my passive tank would be over powered. Yes you could perhaps kill me now depending on how many missiles get though my defence, if all missiles hit for sure I would die.
But if you triple the passive recharge then 405 damage per sec is no where near enough to kill me even if all the weapons hit every single shot. ThatÆs overpowered which is why I donÆt agree with boosting the recharge to x3 faster. Perhaps a small boost to but not x2 or x3.
_________________________________________________
Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source. |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 09:46:00 -
[174]
ôI do over 405 damage per sec using 6 limos siege and 2 modulated dual heavy beams onthe raven. And i recharge 187 shield per sec.
I think I can kill your passive tank even after 2 folds or even 3 .:)ö
My point was if you triple the recharge my passive tank would be over powered. Yes you could perhaps kill me now depending on how many missiles get though my defence, if all missiles hit for sure I would die.
But if you triple the passive recharge then 405 damage per sec is no where near enough to kill me even if all the weapons hit every single shot. ThatÆs overpowered which is why I donÆt agree with boosting the recharge to x3 faster. Perhaps a small boost to but not x2 or x3.
_________________________________________________
Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source. |
RollinDutchMasters
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 10:01:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Pottsey
That cap with a 300 second recharge is 104 hit points per second. Thats also over 1 second while the booster + amp is over 4 seconds. So thats 416 shield points over 4 seconds.
I will continue to assume that shields recharge in the same manner as cap. That would imply that your maximum shield recharge is at about 40% shields. More or less then that and you'll get a substansially reduced passive recharge rate. It would suprise me if over the course of a battle you average more then 50 hp/s, while a shield booster is a constant stream of HP, reguardless of your current shields.
As for your passive tanked domi... I assume
6x Dual 250mm
3x Hardeners
2x Large Extender IIs
7x Shield Relay
Which would give 8k shields and a ~300 second recharge. Even worse then the scorp, combined with the fact that dual 250s without 4+ damage mods hit roughly as hard as foul lanugage against other battleships. Either I am missing something major or your claim that a passive tank is anything other than pathetic is caused by some form of lingering acid trip from the mid-70s.
Originally by: Sochin
CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
|
RollinDutchMasters
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 10:01:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Pottsey
That cap with a 300 second recharge is 104 hit points per second. Thats also over 1 second while the booster + amp is over 4 seconds. So thats 416 shield points over 4 seconds.
I will continue to assume that shields recharge in the same manner as cap. That would imply that your maximum shield recharge is at about 40% shields. More or less then that and you'll get a substansially reduced passive recharge rate. It would suprise me if over the course of a battle you average more then 50 hp/s, while a shield booster is a constant stream of HP, reguardless of your current shields.
As for your passive tanked domi... I assume
6x Dual 250mm
3x Hardeners
2x Large Extender IIs
7x Shield Relay
Which would give 8k shields and a ~300 second recharge. Even worse then the scorp, combined with the fact that dual 250s without 4+ damage mods hit roughly as hard as foul lanugage against other battleships. Either I am missing something major or your claim that a passive tank is anything other than pathetic is caused by some form of lingering acid trip from the mid-70s.
Originally by: Sochin
CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 10:26:00 -
[177]
öThat would imply that your maximum shield recharge is at about 40% shields. More or less then that and you'll get a substansially reduced passive recharge rate. It would suprise me if over the course of a battle you average more then 50 hp/s, while a shield booster is a constant stream of HP, reguardless of your current shields.ö
Max shields are lower then 40% I think its 30% ore below and your right my shields tend to drop to 50% very fast. After that one of two things happen. A, my shields hold and the other person cannot ware me down meaning I can hold in combat for hours at a time. B, my shields donÆt hold and I die fast. Average hp/s dont matter. What matters is can the person do more damage then your max Hp/s if not then they cannot kill you.
While a booster setup can be warn down and can run out of cap. Anyway this thread is not about are passive setups usable. ItÆs about boosting the base passive recharge to x3 faster.
So do you think thatÆs a good or bad idea taken into account the effect it will have on my ship?
öAs for your passive tanked domi... I assume
6x Dual 250mm
3x Hardeners
2x Large Extender IIs
7x Shield Relayö
For weapons I use Blaster's and today smart bombs. Still messing around with different layouts. Still trying out hardeners so far I prefer raw shield power over hardeners. Not sure whatÆs best.
öEither I am missing something major or your claim that a passive tank is anything other than patheticö
Just what is so pathetic about a 102 shield points a second with 0 cap drain on a Tear 1 BS ship? It might not be the best but itÆs more then useable and is not pathetic. Most booster setupÆs that beat 102 on a Tear1 ship run out of cap. ThatÆs with T1 low module slots as well.
_________________________________________________
Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source. |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 10:26:00 -
[178]
öThat would imply that your maximum shield recharge is at about 40% shields. More or less then that and you'll get a substansially reduced passive recharge rate. It would suprise me if over the course of a battle you average more then 50 hp/s, while a shield booster is a constant stream of HP, reguardless of your current shields.ö
Max shields are lower then 40% I think its 30% ore below and your right my shields tend to drop to 50% very fast. After that one of two things happen. A, my shields hold and the other person cannot ware me down meaning I can hold in combat for hours at a time. B, my shields donÆt hold and I die fast. Average hp/s dont matter. What matters is can the person do more damage then your max Hp/s if not then they cannot kill you.
While a booster setup can be warn down and can run out of cap. Anyway this thread is not about are passive setups usable. ItÆs about boosting the base passive recharge to x3 faster.
So do you think thatÆs a good or bad idea taken into account the effect it will have on my ship?
öAs for your passive tanked domi... I assume
6x Dual 250mm
3x Hardeners
2x Large Extender IIs
7x Shield Relayö
For weapons I use Blaster's and today smart bombs. Still messing around with different layouts. Still trying out hardeners so far I prefer raw shield power over hardeners. Not sure whatÆs best.
öEither I am missing something major or your claim that a passive tank is anything other than patheticö
Just what is so pathetic about a 102 shield points a second with 0 cap drain on a Tear 1 BS ship? It might not be the best but itÆs more then useable and is not pathetic. Most booster setupÆs that beat 102 on a Tear1 ship run out of cap. ThatÆs with T1 low module slots as well.
_________________________________________________
Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source. |
RollinDutchMasters
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 10:40:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Pottsey
So do you think that’s a good or bad idea taken into account the effect it will have on my ship?
Its obviously a bad idea. Look at a raven. With PDU IIs, boosting, and a tripled shield recharge, they'd be stupidly hard to kill.
My point was just how bad your setups were. I've seen taranises that would be able to outrun your recharge, and the only battleships incapable of 200 DPS (considering your hardening) are going to die anyway. You'd be much better off fitting a strong tank and some serious damage to that dominix. Yeah, you do have no cap use for boosting, but the shield relays wreck your cap recharge so it balances out in the end. And putting close-range weapons on a domi that doesnt have a MWD? thats a bit daft.
If I wanted to die so badly that I used a passive tank, I would probably toss one hardener for a large shield booster II and load up on nosferatu... with all your spare powergrid, you must have room for 4 heavy nos and 2 mediums. Sucking the tank off of someone and then killing them with drones is a time-honored dominix tradition.
Originally by: Sochin
CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
|
RollinDutchMasters
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 10:40:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Pottsey
So do you think that’s a good or bad idea taken into account the effect it will have on my ship?
Its obviously a bad idea. Look at a raven. With PDU IIs, boosting, and a tripled shield recharge, they'd be stupidly hard to kill.
My point was just how bad your setups were. I've seen taranises that would be able to outrun your recharge, and the only battleships incapable of 200 DPS (considering your hardening) are going to die anyway. You'd be much better off fitting a strong tank and some serious damage to that dominix. Yeah, you do have no cap use for boosting, but the shield relays wreck your cap recharge so it balances out in the end. And putting close-range weapons on a domi that doesnt have a MWD? thats a bit daft.
If I wanted to die so badly that I used a passive tank, I would probably toss one hardener for a large shield booster II and load up on nosferatu... with all your spare powergrid, you must have room for 4 heavy nos and 2 mediums. Sucking the tank off of someone and then killing them with drones is a time-honored dominix tradition.
Originally by: Sochin
CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
|
Earthan
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 10:49:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Nafri
psscht, your destroying his point
yeah this delayed repair with armor repairs isnt that big malus cause you see when your shield is going down, you can activate them in time
No in bigger battles shield boosting has a big advantage, its much faster (rof) and no delay.
It might give you enoyugh time to warp out before getting destroyed when you are main target.Armour reapairing is much to slow.
Imho its like this: for really small battles armour tanking is better, for big batles shield tanking is much better
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 10:49:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Nafri
psscht, your destroying his point
yeah this delayed repair with armor repairs isnt that big malus cause you see when your shield is going down, you can activate them in time
No in bigger battles shield boosting has a big advantage, its much faster (rof) and no delay.
It might give you enoyugh time to warp out before getting destroyed when you are main target.Armour reapairing is much to slow.
Imho its like this: for really small battles armour tanking is better, for big batles shield tanking is much better
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 11:23:00 -
[183]
ôI would probably toss one hardener for a large shield booster II and load up on nosferatu...ö
Not a bad idea mix in 1 extra large shield booster and you could easily break 200 to 300 shield points per second with a passive shield setup and nosferatu.
Going to have to play around with a mix of passive and boosters tonight.
_________________________________________________
Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source. |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2004.11.17 11:23:00 -
[184]
ôI would probably toss one hardener for a large shield booster II and load up on nosferatu...ö
Not a bad idea mix in 1 extra large shield booster and you could easily break 200 to 300 shield points per second with a passive shield setup and nosferatu.
Going to have to play around with a mix of passive and boosters tonight.
_________________________________________________
Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |