EVE Search - I give up on shield tanking.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

I give up on shield tanking.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Jarod Leercap	Posted - 2009.03.30 23:54:00 - [31] Originally by: Rogue Lilly WHICH FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE INCAPABLE OF READING MY ORIGINAL POST. Is that the ships designed to shield tank are usally the lower tier of your options and if you ask anyone why that ship sucks they will answer "because it's the first cruiser not the second" or so on. I think there are two main points others here are trying to get at. (1) What are you trying to do? If what you're trying to tackle, than it can be advantageous to armor tank rather than shield tank because the tackling modules take up the slots you need for shield tanking. If you're trying to do lots of damage, then shield tanking may be better because damage mods require the low slots you need to armor tank. If you're trying to do both, then you probably need to accept that your tank is going to be weaker than you might otherwise prefer. (2) Do you want a better tank or a better ship? Armor tanking may in cases lead to a hardier ship. But that doesn't buy anything if the ship is out-ranged by its opponents and isn't fast enough to close the gap. I'd say the biggest unanswered questions I'm left with from your post is whether you're trying to active tank or passive tank. In general, I'd say that armor is better for active tanking and shields are better for passive tanking. Armor is probably better at hybrid tanking...but that tends to be most applicable to missions. Below the battleship level, there are a lot of benefits to passive shield tanking for Minmatar, especially for PVP. (1) It provides good buffer without slowing down the ship. This is extremely important, since speed is one of the things Minmatar ships have going for them. (2) It requires far less cap use than active tanking, and the Minmatar boats frequently have smaller caps than those of other factions. This is offset by the low or zero cap draw of their weapon systems, but a smaller cap is still a smaller cap. (3) It has lower fitting requirements than passive armor tanking. The largest shield extenders take only 150 grid, as opposed to 250 grid for the armor plating that gives the same amount of HP. (4) More available grid means it's a lot easier to fit a neutralizer, which will do great things for you in a fight. Neutralizers do evil things to active tanks and to those who need cap to fire their guns. (5) While you will generally have fewer mid-slots available than low slots, there are modules that improve shield regen and take low slots. There isn't anything you can put in a mid slot to improve a passive armor tank. There are only two benefits passive armor tanks offer over passive shield tanks: (1) They require no cap. A larger shield tank should be running an Invul, and Invul's require about half the cap that an active repair unit would. Thus, if it's zero cap to zero cap, the passive armor tank may have its boosted resists while the shield shield tank will have lost most of its resists. However, the shield tank will still have the regen that the armor tank is lacking, and many of the ships best given to armor tanking have primary weapons systems that require cap to fire. (2) In some cases, passive armor tanks will have more slots available to tank with. This is offset by some of the low slot modules that improve shield regen, but it makes a difference in some cases. (3) There is a hole at the battleship level. The best shield extenders match the HP gain of 800mm plate. There is no shield extending counterpart to 1600mm plate. If I were to make some complaints, though, they'd be these: (1) Something should be done to improve active shield tanking. Perhaps a low-slot boost amp (even if weaker)? (2) Until active shield tanking is improved, ships with bonuses to it will have a potentially low-utility bonus. The Tier 2 Minmatar BC comes to mind. (3) It'd be nice to have a shield extender sized to match 1600mm plate.
Caffeine Junkie Atomic Battle Penguins	Posted - 2009.03.30 23:56:00 - [32] Edited by: Caffeine Junkie on 30/03/2009 23:56:10 Originally by: Rogue Lilly Then there are the battlecruisers. The cyclone is the shield tank and the hurricane the armor obviously. But in every single aspect the hurricane outdoes the cyclone because it's a "teir 2" battlecruiser. I have battleship 3 but from everything i've read and the numbers I've looked at the ships lay out about the same there too with the shield tanks being all together inferior. So basically if you choose to shield tank you are relegated to picking the inferior ship instead of a ship that is on equal footing while only being designed to fly and fit differently. I have 4 times the sp in shield skills as I do in armor skills and I can still tank incredibly better with armor than shields. Shield Tanking can be extremely effective however: 1.) Armour Tanked ships are more popular because they leave mids free for tackle, mwd + cap injector. 2.) There is considerably more you can do to increase the strength of an active-shield tank, compared to active armour. 3.) Most PvP ships are buffer tanked (effective HP) and armour does this much better. 4.) Active Shield tanking requires a lot more SP than armour and often a lot more isk too, but when setup right an shield tanked ship can be far more effective: Nightmare Vargur Maelstrom Raven / CNR + Crystals = Win.
Waxau Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2009.03.31 00:02:00 - [33] ANGRAAY POAST. Lilly - Tell you what, ill refer to your first post, nothing else. Yes, that is a whine. And no, the reasoning isnt valid. You're a noob. Not in a 'omg you noob' way, but in terms of only 6 mil SP, of which a fraction is spent in tanking. Tbh, i cant even be arsed to post a response, as (as others here will agree with)....converting arrogant newbies is like pulling teeth. Except there isnt a paid profession for it. So, excuse me whilst i leave you to emorage. o/
McDaddy Pimp Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.03.31 00:08:00 - [34] Edited by: McDaddy Pimp on 31/03/2009 00:09:57 lol the troll is strong in this one. replying for other readers, not OP PVP ships -HAM Drake: 500+ dps, 100k EHP, best solo BC imo -Hurricane: 700+dps, 1200m/s, always get on top of the KMs with this -Vagabond: 400dps, 3km/s, -Buffer Gank Raven: 900dps, 120k EHP (no point though), better then most ppl think, think of a geddon without cap usage -Neut Rokh: just slightly worst then neut domi, but with more tank -Mealstrom: with Crystals tank up to 1500dps (I myself actually is saving up for LG Crystals, so havent flown a 1500dps Mael myself, but... -Faught a shield tank Hyperion (he said he had crystals and deal 1200dps), he melted an Astarte in a 2v1, my Drake ran away -Also the obvious ships that but i cant speak from personal experience: Slepnir, Nighthawk, Caldari capitals etc PVE -Myrmidon : Perfect low level w-space gas miner -Domi : i heard its good, nvr flown it myself -Istar: same as above -Drake and Raven: obviously Every type of tanking have its place, just dont want newbies reading OP and ignore shield tanking for good.
Caffeine Junkie Atomic Battle Penguins	Posted - 2009.03.31 00:39:00 - [35] Originally by: McDaddy Pimp -Fought a shield tank Hyperion (he said he had crystals and deal 1200dps), he melted an Astarte in a 2v1, my Drake ran away I have seen this and yes it is evil. Caldari Shield Tanked capitals out tank all other caps, period.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2009.03.31 00:43:00 - [36] Dear Rogue Lilly, I've trained all of my shield tanking skills to 4 or 5. No no, I mean all, including damage-specific shield compensation. I passive tank level 4 missions in a T2 fit nano Drake (no officer mods, everything except ammo is T2, and the ammo is regular T1 stuff 'cos I'm a cheapskate). Now, let me tell you something you're totally missing: the Drake is built to tank, and that's it. Caldari ships - as a general rule - are shield tankers which specialise in long range combat. Gallente ships - as a general rule - are armour tankers specialising in short range and/or drone-based combat. Amarr ships - as a general rule - are long range armour tankers. Minmatar ships are "versatile". This is secret in-game code for, "sucks in every way until you have twice as many SP as the next guy." So when you come to the forums and complain that Minmatar ships cannot shield tank, we laugh at you because no, they cannot shield tank. Nor can they armour tank. But they can fly fast, and they pew pew with guns or missiles. You see, you're missing the big picture here. The big picture, in little words, is this: you don't pick a ship just because it tanks the way you want to tank. You pick a ship for a combination of weapon systems, tanking style, speed, manoeuvrability, damage dealing capacity, and (most importantly) looks. So you could, for example, pack a Hurricane full of LSEIIs, shield hardeners, shield power relays and rechargers. You'd have one heck of a tank there. But you'd do no damage to anyone, since your guns would have no stabilisers, no tracking improvements, and you wouldn't be able to keep up with your targets (much less close to autocannon range). You could armour tank your hurricane, at which point you have a bunch of mids free for tackle. But again, you'll end up failing in the DPS race. Then you need to take into account that there are four tanking styles: shield, armour, speed and presence. Well, there's a fifth style called "honor tank" but that doesn't stop you losing ships. So the knowledgeable player would fit a moderate shield tank, a bunch of autocannon-oriented mods in the lows, maybe a nano and afterburner, and rely on picking the right targets to shoot at, and the right targets to run away from. Just remember - shield tank competes with tackle, armour tank competes with damage/speed mods. Therefore picking Minmatar ships (the "versatile" designs) on which to base your complaint that shield tanking is useless, is kinda like complaining that your Ferrari F40 can't tow your caravan. Oh, and maybe consider reading the new players' tanking guide.
Lego Maniac Minmatar Dusty Death Enterprise Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.03.31 01:14:00 - [37] my theory is that the OP is a troll who just got owned by someone who was passive tanked
Ris Dnalor Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.03.31 03:48:00 - [38] Originally by: Estel Arador Seriously, you're just whining. I've never armour tanked a Minmatar ship. Really? You've never flown a plate-buffered rupture? Really? Edit: yea, ok, I know it's off topic... but really?
Blutomus Maximus	Posted - 2009.03.31 04:22:00 - [39] The shield buffer tank is very effective in pvp, especially if you can get the resists up a bit too. Quite a few ships out there that would normally be considered armor tankers often resort to the shield tank as well. The minmatar shield buffer tank was admittedly a whole lot better before the anti-speed sledge hammer hit it, but it still works, and hundreds of dollars in subscription fees, and thousands of hours of cross training later, CCP will eventually nerf everything else and minnies will be happy again. http://www.ezy-english.com/
Tolsimir Wolfblood Esto Perpetua	Posted - 2009.03.31 04:47:00 - [40] RWARRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!! I'm mad b/c capital armor repps get 9700 per rep cycle and they have skills to decrease the cycle time by 5% per level and the cap skill gives it 5% reduction in cycle time . The capital shield repps only get 7200 per rep cycle and a skill that reduces the repps need for cap by 2% and the capital skill gives it a 2% reduction to cap need for reppers. I think it should 5% instead of 2% b/c then my dread would be cap stable !!!!!! Oh wait I get a natural shield regen and boost amps so I'm happy
Foulque	Posted - 2009.03.31 05:43:00 - [41] Tissue? ________
Clueless Alt	Posted - 2009.03.31 06:04:00 - [42] Cyclone sleipnir maelstrom. nuff!
Yalezorn Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.31 06:07:00 - [43] Hasn't every tanking related post I've seen lately including a disclaimer that shield tanking absorbs more than armor tanking, but armor is easier to set up?
Alva Noto the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2009.03.31 06:12:00 - [44] Edited by: Alva Noto on 31/03/2009 06:15:42 tldr however i can confirm the hurricane kixass at shieldtanking in pve just get the skills and guns & ammo man mids if i recall correct: in 0.0 ratting 1 mwd and 3 lse lows are gyros and shield rechargers shield purgers I full rack of guns you can rat any rat with that hehe edit: i somehow missed merins poast, but that seems right, if OP is serious he should look into that fit imho imhoimhoimho
Lexa Hellfury Oedipus Complex	Posted - 2009.03.31 06:37:00 - [45] Originally by: Rogue Lilly Tactical Shield Manipulation level 2 Clearly the OP is in a unique position to pass judgment on all things shield tanky.
Helo Adoniis	Posted - 2009.03.31 07:03:00 - [46] Shield tanking is worse than armor tanking BECAUSE OF FALCON!!!1
Psiri	Posted - 2009.03.31 08:21:00 - [47] Edited by: Psiri on 31/03/2009 08:21:25 If OP complained about active shield tanking on medium to large ships as far as PvP concerned then I could somewhat relate to his ranting. It's tricky to fit a full tackle with a proper active shield tank and in gangs where you don't need to fit the tackle many would prefer a full buffer-tank. It can still work just fine though. Shield tanking does have its destinct advantages, try using them.
Durzel The Xenodus Initiative.	Posted - 2009.03.31 08:40:00 - [48] Also worth mentioning that in PVE at least shield tanking means you have a bit of resisted armour buffer while you try and GTFO if your shield tank fails. If your armor tank fails and you've got no Damage Control, well... you're up the proverbial brown creek without a paddle.
Brodde Dim Hyper-Nova	Posted - 2009.03.31 08:56:00 - [49] Also, Broadsword. (since nobody mentioned it yet(unless I missed it)).
GyokZoli Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.31 09:21:00 - [50] Originally by: Rogue Lilly Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 30/03/2009 17:57:41 Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 30/03/2009 17:56:25 Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 30/03/2009 17:55:32 edit yes this is a wordy post, ideas are better conveyed in sentences rather than "ME is good, 3L2P-R CC L33T biotch" language. yes this is a whine, i am unhappy, the reasoning is valid, therefore irritation is a natural result. I've trained all of my shield tanking skills to 4 or 5. And now I'm irritated that they are pretty useless. On top of the fact that it takes twice as many skills and twice as long to learn shield tanking as it does to armor tanking. I've tried and tried to find a ship to shield tank in the minmatari line and always come up with the same conclusion; any given shield tanked ship can be outperformed in all regards by a ship of equal class armor tanked. It comes down to the fact that in a given class there are multiple ships of varying "tiers." not T1/T2, but the tiers in regard to having skill cruiser 2 or cruiser 3 for example. In a class the ships should be different, not better or worse. It should be a give and take without one clearly being superior in every way to the other. This way you have choices instead of "I can fly this one with cruiser 2 or wait 3 hours until i get cruiser 3 and fly another ship that is all around better in every possible aspect." For example in the mini cruiser line you have the stabber and the rupture. The stabber is supposedly the shield version but in every single aspect is outperformed by the rupture except in speed due to the ship bonus. Oh but wait even the stabber can tank better with armor than if it was fit with shields because after the MWD/WD you are left with 1 mid and 3 low slots....sounds like an armor tank option to me. Then there are the battlecruisers. The cyclone is the shield tank and the hurricane the armor obviously. But in every single aspect the hurricane outdoes the cyclone because it's a "teir 2" battlecruiser. I have battleship 3 but from everything i've read and the numbers I've looked at the ships lay out about the same there too with the shield tanks being all together inferior. So basically if you choose to shield tank you are relegated to picking the inferior ship instead of a ship that is on equal footing while only being designed to fly and fit differently. I have 4 times the sp in shield skills as I do in armor skills and I can still tank incredibly better with armor than shields. As a warning to any players newer than myself, don't bother training shields unless you are caldari, even though in all the text it says "minmitar ships shield or armor tank." It's bull and all you will do is waste your time until CCP realized that 90% of their ships aren't flown because they're made completely inferior instead of just "different" edited my title to better relay my annoyance Just for the lolfactor: [Hurricane, passive shield godness] Shield Power Relay II Shield Power Relay II Shield Power Relay II Shield Power Relay II Shield Power Relay II Damage Control II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Core Defence Field Purger I Core Defence Field Purger I Core Defence Field Purger I It can tank 5-600 omni DPS.
Uzbeg Khan	Posted - 2009.03.31 10:30:00 - [51] Originally by: Liang Nuren This is also not true, there's plenty of ships that are shield tanked Matari ships that are more than passable. Jag, Cyclone, Stabber, Vaga, Maelstrom, Vargur (sigh, be alot better with enough grid for some arties), Hurricane (at times), etc. -Liang Stop the QQ about not being able to fit arties to the Vargur. 800's are awesome on that boat.
Tykkis	Posted - 2009.03.31 12:33:00 - [52] reasons why armor tanking is better than shields. -remote repping -3 races ships armor tank but only 2 shield tank (most ships are better as armor tankers). so armor tanking is more commonly known by pilots ->remote rep -all ships can make armor tank for but most can't make shield tank. ->remote rep -thermal is most common dmg type (gallente drones do most dmg, so many gallente players and lasers so common at fleets). armor has better resist for it. -midslot utility modules are better than tank modules sometimes. some are mandatory. MWD/AB, Scram/Disruptor, SB, TC, TD/ECM/Damp -armor tanking takes less SP Not all of those are big advantages, they are many and i didn't even catch em all. Personally i think shield tanking is more scifi so i'd like things to be the opposite.
Holy Lowlander Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.03.31 13:17:00 - [53] sorry mate its simply not true. Shield tanks aren't inferior to amor tanks , when it comes to active tanking shield tanks heavily outclass amor tanks. When your talking about battlecruisers or even cruisers you get the passive shield tanking wich is [borat] Very Nice ! [/borat] Because you get increased effective hitpoints and a good active tank. Do your math and you'll see that the only 'problem' with shield tankers is that its harder to get large EHP on battleship levels and that it uses medslots so tackeling is harder. But in return for that you can use all your lowslots for damage mods , wich is ****ing evil. they stole my sig :'(
Happster Polaris Project	Posted - 2009.03.31 14:22:00 - [54] To OP: If you compare armor tank vs shield tank you will come out better tank wise as shield tanker. Espesially if you consider the extra struff. T2 tank vs T2 tank i think is pretty much the same. But if you add faction and implants, shield tank beat armor tank by far.....
Bronson Hughes ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:32:00 - [55] Originally by: Rogue Lilly Tactical Shield Manipulation level 2 Come back when you can actually use Tech 2 Shield Hardeners. If you can't even use those yet then you haven't even fit a real shield tank so you likely don't have much of a clue what you're talking about. Have you honestly tried to shield tank a Maelstrom and not found it useful? How about a passive shield regen 'Phoon? Have you flown any of the Minmatar T2 lineup? Their base shield resists are, to put it bluntly, amazing and often times all you need to do to get a very nice shield buffer is slap on an extender. Are more Minmatar ships naturally disposed to armor tanking? Yes. Does that mean that you should not train shield tanking skills for the few ships that they do have that do it really, really well? Heck no. Minmatar have always been very skill intensive; they require good gunnery, missile, and drone skills, they require shield and armor tanking, and they get the most benefit from good navigation training. Suck it up and keep on training. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
SFX Bladerunner Minmatar Black Serpent Technologies	Posted - 2009.03.31 15:34:00 - [56] Originally by: Rogue Lilly Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 30/03/2009 17:57:41 Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 30/03/2009 17:56:25 Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 30/03/2009 17:55:32 edit yes this is a wordy post, ideas are better conveyed in sentences rather than "ME is good, 3L2P-R CC L33T biotch" language. yes this is a whine, i am unhappy, the reasoning is valid, therefore irritation is a natural result. I've trained all of my shield tanking skills to 4 or 5. And now I'm irritated that they are pretty useless. On top of the fact that it takes twice as many skills and twice as long to learn shield tanking as it does to armor tanking. I've tried and tried to find a ship to shield tank in the minmatari line and always come up with the same conclusion; any given shield tanked ship can be outperformed in all regards by a ship of equal class armor tanked. It comes down to the fact that in a given class there are multiple ships of varying "tiers." not T1/T2, but the tiers in regard to having skill cruiser 2 or cruiser 3 for example. In a class the ships should be different, not better or worse. It should be a give and take without one clearly being superior in every way to the other. This way you have choices instead of "I can fly this one with cruiser 2 or wait 3 hours until i get cruiser 3 and fly another ship that is all around better in every possible aspect." For example in the mini cruiser line you have the stabber and the rupture. The stabber is supposedly the shield version but in every single aspect is outperformed by the rupture except in speed due to the ship bonus. Oh but wait even the stabber can tank better with armor than if it was fit with shields because after the MWD/WD you are left with 1 mid and 3 low slots....sounds like an armor tank option to me. Then there are the battlecruisers. The cyclone is the shield tank and the hurricane the armor obviously. But in every single aspect the hurricane outdoes the cyclone because it's a "teir 2" battlecruiser. I have battleship 3 but from everything i've read and the numbers I've looked at the ships lay out about the same there too with the shield tanks being all together inferior. So basically if you choose to shield tank you are relegated to picking the inferior ship instead of a ship that is on equal footing while only being designed to fly and fit differently. I have 4 times the sp in shield skills as I do in armor skills and I can still tank incredibly better with armor than shields. As a warning to any players newer than myself, don't bother training shields unless you are caldari, even though in all the text it says "minmitar ships shield or armor tank." It's bull and all you will do is waste your time until CCP realized that 90% of their ships aren't flown because they're made completely inferior instead of just "different" edited my title to better relay my annoyance You forgot the Maelstrom. It is the BEST shield tanking battleship IN EVE. gtfo __________________________________________________ History is much like an endless waltz, the three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever..
Bronson Hughes ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2009.03.31 16:28:00 - [57] Originally by: SFX Bladerunner You forgot the Maelstrom. It is the BEST shield tanking battleship IN EVE. Meh, Rokh is at least as good because of its shield resists but in terms of raw boosting power yer absolutely right. Also, I'm assuming that you're refering to T1. Golem and Vargur shield tank better than a Maelstrom. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Enden Assulu Caldari Blood Money Inc. Blood Money Cartel	Posted - 2009.03.31 16:44:00 - [58] Haven't seen the OP around here for a while. Shame that really :(
Rheed We The People	Posted - 2009.03.31 17:56:00 - [59] Originally by: Rogue Lilly ...For example in the mini cruiser line you have the stabber and the rupture. The stabber is supposedly the shield version but in every single aspect is outperformed by the rupture except in speed due to the ship bonus. Oh but wait even the stabber can tank better with armor than if it was fit with shields because after the MWD/WD you are left with 1 mid and 3 low slots....sounds like an armor tank option to me. Forced myself to read this until I got to this part and gave up... Please step away from the EFT and fly the ships as they were ment to be flown. You cannot compare a Stabber to a Rupture. Both have COMPLETELY different styles when it comes to piloting and combat. Ruptures, in your face DPS, hard tank, just sit there and melt your targets. Stabbers, fit for speed. Tank? just use a LSE to allow you to kill off drones, then just laugh as you orbit outside web range and slowly chew your target up. ----------------------------------- Look at me! I'm on the INTERNET!!!
Trader20	Posted - 2009.03.31 18:44:00 - [60] Have u ever shot at an xl booster tanked maelstrom....Good luck

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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