EVE Search - Discussion: Shield transporters

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Discussion: Shield transporters

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2009.05.04 07:04:00 - [31] What makes me mad is, Armortankers can RR with Armor or Shield, but Shieldtankers cant even Shield RR.
Dibsi Dei Salamyhkaisten kilta	Posted - 2009.05.04 08:20:00 - [32] Signed, this issue needs balancing.
Terrakas	Posted - 2009.05.04 09:59:00 - [33] Originally by: CrestoftheStars the reason for that is that all ew takes med slots and in pvp because of the close range forced upon you from the mechanic side it is a MOST to have a scrambler/disruptor, and a webber or/and some kind of EW.. try fitting a shield tank that can keep on the target and have just a 50% survivabillity rate :P (not using t2/t3 cruisers) You could always be a shield tanked pure DD with damage mods, but that limits your utility as you have no ewar. And shield buffer tanking rather sucks more than armor without XL extenders.. So it's a double whammy.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.05.04 12:00:00 - [34] Originally by: Admiral IceBlock Did you think before posting? Shield Transporters are FINE the way they are. Why the CPU difference? Because Shield _is_ CPU. This too, fitts your whine; Large Armor Repairer II, 55 CPU, 2300 PG. X-Large Shield Booster, 230 CPU, 550 PG. THIS IS OUTRAGOUS! no its nto fine! BEcause when you compare the values to the avilable CPU on the ships its insane. A solace uses a few hundred PG on a ship with TENS of thousands PG. THe shiedl transporter is used on a ship with a very few hundred CPU. Large remote armor rep uses Xpercent of a BS power.. than large shield transporter shoudl use SAME x percent of BS CPU. SIMPLE.
Ausser Cybertech Industrials Agency	Posted - 2009.05.04 13:44:00 - [35] Short on CPU to fit a shield transporter? Remove that silly xl shield booster and replace it with something that is more usefull in a spider tank environment, like extender or invul. Shield boosters and shield boost amplifiers are obsolete on ships in spider gangs.
Sexrex Taerg	Posted - 2009.05.04 15:33:00 - [36] Edited by: Sexrex Taerg on 04/05/2009 15:34:38 Originally by: Ausser Short on CPU to fit a shield transporter? Remove that silly xl shield booster and replace it with something that is more usefull in a spider tank environment, like extender or invul. Shield boosters and shield boost amplifiers are obsolete on ships in spider gangs. Have you even tried to fit a large shield transporter (s95a, not even T2) on a buffer tanked Torp Raven? Obviously not, as buffer tanked Torp Ravens don't fit boosters or amplifiers. A CPU mod is required to fit a shield transfer. Edit: And you can't fit a second one without a second CPU mod.
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.04 15:37:00 - [37] Originally by: Ausser Short on CPU to fit a shield transporter? Remove that silly xl shield booster and replace it with something that is more usefull in a spider tank environment, like extender or invul. Shield boosters and shield boost amplifiers are obsolete on ships in spider gangs. Just for reference: [Raven, shield] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Gravimetric Backup Array II Damage Control II Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800 Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Torpedo Large Shield Transporter II Large Shield Transporter II Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I 1145/875 cpu, means it would barely fit with THREE co-processors. You can forget fitting those BCUs. A similarly fit Tempest also needs THREE co-processors to fit, meaning you can only have 2 gyros and a damage control.
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2009.05.04 15:41:00 - [38] Originally by: Admiral IceBlock Did you think before posting? Shield Transporters are FINE the way they are. Why the CPU difference? Because Shield _is_ CPU. This too, fitts your whine; Large Armor Repairer II, 55 CPU, 2300 PG. X-Large Shield Booster, 230 CPU, 550 PG. THIS IS OUTRAGOUS! If the Raven would have 1550 CPU, like the Megathron has 15,500 PG Then it would indeed be fine, but Raven has 700CPU.
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.04 15:51:00 - [39] Originally by: fuxinos Originally by: Admiral IceBlock Did you think before posting? Shield Transporters are FINE the way they are. Why the CPU difference? Because Shield _is_ CPU. This too, fitts your whine; Large Armor Repairer II, 55 CPU, 2300 PG. X-Large Shield Booster, 230 CPU, 550 PG. THIS IS OUTRAGOUS! If the Raven would have 1550 CPU, like the Megathron has 15,500 PG Then it would indeed be fine, but Raven has 700CPU. An X-L SB reps twice as much as 2x LAR, but it's still highly disproportionate.
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2009.05.04 16:04:00 - [40] Originally by: Ecky X Originally by: fuxinos Originally by: Admiral IceBlock Did you think before posting? Shield Transporters are FINE the way they are. Why the CPU difference? Because Shield _is_ CPU. This too, fitts your whine; Large Armor Repairer II, 55 CPU, 2300 PG. X-Large Shield Booster, 230 CPU, 550 PG. THIS IS OUTRAGOUS! If the Raven would have 1550 CPU, like the Megathron has 15,500 PG Then it would indeed be fine, but Raven has 700CPU. An X-L SB reps twice as much as 2x LAR, but it's still highly disproportionate. And needs more then twice the cap, so its even again on that side.

VoiceInTheDesert Zebra Corp Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2009.05.04 16:06:00 - [41] This issue really popped out to me when I was trying to do a Niddy fit and I couldn't get a shield tank + shield reps on it...effectively negating the range bonus it's supposed to get to such modules. CCP, please reduce the cpu req's on this... /signed
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.04 16:10:00 - [42] Originally by: fuxinos And needs more then twice the cap, so its even again on that side. So do 2x LAR. That was my point, an X-L booster is comparable to 2x LAR, while taking one less slot.
Sexrex Taerg	Posted - 2009.05.04 16:32:00 - [43] Originally by: Ecky X So do 2x LAR. That was my point, an X-L booster is comparable to 2x LAR, while taking one less slot. Start a discussion thread about it so this one won't be derailed (assuming you're not trying to only do that).
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.04 16:50:00 - [44] The game design of PG and CPU is to limit different things. The PG is there to limit you to modules belonging to the same ship class, while the CPU is there to limit the choice of useful modules. As such, CPU always gets pushed to the limit, while PG is rarely a problem when fitting a BS. (Assuming good support skills)
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.05.04 19:52:00 - [45] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab The game design of PG and CPU is to limit different things. The PG is there to limit you to modules belonging to the same ship class, while the CPU is there to limit the choice of useful modules. As such, CPU always gets pushed to the limit, while PG is rarely a problem when fitting a BS. (Assuming good support skills) so use PG to limit the usage of large transporters on cruisers.. and give them a reasonable CPU fit. Its pretty simple. transfers shoudl use aBIT less PG and a BIT more CPU tahn armor repairers.. simple. Half the issue with shield tankign in pvp is solved. The other half can be solved makign medium webing drones and heavy 1 point drones.
Ulstan Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.05.04 20:53:00 - [46] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab The game design of PG and CPU is to limit different things. The PG is there to limit you to modules belonging to the same ship class, while the CPU is there to limit the choice of useful modules. As such, CPU always gets pushed to the limit, while PG is rarely a problem when fitting a BS. (Assuming good support skills) This is true. However, the fact that fitting costs are designed to limit you doesn't mean that every module in the game has the appropriate fitting costs.
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.04 22:15:00 - [47] Edited by: Ecky X on 04/05/2009 22:15:10 Laser users give your opinions too! There isn't enough shield tanking and the fact that you can't reasonably fit a shield transporter isn't helping.
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2009.05.04 22:23:00 - [48] Originally by: Marcellus Corteaz Ahh, yes. Let's nerf teamwork and cooperation. That does indeed sound like a solid plan. Am I to understand you think remote reps should be more efficient and effective than local reps?? ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.05.04 22:40:00 - [49] Doesn't the ships that benefit most from shield transporters (ie. Caldari) have lots of CPU just like the armour tankers have lots of grid? The shield-RR Raven is quite impressive when flown with similar ships. Razor Alliance ran S-RR Raven gangs with a lot of success back during the first Delve war if I recall (think it was Razor anyway). Reason for the armour-RR being so dominant is not the fitting requirements, but rather that the majority of the turret BS frequently used (Megathron/Hyperion/Abaddon/Armageddon/Tempest) are armour tanked. I say no to changing current fitting requirements on remote shield transfer arrays.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.05.04 22:54:00 - [50] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Doesn't the ships that benefit most from shield transporters (ie. Caldari) have lots of CPU just like the armour tankers have lots of grid? The shield-RR Raven is quite impressive when flown with similar ships. Razor Alliance ran S-RR Raven gangs with a lot of success back during the first Delve war if I recall (think it was Razor anyway). Reason for the armour-RR being so dominant is not the fitting requirements, but rather that the majority of the turret BS frequently used (Megathron/Hyperion/Abaddon/Armageddon/Tempest) are armour tanked. I say no to changing current fitting requirements on remote shield transfer arrays. not THAT much more cpu. And then only they could fit them. And exactly that makes them not being wanted in gangs, and taht is why their pilots get angry and whine in here. If for example a classical RR tempest could fit 1 armor rep and 1 shield rep.. then things would work much better for shield tanker....

Ausser Cybertech Industrials Agency	Posted - 2009.05.04 23:52:00 - [51] Originally by: Ecky X 1145/875 cpu, means it would barely fit with THREE co-processors. You can forget fitting those BCUs. A similarly fit Tempest also needs THREE co-processors to fit, meaning you can only have 2 gyros and a damage control. In post #24 i've suggested 'fit that cpu'. I've modified your fitting, it now looks like this: [Raven, T2 Torp Buffer 1ST 1ET] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Co-Processor II Gravimetric Backup Array II Damage Control II Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Warp Disruptor II Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter Large 'Regard' I Power Projector Egress Port Maximizer I Egress Port Maximizer I Egress Port Maximizer I Differences: 34% Less dmg leaks through the em resi hole. Does not need cap charges. Needs cap transfer partner, so -1 locks usable during combat for other purposes. Long cap stability of -86.5/+80.3 (9m 17s) when mwd off. 15% less EHP. Just one LST. However, how long could you run two of them? One less BCS. Results in -11& less dmg. Still 868 dps. It's cheaper. Still not perfect, but usable compromize. Puzzle on.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.04 23:58:00 - [52] Originally by: Ausser Does not need cap charges. Needs cap transfer partner, so -1 locks usable during combat for other purposes. Long cap stability of -86.5/+80.3 (9m 17s) when mwd off. I found this rarely actually works once ** hits the fan. It's far better (IMO) to fit cap boosters and RR than cap transfer and RR unless you're in a ship specifically bonused for it... (and even then consider carrying a cap booster anyway). Quote: 15% less EHP. This is a big deal Quote:** Just one LST. However, how long could you run two of them? The point isn't how long you can run them, but that you can instantly lay that transfer somewhere - the 2x LST fit is twice as effective at dealing with damage spikes than this one. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Ausser Cybertech Industrials Agency	Posted - 2009.05.05 00:54:00 - [53] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Ausser Does not need cap charges. Needs cap transfer partner, so -1 locks usable during combat for other purposes. Long cap stability of -86.5/+80.3 (9m 17s) when mwd off. I found this rarely actually works once ** hits the fan. It's far better (IMO) to fit cap boosters and RR than cap transfer and RR unless you're in a ship specifically bonused for it... (and even then consider carrying a cap booster anyway). Quote: 15% less EHP. This is a big deal Quote:** Just one LST. However, how long could you run two of them? The point isn't how long you can run them, but that you can instantly lay that transfer somewhere - the 2x LST fit is twice as effective at dealing with damage spikes than this one. -Liang I agree, both concepts are slightly different. The cap transfer one needs more care to play, otherwise someone runs out of cap, like he would without cap charges. Take into account, the -15% EHP is one side of the cookie. The other side is the fixed em resi hole. When there are lots of hostiles using EM dmg, it pays out. I would also consider to drop one egress for a thermal shield rig. Better resi helps with remote repair. For a 2x LST fitting we must sacrify the holy cow, the dmg output even more. Take Ecky's fitting above, replace one of the T2 LST by S95a and two of the T2 BCS by CPU's. Result is 731 dps with rage torp. If you want the second T2 LST on that fit, then you need 6.75 more cpu from somewhere. E.g. an implant like KMB-25 (+1% cpu output) or swap some other module.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.05 01:04:00 - [54] Originally by: Ausser I agree, both concepts are slightly different. The cap transfer one needs more care to play, otherwise someone runs out of cap, like he would without cap charges. Take into account, the -15% EHP is one side of the cookie. The other side is the fixed em resi hole. When there are lots of hostiles using EM dmg, it pays out. I would also consider to drop one egress for a thermal shield rig. Better resi helps with remote repair. For a 2x LST fitting we must sacrify the holy cow, the dmg output even more. Take Ecky's fitting above, replace one of the T2 LST by S95a and two of the T2 BCS by CPU's. Result is 731 dps with rage torp. If you want the second T2 LST on that fit, then you need 6.75 more cpu from somewhere. E.g. an implant like KMB-25 (+1% cpu output) or swap some other module. I believe that's the point of this thread: LST's are too CPU intensive. I rather strongly agree. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Ausser Cybertech Industrials Agency	Posted - 2009.05.05 12:22:00 - [55] Originally by: Liang Nuren I believe that's the point of this thread: LST's are too CPU intensive. I rather strongly agree. That's the conflict. Think about the following questions: Are LST's CPU intensive? Should we be able to become a perfect fiting using t2 gear on every ship without pain and drawbacks? Are LST's too CPU intensive? Question a) can be answered with "yes". Question b) is the core of the problem we discuss here, not question c). Question c) can only be answered when the solution for question b) is known. My approach on question b) is: We need the virtual world to be inperfect, itchy, and with a healthy quantum of imbalance. As soon as it gets too perfect, it gets boring. When asking for the perfect dual LST fit, we must take care about not to loose the 'drawback effect'. T2 gear is known to have the worst fitting requirements. On the other side, there are no storyline/faction/plex/officer LST's in game atm. So one solution would be, to introduce at least the storyline version, with relaxed cpu requirements, to allow that 'perfect dual LST fit'. The drawback effect would be the pain when loosing one of these rare and not replaceable one-time-reward babies in battle. Another aproach to save one of these cpu's and to boost dmg output to 905 dps is to use caldari navy bcs together with caldari navy cpu, S95a and 1% cpu implant. 905 dps isnt that bad. The drawback effect here is again the pain to pay for the gear when it's lost, but this time it can be replaced as often as neccecary, because faction gear can be bought in lp shops. Is it too expensive for a fleet ballte? Hmm... pay it or leave it. You have the alternative to fit the second cpu to save money. Decisions, decisions... EVE is an itchy and mean world we live in, isn't it? But a perfect fiting without any drawback effect everywhere on all ships? Without pain? Welcome to Hello Kitty Online. That gets really boring if we encounter it all over the game. So my position is: Let's not touch LST cpu, dual LST can be fitted. Instead lets ask for the missing storyline/faction/plex/officer versions first.
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.05 15:18:00 - [56] Originally by: Ausser Originally by: Liang Nuren I believe that's the point of this thread: LST's are too CPU intensive. I rather strongly agree. That's the conflict. Think about the following questions: Are LST's CPU intensive? Should we be able to become a perfect fiting using t2 gear on every ship without pain and drawbacks? Are LST's too CPU intensive? Question a) can be answered with "yes". Question b) is the core of the problem we discuss here, not question c). Question c) can only be answered when the solution for question b) is known. My approach on question b) is: We need the virtual world to be inperfect, itchy, and with a healthy quantum of imbalance. As soon as it gets too perfect, it gets boring. When asking for the perfect dual LST fit, we must take care about not to loose the 'drawback effect'. T2 gear is known to have the worst fitting requirements. On the other side, there are no storyline/faction/plex/officer LST's in game atm. So one solution would be, to introduce at least the storyline version, with relaxed cpu requirements, to allow that 'perfect dual LST fit'. The drawback effect would be the pain when loosing one of these rare and not replaceable one-time-reward babies in battle. Another aproach to save one of these cpu's and to boost dmg output to 905 dps is to use caldari navy bcs together with caldari navy cpu, S95a and 1% cpu implant. 905 dps isnt that bad. The drawback effect here is again the pain to pay for the gear when it's lost, but this time it can be replaced as often as neccecary, because faction gear can be bought in lp shops. Is it too expensive for a fleet ballte? Hmm... pay it or leave it. You have the alternative to fit the second cpu to save money. Decisions, decisions... EVE is an itchy and mean world we live in, isn't it? But a perfect fiting without any drawback effect everywhere on all ships? Without pain? Welcome to Hello Kitty Online. That gets really boring if we encounter it all over the game. So my position is: Let's not touch LST cpu, dual LST can be fitted. Instead lets ask for the missing storyline/faction/plex/officer versions first. Great idea! To bring LST in line, let's nerf remote armor reps so they are equivalently difficult to fit. I recommend increasing grid from 600 to 2000 for T1, and from 660 to 2400 for T2. Then armor tanked ships will have to make fitting concessions too. As it is, ships such as the Armageddon, Megathron, Typhoon, Tempest, ect ect do not need fitting mods to get a named or T2 remote armor rep on. ^ The above was sarcasm.
Ausser Cybertech Industrials Agency	Posted - 2009.05.05 16:48:00 - [57] No reason to go green with envy. There is lots of imbalance in game, and that's not a bad thing. The call for the grand unification is the wrong direction. The result would be a boring game. So, if shield transfer is harder to use than remote armor repair, then it is so. There is no need to have both systems unified. Did you noticed the better energy efficiency of rar over st? Did you noticed the influence of higher overall armor resistances helps rar to be more effective than st? Remote armor repair is better than shield transfer, in many aspects. But that's not a problem. Shield transfer is still usable well. Why should it be changed? Why unified? Every pilot in eve can train and fly whatever he wants, so imbalance like this is not gamebreaking, instead it is a nice motivation to skill and try different things, no matter which his starting race was - and sometimes it happens envy to be the driving force behind. If you really think unification is a good idea, then look on the best unified and balanced and boring hulls ingame: the shuttles. So my position still is: Give us the large storyline/faction/plex/officer shield transporters. Revamp the small/medium plex ST and RAR's. They need to be more powerful, like it is with repair systems and shield boosters. Let's see how the shield transfer world looks like after that revamp. Whining will not be nerfed in future, so there is no need to do it now.
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.05 16:59:00 - [58] Edited by: Ecky X on 05/05/2009 17:03:46 Officer modules are not the answer in balancing everyday fits. Saying that shield tanking is overpowered compared to armor because the X-Type shield boosters are better than X-type LARs has little effect on "everyday" EVE. As far as "things don't need to be balanced" I disagree, for the most part. Yes, shield should have a resist hole in EM, and be strong against explosive damage, and armor, vice versa. Minmatar ships should be fast, and Gallente ships should be able to apply the pain. That said, would you prefer the old state of Caldari, where the torp Raven couldn't break 600dps regardless of fitting, due to torps sucking? Nobody flew Ravens in pvp. The old state of Amarr, where if you flew their ships you were laughed at? Perhaps the Myrmidon, with its 125mbit of bandwidth before the nerf, was preferable, even though it was better with projectiles or lasers than the Harb or Hurricane, with the strongest armor or passive shield tank of any BC, making the other BCs inferior? Do you think damps should stay useless, and that falcons ought not have been nerfed, even though they made many other ships redundant? Bringing is not the same thing as homogenizing. Making shield transporters viable will not remove diversity from the game, but add to it.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.05.05 17:56:00 - [59] I agree. 154 CPU is nuts. 119 is not much better. 48 CPU and 660 powergrid is very easy to squeeze onto a battle ship. 154 CPU and 192 power grid is .... well, really not. Half the CPU, and you might have something reasonable. Double the power grid too, if you really feel the need. Not sure it's needed myself - 77 CPU still isn't going to be an _easy_ fit, and it's never going to be the case that you're better off shield tanking a megathron, armageddon or apoc....
Derus Grobb Selectus Pravus Lupus	Posted - 2009.05.05 18:41:00 - [60] Nah, just leave it alone. There is more important stuff to fix. ---



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: 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.