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)
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.05.05 19:23:00 - [61] i hope they make remote armor reppers harder to fit as well. i would prefer if remote repping was left for logistics tbh
Ausser Cybertech Industrials Agency	Posted - 2009.05.05 20:35:00 - [62] I'll try it again to show you that we dont need to touch cpu of LST. Let the numbers speak this time. Let's look on short range tier 2 and tier 3 battleship fits: All were fit with: 1x DC 2x EANM/invul 3x trimark/CDFE 3x dmg mods if possible 1x LiF mwd 1x warp disruptor 1x plate/extender where possible Apo and Rokh were not intended for close range, netherless, they are listed with that fit here for completeness and fun. The dmg mod was fit in favor of a plate if there was too few slots. So some ehp values will be too low, you can rebalance by removing dmg mod or dc to drop in a plate. T2 high dmg ammo was used. Megathron: - 922 dps with one LRAR, 790 dps with two LRAR. - 91.7k ehp. - Short on cpu. - Must sacrify dmg from missile slots (minior). - Must either sacrify low slot (plate/mfs/eanm/dc) or mid slot (warp disruptor) for cpu. Hyperion: - 939 dps without LRAR, 821 dps with one LRAR, 704 dps with two LRAR. - 105.1k ehp. - Enough cpu/grid left for toys in two aux mid slots. - Short on high slots, must sacrify dmg to fit rr. - Short on low slots too, but does not need a cpu either. - Dmg could be boosted slightly when you trade in the plate or the dc for an MFS. Maelstrom: - 847 dps without LST, 741 dps with one LST, 635 dps with two LST. - 99.7k ehp. - Short on high slots, must sacrify dmg to fit rr. - Must sacrify either one aux low slot for cpu or the warp disruptor when fit with two LST. Armageddon: - 867 dps with one LRAR, 743 dps with two LRAR. - 86.2k ehp. - Short on cpu when with one LRAR, must sacrify the warp disruptor even with the cpu in low lots present. - Short on high slots, must sacrify dmg output when two LRAR are fit. but no problem with cpu in this case. Tempest: - 69.5k ehp. - 794 dps with two LRAR. - No problem with cpu/grid. - Two spare mid slots for more toys. Raven: - 93.8k ehp. - 971 dps without LST, 868 dps with one LST, 731 dps with two LST. - No problem with high slots, two spares usable for LST and other toys. Apocalypse: - 75.3k ehp. - 743 dps without LRAR, 651 dps with one LRAR, 558 dps with two LRAR. - Short on cpu, even without any LRAR. - One low and one mid slot avaiable for additional use. But if you want to use the mid slot you need that cpu in the low. Rokh: - 104.3k ehp. - 843 dps without LST, 738 dps with one LST, 532 dps with two LST. - Short on high slots, must sacrify dmg to fit any LST. - Lots of cpu left without LST. - One medium and one low spare slot left for more toys. - Enough spare grid when LST fit instead of blaster, so an additional shield extender could be fit. So let's sort them by dps with two LST/LRAR: #1 - Tempest - 794 dps - armor - lacks high slots #2 - Megathron - 790 dps - armor - lacks high slots #3 - Armageddon - 743 dps - armor - lacks high slots #4 - Raven - 731 dps - shield - lacks low slots #5 - Hyperion - 704 dps - armor - lacks high+low slots #6 - Maelstrom - 635 dps - shield - lacks high slots #7 - Apocalypse - 558 dps - lacks high slots #8 - Rokh - 532 dps - lacks high slots Oooops - the Raven isnt that bad? Even with two cpu's in the low slots it still deals damage enough to be between the better ones. The Maelstrom has it's damage degraded because it lost two of her guns in the high slots. No chance to fix that by whining about cpu use of LST modules. The Rokh lost it's damage for the same reason why Maelstrom did. It's a lolfit either. Most time, its not the cpu (low slot) the cause why damage output gets degraded. It's more a psychological problem than a LST-cpu issue when ppl dont like to fit cpu's instead of dmg mods on their ships. It just does not feel good. Maybe ccp should add some other bonus to cpu's to compensate this. Last but not least: Not any ship is suitable for any purpose. Try such fittings with eft, and post what you find out.
Ausser Cybertech Industrials Agency	Posted - 2009.05.05 20:37:00 - [63] I've forgotten the Abaddon...
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.05 21:39:00 - [64] Notice that most armor tankers fit without fitting mods, and that some fitting concessions can be made such as named tackle or DCU, or adaptive nano II, while shield tankers are vastly short on CPU. I can spend 2 or 3 hours making a bunch of fits to prove my point, but in general a shield tanker will be short 10-25%, while an armor tanker will fit with a 3% implant or a named module.
Gromik THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2009.05.05 22:08:00 - [65] Originally by: Ausser Megathron: - 922 dps with one LRAR, 790 dps with two LRAR. - 91.7k ehp. - Short on cpu. - Must sacrify dmg from missile slots (minior). - Must either sacrify low slot (plate/mfs/eanm/dc) or mid slot (warp disruptor) for cpu. If you're following what you posted about the fits, meaning 3x dmg mod, omni tank, 1 plate, that DPS is short by over 300, depending on drone loadout. But nit-picking fits is just going to make this discussion devolve into pointlessness. Regardless, the point most people in favor of looking at ST CPU use are trying to make is that just to fit ONE ST, a fitting mod (CPU) has to be used. No armor tanking ship has to use a fitting mod just to fit a single large RAR. Looking at it from a different perspective Large RAR always take less PG/CPU to fit than the largest appropriate racial weapon system. The same is not true for the best named Large ST. 88 vs 119 CPU in the Caldari case, the most CPU-intensive racial weapon system in the game (<3 Phoon, too).
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2009.05.07 10:27:00 - [66] Edited by: fuxinos on 07/05/2009 10:36:33 Small Shield Transporter II: 84/7 Small Remote Armor Repairer II: 24/8 Obviously imbalanced... more then 300% bigger CPUusage with nearly same Powergridneed compared to Small Remote Armor Repairer II. Should be: Small Shield Transporter II: 26/7 Small Remote Armor Repairer II: 24/8 -------------------------------------------------------------- Medium Shield Transporter II: 126/100 Medium Remote Armor Repairer II: 36/165 Obviously imbalanced too... more then 300% bigger CPUusage for loosing a bit more the 25% of the PG requirment to Medium Remote Armor Repairer II. Should be: Medium Shield Transporter II: 45/100 Medium Remote Armor RepairerII: 36/165 -------------------------------------------------------------- Large Shield Transporter II: 154/192 Large Remote Repairer II: 48/660 Firstly they seem to be balanced, while loosing about 1/3 PG need, Large Shield Transporter II gain 3/1 CPUusage. BUT taking into account that no BS class ship has 1/3 the PG in CPU, the balance is screwed again. Should be (If we take Megathrons PG as basis (15,500 unskilled) and Ravens CPU (700 unskilled)): Large Shield Transporter II: 89/192 (4,3% of Raven CPU x3) Large Remote Repairer II: 48/660 (about 4,3% of a Megathrons PG) -------------------------------------------------------------- Capital Shield Transporter I: 175/75000 Capital Remote Armor Repairer I: 40/150000 (40CPU? Thats even less then the Large Remote Armor Repairer II) More the 400% increase of CPU for loosing 50% of its PG need ???? Should be: Capital Shield Transporter I: 80/75000 Capital Remote Armor Repairer I: 40/150000 My 3 cents.
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.07 12:06:00 - [67] Also, while you're at it, fix the complex small and medium shield transporter. None of them are any better than T2, you get either slightly more repaired for almost twice the cap and more CPU, or about the same repaired for twice the cap and a bit less CPU. Complex RAR are similarly broken.
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2009.05.07 13:15:00 - [68] Edited by: fuxinos on 07/05/2009 13:22:02 Originally by: Ausser Edited by: Ausser on 06/05/2009 11:01:33 I'll try it again to show you that we dont need to touch cpu of LST. Let the numbers speak this time. Let's look on short range tier 2 and tier 3 battleship fits: All were fit with: 1x DC 2x EANM/invul 3x trimark/CDFE 3x dmg mods if possible 1x LiF mwd 1x warp disruptor 1x plate/extender where possible Apo and Rokh were not intended for close range, netherless, they are listed with that fit here for completeness and fun. The dmg mod was fit in favor of a plate if there was too few slots. So some ehp values will be too low, you can rebalance by removing dmg mod or dc to drop in a plate. T2 high dmg ammo was used. Where is the Heavy Cap Booster in there, which a Raven/Maelstrom/Rokh need then? BTW: T2 High Dmg Ammo sucks! According to your list, a Raven with 2 LST would look like this: Ballistic Control System II Reactor Control Unit II Co-Processor II Co-Processor II Damage Control II 100MN Quad LiF Fueld I Booster Rockets Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Warp Disruptor II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I
Incantare	Posted - 2009.05.08 05:34:00 - [69] It's obvious there's something seriously wrong with shield transporters when a shield tanker has an easier time fitting large remote armor reps.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.08 07:06:00 - [70] Fuxinos's post clearly shows how unbalanced the fitting requirements are for shield transporters. Ccp pls change them according to his proposal , also boost small/medium rr modules range.

Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.08 23:44:00 - [71] And that's with named transporters. Now try to fit T2.
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.09 00:52:00 - [72] Originally by: Ausser 1. Are LST's CPU intensive? 2. Should we be able to become a perfect fiting using t2 gear on every ship without pain and drawbacks? 3. 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. Your question is irrelevant. Nobody uses T2 LSTs, and nobody can really fit named LSTs and maintain a reasonable fit either. Note that Solace reps are easily fitted on most BS's. Quote: Megathron: - 922 dps with one LRAR, 790 dps with two LRAR. - 91.7k ehp. - Short on cpu. - Must sacrify dmg from missile slots (minior). - Must either sacrify low slot (plate/mfs/eanm/dc) or mid slot (warp disruptor) for cpu. Pardon me, but you have that underlined part wrong. What you sacrifice is a med neut. The rest of your post seems similarly riddled with fallacy. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
aldarrin	Posted - 2009.05.09 11:49:00 - [73] Originally by: fuxinos Edited by: fuxinos on 07/05/2009 13:22:02 According to your list, a Raven with 2 LST would look like this: Ballistic Control System II Reactor Control Unit II Co-Processor II Co-Processor II Damage Control II 100MN Quad LiF Fueld I Booster Rockets Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Warp Disruptor II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I If you are going to spider tank a Raven, the only sensible way to do it is ARMOR tanking it: Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Reactor Control Unit II 100MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Scrambler II ECCM - Gravimetric II Target Painter II Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bane Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bane Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bane Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bane Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bane Torpedo Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bane Torpedo Large Remote Armor Repair System II Large Remote Armor Repair System II Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I You get a larger buffer, better cap situation, and you can fly in a fleet. This is largely due to the terrible fitting and cap situation of shield transporters which really only fit well on logistics cruisers. They don't even fit well on carriers. -- Flame on.
Terra Mikael SRIUS BISNIS	Posted - 2009.05.09 17:39:00 - [74] does the idea of a gang of remote repping torp-ravens give anyone else a boner? ________________________________ Originally by: Lone Gunman Yes overpowered would be giving a ship with the Covert ops cloak the ability to fire say..Torpedos, now that would be overpowered. But CCP would
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.09 21:49:00 - [75] Originally by: Terra Mikael does the idea of a gang of remote repping torp-ravens give anyone else a boner? Not any more than a gang of remote rep pulse geddons.
Ihara Rika	Posted - 2009.05.09 23:20:00 - [76] Originally by: Max Tux how about some stats when used on ships - a tech 2 large remote armor rep uses 48tf, and 660MW, reasonable, - a tech 2 large shield transfer uses, 154tf, and 192MW, yes generally shield tanking ships have more CPU than Armor tanking ships, but comparing the Raven, and the Mega, 1 LRAR takes 4% ( no skills) of the Mega's grid and 8% of its CPU, in comparison: 1 LST takes 22% of the ravens CPU and 2% of its grid. Reduce the CPU requirement to bring it more inline and allow shield transfers to be fitted without needing to Gimp the fit. The problem is simple and quite obvious. Shield transfer arrays are vastly disadvantaged to their armor equivalence and the above pretty much sums it up supported by plenty of other posts in this thread (baring the mindless armor trolls that haven't fit a ST in their entire eve experience). Could we get a take on this from ccp's perspective now, or at least have this looked into?
Ihara Rika	Posted - 2009.05.09 23:28:00 - [77] Edited by: Ihara Rika on 09/05/2009 23:28:56 I mean hell, we aren't even talking about how the Remote shield transfers take more cap to use and how this reflects upon the lower resists found on shields. Those two are ass-backwards as well - but so far the focus of this topic is simply the fact we cant even fit the things. So FFS someone look into this and change a few things around. Honestly.
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance Blackguard Coalition	Posted - 2009.05.09 23:44:00 - [78] Edited by: TimMc on 09/05/2009 23:46:04 I think they should nerf the armour remote reps rather than buff the shield ones. Edit: before anyone whines, RR bs gangs are overpowered a bit. Only problem the armour tankers have is they lose DPS with 2 remote reps and the buffer. Shield tankers could have full buffer, full damage and raven/scorp/tempest have 2 spare highs already.
aldarrin	Posted - 2009.05.10 04:54:00 - [79] Originally by: TimMc Edited by: TimMc on 09/05/2009 23:46:04 Edit: before anyone whines, RR bs gangs are overpowered a bit. Only problem the armour tankers have is they lose DPS with 2 remote reps and the buffer. Shield tankers could have full buffer, full damage and raven/scorp/tempest have 2 spare highs already. That's just it. There are two highs, but not enough grid / CPU to fit anything decent there. And even with transporters, you'll run cap dry quickly, even with a HCB II w/ 800s. -- Flame on.
Ihara Rika	Posted - 2009.05.13 18:02:00 - [80] RAWR! - Topic has pretty much established the need for changes to RSTs as quite necessary. Present further argument for or against, otherwise I think we are done here. May a CCP mod please present your opinion or the opinions of the development team on this matter as nothing more can really be said from the player's point of view without rehashing out the same concrete evidence of a vast disparity between Remote Armor Repairers and Remote Shield Repairers. I will not allow you [ccp] to brush this issue under the rug as it has been a major thorn in the side of remote shield repping in general; in both capital and sub-capital cases.

Ulstan	Posted - 2009.05.13 19:02:00 - [81] The lack of BS that can be shield tanked is also a contributor to why you don't see RR BS gangs, but the fact that you just can't fit appropriately sized Shield Transporters because of the ridiculously large CPU cost is a bigger one, that should be solved first.
Muad' Dib Gallente Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2009.05.13 19:49:00 - [82] Originally by: Ecky X I feel shield tanking is underrepresented in PvP, for a variety of reasons. One way to improve this is to make it possible to fit a shield transporter on a ship - currently you can't, due to insane CPU requirements. Discuss. Thinking of switching to shield tanking on the Tama station ? --- I smack just for myself. * Your signature file is to large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout
Ihara Rika SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.14 17:06:00 - [83] Originally by: Muad' Dib Thinking of switching to shield tanking on the Tama station ?
Zanquis Caldari Universal Exports Cult of War	Posted - 2009.05.14 17:14:00 - [84] Originally by: Ecky X I feel shield tanking is underrepresented in PvP, for a variety of reasons. One way to improve this is to make it possible to fit a shield transporter on a ship - currently you can't, due to insane CPU requirements. Discuss. I agree totally. I have always said that if shield tanks could be supported easier then you might see them more in PvP. Remote repair is so important in PvP right now that the fact nobody can easily fit a Transporter is a major issue. I see where CCP was trying to go with shield modules generally more cpu heavy and less grid heavy then its armor counterpart. However remote repair modules need to be easy to fit on NON shield tanking ships too in order for people to actually use it. Even in a shield tanking ship 112tf cpu is a hard pill to swallow, for an armor tanked ship which doesn't have the same level of CPU its near impossible without gimping your fit. CCP really needs to make shield tank support on equal grounds with armor tank support. I also do not understand why they made shield transfers so cap inefficient when they no longer retain their traditional boost duration advantage over remote armor repair. If memory serves both cycle in 5 seconds, though shields still boost first and armor still boosts after the cycle. This is a moot point though considering the short cycle time, and making both modules have the same efficiency would give shield transfers the slight edge it needs to possibly be considered over an armor repair which is already super attractive since almost everybody armor tanks in PvP. Shield tanks are for this reason generally always primary targets first because they have no support to rely on, and their buffer is weaker in fleet situations where the regeneration means nothing. ---------------------------------------------- EvE Personality Test
Ihara Rika SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.14 17:27:00 - [85] Edited by: Ihara Rika on 14/05/2009 17:27:32 Originally by: Zanquis I also do not understand why they made shield transfers so cap inefficient when they no longer retain their traditional boost duration advantage over remote armor repair. If memory serves both cycle in 5 seconds, though shields still boost first and armor still boosts after the cycle. This is a moot point though considering the short cycle time, and making both modules have the same efficiency would give shield transfers the slight edge it needs to possibly be considered over an armor repair which is already super attractive since almost everybody armor tanks in PvP. Shield tanks are for this reason generally always primary targets first because they have no support to rely on, and their buffer is weaker in fleet situations where the regeneration means nothing. Well in regards to this, remember that the advantage remote shield reps have by repping at the beginning of the cycle is balanced by their characteristically lower resists compared to armor. Also consider that remote shield repping must first wait for damage to be taken to begin repping whilst armor waits until shield is around 5-25% to begin as dmg will begin coming in right as the first cycle completes. So the immediate effectiveness of shield transfers is balanced through the "shield > armor > hull" progression. Although there is still no justification for the inefficient cap usage.
arbiter reborn	Posted - 2009.05.14 20:49:00 - [86] sighned tbh
Berserker Birdy	Posted - 2009.05.19 13:38:00 - [87] Some fine points here. /signed
Tibi Zoners	Posted - 2009.05.19 14:00:00 - [88] Good point acutally. Signed, give those transporters some CPU love. *
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.05.19 17:08:00 - [89] An excellent argument for at least examining the problem. Well worth having Nozh & co at least take a look, and perhaps explain the motivation as to why they are so complex to fit for apparently very little gain compared to armour repairers. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.19 17:25:00 - [90] Edited by: Quesa on 19/05/2009 17:26:24 If you guys think armor RR is too powerful, you don't want shield RR tanking. Another benefit you get with shield RR's is that the HP hits at the beginning of the cycle as opposed to the end. I can't see them doing what you ask, tbh. Shield tanking allows someone to take the most punishment over a short period of time, whereas armor tankers are able to soak up the most damage over a long period of time. If you give shield tankers a really good setup for RR, those types of gangs will be over powered due to the core mechanics of shield tanking. PS. The only change I can see them making is to increase the requirements of armor RR's to bring them in line with shield RR's.



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.