Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ecky X
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 06:55:00 -
[1]
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.
|
Ihara Rika
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 07:09:00 -
[2]
Signed - there is also the issue of cap.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 07:29:00 -
[3]
Agreed. Also, there's the issue of efficiency. For some reason people believe RR should be more cap and time efficient than local reps. I find this idea absolutely absurd (outside logistics, of course). ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 08:15:00 -
[4]
Large "Atonement" I Ward Projector: PG 160, CPU 112. Large "Solace" I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction: PG 600, CPU 32.
I've bolded the insane bit.
Ok, shield transporters apply their boost at the start o the cycle rather than at the end. but 112 CPU is just stupid. You could halve it and it would still be prohibitively high.
|
Max Tux
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 09:28:00 -
[5]
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.
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 09:40:00 -
[6]
hummm although i'm a healer by heart, my projectile weapons oppose any love to shield tanks unless they, or at least arties, had a boost. explo is the only thing they got going. neither emp ammo nor phased plasma are really the answer.
also, be careful what you wish for... instead of reducing cpu on transporters, they could just as easily increase the requirements of RARs ; 5/1 guardian duos (logi V) are a wee bit too powerful anyways, RR domis downright insane. in the end, tempests might become the only ones capable of fitting RR and/or matari become the RR-race in general - which would make up for the lack of pg and HP in (way too) many cases ^^ - putting the gist back into logistics |
Max Tux
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 10:47:00 -
[7]
maybe this would be a good "nerf" to RR armor gangs as well, the goal of this is to get shield RR's used as much as armor RR's, and if the armor ones get nerfed then maybe there will be more place for shield tanks in fleets
|
Chrysalis D'lilth
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 10:50:00 -
[8]
I agree.
What i find incomprehensable about this is that a T2 Cruise fitted raven can fit 2 Large Armor Reps, but it can not fit 2 Large shield reps due to the CPU reqs.
And Caldari ships have more CPU than any others, no wonder everyone in eve armor tanks...
|
Ecky X
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 22:07:00 -
[9]
So yeah, let's have a dev blog on this? It's a pretty big issue, and we can agree on where the problem is, and what the solution is.
|
Thalene
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 22:56:00 -
[10]
This is ******ed and needs to be fixed.
|
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari Naqam Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 23:15:00 -
[11]
/signed
- Contagious - |
Aurora Decima
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 06:03:00 -
[12]
/signed, Devs, let's see a blog about this one. Shouldn't be hard to fix.
|
JonShannow
Caldari Regante
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 07:02:00 -
[13]
signed
|
JanSVK
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 09:07:00 -
[14]
/signed. Shield transfers require too much CPU.
|
KerKnight
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 04:28:00 -
[15]
/signed
|
Artassaut
Minmatar Oblivion Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 05:03:00 -
[16]
I agree with this. We had to do a really weird tank situation when we had shieldtankers in gang.
Armour-tankers fit Cap transfers for the shield-tankers, who had 2 Xlarge shield boosters and some RLARs. --- The Gate: Lol, try targeting me in a fleet fight. The Station: No U. |
Ecky X
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 03:34:00 -
[17]
CCP, let's have a thread on this.
|
Marcellus Corteaz
Alt Corp
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 09:17:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Allen Ramses Agreed. Also, there's the issue of efficiency. For some reason people believe RR should be more cap and time efficient than local reps. I find this idea absolutely absurd (outside logistics, of course).
Ahh, yes. Let's nerf teamwork and cooperation. That does indeed sound like a solid plan.
|
Admiral IceBlock
Caldari Northern Intelligence BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 09:38:00 -
[19]
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!
|
Artassaut
Minmatar Oblivion Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 10:44:00 -
[20]
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!
RLAR uses almost 1/4th the powergrid of its local tank variety. Shield Transporters use ~5/8ths the CPU of its local tank variety.
Also, do you have any viable ship fits that Transporters outside the Basilisk/Scimitar? --- The Gate: Lol, try targeting me in a fleet fight. The Station: No U. |
|
Typhado3
Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 11:07:00 -
[21]
hmmm I like armour and shield tanking having their differences but atm this does seem sorta skewed. and considering the popularity of rr'ing the fact that 1 tank doesn't work is a problem that seems to big for variety between the tank types.
/signed
ccp fix mining agent missions % pls |
Jedziah
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 11:31:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Jedziah on 03/05/2009 11:36:05
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.
Also, do you have any viable ship fits that Transporters outside the Basilisk/Scimitar?
Our friends and our own corps have had untold success with RR Shield Tanked Hurricanes over the past few years. Fantastic ship setup.
In my honest opinion, Shield tanking should be harder to fit as when it is done correctly, it far supersedes most armour tanks within the game in both RR and Local varieties.
EFT will only give you a set of numbers. The only way to test it is to try it.
|
Pvt Public7
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 13:10:00 -
[23]
Hey, at least fitting remote shield doesn't gimp your buffer tank. - NERF RR GANGS - More CPU on all shield ships please
Just getting ahead of the crowd. --- SWA was here IAC is a loser |
Ausser
Cybertech Industrials Agency
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 14:01:00 -
[24]
Where is the problem to fit a CPU to compensate for the increased cpu requirement? You will most often fit the Shield Transfer on shield tanking ships, so the low slots are not used for tanking. You just have to sacrify one dmg/grid/cap module.
Both, shield/armor tanks have their pros and cons. CPU of shield transporters is just one of them. No one is whining because he needs two LAR while one SB does the same job. What about the Armor Boost Amplifier? Correct, there is none. What's with EANM <> Invul? Shield misses the passive version of invul, while armor lacks the active couunterpart of eanm. <fill more differences between shield and armor here>
Both concepts are balanced, slightly diffrent, imperfect and thus fun to puzzle with.
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 15:08:00 -
[25]
what i would like to see is some "better" scaling though; 1 large s-95 = 119tf, 160MW, -42cap/s, 1 slot 2 medium s-95 = 178tf, 160MW, -39.6cap/s, 2 slots 8[
and/or if shield boost bonuses (cyclone, sleipnir, claymore, failstrom, uhhh hawk?, golem?) could be applied to remotes? if a pure maelstRRom might seem a bit too much... it still wouldnt compare to the dominix' current abilities :o and, well, then there's that one loki def sub *ponder* - putting the gist back into logistics |
fuxinos
Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 15:18:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Jedziah Edited by: Jedziah on 03/05/2009 11:36:05
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.
Also, do you have any viable ship fits that Transporters outside the Basilisk/Scimitar?
Our friends and our own corps have had untold success with RR Shield Tanked Hurricanes over the past few years. Fantastic ship setup.
In my honest opinion, Shield tanking should be harder to fit as when it is done correctly, it far supersedes most armour tanks within the game in both RR and Local varieties.
EFT will only give you a set of numbers. The only way to test it is to try it.
Just because it may work for you, does by far not mean its not broken. Armor RR still works better even on Hurrics.
And no, using EFT here is as valid as testing ingame, since they are not influenced by anything like tracking.
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 18:09:00 -
[27]
I agree. Realistically there is only raven/rokh/mael to choose from anyway. Two of those don't even have a utility high. Scorps meh...
And then you are limited by the insane requirements. It appears to be a simple fix and long overdue. --
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
Ecky X
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 19:56:00 -
[28]
The Tempest makes a great shield transfer BS, and the Dominix and Typhoon can do it passably.
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 20:20:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Ecky X The Tempest makes a great shield transfer BS, and the Dominix and Typhoon can do it passably.
I agree but slotwise they are still armor tankers. I.e. pest makes for an okish/good armor-rr boat and both typhoon and dominix are excellent at it. So not saying it can't or shouldn't be done but as far as variety goes armor tankers are already advantaged imho. --
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
CrestoftheStars
Caldari Violent Force Productions
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 00:34:00 -
[30]
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) ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
|
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. ---
|
|
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.
|
|
Tagami Wasp
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 19:18:00 -
[91]
After trying a few fits, I think that around 40 cpu decrease to the requirements of the RST mods would be just what it is required for them. Still they would be more cumbersome to fit than armor reppers, but well within the capabilities of a PvP oriented character.
|
Soenan
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 20:19:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Soenan on 19/05/2009 20:22:01
Originally by: Quesa 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.
X-large shield booster t2 + boost amp t2: 163 shield per second for 72 cap per second. 2 lar t2: 142.2 armor per sec for 71.1 cap per second. Or... a 14% advantage at the cost of useable med slots (which are > low slots).
"Overpowered core mechanics" 14% is quite an advantage when you can't get a good rep setup going in a shieldgang. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that the shield transporters take way too much cpu compared to armor remote rep fittings.
|
Tauranon
Gallente Wandering Provocateurs Communitas
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 06:54:00 -
[93]
Some solo shield tanks are much better than any sort of solo armor tank, especially for PVE, particularly when implants are considered.
I think it would be unfortunate to try and make each type as 'good' as each other, but IMHO if the balance of group mechanics such as shield xfer fitting is looked at, then so inevitably must be the counterbalanced mechanics like passive shields...
|
Katarlia Simov
Minmatar Cowboys From Hell
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 11:15:00 -
[94]
Any possibility of getting a shield transfer rig while your at fixing them?
That'd be nice :)
|
Morikai Acler
Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 05:45:00 -
[95]
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.
I don't know, on the main line shield tank ships I've never had too much of an issue with CPU when it comes to fitting large shield transporters. Rokh can do it overly easy, even with 7x tech2 425mm rails. Raven can do it easy, without sacrificing dps or much tank, might take 1 cpu mod to do it with a full wrack of t2 siege and heavy shield buffer tank. Scorpion is a sick and wrong beast if fit for shield RR and buffer, definitely good anti support in short range RR gang 4x heavy neut with 2x large shield transfer, equals anything that gets within range is capless and soon toast. I always fit my caldari ships with light or medium drones depending on bay size for dealing with smaller ships.
What people don't realize is that pound for pound, a properly shield tank fit RR shield gang can nullify more dps, and deal more dps than the same ship with an armor RR fit. This is mostly speaking for the Rokh, Raven, Scorp, Maelstrom which are more shield centric ships, domi can kinda swing either way. Only problem is, that on a non caldari ship you're gonna run into cpu issues.
|
Morikai Acler
Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 06:19:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Ecky X
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.
I loathe to post this fit as I definitely don't want it to end up being used against me in pvp. For both the raven and Rokh, these are far more EHP than any armor fit counter part, and have the requisite mods to make them realistic. Unfortunately the alliance I'm in fails to listen when I suggest them as ways to boost participation and make use of more available pilot resources.
[Rokh, Close range RR Shield] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Gravimetric Backup Array II
100MN MicroWarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Large 'Atonement' I Ward Projector
Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5
145k EHP with a well trained SC/WC/FC in gang. Even more effective with a Vulture gang linking.
[Raven, Short range RR shield] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Co-Processor II Reactor Control Unit II
100MN Afterburner II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
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 'Atonement' I Ward Projector Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction
Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5 Warrior II x5
121k EHP with an SC with siege warfare mindlink. Possible weak point needing improvement would be EM/Kin resists, though both are helped greatly if a Linking vulture is in the fleet. Though it's far more EHP and better resists than the armor setups I've seen.
|
Wrayeth
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 06:28:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 21/05/2009 06:33:02 The solution I'd really like to see for remote repping issues is simple:
- Remove remote armor repair systems.
- Remove shield transporters.
- Introduce a new module simply called a Remote Repairer.
- Comes in three sizes, like current remote reps.
- Module cannot be activated without a script.
- One script provides the same attributes as the current remote armor reps.
- One script provides the same attributes as the current shield transporters.
- All skill requirements and effects are on the scripts.
This would allow for mixed shield and armor gangs and be the long-needed solution to shield tanks getting the shaft in remote rep gangs. I still think shield tanking has other issues that need to be resolved, but this would be a step in the right direction. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Rip Striker
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 08:17:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Morikai Acler
[Raven, Short range RR shield] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Co-Processor II Reactor Control Unit II
100MN Afterburner II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
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 'Atonement' I Ward Projector Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction
Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5 Warrior II x5
121k EHP with an SC with siege warfare mindlink. Possible weak point needing improvement would be EM/Kin resists, though both are helped greatly if a Linking vulture is in the fleet. Though it's far more EHP and better resists than the armor setups I've seen.
This is a solid setup, good dps and buffer tank AND being able to both shield and armour remote rep. Downside is that no armor tanking ship will sacrifice a low slot (for cpu) and a weapon high slot for a shield remote rep.
|
Katarlia Simov
Minmatar Cowboys From Hell
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 08:26:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 21/05/2009 06:33:02 The solution I'd really like to see for remote repping issues is simple:
- Remove remote armor repair systems.
- Remove shield transporters.
- Introduce a new module simply called a Remote Repairer.
- Comes in three sizes, like current remote reps.
- Module cannot be activated without a script.
- One script provides the same attributes as the current remote armor reps.
- One script provides the same attributes as the current shield transporters.
- All skill requirements and effects are on the scripts.
This would allow for mixed shield and armor gangs and be the long-needed solution to shield tanks getting the shaft in remote rep gangs. I still think shield tanking has other issues that need to be resolved, but this would be a step in the right direction.
No. Just no. Shield and armor tanks are DIFFERENT THINGS.
The reason people don't try the remote rep spider gang with shield tanking ships is because what you need to do that with is buffer tank.
The only battleship that does this well is the rokh. Now don't get me wrong. I have a serious hardon for the rokh. But not everyone can fly one well, and even then you couldn't make a gang out of them.
Shield buffer needs lots of med slots. And you know what you need those for ? Points! And webs! And MWDs! And ECCM! And cap boosters (i loves the neutarokh).
Now armor buffer... thats a different kettle of fish. Because you can fit all of the above medslot toys AND a buffer AND reps :)
|
Wrayeth
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 12:40:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 21/05/2009 12:44:53
Originally by: Katarlia Simov No. Just no. Shield and armor tanks are DIFFERENT THINGS.
The reason people don't try the remote rep spider gang with shield tanking ships is because what you need to do that with is buffer tank.
The only battleship that does this well is the rokh. Now don't get me wrong. I have a serious hardon for the rokh. But not everyone can fly one well, and even then you couldn't make a gang out of them.
Shield buffer needs lots of med slots. And you know what you need those for ? Points! And webs! And MWDs! And ECCM! And cap boosters (i loves the neutarokh).
Now armor buffer... thats a different kettle of fish. Because you can fit all of the above medslot toys AND a buffer AND reps :)
While I agree with most of your statements about why shield tanks suck in PvP, I don't see how they're relevant to it being a bad idea to create a unified remote rep. A lot of people get left out of the fun due to only having the skills to fly shield tanks, and an equal number of people would LIKE to fly a shield tank in a remote rep gang but can't because everyone else is armor tanking (I miss my torp raven ). Basically, this prevents an entire race (Caldari) from taking part in remote rep gangs unless everyone else in gang flies Caldari as well.
As such, I don't see how unified remote reps would be detrimental to the game; instead, I contend that they would enhance it. Buffered shield tanks would still be unable to tackle, but they could at least contribute (lots of) DPS and not insta-pop due to an inability to be repped. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
|
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 14:51:00 -
[101]
posting ina thread where people are talking about a raven, torp dmg, looking at eft, and not using webs or target painters.
LMAO ---- People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Space Vikings |
Gromik
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 16:16:00 -
[102]
That EFT stuff looks really nice on the Raven and Rokh. lol
Now apply it to what you need in-game: Point, painter, ECCM, etc. There went two mids per ship. EHP just took a big hit.
Now compare those no-point-having, easily jammed setups to a RR armor tanker that fits a point (and web, on some), ECCM, a MWD, and has Slaves (tip: Not all RR pvp is 0.0). Armor EHP is way higher, the gang more versatile, and doesn't need TWO fitting mods to get a best named/T2 mix to fit.
|
AnzacPaul
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 08:24:00 -
[103]
/signed give shield transporters some love
|
Ihara Rika
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 00:27:00 -
[104]
*Ihara Rika pokes Devs for some insightful response(s)*
|
Morikai Acler
Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 06:07:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Gromik That EFT stuff looks really nice on the Raven and Rokh. lol
Now apply it to what you need in-game: Point, painter, ECCM, etc. There went two mids per ship. EHP just took a big hit.
Now compare those no-point-having, easily jammed setups to a RR armor tanker that fits a point (and web, on some), ECCM, a MWD, and has Slaves (tip: Not all RR pvp is 0.0). Armor EHP is way higher, the gang more versatile, and doesn't need TWO fitting mods to get a best named/T2 mix to fit.
The inherent flaw with that logic is, all the setups I've seen for armor RR usually don't include a point if the ship doesn't have enough mid slots. Caldari don't have the low slots to effectively armor tank and do dps. Which is why RR shields tend to deflect more DPS per unit active on the target. Most any ship is easily jammed if a ECM ship throws enough mods at it. If you got a fleet of 40 RR bs's how many really need to have warp jammers? Most I've seen have a tendancy to bring hic's or dic's along for support, as well as other support craft which tend to pop ECM ships fast. And the rokh is actually fitting a low slot eccm unit.
Where the problem comes in, is that 3/4 of the BS's in the game are aimed more for armor tanking.
|
Incantare
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 23:23:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Morikai Acler
The inherent flaw with that logic is, all the setups I've seen for armor RR usually don't include a point if the ship doesn't have enough mid slots. Caldari don't have the low slots to effectively armor tank and do dps. Which is why RR shields tend to deflect more DPS per unit active on the target. Most any ship is easily jammed if a ECM ship throws enough mods at it. If you got a fleet of 40 RR bs's how many really need to have warp jammers? Most I've seen have a tendancy to bring hic's or dic's along for support, as well as other support craft which tend to pop ECM ships fast. And the rokh is actually fitting a low slot eccm unit.
Where the problem comes in, is that 3/4 of the BS's in the game are aimed more for armor tanking.
Shield tankers don't get more mids + lows than armor tankers. If anything they are left with lower quality low slot options (sig amp, backup array...). As for how many really need warp jammers: as someone else said earlier in the thread not all rr combat happens in 0.0, with bubbles for convenient mass tackling.
The core problem here is fittings. There is nothing that would justify shield transfers requiring multiple fitting mods (exceptions apply) when armor transfers fit easily on a shield tanking ship. Instant repair is already compensated for by higher cap use.
Even with lowered fittings the lower number of shield tanked BS would still hinder shield RR but specialized groups could make good use of it. Right now it's almost pointless.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 10:53:00 -
[107]
LAR II: CPU 55, PG 2300. LRAR II: CPU 48, PG 660.
LRAR II uses 87% of CPU and 29% of PG of LAR II. Fitting remote armour reps is much easier than fitting a local rep.
LSB II: CPU 115, PG 165. LST II: CPU 184, PG 192.
LST II uses 160% of CPU and 116% of PG of LSB II! It's the opposite trend to armour reps and it's insane! |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 11:02:00 -
[108]
LRAR II fitting requirements as % of a Megathron's CPU and PG. LRAR II: CPU 48, PG 660. CPU is 7.0%, PG is 3.4%.
LST fitting requirements as % of a Raven's CPU and PG: LST II: CPU 184, PG 192. CPU is 21.0%, PG is 1.6%.
21% of the CPU simply to fit a LST is insane.
|
Seishi Maru
M. Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 12:50:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Rip Striker
Originally by: Morikai Acler
[Raven, Short range RR shield] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Co-Processor II Reactor Control Unit II
100MN Afterburner II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
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 'Atonement' I Ward Projector Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction
Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5 Warrior II x5
121k EHP with an SC with siege warfare mindlink. Possible weak point needing improvement would be EM/Kin resists, though both are helped greatly if a Linking vulture is in the fleet. Though it's far more EHP and better resists than the armor setups I've seen.
This is a solid setup, good dps and buffer tank AND being able to both shield and armour remote rep. Downside is that no armor tanking ship will sacrifice a low slot (for cpu) and a weapon high slot for a shield remote rep.
And that is why shiled transporters must have cpu use reduced. So a ship only sacrifices the high slot to fit it. Just like they do with armor ones. Simple BALANCED AND SMART.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 14:07:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Ecky X 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.
This, oh this.
I cry every time I get a shield transporter from a complex. Not only are shield transporters generally screwed, the faction ones aren't even real good compared to other shield transporters!!
|
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 14:14:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Gypsio III LAR II: CPU 55, PG 2300. LRAR II: CPU 48, PG 660.
LRAR II uses 87% of CPU and 29% of PG of LAR II. Fitting remote armour reps is much easier than fitting a local rep.
LSB II: CPU 115, PG 165. LST II: CPU 184, PG 192.
LST II uses 160% of CPU and 116% of PG of LSB II! It's the opposite trend to armour reps and it's insane!
LRAR II fitting requirements as % of a Megathron's CPU and PG. LRAR II: CPU 48, PG 660. CPU is 7.0%, PG is 3.4%.
LST fitting requirements as % of a Raven's CPU and PG: LST II: CPU 184, PG 192. CPU is 21.0%, PG is 1.6%.
21% of the CPU simply to fit a LST is insane.
Gypsio comes through again. Well said.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 13:16:00 -
[112]
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 totally agree!
Same goes for T2 shield boosters as well really. The difference from a beste maed XL to T2 is 60 cpu. That is a lot! I get that shields use more cpu then grid, but the ships made to shield tank are generally not that strong CPU wise as they should be.
As an expample, a T2 Siege launcher Raven with 3 T2 damage mods and a T2 DC II have very little CPU (and to a lesser extent grid )to fit a T2 active tank. I could use T2 Cruise missiles, but then again I am better off in a BC or such due to the damage of cruises leaves a lot to be desired. Now, I generally buffer fit my Torp Raven, but in a few occations, I'd like to active tank it :). (Also, one really need a target painet on teh Raven as well, leaving only very few slots for the actual shield tank MWD+TP+CapBooster leaves 3 slots, and you can only dream about fitting tackle unless you want to armor tank it and thenloose the dps you got ^^)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 15:42:00 -
[113]
Thank you for the necro, this still needs fixing.
RR Ravens and Rokhs without painters, points, tracking disruptors, ect, make me sad. Also, remember that lowslot alternatives to sensor boosters and ECCM are weaker than their midslot counterparts.
|
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 16:00:00 -
[114]
Personally i'd prefer to see r.armour reps nerfed.
Quick there's a red, everybody cluster hump, - always seems a naff gameplay mechanic to me. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong |
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 16:25:00 -
[115]
[Tempest, New Setup 1] Armor Explosive Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II Armor Thermic Hardener II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II
Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Conjunctive Ladar ECCM Scanning Array I
Large Remote Armor Repair System II 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L Large Remote Armor Repair System II
Anti-EM Pump I Remote Repair Augmentor I Trimark Armor Pump I
Ogre II x3
----------------------------------------
[Tempest, New Setup 2] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Co-Processor II Internal Force Field Array I Beta Reactor Control: Diagnostic System I Beta Reactor Control: Diagnostic System I
Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Photon Scattering Field II Heat Dissipation Field II Invulnerability Field II
800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L 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
Ogre II x3
----------------------------------------
PDUs shouldnt give pg but cpu :D would wreck the scimitar though with its total lack of pg -.- - putting the gist back into logistics |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 02:58:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 16/07/2009 02:59:55 I have to say, if FCs are not requesting logistic ships in general, but specifically request only guardians, there is something out of whack.
But anyway, lets not forget remote shield tanking your gang gives the benefit of being able to roll full gank setups on the dps ships, sure you need logistics as shield RR BS do not work very well but everything has a downside.
|
Nuts Nougat
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 08:25:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 21/05/2009 06:33:02 The solution I'd really like to see for remote repping issues is simple:
- Remove remote armor repair systems.
- Remove shield transporters.
- Introduce a new module simply called a Remote Repairer.
- Comes in three sizes, like current remote reps.
- Module cannot be activated without a script.
- One script provides the same attributes as the current remote armor reps.
- One script provides the same attributes as the current shield transporters.
- All skill requirements and effects are on the scripts.
This would allow for mixed shield and armor gangs and be the long-needed solution to shield tanks getting the shaft in remote rep gangs. I still think shield tanking has other issues that need to be resolved, but this would be a step in the right direction.
Supporting this idea, but only if you include hull rep scripts. ---
|
Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 12:40:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Gypsio III Large "Atonement" I Ward Projector: PG 160, CPU 112. Large "Solace" I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction: PG 600, CPU 32.
I've bolded the insane bit.
Ok, shield transporters apply their boost at the start o the cycle rather than at the end. but 112 CPU is just stupid. You could halve it and it would still be prohibitively high.
Come on on the great thing about shield tanking is having the room for fitting mods. -- 081014 : emoragequit, char transfered to a friend, 090317 : back to original owner blog |
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 20:43:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
Come on on the great thing about shield tanking is having the room for fitting mods.
And the great thing about armor tankers is having the room for propulsion mods, tackle/ewar, sensor boosters, overloadable ECCM and cap injectors without gimping your buffer or resists. /sarcasm
Point is, it doesn't add up. Shield transports have far more drawbacks than bonuses compared to remote armor reps.
|
KissedByDeath
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 02:09:00 -
[120]
I agree with the last post and in general. Shield tankers are at a disadvantage in pvp. Shield RR even more so. Consider this, Why does a raven get racial resist to armor when it's naturally a shield tank? (the 10% armor thermal resist shuld apply to shields). Not trying to drail the subject but it does play a role in shield RR. Let every ship get the racial resist bonus in both armor and shield so all is fair. After that change the rquirements for shield transporters to same as LAR. (or at least somewhere in between). It's rediculous that i should be able to fit 2 lar on a torp raven but not LST. Or even 1 for that matter.
|
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 07:37:00 -
[121]
[Drake, New Setup 1 copy 1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Co-Processor II Internal Force Field Array I
10MN MicroWarpdrive I Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Large 'Atonement' I Ward Projector
Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I Ancillary Current Router I
and from our traditional segment "lol minmatar"
[Hurricane, New Setup 2] Mark I Generator Refitting: Capacitor Power Relay Mark I Generator Refitting: Capacitor Power Relay Mark I Generator Refitting: Capacitor Power Relay Mark I Generator Refitting: Capacitor Power Relay Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II
10MN MicroWarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II
650mm Artillery Cannon II, Quake M 650mm Artillery Cannon II, Quake M 650mm Artillery Cannon II, Quake M 650mm Artillery Cannon II, Quake M 650mm Artillery Cannon II, Quake M 650mm Artillery Cannon II, Quake M Auto Targeting System I Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Core Defence Field Extender I Capacitor Control Circuit I Capacitor Control Circuit I
and the ever famous installment "one squad to rule them all... not..."
[Cyclone, New Setup 2] Co-Processor II Co-Processor II Co-Processor II Reactor Control Unit II
X-Large C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I X-Large C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II 5a Prototype Shield Support I
Medium Energy Transfer Array II Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, EMP M Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thunderbolt Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thunderbolt Heavy Missile
Capacitor Control Circuit I Capacitor Control Circuit I Capacitor Control Circuit I - putting the gist back into logistics |
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 19:43:00 -
[122]
I have no idea where you're coming from with those fits.
Devs, can we have this moved to features and ideas?
|
Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 09:33:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
(Viable shield RR setups...)
Indeed shield RR seems viable and does not always even need a fitting mod.
[Raven, RR snipe] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
100MN MicroWarpdrive II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Devastator Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Devastator Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Devastator Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Devastator Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Devastator Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Devastator Cruise Missile Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
-- 081014 : emoragequit, char transfered to a friend, 090317 : back to original owner blog |
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 14:22:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Lubomir Penev Terrible fitting
Now try it with T2 torps, and T2 transporters. Doesn't fit? How about T2 torps and T1 transporters?
What exactly is that Raven supposed to do?
|
Chrysalis D'lilth
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 15:55:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
(Viable shield RR setups...)
Crap fitting
Get out!!!
Don't post here again until you have a clue how to fit a ship
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 17:25:00 -
[126]
hmm... maybe the shield transporters are a tad cpu heavy, despite the nice fits posted here. i feel that especially the small and micro shield transporter take too much cpu (70 and 35 for tech1, ouch, coproc mandatory). ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 23:59:00 -
[127]
Devs, can we get this moved to features and ideas?
|
Myrkala
Minmatar Aurora Acclivitous
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 01:48:00 -
[128]
/Signed
Fits with 0.25 CPU to spare with a All lvl 5 Char. Forget about getting a viable fit using T2 LST. The only viable ships to fit T2 transporters are basilisks and scimitars.
[Tempest, Tempest Shield RR] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II LADAR Backup Array II Co-Processor II
Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 400 Large Shield Extender II Warp Disruptor II
Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage L Dual 650mm Repeating Artillery II, Barrage L Dual 650mm Repeating Artillery II, Barrage L Dual 650mm Repeating Artillery II, Barrage L Dual 650mm Repeating Artillery II, Barrage L Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I
Ogre II x2 Hammerhead II x2 Hobgoblin II x1
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 08:13:00 -
[129]
People are fundamentally missing the point here. It's not that you can't squeeze on a shield transporter, given horrible compromises. It's that it's much harder than fitting remote armour repairers.
|
Balardo
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 10:51:00 -
[130]
Cmon guys,
Its pretty easy to make a Raven eft fit with 70k+ ehp 3xbcu II and a full rack of torps, thats alot of dps and good buffer.
Its also easy to make a rokh fit with a LST, 7x425mm rails and 3xmagstab with 100k ehp.
You can even make it work on a hyperion or dominix.
And shield tanking is not "underrepresented" in pvp. You wont even get laughed at for shield buffering a 3 medslot hac these days.
- Fly safe.
|
|
Artassaut
Minmatar Oblivion Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 13:32:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Balardo Cmon guys,
Its pretty easy to make a Raven eft fit with 70k+ ehp 3xbcu II and a full rack of torps, thats alot of dps and good buffer.
Its also easy to make a rokh fit with a LST, 7x425mm rails and 3xmagstab with 100k ehp.
You can even make it work on a hyperion or dominix.
And shield tanking is not "underrepresented" in pvp. You wont even get laughed at for shield buffering a 3 medslot hac these days.
- Fly safe.
Err, we're talking about Shield Transporters, and how stupidly hard they are to fit. Makes it hard to bring shield ships into RR gangs without compromising the gang's ships. |
Balardo
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 13:00:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Artassaut
Originally by: Balardo Cmon guys,
Its pretty easy to make a Raven eft fit with 70k+ ehp 3xbcu II and a full rack of torps, thats alot of dps and good buffer.
Its also easy to make a rokh fit with a LST, 7x425mm rails and 3xmagstab with 100k ehp.
You can even make it work on a hyperion or dominix.
And shield tanking is not "underrepresented" in pvp. You wont even get laughed at for shield buffering a 3 medslot hac these days.
- Fly safe.
Err, we're talking about Shield Transporters, and how stupidly hard they are to fit. Makes it hard to bring shield ships into RR gangs without compromising the gang's ships.
Yes the examples I gave all included RST, I thought that was obvious in a RST thread, maybe except for the HAC example.
Thing is that its not that simple to say "A RR only takes XX% of the total grid while a ST takes YY% of the cpu... yadda yadda"
It might not be perfectly balanced (close to though - considering the other advantages of shield tanking), but just bringing the cpu/grid percentages in line would be insane.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 11:41:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Balardo It might not be perfectly balanced (close to though - considering the other advantages of shield tanking), but just bringing the cpu/grid percentages in line would be insane.
Why?
The only difference is that remote shields apply their HP at the start of the cycle, while remote armour applies theirs at the end. That difference is important, but it's not worth the current crippling CPU costs.
|
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 15:01:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Balardo
Originally by: Artassaut
Originally by: Balardo Cmon guys,
Its pretty easy to make a Raven eft fit with 70k+ ehp 3xbcu II and a full rack of torps, thats alot of dps and good buffer.
Its also easy to make a rokh fit with a LST, 7x425mm rails and 3xmagstab with 100k ehp.
You can even make it work on a hyperion or dominix.
And shield tanking is not "underrepresented" in pvp. You wont even get laughed at for shield buffering a 3 medslot hac these days.
- Fly safe.
Err, we're talking about Shield Transporters, and how stupidly hard they are to fit. Makes it hard to bring shield ships into RR gangs without compromising the gang's ships.
Yes the examples I gave all included RST, I thought that was obvious in a RST thread, maybe except for the HAC example.
Thing is that its not that simple to say "A RR only takes XX% of the total grid while a ST takes YY% of the cpu... yadda yadda"
It might not be perfectly balanced (close to though - considering the other advantages of shield tanking), but just bringing the cpu/grid percentages in line would be insane.
The problem is that Real Eve is not a perfect world. To be effective, your whole RR fleet need to be able to use the same tank type and fit the same type of RR. Sure, you can fit up ravens and rokhs to RR shield tank, but good luck fitting a mega or geddon for it. Ships that are supposed to armour tank already have a much harder time fitting for shield tanking then shield tank ships do fitting for armour tanks. For example, a shield tanking geddon only have 1 slot for tanking after fitting the 100% mandatory MWD and cap booster and have 4 empty, next to useless, low slots after fitting the 3 heatsinks and the DC II that need to go there. A armour tanking raven on the other hand can fit that DC II, and then fit an armour tank instead of damage mods in its 4 remaining low slots. The damage output will be low, and while the tank is not amazing, it will be acceptable and alot better then the shield tanked geddon, and since it's now armour tanked, it has 4 very useful mid slots left for utility so it can fit points, eccm, (R)SBs, TDs or TPs. Also notice the amount of tanking slots available: Geddons usually have 4 slots available for amour tanking, but only have 1 after fitting the absolute basics if it shield tanks (megas and abaddons etc get 2, but that's still alot worse). A raven has 4 slots when shield tanking and 4 slots when armour tanking. Add in the fact that armour tanking is more efficent per slot (800mm plates is the equivalent of large shield extenders, there's no shield equivalent of the 1600mm).
In summary, while a shield tanking ship can work in a armour RR BS gang sacrificing some damage for utility, even if it's not as effective as a ship meant to armour tank, armour tanked ships can't work in RR shield gangs since giving them the ability to keep up with the rest of the gang (MWD) and the means to keep guns and RR running (cap booster) leaves them so weak they'll die before the gang can lock them up to rep, and instead of loosing the extra utility granted with free mid slots, they loose it completely.
That means that in a perfect world where you can have the entire gang fly caldari and minmatar. RR shields would be viable, but in real eve where all races need to be included, shield RR already have enough disadvantages compared to armour RR without including crazy CPU requirements, even before considering the fact that there are 3 armour tanking races but only 2 shield tanking (minmatar count as both). Shield transfers should be ALOT stronger and easier to fit then remote armour reps to make up for it.
|
Balardo
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 13:09:00 -
[135]
Originally by: steave435 That means that in a perfect world where you can have the entire gang fly caldari and minmatar. RR shields would be viable, but in real eve where all races need to be included, shield RR already have enough disadvantages compared to armour RR without including crazy CPU requirements, even before considering the fact that there are 3 armour tanking races but only 2 shield tanking (minmatar count as both). Shield transfers should be ALOT stronger and easier to fit then remote armour reps to make up for it.
That was a long post, just to say that you agree that if you bring the right ships ST is just as good as RR
What I dont agree to is that ST should be turned into just another type of RR, as it is now it a niche for ppl willing to specialize a bit further.
If I get you right you want ST/RR to be a 50/50 descision for any fleet. This to me just sounds like a variant of the 'carebear of the month' argument about how awfull it is that ravens dont fit into RR BS fleets.
I say, different ships and fitting for different tactics. There is no law of nature that says if 3 races are able to RR, there must also be 3 races able to ST.
|
Balardo
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 13:17:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Gypsio III The only difference is that remote shields apply their HP at the start of the cycle, while remote armour applies theirs at the end. That difference is important, but it's not worth the current crippling CPU costs.
Stoooop what crippling cpu costs? The modules fit, if the fitting costs were any lower, a rawen for instance would be able to fit TWO large ST and a full rack of torps.
If you bring a ship meant for shield tanking, the modules will fit.
|
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 18:37:00 -
[137]
Quote: That was a long post, just to say that you agree that if you bring the right ships ST is just as good as RR
If you have an all caldari/minmatarr fleet, then yes, you can get by with ST. However, you will always be better off with fitting for RR since that allows you to include amarr and gallente pilots aswell, increasing the amount of ships able to take part in the op. Therefore, in Real Eve, ST is only an option for people that don't know better.
Quote: If I get you right you want ST/RR to be a 50/50 descision for any fleet. This to me just sounds like a variant of the 'carebear of the month' argument about how awfull it is that ravens dont fit into RR BS fleets.
No, unless something very radical changes, any fleet will always be better off sticking to only 1 type of tank and RR. However, I want ST to be just as viable as armour RR, having both advantages and disadvantages in choosing 1 over the other.
Quote: I say, different ships and fitting for different tactics. There is no law of nature that says if 3 races are able to RR, there must also be 3 races able to ST.
Currently, there are 3 races able to armour RR well, and a 4th race that can do it in a pinch, so it includes everyone, compared to 2 races able to ST while leaving the other 2 races docked and useless. That is not balanced.
Quote: Stoooop Smile what crippling cpu costs? The modules fit, if the fitting costs were any lower, a rawen for instance would be able to fit TWO large ST and a full rack of torps.
I wouldn't mind that at all, it would help making ST a bit more viable again. If you want to prevent it, reduce the ravens cpu, or simply increwase the PG use of ST to compensate for the lower cpu. Even with both an RCU and co processor, a raven can't use a full T2 fit, and have to rely on best named shield transfer instead, or drop down to a medium cap booster. That is enough to keep 1 ST running, but if you want to run 2, you will HAVE to fit a heavy cap booster, and that combined with higher grid use will make the raven unable to fit it. The co processor will still be neccecery since even with 2 solace reppers instead of ST, it's short on CPU without it when using a shield tank. If you want to use 3 fitting mods (only leaving room for 1 damage mod after fitting the damage control) to enable yourself to fit 2 ST, then that's not a problem at all in my book.
So, again, any race can make a good contribution to a armour RR gang, amarr, gallente and minmatarr trough dps and caldari trough providing utility like extra tackle etc, but only caldari and minmatarr can make a contribution in a shield ST gang while amarr and gallente just die in a fire without doing anything. Therefore, in Real Eve, armour >> shield, and while it shouldn't be armour = shield or shield >> armour either, I'd like armour and shield to both be a viable option, both being roughly as powerful as the other in Real Eve rather then in fantasy theory crafting land, but with armour having some advantages over shield, balanced out by shield having advantages in other areas over armour.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 10:35:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Balardo Stoooop what crippling cpu costs? The modules fit, if the fitting costs were any lower, a rawen for instance would be able to fit TWO large ST and a full rack of torps.
If you bring a ship meant for shield tanking, the modules will fit.
You're living in a fantasy world. Best-named LST takes 112 CPU. 112. That's 13% of the Raven's CPU.
The modules don't fit. Basic buffer Raven needs a co-pro for a single LST, and a second co-pro for a second LST. Don't even think about trying to get a local active tank on their as well.
It's blindingly obvious that it's far easier to fit armour RR on shield tankers than shield RR.
|
VC General
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 04:37:00 -
[139]
Also the main benefits to shield tanking your own ship vs armor tanking aren't present in RR. The delay on armor RR's is only 4.5s, making the shield transporter's instant application less important. Even though there's no boost amps for shield RR, it's still less cap efficient then armor. The ridiculous CPU cost is just the icing on the cake. 660 grid for an armor rep is about %5 on most fleet fitted BS vs 10-15% of CPU on any ship for shield transporters.
There's no separate but equal in this. Armor RR is just better then shield RR in every way that's important.
|
Artassaut
Minmatar Oblivion Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 14:44:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Balardo
Originally by: Gypsio III The only difference is that remote shields apply their HP at the start of the cycle, while remote armour applies theirs at the end. That difference is important, but it's not worth the current crippling CPU costs.
Stoooop what crippling cpu costs? The modules fit, if the fitting costs were any lower, a rawen for instance would be able to fit TWO large ST and a full rack of torps.
If you bring a ship meant for shield tanking, the modules will fit.
ST's are usable yes, but only on ships that can have plenty of CPU left over. Most ships can fit RR's because they almost always have powergrid left, even without RCUs/PDSs. That's what keeps Armour RR gangs dominant over RR/ST mixes, and pure ST. --- The Gate: Lol, try targeting me in a fleet fight. The Station: No U. |
|
Muenen
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 16:28:00 -
[141]
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.
<removed a large section of his post>
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 - Rokh - 632 dps - lacks high slots #8 - Apocalypse - 558 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.
EDIT: Rokh
I like Ausser's arguements to show Shield transporters aren't that bad and I have similar observations when fitting frigates but I still have to disagree with this assertion that Transporters shouldn't be adjusted.
This type of arguments works if you adjust skills in certain ways. At the most basic level The CPU requirements for the CPU intensive Caldari and Minmatar is out of whack with the grid requirements for the other two.
But I agree with his point that rebalancing transporters shouldn't involve homogenizing them with Remote Reppers.
If I was to fix Transporters I would reduce their current CPU requirements by 7% and increase their optimal range by 150%.
If Artillery ever gets fixed then both Caladari and Minmatar ships would benefit greatly from having Spidertanks that aren't like the remote repping orgies.
|
Emily Jean
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 18:02:00 -
[142]
Wow serioulsy... I didnt bother reading all this crap...
So here is my half assed responsed.
ARMOR TANK YOUR RAVENS, its done all the time. You can fit up an decent buffer tank and still have 2 BCU's on a raven, and then even fit 2 RR for armor. Mid slots are for ewar and such.
My buddy fits up a Raven with 6 Torps, 2 RR, MWD, Injector, Point, Web, 2 TP's, 2 BCU, Plate, 2 EAMN's and Trimarks. - This thing has had no problem taking out a shield tanked Raven with a Ferox and Brutix as support... Solo
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 11:48:00 -
[143]
Thanks for that, Captain Irrelevant...
Meanwhile, a LST II takes up 22.4% of a Megathron's CPU. Since their is no real difference betweeen teh effectiveness of armour and shield RR on BS platforms, I propose that we balance shield and armour BS RR by making a LRAR II take up 22.4% of the Mega's PG.
New LRAR II PG requirement: 4300 MW. Nice and balanced.
|
Altan Mi
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 13:59:00 -
[144]
/signed
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 15:03:00 -
[145]
Futile bump.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |