Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lars Hamburg
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 15:39:00 -
[1]
I've read several places about Gallente ships typically benefiting from armor tanking (vs. shield tanking), but haven't been able to figure out why this is preferred for these ships. Which stat(s) make Damage Control and Armor Reppers better than Shield Boosters?
|
gfldex
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 15:42:00 -
[2]
Ships that got got low then med slots armor tank.
|
Quantum Nemesis
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 15:49:00 -
[3]
Armor fits in low slots and shields in medium. If a ship has 5 low slots and 3 med then all you have to do is the math. You can also check the individual ships HP for armor and shields.
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente Azure Horizon Federate Militia
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 20:38:00 -
[4]
Many Gallente ships also get bonuses for armor tanking (sse the ship descriptions). Amarr as well I guess. --- Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenĘt built for this! Clear Skies - The Movie |
Dodgy Past
Amarr Lollipops for Rancors
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 23:07:00 -
[5]
Having said that there are some useful fits for some Gallente ships and even the odd Amarr one that are based around shield tanks though it's rare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Mr Reason
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 23:41:00 -
[6]
Has to do with the slot layout and purpose for that ship, shield modules are (mostly) midslot, armour modules are low slot so a ship with more low than mid slots tends to be an armour tanker. Apart from that the 'general consensus' is that gallente armour tank (although there's some very good shield alternatives).
For PVE it's even more obvious as the cap modules (cap recharger, capacitor power relay) favour armour tanking (the CPR affects shield boosting in a negative way).
Some exceptions; shield gank brutix, passive tank myrmidon, shield gank Dominix.
|
Pan Dora
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 23:47:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lars Hamburg I've read several places about Gallente ships typically benefiting from armor tanking (vs. shield tanking), but haven't been able to figure out why this is preferred for these ships. Which stat(s) make Damage Control and Armor Reppers better than Shield Boosters?
What they said. Just pointing out that damage countrol is a 'omni-tank' module helping both armor and shield and also extruture.
_ I like to play this game because it make my in-game actions and archievments to mean something in-game. |
Meths
The Big Gay Animal Zoo
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 23:48:00 -
[8]
not forgetting the passive shield tanked ishtar
|
Mr Reason
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 23:51:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Meths not forgetting the passive shield tanked ishtar
And that one.
|
Memphis Baas
|
Posted - 2009.08.24 23:57:00 -
[10]
Frigates don't have enough low slots (or medium slots) to install more than an armor repairer or shield booster. Cruisers typically have room for a repairer, plate, damage control, and perhaps an EANM for a little resistance boost (on the shield side, shield booster, shield extender, invulnerability).
It's at the battleship level that it becomes obvious which "tank" the ship was designed for, because battleship tanking relies on resistances. So, a "tank" has 8+ components: armor repairer, damage control, and (one or two each, for the 4 resistance types EM Thermal Kinetic Explosive) armor hardeners. Similarly, with shields, shield booster, amplifier, and (4-8) shield hardeners.
If you only have 3 slots to set up a tank, you die fast because your resistances are crap.
|
|
Mechanogrin
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 00:12:00 -
[11]
Look at it this way.
Gallente/Minmatar -vs- Amarr/Caldari Armor/Shield -vs- Armor/Shield Hyrbid Guns/Projectile Guns -vs- Lasers/Missile
(hybrid ammo only does kin/therm damage) (laser ammo only does em/therm damage) (missiles can do any damage) (I believe projectile can do any damage)
|
bff Jill
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 07:13:00 -
[12]
Well...
Active tanking, armor or shield, really is locked into the ships design or bonuses.
Passive shield tanking is sort of a hybrid between active tanking and pure buffer tanking since it provides regenerating hitpoints. This is popular on some cruiser-sized ships of various setups that would otherwise be 'armor tanked'. One reason is that this kind of tank uses some low and some med slots, meaning as long as you have enough of both you can fit an okay passive shield tank. The main downfall of this is that large shield extenders do not add anywhere near as many hitpoints as the largest armor plates, meaning that the pure buffer of passive shield tanking is not as large. Also it does not scale well into the battleship size (i would say battleship shield tankers are better off being active tankers, but a rokh can fit a decent buffer shield tank)
Buffer tanking is just using armor plates and is quite popular due to RR gangs and also overall you get the most ehps from this strategy.
As you see, active tanking is very locked into the ship and race, there is no real reason to active shield tank unless you have bonuses for shield tanking.
On the other hand, both passive shield tanking and armor buffer tanking can be useful for any kind of ship. The passive shield tanked arbitrator is an example, as is the buffer tanked raven.
So while when it comes to active tanking you should probably stick with what your race (or ship if you fly minmatar) is 'intended' to do, don't hesitate to explore the idea of mixing it up when it comes to passive shield tanking or armor buffer tanking.
|
Warezmy Carr
Gallente Pod Pilots Association
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 16:01:00 -
[13]
By the way...
Damage Controls are far more useful in PvP than in PvE. If mission-running, a real resistance module like an Armor Hardener is far more useful than the crappy generalized resist numbers offered by the Damage Control.
The super-high effective hit points numbers boasted by ships with Damage Controls are a tease - most of the Damage Control's effectiveness is in resisting hull damage, which no self-respecting mission runner should ever allow anyway. Learning better aggro-management is far more valuable than wasting a slot on a Damage Control "just in case." -- Warezmy Carr's Skills: Here |
Agent Known
Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 20:14:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Warezmy Carr By the way...
Damage Controls are far more useful in PvP than in PvE. If mission-running, a real resistance module like an Armor Hardener is far more useful than the crappy generalized resist numbers offered by the Damage Control.
The super-high effective hit points numbers boasted by ships with Damage Controls are a tease - most of the Damage Control's effectiveness is in resisting hull damage, which no self-respecting mission runner should ever allow anyway. Learning better aggro-management is far more valuable than wasting a slot on a Damage Control "just in case."
The only time I'd use one is for fighting drones, since you have to omni-tank that. I've heard that DCs don't stack with other resists, but there's conflicting information on that matter.
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente The Rise of The Dragon Knights Void Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 23:21:00 -
[15]
I disagree. The DC is a must have on almost all my fits. If you don't know what you will be fighting a DC is one of the best modules to bring. The extra hull HP has saved my ships dozens of times. --- Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenĘt built for this! Clear Skies - The Movie |
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum Pax Romana Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 12:21:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Warezmy Carr a real resistance module like an Armor Hardener is far more useful than the crappy generalized resist numbers offered by the Damage Control.
The super-high effective hit points numbers boasted by ships with Damage Controls are a tease - most of the Damage Control's effectiveness is in resisting hull damage
Actually as well as the awesome hull resistance bonus, the 15% bonuses to armour resistances from a DC II are pretty nice - the same as you get from an unskilled EANM I (which is the competition for people with Hull Upgrades IV), and considering an EANM II with level 4 comp skills is 24% resistances, it's certainly nothing to turn your nose up at.
In fact, since it doesn't stack against armour hardeners, a DC II is more effective at increasing armour resistance than an EANM II if you already have two modules in play. In other words, 2 x EANM + DC gives better armour resists than 3 x EANM (as well as the extra hull and shield resists too). Or for carebears, something like 2 x kin, 2 x therm, DC is better than 2 x kin, 2 x therm, EANM (though both are pretty hideously overtanked...).
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |