EVE Search - Carrier to Super-carrier line up. Minni "needs some work"

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Carrier to Super-carrier line up. Minni "needs some work"

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Regina Scintilla Price of Progress Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.02.09 01:01:00 - [31] Originally by: VinceNoir I have a feeling that CCP will not be willing to switch the Hel to an armor buffer layout, but it would be nice. At the very least could you give the ship a worthwhile bonus? Then CCP can at least switch the slot layout to 6/6/6. Hey, if Minmatar really are supposed to be the "flexible" race, doesn't a 6/6 mid/low setup make a lot more sense than 7/5?
Gigiarc	Posted - 2010.02.09 01:58:00 - [32]
Markousa Minmatar Jita Hauling And Logistics	Posted - 2010.02.09 05:35:00 - [33] I agree that the HEL needs to be looked at . but in the slot layout that the OP is proposing your saying that it should loose 1x mid slot in doing this it would take the HEL away from being an shield carrier to an armor carrier, why are we changing every ship in the game to fit the flavor of the month and not actually fixing the problem that they have maybe just LEAVE the HEL as a SHIELD carrier and give it a better bonus . leave the ratio at 2x shield taking super carriers and 2x armor tanking ones maybe just bring shield tanking back in line with armor as has been debated for ages Minmatar are a bit of this bit of that race as i was always brought to believe look at their other ships one armor tanked one shield why shouldn't the carriers be the same . and if its the whole debate of oh well i trained armor repping for my carrier so if i get a hel i cant be ass'ed training for shield now thats just crap i guess short is , i own a HEL I'am happy with most everything with it only thing I'am not is the bonus which could be way better i think i remember seeing when they first wanted the change that it gave drones a 5% bonus to hp that will do id be happy with that
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.09 07:46:00 - [34] FYI Hel is a shield tanker. The 8 fold increase in shield is kind of a dead giveaway. But nonetheless the minmatar and caldari supercaps are in need of some work because they are severely lacking in the EHP department. Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one?
GIGAR Caldari Domini Umbrus	Posted - 2010.02.09 08:52:00 - [35] Edited by: GIGAR on 09/02/2010 08:52:11 Originally by: Sokratesz FYI Hel is a shield tanker. The 8 fold increase in shield is kind of a dead giveaway. But nonetheless the minmatar and caldari supercaps are in need of some work because they are severely lacking in the EHP department. This. I don't mind minnie being shield tankers (2 armor and 2 shield tankers is how it should be, imo) :/ -------------------------- 2 Years later, mining continues to be the most overlooked game mechanic in Eve
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2010.02.09 08:57:00 - [36] In theory, there might be some reason to worry about the Minnie caps splitting their tank types between shield and armor, but in practice the skills are dirt-easy ever since they took off the TSM 5 req for cap shields. I see no need to sync up on either shield or armor, and it seems "more Minmatar" to be weird and confused. The one area where the Hel does need a boost is in the bonus. A RR bonus is fine for the Nid, because the Nid is a pretty cheap ship(at least, by capital standards) that will get used in fleet for its RR. The Hel is quite expensive, and its high slots will generally be dedicated to things that definitely aren't RR. Thus, it ought to lose the RR bonus and gain something more useful. I don't know exactly what - drone speed? ECM burst cooldown? Bomber explosion radius? Shield HP? - but it needs a useful bonus. Other than that, I see no real need for a change simply because OP doesn't understand that it's a shield tanker.
Groot T Reaper Industries Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.02.09 09:15:00 - [37] Originally by: Sokratesz FYI Hel is a shield tanker. The 8 fold increase in shield is kind of a dead giveaway. But nonetheless the minmatar and caldari supercaps are in need of some work because they are severely lacking in the EHP department. Thank you Sokratesz, we now have a very firm grasp of the obvious. But just because something "is the way it is" does not mean it should be. The Hel is vastly inferior to its peers and incomprehensibly usless. Viewing super-carriers as "two shield tankers, two armor tankers. Makes sense" is so flawd on so many levels its painful to comprehend that someone might even concieve or, heaven forbid, begin to entertain that idea. Too many examples exist in EvE where same catagory ships do not have a similar split of armor / shield tankers across the four races. The Nidhoggur is used for as an armor tanker. Why, if the Hel is branded as the "burlier version of its carrier counterpart [niddhoggur]", is the Hel not an armor thanker? If the prospect of the Hel being a dedicated armor tanker is too alien then, as someone else stated earlier, minnie are supposed to be "flexible" but not "the best". As such, maybe the idea of a 6/6/6 layout with equal armor & shield HP would be a suitable middle ground at the very least. And in closing, apologises for the roasting but I do thank you for taking your time to read and reply to this post. Regards, Groot Carpe Diem
DutchGunner Minmatar Ray of Matar Assembly	Posted - 2010.02.09 09:57:00 - [38] It's nice to see the discussion started with a objective comparing between the super carriers. I'm in favour of the hel being changed and support the 6/6/6 lay-out as it gives room for shield and armor tanking, but no excelling in either like the Aeon and Wyvern.
Unreal5 Enterprise Estonia	Posted - 2010.02.09 10:12:00 - [39] Yes~! ASD
Markousa Minmatar Jita Hauling And Logistics	Posted - 2010.02.09 10:15:00 - [40] "Viewing super-carriers as "two shield tankers, two armor tankers. Makes sense" is so flawed on so many levels its painful to comprehend that someone might even conceive or, heaven forbid, begin to entertain that idea. Too many examples exist in EvE where same category ships do not have a similar split of armor / shield tankers across the four races." "I" personally would like to think that the idea of 2x armor and 2x shield tankers is part of something which is eve . i would like there to be 2x titans that shield tank and 2x that armor tank ( not sure if there is this already as i don't have one ) what i like about eve is the fact that when i first started playing the game came across to me as nothing was so super powered and something could beat everything kind of a rock paper scissors mental . and instead of making everything the same make it strong in its own right .. a 6/6/6 slot layout is interesting tho i don't think that would really advance the point of your original topic making it a tiny bit better at armor tanking but a lot less worse at a shield tanker :/ making it worse overall. to make a GOOD tank in a capital i will step on a ledge and say you need at least 7 slots for its respective tank to give it 1 less in both means it can do both but none good. a shield tanking HEL brings out what the minmatar are known for diversity all their ships are not both armor and shield tankers but are a mix of both instead of saying Amarr are armor tankers . gallente are armor tankers and caldari are shield tankers with those 3 races you can train ONLY armor tanking for amarr and spec up with all their ships without need for training shield and only train shield for caldari with no need to train armor but minmitar have ships for both armor and shield
BlckJck Reaper Industries	Posted - 2010.02.09 12:44:00 - [41] Supported
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.09 14:25:00 - [42] Edited by: Sokratesz on 09/02/2010 14:26:20 Originally by: Groot T Originally by: Sokratesz FYI Hel is a shield tanker. The 8 fold increase in shield is kind of a dead giveaway. But nonetheless the minmatar and caldari supercaps are in need of some work because they are severely lacking in the EHP department. Thank you Sokratesz, we now have a very firm grasp of the obvious. But just because something "is the way it is" does not mean it should be. The Hel is vastly inferior to its peers and incomprehensibly usless. The 50/50 shield/armour philosophy is fine and ccp has been pursuing it with reasonable success (see: new nag). The problem with shield supercaps is firstly the lack of a slave set-equivalent, second the lack of decent gang bonuses and lastly the suckage of the hel's and rag's base stats. I don't think making it 6/6/6 would help it much, it would make it worse in both aspects than if they kept it 5/7/6 and fixed its base HP instead. I'd rather have them fix it in its current form than re-do it totally for the sake of a few people neurotically dedicated to armour buffer fitting everything in sight. Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one?
Groot T Reaper Industries Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.02.09 14:48:00 - [43] Originally by: Sokratesz The 50/50 shield/armour philosophy is fine and ccp has been pursuing it with reasonable success (see: new nag). The problem with shield supercaps is firstly the lack of a slave set-equivalent, second the lack of decent gang bonuses and lastly the suckage of the hel's and rag's base stats. I don't think making it 6/6/6 would help it much, it would make it worse in both aspects than if they kept it 5/7/6 and fixed its base HP instead. I'd rather have them fix it in its current form than re-do it totally for the sake of a few people neurotically dedicated to armour buffer fitting everything in sight. So are you stating here that you fail to see the consistency between all the other caps and how that isn't reflected in the Hel? I achnowledge we both agree on one fact, that being the Hel does need revamping. However, we disagree on how it should be done. To claim people are "neurotically dedicated to armor buffing everything in sight" in the context of this thread is alarming. I would ask you to elaborate on this point, so please feel free so to do. As for the slot configuration, 6/6/6 would be far from optimum but its to prove a point that something does need to be done. Regards, Groot Carpe Diem
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.02.09 14:56:00 - [44] Also boost wyvern ,it only has as much ehp as the nyx , less dmg and no point.
HELIC0N ONE Brutor tribe	Posted - 2010.02.09 15:39:00 - [45] Yes to a 'better' Hel, but no to an armor buffer Hel - if there needs to be consistancy across the line, arguably it'd be better to switch the Nidhoggur to a shield tank instead. As already stated, the main issues with the Hel is that you can't plug in a slave set equivalent to boost your buffer like you can with the armour focused supercaps, that the shield bonus from a leviathan in-gang has to recharge up on every session change unlike the Erebus' instant armour bonus, and that the other shield tanking mothership has an extra midslot and a shield resist bonus and slightly more base shield HP, in exchange for one less lowslot ('who cares') and a remote rep bonus ('who cares'). Switching the slot layouts of the Hel and Wyvern might help balance those two ships relative to each other (although the cries of despair from the Caldari pilots would be audible for thousands of miles), but that wouldn't fix the underlying issue of armour buffers/tanks being simply better.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.09 16:00:00 - [46] Originally by: Groot T To claim people are "neurotically dedicated to armor buffing everything in sight" in the context of this thread is alarming. I would ask you to elaborate on this point, so please feel free so to do. People failed to shield tank the nid even though its slots were geared for it, so they whined, and had it changed, but still a shield tanked nid outperforms an armourtanked one (same for thanny btw). Hel is made for shieldtank, and it needs fixing as such. No need to force it into the 'armour buffer everything' doctrine. Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one?
xXxSatsujinxXx Reaper Industries Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.02.09 17:10:00 - [47] I was promised manlove in exchange for my support.
brutalmeteor Reaper Industries Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.02.09 17:13:00 - [48] supported for a more flexible Hel
Regina Scintilla Price of Progress Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.02.09 17:14:00 - [49] Quote: People failed to shield tank the nid even though its slots were geared for it, so they whined, and had it changed, but still a shield tanked nid outperforms an armourtanked one (same for thanny btw). If you've ever been in a spidertanking carrier fleet, you know how ridiculous this sounds.
Larkonis Trassler Genos Occidere	Posted - 2010.02.09 18:45:00 - [50] Originally by: Regina Scintilla Quote: People failed to shield tank the nid even though its slots were geared for it, so they whined, and had it changed, but still a shield tanked nid outperforms an armourtanked one (same for thanny btw). If you've ever been in a spidertanking carrier fleet, you know how ridiculous this sounds. Like it or not he's right. Even with five mids a Thanny/Nid can go 2x Invuln and EM, a booster and SB/Point/ECCM and have similar Resists to a triple EANM fit but with the advantage of being a lot more cap stable (hello CPRs). Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.02.09 18:57:00 - [51] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto The Hel is quite expensive, and its high slots will generally be dedicated to things that definitely aren't RR. Thus, it ought to lose the RR bonus and gain something more useful. I don't know exactly what - drone speed? Wins my vote. Those bombers are slow. Minmatar ditch useful things like dps and uniform tank so they can make things faster (better agility, top speed, and alpha strike for quick kills). Even their drones are faster across the board. It should follow that their focus would be to give their fighters the ability to actually get in range to attack MWD BS and their bombers the ability to get to launch range faster. Fix Local
Regina Scintilla Price of Progress Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.02.09 21:34:00 - [52] Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Originally by: Regina Scintilla Quote: People failed to shield tank the nid even though its slots were geared for it, so they whined, and had it changed, but still a shield tanked nid outperforms an armourtanked one (same for thanny btw). If you've ever been in a spidertanking carrier fleet, you know how ridiculous this sounds. Like it or not he's right. Even with five mids a Thanny/Nid can go 2x Invuln and EM, a booster and SB/Point/ECCM and have similar Resists to a triple EANM fit but with the advantage of being a lot more cap stable (hello CPRs). What are you talking about? People who want to lose carrier fleets shield tank their capitals.
Larkonis Trassler Genos Occidere	Posted - 2010.02.09 22:09:00 - [53] Originally by: Regina Scintilla Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Originally by: Regina Scintilla Quote: People failed to shield tank the nid even though its slots were geared for it, so they whined, and had it changed, but still a shield tanked nid outperforms an armourtanked one (same for thanny btw). If you've ever been in a spidertanking carrier fleet, you know how ridiculous this sounds. Like it or not he's right. Even with five mids a Thanny/Nid can go 2x Invuln and EM, a booster and SB/Point/ECCM and have similar Resists to a triple EANM fit but with the advantage of being a lot more cap stable (hello CPRs). What are you talking about? People who want to lose carrier fleets shield tank their capitals. Care to justify that? Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis
titimo Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.02.09 22:11:00 - [54] Agreed and supported
Altaica Amur Aliastra	Posted - 2010.02.10 03:48:00 - [55] Quote: FYI Hel is a shield tanker. The 8 fold increase in shield is kind of a dead giveaway. But nonetheless the minmatar and caldari supercaps are in need of some work because they are severely lacking in the EHP department. This, and just this the entire 'Hel should be an armor tanker because we want in with the cool crowd' argument it flawed and painful and broken in so many ways. For one the idea that some exceptions to the rule means that there is no rule is fairly flawed as there are also numerous examples of CCPs attempt to balance the number of armor tanking and shield tanking ships in the game, mixed success to be sure but they're trying. Quote: To claim people are "neurotically dedicated to armor buffing everything in sight" in the context of this thread is alarming. I would ask you to elaborate on this point, so please feel free so to do. I think this is pretty clear, you armor buffered a ship with 7 mid slots and 5 lows and more base shield hp then armor hp, the ship wanted to be shield tank but you shoved an armor tank down it's throat. Might as well complain about the lack of ehp on an armor tanked drake. Quote: What are you talking about? People who want to lose carrier fleets shield tank their capitals. So what you're saying is that the Hel's problem isn't it's layout it's the shield tank itself that are the problem? Currently the Hel is a shield tank and there's no particular reason to change that, if shield tanks are having a problem in carriers/super-carriers then perhaps that should be addressed instead of shuffling the Hel off to join the armor tankers and just leaving the lonely caldari as the only shield tank.
Groot T Reaper Industries Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.02.10 12:46:00 - [56] THIS THREAD IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHICH IS BETTER RE: SHIELD OR ARMOR TANKING CARRIERS. SO STOP TALKING ABOUT THAT HERE Ta, Groot Carpe Diem
Larkonis Trassler Genos Occidere	Posted - 2010.02.10 14:52:00 - [57] Originally by: Groot T THIS THREAD IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHICH IS BETTER RE: SHIELD OR ARMOR TANKING CARRIERS. SO STOP TALKING ABOUT THAT HERE Ta, Groot No, you appear to have already decided that Armour tanking is better, hence your proposal. Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.10 15:01:00 - [58] Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Originally by: Groot T THIS THREAD IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHICH IS BETTER RE: SHIELD OR ARMOR TANKING CARRIERS. SO STOP TALKING ABOUT THAT HERE Ta, Groot No, you appear to have already decided that Armour tanking is better, hence your proposal. Quoted because Larkonis is making a lot of sense here. Groot, you are trying to force the Hel into something that CCP already has decided that it's not. It doesn't serve any purpose besides being in line with armour buffer fanboi crowd. If you want to be taken seriously, make a proposal 'Fix the Hel' and list several ways in which it could be done, this way doesn't work. Want to test a supercap on SISI but don't have one?
Groot T Reaper Industries Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.02.10 16:45:00 - [59] Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Originally by: Groot T THIS THREAD IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHICH IS BETTER RE: SHIELD OR ARMOR TANKING CARRIERS. SO STOP TALKING ABOUT THAT HERE Ta, Groot No, you appear to have already decided that Armour tanking is better, hence your proposal. Quoted because Larkonis is making a lot of sense here. Groot, you are trying to force the Hel into something that CCP already has decided that it's not. It doesn't serve any purpose besides being in line with armour buffer fanboi crowd. If you want to be taken seriously, make a proposal 'Fix the Hel' and list several ways in which it could be done, this way doesn't work. Its becoming more and more clear that you've not read the OP at all. Firstly, you still haven't addressed the questions / points I presented you with earlier on which require you to have a vague understanding of the basics of my argument which I am putting forwards, as such the point you are making here is in no way valid. I strongly advise you read the original & subsequent posts. Then re-think as to why I would ask people not to debate if carriers should armor or shield tank... Carpe Diem
wert668	Posted - 2010.02.10 19:08:00 - [60]

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

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