| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kashre
   |
Posted - 2004.12.25 10:48:00 -
[1]
So at 75% shield increase and 25% armor increase it would appear that this stongly lends itself to shiled tanking. However, I can only think of 5 minmatar ships off the top of my head that this will be good for. Tempest, vagabond, munin, cyclone, jaguar. They are the only minmatar ships that have a prayer of effectively shield tanking.
So what about the ships that are obviously meant to armor tank? Typhoon? Claw? Minmatar cruisers, none of which have more than 3 mids?
At the very least, the HP bonuses should be tailored to the individual ships rather than a blanket on the whole race, or you'll render more than half of the minmatar ships useless.
Why do minmatar have anything that is weighted towards shield tanking anyways? I can understand the tempest, because its big and slow no matter what... but all our other ships are supposed to be "go fast and hit hard ships". The go fast part depends on mid slots and cap, thus reducing any possible shield tank to uselessness anyways. Whch reminds me of another gripe:
I understand that minmatar assault ships were given resistance bonuses to make them "laser proof". But in the "real" eve world where your as likely to run into a taranis or a crow as you are a crusader, their bonuses are kind of crappy when compared to their slot layouts. The wolf with 2 mids and 4 lows cries out to be armor tanked, but isnt all that much better at it than a claw is because it gets no bonuses to the resistances its weak in anyways. I've thought the same thing about the vagabond, since the vagabond is perfect for MWD/tackle/autocannons setup, but it makes a pretty lousy armor tank, as heavy assaults go.
So theres my 2 cents. Inteligent ship designers would, Id think, strive to make the various advantages designed into a ship work TOGETHER, not against each other.
+++
It's called "low security space" for a reason. |
Kashre
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 10:48:00 -
[2]
So at 75% shield increase and 25% armor increase it would appear that this stongly lends itself to shiled tanking. However, I can only think of 5 minmatar ships off the top of my head that this will be good for. Tempest, vagabond, munin, cyclone, jaguar. They are the only minmatar ships that have a prayer of effectively shield tanking.
So what about the ships that are obviously meant to armor tank? Typhoon? Claw? Minmatar cruisers, none of which have more than 3 mids?
At the very least, the HP bonuses should be tailored to the individual ships rather than a blanket on the whole race, or you'll render more than half of the minmatar ships useless.
Why do minmatar have anything that is weighted towards shield tanking anyways? I can understand the tempest, because its big and slow no matter what... but all our other ships are supposed to be "go fast and hit hard ships". The go fast part depends on mid slots and cap, thus reducing any possible shield tank to uselessness anyways. Whch reminds me of another gripe:
I understand that minmatar assault ships were given resistance bonuses to make them "laser proof". But in the "real" eve world where your as likely to run into a taranis or a crow as you are a crusader, their bonuses are kind of crappy when compared to their slot layouts. The wolf with 2 mids and 4 lows cries out to be armor tanked, but isnt all that much better at it than a claw is because it gets no bonuses to the resistances its weak in anyways. I've thought the same thing about the vagabond, since the vagabond is perfect for MWD/tackle/autocannons setup, but it makes a pretty lousy armor tank, as heavy assaults go.
So theres my 2 cents. Inteligent ship designers would, Id think, strive to make the various advantages designed into a ship work TOGETHER, not against each other.
+++
It's called "low security space" for a reason. |
Shocky
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 11:28:00 -
[3]
Min should have an equal increase to both shield and armor or prehaps a little more armor considering most minmator ships have more low slots.. Typhoon e.g...
|
Shocky
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 11:28:00 -
[4]
Min should have an equal increase to both shield and armor or prehaps a little more armor considering most minmator ships have more low slots.. Typhoon e.g...
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 11:57:00 -
[5]
Yes, remember that the proposed values by TomB were not final yet. He also said that certain ships had to get tweaked individually, I think that includes some of the Minmatar.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 11:57:00 -
[6]
Yes, remember that the proposed values by TomB were not final yet. He also said that certain ships had to get tweaked individually, I think that includes some of the Minmatar.
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 12:16:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Kashre
So at 75% shield increase and 25% armor increase it would appear that this stongly lends itself to shiled tanking. However, I can only think of 5 minmatar ships off the top of my head that this will be good for. Tempest, vagabond, munin, cyclone, jaguar. They are the only minmatar ships that have a prayer of effectively shield tanking.
why did you say the muninn?
sure its got high resist, but with the 5 lows against 3 med its an arnmour tank not a shield tank.
i believe that minnie ships are armour tanking but I explained elsewhere that is due to how better armour tanking is over shield tanking.
If CCP want us to shield tank they need to unnerf cap relays & invunerability fields. Until that is done, people will armour tank unless they have 6 med so they have enough room for shield hardners.
I suggested a 50/50 split between armour/shield would be more appropiate being as the majority of minnie ships are armour tanks based on the current state of shield vs armour tank.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 12:16:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Kashre
So at 75% shield increase and 25% armor increase it would appear that this stongly lends itself to shiled tanking. However, I can only think of 5 minmatar ships off the top of my head that this will be good for. Tempest, vagabond, munin, cyclone, jaguar. They are the only minmatar ships that have a prayer of effectively shield tanking.
why did you say the muninn?
sure its got high resist, but with the 5 lows against 3 med its an arnmour tank not a shield tank.
i believe that minnie ships are armour tanking but I explained elsewhere that is due to how better armour tanking is over shield tanking.
If CCP want us to shield tank they need to unnerf cap relays & invunerability fields. Until that is done, people will armour tank unless they have 6 med so they have enough room for shield hardners.
I suggested a 50/50 split between armour/shield would be more appropiate being as the majority of minnie ships are armour tanks based on the current state of shield vs armour tank.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
kebab v2
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 17:56:00 -
[9]
with much greater values of sheild hp i can see that passive sheild tanking might become a viable option in the future which would naturally be good for minmatar with projectiles using no cap.
imagine 7 of these things on your phoon, a few extenders and em harderner in the mids, heavy nos,siege,whatever L proj in the highs.
the tempest could be even better.
|
kebab v2
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 17:56:00 -
[10]
with much greater values of sheild hp i can see that passive sheild tanking might become a viable option in the future which would naturally be good for minmatar with projectiles using no cap.
imagine 7 of these things on your phoon, a few extenders and em harderner in the mids, heavy nos,siege,whatever L proj in the highs.
the tempest could be even better.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 18:07:00 -
[11]
"imagine 7 of these things on your phoon"
... That thing reduces your powergrid by 10% when installed. Put 7 of them on the Typhoon and you'll be lucky if you manage to mount a civilian gatling on the grid you have left? ^^;;
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 18:07:00 -
[12]
"imagine 7 of these things on your phoon"
... That thing reduces your powergrid by 10% when installed. Put 7 of them on the Typhoon and you'll be lucky if you manage to mount a civilian gatling on the grid you have left? ^^;;
|
Hast
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 18:38:00 -
[13]
doesent matter wich ratio of shields/armor you give it as long as its not 100/0...
since noone is gonna benefit more than Caldari and Amarr from the buff... and people wonder why amarrian and caldari ships are the battleships you see most of on the battlefield...
|
Hast
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 18:38:00 -
[14]
doesent matter wich ratio of shields/armor you give it as long as its not 100/0...
since noone is gonna benefit more than Caldari and Amarr from the buff... and people wonder why amarrian and caldari ships are the battleships you see most of on the battlefield...
|
Hast
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 18:40:00 -
[15]
Originally by: kebab v2
with much greater values of sheild hp i can see that passive sheild tanking might become a viable option in the future which would naturally be good for minmatar with projectiles using no cap.
imagine 7 of these things on your phoon, a few extenders and em harderner in the mids, heavy nos,siege,whatever L proj in the highs.
the tempest could be even better.
I'm sorry to say, but until I get to test against a "passive shield" tank I dont have much faith in them...
and yeah, maybe you can squeese on a rocket launcher with your civilian gatling gun on your Phoon
|
Hast
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 18:40:00 -
[16]
Originally by: kebab v2
with much greater values of sheild hp i can see that passive sheild tanking might become a viable option in the future which would naturally be good for minmatar with projectiles using no cap.
imagine 7 of these things on your phoon, a few extenders and em harderner in the mids, heavy nos,siege,whatever L proj in the highs.
the tempest could be even better.
I'm sorry to say, but until I get to test against a "passive shield" tank I dont have much faith in them...
and yeah, maybe you can squeese on a rocket launcher with your civilian gatling gun on your Phoon
|
kebab v2
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 19:05:00 -
[17]
that adds 10% grid atm at least, check out the stats on any other mod that increases grid, eg rcu Linkage
and you will see.
|
kebab v2
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 19:05:00 -
[18]
that adds 10% grid atm at least, check out the stats on any other mod that increases grid, eg rcu Linkage
and you will see.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 19:38:00 -
[19]
"that adds 10% grid atm at least"
Ack, good call :o the grid multiplier is 1.1 for that one, the database just displays it in odd way for some reason... hmm.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 19:38:00 -
[20]
"that adds 10% grid atm at least"
Ack, good call :o the grid multiplier is 1.1 for that one, the database just displays it in odd way for some reason... hmm.
|
Kashre
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 20:30:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Kashre on 26/12/2004 06:02:59
Edited by: Kashre on 25/12/2004 20:32:05
Originally by: Hakera
[
why did you say the muninn?
sure its got high resist, but with the 5 lows against 3 med its an arnmour tank not a shield tank.
i believe that minnie ships are armour tanking but I explained elsewhere that is due to how better armour tanking is over shield tanking.
If CCP want us to shield tank they need to unnerf cap relays & invunerability fields. Until that is done, people will armour tank unless they have 6 med so they have enough room for shield hardners.
I suggested a 50/50 split between armour/shield would be more appropiate being as the majority of minnie ships are armour tanks based on the current state of shield vs armour tank.
oops your right, my bad on that one. I only fly the vagabond and I missremembered the stats on the munin.
As for the passive shield tank thing.... *maybe*. Im not entirely clear on how the shield recharge works, but it seems to me that if you get a 20% boost from skills and 75% boost from the balancing then put 7 of those things on, you'll get yourself something like 6956 shield HP and a recharge time of 210 seconds, assuming my math is anywhere near reality. Which is 33 shield points per second (not accounting for the recharge curve), granted for no cap use.
But even a T1 XL shield booster gives you 80 HP/s boost. The only advantage I can see the passive system having is that it will run forever... but the battle isnt going to take forever with that paltry amount of defence.
+++
It's called "low security space" for a reason. |
Kashre
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 20:30:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Kashre on 26/12/2004 06:02:59
Edited by: Kashre on 25/12/2004 20:32:05
Originally by: Hakera
[
why did you say the muninn?
sure its got high resist, but with the 5 lows against 3 med its an arnmour tank not a shield tank.
i believe that minnie ships are armour tanking but I explained elsewhere that is due to how better armour tanking is over shield tanking.
If CCP want us to shield tank they need to unnerf cap relays & invunerability fields. Until that is done, people will armour tank unless they have 6 med so they have enough room for shield hardners.
I suggested a 50/50 split between armour/shield would be more appropiate being as the majority of minnie ships are armour tanks based on the current state of shield vs armour tank.
oops your right, my bad on that one. I only fly the vagabond and I missremembered the stats on the munin.
As for the passive shield tank thing.... *maybe*. Im not entirely clear on how the shield recharge works, but it seems to me that if you get a 20% boost from skills and 75% boost from the balancing then put 7 of those things on, you'll get yourself something like 6956 shield HP and a recharge time of 210 seconds, assuming my math is anywhere near reality. Which is 33 shield points per second (not accounting for the recharge curve), granted for no cap use.
But even a T1 XL shield booster gives you 80 HP/s boost. The only advantage I can see the passive system having is that it will run forever... but the battle isnt going to take forever with that paltry amount of defence.
+++
It's called "low security space" for a reason. |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 20:52:00 -
[23]
Originally by: kebab v2
imagine 7 of these things on your phoon, a few extenders and em harderner in the mids, heavy nos,siege,whatever L proj in the highs.
the tempest could be even better.
no disrespect to the passive tank crowd like you & pottsey, but they are not for PvP, any of the standard setups will gank any passive shield tank you can come up with.
Going into battle with 7 of those on is suicide, even with a 192% shield recharge, -245% cap recharge and -70% grid.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 20:52:00 -
[24]
Originally by: kebab v2
imagine 7 of these things on your phoon, a few extenders and em harderner in the mids, heavy nos,siege,whatever L proj in the highs.
the tempest could be even better.
no disrespect to the passive tank crowd like you & pottsey, but they are not for PvP, any of the standard setups will gank any passive shield tank you can come up with.
Going into battle with 7 of those on is suicide, even with a 192% shield recharge, -245% cap recharge and -70% grid.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
kebab v2
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 21:04:00 -
[25]
thats not far of what i calculated for a base regen but dont forget the 2 skills that boost sheild capacity, you can get 25% out of one and 10% out of the other which stack with sheild extenders, the figure is more like 14000hp/220sec guesstimate.
Also sheild regen is like cap regen, at its most effective point it will regen at least twice as fast as this.
This is all based on just the current test hp changes tho, i expect sheild extenders will also be buffed somewhat to make them more usefull.
i would love to test some of this stuff out but its almost impossible to get a bs on the market on sisi server.
You never know, passive could be the new 3rd way to tank? it would be nice to have more that one way to setup the same ship, variety is the spice of life.
|
kebab v2
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 21:04:00 -
[26]
thats not far of what i calculated for a base regen but dont forget the 2 skills that boost sheild capacity, you can get 25% out of one and 10% out of the other which stack with sheild extenders, the figure is more like 14000hp/220sec guesstimate.
Also sheild regen is like cap regen, at its most effective point it will regen at least twice as fast as this.
This is all based on just the current test hp changes tho, i expect sheild extenders will also be buffed somewhat to make them more usefull.
i would love to test some of this stuff out but its almost impossible to get a bs on the market on sisi server.
You never know, passive could be the new 3rd way to tank? it would be nice to have more that one way to setup the same ship, variety is the spice of life.
|
kebab v2
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 21:06:00 -
[27]
Edited by: kebab v2 on 25/12/2004 21:06:50
imo passive would have very little use outside pve.
|
kebab v2
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 21:06:00 -
[28]
Edited by: kebab v2 on 25/12/2004 21:06:50
imo passive would have very little use outside pve.
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 21:21:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Hakera on 25/12/2004 21:35:01
the most efficient setups will be armour tanks, particularly apocs, armas & phoons using passive hardners. If these changes go through as per initial suggestion (I doubt they will) then get one large armour rep with 6-7 energised adaptive nano membrane II's and your pretty much setup for this patch, the most cap efficient resistant tank.
Particularly the apoc or phoon as the apoc can easily handle the cap recharge over the longer battles and the phoon can dedicate its cap to running the armour rep.
Tech 2 cruisers will pwn as well with their high natural resists, low sig radius and good damage. With the extra HP I actually think a fleet of those will pwn most others. I would fear a fleet of munnins and vagabond or cerberus/sacriledge then a bs fleet with this change.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 21:21:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Hakera on 25/12/2004 21:35:01
the most efficient setups will be armour tanks, particularly apocs, armas & phoons using passive hardners. If these changes go through as per initial suggestion (I doubt they will) then get one large armour rep with 6-7 energised adaptive nano membrane II's and your pretty much setup for this patch, the most cap efficient resistant tank.
Particularly the apoc or phoon as the apoc can easily handle the cap recharge over the longer battles and the phoon can dedicate its cap to running the armour rep.
Tech 2 cruisers will pwn as well with their high natural resists, low sig radius and good damage. With the extra HP I actually think a fleet of those will pwn most others. I would fear a fleet of munnins and vagabond or cerberus/sacriledge then a bs fleet with this change.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 21:45:00 -
[31]
btw j0, that is a cool sig! 
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.12.25 21:45:00 -
[32]
btw j0, that is a cool sig!
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |