EVE Search - Tactical Shield Manipulation 5

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Skill Discussions

Tactical Shield Manipulation 5

» 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)
Elemenohpee	Posted - 2010.10.14 15:02:00 - [1] Ok so im training up my engineering skills as im going to start doing lvl 4 missions in a raven soon, I see the poin in maxing all the other skills but im failing to see the point of getting Tactical Shield Manipulation to lvl 5. Am I missing something with this skill that makes it worth spending almost 15 days on getting it past lvl 4? Thanks for any info. Ele
Jho Ran	Posted - 2010.10.14 15:11:00 - [2] Edited by: Jho Ran on 14/10/2010 15:12:10 Search is your friend: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1279501 http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1387017
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.10.14 16:10:00 - [3] Don't train the skill to V. And don't talk about doing it either. EACS, EVE's leading jumpclone service, is FOR SALE
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.10.14 16:27:00 - [4] Originally by: Estel Arador Don't train the skill to V. And don't talk about doing it either. For some of us, it's way too late to repent. Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Misanthra	Posted - 2010.10.15 00:47:00 - [5] Time sink...if you have reached close to 25% shield, warp out and get a breather. In pve never rely on only 25% tank unless you are damn sure you have that one last rat to kill and its like 1-2 shots left. PVP, 25% is a very bad place to be (on caldari ships anyway). Nice and squishy on the inside and damage leaking into armor least of your problems. Whatever got you to 25% shields...will be finishing you off shortly. Find your warp out spot to start spamming warp to button (even if pointed....start the spam early) and hope the pod gets out lol.
Viscount Hood Gallivanting Travel Company	Posted - 2010.10.15 11:49:00 - [6] train something else its not important.
Vagus Bellum Deep Axion Excessum Gaming	Posted - 2010.10.15 16:17:00 - [7] First rule of SD: Don't talk about TSM V. Second rule of SD: Don't talk about TSM V.
xXx Vice Minmatar Digital Fury Corporation	Posted - 2010.10.15 18:51:00 - [8] It's saved me in the past to train it. It might decide whether you live or die.
Aerilis Gallente Percussive Diplomacy	Posted - 2010.10.16 04:54:00 - [9] Don't talk about it. Don't train it. DON'T TALK ABOUT IT.
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.10.16 11:15:00 - [10] Originally by: xXx Vice It's saved me in the past to train it. It might decide whether you live or die. That's just your perception fooling you. EACS, EVE's leading jumpclone service, is FOR SALE

Caldari citizen52145894561	Posted - 2010.10.17 01:51:00 - [11] the only reason why anyone would train it is if they are relying on an Active shield tank
Aerilis Gallente Percussive Diplomacy	Posted - 2010.10.17 03:34:00 - [12] Originally by: Caldari citizen52145894561 the only reason why anyone would train it is if they are incapable of exercising basic math and logic. FYP
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.10.17 11:12:00 - [13] Originally by: Aerilis Originally by: Caldari citizen52145894561 the only reason why anyone would train it is if they are incapable of exercising basic math and logic, or when it was a pre req for other skills. FYP FYFP Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Capt Wulfrunian Caldari	Posted - 2010.10.17 11:45:00 - [14] Originally by: Caldari citizen52145894561 the only reason why anyone would train it is if they are relying on an Active shield tank It won't make a difference
Iceman62	Posted - 2010.10.17 17:35:00 - [15] It WILL let you tank MORE damage in your shields for a longer amount of time. When you start taking damage in armor, you'll know that you took all you could take for as long as possible.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.10.17 17:43:00 - [16] Edited by: Tippia on 17/10/2010 17:46:46 Originally by: Iceman62 It WILL let you tank MORE damage in your shields for a longer amount of time. Yesà Unfortunately, that also means tanking less damage overall before you go boom. Or, well, on second thought: no. It will let you tank less damage in shields as well and for a longer time. At best, you can skew the statement to say that "yes, you can tank using only shields for longer"à but that doesn't really provide much of an advantage ù quite the opposite. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Iceman62	Posted - 2010.10.17 17:55:00 - [17] That is not true, has not been proven true, and hasn't even been argued very well.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.10.17 18:02:00 - [18] Originally by: Iceman62 That is not true, has not been proven true, and hasn't even been argued very well. Which part? It is true that TSM V lets you stay in shields for a shorter amount of time. It is true that TSM V lets you stay alive for a short amount of time. It is true that TSM V lets you stay away from armour damage longer. All of it has been proven true as well. I can't quite tell what it is you're referring to that hasn't been argued well. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.10.17 18:56:00 - [19] Originally by: Tippia I can't quite tell what it is you're referring to that hasn't been argued well. What he meant to say is that he is unaware or does not want to be aware of the vast amount of evidence. Simply ignoring it is easier than formulating a well-reasoned counter-argument.
Iceman62	Posted - 2010.10.18 00:20:00 - [20] The first Pilot to zero hull is dead. The first Pilot to zero armor WILL BE the first Pilot to zero hull. Are you with me so far ?

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.10.18 00:28:00 - [21] Edited by: Tippia on 18/10/2010 00:32:41 Originally by: Iceman62 The first Pilot to zero hull is dead. The first Pilot to zero armor WILL BE the first Pilot to zero hull. Are you with me so far ? I'm with you. Let's see if you can follow this one. The second of your statements has been proven false, theoretically and in practice. Having zero shield means (next to) zero regen. Having more than zero shields means more than zero regen. Staying above zero shields up until just before you die means the enemy has had to gnaw through more HP. Thus, having a chance of not-zero shield HP is preferable to being guaranteed of having zero shield HP. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Misanthra	Posted - 2010.10.18 03:19:00 - [22] Originally by: Capt Wulfrunian Originally by: Caldari citizen52145894561 the only reason why anyone would train it is if they are relying on an Active shield tank It won't make a difference This....something got you to 24% shields. Means something chewed up 76% of your shields and you have no way to stop that. Might get lucky and do something in that last 24% of tank....why risk it though. the 19 days (what is for me with +3's and learning skills 4'd) for TSM 5 be better off in fixing your dps. Wrecks don't fire back. Can fix your ship to be stronger 24% to 0. Could also fix your ship to kill stuff faster to not even get close to 24% to worry about it. One of these ways has the side benefit of getting pve done faster to increase isk/hour. Guess which one lol. Drones or high slot weapons....the 19 days be better off put into them imo Hell the 19 days be better off working speed skills if your weapons are good enough (some time sink lv 5's in weapons, I wouldn't train them unless really bored cuase return on time invested not there for me lol). While not dramiel orbits at 3000 m/s boosted, even a bs with navi 5, sc 5, acc. control 4 (if running ABs on them) can offset some bs damage decently by not standing still and moving at a decent speed. Other way to deal with dps incoming...be a moving target to not be hit as hard.
Iceman62	Posted - 2010.10.18 04:44:00 - [23] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 18/10/2010 00:32:41 Originally by: Iceman62 The first Pilot to zero hull is dead. The first Pilot to zero armor WILL BE the first Pilot to zero hull. Are you with me so far ? I'm with you. Let's see if you can follow this one. The second of your statements has been proven false, theoretically and in practice. Having zero shield means (next to) zero regen. Having more than zero shields means more than zero regen. Staying above zero shields up until just before you die means the enemy has had to gnaw through more HP. Thus, having a chance of not-zero shield HP is preferable to being guaranteed of having zero shield HP. "The second of your statements has been proven false, theoretically and in practice." That's the kind of statements I find ridiculous. When you use the words "proven", and "theoretically", in the same sentence it reeks of horse manure. I have followed every post on this and nothing has even been close to "proof" "Having zero shield means (next to) zero regen" That's another "theoretical" assumption. Your ignoring the fact that BOTH pilots are regening at 5%, 4%, 3%, to zero percent shield. Yet only one of them is taking armor damage all that time. They BOTH have the exact same regen rate all the way down. You think that this magical regen at 95% is suddenly better than incoming DPS taken in a lower resist. (It hasn't worked so far in the higher resists) And you act like only one pilot is getting regen, or that some how its better because he transferred damage to armor sooner. "Staying above zero shields up until just before you die means the enemy has had to gnaw through more HP." The crux of your theory is based around this statement. But if your hull hits zero before the shields hit zero, then you have lost HP , not gained them. And again it all revolves around unproven rates of regen and random transfers of bleed through damage.
Tau Cabalander Caldari	Posted - 2010.10.18 05:53:00 - [24] Originally by: Misanthra Originally by: Capt Wulfrunian Originally by: Caldari citizen52145894561 the only reason why anyone would train it is if they are relying on an Active shield tank It won't make a difference This....something got you to 24% shields. Means something chewed up 76% of your shields and you have no way to stop that. Might get lucky and do something in that last 24% of tank....why risk it though. Because I have a nearly 2 second cycle on my shield booster. My tank isn't broken until I hit armor. I regularly take volleys that eat 60% or more of my shield. The booster restores that before the next volley, but my shield is very low for a time while still taking smaller less damaging hits, which bleeds. Actually, TSM 5 would be more useful in my Drake where I spent a lot more time below 5%. It bled a heckuva lot. if you've never had a problem with bleed, then don't bother training TSM 5. I really can't understand what is so hard to understand about this!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.10.18 07:11:00 - [25] Originally by: Iceman62 I have followed every post on this and nothing has even been close to "proof" Excellent, then you're aware of the four independent tests which have been done, and you can tell me exactly what you think is wrong with them.
Misanthra	Posted - 2010.10.18 07:13:00 - [26] Originally by: Tau Cabalander if you've never had a problem with bleed, then don't bother training TSM 5. I really can't understand what is so hard to grasp about this! Thats the purpose of the this thread lol....some guy asked and we are giving opinions. Some like TSM 5. If it works for you go for it. I see a down side and put it out there. OP can pick and choose his path. Is any one right? Nope...more than one way to skin a cat. Breaks down to how conservatvely you play. I get to 25%...added times to warp out and back in worth it vice pushing the envelope and potentially losing money in rigs and and lost fittings. If blitzing the mission and riding it out to save 3 minutes worth it to someone...by all means, spend the 19 days to blitz with some piece of mind. Or just train up and switch to tengu, except for web/scram/paing happy missions like buzz kill...its cuts through alot of tanking issues. HML sniping or rush in shotgun style with HAM's, either works. Stay on the ball with killing potential web/scram frigs and tank less of an issue (hell have forgetten to turn on hardeners and still wasn't get beat down too bad...even got me thinking of trying passive amplifiers with some compensation skills tweaking just to save juice and try something new).
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.10.18 10:14:00 - [27] Originally by: Iceman62 That's the kind of statements I find ridiculous. When you use the words "proven", and "theoretically", in the same sentence it reeks of horse manure. You do know what a theory is, right? There's nothing strange about using theory to prove things. The fact that (proven) practice agrees with this theoretical proof makes it even betterà Quote: I have followed every post on this and nothing has even been close to "proof" What's wrong with them? Show us your counter-theory. Show us the tests that disprove what previous tests have shown. Explain why the previous tests are wrong. Quote: That's another "theoretical" assumption. Your ignoring the fact that BOTH pilots are regening at 5%, 4%, 3%, to zero percent shield. Yet only one of them is taking armor damage all that time. They BOTH have the exact same regen rate all the way down. That's just it: they don't. The TSM IV guy will never be at lower shields than the TSM V guy ù that's the whole point of the skill ù and as a result, he will always have at least as good, and often better, regen than the other guy. This means he gets more HP back as time progresses. This means that by the time he is reduced to 0/0/0, he has lost more shield HP. This means the enemy has had to shoot him more. This is good. Quote: The crux of your theory is based around this statement. But if your hull hits zero before the shields hit zero, then you have lost HP , not gained them. àand this happens how often? You see, it's not just a crux of theory, but of practice. As it happens, practice has shown that it's preferable to have TSM IV to TSM V: it lets you live (ever so slightly) longer. àand you need something far more substantial than "nu-uh!" to counter that little factoid. Where are your test results? Hand over the data. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Loki Nahat Skyforger Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2010.10.18 11:47:00 - [28] I can't believe people are still trying to argue about this, When Tippia and Estel have offered test results and a compendium of reasoning why TSM 5 is a BAD IDEA, what sane person still doubts? meh, i think next we should encourage people to waste their training time, whilst we skill up something more useful Loki
Sergeant Spot Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.18 15:00:00 - [29] It is a bit silly that TSM Lv5 actually makes you softer than TSM Lv4, but silly or not, thats the way the game mechanics work. While CCP have much bigger fish to fry, if they wanted to fix this little game mechanic, just treat the Shield regen tic when shields are at Zero the same as shields being at 50% (but leave the shield game mechanics unchanged for everything EXCEPT Zero). Play nice while you butcher each other.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.10.18 15:54:00 - [30] Originally by: Sergeant Spot It is a bit silly that TSM Lv5 actually makes you softer than TSM Lv4, but silly or not, thats the way the game mechanics work. Well, it not that strange, it's just that the mechanics don't quite gel with the prevalent tanking paradigms. The whole TSM IV > TSM V is something that comes out of the idea that you want to buffer/passive-tank your shields in PvP, because the only thing that really matters is outlasting the opponent. If you win by 1 hull, you still win, and the confrontations are short and sweet and then done with. When we move into the realm of active-tanked PvE, however, TSM 5 actually has a value. What you're doing then is making money, and dipping into armour (not to mention hull) is always a bad idea because it comes a at a cost ù one that doesn't quite exist in the same way in PvP. Moreover, you're facing a looong, sloooow, continuous gnawing DPS which, if left unattended might actually make your armour and hull run out prematurely (and since you're active tanked, the difference in shield regen at <5% isn't large enough to make an impact on your overall tanking ability). àso it certainly has its use, but that use is such an edge case that, overall, you probably don't want it: how often do you intend to stay on the field with <5% active-tanked shields in your ratting/mission-running ship? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki



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.