EVE Search - The Invunerability Field

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The Invunerability Field - time to unnerf it!?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hakera	Posted - 2005.04.11 15:31:00 - [1] Edited by: Hakera on 11/04/2005 15:55:11 Everyone remembers the old pre-stacking uber hardner days and the invunerable scorps. To fix them the invunerability fields were nerfed to hell and back using gigantic amounts of cap so no setup could ever have a prayer of sustaining it for long at all and given the current stacking formula and cap relay nerf has imo made shield tanking the poor cousin to armour tanking. Currently your standard invunerability field has 25 - 30% resists and uses 20 cap/sec. Energised adaptive nano plates give from 14% to 20% resist for zero cap. Im not asking for a whole review of shield vs armour tanking, just for some love to a bastardised module that was nerfed into uselessness. Perhaps a lowering of cap/sec to 2-5 through either cap or duration change? edit: for ease of reference - Stats here Dumbledore - Eve-I.com
Imhotep Khem	Posted - 2005.04.11 15:38:00 - [2] I have used that module on hulers that have a fair amount of cap but not a lot to do with it. But really haulers have a fair amound of mid slots as well, so I kinda quit using it there too. It is quite the useless module. The amount of cap it uses is far outside of what it should use. The module should be slightly worse than 1/4 of 4x Normal shield hardners. Perhaps a little more cpu or mw required and a little more cap use. It already has a little less resistance. Cap use kills that module. No redemption. ____ If your not dyin' your not tryin'.
lythos miralbar	Posted - 2005.04.11 15:40:00 - [3] /Signed.. I still cant believe we have adaptive nano this and uber adaptive plating that.. yet no usable + all resists module for shields
Grut	Posted - 2005.04.11 15:41:00 - [4] i wouldnt mind them keeping the cap use if the resists were improved, that way you'd be able to make you ship alot harder to pop for a short time. Not a bad use of a mid for fleet. Mostly harmless
Julien Derida	Posted - 2005.04.11 15:48:00 - [5] Originally by: Hakera Energised adaptive nano plates or their individual resist types give form 25% to 35% resist for zero cap. Energised Adaptive Nano's give 15% bonus all-round for tech I, and 20% for tech II. The individual resist plates already have their equivalent modules for shields, the shield amplifiers, which give the same resist bonus as the energized armour plates. You should not be quoting 25% to 35% resists in this context, it is highly misleading. ---------------------------------------- Artistic Director & Chief Diplomat - FRICK
Hakera	Posted - 2005.04.11 15:54:00 - [6] Originally by: Julien Derida Originally by: Hakera Energised adaptive nano plates or their individual resist types give form 25% to 35% resist for zero cap. Energised Adaptive Nano's give 15% bonus all-round for tech I, and 20% for tech II. The individual resist plates already have their equivalent modules for shields, the shield amplifiers, which give the same resist bonus as the energized armour plates. You should not be quoting 25% to 35% resists in this context, it is highly misleading. I updated the original post, Im used to using T2 stuff :( Beside the point really, it was just a basis for comparison of their cap use. Stop nitpicking :) Dumbledore - Eve-I.com
Hakera	Posted - 2005.04.11 15:59:00 - [7] Ive not even mentioned the ease of fitting either: Energised Adaptive Nano I: 2 mw, 25 tf Energised Adaptive nano II: 2 mw, 30 tf Invunerability Field I; 1 mw, 60 tf Invunerability Field II: 1 mw, 50 tf Dumbledore - Eve-I.com
Julien Derida	Posted - 2005.04.11 16:08:00 - [8] I don't really see what is wrong with the fitting requirements. Active hardeners always take more CPU than passive ones. The only issue here is the Invulnerability Field's cap use. It needs to be reduced to about the same as a normal active shield hardener. Noone will disagree with that. There's no need to cloud the issue with anything else ---------------------------------------- Artistic Director & Chief Diplomat - FRICK
BigJim Beef	Posted - 2005.04.11 16:21:00 - [9] Originally by: Julien Derida I don't really see what is wrong with the fitting requirements. Active hardeners always take more CPU than passive ones. The only issue here is the Invulnerability Field's cap use. It needs to be reduced to about the same as a normal active shield hardener. Noone will disagree with that. There's no need to cloud the issue with anything else Also the fact that there is no passive alternative to an invulnerability is worthy of note ... but then i suppose there's no active option for armour either.
ErrorS	Posted - 2005.04.11 16:33:00 - [10] yeah, give us 50% resists all around for the same cap as it is now. ________ I'm strict Caldari "The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think? -ErrorS
Sadist	Posted - 2005.04.11 16:39:00 - [11] Edited by: Sadist on 11/04/2005 16:40:21 Originally by: ErrorS yeah, give us 50% resists all around for the same cap as it is now. And an "i win" button while you're at it? Seriously, its not nerfed back into uselessnes, it can still be used to make an invulnerable ship with a nice tank, if you use a cap inejctor. I cant believe people rant for something like "bring us our ship back with sustainable uber-resistances". Especially a scorp, thats an EW platform, and should be used as a support ship. Ok, maybe you're right, the cap use is just berserkingly insane, maybe nerf it by 2 or increase time by 2 ? _______________________________________________
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.04.11 17:00:00 - [12] the invuln' field would be at its most usefull on ships with few mid slots (and generally the smaller the ships, the fewer midslots of course), the ships where it would be the most use (frigates) cannot hope to run one for more than a few seconds, those ships that have enough cap to run one could generally run another repairer that would be as much/more use overall for the same cap, or have enough slots to use multiple 50% hardeners for better resists. . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
Cuebick	Posted - 2005.04.11 21:08:00 - [13] While ur on the subject I'm selling a Dread Guristas Invuln. field on escrow for 80m in Orvolle ^^ - Yes ____________________________________
Mikelangelo	Posted - 2005.04.11 21:10:00 - [14] Agree. Regular hardeners use something like 1.2 cap/sec for 50% resistance. The invulnerability field (or multispectral) uses 20 cap/sec with 25% to all resistances. If you think about it, the 25% to all resistances is a penalty, because shield hardeners add 25% of remaining resistances to your shield. So, why have the insane 20 times cap use of a regular hardener? Probably because somebody out there thought "gee this saves a slot". Well, it doesn't really, not with 25% to resistances. What fool would run around with only 25% to EM resistance when shield-tanking? Anyway, I guess the point of the massive cap use is do discourage some Scorp running around with 7 of them and a shield booster. Still, 20 x cap use is too much. Make it 10 times a normal hardener cap, and that might be more reasonable, while keeping people from running around with 7 of them.
Amarr Emperor	Posted - 2005.04.11 21:25:00 - [15] Edited by: Amarr Emperor on 11/04/2005 21:29:47 with 7 invul fields, a scorp gets 72% em resis and 83% kinetic, u think this is a lot? humm, i dont... u achieve very similar resistances with several diferent 50% or several invul fields Invul fields should be using 2cap/s. No more no less, IMHO. Tomorrow when i get time, i will calculate how much resistance u get on each type using 7 50% hardeners and 7 25% 3 em, 2thermal and 2 kinetic, or something like that, and see how much better invul better, and try to find the "perfect" cap need for invul, how about that?
ErrorS	Posted - 2005.04.11 21:59:00 - [16] are people stupid? i sometimes wonder if some of you even play the game.. you think with it using 20 cap a second it will be an "i win" module? jesus.. who can afford that in ANY fight? it would be a great module for gank ships. Something where you wouldn't need to hold a lot of cap for a long time. Otherwise, it would still suck. I run 6 hardeners with no cap drain whatsoever. A SINGLE inv. field uses more cap then all 6 other hardeners and with the other hardeners I still get better resists. ________ I'm strict Caldari "The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think? -ErrorS
LUKEC	Posted - 2005.04.11 22:10:00 - [17] try active cap: put this on scorpion: 3x dread invunerability,2x cap injector, 2x xl c5, boost amp. put as much cpus on low as you need and find some geddon to try your tank... thing work better as you would imagine - just like everything in eve... has use in certain aspect. it just take some imagination... and i'd also like armor module with 37.5% resist to all(for 100mil)... even if it would******my cap.... just imagine 2 of em on blasterthron :) but since ccp decided that caldari are beloved ones, we shall use passive t2 mods with 20% only and 512k sp requirement.
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.04.12 23:14:00 - [18] Originally by: LUKEC try active cap: put this on scorpion: 3x dread invunerability,2x cap injector, 2x xl c5, boost amp. put as much cpus on low as you need and find some geddon to try your tank... thing work better as you would imagine - just like everything in eve... has use in certain aspect. it just take some imagination... and i'd also like armor module with 37.5% resist to all(for 100mil)... even if it would******my cap.... just imagine 2 of em on blasterthron :) but since ccp decided that caldari are beloved ones, we shall use passive t2 mods with 20% only and 512k sp requirement. with the stacking penalty, You'd have nearly as much resistance (possibly slightly more to one or two resists) with three 50% hardeners, while drawing 3.6 cap/s instead of 60 cap/s, with two cap injectors you would I believe run out of cap charges in about 90 seconds, if that ? . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.

Pages: [1] :: 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.