EVE Search - Shield tanking vs Armor tanking (fixs?)

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Shield tanking vs Armor tanking (fixs?)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 27	Posted - 2012.11.10 01:40:00 - [1] - Quote Reduce the effectiveness of the ancillary shield booster would be a start. Increase the adaptation speed, reduce the high capacitor usage, and improve the effectiveness slightly of the adaptive armor hardener would help balance things a bit.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2012.11.11 00:28:00 - [2] - Quote It disturbs me that some people are getting exited about putting shield buffers on the new thorax and vexor. This is in spite of the fact that their base shields are much less than the base armor, have less mids than caldari/minmatar to do it, and will absorb less damage than them. It is also disturbing that people would rather shield tank a brutix, myrmidon, and hyperion than use their repair bonus and armor tank them.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2012.11.12 10:07:00 - [3] - Quote Escomboli wrote: Hasn't CCP already stated they recognize there is a pretty big problem with the differences in shield/armor tanking, and are looking at ways to revamp it? I hope so.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2012.11.16 00:13:00 - [4] - Quote Paikis wrote: It always does. I'm not surprised. Previous to people 'discovering' (because no actual game changes were made) that shield tanking was pretty good there were frequent calls for shield tanking to be buffed and armor tanking nerfed. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The game changes were increases in weapon damage. After that it mostly became better to apply tons of damage, move fast, and simply fit a light to medium buffer. It became worse to fit average damage, average tank, and be slow.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2012.11.20 03:30:00 - [5] - Quote I was looking over the dev blogs again and I saw something encouraging in the possible plans for the battlecruisers. Quote: Harbinger: assuming direct control. Problems on this ship are tied with the shield versus armor tanking issues, which need to be looked at. With some luck CCP will have a plan to help armor tanking a bit by the next balancing pass.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 37	Posted - 2012.11.27 22:16:00 - [6] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: In the end what's needed is a balancing of the progressing of high meta level shield and armor reppers/boosters along with most probably a reduction in cap usage/fitting of armor reppers (medium, and large) as well as a change to active tanking rig penalties. I believe that with the the proposed change from 7.5% to 10% (or more) per level to rep amount on active bonused ships we may finally see a more balanced eve, something that has been needed for many many years and seems to be a heavy focus point of the modern ccp. I don't think increasing the bonus armor repairing a ship gives is quite the right solution. Ideally, you'd also want to give active armor tanking to non-repair bonus ships as a viable option once again. I think a better solution would be to increase the base repair amount for armor repairers by maybe an extra 25%, 33%, or even 50% and increase the PG requirements some. Instead of three armor repairers for a decent tank you'd need only two and would free up a low slot for a damage or resistance module. Concerning the speed penalty of rigs and plates, I think it should no longer should have such a drastic penalty. It would probably be better to reduce agility. It should take a little longer to accelerate, but your top speed won't be affected. Frankly, I always thought the signature penalty of shield rigs and shield extenders were a joke since a MWD causes your signature radius to become obese whether you have shield rigs and extenders or not. Perhaps shield extenders and rigs need an actual drawback.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 39	Posted - 2012.11.28 23:28:00 - [7] - Quote Gangname Style wrote: Rofl. Anybody that thinks one type of tanking is overpowered is bad. Anything that thinks both tanking types should have the same properties / implant bonuses is bad. Bad troll attempt.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 39	Posted - 2012.11.28 23:58:00 - [8] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: This does not address the imbalance between rep bonus and resistance bonuses ships at all though. Currently there is less than a 3% difference in active tank between a ship with 25% resistance (lvl 5 ship skill) and 37.5% rep amount (lvl 5 ship skill) in favor of the active bonus. If you ignore this then we are right back at square one with resistance ships being plain better... Increasing rep amount is the only reasonable way to make the bonus at all viable in comparison. Yes, that it true. You're talking about amarr and caldari ships. Generally, they have more mass, are built towards being defensive, and aren't as maneuverable as gallente and minmatar. It's generally more difficult for them to pick their fights because of it. It's just my opinion that they need the extra defense to justify it.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 39	Posted - 2012.11.29 00:16:00 - [9] - Quote The reason you don't see many people using that 7.5% repairer bonus anymore is because the repairers have become bad over time. Minmatar is certainly putting their 7.5% shield boost bonus to good use.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 39	Posted - 2012.11.29 00:25:00 - [10] - Quote Paikis wrote: Perihelion Olenard wrote: The reason you don't see many people using that 7.5% repairer bonus anymore is because the repairers have become bad. Minmatar is certainly putting their 7.5% shield boost bonus to good use. Confirming that tripple-rep Myrmidons are not actually a thing. I also never see dual-rep Hyperions flying around low sec either. Confirming that ASB/LSE myrmidons with insane damage and tank are not a thing. Also never see ASB hyperions doing crazy damage and tanking just as much as an armor hyperion.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 47	Posted - 2012.12.18 14:51:00 - [11] - Quote Paikis wrote: Wasn't me who bought up over sized mods or said that they were OP. But if one is OP, they all are OP. There is no shield equivalent to the 1600mm plate. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The massive 1600mm plates are balanced on smaller ships since the ship takes a massive loss of powergrid and agility. Then again on top of that the armor rigs reduce the maximum velocity. It's a double penalty for armor buffering. What penalty do shield rigs and extenders give? It becomes easier for larger classes of ships to hit that ship in some situations. I wear my sunglasses at night.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 47	Posted - 2012.12.18 14:58:00 - [12] - Quote Mund Richard wrote: Perihelion Olenard wrote: The massive 1600mm plates are balanced on smaller ships since the ship takes a massive loss of powergrid and agility. Then again on top of that the armor rigs reduce the maximum velocity. It's a double penalty for armor buffering. What penalty do shield rigs and extenders give? It becomes easier for larger classes of ships to hit that ship in some situations. Not much of a penalty by comparison. And now we have come full circle, again the shield vs armor penalties. Though having 1600s on a cruiser is a bit over the top. With this expansion, they even nerfed the Hurricane's (which is a BC) ability to have one, and a full rack of mediums in the highs while having a MWD. Oh no, you can't fit the largest guns, a MWD, two neuts, and all the tank you want anymore. It shouldn't have been able to do that in the first place. I wear my sunglasses at night.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 47	Posted - 2012.12.18 21:50:00 - [13] - Quote You can fit oversized shield extenders on smaller ships as well as the plates. They have pretty good fitting requirements as well. Do you need a shield extender for battleships? Yes. It doesn't mean armor plates have to be nerfed because of it. What saves active shield tanking is the fact you can use oversized ASBs. Armor is locked to small, medium, and large repairers on their respective ships. Does that have to change? No. Just give armor repairers the boost they need. ASBs were already nerfed and don't need to be nerfed again to make armor more viable. I wear my sunglasses at night.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 129	Posted - 2013.01.03 00:12:00 - [14] - Quote Mund Richard wrote: Oversized shield boosters? Think of the children! Erm, oversized armor plates. So what about the plates? There are oversized shield extenders, too. I wear my sunglasses at night.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 129	Posted - 2013.01.03 07:34:00 - [15] - Quote Paikis wrote: Perihelion Olenard wrote: Mund Richard wrote: Oversized shield boosters? Think of the children! Erm, oversized armor plates. So what about the plates? There are oversized shield extenders, too. Um, do tell which shield extender is the equivalent of the 1600mm plate? I wasn't aware that there was an XL Shield Extender II module in existence? I'm getting sick of people justifying their shield boosters by saying armor can fit larger plates on. There's no restriction on what you can put the shield extenders on, either. Comparing shield boosters to armor plates is pointless. Shield buffering on battleships and armor repairers needs some help. It's not a hard thing to fix. Why is this thread so damn big? We already know what's needed. Just wait a few months and see what CCP has planned. I wear my sunglasses at night.

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.