| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pottsey
   |
Posted - 2005.06.29 10:31:00 -
[1]
Passive tanking Dreadnought results here. Please devs can we get a response about extra large shield extenders and T2 sheild relays.
A lot of people over the past few days have asked me how passive tanking works on a Dreadnought. So I figured I may as well post the results here as there is an interest.
First of all a good fix for passive tankers is to add extra large shield extenders as Dreadnoughts really need those. With the focus on shield extenders this patch and making them more useful I really hope CCP did not forget to add in extra large extenders. Please could a dev post here and confirm will we get extra large shield extenders and will it be possible to passive tank Dreadnoughts decently? I am not asking for passive tanks to beat active tanks only that itÆs useable and better then a battleship.
Next onto the passive tank data I was asked for. As there is a chance the specs will change, I simplified the math and rounded down most of the numbers to save my self time. So the below numbers are not 100% accurate but a tiny bit to low. Treat the numbers as a guideline not as precise numbers. If anyone does get a Dreadnought and fit modules they should find they end up with 2 to 3% more hit points and 2 to 3 % better shield recharge e.c.t.
My next assumption is anyone that has a Dreadnought has lvl 5 shield skills. All the below math is done with lvl 5 shield skills, no gang skills but with both 5% shield implants that boost hitpoints and shield recharge as I assume any passive tanker will have them.
Right, now onto the math, a Gallante Dread has 25K Shields, 13,333s Recharge so with skills and implant that changeÆs to 32,500 shields and 9,333 shield recharge. Shield recharge with PDS modules goes from 9,333 to 4,946.49.
Next we get shield extenders and add our skills and implants so large T2 shield extender go from 2100 to 2730 per extender with 4 that boosts the total hitpoints to 43,420 now we add on the 40% hitpoint boost effect from the PDS modules which boosts total hit points to 60,788. Leaving 1 free slot for a dread Inv field to boost resistance.
So 60,788 hitpoints / 4,946.49 = 12 * 2.5 = 30 HP regen.
Can we say extremely rubbish, my Domi with the same slot layout and same moduleÆs fitted gets almost triple that regen and 21k shields. The hitpoints I think are spot on. ItÆs the shield recharge that is to slow.
I really hope either dreads specs get tweaked or we get extra large shield extenders. Dreadnought should not have worse passive regen then battleships. In the past as each ship got bigger the total Hitpoints and the HP regen got bigger. A cruiser beats a frigate and a battleship beats a cruiser. So a Dread should beat a BS.
A simple fix is to change the shield recharge which is so slow right now its useless even for passive tankers with lots of shield recharge boosting modules
Note: Later tonight I will add in my results with shield relays over PDS modules and see if I can get that shield recharge down to a reasonable level.
Note2: Can someone else double check my math. Normally I do the math work out the best module layout then fit modules to check I didnÆt make any mistakes.
Note3: Above was not clear you can use the 2nd method of passive tanking Dreadnought with high hitpoints and high resistanceÆs as that works well. Its only the first passive tank method of high regne that does not work. Of course all assuming CCP donÆt surprise us with new passive tank modules.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 10:36:00 -
[2]
Think Devs did this with a purpose
1st: Dont use dreads in PvE
2nd: Dont make then invincible against cruisers
No sig today |
Cmd Woodlouse
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 10:42:00 -
[3]
Why would u "passive" tank a dread?
Its not meant to NPC with, its designed as a pure anti BS / anti POS ship, therefore only useable in PVP imo.
[G] - Pink Power
|
Crayathan
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 10:43:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Nafri
Think Devs did this with a purpose
1st: Dont use dreads in PvE
2nd: Dont make then invincible against cruisers
If i'm not confused a BS can tank a frigate easily, why not a dread tanking a cruiser easily. Theres got to be a point where a tiny ship is insignificant to a huge monster sized vessel
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 10:57:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Crayathan
Originally by: Nafri
Think Devs did this with a purpose
1st: Dont use dreads in PvE
2nd: Dont make then invincible against cruisers
If i'm not confused a BS can tank a frigate easily, why not a dread tanking a cruiser easily. Theres got to be a point where a tiny ship is insignificant to a huge monster sized vessel
no BS cant tank Ceptors very well, same should be the case for dreads
their counter muste be cruisers and HAC
No sig today |
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 11:10:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Crayathan
Originally by: Nafri
Think Devs did this with a purpose
1st: Dont use dreads in PvE
2nd: Dont make then invincible against cruisers
If i'm not confused a BS can tank a frigate easily, why not a dread tanking a cruiser easily. Theres got to be a point where a tiny ship is insignificant to a huge monster sized vessel
no BS cant tank Ceptors very well, same should be the case for dreads
their counter muste be cruisers and HAC
Interesting note here - the post you quote is talking about singular ships, your post talks in the plural. A BS set up to tank can tank a single frigate easily, but of course they're going to struggle if you start throwing multiple ships at them.
An unescorted, tanked dread should therefore be able to tank a solo cruiser easily, go down if there's a group of them, and last long enough under their fire for an escort to deal with them.
|
MOS DEF
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 11:12:00 -
[7]
Why passive tank the ship with the biggest cap ingame?
If you wanna active tank a ship than this one.
|
Maxine Stirner
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 11:14:00 -
[8]
I agree with Nafri, though I also think the relationship between frigate, cruiser, BS, Dread cargo space for cap charges and such should rise exponentially.
Normal fitting should always target equals and one rung down.
Ships two rungs down, in numbers but not kamikazi swarm numbers, should beat out native capacitor-mediated armor/shield regeneration over time, but still have to contend with the vastly enlarged stores of capacitor charges.
This gives capital ships 1)reduced target choices without gimped fitting, 2)enormous HP, 3)a performance cliff wall looming at the dwindling stores of cap or other charges.. so that even after victory they are weakened until the next battle.
Meanwhile, cargo such as commodities and ore should have qualitative rather than just quantitative differences to prevent civilian overreliance on warships.
I see Pottsey's point though, and I think passive recharge should be boosted even so, perhaps at the cost of a generalized or slope loss of capacitor regeneration efficiency as ship hulls get larger. With this sort of change, passive shield recharge won't throw such a huge monkey wrench in the specialization into different fields of hull class expertise.
I see extreme reliance on passive shield tanking as a fine tradeoff for npcing, or for "underfit" hull types. As in BS which fit some med size weapons, or cruisers which fit some or all small turrets or any ships which fit smaller drones in order to deal with undersized targets.
30DPS in the power curve is really just too low.
As for concerns of npcing, well there is too little high-reward, hull-restricted content for frig and cruiser specialists if we are going to continue to allow everthing to be soloable. If we make general arenas that require Dread assistance, then we will see the demand for mixed fleets even in PvE environments.
For every problem there is a simple and insufficient solution.
Locking Times & Evil Asteroids |
Decubal
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 11:28:00 -
[9]
so Gallente has suddenly moved to shield tanking,
I DONT LIKE IT 
|
Bleakheart
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 11:46:00 -
[10]
Please make dreadnoughts act as a huge -50% permawebifier against all ships smaller than a battleship at 10km range, regardless of pilot affiliation, as well as every new gigantahumongous ship to come out in the future. Thanks in advance!
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 12:10:00 -
[11]
ôWhy would u "passive" tank a dread?ö
Well a passive tank lasts longer then active tanks against a gank setup with the new changeÆs at least on a BS. Perhaps a Dread will be the same with high hitpoints and high resistance.
öIts not meant to NPC with, its designed as a pure anti BS / anti POS ship, therefore only useable in PVP imo.ö
Perhaps you want to do some of the larger complexÆs in groups with the dread taking out the larger targets and baseÆs/sentry guns while the Battleships take out the small ships. I can see plenty of valid useÆs for Dreadnaughts in PvE.
PvP people are not the only people who use mixed and large fleets. We PvEers also use large groups of mixed ships all doing different jobs.
Personally I donÆt think I will be using Dreadnaughts as I am waiting for Carriers with drones. But others asked about passive tanking so thatÆs why I made the post.
ôWhy passive tank the ship with the biggest cap ingame?ö
Perhaps you want to use the cap for other things. I like to passive shield tank then use the extra cap to get very high resistanceÆs from Inv fieldÆs which drain a lot of cap. 5+ Inv fieldÆs on a dread is not going be a nice setup to go up against. My main problem is Dreadnoughts native shield regen is weaker then a Crusier. Something as big as a Dreadnought should have far better native shield regen then a cruiser and battleship.
I need to play with numbers to find the best ratio but changing the shield recharge rate to say 8000 or 10,000 should be enough to make the shields recharge useful to passive tankers without it being to powerfull. With a shield recharge of 14,000+ you may as well just scrap shield recharge and shield recharge modules as they are next to useless.
ôso Gallente has suddenly moved to shield tanking,ö
Gallante have always been at the forefront of passive shield technology and amour repair technology and are light years ahead of the Caldari in both areas. ItÆs been like this for a long time and itÆs even in the news.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 12:40:00 -
[12]
tbh, Devs do good in not caring about balancing of passive tanking
nobody wants to make any sacrifices for passive tanking in terms of their ship stats
No sig today |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 13:24:00 -
[13]
ôtbh, Devs do good in not caring about balancing of passive tankingö
Then why did the devs make changeÆs passive tanking in this upcoming patch to better balance it? Why did they say that they want to make the more unused modules more popular if they donÆt care?
It seems like the devs do care and do want to balance passive tanking going by the change's they made. Perhaps its not the highest thing on there list and thatÆs fine, but its on the list and its getting changed. If the devs didnÆt care like you said then we would not have so meany passive tank only modules and implants.
ônobody wants to make any sacrifices for passive tanking in terms of their ship statsö
No one is asking anyone to sacrifices for passive tanking in terms of their ship stats. Where did you get that idea from? What makes Eve great is choice not limiting choice.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Maxine Stirner
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 13:44:00 -
[14]
I keep hoping that they are aiming for hybridity in unused mods. Passive shield tanking isn't extremely popular though it is interesting.
It's best to just go with the flow and make recommendations that achieve what you want in roundabout or more circuitous ways.
What sort of mod would you combine with underused shield recharge, shield capacity, or shield hardening mods? What sort of weakness are you willing to court or invent in order to gain remarkable shield native recharge?
Could we have a mod that affect the actual power curve of the shield recharge itself? Can we make the deep cycle longer and shallower, or deeper and shorter rather than just affect the tertiary variables?
What kind of effects can we invent that don't strictly have anything to do with just passive recharge on cap or shields, but still affect passive shield recharge? How can we look at increased passive shield recharge but say greater damage overspill even at the 50 or 90% integrity mark?
Tbh, the shield recharge rate on Dreads is remarkably inefficient, though I do suspect it ought to be a little bit more inefficient than of BS, and likewise BS agaisnt Cruisers. I'm sure there is a mean between the current value and this higher number. Shield regen becoming more efficient with size is an undesirable curve imo. Possibly this is just a prenerf.
Locking Times & Evil Asteroids |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 15:55:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Pottsey on 29/06/2005 15:56:39
I just worked out the shield power relays.
32,500 shields and 9,333 shield recharge. Add on shield extenders = 43,420 hitpoints. Add on shield relays and we get 1959.93 shield recharge.
So a passive recharge of 55.3 HP a second for a Dreadnought.
For comparison a Battleship with exactly the same slots and modules fitted gets around about 150 HP regen.
55 HP regen on a pure passive tank is a very long way from being useable. A passive tanked battleship should not be able to out tank a passive tanked Dreadnought and its not just a little but the battleship tank is almost 3 times better.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Blydchyld
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 17:24:00 -
[16]
imho, i think that there will be XL componants suited towards these ships.
The calculations you have done there would be very similar too working out a cruiser with small mods. so yes using mods designed for a smaller ship would suck.
------------------------------------------------
I want to be a fish. |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 17:30:00 -
[17]
Lol Pottsey you got passive recharge fetish thing:)
Everytime i see your posts its related to this.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Cosmic Dragon
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 17:33:00 -
[18]
I really enjoy your post pottsey [ if only i shield tanked rather than armour tank ]but i have 2 things to say here.
Dont forget the dreadnoughts stats will most likely be different when the patch is released like the brutix was changed before exodus brutix was cool after exodus they are crap powergrid wise.
Also i think we will be seeing dreadnought sized modules so maybee thats why your passive tanked dreadnought doesant work well because you are supposed to use the xlarg modules.
Also i wondered if you could reserch passive armour tanking for us Amarr Gilent pilots
Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beer Holder!!! |
MineallMine
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 17:34:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Pottsey
A passive tanked battleship should not be able to out tank a passive tanked Dreadnought and its not just a little but the battleship tank is almost 3 times better.
Why not?
Sure, they are big and they are bad, but they are designed, in large part, to shoot at things that don't shoot back. (Either because it is a structure or out of range.)
Dreadnoughts are more mobile artillery than anything else. Whether it is PvP or PvE they should need support ships (could it be logistics ships will become necessary?)
I agree, the Dread's bad recharge will make them more difficult to use for Deadspace missions, but the Dread is a highly specialized ship that should occassionaly be a sqaure peg in a round hole.
I am glad you are crunching all these numbers because thay are telling me the Devs are trying to avoid Dread's being a "win" button, because I'd have a problem with that. I'd have no problem however, with a Dread a Destroyer and a Logistics Ship wtfpwning a larger group of intys and BSs.
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 17:50:00 -
[20]
Dreadnoughts should have no pve usability at all.
That's all.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
blood red
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 18:30:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Dreadnoughts should have no pve usability at all.
That's all.
retarded. "pvpers" figuring that no one should use a ship for a purpose other than pvp. mind your own business as to what others use their own private ships for. its not your property and dreadnoughts arent being brought into the game to please the "pvpers".
the ONLY way a dreadnought will be earning any keep will be through pve. like warring smack talking "pvp" corps will pay for one. stupid.
you full-time hard-core 1337 "pvpers" should realize you are a minority here in eve.
dreadnoughts should have no pvp usability at all. or just no intaki dread pilots. there that should make as much sense as no pve usability.
|
Earthan
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 18:36:00 -
[22]
sorry but you are contradicting the devs wich has stated numerous times dreadnoutghs are anti-pos ships, so obviosly not against npc.
I dont like the idea too of npc-ing dreadnoths but then come to think of it why not?
A ship is a ship.Just hope it will be hard to outfit it against smalll ships,limiting its solo npc mayhem usage
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Cosmic Dragon
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 18:40:00 -
[23]
of top of my head on pve dreads several things come to mind
Why not fit Medium/Larg Turrets lol
Drones
Smartbombs
No reason why dreads cant do PvE just you wont be using xlarg turrets
Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beer Holder!!! |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 18:42:00 -
[24]
seems true.
With 20k of armour and shields you still sghuld be ultra killer
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 18:43:00 -
[25]
ôsorry but you are contradicting the devs wich has stated numerous times dreadnoutghs are anti-pos ships, so obviosly not against npc.ö
The devs did not say anti POS and PvP only. The devs said ôX-Large turrets and is intended for an Anti-Battleship and Anti-Station/Starbase role.ö NPC have battleships and Station/StarbaseÆs. So for PvP and PvE.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 18:49:00 -
[26]
Well okay the anti pos was etched in my mind more then anti bs.
Still if its only ant bs it wont be good npc killer.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 18:56:00 -
[27]
Earthan do you even do high level complex PvE raids? Anyone who has will see a use for PvE Dreadnought's.
ôAlso i wondered if you could reserch passive armour tanking for us Amarr Gilent pilotsö
It works pretty well after next weeks patch. T1 plates gives me 28,368 hitpoints and my lowest resistance is Kinetic and Thermal at 35%. So 38,296.8 to kill the ship on its weakest resistance. That was with all basic T1 parts. I could be mistaken but with named modules or T2 (if we ever get them) wouldnÆt that give you more hitpoints then a repairer would fix up in a standard battle meaning you last longer then an active amour repairer ship at least in high damage battles. That and with no cap drain you donÆt need to fit cap boosting modules in the mid slots leaving you with stuff for EW, afterburners e.c.t
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 19:00:00 -
[28]
No never done them pottsey hope to try them in future.
High level complex with drendhouth and other ships in a small fleet sounds ok and cool for me.
I would hate to see dreadnoughts soloing spawns in belts, or worse, tanking npc so other can mine.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Leshrac Shepherd
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 19:00:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Leshrac Shepherd on 29/06/2005 19:00:55
It feels like some people are taking the idea that dreads are going to be the "Next BS" and that developers are releasing them so that they can solo lvl4 missions easier (and probably lvl5 ones ;) ). I might be wrong but I think this is not the case, it is probably going to be a very specialized ship, useful for taking stations and pos, and probably sniping BS at range, but pretty much useless for everything else. Not a common use ship like a BS is nowadays.
PS: Sorry for being a bit offtopic, keep on your passive-tanking crusade Pottsey ;)
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination. |
Elve Sorrow
|
Posted - 2005.06.29 19:02:00 -
[30]
Ok, explain me this.
Why should Dreads be used for PvE? There is nothing that a BS cannot solo atm. Yes, a 10/10 complex. Thank**** for that.
The moment Dreads are being used for PvE, in 6-8 months we'll want a 'SuperDread' to do the level 8 missions. It's not 'us retarded PvPers', its the people who see balance.
/Elve
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |