EVE Search - Invunerability fields need lovin?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Invunerability fields need lovin?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rawthorm	Posted - 2005.07.24 18:31:00 - [1] Now that the nerf of the decade has taken place I think its now more importaint than ever to get the Invunerability fields sorted. They use an insane amount of cap and have such a small cycle time that the only ships that can even use one effectivly are Amarr ships (which armour tank so its a mute point) and a 4 PDU II fitted raven which lets face it, isnt everyones cup of tea. Isnt it about time the little power hungry modules were wacked into line a bit?
HippoKing	Posted - 2005.07.24 18:34:00 - [2] i think the point is that they are a complete ***** to have running, otherwise my 3 50% hardeners could easily be replaced by 3 25% inv fields. this would mean i would get 75% to 4 dmg types, as opposed to the 50% each to 3 i get at the moment (i know it doesn't add up like this exactly, but it proves the point) how hard do u want my raven to be? this would destroy armor tanking if inv fields were boosted too much - it would be easy for raven's to have all their resistances >80 or 90%
Krulla	Posted - 2005.07.24 19:14:00 - [3] Originally by: HippoKing i think the point is that they are a complete ***** to have running, otherwise my 3 50% hardeners could easily be replaced by 3 25% inv fields. this would mean i would get 75% to 4 dmg types, as opposed to the 50% each to 3 i get at the moment (i know it doesn't add up like this exactly, but it proves the point) how hard do u want my raven to be? this would destroy armor tanking if inv fields were boosted too much - it would be easy for raven's to have all their resistances >80 or 90% Do you have any idea how stacking penalities work? You would NOT get 75% resistances across the board for 3 invulnurability fields, closer to 40-45%. Respect the Domi. Or else.
Cypherous	Posted - 2005.07.24 19:28:00 - [4] So why would you fit invul fields when you obviously just need 3 standard hardners :)
James Lyrus	Posted - 2005.07.24 19:57:00 - [5] Originally by: Cypherous So why would you fit invul fields when you obviously just need 3 standard hardners :) Because you'd have damage resistance to all 4, rather than just 3.
Mallik Hendrake	Posted - 2005.07.24 20:28:00 - [6] If armor tanks can have 22.5% to everything for no cap and only around 30 cpu (energized adaptive nano II for the win) i think invulnerability fields could use some freaking love. They should cost a negligible amount of cap...period. Hardening your shields is a lot more difficult than armor already given that frigging everything uses EM (so you almost automatically need 2x EM hardener).
Zungen	Posted - 2005.07.24 20:30:00 - [7] there was a time tho when invul fields were 50% before the popularity of 50% faded away, tho their still in the game with some npc loot
Xavier Belt	Posted - 2005.07.25 00:23:00 - [8] I'm pretty sure that they just have a typo. I think they are meant to have a 12.5 second cycle time rather than a 2.5 second cycle time. It costs 50 energy per cycle. The other ones are what, 20 energy per cycle, and they have that longer cycle time. 2.5 times the energy cost is far more reasonable than 10 or 15 times. -- @BrerRabbit> you have to be the iron mallet of reason @Quixzlizx> right now he's being the "stupid comedian" of reason
JoeSomebody	Posted - 2005.07.25 01:37:00 - [9] well the cap use on BS isnt rly that bad, but stacking is what really suck... 1x EM hardener = 50% EM resist 1x EM + 1x invul = 56% EM resist... could be at least 60% ____ When flying by Concord Customs Commander's Dominix I distinctly heard him saying "... world domination..."
Selim	Posted - 2005.07.25 01:42:00 - [10] Make them into exact copies of energized adaptive nanos.
slapp	Posted - 2005.07.25 01:56:00 - [11] have you ever thought that they are dreadnaugth exclusive? __________________________________________________ CAREBEAR, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in CCP affairs has always been dominant and controling.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.07.25 03:16:00 - [12] Originally by: slapp have you ever thought that they are dreadnaugth exclusive? Uh...why would they be. Invulns do need some lovin. ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss Combat Pilot and looking for a corp? Check AGSYN out here
BirdBleed	Posted - 2005.07.25 03:23:00 - [13] just up the resists on the invul fields. They are called invunerable fields arent they ? so why not make the ship invun from all dmg for a short period of time ? :)
Vishnej	Posted - 2005.07.25 03:50:00 - [14] Originally by: Krulla Originally by: HippoKing i think the point is that they are a complete ***** to have running, otherwise my 3 50% hardeners could easily be replaced by 3 25% inv fields. this would mean i would get 75% to 4 dmg types, as opposed to the 50% each to 3 i get at the moment (i know it doesn't add up like this exactly, but it proves the point) how hard do u want my raven to be? this would destroy armor tanking if inv fields were boosted too much - it would be easy for raven's to have all their resistances >80 or 90% Do you have any idea how stacking penalities work? You would NOT get 75% resistances across the board for 3 invulnurability fields, closer to 40-45%. He would be unable to concieve of the stacking penalty, which DOES apply - if he didn't know merely how resistances stack. With the stacking penalty, for 25% resists: 1-((1-0.25)^3)= 57.8% resists. With the stacking penalty, 3 25% fields end up being 48.1% resists. Stacking penalty math: ((1-a)^n)^((1/n)^0.25) Where a is the resistance in decimal a=0.25 and n is the number of mods n=3
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.07.25 03:52:00 - [15] "I'm pretty sure that they just have a typo. I think they are meant to have a 12.5 second cycle time rather than a 2.5 second cycle time." No typo. They were intentionally nerfed to hell and back after people would use them stacked to get invulnerable Scorpions to kill in empire space, in days when the stacking penalty didn't exist and you'd be able to run the fields all day... and they've been this way ever since.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.07.25 08:33:00 - [16] Edited by: Pottsey on 25/07/2005 08:34:23 ôThey use an insane amount of cap and have such a small cycle time that the only ships that can even use one effectivly are Amarr shipsö Well I shield tank with Gallante ships and use 1 to 4 fields depending on my mood without any problem. Just about any battleship can use them if you think about your module layout. ôSo why would you fit invul fields when you obviously just need 3 standard hardners :)ö I love invulnerable fields they are perfect and donÆt need changing. Well perhaps a little and I do mean very small boost, but not back to how they used to be. I tend to use anywhere from 1 to 4 on my Gallente ships. Just using 2 dread fields is like having 8 passive hardeners all in 2 slots. The basic named ones are a few % behind normal hardness but 2 to 4 fields beat 2 to 4 active hardeners when comparing the top end versions. So when you have the cap to run fields they are better then normal hardeners and my ships all have the cap to run them. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.07.25 08:42:00 - [17] Edited by: Pottsey on 25/07/2005 08:43:22 ôDo you have any idea how stacking penalities work? You would NOT get 75% resistances across the board for 3 invulnerability fields, closer to 40-45%.ö You can do it if you use dread fields. 3 fields pretty much gives you an average of 75% across the board. EM it a little below 75% and explosive will be over 75%. They are not even that expensive anymore I got my last lot for 45 mill each. When you look at all these people paying over 40 million for single hardeners officer loot I cannot help but think they would be better off using Dread invulnerability fields. 3 fields beat 4 officer single hardeners when each boosts 1 resistance. If you have 1 of the ships setups that donÆt have the cap to run 3 then just fill the 4th slot with a cap boosting module and your ok. We also need T2 fields as T2 fields will beat T2 normal hardeners. EDIT: 3 fields T1 will give 48% EM, 58% Thermal, 68% Kinetic and 79% Explosive all rounded down. Which is 1 slot less then 4 hardners and you only lose 2% on EM over 4 hardners. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Apoll	Posted - 2005.07.25 09:20:00 - [18] Invi fields are good if you do passive tanking so you benefit from the energy needs there. With perfect skills (aka 5s) + implants (and T2 shield power relay when it comes out) you can create heavy passive tank on ferox/raven/scorp.
ELECTR0FREAK	Posted - 2005.07.25 10:29:00 - [19] I think the devs are hesitant to make Invulnerability fields any better because some pretty nasty Scorpion + Cap Support BS possibilities pop up.
DarK	Posted - 2005.07.25 10:47:00 - [20] Moa + 2 invulnerability fields + 4 dual 425mm 'scout' artilleries 4tw:)
Neon Genesis	Posted - 2005.07.25 10:53:00 - [21] Originally by: slapp have you ever thought that they are dreadnaugth exclusive? __ There, i just contributed nothing to your thread
Kaya Shanarr	Posted - 2005.07.25 10:59:00 - [22] Yes boost them, let them give more resist and use less cap. My Vagabond would love that...
slapp	Posted - 2005.07.25 13:49:00 - [23] Originally by: Neon Genesis Originally by: slapp have you ever thought that they are dreadnaugth exclusive? oi mate, the way invulnerables are now, they seem like dread exclusive pretty much __________________________________________________ CAREBEAR, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in CCP affairs has always been dominant and controling.
DrunkenOne	Posted - 2005.07.25 13:55:00 - [24] Originally by: Selim Make them into exact copies of energized adaptive nanos. signed. Seems like the easiest thing and easiest to balance. Or make them use even more cap (like 3x), but make them 50% resist across the board, so you are "invunerable" but only for a short time. Originally by: Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
Nervar	Posted - 2005.07.25 14:08:00 - [25] Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 25/07/2005 08:34:23 ôThey use an insane amount of cap and have such a small cycle time that the only ships that can even use one effectivly are Amarr shipsö Well I shield tank with Gallante ships and use 1 to 4 fields depending on my mood without any problem. Just about any battleship can use them if you think about your module layout. ôSo why would you fit invul fields when you obviously just need 3 standard hardners :)ö I love invulnerable fields they are perfect and donÆt need changing. Well perhaps a little and I do mean very small boost, but not back to how they used to be. I tend to use anywhere from 1 to 4 on my Gallente ships. Just using 2 dread fields is like having 8 passive hardeners all in 2 slots. The basic named ones are a few % behind normal hardness but 2 to 4 fields beat 2 to 4 active hardeners when comparing the top end versions. So when you have the cap to run fields they are better then normal hardeners and my ships all have the cap to run them. Yea well you see some people like to pvp and not stick their ships full of shield extenders relays and all sorts of crap that has no place on pvp setup. Annyway last time i heard they had no intent on making them usefull again -------------------------------------------------> What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death.
JoeSomebody	Posted - 2005.07.25 14:17:00 - [26] Originally by: DrunkenOne Or make them use even more cap (like 3x), but make them 50% resist across the board, so you are "invunerable" but only for a short time. signed. ____ When flying by Concord Customs Commander's Dominix I distinctly heard him saying "... world domination..."
Zaintiraris	Posted - 2005.07.25 14:39:00 - [27] I believe they could use a small amount of loving. Being able to use them effectively would be the only reason that I'd ever start fighting high level angels in a good ship. Otherwise I'd use something that I wasn't afraid to lose, just because I'm an extreamely cautious person. --- Originally by: CCP Hammer This game was so much better back before people knew math.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.07.25 15:52:00 - [28] ôYea well you see some people like to pvp and not stick their ships full of shield extenders relays and all sorts of crap that has no place on pvp setup. Annyway last time i heard they had no intent on making them usefull againö Lol even when I donÆt mention passive tanking, donÆt talk about passive tanking modules someone always manages to turn my post into something about passive tanking and bring up the modules. Against popular believe I can make posts without talking about passive tanking. But it does appear I cannot enter a tread without someone bringing up passive tanking. I was not referring to passive tanking in my first posts but using 1 cap booster with some invulnerable fields. You still use up the 4 slots like people with 4 hardeners but you get more resistance and donÆt have cap probable with 3 feilds. IE not useless. As for shield relays and Shield extenders why donÆt they have a place in PvP? The best way to survives against gank ships is to have high hitpoints. My shield extender setups lasts a good 2 minuets sometimes longer against full gank ships which is useful. Shield booster setups thend to last 30seconds. So many people are to short sited when it comes to useful module layouts and limit there self because they donÆt think. Just because you donÆt use a module does not mean it has no place in PvP. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.07.25 16:59:00 - [29] Originally by: Nervar Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 25/07/2005 08:34:23 ôThey use an insane amount of cap and have such a small cycle time that the only ships that can even use one effectivly are Amarr shipsö Well I shield tank with Gallante ships and use 1 to 4 fields depending on my mood without any problem. Just about any battleship can use them if you think about your module layout. ôSo why would you fit invul fields when you obviously just need 3 standard hardners :)ö I love invulnerable fields they are perfect and donÆt need changing. Well perhaps a little and I do mean very small boost, but not back to how they used to be. I tend to use anywhere from 1 to 4 on my Gallente ships. Just using 2 dread fields is like having 8 passive hardeners all in 2 slots. The basic named ones are a few % behind normal hardness but 2 to 4 fields beat 2 to 4 active hardeners when comparing the top end versions. So when you have the cap to run fields they are better then normal hardeners and my ships all have the cap to run them. Yea well you see some people like to pvp and not stick their ships full of shield extenders relays and all sorts of crap that has no place on pvp setup. Annyway last time i heard they had no intent on making them usefull again Passive tanking has it's place in PVP. ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss Combat Pilot and looking for a corp? Check AGSYN out here
Bane Lord	Posted - 2005.07.25 17:21:00 - [30] Originally by: Nervar Yea well you see some people like to pvp and not stick their ships full of shield extenders relays and all sorts of crap that has no place on pvp setup. fyi: even if it seems to the contrary... PvP ≠ Ganking
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.07.25 17:48:00 - [31] ôfyi: even if it seems to the contrary... PvP ≠ Gankingö I find for the most part gank ships have no or little defence and relay on killing there target fast. When you use shield extenders with resistance boosting modules having 20 to 25K shield hitpoints really messÆs up gank ships. The gank ship cannot kill you fast and the gank ship cannot hold up against your own damage more so if you take a few damage mods. I donÆt care if a full max damage mod, gank ship is doing 1000dps its not going kill me fast. The current record for killing my hitpoint based ship is with T2 large weapons, max damage mods, 1 mininet 45 seconds. More average gank ships take over 2 minuets. Not many gank ships can last under fire for 2 minuets. Of course I am thinking 1v1 battles or small battles with even numbers. Even when gank ships constraint fire on the hitpoint based ships is still takes more then x4 longer to die then a normal active tank ship so that leaves your friends x4 longer to shoot at the gank ships. Then there is EW, a gank ship is useless against an ship with EW modules. There is far more to PvP then just ganking people. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Selim	Posted - 2005.07.25 18:02:00 - [32] Originally by: DrunkenOne Originally by: Selim Make them into exact copies of energized adaptive nanos. signed. Seems like the easiest thing and easiest to balance. Or make them use even more cap (like 3x), but make them 50% resist across the board, so you are "invunerable" but only for a short time. That would be great.
Bane Lord	Posted - 2005.07.25 19:12:00 - [33] Originally by: Pottsey ôfyi: even if it seems to the contrary... PvP ≠ Gankingö There is far more to PvP then just ganking people. that was my point, in alot fewer words it stands as such: with the latest wave of changes, the ECM/ECCM system, and the boost to Plates/Extenders. ganking is becoming a dieing sport. I have yet to fight a gankageddon that could kill my TI/Named fitted raven, before i killed it.(and i dont even use ECM)... but focus fleet fire as well as Atry-attack-lag-attack-again is still a pretty big problem. but then again, i digress, this is a thread about how Invul fields need a boost. and frankly, they do! the days of 90% to all resists, empire ganking, OMFG-PWNING scorps is over, these mod's should have been boosted when they changed the scorp bonuses... since that was the main catalyst for their initial nerfing.
Nervar	Posted - 2005.07.25 20:55:00 - [34] Originally by: Pottsey ôYea well you see some people like to pvp and not stick their ships full of shield extenders relays and all sorts of crap that has no place on pvp setup. Annyway last time i heard they had no intent on making them usefull againö Lol even when I donÆt mention passive tanking, donÆt talk about passive tanking modules someone always manages to turn my post into something about passive tanking and bring up the modules. Against popular believe I can make posts without talking about passive tanking. But it does appear I cannot enter a tread without someone bringing up passive tanking. I was not referring to passive tanking in my first posts but using 1 cap booster with some invulnerable fields. You still use up the 4 slots like people with 4 hardeners but you get more resistance and donÆt have cap probable with 3 feilds. IE not useless. As for shield relays and Shield extenders why donÆt they have a place in PvP? The best way to survives against gank ships is to have high hitpoints. My shield extender setups lasts a good 2 minuets sometimes longer against full gank ships which is useful. Shield booster setups thend to last 30seconds. So many people are to short sited when it comes to useful module layouts and limit there self because they donÆt think. Just because you donÆt use a module does not mean it has no place in PvP. Sorry it didnt come out like it was intended too do, wasnt trying to flame. And yea i just asumed you where talking passive tank. I dont think extenders are useless to the contrary, again i asumed you where talking extenders inn relationship to passive tanking. You are afterall the local passive tank nut :) But no i dont think 5 med slots dedicated to tanking has anny place on pvp setups but thats just personal opinion. And no passive tanking has no place on the battle field too manny slots dedicated to making a soso tank. again personal opinion. The reason i want them loved is so they can bee used somewhat efectivily on cruisers/hac's and af's. Minni cruisers and hacs dont exactly have an abundance of mids to tank their ships with so a invuln field would help out allot. -------------------------------------------------> What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.07.26 08:27:00 - [35] ôThe reason i want them loved is so they can bee used somewhat efectivily on cruisers/hac's and af's. Minni cruisers and hacs dont exactly have an abundance of mids to tank their ships with so a invuln field would help out allot.ö Get an officer field which is 16.6 cap drain then fit a cap booster. I have yet to get around to testing this on a Crusier, but would the cap booster with a few PDSÆs module give you enough cap for a tank and run the Invl field? If it works only 2 mid slots and resistance to all 4 base types. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.