|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
643
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 01:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm thinking of taking up full-time shield tanking. It's not because I think shield tanking is all that much better, it is purely so I can no longer be associated by these whiney over-entitled armour tankers. I mean good god people, can't you just imagine the same thread as a tantrum from a 3 year old, complete with stamping of feet and screaming?
Grow up. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
643
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 02:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Marcus Gideon wrote:Over-entitled, what?
Shields have passive regen. - Armour has bigger buffer Shields have active omni resist mods. - Armour has passive omni-resist mods. Shields leave plenty of space for damage mods. - Armour leaves plenty of room for EWAR.
Oh, and more on topic... Shields can throw as many ASB as they want on a ship, chain the reloads, and tank forever... - Assuming by 'forever' you mean until they run out of cap charges
Yeah, Armor guys are living it up...
I said you're whiney over-entitled armour tankers. I also compared you to a 3 year old throwing a tantrum. My other responses in bold. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
647
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 04:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
Honestly these armour vs shield threads are becoming tiring. We see the same one-sided arguments recycled over and over again. Every time it's a new person, and every time they think they're really clever and its a completely new idea.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:You forgot to include the mechanic skill under armor.
Also it's worth noting that 3 of the shield skills have functions that aren't replicated with armor mechanics and skills. For instance passive shield regen rate, fitting cost of certain mods and cap/HP efficiency are things which shield tankers can modify through skills, while armor takers cannot do the latter 2 and the former doesn't apply at all.
Lastly shield T2 mods seem to have fewer lvl 5 skill prerequisites than armor mods as a whole.
The training may be longer to complete but provides a greater range of utility over armor skills helping balance the 2.
He also forgot Hull Upgrades under shield tanking. Damage Controls work quite well for shield tanks as well. And as long as we're talking about crossover skills, you can go ahead and add Mechanics to shields, and Shield Management/operation to armour tanking, since they all apply. Armour tanked ships have shields and shield tanked ships have hull and armour too, an extra few % can determine a fight.
Not to worry about those extra skills that shields have, we'll be getting some new armour skills real soon. A new skill to reduce the drawback of plates. I will be awaiting the shield skill to reduce the sig bloom of extenders. Armour already gets some stuff that shields don't. Repair Systems reduces the cycle time of reps, there is no shield equivalent. All four of the armour compensation skills are useful as well, the shield versions are all set to become mostly useless in the next patch (tonight?)
This may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, but both tanking methods are viable. Shields are better at active tanking, and armour is better at buffer tanking. How is this still news to anyone?
Ctzn Snips wrote:Can you explain to me how active armor tanking is more cap efficient than active shield tanking?
I'll wait.
Um, it uses less capacitor per unit of repaired armour than shield boosters do? Cos, y'know that's kinda what efficiency is all about? |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
653
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 22:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Oh, we're comparing EXTRA LARGE shield booster versus only the large repper? Are we doing this again? Because it was dumb the first time too.
Try your numbers again using a LARGE SB + SBA vs 2x LARs |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
656
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 03:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:2)There IS no xl armor repper. As long as it's possible, easy even to fit XL mods on BSs (and BCs ) they will be fair game to compare with LARs. Compare mods by what they do and what ships can use them, not by some arbitrary naming scheme ccp used when making them.
That being the case, the 1600mm plate has about twice as many extra hitpoints as it should. I mean as long as 1600mm plates are easy to fit to cruisers, and we're not comparing the Large Shield Extender to the 800mm plate and all.
I'd like to request that the 1600mm plate be nerfed by 50%, and Cambarus is clearly in support.
Thank you. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
657
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 04:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Now you're just being a tool.
Oh no! He used the exact argument I did but it's not in my favour this time! Quick, call him names and hope that no one notices! |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
657
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 07:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Your tears are delicious :) |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Don't even bother, I already showed that shields, even at t2 levels, get are more efficient then their armor counterparts. Unless of course you compare a 3 slot armor tank base to a 2 slot shield tank base, but then you need more slots to make armor work, making it less efficient anyway.
If you think you can show T2 shield boosters to be more cap efficient than T2 armour reps, then you are absolutely crap at maths. Shown below are the reps per cap numbers for T2 modules. Shields are shown both with and without skills. Armour reps are not affected by skills.
T2 Armour Reps (cap / boost : ratio) (all Vs) SAR (40 / 80 : 2) MAR (160 / 320 : 2) LAR (400 / 800 : 2)
T2 Shield Boosts (cap / boost : ratio) (all Vs) SSB (18 / 30 : 1.667) MSB ( 54 / 90 : 1.667) LSB (144 / 240 : 1.667) XLSB (360 / 600 : 1.667)
T2 Shield Boosts (cap / boost : ratio) (no skills) SSB (20 / 30 : 1.5) MSB (60 / 90 : 1.5) LSB (160 / 240 : 1.5) XLSB (400 / 600 : 1.5)
Last time I checked, 2 was bigger than both 1.667 and 1.5 |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
This just in, 2 modules both using cap uses more cap than two modules where one doesn't use cap.
Who knew? |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 05:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Paikis wrote:This just in, 2 modules both using cap uses more cap than two modules where one doesn't use cap.
Who knew? Exactly, and that makes shields more cap efficient than armor, even if the base reps themselves are not.
Hands up everyone who has EVER used an SBA in PvP? And fair warning I'm going to call you a liar and demand a loss mail.
No one ever fits SBAs in PvP. |
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 06:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
The SBA is 36%, where the invul is only 30%. The SBA uses more CPU though, so this is to be expected. Although, the invul does use cap...
As for the never ending armour vs shield comparisons...
1 slot comparison gives the armour tank an efficiency advantage. 2 slot comparison gives the armour tank a rep advantage.
The 2 slot armour tank also has the ability to only run half the tank, the shield tank is either on or off, there is no middle ground. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 09:54:00 -
[12] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:XLSB+SBA gives more reps for less cap than 2 armor reppers. And no, a different naming convention does not make it an improper comparison to LARs, unless you run LSBs on BSs ( ) or XLSBs on caps ( )
I do run LSBs on my mission battleships, they give the same rep per cap as the XLSB, but they don't use as much fitting, and I've never needed the bigger burst of the XLSB.
Also, as long as we're ignoring naming conventions and such in favour of making an argument, I want a 100% boost to large shield extenders so that they match the 1600mm plate. Thank you for pre-support on this matter.
Roime wrote:There is no such thing as one-slot armor tank. Minimum configuration is one armor repper and cap booster.
XLASB = one midslot, 500pg, 200cpu, 284 reps LAAR+LARII+Heavy Capacitor Booster II = one midslot, 2 lows, 5792pg, 145cpu, 283 reps
I really wish people would stop comparing apples to oranges. You've got both the wrong sizes AND you're comparing normal reps to ASBs AND not taking into consideration reload time. Once you factor in reload time (and use the correct size, but I'll include both) you get:
LASB = 36.5 boost per second XLASB = 84 bps LASB+SBA = 49.725 bps XLASB+SBA = 114.24 bps
And just for good measure, here's your 2 slot armour tank adjusted for reload times as well
LAAR+LARII = 72+71.112 = 143.112 boost per second
Now again, last time I checked, 143.112 was bigger than 114.24, which is bigger AGAIN than the 49.725 you should be comparing against. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 22:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
So we're ignoring naming conventions when they are inconvenient to our argument? Got it. We're also ignoring the advantages of Armour tanking (buffer) to claim imbalance. Right. Also we're ignoring reload times on Ancillary modules? OK.
Yeah, turns out, when you selectively ignore advantages of armour, and ignore penalties of shields, then compare the wrong sizes, ignore reload times, arbitrarily declare that you must fit a cap booster, ignore that shield ships might fit one as well, use a PvE module (SBA) to boost the shields... turns out shields look pretty good when you do that. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:02:00 -
[14] - Quote
NO U |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:40:00 -
[15] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Can we please stop talking about SBAs like they've ever been mounted on a PVP ship? Thanks in advance.
-Liang
Ed: And while we're at it, can we stop pretending like it makes any sort of sense to compare a 2 slot shield tank to a 2 slot armor tank? The proper comparison is XL SB vs 2 LAR. All this nonsense about SBAs is simply that: nonsense.
Sorry Liang, that doesn't fit their story.
Armour tanking is gimped and shield tanks are over powered, facts be damned! |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
663
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
Roime wrote:I'm trying to find a reason why active armor needs to be weaker for the different tanks to be balanced. This should be easy to answer, and I might simply overlook something obvious.
It is, and you did.
Armour tanks can get the same or (usually) better buffer tanks. Their buffer tanks are not reliant on capacitor.
Why should active armour not be as good as active shields? Because buffer shields are not as good as buffer armour. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
663
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 22:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Paikis wrote: Why should active armour not be as good as active shields? Because buffer shields are not as good as buffer armour.
The drake, tengu, cane, rokh and more than half the other top 20 ships out there would like to have a word with you.
No way, you mean a bunch of ships with resistance bonuses have good tanks? Who knew?
The Prophecy, Proteus, Maller, Abaddon, and basically any armour ship with a resistance bonus to match all those shield ships with resist bonuses you linked would like to have a word with you.
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
670
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 20:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Oh look. Another lemming who thinks that popularity has anything to do with effectiveness. Tell me more about why the Drake used to be on top of that list. (Hint: it had nothing to do with the Drake being good)
You are bad, and you should feel bad. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
671
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 05:04:00 -
[19] - Quote
DRAEKs were used in nullsec because they were easy to fly, relatively effective with low SP and cheap. NOT because they were particularly effective. The word Drake is a synonym for the word average. Also, Drakes were not the most used ship in low, not even close. The most used BC was the cane by far.
You suggesting that the Drake's position on a killboard has anything to do with how effective they are is laughable. 100 drake pilots all ***** onto a kill, let's say it's a ratting carrier that they caught. That is 100 kills attributed to Drakes. 1 ship died to a blob of drakes, and +100 drake kills is recorded.
Being high on a killboard doesn't tell you squat about how effective a thing is, it only tells you how many pilots flying that particular ship managed to land a hit on a ship that exploded. If a nullsec block decided that they were going to use fleets of n00bships and dragged them up to the top of eve-kill, would you be in here telling us all how overpowered the n00bships are? |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
671
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 05:28:00 -
[20] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:Easy to fly? What, and flying a harbinger would have just KILLED those newbies right? Way beyond their capabilities?
Harbingers need cap injectors, harbingers have optimal and falloff and tracking to worry about, harbingers have crystals that need to be swapped depending on range. Harbingers have more buttons to push, more things to worry about and yes, are harder to fly.
Yes, the Drake is easy. FC fleet warps his fleet to position and calls primary. Plebs in the fleet target what he tells them to and push F1. That's it. No crystal swapping, no manual piloting to reduce transversal, no worrying about range to target, or capacitor. Just target, F1.
Drakes are simple. They are hard to screw up. |
|
|
|
|