EVE Search - Anyone got any ships with extenders/plates in space (test server)

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Anyone got any ships with extenders/plates in space (test server)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.10.09 19:43:00 - [151] Quote: Eagle and Cerberus already have 5 mid slots each. What magic module will you fit in that one extra mid slot they'd get (that'd come at the cost of losing either one low or one high slot) ... to turn them from lukewarm sniper and the HAC that nearly everyone is laughing at... into that uber pwnmobile of total destruction you mention? A tracking disruptor II? A cap injector? A cap recharger? A web? A painter? An Mwd? A EW multispec? A small "hope" hull restoration?
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.10.09 19:45:00 - [152] "By all means.. have 6. Lose as many low slots as mid slots u gain." Obviously (that or high slots in some cases)... were you thinking this is asking for some more slots on these ships? That'd be as silly as saying shield tanking is currently "perfect"... ;s
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.09 19:45:00 - [153] and this thread went down the drain... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.10.09 19:47:00 - [154] "A tracking disruptor II? A cap injector? A cap recharger? A web? A painter? An Mwd? A EW multispec? A small "hope" hull restoration?" Whoa; and to think armour tanking ships routinely fit these modules (along with the armour tank) and somehow the whole EVE doesn't come crashing down on our collective heads because of this... Yet shield tanking ship doing the same would mean end of the world as we know it.
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.10.09 19:47:00 - [155] Originally by: Nafri and this thread went down the drain... Yep, you really shouldnt have posted Nafri.. FFS you know this happens when you do.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.09 19:48:00 - [156] Originally by: Stormfront Originally by: Nafri and this thread went down the drain... Yep, you really shouldnt have posted Nafri.. FFS you know this happens when you do. Get our of my thread -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Agnar Koladrov	Posted - 2005.10.09 19:49:00 - [157] Originally by: j0sephine [i]"But I guess what you want is 4 slots for tanking and 3 slots for tackling on every shield tanking ship." I'd be fine with 3+3 actually (or 2+3 in cases of ships which don't need a webber, or 3+1 for frigates and such) ... you make it sound like asking for 6 slots on a ship so it can actually tank and tackle like any armour-tanker is some sort of crazy wish... wonder why? He is rather right, though maybe the numbers are a bit over the top. Also mind cruisers who are supposued to be shield tanked, most got not enough meds to do it ok and ALSO fit a webber or something. Most AR tankers don`t have that problem if you ask me.
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.10.09 19:51:00 - [158] Quote: Whoa; and to think armour tanking ships routinely fit these modules (along with the armour tank) and somehow the whole EVE doesn't come crashing down on our collective heads because of this... Yet shield tanking ship doing the same would mean end of the world as we know it. Most armor tanking ships fit ab/mwd/web/scram. Almost none have the slots for anything more. Since we are not talking BS (cuz, any armor tank BS against a shield tank BS Raven) NEEDS this to even have a chance to fight.. plus a cap injector.
Sadist	Posted - 2005.10.09 19:56:00 - [159] Someone, please show me the proof that sig radius is taken into account when calculating turret damage... --------------- VIP member of the [23] Sadist - harsh to the idiots, kind to the smart
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:00:00 - [160] I would like to have restrictions on slots like high slots: Highs: Turrets/Missles/Utility Mids: Tanking/Utility/EW Lows: Tanking/Utility Utility would be damage mods/EW and so on So you can finally give shield tanking ships more mids, like the cyclone with a 7/5/4 It would have: High: 5 turrets/ 3 launchers Mid: 4 tanking/ 3 utility / 2 EW Low: 2 tanking/ 4 utility Prohecy: High: 6 turrets/ 1 launcher Mid: 1 tanking/ 3 utility / 2 EW Low: 5 tanking/ 4 ulitity Harpy: High: 4 turrets/ 1 launcher Mid: 4 tanking/ 3 utility / 2 EW Low: 1 tanking/ 2 utility Scramblers/webs/TP/ECM and so would be EW. Sensor boosters/Tracking Comps. and so utility Would be a serius rework of the ships, but might help against the midslot problem of EW ships/shield tanking -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:02:00 - [161] From just a glance over Nafri, I actually think thats a VERY good idea. It can then help these so called Gallente EW champs to actually do EW... and the non EW designz ships be forced NOT to use EW.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:03:00 - [162] Originally by: Sadist Someone, please show me the proof that sig radius is taken into account when calculating turret damage... It decided how often you hit and how good you hit. Since well aimed and exellent hits do more damage, the damage increases with sig size. For an example a Dread: Xl Weapon resolition: 1000m With 460m Sig size You have a 54% chance he doesnt hit you even if your standing still. If you have a 730m sig size he only will miss 27% of his hits. Also he will do more well aimed and exellents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:05:00 - [163] Originally by: Stormfront From just a glance over Nafri, I actually think thats a VERY good idea. It can then help these so called Gallente EW champs to actually do EW... and the non EW designz ships be forced NOT to use EW. Yeah, as long as the BB remains a EW ship. But the EW slots can vary on ships to give "weaker" ships a better role and force the usage of those ships. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Agnar Koladrov	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:07:00 - [164] Originally by: Nafri I would like to have restrictions on slots like high slots: Highs: Turrets/Missles/Utility Mids: Tanking/Utility/EW Lows: Tanking/Utility Utility would be damage mods/EW and so on So you can finally give shield tanking ships more mids, like the cyclone with a 7/5/4 It would have: High: 5 turrets/ 3 launchers Mid: 4 tanking/ 3 utility / 2 EW Low: 2 tanking/ 4 utility Prohecy: High: 6 turrets/ 1 launcher Mid: 1 tanking/ 3 utility / 2 EW Low: 5 tanking/ 4 ulitity Harpy: High: 4 turrets/ 1 launcher Mid: 4 tanking/ 3 utility / 2 EW Low: 1 tanking/ 2 utility Scramblers/webs/TP/ECM and so would be EW. Sensor boosters/Tracking Comps. and so utility Would be a serius rework of the ships, but might help against the midslot problem of EW ships/shield tanking Nafri, which ship would qualify for this besides the Cyclone? Every ship with more shield HP then armor HP I guess should be treated like a shield tanker.
Sky Hunter	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:07:00 - [165] Edited by: Sky Hunter on 09/10/2005 20:08:48 Making slots that will be strictly for one type of module would be just wrong. I.e. utility/weapon and such. Its will just bring game more down and look like another RPG with huge restrictions. -=-
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:08:00 - [166] "I would like to have restrictions on slots like high slots: Highs: Turrets/Missles/Utility Mids: Tanking/Utility/EW Lows: Tanking/Utility Utility would be damage mods/EW and so on So you can finally give shield tanking ships more mids, like the cyclone with a 7/5/4 It would have: High: 5 turrets/ 3 launchers Mid: 4 tanking/ 3 utility / 2 EW Low: 2 tanking/ 4 utility" Mhmm this is nice. Sadly it'd probably be too much work to implement it, but i really like it ^^;;
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:11:00 - [167] Originally by: Agnar Koladrov Originally by: Nafri I would like to have restrictions on slots like high slots: Highs: Turrets/Missles/Utility Mids: Tanking/Utility/EW Lows: Tanking/Utility Utility would be damage mods/EW and so on So you can finally give shield tanking ships more mids, like the cyclone with a 7/5/4 It would have: High: 5 turrets/ 3 launchers Mid: 4 tanking/ 3 utility / 2 EW Low: 2 tanking/ 4 utility Prohecy: High: 6 turrets/ 1 launcher Mid: 1 tanking/ 3 utility / 2 EW Low: 5 tanking/ 4 ulitity Harpy: High: 4 turrets/ 1 launcher Mid: 4 tanking/ 3 utility / 2 EW Low: 1 tanking/ 2 utility Scramblers/webs/TP/ECM and so would be EW. Sensor boosters/Tracking Comps. and so utility Would be a serius rework of the ships, but might help against the midslot problem of EW ships/shield tanking Nafri, which ship would qualify for this besides the Cyclone? Every ship with more shield HP then armor HP I guess should be treated like a shield tanker. You could rework the sacrilege to a full shield tanker ^^. Same goes for typhoon, which should be a 8/6/5 ship in my eyes :D, since its defenitly a shield tanker. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Agnar Koladrov	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:18:00 - [168] Edited by: Agnar Koladrov on 09/10/2005 20:17:56 Originally by: Nafri You could rework the sacrilege to a full shield tanker ^^. Same goes for typhoon, which should be a 8/6/5 ship in my eyes :D, since its defenitly a shield tanker. Ok, but what about those ship with are doubtfull, for instance minmatar ships, mainly there cruisers. I also mean the ruppy cause it has the same ammount of shield as armor, though it is a goog ar tanker. How to deal with those?
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:18:00 - [169] Originally by: Nafri I would like to have restrictions on slots like high slots: Highs: Turrets/Missles/Utility Mids: Tanking/Utility/EW Lows: Tanking/Utility Utility would be damage mods/EW and so on [...] Would be a serius rework of the ships, but might help against the midslot problem of EW ships/shield tanking An awesome idea, already proposed by Agnar Koladrov a while back and nicely flamed at that time. This is probably one key to shield tanking becoming a viable option for many ships that are supposed to shield tank, along with a slot rework. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. --- Originally by: theRaptor Its even funnier when half the forum is crying for damage mod nerfs and the other half for plate nerfs.
Agnar Koladrov	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:23:00 - [170] Originally by: Naughty Boy Originally by: Nafri I would like to have restrictions on slots like high slots: Highs: Turrets/Missles/Utility Mids: Tanking/Utility/EW Lows: Tanking/Utility Utility would be damage mods/EW and so on [...] Would be a serius rework of the ships, but might help against the midslot problem of EW ships/shield tanking An awesome idea, already proposed by Agnar Koladrov a while back and nicely flamed at that time. This is probably one key to shield tanking becoming a viable option for many ships that are supposed to shield tank, along with a slot rework. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. Thank you for brining that up. I though I keep it quite after reading Nafri`s take on it just now Just depends on who brings it, a veteran or a reletive new guy.
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:24:00 - [171] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Sadist Someone, please show me the proof that sig radius is taken into account when calculating turret damage... It decided how often you hit and how good you hit. Since well aimed and exellent hits do more damage, the damage increases with sig size. For an example a Dread: Xl Weapon resolition: 1000m With 460m Sig size You have a 54% chance he doesnt hit you even if your standing still. If you have a 730m sig size he only will miss 27% of his hits. Also he will do more well aimed and exellents. It's a bit more complicated than that. If the transversal velocity is 0, you hit regardless (you are standing still and he is standing still). The more the transversal velocity, the worse the sig-to-resolotion penalty seem to get. With missiles it's just plain, dumb, linear damage decrease. Regardless of movement. -- Neat sig, huh? Can you figure out what it says?
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:25:00 - [172] Originally by: Agnar Koladrov Originally by: Naughty Boy Originally by: Nafri I would like to have restrictions on slots like high slots: Highs: Turrets/Missles/Utility Mids: Tanking/Utility/EW Lows: Tanking/Utility Utility would be damage mods/EW and so on [...] Would be a serius rework of the ships, but might help against the midslot problem of EW ships/shield tanking An awesome idea, already proposed by Agnar Koladrov a while back and nicely flamed at that time. This is probably one key to shield tanking becoming a viable option for many ships that are supposed to shield tank, along with a slot rework. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. Thank you for brining that up. I though I keep it quite after reading Nafri`s take on it just now Just depends on who brings it, a veteran or a reletive new guy. Ahh come on, you just need to be persistent to get your place here. Look at Pottsey, hes new and has his place, although I mostly dont like his ideas... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Put your panties on your head!
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:26:00 - [173] Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Sadist Someone, please show me the proof that sig radius is taken into account when calculating turret damage... It decided how often you hit and how good you hit. Since well aimed and exellent hits do more damage, the damage increases with sig size. For an example a Dread: Xl Weapon resolition: 1000m With 460m Sig size You have a 54% chance he doesnt hit you even if your standing still. If you have a 730m sig size he only will miss 27% of his hits. Also he will do more well aimed and exellents. It's a bit more complicated than that. If the transversal velocity is 0, you hit regardless (you are standing still and he is standing still). The more the transversal velocity, the worse the sig-to-resolotion penalty seem to get. With missiles it's just plain, dumb, linear damage decrease. Regardless of movement. I checked the tracking guide, and for me it looks like it also works like this when standing still. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Put your panties on your head!
Stormfront	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:28:00 - [174] Why do my guns not hit the Station every time when I am standing still? In optimal.
Agnar Koladrov	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:34:00 - [175] Originally by: Nafri Ahh come on, you just need to be persistent to get your place here. Look at Pottsey, hes new and has his place, although I mostly dont like his ideas... I was being sarcastic But to your idea, wouldn`t it be better to make a devision like this: Highs: Turrets/Missles/Utility Mids: Utility/EW Lows: Utility Where utility also includes any form of tanking, dmg mods etc. In high utilitu would mean nos/cloak etc. Atleast that was my original idea I proposed a month or so ago. I think too much segregation in slot layout is not that good, like segegrating tanking abilities.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:36:00 - [176] Originally by: Agnar Koladrov Originally by: Nafri Ahh come on, you just need to be persistent to get your place here. Look at Pottsey, hes new and has his place, although I mostly dont like his ideas... I was being sarcastic But to your idea, wouldn`t it be better to make a devision like this: Highs: Turrets/Missles/Utility Mids: Utility/EW Lows: Utility Where utility also includes any form of tanking, dmg mods etc. In high utilitu would mean nos/cloak etc. Atleast that was my original idea I proposed a month or so ago. I think too much segregation in slot layout is not that good, like segegrating tanking abilities. Yeah Yeah, but I also wanted to limit damage mods, but maybe thats just not necessary after the new changes And I probably just have the idea from your post -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Put your panties on your head!
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.10.09 20:54:00 - [177] ôBut honestly dont ask around to balance PvP around it, cause its used in 0.1% of the PvP setups I faced (none). Cant even remember that our corp killed a passive tanker yet.ö I donÆt want PvP balanced around it. I want it balanced around PvP. The fact so few people use it, shows it needs better balancing. We all agree some of the shield modules are far form perfect and need tweaking. I am not trying to argue its better then armour tanking. I know full well and agree more ships can and do armour tank then shield tank and even less passive shield tank. I just donÆt like it when people say natural recharge never works and the modules like Invul fields are useless because they are not. They only work on a limited amount of ships but when they work they well. So please call them next to useless, not useless :) ôSo could you please consider this? Hopefully the DEVs will kill passive tanking completly so that at least PvP can get balanced...ö That is the last thing Eve needs. What makes Eve great is the variety of setups. Passive shield tanking is just the shield version of plate tanking. If itÆs viable for people to go around with plate setups it should be viable for the shield ships to go around with shield extender setups. It makes more sense to me to kill active tanking. I never did like the idea of nano bots repairing amour and hull faster then damage. Big buffers on shields and armour via plates and extenders makes more sense to me then active tanking. But that would cause to much of an out rage if that was done. It would be nice if both armour and shields ships has passive as a primary defence with a small active setup as a secondary defence. Let amour nono bots repair and shields charge up very slowly with a large base hitpoint pool. But that will never happen it would cause to many people to complain and be unhappy. Have you Ever played Nexus: The Jupiter Incident? I wish combat in Eve was more like that. Slow, tactical and more about where and how you hit your enemy then how hard. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Meridius	Posted - 2005.10.09 21:05:00 - [178] Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 09/10/2005 09:54:31 ôDamage is getting nerfed a lot more.ö Damage is being boosted for those that use 2 or 3 damage mods. Its only being nerfed for those that use 5+ damage mods 4 damage mods is staying the same as now. From the dev blog ôStacking now gives less penalty for the first 2 modules on top of the first,ö HippoKing is right it seems like the defence improvement is a nerf not an improvement assuming the specs I posted are correct. Lets see here. Max amount of DPS from a gankgeddon now is around 1260 DPS, after the patch it'll be around 600. So yes, damage is being nerfed more then defense. A lot more... ________________________________________________________
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.09 21:05:00 - [179] Well in that point I agree with you Pottsey. Active tanking is ****, but is needed PvE BS with about 100k armor and just resistances would be much more fun, would also increase the need for supply and logistic ships (which should be the only ones to repair in space). But yeah, we only can dream -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Put your panties on your head!
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.10.09 21:21:00 - [180] ôLets see here. Max amount of DPS from a gankgeddon now is around 1260 DPS, after the patch it'll be around 600. So yes, damage is being nerfed more then defense. A lot more...ö How do you know itÆs going to be that bad? As far as I know none of us have seen the new stacking rules. I suppose we can guess. WhatÆs the DPS output of a Gankgeddon with 5 damage mods? The only thing we know for sure is all the ships that use between 1 to 3 damage mods are better off with the new stacking rules. 4 mods have no difference. So a max damage mod gankgeddon with the new rules should do more damage then you would get today with 5 damage mods. Is that 600dps? Not very accurate but it gives us a guide line. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 :: 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.