EVE Search - New Shield Extenders and Passive Tank Skills

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

New Shield Extenders and Passive Tank Skills

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2005.10.10 20:10:00 - [1] A friendly comment for the devs: Please boost shield extender HP bonuses before thinking about adding a sig radius penalty to them. A few of us were discussing this on SiSi. Extender HP bonuses are a joke compared to plates, and I think we can agree that they don't get used much for that very reason. If we can get roughly even bonuses, then lets consider penalizing sig radius Also, please take a look at the skillbook ranks for the new passive shield skills. They're twice as much as the armour ones, which is quite unfair. If you're a shield tanker, you're most likely also a missile user, and are already burdened with the unbalanced ranks between Gunnery and Missile Ops. All I'm asking is for equality, as I see no reason that one skill of these skill sets should have a higher rank than the other. Thanks. -wee!
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2005.10.10 20:37:00 - [2] Agreed. Also, bring armor/shield tanking modules in line with structure tanking modules - I've got 86/68/77/77 on armor and 57/82/74/65 on my shields and 98/98/98/98 on structure right now. This is obviously greatly imbalanced, I demand that damage controls give 50% to all resists on shields/armor AND structure! This can just be temporary, just so that damage controls can be completely uber win buttons for a little while, then they can go back to being useless. (Seriously now: 1/ship please?)
Yuki Li	Posted - 2005.10.10 20:57:00 - [3] Fully agreed with the above posts. Bring shields and armour into line, don't widen the gap. http://omerta.killboard.net
Pwyle Kenobi	Posted - 2005.10.11 02:30:00 - [4] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda A friendly comment for the devs: Please boost shield extender HP bonuses before thinking about adding a sig radius penalty to them. A few of us were discussing this on SiSi. Extender HP bonuses are a joke compared to plates, and I think we can agree that they don't get used much for that very reason. If we can get roughly even bonuses, then lets consider penalizing sig radius Also, please take a look at the skillbook ranks for the new passive shield skills. They're twice as much as the armour ones, which is quite unfair. If you're a shield tanker, you're most likely also a missile user, and are already burdened with the unbalanced ranks between Gunnery and Missile Ops. All I'm asking is for equality, as I see no reason that one skill of these skill sets should have a higher rank than the other. Thanks. -wee! Amen brother! Testify! For I too have been nerfed!
Kldraina	Posted - 2005.10.11 05:54:00 - [5] If they increase shield extender HP to match Armor Plates, it will greatly increase the power of passive shield tanking, (to the point where it might become better than active tanking). One possible way of dealing with this is to have shield extenders increase shield recharge time (probably by a flat amount). Another, is to introduce a new module that would grant a % increase in shield HP and shield recharge time (sorta like a reverse flux coil).
Hohenheim OfLight	Posted - 2005.10.11 14:06:00 - [6] I have jsut got my hands on two tec two invunrability shilds, and the cap use on them is a real drine to the point where i am thinking of selling them on, would be nice if the cap use was dropped a bit.
TuRtLe HeAd	Posted - 2005.10.11 14:14:00 - [7] My only obvious thing to point out here is that , Sheilds naturally recharge Whereas Armour Does not. I use both (Sheild More) and love the bonus I get from the Extenders. All they need is an Extra Size of Sheild extender. Not An increase of current extenders IMHO.
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2005.10.11 15:38:00 - [8] Originally by: TuRtLe HeAd My only obvious thing to point out here is that , Sheilds naturally recharge Whereas Armour Does not. While I agree that the shield extender bonuses should maybe be less than the armour plates because of this, they do not have to be so low as they are today. Recharge doesn't matter much at all when it comes to real combat.
Waut	Posted - 2005.10.12 11:54:00 - [9] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda A friendly comment for the devs: Please boost shield extender HP bonuses before thinking about adding a sig radius penalty to them. A few of us were discussing this on SiSi. Extender HP bonuses are a joke compared to plates, and I think we can agree that they don't get used much for that very reason. If we can get roughly even bonuses, then lets consider penalizing sig radius Also, please take a look at the skillbook ranks for the new passive shield skills. They're twice as much as the armour ones, which is quite unfair. If you're a shield tanker, you're most likely also a missile user, and are already burdened with the unbalanced ranks between Gunnery and Missile Ops. All I'm asking is for equality, as I see no reason that one skill of these skill sets should have a higher rank than the other. Thanks. -wee! amen
without	Posted - 2005.10.13 11:57:00 - [10] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Originally by: TuRtLe HeAd My only obvious thing to point out here is that , Sheilds naturally recharge Whereas Armour Does not. While I agree that the shield extender bonuses should maybe be less than the armour plates because of this, they do not have to be so low as they are today. Recharge doesn't matter much at all when it comes to real combat. it means u can have extenders and no booster, with armor plates u have to have a rep which takes 2 slots, so u ugys could fit 2 extenders in place of our 1slot 1 rep or u could fit 3 extenders in place of our 2 plates and 1 rep ect ect ect
Gigi Barbagrigia	Posted - 2005.10.13 11:59:00 - [11] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda While I agree that the shield extender bonuses should maybe be less than the armour plates because of this, they do not have to be so low as they are today. Recharge doesn't matter much at all when it comes to real combat. True. But if you warp away you can get to full hp w/o a need of module/docking. And it recharges in warp. ----- 42
The Wizz117	Posted - 2005.10.13 12:03:00 - [12] Originally by: Gigi Barbagrigia Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda While I agree that the shield extender bonuses should maybe be less than the armour plates because of this, they do not have to be so low as they are today. Recharge doesn't matter much at all when it comes to real combat. True. But if you warp away you can get to full hp w/o a need of module/docking. And it recharges in warp. this is in the advantage of the armor tanking...
Serj Darek	Posted - 2005.10.13 17:02:00 - [13] Edited by: Serj Darek on 13/10/2005 17:03:39 Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda and are already burdened with the unbalanced ranks between Gunnery and Missile Ops. All I'm asking is for equality, as I see no reason that one skill of these skill sets should have a higher rank than the other.Thanks. -wee! Let's compare here: Heavy Missile Spec Primary Skill Requirments Missile Launcher Operation I Secondary Skill Requirements Heavy Missiles V Missile Launcher Operation III Standard Missiles III Missile Launcher Operation II Medium Artillery Spec. Primary Skill Requirments Sharpshooter IV Gunnery II Secondary Skill Requirments Small Artillery Specialization IV Sharpshooter III Gunnery II Small Projectile Turret V Gunnery I Tertiary Skill Requirments Medium Projectile Turret V Gunnery III Small Projectile Turret III Gunnery I I'd say it seems you need more skills for guns than missiles? This is what happened to Bunny: http://people.freenet.de/schnubelken/bunnys/

Pages: [1] :: 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.