EVE Search - Damage Control II

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Damage Control II

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Shayla Sh'inlux	Posted - 2005.11.07 16:51:00 - [31] Do armor tankers get a midslot armor tanking module then? Btw, if these are final stats it's gonna be quite interesting to see Sacriledges tank even MORE damage since they can avoid the stacking penalty on adaptive nano's now.. Can you imagine this on the new Eagle? Wtf that ship is gonna beat the hell outta Sacriledge for 'best tank'. O M F G /me moves Caldari Cruiser up in the training queu...
BlackDog Rackh'am	Posted - 2005.11.07 16:58:00 - [32] Hmmm nice one....With the new shield extender fitting requirements i can only drool in expectation. Almost 4k shields with even better resistances and still enough grid (i think) for a tech2 medium nos on the vagabond....YAY!!!
Seraph Demon	Posted - 2005.11.07 17:01:00 - [33] I'm impressed by how cleverly CCP implemented this. Notice that the resists are provided by module activation. So even though the resistance boost skills will apply to this module, they won't give their boost to the resistances that are listed, because those are active, not passive. Very nifty balancing act. This looks like a great module.
Ralus	Posted - 2005.11.07 17:02:00 - [34] Edited by: Ralus on 07/11/2005 17:04:20 while were on the topic of crazy resists could some one explain the new stats of the em shield hardner II. Is that saying you get 55% em resistance with it turned on yet 100% shield resistance with it turned off I don't understand edit: It appears that every hardner has 100% passive resists ... eh ftw
without	Posted - 2005.11.07 17:02:00 - [35] its ok that shields get less boost, it is a low slot ffs new raven setup, 6 named siege, 3 hardeners, 1 heavy cap injecter, 1 xlarge booster, 1 amp 4 bcu t2, 1 dmg control unit so basically the stacking thing doesnt hurt the raven at all since it can only use 4 bcu with torps in the past it was, bring out the raven they have frigs/af/crusiers/intys/hac now it will be, bring out the raven they have BS, what a change, one extream to the other
without	Posted - 2005.11.07 17:10:00 - [36] Originally by: Ralus Edited by: Ralus on 07/11/2005 17:07:39 Edited by: Ralus on 07/11/2005 17:04:20 while were on the topic of crazy resists could some one explain the new stats of the em shield hardner II. Is that saying you get 55% em resistance with it turned on yet 100% shield resistance with it turned off I don't understand edit: It appears that every hardner has 100% passive resists ... eh ftw edit edit: ok with stats like this i think the database is fubar'd atm unless with kinetic hardners giving a resistance of 5000% you maybe gain hp when you take damage lol yeh its probably broke atm
Deja Thoris	Posted - 2005.11.07 17:22:00 - [37] Originally by: The Wizz117 Originally by: Gronsak btw anyone know if t2 is out? or will the bpo be seeded sometime in the future why less to shield? shield olrady has less base shield recistans! change it! rable rable! ah wait caldari shield tank thats why.. Shield regenerates naturally, armour does not.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.11.07 17:25:00 - [38] "Is that saying you get 55% em resistance with it turned on yet 100% shield resistance with it turned off I don't understand" Some modules just have funny way to encode their attributes (values are listed as 100x the real value, or inverted, or whatever) It can look odd, but usually nothing to really worry about ^^
Foomanshoe	Posted - 2005.11.07 17:35:00 - [39] Originally by: Deja Thoris Originally by: The Wizz117 why less to shield? shield olrady has less base shield recistans! change it! rable rable! ah wait caldari shield tank thats why.. Shield regenerates naturally, armour does not. Not to mention that if your armor tanking, your giving up either a 50+% resist, or a 20+% across resist to fit it. Why do armor tankers want this? Energized adaptive nano IIs are alot better. If you pvp ya, okay hull resists help you live alittle longer, but i dont know many who stick around to hull damage, i sure as hell dont Is it really gonna be better to give 60% resist to your 4-5k hull, or give an additional 4k armor with a plate? Shield tankers, maybe the boost will help but i doubt it, PDU II or BCU i still think would be more usefull. So before ya scream UBER!! maybe ya should think just how usefull hull tanking really is, and if its really better then other items you could stick in low slots. _______________________________________________
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.11.07 17:43:00 - [40] "Is it really gonna be better to give 60% resist to your 4-5k hull, or give an additional 4k armor with a plate?" Given nearly 600 grid extra needed for the plate, getting 60% resists to hull can be useful option... it's more like 5-6k of hull after skills, btw -.^
without	Posted - 2005.11.07 17:44:00 - [41] Originally by: Foomanshoe Originally by: Deja Thoris Originally by: The Wizz117 why less to shield? shield olrady has less base shield recistans! change it! rable rable! ah wait caldari shield tank thats why.. Shield regenerates naturally, armour does not. Not to mention that if your armor tanking, your giving up either a 50+% resist, or a 20+% across resist to fit it. Why do armor tankers want this? Energized adaptive nano IIs are alot better. If you pvp ya, okay hull resists help you live alittle longer, but i dont know many who stick around to hull damage, i sure as hell dont Is it really gonna be better to give 60% resist to your 4-5k hull, or give an additional 4k armor with a plate? Shield tankers, maybe the boost will help but i doubt it, PDU II or BCU i still think would be more usefull. So before ya scream UBER!! maybe ya should think just how usefull hull tanking really is, and if its really better then other items you could stick in low slots. on a BS its like adding a plate but u dont get the speed penality, also plates are pretty pricy it will be used and is a good mod if stats stick, and if those new tanking skills come into play it will be even better. only prob is, that 99% of ppl wount carry a structure repper, so a plate may be better than this mod.
Jacob Majestic	Posted - 2005.11.07 18:16:00 - [42] Damage Control I is the new 1600mm Plate on a Thorax. When I fit a Thorax for PvP I don't usually fit a tank anyway... the new Damage Control gives 1500 more HP on structure and 300 more HP on shield and armor. \o/
Sarmaul	Posted - 2005.11.07 18:20:00 - [43] Originally by: Shayla Sh'inlux Do armor tankers get a midslot armor tanking module then? Btw, if these are final stats it's gonna be quite interesting to see Sacriledges tank even MORE damage since they can avoid the stacking penalty on adaptive nano's now.. Can you imagine this on the new Eagle? Wtf that ship is gonna beat the hell outta Sacriledge for 'best tank'. O M F G /me moves Caldari Cruiser up in the training queu... you can only fit one, like a mwd or ab. Originally by: Chowdown We camp a lot
Roba	Posted - 2005.11.07 18:26:00 - [44] Why is everyone saying thats extreme? You can't tank hull because the large hull rep is as effective as a small tech II armor rep and uses more capac then an xlarge sheild booster II. It has extreme res bonuses and low capac req because its an emergency module. This is for when you see the gank damage coming at you and your sheilds and armor just disapeared, this makes it so the second volly doesn't pop you before you can align and accelerate to warp. All it will be is like 1600mm plates are right now. But not you can have the gank protection of 1600mm without having to fit them. But since its structure it pretty much means you are out of the fight till you can dock at a station.
The Wizz117	Posted - 2005.11.07 18:28:00 - [45] Originally by: Deja Thoris Originally by: The Wizz117 Originally by: Gronsak btw anyone know if t2 is out? or will the bpo be seeded sometime in the future why less to shield? shield olrady has less base shield recistans! change it! rable rable! ah wait caldari shield tank thats why.. Shield regenerates naturally, armour does not. wich is only in the advantage of the armour tankers! they have a shield to! they have a buffer before they get onto armour wich recharges itselve! when a shield-tankers cap is empty ( wich it is fast and there are not good cap rechargers for shield tankers) he has to warp out. armour tankers can let thery buffer recharge of recharge for a part having thousnads of hitpoints more before agrowing or going into another battle. shield tankers would have to dock and pay way-overpirsed-milions of isk to repair or chage fiting undock again etc.
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2005.11.07 18:33:00 - [46] Hmm, the named one is 58% to all and uses only 17 cpu, while this thing uses 30. Would anyone really care for 2% more hull resists to waste that much cpu? Maybe on a Raven.. I know I couldn't spare that on a Megathron. With maxed skills an adaptive nano II gives 32% to all for 30 cpu, can fit multiple, and doesn't need an activation. Still a way better module than a damage control II, for armor tanking. The only circumstances where I'd consider using this is the one where I have too little cpu for a nano. 17 is still pretty high.. if you can squeeze that you can use a 55% active faction. Overall useful module, but not overpowered in any way.
HippoKing	Posted - 2005.11.07 18:35:00 - [47] Originally by: The Wizz117 Originally by: Deja Thoris Originally by: The Wizz117 Originally by: Gronsak btw anyone know if t2 is out? or will the bpo be seeded sometime in the future why less to shield? shield olrady has less base shield recistans! change it! rable rable! ah wait caldari shield tank thats why.. Shield regenerates naturally, armour does not. wich is only in the advantage of the armour tankers! they have a shield to! they have a buffer before they get onto armour wich recharges itselve! when a shield-tankers cap is empty ( wich it is fast and there are not good cap rechargers for shield tankers) he has to warp out. armour tankers can let thery buffer recharge of recharge for a part having thousnads of hitpoints more before agrowing or going into another battle. shield tankers would have to dock and pay way-overpirsed-milions of isk to repair or chage fiting undock again etc. however, to fit a DC2, an armor tanker must sacrifice a low (armor tanking slot) the shield tanker must also sacrifice a low, but a shield tankers lows are NOT his primary tank slots make me a sig! Now 75mil of prizes! ends at midnight on tuesday morning This Zig. For great justice!
JoCool	Posted - 2005.11.07 18:49:00 - [48] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Hmm, the named one is 58% to all and uses only 17 cpu, while this thing uses 30. Would anyone really care for 2% more hull resists to waste that much cpu? Maybe on a Raven.. I know I couldn't spare that on a Megathron. Ever fitted a Raven? Oh yeah, loads of cpu cough Quote: With maxed skills an adaptive nano II gives 32% to all for 30 cpu, can fit multiple, and doesn't need an activation. Still a way better module than a damage control II, for armor tanking. The only circumstances where I'd consider using this is the one where I have too little cpu for a nano. 17 is still pretty high.. if you can squeeze that you can use a 55% active faction. Overall useful module, but not overpowered in any way. True. Armor tankers will have a lesser benifit from this module than shield tankers because it takes one low slot; hence the shield resistance bonus is lower than the one to armor. Armor tankers are, DC's words holding truth, in most cases better off using an adaptive nano plate II. This module is far from being overpowered. It is an alternative. _______________________________________________________________________ Trey Azagthoth > Youre my idol Jocool. I wanna be like Jocool jr. or Jocool the sequel! Oveur > ohnoes jocool
Shayla Sh'inlux	Posted - 2005.11.15 10:34:00 - [49] I disagree. * It avoids stacking penalty so you can do energized adaptive II and damage control II. * This is gonna be godly for shield tankers as shield tank is > armor tank already in the first place (slow-wise, cap-wise and cap/hitpoint wise) and now they have their invulnerability field in a lowslot for virtually no cap cost. * It's a nice boost to Gallente tanking, who tend to have too few armor and cap to actually tank. Tho I'm afraid they can't spare the cpu for this module. I don't think it's too hot on armor tankers in general, but imagine this on a Ferox, Eagle or Harpy? Take an eagle with the new bonus, take a t2 EM hardner and a DC II and you're looking at 80% accross the board with 2 modules fitted... Add in the nerfing of damage mod stacking, and we might be looking at unbreakable tanks and that's IMO a bad idea as it will encourage ganking even MORE. THEN add the removal of insta's and we have counterstrike in space where you need to go 2+v1 to actually kill someone =/ And unlike armor tankers, shield tankers tend to have plenty of cpu.
FoRGyL	Posted - 2005.11.15 11:10:00 - [50] Edited by: FoRGyL on 15/11/2005 11:13:54 Ok I have read some and will give this a shout soon TM Me trying to reach mind! -out- ********************************************************* Pay or don't!
Tomas Nuerin	Posted - 2005.11.15 11:29:00 - [51] Edited by: Tomas Nuerin on 15/11/2005 11:34:06 Did some quick testing @ SiSi yesterday. Cerberus Navy Raven Only damage control I could find was some named one. I think it was 8,5% for all shields. There is also fitted some Invulnerability Field II's in those setups.
Jaleean Atheria	Posted - 2005.11.15 11:54:00 - [52] Wow nice EM resistances are now possible :) I see this as a good addition to both Shield and Armor tanking fields, I have a feeling we might see more setups with an armor rep with 4 energized adaptives, and 1 damage control, as opposed to multiple single resistance hardners. Once I join fight club on sisi Im definately going to check this out and see if it creates a viable tank
Reite	Posted - 2005.11.15 12:04:00 - [53] Originally by: Testy Mctest Edited by: Testy Mctest on 07/11/2005 14:16:41 "The Typhoon class battleship has an unusually strong structural integrity for a Minmatar ship." And it'll still suck at hull tanking :) Seriosly testy, do you have to bring that damn minmatar whine into every single thread you answer.. I just dont get the point of it.. On the other hand, i think it looks like a nice module
LWMaverick	Posted - 2005.11.15 12:27:00 - [54] Whoever has or will get the bpo on that... is gonna get sooo rich .. looking foreward to test it /Mav With great power, comes great responsibility.
Banirr	Posted - 2005.11.15 12:43:00 - [55] this module plus the new consumption of the invul field (30 capa for 10s), it is really the patch shield tanking
Mrs Meikel	Posted - 2005.11.15 13:07:00 - [56] I thought that armour tanking got better repair/cap than shield tanking. eg med booster II gets 90 for 60 cap, whilst the med repair II gets 320/160 - a much better ratio than the shield booster.
Pistonbroke	Posted - 2005.11.15 13:20:00 - [57] Edited by: Pistonbroke on 15/11/2005 13:20:42 Originally by: Burlock Ironfist Im sure they will soon be seen on every ship setup. I see they will make armour tanking better still than shield tanking though.... Low slots Dude.... so you can use the meds for normal shield tanking then beef up on low slot shield resistance :) This will no doubt get the amarr and gallenty crews whining......... Damn, I wish i had not recycled all of those old named Damamge Controls..................
Forsch	Posted - 2005.11.15 14:26:00 - [58] Originally by: Mrs Meikel I thought that armour tanking got better repair/cap than shield tanking. eg med booster II gets 90 for 60 cap, whilst the med repair II gets 320/160 - a much better ratio than the shield booster. Most people use large boosters on cruisers and if you compare the fitting requirements, they are almost the same (shield taking more cpu, armor taking more grid). Medium Armor Repairer II: 160 cap, 320 hp, 12 seconds Large Shield Booster II: 160 cap, 240 hp, 4 seconds So by cap/hp the armor repairer is still ahead. But the shield booster can fix alot more dmg in the same time, provided you have the necessary cap.
Shayla Sh'inlux	Posted - 2005.11.15 14:34:00 - [59] You also have to factor in that a shield boost amplifier gives 30% extra shield boost at no extra cap cost and that there is this skill called shield compensation that reduces the cap usage of shield boosters.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.11.15 14:38:00 - [60] Originally by: Forsch Originally by: Mrs Meikel I thought that armour tanking got better repair/cap than shield tanking. eg med booster II gets 90 for 60 cap, whilst the med repair II gets 320/160 - a much better ratio than the shield booster. Most people use large boosters on cruisers and if you compare the fitting requirements, they are almost the same (shield taking more cpu, armor taking more grid). Medium Armor Repairer II: 160 cap, 320 hp, 12 seconds Large Shield Booster II: 160 cap, 240 hp, 4 seconds So by cap/hp the armor repairer is still ahead. But the shield booster can fix alot more dmg in the same time, provided you have the necessary cap. but the bigger the ship the more problems you get fitting shield booster, on matari ships thy are a nightmare -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscription canceled

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.