EVE Search - Armor > Shield Tanking? New Module to Even The Odds!

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Armor > Shield Tanking? New Module to Even The Odds!

» 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)
Aeid Nomais	Posted - 2005.11.19 18:58:00 - [1] Here we go: Capacitor <Insert Name> eg. Converter, Router etc. +20% to Cap Recharge -10% to Armor Repair Effectiveness Required Fitting Costs: 4 CPU Takes one low slot. I think this could help a bit. What are your thoughts?
Alberta	Posted - 2005.11.19 19:06:00 - [2] So if you're going to shield tank you fit these and if you're going to armor tank you use cap relays... Genius. My Thoughts on Game Balance
GC13	Posted - 2005.11.19 19:08:00 - [3] To be fair to armor tanking, it would have to be a mid slot mod (though maybe be 25% since mid slots are better). Still, aside from that, not too bad. CPR, j00 suKz!
Harry Voyager	Posted - 2005.11.19 19:30:00 - [4] How about we wait until after the fallout of the Invul field boost, and see how that works?
Furion35	Posted - 2005.11.19 20:23:00 - [5] Great idea. CCP, make it now.
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.11.19 20:30:00 - [6] CCP should either add an armor tank penalty to cap rechargers or just remove the stupid shield boost penalty from cap relays. ------ If Captain James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock embracing one another, in a bath tube, nude, in space, is wrong, I don't want to be right.
husk harn	Posted - 2005.11.19 20:33:00 - [7] Originally by: Alberta So if you're going to shield tank you fit these and if you're going to armor tank you use cap relays... Genius. Cap relays requires LOW slots! how can you use'em while armor tanking?! bad idea imo
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2005.11.19 20:36:00 - [8] Originally by: Jim Raynor CCP should either add an armor tank penalty to cap rechargers or just remove the stupid shield boost penalty from cap relays. Sure. Just make sure that Cap Recharger Is are 20% and Cap Recharger IIs 25% too then. I'd rather they removed the shieldboost penalty though. Part of the reason Ravens were all using 5 Cap Relays is they had no alternative anyway. With BCUs and Damage Controls in that will change.
Trelennen	Posted - 2005.11.19 20:49:00 - [9] Originally by: husk harn Cap relays requires LOW slots! how can you use'em while armor tanking?! Well easily enough, there is one to two in most perma sustainable armor tanks with a bit of EW. The thing is armor tank ships have more lows than shield tank ships have meds, and you always need some mid for a combination of AB/web/scrambler, which lessen even more the amount of mids available to tank ;) Originally by: Jim Raynor CCP should either add an armor tank penalty to cap rechargers or just remove the stupid shield boost penalty from cap relays. This penalty is there not because of the raven or other shield tanker ship, but because it allowed Apoc to have an OMFG sustainable shield tank with XL booster + amp and full cap relays in lows... Funny that shield tankers got nerfed because an armor tanker was able to have an incredible shield tank Imho cap rechargers should have a drawback for armor tanking, just like cap relays have a drawback for shield tank, specialy considering that armor tankers can choose to fit a cap battery in med instead of a cap recharger, and would then sacrifice fitting instead of rep amount, while shield tankers can choose to fit PDU and have a low cap recharge benefit, or cap relays and have a borked shield tank. I'm very concerned about shield/armor tank balance on frigates though. On cruisers and BS, shield tank becomes more efficient in HP/s than armor tank if you fit a boost amp, and will give good burst boost, but low sustainability. On frigates though, except on some rare frigates which have lots of mids and a good amount of fitting, you can't fit a boost amp (or you can't fit weapons on top of that...). And small booster II, with shield compensation (rank 2) at 5, gives 15 HP/s for 9 cap/s, whereas small armor rep II gives, with repair systems (rank 1) at 5, 17.78 HP/s for 8.89 cap/s, and rather lower fitting requirements (a bit more pg but much less cpu). And small rep is even more efficient both cap and hp/s wise if we consider T1, as T2 gives 50% more hp for shield boost, and only 33% more for armor rep (which i don't understand, 'cause this means shield & armor tank can't be balanced at both T1 and T2 levels ). The only way to be more efficient with shield tank than armor tank on frigates, is to use the very expansive and very uber small gistii booster, which is kinda wrong, you should not need an uber expansive mod to not be subpar in every way to armor tank on frigates (not even considering that it's easier to harden an armor tank with adaptive nano than a shield tank as you can't even think of fitting an invulny field - well it could fit but would burn your cap in a few sec :p - and don't have equivalent of adaptive nano). To be honest, besides the unbalance at frigate levels, there is few things needed for armor and shield tank to be on par. One is to either have a low slot module that increases decently cap recharge for shield tankers (maybe if cap flux coils were better...), or have cap rechargers bork the armor rep amount. The other one is to have "non EW" mid slots, and then rework the slots layout of potential shield tankers so that they can have enough slots to tank and still fit at least a web/scrambler + AB/MWD, without becoming an overpowered EW plateform which would be used for EW instead of shield tank, and armore tanked if a tank is needed. Quote: dont fly what you cant afford to lose, always have it insured, make sure you can replace it before you take it into 0.0 or any potentially kaboomish situations.
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2005.11.19 21:07:00 - [10] Or they could just make boost amplifiers better (T2?) ¼_¼
Shadowsword	Posted - 2005.11.19 21:34:00 - [11] Originally by: Aeid Nomais Here we go: Capacitor <Insert Name> eg. Converter, Router etc. +20% to Cap Recharge -10% to Armor Repair Effectiveness Required Fitting Costs: 4 CPU Takes one low slot. I think this could help a bit. What are your thoughts? Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, CCP had a reason for nerfing the cap relays? BTW, do you really think that right now shield tanking is inferior to armor tanking? Well, let's see... -Boost at the beginning of the cycle. -better HP per cap ratio -More HP per second -Natural shield recharge Armor tankers have now only two advantages: -Slightly higher resistances, which is going to change with Invulnerability fields II and the new stacking penalty. -Cap power relays, but typicals armor tankers can't use more than 2 of them. If you want one damage mod and 4 hardeners, you can't even use any CPR on most armor-tanked battleships.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2005.11.19 21:49:00 - [12] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 19/11/2005 21:55:29 Great idea! Now we'll have ships like the apoc with 7 cap relays and 2 XL boosters running forever! GREAT IDEA! /not P.S. This is what it was like before the CPR nerf. We really don't need it changed back. - Proud member of the [23]. Don't get the reference in my sig? Click it.
Menelak Faf	Posted - 2005.11.19 21:59:00 - [13] Armor tankers actually have another advantage: Sustainable tanks. Not that that matters much in pvp since you're going to explode while you wait for the 12 second cycle. SoonÖ is relative.
Vishnej	Posted - 2005.11.19 23:32:00 - [14] Originally by: Harry Voyager How about we wait until after the fallout of the Invul field boost, and see how that works? QFT. Also, regarding omni's: there's the potential for a dichotomy forming where shield tankers don't need as many skills, but need 4 cap/second for invuln fields, while energized adaptive nano's need high levels in passive armor skills, but don't need cap. ---------------------------- T2 Destroyers: a proposal Requested Changes: An alphabet's worth
Foomanshoe	Posted - 2005.11.19 23:33:00 - [15] Originally by: Aeid Nomais Here we go: Capacitor <Insert Name> eg. Converter, Router etc. +20% to Cap Recharge -10% to Armor Repair Effectiveness Required Fitting Costs: 4 CPU Takes one low slot. I think this could help a bit. What are your thoughts? ROFL, why not just put cap relays back to the old ones without the shield boost penalty? Ill tell you why, cause then you got apocs running around with 7 of these stupid modules and a unbreakable shield tank. Shieldtanking = Better tank but less sustainable. Armortanking = Lesser tank but more sustainable. A XL shield booster heals the equivelent of 3 Large armor reps. Theres a reason most serious armor tanks use 2 reps, cause they dont heal much. If you want to uberfy your shield tank either invest in a gisti booster, or T2 power diags and T2 cap rechargers. _______________________________________________ Originally by: Oveur To the nerfmobile!
Arleonenis	Posted - 2005.11.19 23:36:00 - [16] Originally by: Jim Raynor CCP should either add an armor tank penalty to cap rechargers great and than you would see shield tanked apocs flying around
Nyphur	Posted - 2005.11.19 23:59:00 - [17] Edited by: Nyphur on 19/11/2005 23:59:52 Actually, you guys get a almost free shield resistance boost of over 10% with the patch. The Damage Control module gives shield, armour and hull resistance but with the amount of armour resistance it gives, it's not worth bothering to use in place of an armour hardener and thus is not worth the low slot. A shield tank, however, will always be able to spare an extra low slot. EDIT: By the way, the reason cap relays have a penalty to shield boosting is because they're meant to be used only on armour tanked ships - shield tanked ships make better use of power diagnostic systems.
LUKEC	Posted - 2005.11.20 00:03:00 - [18] Originally by: Menelak Faf Armor tankers actually have another advantage: Sustainable tanks. Not that that matters much in pvp since you're going to explode while you wait for the 12 second cycle. I prefer to die with empty cap and full hp and working weapons... not dead yet... than to die with 55% cap because 2x LAR II cannot keep up with dmg. Be back in a year or so :/ Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu Pre-patch: Scorpion + Gankageddon. Post-patch: Scorpion + Raven, maybe. Missiles sux, doesn't they?
Porro	Posted - 2005.11.20 00:41:00 - [19] The new invul fields on test + damage controls make a powerful shield tank. And just curious, is it possible to tank with a cap recharger II and lows full of pdiags?
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.20 02:11:00 - [20] I think the imbalance between sheild and armor tanking is the following: Armor tankers have more slots Armor tankers can use their mid slots to help their tank Shield tankers have less slots Shield tankers can't use their low slots nearly as well to help their tank I want my 7 mid slot/5 low Tier 3 Minnie BS please ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Harry Voyager	Posted - 2005.11.20 02:51:00 - [21] Damage Control II's are not going to be a heavily used shield tanking module, for the simple reason that with the stacking penalty, they will provide less than 2% effective bonus to shield resistances. Considering a PDU II provides and additional 15% energy, and how the limiting factor of most shield tanks is not their peak tank, but their sustainability, few shield tankers are going to make that trade. More likely, shield tankers are going to jump on the 2x Invul tank, that provides a 45% EM resist, while freeing up a valuable mid slot for an additional Cap Charger II. The effects are quite dramatic. On my Tempest, the old shield tank could sustain a regeneration of 71.86 shield per second, including hardening costs, for a maximum EM tank of merely 143.72 dps. The new Tempest shield tank can sustain a regeneration of 89.5 sps, for an EM tank of 162.727 dps. It's not an Apoc, but an additional 20 dps is a welcome improvement.
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.11.20 05:25:00 - [22] Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 19/11/2005 21:55:29 Great idea! Now we'll have ships like the apoc with 7 cap relays and 2 XL boosters running forever! GREAT IDEA! /not P.S. This is what it was like before the CPR nerf. We really don't need it changed back. Yarrrr!!! Don't tell them how it used to be Shikari. I would love to be able to fly around with a perma shield boosting apoc and imagine thier faces as they are pwned by a semi-invincible battleship. You could tank a small gankfleet of ceptors ALL DAY. \o/ Prolly some BS too. Silly people. Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Probably in the face. Multiple times. Nyxus Plasmatique> "Cry 'Cartiff' and let slip the dogs of war!"
Summersnow	Posted - 2005.11.20 05:38:00 - [23] Originally by: husk harn Originally by: Alberta So if you're going to shield tank you fit these and if you're going to armor tank you use cap relays... Genius. Cap relays requires LOW slots! how can you use'em while armor tanking?! bad idea imo Obviously you would use cap rechargers then... The point is armor tankers have the choice of 2 items, one mid, one low, which can boost there cap recharge with zero drawback and shield tankers effectively only have 1, the midslot cap recharger, which just happen to be the same slots they need to tank with.
Harry Voyager	Posted - 2005.11.20 06:12:00 - [24] Originally by: Nyxus Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 19/11/2005 21:55:29 Great idea! Now we'll have ships like the apoc with 7 cap relays and 2 XL boosters running forever! GREAT IDEA! /not P.S. This is what it was like before the CPR nerf. We really don't need it changed back. Yarrrr!!! Don't tell them how it used to be Shikari. I would love to be able to fly around with a perma shield boosting apoc and imagine thier faces as they are pwned by a semi-invincible battleship. You could tank a small gankfleet of ceptors ALL DAY. \o/ Prolly some BS too. Silly people. Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Probably in the face. Multiple times. Nyxus Just on a side note, current high end gankageddons can deal upwards of 890 EM and Thermal damage per second. While that may have minor trouble with 70% EM resist Minmatars, it's going to tear through that 240 sps boost rate like it wasn't even there. Even EM+Therm hardeners aren't going to slow it down much. Lasers don't suck anymore. Harry Voyager
Beringe	Posted - 2005.11.20 07:24:00 - [25] I know the change was made because ships like the Apoc could maintain their shield tank forever with them. The Raven wasn't half bad with a rack full of cap relays, either. Problem was, everyone used cap relays. They were a must have module. At least the armor tankers have to juggle between them and armor tanking modules now, and I honestly don't think the Raven is much worse with PDUs II (or BCUs, for that matter). ------------------------------------------- Sometimes, I wake up but keep on dreaming.
Tobiaz	Posted - 2005.11.20 08:46:00 - [26] Edited by: Tobiaz on 20/11/2005 08:47:45 ROFL I would fit a Raven with a XL SB T2, two amps, 2 RMR invul shields, a T2 cap recharger, 1 RMR T2 damage control and four of your brilliant capacitor thingies. I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure that would leave a tank with all resistances at least in the 70% and a pretty much sustainable shield tank with mad HP/cycle. At least now you can have all that, except the 'sustainable' part, which is what makes it balanced. Who put those rats in the fridge?!
Delacho	Posted - 2005.11.20 09:07:00 - [27] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Or they could just make boost amplifiers better (T2?) ¼_¼ can we have an armor repair boost amplifier ?
NAFnist	Posted - 2005.11.20 09:14:00 - [28] horrible idea
madaluap	Posted - 2005.11.20 10:37:00 - [29] very bad idea, raven+5X relay means you can run your Xl forever. with the new changes to tanking and less ganking this will even get worse.
Ricdic	Posted - 2005.11.20 15:05:00 - [30] I got a perfectly idea to make it completely fair. Introduce a stacking penalty on all Capacitor Power Relays, and Cap chargers. Also introduce the same stacking penalty to Power Diagnostic II. Somehow, I think the armor tankers will be the ones screaming to CCP, seeing as their apocs with 6 cap recharge modules (4 Cap Charg II, 2 CPR) suddenly arent close to effective as previously. The shield tankers out there, while some use 5 PDU II on ravens wont be hit near as hard. They will simply need to drop a couple of PDU in place of an RCU and a damage mod, etc. We know CCP is trying to make ships last longer in battle, and not shorter. Therefore my above post is unrealistic, but just think of the effects this would have on armor tankers compared to shield tankers. We know this would hammer an armor tanker 10x as bad as a shield tanker, so surely this shows an immediate problem. Apoc choose between huge gank with minimal tank, or huge tank with good gank. Raven choose between avg gank with avg tank, or avg tank with crap gank Seems confusing, quite simply, the shield tanking ships (missile boats in particular) really need some way to fit for ultimate gank. An apoc in gank mode would involve, 4 painters/tracking mods, 7 heat sinks (using all of his available slots for maximum gank (no room for tank) A raven in gank mode would involve 5 painters/1 sensor booster, 5 ballistics. The main problem with this, is that those 5 painters arent going to help at all against a fellow battleship. While i think shield tankers are ok in combat, it would just be really nice to have the option of being able to fit for actual gank or tank, and not semi-half-assed of everything at once. ------------------------------------------ Dreadnought Production INC is recruiting Join DPI Channel Or Visit (IGB) http://www.mmorpg-online.net/intro.html

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.