EVE Search - PLEASE CCP add a invol armor hardener - 30% to all for some cap

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

PLEASE CCP add a invol armor hardener - 30% to all for some cap - upda

» 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 - 1 post(s)
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:12:00 - [1] other thred was hijacked by very very yung ignorant people who know nothing about the game. so if ur a noob please dont post. if u dont know that a large t2 armor rep isnt a crusier rep please dont post. some quotes will be taken from the old thred that wehre relavent same as a invol shield hardener but for armor roughly the same cap per sec, SAME resistances gained, fitting modified to how ever CCP decides the difference between armor and shields atm a energized adaptive nano adds 25% to everything with maxed skills for no cap use. a invol field T2 adds 30% but uses 3.2 cap per sec please add a invol armor version with similar stats Currently u need 3 energized adaptives with maxed out skill to match 2 invol fields. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE CCP add a 30% to all armor hardener that is similar to invol fields. let me know what everyone thinks, why u agree or why it shouldnt happen
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:15:00 - [2] Originally by: j0sephine "oh and at 3.2cap per sec. a crusier HAS NO PROBS AT ALL fitting this mod frigs will have a tougher time, but still be able to fit it." It's not the cap that is problem for cruisers and frigates, where it comes to fitting shield tank. Most of them has 3-4 mid slots. And most of them needs 2-3 of these mids to get their job done. Leaving them with 0-1 mids to tank with, unless they are willing to gimp the setup needed for primary function (the actual killing of stuff) true and i agree, its hard for frigs or cruseirs to armor tank as they need the mid slots for web mwd/ab desrupter ect which leads to either armor tanking only, or to full gank lows but amar/galante cruseirs CAN armor tank, but then they have **** dmg so both sides tend to fit dmg and no tank
Gariuys	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:16:00 - [3] Originally by: without ignorant people who know nothing about the game. so if ur a noob please dont post. Young padawan for you to enlighten others, you must seek the balance in yourself.... In short, listen to your innerself, it's telling you what you need to do.... DON'T POST ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:16:00 - [4] Originally by: Eyeshadow with RMR shield tank > armor tank In you can bypass the cap use of sustaining a shield tank for large periods time (read: cap injector) you are on to a winner The 2 ships that will pwn in RMR? Dominix + Raven. Why? Shield tank + injector/dual 250/3 mag stabs, 3 drone dmg dominix or shield tank + injector/torp + cruise mix/dmg mods Raven. Both will basically own everything, the dominix especially with the new drone schnizzle
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:16:00 - [5] Originally by: without Originally by: Naughty Boy Originally by: without anyone want to point out how armor is better in any way what so ever to shields. becuase i can show u that its worst in every department I so want you to prove that. Free tip for you: don't try proving that general affirmation with a particular case, and don't forget about at least two mods among the three: web, scrambler, and propulsion mod. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. ok here i go. this has nothing to do with ships. so its not a raven vs other its purely a shield vs armor argument xl-booster t2 + amp = 780HP per 5 sec for 360CAP that is 156HP recover per sec. 2.1667HP per Cap, and 2 slots taken up now 2 armor rep large armor rep t2 does 800rep per 11.25sec so with 2 large t2 reps 1600 rep per 11.25sec. 142.22HP recover per sec 2HP per cap so. armor uses more CAP per HP recover (and u always see stupid ppl posting that armor is more efficent) 2 large rep t2 does less HP recover per sec now lets take resistance into account too shields. 0, 60, 40, 20 armor 60, 10, 35, 35 now assume that you are shot with a weapon that does 100 of each type. shields take 280dmg while armor takes 260dmg. ok now lets put the difference into the armor rep per sec (since armor is naturally tougher it should be placed into the armor rep per sec calculation) we get armor EFFECTIVE HP recover to be (142.22/260)*280 = 153.16 so a small summary: shields recover more HP per cap (2.1667HP per cap, vs armors 2HP per cap) shields recover more HP per sec (156HP per sec, vs armors 153.16HP per sec) now off topic a bit shields have a 30% invol field. which is a LOT more than the max 25% energized adaptive which takes 4 skills rank 2 to be on lvl 5 shields recharge themselfs - not much but hey every lil helps shields now have a low slot mod that increases shield resistance
The Wizz117	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:17:00 - [6] Edited by: The Wizz117 on 05/12/2005 13:21:20 newsflash: the base shield recistanse is 20% lower, the shield/cap is not the same ( yes maybe with a full crystal implant set and a shield amplifier( wich takes another slot) and very good skilz, yes) and for the slots: basicly its high slots are most valuable then mid slots then low's so having to tank on med is worse then tanking on low.. AND armour has more slots to tank, beter hp expanders. AND armour has a buffer that you can recharge before agrowing a next group. i am sorry to announce that you are the noob here.
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:18:00 - [7] Originally by: theRaptor It is simple. Shields don't get passive hardners, armour doesn't get an active hardner with bonuses to all resists. give the shields a passive +20% that improves with skills like the armor have
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:19:00 - [8] Originally by: The Wizz117 newsflash: the base shield recistanse is 20% lower, the shield/cap is not the same ( yes maybe with a full crystal implant set and a shield amplifier( wich takes another slot) and very good skilz, yes) please read the whole thred. it takes into account the 20% u speak of. i think its 2 or 3 posts abouve ur post that show the calculations
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:20:00 - [9] Originally by: Gariuys Originally by: without ignorant people who know nothing about the game. so if ur a noob please dont post. Young padawan for you to enlighten others, you must seek the balance in yourself.... In short, listen to your innerself, it's telling you what you need to do.... DON'T POST please dont post things like this, i jsut stared this second one to get rid of stupid posts and **** that doesnt make sense like some noob arguing with me that its not fair to compait XL booster with large armor rep. cos the large armor rep is a crusier mod (2300PG yeh right crusier mod) thanks
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:21:00 - [10] this is one of the dumb post from the old thred, but its slightly relavent so im gona post it Originally by: Thercon Jair You said that the natural shield recharge helps the shield tanker. I assume a shield doesn't recharge at all when you're armour tanking? ;) Alhtough this recharged shield HP for an armour tanker is unhardened. ON the other side, you're most likely to use explosives against an armour tanker, which happens to be the highest resistance on shields. I fly minnie ships and I happen to do both. Armour tanking for a close range AC setup which uses low grid, shield tanking with PDU's in lows if I am using Artillery that has high PG requierments. So... shrug Both works, both has it advantages/disadvantages. u need to know that shields dont recharge at a constant rate (same with cap) best recharge is around 30% and so armor tankers dont gain as much from shield regain as shields tankers (also as he stated the recharge of the shield tanker is hardened too)

The Wizz117	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:26:00 - [11] Edited by: The Wizz117 on 05/12/2005 13:26:44 i think without is not happy aboud we giving our opinion and stuf. you made a triple post AND a (how do you say it) 4 post in a row very soft: the xl shield booster uses to much cpu to fit a rack of torps BCU for most people
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:28:00 - [12] Originally by: Dark PIne Originally by: without megathron is the ship i fly so the numbers are in my head. but im 99% sure that there is no practicle 2 large t2 rep apoc or armageddon setup dont get me started on the dominix, its PG cant support 2large rep + any sort of setup (erm pvp that is) Apoc has 19500 base powergrid and Arma 16500, both more than Mega has. And yes, having two large t2 reps is a pretty standard armor tank. Even Raven can fit that, if needed. can a apoc user confirm that 2 large t2 rep is possible without serverly gimping ur setup i know a megathron is totally gimped if it fits 2large t2 reps
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:30:00 - [13] Since you are cross-posting, here's the link to your original post. Hi mom. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. --- Spreadsheet - Damage @ range.
Sendraks	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:31:00 - [14] Edited by: Sendraks on 05/12/2005 13:32:58 Originally by: without Originally by: theRaptor It is simple. Shields don't get passive hardners, armour doesn't get an active hardner with bonuses to all resists. give the shields a passive +20% that improves with skills like the armor have Why? Why should they be the same and have the same things? Surely the whole point is that they are different and function differently on different ships? And please don't cross post. The forum does not need multiple versions of this thread. If you have, what you think is a good idea and what to float it past the community, be prepared for people to disagree with you. If you can't handle people disagreeing with your opinion, don't post.
Dark PIne	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:32:00 - [15] Originally by: without other thred was hijacked by very very yung ignorant people who know nothing about the game. so if ur a noob please dont post. if u dont know that a large t2 armor rep isnt a crusier rep please dont post. It would not be fair to dish all the replies from your previous thread, and include only the ones that support your views.
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:33:00 - [16] As an Apoc user, yes, an Apoc can fit two Large T2 reps without 'severely gimping its setup'. And please, stop the supertroll posts. You're just outright wrong. Shieldtanking and armourtanking have never been more balanced than they are now. They both have reasonable upsides and downsides. Sig removed. Image far too big. 120x400 pixels max. 24000 bytes max. -Kaemonn Ohnoes, I've been nerfed :(
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:33:00 - [17] Originally by: Naughty Boy look at what you see on the battlefield and what you will realistically fit in most combat situations. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. get onto sisi and look at the most common ship in FFA, its a raven tanked with invol fields and a dcu with the rest of the lows with gank read other thred which are boasting about their ravens resistances and tank while having 600DPS of which they can choose thanks for linking the old thred, id of done it myself but meh dont know how to do the clicky thing :)
The Wizz117	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:34:00 - [18] /me shakes up his pilow and gets more popcorn
Mercenar	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:36:00 - [19] Originally by: without read other thred which are boasting about their ravens resistances and tank while having 600DPS of which they can choose Isn't the problem there rather more the Raven itself than shield tanking. Citing one ship as an example and then using it as a generalisation for the usefullness of shield tanking is very flawed.
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:37:00 - [20] Originally by: Sendraks Edited by: Sendraks on 05/12/2005 13:32:58 Originally by: without Originally by: theRaptor It is simple. Shields don't get passive hardners, armour doesn't get an active hardner with bonuses to all resists. give the shields a passive +20% that improves with skills like the armor have Why? Why should they be the same and have the same things? Surely the whole point is that they are different and function differently on different ships? And please don't cross post. The forum does not need multiple versions of this thread. If you have, what you think is a good idea and what to float it past the community, be prepared for people to disagree with you. If you can't handle people disagreeing with your opinion, don't post. fair point, but with armor requiring 4 skills all rank 2 (over 1 months training) to train to get a 25% to all mod, while shields require only one skill to lvl 4 to use invol fields which give 30% to all u dont see a majour balance issue? im not asking for shields and armor is be the same, but atm its just WAYYYYY in favour of the shield tankers. i would lvoe shields and armor tanking to be completly different but not for one to be so majourly overpowered

The Wizz117	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:38:00 - [21] Edited by: The Wizz117 on 05/12/2005 13:40:04 Quote: fair point, but with armor requiring 4 skills all rank 2 (over 1 months training) to train to get a 25% to all mod, while shields require only one skill to lvl 4 to use invol fields which give 30% to all u dont see a majour balance issue? im not asking for shields and armor is be the same, but atm its just WAYYYYY in favour of the shield tankers. i would lvoe shields and armor tanking to be completly different but not for one to be so majourly overpowered why dont u just switch to shield tanking
Sendraks	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:41:00 - [22] Originally by: without u dont see a majour balance issue? Not really. Ever since I started armour tanking in the ship I use (Thorax) I've found that life has gotten a lot easier. Shield tanking drained far too much cap and used up valubale mid slots for webbers, ABs and the like. Originally by: without im not asking for shields and armor is be the same, but atm its just WAYYYYY in favour of the shield tankers. i would lvoe shields and armor tanking to be completly different but not for one to be so majourly overpowered I really don't see it that, certainly not from my experience. Certainly all the threads and ship build recommendations I've read in the past 3 months have recommended armour tanking for the craft I want to use. I'm guessing that if shield tanking really was that much better, it'd be recommended instead.
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:42:00 - [23] Originally by: Mercenar Originally by: without read other thred which are boasting about their ravens resistances and tank while having 600DPS of which they can choose Isn't the problem there rather more the Raven itself than shield tanking. Citing one ship as an example and then using it as a generalisation for the usefullness of shield tanking is very flawed. sorry about the general raven thing but shield tanking > armor tanking where ever a amp+booster is used. ie > 2mid slots there are times when this isnt true. for example on a harpy u cant really fit a amp. so there armor rep is better (ie enyo with small rep) (although the harpy can recover more HP a sec) but tbh, u shouldnt really tank a frig with armor or shiedls, so they are out of the equation cruseirs need their mids for web/mwd/ab/scramber/ect so shield tanking is very hard for the, but they can fit the support mods stated plus lots of gank in lows. also they can fit more support mods than a armor tanking crusier. thus i also think t1 crusiers should be out of the equation. i dont armor tank my crusiers, i fit dmg mods and other support mods t2 crusiers armor > shields on tanking afaik, but they are a limited ship owned by few, used by few, the majour tankers are the BS, thus the examples where kept to BS
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:46:00 - [24] Edited by: without on 05/12/2005 13:46:43 Originally by: Sendraks Originally by: without u dont see a majour balance issue? Not really. Ever since I started armour tanking in the ship I use (Thorax) I've found that life has gotten a lot easier. Shield tanking drained far too much cap and used up valubale mid slots for webbers, ABs and the like. Originally by: without im not asking for shields and armor is be the same, but atm its just WAYYYYY in favour of the shield tankers. i would lvoe shields and armor tanking to be completly different but not for one to be so majourly overpowered I really don't see it that, certainly not from my experience. Certainly all the threads and ship build recommendations I've read in the past 3 months have recommended armour tanking for the craft I want to use. I'm guessing that if shield tanking really was that much better, it'd be recommended instead. well u would armor tank a thorax because it has more low slots, but u would shield tank a caracal (tanking crusiers as a whole is stupid idea) (unless u fit oversized plates and most ur dmg comes from drones but ships like taht get nerfed ) so ur example of armor tanking > shield tanking in a THORAX is ROFLMAO please dont post anymore as that example alone shows ur ignorance, and i mean it dont post, ur taking up valuble thred space, causeing more storage on eves servers and lagging ppl out more (jking ofcourse )
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:47:00 - [25] Originally by: without sorry about the general raven thing but shield tanking > armor tanking where ever a amp+booster is used. ie > 2mid slots And with equal resistances. Which is a major factor, like it or not, armor tanker can stack more hardeners. You're right about being mad about the shield tanking torpedo raven, just don't fight the wrong fight, it's not shield tanking, it's not missiles, it's the torpedo raven. Spend your energy elaborating what is the problem and how to fix it, instead of that "shield tanking is teh uber" kind of non-sense. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. --- Spreadsheet - Damage @ range.
without	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:53:00 - [26] Originally by: Testy Mctest As an Apoc user, yes, an Apoc can fit two Large T2 reps without 'severely gimping its setup'. And please, stop the supertroll posts. You're just outright wrong. Shieldtanking and armourtanking have never been more balanced than they are now. They both have reasonable upsides and downsides. hey buddie why dont u get on sisi and fight a shield tanked ship. since ur in a apoc fight a shield tanking BS (erm lets think of one, ahh the raven) make sure ur similar skilled pilots, same BS lvl, eoughly same SP in turrets and missiles ect ect tell the raven ppilot to fit 6 siege best named 2 invol fields, 1 cl5 xl, 1 amp, 1 electrochemica heavy injecter with 800s, 1 EM hardener 1 good named DCU. 3 BCU t2, 1 PDU t2 3heavy drones/ 5medium/ 3 sentry/ 5medium target pain/5medium web, drones are not important, any of those will do also the raven should have 12 800s in its cargo hold this is a general setup, not specificly anti amar should have em torps fitted, and explosive in cargo and see what ahppens, to test the theory of which is best, armor or shield tanks
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:56:00 - [27] Originally by: without and see what ahppens, to test the theory of which is best, armor or shield tanks There is no way you can have that kind of conclusion with that kind of experiment. It's like saying, black is better than white, black cats always beat white mice. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. --- Spreadsheet - Damage @ range.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:56:00 - [28] The OMGHAX Guide to dealing with Shield Tanked Torp-Spamming Ravens Highs: Lots of Guns and 2 Large Smartbombs Mids: 20k Scrambler (27k faction scrambler would be even better), whatever you want, cap chargers Lows: cap power relays and damage mods Warp in, scramble. Raven starts firing torps at you, while you fire your guns. When the torps are within about 7-6k or so activate one of the smartbombs. Goodbye torps. Keep doing this until the raven runs out of cap. It's shields die, it can't warp away because it's scrambled, and you can sit there shooting it without the raven being able to hurt you as you keep smartbombing his torps. If people want active multi-resistance hardening modules for armour, I want passive multi-resistance hardening modules for shield. Originally by: Chowdown We camp a lot
Sendraks	Posted - 2005.12.05 13:59:00 - [29] Originally by: without well u would armor tank a thorax because it has more low slots, but u would shield tank a caracal (tanking crusiers as a whole is stupid idea) (unless u fit oversized plates and most ur dmg comes from drones but ships like taht get nerfed )so ur example of armor tanking > shield tanking in a THORAX is ROFLMAO But is the Caracal a definitively better tanking vessel than the Thorax because it shield tanks? In so far as I am aware, it isn't. The point I was trying to make is that I went from shield tanking on other comparable vessels to armour tanking on comparable vessels and found that the latter worked better. Originally by: without please dont post anymore as that example alone shows ur ignorance, and i mean it dont post, ur taking up valuble thred space, causeing more storage on eves servers and lagging ppl out more (jking ofcourse ) I really don't care if I seem ignorant, I've only been playing for 3months so there is a lot I don't know. However, its VERY hypocritical for you to tell anyone not to post because of a lack of knowledge when you seem to be flying in the face of information posted by experience and well informed players.
Deja Thoris	Posted - 2005.12.05 14:00:00 - [30] Way to go! Start a new thread and quote all the people that supported you from the old one. I disagree with you btw.



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.