EVE Search - OMG There is an inbalance with shield systems! passive tankers esp.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

OMG There is an inbalance with shield systems! passive tankers esp.

» 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)
Vina	Posted - 2005.12.16 09:58:00 - [1] Edited by: Vina on 16/12/2005 10:05:05 Well, I just noticed this since I was bored, can't believe no one else did before but.. http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/EveShieldImbalance.jpg Anyone else notice that shield HP and shield recharge rate have no bearing on eachother, while capacitor and cap recharge rate are directly tied to eachother per ship? Basically this means that not all ships have the same base shield regen rate, and that the ferox has an insane shield recharge rate. Obviously this is imbalanced. Seems to me like cruisers and frigates need a boost to shield regen rate. ----------------------------------- btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai
Vina	Posted - 2005.12.16 09:58:00 - [2] Edited by: Vina on 16/12/2005 10:05:05 Well, I just noticed this since I was bored, can't believe no one else did before but.. http://www.siegedom.com/Files/Eve/EveShieldImbalance.jpg Anyone else notice that shield HP and shield recharge rate have no bearing on eachother, while capacitor and cap recharge rate are directly tied to eachother per ship? Basically this means that not all ships have the same base shield regen rate, and that the ferox has an insane shield recharge rate. Obviously this is imbalanced. Seems to me like cruisers and frigates need a boost to shield regen rate. ----------------------------------- btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai
Merv Tring	Posted - 2005.12.16 10:05:00 - [3] Yeah... I've got 8k shields on my Cyclone. They recharge in 633s (base). Please don't make them mess with my shields EVE Online \| EVE Insider \| Forums
Merv Tring	Posted - 2005.12.16 10:05:00 - [4] Edited by: Merv Tring on 16/12/2005 10:06:31 Yeah... I've got 8k shields on my Cyclone. They recharge in 633s (base). Please don't make them mess with my shields . ---------------------------------- "Out ride the sons of Terra, Far Drives the thundring jet, Up leaps the race of Earthmen, Out, far, and onward yet-"
NTRabbit	Posted - 2005.12.16 10:07:00 - [5] You people keep missing the point - the raven and ferox are both perfectly fine at 3/1 ratio, its the cruisers sitting at 3/2 and 2.5/2 that are out of synch. --------
Mallik Hendrake	Posted - 2005.12.16 10:16:00 - [6] Wow you mean a battleship repairs shields faster than a cruiser? What is the universe coming to? -------------------------------------------- "A plan is just a list of things that don't happen." -- Parker, _The Way of the Gun_ Mallik Hendrake E X O D U S [I do not speak for E X O or IRON]
Vina	Posted - 2005.12.16 10:17:00 - [7] Edited by: Vina on 16/12/2005 10:17:29 A little math reveals that caldari cruisers have about 2.7 cap regen rate. Moa = 1100/393=2.7 Caracal = 850/305=2.7 following this means that the shield regen should be: Moa = 1500/2.7=555 shield regen Caracal=1250/2.7= 463 shield regen Ferox: Cap: 2000/533=3.7 Shield: 3125/3.7= 845 shield regen Raven: Cap: 4250/923=4.5 Shield: 6000/4.5= 1333 shield regen. Or so I guess it should be. ----------------------------------- btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai
Jarmon Karlentis	Posted - 2005.12.16 12:04:00 - [8] Erm. Why should shield systems bear any relation to capacitor systems. They aren't the same.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.12.16 12:10:00 - [9] Originally by: Jarmon Karlentis Erm. Why should shield systems bear any relation to capacitor systems. They aren't the same. Same formula, same design principle. ~Sobe Originally by: TomB Originally by: Darpz Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi CCP will nerf this probably, but hey, worth a try so your saying I should of kept my mouth shut? Yup.
Mallik Hendrake	Posted - 2005.12.16 12:55:00 - [10] Edited by: Mallik Hendrake on 16/12/2005 12:57:49 Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Originally by: Jarmon Karlentis Erm. Why should shield systems bear any relation to capacitor systems. They aren't the same. Same formula, same design principle. So you're saying that Amarr ships, which have better capacitor recharge ratios, should have better shield recharge. Because they have more capacitor, and cap is shield is life. This thread is near unto the dumbest thing ever to grace this section of the forums. Clues 4tw. p.s. I am not saying that shield recharge might not be a little off, but the reasoning here is more than flawed -------------------------------------------- "A plan is just a list of things that don't happen." -- Parker, _The Way of the Gun_ Mallik Hendrake E X O D U S [I do not speak for E X O or IRON]
Selak Zorander	Posted - 2005.12.16 13:00:00 - [11] Originally by: Mallik Hendrake Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Originally by: Jarmon Karlentis Erm. Why should shield systems bear any relation to capacitor systems. They aren't the same. Same formula, same design principle. So you're saying that Amarr ships, which have better capacitor recharge ratios, should have better shield recharge. Because they have more capacitor, and cap is shield is life. This thread is near unto the dumbest thing ever to grace this section of the forums. Clues 4tw. no what sobe is say is that the formula that govers cap recharge is the exact same formula (or very nearly identical) that governs shield recharge. Yes they are different systems, but both recharge in the same manner which they both peak out at around 2.4 to 2.5 times the average recharge when around 30 to 40% of full charge with extremely low shield amounts and approaching full shields (or capacitor) the recharge is very slow.
Sky Hunter	Posted - 2005.12.16 13:37:00 - [12] Omg, cap itself have no relation to shield recharge. But formula and design is same on the game level, not onthe cap-to-shield level where they affected by each one of them, they arent. -=-
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2005.12.16 19:50:00 - [13] So what kind of passive shields per second can you get on a Ferox using extenders/pdus/shield rechargers? I might have to get myself a ferox in a month or two once I've taken my harpy's skills as far as they can go. ------------------------------------ Inappropriate signature -zhuge
hrh4h4h4h	Posted - 2005.12.16 20:40:00 - [14] Hi, indeed, ferox is a nice passive tank now. Since the fitting demands for shield extenders have been lowered, i can fit 3 large extende, giving me 11100 shield hp. Because the recharge rate doesn¦t increase proportionally to shield hp, i still have 585s recharge, resulting in a 19HP/s shield boost. I had to sacrifice my hardeners for it, but at the moment this seems to be worth it.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.12.16 20:40:00 - [15] "Basically this means that not all ships have the same base shield regen rate, and that the ferox has an insane shield recharge rate." ... I don't get the complaint. Basically, the bigger the ship, the higher recharge rate it gets to both capacitor and shield. This is not unusal, since the bigger the ship, the more cap-expensive modules it runs, and more damage per second is typically hitting it. Additionally, tech.2 ships generally enjoy higher recharge rate than tech.1 ships of comparable size. Where is the imbalance in all this? ^^;; Battlecruiser shield recharge rate is bit of oddball there, but if anything it appears like that due to the battleships and their shield recharge somewhat lacking (cap recharge rate of battleship is 250% of cap recharge of frigate, while shield recharge of battleship is 200% of shield recharge the frigate gets)
Hugh Ruka	Posted - 2005.12.16 20:43:00 - [16] Originally by: Vina Edited by: Vina on 16/12/2005 10:17:29 A little math reveals that caldari cruisers have about 2.7 cap regen rate. Moa = 1100/393=2.7 Caracal = 850/305=2.7 following this means that the shield regen should be: Moa = 1500/2.7=555 shield regen Caracal=1250/2.7= 463 shield regen Ferox: Cap: 2000/533=3.7 Shield: 3125/3.7= 845 shield regen Raven: Cap: 4250/923=4.5 Shield: 6000/4.5= 1333 shield regen. Or so I guess it should be. I do not quite get the point .... shield regen time is a CLASS based value. Each cruiser has 1000sec shield regen ... OTOH why should the shield and capacitor follow same base values ? The actual behaviour is the same, 2.4-2.5 multiplier on peak recharge at 30% ... I do not see any imbalance... ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum I realy liked my signature. Oh well ...
Vina	Posted - 2005.12.16 20:47:00 - [17] Quote: ... I don't get the complaint. Basically, the bigger the ship, the higher recharge rate it gets to both capacitor and shield. No. On caldari cruisers, the cap REGEN RATE (not recharge time) is 2.7 cap/s on all cruisers. The smaller the cap the cruiser has, the shorter the recharge time. This is not the same for shields. all cruisers have the same shield recharge time resulting in the smaller cruisers having a much longer shield regen time (or smaller rate.) ----------------------------------- btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai
Hugh Ruka	Posted - 2005.12.16 20:52:00 - [18] Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 16/12/2005 20:53:56 Originally by: Vina Quote: ... I don't get the complaint. Basically, the bigger the ship, the higher recharge rate it gets to both capacitor and shield. No. On caldari cruisers, the cap REGEN RATE (not recharge time) is 2.7 cap/s on all cruisers. The smaller the cap the cruiser has, the shorter the recharge time. This is not the same for shields. all cruisers have the same shield recharge time resulting in the smaller cruisers having a much longer shield regen time (or smaller rate.) It is the same on ALL cruisers, not only Caldari, check the item database or market stats ... For each ship class, cap regen is the same, shield recharge time is the same ... two different systems, why should they have the same stats ? EDIT: so by your rules, Amar would have the best shield recharge because they have the best cap recharge ? ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum I realy liked my signature. Oh well ...
Vina	Posted - 2005.12.16 20:54:00 - [19] Cause it's unbalanced and means certain ships can't passive shield tank worth a crap compared to other ones? ----------------------------------- btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai
Hugh Ruka	Posted - 2005.12.16 20:55:00 - [20] Originally by: Vina Cause it's unbalanced and means certain ships can't passive shield tank worth a crap compared to other ones? oh yes ... some ships cannot effectively shield tank because they lack the slots, same with armor tank ... some cannot actively tank, they lack the capacitor ... again imbalance in your view ? ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum I realy liked my signature. Oh well ...
Randay	Posted - 2005.12.16 20:55:00 - [21] dont worry, the wahmbulance is on its way. please remain calm. ------------------------------------------- "Det hSr kan betyda krig!"
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.12.16 20:58:00 - [22] "No. On caldari cruisers, the cap REGEN RATE (not recharge time) is 2.7 cap/s on all cruisers. The smaller the cap the cruiser has, the shorter the recharge time. This is not the same for shields. all cruisers have the same shield recharge time resulting in the smaller cruisers having a much longer shield regen time (or smaller rate.)" While this paricular bit might work for Caldari cruisers, it breaks completely when you start looking at the battleships -- Scorpion has higher cap recharge than Raven. Minmatar battleships have identical recharge rates. For Amarr it's Apocalypse that recharges faster even before it bonus gets involved. For Gallente, it's Dominix that recharges faster than Megathron. There is simply no single, logical pattern here which you could apply to all ships and then demand to have it extended to shield recharge. There's 'rough' pattern of ships improving recharge rates as they grow in class, but that's about it o.O;

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.