| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
samuel222
   |
Posted - 2006.02.04 15:57:00 -
[1]
i would like some peoples thoughts abput not which one is best but which is most logical and consider the reality of it
ps i choose armour because shields recharge naturally keep em at bay for a bit
___________________________
Now thats a face for radio!
|
lofty29
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 15:58:00 -
[2]
Entirely depends on what ship you are flying.
-------------------------------------
|
Valea Silpha
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 15:59:00 -
[3]
The simple answer is 'they are both as good as each other'.
To expand that a bit, shield tanks mainly are good at holding back extreme amount of damage for a short period of time, while armor tanks can handle less damage but over a much longer period of time, and in most cases indefinitely.
|
Halada
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 16:10:00 -
[4]
The rule of thumb is if your ship has more low slots your armor tank, and if it has more med slots you shield tank...
Caldari for example usually shield tank, Amarr and Gallente armor tank. This is all very general of course. Then comes the passive/active tanking, although passive armor tanking is just not for me...
|
Hanns
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 16:13:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Halada
The rule of thumb is if your ship has more low slots your armor tank, and if it has more med slots you shield tank...
Caldari for example usually shield tank, Amarr and Gallente armor tank. This is all very general of course. Then comes the passive/active tanking, although passive armor tanking is just not for me...
Passive armor tanking pwns active tanking imo specially on ships like the zealot, which has poor cap and needs all the cap saving you can get.
|
Kelhund
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 17:14:00 -
[6]
passive armor tanking? Sounds interesting, can anyone help me with the mods and skills I'd need to pull it off? I'm familiar with passive shield tanking and use it to great effect with my ferox, I"m interested in learning about using that with armor in hopes of making a good 0.0 rail mega setup
|
Leeda Swan
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 17:37:00 -
[7]
There are 2 kinds of passive being talked about in this thread.
Passive shield tank relies on shield extenders and relays to create a very high normal shield regen rate without the use of boosters.
Passive armor tank relies on modules that provide armor resistances without having to activate the module. Skills used in this are the armor compensation skills to augment the non powered modules.
|
Marine HK4861
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 18:49:00 -
[8]
Bear in mind that use of shield extenders will up your signature radius, so you'll be hit more often (and missiles will do more damage). On the plus side when your shield is broken you still have your armour to run away in.
|
Livia Tarquina
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 18:58:00 -
[9]
My philosophy is this is a science fiction game and there's something wrong with letting your shields go down. Unless my shields are paper thin, I'd keep some shield bonus in mind at least while planning my loadout.
|
Leeda Swan
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 19:39:00 -
[10]
I agree Livia.
As a star trek fan, its like the Federation, who are shield tankers vs the Borg, who are armor tankers.
All a matter of preference. 
|
Shadowsword
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 21:43:00 -
[11]
Like others already said, it entirely depend of your ship's slot layout.
Barring that, shield tanking is currently better than armor tanking, for 3 reasons:
1/ the passive shield regeneration, with skills and power diag systems, offer a small but signifiant bonus. For a Raven, at it's peak recharge rate, it's like a +10% to the amount of HP boosted by an XL shield booster.
2/ With the shield compensation skill, shield tanking become more cap-efficient than armor tanking.
3/ The use of 2 or 3 Invulnerability fields II give you better average resistance than what armor tankers can reach, with the same number of slots used for tanking.
A lot of players think that armor tanking is more sustainable, and that's true sometimes (Apocs), but in most case you can tank longer with a shield tank. You just need to manage it manually, and not let it running non-stop.
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 22:09:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Nafri on 04/02/2006 22:08:56
easy game:
if you PvP in groups, you will fit plates and EW, so no tanking at all. If your PvP alone, your going to fit armor tank and EW midslots.
Basicly, if your PvP interested, dont do shieldtanks, execpt for some rare execptions. A shieldtank is always wasted slots for your team
|
samuel222
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 19:25:00 -
[13]
i dont mean compared to the ship u fools
i mean im general
i wanted a philsopical discussion nort staing the obvious
___________________________
Now thats a face for radio!
|
Sun Ra
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 19:26:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Nafri
Edited by: Nafri on 04/02/2006 22:08:56
easy game:
if you PvP in groups, you will fit plates and EW, so no tanking at all. If your PvP alone, your going to fit armor tank and EW midslots.
Basicly, if your PvP interested, dont do shieldtanks, execpt for some rare execptions. A shieldtank is always wasted slots for your team
Boring game also 
Arcane Frankologies - 'plz stop guys it's xmas' |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 19:37:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Sun Ra
Originally by: Nafri
Edited by: Nafri on 04/02/2006 22:08:56
easy game:
if you PvP in groups, you will fit plates and EW, so no tanking at all. If your PvP alone, your going to fit armor tank and EW midslots.
Basicly, if your PvP interested, dont do shieldtanks, execpt for some rare execptions. A shieldtank is always wasted slots for your team
Boring game also
not my fault 
|
Sirjustin69
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 19:42:00 -
[16]
I hull tank myself, us hull tankers are l33t!
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 19:43:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Sirjustin69
I hull tank myself, us hull tankers are l33t!
uses midslots
|
Wesley Harding
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 20:58:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Wesley Harding on 05/02/2006 20:58:24
Shield Tank = An uphill battle with a crumbling mountain.
Armor Tank = A wall you either can or can not break.
Cargo Tank = An extremely long, boring, battle.
I cargo tank myself.
|
Sky Hunter
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 21:35:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Sirjustin69
I hull tank myself, us hull tankers are l33t!
uses midslots
if you have spare mids, why not?
-=-
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.02.06 17:30:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Sky Hunter
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Sirjustin69
I hull tank myself, us hull tankers are l33t!
uses midslots
if you have spare mids, why not?
then fit cargo scanners
|
Severe McCald
|
Posted - 2006.02.06 17:53:00 -
[21]
Originally by: samuel222
i dont mean compared to the ship u fools
i mean im general
i wanted a philsopical discussion nort staing the obvious
Well, from a philosophical standpoint, being a shield tanker suggests a lack of conviction. As someone said: "You've still got your armour to run away." It is a more cowardly approach.
Whereas, using armour tanking suggests confidence in one's abilities to bring the fight to the enemy. Or arrogance. "I do not need this shield, bring it on!" This fits well with the cultural attitudes of the amarr, but might be surprising for the Gallente.
The reality is that the number of hit points is similar, whichever route one chooses and there is no logical reason to prefer one over the other, except by reference to the ship type.
Trying to engage in (however tenuously) philosophical discussion about this, reminds me of a lecture that a professor of philosophy used to give, trying to demonstrate the difference between left and right using a series of slides of snooker balls.
Sev
I saw a squirrel today jumping from one tree to another, the branch it landed on snapped. So the squirrel was on this falling branch, clambering like mad, thinking it was doing something about it.'
|
Daikatana00
|
Posted - 2006.02.06 17:57:00 -
[22]
Stating the obvious: No matter which you use, make sure you have a repairer for both because there is nothing worse than having to constantly contend with 2 different recharging defenses no matter how 1337 or weak they are.
That being said, theoretically armor tanks are better because they can boost armor while they regen both armor and shields though I'm sure the game is pretty balanced around that small advantage by the fact that it takes longer to get through to the armor of a shield-tank so they can go all-out on their capacitor a little longer.
|
Kyozoku
|
Posted - 2006.02.06 18:19:00 -
[23]
armour vs shield tank = ew vs damage mods
|
Hoshi
|
Posted - 2006.02.06 18:27:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Daikatana00
Stating the obvious: No matter which you use, make sure you have a repairer for both because there is nothing worse than having to constantly contend with 2 different recharging defenses no matter how 1337 or weak they are.
You are joking right? Or are you really suggest that people should equip both an armor repair and shield booster on the same ship? If that is the case than please rethink your strategy. You should never mix shield and armor tank on the same ship.
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.02.06 18:46:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kyozoku
armour vs shield tank = ew vs damage mods
but only there there are lot of more low then midslots in this game, and you can use maximal 3-4 damage mods, where you can use all mids for EW
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |