EVE Search - Damage Controls on frigs?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Damage Controls on frigs?

» 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)
Rexthor Hammerfists	Posted - 2006.03.09 22:43:00 - [1] now, with the litle cap usage and fitting reqs but their huge bonusses these thingies have become a mandatory on bses, but also on ceptors it seems. lets look at a taranis, which has 700 hull, now with an dmg control, it has more resistances on its shield and armor, but with the added hullresistances (which are more then t1 resisances, 50% to hull) its a tough tank for an ceptor. now thats nice for ppl flying taranises, but not for ppl flyin other ceptors ;), a crow has just 300 hull, the other ceptors are also around that. a suggestion for that could be to up the cap usage, like 4cap per second!, wouldnt hurt a bs, noticeable on a cruiser and devastating on a frig. another solution would b to give all frigs the same amount of hull, remmeber, hulltankin 4tw now. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
Kye Kenshin	Posted - 2006.03.09 22:45:00 - [2] I never thought about using them on frigs. Thanks for the idea mate
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.03.09 22:47:00 - [3] Yes, its disproportionally powerful for the Tarranis. Pointed this out beforehand :/ Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command
Rexthor Hammerfists	Posted - 2006.03.09 22:49:00 - [4] id prefer, next to the cap changes if ccp would put the hull resistances to 30 for the t1`s, they too powerful imo, a module that is a must to fit, is broken. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
Cuebick	Posted - 2006.03.09 22:50:00 - [5] The Crusader has about 670hull ____________________________________
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2006.03.09 22:54:00 - [6] Yes these modules need to use more cap, I was concerned about the 1 cap every 30 seconds thing when they showed up on Singularity (because if cap use is going to be THAT low, why not make it passive? ) Learn what it means to be Caldari - www.omertasyndicate.com
Woopie	Posted - 2006.03.09 23:05:00 - [7] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Yes these modules need to use more cap, I was concerned about the 1 cap every 30 seconds thing when they showed up on Singularity (because if cap use is going to be THAT low, why not make it passive? ) It was a rather lame fix to prevent people from fitting multiple damage controls. I personally thought a geddon with 20K structure (4-5 local bulkheads) and 3-4 damage controls with 85%+ structure resist was hilarious
Rexthor Hammerfists	Posted - 2006.03.10 05:46:00 - [8] mm, maybe a dev can respond to this? would b much appreciated. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2006.03.10 06:15:00 - [9] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists mm, maybe a dev can respond to this? would b much appreciated. Well there most likely won't be a dev response unless this thread gains entire pages. If the thread sinks and doesn't resurface I'll bug report it, because I find this to be an issue. Learn what it means to be Caldari - www.omertasyndicate.com
Vmir Gallahasen	Posted - 2006.03.10 06:37:00 - [10] Quote: The Typhoon class battleship has an unusually strong structural integrity for a Minmatar ship. Special Ability: 5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret firing speed and 10% to Large Projectile Turret optimal range per level. I demand that this be nerfed immediately, because the typhoon gets a disproportionate advantage! Sarcasm aside though, you really just consider what else might go into that slot. Frigates don't have as many slots as a cruiser or battleship, so giving up a mapc or a plate for a damage control might not be a great idea. Don't forget that the taranis has good hull hitpoints because it's also fairly slow And oh yeah. Interceptors don't make great tanks You get smacked down with a nos or a few precision missiles and an extra 400 hull hitpoints doesn't prevent the result ... Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip New sig coming soonÖ
Lorette	Posted - 2006.03.10 06:37:00 - [11] meh gall have to get some benefit to their huge hull values, im guessing it brings down other stats...
Livia Tarquina	Posted - 2006.03.10 07:22:00 - [12] This might score one for the ares since it has 4 low slots compared to 3 for the taranis. ducks "Big guns and heavy armor what else is there?" --Amarrian Admiral before entering battle against Jove Navy
Rexthor Hammerfists	Posted - 2006.03.10 07:40:00 - [13] when u fght frig against frig a tank maters, also when a few drones are after u ;) a dmg control is better then a 200mm plate, on a taranis that is, cause u double ur hull, plus u get more resistances on shield and armour - and a plate makes u less agil, a dmg ctrl doesnt. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
Monkar	Posted - 2006.03.10 08:16:00 - [14] Edited by: Monkar on 10/03/2006 08:16:06 Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists when u fght frig against frig a tank maters, also when a few drones are after u ;) a dmg control is better then a 200mm plate, on a taranis that is, cause u double ur hull, plus u get more resistances on shield and armour - and a plate makes u less agil, a dmg ctrl doesnt. So take advantage of the fact that: it has less powerfull weapons or the same with less damage mod. (replacing a Grid Module or replacing a mag stab for Dmg Ctrl) or that it has less cap regen. (replacing a cpr for Dmg Ctrl) or that it has less speed. (replacing a speed module for dmg ctrl). Instead of just whining.
Naxie	Posted - 2006.03.10 11:37:00 - [15] The reason these are not passive is because if they were, they would need to give the bonuses that various skills give to passive hardeners, hence the devs have made them low slot and active in principle only. I personally do not see whats wrong with them. They give a spread of resistance so dont ramping up any one attribute very much and use a low slot making it unavailable for any dedicated armor/dmg mod.
Rexthor Hammerfists	Posted - 2006.03.10 11:39:00 - [16] monkar, the reason for this topic is that its better to use instead of the mods u adviced in about every situations on a frig, also on a bs not sure bout a cruiser. as i said before, if a module is a must to fit its broken. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.03.10 11:43:00 - [17] I don't think it is SOOO good on taranis. I rather have repair ability and plate... because there are no remote hull reppers and in most regions you cannot dock:) Originally by: Commander Nikolas People like Lukec are the problem and they know it. Shin Ra's Raven has 4x WCS, Lukec's Dominix has 5x WCS & Ishtar has 2x WCS. Antipiracy is causing brain damage
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2006.03.10 11:47:00 - [18] Hey, any module that makes the Ares less of a doorstop is ok by me.
Oro Masut	Posted - 2006.03.10 11:58:00 - [19] Hulltanking ftw ! ...you can run away, you will just die tired.
Rei Toai	Posted - 2006.03.10 12:01:00 - [20] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists monkar, the reason for this topic is that its better to use instead of the mods u adviced in about every situations on a frig, also on a bs not sure bout a cruiser. as i said before, if a module is a must to fit its broken. the bold part: QFT on topic ... do you know how often such damage controls are used?? i'm not sure about it, but i think they are most of the time a second-rate choice ... so i don't think it's atm a "must have" module ... i won't be annoyed if you prove me wrong
Porro	Posted - 2006.03.10 12:13:00 - [21] Edited by: Porro on 10/03/2006 12:15:14 You're complaining that a taranis has more structure than the other inties? Nice. Damage controls are a major + for gallente as we've had a mass amount of structure on every ship for ages. ---------------------------------------------------- (22:01:14) (Sangxianc) you, porro, have madder skillzors than i, sang, do
Monkar	Posted - 2006.03.10 12:44:00 - [22] 10mn AB's were also considered a "Must have Module" as you say... i never used one... ever. Didn't see to have much problems... infact most of the time i used to pwn the other inties... simply because i capitalized on the weakness... lesser speed. You seemed to have worked it out halfways... you only considered the bonuses to a ship with 3 lows... not even considering the negative aspect of fitting one.
Nafri	Posted - 2006.03.10 13:37:00 - [23] Originally by: Porro Edited by: Porro on 10/03/2006 12:15:14 You're complaining that a taranis has more structure than the other inties? Nice. Damage controls are a major + for gallente as we've had a mass amount of structure on every ship for ages. but you get no tradeoff for the hull HP, it was pretty much ok as long it was only a few HP, but with damage controls
Asnar	Posted - 2006.03.10 13:40:00 - [24] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Porro Edited by: Porro on 10/03/2006 12:15:14 You're complaining that a taranis has more structure than the other inties? Nice. Damage controls are a major + for gallente as we've had a mass amount of structure on every ship for ages. but you get no tradeoff for the hull HP, it was pretty much ok as long it was only a few HP, but with damage controls The trade off is the lower shield and armour HP Gallente got. And how exactly do you adapt to potentially getting killed by everybody you kill? -Nero Scuro If I miss you, it will be because my tracking is a little off. - Grey Area
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.10 13:55:00 - [25] "The trade off is the lower shield and armour HP Gallente got." Well... * Crow: 469 shield + 219 armour = 688 hp * Taranis: 281 shield + 406 armour = 687 hp literally 1 hp less is hardly enough to justify 2x the struct amount (313 vs 625)
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2006.03.10 14:04:00 - [26] Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 10/03/2006 14:04:35 Originally by: j0sephine "The trade off is the lower shield and armour HP Gallente got." Well... * Crow: 469 shield + 219 armour = 688 hp * Taranis: 281 shield + 406 armour = 687 hp literally 1 hp less is hardly enough to justify 2x the struct amount (313 vs 625) Gimme your speed and mass and i ll trade you my structure. Pain is meant to be felt
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.10 14:18:00 - [27] "Gimme your speed and mass and i ll trade you my structure." Heh that's another story altogether ^^ was replying to the "it's okay because we have less shield/armour" not "it's okay because we are fat and slow" ;s

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.03.10 14:27:00 - [28] Damage controls don't make Gallente uber. In fact I would say that Amarr would benefit the most from them, and I'll explain why. At first you might look at the 50% increase in hull resistance and think, "wow that in effect doubles your hull hitpoints" but you only get 10% resistance from damage controls so that's only 1/0.9 = 11.11%. But there is a difference between an increase in untanked and tanked hitpoints. Lets say all 4 interceptors (Crow, Crusader, Claw and Taranis) are all taking 10% em damage per second. They have damage control II active. Their survival time can be calculated like this. T = hull_hp/(hull_resonance10) + shield_cap/(shield_resonance10) + armor_hp/(armor_resonance*10) For EM Claw (not surprisingly) gets the most benefit from this as it would survive for 439.5 seconds. The Crusader one would survive for 392.4 sec, Taranis for 384.2 sec and Crow for 245.33 sec. Here the Claw, a Minmatar ship, gets the most out of it because of it's naturally high em armor resistance so it's getting a relatively small boost to a heavily tanked damage type. You don't get the same results for other damage types but for fun I can tell you which ships benefit the most from each damage type that is being done to them. EM - Claw > Crusader > Taranis > Crow EX - Crusader > Taranis > Claw > Crow KN - Taranis > Crusader > Claw > Crow TH - Taranis > Crusader > Claw > Crow I would say that Taranis and Crusader benefit the most from Damage Controls then Claw and then Crow. This didn't take in fact the natural recharge of shield though but I don't think it will make a huge impact. _______________

Sonreir	Posted - 2006.03.10 14:34:00 - [29] Wow... sucks to be a Crow pilot. :P
DeadRow	Posted - 2006.03.10 14:38:00 - [30] fecking alt Originally by: Eris Discordia TAKE COVER, HIDE YOUR SIGNATURE
Nafri	Posted - 2006.03.10 14:46:00 - [31] Originally by: Asnar Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Porro Edited by: Porro on 10/03/2006 12:15:14 You're complaining that a taranis has more structure than the other inties? Nice. Damage controls are a major + for gallente as we've had a mass amount of structure on every ship for ages. but you get no tradeoff for the hull HP, it was pretty much ok as long it was only a few HP, but with damage controls The trade off is the lower shield and armour HP Gallente got. Gallente have same armor/shield than matari
Ras Blumin	Posted - 2006.03.10 15:04:00 - [32] Originally by: Tuxford At first you might look at the 50% increase in hull resistance and think, "wow that in effect doubles your hull hitpoints" but you only get 10% resistance from damage controls so that's only 1/0.9 = 11.11%. But there is a difference between an increase in untanked and tanked hitpoints. What!? A dirty job - Released 2006.01.02
Nafri	Posted - 2006.03.10 15:07:00 - [33] Originally by: Tuxford Damage controls don't make Gallente uber. In fact I would say that Amarr would benefit the most from them, and I'll explain why. At first you might look at the 50% increase in hull resistance and think, "wow that in effect doubles your hull hitpoints" but you only get 10% resistance from damage controls so that's only 1/0.9 = 11.11%. But there is a difference between an increase in untanked and tanked hitpoints. Lets say all 4 interceptors (Crow, Crusader, Claw and Taranis) are all taking 10% em damage per second. They have damage control II active. Their survival time can be calculated like this. T = hull_hp/(hull_resonance10) + shield_cap/(shield_resonance10) + armor_hp/(armor_resonance*10) For EM Claw (not surprisingly) gets the most benefit from this as it would survive for 439.5 seconds. The Crusader one would survive for 392.4 sec, Taranis for 384.2 sec and Crow for 245.33 sec. Here the Claw, a Minmatar ship, gets the most out of it because of it's naturally high em armor resistance so it's getting a relatively small boost to a heavily tanked damage type. You don't get the same results for other damage types but for fun I can tell you which ships benefit the most from each damage type that is being done to them. EM - Claw > Crusader > Taranis > Crow EX - Crusader > Taranis > Claw > Crow KN - Taranis > Crusader > Claw > Crow TH - Taranis > Crusader > Claw > Crow I would say that Taranis and Crusader benefit the most from Damage Controls then Claw and then Crow. This didn't take in fact the natural recharge of shield though but I don't think it will make a huge impact. you missed rexors point. He was comparing it with plates (which are part of nearly 70% of interceptor setups) which gives taranis the ability to a fit a nearly cost free plate without penalties. Whereas others have to fit normal plates and getting a mass increase.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.03.10 15:09:00 - [34] Originally by: Tuxford <..> And after that we have this situation. Tuxford's Interceptor wins the fight. How long will he survive the next fight? Trickier question, right? Because armour and shields can be repaired with repairers. Hull cannot. The Claw would be the one most likely to be 100% ready for the next fight since it's likely to fit a repairer. (Actually, all of them are likely to have a repairer since interceptors need med slots for tackling) The Taranis, however, is the one most likely to have sustained irrepairable damage to it's survival time (Yeah, I hear you, Nafri, but we're pushing the edges here which means the Claw will probably try to get out before sustaining as much hull damage as the Taranis). Originally by: KilROCK Originally by: Arkanor Gallente missileboat might be cool. Pod yourself till you got no skills.[
Nafri	Posted - 2006.03.10 15:26:00 - [35] Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Tuxford <..> And after that we have this situation. Tuxford's Interceptor wins the fight. How long will he survive the next fight? Trickier question, right? Because armour and shields can be repaired with repairers. Hull cannot. The Claw would be the one most likely to be 100% ready for the next fight since it's likely to fit a repairer. (Actually, all of them are likely to have a repairer since interceptors need med slots for tackling) The Taranis, however, is the one most likely to have sustained irrepairable damage to it's survival time (Yeah, I hear you, Nafri, but we're pushing the edges here which means the Claw will probably try to get out before sustaining as much hull damage as the Taranis). So your arguing that a taranis can of course pwn the enemy ceptor in his first fight, but the second ceptor has an advantage cause the taranis is already damaged? Repairing will cost you about 200k isk... and sorry, that point is absolutly funny
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.10 15:28:00 - [36] Edited by: j0sephine on 10/03/2006 15:35:44 "Damage controls don't make Gallente uber. In fact I would say that Amarr would benefit the most from them, and I'll explain why. (..) Lets say all 4 interceptors (Crow, Crusader, Claw and Taranis) are all taking 10% em damage per second. They have damage control II active." Tux, i must say am getting quite different results from what you have here, although it clearly depends on how you look at it ^^;; Time to live vs 10 dps in seconds, no damage control: * vs em: taranis 240, crow 166, crusader 260, claw 313 * vs exp: taranis 222, crow 216, crusader 252, claw 200 * vs kin: taranis 241, crow 173, crusader 201, claw 177 * vs therm: taranis 200, crow 184, crusader 203, claw 170 Time to live vs 10 dps in seconds, damage control II: * vs em: taranis 385, crow 245, crusader 392, claw 439 * vs exp: taranis 362, crow 301, crusader 382, claw 305 * vs kin: taranis 384, crow 252, crusader 322, claw 279 * vs therm: taranis 337, crow 265, crusader 325, claw 271 average survability times: * taranis: 226 base, 367 with damage control II * crow: 185 base, 266 with damage control II * crusader: 229 base, 355 with damage control II * claw: 215 base, 323 with damage control II relative increase of survability (TTL with damage control / TTL without) for different damage types * taranis: +60%, +63%, +60%, +69% ... 62.8% on average * crow: +48%, +39%, +46%, +44% ... 44.2% on average * crusader: +51%, +51%, +61%, +60% ... 55.9% on average * claw: +40%, +52%, +57%, +59% ... 52.3% on average ... it'd appear to confirm what's being pointed out in the opening post: that some interceptors benefit from damage controls quite a bit more than the others. It just happens these are ships which already are quite a bit more sturdy, and able to shrug off more. So, effectively this causes the survability gap to widen even farther. Now, the question would be ... if this sort of advantage which strongly favours certain ships rather than others is a good thing in ship class which up to now was probably the most balanced in terms of these ships fighting one another. I don't know the answer to be honest but there does seem to be a potential problem, here o.O;
War Ping	Posted - 2006.03.10 15:28:00 - [37] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Tuxford <..> And after that we have this situation. Tuxford's Interceptor wins the fight. How long will he survive the next fight? Trickier question, right? Because armour and shields can be repaired with repairers. Hull cannot. The Claw would be the one most likely to be 100% ready for the next fight since it's likely to fit a repairer. (Actually, all of them are likely to have a repairer since interceptors need med slots for tackling) The Taranis, however, is the one most likely to have sustained irrepairable damage to it's survival time (Yeah, I hear you, Nafri, but we're pushing the edges here which means the Claw will probably try to get out before sustaining as much hull damage as the Taranis). So your arguing that a taranis can of course pwn the enemy ceptor in his first fight, but the second ceptor has an advantage cause the taranis is already damaged? Repairing will cost you about 200k isk... and sorry, that point is absolutly funny if your fighting near a station... -.-
ElCoCo	Posted - 2006.03.10 15:41:00 - [38] The fact that you don't have the luxury to remote repair or even dock and repair in a hostile situation kinda balances that out. However we have again a no-brainer module that is good on every situation... I think I fit all my ships now with DC's... that says a lot. If the bonus is lowered to say 25% to hull resistances , then noone will use them again heh
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.10 15:41:00 - [39] Isn't it kind of natural to assume the ships with highest hull hitpoints are going to benefit from this? If the is point about them being must-have modules, I wouldn't agree. Then again, I never liked using plates either so its really a matter of opinion. I don't sacrifice my ability to hold a target for some dogfighting prowess. In real pvp you seldom get that, and if the enemy wants you dead badly enough you are going to die in a matter of seconds no matter what you fit. Taranis is the king of suicide tactics. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.10 15:49:00 - [40] "If the bonus is lowered to say 25% to hull resistances , then noone will use them again heh " Perhaps... but if on the other hand it was changed to say, 30-40% for tech.1 / tech.2 version (so it resembles average natural resistances of shield/armour) ... and given the ability to repair very slowly both structure and armour while the module is active? That'd address both the complaint of "must have" benefit and the issue of being unable to repair. (ok, being unable to repair is kind of not true as there _is_ hull repairers in game, but still this kind of combined functionality could be interesting, and makes sense given the module name ^^;;
ElCoCo	Posted - 2006.03.10 16:00:00 - [41] Well you get my drift about repairing... noone will fit a medslot hull repairer to go into battle And you're not always in a position to dock and repair or else you wouldn't put an armor repairer either The idea of slowly repairing when they're active is pretty good... maybe like 20hp per 10 sec cycle so it won't be considered as good as tanking while ofc having slightly lower resistance bonuses.
Nafri	Posted - 2006.03.10 16:01:00 - [42] Originally by: War Ping Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Tuxford <..> And after that we have this situation. Tuxford's Interceptor wins the fight. How long will he survive the next fight? Trickier question, right? Because armour and shields can be repaired with repairers. Hull cannot. The Claw would be the one most likely to be 100% ready for the next fight since it's likely to fit a repairer. (Actually, all of them are likely to have a repairer since interceptors need med slots for tackling) The Taranis, however, is the one most likely to have sustained irrepairable damage to it's survival time (Yeah, I hear you, Nafri, but we're pushing the edges here which means the Claw will probably try to get out before sustaining as much hull damage as the Taranis). So your arguing that a taranis can of course pwn the enemy ceptor in his first fight, but the second ceptor has an advantage cause the taranis is already damaged? Repairing will cost you about 200k isk... and sorry, that point is absolutly funny if your fighting near a station... -.- You dont have to engange when your heavily damage anyway

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.