EVE Search - [RMR] Prophecy - Experimental Towershield setup

All Channels

Ships and Modules

[RMR] Prophecy - Experimental Towershield setup

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:26:00 - [1] Edited by: Malka Badi''a on 30/03/2006 01:31:14 *Prophecy - Towershield* design Experimental! Purpose: The towershield design is simple enough in philosophy. It is meant to have the primary purpose of soaking up massive amounts of damage not just through resistances alone but also a large amount of armorpoints. This combination of resistance+thick armor tanking results in an impressive ability to brunsh off small to medium focused attacks as well as tank sentry guns and battleship-class damage for long periods of time. While similar to the 'dura' design the Towershield has the secondary attribute of being a close-range tackler to keep the attention of the primary target. This level of close-range threat and ship size forces the primary to keep weaponry on the Prophecy, allowing the medium to long range gangmates to attack out of harms way. Note this is an experimental release, meaning it is out of the realm of conventional warfare design but has remained continually effective in my own testing against a plethora of situations. Highs: 5x220mm Vulcan Autocannon I 2xMedium Nos I Reasoning:Damage is the third priority of the Towershield design and thus the lack of a full rack of weaponry. The 220mm autocannons allow variable damage according to your victim's tank type while still retaining a very high amount of tracking/damage ratio. The 425mms simply do not outdamage the 220mms enough to justify the increase in powergrid/cpu fitting requirements as well as a huge loss in tracking. The benefit of t1 ACs only using 1 cap a shot and named ACs using 0 capacitor a shot means even more capacitor is avaliable for the primary priority of tanking. The nos are obvious, there to push away interceptors as well as sustain the intense amount of capacitor usage that the low slots will eat up. EMP M for primary use as they do a great deal of damage against a target's initial defence, shields. Fusion M for armor peircing rounds when the target begins armor tanking. Mediums: 1x10MN Afterburner I 1x20k Warp Disruptor I 1xStasis Webifier Reasoning: AB is used instead of MWD for capacitor concerns while still giving you a decent top speed. Use the 20k disruptor to get your victim's attention and begin the tactical process of forcing them to mentally declare you the most dangerous target, and thus force them into firing on you. Use the web to slow them down as needed or, of course, to mop up frigates or drones that get too close. It's also useful if you want a tackler to have them scrambled and webbed first and then have the prophecy warp on top to replace the interceptor's job. Nothing like tag teaming with a ship that can tank sentry guns for 3-4 minutes. Lows: 1xMedium Armor Repairer I 1xExplosive Hardener I 1xKinetic Hardener I 1xThermal Hardener I 1x1600mm Steel Reinforced Plate I 1xCapacitor Power Relay (or Energized Adaptive Nano if you have high cap skills) Reasoning:** This is the beef of the ship, right here. The singular armor repairer is fine because of how much resistance+armor you are going to have in total. With moderate skills you can push this to almost 6,000 armor points, 70+resistances across the board, and able to tank even sentry guns for, as I said earlier, 3-4 minutes. If your capacitor skills are heavily lacking you can consider swapping out the hardeners for energized versions, but that's going to greatly decrease your resistances and turn it into more of a dura than a towershield. Of course, using named gear or t2 on anything I've listed above will improve the ship greatly overall. For drones, slap on 5 light warriors for anti-frigate cover or (thanks Meb for the idea) consider using 5 light ECM jamming drones for a bit extra tanking time. Constructive discussion allowed. Anything else will be ignored. --------------
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:28:00 - [2] As a side note, you won't always need all 3 hardeners active. Engage the hardeners according to the type of damage you know the target ship is doing to you. Read the messages displayed on missile types and look at the turrets the ship is using. Hybrid weaponry hits for kinetic/thermal while energy turrets hit for EM/Thermal. Projectiles and missiles can do anything so that would be an ideal situation to use all hardeners as a "just in case". Again for missiles, just see what type they are lobbing at you and activate the appropriate hardener. --------------
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:31:00 - [3] Edited by: KilROCK on 30/03/2006 01:32:11 Why do you give a fancy name for a setup? Far from original by the way, The setup.. Funny how you keep making 'press release style' Setup topics. One of my corp members uses one, Not the whole t1 garbage of course. It performs nicely. Same can be done with a maller at a cheaper cost tho.. Originally by: KilROCK My sig are under or 24kb, Each of them. SO PAWS OFF, that's the 3rd time, seriously annoyed now.
Aeaus	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:35:00 - [4] I believe three adaptive nano II's will give you better resists overall then three hardeners.
jamesw	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:35:00 - [5] I was expecting to see a shield tanked prophecy -- Latest Vid: Bobbing for Xelas
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:40:00 - [6] Quote: I believe three adaptive nano II's will give you better resists overall then three hardeners. Already ran a test on that and the stackling penalty kills the Adaptive nano II's when it comes down to it. Granted 3 is the sweet spot but the comparison of using the new passive/active armor skills will put the hardeners on top. Of course, someone else is welcome to run the math since I'm at work. If the EAN's remain higher continually regardless of their lower resistances and stacking penalty then I don't mind swapping this setup around a bit to take it into the field for testing. Give it a shot, the math checking that is, for me? --------------
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:42:00 - [7] Originally by: Malka Badi'a Quote: I believe three adaptive nano II's will give you better resists overall then three hardeners. Already ran a test on that and the stackling penalty kills the Adaptive nano II's when it comes down to it. Granted 3 is the sweet spot but the comparison of using the new passive/active armor skills will put the hardeners on top. There are no new armor skills for hardeners, only for passive resist items... which is why the nanos come out on top. Also, why is everything in that setup T1? [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:43:00 - [8] Originally by: Dark Shikari Also, why is everything in that setup T1? Broke pirates Originally by: KilROCK My sig are under or 24kb, Each of them. SO PAWS OFF, that's the 3rd time, seriously annoyed now.
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:46:00 - [9] Edited by: Malka Badi''a on 30/03/2006 01:47:53 Quote: Also, why is everything in that setup T1? Because I fit a ship mathamatically to be viable in t1, that way those without amazing skills know that the ship is still capable of doing it's job. Those that can use t2 (yes, I can) modules are more than willing to refit because that will only improve upon the initial design and push it even farther. That's how I work. Take a ship to it's basic level of design, make it work, and then let others improve upon the base design with other ideas and higher modules. As for the skills, I thought the hardeners received a bonus as well, or is that just for when they are offline? If that's the case I might rerun my math on the energized+new skills. --------------
Blind Man	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:52:00 - [10] I use a setup like that 6x Dual 180mm AC II 1x small nos \o/ 1x ab II 1x med elec. cap injector w/ 800's (ftw) 20km scram (just need a buddy to web) Dual T2 medium reps 1x kinetic hardener II 1x thermal hardener II 1x explosive hardener II 1x 1600 RT plate tanks sentries for about 8 minutes as long as you have a full cargo of cap injectors.
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:53:00 - [11] Looks likea solid deviation, indeed. I do have to ask why the small nos though? The only amount of cap it would recover back should be enough to only negate the warp disruptor, if that. Could you upgrade it to a medium with higher adv wep upgrades or is it meant to negate a small frigate's nos? --------------
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.03.30 01:58:00 - [12] Edited by: KilROCK on 30/03/2006 02:00:27 We call it, The busting Bait. It doesn't fit with advanced weapon upgrade 4, so no luck with that Originally by: KilROCK My sig are under or 24kb, Each of them. SO PAWS OFF, that's the 3rd time, seriously annoyed now.
Berrik Radhok	Posted - 2006.03.30 02:42:00 - [13] Thanks for this, captain obvious. This is virtually the same as something I posted last month, with the exception that I use two en adapt nanos and a DC instead of hardeners. Since the DC is not affected by the stacking penalty, the armor resist bonuses edge out those you could gain from hardners. Signature file size and dimensions to big, please keep it under 400x120 and 24000 bytes - Petwraith
6Bagheera9	Posted - 2006.03.30 03:36:00 - [14] My only concern with this set-up is that it would be extremely vunerable to long-range opponents. I would consider equiping a MWD to cover this vunerability.
Berrik Radhok	Posted - 2006.03.30 03:59:00 - [15] Originally by: 6Bagheera9 My only concern with this set-up is that it would be extremely vunerable to long-range opponents. I would consider equiping a MWD to cover this vunerability. Waste of time and cap. If you want fast, get a Brutix. Signature file size and dimensions to big, please keep it under 400x120 and 24000 bytes - Petwraith
Mr Breakfast	Posted - 2006.03.30 05:33:00 - [16] Edited by: Mr Breakfast on 30/03/2006 05:33:32 Originally by: Berrik Radhok Edited by: Berrik Radhok on 30/03/2006 02:45:56 Thanks for this, captain obvious. This is virtually the same as something I posted last month, with the exception that I use two en adapt nanos and a DC instead of hardeners. Since the DC is not affected by the stacking penalty, the armor resist bonuses edge out those you could gain from hardners. I can also tell you there's nothing experimental about this setup, as I've used it quite successfully. With T2 eq I imagine you could gank anything but a nosdom or an Ishtar. So the bonuses from 2x EAN IIs and the DC are unquestionably bigger than the bonus from hardeners? If so that would affect how I armor tank on other ship setups as well.
Vagus Bellum	Posted - 2006.03.30 05:34:00 - [17] Phenomenal idea. Obviously, goes hand in hand with the Vanguard-class of ships. I can't wait to see how this would work in a mix fleet of towershields and vanguards. Would be interesting to engage in psyops with a mixed fleet such as this. With some ships being able to utterly soak up so much damage while other deal out so much. Terrifying to the core for any one who is panicing, and unable to keep track of which ships are towershield setups and which ships are vanguard. Sidebar: I completely agree with the design philosophy..its entirely asymeterical...I shudder to think what a mixed fleet could do behind lines. I'm noticing this trend of ship emerging from you guys, I would love to see your ideas on a purely EW fit. One so you can really blind them. One so you could really strangle them in the night.
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.30 06:10:00 - [18] Edited by: Malka Badi''a on 30/03/2006 06:12:12 Quote: Obviously, goes hand in hand with the Vanguard-class of ships. Bingo! You've nailed the role of the ship along with the supporting tactics behind it, but a slight change is needed. A towershield prophecy supported by various medium-range artillary-design ships (be it an omen or prophecy) provides an excellent combination. With the interceptor having ran the initial tackle and kept the target in place, then swapping out for the towershield proh, the close-range proph now has the attention of the victim and can thus begin tanking. This allows the supporting artillary (and yes, artillary doesn't always mean projectiles) fleet to warp in after and begin to unleash heavy amounts of medium-range damage upon the target. This quick switch in avaliable targets means the victim now has to decide of the targets that are far away are worth recalling primary, especially if he is being webbed, scrambled, and nossed. It would be a tough call to relocate primary. The difference between a vanguard and artillary design ship? A vanguard is meant to be upclose and personal and thus takes a small drop in damage for slight durability. The artillary design of the prophecy would be beam-based with multiple crystals to quickly adjust to the medium-long range engagement while fitting sensor boosters, heat sinks, tracking computers, and a very very light tank. They end up doing similar damage to a vanguard design but lose even more tank in the name of that long range. The problem with bringing a vanguard design along the towershield design is that you now have two ships right beside each other. This range means that the victim could switch primary from the towershield and begin to pummel away at the vanguard. The towershield loses it's purpose and won't have the damage output needed to be called primary again. For those upset about origonality, I never claimed that this is the first attempt ever in the history of EVE. Read my explaination of experimental and lighten up. Keep in mind that the testing this has gone through is in the eyes of a belt-hunter. It's used as the initial hunting strike instead of a defensive formulation that anti-pirates are more accustom to. Therefore the vulernability of a towershield proh being vulnerable to the long-range ships is true, but negated because the initial range will be called due to the prophecy being the hunter.. not the waiter. --------------
Vagus Bellum	Posted - 2006.03.30 06:55:00 - [19] Edited by: Vagus Bellum on 30/03/2006 06:57:01 Originally by: Malka Badi'a The problem with bringing a vanguard design along the towershield design is that you now have two ships right beside each other. This range means that the victim could switch primary from the towershield and begin to pummel away at the vanguard. The towershield loses it's purpose and won't have the damage output needed to be called primary again. Great point. Mid-range fire support (my own perception of your use of the word "artillery") is an excellent idea. Suggestion: Supplement with a Bleeder-ship at close range? May sound excessive at first, but it will definetely ensure that the amount of damage being done at close range holds the prey's focus. If you read my observation below you will see why I think this would be useful. Observation, go ahead and blast me if I got it wrong: I might be pulling this out of thin air, but this is part of an small ambush fleet, right?. 4-6 ships tops? High coordination is required thats clear...you are banking on each ship to fit an EXACT role. This fleet warfare isn't a gankfleet...nor is it designed for drawnout engagements. These ships are designed guerrilla tactics. Tactics that bank on the instinctive response of the pilot, and play against those very instincts. [If you follow my logic, you see why I suggested the bleeder ship to augment the battle tactics] It's building a fleet based around Psyops. Fear and confusion often prove more deadly than a dread. Timing is critical, but limited planning is required. Each pilot has a job they know it, and they stick to it. Did I get it? Or did I read into it too much?
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.03.30 07:10:00 - [20] Edited by: KilROCK on 30/03/2006 07:10:31 Quote: Did I get it? Or did I read into it too much? You two seriously........ smoke good stuff. I can't beleive all the crap you type just to talk about a setup. Originally by: KilROCK My sig are under or 24kb, Each of them. SO PAWS OFF, that's the 3rd time, seriously annoyed now.
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.30 07:13:00 - [21] Quote: I might be pulling this out of thin air, but this is part of an small ambush fleet, right?. 4-6 ships tops? High coordination is required thats clear...you are banking on each ship to fit an EXACT role. Correct. This fleet warfare isn't a gankfleet...nor is it designed for drawnout engagements. These ships are designed guerrilla tactics. Tactics that bank on the instinctive response of the pilot, and play against those very instincts. Correct again. Quote: [If you follow my logic, you see why I suggested the bleeder ship to augment the battle tactics] A bleeder design is meant to bleed the enemy to death slowly over time by capacitor tanking first to help negate the longer periods of damage. Much moreso intended for frigates, assault frigates, or interceptors. Problem is that the bleeder setups can only be pushed so far. A bleeder interceptor would be great to tank long enough for the towershield to get 0m to the target and then bugger out for the towershield to take the place of the tackler. Quote: It's building a fleet based around Psyops. Fear and confusion often prove more deadly than a dread. Timing is critical, but limited planning is required. Each pilot has a job they know it, and they stick to it. Did I get it? Or did I read into it too much? Nope, as a matter of fact that is exactally how NOCTS works. People expect dumb pirates, laugh at a few of our pilots playing times, but don't realise the capability of tight combat tactics and friendship until it's too late. The heavy assaults we launched on genesis and placid as a 5-6 person corporation proved that to us, especially when our "but they were miners!" kills only equal 2-3% of our kills since the beginning of NOCTS. But, back to the bleeder idea. It would be a great tackling idea yes, but a bleeder on anything larger than it and it's simply not worth it. Bleeders capacitor tank and a large ship is going to eventually run out of capacitor and not be able to move fast enough to avoid damage. That was the bleeder punisher's adavantage. It could avoid most gunfire, tank a medium nos, tank 5 light drones, tank heavy missles, and such because of it's mobility and speed. Larger ships are sitting ducks and need to focus more on either killing the enemy first, outtanking the enemy, or EWing them into oblivion. Hunting tactics are greatly different than 0.0 blobwarfare, and glad you picked up on that. --------------
Vagus Bellum	Posted - 2006.03.30 07:35:00 - [22] Originally by: Malka Badi'a Nope, as a matter of fact that is exactally how NOCTS works. To be honest, I have no idea who you guys are, I didn't even know you were a pirate. I just translated the Corp. name. I can only image with a brutal name like that. Its sadistic, but delightful at the same time. I've only been play 3 months and still pilot a coercer and haven't even done a level 2 mission. (I've spent the last 2 months training learning skills) I hate to admit it, but I have yet to leave empire space. I think the lowest I have played in is 0.5 space to do a mission. I'm not a carebear, I have lost my ship plenty of times to NPCs.(Yes I'll admit that, no I haven't been podded obviously.) But I would rather have some half-way decent skills before I start losing ships in lowsec. Originally by: Malka Badi'a Hunting tactics are greatly different than 0.0 blobwarfare, and glad you picked up on that. Wasn't all that hard to pick up on the tactics, especially when you see several highly specified ship types coming from the same person. You just put them together. Hard to imagine some people don't get it. Commando/Guerilla warfare and fast strike seemed the case.
Aeaus	Posted - 2006.03.30 07:43:00 - [23] Out of game, I believe all amarr armor resists average to 35. 35 w/ (3 x Nano II @ lvl IV Compensations) = 66.258 Average Resist 35 + (65 * (50 * (3/4)) = 59.375 Average Resist With BC IV... Membranes : 73.0 Average Resist Hardeners : 67.5 Average Resist Membranes come out with a 8.1% advantage, of course if dealing with T1s then ... ANM I = 59.656 Average Resist With BC @ IV = 67.7248 .3 % Advantage Bottom Line : T2 = Membranes T1 = Hardeners
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.30 07:48:00 - [24] Good work on the math. It is late where I am right now so I'll reroll some numbers tomorrow and adjust the slot layout to take into consideration the membranes. I will still only post T1 equipment so that rookie pilots can still know that the setup works without incredibly ISK and overhaul. T2 on any part of it just makes it that much more effective. Thanks again for the math check --------------
inSpirAcy	Posted - 2006.03.30 10:10:00 - [25] Originally by: KilROCK You two seriously........ smoke good stuff. I can't beleive all the crap you type just to talk about a setup. Reminds me of this guy in a newbie corp who used to talk to himself with a second account.
Montero	Posted - 2006.03.30 10:29:00 - [26] i've been known to have blazing rows with my alts in various channels just to spin people out Keep profanity & moderation discussion out of your sig, please. --Jorauk no
Twilight Moon	Posted - 2006.03.30 11:01:00 - [27] Edited by: Twilight Moon on 30/03/2006 11:04:27 Originally by: KilROCK Edited by: KilROCK on 30/03/2006 01:32:11 Why do you give a fancy name for a setup? Far from original by the way, The setup.. Funny how you keep making 'press release style' Setup topics. One of my corp members uses one, Not the whole t1 garbage of course. It performs nicely. Care to give us the setup with all its T2 niceness? Go on Kilrock, contributing will make you feel good! Aside from that, I might give this setup a go later on, except I dont think I'll have quite enough skills to fit it exactly like it is posted above. I might consider a MWD, to get in NOS and A/C range quick. The 1600mm might have to be dropped for an 800mm though... The A/C's and Howies work rather well on the Prophecy IMHO.
Ante	Posted - 2006.03.30 11:05:00 - [28] Originally by: Aeaus snip Just to expand on that... From data I got in-game I calculate some stacking multipliers. These won't be exact of course but they're pretty close. #1 mod: 1 #2 mod: 0.86911998 #2 mod: 0.6565067576 I didn't actually go through to 4 mods because it seems quite pointless in-game. Applying these to Energised Nano Adaptive Membrane IIs you get approximately 50.93089287% to all armour resists from having 3 modules, but you get approximately 50.10159969% to all armour resists and 60% to hull resists from using 2x Energised Nano Adaptive Membrane IIs and 1x Damage Control II. Now of course Damage Control II isn't available yet, but you can see that mixing the two mods is bloody awesome! This is all assuming you have level 5 compensation skills.
Astrum Ludus	Posted - 2006.03.30 11:15:00 - [29] You know I was expecting something groundbreaking here, I read the post in anticipation of this stunning bottom rack, this Towershield and what do I get? 3 active hardeners, 1600mm and a repper. Holy Crap, how did you do it? At the end of the day all this planning and tactics which you get such a kick out of, the so called PhyOps, the perfectly planned fleet with every man in his place, has just been posted all over the forum. Now no one will see it coming. IÆll give credit where itÆs due. You think things out and explain well in all your posts, but I canÆt say IÆve ever read one without thinking a) itÆs a pretty standard loadout you got there and b) youÆre somewhat pretentious.
Denrace	Posted - 2006.03.30 12:58:00 - [30] Edited by: Denrace on 30/03/2006 12:58:45 WTF?! I expected a truly fantastic and obscure setup here but, in fact, this is one of the most commonly used setups ever used on a Prophecy. Try this: HIGH: 1x 125mm Autocannon 2x Heavy Pulse laser (no crystals loaded to surprise enemy) Leave the rest of the high slots empty MEDIUM: 1x Small Shield Booster II 1x 1MN MWD 1x Passive Targeter LOW: 3x Magnetic Field Stabilisers 3x WCS ________________________________________ Sig Gallery

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.