EVE Search - Armour Compensation and Energized Adaptive Nano's

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Armour Compensation and Energized Adaptive Nano's

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 13:28:00 - [1] Yep they do. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Master Jimrod	Posted - 2006.07.18 13:28:00 - [2] Hi, just wondering if armour compensation skills for Thermal, Kinetic etc affect EAN's as well as the specific resistance plates? Thanks for help :)
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:06:00 - [3] Just be aware that it isn't adding 5% to their basic resistances (i.e. if you have lvl 4 in the compensation skills a EAN2 does not become a 20% + 45% -> 40% resistance module) but is multipling the present resistances by it (again, with lvl 4 in the skills and EAN2: 20% (1 + 4 0.05) -> 20% 1.2 -> 24%).
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:10:00 - [4] This reminds me.. why isnt there a active armor version of invulnerability field ii? --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:20:00 - [5] Edited by: Aramendel on 18/07/2006 14:21:05 I think the better question is why armor harderners have an passive resist all harderner instead of an active one. I for my part would be quite happy if they would replace EAN2 with a 30% resist all active armor harderner with similar energy/fitting requirements to t2 active armor as invul2 has compared to t2 active shield harderners. Because right now the EAN2 harder setups give you more effective resistances (with lvl 4 in the comp skills, not 5!) for smaller fitting requirements and smaller capneed than t2 active harderner setups, which is IMO not really balanced.
Master Jimrod	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:28:00 - [6] Thanks for info, This reminds me (probably been discussed to death but I am a nooblet) what is the penalty for using 3 EANs together resistance-wise? (want to use in place of 3 specific active hardeners with lvl 4 compensation skills).
Forsch Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:30:00 - [7] Originally by: Jim McGregor This reminds me.. why isnt there a active armor version of invulnerability field ii? Is there a passive version of the invul field? Forsch Defender of the empire More love for side factions!
Forsch Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:31:00 - [8] Edited by: Forsch on 18/07/2006 14:31:27 Originally by: Master Jimrod Thanks for info, This reminds me (probably been discussed to death but I am a nooblet) what is the penalty for using 3 EANs together resistance-wise? (want to use in place of 3 specific active hardeners with lvl 4 compensation skills). 2nd module of the same kind does like 75% of what the first one does and so on. Tho I'm unsure about the exact number. Anyways, by using a good damage control with 2 EANMs, you will avoid the stacking penalty and gain awesome structure resists at the same time. Forsch Defender of the empire More love for side factions!
Shamad Conde Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:33:00 - [9] Originally by: Jim McGregor This reminds me.. why isnt there a active armor version of invulnerability field ii? mind pointing me to the armor boost amp I ?
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:39:00 - [10] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 18/07/2006 14:41:48 Originally by: Aramendel I think the better question is why armor harderners have an passive resist all harderner instead of an active one. Yeah. I dont think it would be unbalanced to have the choice between active/passive hardening to all damage types both when using shield or armor to tank. And yes, there is no armor boost amplifier either. What is the reasoning behind having it for shields but not for armor? --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:40:00 - [11] You misunderstand. IMO there should be no passive resist all modules.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:47:00 - [12] Originally by: Aramendel You misunderstand. IMO there should be no passive resist all modules. No, I understand you think thats a good idea. I, however, think its great to have the choice between active and passive. The balancing could use some tuning though. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:51:00 - [13] Ah, yes, I misunderstood you. And it's not even late here (hot, though). Yes, you are right, if they would be balanced properly it would be ok.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 14:54:00 - [14] Originally by: Aramendel Ah, yes, I misunderstood you. And it's not even late here (hot, though). Yes, you are right, if they would be balanced properly it would be ok. No worries, I expressed myself a bit bad there actually. But yeah, choice is always good when it comes to modules. I feel like im missing some obvious reason there are so many differences between armor/shield modules... probably will get spanked for it soon. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Anasur	Posted - 2006.07.18 18:54:00 - [15] There is no Armor boost amp becaue armor repairers are a hell of a lot more efficient than shield boosters are. So if you want to repair faster you just put a second repairer on.
inSpirAcy Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 18:58:00 - [16] Much as I'd love an active armor invul field (I don't care for the passiveness of EANM; if I'm that low on cap I'm dead anyway ), I wouldn't vote to have one. It's just one of those "how it is" things in armor vs shield tanking. I've got no gripes.
Petra Kent Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.07.18 19:51:00 - [17] Edited by: Petra Kent on 18/07/2006 19:52:16 I agree. I have a char that armor tanks with very high skills, and this one who shield tanks. The lack of an armor equivelent to the invuln field is part of the differences in flavor between the two; higher base armor resists and higher boni from other mods balance things out. Armor and shield are balanced quite well at the moment, the only thing shield is missing are the T2 shield recharge mods which will make the passive tanking part of shield's flavor more practical.
Brisi Sniggerdly	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:42:00 - [18] Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 18/07/2006 14:41:48 Originally by: Aramendel I think the better question is why armor harderners have an passive resist all harderner instead of an active one. Yeah. I dont think it would be unbalanced to have the choice between active/passive hardening to all damage types both when using shield or armor to tank. And yes, there is no armor boost amplifier either. What is the reasoning behind having it for shields but not for armor? Maybe because *SHOCK* armor and shield tanking is not the same thing? Have you considered that?
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:50:00 - [19] Originally by: Brisi Maybe because *SHOCK* armor and shield tanking is not the same thing? Have you considered that? Think you are missing the point. Im not asking for them to be the same. Im trying to find out the reasoning behind the difference. Hope you are still with me... --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Sarmaul 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:59:00 - [20] Originally by: Shamad Conde Originally by: Jim McGregor This reminds me.. why isnt there a active armor version of invulnerability field ii? mind pointing me to the armor boost amp I ? No can do, but I can happily provide you with the names of a few good basic mathematics books so you can work out why that question is redundant. TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust -
Liet Traep Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.19 05:42:00 - [21] Originally by: Master Jimrod Hi, just wondering if armour compensation skills for Thermal, Kinetic etc affect EAN's as well as the specific resistance plates? Thanks for help :) I REALLY wish you hadn't brought this question up. EAN's and armor comp skills work pretty well and make for a nice sustainable tank. Why don't I wish you to bring this up? The moment something works nice in this game someone will ask to nerf it. So if you find a nice combo like this that works well and it isn't too broken? DON'T MENTION IT OR SOMEONE WILL SCREAM IT NEEDS TO BE NERFED. Hence Aramendel's post. EAN and armor comp skills work pretty well, are popular and aren't broken. Enjoy them. There's several other things in this game that need balancing and much more in need of fixing. Like the bellicose. Is there anyway to make this ship not suck?
Mnengli Noiliffe	Posted - 2006.07.19 07:23:00 - [22] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 18/07/2006 14:21:05 I think the better question is why armor harderners have an passive resist all harderner instead of an active one. I for my part would be quite happy if they would replace EAN2 with a 30% resist all active armor harderner with similar energy/fitting requirements to t2 active armor as invul2 has compared to t2 active shield harderners. Because right now the EAN2 harder setups give you more effective resistances (with lvl 4 in the comp skills, not 5!) for smaller fitting requirements and smaller capneed than t2 active harderner setups, which is IMO not really balanced. lvl5 comp + eamn2 -> 25% to all resists Invul II -> 30% to all. so it's not more. If you are talking about actual tanks, well maybe armor gets more resistances overall because it has more slots to tank with. However shield is compensated for that with : * XL shield boosters, they effectively replace dual-large armor reps. and they can be fit on cruisers... * boost amps. Actually they work like another booster for the zero cap. Achieving insane HP/CAP ratios that armor tankers can only dream of. * crystal set. Further increases HP/CAP ratio by insane amount. While Slave set only give armor tankers a slight buffer... * passive recharge. Which you can use low slots for. Show me how armor tankers can help their tanks with med slots. Overall, shield tanks are already much better than armor tanks, so nerfing EANMs would further widen the gap. The problem some people see with EANMs though, is that amarr ships have too much problem with them. However this is not really a EANM problem, it's a damagetype/resistance balance problem. Because every other race has weapons that can either change damage type or deal damage type not "naturally" hardened by either shield or armor. That is, if we look at shields, we'll see that it is naturally hardened agains explosive. However if some weapon type can deal explosive, it can also deal other types of damage (missiles, projectiles). However let us look at armor. It has naturally high EM resistance. But the lasers, which do primarily EM damage, can't change damage type. THIS is the balance problem, not EANM parameters. So the solution would be to boost lasers somehow. Perhaps swap EM and Thermal damage as someopne already suggested, or leave EM damage but increase thermal, because there are not many damage bonuses on Amarr ships... Another solution would be to release t2 crystals dealing some explosive damage but some people don't like it for some reason...
Athanasios Anastasiou	Posted - 2006.07.20 02:53:00 - [23] Edited by: Athanasios Anastasiou on 20/07/2006 02:54:03 Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 18/07/2006 14:21:05 I think the better question is why armor harderners have an passive resist all harderner instead of an active one. I for my part would be quite happy if they would replace EAN2 with a 30% resist all active armor harderner with similar energy/fitting requirements to t2 active armor as invul2 has compared to t2 active shield harderners. Because right now the EAN2 harder setups give you more effective resistances (with lvl 4 in the comp skills, not 5!) for smaller fitting requirements and smaller capneed than t2 active harderner setups, which is IMO not really balanced. lvl5 comp + eamn2 -> 25% to all resists Invul II -> 30% to all. so it's not more. If you are talking about actual tanks, well maybe armor gets more resistances overall because it has more slots to tank with. However shield is compensated for that with : * XL shield boosters, they effectively replace dual-large armor reps. and they can be fit on cruisers... * boost amps. Actually they work like another booster for the zero cap. Achieving insane HP/CAP ratios that armor tankers can only dream of. * crystal set. Further increases HP/CAP ratio by insane amount. While Slave set only give armor tankers a slight buffer... * passive recharge. Which you can use low slots for. Show me how armor tankers can help their tanks with med slots. Overall, shield tanks are already much better than armor tanks, so nerfing EANMs would further widen the gap. The problem some people see with EANMs though, is that amarr ships have too much problem with them. However this is not really a EANM problem, it's a damagetype/resistance balance problem. Because every other race has weapons that can either change damage type or deal damage type not "naturally" hardened by either shield or armor. That is, if we look at shields, we'll see that it is naturally hardened agains explosive. However if some weapon type can deal explosive, it can also deal other types of damage (missiles, projectiles). However let us look at armor. It has naturally high EM resistance. But the lasers, which do primarily EM damage, can't change damage type. THIS is the balance problem, not EANM parameters. So the solution would be to boost lasers somehow. Perhaps swap EM and Thermal damage as someopne already suggested, or leave EM damage but increase thermal, because there are not many damage bonuses on Amarr ships... Another solution would be to release t2 crystals dealing some explosive damage but some people don't like it for some reason... Not true, shield and armor tanks are balanced. You forgot to note that armor tanks are much more efficient then shield tanks. Also, if you shield tank with invuls and your cap runs out (nos, etc), bad things happen. As for crystal sets, you speak as if every other pvper had them.
Nebuli Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.20 03:29:00 - [24] Not in-game atm, and its very late and off to bed, but I'm sure I did the math a VERY long time ago and cap vs amount repaired was the same wether armour or shield tanking, so armour isnt more efficient at all. Sure I'll get corrected on this as like I say its late and it was a VERY long time ago I did the math. CEO - Art of War
Mnengli Noiliffe	Posted - 2006.07.20 05:07:00 - [25] Originally by: Athanasios Anastasiou Not true, shield and armor tanks are balanced. You forgot to note that armor tanks are much more efficient then shield tanks. Also, if you shield tank with invuls and your cap runs out (nos, etc), bad things happen. As for crystal sets, you speak as if every other pvper had them. what do you mean by "more efficient"? Base stats? Yes, base stats seem to suggest that armor tanks are better. But there are lots of skills and modules that increase these base stats. For armor, skills and mods only increase HP amount (which is only useful as the buffer, while on shiled they also boost the passive regen) and decrease the time of repairer cycle. This has the side effect of increasing cap/sec consumption rate. For shields however, the skills and mods modify an amount boosted by shield boosters, and "free" shield HP/sec regenerated. This decreases CAP/HP ratio by trendemous amount, increasing HP/sec ratio. In extreme (with good skills and mods) shield tank suddenly turn out to be much better than armor tank. That is, when tanking, armor tanker's cap will run out much faster than shield tanker's, and shield tanker will end up with more HP at the same time. Yes I agree that shis is partially balanced by the fact that shield tankers have less slots to tank with, but if he devotes all available slots to tank rather than EW, it becomes really scary... and there is no way armor tankers could achieve the same effect. As about the crystal vs slave set, well I think that even if not many pvpers use them, they still should be balanced...
OrangeAfroMan Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas	Posted - 2006.07.20 05:17:00 - [26] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 18/07/2006 14:21:05 I think the better question is why armor harderners have an passive resist all harderner instead of an active one. I for my part would be quite happy if they would replace EAN2 with a 30% resist all active armor harderner with similar energy/fitting requirements to t2 active armor as invul2 has compared to t2 active shield harderners. Because right now the EAN2 harder setups give you more effective resistances (with lvl 4 in the comp skills, not 5!) for smaller fitting requirements and smaller capneed than t2 active harderner setups, which is IMO not really balanced. I wouldnt. And there isnt because shield and armor tanking are different. They shouldnt just be equivilants in different slots. Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
OrangeAfroMan Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas	Posted - 2006.07.20 05:18:00 - [27] Edited by: OrangeAfroMan on 20/07/2006 05:18:18 Doublepost Gronsak is Tux's angry alt.
Eefrit VakAtioth	Posted - 2006.07.20 08:31:00 - [28] I agree with the fact that shield and armor tanks should not be the same. In general I think they are evenly balanced with the exception of the officer mods... can we say Gistii. The difference between a T2 shield tank and a Gistii shield tank is insane. No armor mods even come close to that level of tanking. Do we really want officer mods to make THAT much of a difference. Numbers: Gistii tank: 672Hp, 204 cap, 4 seconds, 43.125% boost amp with skills: 672HP, 183.6 cap, 3 seconds, 43.125% boost amp This gives an overall: 320.6 HP/sec, 5.24 HP / cap Compare this to the best Armor tank mods. Using Chelm's modified Large Armor Rep: 1260HP, 450 cap, 15 seconds with skills: 1260HP 450 cap, 11.25 seconds This gives an overall: 112 HP/sec, 2.8 HP / cap or with 2 x Chelms: 224 HP/sec, 2.8 HP/cap This is more than 43% better HP/sec, and 87% better HP/cap. Not to mention easier fitting imho. Also you could add a second SBA and then you would get insane levels of HP/sec and HP/cap. T2 is different but balanced. Officer is nowhere near balanced.
Gaius Sejanus Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.20 10:32:00 - [29] I just wish there was a skill (say, Rank 6 or 7) which gave a 2% reduction per level to the cap needs of an armor repairer. That'd be nice without being grotesque.
Madcat Adams Mission Runners Anonymous Incorporated	Posted - 2006.07.20 11:06:00 - [30] Originally by: Gaius Sejanus I just wish there was a skill (say, Rank 6 or 7) which gave a 2% reduction per level to the cap needs of an armor repairer. That'd be nice without being grotesque. I second this excellent idea.

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.