EVE Search - boost amps versus invulns

All Channels

Ships and Modules

boost amps versus invulns

» 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)
Guurzak	Posted - 2006.07.18 18:56:00 - [1] The boost amplifier and the invulnerability field perform largely the same function, in that they increase the effective number of shield points a player had regardless of damage type: decreasing the net damage taken, and increasing the net damage restored, end up accomplishing pretty much the same result. The way the math works out, though, the two modules have different levels of effect depending on the rate of incoming damage compared to the rate of shield boosting. It turns out that an invulnerability field has a much greater effect than a boost amp if incoming net damage is greater than boost rate, while boost amps are better if boost rate equals or is greater than incoming net damage. But if boost rate is already equal or greater than incoming net damage then you don't need a boost amp anyway. If you can already outheal the damage coming in then you would not fit either module; you'd fit EWAR or some other non-tank device. The whole point of fitting an additional shield tank module is because you're not currently keeping up with the damage... and if that's the case then the invul is superior to the amp. And the more your boosting is lagging behind the damage, the more superior the invuln becomes. So, there really isn't ever a situation where you'd want to fit a boost amp instead of an invuln field unless you can't afford the cap drain. Leaving aside the issue of active versus passive, you'll always want an invuln if you're taking more damage than you can boost, or something else entirely if your boosting is keeping up anyway. (If we DO consider the active vs passive issue, then boost amp + passive resist amps + shield comp skills can do some nice things for you IF you have an overabundance of mid slots and know exactly what you're going to be facing.) The reason I was investigating these numbers was looking at Cyclone fittings with the ship's inherent boost bonus. Turns out the bonus doesn't change anything: A cyclone with an invuln is better than a cyclone with an amp; a cyclone with two invulns is better than a cyclone with one invuln and one amp, which is better than a cyclone with two amps... assuming you're taking enough damage to care about in the first place.
Dark Shikari Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 18:59:00 - [2] Originally by: Guurzak So, there really isn't ever a situation where you'd want to fit a boost amp instead of an invuln field unless you can't afford the cap drain. Leaving aside the issue of active versus passive, you'll always want an invuln if you're taking more damage than you can boost, or something else entirely if your boosting is keeping up anyway. Or if you don't want to spend 13 million on an invuln II. Or if you already have an invuln, and the second will be hit with the stacking penalty. --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTS Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II, Medium Warp Bubbles-
HippoKing Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 19:00:00 - [3] If you can spare the cap for it, an invuln is always better (t1) with one module. If you alraedy have one invuln fitted, t2 invuln > boost amp, but t1 invuln < boost amp. Can't remember exactly how it works with 3 mods.
Anasur	Posted - 2006.07.18 19:01:00 - [4] Well, two things for you to consider. First, people almost already have at least one invuln field, so adding more results in stacking penalties. Second, the boost amp is not yet available in t2 for some reason, so if you want one with better than 30% boost be prepared to empty your wallet, lol.
Guurzak	Posted - 2006.07.18 19:08:00 - [5] Is the "stacking penalty" just a straightforward diminishing return? I was going off the assumption that if 1 invuln means you take .75 of damage, a second one would mean you take .75 * .75 = .5625, for an effective resistance of 43.75%. If that's the case, then a second invuln is still better than an invuln plus an amp even with just T1's. Is there something more complicated going on?
HippoKing Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 19:11:00 - [6] Originally by: Guurzak Is the "stacking penalty" just a straightforward diminishing return? I was going off the assumption that if 1 invuln means you take .75 of damage, a second one would mean you take .75 * .75 = .5625, for an effective resistance of 43.75%. If that's the case, then a second invuln is still better than an invuln plus an amp even with just T1's. Is there something more complicated going on? I guess you could say more complicated Just use this really.
Dark Shikari Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 19:16:00 - [7] Originally by: Guurzak Is the "stacking penalty" just a straightforward diminishing return? I was going off the assumption that if 1 invuln means you take .75 of damage, a second one would mean you take .75 * .75 = .5625, for an effective resistance of 43.75%. If that's the case, then a second invuln is still better than an invuln plus an amp even with just T1's. Is there something more complicated going on? First does 100% of its effectiveness. Second does 86%. Third does 57%. Gets worse after that. This applies to all items with stacking penalties. --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTS Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II, Medium Warp Bubbles-
Guurzak	Posted - 2006.07.18 19:59:00 - [8] Thanks. Using that formula and basic/T1 mods, an invuln+amp is better than 2 invulns up to right around the point where you can no longer keep up with the damage. If the rate of damage over time is more than you're able to boost back even with 2 of these mods fitted, 2 invulns will lose ground less quickly than invuln+amp. So I guess the question is, whether your fights are such that you can stay ahead of the damage curve completely, or where you have to make sure he loses ground faster than you do.
Zakgram Apocalyptic Raiders	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:21:00 - [9] Originally by: Guurzak Edited by: Guurzak on 18/07/2006 20:05:48 Thanks. Using that formula and basic/T1 mods, an invuln+amp is better than 2 invulns up to right around the point where Assuming I've got fitted: 1x T1 boost amp 1x T2 kin hardner 1x T2 therm hardner 1x T2 invuln field Is it better to have another invuln t2 or another t1 boost?
Guurzak	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:38:00 - [10] well, in mid 5 you need a booster, cuz that boost amp does you no good at all if you ain't boosting. Do you have a 6th mid slot? And are you really going to use all 6 on tank?
Kaylana Syi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:43:00 - [11] Basically, my ceo did the maths long ago for shield tanking and it goes something like this : 1 amp + 2 hardner of different types = decent sex 1 amp + 2 harders of one damage typ + 1 hardner of diff type= bad sex 2 amp + 2 harders of different types = good sex 2 amps + 1 invuln II = decent sex 1 amp + 2 invulns = bad sex 2 amps + 1 invuln + Large shield extender II = great sex Team Minmatar
InsanlyEvlPerson Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:46:00 - [12] Whch is better, and invuln or a sheild boost amp when i already have 1 EM, 1KN, and 1TH hardners on my raven? yes, cap is a major issue. my current setup for mids is XL booster, shield amp, 1 of each EM,TH,KN hardners, and a sensor booster to utilize my cruise range.
Dragon Lord	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:47:00 - [13] better to have an amp
Zakgram Apocalyptic Raiders	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:50:00 - [14] Originally by: Guurzak well, in mid 5 you need a booster, cuz that boost amp does you no good at all if you ain't boosting. Do you have a 6th mid slot? And are you really going to use all 6 on tank? Yes. There is a booster in the 6th slot :) And yes I'm using all 6 on the tank. If there were 7 mids on the Raven then the 7th slot would have tank mod in it, or a cap recharger, or... The reason for the earlier post was to figure out if the 2nd invuln 2 helps more than the boost amp in the case where doing missions there are already 2 mods stacked (1 primary hardner, 1 invuln)
Guurzak	Posted - 2006.07.18 20:58:00 - [15] Ah. In that scenario, a second amp would be better than a second invuln given that you already have a hardener on the resist. However, if you're running into cap problems then a cap booster/ recharger/ battery might be a better use of the slot.
Sarmaul 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.07.18 21:03:00 - [16] Just remember the resistance/repair multiplier curve is non-linear TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust -
Alexander Knott	Posted - 2006.07.18 21:08:00 - [17] On a slightly different note, if you have a hardener and a resist amplifier for one resist type, does the stacking penalty apply?
HippoKing Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.18 21:13:00 - [18] Originally by: Zakgram Originally by: Guurzak Edited by: Guurzak on 18/07/2006 20:05:48 Thanks. Using that formula and basic/T1 mods, an invuln+amp is better than 2 invulns up to right around the point where Assuming I've got fitted: 1x T1 boost amp 1x T2 kin hardner 1x T2 therm hardner 1x T2 invuln field Is it better to have another invuln t2 or another t1 boost? Using the numbers Shikari posted (86%, 57%), and running the maths on those simply (not entirely certain the hardners will stack exactly like that, as they have different levels, but it will be close), the boost amp comes out a bit better (4%) in terms of raw DPS tanked. Lets not forget that the invuln also gives more effective HP and recharge though.
Duncan Storne	Posted - 2006.07.19 00:38:00 - [19] To clarify, does a single active invulnerability field incur a stacking penalty if there are other active single-type hardeners installed and active?
Taaii Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.19 01:35:00 - [20] Edited by: Taaii on 19/07/2006 01:37:04 Edited by: Taaii on 19/07/2006 01:36:26 Edited by: Taaii on 19/07/2006 01:35:32 Ok lets take a look at certain dmg type.. Guristas (kinetic and thermal) 1) With 2 x Kinetic and 2 x thermal harderners i get 85% kinetic and 81% thermal 2) With 1 x Kinetic, 1 x Thermal and 1 x T2 Invul i get 80% kinetic and 73% thermal but 2 Amps Now with rats that have specific resists such as guristas, would i be better to use.. 1) 2 x Resist Hardener_A, 2 x Resist Hardener_B, 1 x Booster and 1 x Amp or 2) 1 X Resist Hardener_A, 1 x Resist Hardener_B, 1 x T2 Invul, 1 x Booster and 2 x Amp Boost with 1 amp is 780 and Boost with 2 amps is 934.8

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.