| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
WredStorm
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
   |
Posted - 2007.03.19 21:14:00 -
[61]
Edited by: WredStorm on 21/03/2007 21:19:24
Here are some setups you might consider looking at, all involving a Myrmidon. I've used skill level 4 for relevant skills (ie: capacitor and shield related skills. I've used easily available modules, even if they might be expensive (e.g.: SPR IIs), but no faction gear. Also included in the calculations were two implants, the +5% shield hp one and the -5% shield recharge time one.
Myrmidon
Highs: Whatever you want... main damage is from drones.
Mids: 5x LSE II
Lows: 6x SPR II
Rigs: 3x CDFP I
Shield HP: 21459.06
Shield Regen Time: 93.73s
Avg. Regen/sec:228.95
Peak Regen/sec:572.36
Resists & Tankable DPS
EM = 0.00% = 572 tankable DPS
EX = 60.00% = 1431 tankable DPS
KI = 40.00% = 954 tankable DPS
TH = 20.00% = 715 tankable DPS
Average= 918 tankable DPS
This setup has absolutely no CAP usage at all, thus someone can suck you dry as a desert and you'd still be regenning this much.
Second setup... uses cap, but can run forever (peak cap usage is 3.2/sec and peak regen is 3.5/sec):
Myrmidon
Highs: Whatever you want... main damage is from drones.
Mids: 4x LSE II, 1x Invuln Field II
Lows: 5x SPR II, 1x PDS II
Rigs: 3x CDFP I
Shield HP: 19057.14
Shield Regen Time: 112.85s
Avg. Regen/sec: 168.87
Peak Regen/sec: 422.18
Resists & Tankable DPS
EM = 30.00% = 603 tankable DPS
EX = 72.00% = 1508 tankable DPS
KI = 58.00% = 1005 tankable DPS
TH = 44.00% = 754 tankable DPS
Average = 967 tankable DPS
Under normal circumstances this second setup would be preferred, due to its higher tankable DPS values, but if you were going into PvP and worried about being NOS'd dry, the first setup might be better (I'll leave that up to others to debate).
If you aren't worried about creating a setup that regenerates enough cap to run forever without outside aid (ie: you don't mind NOS'ing your opponent to power your own modules) then go with the following setup:
Highs: 2x Med. Diminishing NOS, the rest whatever
Mids: 3x LSE II, 2x Invuln. Field II
Lows: 6x SPR II
Rigs: 3x CDFP I
Shield HP: 14844.06
Shield Regen Time: 93.73s
Avg. Regen/sec: 158.37
Peak Regen/sec: 395.93
Resists and Tankable DPS
EM = 48.25% = 765 tankable DPS
EX = 79.30% = 1913 tankable DPS
KI = 68.95% = 1275 tankable DPS
TH = 58.60% = 956 tankable DPS
Average = 1227 tankable DPS
Your peak capacitor needs with this latter setup is 6.4 cap/second, which you can easily recapture with two NOS.
Enjoy,
Wred
Edited: Fixed spelling mistake... deserts are dry, not desserts. 
-----
Think out of the box, consider passive shield tanking your Myrmidon, you'll be pleasantly surprised! |
VaderDSL
Caldari
Incoherent Inc
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 00:21:00 -
[62]
Can I pick peoples brains on my vulture for missions please?
Currently and in the next month this will be my stats on my vulture :
Vulture
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Heavy Missile Launcher II
Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I
Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I
Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Ballistic Deflection Field II
Shield Power Relay II
Shield Power Relay II
Shield Power Relay II
Shield Power Relay II
Rigs : Core Defence Field Purger I \ Core Defence Field Purger I \
27062.95 shield, [recharge in 190 seconds] 340/s[roughly], E/T/K/Ex=25/84/89/69
I will have the siege warfare specialist implant plugged in, probably giving the above values I think.
Would I be better dropping an extender for another hardener? Or will the shield harmonizing warfare link add enough to the resistances?
In fact can anyone work out the resistances after the shield harmonizing module is activated with lvl 5 siege warfare specialist, warfare link specialist 5, command ships 4 and the mindlink?
Am I missing anything setup wise or numbers wise?
Cheers
|
Sir Bart
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 05:16:00 -
[63]
According to the op, you're better off changing 2 extenders into sheild rechargers. According to potsey, the HP is better. If it's against NPC, I suspect the sheild rechargers win.
-Bart
|
Ser Reli
Caldari
Kudzu Collective
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 23:06:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Ser Reli on 18/05/2007 23:07:20
Edited by: Ser Reli on 18/05/2007 23:06:42
Make sure you keep in mind you have to have someone around to get those link bonuses. As the person above me said though you might want to flip out a shield recharger for a shield extender then check the recharge rate. If your doing missions for gallente you should have level 3 missions in the bag, so that means your planning to do level 4's with that setup, I wouldn't advise it with that setup due to the amount of damage you need to kill the battleships, it will take -forever-.
And I have a question what are the numbers right after the ship type? Is the fourth one shield ammount, but not sure what the first three are...
edit: also about the myrmidon, It looks like a really good tank, but with so many shield power relays II, doesn't your cap recharge get so messed up you sometimes have to wait a while to warp? I know when i fitted one ship with 4 SPR, it would pretty much mean don't plan on any long trips.
|
Metanus Corpus
|
Posted - 2007.05.26 15:10:00 -
[65]
For Retribution
1 APU
1 400 mm rolled tungsten plate
1 Damage Control II
1 Small Armor Repairer II
1 Energized Adeptive Nano Membrane II
& 1 thermal armor hardener rig
1 cap recharge rig
u got 2586 armor nd all resistance 70 +
I tanked lvl 4 angel extravaganza bonus with this setup
|
Apollo Greyclaw
|
Posted - 2007.05.29 20:32:00 -
[66]
Hey Shadarle
I've been looking at your spreadsheets with great interest. Firstly I've gotta say thanks for sharing your work as its been really helpful and has got me a bit hooked on tanking!
I was wondering where your information came from? I'm asking as I have been considering writing an application in vb to carry out the same function as your spreadsheet. Any links or help you can give me would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers
Apollo
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.07.28 16:05:00 -
[67]
I'm sorry I haven't posted in a while.
I find purgers to be the best passive tank rig by far for Drakes/Nighthawks/Vultures/etc.
I would say that the Myrm setup listed is likely FAR from optimal. Anytime you go all out for something (using 5x LSEII is definitely going all out) you will not have the best tank.
To maximize your tank you generally have to mix and max a bit. 1-2 Invuln Field II's would definitely make a massive difference in the tank. And vs specific enemies 1 each of specific hardeners would make a bigger difference. But if you refuse to use resist mods for some reason then 2 rechargers would almost definitely be better in PvE.
ps. I will try to update my OP with some new numbers as soon as I can.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Kell Braugh
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 19:37:00 -
[68]
I hate to quisi-necro this thread, but something i didn't seem mentioned here is the fact that Shield Extenders add signature radius to your ship, which increases damage from (larger) missiles.
For example, the base Drake sig radius is 285 m. Which would actually give you a 28.5% reduction in the damage from a Torpedo class missile. The passive tanked version (for instance) shown in this excel sheet drops that to about 9% reduction.
"Proof":
using the formula in this thread
 Quote:
Missile Damage * (Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius) * e^( -1 * (Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity )^2 / (1500^2) ) = Final Missile Damage
and plugging in the numbers it would be:
Juggernaut on base Drake, assuming both ships are at full stop we can safely drop everything but the bolded sub statement (right?)
450 * (285 / 400) = 320.625
With your passive drake setup... 3x Shield Extend IIs (+75 sig radius)
450 * (350 / 400) = 393.75
Base drake shield regen = 15.04 HP / sec
Pass Tank regen = 98.43 HP / sec
Regen with set up is 83.39 HP / sec more, but gets 73.125 more damage per torpedo.
Therefore, assuming you get hit with a torp every 2 seconds (on average), (which is more that possible in some lvl 4 missions [or PvP ganks for that matter]) you are in effect only saving 10.265 HP / sec on this setup.
Of course I've made the situation simplified to keep the math simple, but you should be able to see my point.
Please feel free to correct me.
All the glitters is not gold.
Just something to keep in mind...
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.10.12 20:15:00 -
[69]
You're absolutely correct. But it's hard to account for such things because it only matters if you're facing torpedo's, thus you have to be on level 4's vs battleships that use them. It's fairly situational, but indeed it does make a difference.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Waenn Ironstaff
Caldari
Elite Storm Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 17:16:00 -
[70]
Not sure if I read your data correct but Ferox with Active Shield Tanking appears to be the weakest for Battle cruisers?
|
warthon
|
Posted - 2008.01.18 01:37:00 -
[71]
Edited by: warthon on 18/01/2008 01:37:25
you obviously have not done your home work (op that is) the rest have. the set ups you have do not come close to the maximums for active and passive on almost EVERY ship you fit. this thread is full of miss information and is lacking a lot of key factors. What skills are involved. what level do you have them at. what are you testing time in ... EFT? in game? what? Do you use rigs? are they sustainable. Do you have any form of dps with them? Some tanking set ups sacrifice dps to a point where its not even smart to use it against frigs. The numbers you put out there are off and you do not show all forms of your set ups. if you want to show the people in eve what is good and what is not, do not spread miss information. If you would like true numbers use eft or contact me in game. i know this was made with the best of intentions but if you do it wrong its still wrong :P if you are going to keep this as a signature please update it or remove it one.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 21:26:00 -
[72]
Originally by: warthon
Edited by: warthon on 18/01/2008 01:37:25
you obviously have not done your home work (op that is) the rest have. the set ups you have do not come close to the maximums for active and passive on almost EVERY ship you fit. this thread is full of miss information and is lacking a lot of key factors. What skills are involved. what level do you have them at. what are you testing time in ... EFT? in game? what? Do you use rigs? are they sustainable. Do you have any form of dps with them? Some tanking set ups sacrifice dps to a point where its not even smart to use it against frigs. The numbers you put out there are off and you do not show all forms of your set ups. if you want to show the people in eve what is good and what is not, do not spread miss information. If you would like true numbers use eft or contact me in game. i know this was made with the best of intentions but if you do it wrong its still wrong :P if you are going to keep this as a signature please update it or remove it one.
This post is very out-dated as you probably noticed. But most of the setups are still very close to accurate. The only difference is you'd see better thanks due to rigs and some newer mods that weren't really available at the time. Same goes for some implants.
I probably should take it out of my sig, but it is not nearly as "off" as you seem to think it is. And it is focused on PvE not PvP and on Tanking not DPS. I started updating my spreadsheet to compare DPS and Tanking ability but I never finished that. I barely run missions anymore as I make unbelievably more without leaving the station.
But if you really want to throw stones at least provide facts to back up your claims. Show me where the numbers are wrong. As far as I know all the numbers are nearly perfect for the modules listed based on the assumptions made (which I'm sure you read).
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |