EVE Search - Sheild Extenders on a BS

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Sheild Extenders on a BS

» 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)
synK Caldari Chrome Combat	Posted - 2006.12.08 17:31:00 - [1] i know that extender's increase your sig by LOADS, but as a battleship is the largest non capital ship[, all weapons in a lvl 4 mission already hit for full damage right? so a bigger sig wouldnt make a difference? just wondering cuz im thinking of buyin a cheap scorp to uber tank, to take aggro in lvl 4 missions. sK this is my sig
Ghoest	Posted - 2006.12.08 17:41:00 - [2] Extendrs are not the key to BS PVE tanking. Boosters and hardeners are. If you want to passive tank get a Ferox or even better a Drake. Wherever you went - here you are.
synK Caldari Chrome Combat	Posted - 2006.12.08 17:47:00 - [3] i already use a drake, it rocks, but still you didnt answer Q, will i take more damage with extenders on sy a scorp? or not? this is my sig
Nicocat Caldari New Age Solutions	Posted - 2006.12.08 17:51:00 - [4] Originally by: synK i already use a drake, it rocks, but still you didnt answer Q, will i take more damage with extenders on sy a scorp? or not? I'll just tell you that extenders buff shield HP and let you work on the question on your own ;) ---------------------------- Originally by: Splagada SEED ME DADDY WTB: Friggin' portrait
Tunajuice Convergent Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.12.08 17:53:00 - [5] Well a torp is one of the weapons that takes the biggest dig radius to hit.. and torps explosion radius is like 450. So any BS is already at 450, so no - shield extenders do not hurt the DPS you take in any significant way.
synK Caldari Chrome Combat	Posted - 2006.12.08 17:55:00 - [6] thankyou juice, for actually answering the Q this is my sig
6Bagheera9 Shadows of the Dead Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.08 18:36:00 - [7] Originally by: Tunajuice Well a torp is one of the weapons that takes the biggest dig radius to hit.. and torps explosion radius is like 450. So any BS is already at 450, so no - shield extenders do not hurt the DPS you take in any significant way. Tech I torps have an explosion radius of 400m. So if your sig radius is already above that, the addition of shield extenders will not result in you taking more damage. HOWEVER, tech II damage torps have an explosion radius of 600m and any increase in your sig. radius will increase the damage you take from them.
Pottsey Gallente Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2006.12.08 18:39:00 - [8] Extenders do not increase your sig by loads. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Ghoest	Posted - 2006.12.08 18:50:00 - [9] Originally by: Pottsey Extenders do not increase your sig by loads. True especially on a battleship. Wherever you went - here you are.
Mortalitis Enigma Enterprises Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.12.08 18:51:00 - [10] Originally by: 6Bagheera9 Originally by: Tunajuice Well a torp is one of the weapons that takes the biggest dig radius to hit.. and torps explosion radius is like 450. So any BS is already at 450, so no - shield extenders do not hurt the DPS you take in any significant way. Tech I torps have an explosion radius of 400m. So if your sig radius is already above that, the addition of shield extenders will not result in you taking more damage. HOWEVER, tech II damage torps have an explosion radius of 600m and any increase in your sig. radius will increase the damage you take from them. He is using it for mission tanking, Rats dont use T2 torps unless... ------------------------------------------
darkmancer	Posted - 2006.12.08 19:43:00 - [11] Edited by: darkmancer on 08/12/2006 19:45:05 large shield extenders are awful for bs's. 1 a t2 invun 30% hardner in effect boosts your shield hp by 30% so if your shield hp is above 8750 (2625 / .3) a harner is better. (even a no skill scorp is higher than that. a 50% hardner vs known damage type is even better. 2 the hardner also effects shield boosting. when you boost 400 hp with a extender on, the extender doesnt help. but boost 400 hp with a hardner on that 400 hp is toughened (essencially becoming 520 with a t2 invun). The shield extender does boost your natural shield charge a bit, but without a dedicated passive tank (which are rubbish on bs's) doesnt add up to much. Also active shield hardners (dont bother with passive) take some cap but again not enough to sway the arguement. Also the t2 shield extender uses more cpu and pg than a t2 hardner. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong
Pottsey Gallente Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2006.12.08 20:23:00 - [12] Edited by: Pottsey on 08/12/2006 20:25:31 Dedicated passive tank are not bad on battleships. Your best to mix extenders and hardeners and often the hitpoints alone with resistance is all you need. Sure you might get 400hp with a booster but thatÆs only 80HP/s. Work out how long that takes just to heal the same amount of hitpoints as one extender. You have to do loads of booster cycles to = 1 extender. ItÆs easy to hit 20k hitpoints on a passive tank battleship and a booster would take over 4 minuets just to heal the same amount of hitpoints as the passive tank has as base hitpoints. ThatÆs not even factoring in the passive tank regen. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Tunajuice Convergent Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.12.08 20:38:00 - [13] Very very very few people even use t2 high damage torps anyway. The only time I would carry them is if I expect to blow up a capital or something. The amount of painters needed to make them worthwhile on BS's is pretty annoying for most situations.
Antares Solaris	Posted - 2006.12.08 20:43:00 - [14] I use 4 regolith large extenders on one of my tanked-out scorps. I very much like it, and the 20k+ shield points help. I do occasionally opt for a more solid active tank(hardeners, boosters, etc) but usually I just let the extenders take the hits.
2SecondsTilMidnight	Posted - 2006.12.08 21:41:00 - [15] Until ccp releases XL shield extenders, BSs will not be able to passive tank.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2006.12.08 22:11:00 - [16] Originally by: 2SecondsTilMidnight Until ccp releases XL shield extenders, BSs will not be able to passive tank. Although it seems counter-intuitively, best passive tanks on BSs are on ships with loads of lowslots. On top comes the NOS-Domi or even the NOS/Neut-Domi, that has cap-independent main damage dealers (drones), so can afford to fit a full set of 7 SPR/PDU, some hardners/extenders and extra tackle/EWar midslot gear, and still deal a good amount of damage. Next contenders in line would have to be Minmatar ships in general, due to the capless weapon system. Attempting to passive-tank Caldari or Amarr battleships can prove quite useless unless they finally release the XL extenders... Caldari because of utter lack of lowslots, and for Amarr... well, you get the idea why not. _ My skills \| Mod/Rig stacknerfing explained
Shadarle	Posted - 2006.12.08 22:50:00 - [17] Yes, you CAN put the extenders on and they WONT cause you to take more damage due to sig radius. HOWEVER you WILL die faster if you use extenders on a Scorp in PVE than if you used an active tanking setup. An active tanked Scorp is actually very very strong, a passive tanked one is worse than a ferox. A drake is FAR FAR better than a scorpion, passive tanking wise. The Drake is the best T1 passive tank in the game. If you're doing ONLY PvE and you use Extenders and a shield booster in the same setup you're screwing up. Period. There is no reason to use an extender with a shield booster for PvE unless you want a challenge. ********************************************** Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.12.09 02:57:00 - [18] Originally by: Ghoest Originally by: Pottsey Extenders do not increase your sig by loads. True especially on a battleship. Extra true for Caldari ships, which are already omfghuge. Rokh is 500m sig? Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Pottsey Gallente Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2006.12.09 08:48:00 - [19] "The Drake is the best T1 passive tank in the game." I dont agree with that I think the Gallante ships are better. I guess it depends how you define the best tank. Passive shield tanking guide click here
MOCC3	Posted - 2006.12.09 09:54:00 - [20] Originally by: Pottsey "The Drake is the best T1 passive tank in the game." I dont agree with that I think the Gallante ships are better. I guess it depends how you define the best tank. I think the Drake/Ferox have the best large ship passive tank\ then the Jag has the best small ship passive tank. Thats if u ask me. And shield extenders on a BS are kinda silly. RES tops sheer HP any day of the week.
Majutsu Caldari S.Y.N.D	Posted - 2006.12.09 10:29:00 - [21] Hmm, this is quite interesting. I've just got my first BS (Rokh) having since my earlier days in Eve flown a passive tanked Ferox then briefly a passive tanked Drake. I realised I would have to use an active tank on the Rokh but have never really used one properly before. I was planning to mix hardners with extenders and a booster, but it sounds like I should just got for hardners and booster? Active? Passive? Whats the best combo? (hardners i mean)
Thaddeus Brutor Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2006.12.09 16:54:00 - [22] Originally by: MOCC3 Thats if u ask me. And shield extenders on a BS are kinda silly. RES tops sheer HP any day of the week. Really have to disagree with that last statement. Effective passive tanks are a combination of Extenders, Rechargers, and Hardeners in the MID slots, and a mix of SPRs & PDS's in the LOs. The ratio in the LO is simple: fit all SPRs, then swap them out for PDS's till you have enough cap regen to cover your cap needs. Let's say I'm building a Raven, with T2 modules. (To address that passive shielding a Caldari ship is pointless.) Lots of missiles and crap in the HIs of course, whatever, my fitting has 11972 PG left, and 585 CPU. That should be plenty of room for your weapon systems. As base EM resist I'm working with raw passive regen at 0% resist, vs lower passive regen with improved resists from hardeners. I'm fitting T2 Invuln fields for a general tanking setup. In order to be really passive, peak cap regen needs to exceed peak cap use, so that's how I'm figuring this. (NOTE: this is all without the 5% implants, or shield rigs.) Fitting the MIDS with 3x Large Extender (T2) & 3x Shield Recharger (T2), and 6x SPR, I hit a peak shield regen of 127 per second. So it's easy to state that the tanking limit of the capless passive Raven tank is 127 damage per second (DPS). If I peel off a Shield Recharger II for a T2 Invul Field (30% all resists), I still have enough more cap/s than capneed/s. Losing the recharger drops me to 108 shield/s, so factoring in a 30% EM resist, it's the equivalent of 154 dmg/sec threshold, a nice improvement. The hardener > shield recharger. So let's peel off another module to make room for a 2nd Invul Field. The 2nd hardener will increase my capneed/s enough that I have to swap one SPR for a PDS II, which is a noticeable hit to my peak passive regen, and I have my 4 MID slots left to fit. If I run 3x extender & 1x recharger, I get 84/sec regen. If I run 4x extender, I still get 84/sec regen. So I'll run 4x Extender to get a larger shield capacity, as this increases the optimal "tanking window" (20-50% shields) duration. My new EM resist is 48.25%, which works out to a tanking limit of 162 EM dmg/sec that I can withstand. Again, Hardener was > Recharger. So let's try a 3rd Invuln Field on there. This will raise my cap requirements enough that I need another swap from SPR to PDS II for true passive cap regen, then I take a look at the MIDs. I dropped a Large Extender to make room for the third Hardener, and my raw passive regen peaks out at 65/second. Trying a recharger over an extender nets me 64/second, so 3x Extender 3x Hardener is the fit. Managing a 57.11% EM resist, this projects my tanking limit for EM damage up to 151 damage/second. That 4th Extender is better than the 3rd Hardener. It's all about finding a balance. So with shield management 5 & shield operation 5, no implants, and no shield rigging, you can have an unlimited passive shield tank on your Raven, with the following resists/dps limits: EM 48.25% \| EX 79.3% \| KN 68.95% \| TH 58.6% resists EM 162 \| EX 405 \| KN 270 \| 202 TH \| 259 AVG damage/second tanking threshold That doesn't seem so bad, to me, anyway. Especially with 23625 shield capacity, and 11972 PG & 585 CPU left for the HI slots. Implants & Shield Rigging only improves this more.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2006.12.09 18:49:00 - [23] Thaddeus, your first mistake was that last time I checked, a Raven didn't have 6 lowslots, but only 5 (and Scorp only 4). Would it have had 6, then yeah, it would have been marginally useful for passive tanking. Your second mistake is to NOT compare an active shieldtank on a ship to the same ship's passive shieldtank that uses the same amount of slots (just different modules). Then you'll see that, at least on Caldari ships, the regen you can get from active perma-tanking (following the same rules you set, that cap use < cap regen) is significantly higher as the one you get from passive tanking. And the final mistake I guess would have been to confuse a true passive tank with a "mostly passive" tank. A true passive tank is one that does NOT use any capacitor at all, so only shield resistance amplifiers get used, not shield hardners (or god forbid invul fields, T1 version drains 4 cap/sec)... there are no significant tactical PvP advantages in using this "mixed" tank over a full active tank, at least NOT on a battleship. And in PvE, you're better off with specific hardners, not invuls anyway. __ So the point must have actually been not to argue wether or not passive shield-tanks on BSs are useless, but instead to focus on wether the passive tank you can obtain is better or worse as the passive tank. _ My skills \| Mod/Rig stacknerfing explained
Zebler Four Horsemen	Posted - 2006.12.09 19:08:00 - [24] Edited by: Zebler on 09/12/2006 19:12:54 Edited by: Zebler on 09/12/2006 19:09:22 Edited by: Zebler on 09/12/2006 19:08:41 Meh, having a bad forum night tonight, the quote should be for Thaddeus Brutor. I don't understand what you are saying here. I can fit 4 invul fields on my raven, AND run a 100MN AB and not run out of cap. So I don't understand why you are having to fit more PDU to enhance your cap regen when fitting at most 3 hardeners in your example
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2006.12.09 19:11:00 - [25] Ever used SPRs ? No ? Look at what they do. _ My skills \| Mod/Rig stacknerfing explained
Majin82 Caldari g guild	Posted - 2006.12.09 19:32:00 - [26] I have never seen a Passive tnaked Raven perform as well as an Active one... except in 1 situation... Vs a Nos-Domi. Resists > large amounts of shields. For example: Having 80% resists means that only 20% of the damage is hitting you. That reduces your opponents DPS output against you. Which in the long run will be far more effective then taking 70% - 100% damage against a large amount of shields. Resists > large amounts of Shields. Even if you had 2mil+ HP, you'd last far longer being able to tank the damage by reducing it to lesser amounts then just trying to eat it all up find a peak regen rate. ------------------------------------- Proud member of G Guild!
Pottsey Gallente Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2006.12.09 20:52:00 - [27] Edited by: Pottsey on 09/12/2006 20:57:13 ôThats if u ask me. And shield extenders on a BS are kinda silly. RES tops sheer HP any day of the week.ö But the Gallente ships tend to have more slots and 1 slot = 30% or more resistance which is better then the built in 25% bonus for the Drake. A balance between regen, hitpoints and resistance is what makes a good tank. Gallente ships tend to have a better balance in my mind. ôI think the Drake/Ferox have the best large ship passive tank\ö I much prefer the tanks on my Gallente ships much better both for PvE and PvP. ôthen the Jag has the best small ship passive tank.ö Perhaps I could challenge that. DonÆt know as I donÆt know its tank. What resistance, hitpoints and HP regen does it get? ôA true passive tank is one that does NOT use any capacitor at all, so only shield resistance amplifiers get used, not shield hardners (or god forbid invul fields, T1 version drains 4 cap/sec)...ö I donÆt agree the old definitions which I as not aware changed where anything that useÆs less then 20% of the ships caps is passive. 50% is hybrid and over 70% active. A passive tank is more about having no shield boosters or large cap drain, not 0 cap drain. A 0 cap drain ship is more of a passive tank but I donÆt like the word true. A passive tank with 4cap/s second drain is still real passive tank. The word passive also refers to the recharge being on 24/7 without and active assistance by the player. Booster are active because the player needs to be there to turn them on and off. Passive shields on the other hand are passive without player assistance. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Kldraina	Posted - 2006.12.09 21:28:00 - [28] I'm fairly certain the Ferox and Drake get better passive shield tanks than the Gallente ships do, however, they don't deal nearly as much damage when set to full tank as Gallente can (due to drones). So I would expect the Gallente passive shield tanks to perform better overall (especially since they generally have a better balance of mid and low slots for it). I'm currently messing around with passive shield tanking Amarr ships. It's fun, but not very effective in most situations. What makes it fun, is that filling the low slots with PDU's provides a ton of PG and cap, allowing me to use the biggest Lasers available (though the lack of damage mods means it really isn't very damaging). It's also fun just seeing the numbers. My Abaddon currently has 27k shields, and 11k cap.
Christopher Dalran	Posted - 2006.12.09 22:17:00 - [29] Put enough extenders on a BS and perhaps it will allow capital sized weapons to hit it fairly well and those realy hurt bad.
Thaddeus Brutor Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2006.12.09 23:21:00 - [30] I got started with passive shield tanking by reading everything Pottsey ever wrote. Addressing things from replies to me: The 6x SPR was a typo, the numbers run came from 5x LO slots, not 6. Apologies. My intention was to demonstrate that Shield Hardeners are not always better than Shield Extenders. It depends how much passive regen you have. And I was only establishing a base setup for a passive tanked (meaning no boosters) Raven for missions. I've never been NOS'd in a L3 mission, so for me if my cap/s > capneed/s, it's unlimited cap. But just farting around, you could field a Raven with 5x SPR I, 2x Large Extender, and 4x Passive Resist Amplifiers (2 for each dmg type) and get some great tank from that, too. For EM/TH, the DPS limit of the tank would be 246. Could be worse. And that's a true, "this ship does not use cap" setup. /shrug. The first ship was general fitted for whatever suits you.

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.