| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shadarle
   |
Posted - 2006.12.10 04:24:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Shadarle on 10/12/2006 04:27:45
"For EM/TH, the DPS limit of the tank would be 246."
Do you understand how bad a tank of 246 is? You can get 50-75% more than that with a generic Invuln Field fitted active raven setup that will tank Expl/Kin 75-125% better to boot.
A 246 tank is possible on many cruisers, no less BC's or BS's...
You should be able to get a generic Invuln fitted Drake to have a passive tank of 400+ to EM/Therm, for comparison sake.
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Ho1iday
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 04:55:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Shadarle
Edited by: Shadarle on 10/12/2006 04:27:45
"For EM/TH, the DPS limit of the tank would be 246."
Do you understand how bad a tank of 246 is? You can get 50-75% more than that with a generic Invuln Field fitted active raven setup that will tank Expl/Kin 75-125% better to boot.
A 246 tank is possible on many cruisers, no less BC's or BS's...
You should be able to get a generic Invuln fitted Drake to have a passive tank of 400+ to EM/Therm, for comparison sake.
Post some setups please dude :)
So we (I) can see how you do it. I'm rather new to shield tanking, but I like the possibility :)
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 06:02:00 -
[33]
Unless they release X-large extenders, or at least DOUBLE the HP of current extenders and boost fitting reqs to compensate, passive tanking a BS won't be as powerful as passive tanking smaller ships*.
I'm all for bigger extenders of some sort, including Capital extenders and 10000mm plating, not that you need the 10000mm plating, since those regen plates which give %hp to armor, are already more than uber enough.
*excludes evil active tanks, like Cerbs with dual gistii a-type boosters.
Originally by: kieron
The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
DemonStar Supernova
Aurora Empire
Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 08:59:00 -
[34]
If youre trying to reduce your sig radius a battleship Isnt in your immediate future.....or any future really. BS's are big slow and easy to hit, wich is exactly why you should stop caring about their sig radius and worry more about survivability. Youre going to get nailed either way.
|
Harry Voyager
Obscurity LLC
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 09:27:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Ho1iday
Originally by: Shadarle
Edited by: Shadarle on 10/12/2006 04:27:45
"For EM/TH, the DPS limit of the tank would be 246."
Do you understand how bad a tank of 246 is? You can get 50-75% more than that with a generic Invuln Field fitted active raven setup that will tank Expl/Kin 75-125% better to boot.
A 246 tank is possible on many cruisers, no less BC's or BS's...
You should be able to get a generic Invuln fitted Drake to have a passive tank of 400+ to EM/Therm, for comparison sake.
Post some setups please dude :)
So we (I) can see how you do it. I'm rather new to shield tanking, but I like the possibility :)
Either he's talking about Gisti kit ships, or he's talking about burst, and not sustained.
An XL SB II based Raven should be able to maintain a sustained 260 dps tank, using a 2x SBA II, 3x Invul II, and 5x PDU II, with a burst dps soak of around 500dps.
A Gist X-Type XL SB equipped should be able to sustain on the order of 572 dps soak, with around a 700 dps burst. We're also talking about 1-2 Billion worth of shield tank here.
Of course, none of this is including the impact of Crystal implants, which can add another 50% to your sustained tank, for only another 1-2 billion.
This would be the rarefied atmosphere of high-end shield tanking. Not something most players can do, without bing made of money.
Harry Voyager
|
Thaddeus Brutor
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 14:40:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Shadarle
Edited by: Shadarle on 10/12/2006 04:27:45
"For EM/TH, the DPS limit of the tank would be 246."
Do you understand how bad a tank of 246 is? You can get 50-75% more than that with a generic Invuln Field fitted active raven setup that will tank Expl/Kin 75-125% better to boot.
A 246 tank is possible on many cruisers, no less BC's or BS's...
You should be able to get a generic Invuln fitted Drake to have a passive tank of 400+ to EM/Therm, for comparison sake.
Don't take this reply the wrong way; I'm trying to learn from you. But your math isn't coming close to mine. Not even in the same postal code. I'm looking at a Drake and how I could passive tank it; this is with cranked skills to V for pretty much anything that could remotely apply. The absolute best ratio I could get for a passive Drake, with a cap/s > capneed/s, using T2 Invuln Fields, vs EM/TH:
HI: 7x Heavy Launcher II, 1x Drone Link I
MID: 3x Large Extender II, 1x Shield Recharger II, 2x Invuln Field II
LO: 3x SPR I, 1x PDS II
shield/s 117 (peak), shieldHP 17514
48.25% EM | 79.3% EX | 68.95% KN | 58.6% TH
Gives an EM/TH threshold of 254 DPS. Where are you getting an extra 150?
The quote above says a passive Drake (with Invuln Field II) could have 400+ tank to EM/TH. I just want to learn *how* because I'm not seeing it. (The average to ALL resists for the above setup should be about 368 DPS, FYI.)
I was looking at that fit Harry was talking about, looked like it can spike up to 830 average DPS limit! For 136 seconds till it's bone dry. That's the part where I get kind of leery, but that's why I like passive tanks.
|
Adqam
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 17:42:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Mortalitis
He is using it for mission tanking, Rats dont use T2 torps 
unless... 
I lol'ed.
Seriously, though, on a non-minmatar BS the shield extenders aren't an issue - might like to include some resitance mods, though.
--
I like cheese. |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 19:20:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Shadarle on 10/12/2006 19:28:40
Edited by: Shadarle on 10/12/2006 19:21:14
"Either he's talking about Gisti kit ships, or he's talking about burst, and not sustained."
I'm talking about T1/T2/Named items, not faction items. I'm also talking about max sustained tank, burst tank means nothing at all... I don't even know what it means really. I'd suppose a burst tank is a ship with 20k shields having a 20k dps burst tank? That's just silly tho.
You should be able to sustain the numbers I gave with a passive drake with something along these lines:
Hi's:
Whatever you want, I use 7 Arba Heavy Launchers and a Tractor. Or 4 Arba Launchers, 2 Salvagers, 2 tractors for good salvage missions (with drones it's still plenty of dps if you wanna salvage well)
Mids:
3 Large Extender II, 1 Shield Recharger II, 2 Inv II
Lows:
2 SPR, 2 PDS II
This yields a tank of 198.39 on average and 495.99 at peak regen. You have 18095 max shields which regen in 353.43
seconds. This is a 51.2 average regen and a 128 peak regen. So with 0 resists you have a 128 dps tank... then you factor in resists:
Your resists are at:
EM 58.60% which tanks 309.1
Expl 83.44% which tanks 772.96
Kin 75.16% which tanks 515.31
Therm 66.88% which tanks 386.48
I did this all on my personal fitting calculator which has always been accurate to in-game in the past.
EDIT> This assumes BC skill of 4, Energy/Shield skills of 4 as well. With level 5 on those it would obviously be a lot better... with Rig's it would be even more amazing :)
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 19:59:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Akita T on 10/12/2006 20:02:42
For a Drake, you can fit a full rack of launchers and 3 large extenders with pretty high skills only, so most drake setups should just bother with max 2 extenders... so you have room for 4 hardners.
The best "omni" tank you can have with 4 actives on a Drake is 1x T2 EM, 1x T2 Therm, 2x T2 Invul.
That works out as 72.70/79.30/68.95/77.94 resists BEFORE battlecruiser skill, and drains 10.4 cap/second.
Assuming good skills, that's 14k shields recharge in 890 sec (39.3/sec max)
Capacitor, same maxed out skills, 3515 recharge in 562.5 sec (15.6/sec max)
All that from skills only, no lowslot mods.
You can easily lose about 30% cap recharge for a "quasi-passive" permatank.
That means 2x PDU2, 2x SPR I (also nice help for grid by the way).
That all works out as about 82 shield/sec max passive recharge, with over 16k shields.
With L5 battlecruisers, resists are 79.53/84.48/76.71/83.46 (81% average)
Alpha-strike damage needed for "instapop" is 80k/105k/70k/99k (86k HP average)
DPS sustainable is 400/528/352/496 (433 DPS average)
All this assumes all relevant skills at L5, and the 5% gnome implants.
This setup does NOT include any gang bonuses you might get.
_
My skills | Mod/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 21:58:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Shadarle on 10/12/2006 22:04:18
That tank of yours is simply not that great. First of all, you won't have enough CAP to keep all 4 of those actives going at the same time. You will be losing cap even at max recharge even assuming level 5 energy skills. Second, your EM/Kin/Therm tanking is only a couple dps higher, 331.5 compared to 323 on my setup (assuming level 4 skills for both). But on Expl you're hundreds of dps lower in tanking ability.
There is no way you have enough Cap as you claim. You would have 3875.29 Cap with 858.29 Regen because of your two SPR's. That means with those 4 active mods running you're losing .71 cap per second even at peak recharge and 7.5 on average.
So it's not a truly passive tank (you need to turn mods on/off sometimes). Plus it barely tanks the 3 big resists any better and it is far far worse on explosive. To top it off you have less total shield. You'd have 15126.65 shields regenning in 487.26 seconds.
It is not hard at all to fit 3 extenders with 7 arba launchers. I fit it all my first try without even rearranging any mods. Worst case someone could add a 3rd PDS if they have lower skills or they could swap an extender for a shield recharger thus having 2 extenders, 2 rechargers, 2 invulns.
And with level 5 skills the tank on my setup is:
292.9, 732.2, 488.1, 366.1 = 469.81 Average.
Again, it's worse on the EM/Therm, but it actually will work.. you won't run out of cap.
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 22:15:00 -
[41]
First of all, "3875.29 Cap in 858.29 sec" means 11.28 max cap recharge and the whole setup drains less than 11, so your cap stabilizes somewhere around 35% or so.
Yeah, you CAN run them all forever.
Second, I was posting the setup with the best AVERAGE DPS soaked.
Of course, you can always swap out the invuls for other hardners and one more PDU for a SPR for even better DPS soaked where you care about it more. The posted setup has a "resist hole" in kinetic, so you might want to swap out one invul for a kinetic, or even the second invul for
And finally, you're right, it's not 82 shield/sec recharge and "almost 16k shields" total, I miscalced something...
...it's only barely above 15k shields but 92 shield/sec peak recharge.
ANTI-ALPHA: 80k average, 74k/97k/65k/91k
DPS SOAKED: 485 average, 449/593/395/556
You can even fit 4 passive hardners and swap out all PDUs for SPRs instead.
_
My skills | Mod/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Thaddeus Brutor
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 22:20:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Shadarle
Hi:
7 Arba Heavy Launchers
1 Tractor
Mid:
3 Large Shield Extender II
1 Shield Recharger II
2 Invulnerability II
Low:
2 SPR
2 PDS II
This gives resists of:
EM/Expl/Kin/Therm/Avg
58.60% 83.44% 75.16% 66.88% 71.02%
You have 18095.46 shields that regen in 441.79 seconds for an average regen of 40.96 and a peak regen of 102.4 per second.
This yields an:
EM tank of 247.35
Expl tank of 618.37
Kin tank of 412.25
Therm tank of 309.19
Average Regen Tank Across All 4 Resists = 158.72
Peak Regen Tank Across All 4 Resists = 396.79
Not bad for a generic fitting of a BC :) No other BC will come close to this level of passive tanking as far as I can tell. Especially with such a simple setup. Note that this tank jumps up substantially if you throw on the two shield rigs or get your skills to level 5 instead of 4 as I used to calc the tank.
Figured out where we're differing. You posted a nearly identical setup to mine. Change the Heavy Launchers to T2, and run 3x SPR I & 1x PDS II instead. This can be fit at least with 5 in the appropriate fitting skills (Elec 5, Eng 5, Energ Upg 5, Shield Upg 5, Adv Weap Upg 5, which is what I tested this with). I assumed Shield Manage/Operation 5 right off the bat--they are the core passive skills. I did *not* use implants, at all. Ideally I should use 3% implants at a minimum, that's less than 2M in hardwiring. But I leave implants out.
But we both have 2x Invulnerability Field II. Only the resists I'm seeing are lower than what you project.
48.25 EM | 79.3 EX | 68.95 KN | 58.6 TH is what I have projected, while you have much higher resists listed. With energy manage/systems oper at 5, cap/s is 7.14, and capneed/s is 6.4.
So how are your resists getting that high? (Note that I'm getting my resists from QuickFit.)
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 22:26:00 -
[43]
Drake with L5 battlecruisers
Base resists: 25.75/70/55/40
2xT1 invuls : 56.41/82.39/73.58/64.78
2xT2 invuls : 61.58/84.48/76.71/68.95
_
My skills | Mod/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Thaddeus Brutor
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 22:40:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 10/12/2006 22:31:37
Drake with L5 battlecruisers
Base resists: 25/70/55/40
2xT1 invuls : 55.97/82.39/73.58/64.78
2xT2 invuls : 61.19/84.48/76.71/68.95
P.S. Stop using quickfit, it has no clue how to calc resists.
See link in my sig for how you should calc them BY HAND (XLS helps).
Oh yeah, the ship bonus!
QuickFit kicked back 61.19 EM | 84.48 EX | 76.71 KN | 68.95 TH (2x Invuln Field)
So... me forgetting to put the ship bonus in when I added a Custom Ship to QuickFit as a workaround, isn't really indicative of the program's ability to calculate resists. Because according to your quote, you have no clue how to calc resists, either.
(Since you match QuickFit, when the correct base values are used.)
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 22:46:00 -
[45]
I only know all resists I calc by hand are identical to the ones I see displayed in-game afterwards, and I see a lot of people that do use Quickfit coming up with wrong resists listed.
So, I know *I* know how to calc resists the proper way if I'm careful.
Guess it was always quickfit-user-error, like in this case, not bad Quickfit.
I never use Quickfit myself.
_
My skills | Mod/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 23:07:00 -
[46]
I wrote an excel spreadsheet that correctly calcs resists with different combo's of hardeners, passives, invulns and DCS. It doesn't handle rig resists yet tho. My spreadsheet always matches in game as well.
"First of all, "3875.29 Cap in 858.29 sec" means 11.28 max cap recharge and the whole setup drains less than 11,"
Wow... I never knew invuln II's only took 32 energy every 10 secs and not 40 energy. Wow... I need to recalc several of my tanking numbers with that in mind.
*With the reduced cap drain I could swap to 3 SPR and 1 PDS in the config which greatly boosts the tanking ability... tho it makes it hard to fit the 7 launchers as stated above.
Oh and one other thing I didnt mention. I use 3% shield regen/max shield hardeners in my calcs since they are so cheap there is no reason not to use them.
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Thaddeus Brutor
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 23:27:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Thaddeus Brutor on 10/12/2006 23:39:12
Originally by: Akita T
I only know all resists I calc by hand are identical to the ones I see displayed in-game afterwards, and I see a lot of people that do use Quickfit coming up with wrong resists listed.
So, I know *I* know how to calc resists the proper way if I'm careful.
Guess it was always quickfit-user-error, like in this case, not bad Quickfit.
I never use Quickfit myself.
I was teasing you. Since QuickFit matched after I corrected my user error. :D
EMEXKNTH
61.19%84.48%76.71%68.95%
320.90802.45534.74401.10
124.54 shield/s (514.79 average DPS limit)
18039 shieldHP
That's the previous setup with 5 in all applicable skills, and 3% implants.
HI: 7x Heavy Launcher II, 1x Drone Link
MID: 3x Large Shield Extender II, 1x Shield Recharger II, 2x Invulnerability Field II
LO: 1x Power Diagnostic System II, 3x Shield Power Relay I
Pretty crazy. (And that explains where the extra was coming from Shardale. :P)
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.10 23:30:00 -
[48]
Hmmz, can you try and see if Quickfit allows you to run multiple DCs, or if it calcs DC resists properly (no stacking nerf, only one max) ?
Those were the most common mistakes I noticed in Quickfit-user posts.
_
My skills | Mod/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 04:04:00 -
[49]
DCS are so horrible for shield tanking, I found it horrible how many shield tankers used them a while back. I think, thankfully, most have learned to stop using them.
They are so easy to calc tho in a program since they don't have the stacking penalty. Having too many items with stacking penalty can get really messy in excel, lol. My formulas are nasty looking, but they work... it's just updating them if things change/if I want to add more modules that is bad.
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 04:52:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Akita T on 11/12/2006 04:54:25
Well, if you shieldtank (hardners almost exclusively) with a support ship remote shieldboosting you, DC is a good thing to have fitted in one of the lows (and probably full of damage mods for all the rest of the lowslots, or some fitting mods too, in case you use weapon-related rigs and can't otherwise fit)
_
My skills | Mod/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 07:19:00 -
[51]
ôDCS are so horrible for shield tanking, I found it horrible how many shield tankers used them a while back. I think, thankfully, most have learned to stop using them.ö
They are great if used correctly. Your math makes them look much worse then they are.
ôThey are so easy to calc tho in a program since they don't have the stacking penalty.ö
They are not easy to calc as most do it wrong. Your formulas is wrong for showing the true benefit of DCS but there is no easy way to do it. Your pretty much as close as you can get with math alone. Well I say your formulas wrong, I say that based on the results as I havenÆt seen the formula
Using your math some better ship setups can fail to tank lvl 4 missions while the worse ships can tank lvl 4 missions ok.
For example a Dominix with 7 PDS often does much better in combat over 7 relays yet your math/formula says 7 PDS is a much worse tank. This happens on a lot of ships.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 17:42:00 -
[52]
*sighs* Pottsey, you were the reason I got into all the formulas and passive shield tanks. Now you're the nay-sayer when your ideas are built upon by others?
I'm not a strictly math oriented player. I've run so many missions it isn't funny... I test out all the different ships I get my hands on in many different ways. I use the math to determine what seems to be the best, then I go use it. Then I'll test other setups out to see how they compare in practice.
On easy missions, sure, PDS seem far better because of that massive buffer. On longer missions, however, the SPR's are far better as their increased regen over the PDS overcomes that relatively small buffer that was added by the PDS.
It's not always a matter of 7 SPR or 7 PDS, it's a matter of calculating out exactly what is needed to fit the ultimate tank on a ship.
You say my formulas are wrong but you have never seen them as you say and you don't know how they work. My formulas always work out 100% to the numbers in game and they also work out in practice too... a ship with 5000 shields with a tank of 300dps in my system will work better in practice than a ship with 15000 shields and a 200 dps tank. On easy missions that don't even do 100 dps it won't matter, but on longer harder missions that do 300 dps it makes a big different. And on missions that do 400+ dps both will be in trouble and yes, the 5k shield 200 dps ship will be in trouble slightly faster... but these are all made-up numbers anyhow.
My formulas give me all this information I'm talking about to let me pick and choose which tank is truly the best. But I also look missions up... if a mission does 350 dps I will take a ship that can tank 350-400 dps, not a ship that tanks 250-300 dps with a larger buffer.
In most PvE cases having a better dps tank is the best solution, in a few rarer cases it isn't.
**********************************************
Tank Rankings - Ships & Fittings Compared!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=386174 |
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 18:45:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Pottsey on 11/12/2006 19:16:36
Edited by: Pottsey on 11/12/2006 19:13:22
ôYou say my formulas are wrong but you have never seen them as you say and you don't know how they work. My formulas always work out 100% to the numbers in game and they also work out in practice too... a ship with 5000 shields with a tank of 300dps in my system will work better in practice than a ship with 15000 shields and a 200 dps tank.ö
Your formulas donÆt match with survival time in game as the results donÆt match I think they are wrong. Well not wrong I am sure they are right itÆs the lack of factoring in hitpoints thatÆs the problem and that you donÆt factor in different enemy DPS.
Your formulas only tell part of the story and itÆs the results that are wrong. Not flat out wrong, the problem is you donÆt factor in hitpoints for survival. If your tankable DPS is more then the enemy deal out your formula and chart of best tanked ships is perfect. The problem is once the DPS you take goes over the amount you can tank your results donÆt match what you get in game.
You say the Ship B with high regen is better yet it would die faster sometimes. (going work this out with real numbers later)
Ship A is the hitpoint ship
Ship B is the regen ship low hitpoints
Against 500 DPS ship A lasts 109 seconds and Ship B lasts 133seconds
Against 600 DPS ship A lasts 73 seconds and Ship B lasts 47 seconds
Against 1000 DPS ship A lasts 31 seconds and Ship B lasts 13 seconds
Done with average resistance and enemy DPS hitting all 4 resistance.
Now if enemy deal 500dps or less ship B has the longer survival time if you take 600 DPS or more Ship A has the higher survival time.
ItÆs not a simple case of saying Ship B is always better due to high regen. Ship A due to the extra time has a chance to kill enough enemies to get the DPS down to a tankable level while ship A can die.
Another problem with the regen ship is it spends less time at peak. Higher hitpoints mean the peak is extended over a longer time frame. Ship A might only get 200dps but 200dps at peak for 10 seconds can be better then 300dps for 5 seconds. Might be as I cannot think of any practicalway to work that out. I use the survival time formulas with various DPS from enemy then test in game.
Use formulas to work out the best 2 or 4 ships then get a friend and test those setups. Get a missile ship that deals consistent DPS and time how long it takes for the shields to go down.
ôIn most PvE cases having a better dps tank is the best solution, in a few rarer cases it isn't.ö
For lvl 3 missions I would say regen is better for lvl 4 hitpoints is better. It all depends on the incoming DPS and the tank. I do PvE Cosmos and that means 1300 to 1500dps from the enemy.
ôOn easy missions, sure, PDS seem far better because of that massive buffer. On longer missions, however, the SPR's are far better as their increased regen over the PDS overcomes that relatively small buffer that was added by the PDS.ö
I would say its more on easy missions or long but low DPS mission regen is better. For short mission or high DPS missions hitpoints are better. My brother used to do lvl 4 missions on high hitpoints with high resistance and low regen. I prefer a mix my self.
As for the PDS taking 1 out of my setups lowers my shields by 1349 so I hardly call it a small amount.
There is a 39 regen difference between the 2 setups I use so its going take 3 ish minuets for the regen ship to heal the same amount of hitpoints as the hitpoint ship has at base. Only during that 3 minuets the HP ship has always been healing.
(the two setups are max PDS and 5 relays with 2 PDS fitted)
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 19:15:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Pottsey on 11/12/2006 19:20:39
Edited by: Pottsey on 11/12/2006 19:17:43
ô*sighs* Pottsey, you were the reason I got into all the formulas and passive shield tanks. Now you're the nay-sayer when your ideas are built upon by others?ö
I do like what your trying to do I just think your doing it half wrong. I didnt build passive tanking on formulas I built in on testing ships in battle then found a formulas that matched. Formulas should be used as guide lines only.
I donÆt mean to sound like you should abandon what youÆre doing. Just tweak it a little. I will even offer to host a webpage for you if you want and if you ever want to meet on the test server to confirm setups I am up for that. What your working on will be great for the community once its finished. Not that it will ever be finished. Everything change's to often for that which I guess is good.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Heloise ChateauBriande
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 19:23:00 -
[55]
Just to clarify (for those who are reading this thread) a "passive tank" means a shield tank that does not include a "shield booster" but rather is tanking that depends upon the shield's natural regeneration rate.
This could include the use of "passive shield hardeners" (or even active ones) but for anyone who thought that a "passive shield tank" meant using the "passive shield hardeners" I just wanted to clarify that this is not what is meant. A passive tank means no shield booster.
- Helo
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 20:15:00 -
[56]
What is Pottsey talking about with Gallente ships being better passive tanks than a Ferox or Drake? Is it some kind of dumb gag or is there something bizzzare that no one but her knows about?
They dont have the mid slots and they dont have the shield resists. Its beyond me how they would be good passive tanks.
Wherever you went - here you are.
|
Kery Nysell
Caldari
Nysell Incorporated
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 20:29:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Ghoest
What is Pottsey talking about with Gallente ships being better passive tanks than a Ferox or Drake? Is it some kind of dumb gag or is there something bizzzare that no one but her knows about?
They dont have the mid slots and they dont have the shield resists. Its beyond me how they would be good passive tanks.
Gallente ships have enough med slots to get good resists on their shields, AND more than enough low slots to get a ridiculously fast shield recharge (Shield Power Relays FTW).
I fooled around a bit with a Dominix, and with it's 5 meds and 7 lows, you can mount a surprisingly effective passive shield tank on it ... of course, that means that both your meds and lows are full with your tank, but in the Dominix's case, it's not really a problem, since it's damage comes from it's drones.
|
Rylet VanDorn
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 20:39:00 -
[58]
I'd just like to point out something that people don't seem to be mentioning.
Missiles aren't the only thing to worry about in terms of sig radius. I could be wrong, but I believe the bigger your sig radius, the more excellent and wrecking hits you are going to suffer as a result.
|
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 20:41:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Pottsey on 11/12/2006 20:41:47
ôThey dont have the mid slots and they dont have the shield resists. Its beyond me how they would be good passive tanks.ö
Passive tanks are about the low slots not mid slots at least it used to be for the last 3 years until the recent changes :(. Up until recently Gallente where much better at passive tanking I donÆt like the way they have slowly got worse then Caldari. It should be the other way around. For the first year or 2 you never had any Caldari ships passive tanked it was pretty much a pure Gallente thing. Only after BC came out and about 5 different boosts to extenders did you start seeing Caldari passive tank.
I also donÆt like the way extenders are now must have fits and rechargers are now mostly useless.
I think an Eos is much better overall tank and setup then a Vulature as you get a strong tank and still do great DPS with the Eos. While the Vulture might end up stronger it sits there not doing much. ComplexÆs I solo in my Eos are not something you can easily solo in a Vulture.
http://www.dissonance-corp.com/screenshots/Eosmark5.JPG
This is not every single slot is used for passive tanking and this is my old archaeology setup. My new one is even better.
Least impotently Gallente ships end up with a lower recharge which I think is better. I role-play a lot in game and sometimes in the forums and to me a 37 or 85 seconds shield recharge on a Gallente ship is better then Caldari. Even though in game it doesnÆt work out better I like to role-play the setups that should be better even if it means taking a weaker setup.
Then again if shield relays T2 ever come out Gallente ships will put ahead of Caldari again due to all the low slots.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Magnus Card
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.12.11 20:41:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Majutsu
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)
I don't know what your setup on your Rohk looks like but for an active tank go with as many active hardeners as you can fit. My current Raven setup uses a tech 2 xl booster, 4 rat specific tech 2 hards ( 2 for each damage type) and 1 tech 2 invul.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |