Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
787
   |
Posted - 2015.12.01 04:41:24 -
[1] - Quote
Wow, lots of biased fact presenting going on, very interesting.
Okay, none of us will argue that shield and armor should be the same. That is silly. So lets get down to nuts and bolts to compare first. Unfortunately, I am away from the computer, so I do not have the numbers handy. Will speak from personal experiences. If I make errors, please take that fact into account and understand that I actually like to be proven wrong and/or given more info.
Will grab from eve wiki when I can, by default, I will refer to T2
Large Shield extender vs 1600mm armor plates
Large shield extender II:
powergrid usage -165 MW
CPU usage - 46 tf
Shield HP bonus - 2,625 HP
Signature radius bonus - 25 m
Resulting detriment: Higher damage hits. On smaller hulls, such as a LSE cruiser, this can be significant. Lower fitting however. Easy on PG making for easier fitting of high damage weapons and prop mods. Moreso on smaller hulls
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
powergrid usage - 575 MW
CPU usage - 33 tf
Armor Hp Bonus - 4800 HP
Mass Addition - 3,750,000 kg
Uses less CPU, but more powergrid per hitpoint bonus. Half as many hitpoints per powergrid. This can make fitting high power and prop mods more difficult. Grain of salt here as ships tend to have powergrids and cpu similar to what they are fitting. Penalty is you are slower, making kiting style play with passive armor more difficult, as well as easier to track.
So from this point, I am agreeing with the OP. It does seem like there is something missing from the passive tank side for shields. But differentiation is important. Shields are much more powerful on the active side, as mentioned earlier with the extra large shield booster. But not all is so nice. To get high resists, vital to passive tanks and to helping maintain logi transferred hp, you tend to need to use active hardeners. If you full passive, it tends to take up more slots and rigging. This makes you vulnerable to having your tank capped out.
Armor on the other hand, is most powerful when 100% passive. Hardeners at best for just taking up large holes if you want. The active boost is less powerful and needs to essentially be double repper to match a shield. So now things are becoming quite divergent. Armor, being low slot means fewer damage mods, but it can be pure passive, making the only way to break it with guns. In addition, it leaves all mids open for more capacitor and electronics and warfare modules including tackle. Result? An inpenetrable tank that can be effective. See damnations....
Shields? Well if you heavy shield, you are not on a limited pick and choose for your low slots. If you want tackle and prop in your shield mids, well now you are picking and choosing. Though your lows are open enough for high damage. Having an X-Large booster now opens up new passive fittings. A lot more tank along with gank. The old drake for example. High damage AND high defence. Even now, is a reason why certain shield ships are favorable. Combining speed, missiles and shields means you have a good defence, high damage and effective application. Give an xlarge booster and this will become even more apparent. Toss in a boost amp and suddenly a ship can pulse three quick shield pulses and be full hp.
The big issue is the limited nature of active reppers in a battle. Once out of small gang, there is just no use for it. Alpha is king. That is a different matter however. If squad vs squad combat became more normalized, then active boosters might have a higher place in pvp. The same goes for passive regen shields as well. They can be reasonable without a full gimped fit outside of alpha style pvp. I just do not have numbers for what I would consider a reasonable passive regen.
Overall, there is a whole lot of variables to consider, but the numbers are only a part of the truth. We need to look at the whole package. Are their other advantages/disadvantages that are not being considered?
The one bit to all of this that does have me scratching my head is the armor layering. Not much in the fits where that will be a better choice over more resist or just a plate. A 15% boost for a low slot vs any of the plates really? I guess it is a potential on a capital is about it...
Edit: As for the capital stuff, I guess it will come down to whether they can even come close to fitting on a cap. The fitting difference between battleship and capital is pretty extreme.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
792
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 03:21:08 -
[2] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:would be nice for a passive rattlesnake to be worth a crap again.. It was only ever worth anything before because active tanking was sh+Ąt and not everyone can be bothered to bring logi to help, especially when your PVE income is substantially higher when you run sites solo (which is generally easy if you have a good setup). You can still run PVE just fine in a passive regen Rattlesnake but its performance is and always has been sub-par. There has never been a ship that wasn't sub-par for passive regen tanking, including the Drake.
I dunno, I have a passive fit and I like it. Of course I make use of some mobility and range to reduce damage. The slots usually reserved for the cap to feed active boosters is all damage boosting mods.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|