| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Flaming sambuka
Infinitus Odium
Curse Alliance
   |
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:42:00 -
[1]
I want shields completely removed from all armour tanking ships. It makes no sense that a ship that is built around armour tanking would waste resources on shields so lets get real and remove em!
Makes sense for shield tankers to still have armour though ofcourse.
/discuss...
|
Sokratesz
Guardians of Hell's Gate
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:46:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 05/03/2007 11:42:54
While your idea may be a bit too extreme, i do agree that a larger difference in shield / armor quantities on a racial level should be introduced.
Like, for caldari, cut all armor in half and increase shield amount by 25%. (with a 25% increase in recharge time, too), and for amarr and gallente, the inversed. Minmatar should keep a bit of both.
Suicide is bad, hmkay? (clickety clickety) |
Kusotarre
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:48:00 -
[3]
Pointless. It kills setup diversity.
I sincerely hope you aren't making this from an RP perspective...
|
Dahak2150
Chaos Monkeys
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:49:00 -
[4]
This isn't flamebait at all....
----------------
If you're on IE, pretend this is transparent while you get a browser that supports .png. |
LUKEC
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:50:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Kusotarre
Pointless. It kills setup diversity.
I sincerely hope you aren't making this from an RP perspective...
Setups diversity was killed with iStab introduction.
--------
..... |
Laughlyn Vaughns
Gallente
Lagos-Vaughn Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:52:00 -
[6]
It makes sense that all ships would have the same 3 grades of defense as each other but other ships concentrate and improve on one aspect of it.
It would be like not wearing a coat in winter because u have 2 sweaters and a t-shirt on, or wearign 2 coats and a shirt.
|
Flaming sambuka
Infinitus Odium
Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:52:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kusotarre
I sincerely hope you aren't making this from an RP perspective...
No not at all.
I dont see how it would kill setup diversity either...
Think about the nano ships, all of them are armour tankers using the shields as a buffer instead of armour tanking like they should be which allows them to use nano & i-stab combo's to do stupid things.
Trying to think of other reasons to justify this now... 
|
Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:54:00 -
[8]
Only if armour is removed from shield tankers as well.
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori. |
Breed Love
FATAL REVELATIONS
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:56:00 -
[9]
and how do you decide if a ship is a shield or armor tanker??
-----
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
At this time I am more disgusted by the player base then with the dev to be honest!
QFT!! |
Flaming sambuka
Infinitus Odium
Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:57:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Flaming sambuka on 05/03/2007 11:53:45
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Only if armour is removed from shield tankers as well.
Well no, since the shield tankers still need armour for structure ~ its part of the ship.
|
Flaming sambuka
Infinitus Odium
Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:59:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Breed Love
and how do you decide if a ship is a shield or armor tanker??
Shield tankers have more med slots than low slots, vice versa and bonuses to armour or shields kinda tells you which that ship is meant to be.
|
Kay Rissa
Rage of Angels
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:59:00 -
[12]
well, there r a few ships which could be armor tanked for one occasion, and shield tanked for the other. What u r gonna do about them ?
Proud member of the Rage of Angels
ps: i dont like to kill innocent ppl, so if i killed u, u rnt innocent |
Liv Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 11:59:00 -
[13]
oh hell, why not get just one health bar to make things a bit easier?
/irony off
and if you d be serious about your idea you should think about shield tankers sticking to their hull, since more plates would just be senseless weight or do you really expect your tank to be broken? 
|
Yarek Balear
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:00:00 -
[14]
Fail to see how this solves any problems. Just because one person thinks it a great idea because of some theoretical thought process doesn't mean it is.
Consider Minmatar ships that while they aren't particularly fantastic at either at least they have the flexibility to choose depending on what they want to achieve. Removing shields or armour from either would render many of their ships even more useless...
|
Breed Love
FATAL REVELATIONS
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:01:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Breed Love on 05/03/2007 11:58:52
Originally by: Flaming sambuka
Shield tankers have more med slots than low slots, vice versa and bonuses to armour or shields kinda tells you which that ship is meant to be.
So curse and pilgrim are now shield tankers? 
and vaga is an armor tanker then huh.
P.S.
fleet tempest, which kind is it now?
-----
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
At this time I am more disgusted by the player base then with the dev to be honest!
QFT!! |
Flaming sambuka
Infinitus Odium
Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:05:00 -
[16]
Care to name a few ships this idea would hurt?
Ofcourse ships like tempest, dominix & vagabond would be affected in a bad way, perhaps they could have special rules applied to them allowing them to do both? Or one or the other?
But ships like the raven, eagle, megathron, curse, geddon ~ (most armour ships tbh) Would have no sheilds...
|
Sokratesz
Guardians of Hell's Gate
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:05:00 -
[17]
did anyone even read the second post? if adjusted, it could be very cool
Suicide is bad, hmkay? (clickety clickety) |
Keruli
Amarr
Frontier Combine Inc
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:07:00 -
[18]
Quote:
I want shields completely removed from all armour tanking ships. It makes no sense that a ship that is built around armour tanking would waste resources on shields so lets get real and remove em! Makes sense for shield tankers to still have armour though ofcourse.
Quote:
Well no, since the shield tankers still need armour for structure ~ its part of the ship
rotfl
the stupidoo of the year argument
and basically you want that caldari be boosted even more...
|
Flaming sambuka
Infinitus Odium
Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:09:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Sokratesz
did anyone even read the second post? if adjusted, it could be very cool
I agree with it, perhaps for all ships this could apply EXCEPT to those ships that have bonuses to armour tanking. Something could be worked out.
|
Flaming sambuka
Infinitus Odium
Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:11:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Keruli
the stupidoo of the year argument
and basically you want that caldari be boosted even more...
You know what they say if you havent got anything constructive to add? STFU!
And no i dont want caldari boosted, im not caldari and cant fly any caldari ships and im not asking that caldari or any shield tanking ship be boosted in any way.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:13:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Bellum Eternus on 05/03/2007 12:10:49
Originally by: Flaming sambuka
Originally by: Sokratesz
did anyone even read the second post? if adjusted, it could be very cool
I agree with it, perhaps for all ships this could apply EXCEPT to those ships that have bonuses to armour tanking. Something could be worked out.
Just remove armor from shield tanked ships. It makes sense- all the shield tanking equipment/projectors etc. take up the space that would normally be filled with armor plate.
After all, shield tanked ships should die once their shield is gone. Otherwise they're just waaay over powered like how armor tankers get this free buffer of damage.
Please refer to my sig as soon as possible. It was implemented with persons such as yourself in mind.
Everyone is having a stupid contest, and you're in first place!
FIX RECON PROBES |
Gneeznow
Minmatar
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:14:00 -
[22]
It might be worth mentioning that shield tanks are 'forward loading' so to speak, ie: you press your shield booster and shields instantly begin to boost, but armour tanking is 'rear loaded' ie: you press your armour reppers and it runs a cycle before it begins to rep.
Armour tankers need the shield buffer because they are rear loaded, you see your shields start to disintigrate and you whack on your repper before your armour starts to take a beating.
In my opinion the op's idea is a bad idea
|
Leumas Ebmocnud
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Nebula Rasa
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:14:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Leumas Ebmocnud on 05/03/2007 12:11:39
So,
Shield tankers should have shield armour and hull and armour tankers should just have the two?
Sure thing, if you reduce the armor repping duration to 5 seconds.
erm . . . .
This is an awful idea, as has been said before what would happen to people who wish to armour tank their ravens?? ohhh yaaa, they would still be free do armor and shield tank but the armour tankers would be having their options removed from them.
And to be honest with you, this is my sig. |
Keruli
Amarr
Frontier Combine Inc
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:39:00 -
[24]
Quote:
You know what they say if you havent got anything constructive to add? STFU!
youre right i didnt add anything constructive, neither did you in the first place, so STFU!
youre whole idea is a butt fart, decide either you want shields or amor on youre ships if you suggest such a "solution"...
|
Flaming sambuka
Infinitus Odium
Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:42:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Keruli
Quote:
You know what they say if you havent got anything constructive to add? STFU!
youre right i didnt add anything constructive, neither did you in the first place, so STFU!
youre whole idea is a butt fart, decide either you want shields or amor on youre ships if you suggest such a "solution"...
Get a girlfriend.
|
Marquis Dean
The Last Thing You'll Ever See
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 12:54:00 -
[26]
I'm not going to flame, but I really, truly, think this is a bad idea. There's nothing wrong with the distribution of shields and armor as it is now. Forcing ships to specialise is going to kill any ingenuity their owner's had when fitting them, e.g: an armortanked Raven for ratting in Sansha space, or a shieldtanked Domi for doing missions vs the Angel Cartel.
In PvP, I also fail to see what is wrong with ships not conforming to the stereotypical tanking setups, e.g: a plated Scorpion because you need all those midslots, or a shieldtanked (slighty) full-gank hyperion.
Sokra's idea is more reasonable but still a step in completely the wrong direction. And I for one will b*tch viciously if anything like this is implemented.
---
Originally by: Foopadoo
Hell hath no fury like an internet nerd scorned.
|
Arkanjuca
Caldari
The Edge Foundation
Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 13:15:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Gneeznow
It might be worth mentioning that shield tanks are 'forward loading' so to speak, ie: you press your shield booster and shields instantly begin to boost, but armour tanking is 'rear loaded' ie: you press your armour reppers and it runs a cycle before it begins to rep.
but do you see the huge difference of the ammount repaired?
lets take the Medium Shield Booster, and the Medium Armor Repairer
MSB: 60en, 60hp
MAR: 160en, 240hp
gimme your repair ammount per energy and i will gladly give my cycle to you...
"It,s a good day do flight"
|
Riho
Gallente
Red Wrath
Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 13:19:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Flaming sambuka
I want shields completely removed from all armour tanking ships. It makes no sense that a ship that is built around armour tanking would waste resources on shields so lets get real and remove em!
Makes sense for shield tankers to still have armour though ofcourse.
/discuss...
why should shield tankers have armor ??
remove that and its kinda fair trade :P
Great being Gallente... aint it ?
-----------------
<------ Hijack free space :)
----------------- |
Shania Eria
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 13:20:00 -
[29]
lets remove gun slots from missile users too and remove the missile slots from khanid ships and make Ewar ships unable to use drones or guns or even missiles.. lets make it so you cant put small guns on medium gunslots and make it so large drones eat smaller drones in the cargo bay because they are dominant!
|
Shayla Etherodyne
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 13:30:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Flaming sambuka
I want shields completely removed from all armour tanking ships. It makes no sense that a ship that is built around armour tanking would waste resources on shields so lets get real and remove em!
Makes sense for shield tankers to still have armour though ofcourse.
/discuss...
 of course?
|
Galen Silas
Gallente
Mean Corp
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 14:03:00 -
[31]
Well, it sounds interesting but it will never happen. Plainly said
|
Borasao
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 14:46:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Flaming sambuka
Edited by: Flaming sambuka on 05/03/2007 12:02:02
Care to name a few ships this idea would hurt?
Before the EW 'adjustments' there were armor tanked Ravens. I've seen Pottsey post numerous shield tanked Brutix. I've heard of shield tanked Dominix. I've heard of many armor plated interceptors (not as much anymore since iStabs). Armor plates on various recon ships (that have more mids than lows... for EW). The Curse, that you specifically mention, also is a very good shield tanker. There's quite a list, I think.
Your suggestions would severely limit diversity and diversity is good, IMO. You could also say, from a RP perspective, that every ship needs some shields just to keep the armor/hull safe from space dust/junk while flying around.
|
infraX
Caldari
Finite Horizon
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 14:47:00 -
[33]
I'll have a large bag of whatever it is the op is smoking.
|
Guer
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 15:12:00 -
[34]
Originally by: infraX
I'll have a large bag of whatever it is the op is smoking.
I think I'll need to smoke myself down to his level to appreciate the hidden humor here. At present this is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen.
|
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 15:51:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Pottsey on 05/03/2007 15:48:10
ôShield tankers have more med slots than low slots, vice versa and bonuses to armour or shields kinda tells you which that ship is meant to be.ö
Passive shield tankers can have more low then mid slots and started of on Gallente ships and the Gallante ships with bonuses to armour like the BC's make better shield tanks then amour tanks. So how do you choose whatÆs an amour or shield tanker without messing it up for us passive tankers?
What could work is when you build the ship you can use one of 3 blueprints. Normal, less shield more amour or ess amour more shield. I always thought it would be good to get blueprints with very small differenceÆs. I guess thatÆs what rigs where meant to be but they just feel like extra module slots. At least to me they do.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Dr Shameless
Skull Soft
The Sundering
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 16:02:00 -
[36]
certainly not remove one or another but more like with every shield module reduce effectiveness of armour and with every armour module reduce effectiveness of shields, something like this:
large shield extender - +1,875 shield hp and newly -1.875 armor hp
armor kinetic hardener - +50kinetic resist on armor with -50% kinetic resist on shield
...
sounds fair
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 16:39:00 -
[37]
While I don't think removing shields completely is such a good idea RP-wise, it would be nice to be able to turn the shields on/off, so armour tanks could have the buffer shield-tankers enjoy (i.e. when your tank is about to be broken, you switch the shields on to give you the buffer to GTFO).
FLAMING
When you can't think of logical arguments and are too dumb to STFU |
Horza Otho
Minmatar
Infortunatus Eventus
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 16:40:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Horza Otho on 05/03/2007 16:40:37
This idea is worse then the introduction of iStabs. Not to mention your 'idea' is so badly thought out and such a poor idea as well.
|
Taipan Gedscho
Taipan Industries
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 17:03:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Horza Otho
Edited by: Horza Otho on 05/03/2007 16:40:37
This idea is worse then the introduction of iStabs. Not to mention your 'idea' is so badly thought out and such a poor idea as well.
this pretty much sums it up. the idea isnt the best to begin with, but even worse, the way it is thought out... well ... is more than lacking.
and people that put that much effort in their ideas are those that are crying for balance and changes all the time...
Only you can save mmorpgs - Stop crying for nerfs today! |
Arushia
Nova Labs
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 17:10:00 -
[40]
Read the latest chronicle. Shields are neccessary to prevent collision damage.
|
Tar Magen
Amarr
Arx Amarria
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 17:10:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Flaming sambuka
I want shields completely removed from all armour tanking ships. It makes no sense that a ship that is built around armour tanking would waste resources on shields so lets get real and remove em!
Makes sense for shield tankers to still have armour though ofcourse.
/discuss...
Then give the armor tankers a passive regen for armor. |
Aakron
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 17:11:00 -
[42]
Why don't we just remove ships.
---
|
Laboratus
Gallente
BGG
League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 17:20:00 -
[43]
If you think about it from an RP perspective.
Shields are very useful on any ship.
First, they prevent micro asteroids from making your outer hull looking like cheese.
And they are very usefull in any situation, where pressure or temperature changes.
This kind of control over the circumstanses gives considerable flexibility to design, since the shields help keep the structures intact, enabling lighter, cheaper construction of the hull.
Also, you don't need to use physical heat shields on the surface for athmoshperic landings and such.
All in all, if you can get any kind of low maintanance systems that protect the surfice of the ships, you want to use them, since it reduces general maintanance (paint, fillings etc) on the ship/thigie...
___
P.S.
Post with your main.
Mind control and tin hats |
lofty29
Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 17:22:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Like, for caldari, cut all armor in half and increase shield amount by 25%. (with a 25% increase in recharge time, too), and for amarr and gallente, the inversed. Minmatar should keep a bit of both.
Yes, lets give caldari wtfuber passive tanks (like, thatd be 1.5k on a drake with tech 2) and shaft amarr, gal and minmatar. Woot woot!
---
http://static.griefwatch.net/gallery/18028383f236b20e4c0f6d7492e58408.gif
Please keep your signature below the 24000 bytes limit.- Thx Pirlouit
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 18:17:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Flaming sambuka
I want shields completely removed from all armour tanking ships. It makes no sense that a ship that is built around armour tanking would waste resources on shields so lets get real and remove em!
Makes sense for shield tankers to still have armour though ofcourse.
/discuss...
REmove shield tankers armor. Frickin ****.
----------------------------------------
Friends Forever
|
Dr Fighter
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 18:57:00 -
[46]
while i do agree that diversity may be affected i agree with making the gaps between shild and aarmor amounts more excessive...
amarr = VERY low shield and lots of armor
gallante = alot of armor and medium low shield
caldari = very low armo an lots of shield
minmatar = ballaneced between both. favoring the bonuses and setup tactics.
its not about breaking ballence or rp-ing things too much, all ships in game are too samey stat wise.
Cap is the same tbh, non cap using races hav very close to the same cap that high cap use and heavy weapon cap use ships hav - but thats another thread for another time.
|
Hulkmaster ProductionAlt
Bart's House of Brats
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 19:06:00 -
[47]
I'd agree to this if the removed shield HP was added to armor HP, -and- all armor was removed from shield tankers and added to shields instead.
|
Hephaesteus
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 19:12:00 -
[48]
And the pointless post of the month goes to.....
-----------------------------------------------
Knowing all, when all is unknown.
|
Sidraket
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 19:50:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Aakron
Why don't we just remove ships.
No man, no problem. 
|
Crusix Bargoth
Amarr
Meridian Dynamics
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 19:54:00 -
[50]
your asking that caldari ships are unchanged, yet Amarr and Gallante ships will lose thousands of hit points.
Minmatar, how do you determine which minmatar ships are shield tankers and which are armor tankers?
And yes its a buffer, but removing it is not a solution to Nanoships....their shields are not the problem.
Why would you want to remove those 6211 shield HP from that mega you have there in your sig? It doesn't last long in fleet battles, but in small fights and 1v1 every point is important.
Megathron has 7500 Struct+6641 Armor+6211 Shield=20352 Base Hit Points (14141 after your sugested "balance")
Raven has 6641 struct+6641 Armor+7500 Shield= 20782 Base Hit Points
YAY raven has ~6000 point edge. Brilliant plan smarty, plus the raven is tanking from the get go, the armor tankers have to wait till that buffer is down, then engage the tank. Armor tankers can't run a passive regen tank like shield tankers can.
Your idea sucks.
Originally by: Kaathar Rielspar
nerf ponies!!1one
|
Xori Ruscuv
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 20:09:00 -
[51]
I have one thing to say. That is:
LOL
Additionally:
Please send a bag of whatever you are smoking to:
275 West Street...
|
Byzan Zwyth
Dark Centuri Inc.
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 20:24:00 -
[52]
love to know why you think it's ok for shield tankers to have armor but you dont want armor tankers to have shields
----------------------
Pointless forum slowing bandwidth hogging signature pic inc? |
The Anointed
Caldari
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 20:42:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Breed Love
So curse and pilgrim are now shield tankers?
Erm, you mean thats not how you fly them? Think you might be missing out.
|
SlaveNumber 75389
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 21:18:00 -
[54]
Dumbest idea ever... If you want to remove the shield from armor tankers you better replace it with a +50% dmg bonus!
|
Paladineguru
Gallente
DAB
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 21:58:00 -
[55]
but but , I LIKE MY SHIELD TANKING NANO DOMI
|
adiLLL
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 23:42:00 -
[56]
I'm sorry flame, but i think this whole idea is really stupid. Kills the diversity ships and makes things a whole lot boring... Kill thread please :)
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 00:18:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Goumindong on 06/03/2007 00:18:42
Originally by: Arkanjuca
Originally by: Gneeznow
It might be worth mentioning that shield tanks are 'forward loading' so to speak, ie: you press your shield booster and shields instantly begin to boost, but armour tanking is 'rear loaded' ie: you press your armour reppers and it runs a cycle before it begins to rep.
but do you see the huge difference of the ammount repaired?
lets take the Medium Shield Booster, and the Medium Armor Repairer
MSB: 60en, 60hp
MAR: 160en, 240hp
gimme your repair ammount per energy and i will gladly give my cycle to you...
Shield tankers already have a rep amount/cap advantage. Stick a single boost amp on there.
edit: on another note, i would love for a huge size and recharge reduction for amarr ships. Give us say, 1 second recharge on 1 shield total. Or better yet, zero for zero
See who is the passive tank king now! Ill have a 10000 DPS tank on an armageddon no problem.
----------------------------------------
Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Removal Tool
Black Lance
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 00:27:00 -
[58]
Two words: Cookie Cutter
I was also going to say something derogatory about roleplayers
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 00:43:00 -
[59]
I can see it now.[setup might not need 3 co-procs, dependant on changes taking place reducing shield amount and recharge.]
Armageddon:
7x Megapulse II
2x LSE II, Passive EM hard
3x Coproc, 1 x DCU, 3 x Heat Sink II
Therm Rig/Kin Rig/Size Rig
Hit Points: 6037.5
Max regen: 15093 hp/s
Realistic max regen: 6067.5 hp/s
Resists: 49.5/60/58/44
Damage needed to break tank: At least 11235 damage per volley.
1000 DPS.
An abaddon would be even more disgusting with the extra mid. A no shield Hyperion would be utterly ridiculous as well.
----------------------------------------
Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 00:50:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Shania Eria
heh... /me fantasises about Avatars without sheild
Why? There are no capital shield extenders so it couldnt really achieve a better passive tank than that and since anything capable of taking down a titan probably will have > 12000 DPS volley damage its not going to do you much good.
----------------------------------------
Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
Cheers Restaurant and Bar
Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 01:46:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Flaming sambuka
Ofcourse ships like tempest, dominix & vagabond would be affected in a bad way, perhaps they could have special rules applied to them allowing them to do both? Or one or the other?
We already have rules that allow that. We like to call those rules "The Way It Is Now."
Quote:
But ships like the megathron, curse, geddon ~ (most armour ships tbh) Would have no sheilds...
Well, that will certainly make them armor ships, alright!
One wonders if you just need to buff your DPS skills if you are having trouble getting through the shields of ships using armor tanks.
-- Guile can always trump hardware -- |
Vincent Almasy
Gallente
The Underground
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 04:12:00 -
[62]
No shields for armor tanker under a few conditions:
Armor tanking ship:
Shield HP will be convered into armor HP, normaly this would be ok fix. HP for HP. Pluse a new rig/module to allow slow armor regineration.
Shield tanking ship:
Armor HP will be removed by 75% and that HP added to shields but shield recharge time will be increased by ( shield + armor / shield ) % so the recharge rate for shields will be the same.
Fair?
Example
-Rokh (current)
Shield
8,500
Armor
7,000
Hull
7,500
Shield recharge
2,500
Shield recharge(est)
(8,500/2,500) = 3.4 * 2.5 = 8.5 at 30% peak
-----------------------------------------------------------
-Rokh(future)
Shield
13,750
Armor
1,750
Hull
7,500
Shield recharge
1 + ( 5,250 / 8,500 ) = 1.62 * 2500 = 4050
Shield recharge(est)
(13,750/4,050) = 3.4 * 2.5 = 8.5 at 30% peak
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-Hyperion
Shield
7,500
Armor
8,000
Hull
8,500
Shield recharge
2,500
Shield recharge(est)
(7500/2500) = 3 * 2.5 = 7.5 at 30% peak
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-Hyperion
Armor
15,500
Hull
8,500
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
Ryss Blackhawk
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 05:44:00 -
[63]
Considering the diffrent types of weapons/damage each race uses why in the heck would they not have both armor and shield? makes no sence to leave one out. Now, some races may favor one over the other but none of them are dumb enough to TOTALLY rely on em. Its always good to have a backup in case somthing goes wrong.
|
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 07:19:00 -
[64]
ôFair?ô
Not really, how do you define whatÆs a shield or amour tanking ships without upsetting lots of people and causing lots of wasted skillpoints.
Take the Hyperion I use it as a smartbomb shield tanking ships. Max PDS in the low slots for cap and shields then use the buffers to MWD to rats and smartbomb away.
Eve is good due to variety anything that takes away variety is bad.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Copine Callmeknau
The Splinter Syndicate
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 07:59:00 -
[65]
I declare this the worst idea for the month of March.
-----
Originally by:
wrong on so many levels you couldn't be more wrong if you were tuxford
|
GGeorge
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 08:22:00 -
[66]
I find it really weird that it seems to be the armor tankers that are the most opposed to this idea. I think anyone that active or resist buffer tanks would rather have most of their hitpoints in their tanking layer. Passive regen tankers actually want a low starting/ low regen time hp so extenders add the most regen per second. so for the drakes hitpoints and regen time to be increased would actually weaken the regen tank. I am of course assuming that the hitpoints taken from the non-tanking layer would be put into the tanking layer.
It is also not like every ship has to follow the one tanking layer only rule but couple ships like the Abbaddon would be interesting with all its shield points in a resisted armor layer. It would make it even better for fleets where no one uses a rep to tank anyway.
G does point out that there would need to be a regen time in line with a couple of extenders so as to stop the insane regen tanks.
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 08:41:00 -
[67]
This idea was worth three pages? It should have ended with this very astute statement...
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Only if armour is removed from shield tankers as well.
And before you assume bias on my part, I only EVER shield tank.
---
I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment. |
Godar Marak
Amarr
Return Of Red Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 11:28:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Flaming sambuka
Edited by: Flaming sambuka on 05/03/2007 11:53:45
Well no, since the shield tankers still need armour for structure ~ its part of the ship.
Structure ISNT armour. Armour goes on top of the structure. THATS WHY ITS CALLED ARMOUR!
--------------------
'\0/\0/\0/\0/\0/'
Cant we all just get along?
|
Mnengli Noiliffe
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 11:32:00 -
[69]
The shield is what protects the ship from various space particles that collide with the ship while it travels. Armor can be used for this but as it does not automatically regenerate, like shield, thus it requires mandatory armor repper on the ship, that would require cap to work, so it's not viable - shield is just an easier solution.. So for this reason, every space vessel is equipped with shield... here is your rp explanation.
Though maybe there could be an option to rig the ship further - just strip the mandatory armor plates to make space for more mods etc. Or remove shield to re-direct its regen into the capacitor. Sure there are mods that do similar thing but they are just not powerful enough - shield should be turned off completely.
But in this case, armor should take some damage over time (which is the more the faster the ship travels) because those particles will slowly kill it with no shield...
In case of stripping the armor - in this case the damage that leaks through shield should kill the structure, and it should leak more than with armor. so you'd need hull repper to compensate for removal of armor :)
|
n0thing
Northern Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 11:37:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Only if armour is removed from shield tankers as well.
+1
Shields are also part of any ship, if to divide shield and armor tanking then armor tankers need more capacitor size, while shield ones less cap but more recharge, since they also get shield recharge wich armor tankers dont get.
imo thats how its supposed to be, armor tankers get shield as buffer, while shield tankers assemble dmg on shield and can rely on armor if tank is penetrated but the enemy is barely alive so they can buffer armor to lay final shots.
---
tnx. |
Kusotarre
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 12:44:00 -
[71]
Ok, now I really don't understand.
Battleships are going insane speeds, and instead of nerfing the two biggest problems with that (dual bonus iStabs and large nos vs small targets), you want to apply silly no-shield rules to ships arbitrarily?
Take away shields on nanophoon, and all nanophoon pilots will start flying dominixes. Take shields from domi, they all go to something else.
This is an immensely silly proposition even if you really hate nanostabbed ships.
|
R'adeh
Gallente
Gekidoku
Koroshiya Buntai
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 12:52:00 -
[72]
How about HELL NO! NEVER! 
No flame intended, but this change serves no purpose except for killing setup variety
_______________________________________________
My views are my own and I don't represent my corp. |
Jarjar
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 13:58:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Breed Love
So curse and pilgrim are now shield tankers?
The Curse is, actually.
"The Khanid KingdomÆs ships possess the most advanced shield generators available outside Caldari space, as well as fairly robust electronics systems. Their armor and hull, however, are rather weak and hard to modify."
Having that said, I fly both the Curse and Pilgrim and I don't shield tank either of them 
BTW, on topic... How about "hell no".
"In Communist China ISK buys YOU!!" - random bio |
V0idz
Herrscher der Zeit
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 14:05:00 -
[74]
Edited by: V0idz on 06/03/2007 14:02:08
eh no.
---------
EVE is like the "Fisherman's Friend" of MMOs.
If it's too hard, you are too weak. |
Monyet Loe
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 14:10:00 -
[75]
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Only if armour is removed from shield tankers as well.
+1
Shields are also part of any ship, if to divide shield and armor tanking then armor tankers need more capacitor size, while shield ones less cap but more recharge, since they also get shield recharge wich armor tankers dont get.
imo thats how its supposed to be, armor tankers get shield as buffer, while shield tankers assemble dmg on shield and can rely on armor if tank is penetrated but the enemy is barely alive so they can buffer armor to lay final shots.
I totally agree with you and find the whole ID of this tread ******
|
Pierre Jacquemein
A Place for Valen
Serenus Letum
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 14:52:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Flaming sambuka
Edited by: Flaming sambuka on 05/03/2007 11:53:45
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Only if armour is removed from shield tankers as well.
Well no, since the shield tankers still need armour for structure ~ its part of the ship.
Yes, because shield tanker don't have structure.
|
Linerra Tedora
Amarr
The Older Clones
|
Posted - 2007.03.06 14:57:00 -
[77]
wow.. really constructive topic..
let's nerf one group of tanking, but let the other stay the same?
uhhh reality check here OP???? do you seriously think that armor tankers are so much better?
if you are basing all this crap idea on the fact that you can make nano boats, then think again. They are going to be tweaked so it's not so viable anymore.
seriously, i would not mind taking a hit on shield strenght on a ship that's purely armor boat... but then again, i would only accept that on the front that all the electronics needed to setup a shield tank, removes the possiblity to put armor on a boat..
so the more shield you have on your ship, the less armor you can have, because you need shield emitters... and the more armor you have on your ship, the less shield you can have, because the shield emitters need space that your armor takes.
see now that is a better idea... like 2000000000 gazillion better than the OP... crikey... 
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |