Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:35:00 -
[31]
Yes, let's have x-l shield extenders. Because passive shield tanks just aren't quite overpowered enough as it is.
|
Ogul
Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:46:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild Yes, let's have x-l shield extenders. Because passive shield tanks just aren't quite overpowered enough as it is.
Yes, and the awesome damage they can do...
--- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec. |
Zolian
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:52:00 -
[33]
Solution: give them 1k pg req, they'll be worthless on a drake and hard to fit on a battleship, but at least they'd be an option.
|
Riho
Magnificent Beavers Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:41:00 -
[34]
yes lets get xl extenders so passive tanked ships can be more op than now....
|
shinsushi
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 17:03:00 -
[35]
Edited by: shinsushi on 24/10/2007 17:03:55
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: shinsushi
Originally by: Incantare No. X-L shield booster + boost amp ~ 2 lar...
No, 2 large sheild boosters = 1 X-large.
Check out this progression
2 SAR=1 MAR, 2 MAR = 1 LAR
2 LSB = 1 X-LSB
and
1 X-LSB + SBA = 2 LAR
is not mutually exclusive.
Originally by: Akita T SSB-II + nothing : 30.0 HP, 18 cap, 2.0 sec -> 15.0 HP/sec, 9.0 cap/sec, 1.66 HP/cap SAR-II + nothing : 80.0 HP, 40 cap, 4.5 sec -> 17.7 HP/sec, 8.8 cap/sec, 2.00 HP/cap SSB-II + SBAmpII : 40.8 HP, 18 cap, 2.0 sec -> 20.4 HP/sec, 9.0 cap/sec, 2.26 HP/cap MSB-II + nothing : 90.0 HP, 54 cap, 3.0 sec -> 30.0 HP/sec, 18.0 cap/sec, 1.66 HP/cap SAR-II + SAR-II : 160.0 HP, 80 cap, 4.5 sec -> 35.5 HP/sec, 17.7 cap/sec, 2.00 HP/cap MAR-II + nothing: 320.0 HP, 160 cap, 9.0 sec -> 35.5 HP/sec, 17.7 cap/sec, 2.00 HP/cap MSB-II + SBAmpII: 122.4 HP, 54 cap, 3.0 sec -> 40.8 HP/sec, 18.0 cap/sec, 2.26 HP/cap LSB-II + nothing: 240.0 HP, 144 cap, 4.0 sec -> 60.0 HP/sec, 36.0 cap/sec, 1.66 HP/cap MAR-II + MAR-II : 640.0 HP, 320 cap, 9.0 sec -> 71.1 HP/sec, 35.5 cap/sec, 2.00 HP/cap LAR-II + nothing: 800.0 HP, 400 cap, 11.25 sec -> 71.1 HP/sec, 35.5 cap/sec, 2.00 HP/cap LSB-II + SBAmpII: 326.4 HP, 144 cap, 4.0 sec -> 81.6 HP/sec, 36.0 cap/sec, 2.26 HP/cap XLSB-II+ nothing: 600.0 HP, 360 cap, 5.0 sec -> 120.0 HP/sec, 72.0 cap/sec, 1.66 HP/cap LAR-II + LAR-II: 1600.0 HP, 800 cap, 11.25 sec -> 142.2 HP/sec, 71.1 cap/sec, 2.00 HP/cap XLSB-II+ SBAmpII: 816.0 HP, 360 cap, 5.0 sec -> 163.2 HP/sec, 72.0 cap/sec, 2.26 HP/cap
So, as you can see, LAR II is equal in class to a Large sheild booster II. X-large is in a class of its own.
Plates follow a similar progression
Originally by: Akita T
mSE-II : 131 HP, 13 tf, 1 MW 50mm-II : 131 HP, 6 tf, 1 MW
SSE-II : 263 HP, 23 tf, 3 MW 100mm-II : 263 HP, 11 tf, 6 MW
missing extender 200mm-II : 528 HP, 17 tf, 12 MW
MSE-II : 1050 HP, 34 tf, 31 MW 400mm-II : 1053 HP, 23 tf, 35 MW
LSE-II : 2625 HP, 46 tf, 165 MW 800mm-II : 2103 HP, 28 tf, 230 MW
missing extender 1600mm-II : 4200 HP, 33 tf, 575 MW
Just like 1600 MMs are in a class all their own. Oh btw the Large shield extenders are overpowered.
Of course following a natural progression, a X-large would look like this:
4200 HP, 58 TF CPU and 340(or so) PG.
EDIT: Props to Akita T for all the info gathering.
AMARR - Taking it up the butt since 2005 |
Subruz
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:08:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Riho yes lets get xl extenders so passive tanked ships can be more op than now....
Yea I mean, look at thoose ravens. They have the same tank as any armor tanker does, soon they'll have the same damage.. what's next? Maybe they'll get something in return for not having any medslots left once their tank is fitted? Heaven forbid, then they might actually be better gang support ships than others?
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:41:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Subruz
Originally by: Riho yes lets get xl extenders so passive tanked ships can be more op than now....
Yea I mean, look at thoose ravens. They have the same tank as any armor tanker does, soon they'll have the same damage.. what's next? Maybe they'll get something in return for not having any medslots left once their tank is fitted? Heaven forbid, then they might actually be better gang support ships than others?
Actually "those Ravens" will be getting an upgrade to a capless weapon system that gives them comparable DPS to a neutron blasterthron from approx 30km with damage selection.
It's not only the nerf bat that sometimes swings too hard.
Also shield tankers already get plenty in return for using mid-slots to tank with. The only issue is that you normally need a tackler whereas armor tankers are simply far better off with one.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:56:00 -
[38]
Originally by: shinsushi So, as you can see, LAR II is equal in class to a Large sheild booster II. X-large is in a class of its own.
Uh...no?
A LSB2 + SBA = LAR2.
As for the extenders - those numbers miss one essential detail. Extenders have a skill to reduce their fittings. Plate do not.
|
shinsushi
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:10:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: shinsushi So, as you can see, LAR II is equal in class to a Large sheild booster II. X-large is in a class of its own.
Uh...no?
A LSB2 + SBA = LAR2.
As for the extenders - those numbers miss one essential detail. Extenders have a skill to reduce their fittings. Plate do not.
Dude, this isn't really hard.
small-small, medium-medium, large-large, x-large-nada.
It doesn't upset me, this is how it works. Shield boosters are less cap efficient, but they are better for burst damage. They have an additional module to make them more cap efficient, but its just that, an extra module.
Its such a stupid thing to argue about too.. This is what I am saying LAR-II + nothing: 800.0 HP, 400 cap, 11.25 sec -> 71.1 HP/sec, 35.5 cap/sec, 2.00 HP/cap is closer to LSB-II + nothing: 240.0 HP, 144 cap, 4.0 sec -> 60.0 HP/sec, 36.0 cap/sec, 1.66 HP/cap
Your saying LAR-II + nothing: 800.0 HP, 400 cap, 11.25 sec -> 71.1 HP/sec, 35.5 cap/sec, 2.00 HP/cap is closer to LSB-II + SBAmpII: 326.4 HP, 144 cap, 4.0 sec -> 81.6 HP/sec, 36.0 cap/sec, 2.26 HP/cap
you say tomato I say tamoto.
As far as plates vs extenders, what does the skill have to do with anything. Thats how they look in the database, you can see the parallel right?
AMARR - Taking it up the butt since 2005 |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:16:00 -
[40]
Originally by: shinsushi It doesn't upset me, this is how it works. Shield boosters are less cap efficient, but they are better for burst damage. They have an additional module to make them more cap efficient, but its just that, an extra module.
The numbers of 2 * mar2 vs LSB2 + sba2 are a LOT closer together than LAR2 vs LSB2.
Simple. fact. Like it or not.
Quote: As far as plates vs extenders, what does the skill have to do with anything. Thats how they look in the database, you can see the parallel right?
Modules are not used in a vaccuum, they are used together with skills. The rep/booster comparsions are with max skills. If you compare them without skills they show a rather different picture.
Skills have everything to do here.
|
|
shinsushi
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:24:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Aramendel stuff
Look at the descriptions
"Battleship Class"
Also, LSB+SBA= like 170 CPU before skills, that definately sound battleship class to me.
I am not sure what to say about the extenders vs plates. They line up to eachother.
AMARR - Taking it up the butt since 2005 |
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:32:00 -
[42]
Originally by: shinsushi
Originally by: Aramendel stuff
Look at the descriptions
"Battleship Class"
Also, LSB+SBA= like 170 CPU before skills, that definately sound battleship class to me.
I am not sure what to say about the extenders vs plates. They line up to eachother.
So 2625 shields = 4200 armor?
Also, there are no CPU related skills for shield equipment.
Liang
-- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU.
Yarr? |
shinsushi
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:41:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: shinsushi
Originally by: Aramendel stuff
Look at the descriptions
"Battleship Class"
Also, LSB+SBA= like 170 CPU before skills, that definately sound battleship class to me.
I am not sure what to say about the extenders vs plates. They line up to eachother.
So 2625 shields = 4200 armor?
Also, there are no CPU related skills for shield equipment.
Liang
Read up.
AMARR - Taking it up the butt since 2005 |
Ipos
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 00:11:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Also shield tankers already get plenty in return for using mid-slots to tank with. The only issue is that you normally need a tackler whereas armor tankers are simply far better off with one.
Sure the DPS will be comparable, I said that and range only comes in real handy when you don't have a tackler to warp to or if you don't have a MWD installed (raven would be a perfect example). The extra range of the Raven also a part of the raven's BS bonus and does not recieve for instance any tracking enhancements or suchlike, not to mention how slow torps are even with the bonus.
Oh and yes, siege launchers are capless but does that mean that a shield tank can be sustained longer? No, not really. So what are theese 'advantages' that you're speaking of?
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 01:28:00 -
[45]
Originally by: shinsushi
Look at the descriptions
Funnily enough cruisers/BCs are using LSB pretty regulary. The descriptions are the part of eve which has the most frequent errors in it.
|
shinsushi
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 01:41:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: shinsushi
Look at the descriptions
Funnily enough cruisers/BCs are using LSB pretty regulary. The descriptions are the part of eve which has the most frequent errors in it.
Hey, I go on what they say. The cap use between a LSB and a LAR is the same, they repair nealy the same mmount (720 hp/12 secs vs 800 hp/11.25 secs) just looks like LSBs are more for BSes. 1600MM plates are fit on cruisers and BCs too, they are definately BS mods.
I am not debating efficiency, just semantics. LSB = BS mod (used commonly on BCs and cruisers.)
AMARR - Taking it up the butt since 2005 |
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 01:43:00 -
[47]
Originally by: shinsushi
I am not debating efficiency, just semantics. LSB = BS mod (used commonly on BCs and cruisers.)
I think you'll find that most shield tankers are missing at least one slot that makes up for this.
Bah, **** it - its not like you actually care about game balance, except in as much as that your precious Amarrian ass gets boosted back to 8 heat sink days.
Liang
-- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU.
Yarr? |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 01:51:00 -
[48]
Originally by: shinsushi
Look at the descriptions
"Battleship Class"
Balancing based on random bits of fluff--I can't see how that isn't a great idea. While we're at it, can we make the Maelstrom about twice as fast, and give it the ability to warp cloaked? The description says it's good for soloing. Thanks. :) * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Incantare
Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 02:05:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Incantare on 25/10/2007 02:11:15
Originally by: shinsushi
So, as you can see, LAR II is equal in class to a Large sheild booster II. X-large is in a class of its own.
Quote:
Dude, this isn't really hard.
small-small, medium-medium, large-large, x-large-nada.
No, it doesn't work that way.
Since X-L boosters seem to confuse you, here's a comparison with a large booster:
large shield booster II + boost amp II:
81.6 hp / sec 36 cap / sec 2.26 hp / cap
2 mar II:
71.11 hp / sec 35.6 cap / sec 1.99 hp / cap
The shield booster + boost amp combo gives more hp / sec while being more cap intensive and more cap efficient. This is with max skills. Still they are pretty close, same goes for X-L + amp vs 2 LAR.
On the other hand if I follow what you're saying and compare a mar to a medium shield booster:
MAR II: 35.55 hp / sec 17.8 cap / sec 1.99 hp / cap
MSB II: 30 hp / sec 18 cap / sec 1.66 hp / cap
The medium shield booster is worse all around.
Doing it for a large shield booster:
60 hp / sec 36 cap / sec 1.66 hp / cap
LAR:
71 hp / sec 35.6 cap / sec 1.99 hp / cap
Again, the LAR is better all around. So if you're right, shields aren't actually better at burst tanking like you said and a shield tank really has nothing going for it.
Hint: you're wrong. I hope that cleared things up.
A large shield booster isn't a battleship mod either, no matter what the description says.
|
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 02:14:00 -
[50]
basically because the shield extenders are made for the ship one number lower in seize that they indicate.
|
|
shinsushi
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 02:16:00 -
[51]
Edited by: shinsushi on 25/10/2007 02:20:39 Whoa whoa whoa... who said anything about balancing here?
I am not calling for a nerf a boost or a LOCKDOWN!.... just like I said, debating semantics.
If you wanna know my thoughts on the issue:
CCP should introduce an equivalent to the 200 MM plate, as there is nothing for it. The micro would change to the small, and the small would change to the 200MM sized extender. Of course the micro and small would need CPU reductions, because these damn things are supposed to fit on frigates. It might actually make passive tanking in the smaller ships possible. Plus who the hell uses 50 MM plates??
I wouldn't mind if someone could passive tank in a BS either, just as long as it's damage seriously suffers. I don't know how to make a module that on the one hand cannot fit on BCs, but on the other would be usefull on the BSes. You all are welcome to try.
I am sticking with my assertion that LSBs = LAR. Yes, they suck comparatively, but they also have boost amps to take them up a notch (effectively making them a more efficient use of 2 slots than armor reppers are.)
Liang, sorry you feel that way. I do not just wanna see amarr buffed. If you actually followed my posting a bit more closely you might see that I am one of the first people to say caldari aren't picnicing either. Unfortunately after 2 years of amarr sucking, and more issues... I find that issue more pressing.
EDIT: did you ever read up? In the previous post I asserted that a Large shield extender = 800 MM plate, and caldari do not have an equivalent to the 1600MM. I also asserted that LArge sheild extenders are overpowered (they should boost 2100 hp, not 2600 or whatever they do now.) If/when an X-large extender where to come in, its HP should be 4200 aswell.
If that happens, I seriously want a boost amp for armor reppers.
AMARR - Taking it up the butt since 2005 |
AnKahn
Caldari Dark Star LTD Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 03:01:00 -
[52]
Very generally, who runs out of cap sooner if incoming DPS is constant?
1st - Amarr 2nd - Caldari 3rd - Minmatar 4th - Gallente ? But more complicated because Amarr pwns the shield tank?
So actually the argument you are having isn't as simple as HP and cap efficiency because the different damage types have to be taken into account, I assume.
I'm just trying to learn so I thought I'd just throw that out there.
|
Kell Braugh
Caldari letter of marque Plunder-Bears
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 03:39:00 -
[53]
Originally by: QuickGonzalez
Constructive comments only please. Thanks in advance. ...... than what the hell is your point? stfu and go home
No comment. evil prevails when good men do nothing. |
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 06:03:00 -
[54]
Meh, what should be done IMO is to bump up the HP and PG of shield extenders across the board. This would allow battleships to passive tank and slightly nerf the drake's (since it would probably have to sacrifice a large for a med). --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:19:00 -
[55]
Originally by: shinsushi Hey, I go on what they say. The cap use between a LSB and a LAR is the same, they repair nealy the same mmount (720 hp/12 secs vs 800 hp/11.25 secs) just looks like LSBs are more for BSes. 1600MM plates are fit on cruisers and BCs too, they are definately BS mods.
I am not debating efficiency, just semantics. LSB = BS mod (used commonly on BCs and cruisers.)
Yes, that sure will bring us further alone here.
Also, another little detail you ignore are fitting costs.
1 LAR2 is 55 CPU and 2300 grid 1 LSB2 is 115 CPU and 165 grid
Yes, that really sounds comparable.
|
Fuazzole
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:23:00 -
[56]
The Gnoobs already do 13 slots drake tanks, they wouldn't think twice about XLing it with light launchers.
|
NeoTheo
Caldari Dark Materials Fang Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:26:00 -
[57]
could we not just make them only *****ble to BS class modules?
/Theo
|
Sakhr Otaktay
Amarr The Funkalistic SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:36:00 -
[58]
Bring armor recharge rate and let amarr have a 2300 plate and armor recharge boosters then you can let caldari have their xl-lse's bring amarr up to date :D ------ Zombies! Aliens! Vampires! Dinosaurs! |
K'reemy G'udness
Gimme Gimme Gimme
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 15:02:00 -
[59]
Originally by: QuickGonzalez Hello
My name is Gonzalez im Civire and i come from far away country called Mexico.
Wow, I didn't know they had Civire in Mexico. Though I've heard rumors that Pancho Villa was Matari.
Cheech Marin is Gallente tho. He's a MexiCan, not a MexiCan't.
Sincerely, K'reemy ---
|
Allestin Villimar
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 15:42:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Sakhr Otaktay Bring armor recharge rate and let amarr have a 2300 plate and armor recharge boosters then you can let caldari have their xl-lse's bring amarr up to date :D
Actually, I think they ought to make the regenerative plates do just that - regenerate armor. Screw a 7% boost, actual plates make more sense to fit than the regenerative plates.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |