| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Soporo
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2008.11.21 20:58:00 -
[1]
Here's a (probably) n00b question:
The usual pre-QR (pvp) Extender shield buffer tank increases sig radius by a large amount yet Sig radius penalties now seem to be much more detrimental than before.
One then would be led to believe that the ability to fit an Extender buffer that is mitigated by a SKILL, ie: Extender Rigs penalty modified by the shield rigging skill would be worth a second look.
Is it worth it or should I remain with purgers and/or cheap resists for my Drake and Nighthawk?
|
Dyaven
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 21:00:00 -
[2]
Armor buffers have always had to deal with speed reduction penalties for fitting their plates. Welcome to the club. |
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 21:05:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Dyaven
Armor buffers have always had to deal with speed reduction penalties for fitting their plates. Welcome to the club.
No ****zle sherlock. I'm sorry you're too ignorant to actually notice that I'm not complaining. I'm just asking a valid fitting question concerning a type of tank you don't/can't/won't use. |
Gavin DeVries
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 21:14:00 -
[4]
Is there a skill that reduces the speed penalty of armor plates? If there is, then there should be a similar skill that reduces the signature radius penalty of shield extenders. If there's not, why should there be? The required rigging skill already reduces the drawbacks of those types of rigs. You're talking about a different type of module. Shield Extenders are not rigs.
______________________________________________________
Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you? |
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 21:15:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Soporo on 21/11/2008 21:17:12
In other words:
A Core Defense Field Extender I offers a 15% increase in shield hp at the expense of a 10% sig radius drawback per rig. A shield rigging skill of 4 (for instance) would mitigate all that by 40% thus conceivably lowering your sig radius as opposed to just fitting regular extenders in the mids.
edit: Forget it. I must be speaking Martian....or Achura.
|
Pans Exual
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 21:20:00 -
[6]
I don't know why others are having such a hard time understanding what you're asking...
Rigs that act as shield extenders have a skill to reduce the sig radius increase, while modules which do the same, do not. Your question is, "would it be better to fit the rigs as extenders and the modules as rechargers, as opposed to the opposite, now that the patch has come?"
I would say yes, if you're willing to train shield rigging to 4, which isn't a terrible skill as far as time required goes.
---
Basically, "Nerf rock, paper is fine" -- scissors.
---
|
MalVortex
Reaper Industries
Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 22:12:00 -
[7]
Your asking about this on a Drake? Seriously?
Just accept that your going to have the sig radius of a small moon (in before memes) and get over it. The added tank benefit still far outweighs any increase in damage you would take. The Drake naturally has a large radius: adding to it changes nothing.
I could at least see the question on a small cruiser, but even then the answer is the same. LSE provide far more EHP gain than any additional damage you would take. The sig radius penalty matters more in the sense that having less signature now matters. Previously, your Drake would have taken full damage from anything sub-capitol, nothing is changed here. No change has been done to total damage output, so your Drake will behave as exactly as before.
If you want to sig-radius tank, fly something besides a Drake.
Finally, as to shield rigging skill to extenders: lol, no. Armor plates still have more penalties in their mass addition, and armor rigs -%speed is no laughing matter either (save on BS's, but then, BS's don't sigradius tank either). There is no reason for rigging skills to impact actual modules. RE: They aren't rigs. |
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 22:18:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Pans Exual
I don't know why others are having such a hard time understanding what you're asking...
Rigs that act as shield extenders have a skill to reduce the sig radius increase, while modules which do the same, do not. Your question is, "would it be better to fit the rigs as extenders and the modules as rechargers, as opposed to the opposite, now that the patch has come?"
I would say yes, if you're willing to train shield rigging to 4, which isn't a terrible skill as far as time required goes.
I was about to say the same. This might make for some very, very curious setups. Do not expect to do more than resist buffer though, since you certainly won't be able to get high into the HP range with just rigs.
May I ask if you're intending to put this on some more exotic ship, like a Cerb, or if you're just going to lolDrake?
|
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 22:22:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Soporo on 21/11/2008 22:25:29
Quote:
I could at least see the question on a small cruiser, but even then the answer is the same. LSE provide far more EHP gain than any additional damage you would take. The sig radius penalty matters more in the sense that having less signature now matters. Previously, your Drake would have taken full damage from anything sub-capitol, nothing is changed here. No change has been done to total damage output, so your Drake will behave as exactly as before.
Ahh, ok. There goes that idea.
Quote:
May I ask if you're intending to put this on some more exotic ship, like a Cerb, or if you're just going to lolDrake?
Cerb is what I will be suing a lot soon(tm), so I wanted to explore that too. If any ship can benefit from the most hp possible, it's the Cerb.
Quote:
I was about to say the same. This might make for some very, very curious setups. Do not expect to do more than resist buffer though, since you certainly won't be able to get high into the HP range with just rigs.
But the possibility remains of using field extender rigs coupled with shield extenders I guess. What application where that might be best, I don't know.
|
Groknor
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 22:33:00 -
[10]
Armor buffer tanking will always be VASTLY inferior to shield buffer tanking. Armor does not recharge, shield does. |
Pans Exual
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 22:41:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Groknor
Armor buffer tanking will always be VASTLY inferior to shield buffer tanking. Armor does not recharge, shield does.
Quoting someone who didn't understand this thread.
---
Basically, "Nerf rock, paper is fine" -- scissors.
---
|
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 22:42:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Soporo on 21/11/2008 22:44:27
Originally by: Groknor
Armor buffer tanking will always be VASTLY inferior to shield buffer tanking. Armor does not recharge, shield does.
Which is why 4/5ths of everything in no-sec is armor tanking? Which is why if I bring a NH with Siege Warfare specialization people complain I have little Armored Warfare bounuses?
Also, in order to get anything other than a ludicrous passive shield recharge you have to use ALL your mids AND lows and Rigs to effect it?
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 23:21:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Groknor
Armor buffer tanking will always be VASTLY inferior to shield buffer tanking. Armor does not recharge, shield does.
Which is why 4/5ths of everything in no-sec is armor tanking? Which is why if I bring a NH with Siege Warfare specialization people complain I have little Armored Warfare bounuses?
Also, in order to get anything other than a ludicrous passive shield recharge you have to use ALL your mids AND lows and Rigs to effect it?
You're thinking too traditionally here. Just keep one injector and buffer, and don't mind anything but putting out enough DPS not to have to lay down in the fight otherwise.
Then again, that is the primary problem for missile ships nowadays. And people choose the armor tanks because... well, it's easier to fit ships like that and squeeze DPS out of them. Geddon, anyone?
|
lollerwaffle
|
Posted - 2008.11.22 00:29:00 -
[14]
i still fly a buffer HAMdrake 
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |