| Author |
Topic |
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.24 16:55:00 - [ 1]
Edited by: ankarii on 25/08/2008 03:19:06
Edited by: ankarii on 25/08/2008 02:27:55
EDIT
For the love of god, read and think before you reply, gather your information, and make a seriously informed post.
This isn't a whine or a "boost this, nerf that" thread, however, I would like to pose a question regarding armor reps and shield reps for discussion only.
I will also be comparing heated performance.
The question being, "Because of overall similarity, should battleship class repair modules be changed in fitting requirements to be more inline with each other?".
Again, this is only for discussion, not flames, not whining, and every "stfu" I see loses you 3 internets and 50 DKP.
I also know the tables are ugly, too bad, I'm too lazy to make a PDF, or a program, or any ship setup exports or pictograms or hieroglyphs like "professionals" would do.
Now, let's look at the base stats for both "battleship" class repair modules. (since there are 4 types of subcapital shield repairers I'm going with XL as it's the largest, and the LARII is the largest armor repairer)
For simplicity I will be limiting the scope of this discussion to only t2 large armor, and t2 X-large shield repairers.
*key*
(base values, without ship, implant, or skills effect.
~....=repeating value
PG...=powergrid
CPU.=duhr
ACT.=activation cost
ACTS=activation cost per second
DUR.=duration(module cycle time)
DCAP=estimated time before a ship with 6k cap is drained*^
AMT..=amount repaired
RPS..=(RAW, no resists)amount "repaired per second"
HEAT=%bonuses gained from overheating the module)
HREP=resultant amount repaired per cycle (and cycle time)
HRPS=heated amount repaired per second
HINC=heated % total rep/sec increase
HCPS=heated cap use per second
HCD.=heated cap drain estimation time
HCI..=% total increase in heated cap consumption per second
*ship used is a megathron with 6000 cap 1154.9 recharge and +13 cap/sec (small cap battery I and medium cap battery I fitted to attain 6k cap)
^time is in minutes.seconds (ex 2.34= 2 mins 34 sec)
...Large armor repairer II...X-large Shield booster II
PG......2300----------------------550
CPU....55-------------------------230
ACT....400------------------------400
ACTS..26.6~---------------------80
DUR....15-------------------------5
DCAP..5.48-----------------------1.25
AMT....800------------------------600
RPS.....53.3~---------------------120
HEAT...AMT+15 (DUR-15--------AMT+10 (DUR-15)
HREP...880 (12.75)--------------660 (4.25)
HRPS...69.01---------------------155.29
HINC...29.40---------------------29.40
HCPS..31.4-----------------------94.11
HCD....4.32-----------------------1.11
HCI.....17.75---------------------17.75
Ok, I hope that looks pretty, I had to force 40 slave-children to work for 2 weeks non-stop to make that custom, side by side comparison, just for you.
My math isn't so good, so in a spot or two (HINC) I set the values to the same amount, since I missed something and armor reps were 0.01% less boosted by heat effects, and I corrected it to prevent confusion. same thing for % increase in heated cap consumption per second(HCI).
Anyway, as you can see, heat gives a roughly 30% boost to repairs. (varies from rep to rep and with skills, but that's a different discussion) Heat costs about 18% more cap/sec to run, and armor lasts 289.189% longer than shield. Shield repairs 125% more per second than armor.
You have the numbers so you see what the pros/cons are. Back to the original question, should BS class armor repairer fitting requirements be more in-line with BS class shield repairs? I think so. Let's use another post to melt your brain so I can make my point. |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction |
Posted - 2008.08.24 16:58:00 - [ 2]
No, they shouldn't.
The two types of tanking are significantly different in too many ways to make your comparison meaningful - both armour tanking and shield tanking are used quite a lot currently, with PvE favouring shield tanking, and PvP favouring armour tanking. |
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.24 17:01:00 - [ 3]
*key*
~ =Squiggly
PG =powergrid available
CPU =DUHR available
CPUm=cpu needed for appropriate module
CPU%=percent difference in cpu requirements
PGM =powergrid needed for appropriate module
PG% =percent difference in powergrid requirements
USEC=percent of CPU used when fitted to base ship with no skills implants or other modules
USEG=percent of PG used when fitted to your mom with no skills implants or other modules
...........Prophecy(armor)............Cyclone(shield)
PG.-------1300---------------------1210
CPU.------350----------------------425
CPUM----55------------------------230
CPU%.---76%decrease-----------318.1%increase
PGM------2300---------------------550
PG%-----318.1%increase---------76%decrease
USEC----15.71----------------------54.11
USEG----176.92(Orly)--------------45.45~(Yarly)
Hmm, well the fitting looks balanced, in the numbers, until I go to fit an Xl booster and full gank fitting onto a Sleipnir. TBH it doesn't look all that fair. I can even fit a Ferox with an Xl booster and still have room for resists and weaponry. It looks rediculous, yes, but I can still do it. The reason I setup a Ferox in the first place is to place aside any arugments of "eeeehhehhhhh armor tanks get eeehhehehe resists mehhehhh" Ferox gets resists, Drake gets resists, both shield tank, close your face, it smells of cardboard.
Basically, the fitting between the modules is balanced by numbers, the fitting between the ships and the appropriate modules makes no sense in my opinion. The large armor rep requires 176% of the powergrid the prophecy can provide by default, and the cyclone can support the CPU and PG the XL shield booster requires, and then some.
Seems thar be sum balancin needin be done thar.
So Eve, whatchya think? |
Boz Well
Minmatar |
Posted - 2008.08.24 17:03:00 - [ 4]
 Originally by: James Lyrus
No, they shouldn't.
The two types of tanking are significantly different in too many ways to make your comparison meaningful - both armour tanking and shield tanking are used quite a lot currently, with PvE favouring shield tanking, and PvP favouring armour tanking.
As I see it, the difference is that shields have an XL booster. I'd be more interested in seeing a comparison between large shield boosters and large armor reps, heh. Still, I don't really see them as imbalanced. If you really want a super tank, you can fit 2 LAR's for pve and make an AFK boat. For PVP, it's rather irrelevant imo, since buffers are the way to go now, not active reppers. |
Viqtoria
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 17:06:00 - [ 5]
t2 XL boosters take an arse ton of cpu to fit. |
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.24 17:11:00 - [ 6]
I'm not talking about the types of tanking, and this isn't a "lets change them" thread, as I like the tanks as they are, give the game a feel of variation, instead of the "this tanks in the fashion, but can also tank in this completely different fashion as well".
According to the tables, and with knowing about the mods fitting requirements, and ships fitting abilities, should they be changed? (WITHIN THE SCOPE OF DISCUSSION)
This is a debate, if you just say "no" your post is too broad in scope and narrow of thought to be meaningful.
(Hint:if you say no, say why and provide a constructive counterpoint, not "kekeke cuz its different yo")
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente
Azteca Transportation Unlimited
Gunboat Diplomacy |
Posted - 2008.08.24 17:13:00 - [ 7]
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 24/08/2008 17:14:44
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 24/08/2008 17:13:43
Ankarii, don't forget that for Armor Tanked ships it's quite feasable to fit 2 modules, unlike with a shield tanked vessel. This is especially true for the Battlecruisers, a Twin MARII tank is in terms of HP restored per second identical to a single LARII and uses significantly less grid. Also cap use per second for a twin-MARII is identical to the LARII.
So in that respect a Twin MARII battlecruiser can be compared to the XL booster battlecruisers you mention.
|
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.24 17:14:00 - [ 8]
Edited by: ankarii on 24/08/2008 17:17:32 Originally by: Viqtoria
t2 XL boosters take an arse ton of cpu to fit.
Indeed, but my point is that, even with that CPU used, you can still fit an entire setup onto a shield tanking BC, with great success, and rave lights and DJ music and that sort of thing. |
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.24 17:16:00 - [ 9]
Edited by: ankarii on 24/08/2008 19:13:00Edited by: ankarii on 24/08/2008 17:24:10 Originally by: Meiyang Lee
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 24/08/2008 17:13:43
Ankarii, don't forget that for Armor Tanked ships it's quite feasable to fit 2 modules, unlike with a shield tanked vessel. This is especially true for the Battlecruisers, a Twin MARII tank is in terms of HP restored per second identical to a single LARII and uses significantly less grid. Also cap use per second for a twin-MARII is identical to the LARII.
Yeah I know, I prefer dual armor tanks, and I would have a much more comprehensive comparison, but this took me 3 hours to setup alone, so I limited it to the largest BS class repair modules. But beyond that, XL boosters can be placed on ships like the sleipnir, then add a shield boost amp, and use crystals for a ridiculous tank. After that, it cannot be compared to a dual MAR at all, even on a myrmidon with BC5 and 3 aux nano rigs. I have however, seen a hybrid tank some people use with XL+medium or XL+large shield boosters with all PDS or cap flux or CPR, and burst the XL only when needed. Wierd looking, but it works, I guess. |
Trader Jjoe |
Posted - 2008.08.24 17:46:00 - [ 10]
Nice stats breakdown,
I fly mostly minmat and can tell you that yes in general my preference is for active armor tanking. But I can get a seriously mean tank on my maelstrom and versus extreme alpha or fast dps I will last longer in that ship then in my dual armor repped tempest.
(all level V tanking skills btw on both setups)
It is also truly hard to completely separate active tanking from passive tanking ability. My meaning is that while active armor tanking may be favored in some situations, what about passive armor tanking vs. passive shield tanking? When those reppers are not active at all - how much is the armor regnerating on its own? Its not. The shields rep themselves - albeit arguably neglible when you are primaried. In long fleet battles though, I have found getting some passive regen useful when I warp out and warp in after getting even a little regen.
Anyway, as someone who runs both I tend to feel its fairly well balanced. The larger issue in my choice is role of the ship. If I am filling all (or most) of my mid slots with shield then I can fill my lows with damage, or speed (think HAC).
If I am filling all (most) of my lows with armor, then my mids are freed up for cap, point, web etc.
This is the real difference in choice in my opinion.
my $.02 |
Boz Well
Minmatar |
Posted - 2008.08.24 17:55:00 - [ 11]
Originally by: ankarii
Edited by: ankarii on 24/08/2008 17:24:10
Originally by: Meiyang Lee
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 24/08/2008 17:13:43
Ankarii, don't forget that for Armor Tanked ships it's quite feasable to fit 2 modules, unlike with a shield tanked vessel. This is especially true for the Battlecruisers, a Twin MARII tank is in terms of HP restored per second identical to a single LARII and uses significantly less grid. Also cap use per second for a twin-MARII is identical to the LARII.
Yeah I know, I prefer dual armor tanks, and I would have a much more comprehensive comparison, but this took me 3 hours to setup alone, so I limited it to the largest BS class repair modules. But beyond that, XL boosters can be placed on ships like the sleipnir, then add a shield boost amp, and use crystals for a ridiculous tank. After that, it cannot be compared to a dual MAR at all, even on a myrmidon with BC5 and 3 aux nano rigs.
You're stacking the deck to make your argument. First off, there is no equivalent to crystals for armor. So you fit an oversized booster (XL, when there is no XL armor), then fit implants, then say like it's shocking that your active tank is stronger than a medium sized armor tank. Shocking. Just because a Sleip can use crystals and an XL booster does not mean shields need to be changed, nor does it mean armor needs to be changed. Let's look at buffer tanks, eh? Oh wait, no equivalent of slave sets for shields. Of course armor tends to win in EHP. Just because they're different does not mean they aren't balanced, nor does it mean they need to be changed. Arguing that the discussion needs to be confined to your little columns of numbers is just trying to oversimplify the discussion imo. Sorry if it took you hours to make them.  |
Descyphal |
Posted - 2008.08.24 18:22:00 - [ 12]
I agree, a rework is needed. or an X-L booster needs to be removed.
The point is that a ship that's meant for the 'in between' fittings(a BC, or hell, even cruisers), can fit said values(large on cruiser and/or X-L on BC) of the shield tanking aspect. One cannot fit a 'large armor repair' on an Astarte, and make it usable in either pvp or pve.
Someone mentioned that 2x medium reps are just as good as a large... yes... be that as it were, it's not a large. nor the 'X-large' your Minmatar and/or Caldari counterparts are capable of fitting.
The point is that, people whine about shield tanks, or armor tanks, when, it's all just perspective. WITH a bit of merit. I myself, armor tank and prefer that over shield tanking, no question... But when I see a 6 5-6 mid BattleCruiser with 4-6 lows, able to fit an X-L booster, amp, 4 resists, and PDS II's for example... making said tank, ridiculous PVE(pvp as someone mentioned is buffer, so, forget that for now), it's getting a bit much.
Shield boosting should take power grid. and a lot more of it. Being that it uses MORE cap, MORE cpu, MORE active a fitting.
How does a module that is proposed as energy, not take energy? ... Don't fret, I'll wait while you figure that one out. Even though this fits right in-line with Kat-Williams quote; "ever seen the Iraqi uniform?...Don't worry I'll wait..It's because we're killing civilians"...
well, this is in theory a damped down form of killing armor tanking. Which to follow up on what someone else said about the popularity of the two... Shield's only more popular because it's easy to fit, and there are missiles. Every other ten year old, cry-wolf of a boy like missiles. The rest get trickled into Amarr/Gallente.
The plain, and blunt fact that we need to fit dual reps to match the counterpart, is silly. Especially when it's not as though we do more damage. In fact, it's the opposite. Shield fits with their boost amp, can fit 3-4 resists, amp, and booster, with/without the amp, another resist will do. lows are not taken. PDS's and BCS/gyrostab for 400 turret dps, Alex.
Oh, Balls... i bet you were thinking 'well the mega as ank used can do that dps without fitting a mag stab, lewl'... wrong. It can get those figures, at the expense of it's much needed capacitor. INFACT, the megathron DIES with dual rep, when using it's hybrids, meant for it. it simply cannot support it's own cap, when fitting an equal tank to it's counterpart, of ANY race. with or without similar slots.
The coolest looking ship in-game, simply cannot tank pve with armor reps being so needy. giving so, so very little and shield reps taking what said ship(mega) cannot support... slot-wise.
The issue is one, or both of these two things;
1) Shields don't take enough requirements, hence smaller ships can fit larger boosters than their class is intended for... thus making them ridiculous tanks...
2) armor takes too much, doesn't last long enough, and/or the lowering of it's PG usage, duration or rep amount, to compete with its shield boosting counterpart(the x-L booster). Aswell as a complete rework of the ships intended to use it. As the mega has CPU problems with a dual rep setup, and can only fit crap weapons(not even t2 crap weapons) to do it. Have gallente mimic amarr ships PG... that'l solve the fitting... for BS's... but not the issue... for the game.
And then there's the logical fix... Have armor reps, boost in rep cycle, and/or give the reps a shorter duration. even 8 seconds at max skills, would do nicely. 10 with no skills. And yes, im aware rigs can get these figures already. But again, we're cutting into a different story. If you rig a shield tank the same, you have a duplicated issue, and no resolve.
-----
Again, my reply is 'Yes, there is a clear imbalance. and it needs to be adjusted.'
Anyone thinking of replying, give your answer a long, hard, explainable thought.
This is my take, on the issue. |
Descyphal |
Posted - 2008.08.24 18:27:00 - [ 13]
Originally by: Boz Well
Let's look at buffer tanks, eh? Oh wait, no equivalent of slave sets for shields. Of course armor tends to win in EHP.
Just because they're different does not mean they aren't balanced, nor does it mean they need to be changed. Arguing that the discussion needs to be confined to your little columns of numbers is just trying to oversimplify the discussion imo. Sorry if it took you hours to make them.
Wrong. shield is more effective even in effective hp fits. the reason it hurts so bad is because extended shield mods, dont give the same values as armor extenders do. infact, half of what armor extenders do. But again, for your simple mind to adjust, let me iterate once more for you the topic: Repair modules. Not extended. Even then, though, had the discussion been about extenders, you're STILL wrong. Because, shield wins there also. Welcome to RECHARGE and how this effectively BOOSTS YOUR EFFECTIVE, every second. what ever your recharge rate is, during the time ofwhich you're alive, you regenerate said effective hp. HENCE a friggin drake, you newb. |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 18:30:00 - [ 14]
Originally by: ankarii
Ok, I hope that looks pretty, I had to force 40 slave-children to work for 2 weeks non-stop to make that custom, side by side comparison, just for you.
Try using tab spacing within [code] tags. You'll need to copy the table in from notepad or another text editor that supports the tab character. |
Ranvaldy
Amarr |
Posted - 2008.08.24 18:34:00 - [ 15]
Edited by: Ranvaldy on 24/08/2008 18:34:31 Originally by: Boz Well
Originally by: ankarii
Edited by: ankarii on 24/08/2008 17:24:10
Originally by: Meiyang Lee
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 24/08/2008 17:13:43
Ankarii, don't forget that for Armor Tanked ships it's quite feasable to fit 2 modules, unlike with a shield tanked vessel. This is especially true for the Battlecruisers, a Twin MARII tank is in terms of HP restored per second identical to a single LARII and uses significantly less grid. Also cap use per second for a twin-MARII is identical to the LARII.
Yeah I know, I prefer dual armor tanks, and I would have a much more comprehensive comparison, but this took me 3 hours to setup alone, so I limited it to the largest BS class repair modules. But beyond that, XL boosters can be placed on ships like the sleipnir, then add a shield boost amp, and use crystals for a ridiculous tank. After that, it cannot be compared to a dual MAR at all, even on a myrmidon with BC5 and 3 aux nano rigs.
You're stacking the deck to make your argument. First off, there is no equivalent to crystals for armor. So you fit an oversized booster (XL, when there is no XL armor), then fit implants, then say like it's shocking that your active tank is stronger than a medium sized armor tank. Shocking.
Just because a Sleip can use crystals and an XL booster does not mean shields need to be changed, nor does it mean armor needs to be changed. Let's look at buffer tanks, eh? Oh wait, no equivalent of slave sets for shields. Of course armor tends to win in EHP.
Just because they're different does not mean they aren't balanced, nor does it mean they need to be changed. Arguing that the discussion needs to be confined to your little columns of numbers is just trying to oversimplify the discussion imo. Sorry if it took you hours to make them.
Well said imo Also the OP forgot to mention in ur calculations that shield boosters are less cap effective than armor reppers. Armor:400 activation 800 rep amount=1 cap=2 armor hp Shield:400 activation 600 boost amount=1 cap=1.5 shield hp |
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.24 18:41:00 - [ 16]
Quote:
You're stacking the deck to make your argument. First off, there is no equivalent to crystals for armor. So you fit an oversized booster (XL, when there is no XL armor), then fit implants, then say like it's shocking that your active tank is stronger than a medium sized armor tank. Shocking.
Yes it's COMPLETELY shocking, it's TERRIFYING, it's MORTIFYING, and lots of other "ing" words I'm too lazy to think of. Also, read everything before you post, I was replying to someone comparing a dual MEDIUM rep tank to an EXTRA LARGE rep tank, the original idea is the LARGEST BS class armor rep vs the LARGEST BS class shield rep. Quote:
Just because a Sleip can use crystals and an XL booster does not mean shields need to be changed, nor does it mean armor needs to be changed. Let's look at buffer tanks, eh? Oh wait, no equivalent of slave sets for shields. Of course armor tends to win in EHP.
I have a geddon at 269k EHP (slaves+quick n dirty setup[t2]) and a scorp at 183k EHP (quick n dirty[t2]) with 98.72 shield regen/sec and resists at 57.1 EM 65.7 THERM 74.3 KIN and 78.6 EXP. So in reality, if someone is dealing 500 dps...say...thermal, minus 98.72, you would take 72.78 DPS. AND THEEEENNN, it would break down into that same ship taking 2514 seconds to explode. Mabe its just me, but I'm not going to shoot at something for 41.9 minutes, kthnxbai, they would call for backup by then. Btw, considering recharge, at 41 minutes the passive shield buffer tank has taken about 431k damage give or take. Quote:
Just because they're different does not mean they aren't balanced, nor does it mean they need to be changed. Arguing that the discussion needs to be confined to your little columns of numbers is just trying to oversimplify the discussion imo. Sorry if it took you hours to make them.
Just because you can't understand the little columns of numbers doesn't mean the rest of us can't enjoy a discussion about them, sorry if I hurt your ego before I even replied. Do try to avoid thinking too much, k? |
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.24 18:43:00 - [ 17]
Edited by: ankarii on 24/08/2008 18:46:38Edited by: ankarii on 24/08/2008 18:44:56 Quote:
Well said imo Also the OP forgot to mention in ur calculations that shield boosters are less cap effective than armor reppers. Armor:400 activation 800 rep amount=1 cap=2 armor hp Shield:400 activation 600 boost amount=1 cap=1.5 shield hp
LOL No I didn't leave it out, read the "little columns of numbers" what everyone else calls a "form", rudimentary as it is. I have cap/sec overheated and not Overheated. But an additional point is that shield can be boosted VASTLY more than armor in rep/cycle. |
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.24 19:04:00 - [ 18]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: ankarii
Ok, I hope that looks pretty, I had to force 40 slave-children to work for 2 weeks non-stop to make that custom, side by side comparison, just for you.
Try using tab spacing within [code] tags. You'll need to copy the table in from notepad or another text editor that supports the tab character.
I'll remember that, I was actually quite tired when I made the table. Wake+eve=gggrraaaagghhhh. Bit of obscure math there for ya. |
Ranvaldy
Amarr |
Posted - 2008.08.24 19:13:00 - [ 19]
Originally by: ankarii
Edited by: ankarii on 24/08/2008 18:46:38
Edited by: ankarii on 24/08/2008 18:44:56
Quote:
Well said imo Also the OP forgot to mention in ur calculations that shield boosters are less cap effective than armor reppers. Armor:400 activation 800 rep amount=1 cap=2 armor hp Shield:400 activation 600 boost amount=1 cap=1.5 shield hp
LOL
No I didn't leave it out, read the "little columns of numbers" what everyone else calls a "form", rudimentary as it is. I have cap/sec overheated and not Overheated. But an additional point is that shield can be boosted VASTLY more than armor in rep/cycle.
Well ye sorry i slipped over.Yes armor reppers sacrifice time effectiveness(u need 1 more repper so u need to spend more low slots) to cap effectiveness. I still think they are fine. |
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.24 19:22:00 - [ 20]
Quote:
Well ye sorry i slipped over.Yes armor reppers sacrifice time effectiveness(u need 1 more repper so u need to spend more low slots) to cap effectiveness. I still think they are fine.
Yeah, I don't think either has too much benefit over the other, one reps a lot really quickly, one lasts forever and a day. Even though it seems I'm focusing on their tanking ability, I wanted to establish their effectiveness vs their fitting requirements, I'm sorry if that got lost in all this, updating main post now to reflect that. |
Liang Nuren |
Posted - 2008.08.24 19:42:00 - [ 21]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 24/08/2008 19:44:12 Originally by: ankarii
I have a geddon at 269k EHP (slaves+quick n dirty setup[t2]) and a scorp at 183k EHP (quick n dirty[t2]) with 98.72 shield regen/sec and resists at 57.1 EM 65.7 THERM 74.3 KIN and 78.6 EXP. So in reality, if someone is dealing 500 dps...say...thermal, minus 98.72, you would take 72.78 DPS.
AND THEEEENNN, it would break down into that same ship taking 2514 seconds to explode. Mabe its just me, but I'm not going to shoot at something for 41.9 minutes, kthnxbai, they would call for backup by then.
Btw, considering recharge, at 41 minutes the passive shield buffer tank has taken about 431k damage give or take.
Scorpion4x Cruise II, Smartbomb II, Cyno Gen 5x LSE II, 3x Invuln II 3x PDU II, DC II 3x CDFE I Resists: 62.3, 69.8, 77.4, 81.1, 43.5K shield HP, 1436.4 recharge time It gets 75.71 HP/s recharge, and tanks an average of 277 DPS. Against Thermal, it tanks 251. Thus, your 500 DPS incoming thermal damage will absolutely melt the Scorp down to about 40% shields and then slowly eat through the Scorp. I'd estimate that it would last: 43500 / 1436.4 * 1.8 = 54.5 HP/s (avg), Avg thermal tank: 180.5 DPS Thus, I'd estimate your shields to last: 144065 (Shield thermal EHP) / (500 - 180.5) = 450 seconds (7:30) Your armor will melt in 30 seconds, and your hull in 34 seconds. Your EHP Scorp will last a grand total of 8-9 mins, not 41. An EHP geddon with 269k (closest I can come up with is 271K EHP, so I'll go with that): Shields fall in ~20 seconds, armor in 606 seconds, hull in 38 seconds. Grand total? ~660 seconds (11 minutes). This discounts things like the Scorpion's huge sig radius (which makes shots actually do more damage to it), etc. -Liang Ed: I chose 1.8 as the modifier (as opposed to 2.4) because it represents an average over the life of the battle. Usually when you're receiving more than 2x your maximum damage recharge I lower it down to 1.4 or 1.2, but since the Scorp has such massive HP I raised it a bit. Also, to be generous and make the Scorp look better than it probably is. |
Liang Nuren |
Posted - 2008.08.24 19:56:00 - [ 22]
Originally by: Descyphal
1) Shields don't take enough requirements, hence smaller ships can fit larger boosters than their class is intended for... thus making them ridiculous tanks...
The big thing that's wrong with this statement is that it doesn't take certain things into account: - How long the booster can be run for, and how often - Fittings that must be given up for this to work - Ships generally have the same slots for tanking (if you consider that armor tanked ships normally have more lows than shield tanked ships have mids) - Armor rep ships can elect to still have a local rep and fit more resists. This would be akin to taking up half a slot on your shield based ship. Eh, there's alot wrong with it. They're different, with different mods to affect them, but they're pretty well balanced overall. -Liang |
Zarnak Wulf |
Posted - 2008.08.25 01:31:00 - [ 23]
Shield tanking is more effective then armor tanking. Your analysis shows this. It also is ALOT more cap intensive. Fitting a large shield booster to a medium ship or an extra-large to a BS exagerates the tanking ability but also the cap instability.
Your argument indicates that to be fair in a PVE environment the fitting requirements of either armor reps or shield reps should be changed. The problem with this is that while PvP and PvE are seperate they rely on the same rules. The shield tanked ship in PvP gives up tackling ability AND is very susceptible to energy nuetralizers. It therefore is a fair tradeoff imho.
For those arguing that PvP is the domain of passive tanks/ buffers I would point out that the coming web nerf is an indirect active tank boost. It won't take too many lolkill-mails of a wolf killing a megathron at close range (mega's guns won't track)before you see active tanks make a bit of a comeback in this area. |
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.25 02:23:00 - [ 24]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 24/08/2008 19:44:12
Originally by: ankarii
I have a geddon at 269k EHP (slaves+quick n dirty setup[t2]) and a scorp at 183k EHP (quick n dirty[t2]) with 98.72 shield regen/sec and resists at 57.1 EM 65.7 THERM 74.3 KIN and 78.6 EXP. So in reality, if someone is dealing 500 dps...say...thermal, minus 98.72, you would take 72.78 DPS.
AND THEEEENNN, it would break down into that same ship taking 2514 seconds to explode. Mabe its just me, but I'm not going to shoot at something for 41.9 minutes, kthnxbai, they would call for backup by then.
Btw, considering recharge, at 41 minutes the passive shield buffer tank has taken about 431k damage give or take.
Scorpion
4x Cruise II, Smartbomb II, Cyno Gen
5x LSE II, 3x Invuln II
3x PDU II, DC II
3x CDFE I
Resists: 62.3, 69.8, 77.4, 81.1, 43.5K shield HP, 1436.4 recharge time
It gets 75.71 HP/s recharge, and tanks an average of 277 DPS. Against Thermal, it tanks 251. Thus, your 500 DPS incoming thermal damage will absolutely melt the Scorp down to about 40% shields and then slowly eat through the Scorp. I'd estimate that it would last:
43500 / 1436.4 * 1.8 = 54.5 HP/s (avg), Avg thermal tank: 180.5 DPS
Thus, I'd estimate your shields to last:
144065 (Shield thermal EHP) / (500 - 180.5) = 450 seconds (7:30)
Your armor will melt in 30 seconds, and your hull in 34 seconds.
Your EHP Scorp will last a grand total of 8-9 mins, not 41.
An EHP geddon with 269k (closest I can come up with is 271K EHP, so I'll go with that):
Shields fall in ~20 seconds, armor in 606 seconds, hull in 38 seconds. Grand total? ~660 seconds (11 minutes).
This discounts things like the Scorpion's huge sig radius (which makes shots actually do more damage to it), etc.
-Liang
Ed: I chose 1.8 as the modifier (as opposed to 2.4) because it represents an average over the life of the battle. Usually when you're receiving more than 2x your maximum damage recharge I lower it down to 1.4 or 1.2, but since the Scorp has such massive HP I raised it a bit. Also, to be generous and make the Scorp look better than it probably is.
I dont know what math you are using, but it is obviously not using the numbers I was. This is eve, not star trek, stop making things up. |
Atsuko Ratu
Caldari
Quafe Industries |
Posted - 2008.08.25 02:31:00 - [ 25]
Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 25/08/2008 02:35:28I'm sorry, but where does it say that each booster has a specific ship size it goes to? Lows: 3x Magstab II 1x CPU Upgrade II Mid: 1x XL shield booster II 3x invul field II 1x MWD II Highs: 6x Heavy Neutron Blaster II 5x hobgoblin II This **** is obviously overpowered. 520 dps. Five Hundred and Twenty DPS (at 3km). 577 tank. Five hundred and seventy seven dps tanked (for 20 seconds). I call for a rework of the fitting values for x-crap boosters. Make them useful on something outside overpriced pve fits  Edit: Points to the person that can name the ship without looking up slot layouts |
Boz Well
Minmatar |
Posted - 2008.08.25 02:48:00 - [ 26]
Originally by: Descyphal
Originally by: Boz Well
Let's look at buffer tanks, eh? Oh wait, no equivalent of slave sets for shields. Of course armor tends to win in EHP.
Just because they're different does not mean they aren't balanced, nor does it mean they need to be changed. Arguing that the discussion needs to be confined to your little columns of numbers is just trying to oversimplify the discussion imo. Sorry if it took you hours to make them.
Wrong. shield is more effective even in effective hp fits. the reason it hurts so bad is because extended shield mods, dont give the same values as armor extenders do. infact, half of what armor extenders do.
But again, for your simple mind to adjust, let me iterate once more for you the topic:
Repair modules. Not extended.
Even then, though, had the discussion been about extenders, you're STILL wrong. Because, shield wins there also. Welcome to RECHARGE and how this effectively BOOSTS YOUR EFFECTIVE, every second. what ever your recharge rate is, during the time ofwhich you're alive, you regenerate said effective hp. HENCE a friggin drake, you newb.
Wow, flame more. Maybe one day when you grow up, you can actually discuss something without resulting to insults, lol. But just to play along, I brought up buffers for a reason. It's not that I somehow mixed up buffers with active tanking, although my "simple mind" is prone to doing that  , but rather I'm saying that shields and armor excel at different things, or at least have implants geared for different things. Using a crystal set in a comparison, as was done earlier in this thread, to suggest that AR's need a buff to keep up, is stacking the deck. That's like saying shield extenders need a buff because with a slave set, I can get a higher EHP with armor plates. My point is simply that shields and armor are different, and you can't just compare one module to another. Both shield and armor tanks have advantages and disadvantages, and picking one small part shield tanking and arguing it doesn't match up with the equivalent module in armor tanking is just silly, because the two types of tank are quite different and should be examined on the whole, rather than module by module. As far as the rest of what you had to say, all you're suggesting is that in addition to EHP, shields recharge. Yes, that's true. However, in PVP (the only place where you need a buffer tank), what are the odds you're going to be tanking for so long that your recharge really makes a difference? If you actually fit SPR's and get a decent recharge rate, then it can make a difference, but at the cost of other modules. I think we all know how useful a super-tanked drake is in PVP. Other ships, such as a raven, can fit a decent buffer (and dish out pretty crazy damage), but it's probably not going to be as much of a buffer as, say, an Abaddon will fit, especially with a slave set. Now I'm not trying to say armor is better than shields by giving this example, but only that they have different pro's and con's, and you need to look at those, rather than specific module stats, in discussing balance. I kind of doubt the flamer even reads this thread again, lol, so I'll stop now. Still, I feel this comparison is a bit silly, as it fails to look at the big picture, and that's what is important imho. |
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.25 02:58:00 - [ 27]
Originally by: Atsuko Ratu
Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 25/08/2008 02:35:28
I'm sorry, but where does it say that each booster has a specific ship size it goes to?
Lows:
3x Magstab II
1x CPU Upgrade II
Mid:
1x XL shield booster II
3x invul field II
1x MWD II
Highs:
6x Heavy Neutron Blaster II
5x hobgoblin II
This **** is obviously overpowered. 520 dps. Five Hundred and Twenty DPS (at 3km). 577 tank. Five hundred and seventy seven dps tanked (for 20 seconds).
I call for a rework of the fitting values for x-crap boosters. Make them useful on something outside overpriced pve fits
Edit: Points to the person that can name the ship without looking up slot layouts
Each post following the form this one, and the previous ones, that can't be limited to discussing the IDEA of a change, or rework of 2 specific modules is exponentially more fail than the last. I'm going to cite an example of someone who is using their brain so we can get some serious debate going, and dispense with the "lols i r teh use CIVILIANGUNS lawl" junk floating in from the 4chan "alternative" forum. Originally by: Ranvaldy
Well said imo
Also the OP forgot to mention in ur calculations that shield boosters are less cap effective than armor reppers.
Armor:400 activation 800 rep amount=1 cap=2 armor hp
Shield:400 activation 600 boost amount=1 cap=1.5 shield hp
Good post, short, sweet, made his point when he thought I skipped something, and brilliantly pointed out in the shortest way possible the cap consumption differences between the two. I had included those, but with the amount of statistics it can be a pain to pour over. Please be more like ranvaldy before you click "post reply". |
Liang Nuren |
Posted - 2008.08.25 03:02:00 - [ 28]
Originally by: ankarii
I dont know what math you are using, but it is obviously not using the numbers I was. This is eve, not star trek, stop making things up.
My math comes from the fact that you don't have 183K shield EHP, you have 183K total EHP. Additionally, it comes from the fact that you vastly overstated how much thermal damage you can tank. A 180K EHP Scorpion will last about 7.5 minutes under direct continuous fire. The reason for this is because you do not get the magic "2.4" multiplier unless the total DPS < Total Tank. You might reach it for 15-20 seconds as the 500 DPS blows through your tank. So, in short: I'm not making stuff up. You aren't understanding core mechanics, and it really shows both in the post that I quoted and in your OP. -Liang |
ankarii |
Posted - 2008.08.25 03:12:00 - [ 29]
Edited by: ankarii on 25/08/2008 03:17:54 Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: ankarii
I dont know what math you are using, but it is obviously not using the numbers I was. This is eve, not star trek, stop making things up.
My math comes from the fact that you don't have 183K shield EHP, you have 183K total EHP. Additionally, it comes from the fact that you vastly overstated how much thermal damage you can tank.
A 180K EHP Scorpion will last about 7.5 minutes under direct continuous fire. The reason for this is because you do not get the magic "2.4" multiplier unless the total DPS < Total Tank. You might reach it for 15-20 seconds as the 500 DPS blows through your tank.
So, in short: I'm not making stuff up. You aren't understanding core mechanics, and it really shows both in the post that I quoted and in your OP.
-Liang
500 dps isn't 500 dps after resists and shield recharge, ever try to kill a drake? its the same "core mechanics" that I simply cannot understand even though I devoted an entire table of statistics to 2 modules alone. So let me explain it to myself. Drake A has ludicrous tank, geddon X has bbq lasers, geddon x shoots drake A for z number of hours because I have BC 5 and you're using microwave. Simply; The drakes high resists lessen the DPS you are so fond of, the passive recharge kills your DPS even further, meaning the drake takes far more damage over time than pure EHP would seem to support. It will explode, it will just take a long time to do so. Now please, here are some crayons, be on your way, posting about passive setups in a discussion about ACTIVE MODULES leaves room for a stabbing. |
Boz Well
Minmatar |
Posted - 2008.08.25 03:18:00 - [ 30]
This thread actually delivers. Not on content, of course, but on laughs. |
|
All Channels
Ships and Modules
