open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [issue] Imbalance between remote shield and armor remote repair module
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Author Topic

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.09 11:36:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 12/07/2010 19:28:20
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 09/07/2010 11:36:53
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 09/07/2010 11:36:08
It is no secret that armor remote repair systems are much more popular then shield repair ones, so let us find out why is that the case. Generally, shield tanks have higher resistances, because INvulnerability fields are more effective then Energized adaptive membranes, so theoretically shield tanks should be more effective in a remote rep chain.
The reason they are not used, is the fitting cost fo a shield transporter. Let us assume that personal reps and boosters are in a good state of balance at the moment.

Large armor repairer: 2,300 MW , 55 tf
Remote armor repairer: 660 MW 48 tf

As we can see, the remote repair uses both less cpu, and vaslty lower amounts of powergrid, macking it easier to fit.

Large shield booster: 165 MW 115 tf
Shield transporter: 192 MW 154 tf

Here, for an unknown reason, the fitting requrements of the module increase. This is unfair towards shield tancking races, and forces everyone into a homogenious setup, where every RR bs fleet is armor, which in my opinion is not good.

Proposal body:
I propose that the fitting requirements fo modules are brought more in-line, either by making shield transporters easier to fit, or by macking armor repairers more difficult to fit. Either way, they have to be brought in line, so fitting requirements are simular on both modules. At the same time, modules of all sises have to be looked at, because this situation is observed with medium and small units as well.

FOr an unknown to me reason, there has been large amphasis on the logi ships, and i considered this obvious.
When the cpu reqirements on the large shield transfers arrays are cut, the cpu capacity of the scimatar and basilist will be cut accordingly, OR their bonuces changed, to keep all their fitting and power absolutely THE SAME.
Accordingly, if armor RR reqirements are increased, the bonus of Onieros and guardian will be increased, so fitting these modules still costs exactly the same.
Theirfore, this proposal carrier ABSOLUTELY NO CHAnge to the logistics ships.



Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.09 11:41:00 - [2]
 

What problem would this solve? Logistics are fine to fit as-is. You are also comparing large armor repairers (bs mods) with large shield boosters (cruiser mods), so your proposal is flawed to begin with.


Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2010.07.09 11:43:00 - [3]
 

Apple, meet orange. I suggesty ou just ignore Maxsim, Sok, he's been posting nothing but trolls.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.09 11:59:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
What problem would this solve? Logistics are fine to fit as-is. You are also comparing large armor repairers (bs mods) with large shield boosters (cruiser mods), so your proposal is flawed to begin with.



We will have bs RR gangs as well as shield ones, which makes it more interesting. Remote shield reppers are not fitted on anything except logistics ships, how is that fine?

And i am sorry, from when on is a Large shield booster a cruiser class module?
Quote:
Large
Battleship-class shield boosters.

Quote from evelopedia.
I can fit a 1600mm plate on a vexor, that does not make it a cruiser class module.
And i am comparing large shield transfer arrays to large remote armor repair units, and their fitting costs if anything.
Quote:
he's been posting nothing but trolls.

You can say it's bad, but it is not a troll.

Please give a me single reason why shield transfer arrays should be more difficult to fit then remote armor repair units?


Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.09 12:01:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 09/07/2010 12:00:53
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev

And i am sorry, from when on is a Large shield booster a cruiser class module?


I'm sorry you are absolutely right, this also explains the X-large shieldbooster fitted wyvern we killed like two years ago.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.09 12:30:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 09/07/2010 12:33:25
Larges are more battlecruiser modules than cruiser modules.


But i would have imagined by now everyone agreed that fitting requirements of shield transporters (CPU to be precise) need to be lowered. I must say i am genuinely surprised anyone, even a csm member, is against it. Also nice useful posts considering you were complaining about other posts not being useful enough. Is it really too much to ask that a CSM member displays some profesionality in assembly hall topics instead of such posts?

Remote armor repair is something you can fit relative easy compared to other high slot modules, shield transporters cost half your cpu. Shield transporters need normal CPU reqs to make RR shield BS gangs viable.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.07.09 12:42:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Edited by: Furb Killer on 09/07/2010 12:33:25
Larges are more battlecruiser modules than cruiser modules.


But i would have imagined by now everyone agreed that fitting requirements of shield transporters (CPU to be precise) need to be lowered. I must say i am genuinely surprised anyone, even a csm member, is against it. Also nice useful posts considering you were complaining about other posts not being useful enough. Is it really too much to ask that a CSM member displays some profesionality in assembly hall topics instead of such posts?

Remote armor repair is something you can fit relative easy compared to other high slot modules, shield transporters cost half your cpu. Shield transporters need normal CPU reqs to make RR shield BS gangs viable.


even if the general direction of the proposal would be correct, the propsal should be based on reasonable arguments. and comparing the large shield booster to a large armor rep is a badly flawed argument. large shield booster on a BS, except for PVE fits maybe, is just a fail setup.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts

Posted - 2010.07.09 13:25:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 09/07/2010 13:24:58
1. Comparison of effects of LST II and LRAR II

LRAR II

CPU: 48
PG: 660
Optimal: 8400 m
Cycle time: 4.5 s
Rep amount: 384
Cap cost: 189
Rep/s: 42
Rep/cap: 2.0
Rep applied after 4.5 s cycle

LST II

CPU: 154
PG: 192
Optimal: 8400 m
Cycle time: 4.5 s
Rep amount: 384
Cap cost: 210
Rep/s: 42
Rep/cap: 1.8
Rep applied at the start of 4.5 s cycle

The LST II applies its rep at the start of the cycle of 4.5 s. In exchange, the LRAR II is 10% more cap efficient than the LST II. This would be reasonably balanced, if each module had comparable fitting requirements.

2. Ease of fitting of "appropriate" RR on a BS.

LRAR II fitting requirements as % of a Megathron's CPU and PG: LRAR II: CPU 48, PG 660.
CPU is 7.0%, PG is 3.4%.

LST fitting requirements as % of a Raven's CPU and PG: LST II: CPU 154, PG 192.
CPU is 17.6%, PG is 1.6%.

17.6% of the CPU simply to fit a LST is insane.

3. Ease of fitting of opposite RR on a BS

LRAR II fitting requirements as % of a Raven's CPU and PG. LRAR II: CPU 48, PG 660.
CPU is 5.5%, PG is 5.6%.

LST fitting requirements as % of a Megathron's CPU and PG: LST II: CPU 154, PG 192.
CPU is 22.4%, PG is 1.0%.

22.4% of the CPU simply to fit a LST is insane.

It is far, far harder to fit LSTs on a BS than LRARs. This difficulty is not justified by their effectiveness as modules - the LRAR is more cap-efficient and the only benefit is the the first cycle of shield transport is applied 4.5 seconds before RAR. This 4.5 s advantage is largely inconsequential - in small gangs, targets aren't dying quickly enough for it to be a big deal, and in large gangs lag and general co-ordination issues prevent it from being particularly important either. If it was 15 or 20 seconds, it would be different. But it isn't.

4. Solutions

LSTs and LRARs should have similar ease/difficulty of fittings. Possible solutions:

1. Cut LST CPU use by 67%. This reduces CPU costs to about 6% of a Raven's CPU, and ~7% of a Megathron's CPU. LSTs are still harder to fit than LRARs, but the sheer insanity has gone.

2. Increase LRAR II PG use by 400%. LRAR II PG use is now balanced with LST II CPU use. LRAR II now requires 3300 MW, taking up 17.0% of a Megathron's PG (making it still easier to fit on, compared to the current 17.6% CPU use required to fit a LST II to a Raven).

Both changes would require a fiddle with Logistics cruisers bonuses to maintain their balanced status quo. Alternatively, make the astronomical CPU requirements of LST give a meaningful benefit, relative to LRARs:

3. Increase cycle time of LRAR to 30 seconds or so. The instant application of LST shield is now meaningful.

4. Since a LST II takes three times the CPU of a LRAR II, make deliver three times as much HP. Triple LST shield transport amount.

Rolling Eyes

Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
Posted - 2010.07.09 14:00:00 - [9]
 

Thumbs down. This proposal makes no sense from beginning to end. Starting with the presumption that for some reason shields and armour should be treated the same.Rolling Eyes

Goose99
Posted - 2010.07.09 14:46:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Furb Killer
Edited by: Furb Killer on 09/07/2010 12:33:25
Larges are more battlecruiser modules than cruiser modules.


But i would have imagined by now everyone agreed that fitting requirements of shield transporters (CPU to be precise) need to be lowered. I must say i am genuinely surprised anyone, even a csm member, is against it. Also nice useful posts considering you were complaining about other posts not being useful enough. Is it really too much to ask that a CSM member displays some profesionality in assembly hall topics instead of such posts?

Remote armor repair is something you can fit relative easy compared to other high slot modules, shield transporters cost half your cpu. Shield transporters need normal CPU reqs to make RR shield BS gangs viable.


even if the general direction of the proposal would be correct, the propsal should be based on reasonable arguments. and comparing the large shield booster to a large armor rep is a badly flawed argument. large shield booster on a BS, except for PVE fits maybe, is just a fail setup.


Same can be said for large armor rep on bs. The (incorrect) assertion that large shield booster is cruiser mod is not a valid reason for rejecting the proposal in itself. What does that make of mid and small boosters? XL booster is just a counterbalance to 1600mm plate, it's just an oversized version of non-cap mod.

In any case, it's about shield transporter, not local rep. Those are just trolls' attempts to sidestep the issue entirely when they can't find fault. It's a common, if juvenile behavior.

Blob commanders have real reasons to dislike ungimping the shield transporter. It can be summed up as laziness. They're used to armor, and are repulsed by changes outside of their comfort zone, which can be a scary thing. Ungimped shield transporters may make some people demand shield rr fleet, which is an inconvenience. It would also result in lighter, faster ships with more transversal than stacked plate fits. It would shift blob dynamics away from static turret match. The fear is enemy would be well organized and skilled enough to control such a fleet and taking advantage of it, and they won't.

Well, assuming lag get fixed eventually...

Dav Varan
Posted - 2010.07.09 16:12:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Dav Varan on 09/07/2010 16:24:08
lack of shield spider tanking gangs is evidence enough that rr shield tanking is broken.

As gypsio points out the correct way to assess the module is to look at the percentage of resources (cpu/pg) the module requires to fit.

cpu usage on LST's effectivelly force you to gimp your setup in order to fit them. LRAR do not.

Also given the impractibility of fitting cap injectors to shield tanked setups LST's should be the more cap efficient modules.


Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.09 16:42:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Dav Varan

lack of shield spider tanking gangs is evidence enough that rr shield tanking is broken.


You obviously haven't looked very hard.

Dav Varan
Posted - 2010.07.09 17:14:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Dav Varan on 09/07/2010 17:14:50
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Dav Varan

lack of shield spider tanking gangs is evidence enough that rr shield tanking is broken.


You obviously haven't looked very hard.


And there was me thinking it was the job of CSM candidates to evaluate the merits of AH posts !.

Just sit back , relax, enjoy your free trips to iceland and continue offering value for money to ccp and the players you represent by firing off glib comments and failing at basic maths and resoning , not to mention game experiance.

Fistme
Posted - 2010.07.09 17:22:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Dav Varan

lack of shield spider tanking gangs is evidence enough that rr shield tanking is broken.


You obviously haven't looked very hard.


someones "power" has gone to their head for sureRolling Eyes

give a real response rather than a snippet of troll with no real argument.

ur a csm bro, act like one.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.09 17:47:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 09/07/2010 17:47:38
Originally by: Fistme
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Dav Varan

lack of shield spider tanking gangs is evidence enough that rr shield tanking is broken.


You obviously haven't looked very hard.


someones "power" has gone to their head for sureRolling Eyes

give a real response rather than a snippet of troll with no real argument.

ur a csm bro, act like one.


Erm..

We run RR shield gangs *all the time* and I know of several other alliances that do, so I have no idea wtf you two are talking about, a quick look at any major alliance's killboard should reveal the same. Hint: you should be looking for 'scimitars', not 'basilisks'.

Fistme
Posted - 2010.07.09 18:26:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
so I have no idea wtf you two are talking about


very professional...

glad your bias has not gotten the best of you...Rolling Eyes

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.07.09 18:30:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Erm..

We run RR shield gangs *all the time* and I know of several other alliances that do, so I have no idea wtf you two are talking about, a quick look at any major alliance's killboard should reveal the same. Hint: you should be looking for 'scimitars', not 'basilisks'.


When I see Ravens and Tempests fitting shield RR, the way that Megathrons and Armageddons fit armor RR, then I'll think that shield RR is at the right level. Yes, the Scimitar is a lovely ship. But shield RR shouldn't just go on Scimitars.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.09 18:53:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 09/07/2010 18:53:39

Originally by: Fistme
Originally by: Sokratesz
so I have no idea wtf you two are talking about


very professional...

glad your bias has not gotten the best of you...Rolling Eyes


This is why I love these boards. So many stuck-up, super serious weird people. I love being a space councilor!


Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Sokratesz
Erm..

We run RR shield gangs *all the time* and I know of several other alliances that do, so I have no idea wtf you two are talking about, a quick look at any major alliance's killboard should reveal the same. Hint: you should be looking for 'scimitars', not 'basilisks'.


When I see Ravens and Tempests fitting shield RR, the way that Megathrons and Armageddons fit armor RR, then I'll think that shield RR is at the right level. Yes, the Scimitar is a lovely ship. But shield RR shouldn't just go on Scimitars.


That has nothing to do with the fitting requirements of the modules but rather is because RR ships needs their mids for injectors, tackle mods and e-war, and with a shield buffer this does not work. If there were more BS with 7 or 8 mids, it would be very different. Shield logistics and the relevant mods are fine, buff shield battleships!

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2010.07.09 19:04:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Also nice useful posts considering you were complaining about other posts not being useful enough. Is it really too much to ask that a CSM member displays some profesionality in assembly hall topics instead of such posts?




Show us on the doll where Sok touched you

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.09 22:31:00 - [20]
 


Sorkatez, you are continuing to give argumnts abosolutely irrelevant to the topick of this proposal.
Quote:
, this also explains the X-large shieldbooster fitted wyvern we killed like two years ago.

THis proposal is not about carriers, x-large shield boosters, or any personal tanks AT ALL. So how is this relevant?
YEs, X-large shield boosters are equivalent of two larges, so they are better to fit on a BS, we got that. EIther way, that does not matter. What matters is that for unknown reason life is made harder for those that try to setup RR shield gangs, and i cannot see any reason why such unfairness should take place.
Quote:
That has nothing to do with the fitting requirements of the modules but rather is because RR ships needs their mids for injectors, tackle mods and e-war, and with a shield buffer this does not work. If there were more BS with 7 or 8 mids, it would be very different.

Again, this is not the problem raised in this proposal, if you would like us to make low-slot cap injects (is that the problem you are pointing out?), make a separate thread about it. I've seen plenty of shieldtancked ships on the field lately, so aparently people have way less issues shieldtancking their ships then you are describing.
Quote:
Shield logistics and the relevant mods are fine

Gypsio III has just demonstrated they are not fine. Are you simply ignoring everybody else?

If you want to make an argument sorkatez, give me a single valid reason why shield RR should be 3-4 times more difficult to setup then armor RR.

Dav Varan
Posted - 2010.07.09 22:41:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz


Erm..

We run RR shield gangs *all the time* and I know of several other alliances that do, so I have no idea wtf you two are talking about, a quick look at any major alliance's killboard should reveal the same. Hint: you should be looking for 'scimitars', not 'basilisks'.


Its quite clear you have no idea what were talking about.
Try reading the op before you comment.

Were talking here about spider tanked fleet configurations.
you know bs that have damage and 1 or 2 large rr.


No one except you is talking about logistic ships.

megawinsausesniperproxxx
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.10 05:22:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Edited by: Sokratesz on 09/07/2010 17:47:38
Originally by: Fistme
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Dav Varan

lack of shield spider tanking gangs is evidence enough that rr shield tanking is broken.


You obviously haven't looked very hard.


someones "power" has gone to their head for sureRolling Eyes

give a real response rather than a snippet of troll with no real argument.




ur a csm bro, act like one.


Erm..

We run RR shield gangs *all the time* and I know of several other alliances that do, so I have no idea wtf you two are talking about, a quick look at any major alliance's killboard should reveal the same. Hint: you should be looking for 'scimitars', not 'basilisks'.



Sok, if i were you i would turn in that fancy CSM title. Whether you realize it or not, you represent thousands of people who play a complicated game. your job is not to troll, or offer input without careful consideration. you are supposed to be a voice of reason and measured debate.

nyouve pretty well disgraced the title, man Confused

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.10 06:12:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Dav Varan
Originally by: Sokratesz


Erm..

We run RR shield gangs *all the time* and I know of several other alliances that do, so I have no idea wtf you two are talking about, a quick look at any major alliance's killboard should reveal the same. Hint: you should be looking for 'scimitars', not 'basilisks'.


Its quite clear you have no idea what were talking about.
Try reading the op before you comment.

Were talking here about spider tanked fleet configurations.
you know bs that have damage and 1 or 2 large rr.


No one except you is talking about logistic ships.



I already elaborated on that, good sir.

Millienium
Caldari
North Eastern Swat
Posted - 2010.07.10 06:15:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: megawinsausesniperproxxx


Sok, if i were you i would turn in that fancy CSM title. Whether you realize it or not, you represent thousands of people who play a complicated game. your job is not to troll, or offer input without careful consideration. you are supposed to be a voice of reason and measured debate.

nyouve pretty well disgraced the title, man Confused


Do you play this game?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.10 06:56:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 10/07/2010 07:01:34
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Dav Varan

lack of shield spider tanking gangs is evidence enough that rr shield tanking is broken.


You obviously haven't looked very hard.

If people are talking about spider tanking gangs (not spider tanking logistics), they are in general talking about spider tanking gangs, and not gangs with spider tanking logistics. Just a FYI since you seem to be missing the point.

Quote:
That has nothing to do with the fitting requirements of the modules but rather is because RR ships needs their mids for injectors, tackle mods and e-war, and with a shield buffer this does not work. If there were more BS with 7 or 8 mids, it would be very different. Shield logistics and the relevant mods are fine, buff shield battleships!


Slots are not the main problem for shield spider tanking gangs. Tackling and stuff can be done by dedicated tacklers (broad/onyx especially), and not that many ships fit (offensive) ewar on spider BS anyway. What hurts a bit is the lack of sensor boosters and ECCM, which can be partially compensated for by their low slot items. Not as effective as the mid slot ones, but luckily your entire gang got bloated sig radius so that compensates for sebo, and low slot ECCM gives more locked target which is handy. Sure you rather got more mids, but that would be a reason why there would be more RR armor BS than RR shield BS, not why there are pretty much only RR armor BS.

If you want a shield tanking BS gang you can in principle take about any ship with 5 mids, which exlcuding amarr all races can do easily. (MWD+LSE+2x invuln+cap booster). But while RR armor is very easy to fit compared to other high slot modules, shield transporters take up half your CPU.

Now if you actually surprise us and read this for a moment instead of trolling that scimitars can fit transporters, we know they can. RR shield and RR armor do not need to be the same. But that also doesnt mean shield transporters need ridiculous fitting requirements compared to remote armor reppers.


Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.10 07:03:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: megawinsausesniperproxxx
Sok, if i were you i would turn in that fancy CSM title. Whether you realize it or not, you represent thousands of people who play a complicated game. your job is not to troll, or offer input without careful consideration. you are supposed to be a voice of reason and measured debate.

nyouve pretty well disgraced the title, man Confused


How could I miss this gem earlier? I indeed represent awhole lot of people, as you easily confirm by looking at the proposals I have supported and by asking one of the many people that I have discussed items related to the CSM with in the past 8 months.


Originally by: Furb Killer
If you want a shield tanking BS gang you can in principle take about any ship with 5 mids, which exlcuding amarr all races can do easily. (MWD+LSE+2x invuln+cap booster). But while RR armor is very easy to fit compared to other high slot modules, shield transporters take up half your CPU.

Now if you actually surprise us and read this for a moment instead of trolling that scimitars can fit transporters, we know they can. RR shield and RR armor do not need to be the same. But that also doesnt mean shield transporters need ridiculous fitting requirements compared to remote armor reppers.


5 mids is insufficient. RRBS need a point, and/or sensorbooster, and/or eccm, and or web/scram. That puts us at 7-8 mids. I will just repeat here that the problem is not the fitting requirements of the modules, but the ships.


Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.10 08:51:00 - [27]
 

Quote:
5 mids is insufficient. RRBS need a point, and/or sensorbooster, and/or eccm, and or web/scram. That puts us at 7-8 mids. I will just repeat here that the problem is not the fitting requirements of the modules, but the ships.

You are just not reading. They don't need webbers and scrams because :
Quote:
Tackling and stuff can be done by dedicated tacklers

And they don't need ECCM and sensor boosters because :
Quote:
be partially compensated for by their low slot items.


Yes, problem is the fitting.



Rip Minner
Gallente
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
Posted - 2010.07.10 09:05:00 - [28]
 

No just no this has been gone over 100 times in 100 differnt post. Just say no.

Shields work differntly then armor end of story.

Sidrat Flush
Caldari
Eve Industrial Corp
Posted - 2010.07.10 09:16:00 - [29]
 

Why fit a module that sucks up 50% of your cpu in one go?

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.10 10:03:00 - [30]
 

Quote:
Shields work differntly then armor end of story.

More constructive criticism pleasConfusede, or did you mean "shield RR does not work in the difference or armor"?Question

Quote:
Why fit a module that sucks up 50% of your cpu in one go?

proving my pointSmile


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only