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

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.12 08:26:00 - [61]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 12/07/2010 08:25:44
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Gypsio III


Thanks for taking this forum seriously. Rolling Eyes


You might want to train your reading skills, I have already elaborated on this earlier.


You've stated Logistics cruisers and slot layouts. The logistics cruisers argument is irrelevant because, amazingly, we're not talking about logistics cruisers, and I don't understand why you can't grasp this.

The only relevance of the slot layout issue is that it makes a RR shield gang weaker than a RR armour gang. Hey, actually this is an argument for making LSTs much easier to fit LRARs.

Marked Ugler
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.12 08:32:00 - [62]
 

makes perfect sense, let's make it fair.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.12 09:01:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III

The only relevance of the slot layout issue is that it makes a RR shield gang weaker than a RR armour gang. Hey, actually this is an argument for making LSTs much easier to fit LRARs.


Well no, it's an argument for the fact that the slot layout is the problem, not the fitting stats. If the mods cost 1 CPU and 1 grid you would still not see RRBS shield gangs because they do not have the slot layout for it.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.12 09:17:00 - [64]
 

Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 12/07/2010 09:28:59
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 12/07/2010 09:27:25
Originally by: Sokratesz
they do not have the slot layout for it.

Originally by: Illmuri
you dont have any good facts to back up your argument.

Originally by: Sokratesz
Actually he is right

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.12 11:58:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Gypsio III

The only relevance of the slot layout issue is that it makes a RR shield gang weaker than a RR armour gang. Hey, actually this is an argument for making LSTs much easier to fit LRARs.


Well no, it's an argument for the fact that the slot layout is the problem, not the fitting stats. If the mods cost 1 CPU and 1 grid you would still not see RRBS shield gangs because they do not have the slot layout for it.


Are you seriously trying to tell us that a LST taking 22% of a ship's CPU, while a LRAR can take less than 6% of PG or CPU, is a greater problem than the fewer medslots available for shield-tanking BS?

The Raven, Rokh, Scorpion, Tempest, Maelstrom, Domi and Hyperion could all pull off satisfactory RR shield tanks if LST CPU use was sensible. This is more than half the T1 BS in the game! The medslots argument is... nonsense, and I'm having difficulty taking you seriously. Sure, the BS with 4 or fewer medslots do have medslot issues - Armageddon, Abaddon, Apocalypse, Megathron, Typhoon. And in return, many BS can't get a decent armour tank with damage mods on. As ever with shield vs. armour, you trade DPS for EHP.

In any case, even if the medslot argument was convincing, it wouldn't be an argument for not balancing the fitting requirements of LRARs and LSTs. It would have no bearing, for example, on a proposal to balance the fitting requirements of LRARs and LSTs by increasing LRAR PG use by 400%.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.12 14:46:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III

The Raven, Rokh, Scorpion, Tempest, Maelstrom, Domi and Hyperion could all pull off satisfactory RR shield tanks if LST CPU use was sensible.


It might be satisfactorily but it would still not be good enough to compete with RR armour fittings which usually have 2-3 slots available next to the mandatory MWD and injector. As I said waay back in this threads, 7 or 8 mids are really what's needed to compete:

+MWD
+Injector
+LSE
+LSE
+Invul
+Invul

+ point, web, scram, eccm, sensorbooster, second injector..take your pick. In terms of lowslots, all that an RR shield BS really needs is a damage control and damage mods so 4 lowslots should really be enough.

And I am being very serious actually. I do not believe that the fitting requirements are a major cause for the lack of RR shield gangs. Thinking of it, one of the additional reasons in the past might have been the fact that it was easier to tank a DD with an armour fit, but that has been invalid for awhile now. As usual, it does take some time for the public perception to adjust though, but the potential of RR shield would still be held back by a lack of suitable ships.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.12 17:59:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 12/07/2010 18:02:42
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 12/07/2010 18:02:04
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Gypsio III

The Raven, Rokh, Scorpion, Tempest, Maelstrom, Domi and Hyperion could all pull off satisfactory RR shield tanks if LST CPU use was sensible.


It might be satisfactorily but it would still not be good enough to compete with RR armour fittings which usually have 2-3 slots available next to the mandatory MWD and injector. As I said waay back in this threads, 7 or 8 mids are really what's needed to compete:

+MWD
+Injector
+LSE
+LSE
+Invul
+Invul

+ point, web, scram, eccm, sensorbooster, second injector..take your pick. In terms of lowslots, all that an RR shield BS really needs is a damage control and damage mods so 4 lowslots should really be enough.

And I am being very serious actually. I do not believe that the fitting requirements are a major cause for the lack of RR shield gangs. Thinking of it, one of the additional reasons in the past might have been the fact that it was easier to tank a DD with an armour fit, but that has been invalid for awhile now. As usual, it does take some time for the public perception to adjust though, but the potential of RR shield would still be held back by a lack of suitable ships.


Thank you sorkatez, you have just proved my point. You listed six(!) modules there, and guess what? Most shield tanking battleships do have 6-7 mid slots. In addition to that, on some minnie and caldary ships cap injector is not even necessary, because nothing consumes cap- neither the weapons nor the tank.

As for utility slots, these ships have up to four low-slots free for damage mods, sensor amplifiers and some other modules that make them excellent fleet ship. If you are trying to tell my that you cannot create a decent shield-buffertancking battleship, you are horribly wrong, i personally know about ten people that fly those ships regularly, and they do so fairly well.

I do Not see any problem that would make shield-tancking ships inferior, apart from stupid cpu requirement on the remote-repp module. If you do, make a proposal to boost the low-slot utility modules such as sensor backup array slightly, if you really feel sorry for these guys.

Either way, i still don't see how is inferiority of shield tanking battleships, which is what you are showing here I believe, a reason to making them suffer yet more by making this module unfittable. Either there is a logic breakdown, or you are trolling, in which case i would like you to stop.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.12 18:07:00 - [68]
 

Sok,

If the Armageddon is a satisfactory RR BS, which it is, then three medslots are sufficient - MWD, injector and Something Else, being a point or ECCM, sensor booster, whatever. A fourth and certainly a fifth can be regarded as "nice but not essential".

After the mandatory MWD and injector, a five-medslot BS has room for dual Inv and a LSE. An example is Tempest, giving, with DC and triple CDFE, 87k EHP (104k EHP overheated in squad) and a 291 DPS tank from a LST II (excluding peak passive recharge). Sure, this isn't great - a comparable armour Tempest having DC, trimarks, triple EANM, single 1600 and a single gyro would have 106k EHP (115k EHP in gang) and a 296 DPS tank from a single LRAR II.

However, the shield Tempest's lowslots are freed up for triple Gyro and dual TE - you appear to have forgotten about TEs in your last post - and, even when only considering falloff and not tracking, this makes a hell of a difference at a typical combat range of 20 km:

Armour Tempest: 1x Gyro, Barrage. DPS 488. Optimal/falloff 6/36 km. DPS at 20 km = 90% of max = 439 DPS (it's 428 DPS with RF Fusion)
Shield Tempest: 3x Gyro, Barrage. DPS 656. Optimal/falloff 7.8/59 km. DPS at 20 km = ~97% of max = 636 DPS (45% more DPS than the armour Tempest!).
Shield Tempest: 3x Gyro, RF Fusion. DPS 823. Optimal/falloff 3.9/39 km. DPS at 20 km = ~89% of max = 732 DPS (67% more DPS than the armour Tempest!!).

So a shield Tempest would lose 18% EHP, have about the same RR efficiency but deal 67% more DPS, with better tracking! If the fight is at 1 km, then the triple-gyro shield fit still deals 34% more damage. On a strict consideration of EHP*DPS the shield fit is greatly superior, demonstrating that the Tempest has enough medslots to cope.

We can do the same for the Hyperion, in either 350 mm rail or blaster fit. An armour Hype with triple EANM, 1600, DC and trimarks has 122k EHP, and with 7x 350mm rails (one free for RR), does 428 DPS at 20 km, ignoring tracking. A shield 7x 350mm Hype, with LSE, dual Inv, DC, triple CDFE, has 103k EHP (113k overloaded), 16% less than the armour Hype, and with the same efficiency of received RR. But with the triple magstab of the shield fit, it does 34% more DPS!

Switching to neutrons and Null gives 554 DPS at 11/16 km, meaning 80% damage at 20 km, 443 DPS. But with the triple magstab and dual TE that a shield fit allows, neutron Null gives 15/26 km optimal/falloff and 745 raw DPS, dealing 97% damage at 20 km, 723 DPS - 31% more than the armour Null fit! And again, for the loss of only 16% of the armour Hype's EHP!

Yes, these five-medslot fits don't have room for tackle. The six-medslot ships would have to do this. And ECCM etc would be a problem. And those nasty lasers will hurt the shields. But on a straight EHP*DPS product comparison, these numbers demonstrate that the five-medslot gunships are considerably more effective when shield-RR-tanked.

The slot layout is not a significant issue.

Seith Silverstein
Something Rotten
Posted - 2010.07.12 18:11:00 - [69]
 

Ok, let's try to bring the points together and *think* about this people:

1. Armor Remote Reps are fine as is (done)
2. Shield Remote Reps are too fitting intensive for BS gangs (ok, let's see)
3. Shield Remote Reps are balanced on Logistic Cruisers (ah...)

So, the point that is trying to be made with all of the "Logistics Cruisers are balanced" posts is NOT really about Logistics Cruisers. It is about the following:

CHANGING THE MODULE ITSELF WILL THEN MAKE THESE BALANCED SHIPS IMBALANCED.

As such, it has been suggested that the Battleships themselves need to be reworked. Perhaps a bit more CPU? Perhaps more Mids to allow for more modules related to Prop/EWAR?

Or, we could always reduce the amount of CPU required to fit the module, and reduce the total CPU of the Logistics Cruisers, thereby making it impossible to fit more Remote Shield Reps than intended on these ships.

Either way would work, however, I fail to see why you should "fix" the balanced part while leaving the "broken" part unchanged. Changing the stats on the Battleships themselves does seem to be working more towards the actual problem.

Now everyone take a deep breath.

Flame on.

Mongo Edwards
Posted - 2010.07.12 18:27:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Mongo Edwards on 12/07/2010 18:56:14
why don't you just change the module fitting requirements and then adjust the fitting bonus on the logi ships to reflect that change. Then you only have to change 3 items instead of 7 and it doesn't unbalance the logistics ships.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.12 19:25:00 - [71]
 

Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 12/07/2010 19:29:11
Quote:
CHANGING THE MODULE ITSELF WILL THEN MAKE THESE BALANCED SHIPS IMBALANCED.

I am very sorry for overestimating the average IQ of a forum reader, i thought that it would have been obvious that we would decreace CPU of the logis ships to keep them exactly as they are, without ANY changes to htme, and only improve the battlehips. I will add this to the original post.
Quote:
why don't you just change the module fitting requirements and then adjust the fitting bonus on the logi ships to reflect that change. Then you only have to change 3 items instead of 7 and it doesn't unbalance the logistics ships.

Thank you alot, that is exactly what i meant to do. Somebody is intelligent around here.

Hien Morisato
Posted - 2010.07.12 20:35:00 - [72]
 


Grath Telkin
Amarr
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.07.12 22:23:00 - [73]
 

LRST-

Heavy CPU fitting needs
Reps hit at start of cycle


LRAT-

Heavy PG Needs
Reps hit at end of cycle.


Thats balanced, if you can't see it, there's more wrong here than your argument. Your whining about the CPU needs difference, while ignoring the massive difference in power grids that the two mods have.

Your also over looking something VERY obvious in your arguemnt.

RR Armor gangs are not more common due to the actual RR mod itself.

Theres a spoiler past this line, it may ruin the game for you:

ALL EWAR AND SHIELD MODS OCCUPY THE SAME SLOTS

Thats it sherlock.

Shield RR gangs don't happen because in many cases it will totally nullify the ability to bring tackle, jamming, damps, sensor boosters, or any of the other useful mods. Couple that with the fact that shield tanking ships are also notoriously light on low slots, so the few mods that CAN be fit to the low slots, compete with vital damage mods.

If you want to see more shield RR gangs, you need CCP to wake up and remodel most shield tankers low slots, and create a few low slot mods that act like the mid slot mods that the armor tankers use, like points, webs, jammers, damps, target painters, cap boosters, ect.

Also a broader view of overall game mechanics wouldn't hurt you either.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.13 07:50:00 - [74]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 13/07/2010 07:54:58
Originally by: Grath Telkin
LRST-

Heavy CPU fitting needs
Reps hit at start of cycle


LRAT-

Heavy PG Needs
Reps hit at end of cycle.


Thats balanced, if you can't see it, there's more wrong here than your argument.


:facepalm:

Try reading the thread, or knowing something about fitting ships.

Quote:

LRAR II fitting requirements as % of a Megathron's CPU and PG: CPU is 7.0%, PG is 3.4%.
LST fitting requirements as % of a Raven's CPU and PG: CPU 17.6%, PG 1.6%.

LRAR II fitting requirements as % of a Raven's CPU and PG: CPU 5.5%, PG 5.6%.
LST fitting requirements as % of a Megathron's CPU and PG: CPU 22.4%, PG 1.0%.



There is absolutely no way that you can say that a LRAR taking up just 7.0% of a Megathron's PG is "Heavy PG Needs" when a LST takes up 22.4% of its CPU.

As stated, balancing LRAR PG requirements to the CPU requirements of LSTs would involve increasing LRAR PG use by about 400%. Imagine the RAGE if CCP proposed that! But it would be balanced...

And the cycle is just 4.5 s, and less when overloaded. If that cycle was 30 s it might mean something, but it isn't.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.13 09:38:00 - [75]
 

Quote:
ALL EWAR AND SHIELD MODS OCCUPY THE SAME SLOTS

O, rly? Well, let me tell you something, apparently it's news for oyu, but damagemods and tracking mods accupy same slots as armor tank, and DPS > E-war.
Gypsio III has given page and pages of number that confirm that modules are unbalanced, now can you please read them?

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.13 09:39:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev


Thank you sokratez, you have just proved my point. You listed six(!) modules there, and guess what? Most shield tanking battleships do have 6-7 mid slots.


You forgot the 7th line. RRBS are useless without any of the other mods I listed there.

And gyps, I would not consider the armageddon a good RRBS precisely because it only has 3 mids. You see them occasionally however.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.13 09:41:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
and DPS > E-war.



I guess that seals the deal, you haven't a clue.

Dav Varan
Posted - 2010.07.13 09:46:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Dav Varan on 13/07/2010 09:46:23
Originally by: Grath Telkin

LRST-

Heavy CPU fitting needs
Reps hit at start of cycle


LRAT-

Heavy PG Needs
Reps hit at end of cycle.


Thats balanced, if you can't see it, there's more wrong here than your argument



LRAT does not have "Heavy PG Needs"

An LRAT has far less PG than most BS sized guns/launchers.

This means you can take any solo armor repped bs , remove a gun and fit a LRAT
in the process you will probably gain a large amount of free grid.

Try the same process on a shield tanked bs.

An LRST has much more cpu than most BS sized guns/launchers.

Remove 1 high slot weapon and try to fit a LRST , you wont be able to as you'll be short around 80 - 100 cpu which is a huge amount.


Jacob Stov
Posted - 2010.07.13 10:32:00 - [79]
 

Giving shield tanked BS more CPU is no solution. It is the module, not the ship that needs balancing.
If, for example, a buddy and me decide to to fly around with a Geddon and a Raven, then it's relatively easy to fit LRAR on a Raven. In contrast, fitting LST on the Geddon will cause major headaches.
Additionally pls compare Chimera and Archon, or Shield vs Armor rep fits on Nidhoggur and Thanatos.
And then tell us again fitting req. are fine. Rolling Eyes

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.13 12:19:00 - [80]
 

Quote:
You forgot the 7th line. RRBS are useless without any of the other mods I listed there.

Quote:
I guess that seals the deal, you haven't a clue.


I will not respond to this irrelevant side-discussion any further, as it does not have anything to do with the topic of my proposal. I am not here to discuss our RRBS fits and fleet composition, it's about a module with broken fitting prerequisite. That's all.
If even Herschel Yamamoto agrees, and you are the only one trolling, i think everything is clear enough.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.13 12:44:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Jacob Stov
Giving shield tanked BS more CPU is no solution. It is the module, not the ship that needs balancing.
If, for example, a buddy and me decide to to fly around with a Geddon and a Raven, then it's relatively easy to fit LRAR on a Raven. In contrast, fitting LST on the Geddon will cause major headaches.
Additionally pls compare Chimera and Archon, or Shield vs Armor rep fits on Nidhoggur and Thanatos.
And then tell us again fitting req. are fine. Rolling Eyes


FYI: nid and thanny can shield tank much better than armour, and meanwhile they will be better at RR while doing so.

Grath Telkin
Amarr
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.07.13 14:11:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
Quote:
You forgot the 7th line. RRBS are useless without any of the other mods I listed there.

Quote:
I guess that seals the deal, you haven't a clue.


I will not respond to this irrelevant side-discussion any further, as it does not have anything to do with the topic of my proposal. I am not here to discuss our RRBS fits and fleet composition, it's about a module with broken fitting prerequisite. That's all.
If even Herschel Yamamoto agrees, and you are the only one trolling, i think everything is clear enough.


Its only irrelevant because you refuse to accept any argument but your own, thats why he says you haven't got a clue.

Saying DPS > EWAR is just a prime example of how little you know about PVP, thus making any proposal you make, ******ed.

Your not actually prepared to see any point of view but your own, so I'm not sure why you ever made the thread. Luckily, this will never actually make the CSM's list of things, so theres no need to worry about your short sighted ideas breaking anything in the game.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.13 14:28:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/07/2010 14:32:57
Quote:
Saying DPS > EWAR is just a prime example of how little you know about PVP, thus making any proposal you make, ******ed.

Ow, i am sorry to think that most battleships have guns for shooting at people, never knew that armogeddon and typhoon where e-war platforms and good at jamming. Thought you have other ships like falcons and other recons for thatShocked.

Grath Telkin
Amarr
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.07.13 15:35:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/07/2010 14:32:57
Quote:
Saying DPS > EWAR is just a prime example of how little you know about PVP, thus making any proposal you make, ******ed.

Ow, i am sorry to think that most battleships have guns for shooting at people, never knew that armogeddon and typhoon where e-war platforms and good at jamming. Thought you have other ships like falcons and other recons for thatShocked.


The Scorpion is currently making you look dumb.

No wait, thats your idea.

Seith Silverstein
Something Rotten
Posted - 2010.07.13 15:36:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/07/2010 14:32:57
Quote:
Saying DPS > EWAR is just a prime example of how little you know about PVP, thus making any proposal you make, ******ed.

Ow, i am sorry to think that most battleships have guns for shooting at people, never knew that armogeddon and typhoon where e-war platforms and good at jamming. Thought you have other ships like falcons and other recons for thatShocked.


Good point, all the guns in the world will keep my enemies from warping away or burning back to a gate.

The Typhoon, Dominix and Megathron make excellent spider-tanking ships because they can field extra slots for RR, good resist/buffer, work Prop mods/points/webs into their mids and still work out a lot of DPS.

The Armageddon, Raven, Tempest, Maelstrom make poor spider-tanking ships because they can either (in the case of the latter 3) fit tank OR fit Prop/Cap Booster/Point/Web or in the case of the 'Geddon lack slightly in the mids. And let me tell you, I don't care how many Spider BSs you have - if you can't fit resist mods, you're going to have trouble.

Just because we use the word "EWAR" doesn't mean we're talking about ECM - which should be left to bonused ships.

On the other hand, tracking disrupters, extra points, extra webs, sensor boosters and all the other "meh" mods that fit in my Dominix's extra midslot add a huge amount to its versatility.

Open up your eyes and *read* what is being said for a change.


Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.13 17:15:00 - [86]
 

Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/07/2010 17:17:34
While tracking disruptors are definately nice to have, mostly i would rely on ships other then battleships to keep enemy pointed, webbed, jammed, painted, and whatever else. If you rely excursively on battleships for all e-war in your fleet, you are doing it wrong.
Quote:
The Scorpion is currently making you look dumb.

The scorpion is one battleship that does not have lack of midslots, excuse me. If eight midslots aren't enough for you, then CCP can't help you.

Either way, that does not justify stupid CPU consumption of shield transference module. Still watiting for reasons why it should consume so much cpu.

Zemkhoff
Posted - 2010.07.13 17:23:00 - [87]
 

No. Just no.

Shield tanks allow for agility, passive recharge, and maximum DPS.

Giving shield BS the ability to easily RR would just make armor BS pointless.

Shield RR should stay where it is...in the sub BS category.

Quote:
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.


Bravo. You just killed your own argument in the first post. They work differently. Making them the same in areas where armor should have the lead will just make SP trained in mechanic a waste. Not supported.

Mongo Edwards
Posted - 2010.07.13 17:28:00 - [88]
 

I would never fly one of my BS and look for a fight without a dedicated tackler because on anything except another BS I won't be able to catch it before it warps off or it will burn out of point/web range. So if I decide not to fit those modules or god forbid use drones for my EWAR purposes in addition to a tackler I still just need the 6 mid slots required by Sok to be effective as an active shield tanker.

I have read all the posts and I am open to all ideas, I haven't seen a good reason as to why a LST II costs more CPU to fit then 2 Neutron Blaster Cannon II's, or about 2 Siege Launcher II's, or equivalent to about 3 Ion Blaster Cannon II's, or 2 425mm Rail II's, or 3 1400mm Howitzer II's, or close to 4 800mm AC II's.

On a side note I don't consider any of the "meh" EWAR mods to be "meh." a sensor damped logi can't do its job unless it is sit in the middle of the fight, neither can an ECM boat. A tp helps everyone in the fleet do more damage/target faster especially the missile spammers. A few target dampeners can make any ship miss. Fwiw all those mods have drone equivalents.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.13 21:48:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Zemkhoff
No. Just no.

Shield tanks allow for agility, passive recharge, and maximum DPS.

Giving shield BS the ability to easily RR would just make armor BS pointless.

Shield RR should stay where it is...in the sub BS category.

Quote:
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.


Bravo. You just killed your own argument in the first post. They work differently. Making them the same in areas where armor should have the lead will just make SP trained in mechanic a waste. Not supported.

I am absolutely shocked and amused. there i have sorkatez making 20+ post, showing how inferior shielnd tancked battleships are, and how my proposal still will not make them viable, and then i have you and the other guy fly in and complain that shield tanks are overpowered. I just don't know what to say any more, so i guess i jsut woun't say anything. No matter what argument i make, i get attacked by one of you guys, either from shield-tank haters, or from the other side, don't know what it is even.
You know what? If both sides are complaining that shield buffer tanking is either underpowered, or overpowerd, probably it is balanced. Just fix the goddamn shield transfers and we are good.

Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
Posted - 2010.07.13 23:07:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
shield-tank haters

Really that's a thing? Is it like racism or what?Rolling Eyes

Since you fail to make a cohesive argument for your nonsense, everyone disagreeing with you is doing it out of an irrational hatred of shields? Wow, the ego knows no bounds....


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