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

Dav Varan
Posted - 2010.07.14 16:05:00 - [91]
 

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.


Your argument makes no sense.
As others have pointed out Spider Shield RR gangs would use mid slots for Tank.
This means that Spider Shield RR gangs would have far less ewar ( scram/dissy/web/damp/ecm/tp/sebo's ) ability than Spider Armor RR gangs.

Considering that 2 mids are gone straight away to propulsion mod and Injector most bs would have very few slots left to fit invulns/LSE's

Slots free for Resists/buffer

Shield Raven 4
Armor Raven 5

Shield Mega 2
Armor Mega 7

Shield Tempest 3
Armor Tempest 6

Shield Apoc 2
Armor Apoc 7

etc, etc,

Currently Shield RR skills are wasted unless you also train for Carriers/Logistics.

As you pointed out its not acceptable to have wasted skills for Armor RR.
Its also not acceptable to have wasted skills for Shield RR.


Shield Spider RR would not become better than Armor Spider RR it would just be different.

Depending upon setup Shield RR would have better dps , but would suffer lower or at best equal resists / smaller buffers on most ships due to lower base resists and fewer slots to tank with.
Spider Shield RR setups would have inferior Ewar ability.

Currently the debate about which is better is of course just speculation as for some unknown reason ccp decided to make Spider Shield RR setups impossible due to insane fitting reqs on the mods that make them possible.

As a supporter of this post I think the game would be a better game if there are more viable setups and tactics rather than fewer.


Spugg Galdon
Posted - 2010.07.15 11:49:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: Spugg Galdon on 15/07/2010 11:51:59
Okay.........

Been looking into this and EFT Warrioring like mad. I've been comparing all tier battleships with their counterparts of all races in a RR fleet setup. Be it shield or armour.
I gave myself some rules. These are as follows:
  • Fits must maximise DPS*EHP

  • Fits must be practical (Not fail)

  • Fits must have a Warp Disruptor/Scrambler

  • Fits must have a MWD

  • Fits must have some way of supporting capacitor useage (remote/self)

  • Fits must have defence vs ECM

  • Fits must be within 3% of CPU/PG budget

  • Fits must be designed around operating within 30km as RR BATTLEships. Not purely logistic/EWAR support


Everything else is simply a bonus. So what did I find:
1st Tier...
All but the Armageddon is RR Shield tanking possible. However, RR Shield fits tend to have lower sensor strength (due to low power ECCM mods), require remote capacitor support, have lower EHP and similar DPS to their Armour RR counterparts
So no advantages but some disadvantages.

2nd Tier..
Only the Tempest and Raven can pull off either armour or shield acceptably. However the shield variants offer no real advantage over the armour versions and the Raven requires a fitting mod for either armour/shield. The Tempests requires a CPU mod for shield fit.

3rd Tier..
Only the Abaddon is singled out here as being incapable of a RR Shield fitting. All the other ships can do either however, when they step outside of their natural tanking ability they lose a small portion of their EHP. Shield tankers also have lower sensor strength. Again this is due to using low power ECCM mods. Only the Hyperion requires a CPU mod when fitting for Shiled RR's.

In Summary: RR Shield tanking is possible however does not provide any real advantage over armour RR tanking. It does however have the drawback of relying on low power ECCM modules and generally lower buffers. There also appears to be no real DPS advantage either. As low slots are being used up for CPU (when req.) and ECCM mods.
An absolute bare minimum of 5 mid slots is required for shield fittings.

If the LST was to have slightly lower CPU fitting stats, then it probably would help RR shield fits by freeing up a low slot for MOAR damage.

So after all that, I'm in support of an adjustment to shield transporter fitting stats (Lower CPU)

Anyone who wants to argue that my fits are impossible/impractical tell me which ship you are having trouble with fitting and I'll post the fit. I won't post all the fits on here in one go though.

James Tritanius
Posted - 2010.07.15 13:34:00 - [93]
 

I agree.

Doccia Ellicis
Caldari
Red Federation
Posted - 2010.07.15 14:27:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Doccia Ellicis on 15/07/2010 14:27:01
Gypsio's excellent post outlined the problem. The solution is also viable.

One observation:

A lot of the people who are championing Sok's opinion also expressed their concern on the potential imbalance of LST on dedicated logistics ships once they are modified. Do they realize that Sok's suggestion to include an extra med slot or two on existing shield tanking battleships would introduce more balance headaches than reducing the CPU requirements of LST? For balancing the reduction of CPU requirements, you would just have to reduce the CPU capacity of two logistics by a proportional amount. Balancing the extra slot(s) increase, however, would be far more difficult.

EDIT: I support this proposal.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.15 18:38:00 - [95]
 

I still don't know what you guys expect a lowering of LST CPU needs to achieve, but more battleship shield RR gangs will not be it.

Menellaix
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.07.15 20:11:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
What problem would this solve?


thread should have stopped here tbh

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.16 22:34:00 - [97]
 

bump
and guys, i've answered that question 7 times by now, unless you are willing to make any sort of constructive argument (which you clearly are not willing to do) stop.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.17 13:35:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
bump
and guys, i've answered that question 7 times by now, unless you are willing to make any sort of constructive argument (which you clearly are not willing to do) stop.


bump
and maxim, we've explained several times now why your proposal is rubbish, so until you are willing to accept that (which you clearly are not willing to do) be sure not to stop.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.17 15:00:00 - [99]
 

And I explained why you were wrong. Neutral

Also, you didn't comment on the counter-proposal to increase LRAR PG requirements by 400%.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.17 19:01:00 - [100]
 

So we now have here one side who is against it because it wont solve anything. Since it wont do any harm either i then dont see why they are so against it, but anyway. The other group is against it because it will make shield RR BS gangs OP. Maybe those groups should first try to find out why exactly it would be such a bad idea to give shield transporters normal fitting requirements.

Why not do it? Even if it wouldnt be used in pvp it would then at least be viable for the harder PVE content. You (sok) say that it shoudlnt be done because then they would still lack mids. Well i can assure you now that they wont get more mids, and shouldnt get more mids. So why not make it at least a bit more viable by normal fitting requirements.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.17 22:16:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 17/07/2010 22:16:31

Originally by: Furb Killer
Well i can assure you now that they wont get more mids, and shouldnt get more mids. So why not make it at least a bit more viable by normal fitting requirements.


Great, you totally went past the point there. If the message was unclear so far, let me repeat it for you: 'I do not believe that the requirements for shield transporters are a limiting factor on the proliferation of RR shield BS gangs. I also do not believe that the actual limiting factor, namely the lack of midslots, should be solved in the easiest possible way because that would lead to a number of other possible problems. Hence we are forced to conclude that RR shield BS gangs cannot work as well as RR armour BS gangs under current game mechanics' (Assuming RR gangs without a major logistical backbone)

However, I would be interested to see a fleet consisting of high-damage ravens and rokhs, supported by appropriate recon ships, scorpions and a load of basilisks. The destructive potential of that particular combination would be quite astonishing.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.18 10:31:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
'I do not believe that the requirements for shield transporters are a limiting factor on the proliferation of RR shield BS gangs.


Well, I do. And since I've supported my argument with numbers, and you've just blustered, I wonder who has more credibility at the moment?

Originally by: Sokratesz
However, I would be interested to see a fleet consisting of high-damage ravens and rokhs, supported by appropriate recon ships, scorpions and a load of basilisks. The destructive potential of that particular combination would be quite astonishing.


So would I. But it won't happen until LST CPU use is fixed. Or RAR PG use is fixed, by a 400% increase.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.18 11:47:00 - [103]
 

Quote:
However, I would be interested to see a fleet consisting of high-damage ravens and rokhs, supported by appropriate recon ships, scorpions and a load of basilisks. The destructive potential of that particular combination would be quite astonishing.

Now imagine that fleet where the ravens can fit LSTs without filling their lows with co-procs. Then it suddenly wouldnt be viable anymore?


How can the impossibility to fit LSTs on almost all battleships without requiring co-procs not be detrimental to the possibility of fitting a shield RR gang? Give them all 8 mids and they will still lack the CPU. Your argument just doesnt make any sense. Armor RR got more mids to play with, shield RR should get more lows but has to use them on co-procs. Fix that and they can do more damage than armor RR gangs so got their role.

Villian
Posted - 2010.07.18 12:13:00 - [104]
 

Reading this thread has increased my respect for Sokratesz rather dramatically. Sensible observations and conclusions, good presentation, and comendable patience in the face of the stubborn opposition.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.18 15:48:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 18/07/2010 15:49:45
Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
However, I would be interested to see a fleet consisting of high-damage ravens and rokhs, supported by appropriate recon ships, scorpions and a load of basilisks. The destructive potential of that particular combination would be quite astonishing.

Now imagine that fleet where the ravens can fit LSTs without filling their lows with co-procs. Then it suddenly wouldnt be viable anymore?


How can the impossibility to fit LSTs on almost all battleships without requiring co-procs not be detrimental to the possibility of fitting a shield RR gang? Give them all 8 mids and they will still lack the CPU. Your argument just doesnt make any sense. Armor RR got more mids to play with, shield RR should get more lows but has to use them on co-procs. Fix that and they can do more damage than armor RR gangs so got their role.


Originally by: Gypsio III

Originally by: Sokratesz
However, I would be interested to see a fleet consisting of high-damage ravens and rokhs, supported by appropriate recon ships, scorpions and a load of basilisks. The destructive potential of that particular combination would be quite astonishing.


So would I. But it won't happen until LST CPU use is fixed. Or RAR PG use is fixed, by a 400% increase.


Erm, no, it would work just fine under current game mechanics because with ample logistics backup, the battleships don't need to fit RR mods. The only reason people haven't tried it before is probably that they are stuck in the old doctrine of 'armour = superior'.

Now, we may have hit upon a totally unrelated issue here..maybe RR armour mods on BS are too easy to fit? What if RR mods were meant to be difficult to fit on anything but logistics? What if the proliferation of RR armour gangs without logistics is not 'working as intended' ?

Saisio Arisu
Posted - 2010.07.18 17:29:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
I still don't know what you guys expect a lowering of LST CPU needs to achieve, but more battleship shield RR gangs will not be it.


Lowering the cpu need, will bring both raven and the scrop to the bs line, and value assets to fleets.
They have base two free high slots free to use for that kind of purposes.
I can inmagen a rr fleet get warped by 10 rs torp ravens and 2 scrops, if i had faced that i would have bailed.


Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.07.18 18:59:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Aineko Macx on 18/07/2010 18:59:47
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
The reason they are not used, is the fitting cost fo a shield transporter.

I loled.

I can't see a reason why you are NOT comparing the X-Large Shield Booster to the LAR.

X-LSB: 550 MW / 230 tf
LAR: 2300 MW / 55 tf
There is even a cross symmetry there (factor of 10's).

LST: 192 MW / 154 tf
LRAR: 660 MW / 48 tf
The symmetry is not perfect (factors are 4 and 4.28), but still quite obvious. Note that i'm using these numbers to show that both modules belong in the same class, not that they are fine as is.

Quote:
Here, for an unknown reason, the fitting requrements of the module increase.

Obviously your observation is wrong because your assumption was equivocal. The fitting requirements decrease.

Originally by: Gypsio III
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%.

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%.

I agree with this analysis. Note that you should use an Apoc instead of a Mega for comparison as Raven/Apoc are the extremes in regards to CPU/PG.

Quote:
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.

I am not generally against the re-balancing of RR modules, but this proposal is sloppy. The premise that LST fitting requirements are the reason you don't see many shield RR fleets, the flawed analysis and imprecise change request. The discrepancy I would definitely like to see changed is to bring the cap use of both in line. Then maybe lower the CPU requirements of LSTs a bit.

I'll consider supporting the proposal if you improve it and after you've done some more research on why shield RR setups (or caldari ships for that matter) aren't used that much. Oh, and it's not like shield buffer HACs + shield logi support were being used effectively before the FOTM armor HACs came up, right?

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.18 20:21:00 - [108]
 

Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 18/07/2010 20:26:32
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 18/07/2010 20:24:49
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 18/07/2010 20:23:30
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 18/07/2010 20:22:52
Originally by: Sokratesz

Now, we may have hit upon a totally unrelated issue here..maybe RR armour mods on BS are too easy to fit? What if RR mods were meant to be difficult to fit on anything but logistics? What if the proliferation of RR armour gangs without logistics is not 'working as intended' ?

/me claps
This issue is extremely relevant. I have outlined that in my very first post. In fact, i have outlined two possible solution, and making armor RR harder to fit was one of them. I am very glad that in the end we came to the same conclusion, even if it took that long.

Quote:
Reading this thread has increased my respect for Sokratesz rather dramatically. Sensible observations and conclusions, good presentation, and comendable patience in the face of the stubborn opposition.

It had an absolutely opposite effect on me, as i have seen him flipping sides, answers and opinions just to preserve his face, which he has not done very well, and engaging in a large number of unreasonable attacks on various members of the community.

Originally by: Sokratesz
and maxim, we've explained several times now why your proposal is rubbish, so until you are willing to accept that

And i've told you times and times again, that for you to prove my proposal inadequate i demand your words to be backed up by apropriate numbers, which time and time again you have failed to provide. Moreover, grater half of you argument is an irrelevant side discussion regarding logistics ships, midslots and whatnot. Those things have little, if anything, to do with the topic of the proposal.
I would like to see strong evidence if you are to call my words rubbish. "I don't know WTF you are talking about" simply does not cut it.

Originally by: Sokratesz
If the message was unclear so far

By now, I highly doubt there is any.



Aineko- I don't think we should be comparing X-large shield boosters, because they have the boosting power and capacitor drain about double that or a large armor repairer, so i think that comparison is not appropriate.

The symmetry you show looks convincing, but it is not seen in the fitting capabilities of armor tanking and shield tanking ships, and so is a weak reason. Raven does not have 4x more CPU then an Apoc to compensate for this fitting symmetry and to let it fit modules that require 4x more cpu. Percentage comparison done by Gypsio III is far more appropriate, in my opinion.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.07.18 21:02:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
Aineko- I don't think we should be comparing X-large shield boosters, because they have the boosting power and capacitor drain about double that or a large armor repairer, so i think that comparison is not appropriate.

The higher repping power and cap usage of shield systems has always been a defining characteristic (it's even been mentioned ad nausea by AT commentators). What doesn't help is that shield boosters have 4 sizes in the same space where armor has only 3 (S to XL vs. S to L). The naming of the 4 shield transporters sizes is IMO more fitting (micro to L) and should also have been used for boosters.

Quote:
The symmetry you show looks convincing, but it is not seen in the fitting capabilities of armor tanking and shield tanking ships, and so is a weak reason. Raven does not have 4x more CPU then an Apoc to compensate for this fitting symmetry

Ofc not, not all modules show extreme bias towards PG or CPU.

Quote:
Percentage comparison done by Gypsio III is far more appropriate, in my opinion.

One could easily argue that the percentages are irrelevant as long as you can still make good fits regardless. Or rather, you'd have to prove that fitting a LST to a certain ship has in general (as in not cherry-picking a case that's supportive of your stance) more negative impact on the setup possibilities than fitting a LRAR to a comparable ship.

Also, you still don't acknowledge that there are other reasons for the popularity (or lack thereof) of shield RR fleets.

Grath Telkin
Amarr
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.07.18 22:31:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev

And i've told you times and times again, that for you to prove my proposal inadequate i demand your words to be backed up by apropriate numbers, which time and time again you have failed to provide.


Actually, the numbers to prove how wrong you are, and how little you understand the game in which you play, have been provided time and time again.

Also Sok hasn't changed sides or answers anywhere in the thread, time and time again he's telling you your wrong, and time and time again, you argue, so afaik thats a pretty stable stance, not flip floppy.

What is actually happening, is that you are selectively picking and choosing points in the thread to argue against, and ignoring anything that flies directly in the face of your position, in essence, you are not arguing, but going "LALALALALALALALALALALLALAIMALWAYSRIGHTLALALALALALLAA" so nobody really cares anymore.

You simply don't understand PVP, or ship fitting, and theres nothing but time, and hope, that can fix that.

tl;dr: your still dumb, and fitting has little if nothing to do with the lack of shield RR gangs in EVE.

Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:49:00 - [111]
 

I don't really understand why a need is felt for Shields to be on the same footing as Armour or vise versa. They are different aspects of a ships health, but they are different, and should have different causes and effects and requirements. Can some one point out where he explained why Shields and Armour should be treated in a similar manner. He claims to have done so, but I cant find it. And given that it's an assumed premise upon which his whole proposal rests on I would think it would feature more predominantly in this thread (you know, rather then being completely nonexistent).

Also please don't confuse "how" with "why". It baffles me that anyone could confuse the two in the first place, but it seems to occur frequently enough.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.19 08:03:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 19/07/2010 08:03:53
Edited by: Furb Killer on 19/07/2010 08:03:24
Originally by: Jin Nib
I don't really understand why a need is felt for Shields to be on the same footing as Armour or vise versa. They are different aspects of a ships health, but they are different, and should have different causes and effects and requirements. Can some one point out where he explained why Shields and Armour should be treated in a similar manner. He claims to have done so, but I cant find it. And given that it's an assumed premise upon which his whole proposal rests on I would think it would feature more predominantly in this thread (you know, rather then being completely nonexistent).

Also please don't confuse "how" with "why". It baffles me that anyone could confuse the two in the first place, but it seems to occur frequently enough.

Shield and armor are different. But different doesnt mean one should be impossible to fit. Why not make extenders and plates different by increasing PG of plates by factor 10. Then they are also different, makes you more happy?

I guess you also think rockets should be nerfed? Since they need to be different.

Quote:
What is actually happening, is that you are selectively picking and choosing points in the thread to argue against, and ignoring anything that flies directly in the face of your position, in essence, you are not arguing, but going "LALALALALALALALALALALLALAIMALWAYSRIGHTLALALALALALLAA" so nobody really cares anymore.

Yes that is pretty much what sok is doing. He has given a total of one serious argument, and besides that it has been just troll arguments, trolling and screaming LALALALALLA. And that serious argument has been explained why it is a problem, but not the end reason why you couldnt do a shield RR BS gang.

Even if you would give them all 8 mids, you still cant do a shield RR BS gang since barely any ship can fit LSTs without co-procs.


Explain me, sok just said that a raven + some other gang could be extremely powerful. At the same time he also claims a shield RR gang cant work. So now imagine that same raven + some other gang, but with LSTs that can be fitted on ravens without co-procs. Then you still got that powerful gang, but now they can spider tank. How would that suddenly become a weaker gang for fitting LSTs?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.19 08:38:00 - [113]
 

Probably gets ignored again by the LALALALLLALALAL crowd, but an attempt anyway.

The argument is that shield transporters with reasonable fitting reqs would still be useless due to lack of mids, right?

So what do we have for RR:
Required low: DCII

Required mids: MWD+Heavy (/med) cap booster.

I think we can agree that required for shield tank are dual invuln + LSE. Sure a second LSE would be nice, but cant have everything. And i think we can also agree the lack of second LSE doesnt make it a useless principle.

So that fills the mids of our 5 mid BS.

Next normal fitting for RR BS is the sensor booster. I will take the tempest and hyperion here for comparison. Both 5 mids, but hype has larger sig radius.

Shield version for both gets LSE + 3 shield rigs with shield rigging 3. I think that is a nice average, with 4 it would be bit better for armor, but honestly differences are small. Armor version gets a sensor booster.

Now the self lock time of the pests is 7 seconds for shield and 4.7s for armor. The hyperion is 5.8 and 3.8. So what we have is 2.3s slower lock for reps in the tempest case, and 2 seconds slower for the hyperion. Is a bit over 2 seconds really a reason why it would fail? Can you seriously say that?

Yes you say? Okay then armor RR should be useless. In general meta 4 (or for armor even 3) is uses for RR modules. They got a cycle time of 5 seconds, 4.5 seconds for t2. Shield reps in beginning of the cycle, armor in the end: The result, shield RR groups without sensor booster will provide logistics 2.5-3 seconds earlier than a comparable gang of armor RR ships.
Yes it also means enemies are locked slower. Still it is indeed a difference, but again, can you really say that it is that significant? If you really think it is a problem, dont fit that mid slots sebo, but a low slot sig amp. Then you are still slower locker, but got more targetting range (can be handy when being damped, not that much though), and more important, you got another 2 locked targets. That should easily compensate for slower locking.
Also remember having a high scan resolution so you can get quickly reps on your friend is important when you do 40 vs 40. But if you got 4 BS + 2 tacklers and are roaming through low sec you can just prelock all your friendlies anyway, and most likely also all opponents. So here the lower scan resolution is really completely irrelevant.

So the next point, ECCM. These days amount of ECM is not nearly as much as it used to be, still indeed it exists, and mid slot ECCM give more sensor strength and can be overloaded. Cant deny here that it is a potential problem, luckily there just isnt that much ECM around anymore.

Offensive e-war then, minus tackling gear. Pretty much never used on RR BS, so skipped.

Then tackling. Simple solution 1: take some hictors with you, they should keep some **** tackled, and can be repped when they drop their bubble. Solution 2: Not all BS will have 5 mids. Maels, ravens and rokhs have spare mids, they can be fitted with points, really not everyone needs a point in a RR BS.

So which problems do we have with mids? The lack of ECCM is there, and no tackle. Only true on 5 mid BS, and while definately doesnt make you happy panda, you can work around it. In return you get loads of low slots that you can use.

Lets say you want to do some roaming through low sec with shield RR BS. You get a couple of ravens. They can all fit a point if you want. But they cant possibly fit LSTs without co-procs. How would a RR raven gang (+some support, hic, huginn, etc) be useless?

Spugg Galdon
Posted - 2010.07.19 09:37:00 - [114]
 

What would honestly be so bad about lowering the CPU req. of the LST? All it would mean is that ships fitted for RR shield gangs would get is an extra 100 DPS as they would be able to fit that 3rd damage mod. They may also be able to fit the T2 LST too which means better tanking ability.

if the CPU lowering proposal were to happen: RR Shield gangs will still suffer from (in general) slightly lower buffer, slightly lower sensor strength and the need to use cap transfers to manage their cap. They will have one advantage over armour and that is DPS. A gang of 10 RR shield Tempests will deal 1000 (total) more DPS than a gang of 10 RR armour tempests. The shield fits will also struggle to manage their cap. Especially when the armour pests can use the second utility high for a large neut.

Laina Delapore
Caldari
Shadowed Command
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2010.07.19 10:51:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Sokratesz
'I do not believe that the requirements for shield transporters are a limiting factor on the proliferation of RR shield BS gangs.'


Well, I do. And since I've supported my argument with numbers, and you've just blustered, I wonder who has more credibility at the moment?




QFT. We get that this is what you believe. Now show us the numbers demonstrating the rationale behind this belief. Leave logistics aside. Leave midslot differences aside. Show us how the current CPU needs of a LST is NOT a limiting factor, when compared to the fitting needs of a LRAR.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.19 12:46:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Gypsio III

Originally by: Sokratesz
However, I would be interested to see a fleet consisting of high-damage ravens and rokhs, supported by appropriate recon ships, scorpions and a load of basilisks. The destructive potential of that particular combination would be quite astonishing.


So would I. But it won't happen until LST CPU use is fixed. Or RAR PG use is fixed, by a 400% increase.


Erm, no, it would work just fine under current game mechanics because with ample logistics backup, the battleships don't need to fit RR mods. The only reason people haven't tried it before is probably that they are stuck in the old doctrine of 'armour = superior'.


Again, Sok, we're not talking about logistics cruisers. The topic is RR mods on battleships.

Originally by: Sokratesz
Now, we may have hit upon a totally unrelated issue here..maybe RR armour mods on BS are too easy to fit? What if RR mods were meant to be difficult to fit on anything but logistics? What if the proliferation of RR armour gangs without logistics is not 'working as intended' ?


This is not a "totally unrelated issue", nor is it one that has just been "hit upon". I brought it up in my first post in this thread. I am happy with the fitting requirements of LRARs and their tactical utility - they can be fit without fitting mods on BS and the distribution of RR ability among a fleet, rather than being isolated within whatever logistics/carrier support, adds diversity and tactical options.

I see no justification for the prohibitive CPU requirements of LSTs. The absence of shield RR BS gangs damages the diversity of the game, making for predictable and one-dimensional fits and tactics. HAC gangs are balanced and viable whether shield-tanked or armour-tanked, because their RR source, logistics cruisers, are balanced, and I see no reason for the disparity on the BS scale.

You overstate the medslot problem. I showed that what the five medslot BS lose on EHP is more than made for by far superior damage projection. The effectiveness of received RR is similar. The tackle issue can be handled by the six-medslot BS and by non-ECM Scorpions. ECCM cannot be regarded as essential, and the need for sensor boosters is mitigated by the delivery of shield at the start of the 4.5 s LST cycle. The option of additional ewar, such as damps or TDs, on armour BS can be counted against the much superior DPS-at-range of shield BS.

Sure, the Armageddon, Apocalypse, Abaddon, Megathron and Typhoon would be difficult to fit into a shield RR BS gang (MWD, large injector, Invuln, Invuln, DC, extender rigs? Still not impossible though, a typical shield Mega would have 35% less EHP but do 41% more turret DPS with 67% better tracking at 20 km). So what? It's no different to the difficulty of fitting up the Maelstrom, Scorpion, Raven and Rokh for armour tanks.

Lady Arroway
Posted - 2010.07.19 14:32:00 - [117]
 

sigh you dont get it, do you? Wink

Shields are and should be different from armor. The fact that you compare RR BS fleets only makes me think that you have absoloutely no idea about med/small fleets.

while Armor RR is best for large scale BS fleets being saved a gazilion times so far, Shield RR is great for med/small fleets. no armor tanked fleet can match the speed and agility of a schimitar-cane-mach nanofited fleet. then again a strong dps-well armor tanked harbringer-guardian fleet(but slow....) . Or even a drake-basilisk fleet with a strong tank and that not huge but stable dps.

my point is Different fittings and ships for different use and desired effect. You want to make shield RR same as armor RR but then... no variaty in pvp... not as many overal uses.

simple as that Smile
btw changing modules Fittings requirements will either ***k up all logi pilots (including myself) because now modules need more PG-CPU OR the shield RR now has lower PG-CPU requirements and all scimitar-basilisk pilots get a huge boost by fitting better tank other modules they could not fit :/

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.19 14:43:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: Lady Arroway
Shields are and should be different from armor. The fact that you compare RR BS fleets only makes me think that you have absoloutely no idea about med/small fleets.


No. You have this completely wrong. The objective is for shields and armour not to be "different", it is for them to be "different but balanced".

Originally by: Lady Arroway
while Armor RR is best for large scale BS fleets being saved a gazilion times so far, Shield RR is great for med/small fleets. no armor tanked fleet can match the speed and agility of a schimitar-cane-mach nanofited fleet. then again a strong dps-well armor tanked harbringer-guardian fleet(but slow....) . Or even a drake-basilisk fleet with a strong tank and that not huge but stable dps.


I suggest that you read up on armour-HAC gangs.

Originally by: Lady Arroway
my point is Different fittings and ships for different use and desired effect. You want to make shield RR same as armor RR but then... no variaty in pvp... not as many overal uses.


RR BS being armour only = no variety.

Originally by: Lady Arroway

btw changing modules Fittings requirements will either ***k up all logi pilots (including myself) because now modules need more PG-CPU OR the shield RR now has lower PG-CPU requirements and all scimitar-basilisk pilots get a huge boost by fitting better tank other modules they could not fit :/


It's been said a million times that the logistics cruisers' bonuses and fittings would be tweaked to maintain their balanced status quo.

Suitonia
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.07.19 15:18:00 - [119]
 

Reduce the CPU cost of shield remote reps by 20-30% of so, I think that would make it more viable, without breaking stuff. (obviously the logistics bonuses would need to be reduced to compensate for this, so it remains the same across the board).

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.19 16:39:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 19/07/2010 16:49:33
How is only armor BS spider tanks variaty? You got an interesting definition of variaty there, most people would think that more viable but completely different fittings would be more variaty, you apparently think that only a handful of possible fittings is variaty.

Quote:
btw changing modules Fittings requirements will either ***k up all logi pilots (including myself) because now modules need more PG-CPU OR the shield RR now has lower PG-CPU requirements and all scimitar-basilisk pilots get a huge boost by fitting better tank other modules they could not fit :/

One thing is certain here, you do NOT fly shield logistics cruisers. If you did you would know there isnt any viable fitting where CPU is an issue. So even though it has been mentioned hunderd times now that logistics cruisers simply could have there CPU lowered, even if that didnt happen they wouldnt be boosted in any way since they dont lack CPU now. It doesnt matter if you got 50 or 200 spare CPU.
If armor PG reqs would be increased than the bonus of the armor logi cruisers could simply be adapted, so that is also a BS argument. Now i think about it, if you would want to adapt shield logis for some reason, just lower their CPU role bonus so they use exactly same amount of CPU on logis when the transporter usage is decreased.

But you are obviously part of the LALALLALALA crowd, since we explained this several times now and every time you just flat out ignore it and a while later you come again with a post that it would make shield logis OP and that more different possible fittings is bad for variaty.


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