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

Marcked Buggler
Posted - 2010.07.19 19:45:00 - [121]
 

la-lalah crowd is obviously not reading.
They brought up logi cruiser argument on the first page.
they still keep bringing it up on the 4th page.

Quote:
your still dumb,

because a personal insult is the best way to win an argument.

yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats

Posted - 2010.07.20 00:55:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: yani dumyat on 20/07/2010 00:55:05


Supported.


Also Shocked at the general lack of reading comprehension in this thread.

Kaiden Le'Monte
Posted - 2010.07.22 08:41:00 - [123]
 

i think you are completly missing the fact that shield's have a big advantage over armor in the fact they RECHARGE. armor does not......evan a buffer tanked drake has a respectable recharge on its shield that any buffer armor tanker does not have. i dont particulerly want RR drakes to dominate the battlefield and myself as a pure armor tanker pilot think that the current set up for the RR's is fine. NOT SUPPORTED

Spugg Galdon
Posted - 2010.07.22 08:51:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Kaiden Le'Monte
and myself as a pure armor tanker pilot think that the current set up for the RR's is fine. NOT SUPPORTED


lol. If you don't use the modules how would you know if there is a fitting issue or not?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.22 09:25:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: Kaiden Le'Monte
i think you are completly missing the fact that shield's have a big advantage over armor in the fact they RECHARGE. armor does not......evan a buffer tanked drake has a respectable recharge on its shield that any buffer armor tanker does not have. i dont particulerly want RR drakes to dominate the battlefield and myself as a pure armor tanker pilot think that the current set up for the RR's is fine. NOT SUPPORTED

Armor has higher base resists, nerf armor...

If you would ever fly in any pvp RR fleet you would know the self recharge of shields is irrelevant.


Still it stays confusing, one side is still arguing shield RR should be impossible to fit on most BS because otherwise they would be overpowered, while the other ones argue it should be impossible to fit it since otherwise it is still useless.

Kaiden Le'Monte
Posted - 2010.07.22 09:25:00 - [126]
 

because my girlfriend flys caldari and i use her account a lot so i can and do fly caldari and shield tankers on her account, just not mine :)

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.22 09:51:00 - [127]
 

So how often did you use her account to fly in a shield tanked ship in a non-nano gang of serious size, so something where you would want shield spider tank? Did you ever happen to get shot? If yes, how come you missed that your self recharge was completely irrelevant?


Btw protip: Admitting to eula violation on the official forums is not that bright. (I personally dont have problems with people doing that, but it just isnt really smart to admit it here).

Stick Cult
Posted - 2010.07.22 16:43:00 - [128]
 

Agreeing with Sok. Cool

YES the two modules are a bit weirdly balanced, but the problem (from my experience, in spider shield gangs..) is the slot requirements for the tank, not the RR module itself.

Not supported.

Grath Telkin
Amarr
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.07.22 23:43:00 - [129]
 

You could lower the CPU needs to 0, and people still would fly RR Armor gangs instead.

If you can't understand why, then you should probably stop posting till you do.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2010.07.23 01:38:00 - [130]
 

this idea is terrible.

Junko Ozawa
Posted - 2010.07.23 07:23:00 - [131]
 

Edited by: Junko Ozawa on 23/07/2010 07:23:08
wrong char

Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari
Original Sin.

Posted - 2010.07.23 07:24:00 - [132]
 

Supported. The extraordinarily high CPU cost of Remote Shield Reps seriously gimps shield-tanking battleships even more than they already are. To compensate, I suggest upping the PG cost so that spider-tanking Drake gangs don't become totally overpowered...

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.23 10:30:00 - [133]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 23/07/2010 10:30:43
Originally by: Grath Telkin
You could lower the CPU needs to 0, and people still would fly RR Armor gangs instead.


Actually, they would. If you can't understand why, then you should probably stop posting till you do.

Clumsy Pilot
Posted - 2010.07.24 19:51:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: Clumsy Pilot on 24/07/2010 19:54:35
So we have one group thatying that:
Quote:
You could lower the CPU needs to 0, and people still would fly RR Armor gangs instead.

and another group telling me that
Quote:
spider-tanking Drake gangs become totally overpowered...

That is very interesting indeed.
Obviously both sides completely ingnore 4 pages woth of facts and numbers. Both sides demonstrate horrible lack of comprehention. Both sides give arguments like slot layhout and passive recharge, which have nothing to do with the topick of fitting reqs. Sinse in five pages of discussion no comprehencive counter-argument was produced, this topick should be supported.

Grath Telkin
Amarr
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.07.25 00:06:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Clumsy Pilot
Edited by: Clumsy Pilot on 24/07/2010 19:54:35
So we have one group thatying that:
Quote:
You could lower the CPU needs to 0, and people still would fly RR Armor gangs instead.

and another group telling me that
Quote:
spider-tanking Drake gangs become totally overpowered...

That is very interesting indeed.
Obviously both sides completely ingnore 4 pages woth of facts and numbers. Both sides demonstrate horrible lack of comprehention. Both sides give arguments like slot layhout and passive recharge, which have nothing to do with the topick of fitting reqs. Sinse in five pages of discussion no comprehencive counter-argument was produced, this topick should be supported.


Actually, its a design flaw in the game mechanics that the OP and his supporters are failing to take into account.

None of the vital ewar mods are low slots, thus seriously threatening your tank if you were to properly fit them, plus the CPU intensive mods of shields in general get in the way of the CPU intensive mods that are ALL ewar mods, coupled with the fact that shield tanks have overall higher sigs, and thus take higher damage from incoming fire, means that no matter what you do, the shield tanks will stay inferior, and armor tanks will be used.

Why shield tank when you can armor tank and use up 6 mids for tackle and ewar? Why shield tank when you can speed/sig tank with armor? The list goes on, and the arguments from the "your dumb" side are based on a larger view of game mechanics than the "I WANT SHIELD RR GANGS NAOW DAMNIT" gang.

To really see shield tanked rr gangs around, your going to need to see more changes than just some CPU issues, but people seem to be ignoring this, so w/e, lower the CPU cost, i'll fit some extra **** somewhere on my scimitar.

Oh, also, for the scrub crowd thats crying about the lack of shield rr gangs, they happen, a lot, if you took some time out of your rage posting, and trolled some killboards, you'd see shield RR gangs, just not battleships.

"well thats the problem, WE WANT BS SHIELD RR GANGS", cool, field one, and then sit and watch your huge siged BS gang get insta nuked by a load of bombers (pro tip: bombs are also sig dependent).




Gul Dukautt
The Scope
Posted - 2010.07.25 15:52:00 - [136]
 

Edited by: Gul Dukautt on 25/07/2010 15:53:45

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're an idiot Skor. And you don't listen. Look at the CPU requirements. It's like you won't even take a second and think about what you are saying. And you're a big headed ***. You won't consider anything. People like you ruin the game, and any confidence in the CSM. Next time we all might as well vote all goons.


edit: spelling

Mongo Edwards
Posted - 2010.07.25 17:38:00 - [137]
 

Has no one ever heard of tacklers? Who honestly uses a BS to catch anything when you can have people flying T1 frigs and intys and do the job better. FYI there are ECCM low slot mods as well they just aren't as good.

If changing CPU need to 0 won't increase the frequency of shield RR gangs what is the harm in lowering the fitting requirements by 50% or so (obviously if 0% of current makes no difference then 50% of current will also make no difference)?

The reason of "we shouldn't change something that is obviously broken because it won't make a difference in our FOTM fleets" isn't really viable. Warfare in EVE changes from one fad to the next so often it baffles me as to why an option should be gimped because the mod to make it work takes up 20% of the available cpu on a BS meant to shield tank.

Yet again shield recharge rate in the current Call primary -> melt -> repeat style of combat is trivial. When a fleet can literally alpha BC's your passive recharge means nothing I know of no BS passive shield tank that can sustain 2,000+ dps.

Do I think shield tanking will ever become more powerful than armor tanking? No, the ships meant to shield tank have more issues then just fitting ability but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the option available for those who want to try.

Enal Angus
Posted - 2010.07.25 18:42:00 - [138]
 

excellent idea. It's been bugging me too.
Oh, and whoever states that BS will get too high signatures from fielding shield tanks should think again. They are goddamn battleships. They take full damage already.

And Sokratetz, a perfectly good idea that was clarified extremely well on page one. And you're trolling your own boards with completely irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with RR, like "buhu buhu battleships use XL boosters". Goddamn illitirate git. You shoudln't sit on the council.

Sempaia Tenda
Caldari
The Wretched.
Posted - 2010.07.26 03:43:00 - [139]
 

Edited by: Sempaia Tenda on 26/07/2010 03:49:38
Please look at 100 kill mails of shield tanked BS fitting a local shield repairer.

If you find nealry 100 large shield boosters then your argument (based on a LSB vs LAR analisys) is valid.

If you find nealry 100 X-LARGE shield boosters then your argument (based on a LSB vs LAR analisys) is not valid.

We all know that you will find 100 X-LARGE shield boosters. A previous poster corrected your analisys and showed that shield and armor both local and remote are perfectly balanced (when using correctly XLSB vs LAR) according to the very same model you used to state they are not balance (indeed you used incorrect numbers of LSB vs LAR).

Please answer this before even going to move to other arguments or try to nerf armour RR gangs. And yes I'm caldari, coming to armour RR gangs with an armour tanked scorpion. So I am biased towards shield RR...

(Please don't even try the road of "Those Bs died and that demonstrate that those BS weren't fitted properly")


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