open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Shield Transporters Need Some Luvin'
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic

Juliette DuBois
Posted - 2011.06.10 18:21:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: Juliette DuBois on 10/06/2011 18:25:18
Have to agree with BiggestT. You can also add learning skill removal to that list.

There are some incredibly stubborn people around who will not give up on their argument even if irrefutable argument and proof is rubbed on their face. What is wrong with you?

26534522
Posted - 2011.06.11 01:26:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: 26534522 on 11/06/2011 01:29:20

Originally by: Lost Greybeard
Originally by: 26534522
Try getting that with a shield RR domi.


This seems to be a running theme with this thread: treating the high CPU/low PG nature of the module as if it's some sort of overlooked defect and not a balancing decision.

It's not. Certain races are _supposed_ to be better suited to certain fits. The fact that Caldari is almost entirely shield-dependent and its ships are CPU-heavy on average is not an accident.


Of course it's a balancing mechanism. The problem is that the CPU cost is extremely high, even on ships designed for shields. Seriously, do the math. I'm not saying that shield transporters SHOULDN'T have a high CPU cost, I'm saying that for it to use up around 22% of a ship's CPU is kind of ridiculous, especially once you consider that armor RR is nowhere near as fitting intensive.

Drop the CPU cost by maybe 25-30% or so and it would be fine.

26534522
Posted - 2011.06.22 21:13:00 - [93]
 

To the top!

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.06.22 21:19:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: 26534522
To the top!

good good
i always forget this topic
strange that the chimera (supposed to be the best at cpu) carrier runs out of cpu whenever it tries to fit 2 capital shield rrs
while the archon has no problem fitting 3 capital armor rrs
true example how badly these are balanced

tofucake prime
The Hatchery
Posted - 2011.06.22 21:40:00 - [95]
 

Edited by: tofucake prime on 22/06/2011 21:40:03
Half of you are arguing about shield RRBS gans being ****
Half of you are arguing about dedicated shield RRBS being **** because of fittings
Half of you are arguing about why shields than armor are better because of Logis
Half of you are arguing about Logi vs BS
Half of you are reading the first page before replying
Half of you are quoting people and then typing words and whining "why can't you read?" when you also haven't read
Half of you are are arguing about very specific situations
Half of you are arguing about aggro mechanics
Half of you are arguing about the difference between "your argument is dumb" and "you're dumb" and "your arguement is dumb therefore you're dumb"
All 450% of you are ruining discussion.

Grow the **** up, read each others' replies, try to see where they are coming from, and then reply. Stop complaining about random stuff and insulting each other.

Do you think this is the Blizzard forums or something?

I was under the impression that EVE was supposed to be a game for smarter people with patience and dedication rather than a game for self-important egoists who love the look of their own prose.

Shut up. All of you.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.06.22 21:46:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: tofucake prime

I was under the impression that EVE was supposed to be a game for smarter people

It was , then you came along.

Mathrin
Posted - 2011.06.23 03:08:00 - [97]
 

While skimming of this thread I felt like this whole deal is being approached the wrong way. You can't just set the RR and transports side by side and compare. I think that the effect of the tanking themselves come into play. For instance yes transporters take up more space but shield tanking has a passive recharge where armor tanking doesn't. Also shield tankers have the invul field, armor tankers don't have an omni style hardener.

So yea RR my be a bit better but maybe CCP hasn't changed it because in the big tanking picture things balance out? I could be way wrong or maybe it is still unbalanced but I think that this is a important point being overlooked.

Aamrr
Posted - 2011.06.23 03:58:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Mathrin
While skimming of this thread I felt like this whole deal is being approached the wrong way. You can't just set the RR and transports side by side and compare. I think that the effect of the tanking themselves come into play.

A perfectly reasonable perspective. Let's analyze it.

Originally by: Mathrin

For instance yes transporters take up more space but shield tanking has a passive recharge where armor tanking doesn't.

Profoundly misinformed. Passive recharge virtually no significance in almost any fight you will ever engage in. A passive-buffer fitting looks superficially like a passive-regen fit, but the complete lack of purgers and SPRs means that the passive tanks are typically less than 40% of the regen configuration.

Moreover, peak regen occurs in a narrow band between 25 and 40% of shield capacity. If there are logistics of ANY sort present, no shield tanker should spend any significant amount of time in this region. They will either be receiving sufficient reps to bring them to full, or the overwhelming DPS of the opposing gang will swiftly push them under peak.

The fact that you seriously consider passive regen to be of any consequence to a buffer configuration draws serious concerns about any legitimacy you might have had. But let's continue.

Originally by: Mathrin
Also shield tankers have the invul field, armor tankers don't have an omni style hardener.

No, but they do have both ANPs and EANMs. With the passive compensation skills, these can achieve results comparable to the invulnerability fields, without the added capacitor pressure or neutralizer vulnerability.

If you really want to discuss hardener availability, let's bring up the fact that faction invulnerability fields are so prohibitively expensive that they cannot be affordably fielded on capital ships, much less subcapital PvP.

The further absence of deadspace invulnerability fields is of serious consequence to shield supercapitals, but probably beyond the scope of this discussion. I'll merely point out that armor has access to C/B/A/X-type active-specific hardeners and C/B/A-type passive hardeners of both types.

Let it suffice to say that the presence of 1600mm plates and the absence of X-Large shield extenders more than makes up for whatever benefit you might gain from invulnerability fields.

Originally by: Mathrin

So yea RR my be a bit better but maybe CCP hasn't changed it because in the big tanking picture things balance out?

Quite the opposite. The primary advantage of shield tanking is in the mobility you retain relative to armor tanking counterparts. This makes sense, until you remember that every single Tech-1 shield tanking battleships is a flying brick. Moreover, shield transporters lack the range to facilitate skirmish tactics on anything but logistics hulls.

Originally by: Mathrin

I could be way wrong or maybe it is still unbalanced but I think that this is a important point being overlooked.

Don't worry. We're all wrong from time to time. It's not like you've disregarded four pages of debate on the issue or anything.
...Oh.

Theron Gyrow
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2011.06.25 17:05:00 - [99]
 

One thing I find extremely surprising is that the "reps at the beginning/end of the cycle" difference is not emphasised more in the discussion. That's huge. It means that the shield ships can have smaller buffers and that there are never any lost rep cycles with shield transporters. If the incoming DPS is large enough that ships still die, a significant percentage of armor reps will simply use up cap and have no effect at all.

Aamrr
Posted - 2011.06.25 17:19:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Theron Gyrow
One thing I find extremely surprising is that the "reps at the beginning/end of the cycle" difference is not emphasised more in the discussion. That's huge. It means that the shield ships can have smaller buffers and that there are never any lost rep cycles with shield transporters. If the incoming DPS is large enough that ships still die, a significant percentage of armor reps will simply use up cap and have no effect at all.


This is largely mitigated by the fact that armor ships simply have larger hit point buffers. The presence of 1600mm plates means that armored ships simply give their logistics more time to respond, regardless of whether the reps land at the beginning of the cycle or not.

There's also the matter that armor has a shield buffer before the bulk of their hit points, which gives the logistics a measure of warning for where they need to place their reps.

It seems like a big deal at first glance, but the environmental circumstances largely mitigate the issue.

26534522
Posted - 2011.06.25 19:09:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Aamrr
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
One thing I find extremely surprising is that the "reps at the beginning/end of the cycle" difference is not emphasised more in the discussion. That's huge. It means that the shield ships can have smaller buffers and that there are never any lost rep cycles with shield transporters. If the incoming DPS is large enough that ships still die, a significant percentage of armor reps will simply use up cap and have no effect at all.


This is largely mitigated by the fact that armor ships simply have larger hit point buffers. The presence of 1600mm plates means that armored ships simply give their logistics more time to respond, regardless of whether the reps land at the beginning of the cycle or not.

There's also the matter that armor has a shield buffer before the bulk of their hit points, which gives the logistics a measure of warning for where they need to place their reps.

It seems like a big deal at first glance, but the environmental circumstances largely mitigate the issue.


This, basically.


With all the horrible things CCP has been doing to the game recently, would it really be too much to ask for them to just fix shield transporters?

Theron Gyrow
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2011.06.26 07:01:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Aamrr
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
One thing I find extremely surprising is that the "reps at the beginning/end of the cycle" difference is not emphasised more in the discussion. That's huge. It means that the shield ships can have smaller buffers and that there are never any lost rep cycles with shield transporters. If the incoming DPS is large enough that ships still die, a significant percentage of armor reps will simply use up cap and have no effect at all.


This is largely mitigated by the fact that armor ships simply have larger hit point buffers. The presence of 1600mm plates means that armored ships simply give their logistics more time to respond, regardless of whether the reps land at the beginning of the cycle or not.

There's also the matter that armor has a shield buffer before the bulk of their hit points, which gives the logistics a measure of warning for where they need to place their reps.


Yes, those two facts pretty much compensate for the first part. However, that "no wasted rep cycles" remains and has in my (limited) experience been pretty big in larger fights.

Aamrr
Posted - 2011.06.26 08:06:00 - [103]
 

Edited by: Aamrr on 26/06/2011 08:06:26
I'm sure your wasted capacitor is more than compensated by the markedly improved efficiency of the armor repairers. Wink

However, consider this: it may have cost you 5 seconds of cycle time, the target being attacked survived longer than his shield counterpart, even if that wasn't long enough to get reps onto him. So while he may have wasted your 5 second repair cycle on a lost cause...

...he also wasted however long he lasted from the entire opposing gang attacking him. Realize what this implies: when damage exceeds remote repair capability, armor tankers have a larger buffer for enemy ships to chew through, and incoming damage is mitigated.

This effect more than compensates for the occasional wasted logistics cycle.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

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