open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Some questions on shield recharge/resistance
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.06.23 03:01:00 - [61]

Damage on shield is only applied on shield, as long as shield is above 25%.
When shield falls under 25%, depending on level of Tactical Shield Manipulation skill, there's a (maximum) 25% chance of damage penetrating to armor, rest (minimum 75%) is still applied to shield.
When shield is completely down, the recharge rate is minimal, and as such, you can practically consider all damage is applied directly to armor.

As such, dual tanking (both shield and armor) are practically useless, especially in missions, with the only legitimate use of dual-tanking being HP-based (as opposed to regen/repair based) tanks, and even there, the usefulness of dual tanking is at best doubtful.

Some ships definetely are easier to shieldtank, some easier to armortank.
However, you can do either of both (or should I say, of three) on any ship... just the performance might be less than stellar.

What has to be considered is that explosive damage is easiest to tank on shield, and EM damage is easiest to tank on armor.
If you know excatly what damage type you're expecting (always the case in missions if you did your homework), you can get better results with a shieldtank on a typically armortanking ship or vice-versa.
For kinetic and thermal damage, the advantages of swapping to another tanking method aren't that big compared to the other two damage types, so if you're fighting ki/th damage dealing opponents (or omnidamage dealing opponents, like drones) it's best to stick to whatever the ship does best.

General rule, the more lowslots it has, the easier is to armortank it.
Passive shield tanks work best on balanced number of mid/low slots.
Active shieldtanks work best with a higher number of midslots as lowslots.

PVE fits only below. PvP, situation changes.

Typical active sheildtank is booster + boost amplifier + active hardners.
As hardners, you rarely use invul fields, most of the time specific hardners are better.
The only case where invul fields should be used at all in active shieldtanks is for omnidamage dealing opponents (drones, mercenaries, etc), and even then you're better off with EM/TH/INV or EM/TH/INV/INV hardner setups (depending on free midslots).
This leaves lowslots free for damage control, damage mods and capacitor recharge enhancing modules (PDU, CFC or even CPRs, but that is a bit tricky due to the shieldboosting penalities).

Typical "good" passive shieldtank requires most slots, and works best with capless weapons (missiles, projectiles) because SPRs are the best option in lowslots.
In mids, you pack up as many LSEs as you can, the rest hardners. Passive hardners are usefull in a full-SPR setup, because they don't require capacitor to run (and need less tf to fit). Active hardners should be used sparingly, because cap recharge is bad, and you risk them turning off. In THIS case, one invul field might be useful. Alternatively, you can use sheild rechargers instead of hardners/invuls.
If you're using lasers or hybrids, you're forced to either sacrifice a midslot for a capacitor booster (which eats up charges, so it's not sustainable forever) or to swap out some, or even all SPRs for PDUs.
A DC is not the best choice here, a SPR is MUCH better, even a PDU is better... but it requires little cap to run and gives a good "buffer" in case your tank fails, sometimes enough to get out.
You can switch SPRs/PDUs for damage mods, sacrificing tank for damage.

A typical armor tank will have an afterburner then fill rest of mids with cap rechargers.
Two repairers and a damage control in lowslots, rest some damage mods, but usually only one, rarely two.
If you don't have enough cap recharge yet, you can sacrifice another low for a CPR.
Rest of lows should be filled with active hardeners, either mission specific, or if "omnidamage" is present, EANMs instead, saves cap too.
If you have enough leftover powergrid, you might consider a plate for extra buffer, if not, slap on another hardner.

Manic Smile
The Scope
Posted - 2007.06.27 08:40:00 - [62]

Edited by: Manic Smile on 27/06/2007 08:48:30
Originally by: Strill
Edited by: Strill on 11/04/2007 19:53:29
I find it extremely hard to believe that any of you can adequitely measure the survivability of your ship by looking at percentages.

Though useful at looking solely at resistances, your formula is just as lacking in providing an indicator for survivability. The reason being is that there are two major parts to tanking. Damage negation, in the form of speed, sig radius reduction, resistances, defender missiles; and tank hp regeneration, be it a shield or armor tank. The perfect example for this case is either a passive Drake with 0% shields or an active Armor/Shield tank without cap, you could have 99% resists across the board but since you are regaining no hp an attacker would kill you, all be it slowly. Now speed and sig radius can be difficult to quantify, at least I don't have any hard breakpoint numbers, but resistance is quite doable. The problem is that in most cases resistance and hp regen are inversely proportional, because they share the same limited resources, module space and energy cap. There are a few tanking guides in the forums and all use the same general concept of damage per second soak/tankability/etc.

For passive shield tanking the max DPS soak of a given resistance is as such:

(Max shield hp) / (total shield recharge time) * ~2.5 / (1 - resistance type)

For active shield/armor tanks the max DPS soak of a give resistance is:

(Module boost ammount) / (Module activation time) / (1 - resistance type)
the one difference being that active shields also benefit from natural passive regen

if you want to know why, or see more rigorous proof you can use the search function.

Generally it's best to know the individual DPS for each resistance type as most NPCs and real players do not do all damage types. Now if you must have an aggregate you can simply average all the resistances. <---For NPC missions/rats this is what you are comparing your tank to

Also armor tends to have less regeneration of hp but higher resistances while shield tanks, especially passive(the NightHawk is not a fair example of anything) have a much higher hp regen with lower resists. If you take a look at the most popular builds on the boards many have found am equilibrium with the resist/regen balance where to add more regen or more resists would result in an overall weaker tank due to diminishing returns...stacking, stacking nerf, etc.

Some things to keep in mind. Going fast with lower resists + hp regen may equal a better tank overall. Being smaller with less hp regen does not always mean a weaker tank...this is usually true with AFs/HACs/Command ships. Sometimes being able to kill off the damage is better then trying to tank everything. Sometimes it is more beneficial to max out the max tank hp and resistances and not focus on regen in the hopes of outlasting the opponent...or to fit more regen/resists mods then cap regen and again hope to outlast the opponent...often with a cap booster in the mids.

Thalia Andrakonis
Universal Exports
Namtz'aar k'in
Posted - 2007.06.30 13:28:00 - [63]

Originally by: Akita T
Penality mod for Nth module = 0.5 ^ [ ((N-1) / 2.22292081)^2 ]

This could be simplified to:
0.8691199806 ^ ((N-1)*(N-1))

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.06.30 15:33:00 - [64]

Originally by: Thalia Andrakonis
Originally by: Akita T
Penality mod for Nth module = 0.5 ^ [ ((N-1) / 2.22292081)^2 ]

This could be simplified to:
0.8691199806 ^ ((N-1)*(N-1))

Your version certainly looks better Wink

Kua Immortal
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2007.07.11 01:27:00 - [65]

Edited by: Kua Immortal on 11/07/2007 01:34:33
Edited by: Kua Immortal on 11/07/2007 01:27:55
Originally by: Akita T
List of attributes that are NOT stacking-nerfed:
- ship speed

Possibly mentioned elsewhere (if so, sorry), but this isn't the case, at least now that ODs add speed as a %. Its more a question of the information being out of date than incorrect :P.

Very nice work btw Cool. Although I doubt you need to be told that Wink.

EDIT: Having said that, webifiers have always been applied as a %. Was this a change? Am I plain wrong? Shocked

EFT and QF both tell me speed modifiers are stacking nerfed and from working out the speed on a setup before I seem to remember this being the case.

Kua Immortal
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2007.07.11 02:05:00 - [66]

Originally by: Akita T
AFAIK, sigradius increase is not stacking-nerfed, so every shield rig and every target painter you have on you makes it a lot worse (larger) as a flat number (no nerf to percentage increase).
Theoretically, you could make a frigate titan-sig-sized with enough TPs on it.

According to EFT, sig radius is stacking nerfed. Can anyone confirm whether it is or not?

Kua Immortal
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2007.07.11 02:16:00 - [67]

Originally by: Roemy Schneider
Originally by: PictPunk
Know how this works with sig radius? For example If I were to use shield extenders + shield extender rig. Whilst the shield hp aren't stack nerfed, is the sig radius increase?
i believe this is handled just like speed:
- extenders (nanofibers) with their absolute bonus dont get nerfed. it's just an addition
- istab's sig increase (speed rig's speed increase) on the other side do get nerfed. it seems to be the % factor, that's being stacking nerfed.
(tested for both)

And this person has it right and I just wasted three posts \o/.

Kua Immortal
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2007.07.11 02:22:00 - [68]

Edited by: Kua Immortal on 11/07/2007 02:29:00
Originally by: Akita T
When shield is UNDER 25% (down to almost no shield), without TSM there's a 25% of damage bleedthrough into armor.
Or in other words, armor takes some (25% on average) of the (raw) damage instead of the shield taking all the (raw) damage.

Damage reduction still applies separately...

Wow, nice description. This suggests to me that TSM really is good for shield tankers (I'd heard elsewhere that it was an all round bad bonus), because you want damage to be hitting the line of defence with highest resists.

And I'll edit my post this time, rather than further spammage Rolling Eyes. What happens when there are positive and negative modifiers of the same attribute on the same ship. Take a ship fitted with overdrives being webbed for example.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.07.18 06:58:00 - [69]

Edited by: Akita T on 18/07/2007 07:12:48
A long while ago, all modifiers would have been sorted high to low, with negative ones obviously getting the stronger stacknerfs.
It was however changed so that now, all positive modifiers get a separate group from the negative ones, each are stacking-nerfed individually (highest absolute value no stacknerf, lowest absolute value strongest nerf) and then mixed together directly.


As for TSM, it's actually a bit more complicated, is highly situational, but overall close to meaningless.

You might get damage hitting the "higher resist", sure, but eventually all damage gets applied anyway as shields go down... and as passive recharge rate also gets lower as shields diminish, you end up slightly worse off with TSM trained, especially as a passive shield tanker.
Still, it only makes a "bad" difference in case you DO get destroyed (i.e. enemy is already overcoming your tank anyway), as you can sustain overall slightly less damage before you get popped.
In case you CAN perma-tank the assailant however, you'd rather have an intact armor on a shield-tanking ship, especially since armor repair facilities might not be readily available/affordable.

Regardless of actual situation, I think the calculated the "worst case" vs "best case" scenario in all possible situations, and the highest REALISTICALLY PROBABLE difference usually came at an average of a bit under +3% total damage sustainable WITHOUT TSM (or with TSM at L5, where it's bugged occasionally, and acts as if you have it at L0) compared to damage sustainable at TSM L4... under real-fire situations, more like 1% or under.

Basically, it's a skill that only somewhat helps you when you don't really need it, and slightly hurts you when you need it most. Bottom line, nearly useless skill... timesink, not much else.

Black Kat
Seven Deadly Sinz
Posted - 2007.08.22 01:59:00 - [70]

Originally by: Akita T
First, don't confuse "stacking" with "stacking nerf".

"Stacking nerf" refers to diminishing effectiveness for extra modules that affect same attribute.
For instance, for shields with 0% EM resists on ships without shipboard shield resists bonuses... the 1st 50% hardner actually gives you 50% resists (in other words, double damage sustainable, or exactly 50% EM resist), but the second one on same resist does NOT give you 50% extra resists (for a non-stack-nerfed 75%, or four times the damage sustained), but instead only *0.86 of that, or 43% resists, for a total of only 71.5% (EM) resist. Adding a 3rd one will give you even less, and so on.

That "*0.86" value for 2nd module is the "stacking nerf" effect.
That is applied per ATTRIBUTE of ship, not for modules, although there are SOME modules (specifically, damage controls) that do not get involved in stacking-nerf calculations, ever (same thing for ship bonuses).

The "stacking nerf" quotients are 1.00 (1st module, no penality), then (approximately) 0.86, 0.57, 0.28 and for the 5th module affecting the attribute the 0.1 modifier makes it next to useless.

Recharge times are NOT stacking nerfed (both shield and capacitor), so if you have 5 modules with -25% recharge time, you do 0.75^5=0.2373046875, or in other words -76.269% recharge time, or in other words almost *4.214 recharge rate.

Awsome. I didn't read all 3 pages only the first. Question: is there a way to tell which modules is going to be nerfed first? Ie if I have a 50% and a 30%? Everyone says it doens't matter but I think it does?

0 --> 50% --> 62.9% that is using the 30% as second
0 --> 30% --> 60.1 that is using the 50% as second

So is there a way to figure out which one gets nerfed first? Is it by order or is it lowest last? Other than testing of course. Just want to know as I am an active shield tanker and use many a mods as well as my command skills with command modules. Will make it easier on figuring if I could drop a invul field for maybe a passive if I only loose a point. thanks in advanced.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.08.22 02:24:00 - [71]

You should have read the rest of the pages, the question was already answered at least once.
But no problem, here it is again.

Yes, it DOES matter in what order they get stacknerfed.
They are however always stacknerfed in the "most favourable" way.

The highest value gets the "no nerf", and the lowest value (closest to zero) gets the worst nerf.
Order is always recalculated whenever you activate/deactivate modules or are under gang effects too.

Srioghal moDhream
Posted - 2007.09.17 20:21:00 - [72]

Originally by: Akita T

- damage control shield resist bonus (apply without nerf, only one damage control can be active at a given time, bonus given only when active)

So, does this mean that the damage control resists are not factored into the nerfing sequence with the active/passive hardeners?

So If I have a 55 55 37.5 going, the damage control will not be considered the 4th in line of nerfing so I will get its full 9.5% or whatever it is I have running? and not 10%( or whatever 4th tier nerf is) of the 9.5%.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.10.02 04:38:00 - [73]

Originally by: Srioghal moDhream
So, does this mean that the damage control resists are not factored into the nerfing sequence with the active/passive hardeners?

So If I have a 55 55 37.5 going, the damage control will not be considered the 4th in line of nerfing so I will get its full 9.5% or whatever it is I have running? and not 10%( or whatever 4th tier nerf is) of the 9.5%.

And it's -12.5% shield resists for a T2 DC (Hull Upgrades IV needed) Wink

In most cases, in PvE (and sometimes in 1-vs-1 PvP), you prefer a PDS or SPR instead.
In PvP, you usually want a DC-II (mainly for the other bonuses).

Posted - 2007.10.14 16:59:00 - [74]

Edited by: Uniwolf on 15/10/2007 01:00:16
Edited by: Uniwolf on 14/10/2007 17:00:20
After reading about stacking nerfs and how they apply to rigs, I decided to do some of my own calculations to see what the best combination would be for a drake tanking at my current stats. Here are my findings:

with type I power relays


530 = 0 purge
424 = 1 purge (100%)
351.072 = 2 purge (86%)
311.049792 = 3 purge (57%)

Shield HP:

11537 = 0 extender
13267.55 = 1 extender
14979.06395 = 2 extender
16259.773917725 = 3 extender


(11537 / 311.049792) * (2.5) = 92.72hp/s = 3 purge

(13267.55 / 351.072) * (2.5) = 94.48hp/s = 2 purge, 1 extender

(14979.06395 / 424) * (2.5) = 88.32hp/s = 1 purge, 2 extender

(16259.773917725 / 530) * (2.5) = 76.70hp/s = 3 extender


with type II power relays


454.779136 = 0 purge
363.8233088 = 1 purge (100%)
301.2456996864 = 2 purge (86%)
266.9036899221504 = 3 purge (57%)


(11537 / 266.9036899221504) * (2.5) = 108.06hp/s = 3 purge

(13267.55 / 301.2456996864) * (2.5) = 110.11hp/s = 2 purge, 1 extender

(14979.06395 / 363.8233088) * (2.5) = 102.93hp/s = 1 purge, 2 extender

(16259.773917725 / 454.779136) * (2.5) = 89.38hp/s = 3 extender


Conclusion: It seems that 2 core defence field purger I with 1 core defence field extender I is the best combination to achieve the highest regeneration possible at these current stats. If anyone has any objections, feel free to mention them. :)

EDIT: Disregard the above info, apparently purgers are NOT affected by the stacking nerf.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:43:00 - [75]

Except that neither purgers (like you mentioned in your edit) NOR extender rigs are affected by stacking nerfs Wink
Purgers are always better for recharge rate as extenders (25% vs 15%), but extenders are vital in larger-scale PvP where DPS tank means nothing compared to raw damage HP buffer.

Posted - 2007.12.04 18:11:00 - [76]

Very useful discussion. Thanks particularly to Akita who pointed me here and contributed most of the best info.

Marine HK4861
State Protectorate
Posted - 2007.12.04 19:53:00 - [77]

I'd like to point that since Akita wrote of how Tactical Shield Manipulation works, it seems to have changed to how it appears in the skill description, ie, the bleedthrough level to armour is reduced by 5% per level.

I've certainly stopped taking armour damage when my shields are in the 5-25% range (TSM 4).

Pages: 1 2 [3]

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


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only