open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Why Shield Power Relay II Must Never Be Seeded!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Majin82
Caldari
The 5th Freedom
Gentlemen's Club
Posted - 2007.01.10 22:54:00 - [1]
 

Why Shield Power Relay II Must Never Be Seeded!

Disclaimer: The follwoing setups are not practical, just created to show an extreme tank!

First off I am a Caldari, so nothing in the game makes me happier then shield tanking in my Drake. The Drake is the perfect shield tanker, and itís balanced to the point that you have to give up some things to get others. Such as giving up offensive ability or tackling ability to create an amazing tank. Any one who has used Quick fit to create a passive Ferox or Drake has played with Shield Power Relay II in the lows, just to see how awesome it can become. SPR II > SPR I by a nice margin and would be awesome to use!

But, here is why they must never, never be allowed into the market place! I have quick fitted a Drake with enough defensive power to withstand the kind of punishment that Dreds can take!

Drake with SPR II and Shield Recharge Rig I

6 x Large Shield Extender II

4 X Shield Power Relay II

3 x Core Defence Field Purger I

26523 shield, 414.08/s, E/T/K/Ex=20/35/51/67

26523 shields with 414 regen a second! That is 2 times better then a Gist X-Type XLarge Shield Booster!
Capital Shield Booster base regen is 6400 shields every 10 second cycle or 640 shields/second. This Drake is only 226 points away from matching a Capital Shield Booster and it requires no Cap!
Hereís something even more extreme:

Drake with SPR II and Shield Recharge Rig II

6 x Large Shield Extender II

4 x Shield Power Relay II

3 x Core Defence Field Purger II
I

26523 shield, 502.53/s, E/T/K/Ex=20/35/51/67

502 hp regen a second! That is almost as good as a Capital Shield booster and requires nothing to run. Nos it forever, it will never ever break! Once you factor in the Drakes resists bonuses (I only have BC 4) you can see that the potential damage resisted could be as high as a Capital Shield Booster.

Now it should be noted that these setups have no grid left for launchers, I can fit 2 heavy launchers and thatís it. But that is enough grid for a Warfare Link Module, or a medium smart bomb or 2 Medium shield transfer arrays for example.

My relevant skills are as follows.
Level 5 Engineering
Level 5 Electronics
Level 5 Shield Management
Level 5 Shield Upgrades
Level 5 Shield Operations
Level 4 Battlecruiser
Level 4 Shield Rigging

As you can see from these examples, to prevent the creation of lone ships that can tank 3-5 BSís Solo.
SRP II must never see the light of day no matter how awesome it would be! Wink

Wiggy69
5punkorp
Posted - 2007.01.10 23:06:00 - [2]
 

Forgive me if I'm being being silly (for I know nothing about shield tanking) but would it make a difference to drop two extenders for an EM hardener and an Invul Field? Or would that make it suck?

(Don't flame me btw, I actually don't know Laughing)

Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Black Legion.
Posted - 2007.01.10 23:30:00 - [3]
 

Since it is only shield extenders no harderners a single blasterthron could break the drakes tank. It would take a while, though.

Samirol
Love is Hate
Posted - 2007.01.10 23:36:00 - [4]
 

with 2 invulns, would probably be better

Wilfan Ret'nub
Singularity.
The SUdden Death Squad
Posted - 2007.01.10 23:50:00 - [5]
 

Now imagine there were officer SPRs ...

Majin82
Caldari
The 5th Freedom
Gentlemen's Club
Posted - 2007.01.10 23:57:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Aramendel
Since it is only shield extenders no harderners a single blasterthron could break the drakes tank. It would take a while, though.


With 505 HP's regen a second the Blasterthron would run out of Cap long before breaking the tank even dealing 900DPS. He would need a lot Cap 800 charges!

Kazender
Caldari
My Little Pony VS Predator
Posted - 2007.01.11 00:09:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Kazender on 11/01/2007 00:05:44
breaking its tank is irrelevant .... with 6 extenders on it wont have a lot of power grid left to fit launchers so all its going to do is sit there ... wow such an overpowered setup ....

i agree that the drakes passive tank it really good ... but using this type of example simply make people like disagree with you .. if you had used a reasonable example, like a setup that actually had weapons and enough dps to kill something other than an ibis i would be much more willing to listen/read.

Aeaus
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
Posted - 2007.01.11 00:12:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Kazender
Edited by: Kazender on 11/01/2007 00:05:44
breaking its tank is irrelevant .... with 6 extenders on it wont have a lot of power grid left to fit launchers so all its going to do is sit there ... wow such an overpowered setup ....

i agree that the drakes passive tank it really good ... but using this type of example simply make people like disagree with you .. if you had used a reasonable example, like a setup that actually had weapons and enough dps to kill something other than an ibis i would be much more willing to listen/read.


Got Bait?

Blind Man
Caldari
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2007.01.11 00:33:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Blind Man on 11/01/2007 00:30:19
and they would get balanced before they were released.. Rolling Eyes

j0sephine
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.01.11 00:38:00 - [10]
 

"Why Shield Power Relay II Must Never Be Seeded!

Disclaimer: The follwoing setups are not practical, just created to show an extreme tank!"


self-owned..?

Idara
Caldari
Queens of the Stone Age
Posted - 2007.01.11 00:39:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Blind Man
Edited by: Blind Man on 11/01/2007 00:30:19
and they would get balanced before they were released.. Rolling Eyes


I LOLed. Laughing

Weirda
Minmatar
Queens of the Stone Age
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2007.01.11 00:56:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Aeaus
Originally by: Kazender
Edited by: Kazender on 11/01/2007 00:05:44
breaking its tank is irrelevant .... with 6 extenders on it wont have a lot of power grid left to fit launchers so all its going to do is sit there ... wow such an overpowered setup ....

i agree that the drakes passive tank it really good ... but using this type of example simply make people like disagree with you .. if you had used a reasonable example, like a setup that actually had weapons and enough dps to kill something other than an ibis i would be much more willing to listen/read.


Got Bait?

clearly Cool

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.01.11 01:03:00 - [13]
 

If it's anybody who can tell you about "extreme passive tanking", then it's Pottsey, followed by yours truly here.

I'll be the first one to agree with you on one thing, the level of passive tank on the Drake CAN be just sick compared to non-capital ships active tanks. However, it doesn't deal all that much damage, and is either extremely vulnerable to NOS (active hardners/invuls) or the tank is a bit more moderate (passive hardners). All in all, it CAN be a pretty dangerous opponent in the right situation.

Let's get one thing straight: out of ALL T1 SHIPS, the Drake is the ONE ship that can passive-shield tank the most DPS worth of incoming damage.
Other than that, pretty much any command ships can passive shield-tank at least as much damage as the Drake (yes, even the Amarr ones).


BUT as you have said it yourself, the setup you described is hardly good for anything other than "just sitting there", and you can bet your behind it won't be doing any gang support because its cap recharge rate would already be abysmally slow, even running the link WITHOUT a single NOS on it will make the capacitor level grind to a screeching halt in a matter of minutes.

A WORKABLE setup will either use 3 passive hardners, 2 extenders and all SPRs, plus weapons (and maybe that link for short extra shield resist bursts IF NOT NOSed)... or alternatively, as all normal people would, one BCU, rest PDUs, 2 active hardners (EM/invul or dual invul) and 3 extenders (or a 3rd hardner and just 2 extenders in case you drop the link), with launchers AND the link.
___

That being said, let's put it another way.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN T1 AND T2 SPR ON A DRAKE ?!?

Assuming you go with the nuts 4x SPR setup (NUTS !), you have a 1/(0.8^4) vs 1/(0.76^4) ratio on tank.

That is 2.44140625 vs 2.9974064041865854313579545890532... or in other words 1.2277376631548253926842181996762 ratio.


WHAT THE HECK ?
"The SPR II should never get introduced" because it allows passive shield tanked Drakes to tank +22.77% better as before ?

And that with a nearly useless setup ?
You've got to be freaking kiding me.

All you have proven is what was known already, that the Drake has an insane passive shield tank.
You haven't even begun to adress how a (less than) 23% increase on a nearly useless (or actually just a +16% increase on a decent 1BCU/3SPR setup) would mean the module should "never be introduced".

Pfft.

Nifel
PAX Technologies
Posted - 2007.01.11 02:15:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Nifel on 11/01/2007 02:12:01
Next time learn the math involved before you make a stupid post like this :(.

Interestingly enough you pwned yourself hard enough to post the better tanking setup first and then claim that the second setup which is actually worse to be better.

Just going with the numbers you posted you'd get 159.95 max regen for the first setup and 131.95 max regen for the second setup. I'm sure Pottsey could provide more accurate numbers since I'm not in the mood to go through every little gritty detail.

P.S.
The regen time is for the entire shield to regenerate from 0 to full health.
D.S.

Tousaka Langley
State War Academy
Posted - 2007.01.11 02:43:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Nifel
Edited by: Nifel on 11/01/2007 02:12:01
Next time learn the math involved before you make a stupid post like this :(.

Interestingly enough you pwned yourself hard enough to post the better tanking setup first and then claim that the second setup which is actually worse to be better.

Just going with the numbers you posted you'd get 159.95 max regen for the first setup and 131.95 max regen for the second setup. I'm sure Pottsey could provide more accurate numbers since I'm not in the mood to go through every little gritty detail.

P.S.
The regen time is for the entire shield to regenerate from 0 to full health.
D.S.


I am pretty sure the multiplier was changed to 2.5. I could be wrong.

In any case, my Nighthawk can out tank and out damage all of the builds he posted. Still, tech 2 purgers would be nice.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.01.11 02:46:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 11/01/2007 02:49:04
Originally by: Nifel
Next time learn the math involved before you make a stupid post like this :(.
Interestingly enough you pwned yourself hard enough to post the better tanking setup first and then claim that the second setup which is actually worse to be better.
Just going with the numbers you posted you'd get 159.95 max regen for the first setup and 131.95 max regen for the second setup. I'm sure Pottsey could provide more accurate numbers since I'm not in the mood to go through every little gritty detail.


The "difference" as you so eloquently put it is that the first setup can only provide very short duration link boosts, even less if under NOS (heck, active hardners are likely to fail too there if used), that is IF you can fit the whole setup (the link, I mean) in the first place grid-wise... while the second one can run permanently even under moderate NOSage.

There's more to tanking than just pure regen.
And ask Pottsey, guess what the answer will be.
Pottsey would definetely support the second setup for battlefield conditions.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.01.11 02:51:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Tousaka Langley
I am pretty sure the multiplier was changed to 2.5. I could be wrong.
In any case, my Nighthawk can out tank and out damage all of the builds he posted. Still, tech 2 purgers would be nice.

It always was 2.5 for peak regen.
People just like to use a lower multiplier because of the fluctuations in average recharge when facing higher alpha-strikes for same DPS tanked.

Of course the NH can out-everything the Drake, I believe I said that myself in my post.
___

The point was that the difference in tank between a 4x SPR I ship and a 4x SPR II ship is less than +23% for the SPR II using ship, which is not THAT impressive to warrant a "this module should never be introduced" reaction.

Tousaka Langley
State War Academy
Posted - 2007.01.11 02:53:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Tousaka Langley on 11/01/2007 02:50:21
Originally by: Akita T


Of course the NH can out-everything the Drake, I believe I said that myself in my post.
The point was that the difference in tank between a 4x SPR I ship and a 4x SPR II ship is less than +23% for the SPR II using ship, which is not THAT impressive to warrant a "this module should never be introduced" reaction.


I was trying to point out that the builds he posted were seriously flawed. Reading slightly more carefully I have realized how stupid that was of me given that he doesn't quite understand the first thing about tanking. If anything it would have been more accurate to state that my old Drake could have out tanked and out damaged his builds.
Thanks for clarifying the 2.5 vs 2.4 thing.

Brian Ballbag
Posted - 2007.01.11 03:23:00 - [19]
 

Do these horrible bigheaded BOB people ever say anything nice ?

Kldraina
Posted - 2007.01.11 03:48:00 - [20]
 

If Shield Power Relay IIs were available, the Amarr ships could passive tank just as well as the Caldari ones. It's not the Drake that gets crazy powerful with SPR IIs, but the Dominix.

Nifel
PAX Technologies
Posted - 2007.01.11 03:52:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 11/01/2007 02:49:04
Originally by: Nifel
Next time learn the math involved before you make a stupid post like this :(.
Interestingly enough you pwned yourself hard enough to post the better tanking setup first and then claim that the second setup which is actually worse to be better.
Just going with the numbers you posted you'd get 159.95 max regen for the first setup and 131.95 max regen for the second setup. I'm sure Pottsey could provide more accurate numbers since I'm not in the mood to go through every little gritty detail.


The "difference" as you so eloquently put it is that the first setup can only provide very short duration link boosts, even less if under NOS (heck, active hardners are likely to fail too there if used), that is IF you can fit the whole setup (the link, I mean) in the first place grid-wise... while the second one can run permanently even under moderate NOSage.

There's more to tanking than just pure regen.
And ask Pottsey, guess what the answer will be.
Pottsey would definetely support the second setup for battlefield conditions.


I was actually referring to the OP.

And to Brian Ballbag: On rare occasions there is spring and even summer in Za'Ha'Delve. When that happens the Titans mate and the offspring sometimes hurl back towards Kindness. Of course it's mercilessly put out before something that vile can grow up and threaten our supreme position in BoB Online.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.01.11 05:22:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Nifel
I was actually referring to the OP.

Damn you people, use more quotes or names Twisted Evil
I mean, I hate flaming back somebody who turns out was not flaming me YARRRR!!

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2007.01.11 07:14:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Pottsey on 11/01/2007 07:13:14
ďIt always was 2.5 for peak regen.Ē
Actually itís my fault people get confused. A long time before your where around I used to use different numbers. 2.4 was also used for a long time before it was decided 2.5 was closer. I guess there was no way you could have known that but thats the reason lots use 2.4. But your right also some people do use a lower multiplier because of the fluctuations in average recharge.

I think Kldraina said it best ďIt's not the Drake that gets crazy powerful with SPR IIs, but the Dominix.Ē Good DPS and a stunning tank.


 

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