These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

medium armor reppers rep a pathetic amount of armor
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-12-24 13:39:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Muad 'dib
considering the amount of armor cruisers have the medium reppers rep hardly anything, the myrm need THREE with a bonus to actually make a difference compared to a cyclones oversized boost bonused shield booster. (and ofc you cant oversize an armor rep)

will there be any love for armor reps?

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Kery Nysell
#2 - 2012-12-24 13:51:05 UTC
The Myrmidion is a BattleCruiser, and I think it can fit a BS-sized repper ...

Most effective armortank fit two reppers of the appropriate size tough, so yes, I think there might be a problem with armor tanking, but I've just come back and haven't really re-tested my armor tanked ships.

All I can say for sure is that an Algos with a single SAR II can tank up to two NPC BCs while being jammed for two minutes ...

...
Frank Millar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-12-24 14:00:19 UTC
Powergrid would like to have a word about fitting a Large Armor Repper to a Myrmidon...
Kery Nysell
#4 - 2012-12-24 14:03:32 UTC
So I was wrong.

Like I said, just reactivated after a two-years break, I *don't* know everything Shocked

Will have to do more tests ...

...
Freyya
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-12-24 14:11:08 UTC
Yes there is many a thing wrong with active armor tanking, rep amount being One of them...
Here's to hoping it will be fixed in the next 18 months....

(Dont think there's an aniversary item for that is there? This item will take 18 months to finish and still won't be finished by then)
Ivan Joukov
Soviet System
#6 - 2012-12-24 14:17:34 UTC
And buffer tanking shield is far worst than armor one, and shield do not have slave implants, etc... Shield and armor are DIFFERENT, get used to it.

 Davai!
Frank Millar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-12-24 14:23:27 UTC
Kery Nysell wrote:
So I was wrong.

Like I said, just reactivated after a two-years break, I *don't* know everything Shocked

Will have to do more tests ...

Heh. No big deal. Smile

I wasn't even sure myself, so I dropped a Large Armor Repper on a Myrm in EFT. Didn't work out.
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#8 - 2012-12-24 14:37:09 UTC
Ivan Joukov wrote:
And buffer tanking shield is far worst than armor one

It isn't.
Freyya
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-12-24 15:00:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Freyya
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
Ivan Joukov wrote:
And buffer tanking shield is far worst than armor one

It isn't.


Indeed, it's called passive shield tank. Which even regenerates on its own....last i checked anyways.
Yes shield and armor are different, its just that it's different in the worst kind of ways. There are inherrent problems wit both kinds of tanking though seeing armor ships yield better results with shield kinda skewes things. You dont see shield ships do better with armor really...

Btw, with shield ships you dont need slave equivalent, you get the option for a gtfo action. With armor you're committed to the end in most cases( no not counting sniper fits cause you dont fit slaves in those cases)
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-12-24 15:07:27 UTC
well you can probably tank more with 2 ASBs anyway which is a bit silly, but its not the myrm we are talking about really, i used the myrm as an example of the only active armor using MEDIUM reps and it has to use three,

what about ANYTHING else thats cruisers sized with no bonus and cant fit 3 due to grid anyway!

plate all the things and forget armor reps? pffffff

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#11 - 2012-12-24 15:22:20 UTC
The problem with active tanking (real active tanking, not ASBs) is that it requires links + boosters to be effective.

A active tanked ship with legion links will tank much more better than one without links, since it benefits from all 3 links, while a buffer ship without links will only miss the extra resists compared to a linked one.

And generally most types of active tanking requires bonuses to be even useful. An unbonused medium repper is so bad that it is often better to fit an extra 800mm plate.

I have tried to mirror the old school 200mm plate + SAR fit from a rifter to a rupture, but its pointless once I see the stats. I guess that small reppers only workes due the nature of frigs.

I hope that CCP takes a look at active tanking, especially armor ones, when they overhaul armortanking.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#12 - 2012-12-24 15:25:40 UTC
Ivan Joukov wrote:
And buffer tanking shield is far worst than armor one, and shield do not have slave implants, etc... Shield and armor are DIFFERENT, get used to it.


So active armor tanking is supposed to be bad, just because active shield tanking is good? Thats some sh'tty gamedesign.

And if you haven't already noticed, there are already a HUGE difference between armor and shield active tanking. Shield reps have shorter cycles and reps at the beginning of the cycle, while armor reps lands at the end of the cycle which also is longer than the shield one. So there is already a difference. No need to make active armor tanking bad.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-12-24 15:39:09 UTC
Mizhir wrote:
Ivan Joukov wrote:
And buffer tanking shield is far worst than armor one, and shield do not have slave implants, etc... Shield and armor are DIFFERENT, get used to it.


So active armor tanking is supposed to be bad, just because active shield tanking is good? Thats some sh'tty gamedesign.

And if you haven't already noticed, there are already a HUGE difference between armor and shield active tanking. Shield reps have shorter cycles and reps at the beginning of the cycle, while armor reps lands at the end of the cycle which also is longer than the shield one. So there is already a difference. No need to make active armor tanking bad.



not just at the end but the cycle time is twice/thrice as long on top.

then when you get the boost you get a whopping 200 on a 5k hp amount... yeah that works ..... =/

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Perihelion Olenard
#14 - 2012-12-24 15:50:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Ivan Joukov wrote:
And buffer tanking shield is far worst than armor one, and shield do not have slave implants, etc... Shield and armor are DIFFERENT, get used to it.

It's balanced because armor has to be repaired and the plated ship takes an agility penalty. Then on top of that, if you fit armor rigs you're slower as well. Shield buffering gets more low slots for damage and tracking/range modules. Shields aren't just different, they're better. There's a reason the hyperion and brutix are far better when shield tanked instead of armor tanked.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#15 - 2012-12-24 17:09:21 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Ivan Joukov wrote:
And buffer tanking shield is far worst than armor one, and shield do not have slave implants, etc... Shield and armor are DIFFERENT, get used to it.

It's balanced because armor has to be repaired and the plated ship takes an agility penalty. Then on top of that, if you fit armor rigs you're slower as well. Shield buffering gets more low slots for damage and tracking/range modules. Shields aren't just different, they're better. There's a reason the hyperion and brutix are far better when shield tanked instead of armor tanked.

This bears repeating, because it's a very good indicator of the problems with active armor tanking as it is now. Shield buffer tanks are clearly at least as good as armor ones, because of the advantages of using shields over armor (speed, dps, damage projection) are well balanced against the advantages that armor offers (more tank, more ewar). The problem is that this balance doesn't carry over into active tanking. Loosely speaking we could say that for buffer tanks, when moving from armor to shields you trade tank for damage, and mobility for ewar, and it's more or less a fair trade. You can see examples of people doing this all over the place, particularly with gallente who have slot layouts better suited for armor but who often shield tank anyway, because sometimes it just works better for what you want to do.

Then look at active tanking: Moving from armor to shields, you give up ewar to gain speed, and then.....
Then suddenly you also have more tank, more damage and better damage projection, and you give up nothing to get these. You have gallente ships that, given the choice between active armor and shields, pick shields, despite having more lows then mids AND having armor rep amount bonuses. To give you an idea of how absurd that is, consider the passive tank equivalent: Think of how unbalanced buffer tanking would have to be for it to be a better idea to fit a plate tank to a drake instead of a shield one. That's where armor active tanking is right now.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-12-24 17:42:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
Freyya wrote:
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
Ivan Joukov wrote:
And buffer tanking shield is far worst than armor one

It isn't.


Indeed, it's called passive shield tank.


I'm not taking sides on this discussion, seeing as I'm using both, but I'd just like to point out that the above comment is not true, that is, the buffer and passive tanking are not the same.

With a passive tank you strengthen the native regeneration so that your shield regenerates in time (for example, with shield power relays and purger rigs; shield extenders are used, but not for the purpose of getting a bigger shield, rather than increasing the shield regeneration rate, which is tied to the size of the shield), whereas with buffer tank, you don't care about regeneration, you just want as much ehp as you can possibly get (shield extenders, resistance, etc.).

Passive shield tank is mostly a no-no for pvp, because it tends to considerably lower your dps and isn't all that awesome against heavy burst, while buffer tank is the preferred pvp style (or at least used to be before the age of ASB).

Quote:
Then suddenly you also have more tank, more damage and better damage projection, and you give up nothing to get these.


Actually, you give up a smaller sig, since extenders light you up like a christmas tree. Most people don't care about that, though, because faster speed and more available lows is often worth it.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#17 - 2012-12-24 17:50:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Muad 'dib
hello this is about the totally underwhelming medium armor repairs, small work due to HP and large do too but medium are stuck in a very uncomfortable middle where they suck on anything without a bonus and even then have to use multiples.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#18 - 2012-12-24 18:25:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Cambarus
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:

Quote:
Then suddenly you also have more tank, more damage and better damage projection, and you give up nothing to get these.


Actually, you give up a smaller sig, since extenders light you up like a christmas tree. Most people don't care about that, though, because faster speed and more available lows is often worth it.

Larger sig makes next to no difference, because its main drawback is making you easier to track. You know what else makes you easier to track? Being slower. Being tankier makes you easier to hit as a general rule, so the real difference is that you're easier to probe out in a ship with a larger sig, which is such a laughably small difference I don't find it even worth mentioning.

EDIT and to muad:
Large and small reppers have the same problems as medium ones, it's just not as pronounced.
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#19 - 2012-12-24 18:46:24 UTC
"Like a christmas tree" is a funny way of spelling "slightly" when referring to sig radius increases.
Freyya
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-12-24 23:48:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Freyya
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Freyya wrote:
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
Ivan Joukov wrote:
And buffer tanking shield is far worst than armor one

It isn't.


Indeed, it's called passive shield tank.


I'm not taking sides on this discussion, seeing as I'm using both, but I'd just like to point out that the above comment is not true, that is, the buffer and passive tanking are not the same.

With a passive tank you strengthen the native regeneration so that your shield regenerates in time (for example, with shield power relays and purger rigs; shield extenders are used, but not for the purpose of getting a bigger shield, rather than increasing the shield regeneration rate, which is tied to the size of the shield), whereas with buffer tank, you don't care about regeneration, you just want as much ehp as you can possibly get (shield extenders, resistance, etc.).

Passive shield tank is mostly a no-no for pvp, because it tends to considerably lower your dps and isn't all that awesome


Well if you think about it it is a true statement, regen IS your buffer. Armor doesnt regenerate over time.hell, even the regenerative armor plate just slaps a mediocre hp bonus on your ship. The methods are different, the outcome the same; more HP to chew through.

To your other point; if i want to fit a massive armor tank im not only slow as hell, i Give up lowslots that couldve been used for magstabs. Its a tight balancing act to make sure you outdps the other ship while not being a sitting duck with not enough HP to survive on.
123Next pageLast page