These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Shield Extenders need to be changed.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#41 - 2013-02-27 02:19:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Inkarr Hashur
sabre906 wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
the reason the largest extenders you can get now is LSE II is because of passive recharge scaling with shield size


Yes, because it matters.Roll


It should usually make up between 5 and 10% of your final active tank. You want to give that up?

edit: Oh whoops we're talking extenders not actual tanking. Yeah my bad.

No, talking pure buffer, it doesn't really end up being significant unless you build the tank around it, which has its own drawbacks. I'll bow out of this.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#42 - 2013-02-27 02:46:30 UTC
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
the reason the largest extenders you can get now is LSE II is because of passive recharge scaling with shield size


Yes, because it matters.Roll


It should usually make up between 5 and 10% of your final active tank. You want to give that up?

edit: Oh whoops we're talking extenders not actual tanking. Yeah my bad.

No, talking pure buffer, it doesn't really end up being significant unless you build the tank around it, which has its own drawbacks. I'll bow out of this.


It's also pretty useless on anything that isn't a Drake (or a Rattlesnake)
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-02-27 07:43:20 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
the reason the largest extenders you can get now is LSE II is because of passive recharge scaling with shield size


Yes, because it matters.Roll


It should usually make up between 5 and 10% of your final active tank. You want to give that up?

edit: Oh whoops we're talking extenders not actual tanking. Yeah my bad.

No, talking pure buffer, it doesn't really end up being significant unless you build the tank around it, which has its own drawbacks. I'll bow out of this.


It's also pretty useless on anything that isn't a Drake (or a Rattlesnake)


You've never flown nano ships have you?

LSE II are fine.
You know when you fly shield tanked ships, you can tank omni way better than armor, which is why most mission ships are shield tanked (Not taking into account Extra DPS etc), and you get a passive recharge on your shield. No matter how many LSEs you add, you will only increase the shield recharge.

Let's take the Rokh as an example. Shield 10625 (Nothing) recharge time 1825 Sec. and it peaks at 14,7 HP/s.
You add a LSE, Total Shield goes up, recharge rate stays the same.
we do now have 13906k Shield with the same recharge time.
You add a few Hardeners for more resistance, we now got 50k EHP in Shields with a recharge time of 1825 Seconds.

anyway back to my point.
Our standard Rokh got 20k EHP in it's shields, that recharges over 1825 seconds. Which is why shields are awesome, i fly armor myself, but damn, we'd need a plate buff to make up for the passive recharge rate on a drake.

Shield Extenders don't need a change. It's the same thing with everyone that flew a ship that got nerfed, "OMG YOU RUINED MY SHIP" it's stupid.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Danny John-Peter
Blue Canary
Watch This
#44 - 2013-02-27 10:06:21 UTC
culo duro wrote:

Our standard Rokh got 20k EHP in it's shields


Wow, you must have a really **** standard Rokh fit.
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2013-02-27 10:15:25 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
culo duro wrote:

Our standard Rokh got 20k EHP in it's shields


Wow, you must have a really **** standard Rokh fit.


When i say standard i mean no fit All V.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#46 - 2013-02-27 13:34:03 UTC
AGSeeker wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
You can't really change the effective sizes of mods like this.

All the fits in eve would break for no good reason.

Theres an argument for a better buffer mod at the top end for shield now that armor has had a significant active buff.

An XL shield extender with double the stats of a large would be the way to do it though.

We would not want to hand over piles of isk to the Micro and Small shield extender T2 BPO holders.



Well i wouldn't call it a good buff for active armor tanking. Despite the lower PG need and the from lower speed to higher PG need on armor rigs, the rep amount and extrem long cycle time on the armor reppers stayed the same.

If shield tankers get a x-large shield extender, then I demand a x-large armor repper or at least shorter cycle time and a capless ancillary armor repper. But were would be the difference then to shield tanking I ask?



No you dont need all those things , armor just got a 300% boost to active burst tanking as well as the speed improvements.
Thats a significant lift to small operation active boosting.
Given that was previosley the domain of shield and large ship tanking is the realm of armor. there needs to be improvement in large ship shield buffer tanking to maintain the overall effectiveness of both systems.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#47 - 2013-02-27 14:14:45 UTC
300%

Sure it wasn't over 9000%?


(AAR is 68% better than a T2 repper for 8 cycles, after that it's less than T1 repper.)

.
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#48 - 2013-02-27 16:01:58 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
AGSeeker wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
You can't really change the effective sizes of mods like this.

All the fits in eve would break for no good reason.

Theres an argument for a better buffer mod at the top end for shield now that armor has had a significant active buff.

An XL shield extender with double the stats of a large would be the way to do it though.

We would not want to hand over piles of isk to the Micro and Small shield extender T2 BPO holders.



Well i wouldn't call it a good buff for active armor tanking. Despite the lower PG need and the from lower speed to higher PG need on armor rigs, the rep amount and extrem long cycle time on the armor reppers stayed the same.

If shield tankers get a x-large shield extender, then I demand a x-large armor repper or at least shorter cycle time and a capless ancillary armor repper. But were would be the difference then to shield tanking I ask?



No you dont need all those things , armor just got a 300% boost to active burst tanking as well as the speed improvements.
Thats a significant lift to small operation active boosting.
Given that was previosley the domain of shield and large ship tanking is the realm of armor. there needs to be improvement in large ship shield buffer tanking to maintain the overall effectiveness of both systems.


Sp despite buffer tanking being meant to be better for armor yet you want an x l extender and deny mods similar to what armor doesn't have an equal to?
Hypocrite


"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#49 - 2013-02-27 17:28:55 UTC
Drake Doe wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
AGSeeker wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
You can't really change the effective sizes of mods like this.

All the fits in eve would break for no good reason.

Theres an argument for a better buffer mod at the top end for shield now that armor has had a significant active buff.

An XL shield extender with double the stats of a large would be the way to do it though.

We would not want to hand over piles of isk to the Micro and Small shield extender T2 BPO holders.



Well i wouldn't call it a good buff for active armor tanking. Despite the lower PG need and the from lower speed to higher PG need on armor rigs, the rep amount and extrem long cycle time on the armor reppers stayed the same.

If shield tankers get a x-large shield extender, then I demand a x-large armor repper or at least shorter cycle time and a capless ancillary armor repper. But were would be the difference then to shield tanking I ask?



No you dont need all those things , armor just got a 300% boost to active burst tanking as well as the speed improvements.
Thats a significant lift to small operation active boosting.
Given that was previosley the domain of shield and large ship tanking is the realm of armor. there needs to be improvement in large ship shield buffer tanking to maintain the overall effectiveness of both systems.


Sp despite buffer tanking being meant to be better for armor yet you want an x l extender and deny mods similar to what armor doesn't have an equal to?
Hypocrite





Active armor repping just had its massive boost
Oblivious moron.
AGSeeker
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2013-02-27 17:32:01 UTC  |  Edited by: AGSeeker
Dav Varan wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
AGSeeker wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
You can't really change the effective sizes of mods like this.

All the fits in eve would break for no good reason.

Theres an argument for a better buffer mod at the top end for shield now that armor has had a significant active buff.

An XL shield extender with double the stats of a large would be the way to do it though.

We would not want to hand over piles of isk to the Micro and Small shield extender T2 BPO holders.



Well i wouldn't call it a good buff for active armor tanking. Despite the lower PG need and the from lower speed to higher PG need on armor rigs, the rep amount and extrem long cycle time on the armor reppers stayed the same.

If shield tankers get a x-large shield extender, then I demand a x-large armor repper or at least shorter cycle time and a capless ancillary armor repper. But were would be the difference then to shield tanking I ask?



No you dont need all those things , armor just got a 300% boost to active burst tanking as well as the speed improvements.
Thats a significant lift to small operation active boosting.
Given that was previosley the domain of shield and large ship tanking is the realm of armor. there needs to be improvement in large ship shield buffer tanking to maintain the overall effectiveness of both systems.


Sp despite buffer tanking being meant to be better for armor yet you want an x l extender and deny mods similar to what armor doesn't have an equal to?
Hypocrite





Active armor repping just had its massive boost
Oblivious moron.


Stop trolling. U dont know what u are talking about.

The AAR reps 68% (if u dont belive that, just read the dev blogs or look at the numbers) more than a T2 repper for 8 cycles. And the cycle-time is much longer than the ASB one.

Edit: And the AAR uses cap, regardless of the nanite paste and without paste it reps only 66% of a T1 Repper.
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#51 - 2013-02-27 17:38:21 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
AGSeeker wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
You can't really change the effective sizes of mods like this.

All the fits in eve would break for no good reason.

Theres an argument for a better buffer mod at the top end for shield now that armor has had a significant active buff.

An XL shield extender with double the stats of a large would be the way to do it though.

We would not want to hand over piles of isk to the Micro and Small shield extender T2 BPO holders.



Well i wouldn't call it a good buff for active armor tanking. Despite the lower PG need and the from lower speed to higher PG need on armor rigs, the rep amount and extrem long cycle time on the armor reppers stayed the same.

If shield tankers get a x-large shield extender, then I demand a x-large armor repper or at least shorter cycle time and a capless ancillary armor repper. But were would be the difference then to shield tanking I ask?



No you dont need all those things , armor just got a 300% boost to active burst tanking as well as the speed improvements.
Thats a significant lift to small operation active boosting.
Given that was previosley the domain of shield and large ship tanking is the realm of armor. there needs to be improvement in large ship shield buffer tanking to maintain the overall effectiveness of both systems.


Sp despite buffer tanking being meant to be better for armor yet you want an x l extender and deny mods similar to what armor doesn't have an equal to?
Hypocrite





Active armor repping just had its massive boost
Oblivious moron.


Oh so you're saying being limited to one anc repper that still drains cap is a massive boost? Idiot

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2013-02-27 19:21:38 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
AGSeeker wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
You can't really change the effective sizes of mods like this.

All the fits in eve would break for no good reason.

Theres an argument for a better buffer mod at the top end for shield now that armor has had a significant active buff.

An XL shield extender with double the stats of a large would be the way to do it though.

We would not want to hand over piles of isk to the Micro and Small shield extender T2 BPO holders.



Well i wouldn't call it a good buff for active armor tanking. Despite the lower PG need and the from lower speed to higher PG need on armor rigs, the rep amount and extrem long cycle time on the armor reppers stayed the same.

If shield tankers get a x-large shield extender, then I demand a x-large armor repper or at least shorter cycle time and a capless ancillary armor repper. But were would be the difference then to shield tanking I ask?



No you dont need all those things , armor just got a 300% boost to active burst tanking as well as the speed improvements.
Thats a significant lift to small operation active boosting.
Given that was previosley the domain of shield and large ship tanking is the realm of armor. there needs to be improvement in large ship shield buffer tanking to maintain the overall effectiveness of both systems.


Sp despite buffer tanking being meant to be better for armor yet you want an x l extender and deny mods similar to what armor doesn't have an equal to?
Hypocrite





Active armor repping just had its massive boost
Oblivious moron.


You talking about that Anci armor repper which really only works if you got 2 reppers, and then it turns off fast?

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2013-02-27 23:31:36 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
the reason the largest extenders you can get now is LSE II is because of passive recharge scaling with shield size


Yes, because it matters.Roll


why wouldn't it matter? You could make some quite ridiculous passive tanking fits on battlecruiser and above fits like on drakes, feroxes etc. Passive shield tanking could quite possibly become viable in pvp if that happened.

Art of Explosions
Dibblerette
Solitude-Industries
#54 - 2013-02-28 07:04:55 UTC
Just wanted to say that I do infact use 200mm plates on the Punisher, along with a small rep and a nos. Bleeder punisher ftw!
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#55 - 2013-02-28 08:27:27 UTC
Dibblerette wrote:
Just wanted to say that I do infact use 200mm plates on the Punisher, along with a small rep and a nos. Bleeder punisher ftw!


Aye, I use a similar fit on Rifters as well. 800mm plates do get used on some of my cruisers also. The ones that aren't bait tanked anyway.

I checked my Maelstrom fit eariler... 14 hp/sec passive tank. I figured with a passive tank that high, I could take the repper off.
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2013-02-28 09:21:43 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Dibblerette wrote:
Just wanted to say that I do infact use 200mm plates on the Punisher, along with a small rep and a nos. Bleeder punisher ftw!


Aye, I use a similar fit on Rifters as well. 800mm plates do get used on some of my cruisers also. The ones that aren't bait tanked anyway.

I checked my Maelstrom fit eariler... 14 hp/sec passive tank. I figured with a passive tank that high, I could take the repper off.


You really don't know how Shield recharge work do you? Every ship got a normal recharge time. Maelstroms being 1875 seconds. To decrease that you need Shield Rechargers or Power Relays, to decrease that time. Or you can use Shield Extenders to make your total shield higher. You get some more sig radius but armor tank lose agility.

God dammit.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#57 - 2013-02-28 09:44:13 UTC
culo duro wrote:
You really don't know how Shield recharge work do you? Every ship got a normal recharge time. Maelstroms being 1875 seconds. To decrease that you need Shield Rechargers or Power Relays, to decrease that time. Or you can use Shield Extenders to make your total shield higher. You get some more sig radius but armor tank lose agility.

God dammit.


I am well aware how passive shield tanking works. Just as I am well aware how completely useless it is if you don't fit for it. Most fights take several minutes for that passive recharge to amount to anywhere close to the extra hit points that an armour tanker would have just had the whole time.

A Drake (with fititng implants) gets about 100,000 EHP and 193/sec passive recharge. To do this it gets only a long point, with 8 slots dedicated to tank and 3 damage mods (standard)

A Prophecy with no implants, can get 132,000 EHP. It has an 8 slot tank, MWD, scram, web, and 3 damage mods. It will take 2 minutes and 45 seconds for the Drake to passively regenerate enough HP to cover the 32k extra hp that the Prophecy has had since the start of the engagement. Oh, that's assuming that the Drake gets peak recharge the whole time. It doesn't.

Oh, and 5 neuts. Did I mention the Prophecy can fit 5 neuts with all that tank? Enough neuting power to drain that Drake's cap dry in under 30 seconds, at which point the Drake has 47,417 EHP and only 87/sec passive recharge. Which leads to the Prophecy killing the Drake every time.

The current Drake can NEVER regenerate enough hp from passive recharge to offset the raw buffer deficit it starts with.
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2013-02-28 09:53:49 UTC  |  Edited by: culo duro
Paikis wrote:
culo duro wrote:
You really don't know how Shield recharge work do you? Every ship got a normal recharge time. Maelstroms being 1875 seconds. To decrease that you need Shield Rechargers or Power Relays, to decrease that time. Or you can use Shield Extenders to make your total shield higher. You get some more sig radius but armor tank lose agility.

God dammit.


I am well aware how passive shield tanking works. Just as I am well aware how completely useless it is if you don't fit for it. Most fights take several minutes for that passive recharge to amount to anywhere close to the extra hit points that an armour tanker would have just had the whole time.

A Drake (with fititng implants) gets about 100,000 EHP and 193/sec passive recharge. To do this it gets only a long point, with 8 slots dedicated to tank and 3 damage mods (standard)

A Prophecy with no implants, can get 132,000 EHP. It has an 8 slot tank, MWD, scram, web, and 3 damage mods. It will take 2 minutes and 45 seconds for the Drake to passively regenerate enough HP to cover the 32k extra hp that the Prophecy has had since the start of the engagement. Oh, that's assuming that the Drake gets peak recharge the whole time. It doesn't.

Oh, and 5 neuts. Did I mention the Prophecy can fit 5 neuts with all that tank? Enough neuting power to drain that Drake's cap dry in under 30 seconds, at which point the Drake has 47,417 EHP and only 87/sec passive recharge. Which leads to the Prophecy killing the Drake every time.

The current Drake can NEVER regenerate enough hp from passive recharge to offset the raw buffer deficit it starts with.


Actually there is. Stay out of 12,6KM (Med neut range) since it's only got 1 web you fit one or fly away.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#59 - 2013-02-28 10:00:41 UTC
Drake Doe wrote:

Stuff.

Oh so you're saying being limited to one anc repper that still drains cap is a massive boost? Idiot



Calculate the amount of cap used by a small anc repper ( with chanrges loaded ) to rep 1000hp
Now calculate the amount of cap used by a standard repper to do the same.

Realise you are thick and need to have things explained to you.
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2013-02-28 10:05:06 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:

Stuff.

Oh so you're saying being limited to one anc repper that still drains cap is a massive boost? Idiot



Calculate the amount of cap used by a small anc repper ( with chanrges loaded ) to rep 1000hp
Now calculate the amount of cap used by a standard repper to do the same.

Realise you are thick and need to have things explained to you.






Now add all that up to that you buy **** expensive charges and end up with only being able to fit one, so you need a normal repper anyway, because it's reload time is 60 seconds....

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com