These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

By design or just an over site!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#1 - 2014-01-02 08:34:25 UTC
Hello mates

I have been talking with some of my corp/alliance chaps of late and been working on creating a level 4 sec running armor tank ship. I have one and it works, but from what I've been told, the best mission ships are shield based ships
> your resists are in mid slots
> your recharges are mostly mid slots
> your dos is in your low slots

but armor tankers
> resists are low slot
> repers are low-slot
> your dos is low-slot.

Now maybe it is a design scheme by CCP to have shielding tanking ships really good at PVE stuff. Even the best incursion fleets are shield tank fleets. But, if it isn't a design plan, could Armor tanking ships see their DPS boosters moved from low to mid-slots

Lets take a look at the two armor tanking empires.

Amarr > They use lasers > Lasers take CRAP loads of power
Gallente > They use rail/blasters > rail guns are power consuming thats just a plain old fact.

Point of message: The lore of the Empires even support this > at least whats in the descriptions of the factions.
Armor tanks = dps modulas > mid-slots; resist/hp > low-slots
Shield tank = dps moduals > low-slots; resist/ hp > mid-slots

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2014-01-02 08:43:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Amarisen Gream wrote:
But, if it isn't a design plan, could Armor tanking ships see their DPS boosters moved from low to mid-slots

There's no strict definition of armor ship. What you suggest is pretty much allowing damage mods to be installed in any slot out there.
Also, there were good armor incursion doctrines, they are either extinct due to CCP meddling or quite situational though.

Anyways, the problem you're talking about only concerns PvE while ship fitting affects any piece of FiS content. Considering that PVE is predictable and there is often the best min-maxed option and no change is probably going to change that, I think that screwing with global mech because of PvE is a bad and unproductive idea.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#3 - 2014-01-02 09:01:30 UTC
Cap mods go in mid slots.

Oh god.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#4 - 2014-01-02 10:04:24 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Cap mods go in mid slots.

as well as tracking comps that are better than enhancers.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#5 - 2014-01-02 10:25:47 UTC
shield tank <> EW
armor tank <> DPS

But anyway, the tank to use in L4's is DPS tank. Also do not be a sitting duck, fit an AB, move around and you'll do just fine.

Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-01-02 14:33:04 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Cap mods go in mid slots.

as well as tracking comps that are better than enhancers.
Everybody keeps saying that! You all don't seem to understand how useful falloff is.

The reason people say shield fits do better for missions is because they see missions as easy and that the most important thing for running them is more DPS. That is true, if you are flying an expensive bling ship that might be a target even in highsec.

There are a variety of uses for mid slots:

  1. scripted electronics modules
  2. electronic warfare modules
  3. propulsion modules
  4. propulsion disruptors

and a variety of uses for low slots:

  1. non-scripted electronics modules
  2. damage/effectiveness/yield enhancements
  3. powergrid and CPU upgrades
  4. hull upgrades
  5. the damage control module


And all slots can be used for capacitor, but in different ways:

  • Low slots: capacitor flux coils or capacitor power relays
  • Mid slots: capacitor rechargers or capacitor boosters
  • High slots: capacitor transfers or energy vampires
  • Rig slots: capacitor control circuit or egress port maximizer (in conjunction with energy transfer)

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#7 - 2014-01-02 14:55:47 UTC
Its by design. Its true that midslot shield tank and lowslot gank is one of the better configurations for PVE, but that isn't really a problem.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2014-01-02 22:21:26 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Cap mods go in mid slots.

as well as tracking comps that are better than enhancers.
Everybody keeps saying that! You all don't seem to understand how useful falloff is.

Ummm.... what is your point?
tech 2 TCs give +30% falloff, tech 2 TEs give +20% falloff. If falloff is so useful, doesn't that make TCs better?
Yes, I know they have no range bonus when scripted for speed... but you can *gasp* change scripts according to range, just like changing laser crystals.

Quote:
The reason people say shield fits do better for missions is because they see missions as easy and that the most important thing for running them is more DPS. That is true, if you are flying an expensive bling ship that might be a target even in highsec.

Its true even if not. I love my shield gank domi
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2014-01-02 23:18:31 UTC
seems tracking computers have been buffed. The attributes I remember them having were significantly lower. They would barely reach the same optimal when scripted for range, with less falloff. They also would get only about 50% more tracking when scripted for tracking. Back then everyone seemed to think the tracking computers were better, weirdest thing ever.

But I guess they were buffed, and now I can agree.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#10 - 2014-01-03 03:43:26 UTC
Thanks for all the feed back.
My self, as a new player and not really skilled at any one thing, enjoy reading the different views from everyone and learning. It is more beneficial than CCPs failed attempt at new player information.
But as an MMO player and a lite gamer, I have also enjoyed a more ridged stance for roles of characters/ships.

I really hated it when Blizzard change WoW so that it didn't really mater what toon you brought to a fight. The nitch feeling of a curtain healer or tank was one of the reasons I had so many toons and was rather good with different ones.

I think the main point in my mind when I made this post is this!

If CCP wants to make the game easier for new players, maybe they should add something to help new players understand better. Sure the starter missions are nice, but it needs more.
As a Gallente faction member I started my focus on armor tanking, but seeing as I am a industrialist, I also have to focus on shield skills up for my barges and exhumed. The ISIS should help, but even that, a player needs to know what they plan on doing.

I hope this last bit wasn't a rant and rave.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2014-01-03 13:11:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Verity Sovereign
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
seems tracking computers have been buffed. The attributes I remember them having were significantly lower. They would barely reach the same optimal when scripted for range, with less falloff. They also would get only about 50% more tracking when scripted for tracking. Back then everyone seemed to think the tracking computers were better, weirdest thing ever.

But I guess they were buffed, and now I can agree.


Well, as it was, unscripted TCs were crap, the range bonus was inferior to the TE, and the tracking bonus was the same (15% each).
For as long as I can remember its been that T2 TCs gave +15% optimal and +30% falloff - which were the same stats as a TE for as long as I can remember, until recently.
Which meant a range scripted TC gave the same range bonus as a TE, but had no tracking speed bonus. So the TE gave the same range bonus, and a 15% tracking bonus. When the TC was unscripted to give a 15% tracking bonus, its range bonus was worse.
And to get better tracking (which you would use when basically at point blank), you'd lose all your range bonus, which for autos and blasters means you need to get *really* close

In that case, I suppose at range, the tracking wasn't considered so useful, and the adaptability was considered better?

But at any rate, they then nerfed TEs. They didn't buff TCs (although relative to TEs, they got better).

TC relative to TE:
_____Range script / tracking script / Unscripted
Before: worse tracking and same range / better tracking and worse range / or same tracking and worse range
Now: worse tracking and better range / better tracking and worse range / or same tracking and worse range