These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

ANP for shields?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jean deVallette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2014-06-11 14:04:20 UTC

Given how uselss my Charon is vs my Providence with the new Kronos changes, can CCP please comment on when they are releasing an equivalent to 'Adaptive Nano Plating' for my shield tanked Charon?

I can use a slave set and 3x deadspace ANPs to tank my Provi, with links, to something useful. My Charon sits useless with no tanking option I can apply.

Come one CCP, please comment or add some 'ASA' ... adaptive shield amplifiers
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
#2 - 2014-06-11 14:14:20 UTC
Haven't you heard? You aren't supposed to be taking advantage of the changes Spacetruckers wanted and instead fit for maximum greed.

Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.

I invented Tiericide
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
#3 - 2014-06-11 14:14:28 UTC
... Double postage.

Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.

I invented Tiericide
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4 - 2014-06-11 14:49:49 UTC
As soon as armor hitpoints start natively regenerating, sure. Oh, and capless ancillary reppers.

Until then, different tank types are different.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#5 - 2014-06-11 15:26:47 UTC
Jean deVallette wrote:

Given how uselss my Charon is vs my Providence with the new Kronos changes, can CCP please comment on when they are releasing an equivalent to 'Adaptive Nano Plating' for my shield tanked Charon?

I can use a slave set and 3x deadspace ANPs to tank my Provi, with links, to something useful. My Charon sits useless with no tanking option I can apply.

Come one CCP, please comment or add some 'ASA' ... adaptive shield amplifiers




the fact that you believe that the provi is only useful with a full tank implant set and links makes me think that no matter what you get it wont be enough. How did you use the ships before the change?
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2014-06-11 16:04:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
As soon as armor hitpoints start natively regenerating, sure. Oh, and capless ancillary reppers.

Until then, different tank types are different.

It is true there is a noticeable disparity in the tanking ability of armor vs shield freighters. I think that simply moving shield HP to armor HP would fix the issue but would remove diversity.

However a low slot version of "Layered Plating" for shields might help address the issue. These modules don't see much use since they are generally considered inferior to EANM's and standard armor plates and I doubt that a "layered shielding" module would see much use outside of freighters for the same reason.

But it might help address the issue by allowing shield freighters to simply add more raw HP than armor freighters can if the percentage bonus to shield HP was high enough.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#7 - 2014-06-11 20:21:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
As soon as armor hitpoints start natively regenerating, sure. Oh, and capless ancillary reppers.

Until then, different tank types are different.

I agree that for general tanking goodness, this shouldn't be a thing. But a freighter only module as the OP seems to want (or at least should be freighter only) would kinda make sense due to the imbalance between tanking Armour freighters and Shield freighters.

I mean, seriously. Have you seen the tank an Ark can manage without giving up any cargo space (577831 EHP w/ 168750 cargo)? Have you compared it to a bulkheaded Rhea (548460 EHP w/ 135790 cargo)? How about with Slaves and links? Perhaps with faction or even deadspace ANPs (goes to 1.119m EHP vs 646k EHP)? And it's not like the Rhea's going to be regenerating that much shield HP anyways.

Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
As soon as armor hitpoints start natively regenerating, sure. Oh, and capless ancillary reppers.

Until then, different tank types are different.

While this is true there is a noticeable disparity in the tanking ability of armor vs shield freighters. I think that simply moving shield HP to armor HP would fix the issue but would remove diversity.

However a midslot version of "Layered Plating" for shields might help address the issue. These modules don't see much use since they are generally considered inferior to EANM's and standard armor plates and I doubt that a "layered shielding" module would see much use outside of freighters for the same reason.

But it might help address the issue by allowing shield freighters to simply add more raw HP than armor freighters can if the percentage bonus to shield HP was high enough.

Would have to be a low slot CPU-less module for freighter use. Preferably a freighter only module much like a Cov-ops cloak is for Recons/Cov-ops.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#8 - 2014-06-11 20:44:00 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
As soon as armor hitpoints start natively regenerating, sure. Oh, and capless ancillary reppers.

Until then, different tank types are different.

I agree that for general tanking goodness, this shouldn't be a thing. But a freighter only module as the OP seems to want (or at least should be freighter only) would kinda make sense due to the imbalance between tanking Armour freighters and Shield freighters.


He's not suggesting a freighter only module. He's suggesting giving away a native advantage from armor tanks "because my Charon".

Nevermind that freighters aren't balanced against their respective abilities exactly matched against one another. Yes, the Charon has less tank than the Providence and the Obelisk have. That's because tank is their shtick, if you want tank, you fly them.

The Charon on the other hand, can reach a fair bit higher maximum cargo than they can. I don't recall the exact numbers because I'm at work and I don't intend to dig through that septic tank of a thread to find them.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2014-06-11 21:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nevermind that freighters aren't balanced against their respective abilities exactly matched against one another. Yes, the Charon has less tank than the Providence and the Obelisk have. That's because tank is their shtick, if you want tank, you fly them.

The Charon on the other hand, can reach a fair bit higher maximum cargo than they can. I don't recall the exact numbers because I'm at work and I don't intend to dig through that septic tank of a thread to find them.

You make a very good point. However I have to ask, where does this leave the Fenrir? It is tied with the Providence for the smallest cargo hold among freighters but it is also a shield based tank like the Charon. So it has both of the disadvantages and none of the advantages.

In fact if you assume a CODE style gank squad using void ammo and fit T2 nano plantings (1x thermal, 1x kinetic, 1x adaptive) the Obelisk is the clear winner due to its Gallente native armor resist profile (300k EHP) and second largest cargo hold. The Providence comes in second with almost as much cargo and 10k less EHP, the Charon is kinda third with largest cargo hold and 62K less EHP, and the Fenrir is dead last with the the same small cargo as the Providence and 63k less EHP than the Obelisk. Sure the Fenrir may enter warp a bit faster but I wouldn't call a 36 second align time much of an advantage.

Basically the armor freighters can use nano plantings to achieve a "middle ground" between tank and cargo space while shield freighters do not get this option. They must pick one or the other with bulkheads vs cargo expanders. Even mixing the two modules leaves them with far less cargo and less EHP at the same time.

With the freighter skills being rank 10 cross training from freighter V in one race to freighter V in another is not fast. Although if level 3 or 4 is enough for your cargo needs then the cross training isn't that bad. However expecting someone to own several freighters and move them all around to be in the right place for different hauling jobs seems a bit much when you consider how slow freighters are.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#10 - 2014-06-11 21:49:27 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
As soon as armor hitpoints start natively regenerating, sure. Oh, and capless ancillary reppers.

Until then, different tank types are different.

I agree that for general tanking goodness, this shouldn't be a thing. But a freighter only module as the OP seems to want (or at least should be freighter only) would kinda make sense due to the imbalance between tanking Armour freighters and Shield freighters.


He's not suggesting a freighter only module. He's suggesting giving away a native advantage from armor tanks "because my Charon".

Nevermind that freighters aren't balanced against their respective abilities exactly matched against one another. Yes, the Charon has less tank than the Providence and the Obelisk have. That's because tank is their shtick, if you want tank, you fly them.

The Charon on the other hand, can reach a fair bit higher maximum cargo than they can. I don't recall the exact numbers because I'm at work and I don't intend to dig through that septic tank of a thread to find them.

I realize that and that's why I'm suggesting that in the event it's added, CCP does apply the "freighter module only" type to it.

However, now that I've gone and dipped my hand in this topic I'm actually doing some heavy comparisons, and it appears that a completely unfitted Charon gets 75% of the EHP of a triple TII ANP Providence. In all fairness, a Providence has 93.5% of the Charon's cargo capacity which does really step on the toes of the Charon's "shtick". Maybe if it could get up about 5-10% more EHP with a basic module investment while also not giving up its 7% more cargohold, it would be alright. A shield resist module would definitely imbalance that, unlesss it used 1 CPU. Then you could fit one, and assuming the resists granted weren't too high, it could bridge the gap without vastly imbalancing things.

Sure, a heavily pimped Providence or Obelisk will vastly out-tank the Charon still, but it'll also cost a lot more, and there's not much that can be done about the difference granted by slaves without introducing a shield version of slaves which would be stupid and utterly break the supercap meta.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#11 - 2014-06-11 22:16:54 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:

You make a very good point. However I have to ask, where does this leave the Fenrir? It is tied with the Providence for the smallest cargo hold among freighters but it is also a shield based tank like the Charon. So it has both of the disadvantages and none of the advantages.

*snip*

. Sure the Fenrir may enter warp a bit faster but I wouldn't call a 36 second align time much of an advantage.


I sure would. Faster speed literally translates to faster (more) profits. It has the best possible advantage, which is why it pays for it in cargo and tank.


"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#12 - 2014-06-11 22:21:46 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:

Sure, a heavily pimped Providence or Obelisk will vastly out-tank the Charon still, but it'll also cost a lot more, and there's not much that can be done about the difference granted by slaves without introducing a shield version of slaves which would be stupid and utterly break the supercap meta.


See, and that's really the problem. It just comes down to how shield tanks are balanced against armor tanks.

In this case, the armor tank pretty well wins out in terms of overall stats. But that tells me one thing in particular. That CCP places a higher value on cargohold than on tank. They were clearly very reluctant to even offer up rigs, and to do so they had to nerf the size of packaged capitals to justify it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2014-06-11 22:39:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I sure would. Faster speed literally translates to faster (more) profits. It has the best possible advantage, which is why it pays for it in cargo and tank.

The less tank you have the smaller your cargo hold really is. This makes align time pointless unless you are hauling very low value stuff. Which of course also kills your profits.

Unless it can align fast enough to avoid a gank there is no point in considering align time when taking all the risks of hauling in hi sec into account.

Especially since the warp speed changes with align time counting for so little of the total time needed for warp from A to B in a system.
Liam Inkuras
Furnace
Thermodynamics
#14 - 2014-06-12 00:07:08 UTC
Cargo Expander II's only way to fit freighters though

I wear my goggles at night.

Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2014-06-12 01:08:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jeanne-Luise Argenau
just my 2 cents.

charon with 3 cargohold expanders gets 100k cargospace more than a obelisk with 3.
max tank charon which is 3 bulkheads gets 40k less cargo than the obelisk which comes close in tank with bulkhead adaptive nano plate and explosive plate.
Fenrir is only good if u afk transport it compared to the other freighters else the faster align is rly only marginal.
charon doesnt have a middleground of cargohold and tank compared to obelisk or providence.

Thats the reason i sold my charon and chose the obelisk on my alt.

PS.: Dont nail me on my numbers its late and i did them from memory
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
#16 - 2014-06-12 02:53:24 UTC
Warp speed mods and implants are the only thing worth fitting to a high sec freighter.

That awkward moment at the Gentlemen's Club when you see your sister on the stage....and you're not sure where to put the money....
Jean deVallette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2014-06-12 09:52:14 UTC
This isn't an attempt to get 'shield plating' for all, just a desire to get some balance with freighters.

The two shield freighters cannot match the armour ones for tank because ANP (deadspace especially) distorts the issue.

3x ANP is more tank, is boostable tank, and slaveable tank. It has no drawbacks for a freighter (bulkheads have penalties). but major benefits for armour oriented ones.

The is absolutely no point flying a shield tanked freigher at the moment. Significant changes, maybe to align time, or speed would be nice .. or even a simple ANPs have a cargo penalty.

Any reason why you would use a shield tanked one? AFK in any Freighter with moderate value cargo is ....
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#18 - 2014-06-12 10:23:30 UTC
Jean deVallette wrote:

The is absolutely no point flying a shield tanked freigher at the moment. Significant changes, maybe to align time, or speed would be nice .. or even a simple ANPs have a cargo penalty.


Well, congrats, you have just broken armor ships in general, all in trying to fix a perceived issue with freighters.

Quote:

Any reason why you would use a shield tanked one? AFK in any Freighter with moderate value cargo is ....


The higher max cargo number, or for the Fenrir the higher speed of travel. And don't afk, period, in this game. It's just not a good idea.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Camper101
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2014-06-12 10:46:48 UTC
Why would you shield or armor tank a ship that has most hitpoints in structure?

2013.03.01 13:30:58 notify For participating in the General Discussion Forum Section your trustworthiness has been adjusted by -2.5000.

My name is Hans. The "L" stands for danger.
Jean deVallette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2014-06-12 12:22:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jean deVallette
Camper101 wrote:
Why would you shield or armor tank a ship that has most hitpoints in structure?


You can only add bulkheads to freighter, no DC. Using Pyfa 1.2.1

For the Providence, max EHP:
3x Coreli ANP, Slave Set, Boosted all V Armour Passive
EHP: 500k
Cargo: 544k
Aligns: 35.5s

For Charon, max EHP:
3x Bulkhead, No shield set equivalent, Boosted All V Shield Passive
EHP: 348K
Cargo: 410k
Aligns: 38.8s

Provi vs Charon (tank fit):
43% more EHP
32% more cargo
9% better align


There is not way to boost hull. The Provi above suffers none of the penalties of bulkheads, gets more EHP by a long margin over bulkheads. Its more agile, and has a lot more cargo.

I dont necessarily want homgenized freighters. Not tank for all, but make the Charon align in 25 secs with bulkheads would make it worthwhile? Thats only one possible idea, at the moment its just crap compared to the armour variants. The jump freighters reflect the same issue.

How can the devs be blind to this?
123Next page