Ships & Modules

No permatank, but still...

[Mael, tank 4000 dps]
Damage Control II
Co-Processor II
Co-Processor II
Co-Processor II
Co-Processor II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster,Cap Booster 400
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster,Cap Booster 400
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster,Cap Booster 400
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster,Cap Booster 400
100MN MicroWarpdrive I
800mm Repeating Artillery II,Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II,Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II,Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II,Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II,Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II,Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II,Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II,Republic Fleet EMP L
Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Drones_Active=Ogre II,4


Each ASB tanks 2000 dps per 4 second cycle with crystal set. This means you get 8000 tanked dps per 4 seconds = 2000 tanked dps per second. With resists at ~50% across the board you will be tanking 4000 dps for as long as you have cap boosters loaded (40 seconds).

You will also be doing just below 800 dps and you can tackle.

Not too shabby i'd say.

Armor is outdated, you dont see a bunch of Drakes or Cyclones fitting armor tanks whether it be buffer or active. If you think about it, you dont see ANY typical shield ship fitting ANY armor tank. So tell me why is it that you see typical ARMOR ships fitting shield tanks, Shield Astartes, Shield Brutix's, Shield Ruptures, Shield Harbingers, Shield Zealots, Shield Myrmidons. If you trolls that say there isnt a problem with armor tanking actually go fly an armor ship you may realize it serious drawbacks. Speed, Damage, and Tank all suffer from fitting an armor tank to a ship (everything that matters in PvP).

In regards to this new ASB module, fine, its a great item, improves the active shield performance for EVERY ship. I can put 2 L-ASB's on an astarte and get a better tank, more speed, and more dps than using local armor which the ship has bonuses to, but that doesnt matter, because if you really want to have a great active tank, Shield tanking IS the only way to go for ANY ship.

Reactive Armor Hardner....... I know this thread is full of shield fanatics, but did you know they have a skill now just for this module, that increases duration by 10%...... (LMAO) So the 60 capacitor this module uses every cycle now uses cap EVEN faster. Im laughing right now, not at the balance of shield and armor, but at the morons that think Armor tanking is just as good as Shield tanking. Oh and until there is a actual balance between the only two real types of tanking in the game, there will ALWAYS be an outcry for armor improvements in any shield thread. How about we just get rid of all the ships with armor bonuses to active armor tanking and instead give them armor buffer bonuses or armor resist bonuses, allow passive armor regeneration (maybe add a module that allows for it), and allow full armor regeneration on docking, lets truly make armor its own thing, if shields are going to have such a superior advantage in active tanking.

/rage off

I... must be missing something?

-Liang

I fixed the derp, you're welcome Iam

[Cyclone, Depression]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
F85 Peripheral Damage System I
Fourier Transform Tracking Program

Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I
X-Large Shield Booster II

220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I

Just saying...

Cyclone was best with crystals + pill + large shield booster. If you had money for a DG booster (which were cheap at one point, not so much now) you'd get a solid tank which is easy to maintain. XLSB boosted Cyclone still outdid buffer Cyclone, esp. if you had Crystals and pills. Naturally, can't permarun the reps, so there is micromanagement involved. The XL booster fit had a weakness, though - if you could force him to MWD and rep it'd cap out quite soon. If you got caught right off by a properly tanked Cyclone, though, bad news.

I think it was reasonably balanced, and the only useful Tier 1 BC, even with the generally inferior stats Tier 1s have.

I never used it much because I could not justify buying crystals to myself just for two ships (or three, if I ever wanted to fly a Sleipnir, which is just far too expensive for what it does), although for people who do have them it was actually a great little ship.

Still, I think it's in general a good showcase of what makes a well designed active tank ship:
- Decent (not overwhelming, but decent) tank.
- Capless weapons because active tanks spend so much cap on their own, that powering everything off one injector is not feasible
for cap-using weapons.
- Ability to fit for proper DPS while fitting MWD and basic tackle and active tank.

Well, some Caldari ships could hypothetically be active shield tanked, but you run into fitting issues, and buffer is sufficient anyway... and I never flew Caldari (or anything non-Minmatar bar a few attempts at replacing Hurricanes with a Myrmidon).

Both of Major Killz's fits are pretty bad.

Cpt Branko is wrong in asserting that the LSB Cyclone is the best for typical active tanking. He might have been before, but you get significantly better performance all around out of XLSB now.

Admit it, single ASB on a Cyclone is just a really fancy buffer tank. Dual XASB or X+L ASB combos are different, but the concept is there.

No I am not going to stay around all day explaining why your fits are bad.

I was genuinely incorrect and I apologize. Carry on.

If you don't actually know how the module in question works, please refrain from commenting on it, much less arguing on whether or not it's balanced.

Wasn't arguing anything about balance.

Was making a joke that backfired because I hadn't verified my understanding (or in this case lack of) of the modules functioning.