These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Inferno Armour Repairer?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#61 - 2012-07-17 12:58:35 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
(your 2x 1600mm plate fit isn't realistic).


OK, fair enough, realistic fits on JUST the Cane.

[Hurricane, Shield]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Damage Control II
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II

J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Large Shield Extender II

425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
Medium Energy Neutralizer II
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
Medium Energy Neutralizer II
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

49,515 EHP, 492 DPS, 1311 m/s


[Hurricane, test]
Damage Control II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II

Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Warp Disruptor II
Stasis Webifier II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script

425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I

69,621 EHP, 438 DPS, 1025 m/s

So you're losing 30% speed and about 10% DPS and gaining about 40% hitpoints. Seems like those are fair tradeoffs.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2012-07-17 13:03:40 UTC
Paikis wrote:
random stuff


Good job comparing a 4 slot armor tank vs a 3 slot shield tank and concluding that the armor tank is better Lol
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#63 - 2012-07-17 13:09:09 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Paikis wrote:
random stuff


Good job comparing a 4 slot armor tank vs a 3 slot shield tank and concluding that the armor tank is better Lol


You said realistic. It is realistic to fit a 4 slot armor tank and a 3 slot shield tank. It is NOT realistic to fit a 4 slot shield tank.

Stop moving the goal posts every time you're proven wrong.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#64 - 2012-07-17 13:12:12 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Paikis wrote:
random stuff


Good job comparing a 4 slot armor tank vs a 3 slot shield tank and concluding that the armor tank is better Lol

2 neuts and extra range are irrelevant things, too Lol

"10% DPS" Lol

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#65 - 2012-07-17 13:15:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
Paikis wrote:

You said realistic. It is realistic to fit a 4 slot armor tank and a 3 slot shield tank. It is NOT realistic to fit a 4 slot shield tank.

Stop moving the goal posts every time you're proven wrong.

Yes it's realistic, though the truth is there : armor buffer use more slot than shield buffer to achieve this more ehp "advantages" on top of its natural drawbacks, like less damage mod, less fiting and less speed.

And do you think it's normal that a ship with 50% more lowslots than midslots is most of the time shield tanked instead of armored tanked ?

BTW the 3 slot shield cane use a damage controle, a low slot module often considered as an armor tank module.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#66 - 2012-07-17 13:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Paikis
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
BTW the 3 slot shield cane use a damage controle, a low slot module often considered as an armor tank module.


DC is a hull tanking module, not an armor tanking module.

Fon Revedhort wrote:

2 neuts and extra range are irrelevant things, too Lol

"10% DPS" Lol


Swap the web for another tracking computer. Boom no range difference. Are you always this much of a knob jockey, or is this a special occasion?
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-07-17 13:17:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Paikis wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Paikis wrote:
random stuff


Good job comparing a 4 slot armor tank vs a 3 slot shield tank and concluding that the armor tank is better Lol


You said realistic. It is realistic to fit a 4 slot armor tank and a 3 slot shield tank. It is NOT realistic to fit a 4 slot shield tank.

Stop moving the goal posts every time you're proven wrong.


If you do not like the Huricane fits, just take a look at the Prophecy and Drake. The outcome of the 4 slot tank comparison is the same.

In that sense, stop ignoring the evidence and focusing on pointless details.
Cpt Branko
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2012-07-17 13:18:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Branko
Paikis wrote:

So you're losing 30% speed and about 10% DPS and gaining about 40% hitpoints.
Seems like those are fair tradeoffs.


Seems. Well it's not actually that far from the truth, but is still not the whole thing.

I mean, I will not go out and say that armour Hurricane is bad because I know very well it is not. Solo it is a very interesting ship (when properly fit, which that one is not but I guess you were trying to make some point) which can actually go toe to toe with a lot of ships and win. It's like a functioning blasterboat.

However, once we discuss gangs then it just has no place there, it's on-paper (and in practice, tbh) superiority at close range becomes much less important then the things which shieldtanks can provide, and there's no reason to fly it over a shield Hurricane. Even solo, shield has some allure, because you're not flying in web and scram range by default, which means more survivability (but a somewhat smaller list of targets you can reliably kill, yes) on TQ. But this is not that much due to balance but due to how the game is.

But as I said before, shield buffer and armour buffer are mostly balanced (on ships which can fit both well, which means battleships or Hurricane or a few more maybe).

When you discuss active tank then shield vs armour breaks down completely, since instead of 4 lows you need 5 lows and lots of fitting and then it just doesn't work anymore.
Cpt Branko
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2012-07-17 13:26:14 UTC
What I entirely don't understand is why you discuss 1600mm plate fits and LSE fits in a thread which is about active tanking?

Is it at all relevant if buffer tanks are balanced or not (and they mostly are) when we discuss whether active tanks are balanced at all (which they are not)? The thread title contains "Repairer" and yet fools are droning on about armour EHP and shield EHP when using buffer fits.
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
#70 - 2012-07-17 13:26:47 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Shpenat wrote:

I think CCP wanted to compensate with reactive armor hardener.

And I think CCP wanted to troll.

This point of view can be futher backed up with them increasing HP bonus at tech2 armour plates. What an intelligent way of promoting active tanks across the galaxy!


That has nothing to do with active armor tanking. T2 armor plates really needed some tweak. There are modules out there with meta4 having same statistics as T2 with lower fitting requirements. That is not the case of plates. Meta4 has lower fitting requirements AND better statistics than T2. That CCP opted for buffing T2 rather than nerfing meta0 - meta4 is either laziness or more likely the less work to do.

With active tanking the situation is different. With ASB the boost amount raised substantially. You can achieve the same effect by increasing the resistance which is exactly what reactive hardener is suppose to do. Unfortunately its statistics are too weak to have any use.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#71 - 2012-07-17 14:38:15 UTC
Shpenat wrote:
That CCP opted for buffing T2 rather than nerfing meta0 - meta4 is either laziness or more likely the less work to do.

It might be a plain lack of pvp comprehension.

Also, they could buff it in terms of mass rather then sheer hp bonus. Instead they picked the most primitive way and thus should be severely slapped for it.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2012-07-17 17:11:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Well seems as we're debating the difference between shield / armour buffer and active tanking an specific ships to see if there seems to be an issue consider the Myrmidon.

An XL-ASB fit deals 700 dps whilst tanking 900 dps
A tri rep fit deals 580 dps and tanks 700 dps

The active armour fit, which it's bonused for, not only has less tank and less dps but it's also reliant on a dual cap booster setup and is very slow. It is also at the mercy of neuts which the ASB fit isn't.

Getting back on topic and to what I suggested which is a repair module that cycles twice as long but repairs double the hp per cycle but costs as cap much as a rep does now we would 1/2 the cap requirements whilst leaving the tank mostly the same. Yes, active tanked bonused ships would benefit more because 37.5% of 440 (current hp per cycle of MAR II) is less than 37.5% of 900 (suggested amount) hp per cycle.

I can only see that as a benefit to active tanking without completely breaking it.


[EDIT]

If you think this would over power active armour tanking what if we tripled the cycle timer and the rep amount? this would mean very long rep cycles but would boost massive amounts of hp
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#73 - 2012-07-17 18:31:18 UTC
Well instead, idiots continue to think the better way to tank armor is to fill it with plates Roll OF course it's so obvious this is the proper answer for active armor tanking.

So let's throw in another plate with a higher HP, problem solved Roll

brb