These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AAR = Devs Completely Shield Biased

Author
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2013-02-19 04:21:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Kitty Bear wrote:
If it bothers you that much train for Shield Tanking.
The 2 systems are completely different from more than 1 perspective.

Armour Tanking is more Capacitor efficient.
Base values for Armour are higher than they are for Shields
Armour Tanking gets a Passive Omni-Resistance Module, Shield Tanking gets an Active Omni-Resistance Module

Finally Armour Tanking requires less SP.

Armour Tanking Skills
Repair Systems (R1)
Hull Upgrades (R2)
Armour Resistance Phasing (R3)
4x [xyz] Armour Compensation (R2)

Total Ranks - 14 (3,584,000 Skill Points)

Shield Tanking Skills
Shield Compensation (R2)
Shield Management (R3)
Shield Operation (R1)
Shield Upgrades (R2)
Tactical Shield Manipulation (R4)
4x [xyz] Shield Compensation (R2)

Total Skill Ranks - 20 (5,120,000 Skill Points)

You forgot to include the mechanic skill under armor.

Also it's worth noting that 3 of the shield skills have functions that aren't replicated with armor mechanics and skills. For instance passive shield regen rate, fitting cost of certain mods and cap/HP efficiency are things which shield tankers can modify through skills, while armor takers cannot do the latter 2 and the former doesn't apply at all.

Lastly shield T2 mods seem to have fewer lvl 5 skill prerequisites than armor mods as a whole.

The training may be longer to complete but provides a greater range of utility over armor skills helping balance the 2.
Ctzn Snips
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2013-02-19 04:31:26 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
"If you don't want to tank the bad way, train into the better way"

Armour Tanking is more Capacitor efficient.


Can you explain to me how active armor tanking is more cap efficient than active shield tanking?

I'll wait.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#63 - 2013-02-19 04:45:11 UTC
Honestly these armour vs shield threads are becoming tiring. We see the same one-sided arguments recycled over and over again. Every time it's a new person, and every time they think they're really clever and its a completely new idea.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
You forgot to include the mechanic skill under armor.

Also it's worth noting that 3 of the shield skills have functions that aren't replicated with armor mechanics and skills. For instance passive shield regen rate, fitting cost of certain mods and cap/HP efficiency are things which shield tankers can modify through skills, while armor takers cannot do the latter 2 and the former doesn't apply at all.

Lastly shield T2 mods seem to have fewer lvl 5 skill prerequisites than armor mods as a whole.

The training may be longer to complete but provides a greater range of utility over armor skills helping balance the 2.


He also forgot Hull Upgrades under shield tanking. Damage Controls work quite well for shield tanks as well. And as long as we're talking about crossover skills, you can go ahead and add Mechanics to shields, and Shield Management/operation to armour tanking, since they all apply. Armour tanked ships have shields and shield tanked ships have hull and armour too, an extra few % can determine a fight.

Not to worry about those extra skills that shields have, we'll be getting some new armour skills real soon. A new skill to reduce the drawback of plates. I will be awaiting the shield skill to reduce the sig bloom of extenders. Armour already gets some stuff that shields don't. Repair Systems reduces the cycle time of reps, there is no shield equivalent. All four of the armour compensation skills are useful as well, the shield versions are all set to become mostly useless in the next patch (tonight?)

This may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, but both tanking methods are viable. Shields are better at active tanking, and armour is better at buffer tanking. How is this still news to anyone?

Ctzn Snips wrote:
Can you explain to me how active armor tanking is more cap efficient than active shield tanking?

I'll wait.


Um, it uses less capacitor per unit of repaired armour than shield boosters do? Cos, y'know that's kinda what efficiency is all about?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2013-02-19 04:53:30 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Honestly these armour vs shield threads are becoming tiring. We see the same one-sided arguments recycled over and over again. Every time it's a new person, and every time they think they're really clever and its a completely new idea.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
You forgot to include the mechanic skill under armor.

Also it's worth noting that 3 of the shield skills have functions that aren't replicated with armor mechanics and skills. For instance passive shield regen rate, fitting cost of certain mods and cap/HP efficiency are things which shield tankers can modify through skills, while armor takers cannot do the latter 2 and the former doesn't apply at all.

Lastly shield T2 mods seem to have fewer lvl 5 skill prerequisites than armor mods as a whole.

The training may be longer to complete but provides a greater range of utility over armor skills helping balance the 2.


He also forgot Hull Upgrades under shield tanking. Damage Controls work quite well for shield tanks as well. And as long as we're talking about crossover skills, you can go ahead and add Mechanics to shields, and Shield Management/operation to armour tanking, since they all apply. Armour tanked ships have shields and shield tanked ships have hull and armour too, an extra few % can determine a fight.

Not to worry about those extra skills that shields have, we'll be getting some new armour skills real soon. A new skill to reduce the drawback of plates. I will be awaiting the shield skill to reduce the sig bloom of extenders. Armour already gets some stuff that shields don't. Repair Systems reduces the cycle time of reps, there is no shield equivalent. All four of the armour compensation skills are useful as well, the shield versions are all set to become mostly useless in the next patch (tonight?)

Enhanced utility with longer training. Still seems balanced, though partially with what one would choose to train afterwards rather than what one may have trained before.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#65 - 2013-02-19 05:08:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Taoist Dragon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ctzn Snips wrote:
Good thing upping the size and using only one is a completely viable option when it doesn't cost any cap. And ships designed for using shields aren't exactly lacking in mid slots.


So.... dual rep incursus (SAAR, SAR) vs Merlin (MASB). Who wins?

-Liang


Merlin as he just walks away if he can't mitigate the incursus' damage through range control.


hmm....I might actually start flying a dual rep incursus with a web rather than scram hmmm...


Neat trick given the fact the Incursus is faster than the Merlin.

-Liang

Ed: This kinda gets back to what I've been saying. The rig changes are a really big deal. Way bigger than anyone gives them credit for.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Gitanmaxx
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2013-02-19 05:30:29 UTC
I don't think it's some intentional hate against armor tanking. I also like the concept of this module. But it's biffed in my opinion. The cap use, the type of charges, the amount it reps. Something there really needs to change and it could go from complete fail to a really cool and unique module.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#67 - 2013-02-19 05:49:54 UTC
What's wrong with the type of charges? They're small and compact.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2013-02-19 07:47:47 UTC
Gitanmaxx wrote:
I don't think it's some intentional hate against armor tanking. I also like the concept of this module. But it's biffed in my opinion. The cap use, the type of charges, the amount it reps. Something there really needs to change and it could go from complete fail to a really cool and unique module.


What really ruins it for me is that i can't have more than one on any ship.

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

Heavieth
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-02-19 11:51:29 UTC
I want to say there is a solution to all changes in eve that I learned a long time ago. If you want to keep your edge then you need to train all races. I started training multiple races after the huge missile nerf bat around 2006.

If you fly cruisers train for all the race cruisers ect.

Then you have it all ;-P
Ctzn Snips
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2013-02-19 16:32:33 UTC
Paikis wrote:


Ctzn Snips wrote:
Can you explain to me how active armor tanking is more cap efficient than active shield tanking?

I'll wait.


Um, it uses less capacitor per unit of repaired armour than shield boosters do? Cos, y'know that's kinda what efficiency is all about?


Tell me more about these PVP fits that use Shield Boosters over ASBs.
Gitanmaxx
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#71 - 2013-02-19 19:52:06 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
What's wrong with the type of charges? They're small and compact.

-Liang


and cost a small fortune. maybe not a problem for multi-billionaire. but i'm new to pvp so if i use this module i'll go broke very very quickly from losing ships with paste in them. look at the cost of this vs the cost of the caps used by the asb.

I can understand people defending the concept of this module, even thinking OPs like the one here are going way overboard into silliness.....but anyone arguing that this module isn't worse in every way to an asb is just trying to be contentious for the sake of wanting to argue. Any logical objective view of this module has to realize something isn't quite right with it and needs adjustment.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#72 - 2013-02-20 20:52:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Cambarus
Paikis wrote:

Ctzn Snips wrote:
Can you explain to me how active armor tanking is more cap efficient than active shield tanking?

I'll wait.


Um, it uses less capacitor per unit of repaired armour than shield boosters do? Cos, y'know that's kinda what efficiency is all about?

2 LARS repair 1600 armor for 800 cap, or 2 units repped per cap spent
XLSB+ SBA boosts 816 for 360 cap, or ~2.26 units repped per cap spent

The argument for better cap efficiency for armor goes out the window once SBAs are factored in, and that's not even counting the cap-free ASBs.

EDIT:
Liang Nuren wrote:

Ed: This kinda gets back to what I've been saying. The rig changes are a really big deal. Way bigger than anyone gives them credit for.

A million times this. I can think of 2 armor ships off the top of my head that went from being useless to being pretty decent because of that change.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#73 - 2013-02-20 21:37:37 UTC
Gitanmaxx wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
What's wrong with the type of charges? They're small and compact.

-Liang


and cost a small fortune. maybe not a problem for multi-billionaire. but i'm new to pvp so if i use this module i'll go broke very very quickly from losing ships with paste in them. look at the cost of this vs the cost of the caps used by the asb.

I can understand people defending the concept of this module, even thinking OPs like the one here are going way overboard into silliness.....but anyone arguing that this module isn't worse in every way to an asb is just trying to be contentious for the sake of wanting to argue. Any logical objective view of this module has to realize something isn't quite right with it and needs adjustment.


Two things:
- The XL ASB cost almost 2.5 million ISK to reload when it was released.
- Everyone said the ASB was 100% useless when it was released because of the reload time.
- The cost of nanite repair paste will go down over time when the speculation bubble eases up.
- There is no requirement for equivalency between the AAR and ASB.
- There is no requirement for equivalency between armor and shield tanking.
- We haven't given the new armor tanking changes (all of them, not just AAR) enough of a shake for people to develop a meta.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#74 - 2013-02-20 21:38:59 UTC
Cambarus wrote:

2 LARS repair 1600 armor for 800 cap, or 2 units repped per cap spent
XLSB+ SBA boosts 816 for 360 cap, or ~2.26 units repped per cap spent


2 LAR + Aux Nano Pump vs XLXB+ SBA is a better comparison.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#75 - 2013-02-20 21:58:54 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Cambarus wrote:

2 LARS repair 1600 armor for 800 cap, or 2 units repped per cap spent
XLSB+ SBA boosts 816 for 360 cap, or ~2.26 units repped per cap spent


2 LAR + Aux Nano Pump vs XLXB+ SBA is a better comparison.

-Liang

Ok then throw a rig of your choice in on the shield side.

And, of course, we have not yet factored in the fitting costs of the above modules to the typical fitting space on the relevant ships.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#76 - 2013-02-20 22:04:38 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Cambarus wrote:

2 LARS repair 1600 armor for 800 cap, or 2 units repped per cap spent
XLSB+ SBA boosts 816 for 360 cap, or ~2.26 units repped per cap spent


2 LAR + Aux Nano Pump vs XLXB+ SBA is a better comparison.

-Liang

Ok then throw a rig of your choice in on the shield side.

And, of course, we have not yet factored in the fitting costs of the above modules to the typical fitting space on the relevant ships.


You already burned your extra slot on the SBA.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#77 - 2013-02-20 22:22:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Cambarus
Liang Nuren wrote:
Cambarus wrote:

2 LARS repair 1600 armor for 800 cap, or 2 units repped per cap spent
XLSB+ SBA boosts 816 for 360 cap, or ~2.26 units repped per cap spent


2 LAR + Aux Nano Pump vs XLXB+ SBA is a better comparison.

-Liang

With the rig added it's 2.3 units repped/cap (so only ~1.7% better cap efficiency) . That's only just barely better than the shield booster and requires a third slot. Tossing in a cap rig for shields brings it up to 2.5 reps/cap, which is still better.

The armor reps bring in 163.5 hp/s, and the shield booster brings in 163.2, despite the armor rig being for repping power and the shield one being for cap use only.

Not that I'm advocating the use of cap rigs on shields, but it's still worth noting that 2 LARs + a rig give 1.7% better cap efficiency and 0.2% increased repping power over a XLSB + a SBA, whereas pretty much any of the shield rigs will give you more bang for your buck if you're trying to keep the slots even.
Liang Nuren wrote:

You already burned your extra slot on the SBA.
-Liang
I don't think we're using the same numbers here.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#78 - 2013-02-20 22:37:02 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
I don't think we're using the same numbers here.


It's pretty much always been accepted that 2 LAR is roughly equivalent to 1 XLSB. Trying to claim there should be parity between XLSB + SBA vs 2 LAR is ridiculous and you should know better. 2 LAR vs 1 XLSB or 2 LAR+Aux Nano vs XLSB+SBA. But 2 LAR+Aux Nano vs XLSB+SBA+Cap Rig is just... well, stupid.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#79 - 2013-02-20 22:50:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Paikis
You are comparing an EXTRA large module against a large. (Hint: try using large modules, not extra large)
You are comparing base stats. (Hint: you need to factor in skills)
You are comparing a handful of modules and complaining that things are out of balance (Hint: What about resists? What about speed and sig radius?)

Are we doing this again? Because it was dumb the first time too.

Try your numbers again using a LARGE SB + SBA vs 2x LARs and some actual skill points. And then try to realise that 3 modules are not the entirety of balance.

Then, here's some more things you need to think about:
You cannot just take tank into account. How much more damage does the ship with less tank get? Is it more vulnerable to being neuted? Is it faster or slower? Do it's guns need to be reloaded. Is its damage restricted to one or two damage types only? Can you reduce its damage to almost nothing through manual piloting? Does it have less tank/second but higher resistances, making it a better remote rep gang member?

There are so many things you need to factor in when talking about this, that I find anyone trying to tell me that it is unbalanced or unfair to be extremely arrogant. Did you think about all of that above? What about the bits I didn't type out? What happens when you take officer or deadspace mods into account?
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#80 - 2013-02-20 23:26:07 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Also it's worth noting that 3 of the shield skills have functions that aren't replicated with armor mechanics and skills. For instance passive shield regen rate, fitting cost of certain mods and cap/HP efficiency are things which shield tankers can modify through skills, while armor takers cannot do the latter 2 and the former doesn't apply at all..



passive regen on non "bonused" (as in the they lack a natural ship value that is high) ships does not work as well as you think it does. this is not instant shield hp rebound. Even on a drake, NH, or rattler which have this better ship stat. this all a shield tanker has post fight. Unless pvp has changed that much, when I did it out of say 15 peeps you could find a few peeps with rr in a utility high. Shield transfers packed jsut in case?....cricket, cricket, cricket.


Shield upgrade is needed to get max ehp on the boat. SE, unlike plates has high meta that fits easier but does not have max hp boost of the t2 SE. Armour as you know has been RT plate for years as for the longest time ccp made t2 not even worth considering fitting. Also worth noting the SU 5 is a mildly pita train to fit t2 SE on any frig or some cruisers.


cap/hp efficiency, again, you are thinking too much of this ability. Until the advent of ASB you if you flew shield tankers you learned quick why it was jsut slap on SE and call it a day. Also keep in mind your SOP omni tank for shield tank means 1 invul II, and usually 1 EM II (caldari anyway...nice em hole there). Active hards for more cap use. Now your armour omni....you slap on the EANM and a 2nd type resist of choice. I dream of the day shield gets a passive all in one resist like eanm. then it be one less mouth to feed and then you can whine about cap efficiency all you want.