These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Shield Extenders need to be changed.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#21 - 2013-02-26 07:29:26 UTC
I count 11 shield tanked ships in eve-kill's top 20 flown this month, and that's only because the cane, loki, thorax and SFI can be tanked either way, and not everyone fits a tank to the manti and hound. By comparison, the only pure armor tankers on that list are the zealot and the oracle.

Clearly shield buffer tanks are in need of a buff.
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-02-26 07:37:46 UTC
Paikis wrote:
The Renner wrote:
50mm and 100mm plates are useless as well, they need to be made useful/removed along with small extenders.


Agreed. Personally I would just remove them. There are already way more sizes of plates than are actually needed.

The Renner wrote:
That large extender buff would be overpowered though.


How so?


You know how Drakes currently can fit 3 Large Shield Extender II if you've got enough skills? That's why, on any BC Armor buffer you use 1x 1600mm plate, to get either 2x damage mods and a hardener or you get 3x damage mods.

We'd need XL-Shield Extenders if anything, but then we'd need a bigger plate, since armor doesn't regen over time as shields do.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
bufnitza calatoare
#23 - 2013-02-26 08:04:20 UTC
Paikis wrote:
AGSeeker wrote:
Well..no. Active Shield tanking is better than active armor tanking (Ancillary shield booster). So its fair enough that armor buffer tanking is supirior to shield buffer tanking. Also shields have a passive regen, where armor has higher overall resists.


So, you're perfectly happy with buffs to active armour tanking, but not with buffs to buffer shield tanking? Hypocritical much?



tell you what!

when plates allow a passive regen then you can *****.

in the mean time stop with the stupid posts.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#24 - 2013-02-26 08:06:02 UTC
It's so cute how you people think passive regen is relevant.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-02-26 08:09:14 UTC
Maybe the scaling as a whole is a problem.

Nobody (almost) uses micro or small shield and small 50/100 plate.

partly because sizing only seems to be ballenced in the highslot aera. (weapon sizes, Neuts and Nossies have a size diference)


Mid and low slots only have the defence modules divided in small, medium, large, ect ect.


But for instance the Midslot E-war is on size fits all, suport modules in low slots, same story.

Now in the current set up a frigate need to be able to use those suport modules as well as a bigger vessle, but you should still need the flexibillity to fit anything else. which leaves the oppertunity to leave some modules out and use it on a higher defence.

might be worthwhile to look at that.
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2013-02-26 08:12:53 UTC
Paikis wrote:
It's so cute how you people think passive regen is relevant.


But it is.
a Drake can passively tank 200-300 DPS as a pvp fit. But increasing total Shield HP you get more Passive tank... A Drake can already have 100k EHP buffer, with 200-300 Passive tank... How is Passive regen not relevant to the subject?

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#27 - 2013-02-26 08:15:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Paikis
culo duro wrote:
Paikis wrote:
It's so cute how you people think passive regen is relevant.


But it is.
a Drake can passively tank 200-300 DPS as a pvp fit. But increasing total Shield HP you get more Passive tank... A Drake can already have 100k EHP buffer, with 200-300 Passive tank... How is Passive regen not relevant to the subject?


Post this PvP DRAEK with 100k eHP and 300 eHP/sec passive tank. I need a good laugh, and the only way you're getting anywhere CLOSE to those numbers is by doing something stupid or otherwise fudging things.
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2013-02-26 08:27:32 UTC
Paikis wrote:
culo duro wrote:
Paikis wrote:
It's so cute how you people think passive regen is relevant.


But it is.
a Drake can passively tank 200-300 DPS as a pvp fit. But increasing total Shield HP you get more Passive tank... A Drake can already have 100k EHP buffer, with 200-300 Passive tank... How is Passive regen not relevant to the subject?


Post this PvP DRAEK with 100k eHP and 300 eHP/sec passive tank. I need a good laugh, and the only way you're getting anywhere CLOSE to those numbers is by doing something stupid or otherwise fudging things.


http://p0wnd.nl/kb/index.php/kill_detail/7130/

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#29 - 2013-02-26 08:51:09 UTC
a. 2% over on CPU
b. 3% over on PG
c. 99,875 eHP
d. 193 eHP/sec passive regen

You're over on fittings, requiring at least 2 fittings implants (I assume the 2 Genolution implants), and you're short by a looong way on your claims of 300/sec passive regen.
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2013-02-26 09:10:41 UTC
Paikis wrote:
a. 2% over on CPU
b. 3% over on PG
c. 99,875 eHP
d. 193 eHP/sec passive regen

You're over on fittings, requiring at least 2 fittings implants (I assume the 2 Genolution implants), and you're short by a looong way on your claims of 300/sec passive regen.


If you fly a drake, you use PG Implants.
Also since i actually use implants you reach past the 100k EHP point. with 200-300 Passive regen.

But the part you seem to forget is that if you made the Large Shield Extender have 4k HP instead of the current 2625 HP. it'll be way too op. The Drake is great as it is.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#31 - 2013-02-26 09:25:20 UTC
culo duro wrote:
If you fly a drake, you use PG Implants.
Also since i actually use implants you reach past the 100k EHP point. with 200-300 Passive regen.

But the part you seem to forget is that if you made the Large Shield Extender have 4k HP instead of the current 2625 HP. it'll be way too op. The Drake is great as it is.


Hey, if we're going to use implants, then I have a 200k eHP prophecy that would like to have a word, and all that took was a set of slaves and a couple 'noble' implants. How long does it take to regenerate 90,000 eHP at 300/sec? About 5 minutes.

Please note the increase in fittings for the 4k HP LSE. Sure its nice to have a larger shield extender, but your current DRAEK is already over on fitting, and still only barely breaks HALF the eHP of a prophecy. This new XLSE has increased fitting requirements. It's not like I'm trying to just hand out an extra couple thousand eHP to shield ships. You can't even remove 2 LSEs and add one XLSE, because the CPU cost of one XLSE is more than double two LSEs.
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-02-26 10:11:16 UTC
Paikis wrote:
culo duro wrote:
If you fly a drake, you use PG Implants.
Also since i actually use implants you reach past the 100k EHP point. with 200-300 Passive regen.

But the part you seem to forget is that if you made the Large Shield Extender have 4k HP instead of the current 2625 HP. it'll be way too op. The Drake is great as it is.


Hey, if we're going to use implants, then I have a 200k eHP prophecy that would like to have a word, and all that took was a set of slaves and a couple 'noble' implants. How long does it take to regenerate 90,000 eHP at 300/sec? About 5 minutes.

Please note the increase in fittings for the 4k HP LSE. Sure its nice to have a larger shield extender, but your current DRAEK is already over on fitting, and still only barely breaks HALF the eHP of a prophecy. This new XLSE has increased fitting requirements. It's not like I'm trying to just hand out an extra couple thousand eHP to shield ships. You can't even remove 2 LSEs and add one XLSE, because the CPU cost of one XLSE is more than double two LSEs.


I'd love to see that fit, because the only way i can get a 200k EHP on a prophecy is by having no neuts on the high slots.
140k EHP with 3 med neuts and 2 small neuts.

If you can't see that if you gave the drake a total of 4K more Shield it would be insane. Shield tanking is already more agile than Armor buffer tanking, and you want it to be buffed more?

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Ohishi
Apocalypse Reign
#33 - 2013-02-26 10:13:30 UTC
culo duro wrote:
Paikis wrote:
a. 2% over on CPU
b. 3% over on PG
c. 99,875 eHP
d. 193 eHP/sec passive regen

You're over on fittings, requiring at least 2 fittings implants (I assume the 2 Genolution implants), and you're short by a looong way on your claims of 300/sec passive regen.


If you fly a drake, you use PG Implants.
Also since i actually use implants you reach past the 100k EHP point. with 200-300 Passive regen.

But the part you seem to forget is that if you made the Large Shield Extender have 4k HP instead of the current 2625 HP. it'll be way too op. The Drake is great as it is.

That's funny, I flew drakes and have snake and HML implants. Never once did I need a power grid implant.

Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought.

Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-02-26 14:48:12 UTC
You can't really change the effective sizes of mods like this.

All the fits in eve would break for no good reason.

Theres an argument for a better buffer mod at the top end for shield now that armor has had a significant active buff.

An XL shield extender with double the stats of a large would be the way to do it though.

We would not want to hand over piles of isk to the Micro and Small shield extender T2 BPO holders.
AGSeeker
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2013-02-26 15:18:28 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
You can't really change the effective sizes of mods like this.

All the fits in eve would break for no good reason.

Theres an argument for a better buffer mod at the top end for shield now that armor has had a significant active buff.

An XL shield extender with double the stats of a large would be the way to do it though.

We would not want to hand over piles of isk to the Micro and Small shield extender T2 BPO holders.



Well i wouldn't call it a good buff for active armor tanking. Despite the lower PG need and the from lower speed to higher PG need on armor rigs, the rep amount and extrem long cycle time on the armor reppers stayed the same.

If shield tankers get a x-large shield extender, then I demand a x-large armor repper or at least shorter cycle time and a capless ancillary armor repper. But were would be the difference then to shield tanking I ask?
Lili Lu
#36 - 2013-02-26 15:19:08 UTC
Paikis wrote:
I think that with the current buffs to active armour tanking, and presumably more on the way, that it is time that shield tankers had an answer to the 1600mm plate, and I'd also like to propose that the lower sized shield extenders be buffed so they might actually be used.

Shield buffer is fine. The top 20 of EVE-kill is full of shield buffer. There simply is no problem calling out for an answer.Roll Your suggestion that there should be a larger shield extender is bad and you should feel bad.

As for micro and small extenders, take a look at 50mm and 100mm plates. That basically only noobs actually fit these modules is no big deal. Or did you make the mistake of buying a tech II small shield extender BPO or some such?Big smile
Steel Roamer
Southern Baptist Space Warrior Collective.
V0IDLINGS
#37 - 2013-02-26 19:42:35 UTC
AGSeeker wrote:
Paikis wrote:
Nobody uses the Micro or Small shield extenders. Frigates get a medium, and anything cruiser and above uses large.

I think that with the current buffs to active armour tanking, and presumably more on the way, that it is time that shield tankers had an answer to the 1600mm plate, and I'd also like to propose that the lower sized shield extenders be buffed so they might actually be used. The idea is that Frigates use the micro and smalls, cruisers and BCs use the medium, and BS use the large. Here's my suggestions:

Micro Shield Extender II (slightly worse than 200mm plate)
PG/CPU: 1/17
Shield: +550
Sig Radius: +3

Small Shield Extender II (carbon copy of current MSE II, slightly worse than 400mm plate)
PG/CPU: 31/34
Shield: +1050
Sig Radius: +7

Medium Shield Extender II (slight nerf on current LSE II, slightly worse than 800mm plate)
PG/CPU: 160/46
Shield: +2350
Sig Radius: +23

Large Shield Extender II (slightly worse than the 1600mm plate)
PG/CPU: 180/100
Shield: +4700
Sig Radius: +50


Well..no. Active Shield tanking is better than active armor tanking (Ancillary shield booster). So its fair enough that armor buffer tanking is supirior to shield buffer tanking. Also shields have a passive regen, where armor has higher overall resists.


Active shield was only popular when it worked pre-ASB nerf. Active tanking nowadays only works with off-grid links.

CCP will just add some more ancillary modules and pretend there isn't an imbalance.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#38 - 2013-02-27 01:15:02 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
sabre906 wrote:
Add speed penalty to shield extenders. There, balanced.Big smile



I'd actually be open to this idea if it replace sig radius going to crap. Its not like most of the caldari ships I fly will bring home 1st place finishes from quartermile runs on trackday now anyway.


Yeah because the entire game balance should revolve around what YOU personally do.

This is the mindset thats the cause for all the whine and nerf threads that plague these forums.
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-02-27 02:04:25 UTC
the reason the largest extenders you can get now is LSE II is because of passive recharge scaling with shield size

Art of Explosions
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-02-27 02:05:56 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
the reason the largest extenders you can get now is LSE II is because of passive recharge scaling with shield size


Yes, because it matters.Roll