Bamboonin

In all honestly after being in lots of battleship pvp, it seems like in terms of pvp there are ships that have advantages that others don't in terms of fits, I'll explain it better this way, these are assuming above average dps/and tank fits(ie can both do damage and tank and/or tackle):
Amarr Battleships:
+weapons in high slots
+tank in low slots
+dps mods in low slots
+tackle in mid slots
Caldari Battleships:
+weapon in high slots
+tank in mid slots
+dps mods in low slots
Gallente Battleships:
+weapons in high slots
+tank in low slots
+dps mods in low slots
+tackle in mid slots
Minmatar Battleships(shield tanked):
+weapon in high slots
+tank in mid slots
+dps mods in low slots
Minmatar Battleships(armor tanked):
+weapons in high slots
+tank in low slots
+dps mods in low slots
+tackle in mid slots
Notice any patterns? anyone using a shield tank almost never has enough mid slots to afford any tackle, whereas any of the armor tanking battleships can easilly fit a cap booster and as much tackle as they want, and still have a decent tank and decent dps...
I'm just wondering, if either through power diagnostic systems or a new module in itself if we could get a low slot module that also buffs shield boost amounts not quite as much as the mid slots do(though in all honesty following the pattern the passives med slots should become low slots and mid slots should be active shield boost modules), but be a viable alternative so that shield tanking specific ships don't have to sacrifice tank in order to tackle.
Adding more mid slots for shield tankers is NOT the answer, so a low slot shield boost increase of some kind I think would do the job. What's everyone's thoughts on that.(and yes I never post with my true character name)

mid slot SBA are passsive aswell. you other option are rigs (solidifier) with the cost of more cap usage. imho the balance is fine in that regard.

Whilst I empathise with your pain over shield tanking, I'd point out that the ships intended for the shield tanking role get a lot more mid slots as a general rule. Both armour and shield tankers have to make tradeoffs. Shield tanks have to sacrifice tank to fit tackle, ECM, and other such mid-slot goodness - armour tanks have to sacrifice tank to fit damage mods, tracking enhancers, speed mods etc. Given that you can fit, albeit with some effort & loss of dps, a 4k shield buffer onto a merlin frigate and still have room for tackle, I'd argue there is quite a bit of room for shield tanking to be useful. If anything's 'wrong', it's that active tanks (which is where shield boosters come in) are much harder to justify in PvP than buffer tanks currently, barring specific fits.
The whole shield boost amp thing is a bit strange anyway - armour tanking has no equivalent module that boosts repair amount; you have to fly a ship with bonuses to it. Most would argue shield tanking != armour tanking and leave it at that. That stated, there is a type of fitting that will boost both styles of tanking and not take up mid-slots - the boosting rigs.

well armor tank has no SBA like module and the shield tankers got no Aux Nano Pump like rig. differences are good imho

Originally by:Astria TipharethWhilst I empathise with your pain over shield tanking, I'd point out that the ships intended for the shield tanking role get a lot more mid slots as a general rule. Both armour and shield tankers have to make tradeoffs. Shield tanks have to sacrifice tank to fit tackle, ECM, and other such mid-slot goodness - armour tanks have to sacrifice tank to fit damage mods, tracking enhancers, speed mods etc. Given that you can fit, albeit with some effort & loss of dps, a 4k shield buffer onto a merlin frigate and still have room for tackle, I'd argue there is quite a bit of room for shield tanking to be useful. If anything's 'wrong', it's that active tanks (which is where shield boosters come in) are much harder to justify in PvP than buffer tanks currently, barring specific fits.
The whole shield boost amp thing is a bit strange anyway - armour tanking has no equivalent module that boosts repair amount; you have to fly a ship with bonuses to it. Most would argue shield tanking != armour tanking and leave it at that. That stated, there is a type of fitting that will boost both styles of tanking and not take up mid-slots - the boosting rigs.

I'd only agree if various armor ships didn't get 8 slots worth to play with, sure to do dps and tank you can only really invest 4 and 4 or 5/3(armor/dps) type setups, but you also have the choice of spending all 8 slots into primary armor modules, where as shield's tanking can't. An abaddon for example could fit 3x 1600mm plates, a dcs2, 2 large reps, and 2 eanm's and before rigs have a better tank then a rokh fitting for the same thing(which for arugment purposes would be x-large shield booster, 2 shield boost amp 2's, cap booster to sustain that cap drain, and 2 invuln 2's. They could be about the same if they didn't have to use cap booster but theres no low slot modules that even compete to that kind of drain, now granted thats more of an argument of shield boost vs armor repair which I think is balanced just that the module requirement isn't.
since both of those are about on par, the abaddon can still fit 2x cap boosters a scram and a web, or 1 booster a scram a web and a disruptor...what can the rokh also fit...nothing...
Even an abaddon can do 3x heat sinks 2xLR2 2eanm and a dc2 and have a very decent tank with dps with tackle that still compares to the active tank of the rokh, and again nothing the rokh can fit without killing it's tank to nothing.
sure you can go with solidifiers but nothings gonna counter that cap drain, if shields were increased in amount boosted but increased the amount of time between boosts I could see that being viable but I've yet to see a viable solidifer build only because the cap drain is insanely high and you can't use your mid slots really for cap boosters...

Posted - 2009.12.16 23:28:00 - [7]

I had a similar idea quite some time ago.

Quote: Phased Shield Boost Amplifier -> low Slot shield boost Amplifier
T1: +10% shield boost increase, +5% increased cap need for shield boosters Fitting: 20 CPU, 1 powergrid
T2: +15% shield boost increase, +7.5% increased cap need for shield boosters Fitting: 25 CPU, 1 powergrid

It would allow shield tanks to perform like armor tanks(similar advantages/drawbacks, full tackle, less cap efficient tank, less dps etc.) and gives you more flexibility to shift between gank/tank in T2 setups if you go with active tanking, while the cap penalty and stacking makes it less attractive for high end tanks.

Originally by:The DjegoI had a similar idea quite some time ago.

Quote: Phased Shield Boost Amplifier -> low Slot shield boost Amplifier
T1: +10% shield boost increase, +5% increased cap need for shield boosters Fitting: 20 CPU, 1 powergrid
T2: +15% shield boost increase, +7.5% increased cap need for shield boosters Fitting: 25 CPU, 1 powergrid

It would allow shield tanks to perform like armor tanks(similar advantages/drawbacks, full tackle, less cap efficient tank, less dps etc.) and gives you more flexibility to shift between gank/tank in T2 setups if you go with active tanking, while the cap penalty and stacking makes it less attractive for high end tanks.

I like that setup