Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Coco Mishi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 02:50:30 -
[1] - Quote
On the Large Capacitor Battery II, under the attributes tab, there is a -2400% Capacitor Warfare Resistance. What is this (a literal definition would be nice)? Google does not provide a clear definition as far as i have looked. Thank you. |
Uppsy Daisy
Perkone Caldari State
637
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 08:54:46 -
[2] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944868#post1944868
In Summary:
1) Small and micro batteries reflect 15% of a NOS effect or 7.5% of a neut effect. 2) Medium batteries reflect 20% of a NOS effect or 10% of a neut effect. 3) Large batteries reflect 25% of a NOS effect or 12.5% of a neut effect.
By "reflect" it means "inflict cap damage to the initiator of said effect", so when a large battery-equipped ship gets hit with a heavy neut, 87.5% (525) is neutralized from the target while 12.5% (75) is neutralized from the attacker. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
417
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 12:00:12 -
[3] - Quote
Uppsy Daisy wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944868#post1944868
In Summary:
1) Small and micro batteries reflect 15% of a NOS effect or 7.5% of a neut effect. 2) Medium batteries reflect 20% of a NOS effect or 10% of a neut effect. 3) Large batteries reflect 25% of a NOS effect or 12.5% of a neut effect.
By "reflect" it means "inflict cap damage to the initiator of said effect", so when a large battery-equipped ship gets hit with a heavy neut, 87.5% (525) is neutralized from the target while 12.5% (75) is neutralized from the attacker.
Which, to me, sounds like virtually nothing. I think CCP should really reduce the fittings cost of those batteries, because they're providing next to no benefit.
I really hope I'm wrong though. Can you point out a wide range of uses where this module, with all that fitting necessary, is actually preferable to other things like cap rechargers or simply cap boosters? Because it requires a lot of fitting for that narrow niche use that even then is almost no effect.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Hochopepa
POS Consultants Group LLC
39
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 13:55:38 -
[4] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Uppsy Daisy wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944868#post1944868
In Summary:
1) Small and micro batteries reflect 15% of a NOS effect or 7.5% of a neut effect. 2) Medium batteries reflect 20% of a NOS effect or 10% of a neut effect. 3) Large batteries reflect 25% of a NOS effect or 12.5% of a neut effect.
By "reflect" it means "inflict cap damage to the initiator of said effect", so when a large battery-equipped ship gets hit with a heavy neut, 87.5% (525) is neutralized from the target while 12.5% (75) is neutralized from the attacker. Which, to me, sounds like virtually nothing. I think CCP should really reduce the fittings cost of those batteries, because they're providing next to no benefit. I really hope I'm wrong though. Can you point out a wide range of uses where this module, with all that fitting necessary, is actually preferable to other things like cap rechargers or simply cap boosters? Because it requires a lot of fitting for that narrow niche use that even then is almost no effect.
I've yet to find a reason to use these, the only thing I thought of was with a slot heavy ship, once you are past useful cap recharger bonuses, you can add batteries (much like adding shield extenders) to speed up your recharge.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
802
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 14:26:27 -
[5] - Quote
If the CPU and PG amount permit, you'll sometimes find large batteries on cruiser since they often provide better cap than a recharger and comes with the cap warfare resistances. Part of the issue is that they add a raw value in cap, which is why a large works well for a cruiser on the one hand, but is completely garbage for a battleship at the same time despite the fact that a large is intended to be used on a battleship. By the time you get to a battleship, cap injectors are just a better investment given the fitting and rechargers are more useful anyways because battleships typically have longer recovery times for cap and dropping that by 20% matters more in the end.
What they need is an X-Large with battleship-level requirements (maybe slightly less than heavy injectors), possibly easing up on the reqs for the current ones a tad.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
417
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:08:38 -
[6] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:If the CPU and PG amount permit, you'll sometimes find large batteries on cruiser since they often provide better cap than a recharger and comes with the cap warfare resistances. Part of the issue is that they add a raw value in cap, which is why a large works well for a cruiser on the one hand, but is completely garbage for a battleship at the same time despite the fact that a large is intended to be used on a battleship. By the time you get to a battleship, cap injectors are just a better investment given the fitting and rechargers are more useful anyways because battleships typically have longer recovery times for cap and dropping that by 20% matters more in the end.
What they need is an X-Large with battleship-level requirements (maybe slightly less than heavy injectors), possibly easing up on the reqs for the current ones a tad.
Or maybe just buff the current modules?
Hate to be that guy asking for buffs, but the modules' cap warfare resistance is pittance. Maybe we can convince CCP to keep (or slightly reduce) current fittings, but double the resistance?
In a mass test a few months ago, I flew around and used some neuts. I got a notice that one of my targets reflected some back because of a battery he had fitted. It did *nothing* to me. If these are a tool to counter (not ONLY tool, mind you, but *A* tool) neuts or vamps, they need to be a LOT more useful to match their fitting cost compared to the other tools available. And with the increased cap pool they provide, their fitting cost would ALMOST be worth it if they had double the resistance.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Hazker Trald
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 14:28:01 -
[7] - Quote
From Suitonia:
YouTube Video summarizing Tiericide efforts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkAi-7Lr71A
Eve Feature Feedback Thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=468979&find=unread
|
Scotsman Howard
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
19
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 16:22:29 -
[8] - Quote
Coco Mishi wrote:On the Large Capacitor Battery II, under the attributes tab, there is a -2400% Capacitor Warfare Resistance. What is this (a literal definition would be nice)? Google does not provide a clear definition as far as i have looked. Thank you.
Edit: Just to be clear, i'm not talking about the reflect, i'm specifically talking about this "Capacitor Warfare Resistance" modifier
Keep in mind that the answers you get above are true only for the time being. In march, they are rebalancing this group of mods and the bonus you are asking about will be changed.
The change will make it to be a pure resistance and not reflect back any of the amount. The overall effect would be the same (it will take more cycles/cap to drain you), but it will be more clear.
Also, the changes will greatly increase the cap bonus itself so they may be useful on battleships. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |