Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1932
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 01:25:15 -
[991] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Code First wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Code First wrote:33% structure resist on all ships. This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships. Free lowslot.
Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh? If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important. 15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible. Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot. Unless the math has changed, and it might have as I've not checked since links were changed, but as i recall in armor a DCU is better than a second ENAM, never mind an Adaptive. Second T2 EANM: 17.38% resist T2 DC: 15%
DC certainly beats an additional ANP, but not a second EANM at the T2 level.
|
Justin Cody
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
350
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 01:28:13 -
[992] - Quote
this should be an interesting change...super tanky hecate structure buff? |
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 01:56:13 -
[993] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Code First wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Code First wrote:33% structure resist on all ships. This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships. Free lowslot.
Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh? If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important. 15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible. Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot. Unless the math has changed, and it might have as I've not checked since links were changed, but as i recall in armor a DCU is better than a second ENAM, never mind an Adaptive. Second T2 EANM: 17.38% resist (before skills) T2 DC: 15% DC certainly beats an additional ANP, but not a second EANM at the T2 level.
Most of the time I think that for frigates it's going to be a second damage mod that will be fit, instead of an EANM. With good skills and heat, you can look forward to tormenters and merlins that do 260 dps. This is going to spice the frigate meta up a lot.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17437
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 05:11:25 -
[994] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Code First wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Code First wrote:33% structure resist on all ships. This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships. Free lowslot.
Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh? If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important. 15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible. Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot. Unless the math has changed, and it might have as I've not checked since links were changed, but as i recall in armor a DCU is better than a second ENAM, never mind an Adaptive. Second T2 EANM: 17.38% resist (before skills) T2 DC: 15% DC certainly beats an additional ANP, but not a second EANM at the T2 level.
DC adds 15% to shields too which add to the buffer of an armour tanker so in most cases the DCU will add more tank. Its also going the remain a must have mod for shield ships due to it being a lowslot mod and mids being a bit of a premium on a lot of hulls. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4714
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 05:40:38 -
[995] - Quote
Having read most of this thread I have to say this is a bad idea, especially the buff to ships that never could fit a DC to begin with. This change will, in effect, give the freighter and jump freighter a build in DC and up their EHP by 50%. Ayra, BTW, is quite right. Here is how the resists work. If you have a resist of x% then divide the HP that resist applies to by (1-x%). In this case you divide by 2/3 or multiply by 3/2 which is 1.5 meaning a 50% increase in EHP.
The argument for giving this to freighters is weak and completely specious. Avoiding a gank in game is extremely easy. So easy that only people who have made a serious mistake get ganked. Buffing the play style for the lazy, stupid and incompetent is in absolutely noway warranted. Fozzie is simply wrong on this, and his argument about wolves and elk was just...well stupid. Of course, if he has some impressive data on this the best course of action would be to share it...make the case vs. just making an idiotic decree backed by literally nothing other and moronic analogy.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7215
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 07:51:06 -
[996] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Having read most of this thread I have to say this is a bad idea, especially the buff to ships that never could fit a DC to begin with. This change will, in effect, give the freighter and jump freighter a build in DC and up their EHP by 50%. Ayra, BTW, is quite right. Here is how the resists work. If you have a resist of x% then divide the HP that resist applies to by (1-x%). In this case you divide by 2/3 or multiply by 3/2 which is 1.5 meaning a 50% increase in EHP. It's still not a 50% buff to EHP though. It's a 50% buff to hull HP at most, which doesn't equal a 50% buff to EHP unless armor and shield are both zero.
Teckos Pech wrote:The argument for giving this to freighters is weak and completely specious. Avoiding a gank in game is extremely easy. So easy that only people who have made a serious mistake get ganked. So is ganking, and this is a minor increase in effort to that, and an increase only to the easiest part of the gank. It doesn't affect how hard it is to catch a freighter. Again this all comes down to gankers blowing the effect of the change out of proportion to push their agenda. Excluding freighters would be giving them a relative nerf, and they've had enough nerfs I'd say.
Teckos Pech wrote:BTW: Anti-gankers should also oppose this system. In all likelihood it will mean freighters will be bumped for longer periods as gank fleets wait to get sufficient numbers for the gank. As there has already been 2 recent threads on this topic one would think they'd realize this...but then again some segments of the player base need help with understanding basic incentives. I doubt it. Most of the time when they bump for huge periods of time they have no intention of ganking. Anyway, I expect that to be addressed separately.
Besides, Black Pedro has already explained how this is in fact a nerf to dumber freighter pilots and haulers, so that's fine.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Anthar Thebess
1464
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 07:56:37 -
[997] - Quote
Question to CCP Fozzie. Can we have 'Tears' Modified Sansha Damage Control ? Stats : 1 PG 30 CPU 38% structure resists 2.5% armor resist 2.5% shield resist
Special ability 99% CPU reduction to all Industrial Capital ships.
Price 50mil + 50k Sansha LP.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1234
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 08:14:26 -
[998] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Code First wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Code First wrote:33% structure resist on all ships. This is fantastic, CCP is removing need to put damage control on so many ships. Free lowslot.
Didn't want the unstacking penalised resists to shield/armor eh? If i use armor tanked ship, then shield is not important. 15% armor resist is nice, but compared to fitting requirements of damage control 30 CPU, to 0 CPU of 'Refuge' Adaptive Nano Plating I there are totally new fits possible. Yes resists will be bit lower, EHP can also be bit lower, but extra 30 cpu on armor ship is a lot. Unless the math has changed, and it might have as I've not checked since links were changed, but as i recall in armor a DCU is better than a second ENAM, never mind an Adaptive. Second T2 EANM: 17.38% resist (before skills) T2 DC: 15% DC certainly beats an additional ANP, but not a second EANM at the T2 level.
Links tips it though.
I just ran a maller with an Eos booster.
EFT stated armor EHP:
2 ENAM 12309 1 ENAM 1 DC 12415
Like I said, I'd not checked in a while, but I mean even if it gave 0% hull resists it's STILL effectively mandatory.
I checked a caracal yesterday too, the shield EHP increase in a standard fit exceeds the hull EHP increase as well although I didnt keep a note of the numbers but would be easy to retest. |
Code First
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 08:54:03 -
[999] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Links tips it though.
I just ran a maller with an Eos booster.
EFT stated armor EHP:
2 ENAM 12309 1 ENAM 1 DC 12415
Similar results are had with an omen (7278 vs 7341), in case people are wondering about the native hull resists on the maller.
Like I said, I'd not checked in a while, but I mean even if it gave 0% hull resists it's STILL effectively mandatory.
I checked a caracal yesterday too, the shield EHP increase in a standard fit exceeds the hull EHP increase as well although I didnt keep a note of the numbers but would be easy to retest.
Links are going away. Damage control cost CPU and i CPU is constant problem on armor ships. For fights shield ships use hull and armor for a emergency buffer, for armor ships this is structure only 33% base resist is good cheep buff to remove need of damage controls in many fits. Using Adaptive Nano save you 30 CPU that can be used to upgrade other items in your fitting. DCU will not completely go away, but it will no longer be mandatory module.
Thanks to this change, all small ships no longer need to fit DCU, as gain for them will be minimal.
This is a free buff CCP offered to all ships and i like it. Extra defense for nothing. |
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1234
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 08:59:33 -
[1000] - Quote
Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases.
Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet. |
|
Code First
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 09:37:21 -
[1001] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases.
Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet. Off grid links are going away if you care to check what stuff is on sisi, you will see that there are BPO for projected links. DCU will be mandatory for T2/ T3 cruisers ships that need resist maxed out. Battle Cruisers, Cruisers and smaller ships will get free bonus and a lowslot and 30 CPU. T2 800mm plate need less CPU than a DCU and will provide bigger buff to armor EHP the same apply to all smaller ships and plates.
Fleet battleships will have possibility to fit 3 racial hardeners and ENAM. CPU not power grid is issue on armor ships. Megathron
Base stats : powergrid Output 15500 MW CPU Output 600 tf
Considering 3% implant for Power Grid: 15500 *3% = 465MW
3% implant for CPU: 600 *3% = 18tf
By dropping DCU and preserving 33% base structure resist you can easily fit an additional 1600mm armor plate using 3% implant and 800mm plate using 1% or even no implant.
3% CPU implant is still worthless as 18CPU allow to upgrade 1 module. Now take into consideration that this stats are before considering skills.
I like this buff very much. This is huge buff to all armor ships: - they gain 33% resist on hull that makes DCU obsolete and provide important buffer - 30CPU extra allow them to easily fit additional hardener or plate that will provide immense boost to armor EHP. * 400mm for cruisers * 800mm for battlecruisers * 1600mm for battleships
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1234
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 10:13:38 -
[1002] - Quote
You know that bit where I said "real fleet"....people don't take 800mm plated BS/BC on those. LOL at that, quite frankly.
Sheesh.
I mean fair enough I didn't explicitly quantify "real fleet", but honestly I shouldn't need to.
ProTip: A real fleet involves logi, this in turn is married to resists. |
Code First
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 10:34:59 -
[1003] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:You know that bit where I said "real fleet"....people don't take 800mm plated BS/BC on those. LOL at that, quite frankly.
Sheesh.
I mean fair enough I didn't explicitly quantify "real fleet", but honestly I shouldn't need to.
ProTip: A real fleet involves logi, this in turn is married to resists.
When you have 20 logi ships resist are important for small ships (T2/T3 cruisers) and effective buffer for battleships.
At lvl 5 single Tungsten plate give this ship 5k additional armor. From armor buffer perspective this ( 5000 armor points before resists ) will give you more than 15% flat bonus from DCU.
If you have enough logistic ships bigger buffer is more important than final resist to rep amount ratio. Remote armor reps boost your armor after the logistic ships lock you and module cycles. You need to survive long enough to get them. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17438
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 12:05:45 -
[1004] - Quote
Code First wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:You know that bit where I said "real fleet"....people don't take 800mm plated BS/BC on those. LOL at that, quite frankly.
Sheesh.
I mean fair enough I didn't explicitly quantify "real fleet", but honestly I shouldn't need to.
ProTip: A real fleet involves logi, this in turn is married to resists. When you have 20 logi ships resist are important for small ships (T2/T3 cruisers) and effective buffer for battleships. At lvl 5 single Tungsten plate give this ship 5k additional armor. From armor buffer perspective this ( 5000 armor points before resists ) will give you more than 15% flat bonus from DCU. If you have enough logistic ships bigger buffer is more important than final resist to rep amount ratio. Remote armor reps boost your armor after the logistic ships lock you and module cycles. You need to survive long enough to get them. ProTip: When you have enough logi 33% structure buffer and extra 5000 armor on battleship before resist will keep you alive longer than DCU. If enemy is using alpha doctrine your chances are even bigger.
Looking at my old baltec fleet mega if you go without the dcu you lose the 15% resists to shields and the 40% bonus to structure (with the new mods). To replace this now free slot with a t2 Energized Adaptive plating will cost 6 more CPU which I don't have going spare. Which means I need to fit a prototype which saves me cpu (only 24 cpu as opposed to the current 30 for the DCU) but that only nets me the 15% to armour resists.
The 33% more structure doesn't make up for the loss, Im better off still with the DCU as it provides more buffer than the Energized plating to the tune of roughly 10-15k ehp. |
Code First
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 13:50:28 -
[1005] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Looking at my old baltec fleet mega if you go without the dcu you lose the 15% resists to shields and the 40% bonus to structure (with the new mods). To replace this now free slot with a t2 Energized Adaptive plating will cost 6 more CPU which I don't have going spare. Which means I need to fit a prototype which saves me cpu (only 24 cpu as opposed to the current 30 for the DCU) but that only nets me the 15% to armour resists.
The 33% more structure doesn't make up for the loss, Im better off still with the DCU as it provides more buffer than the Energized plating to the tune of roughly 15-20k ehp.
Don't know how tight your fit was in case of power grid. How this numbers will look like if you put there 1600mm plate instead of another resist, if you lack grid what implant you need to use.
On a battleship 3% power grid implant give enough grid for a 1600 plate, but 3% implant to CPU offer around 20 CPU - not enough to fit any thing. 1600mm plate provide 5k of raw armor before considering resist. From what i checked buff is huge, as 33% structure resist combined with 5000 of additional armor points give very big bonus to EHP. Big part of this EHP boost is moved from structure to armor, and thank to this is affected by armor resists.
DCU shield resist for armor battleships is not important after first shoots.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3100
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 14:27:49 -
[1006] - Quote
Just an FYI baltec, but a 'refuge' anm provides 15.36% resists for no cpu cost and is usually cheaper on the market too.
At least until tieracide i guess...
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17439
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 15:41:11 -
[1007] - Quote
Code First wrote:baltec1 wrote: Looking at my old baltec fleet mega if you go without the dcu you lose the 15% resists to shields and the 40% bonus to structure (with the new mods). To replace this now free slot with a t2 Energized Adaptive plating will cost 6 more CPU which I don't have going spare. Which means I need to fit a prototype which saves me cpu (only 24 cpu as opposed to the current 30 for the DCU) but that only nets me the 15% to armour resists.
The 33% more structure doesn't make up for the loss, Im better off still with the DCU as it provides more buffer than the Energized plating to the tune of roughly 15-20k ehp.
Don't know how tight your fit was in case of power grid. How this numbers will look like if you put there 1600mm plate instead of another resist, if you lack grid what implant you need to use. On a battleship 3% power grid implant give enough grid for a 1600 plate, but 3% implant to CPU offer around 20 CPU - not enough to fit any thing. 1600mm plate provide 5k of raw armor before considering resist. From what i checked buff is huge, as 33% structure resist combined with 5000 of additional armor points give very big bonus to EHP. Big part of this EHP boost is moved from structure to armor, and thank to this is affected by armor resists. DCU shield resist for armor battleships is not important after first shoots.
You still have that 40% bonus to structure resists. Buffer fits I honestly cant see giving up the DCU. Active tank I could see going with something else but the DCU is still a very powerful mod on nearly all of my fits. |
Chill'4
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 16:57:29 -
[1008] - Quote
I predict the reactive armor hardener getting more use, one RAH with 1/2 EANM's will be a nice combo as long as you have the cap.
Damage Control is still good and will continue to be used often. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17439
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 17:24:07 -
[1009] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Just an FYI baltec, but a 'refuge' anm provides 15.36% resists for no cpu cost and is usually cheaper on the market too.
At least until tieracide i guess...
DCU don't suffer from stacking penalties |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
183
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 17:31:11 -
[1010] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases.
Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet.
Not in the case of a T3 Fleet.
Certain full tank T3 ships especially lowsec pimp fits will greatly benefit from not having to fit a DCU, and instead putting on another adaptive or energised adaptive. This is mainly because their buffer is so high compared to the structure. |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2616
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 17:57:13 -
[1011] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases.
Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet. Not in the case of a T3 Fleet. Certain full tank T3 ships especially lowsec pimp fits will greatly benefit from not having to fit a DCU, and instead putting on another adaptive or energised adaptive. This is mainly because their buffer is so high compared to the structure.
This is pretty important. The actual strenght of a DCU really change a lot depending on how much of your raw HP are in structure. Once you add extenders and plates to a ship, the ratio tend to get very biased toward the usual racial tanking buffer layer and away from structure. |
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1238
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 18:21:11 -
[1012] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases.
Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet. Not in the case of a T3 Fleet. Certain full tank T3 ships especially lowsec pimp fits will greatly benefit from not having to fit a DCU, and instead putting on another adaptive or energised adaptive. This is mainly because their buffer is so high compared to the structure.
Can you post some examples (of a fit where you'll drop a DCU for a hardener)? Because unless I'm missing something the buffer level is irrelevant.
Genuinely interested. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2988
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 04:06:48 -
[1013] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: You still have that 40% bonus to structure resists. Buffer fits I honestly cant see giving up the DCU. Active tank I could see going with something else but the DCU is still a very powerful mod on nearly all of my fits.
You are also neglecting the armour skills in your maths which push those resist modules higher for armour. But as long as DCU gives armour & shield resist bonuses that don't stack you are quite right that it will remain a virtually compulsory module in nearly every fit. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4722
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 06:53:54 -
[1014] - Quote
WTF is the point of Tiericide?
I thought it was to fix what was broken.
But lets look at this change. The "problem" is that for most fits fitting a damage control is a necessity. So the solution:
1. Build part of the benefits of fitting a DC into the hull of not only those ships that can fit a DC, but also those ships that cannot because...wreck HP went up. If you are saying Whisky Tango Foxtrot you are not alone.
2. There appears to be some sort of fetish with the status quo. If we nerf DCs...oh noes!!! people's fits will have lower EHP....so build in the DC, partially, into every hull to get us "close" back to where we started.
3. The DC still looks like a must fit module in many cases.
It is at this point one has to ask...what the heck have people been smoking?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4722
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 06:57:44 -
[1015] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: This will result in a significant EHP buff to ships that can't or don't fit Damage Controls, but most of those already have very low hull hitpoints.
Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
Freighters and Jump Freighters are not low on hull HP. The vast bulk of the HP for those ships is in hull.
Was this kind of completely untrue statement made in jest or was somebody using some powerful mind altering substances?
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4724
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 07:19:17 -
[1016] - Quote
Tiericide: let's change **** because...well...let's change ****.
The whole process has become lost in itself.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Pirmera Yumimura
Helios Alliance Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 08:54:19 -
[1017] - Quote
Good Change, for us Frighter Pilots (not AFK like you do it). I like it where both Party (Gangers and Freighters) need to put up an equivalent ISK sum on the field. Tears of joy from me and Tears of Whine from the "Professional Legal no Risk no Skill Gankers".
Keep u the good Work |
Andrew Indy
POS Party Ember Sands
151
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 08:57:00 -
[1018] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: Can you post some examples (of a fit where you'll drop a DCU for a hardener)? Because unless I'm missing something the buffer level is irrelevant.
Genuinely interested.
There are several Cruisers sized ships that get more EHP along with better resists by not fitting a DCU. Not to mention that most Active Tank Armor ships benefit from more resists over a DCU (assuming you want at least 1 or 2 DPS mods)
Here is a Legion I through together.
239K EHP , If you drop the DCU for a EM hardener you get 244K. This gap gets bigger when you add fleet boosts , Slaves, Overheating and Pimp.
[Legion, Test] Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Armor Thermal Hardener II Damage Control II 1600mm Steel Plates II 1600mm Steel Plates II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating Legion Electronics - Tactical Targeting Network Legion Engineering - Power Core Multiplier Legion Offensive - Liquid Crystal Magnifiers Legion Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
This fit has 284K EHP with Heat, 258K with a DCU and one EM hardener removed.
[Impel, Test] Armor EM Hardener II Armor EM Hardener II Armor Thermal Hardener II Armor Thermal Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II Armor Explosive Hardener II 800mm Steel Plates II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
This fit has 97K EHP with a EM hardener and 98k with a DCU (DCU2 is 1% better) , but you gain 7K EHP if you are overheating over a DCU2. Not to mention you resists are way better for Logi. Once you add pimp and slaves the EM hardener is better in every way.
[Sacrilege, Test] Damage Control II Armor Thermal Hardener II 1600mm Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1238
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 09:47:47 -
[1019] - Quote
With links that first legion has more EHP with the DC than without (315647 vs 312295).
And if you fit it thusly, it is better than all:
[Legion, Test] Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Armor Thermal Hardener II Armor EM Hardener II 1600mm Steel Plates II 1600mm Steel Plates II
[empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
[empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating Legion Electronics - Tactical Targeting Network Legion Engineering - Power Core Multiplier Legion Offensive - Liquid Crystal Magnifiers Legion Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
(eos links)
332531 EHP, 319080 in armor alone.
ed: Sac has similar results, 128389 EHP with 120000 armo ehp moving to 135093 EHP and 126705 armor EHP. I didnt check the impel. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
818
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 20:42:08 -
[1020] - Quote
Okay, so I just started reading this today, so these changes haven't had time to sink in for me, but why do freighters need this?
My first thought is that many other ships that CAN use a DC will loose less for not using one but not be any (or at least much) better off with one come 9 March, but since freighters CANNOT even use a DC, they are getting an unneeded buff to their structure. Correct me if I'm wrong, and if I'm not, why are we doing that to freighters?
I'm a freighter owner myself, more likely to be a victim of ganking sooner than be a ganker, and even I'm calling this a slap in gankers' faces. I know they buffed wreck hp, but this isn't quite an even trade. I must have missed something.
"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."
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |