EVE Search - Another reason not to be Caldari... (Cap Injectors)

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Another reason not to be Caldari... (Cap Injectors)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Xeracon	Posted - 2009.06.23 12:26:00 - [1] Edited by: Xeracon on 23/06/2009 12:34:31 So does anyone else think that cap injectors give armor tanking ships a huge advantage over Caldari and assorted shield tanking Minmatar ships? Shield tankers utilize their medium slots for their tank and any additonal medium slots are typically used to enforce the tank (Ex. Cap Rechargers, Capacitor Batteries, Cap Injectors). Those ships that don't use a proper shield tank are typically obliterated by Armor tanking ships because they can't utilize the medium slots in the same fashion. In addition, there are no low slot modules short of the Power Diagnostic that effectively help a shield tank. Armor tankers on the other hand can not only fit a tank but thanks to cap injectors, they can also field webbers, scramblers, sensor backups... virtually any medium slot EW or anti-EW module they need and all at once. If you tried to fit a scrambler, webber, and sensor backup on a Caldari ship all at once, you'd be a deadman. Recently i've been unlucky enough to encounter well organized, spider-tanking-station huggers. These guys didn' even use low slot armor reppers but rather high slot RR's which opened their low slots for further tank. The shield tanking ships they did use were called primary and taken out with ease. My argument here is that cap injectors put Armor tankers at an incredible advantage over shield tankers who can't afford to give up medium slots. Does anyone have a solution other then "Don't fly anything that shield tanks"? Should cap injectors be nerfed?
Dristra Amarr Idle Haven	Posted - 2009.06.23 12:29:00 - [2] Removing\nerfing cap injectors would have far reaching effects indeed...
Ziester Caldari Echolalia. Shangri-La.	Posted - 2009.06.23 12:34:00 - [3] Quote: [Rokh, New Setup 1] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Warp Disruptor II Gallente Navy Stasis Webifier Invulnerability Field II Shield Boost Amplifier II X-Large Shield Booster II Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Ion Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Ion Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Hammerhead II x5 Here's an active shield tanker with a cap booster. It works wonders in 1v1 encounters against BC/BS (Yes it's Ferocious Fear's setup I leeched from Battleclinic and I'm using it with HG Crystals). Quote: So does anyone else think that cap injectors give armor tanking ships a huge advantage over Caldari and assorted shield tanking Minmatar ships? Shields regenerate over time. Armor doesn't. This is also a 'huge' advantage for shield tankers.
Tsumei Meyren Creative Cookie Procuring	Posted - 2009.06.23 12:36:00 - [4] Can also add that shield tanks have more space for Damage mods in their lows
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.06.23 12:38:00 - [5] MWD, cap injector, point vs. 3x damage mods. Yep, seems fair to me, both types of tank have to spend the same number of slots on non-tank modules. In fact, it's even more in favor of the shield tankers, since they get to fit a damage control without giving up a tank slot. Sure, remote rep battleship gangs are rather armor-dominated, but virtually every ship below battleship class is best with a shield buffer tank, so I think that's a fair trade. -----------
Cambarus The Baros Syndicate Onslaught.	Posted - 2009.06.23 12:46:00 - [6] Originally by: Merin Ryskin MWD, cap injector, point vs. 3x damage mods. Yep, seems fair to me, both types of tank have to spend the same number of slots on non-tank modules. In fact, it's even more in favor of the shield tankers, since they get to fit a damage control without giving up a tank slot. THIS FFS. A ship fit to tank and deal damage (be it in pvp or pve) should have at least 3 damage mods (some people like 4, more than that's a total waste). Now look at slots lost to "mandatory" () pvp items: Cap injector, point, mwd. You could argue that they need a web as well, but that's a load of crap, because the vast majority of shield tanking ships operate OUTSIDE of web range. Not that any of this matters. Armor is FOTM because amarr is FOTM. If caldari become popular (like say if HAMS and rockets get fixed) you'll see more and more shield tanks floating around. Armor tanking and shield tanking are DIFFERENT. They're supposed to be that way. Each one has advantages and disadvantages, pointing out ONE of such disadvantages does not mean that one is better than the other.
BiggestT Caldari Oz Space Diggers	Posted - 2009.06.23 12:47:00 - [7] Originally by: Ziester Quote: [Rokh, New Setup 1] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Warp Disruptor II Gallente Navy Stasis Webifier Invulnerability Field II Shield Boost Amplifier II X-Large Shield Booster II Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Ion Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Ion Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Hammerhead II x5 Here's an active shield tanker with a cap booster. It works wonders in 1v1 encounters against BC/BS (Yes it's Ferocious Fear's setup I leeched from Battleclinic and I'm using it with HG Crystals). Quote: So does anyone else think that cap injectors give armor tanking ships a huge advantage over Caldari and assorted shield tanking Minmatar ships? Shields regenerate over time. Armor doesn't. This is also a 'huge' advantage for shield tankers. Heh, I was going to use the Rokh as a good example but u beat me to it :P (off topic) Mind u i prefer swapping 4th mag stab for RCU II so i can have an mwd and full rack of neuts, but I guess each has its pro's and cons.. EVE history t2 precisions
Xeracon	Posted - 2009.06.23 12:47:00 - [8] Ok, Rokh setup is interesting. Course anyone who see's Caldari T1 thinks EM or Therm dmg. Also, not all Shield tankers have built in ship resistance bonuses let alone the medium slots to fit all that. Still an interesting fit, i got 8 neutrons II's to fit by dropping a mag stab and adding a PDU.
Xeracon	Posted - 2009.06.23 12:53:00 - [9] Originally by: Tsumei Meyren Can also add that shield tanks have more space for Damage mods in their lows CPU issues: Launchers + 3 DMG Mods + Decent (Not Great) Tank? Very hard to fit. The more you take from your low slots, the less cap you have for your tank.
Xeracon	Posted - 2009.06.23 13:00:00 - [10] Originally by: Merin Ryskin MWD, cap injector, point vs. 3x damage mods. Yep, seems fair to me, both types of tank have to spend the same number of slots on non-tank modules. In fact, it's even more in favor of the shield tankers, since they get to fit a damage control without giving up a tank slot. Quote: Dmg Controls are easily part of an armor tank. Find me a Torp Raven that can compete with a Blaster Megathron with a cap injector setup. Raven certainly couldn't do it with cruise missiles and there is still no point to hold the Megathron to begin with.

Mona X Caldari Polish Task Forces C0VEN	Posted - 2009.06.23 13:04:00 - [11] Originally by: Cambarus Not that any of this matters. Armor is FOTM because amarr is FOTM. If caldari become popular (like say if HAMS and rockets get fixed) What is wrong with HAMs?
Cambarus The Baros Syndicate Onslaught.	Posted - 2009.06.23 13:18:00 - [12] Originally by: Xeracon Originally by: Tsumei Meyren Can also add that shield tanks have more space for Damage mods in their lows CPU issues: Launchers + 3 DMG Mods + Decent (Not Great) Tank? Very hard to fit. The more you take from your low slots, the less cap you have for your tank. First off, for the love of god learn to edit posts instead of triple freaking posting. Second, electronics and weapon upgrades are your friend mmmkay? The more you take from your lowslots, the less cap you have for your tank...? Surely you're not fitting flux coils or CPRs to a pvp raven? A buffer fit has no fitting issues, and is generally preferred in pvp anyway. Learn how to fly the ship before you complain that it sucks. Originally by: Xeracon Dmg Controls are easily part of an armor tank. Find me a Torp Raven that can compete with a Blaster Megathron with a cap injector setup. Raven certainly couldn't do it with cruise missiles and there is still no point to hold the Megathron to begin with. Damage controls help ALL ships, so stfu. Also you CLEARLY have no idea what you're doing if you're fitting cruises to a raven in pvp. You're comparing apples and oranges. Cruise missile are more like rail guns than blasters, for a blaster counterpart you need torps. Raven and mega engage each other at a gate/belt/whatever: If the fight starts off at <10km, the mega wins If the fight starts off at >10km, the raven wins Raven does the DPS of a mega at 24km, but sacrifices tackle to do so (torp raven needs painters to be truely effective, so less room for tackle), not that it means that the raven can't fit a point, because it still can and SHOULD. If there weren't that imbalance between the cap stability of armor and shield tanking ships the raven would be crazy OP.
Xeracon	Posted - 2009.06.23 13:38:00 - [13] Cambrus, you've got excellent selective reading Skills. try reading it slower this time and then offer something better then flames or STFU.
Davinel Lulinvega	Posted - 2009.06.23 13:43:00 - [14] Originally by: Merin Ryskin MWD, cap injector, point vs. 3x damage mods. Yep, seems fair to me, both types of tank have to spend the same number of slots on non-tank modules. In fact, it's even more in favor of the shield tankers, since they get to fit a damage control without giving up a tank slot. Sure, remote rep battleship gangs are rather armor-dominated, but virtually every ship below battleship class is best with a shield buffer tank, so I think that's a fair trade. I'm going to quote this one more time so maybe this time it will penetrate your thick skull.
Snow Banshee Amarr	Posted - 2009.06.23 13:56:00 - [15] Originally by: Xeracon stupid stuf You ever noticed that armor tankers have to sacrifice tanking slots in favour to damage mods where shield tankers/buffers can put 3 damage mods without stealing a single slot to tank? as example: Your can put easily 3 balistics in a raven and still have 6 tanking slots when a standard megathron with 3 damage mods have just 4 low slot left for tanking. As you can see is not that simple ...
quygen Minmatar Acting Neutral	Posted - 2009.06.23 14:10:00 - [16] Armor tanking is indeed favored over shield tanking in PVP. But hey, You want to lose the cap injector, then i want you to give up your shield boost amplifier. Shield tanking and armor tanking just isn't the same, but it is balanced. You have more tank and damage, while armor has less damage and tackle. PS: Tip; try fitting a rig for less cap use on your shieldbooster.. even makes a X-L booster on a Sleipnir intresting... Please resize your sig to a maximum of 400 x 120 - Mitnal ^ You seen it CCP =) Now go fix!
Davinel Lulinvega	Posted - 2009.06.23 14:16:00 - [17] Originally by: quygen Armor tanking is indeed favored over shield tanking in PVP. But hey, You want to lose the cap injector, then i want you to give up your shield boost amplifier. Shield tanking and armor tanking just isn't the same, but it is balanced. You have more tank and damage, while armor has less damage and tackle. PS: Tip; try fitting a rig for less cap use on your shieldbooster.. even makes a X-L booster on a Sleipnir intresting... Apparently you've never heard of a buffer tank. Originally by: CCP Tuxford Now the op looks like a weirdo that can't read kekekeke! inb4 stealth edit
Ortos Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.06.23 14:18:00 - [18] so we loose a bit of tank to fit a cap injector, armor tankers loose dps when fitting a tank so its a fair trade
Cambarus The Baros Syndicate Onslaught.	Posted - 2009.06.23 14:26:00 - [19] Originally by: Xeracon Cambrus, you've got excellent selective reading Skills. try reading it slower this time and then offer something better then flames or STFU. 1: Care to be more specific? I tackled just about every point you've made with my last post. 2:It may have been a flame-filled post, but I stand by it. You can argue that I'm being a meanie but w/e because I'm RIGHT. Your posts show that you really don't know how to fly the raven properly, as no one fits cruise launchers for standard (IE non massive fleet fight) pvp, and you don't waste time trying to make a pvp ship capstable by throwing away perfectly good lowslots. 3: Ad hominem arguments with no supporting facts usually mean you've run out of proper things to say, and just so you know if your next post is something along the lines of "Well if you can't see what you missed in my posts I'm not going to tell you" I'm gonna laugh my ass off ^_^
Trebor Notlimah Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici	Posted - 2009.06.23 14:29:00 - [20] boo hooo

Xeracon	Posted - 2009.06.23 14:35:00 - [21] I dissagree with the balance concept of tank + DPS = tank + EW/Tackle. I see it can be a hard sacrifice though. In a gang based game, the more ability a single pilot has, the more his corpmates prosper since they don't sacrifice the mods for tackling. Being able to pilot both armor and shield tankers though, i notice a huge weakness in the Caldari design and i feel the cap injector is at the center-point of this debate. Really like the suggestions though, shooting back and forth between this and EFT.
Lili Lu Purveyors of Uber Research Valuables and Ships	Posted - 2009.06.23 15:05:00 - [22] Originally by: Xeracon Edited by: Xeracon on 23/06/2009 12:34:31 So does anyone else think that cap injectors give armor tanking ships a huge advantage over Caldari and assorted shield tanking Minmatar ships? No Shield tankers utilize their medium slots for their tank and any additonal medium slots are typically used to enforce the tank (Ex. Cap Rechargers, Capacitor Batteries, Cap Injectors). Those ships that don't use a proper shield tank are typically obliterated by Armor tanking ships because they can't utilize the medium slots in the same fashion. In addition, there are no low slot modules short of the Power Diagnostic that effectively help a shield tank. This paragraph has me confused. I honestly can't decypher exactly what you are moaning about. Armor tankers on the other hand can not only fit a tank but thanks to cap injectors, they can also field webbers, scramblers, sensor backups... virtually any medium slot EW or anti-EW module they need and all at once. Ok, now I'm starting to understand your misperceptions. Have you ever flown a 3 or 4 smid-slot armor tanking ship? And of those mods that have low slot variations such as eccm do you really think backup arrays do squat with 30% per level bonused ecm on Caldari recons? Your statement is so wrong If you tried to fit a scrambler, webber, and sensor backup on a Caldari ship all at once, you'd be a deadman. Recently i've been unlucky enough to encounter well organized, spider-tanking-station huggers. "Recently"? You must be new to the game. Learn more before you op. These guys didn' even use low slot armor reppers but rather high slot RR's which opened their low slots for further tank. The shield tanking ships they did use were called primary and taken out with ease. My argument here is that cap injectors put Armor tankers at an incredible advantage over shield tankers who can't afford to give up medium slots. Does anyone have a solution other then "Don't fly anything that shield tanks"? Should cap injectors be nerfed? Boils down to this- You seem to think armor tanking ships are blessed with mid-slots. You fail to understand the benefits of shield tanks. You probably think that if you can't create a ridiculous passive regen shield tank then you are without a tank. Those station huggers you bemoan were playing as a team. Kudos for them. It has nothing to do with cap injectors (even ceding to your faulty premise that shield tanks cannot fit a cap injector(s)). You obviously have never encountered a bait Scorpion either. Learn more before you op.
Admiral Valdore The Ronin Syndicate	Posted - 2009.06.23 15:24:00 - [23] Edited by: Admiral Valdore on 23/06/2009 15:26:32 Yikes OP clearly, CLEARLY thinks armor tanking Clearly is better then shield tanking. CLEARLY! Yup. -Admiral Valdore
Grarr Dexx Amarr Corp 1 Allstars	Posted - 2009.06.23 15:26:00 - [24] Quote: Not that any of this matters. Armor is FOTM because amarr is FOTM. If caldari become popular (like say if HAMS and rockets get fixed) If anything, this will be a boost to Amarr too, **** yeah, useful vengeances, maledictions and sacrileges. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Davinel Lulinvega	Posted - 2009.06.23 15:40:00 - [25] Originally by: Grarr Dexx Quote: Not that any of this matters. Armor is FOTM because amarr is FOTM. If caldari become popular (like say if HAMS and rockets get fixed) If anything, this will be a boost to Amarr too, **** yeah, useful vengeances, maledictions and sacrileges. Huh what? Hams are fine. Sacs are useful.
Regat Kozovv Caldari Alcothology	Posted - 2009.06.23 16:22:00 - [26] I have a feeling whatever ship the OP lost was probably being used incorrectly to begin with. Shield tanks do have advantages and disadvantages to armor tanks. But many Caldari shield tanking ships shouldn't be in a PvP situtation to begin with. Let's see: Raven: Sustained Active Tank. Needs most of it's slots for it's tank, excels at absorbing prolonged damage in missions, not tanking gank squads. This isn't a PvP ship. Scorpion: Fitted with plates. Never shield tanked to begin with. Rokh: The only Caldari PvP battleship, and it gains resistance bonuses to help with it's tank. The setup earlier was a great example of what you can do with an injector. Drake: Cap? Who needs cap? What I want to know, is which one of these was he flying when playing unlocking games with pirates?
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.06.23 16:24:00 - [27] Sorry but that is crap. Torp raven does fine as pvp boat. However just like most, but definately not all, shield tanked ships it is just best used with friends. Scorpion isnt a pvp ship? What do you plan to do with it?
Regat Kozovv Caldari Alcothology	Posted - 2009.06.23 16:40:00 - [28] Originally by: Furb Killer Torp raven does fine as pvp boat. My mistake, I forgot about that, though it was my understanding that the torpedo Raven is still a bit tricky to use? Scorpion is a PvP ship (and my favorite actually. =) But most are fitted with armor plate in order to maximize slots for the ECM.
kyrv	Posted - 2009.06.23 16:42:00 - [29] The only time I carried favor of the Raven was after several 1vs1 fights way back when sig radius and speed or something insane weren't a problem and they basted my tempest all over the shop. Thinking now however it sorta died the first maybe Tempest>Raven>Apoc>Mega
BiggestT Caldari Oz Space Diggers	Posted - 2009.06.23 16:44:00 - [30] Originally by: Cambarus Also you CLEARLY have no idea what you're doing if you're fitting cruises to a raven in pvp. Good post except for this bit. You can get a good 700 dps with a 470+ sustained tank (cap stable) with cruise. You wont have tackle, so its a gang ship but cruise can definately be useful in pvp. Un-blockable damage up to 200+km (if u use sensor boosters) is quite nice actually. EVE history t2 precisions

Forcerix Dragoon Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.06.23 16:53:00 - [31] Edited by: Forcerix Dragoon on 23/06/2009 16:54:28 Originally by: Xeracon Should cap injectors be nerfed? Active tanks are uncommon as it is due to cap reliancy and general ineffectiveness in high DPS situations...Nerfing cap injectors would be the nail in the coffin. Edit: It has probably been said before, but as shield tankers must sacrifice EWar mods to get a good tank, armour tankers must sacrifice damage mods to do the same...
John Blackthorn Foundation Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.06.23 17:17:00 - [32] "What is wrong with HAMs?" I find two issues with HAM's. There power grid is more than heavy launchers. I wanted to fit ham's on my huggin but they won't fit without a major adjustment to my ship setup. The second issie with HAM's is they have no better signature radius than heavy missels.
Davinel Lulinvega	Posted - 2009.06.23 17:39:00 - [33] Originally by: Regat Kozovv Originally by: Furb Killer Torp raven does fine as pvp boat. My mistake, I forgot about that, though it was my understanding that the torpedo Raven is still a bit tricky to use? Scorpion is a PvP ship (and my favorite actually. =) But most are fitted with armor plate in order to maximize slots for the ECM. It's not tricky at all. It's just a shield tanked ship in a world of armor rr. If you're doing something with battleships that doesn't involve rr a torp raven is easily a top choice. Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: Cambarus Also you CLEARLY have no idea what you're doing if you're fitting cruises to a raven in pvp. Good post except for this bit. You can get a good 700 dps with a 470+ sustained tank (cap stable) with cruise. You wont have tackle, so its a gang ship but cruise can definately be useful in pvp. Un-blockable damage up to 200+km (if u use sensor boosters) is quite nice actually. Nobody cares about sustained tank in pvp, especially one that small. A single cruiser could break it easily, much less a gang. And you're completely missing the real problem which is flight time. You have to be close if you want your missiles to even hit before your target dies and if you're close you should be using torps. Originally by: John Blackthorn "What is wrong with HAMs?" I find two issues with HAM's. There power grid is more than heavy launchers. I wanted to fit ham's on my huggin but they won't fit without a major adjustment to my ship setup. The second issie with HAM's is they have no better signature radius than heavy missels. Yes, and tachs are hard to fit and have bad tracking so they must be bad right? The damage of hams makes up for their drawbacks. Missiles are fine; it's only rockets and cruise that are broken.
Sun Clausewitz	Posted - 2009.06.23 19:22:00 - [34] Caldari fail at solo-PVP.... period
Admiral Valdore The Ronin Syndicate	Posted - 2009.06.23 19:26:00 - [35] Originally by: Sun Clausewitz Caldari fail at solo-PVP.... period Like I havent heard this before LOL. Caldari are fine in gangs, just like every other race. Just have to find their place.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.06.23 19:30:00 - [36] And there we got our caldari troll who denies the existance of the ham drake.
Cambarus The Baros Syndicate Onslaught.	Posted - 2009.06.23 22:14:00 - [37] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: Cambarus Also you CLEARLY have no idea what you're doing if you're fitting cruises to a raven in pvp. Good post except for this bit. You can get a good 700 dps with a 470+ sustained tank (cap stable) with cruise. You wont have tackle, so its a gang ship but cruise can definately be useful in pvp. Un-blockable damage up to 200+km (if u use sensor boosters) is quite nice actually. OR you could get 1100 DPS with over 100k EHP using a torp/buffer setup. Sure you can't hit out at 200km, but you'll notice I mentioned that my comments do not apply to large fleet engagements. It's also worth noting that sure a cruise raven CAN be useful in pvp, but aside from maybe minmatar BSs the cruise raven is by far the WORST sniping BS in the game due to the crazy amount of time it will take the missiles to hit their target. Take 2-3 Rokhs, and a raven, and park them 200km off a gate. Just about any ship will die BEFORE THE FIRST CRUISE MISSILES GET THERE. Cruises are good for lazy PVEers, and that's about it. So yes while the cruise raven might look nice on paper, having to wait that long for your missiles to hit will cripple any chance it has at competing with decent snipers from other races (or even the rokh). Last thing: Most pvp happens at <30km range, especially solo/small gang. So for the most part sacrificing a third of your damage to be able to hit something 200km away (and waiting 30 seconds or more for it to happen no less) is not worth it.
Nadarius Chrome Celestial Horizon Corp.	Posted - 2009.06.24 00:23:00 - [38] Originally by: Mona X What is wrong with HAMs? Swine flu.
Hurtado Soneka Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2009.06.24 01:30:00 - [39] Originally by: Merin Ryskin MWD, cap injector, point vs. 3x damage mods. Yep, seems fair to me, both types of tank have to spend the same number of slots on non-tank modules. In fact, it's even more in favor of the shield tankers, since they get to fit a damage control without giving up a tank slot. Sure, remote rep battleship gangs are rather armor-dominated, but virtually every ship below battleship class is best with a shield buffer tank, so I think that's a fair trade. 3 dmg mods lol. That is a choice going for full gank, though having a full suite of tackle is usually essential not a choice. Also caldari BCU are strangly a lot harder to fit hmmm, being 10cpu heavier than other weapon upgrades.
Cambarus The Baros Syndicate Onslaught.	Posted - 2009.06.24 02:06:00 - [40] Originally by: Hurtado Soneka 3 dmg mods lol. That is a choice going for full gank, though having a full suite of tackle is usually essential not a choice. Also caldari BCU are strangly a lot harder to fit hmmm, being 10cpu heavier than other weapon upgrades. OK I had a quick look at your stats on battleclinic and I see where you're coming from. You fly mostly smaller ships, there, yeh, 3 damage mods means you're fitting for gank, and a full set of tackle is required(especially since you seem to love t2 frigates :P ) . HOWEVER, anything BC/BS size (and to a lesser extent cruisers) fits 3 damage mods, period. If you see a BS pilot not fielding 3 damage mods, it's probably a bait ship, or a newb. The opposite however is true for tackle. Many BSs are fit to fight at 30ish KM, so while a point is usually helpful, a web is not, and since many of them fit buffers a cap injector can often be skipped. (cap stability is hardly required when all you're running is a mwd and maybe a point)

My LittleFriend	Posted - 2009.06.24 04:44:00 - [41] lol @ active tanking in pvp. the injector is to keep your guns/mwd/point/RR/etc running.
BiggestT Caldari Oz Space Diggers	Posted - 2009.06.24 06:05:00 - [42] Originally by: Cambarus OR you could get 1100 DPS with over 100k EHP using a torp/buffer setup. Sure you can't hit out at 200km, but you'll notice I mentioned that my comments do not apply to large fleet engagements. It's also worth noting that sure a cruise raven CAN be useful in pvp, but aside from maybe minmatar BSs the cruise raven is by far the WORST sniping BS in the game due to the crazy amount of time it will take the missiles to hit their target. Take 2-3 Rokhs, and a raven, and park them 200km off a gate. Just about any ship will die BEFORE THE FIRST CRUISE MISSILES GET THERE. Cruises are good for lazy PVEers, and that's about it. So yes while the cruise raven might look nice on paper, having to wait that long for your missiles to hit will cripple any chance it has at competing with decent snipers from other races (or even the rokh). Last thing: Most pvp happens at <30km range, especially solo/small gang. So for the most part sacrificing a third of your damage to be able to hit something 200km away (and waiting 30 seconds or more for it to happen no less) is not worth it. -warning wall of text discussion!- Yeah its a poor sniping BS, but it has the best "tracking" (ability to hit small targets) of any bs on a non-webbed target. And i wouldnt use a raven 200km+ out either, but its still good to know htat, if you shoot at a target and it just gets out of lock range, the missiles will keep chasing for quite a while if the target is scrammed by a tackling 'ceptor. I would agree that a torp raven is probly better, but cruises superior range and ability to hit with quite high alpha should never be underestimated (Burn Eden anyone? :D). I'd like to add that PVP is more than just <30km or omg 200+km. U can say, warp in at 50-70 and start hitting, the flight time wont matter too much if say its a 10v10 fight and ur hitting the secondary. Yes you will be in a danger zone being not far enough to escape but still close enough to tackle, but this should not really be what you're aiming for in a fight.. And to the other poster, yes active tanks are that crash hot, but their often underestimated. Ppl see 470 dps tank and think LOLcruiser, but it would take one cruiser years to break that tank. Focus fire of several cruisers/hacs etc will be much faster, but compare some km's and u'll still take about the same dmg before death as some buffer fits will. Note that a typical active raven will still have 60k+ ehp. I also like to plan for the close fights were it comes down to only a few ships, when active tanks are often superior..Yes neuts will hurt it, but both of u will have cap boosters and they'll often kill the other guys cap for guns or active tank faster, as he would have been burning through his cap boosters like high heaven for other targets, and caldari have large cargo bays. Yes he may be passive, but he'll have to stop neuting one day when he runs out of cap for guns ;) Sorry for the wall of text heh, just thought I'd add an unusaul p.o.v :P
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.06.24 06:41:00 - [43] Originally by: My LittleFriend lol @ active tanking in pvp. the injector is to keep your guns/mwd/point/RR/etc running. yeah cause nobody active tanks in pvp anymore amirite?
Ziester Caldari Echolalia. Shangri-La.	Posted - 2009.06.24 07:10:00 - [44] Edited by: Ziester on 24/06/2009 07:13:03 Edited by: Ziester on 24/06/2009 07:12:58 Edited by: Ziester on 24/06/2009 07:12:44 Originally by: Sun Clausewitz Caldari fail at solo-PVP.... period Ever flown a HAM Drake ? Ever flown a Blaster Rokh ? Ever flown a Buffer Torp Raven ? If you want to prove your point, please come to Venilen and 1v1 me with any T1 BS of yours. ( Maybe except a domi-like Neutfest BS as the point is to prove a shield tank's efficiency over armor. Since neuts fracks up both tank systems it would be pointless ). If you don't want to prove your point, get a clue before posting. ---------- Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
McDaddy Pimp Minmatar	Posted - 2009.06.25 14:20:00 - [45] Shield tanking is fine, i would say shield and armor tank have 50/50 practicality in pvp, you'll notice this even more if you fly Minnie Active : Mael: 1500dps tank, 800dps gank, Rokh: 800-1000dps tank/gank Passive: Drake 75kehp, 500dps+ , with full web/scram/mwd, and faster then most BC, pure gank Raven 1200dps, 100k ehp, etc etc.. and have you met one of those 1500dps shield Hyperion? freaky!
Rordan D'Kherr Amarr	Posted - 2009.06.25 14:24:00 - [46] Originally by: Xeracon So does anyone else think that cap injectors give armor tanking ships a huge advantage over Caldari and assorted shield tanking Minmatar ships? No.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.