| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
   |
Posted - 2010.06.04 07:43:00 -
[1]
Many players seem to always aim for a cap stable fitting. They fit multiple cap rechargers in their mid-slots. They prefer Capacitor Control Circuits (CCCs) largely over Semiconductor Memory Cells (SMCs). They train cap-related skills very early. They say one can never have enough cap. And so on.
Should a ship not rather be fitted so it is able to release a capacitor's energy in the shortest amount of time?
Is being cap-stable above 30% a complete waste of a ship's ability?
Which ships really do require cap stability?
In short, is cap stability over-rated?
--
|
Ned Black
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 07:55:00 -
[2]
In PvE while running missions I would say cap stability is very nessessary. Sure you can boost your shield booster/armor repper and keep "stable". But if you are truely cap stable then you just put the repper on and dont have to care about it any more.
In PvP I would say most ships are not cap stable in the slightest. There you use the slots to get better resist/buffer tanks and damage mods. Cap stability may be nice there too, but nobody would sacrifice tank/gank to get a repper running indef.
The only time a cap stable fitting would be ok in PvP would be if your enemy is unable to outdamage your tank... but since most PvP fights usually tends to have multiple people involved that will rarely be the case.
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 07:57:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Ned Black
In PvE while running missions I would say cap stability is very nessessary. Sure you can boost your shield booster/armor repper and keep "stable". But if you are truely cap stable then you just put the repper on and dont have to care about it any more.
But does this not make mission running slow?
--
|
Madmi CEO
Mad Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 07:57:00 -
[4]
At the moment, I'm playing on an unstable WiFi connection. At this point, I would not do missions in a non-stable ship. I can rarely play for an hour without being kicked offline.
If you remove the disconnect-factor, then cap stability is a matter of preference. I don't think it's a matter of releasing the capacitor's energy in the shortest amount of time, but rather maximize your damage while maintaining just the level of tank required. Often you need a lot of tank to begin with, and far less a few minutes into the fight, and therefore do not need to run the booster/repper throughout the fight.
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 08:02:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ned Black
In PvE while running missions I would say cap stability is very nessessary. Sure you can boost your shield booster/armor repper and keep "stable". But if you are truely cap stable then you just put the repper on and dont have to care about it any more.
actually, trying to be capstable on a shield tanking ship is what makes some setups lol.
armor tanking ships are better in that sense since they are more capstable than shield tanks.
tbh trying to make a shield tanking ship capstable for pve isn't really that efficient.
---
Quote:
The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Von Kapiche
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 08:15:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Von Kapiche on 04/06/2010 08:19:35
Bored, guess I'll nibble.
Not at all necessary; but it is obviously necessary to have enough to complete a PvE engagement which can go on for some time. Damage comes in spikes over time, so your tank & therefore cap use ( even if you're speedtanking ) also needs to come in spikes, there's no need for it to sit at the top of the spike as a permatank would. Your tank needs to last slightly less time than it takes to kill everything off.
Guns that use cap need cap stability with the guns on at least. I'd imagine a cap-unstable Logistics boat would be a spectacular failure.
I guess if you don't care about completion times or you don't want to pay attention then you might as well use a perma Domi, but if you don't want to pay attention all the time then why not go trading instead. Discos won't kill your orders either.
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 08:23:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Ned Black
In PvE while running missions I would say cap stability is very nessessary. Sure you can boost your shield booster/armor repper and keep "stable". But if you are truely cap stable then you just put the repper on and dont have to care about it any more.
actually, trying to be capstable on a shield tanking ship is what makes some setups lol.
armor tanking ships are better in that sense since they are more capstable than shield tanks.
tbh trying to make a shield tanking ship capstable for pve isn't really that efficient.
Not sure how you figure. While midslots generally are of lesser important than lows, wasting them on cap rechargers is still a horribad idea, and armor tanks are pretty much as cap instable as armor on actual setups.
That said, cap stability in pve is pretty much always a bad idea, regardless of connection or playing style. The one exception I can see is the domi/rattle/ishtar idea of aggroing everything, tanking it all while drones chipaway and you enjoy the outside.
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 376817
|
Johan Sabbat
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 08:37:00 -
[8]
Personally I'd like to always have 'cap stability' over the length of an engagement and by 'cap stability' I mean the ability to run all the modules I want to over that engagement.
In a mission the length of an engagement is quite long and I will always choose absolute cap stability (ie without ouitside intervention my usage will never exceed my peak regeneration) behind gank and then then tank, after all what use is a cap stable wreck?
PVP, well pvp covers such a multitude of sins that cap stability whilst desirable is usually quite low on my list of requirements (being able to perform my role and survivability being much higher on the list).
|
Pookoko
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 08:52:00 -
[9]
Assuming the discussion is all about PvE,
1. People just starting out on L4 missions: Cap stability is good. T2 large weapons take longer training time than T2 tank modules, which means that most people start out higher level missions with T2 tanking ability but without enough SPs in DPS skills, which makes 'damage tanking' rather difficult, i.e. sustained tankability is desirable because it will take longer to kill the rats in general.
2. People who needs to go AFK at random times: self-explanatory. Cap stability is a must.
3. 'Releasing capacitor's energy in the shortest amount of time' doesn't make sense for Minmatar/Caldari ships. 
4. CCC vs. Semiconductor Memory Cells: it's matter of preference really. But for burst tanking ships there are cases where CCC rigs can be good. In general CCCs give higher recharge rate than Semiconductor cells, and for some ships with good recharge and no cap usage for weapons you can burst tank only with the natural recharge without needing an injector.
5. Perma-AB+Perma Rep setup: definitely worth it. I used to do a lot of L4 Serpentis missions with Deimos this way, and perma AB mitigates a lot of damage and perma-rep helps a lot during the time you need to get close/have to deal with webbing frigs. Same setup also work well for Ishkur in serpentis missions, and I'm sure there are other ships where perma AB+rep work well together.
6. "Is being cap-stable above 30% a complete waste of a ship's ability?": Is one shotting a frig with 4 grouped Tychyon beams from Nightmare 'a complete waste of ship's ability'? It's wasted DPS, that's all.
In short, people look for Cap Stability because they want it/need it for whatever the reason, not because they're stupid (except some :p)
|
RentableMuffin
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 09:00:00 -
[10]
for pve:
well it is possible fit up a raven with 4bcus and cap stable large booster + 4 more slots for tank. however now (since the quantum rise expansion) it is more practical to run a raven with rigor rigs instead of cccs, so that throws the cap stable fit out the window.
however something like an apoc can still be fit to be mostly cap stable with regen and not lose effectiveness. also on gun ships like this 100% cap stability isn't really needed as you aren't always firing your guns 100% of the time. my paladin lasts ~5mins, and well I haven't capped out yet.
|
|
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 09:10:00 -
[11]
for afk missioning, cap stability is golden.
for blitzing, it's overrated. 2-3 minutes of cap is usually enough.
________________________________
: Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 09:38:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Whitehound on 04/06/2010 09:39:57
Originally by: Pookoko
In short, people look for Cap Stability because they want it/need it for whatever the reason, not because they're stupid (except some :p)
People are stupid, everyone is. You will always find something about yourself that is stupid. The question is if it is over-rated.
I prefer blowing out all my ship's cap only to see if I need more cap or if I am good with my fitting. For me it is like a warning light when it says that my fitting is cap stable. It is like as if I had airbags fitted into my pod. I rather have a target painter or tracking computer fitted and not use them, than to fly around with never used cap. Aiming for cap stability is like avoiding limits to me.
--
|
Cyniac
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 10:41:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Pookoko
4. CCC vs. Semiconductor Memory Cells: it's matter of preference really. But for burst tanking ships there are cases where CCC rigs can be good. In general CCCs give higher recharge rate than Semiconductor cells, and for some ships with good recharge and no cap usage for weapons you can burst tank only with the natural recharge without needing an injector.
Two things I've noticed which seem to contradict this -
By increasing your cap buffer de fact you are increasing your recharge rate when measured in cap/second (which is the relevant metric) thus Semiconductor Memory Cells increase cap recharge by nominally the same amount as a CCC rig, but additionally they increase your cap buffer.
I say nominally because in practice what happens when you fit Memory cells vs CCC rigs is that you are shifting the % point where you cap will be stable. As cap recharge is optimal at a given point (circa 20-25%? Not certain) the choice of a memory cell vs a CCC rig is decided by that point.
Though not an expert there is something which seems counterintuitive - it would seem that having a big cap buffer (memory cells) would be a benefit to burst tanking especially if you have basically the same recharge rate.
The real problem with the memory cells of course is that they seem to cost about three times what a CCC rig does.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 10:52:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Ned Black
In PvE while running missions I would say cap stability is very nessessary. Sure you can boost your shield booster/armor repper and keep "stable". But if you are truely cap stable then you just put the repper on and dont have to care about it any more.
actually, trying to be capstable on a shield tanking ship is what makes some setups lol.
armor tanking ships are better in that sense since they are more capstable than shield tanks.
tbh trying to make a shield tanking ship capstable for pve isn't really that efficient.
If fitted with X-L booster, dont try to make it cap stable. Large booster fits can be cap stable though, makes it require bit less management and more safety if your internet sucks.
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 11:16:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Ned Black
In PvE while running missions I would say cap stability is very nessessary. Sure you can boost your shield booster/armor repper and keep "stable". But if you are truely cap stable then you just put the repper on and dont have to care about it any more.
actually, trying to be capstable on a shield tanking ship is what makes some setups lol.
armor tanking ships are better in that sense since they are more capstable than shield tanks.
tbh trying to make a shield tanking ship capstable for pve isn't really that efficient.
If fitted with X-L booster, dont try to make it cap stable. Large booster fits can be cap stable though, makes it require bit less management and more safety if your internet sucks.
it's still overrated, unless you're AFK'ing the missions.
in that case, a domi with armor tanking is better.
---
Quote:
The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
NoNah
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 11:34:00 -
[16]
Edited by: NoNah on 04/06/2010 11:44:16
Originally by: Cyniac
Two things I've noticed which seem to contradict this -
By increasing your cap buffer de fact you are increasing your recharge rate when measured in cap/second (which is the relevant metric) thus Semiconductor Memory Cells increase cap recharge by nominally the same amount as a CCC rig, but additionally they increase your cap buffer.
I say nominally because in practice what happens when you fit Memory cells vs CCC rigs is that you are shifting the % point where you cap will be stable. As cap recharge is optimal at a given point (circa 20-25%? Not certain) the choice of a memory cell vs a CCC rig is decided by that point.
Though not an expert there is something which seems counterintuitive - it would seem that having a big cap buffer (memory cells) would be a benefit to burst tanking especially if you have basically the same recharge rate.
The real problem with the memory cells of course is that they seem to cost about three times what a CCC rig does.
It's at just above 30%, and you have a point in what you're saying, but it's not exactly as you say it. SMCs can grant you cap stability in situations where the CCC's would fail, in situations where a very high burst of cap is used at once, with a somewhat long cycle time. While the point of optimal cap recharge is never altered, it's always static at the 30ish point - it does get widened by SMCs, and as the peak is rather steep on the lower end, SMCs can allow you to stay higher up on the peak, and hence regenerate cap faster during that isolated timeframe. It's however insanely situational and not really applicable in any real life situation.
Originally by: Pookoko
Assuming the discussion is all about PvE,
1. People just starting out on L4 missions: Cap stability is good.
I disagree. Fitting an injector will grant you many more failsafes than cap stability that will eventually fail one way or another. On top of that cap stability eats an insane amount of slots that could be used to make the missions easier. And finally and most importantly it forces the player into a bad habit.
Quote:
2. People who needs to go AFK at random times: self-explanatory. Cap stability is a must.
This is true, if the AFK-moments are abrupt enough to not give the player any chance of warping out one way or another(Ctrl Q is a quick way). I can see no reason why these players would not run a setup made for afk running in general - a droneboat.
Quote:
3. 'Releasing capacitor's energy in the shortest amount of time' doesn't make sense for Minmatar/Caldari ships.
I may be daft, but nothing in that point makes sense. And I'm gallente. :|
4. CCC vs. Semiconductor Memory Cells: it's matter of preference really. But for burst tanking ships there are cases where CCC rigs can be good.
I'm not sure the kind of "burst-tanking" you speak of even exists in PvE in general. Few if any missions benefit much from being able to burst a tank for a few seconds. Care to give some examples? Other than that, wouldn't the CCC vs SMC question be of a entirely mathematical nature?
Quote:
5. Perma-AB+Perma Rep setup: definitely worth it. I used to do a lot of L4 Serpentis missions with Deimos this way.
Deimos. Missions. Really? I'll admit I havn't and probably will be unable to factor in obsucre missionsetups that are used for irrational reasons(Ie anything other than effectiveness). It can only lead to arguing over opinions and taste wich... will be even less constructive. =)
Quote:
6. 'a complete waste of ship's ability'? It's wasted DPS, that's all.
Wasted DPS is a complete waste of a ships ability. DPS is ALL that matters in a mission. How much dps you can apply, over the duration of the mission. However, as some theoretical methods is to boring to do, they yield a low pratcical applied dps, which again is all that matters. Grouping guns and popping frigs is bad, unless it's the only way you will do it.
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 353829
|
Hallo170
Nova Aquilae
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 11:42:00 -
[17]
But what if you can make a cap stable tank, without sacrificing any slots/rigs/implants for cap mods? I'd say its worth it then.
I know an alliance member that only runs missions and flies a perma-tank CNR, still fitting Rigors and 4 BCUs. True, his fit costs a couple of billion, and is probably going to get suicide ganked some day, but he has enough ISK to not be bothered by that.
If you only run missions then the only thing you have to buy is ammo and better modules, so if you can afford the deadspace gear then perma tanking can be done.
|
Meta Knite
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 11:42:00 -
[18]
Most lower sp players go for cap stability instead of gank for missions. Once you have enough skill points andgood cap skills (capacity and recharge), you will notice that you can add quite a few damage mods.
But so far I think the only race that needs excellent cap skills as early as possible is Amarr. Otherwise 4/3 or 5/4 on the cap skill is enough. I never run any shield tanker that can run a shield for more then 2-3 minutes and there isn't a single lvl 4 mission I had problems with.
For pvp stability is completely unnecessary, what everyone does is use injectors to give yourself more cap if needed.
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 11:46:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Hallo170
But what if you can make a cap stable tank, without sacrificing any slots/rigs/implants for cap mods? I'd say its worth it then.
I know an alliance member that only runs missions and flies a perma-tank CNR, still fitting Rigors and 4 BCUs. True, his fit costs a couple of billion, and is probably going to get suicide ganked some day, but he has enough ISK to not be bothered by that.
If you only run missions then the only thing you have to buy is ammo and better modules, so if you can afford the deadspace gear then perma tanking can be done.
You didn't mention his midslots. How many TP's is he using? What kind of afterburner is he fielding? Applying DPS goes far and beyond the figure listed in EFT. Having a cap stable and effective tank can not be done without sacrificing slots to it.
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 323403
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 11:54:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Grimpak
tbh trying to make a shield tanking ship capstable for pve isn't really that efficient.
Depends on the ship tbh. If you for example use a Tengu and don't fit any capacitor mods except the rigs you don't lose out much tbh. Sure a T2 RoF rig might be handy but I rather go cap stable.
I also have a cap stable exploration Hawk (LOLrockets I know) but again no damage potential lost at all as no cap mods/rigs were even needed in the first place.
[Hawk, Voidhawk]
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Shield Boost Amplifier
Gistii A-Type Small Shield Booster
Gistum C-Type Magnetic Scattering Amplifier
Gistii A-Type 1MN Afterburner
Caldari Navy Rocket Launcher, Thorn Rocket
Caldari Navy Rocket Launcher, Thorn Rocket
Caldari Navy Rocket Launcher, Thorn Rocket
Caldari Navy Rocket Launcher, Thorn Rocket
Sisters Core Probe Launcher, Sisters Core Scanner Probe I
Small Gravity Capacitor Upgrade I
Small Gravity Capacitor Upgrade I
|
|
|
Hallo170
Nova Aquilae
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 11:56:00 -
[21]
Originally by: NoNah
Originally by: Hallo170
But what if you can make a cap stable tank, without sacrificing any slots/rigs/implants for cap mods? I'd say its worth it then.
I know an alliance member that only runs missions and flies a perma-tank CNR, still fitting Rigors and 4 BCUs. True, his fit costs a couple of billion, and is probably going to get suicide ganked some day, but he has enough ISK to not be bothered by that.
If you only run missions then the only thing you have to buy is ammo and better modules, so if you can afford the deadspace gear then perma tanking can be done.
You didn't mention his midslots. How many TP's is he using? What kind of afterburner is he fielding? Applying DPS goes far and beyond the figure listed in EFT. Having a cap stable and effective tank can not be done without sacrificing slots to it.
This is the fit he sent me:
7 CN Cruise Launchers (I assume faction missiles too)
Gistum B-Type Medium Shield Booster
4 Pith B-Type Hardeners
Faction (RF?) Target Painter
4 CN BCUs
Sig Amp II
Rigor II and 2 Rigor I
He says he uses Crystals and 5% missile implants, RoF, expl radius and velocity.
He uses a Tengu if the mission is quicker with an AB. Is this an OK fit to aim for? I've been looking for ways to make my XL Pulse setup better.
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 11:57:00 -
[22]
You'd be sacrificing the rigor rigs, which is a pretty big deal considering the tengu doesn't get any drone bay.
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 72953
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 12:08:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 04/06/2010 12:07:57
Originally by: NoNah
You'd be sacrificing the rigor rigs, which is a pretty big deal considering the tengu doesn't get any drone bay.
Any idea how much difference I would see going from 80.75m to 54.91m explosive radius? The cap stable fit has one T1 rigor already and I don't use T2 missiles.
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 12:18:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Any idea how much difference I would see going from 80.75m to 54.91m explosive radius? The cap stable fit has one T1 rigor already and I don't use T2 missiles.
How come?
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 233370
|
Lugalzagezi666
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 12:22:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Any idea how much difference I would see going from 80.75m to 54.91m explosive radius? The cap stable fit has one T1 rigor already and I don't use T2 missiles.
With additional rigors you can count with 1 less volley /maybe 2/ for elite frigs - if you are not using furys, i dont think you need them. But if you are not using fury hmls in tengu, you are doing it wrong.
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 12:28:00 -
[26]
Originally by: NoNah
How come?
CN launchers.
|
Lugalzagezi666
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 12:41:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
CN launchers.
You should train for t2 immediately - with t1 missiles you have around 150dps less than with furys and with faction you still have 60 less dps and they are very expensive /considering hml tengu has like 3sec rof/.
Also tengu is capstable with small pithib without cccs.
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 12:58:00 -
[28]
The difference between a cap stable tank and a pulse tank is often just 1 damage mod for shield tankers (3 instead of 4). For the benefits of being cap stable it's almost always worth it, IMO.
But for the record, I only changed my sig because I was annoying myself with the last one.
|
FT Diomedes
Gallente
The Fimbriani
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 13:16:00 -
[29]
As someone who always dual or triple boxes, I find cap stability to be very helpful in PvE situations. Sacrificing a small amount of DPS per ship to be able to have 2-3 ships ratting or in the mission/plex at the same time at no risk to any of the ships greatly speeds up my PvE activities.
The key thing when going for cap stability is knowing how much tank and cap stability you actually need. Many PvE ships are ridiculously overtanked. Making those overtanked ships cap stable is silly and usually totally gimps the ship. Also, you almost never need a setup that is completely EFT or ship fitting service "cap stable." What you actually need is usually a little less than EFT stable (e.g. you aren't going to run that tractor beam and salvager forever). A setup that can keep its tank going forever and its guns firing long enough to do the mission is cap stable enough to be efficient.
If you are trying to make an XL-Booster or Dual LAR fit cap stable, then you are doing it wrong most of the time. If you have a cap stable tank that is just enough tank to survive while your 2-3 ships with 2000-3000 combined DPS obliterate the mission, that is usually the easiest and most efficient approach. In my experience this works out better than having one overtanked ship try to get all the aggro and having gank ships to do the DPS.
---
This doesn't even seem to be a regular case of rats fleeing the sinking ship. Seems more like the rats are on fire, the ship is on fire, and the sea is full of drunk Russians. - Jacob Etienne |
NoNah
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 13:23:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 04/06/2010 12:38:54
Originally by: NoNah
How come?
CN launchers.
Also, if I swap to T2 launchers I get 773DPS @ 139m sig vs 635DPS @ 81m sig.
Or if you put rigors on it, you get something like 750 dps a 87m sig.
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 223379
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |