Originally by: Xharky

---

Edited by: Xharky on 20/09/2005 05:21:26

That's comparing direct stats, never said anything about it being *****ble ¼_¼ please read before posting

Edit: what the hell? F-I-T-T-A-B-L-E is censored?

---

Originally by: nirana

---

why the hell not use 8 tachy IIs for u pvp setup as a basic platform ?(instead of the 7)

everyone who knows how to fit his apoc in pvp uses all 8 turret points.. thats what they are there for :P

---

Originally by: Jim Steele

---

Other disadvantages are the damage types that lasers do, Thermal and EM, the two damage types are the easiest to tank, itÆs stuck with them unless it fits different turrets and there is no changing of ammo damage types like projectiles or missiles. They also have the worst fall-off but this is balanced by the ability to change optimal range quickly by changing crystals.

---

Originally by: Jim Steele

---

The 8 turret hard-points make the Apoc an ideal platform as a mining ship,

---

Originally by: Slaveabuser

---

You might want to reconsider the Tachyon setup since you can do much more damage with mega beams.

---

Originally by: Emsigma

---

Originally by: Slaveabuser

---

You might want to reconsider the Tachyon setup since you can do much more damage with mega beams.

---

How on earth can 8x megabeam do MORE damage than 8x tachyons if both strap 3x heat sinks?

---

Originally by: Slaveabuser

---

Because the difference in rof makes up for it.
All tachs are good for is long range.

---

Originally by: Emsigma

---

Edited by: Emsigma on 06/02/2006 10:58:55
Edited by: Emsigma on 06/02/2006 10:53:16

Originally by: Jim Steele

---

Other disadvantages are the damage types that lasers do, Thermal and EM, the two damage types are the easiest to tank, itÆs stuck with them unless it fits different turrets and there is no changing of ammo damage types like projectiles or missiles. They also have the worst fall-off but this is balanced by the ability to change optimal range quickly by changing crystals.

---

Let's look at a standard shield tanked ship (used caldari stats as they are the most common ships to shield tank).
1x EM hardener
1x therm hardener
1x kinetic hardener.

This will get you to:
50% EM
60% explosive
60% therm
70% kinetic

Now, lets picture multifreq (28 EM and 20 therm):
14 EM damage
8 therm damage
22 total damage

We spank the same ship with antimatter (28 kin, 20 therm)
8.4 kin damage
8 therm damage
16.4 total damage

And also EMP (20 EM, 16 expl, 8, kin)
10 EM
6.4 expl
2.4 kin
18.8 damage

Soooo.. against a STANDARD shield tank setup you are definitly best off with lasers.
Now lets have a look at armor tanking ships.


Wee.. Standard armor tank (used amarr as default stats as we are talking about apocs) with:
1x explosive
1x kinetic
1x thermal

you will get:
60% em
60% eplosive
67.5% thermal
62.5% kinetic

Hit it with Multispec:
11.2 EM
6.5 therm
17.7 damage total

With Antimatter
10.5 kin
6.5 therm
17 damage total

And EMP
8 EM
6.4 expl
2.6 kin
17 total

So even here laser does the most damage... and also they rip your opponents shields away in one volley.

Sooo... exactly in what way is Lasers so bad against TANKD ships?

1st edit: Typo
2st edit: Missed that amarr have 20% expl in default and not 10%

---

Originally by: Gronsak

---

which fool fits exp+kin+thermal hardeners?
u fit 3x energized adaptive nanos t2 giving you +49% to all.

---