EVE Search - Anti-Angel Odyssey CNR

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Anti-Angel Odyssey CNR

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ziester No Fixed Abode Mildly Intoxicated 1	Posted - 2013.05.15 21:08:00 - [1] - Quote Hi there, Currently being training up to T2 Cruise missiles and grinding iskies to afford it, I'm working on a CNR project that I'd use for the sole purpose of bashing the ** out of Angel rats. Here's the first batch : Quote:** [Raven Navy Issue, Odyssey - T2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Co-Processor II Power Diagnostic System II Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Explosive Deflection Field II Kinetic Deflection Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Booster II 'Copasetic' Particle Field Acceleration Capacitor Recharger II Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Large Warhead Flare Catalyst II Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Valkyrie II x5 Warrior II x5 Now you may have noticed I voluntarily added the 8th launcher and the extra mid. I've done the maths, if I'm correct it should fit. tightly, but it should. Pre-Odyssey, with "ALL 5" skills, this gives 79.1 per launcher with T1 Nova cruise, which should put out 632.8 DPS In Odyssey and according to the cruise missile change post, roughly adding +25% dmg, should get up to 791 DPS, without drones. Now that may be wrong, as in lower than what I should actually get since iirc they said base dmg, as in before skills, but cba to do the maths there. So I'm gonna wildguess 791 + ~130 drone dps = 920 DPS, probably more like around 1K or something. The tank however is rather poor, even with having 83.4% Exp and 80% Kin resists, SB boosts about 344.6 ehp per second. Enouhg for belt rats, and afaik, not quite for anomalies though. however, fancy tanking modules may come with increased income rate anyway. Not sure if I should use CN cruise or just stick with T1, maybe T2 for beefier rats ? As the intent is to make the better ISK spent per ISK gained ratio, which can be tricky as belt rats are not exact science and you never know what you're gonna get first. What do you guys think about it ?
Fronkfurter McSheebleton The Graduates RAZOR Alliance 197	Posted - 2013.05.15 21:51:00 - [2] - Quote You aren't going to get that 791dps with three T2 damage mods and vanilla t1 ammo. That'll get you 592 with perfect skills. thhief ghabmoef
Ziester No Fixed Abode Mildly Intoxicated 1	Posted - 2013.05.15 22:05:00 - [3] - Quote Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote: You aren't going to get that 791dps with three T2 damage mods and vanilla t1 ammo. That'll get you 592 with perfect skills. Please read again. Each launcher 79.1 DPS with current release That makes 79.1 x 7 = 553.7 DPS Now, here comes the point when the "Please read again" kicks in. I said I planned it for Odyssey. If you look Odyssey change posts around : CCP Rise wrote: Specifically: 5% increased rate of fire for all Cruise Missile Launchers 200 added power grid need for all Cruise Missile launchers 4700m/sec base missile velocity for all Cruise Missiles (up from 3750m/sec) 14 second base flight time for all Cruise Missiles (down from 20 seconds) 25% increase in base damage for all Cruise Missiles 10% increase in explosion radius for all Cruise Missiles Look forward to hearing your feedback, as always Rise CCP Rise wrote: RAVEN NAVY ISSUE The CNR will be CaldariGÇÖs attack battleship, like the new tech 1 Raven. I wanted the Navy Raven to get something new, and the new Navy Drake pointed in a pretty good direction. We are giving the CNR an 8th launcher to make up for the loss of the rate of fire bonus, and replacing rate of fire with a bonus to explosion radius. Along with the incoming buff to cruise missiles, this ship is going to be an animal. Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses: +5% bonus to Torpedo and Cruise Missile explosion radius +10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity Slot layout: 8H, 7M(+1), 5L; 0 turrets , 8 launchers(+1) Fittings: 12000 PWG(+1075), 780 CPU(+45) Defense (shields / armor / hull): 10500(-750) / 8000(-1961) / 9500(-461) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5900(+587.5) / 1150s(-4.875s) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 123(+29) / .12(-.008) / 97300000(-2000000) / 16.19s(-1.43s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 100 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km / 105(-1.25) / 7 Sensor strength: 28 Gravimetric(+.5) Signature radius: 410(-50) Given this and "All L5 skills" : Launcher x1.05(rof) x1.25(dmg inscrease) x8 (number of launchers) = Total weapon DPS So 79.1 x1.05 x1.25 x8 = 830.55 DPS before drones, make that 960 DPS with them. (Reload times accounted for) Anything else to say Sir Idon'treadpostsandreplyblindly ? PS : Forgot I also have a +5% launcher RoF implant too.
Riot Girl Thundercats The Initiative. 895	Posted - 2013.05.15 22:20:00 - [4] - Quote CNR and T1 Raven will both do roughly 930 DPS with T2 ammo and without drones. The DPS for both ships is exactly the same. Oh god.
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Initiative 3529	Posted - 2013.05.15 22:52:00 - [5] - Quote There was a long ~math~ poast in the feedback thread which (I believe) rather categorically showed that BLA II + 2 Flares was better than the triple Rigor for most purposes. I think it sported 2 TPs. I have no reason to doubt that result. -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Ziester No Fixed Abode Mildly Intoxicated 1	Posted - 2013.05.15 22:54:00 - [6] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: CNR and T1 Raven will both do roughly 930 DPS with T2 ammo and without drones. The DPS for both ships is exactly the same. Close enough, but no : T1 Raven : 6 launchers +25% ROF at BS 5 = 6x 1.25 = 7.5 launchers. CNR = 8 launchers.
Ziester No Fixed Abode Mildly Intoxicated 1	Posted - 2013.05.15 22:57:00 - [7] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: There was a long ~math~ poast in the feedback thread which (I believe) rather categorically showed that BLA II + 2 Flares was better than the triple Rigor for most purposes. I think it sported 2 TPs. I have no reason to doubt that result. -Liang BLA ? I'm assumiin gBay Loading Accelerator, but doesn't the effect stack with BCU's ?
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1089	Posted - 2013.05.15 22:58:00 - [8] - Quote Ziester wrote: Riot Girl wrote: CNR and T1 Raven will both do roughly 930 DPS with T2 ammo and without drones. The DPS for both ships is exactly the same. Close enough, but no : T1 Raven : 6 launchers +25% ROF at BS 5 = 6x 1.25 = 7.5 launchers. CNR = 8 launchers. except the correct math is 6 / 0.75 "I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF
stoicfaux 2703	Posted - 2013.05.15 22:58:00 - [9] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: CNR and T1 Raven will both do roughly 930 DPS with T2 ammo and without drones. The DPS for both ships is exactly the same. Everything does CNR damage in Odyssey, the only real difference is drones and whether you shield or armor tank. =P Ship - # launchers (# effective launchers) - H/M/L slots - Drone bandwidth/Bay CNR 88/7/575/100 (780 CPU) SNI 6 (8)7/8/5 75/75 (780 CPU) Fleet Typhoon 6 (8.25)8/5/7125/200 (660 CPU) Raven 6 (8) 7/7/550/75 (750 CPU) Typhoon 6 (8)7/5/7 100/125 (640 CPU) Golem 4 (8)7/7/475/75 (715 CPU) Now I just need a way to shield tank the Fleet Typhoon (3x BCUs, 2-3 DDAs)...
Ziester No Fixed Abode Mildly Intoxicated 1	Posted - 2013.05.15 23:06:00 - [10] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: except the correct math is 6 / 0.75 Meh, I suck at maths :D My bad then, thx for the fix :)
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1089	Posted - 2013.05.15 23:21:00 - [11] - Quote Ziester wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: except the correct math is 6 / 0.75 Meh, I suck at maths :D My bad then, thx for the fix :) it's technically not your fault. if you read the bonus on hulls and modules, you will notice it says something like "7.5% increased rate of fire per level". technically, this statement is wrong. rate of fire is measured in shots / time unit, so if you increase it, you would expect having to multiply by 1 + the bonus. how the stat ACTUALLY works is it reduces the time between shots by the given percentage. to make the difference more clear: if you had a ship with a 100% bonus, it would not shoot twice as fast but infinitely fast. a laser boat with t1 crystals and 100% bonus to "rate of fire" would oneshot everything, or more likely crash the game. "I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Initiative 3529	Posted - 2013.05.16 01:01:00 - [12] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: Ziester wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: except the correct math is 6 / 0.75 Meh, I suck at maths :D My bad then, thx for the fix :) it's technically not your fault. if you read the bonus on hulls and modules, you will notice it says something like "7.5% increased rate of fire per level". technically, this statement is wrong. rate of fire is measured in shots / time unit, so if you increase it, you would expect having to multiply by 1 + the bonus. how the stat ACTUALLY works is it reduces the time between shots by the given percentage. to make the difference more clear: if you had a ship with a 100% bonus, it would not shoot twice as fast but infinitely fast. a laser boat with t1 crystals and 100% bonus to "rate of fire" would oneshot everything, or more likely crash the game. This happened once. Revelations would instantly empty their capacitor. It was pretty funny. -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Ziester No Fixed Abode Mildly Intoxicated 1	Posted - 2013.05.16 01:11:00 - [13] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: Ziester wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: except the correct math is 6 / 0.75 Meh, I suck at maths :D My bad then, thx for the fix :) it's technically not your fault. if you read the bonus on hulls and modules, you will notice it says something like "7.5% increased rate of fire per level". technically, this statement is wrong. rate of fire is measured in shots / time unit, so if you increase it, you would expect having to multiply by 1 + the bonus. how the stat ACTUALLY works is it reduces the time between shots by the given percentage. to make the difference more clear: if you had a ship with a 100% bonus, it would not shoot twice as fast but infinitely fast. a laser boat with t1 crystals and 100% bonus to "rate of fire" would oneshot everything, or more likely crash the game. So basically "7.5% increased rate of fire per level" should actually be interpreted as "Decreases the delay between each shot by 7.5% per level" correct ? That reminds me about World of Tanks for some reasons. We have the same kind of misunderstanding over there too. For each barrel we have a "Accuracy" stat as in "Accuracy : 0.30" for example. Thing is, it's not accuracy, it's Deviation. It means that for a barrel having an "accuracy" of 0.30, the shot will not be anywhere withing 30 cms of the center of the reticle, but the shell will actually deviate by 30cms for every 100m the shell travelled in the air.
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1090	Posted - 2013.05.16 13:12:00 - [14] - Quote i just took a peek at WoT game mechanics. the most accurate analogy to rate of fire mechanics in eve is the gun rammer. it provides a 10% bonus to reload time. imagine it gave you a 50% bonus instead of a 10% bonus. your total dps would not go up by 50% but would actually double, since you can get 2x more shots off in the same time. "I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF
Verity Sovereign Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 421	Posted - 2013.05.16 13:47:00 - [15] - Quote I think these rate of fire bonuses should be called "cycle time reductions" Ie 5% reduction to cruise missile cycle time 100% reduction = instant cycle = infinite ROF -> well not really infinite, press button, launcher is empty. 24 missiles per launcher, 10 second reloads, 2.4 missiles per second :)
Klingon Admiral Black Hole Cluster 22	Posted - 2013.05.16 14:12:00 - [16] - Quote Ziester wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: There was a long ~math~ poast in the feedback thread which (I believe) rather categorically showed that BLA II + 2 Flares was better than the triple Rigor for most purposes. I think it sported 2 TPs. I have no reason to doubt that result. -Liang BLA ? I'm assumiin gBay Loading Accelerator, but doesn't the effect stack with BCU's ? It does stack, yes, but since stacking penalty starts with the module with the highest bonus on top, only the BCS get stronger stacking penalty, while the BLA2 can apply it's full bonus. This increases, with 4 CN BCS, the DPS by about 6%. The fewer BCS; the higher the effective increase. And once you are approaching the skillcap, 6% are huge. And with these changes the CNR will have no problems hitting even cruiser-sized NPC really good, so there is no real reason to go for any sort off additional damage application when you could rather have more raw-DPS.
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Initiative 3550	Posted - 2013.05.16 17:26:00 - [17] - Quote Klingon Admiral wrote: Ziester wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: There was a long ~math~ poast in the feedback thread which (I believe) rather categorically showed that BLA II + 2 Flares was better than the triple Rigor for most purposes. I think it sported 2 TPs. I have no reason to doubt that result. -Liang BLA ? I'm assumiin gBay Loading Accelerator, but doesn't the effect stack with BCU's ? It does stack, yes, but since stacking penalty starts with the module with the highest bonus on top, only the BCS get stronger stacking penalty, while the BLA2 can apply it's full bonus. This increases, with 4 CN BCS, the DPS by about 6%. The fewer BCS; the higher the effective increase. And once you are approaching the skillcap, 6% are huge. And with these changes the CNR will have no problems hitting even cruiser-sized NPC really good, so there is no real reason to go for any sort off additional damage application when you could rather have more raw-DPS. There's actually no reason to go with the CNR at all with the Fleet Phoon out there. It can't apply all of its damage but the raw damage output is ******* crazy in practical fittings. -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Ziester No Fixed Abode Mildly Intoxicated 1	Posted - 2013.05.16 19:11:00 - [18] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: There's actually no reason to go with the CNR at all with the Fleet Phoon out there. It can't apply all of its damage but the raw damage output is ******* crazy in practical fittings. -Liang Oh it's personal taste really, I just loathe that flying trashbin :D
OfBalance Caldari State 473	Posted - 2013.05.16 19:19:00 - [19] - Quote Ziester wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: There's actually no reason to go with the CNR at all with the Fleet Phoon out there. It can't apply all of its damage but the raw damage output is ******* crazy in practical fittings. -Liang Oh it's personal taste really, I just loathe that flying trashbin :D The demon trashcan aka. dirty syringe is beautiful. :(
Ziester No Fixed Abode Mildly Intoxicated 1	Posted - 2013.05.17 11:39:00 - [20] - Quote Ok to match feedback so far, I've adjusted the setup accordingly, along with some cheap faction mods to help with both tank and DPS : Quote: [Raven Navy Issue, Odyssey cheap faction] Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Co-Processor II Damage Control II Domination 100MN Microwarpdrive Dread Guristas Explosive Deflection Field Dread Guristas Kinetic Deflection Field Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Dread Guristas Shield Boost Amplifier Dread Guristas X-Large Shield Booster Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Large Bay Loading Accelerator II Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I Warrior II x5 Bouncer II x3 Co-Processor is mandatory, along with a +3% CPU output implant, or even with the ship's changes for Odyssey this won't fit. I didn't go for the fancy faction Invul since it's ridiculously overpriced. - Replaced the CN Large SB to a Dread XLSB - Replaced Cap Recharger II with Heavy Cap Booster II - Replaced rigs accordingly to previous replies - Replaced 5x Valk II by 3x Bouncer II, which do more DPS Pre-Odyssey stats : 575 Launcher DPS (that's x7, single launcher is 82.1) 158 Drone DPS (Bouncers) (Have fun doing the math for Odyssey DPS ^^) Tank vs Angel : XLSB boosts 1041.4 EHP/sec, for around 3m30s consistnt boost Resists 85.4% Exp, 82.5 Kin Although these stats are not entirely true since I can't check the real stats with all 7 mid modules.
Ziester No Fixed Abode Mildly Intoxicated 1	Posted - 2013.05.17 11:51:00 - [21] - Quote Ziester wrote: Pre-Odyssey stats : 575 Launcher DPS (that's x7, single launcher is 82.1) 158 Drone DPS (Bouncers) (Have fun doing the math for Odyssey DPS ^^) Screw it I'll do the maths :p 8 launchers x 82.1 DPS each = 656.8 656.8 DPS +25% damage (Odyssey boost) = 656.8 x1.25 = 821 DPS 821 DPS / 0.95 (+5% RoF Odyssey) = 864.21 DPS 864.21 Launchers DPS + 158 Drone DPS (3x Bouncer II) = 1022 Total DPS That's with my current skillset, which is not perfect I'm still missing a couple L5 missile support skills (GMP 3 and Warhead Upgrade 4 atm, all other supports are 5) I also still have a few implants influencing this : +5% TNP, +5% GMP, +5% RoF
Riot Girl Thundercats The Initiative. 898	Posted - 2013.05.17 12:01:00 - [22] - Quote It might be easier if you just get Namamai's updated EFT files. Oh god.
amurder Hakomairos Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden 50	Posted - 2013.05.17 12:40:00 - [23] - Quote Ziester wrote: Ok to match feedback so far, I've adjusted the setup accordingly, along with some cheap faction mods to help with both tank and DPS : Quote: [Raven Navy Issue, Odyssey cheap faction] Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Co-Processor II Damage Control II Domination 100MN Microwarpdrive Dread Guristas Explosive Deflection Field Dread Guristas Kinetic Deflection Field Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Dread Guristas Shield Boost Amplifier Dread Guristas X-Large Shield Booster Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Large Bay Loading Accelerator II Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I Warrior II x5 Bouncer II x3 Co-Processor is mandatory, along with a +3% CPU output implant, or even with the ship's changes for Odyssey this won't fit. I didn't go for the fancy faction Invul since it's ridiculously overpriced. - Replaced the CN Large SB to a Dread XLSB - Replaced Cap Recharger II with Heavy Cap Booster II - Replaced rigs accordingly to previous replies - Replaced 5x Valk II by 3x Bouncer II, which do more DPS Pre-Odyssey stats : 575 Launcher DPS (that's x7, single launcher is 82.1) 158 Drone DPS (Bouncers) (Have fun doing the math for Odyssey DPS ^^) Tank vs Angel : XLSB boosts 1041.4 EHP/sec, for around 3m30s consistnt boost Resists 85.4% Exp, 82.5 Kin Although these stats are not entirely true since I can't check the real stats with all 7 mid modules. Just an fyi - if you try to run anoms with this your tank is going to be raped by Seraphim/Cherubim BS since you have very little EM/Therm resists.
Ziester No Fixed Abode Mildly Intoxicated 1	Posted - 2013.05.17 13:04:00 - [24] - Quote amurder Hakomairos wrote: Just an fyi - if you try to run anoms with this your tank is going to be raped by Seraphim/Cherubim BS since you have very little EM/Therm resists. Oh jee thanks, didn't know those were dealing those dmg types. I'll just readjust the tank then : Quote: Quote: [Raven Navy Issue, Odyssey cheap faction] Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Co-Processor II Damage Control II Domination 100MN Microwarpdrive Dread Guristas EM Ward Field Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Dread Guristas Shield Boost Amplifier Dread Guristas X-Large Shield Booster Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Large Bay Loading Accelerator II Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I Warrior II x5 Bouncer II x3 This gives 870.5 ehp/s. It does lower the overall "Angel" tank but will help against such ships. Anyhow I should have more than enough DPS to kill off a spawn before the tank breaks. Any clue about Angel anom's average DPS ? For like Hidden/Forsaken/Forlorn Hubs and Havens ? Havens might be too much, let alone Sanctums that most likely are way out of this ship's league.
stoicfaux 2707	Posted - 2013.05.17 13:05:00 - [25] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: There was a long ~math~ poast in the feedback thread which (I believe) rather categorically showed that BLA II + 2 Flares was better than the triple Rigor for most purposes. I think it sported 2 TPs. I have no reason to doubt that result. -Liang My numbers cast doubt on that claim. Any chance you can narrow down that post? Some key words to help search on? Never mind: found it: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/235324-1/author/Klingon_Admiral#5 That seems to compare the Golem vs the CNR and isn't about BLAII + Flares being better than 3 rigors. I'll post my numbers later, but my spreadsheet says that 3xRigors trounces BLAII+Flares, or any combination of Rigors and Flares.
stoicfaux 2707	Posted - 2013.05.17 15:06:00 - [26] - Quote https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_CLlTV8bSxNU3JXSjkybWt6UDA/edit?usp=sharing Note the "% of full damage" column. With two TPs, the BLA CNR is a tiny bit faster (half a second per volley) than the 3xRigor CNR. However, with only 1 TP, the BLA CNR starts to fall behind. More importantly, the 3xRigor CNR is just as effective with 1 TP as with 2 TPs, which makes it less reliant on TP juggling which probably eliminates the BLA CNR's slight RoF advantage. Looking at the "% of full damage" column shows that the 3xRigor CNR is better at applying its damage than the BLA CNR, so again, I'm not sure the BLA's rof advantage is worth it. tl;dr - The 3xRigor CNR is better in that it is more efficient at applying damage, while the BLA CNR's slight RoF advantage isn't enough to compensate.
Ziester No Fixed Abode Mildly Intoxicated 1	Posted - 2013.05.17 15:33:00 - [27] - Quote Well that's pretty straight forward, I'll go with 2 Rigor2 and a Flare2, the Flare being kind of a counter to those Angel rats who tend to MWD burst every now and then. Quote: [Raven Navy Issue, Odyssey cheap faction] Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Khanid Navy Ballistic Control System Co-Processor II Damage Control II Domination 100MN Microwarpdrive Dread Guristas EM Ward Field Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Dread Guristas Shield Boost Amplifier Dread Guristas X-Large Shield Booster Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Nova Cruise Missile Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Large Warhead Flare Catalyst II Warrior II x5 Bouncer II x3 I guess I'll use Furys for BC/BS and just switch to regular T1 for Cruisers/Frigs. Anything else that'd need tweaking ?
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Initiative 3568	Posted - 2013.05.17 18:06:00 - [28] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_CLlTV8bSxNU3JXSjkybWt6UDA/edit?usp=sharing Note the "% of full damage" column. With two TPs, the BLA CNR is a tiny bit faster (half a second per volley) than the 3xRigor CNR. However, with only 1 TP, the BLA CNR starts to fall behind. More importantly, the 3xRigor CNR is just as effective with 1 TP as with 2 TPs, which makes it less reliant on TP juggling which probably eliminates the BLA CNR's slight RoF advantage. Looking at the "% of full damage" column shows that the 3xRigor CNR is better at applying its damage than the BLA CNR, so again, I'm not sure the BLA's rof advantage is worth it. tl;dr - The 3xRigor CNR is better in that it is more efficient at applying damage, while the BLA CNR's slight RoF advantage isn't enough to compensate. I agree with your conclusion (3 Rigor > BLA/Rigor) because it agrees with my own research (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3041044#post3041044). However, your methodology is just flat wrong because you are ignoring damage application implants. You can say that they affect everyone equally (and be right!), but the problem is exactly illustrated here: The 3 Rigor CNR is just as effective with 1 TP as with 2 TP. That's exactly the same kind of effect that damage application implants have. I also think it's kinda weird to assume only one painter considering we all fit painters already and we're getting an extra mid slot. It might be a better place to talk about damage application implants in the appropriate thread though. You've linked that lots of places and it's a better place to discuss methodology. -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
stoicfaux 2707	Posted - 2013.05.17 18:17:00 - [29] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: I agree with your conclusion (3 Rigor > BLA/Rigor) because it agrees with my own research (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3041044#post3041044). However, your methodology is just flat wrong because you are ignoring damage application implants. You can say that they affect everyone equally (and be right!), but the problem is exactly illustrated here: The 3 Rigor CNR is just as effective with 1 TP as with 2 TP. That's exactly the same kind of effect that damage application implants have. I also think it's kinda weird to assume only one painter considering we all fit painters already and we're getting an extra mid slot. It might be a better place to talk about damage application implants in the appropriate thread though. You've linked that lots of places and it's a better place to discuss methodology. -Liang Implants were tedious to set in EFT. (Especially since I forgot that you can create skill profiles with pre-set implants in EFT.) Since not everyone has V in everything, folks can use implants to pick up the slack. TP juggling and falloff, if you have two TPs, you can't always apply them both. The PDF reports generally assume 2 TPs. You can select the # of TPs (from 1 to 5) in the spreadsheet. My assumptions about TP usage are just my assumptions. The reports are meant to be a easy comparison between the ship hulls and do not necessarily represent extreme min-maxing. Remember, anyone can get a googledocs account, run my spreadsheet, export to a PDF, upload the doc to googledocs and post the link on the forums.
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Initiative 3569	Posted - 2013.05.17 18:20:00 - [30] - Quote People who haven't trained their missile support skills to 5 are literally not worth thinking about in a balance discussion. ;-) -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.