Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
121
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 11:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
Due to some discussions in several topics but mainly in this and this
i think this deserves a dedicated topic and i absolutely think this should be addressed before re-balancing capitals and T3 strategic cruisers as this will fix some issues and possible create some new ones (as for the new modules)
class specific modules are modules that in my opinion should be IMPOSSIBLE to fit on a smaller ship regardless of the TECH level best example is 100mn prop mods which are used on some T3 cruiser fits and also on Cynabal`s which is something that should not be possible.
also there are issues with tanks like battleships that need to use 2 slots to get some decent armor while there are valid reasons for a larger plate like a 2400mm and or 3200mm plate which should be capped to battleships and bigger.
shields have an Xlarge shieldbooster i dont see why a armor ship there is nothing between large armor repair module and capital armor repair module a Xlarge armor repair module should of-course only be fit on battleship or higher
shields wil want an Xlarge shield extender i don't see any problems with that as long as it all is balanced (which means maybe some fitting re-balancing)
i think that the rules for those modules should be something like this: no matter if you meet the requirements CPU and powergrid wise it should not fit on anything below the ship it was designed for 10mn Afterburner cruisers or bigger 10mn Microwarpdrive cruisers or bigger 100mn Afterburner battleship or bigger 100mn Microwarpdrive battleship or bigger 2400mm plate should MAYBE fit on battlecruiser but definitly not below that (so not on T3 cruiser either) 3200mm plate should only be fittable on battleship or bigger X-large shield extender battleship or bigger X-large shield booster battleship or bigger [*] X-large armor repair module battleship or bigger FIX FORUMS |
Seliah
0mega.
19
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 11:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
I have no problem with the idea of having bigger plates and bigger shield extenders designed for bigger ships, but I don't think the other issues you mentioned are valid. Fitting a bigger module on a smaller ship usually comes at a severe cost and prevents you from fitting other things like you would if you'd gone for a module your size. In your example about 100MN AB's on cruiser sized ships, the problem (if you think there's one) may lie more in the effects of a bigger propulsion module on a smaller ship rather than the simple ability to fit it.
Things are just fine the way they are, not restricting modules too much (except for very specific roles like Bastion or Covops) allows player to come up with original and different ideas. |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
121
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 11:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
we could make ship classes to make it more easier to clarify
take Micro Jump Drive this is a module that can only be fitted on battleships (and that should remain so i don't want them on capitals or whatever) but to force the rules of a specific class/size and bigger maybe easier to do if we make classes on size
class 1: frigates class 2: destroyers class 3: cruisers class 4: battle-cruisers class 5: battle ships class 6: capitals
so if its class 1 module every ship can use it, if its class 4 it can only be used by battle-cruisers and anything bigger then that. FIX FORUMS |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
121
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 11:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Seliah wrote:I have no problem with the idea of having bigger plates and bigger shield extenders designed for bigger ships, but I don't think the other issues you mentioned are valid. Fitting a bigger module on a smaller ship usually comes at a severe cost and prevents you from fitting other things like you would if you'd gone for a module your size. In your example about 100MN AB's on cruiser sized ships, the problem (if you think there's one) may lie more in the effects of a bigger propulsion module on a smaller ship rather than the simple ability to fit it.
Things are just fine the way they are, not restricting modules too much (except for very specific roles like Bastion or Covops) allows player to come up with original and different ideas.
you don't see an issue in that, i do it is also i think one of the points that make re-balancing a hell specially when we come to re-balancing the T3 cruisers and capital ships. i do not want to do a 20 post YES it is NO it isn't game. FIX FORUMS |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2478
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 11:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Why?
Posting in a stealth 'nerf bumping' thread. |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
121
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 11:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Why? Posting in a stealth 'nerf bumping' thread.
you realy think considering the content of my post that my goal is to stealthy nerf bumping? if so lay of the mushrooms plz FIX FORUMS |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
170
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 14:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
+1 I'd like to see bigger plates and extenders. I don't think there's a need to cap ship size as pointed out already, fitting oversized modules pulls a majority of a ships PG/CPU. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
381
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 14:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Why? Posting in a stealth 'nerf bumping' thread. you realy think considering the content of my post that my goal is to stealthy nerf bumping? if so lay of the mushrooms plz can you also explain to me why it makes sense that the engine of a battleship can fit in a ship that is at least 3x smaller? that is like fitting an truck engine in a small car, its ridiculous and only for trying you should be forced to do a drug screening
can tell you don't roll around with gear heads, creative mechanics and car mod junkies.
I know a guy who if you can afford his rates will drop wtf ever you want into a body. And its not even because he likes the money as his motivation. Its actually more of a lets make this frankenstein come to life sense of adventure for him.
In terms of eve...this happens with people getting creative with their fits. Many oversized prop mod boats worth noting also come with severe tradeoffs. Every fitting mod/rig used (and they use many) is one less more useful mod. |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
122
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 14:33:00 -
[9] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:+1 I'd like to see bigger plates and extenders. I don't think there's a need to cap ship size as pointed out already, fitting oversized modules pulls a majority of a ships PG/CPU.
this is all true but it makes it harder to re-balance as the PG and or CPU is in some cases a tad high for the designed class aswell and cant be lowered because it would be too easy to fit it on a cruiser. that and the fact that it is very unrealistic to say the least that you can fit the engine of a BS in a cruiser for example.
Its not even a new system, we have this already for covert cloaks and covert cyno`s etc etc.
then i get flamed by one liners that say its a nerf to bumping but fail to reason why the change (definitely not designed to nerf bumping) would be bad.
Can anyone tell me why a cynabal can fit a 100mn T2 afterburner and still get 20k EHP 1863 m/sec and 564 DPS with a signature of 136 meters and ONLY T2 or meta4 modules and T1 rigs no implants and no fleet bonus. because i say its OP tho i realy love the cynabal. FIX FORUMS |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
122
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 14:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Why? Posting in a stealth 'nerf bumping' thread. you realy think considering the content of my post that my goal is to stealthy nerf bumping? if so lay of the mushrooms plz can you also explain to me why it makes sense that the engine of a battleship can fit in a ship that is at least 3x smaller? that is like fitting an truck engine in a small car, its ridiculous and only for trying you should be forced to do a drug screening 1. can tell you don't roll around with gear heads, creative mechanics and car mod junkies. 2. I know a guy who if you can afford his rates will drop wtf ever you want into a body. And its not even because he likes the money as his motivation. Its actually more of a lets make this frankenstein come to life sense of adventure for him. 3. In terms of eve...this happens with people getting creative with their fits. Many oversized prop mod boats worth noting also come with severe tradeoffs. Every fitting mod/rig used (and they use many) is one less more useful mod.
1. plz do...
2. I fail to see the relevance
3. there is nothing wrong with creative fits, but i think there are situations that are completely out of whack and i offer a way to deal with that. I dont say its perfect or anything. What i notice on some of the posters here is that they shout NO before they realy look on what is being said because it would possibly hurt a fit or purpose of some kind. FIX FORUMS |
|
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1823
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 14:46:00 -
[11] - Quote
holy hell no. 1600mm plates are fine oversized prop mods are fine oversized shield extenders are fine Not having X-L shield extenders is very fine Not having X-L armor plates is totally fine
Why does anything need to change? So far the problem that seems to exist is that it doesn't "make sense" to you. There is no compelling reason to wreck a system that is working well. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
122
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 14:50:00 -
[12] - Quote
Batelle wrote:holy hell no. 1600mm plates are fine oversized prop mods are fine oversized shield extenders are fine Not having X-L shield extenders is very fine Not having X-L armor plates is totally fine
Why does anything need to change? So far the problem that seems to exist is that it doesn't "make sense" to you. There is no compelling reason to wreck a system that is working well.
reading is not your strong side i get that...
Can you tell me why a cynabal can fit a 100mn T2 afterburner and still get 20k EHP 1863 m/sec and 564 DPS with a signature of 136 meters and ONLY T2 or meta4 modules and T1 rigs no implants and no fleet bonus.
you don't see the OP in that? not to mention the 100mn T3 fits like the tengu. FIX FORUMS |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
1230
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 16:17:00 -
[13] - Quote
I think everyone's covered the theory-crafting with modules but I just wanted to cover the "I want XL Armour Repairer".
Shield Tanking cost more from the capacitor than Armour Tanking due to the ration of 3:1 of cap to shield HP repaired\boosted but comes with the positive that it is applied at the very start of the modules cycle.
Armour Repairers work on a rough calculation of 1:1 but obviously comes with the risk that the ship will be exploded as it applied this HP amount at the end of the cycle.
IMHO there is balance already in the sizes available. To balance Shield Vs. Armour you'll always need a Shield Booster that is bigger to offset the capacitor costs but maybe not so much as 3:1 but certainly near to 2:1.
Otherwise we'd all just fly around in armour fits and not GAF about shields fleets.
Just my thoughts on it. Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
122
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 16:30:00 -
[14] - Quote
Maximus Aerelius wrote:I think everyone's covered the theory-crafting with modules but I just wanted to cover the "I want XL Armour Repairer".
Shield Tanking cost more from the capacitor than Armour Tanking due to the ration of 3:1 of cap to shield HP repaired\boosted but comes with the positive that it is applied at the very start of the modules cycle.
Armour Repairers work on a rough calculation of 1:1 but obviously comes with the risk that the ship will be exploded as it applied this HP amount at the end of the cycle.
IMHO there is balance already in the sizes available. To balance Shield Vs. Armour you'll always need a Shield Booster that is bigger to offset the capacitor costs but maybe not so much as 3:1 but certainly near to 2:1.
Otherwise we'd all just fly around in armour fits and not GAF about shields fleets.
Just my thoughts on it.
i see your point but i do not fully agree, here is why: 1. you forget that armor tankers are slow as **** and have a GTFO factor of well too low in most cases which is partially balanced due to lower sig radius.
2. the increased cap for shields is not that much of an issue as you said they have advantage of repping at start of cycle which is so much easier to tank cap efficiently also with the auxiliary shield boosters this is hardly a factor
3. when logi is used shield owns armor every day of the week as it has high GTFO factor and perf repping
4. shields have an extra advantage in the form of shield boost amplifiers and the lack of need to train shield compensation skills, which drasticly change the scenario you sketched
if this was not the case we would see way more armor fleets
edit: still unanswered
Can anyone tell me why a cynabal can fit a 100mn T2 afterburner and still get 20k EHP 1863 m/sec and 564 DPS with a signature of 136 meters and ONLY T2 or meta4 modules and T1 rigs no implants and no fleet bonus. because i say its OP tho i realy love the cynabal. FIX FORUMS |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1831
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 16:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote: Can you tell me why a cynabal can fit a 100mn T2 afterburner and still get 20k EHP 1863 m/sec and 564 DPS with a signature of 136 meters and ONLY T2 or meta4 modules and T1 rigs no implants and no fleet bonus.
It actually doesn't seem that impressive to me, and those numbers you've posted seem actually on the low side of what I would expect. Post the fit? "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
1230
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 17:07:00 -
[16] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Maximus Aerelius wrote:I think everyone's covered the theory-crafting with modules but I just wanted to cover the "I want XL Armour Repairer".
Shield Tanking cost more from the capacitor than Armour Tanking due to the ration of 3:1 of cap to shield HP repaired\boosted but comes with the positive that it is applied at the very start of the modules cycle.
Armour Repairers work on a rough calculation of 1:1 but obviously comes with the risk that the ship will be exploded as it applied this HP amount at the end of the cycle.
IMHO there is balance already in the sizes available. To balance Shield Vs. Armour you'll always need a Shield Booster that is bigger to offset the capacitor costs but maybe not so much as 3:1 but certainly near to 2:1.
Otherwise we'd all just fly around in armour fits and not GAF about shields fleets.
Just my thoughts on it. i see your point but i do not fully agree, here is why: 1. you forget that armor tankers are slow as **** and have a GTFO factor of well too low in most cases which is partially balanced due to lower sig radius. 2. the increased cap for shields is not that much of an issue as you said they have advantage of repping at start of cycle which is so much easier to tank cap efficiently also with the auxiliary shield boosters this is hardly a factor 3. when logi is used shield owns armor every day of the week as it has high GTFO factor and perf repping 4. shields have an extra advantage in the form of shield boost amplifiers and the lack of need to train shield compensation skills, which drasticly change the scenario you sketched if this was not the case we would see way more armor fleets edit: still unanswered Can anyone tell me why a cynabal can fit a 100mn T2 afterburner and still get 20k EHP 1863 m/sec and 564 DPS with a signature of 136 meters and ONLY T2 or meta4 modules and T1 rigs no implants and no fleet bonus. because i say its OP tho i realy love the cynabal.
All very good counter points there and posted constructively which I like.
An advantage that you've failed to recognise is that Armour Fleets will use that shield as a buffer to give them time to get their cycle right for the reps to come in time. I've never flown in a large armour fleet (or any armour fleet TBH) but I've watch a few videos by RnK and I have ot say the use of Guardians is very effective.
Shield Fleets can be severely disrupted and killed if heavily neuted and ASB's are only as good as the amount of caps in them...
The AAR is obviously the armour equivalent of the ASB but I'm not sure on the ratios for those.
Then there's the adaptive armour module that will change depending on what damage you're receiving I believe, nothing exists for the shield tanking ships like that.
Lots to consider I guess but I do appreciate the engagement in discussion. Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
170
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 17:08:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Batelle wrote:holy hell no. 1600mm plates are fine oversized prop mods are fine oversized shield extenders are fine Not having X-L shield extenders is very fine Not having X-L armor plates is totally fine
Why does anything need to change? So far the problem that seems to exist is that it doesn't "make sense" to you. There is no compelling reason to wreck a system that is working well. reading is not your strong side i get that... Can you tell me why a cynabal can fit a 100mn T2 afterburner and still get 20k EHP 1863 m/sec and 564 DPS with a signature of 136 meters and ONLY T2 or meta4 modules and T1 rigs no implants and no fleet bonus. you don't see the OP in that? not to mention the 100mn T3 fits like the tengu.
Done. Aside from unsuccessful at everything (for new citizens J'poll) I don't know anyone on the forums with more general knowledge than Batelle.
You have 1/2 of a good idea. Grab a couple of bigger plates, the bad idea is screwing the creativity of the fitting screen. |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
122
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 17:08:00 -
[18] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote: Can you tell me why a cynabal can fit a 100mn T2 afterburner and still get 20k EHP 1863 m/sec and 564 DPS with a signature of 136 meters and ONLY T2 or meta4 modules and T1 rigs no implants and no fleet bonus.
It actually doesn't seem that impressive to me, and those numbers you've posted seem actually on the low side of what I would expect. Post the fit?
this is without any boost of fleet and or links, any implants or drugs and all T2 or below with ECM drones so only light attack and if fitting problems use meta 4 neut or NOS
[Cynabal, New Setup 1] Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
100MN Afterburner II Warp Disruptor II Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion M Medium Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I
Warrior II x5 Hornet EC-300 x5
FIX FORUMS |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
122
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 17:14:00 -
[19] - Quote
Maximus Aerelius wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:Maximus Aerelius wrote:I think everyone's covered the theory-crafting with modules but I just wanted to cover the "I want XL Armour Repairer".
Shield Tanking cost more from the capacitor than Armour Tanking due to the ration of 3:1 of cap to shield HP repaired\boosted but comes with the positive that it is applied at the very start of the modules cycle.
Armour Repairers work on a rough calculation of 1:1 but obviously comes with the risk that the ship will be exploded as it applied this HP amount at the end of the cycle.
IMHO there is balance already in the sizes available. To balance Shield Vs. Armour you'll always need a Shield Booster that is bigger to offset the capacitor costs but maybe not so much as 3:1 but certainly near to 2:1.
Otherwise we'd all just fly around in armour fits and not GAF about shields fleets.
Just my thoughts on it. i see your point but i do not fully agree, here is why: 1. you forget that armor tankers are slow as **** and have a GTFO factor of well too low in most cases which is partially balanced due to lower sig radius. 2. the increased cap for shields is not that much of an issue as you said they have advantage of repping at start of cycle which is so much easier to tank cap efficiently also with the auxiliary shield boosters this is hardly a factor 3. when logi is used shield owns armor every day of the week as it has high GTFO factor and perf repping 4. shields have an extra advantage in the form of shield boost amplifiers and the lack of need to train shield compensation skills, which drasticly change the scenario you sketched if this was not the case we would see way more armor fleets edit: still unanswered Can anyone tell me why a cynabal can fit a 100mn T2 afterburner and still get 20k EHP 1863 m/sec and 564 DPS with a signature of 136 meters and ONLY T2 or meta4 modules and T1 rigs no implants and no fleet bonus. because i say its OP tho i realy love the cynabal. 1. All very good counter points there and posted constructively which I like. 2. Then there's the adaptive armour module that will change depending on what damage you're receiving I believe, nothing exists for the shield tanking ships like that. 3. Lots to consider I guess but I do appreciate the engagement in discussion.
1. thnx
2. yes it is a nice module it only provides T1 resists tho and the amount of cap it uses makes it a very limited option to say the least.
3. me too FIX FORUMS |
Linkxsc162534
Traps 'R' Us Bask of Fail
50
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 17:15:00 -
[20] - Quote
Batelle wrote:holy hell no. 1600mm plates are fine oversized prop mods are fine oversized shield extenders are fine Not having X-L shield extenders is very fine Not having X-L armor plates is totally fine
Why does anything need to change? So far the problem that seems to exist is that it doesn't "make sense" to you. There is no compelling reason to wreck a system that is working well.
noone said 1600mm plates weren't fine. But theres no module to actually buffertank a BS with well, (or caps that matter but thats a different discussion) If you want to be a "buffered" BS you basically end up with 2 plates and a bunch of resists, in almost identical lowslot layouts to BCs. Prop mods I have no problem with XLSB/XLASB are fine, and there was no complaint about them. X-L shield extenders are kinda needed. How the hell do you buffertank a shield BS, so it has EHP actually higher than a HAC or T3? (and don't forget BS are slow as ****) No XL plates is not fine. |
|
Anhenka
Hard Knocks Inc.
165
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 17:20:00 -
[21] - Quote
Larger plates and extenders for larger ships: Yes Plz.
Forcing modules to be restricted to ship-type without a very compelling reason? No.
100mn fittings on cruiser hulls inherently sacrifice tons of rigs and fitting slots in order to be able to maintain that 100mn AB, and are still just as ****** when tackled by an interceptor.
Ellendras Silver wrote:Due to some discussions in several topics but mainly in this and this topic
You mean the parts of those ones where you repeatedly insisted that 100mn were hilariously broken despite fitting requirements while everyone else refuted or ignored you? |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1832
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 17:28:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote: Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II
I see... You know with a meta/faction AB, or w/ a 1% pg implant, you can run a meta 4 LSE or a t2 one and save yourself a whole slot? You're not doing a great job of advocating the 100mn cynabals OPness with that fit.
And fit aside, that's pretty sad dps for fighting in deep falloff, and pretty sad ehp for not fighting in deep falloff. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
123
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 17:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:1. Larger plates and extenders for larger ships: Yes Plz. 2. Forcing modules to be restricted to ship-type without a very compelling reason? No. 3. 100mn fittings on cruiser hulls inherently sacrifice tons of rigs and fitting slots in order to be able to maintain that 100mn AB, and are still just as ****** when tackled by an interceptor. Ellendras Silver wrote:Due to some discussions in several topics but mainly in this and this topic You mean the parts of those ones where you repeatedly insisted that 100mn were hilariously broken despite fitting requirements while everyone else refuted or ignored you?
1. agreed
2. i have very compelling reasons, read my OP and check the cynabal i linked, it probably could be better but it will serve its purpose for now.
3. what sacrifice am i making in the cynabal ? yet its 100mn fit no implants or fitting rigs/modules no unused slots and if you go faction and or use implants you can get way better stats ofc. FIX FORUMS |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
123
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 17:29:00 -
[24] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote: Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II
I see... You know with a meta/faction AB, or w/ a 1% pg implant, you can run a meta 4 LSE or a t2 one and save yourself a whole slot? You're not doing a great job of advocating the 100mn cynabals OPness with that fit. And fit aside, that's pretty sad dps for fighting in deep falloff, and pretty sad ehp for not fighting in deep falloff.
hey its a fit i put together rather fast and i am definitly not the best when it comes to making fittings, no need to rub it in. i know i suck at being EFT warrior FIX FORUMS |
Linkxsc162534
Traps 'R' Us Bask of Fail
50
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 17:35:00 -
[25] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote: Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II
I see... You know with a meta/faction AB, or w/ a 1% pg implant, you can run a meta 4 LSE or a t2 one and save yourself a whole slot? You're not doing a great job of advocating the 100mn cynabals OPness with that fit. And fit aside, that's pretty sad dps for fighting in deep falloff, and pretty sad ehp for not fighting in deep falloff.
See you jsut gave the whole argument for adding XL plates/extenders. If you can save yourself 1 slot, that adds a vast amount of new ability to a ship with what you could now fit |
Ellendras Silver
My second corp
123
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 17:36:00 -
[26] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote: Medium Shield Extender II Medium Shield Extender II
I see... You know with a meta/faction AB, or w/ a 1% pg implant, you can run a meta 4 LSE or a t2 one and save yourself a whole slot? You're not doing a great job of advocating the 100mn cynabals OPness with that fit. And fit aside, that's pretty sad dps for fighting in deep falloff, and pretty sad ehp for not fighting in deep falloff.
ok ok i got it to fit even without any implants its faster and has over 25k EHP now with 664 DPS signature is a bit up tho to 148m still fine
[Cynabal, New Setup 1] Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Shadow Serpentis 100MN Afterburner Warp Disruptor II Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I
Warrior II x5 Hornet EC-300 x5
FIX FORUMS |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2480
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 22:54:00 -
[27] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Can you tell me why a cynabal can fit a 100mn T2 afterburner and still get 20k EHP 1863 m/sec and 564 DPS with a signature of 136 meters and ONLY T2 or meta4 modules and T1 rigs no implants and no fleet bonus.
Can you tell us why they shouldn't?
And forget truck engines in cars, this link shows two cars with world war two vintage aircraft engines crammed inside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzt_E90i0ho
You can put pretty well any engine in anything if you particularly want to. Why shouldn't we be able to do that in EVE? It's not like the things can do much else, most of the time. There are massive fitting compromises to go with oversized propmods. (For example, my 100mn AB ishtar doesn't fit any weapons, and a bump stabber with a 100mn MWD and 1600 plate can't fit much of anything else at all.) |
Arthur Aihaken
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
2927
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 02:31:00 -
[28] - Quote
If we're going to have class-specific modules, we also need to address the fact that a frigate with a pair of T1 stasis webs can basically slow a capital ship to a standstill. Or that a point from a 1m kg frigate can prevent a 100m kg battleship from entering warp. I'm not necessarily saying no to the idea, just that if this is done - we need to re-examine other game mechanics as well. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
396
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 03:19:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lack of XL Shield extender is the price you pay for the advantages of shields.
You get ASBs--- this module alone blows any argument about the cap advantage of armor completly out of the water.
You get Passive Regen, and on some ships+fits enough of it to have decent cap free local tank. Again, where is the cap advantage of armor?
Most of the price of shields comes in slots competing with PvPs precious ewar mids, and huge signatures. You want XLSE so that you can ignore one of the only balance points for shields, while at the same time cutting further into the supposed cap advantage of armor. Sure, you would have the sig of a small moon, but it wont matter since you will be immune to everything.
Armor shines in exactly one area-- buffer. Cap free omni resist mod, and big plates. It pays for it with speed. The AAR is trash as it can still be neuted out and you cannot fit 2 to circumvent its reload like you can the ASB.
As to oversize mods on smaller hulls.... You pay for that. Ever try and pilot something cruiser or even battlecruiser sized with a 100mn prop mod? It has its own issues, fitting compromises being only one.
|
Victoria Thorne
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 03:49:00 -
[30] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Anhenka wrote:1. Larger plates and extenders for larger ships: Yes Plz. 2. Forcing modules to be restricted to ship-type without a very compelling reason? No. 3. 100mn fittings on cruiser hulls inherently sacrifice tons of rigs and fitting slots in order to be able to maintain that 100mn AB, and are still just as ****** when tackled by an interceptor. Ellendras Silver wrote:Due to some discussions in several topics but mainly in this and this topic You mean the parts of those ones where you repeatedly insisted that 100mn were hilariously broken despite fitting requirements while everyone else refuted or ignored you? 1. agreed 2. i have very compelling reasons, read my OP and check the cynabal i linked, it probably could be better but it will serve its purpose for now. 3. what sacrifice am i making in the cynabal ? yet its 100mn fit no implants or fitting rigs/modules no unused slots and if you go faction and or use implants you can get way better stats ofc.
For # 3 100 MN AB's on cruisers (T3 or otherwise) absolutely kill it's ability to turn while using the AB. That is the trade off. They are fast, but they tend to be very predictable.
I honestly don't have much of an opinion on this whole subject (I don't use many oversize modules), but I thought I'd mention this.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |