|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Admiral IceBlock
   |
Posted - 2006.06.23 12:17:00 -
[1]
How come Battleships can run almost 2 LAR sustainable with Hardners and a Cruiser is struggling with sustaining only 1 MAR without Hardners? Same goes for Shield, Battleships can easily have a Large Shield Booster running for ages, while a Medium Shield Booster on a Cruiser can not. The Large Shield Booster should be for the Cruiser as the XLarge Shield Booster is for the Battleship, and the Medium Shield Booster should be for the Cruiser as the Large Shield Booster is for the Battleship.
Am I the only one that feels that way?
13 -_- |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 13:02:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: PriceCheckMax
Edited by: PriceCheckMax on 23/06/2006 12:53:47
Edited by: PriceCheckMax on 23/06/2006 12:52:27
Cap recharge of BS with skills, without cap mods is around 20 cap / s at peak, or am I wrong?
1 LAR takes 400 cap in 11.25 seconds... and.. ??? What am I missing here?
A Battleship can sustain a LAR, a Cruiser can not sustain a MAR without using most of its slots for cap.
13 -_- |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 17:42:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Baalic
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
A Battleship can sustain a LAR
WTB LAR that only uses 20 cap/s
My Apocalypse can sustain 2 LAR, 3 Hardners and 1 Damage Control with 5 Cap modules. Now a Cruiser will have to sacrifice a lot to be able to run 2 MAR and even 1 MAR. Why do you think most Cruiser tanks consist of a 1600mm Plate? Because Cruisers are not capable of getting a sustainable Repairing system, so they chose plates instead..
13 -_- |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 20:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Baalic
Originally by: gfldex
Originally by: Baalic
WTB LAR that only uses 20 cap/s
With Amarr BS at 4 it lasts 5 minutes. Not sure about lvl 5. With one cap mod it's stable with BS lvl5.
...until you activate your lasers.
Back to the point of the thread:
Arent battleships designed to be able to have a sustainable tank, whereas cruisers are mainly to destroy other cruisers and smaller ships, not tank fixed installations?
Where is the problem?
By your logic the same could be said about battleships, they are there mainly to destroy other battleships and smaller ships? But battleships can tank.
Cruisers should also be able to tank eachother, tanking is not only for cruisers you know.
13 -_- |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 23:43:00 -
[5]
what does sir tuxford say about this? :P
13 -_- |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.06.24 12:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Baalic
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
By your logic the same could be said about battleships, they are there mainly to destroy other battleships and smaller ships? But battleships can tank.
Not really. Battleships are designed to be the mainstay of the fleet. To take damage as well as dish it out. A ship that can dish out substantial damage to capital ships and installations as well as pick off medium sized ships.
The mighty Armageddon class is the main warship of the Amarr Empire. Its heavy armaments and strong front are specially designed to crash into any battle like a juggernaut...
They are supposed to have trouble with frigs and intys so they need a cruiser escort to effectively deal with that threat.
And? Since Cruisers are not juggernauts they should not be able to tank?
13 -_- |
|
|
| |
|