|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aamrr
HnL Enterprise
153
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 19:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
T3s are far more constrained by powergrid and CPU than their battleship counterparts, and their subsystem bonuses and high base resists allow themselves to use a smaller sized booster to tank the damage.
More demand on small and medium boosters. |
Aamrr
HnL Enterprise
155
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 10:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mfume Apocal wrote:Kartaugh wrote:Apart from the shield boosters, I'd really like to see an intermediate Invulnerability Field between T2 and Caldari Navy. Domination is basically equal to best named, and the performance (and PRICE) jump between T2 and CN is just way too much. That's because there are no deadspace invulns, unlike EANMs. Faction EANMs are sensibly priced because deadspace exists inbetween faction and officer.
It might also be related to the fact that you can purchase 5x run BPCs for faction EANMs -- not so for faction invulns. And paying for the invulnerability field directly costs about as many tags as paying for a 5x run EANM BPC... ...well, you can see where I'm going with this. |
Aamrr
HnL Enterprise
161
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 20:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Well, there's also the matter that a faction invuln provides a much larger bonus relative to its T2 counterpart than the faction EANM does. Over twice as large, in fact. Math to follow...
T2 EANM = 20% => 25% w/ Compensation V Navy EANM = 23% => 28.75% w/ Compensation V (1-.2875)/(1-.25) = (.7125/.75) = 0.95. So the Faction EANM reduces incoming damage by 5% relative to its T2 counterpart.
T2 Invuln = 30% Navy Invuln = 37.5% (1-.375)/(1-.3) = (.625/.7) = 0.893. So the Faction Invuln reduces incoming damage by 10.7% relative to its T2 counterpart.
For reference, a B-type EANM will correlate to a 10% reduction relative to the T2 EANM. The quality of the navy invuln is really closer to a b-type deadspace module than a "mere" faction mod. Yay math! |
Aamrr
HnL Enterprise
161
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 20:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
As always, Liang brings up a very good point. Perhaps I should have mentioned it, but I was mostly just trying to give context to the people complaining about the price earlier.
Thanks for correcting me, in any case! |
|
|
|