| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2968
   |
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:21:16 -
[1] - Quote
I have to agree with the other posters about the requirements being way too high still. That was the main reason they were never used was the fitting requirements were 3-4 times higher than a cap recharger on CPU, and you had to sacrifice PG as well. You will still see low use with those CPU values. The PG values have gone up by a similar amount to the cap as well so you haven't really increased their efficiency much on PG either. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2977
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:38:29 -
[2] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:
BUT. That would only make sense if cap boosters had 60 seconds of reload. ASB's are not as broken powerful as Cap boosters. If ASB's had a 10 second reload like cap boosters, then every ship in space would have a token asb on it, they would be horrifying. IF cap boosters got a 60 second reload like ASB's, or even a 30 second reload, the following batteries as buffer resist mods would see widespread competitive use.
Small Battery II .......... 30 Cpu ... 5 Pg ... adds a base of 250 Gj and provides 25% resist
Medium Battery II ......... 45 Cpu ... 150 Pg ... adds a base of 1000 Gj and provides 25% resist
Large Battery II .......... 60 Cpu ... 1500 Pg ... adds a base of 4000 Gj and provides 25% resist
None of these would be capable of being fit on downsize ships, and only niche cases of fitting them on upsize ships because of grid issues to squeeze out that last bit of cap along with a neut resist would happen. Until Cap boosters get a 30-45 second reload however, batteries will NEVER be able to compete with a Gj stream into a ships capacitor that can in some cases quadruple the Gj/s that ships get naturally.
These are some very good comparative numbers, Fozzie please look at and acknowledge them.
With the lower reload on cap boosters currently I'd compensate by seriously dropping the Battery fittings so they can actually be included in a normal fit instead of a cap booster. And then people 'might' use them for logistics reasons. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2978
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:56:37 -
[3] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
However nerfing what is generally considered a balanced module just to make a week one an option isn't really the best choice
When Cap Boosters are considered a must fit on about 90% of PvP fits that indicates that there isn't actual balance on it at all. People just don't see the issue as obviously because it's 'hidden' and people don't want to nerf themselves normally. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2982
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 19:02:59 -
[4] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Zetakya wrote:A question regarding fall-off and cap resist;
Will the cap resist effect stack additively or multiplicatively with the reduction in cap neuted due to fall-off?
In other words, if you have 25% neut resist and are being neuted by someone who is at Optimal+(1.5*Falloff) and would normally neut 25% of the neuts listed value, will the neut fail, or will they neut 19.75% of the neuts listed value? Falloff on neuts should be calculated first followed by your neut resist percentage. If it is not like this, I would be very very surprised.
If they are multiplied, order of effect is pretty irrelevant anyway. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3024
|
Posted - 2016.03.05 05:50:32 -
[5] - Quote
Well, they aren't Turds, they are significantly improved from before...... But given how deep and underpowered they were before that's not difficult.
It would be nice to see CCP have a concrete plan for if people still don't use them like 'If uptake is low we will slash Fitting by 10% steps every few months till we start seeing regular use' |
| |
|