Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
LT Sly
TunDraGon
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 09:50:48 -
[61] - Quote
They are primarily used for the neut resist, not the cap bonus. I don't think there have been any good applications other than fitting 3-4 on a heavily neuted capital. This will change with the introduction of stacking penalties, capital cap boosters and no in-fight refitting.
Unless you're planning to add the neut resist to Bastion/Triage/Siege I think a Rig would be a lot better. I'm thinking mostly about armor Marauders and Capitals, cap hungry local tank and 100% chance to get blobbed.
Take the resist and put it on a Rig.
A rig could be an interesting option in exchange for rep performance, capacitor enhancements, dps or mobility without crippling them like the loss of a mid slot would in most cases. |
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
2151
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 10:27:45 -
[62] - Quote
Neutralizers resistance is a much needed tool but i feel the numbers are a little low.
I wish Ancillary armour repairers didn't require cap because coupled with this neut resistance, we could see some interesting armour ships.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Anthar Thebess
1454
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 10:38:01 -
[63] - Quote
My two cents. No one will be rly using battery in this form. Module need big changes to be viable.
PROPOSAL: Make battery to work also as rechargeable cap booster. If ship is over 80% cap half of the capacitor recharge is stored in cap battery, when battery is full it allow player do inject all stored energy to recharge capacitor up to 80%.
New cap battery (all based on size: + cap bonus + nos/neut resist + excess capacitor storage and injection
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
427
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:27:06 -
[64] - Quote
Nice, how you kept the energy neut/nos resistance % on par Do not forget these modules can be used for anti-gank fits while traveling.
Regards, a Freelaner
Eve online is :
A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online
D) CCP Games pay More to win at skill training time, now with instant gratification
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
429
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:59:23 -
[65] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:My two cents. No one will be rly using battery in this form. Module need big changes to be viable.
PROPOSAL: Make battery to work also as rechargeable cap booster. If ship is over 80% cap half of the capacitor recharge is stored in cap battery, when battery is full it allow player do inject all stored energy to recharge capacitor up to 80%.
New cap battery (all based on size: + cap bonus + nos/neut resist + excess capacitor storage and injection
I really like this idea.
But , beyond that, I want to quote someone else...
FT Cold wrote:These still aren't going to be useful. The cap bonuses only work out to be about 15% of their respective size classes' capacitor. Even combined with their cap war resistance, they're still going to be extremely weak compared to cap injectors. In the niche instances you'd want to have a cap war resistance, a cap injector would probably still be a better choice. Moreover, the powergrid requirements for frigates are punishing, small, medium and large variants have far, far too high CPU costs. What were you guys thinking? I just want to go off that. These modules aren't used because they are NOT useful and their fitting cost is astronomical. You get better benefits out of existing modules that have almost zero fitting requirements.
People have complained in the past that ECCM modules weren't useful outside of actually getting jammed. Where sensor boosters and tracking computers countered their respective EWAR, they still provided a bonus to the ship regardless. These batteries currently do very little for a ship not being neuted, and do not do enough for a ship that is currently being neuted.
...considering the fitting cost for the batteries.
My first choice would be to go with Anthar Thebess's idea I quoted above. It's creative, fun, and interactive, so countering neuts is viable and rewards piloting more than simply turning on a module. I don't know if you guys can code that in. If you can't, then I'm going to have to say this...fitting costs need to be half of what they are now, not increased. Every discussion I've seen of cap batteries has revolved around that one sticking point. Even if you buff them to the point where they gave neut IMMUNITY, people wouldn't use them widely because cap injectors work better and still benefit you if you use high-capacitor modules/weapons anyway.
For the pittance of benefit the batteries provide, gutting their fitting cost is the only way to make them competitive with the other tools on the table. If you don't slash the fitting costs, these modules will still be that Loch Ness Monster of the EvE Universe. "Hey man, you won't believe this, I saw a person with a capacitor battery equipped!" "No way man, that stuff isn't real, everybody knows that."
Until you make them vastly easier to fit, it doesn't matter what you do to them. They'll only be on extremely niche fits.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
366
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:03:14 -
[66] - Quote
Gonna chime in to say that these should be amarr flavored mods. While they are the least likely to fit them because of having the lowest cpu and fewest number of midslots........
Amarr
2 drone mods neuts nos armor mods injector cap relay cap recharger lasers
Minmatar
points webs painters prop mods cap batteries most armor mods shield mods overdrive/nano tracking enhancer projectiles launchers BCUs
That's a list of the mods once everything is in. |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
558
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:06:50 -
[67] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:Is it safe to assume that there will be stacking penalty on the nos/neut resistance? Yup it gets the same kind of stacking interaction as armor/shield hardeners.
Will we be getting the nos/neut resistance added to the fitting window, or will it remain a hidden stat that we have to guesstimate where we are at?
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 18:12:00 -
[68] - Quote
After some extensive number crunching for the Large ( no crunching was needed for Med and Small). These are still a MASSIVE joke.
The grid/cpu cost on the small is an absolute joke. An average of about 25% of the grid fitting available to most frigates and close to 35% of the cpu fitting. For what amounts to 2 cap rechargers and a BS neut still takes all your cap from you.
The grid/cpu cost on the Medium is "better". But thats like saying a lobotomy is better than a bullet to the head. 20% of your cpu and 10% of your grid MIGHT be worth trading for a caprecharger and a half IF neuts didn't affect you. But a pair of BS neuts still take all your cap on the second cycle. with or without the battery.
The large batteries are.... ok? ish? maybe? Its still A SINGLE CAP RECHARGER for the fitting cost of a god damn PROP. the cpu of an MWD and the grid of an afterburner.... and you want us to pay that for a single cap recharger worth of cap and what is little more than a stiff middle finger to neuts? sorry... If you're worried about fitting oversize versions if you buff these to much to be worth it, then this should be a separate non-sized module. there are already TONS of % only modules in the game. the power diagnostic is a great module because of this.
Run this by the rest of the playerbase and see what they think:
all these modules have NO fitting requirements. 0/0 on cpu/grid. Instead, they have fitting penalties to accompany their bonuses.
Capacitor Batteries I
-5% cpu -5% pg 20% neut/nos ewar resistance +12.5% capacitor capacity +10% capacitor recharge
Ld-Acid restrained Capacitor Batteries I
-4% cpu -4% pg 25% neut/nos ewar resistance +17.5% capacitor capacity +15% capacitor recharge
Capacitor Batteries II
-6% cpu -6% pg 30% Neut/nos ewar resistance +25% capacitor capacity +20% capacitor recharge
--- "Capacitor batteries enhance and supplement your ships internal capacitor systems with reinforced capacitors that reduce the affect of capacitor warfare" --- (flavor text)
Remember that the slot you fit them into is one of the greatest fitting costs a module can have. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1258
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 18:17:54 -
[69] - Quote
perhaps consider making it a lowslot mod along with my proposed changes
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Alex Harumichi
Icecream Audit Office
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 20:32:36 -
[70] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:My two cents. No one will be rly using battery in this form. Module need big changes to be viable.
PROPOSAL: Make battery to work also as rechargeable cap booster. If ship is over 80% cap half of the capacitor recharge is stored in cap battery, when battery is full it allow player do inject all stored energy to recharge capacitor up to 80%.
New cap battery (all based on size: + cap bonus + nos/neut resist + excess capacitor storage and injection
I like this idea. Needs fine-tuning, but that sort of "rechargable extra emergency battery" would be both useful and something a bit new.
|
|
Circumstantial Evidence
255
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:04:27 -
[71] - Quote
I agree with many others here, that the fitting requirements still seem high vs benefits. I use these occasionally on some cap limited highsec travel fits to get across 100+ au warps, but it's extremely rare that I would put one on a pvp fit; I don't see that changing. |
Zetakya
Echelon Research SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 16:05:13 -
[72] - Quote
I predict these will either be under fitted purely for resists, or over fitted for the cap on those few ships (Rook) that can fit them.
The usefulness of the appropriately sized version is roughly nil.
What would be more useful is if they also gave a bonus to cap transfer received.
Edit 1: You could also do with implementing an "Advanced Energy Grid Upgrades" skill to reduce PG use (basic "Energy Grid Upgrades" reduces CPU use)
Edit 2: While we are thinking about these modules, can you also consider the question of why Capacitor Batteries (a cap mod) require Energy Grid Upgrades, while Micro Auxiliary Power Cores (a Grid mod) require Capacitor Management? |
Lena Lazair
Sefrim
557
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 19:56:49 -
[73] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Edit (added): CCP Fozzie, can you take a look at how many Micro Cap Battery - Tech 2 exist? Along with other rare (on the market at least) "micro" parts, this is a niche collectible that tiericide converts to a very common counterpart, destroying any perceived uniqueness or value. If stocks in player inventory match the market perception of rarity, would you consider a conversion to an Officer part? (err, well, something higher meta...)
No. When people speculate, they risk getting burned. That's why it's called speculating and not investing.
|
CaesarGREG2
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 00:41:41 -
[74] - Quote
1.First of all i see very big change in PowerGrid usage in Learge modules was 275 on T2 module now 400+ PG?
2.Good change in resistances biger ones 20-27% :) NICE
3.Where are capital ones?
4.But NOS and Energy neutralizers should NOT have asame resistance WHY? NOS dont use your cap , Neutralizers yes. |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
100
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 06:30:44 -
[75] - Quote
they still suck
their fitting is so silly high that I wouldn't consider fitting one if it gave twice the amount of cap with maybe 40% less pg/cpu on t2 I could see them finding use though
or consider the old stats with a cpu reduction 275pg 50cpu 700cap for t2 large sounds alright
furthermore: XL version, 1250 cap is not enough for a BS to be worth a slot its only about 1/5th of a megas cap
Quote CCP Fozzie:
... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
903
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 08:28:39 -
[76] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are also adding faction cap batteries for the Republic Fleet, Dominations and Thukker Tribe.
It doesn't make a great deal of sense to me that 3 factions famed for their non-reliance on cap to make cap batteries. Wouldn't it fit better to make them Amarrian or Gallente?
Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
|
Shimrod Ombreflamme
Kaerizaki Corporate Silent Infinity
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 09:00:40 -
[77] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote:72 CPU for t2 Med battery is still a joke. 90 CPU for t2 heavy is even more of a joke.
I agree with this.
CPU and PWG needed is too high, please DO NOT make it higher. No one will use these modules... |
Solarus Explorer
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
11
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 09:11:33 -
[78] - Quote
My sentiments tend to coincide with the poster above........ "These batteries currently do very little for a ship not being neuted, and do not do enough for a ship that is currently being neuted."
They're still pretty useless across the board, not-withstanding the absurd fitting costs.
Possibly an armor FAX would use them (and that too the small ones since its only for the neut resist) alongwith a couple capital cap boosters, i doubt they will see any use on anything else. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
302
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 14:10:52 -
[79] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:My two cents. No one will be rly using battery in this form. Module need big changes to be viable.
PROPOSAL: Make battery to work also as rechargeable cap booster. If ship is over 80% cap half of the capacitor recharge is stored in cap battery, when battery is full it allow player do inject all stored energy to recharge capacitor up to 80%.
New cap battery (all based on size: + cap bonus + nos/neut resist + excess capacitor storage and injection
nice idea.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1561
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 14:26:50 -
[80] - Quote
These things are in the same place as eccm you only fit them to counter a specific form of Ewar otherwise there are much better options for the firing cost.
This is how it is before this change and it will be no differant after
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Thercon Jair
Nex Exercitus Memento Moriendo
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 14:41:31 -
[81] - Quote
How exactly is the "Capacitor Warfare Resistance" going to play out? Is it a reflect effect, or does it simply remove xx% from the amount that would have been neutralised without the modifier? |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
442
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 15:21:49 -
[82] - Quote
This may be our only opportunity to make these modules useful, so I'm not giving up on this yet. Fozzie, hear me out.
............................................PG........CPU....additional cap
Small cap battery II...........12..........60.........125 Small cap booster II...........5..........15..........100 (x3)
medium cap battery II.......90.........72..........500 medium cap booster II.....165.......25..........400 (x2)
large cap battery II.............480.......90..........1250 heavy cap booster II.........1925......40...........800 (x5)
Fozzie, do you understand now?
Cap boosters provide you additional cap on demand, so they are already the go-to counter for neuts. Think of them like armor repair modules. Small, medium, large sizes, "repair" your cap at different rates depending on size of module and booster loaded. Cap batteries, by comparison, are like armor hardeners. They don't boost your capacitor, they just make it harder to deplete (either from hostile sources, or running your equipment). Like an armor hardener doesn't increase your actual hitpoints, just makes it harder for a hostile source to chew through them. So while a cap booster is versatile, a cap battery is single-use, and useless even at that because it is out-performed by existing (and perfectly balanced) equipment.
YOU ARE TREATING RESISTANCE MODULES LIKE REPAIR MODULES AND THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON YOUR PROPOSAL, AND BATTERIES AT LARGE, DO NOT WORK.
If an explosive armor membrane cost that much fitting resources to use, you'd never use them. You'd just double-up on repair modules that repair your armor no matter what depleted it (whether it be kinetic damage, explosive, etc). That's what cap boosters do. If you run high-cap equipment and get close to capping yourself out, you boost. If someone neuts you, you boost as necessary. Batteries will never be able to match that sort of functionality, yet in some cases your fitting cost for batteries is far higher.
Here is my version of your proposal. Numbers to be tweaked later, these are just to start.
............................................PG........CPU....additional cap Small cap battery II...........3............10.........150 medium cap battery II......90..........10.........500 large cap battery II............500........10.........1250
The CPU has been flattened out, since the primary benefit of these modules(neut resistance) is the same across all module sizes. That means the benefit of additional cap is related to the powergrid, and has been accordingly sized compared to the best alternative (cap boosters). Keeping in mind these modules must always have much less fitting than boosters since they offer almost nothing to compete against them, this is what your proposal should look like.
With your current proposal, the only module of any consequence is the small tech-2, since that provides the resistance benefit people are looking for. That may be the only module that sees ANY use. Why use medium or large for pittance additional cap, when you get the same resistance from a small or micro?
If you want to do this correctly, you're going to have to dispense with the small/medium/large altogether. Convert batteries to "insulated capacitor nodes" that only give neut resistance and not additional cap (PWG and CPU like shield or armor hardeners), and have your normal meta versions, and be done with it. If you won't do that, you're going to have to start with my proposal and work from there to have any success with these modules, or it's a failure right out of the gate.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13893
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 16:30:55 -
[83] - Quote
Thanks for the feedback so far! We agree with many of you that the fitting costs in this first pass were still too high. I had decreased the CPU costs compared to the TQ versions but I spent too much focus on comparing to their old values instead of looking at the bigger picture.
We've put together a second pass with vastly decreased CPU costs across the board (the biggest decreases for Small modules). The OP has been updated with the new values.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1072
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 17:42:15 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the feedback so far! We agree with many of you that the fitting costs in this first pass were still too high. I had decreased the CPU costs compared to the TQ versions but I spent too much focus on comparing to their old values instead of looking at the bigger picture.
We've put together a second pass with vastly decreased CPU costs across the board (the biggest decreases for Small modules). The OP has been updated with the new values.
Thank you, now they look much more accessable!
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
443
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:05:09 -
[85] - Quote
I appreciate the second run on the stats.
However...
The small cap battery still requires more and provides less than a small cap booster. And for the fitting resources needed for the medium and large, you're better off fitting other mods still (again, especially cap boosters). If you think you're going to be neuted, a cap booster is necessary and these modules do not replace those. And since boosters already take up a lot of resources and provide a lot of benefit, there is no remaining need for these. There just isn't any justification for fitting them, even with these reduced costs. For the PWG and CPU of a medium, I'd be better off using that slot and/or fitting resources to put in extenders, tracking computers, almost anything else.
Heck, even with the stats I offered a few posts above, I probably still wouldn't use them, because the available options are better in almost all conceivable scenarios.
The only scenario I can see these modules working out better than a cap battery is where you are in an extraordinarily narrow window where you're being neuted, so the resistance is there to help. But...you're far enough away that the hostile is in deep falloff for his neuts and he's still trying anyway. And your resistance to the neut has to leave you with more cap than fitting a cap recharger would have. Any heavier neuting and the resistance won't help and you'd be better served by boosters, any less neuting and the cap recharger would have been a better choice. Even stacking multiple small batteries is a waste of midslots and fitting resources compared to the sorts of sacrifices you'd make by not having something else more useful in those mids.
I must reiterate my previous comment. Divorce the resist part of the mods from the capacitor extender part. Give us midslot resist mods (Insulated capacitor nodes) that are identical in fitting to cap rechargers and up the resistance to like 30% for tech II. Then give us slowslot versions (insulated capacitor wiring) that aren't as good or have drawbacks, that range from 15-20% so we have options in our fitting.
You've married shield extenders to EM ward fields, and it's just not going to work.
BUT
I saw people post positively about these modules earlier in the thread. Please people, share with me your stories, things that happened to you, where THESE modules would have been better for you than any other option. I want to know what you've encountered that tells you these are the best fit. I want to know which scenarios have unfolded where these were the preferred choice, because I don't see it.
Make me a believer. I'm here, and I'm all ears.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
1008
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:13:36 -
[86] - Quote
Hey Fozzie...
I still have an issue, where i would have fit a large before, i now cant fit one.... and a medium is a downgrade on the old large (of course the neut resist is still a great fix)....
What i mean is that to make batteries useful (before) we had to use a size larger... for example on BC's now, a medium is too small... and a large is too hard to fit....
No Worries
|
MRxX7XxMONKEY
Sleepless Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 19:04:56 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the feedback so far! We agree with many of you that the fitting costs in this first pass were still too high. I had decreased the CPU costs compared to the TQ versions but I spent too much focus on comparing to their old values instead of looking at the bigger picture.
We've put together a second pass with vastly decreased CPU costs across the board (the biggest decreases for Small modules). The OP has been updated with the new values.
at this point these things are costing CPU wise LESS than what they cost now for larges (75 for t2 right now, 60 after), while the PG cost is nearly 200% of original. I'd say that maybe the CPU reduction was a tad too much, but the PG, man, dropping it down by 50 or 60 for the larges would probably do well. You cant really fit them on BCs or t3s anymore (except for spending a lot on the faction versions, which, I guess, wont be as much of a problem if you make their LP price accessible :) but, no idea on that), and the mediums are so much significantly worse than current larges that theyre not really usable on those ships
edit: alternatively, you could make the mediums give more cap, the difference in cap bonus between the larges and mediums is pretty crazy |
Trajan Unknown
Rifterlings Zero.Four Ops
76
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:14:35 -
[88] - Quote
I think the only decision a player should make is, do I want sustainability = cap battery or do I want a quick burst = cap booster. Making the fitting costs so different and giving me as a player such a handicap for using a cap battery feels super bad. But maybe I am overlooking something here. But as it stands now I don-Št even think of fitting a cap battery on smaller ships simply because I can-Št without crippling my fit hard.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:26:59 -
[89] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:
If an explosive armor membrane cost that much fitting resources to use, you'd never use them. You'd just double-up on repair modules that repair your armor no matter what depleted it.
Comparing capacitor tanking with classical damage tanking is actually a great point of view. Capacitor is extremely simplistic (having only 1 damage type), but still functions almost identically to shield tanking. You have a buffer of GJ, with a recharge curve along the whole of the buffer. As it stands (given that 99.999% of the player base considers them beyond useless), there are no resist mods or buffer mods for capacitor. So the template needs to be Shield buffer and repair modules. Since most pilots will agree that they are fairly balanced among themselves.
Large ASB...........100Cpu ... 150 PG.... boosts a total of 3510 hp across 32 seconds with a 60 second reload. (92 seconds to get back to square 1)
Large SE ............45Cpu ... 120 PG... adds a base of 2600 hp which upgrades hp/s passive recharge variably. (crusiers shoulder these 2 modules quite often and have a base shield of about what these modules provide 2500-3500)
Invuln ................. 44 Cpu ... 1 PG ...... reduces incoming damage by 30%.
Cap boosters should be treated like a shield booster. It is functionally identical in operation and intent. It pulses a large amount of hp/gj into the pool to offset damage/neut and to aid natural recharge shield/cap with a single mid slot item. Since we are looking at Large ASB and SE which are often found on cruisers. lets look at the medium CB.
Medium CB .............25Cpu ... 165 PG... boosts a total of 1200 gj across 36 seconds with 10 second reload. (navy 400) (cruisers typically have 1500-1800 capacitor in total)
With only a 10 second reload, these can be considered to have an almost permanent upkeep. unlike ASBs. And now you want to add a buffer resist combo module. After all, cap warfare is far simpler and uses far less slots. we don't need a whole lot of complexity and granularity in this regard. space for midslots is already hard enough to come by. 1 module would be more than sufficient. What would it have to look like to be balanced? Lots of people fit LSE and lots of people fit ASB. It all depends on how you're flying and what kind of ship you're in. But EVERYBODY fits cap boosters if there is even a vague chance they will be under neut pressure. or even not. A lot of people set aside a slot for that ubiquitously.
Medium Battery II .................... 50 Cpu ... 150 PG ... adds a base of 1000 gj and provides 25% resist to capacitor warfare.
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. |
Zetakya
Echelon Research SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:41:16 -
[90] - Quote
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? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |