| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SitRep
Caldari
Warspite Developments
Rule of Three
   |
Posted - 2007.03.25 20:22:00 -
[1]
Idea is to use two T2 and one T1 on a Raven with an active tank(xlarge booster, booster amplifier,invul fields/specific active hardners, with 2 heavy nos boosting up cap as well) for an extended fight time. Which one would you take and why ?
note: expectation to be primed or nos'ed.
|
Imechal Ravpeim
International Multi-Player Consortium
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 20:51:00 -
[2]
I wouldn't suggest t2 rigs for pvp first of all. And you get a slightly higher recharge rate with recharge rigs, but you get a buffer with the size rigs. Pve use recharge rigs, pvp use cap size rigs.
|
Sokratesz
Guardians of Hell's Gate v2.0
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 20:59:00 -
[3]
for pvp: capacity rigs (burst cap)
for pve: recharge rigs
percentage wise, recharge rigs are a fraction better then capacity rigs, but in pvp you want loads of cap to waste not a tiny bit more recharge rate.
 Originally by: Mastin Dragonfly
Radio is essential for Amarr, to call the much needed backup...
|
SitRep
Caldari
Warspite Developments
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 21:33:00 -
[4]
Thankyou. The same way I thought about it (PvP). Just wanted more opinions :)
|
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 21:36:00 -
[5]
Except cap amount rigs = require more of the expensive components = at least three times the cost. So you're looking at 60 mil vs. 180 mil for your rig set. Since you're going to lose a PvP ship eventually, might as well save 120 mil.
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 04:46:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 27/03/2007 04:43:02
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame
Except cap amount rigs = require more of the expensive components = at least three times the cost. So you're looking at 60 mil vs. 180 mil for your rig set. Since you're going to lose a PvP ship eventually, might as well save 120 mil.
...or give you a much better chance of survival in the first place. Nearly 50% more cap for the price of what? a deadspace EANM which is only 25% better then T2? And cap is alot mroe useful in the first place.
Originally by: Mastin Dragonfly
Radio is essential for Amarr, to call the much needed backup...
|
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 04:57:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Edited by: Sokratesz on 27/03/2007 04:43:02
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame
Except cap amount rigs = require more of the expensive components = at least three times the cost. So you're looking at 60 mil vs. 180 mil for your rig set. Since you're going to lose a PvP ship eventually, might as well save 120 mil.
...or give you a much better chance of survival in the first place. Nearly 50% more cap for the price of what? a deadspace EANM which is only 25% better then T2? And cap is alot mroe useful in the first place.
Or 500 % more cap if you last that long. The cost isn't the big issue, just the thing that helps push it over the edge.
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 07:20:00 -
[8]
Another thing to consider is that the area in which cap_recharge is closest to max_cap_recharge is quite small with CCC's, and considerably larger with extension rigs.
Originally by: Mastin Dragonfly
Radio is essential for Amarr, to call the much needed backup...
|
Rose BP
TOG Empire
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 02:05:00 -
[9]
Although recharge rigs give a slight edge in recharge rate over capacity rigs, you have to take into account the increased size of your sweet spot in the recharge cycle that you gain with a capacity rig. In effect, your max recharge zone is increased by 15%. There may be circumstances where having that 15% larger max recharge area is more beneficial to you than having a few fractions of a point of recharge rate.
One example would be in a carrier that is doing a cyno jump. It takes up massive cap when you jump and you will be in a much better part of your recharge curve with 15% extra cap than you will with a cap recharger. This could be the difference of getting caught without enough cap to jump again (which will come much sooner not only because of being in a better part of your recharge curve, but also because you have an additional 15% reserve to call on in case of emeergency).
Anyway, something else to think about.
|
Bermag
Point-Zero
Ratel Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 08:22:00 -
[10]
The difference in average cap / sec recharge with 3x SMC compared to 3x CCC is not that much. An exampel I run with a raven gave you 29.36 cap/sec with CCCs and 27.42 cap/sec with 3xSMC and you get 50% more total cap.
Lot more expensive of course.
|
|
|
Uncle Samm
|
Posted - 2007.04.12 18:57:00 -
[11]
Well, I agree that the extra cap is a better choice for pvp... as long as you are in any ship smaller than a bc and soloing or in a small gang. other circumstances dictate longer engagements where cap recharge is a must. Also, some people seemed confused about the math involved with calculating recharge rates. Both rigs change their particular attribute by an order of 15%, however, the the cap rig (whatever it's called) increases the cap while the cap recharger decreases the recharge. The difference in recharge isn't small, the cap recharger increases your recharge rate by 2x as much as the cap boosting rig. Most of you know this but for those that don't the reasoning is simple. Think of it like this, in percentages, 100% increase in speed is going 2x as fast as before, yet to go half as fast is 50%. So don't give us bs about the rigs giving slightly different recharge increases.
|
JenDen
Caldari
LFS Corp
|
Posted - 2007.04.12 23:39:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Uncle Samm
The difference in recharge isn't small, the cap recharger increases your recharge rate by 2x as much as the cap boosting rig.
Where did you get 2x from ? By increasing capacitor capacity you increase cap.recharge per second. Capacitor recharge rig does it a little better but doesn't give you some backup ammount of cap.
|
Ryysa
North Face Force
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 00:06:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Rose BP
One example would be in a carrier that is doing a cyno jump. It takes up massive cap when you jump and you will be in a much better part of your recharge curve with 15% extra cap than you will with a cap recharger. This could be the difference of getting caught without enough cap to jump again (which will come much sooner not only because of being in a better part of your recharge curve, but also because you have an additional 15% (or 45+% with 3 that really reduces a carrier's vulnerability time after a jump) reserve to call on in case of emeergency).
Anyway, something else to think about.
Should be fairly irrelevant. You need x % cap for jump. The time to recharge x % cap would be most likely less with recharge rigs, so you could jump again faster. Because jumping takes a percentage of cap.
Could do a graph though... say plot % recharged by time and draw both curves.
N.F.F. Recruitment |
Bermag
Point-Zero
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 18:42:00 -
[14]
Originally by: JenDen
Originally by: Uncle Samm
The difference in recharge isn't small, the cap recharger increases your recharge rate by 2x as much as the cap boosting rig.
Where did you get 2x from ? By increasing capacitor capacity you increase cap.recharge per second. Capacitor recharge rig does it a little better but doesn't give you some backup ammount of cap.
Yes my thought as well.
If you look at average cap recharge / sec it is:
Total cap / cap recharge time
With CCC:
Total cap / cap recharge x 0.85 = 17.65% more cap/&s
With cap amount rig:
Total cap x 1.15 / cap recharge = 15% more cap /s
|
Still Hart
Chaos Reborn
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 19:21:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Still Hart on 13/04/2007 19:20:06
Edited by: Still Hart on 13/04/2007 19:19:12
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame
Except cap amount rigs = require more of the expensive components = at least three times the cost. So you're looking at 60 mil vs. 180 mil for your rig set. Since you're going to lose a PvP ship eventually, might as well save 120 mil.
Flawed logic. If you are counting losing your ship, why fit any rigs at all? Why bother with T2 when named is cheaper and why bother with named when T1 is the cheapest?
The correct logical here is that you're paying 120m more for a chance that you won't need to spend it again as soon as if you'd only paid the 60 (ie. survivability).
EDIT: Of course if you don't think the more expensive rigs will make your ship survive 3x as long as the cheaper ones (180m/60m = 3) you're better off with the cheaper ones, ceterus paribus.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |