EVE Search - T3 cruiser numbers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

T3 cruiser numbers

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 571	Posted - 2017.04.12 00:21:12 - [1] - Quote I imagine many other players have done the quick sums on the number of possible varieties of T3 it is possible to create using the 4 subsystems and 5 slots, but it is somewhat mind boggling. There are 4 to the power 5 possibilities, over 1000 for each of the races. Now sure not all of these 4000 ships will be good, but given the possibility space it seems likely that a combination can be found that performs better than any other ship in a given role. Normal ships can be customised, but at least can be predicted to some extent. With the number of possible T3s, it is impossible to know when you see 'Tengu' what it is you will be up against. Even wormholers refer to cloaky lokis, neut legions, etc, there is always a descriptor as well as the T3 name because it alone tells you nothing. T3s would be much much easier to balance and play against, if there were fewer possibilities of finished ship. Should CCP get rid of subsystems completely? Reduce the number of them? Or are subsystems not the problem with T3Cs? If not how would you go about fixing T3Cs? A case for more AoE in EvE
Vortexo VonBrenner Tadakastu-Obata Corporation 2784	Posted - 2017.04.12 00:28:45 - [2] - Quote Didn't ccp say they were going to reduce the types of subsystems available "soon"? EvE security zones in pictures EvE quick reference pdf EvE links
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 572	Posted - 2017.04.12 01:03:58 - [3] - Quote Vortexo VonBrenner wrote: Didn't ccp say they were going to reduce the types of subsystems available "soon"? Maybe, I haven't been keeping updated on CCPs plans, got a link by any chance? A case for more AoE in EvE
Bjorn Tyrson EVE University Ivy League 506	Posted - 2017.04.12 01:40:32 - [4] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: Vortexo VonBrenner wrote: Didn't ccp say they were going to reduce the types of subsystems available "soon"? Maybe, I haven't been keeping updated on CCPs plans, got a link by any chance? They mentioned something about it during the ship balance segment of fanfest.
Matthias Ancaladron Wrath of Angels Solitaire. 261	Posted - 2017.04.12 01:45:22 - [5] - Quote Theyre reducing them, reskinning the combos so you can have skins, and rebalancing the slot layouts. They want to nerf them all so they don't overlap and out perform specialized ships. At least that's what I read. Good news for me. Legion was ugly as ****, maybe now it will be acceptable once reskinned.
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 1443	Posted - 2017.04.12 03:41:47 - [6] - Quote And for all those mathematical possibilities only 2 or 3 variants will actually see any real usage. Have you heard anything I've said? You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right? That's right. Had to end sometime.
Alasdan Helminthauge HC - Razorback Roadhouse 106	Posted - 2017.04.12 04:00:25 - [7] - Quote most T1 frigates at least have 12 slots totally. Even if one slot can only fit one of the 3 possible modules, there' will be millions of combination totally. But does any certain T1 frigate hull have more than 100 practical fits?
Rawketsled Generic Corp Name 468	Posted - 2017.04.12 04:06:57 - [8] - Quote Eternus8lux8lucis wrote: And for all those mathematical possibilities only 2 or 3 variants will actually see any real usage. Yes, this. Alpha. Buffer. AB bonus.
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 574	Posted - 2017.04.12 04:16:13 - [9] - Quote Alasdan Helminthauge wrote: most T1 frigates at least have 12 slots totally. Even if one slot can only fit one of the 3 possible modules, there' will be millions of combination totally. But does any certain T1 frigate hull have more than 100 practical fits? That's not really a valid comparison, fitting a single module does very little to a ship's overall capabilities. Choice of subsystem does change the ships capabilities by a large amount, and even changes the base hull stats and slot layout. On top of that, a T3 with subsystems then gets to fill its slots like any normal ship, with however many possible module combinations that gives. The largest effect though comes from the subsystems. A case for more AoE in EvE
mkint 1713	Posted - 2017.04.12 04:21:47 - [10] - Quote Bjorn Tyrson wrote: Mr Mieyli wrote: Vortexo VonBrenner wrote: Didn't ccp say they were going to reduce the types of subsystems available "soon"? Maybe, I haven't been keeping updated on CCPs plans, got a link by any chance? They mentioned something about it during the ship balance segment of fanfest. Linky Maxim 6. If violence wasnGÇÖt your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Alasdan Helminthauge HC - Razorback Roadhouse 106	Posted - 2017.04.12 04:23:40 - [11] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: Alasdan Helminthauge wrote: most T1 frigates at least have 12 slots totally. Even if one slot can only fit one of the 3 possible modules, there' will be millions of combination totally. But does any certain T1 frigate hull have more than 100 practical fits? That's not really a valid comparison, fitting a single module does very little to a ship's overall capabilities. Choice of subsystem does change the ships capabilities by a large amount, and even changes the base hull stats and slot layout. On top of that, a T3 with subsystems then gets to fill its slots like any normal ship, with however many possible module combinations that gives. The largest effect though comes from the subsystems. I said so to imply that there aren't 1024 practical subsystem combinations for a T3C hull, either.
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 574	Posted - 2017.04.12 05:30:59 - [12] - Quote Alasdan Helminthauge wrote: I said so to imply that there aren't 1024 practical subsystem combinations for a T3C hull, either. What percentage would you estimate? Keeping in mind the many varied uses of T3C hulls. I can't think of many useless subsystems. A case for more AoE in EvE
Shae Tadaruwa science and trade institute Caldari State 1639	Posted - 2017.04.12 05:51:48 - [13] - Quote Ignore my stupid. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Rawketsled Generic Corp Name 468	Posted - 2017.04.12 05:53:57 - [14] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Mr Mieyli wrote: I imagine many other players have done the quick sums on the number of possible varieties of T3 it is possible to create using the 4 subsystems and 5 slots, but it is somewhat mind boggling. There are 4 to the power 5 possibilities, over 1000 for each of the races. Now sure not all of these 4000 ships will be good... 5^4 not 4^5 625 combinations per ship. 2500 total combinations summing all four races. No, it's 4^5. Five types of subs. Four subs in each.
Shae Tadaruwa science and trade institute Caldari State 1639	Posted - 2017.04.12 05:54:59 - [15] - Quote Rawketsled wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Mr Mieyli wrote: I imagine many other players have done the quick sums on the number of possible varieties of T3 it is possible to create using the 4 subsystems and 5 slots, but it is somewhat mind boggling. There are 4 to the power 5 possibilities, over 1000 for each of the races. Now sure not all of these 4000 ships will be good... 5^4 not 4^5 625 combinations per ship. 2500 total combinations summing all four races. No, it's 4^5. Five types of subs. Four subs in each. Yes he's correct. Too quick before my edit above. Just my high level of stupid today. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 574	Posted - 2017.04.12 06:53:17 - [16] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Just my high level of stupid today. I wouldn't worry, it isn't really very obvious and I'll wager it's been a while since you've had to do sums to do with combinations. Nothing to do with your intelligence, only how fresh your knowledge on this specific aspect of the topic is. A case for more AoE in EvE
Andrew Indy Jedran Space Services 256	Posted - 2017.04.12 08:42:05 - [17] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: Alasdan Helminthauge wrote: I said so to imply that there aren't 1024 practical subsystem combinations for a T3C hull, either. What percentage would you estimate? Keeping in mind the many varied uses of T3C hulls. I can't think of many useless subsystems. Well personally I would say that there are only a few common , on average 4-5. Ewar AHAC Cloaky Active Tank 100MN Kitey bullshit
Rroff Antagonistic Tendencies 1077	Posted - 2017.04.12 10:45:30 - [18] - Quote It was actually one of the things that got me to bother playing at times - kept things interesting if you didn't know exactly what you were up against and tearing down the killmail to see if they had done anything unusual - something clever you hadn't thought of before or as a cautionary tale when they'd done something utterly mind bogglingly stupid with the fit :D Don't forget there is also so many combinations you can do with regard to rigs and other fittings - even with a specific combination of sub-systems there is probably another 5-6 different (valid or atleast not totally stupid) ways you can fit a T3. Largely though most race T3s were fitted out into roughly the same 5-6 types as posted above - you see a Prot and Guardian fleet landing and you pretty much could guarantee they were moderately buffered, high dps fit, etc. in most cases you could figure it out from the fleet composition - even then though we would sometimes hide something a bit more unusual amongst a lot of "standard" fit T3s. Balanced and easy should never exist in the same context as a T3 - if you are afraid of the T3 don't engage T3s :s
Infinity Ziona Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 2759	Posted - 2017.04.12 12:20:12 - [19] - Quote Rroff wrote: It was actually one of the things that got me to bother playing at times - kept things interesting if you didn't know exactly what you were up against and tearing down the killmail to see if they had done anything unusual - something clever you hadn't thought of before or as a cautionary tale when they'd done something utterly mind bogglingly stupid with the fit :D Don't forget there is also so many combinations you can do with regard to rigs and other fittings - even with a specific combination of sub-systems there is probably another 5-6 different (valid or atleast not totally stupid) ways you can fit a T3. Largely though most race T3s were fitted out into roughly the same 5-6 types as posted above - you see a Prot and Guardian fleet landing and you pretty much could guarantee they were moderately buffered, high dps fit, etc. in most cases you could figure it out from the fleet composition - even then though we would sometimes hide something a bit more unusual amongst a lot of "standard" fit T3s. Balanced and easy should never exist in the same context as a T3 - if you are afraid of the T3 don't engage T3s :s I once put a XL SB on a Proteus. Worked extremely well. Having said that there are only a few sub combos that are any use. There are a few people (like myself) who spend hours and hours in EFT trying to squeeze out the max performance from ships. If there was an awesome sub combo that hasn't been discovered and cookie cut into a doctrine I'd be extremely surprised. CCP Fozzie GÇ£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGÇª in null sec anomalies. GÇ£* Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Hello Meow Kitty Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 24	Posted - 2017.04.12 13:29:53 - [20] - Quote Vortexo VonBrenner wrote: Didn't ccp say they were going to reduce the types of subsystems available "soon"? Why reduce variations? Maybe see what is currently OP and just hit that Nerf Bat a few times......... I'm sure they have something to keep track of "most used ships for pvp" or "most used ships in pve" to analyze>!?

Rroff Antagonistic Tendencies 1077	Posted - 2017.04.12 13:39:17 - [21] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: I once put a XL SB on a Proteus. Worked extremely well. Having said that there are only a few sub combos that are any use. There are a few people (like myself) who spend hours and hours in EFT trying to squeeze out the max performance from ships. If there was an awesome sub combo that hasn't been discovered and cookie cut into a doctrine I'd be extremely surprised. For lols I used to fly a Proteus setup like a wannabe shield/kitey Adrestia back in the days of off grid links and before some of the blaster/tracking enhancer tweaks. Actually worked quite well though a good bit of that was the unexpected factor - people don't tend to anticipate a prot that can do well in excess of 6km/s and turn on a dime.
Olmeca Gold Pleonexium 95	Posted - 2017.04.12 21:59:13 - [22] - Quote Alasdan Helminthauge wrote: most T1 frigates at least have 12 slots totally. Even if one slot can only fit one of the 3 possible modules, there' will be millions of combination totally. But does any certain T1 frigate hull have more than 100 practical fits? I think this claim is made commonly and lacks imagination. T3s are my primary ships and there are some very awkward combos that suits the job at hand best Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler. Youtube channel.
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 61356	Posted - 2017.04.13 04:32:20 - [23] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: T3s would be much much easier to balance and play against, if there were fewer possibilities of finished ship. Should CCP get rid of subsystems completely? Reduce the number of them? Or are subsystems not the problem with T3Cs? If not how would you go about fixing T3Cs? Well, since I mainly fly T3 Cruiser, my answer to your questions is a definite NO. The only thing I would fix on T3 Cruisers is make them all equally balanced so there isn't just one T3 Cruiser in-game that's overpowering the rest of them cough Tengu cough. Course I wouldn't mind it if the Loki had an option to become a Missile / Drone boat. Would definitely make the last mission of the level 4 Caldari Epic Arc much easier to complete solo. Anyway, it seems to me those who do fly T3 Cruisers never complain about them while those who don't fly T3 Cruisers always complain about them. DMC 'The Plan' \| California Eve Players \| Proposal - The Endless Battle
Infinity Ziona Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 2760	Posted - 2017.04.13 05:59:55 - [24] - Quote DeMichael Crimson wrote: Mr Mieyli wrote: T3s would be much much easier to balance and play against, if there were fewer possibilities of finished ship. Should CCP get rid of subsystems completely? Reduce the number of them? Or are subsystems not the problem with T3Cs? If not how would you go about fixing T3Cs? Well, since I mainly fly T3 Cruiser, my answer to your questions is a definite NO. The only thing I would fix on T3 Cruisers is make them all equally balanced so there isn't just one T3 Cruiser in-game that's overpowering the rest of them cough Tengu cough. Course I wouldn't mind it if the Loki had an option to become a Missile / Drone boat. Would definitely make the last mission of the level 4 Caldari Epic Arc much easier to complete solo. Anyway, it seems to me those who do fly T3 Cruisers never complain about them while those who don't fly T3 Cruisers always complain about them. DMC To be fair to the T3s and especially the Tengu the issue is not the hulls but their ability to fit oversized modules. Tengu was relatively weak in PvP until CCP introduced the cap battery buff. After the buff being able to fit a thukker large battery and a large SB, along with cap regent matrix made pumping out in excess of 2k boost with 80-90% resists cap stable and largely immune to no bonuses nuets very easy. Take away that battery and things change dramatically. I easily tanked 15 man fleets in those Regengus. You could easily do the same thing in the Onyx or Eagle. Have a look at my alt L DOPA's killboard my Tengu vs NC, lasted about 10 mins vs two supers and a bunch of other ships including HAC, T3, etc etc. Was tanklng fine until they dropped the last Rag on it. CCP Fozzie GÇ£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGÇª in null sec anomalies. GÇ£* Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Rroff Antagonistic Tendencies 1080	Posted - 2017.04.13 12:21:21 - [25] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: To be fair to the T3s and especially the Tengu the issue is not the hulls but their ability to fit oversized modules. Tengu was relatively weak in PvP until CCP introduced the cap battery buff. After the buff being able to fit a thukker large battery and a large SB, along with cap regent matrix made pumping out in excess of 2k boost with 80-90% resists cap stable and largely immune to no bonuses nuets very easy. Take away that battery and things change dramatically. I easily tanked 15 man fleets in those Regengus. You could easily do the same thing in the Onyx or Eagle. Have a look at my alt L DOPA's killboard my Tengu vs NC, lasted about 10 mins vs two supers and a bunch of other ships including HAC, T3, etc etc. Was tanklng fine until they dropped the last Rag on it. Atleast you killed something before going down :D
Chainsaw Plankton FaDoyToy 2800	Posted - 2017.04.13 17:54:24 - [26] - Quote Hello Meow Kitty wrote: Vortexo VonBrenner wrote: Didn't ccp say they were going to reduce the types of subsystems available "soon"? Why reduce variations? Maybe see what is currently OP and just hit that Nerf Bat a few times......... I'm sure they have something to keep track of "most used ships for pvp" or "most used ships in pve" to analyze>!? easier to maintain and balance. At first they were planning 5 subs with 5 choices, this got reduced to 5 subs with 3 choices at launch and eventually they added a 4th sub. Now the plan is to drop to 4 subs with 3 choices. as shown here http://i.imgur.com/GKOCa3H.png selling officer BCUs! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6872141 @ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Rroff Antagonistic Tendencies 1080	Posted - 2017.04.13 18:13:15 - [27] - Quote That is kind of sad - but then it is changes like that why I'm no longer playing so I guess it doesn't really matter to me any more.
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 575	Posted - 2017.04.13 18:13:38 - [28] - Quote 4 subsystem slots with 3 choices seems a much easier to balance approach, with far fewer possibilities of hull. I'm glad they're looking in this direction with the changes to T3s. A case for more AoE in EvE
Rroff Antagonistic Tendencies 1081	Posted - 2017.04.14 12:29:21 - [29] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: 4 subsystem slots with 3 choices seems a much easier to balance approach, with far fewer possibilities of hull. I'm glad they're looking in this direction with the changes to T3s. Thing is in pretty much every corp, etc. I've had anything to do with in Eve there has been a small, but not insignificant, number of people who utilise T3s for the esoteric option(s) which this change appears to not particularly cater for - hopefully its obvious where I'm going with that without having to spell it out. T3s should never be too finely balanced, too predictable or easy - that is what makes them interesting and engages a fairly sizeable group of players with the game (not just the alluded to ones above). Balance in terms of T3s should always come in the form of penalties not restrictions in their flexibility.
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 61476	Posted - 2017.04.14 13:27:54 - [30] - Quote Infinity Ziona wrote: To be fair to the T3s and especially the Tengu the issue is not the hulls but their ability to fit oversized modules. Tengu was relatively weak in PvP until CCP introduced the cap battery buff. After the buff being able to fit a thukker large battery and a large SB, along with cap regent matrix made pumping out in excess of 2k boost with 80-90% resists cap stable and largely immune to no bonuses nuets very easy. Take away that battery and things change dramatically. I easily tanked 15 man fleets in those Regengus. You could easily do the same thing in the Onyx or Eagle. Have a look at my alt L DOPA's killboard my Tengu vs NC, lasted about 10 mins vs two supers and a bunch of other ships including HAC, T3, etc etc. Was tanklng fine until they dropped the last Rag on it. I have to disagree, the Tengu is clearly overpowered compared to all the other T3 Cruisers. Using a cap battery buff as the reason just doesn't hold true. I've never seen any 'Nerf' threads posted about the other T3 Cruisers but I've seen plenty of threads asking for a Tengu nerf. Hell, my Loki is cap stable and uses a Cap Regen sub but needs 2x Invul Field mods to get 80-90% resists with the Adaptive Shielding sub fit. It also has a large shield booster fit on it and even with 2x shield booster amps it's only getting close to 800 HP's per cycle. And that's with Deadspace mods. So yeah, the Tengu is definitely overpowered when compared to all the other T3 Cruisers. DMC 'The Plan' \| California Eve Players \| Proposal - The Endless Battle

Keno Skir 1518	Posted - 2017.04.14 13:53:43 - [31] - Quote Oooooh another T3 thread :) Yada yada yada, boost battleships or nerf T3, preferably the first option. There is some weight to the argument that T3 cruisers are too "end game" at the moment, even though i LURV all my various Protei. I love em because they eat everything else and that's not something a cruiser should be doing. Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.- 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 578	Posted - 2017.04.14 14:14:46 - [32] - Quote Rroff wrote: Mr Mieyli wrote: 4 subsystem slots with 3 choices seems a much easier to balance approach, with far fewer possibilities of hull. I'm glad they're looking in this direction with the changes to T3s. Thing is in pretty much every corp, etc. I've had anything to do with in Eve there has been a small, but not insignificant, number of people who utilise T3s for the esoteric option(s) which this change appears to not particularly cater for - hopefully its obvious where I'm going with that without having to spell it out. T3s should never be too finely balanced, too predictable or easy - that is what makes them interesting and engages a fairly sizeable group of players with the game (not just the alluded to ones above). Balance in terms of T3s should always come in the form of penalties not restrictions in their flexibility. I get it man, I use T3s myself and customising is what they're known for, if they get rid of subsystems you might find the game less fun, luckily they are only reducing them. To me, I think the current number of T3 possibilities seriously limits the variety of ships that get used. Right now the Prot, Loki, Tengu, and Legion are 3rd, 4th, 5th and 10th for pvp kills respectively on zKill. Reducing the number of subsystems still leaves you with 81 varieties for each hull, or 324 spread over the races. If that doesn't sound very much to you consider that there are between 200 to 300 hull types in game and even more than that T3Cs. It's not surprising it can feel like T3s online at times. A case for more AoE in EvE
Rroff Antagonistic Tendencies 1083	Posted - 2017.04.14 14:26:20 - [33] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: [quote=Rroff] Reducing the number of subsystems still leaves you with 81 varieties for each hull, or 324 spread over the races. If that doesn't sound very much to you consider that there are between 200 to 300 hull types in game and even more than that T3Cs. It's not surprising it can feel like T3s online at times. I have 142 Tengu, 295 Prot, 346 Loki and 184 Legion fits in EFT :O I still used plenty of other ships though - one of my alts used an Eos in PVP a fair bit and I was just getting started with a sleipnir with another before I quit. Would have liked to use a Kronos but one of the big draws there was the 90% webs now ditched :( I think people underestimate how much T3 cruisers give Eve "texture" and character that doesn't happen when you have less options and too finely balanced game features which tend to make a game blander - many of the most memorable games in history were so because they had something(s) that stuck out.
Keno Skir 1518	Posted - 2017.04.14 14:30:12 - [34] - Quote Rroff wrote: Would have liked to use a Kronos but one of the big draws there was the 90% webs now ditched :( Get a Vindi? Bastion sucks anyway Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.- 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Rroff Antagonistic Tendencies 1083	Posted - 2017.04.14 14:44:20 - [35] - Quote Keno Skir wrote: Rroff wrote: Would have liked to use a Kronos but one of the big draws there was the 90% webs now ditched :( Get a Vindi? Bastion sucks anyway This was pre-bastion - I've always been a sucker for utility highs so Vindi didn't really appeal to me (and while it wasn't that big a boost the Kronos had a slightly higher base resist profile). Used to love that old Kronos did a bit of wormhole PVE in a PVP fit one but never got a chance to use it in PVP before the changes. EDIT: I'd forgotten how much of an influence that had on me stopping playing - I loved that Kronos and just finally got all the skills and stuff maxed out and the ISK for a nice fit then they went and changed it dramatically. Not that I have anything against the new approach to marauders as such but having worked towards that goal for so long that kind of sucked.
Arcturus Ursidae Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 37	Posted - 2017.04.14 22:42:07 - [36] - Quote Rroff wrote: Keno Skir wrote: Rroff wrote: Would have liked to use a Kronos but one of the big draws there was the 90% webs now ditched :( Get a Vindi? Bastion sucks anyway This was pre-bastion - I've always been a sucker for utility highs so Vindi didn't really appeal to me (and while it wasn't that big a boost the Kronos had a slightly higher base resist profile). Used to love that old Kronos did a bit of wormhole PVE in a PVP fit one but never got a chance to use it in PVP before the changes. EDIT: I'd forgotten how much of an influence that had on me stopping playing - I loved that Kronos and just finally got all the skills and stuff maxed out and the ISK for a nice fit then they went and changed it dramatically. Not that I have anything against the new approach to marauders as such but having worked towards that goal for so long that kind of sucked. You can still fit a grappler, not quit as good I know but it's a pretty strong ship, utility highs and microjump drive give it quite a bit of flexibility given it can probably kill anything trying to scram it.
Arcturus Ursidae Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 37	Posted - 2017.04.14 22:44:55 - [37] - Quote Subsystems may be getting simplified. 5 into four and four into three in each category. Can't help but try and theory craft something. Defensive - varying subs with specific roles all used but with the adaptive augmented of dubious strength. The main thing of note is that a warfare link proteus does not get a tank bonus. With on grid boosts a tank bonus would seem useful so instead of deleting a sub from here moving the warfare processor into the electronics section would seem appropriate. Augmented plating sub probably needs dropping back to 5%. Rep bonus may fall back to 7.5% Small range bonus for reppers on adaptive augmented sub may be appropriate. Electronic Warfare processor in here now just drop it in on top of the CPU efficiency gate, good model poor sub. Dissolution sequencer and emergent locus analyser are fine but we need to lose a sub. Friction extension processor, classic pvp bonus, save a subsystem by rolling this bonus into the hull. Good looking subsystem so swap it for the emergent locus analyser sub graphically. Propulsion. Differing rolls, fairly well balanced, delete the wake limiter. Removing a subsystem category sounded tricky at first but looking at fits often subs go hand in hand augmented capacitor reservoir with drone sub and power core multiplayer with hybrid subs. Combining these subs with each other removes a category. Delete the supplemental coolant injector and the dissonic encoding platform. Perhaps roll some of the overheat bonus into the hull bonus. This leaves the covert sub, this could be combined with the capacitor regeneration matrix but may need to be given a small drone bay and bandwidth. The hybrid/power grid sub combo is the main problem when looking at DPS heavy fits, hopefully it will retain a sixth turret but drone bandwidth could be reduced to 25 to adjust this sub. So something like that maybe. Thing is, adjusting T3's does not make HAC's or battleships better basically restricts choice further, probably just to machs.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.