| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Remedios Sonrisa
Eve University
Ivy League
   |
Posted - 2007.07.06 14:02:00 -
[1]
I have yet to do any rigorous calculations as to what would be best to fit into the last rig slot of my Domi, but perhaps I can get a quicker answer here from some who have already tested the scenarios. What I am wondering is whether to use the last slot for CCC or auxiliary pump? I do not use nos and like to snipe, and have fitted the Domi with a CCC and a sentry damage rig in the other two slots. The other alternative, though I suspect will be the last consideration, is to use the nanobot rig.
....
|
FT Diomedes
Gallente
Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 14:34:00 -
[2]
Personally, I only fit CCC rigs. I cannot think of any armor-tanking, hybrid weapon, AB-using, setup that wouldn't be better off with more cap. I also like not having any built-in drawbacks on my ships.
Very few ships have a cookie-cutter setup that works for every situation - but more built-in cap recharge is always good on an active setup. So, I prefer to be able to adjust my setup as needed. That means changing modules, not rigs. If I want more damage on my ship, I'll fit tracking CPUs or Mag Stabs. If I want more armor repair, I'll fit the appropriate modules. And etc.
With that said, if I went with another rig, I would choose the auxiliary nanopump over the nanobot accelerator. Having more frequent repair cycles means using cap more quickly, right? Whereas having more repair per cycle means running fewer repair cycles, right? Which means using less cap? Am I missing something here?
|
James Grand
Phoenix Navy
Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 14:56:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: FT Diomedes
With that said, if I went with another rig, I would choose the auxiliary nanopump over the nanobot accelerator. Having more frequent repair cycles means using cap more quickly, right? Whereas having more repair per cycle means running fewer repair cycles, right? Which means using less cap? Am I missing something here?
You're right that the nanopump results in less cap use/hp and is probably the better choice. The only advantage of the accelerator that I see is that since it is a reduction, it actually boosts your rep/sec by 17.6% rather than 15%. In almost every situation, however, you'd rather take a very small hit to rep/sec for the much better cap/hp repped.
--------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in my posts are entirely my own. |
Remedios Sonrisa
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 15:41:00 -
[4]
*nods*
Yep, basically what y'all wrote agrees with my thoughts. Caps is like ISK to ships, the more it has, the more it can do various things.
....
|
El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar
FSK23
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 15:52:00 -
[5]
Unless you need to tank massive damage bursts over a short time (with pauses inbetween), the nanopump is very likely better.
If you need to cap inject your tank anyway, nanobot is an option.
--
[17:47] <Mephysto> its dead, jim |
Conner McCanner
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 17:05:00 -
[6]
Do the Nano- rigs have stacking penalties? If you are building a ship to tank massive damage for a short to medium duration, such as being an aggro magnet in a mission, I'm wondering if a mix would be better than 3 of the same. |
El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar
FSK23
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 19:56:00 -
[7]
Nanobots stack full, Nanopumps stack with penalty.
MARII with 2x Nanopump, 1x Nanobot is (from the top of my head) 2 or 3 hp/s weaker than 3x Nanobot but a lot more cap friendly.
--
[17:47] <Mephysto> its dead, jim |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |