EVE Search - Capacitor Power Relay and Capacitor Recharger changes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Capacitor Power Relay and Capacitor Recharger changes

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jarjar	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:39:00 - [31] Quote: Here's an idea, make the midslot cap recharger reduce armor repair modules, as the low slot reduces shield tanking, make them exactly the same in stats otherwise.. And add a Armor Repair Booster or something similar. Doesn't sound too bad at the first glance.
KamiCrazy	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:39:00 - [32] Edited by: KamiCrazy on 17/03/2004 19:40:38 Quote: Here's an idea, make the midslot cap recharger reduce armor repair modules, as the low slot reduces shield tanking, make them exactly the same in stats otherwise.. I don't think this will actually do much. Most armor tanks dont' have many mid slots, maximum of like 4 or even 3. Unlike the shieldtankers (scorp raven) which have at least 4 low slots, and 6+ mids. Because of this, mid slots are usually already filled with utility style modules, heavy cap injectors, sensor boosters, tracking computers, maybe even warp disruptors/webbers if its a blasterthron. Probably most setups will use 2 cap rechargers? 3 at most? The cap injector would be the main way of regaining cap. EDIT: Fixed a typo
dalman	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:40:00 - [33] Quote: Dalman don't ye think it was kinda wrong than an apoc with 5+ cap relays could run its shield stuff forever AND maintain maximum dmg output by fitting lots of hybrids? I mean aren't you supposed to trade dmg if you get survivability? Shield tanking wasn't done just because it could, it could be done because it was a no brainer. heh. Where is the "no brainer"-difference between: * Fitting 3 shield hardeners + XL shield booster and 6 cap relays + 1 damagemod compared to: * Fitting 4 cap rehchargers, 4 armor hardeners + 2 L repairers + 1 damagemod Tell me, cause I don't see it. Everything is relative. In my mind, "all" setups are a "no brainer". M.I.A. since 2004-07-30
Ukiah	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:42:00 - [34] Quote: Quote: Quote: Perhaps reducing Power Diagnostics to 15tf from 20tf would help? For shield tanks/caldari ships right now, the only viable low slot is going to be the power diagnostic, and caldari ships are generally already strapped for CPU badly because of railgun/launchers/xl shield booster, so the cap relay was really the only useful module you could fit. Which is weird, because don't Caldari and Gallente ships, in general, have the highest amounts of CPU? Not really. Tempest 550 CPU Typhoon 600 CPU Dominix 600 CPU Megathron 550 CPU Scoprion 750 CPU (no CPU probs ever) Raven 600 CPU Now, how much CPU does a 1400mm howitzer use? 45tf How much does a 425mm railgun use? 70tf And neutron blaster cannons? 65tf Seige Launcher? 80tf So as you can see, there isn't much of a CPU difference in these ships, yet the weapons for Gallante/Caldari use much more CPU than projectiles on a Tempest, which allows the Tempest/Typhoon to be much more flexible. Bah, CCP just doesn't want me cramming 6-7 425's on my Mega :) I see your point tho. And you're right, due to what Caldari ships are expected to mount, they should get a bump in CPU, but that's for another thread.
Gariuys	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:43:00 - [35] first difference that comes to mind is the 2500 grid difference dalman. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool
KamiCrazy	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:44:00 - [36] Edited by: KamiCrazy on 17/03/2004 19:49:26 Quote: Quote: Dalman don't ye think it was kinda wrong than an apoc with 5+ cap relays could run its shield stuff forever AND maintain maximum dmg output by fitting lots of hybrids? I mean aren't you supposed to trade dmg if you get survivability? Shield tanking wasn't done just because it could, it could be done because it was a no brainer. heh. Where is the "no brainer"-difference between: * Fitting 3 shield hardeners + XL shield booster and 6 cap relays + 1 damagemod compared to: * Fitting 4 cap rehchargers, 4 armor hardeners + 2 L repairers + 1 damagemod Tell me, cause I don't see it. Everything is relative. In my mind, "all" setups are a "no brainer". 6 cap relays = 120% cap regen bonus 4 cap rechargers = 60% cap regen bonus. Thats twice the regen bonus. which means easier to run lotsa modules and lotsa guns. The cap effiency of armor tanking doensn't come anywhere near to make up for the cap regen bonus, and if you throw in a shield amp (by removing a hardener or maybe its got 5+ mids) then the difference is even greater. EDIT: I just wanted to add that you know that shield tanking is easier and provides better cap regeneration than an armor tank setup. Armor tanking is at the current TQ version, comparable but definitely not better than shield tanking. Yeah... armor tanking uses WAY more grid.
Lipton	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:44:00 - [37] Quote: Lipton, it's been said before but if you can't afford to lose a BS don't fight in one, it's that easy. Well... I really dont have any probs with loosing a Bship in a 1 min Battle... Not the "ISK-way"... I was pointing towards the fact that i think these MASSIVE ships should be able to take a beating for quite a while so the battles would LAST longer... Smartbottoms... _______________________________________________ What?
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:46:00 - [38] I guess we can all remove em/heat hardeners now because nobody is going to bother using lasers LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Gariuys	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:48:00 - [39] Quote: Quote: Lipton, it's been said before but if you can't afford to lose a BS don't fight in one, it's that easy. Well... I really dont have any probs with loosing a Bship in a 1 min Battle... Not the "ISK-way"... I was pointing towards the fact that i think these MASSIVE ships should be able to take a beating for quite a while so the battles would LAST longer... Smartbottoms... It's all relative, there are crusiers that can eat any other cruiser in seconds, although personally I do like fights dragging out a bit, makes for more tactics less micro. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:49:00 - [40] Edited by: Jim Raynor on 17/03/2004 19:50:25 Quote: I guess we can all remove em/heat hardeners now because nobody is going to bother using lasers EMP Ammo. Oh and phased plasma, which IMO is probably deadlier. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE

Discorporation	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:50:00 - [41] Armour tanking isn't really that viable. You need 2 Large Armour repairers to keep up with damage (as they repair at the END of their cycle, something that should NOT change), so that's two low slots scrapped, you need 3 hardeners (Th, Kin and Exp) to get your resistances all above 60%. So, that's 5 low slots used if you want to be good at armor tanking. You'll need the damage resistance, you need the large armour repairers, otherwise you die. That's 5 low slots used. The only ships I can viably see armour tanking are Apocalypses, Armageddons and Megathrons. Two Amarr ships (whose role is either to tank like mad or have an insane damage output) and one Gallente. not bad [Heterocephalus glaber]
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:53:00 - [42] Quote: I guess we can all remove em/heat hardeners now because nobody is going to bother using lasers I can sustain my lasers just perfectly without using relays ;) [Heterocephalus glaber]
Lipton	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:54:00 - [43] Quote: Quote: Quote: Lipton, it's been said before but if you can't afford to lose a BS don't fight in one, it's that easy. Well... I really dont have any probs with loosing a Bship in a 1 min Battle... Not the "ISK-way"... I was pointing towards the fact that i think these MASSIVE ships should be able to take a beating for quite a while so the battles would LAST longer... Smartbottoms... It's all relative, there are crusiers that can eat any other cruiser in seconds, although personally I do like fights dragging out a bit, makes for more tactics less micro. Yeah, True... So... Lets make battles last longer over all, hehe... _______________________________________________ What?
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:55:00 - [44] Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Lipton, it's been said before but if you can't afford to lose a BS don't fight in one, it's that easy. Well... I really dont have any probs with loosing a Bship in a 1 min Battle... Not the "ISK-way"... I was pointing towards the fact that i think these MASSIVE ships should be able to take a beating for quite a while so the battles would LAST longer... Smartbottoms... It's all relative, there are crusiers that can eat any other cruiser in seconds, although personally I do like fights dragging out a bit, makes for more tactics less micro. Yeah, True... So... Lets make battles last longer over all, hehe... If they increased the shields/armor/hull of cruisers and frigates by about 50%, people might put shield hardeners on cruisers and have some staying power.. and frigates won't die 1 hit to lucky shots.... ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Lipton	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:58:00 - [45] Yeah Jim... I know u posted about that earlier and i agree... _______________________________________________ What?
TWD	Posted - 2004.03.17 19:59:00 - [46] Quote: * Fitting 3 shield hardeners + XL shield booster and 6 cap relays + 1 damagemod compared to: * Fitting 4 cap rehchargers, 4 armor hardeners + 2 L repairers + 1 damagemod I am sure you wont win any 1vs1 fights on TQ with either setups ;)
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.03.17 20:05:00 - [47] Dual Heavy Pulse laser-madness! [Heterocephalus glaber]
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.03.17 20:09:00 - [48] Haven't really gotten the hang of fitting my Megathron yet but I'm not sure what kind of damage output you'd get if you armour-tanked it. May revert back to a Typhoon. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Malena	Posted - 2004.03.17 20:17:00 - [49] Oh great. I hope this means that the tech 2 percentage has been upped as well...I REALLY hate to think the money I spent on those tech 2 cap rechargers is now completely wasted since a tech 1 cap recharger gives the exact same bonus now. Anyone using one care to enlighten me, since I am at work and can't check?
dalman	Posted - 2004.03.17 20:18:00 - [50] Quote: Quote: * Fitting 3 shield hardeners + XL shield booster and 6 cap relays + 1 damagemod compared to: * Fitting 4 cap rehchargers, 4 armor hardeners + 2 L repairers + 1 damagemod I am sure you wont win any 1vs1 fights on TQ with either setups ;) I know. And you know that I know M.I.A. since 2004-07-30

Discorporation	Posted - 2004.03.17 20:18:00 - [51] Quote: Haven't really gotten the hang of fitting my Megathron yet but I'm not sure what kind of damage output you'd get if you armour-tanked it. May revert back to a Typhoon. Shield = buffer to get close MWD up, get your shields stripped, Blast the target to bits [Heterocephalus glaber]
Gariuys	Posted - 2004.03.17 20:18:00 - [52] Quote: Oh great. I hope this means that the tech 2 percentage has been upped as well...I REALLY hate to think the money I spent on those tech 2 cap rechargers is now completely wasted since a tech 1 cap recharger gives the exact same bonus now. Anyone using one care to enlighten me, since I am at work and can't check? IT's not even on chaos yet, and naturally tech2 will be given appropiate stats. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool
Baun	Posted - 2004.03.17 20:20:00 - [53] Quote: Here's an idea, make the midslot cap recharger reduce armor repair modules, as the low slot reduces shield tanking, make them exactly the same in stats otherwise.. Great idea. This would balance things out quite nicely. Aside from this oversight (armor tanking being given an effectively larger boost compared to the shield tanking nerf), I think that this change is fine. All it means is that I will no longer think about using Siege Launchers on my Raven, which is imo a shame. Perhaps we could accompany this with, as suggested, a Caldari CPU boost (on the raven) and/or a PDU cpu reduction. Alternatively, an idea which has not yet been brought up (I believe), we could accompany this change with a base reduction in all shield recharge times to give a base (but not extreme) boost to shield boosting, which accompanied by skilling up and PDUs might help lessen the blow a tad on the shield tanks. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Cineas	Posted - 2004.03.17 20:25:00 - [54] Thanks Jim. Well that sucks, I don't shield tank, nor armour tank but this is still gonna nail me pretty hard. With 4 medium laser turrets on my Omen plus a booster and hardners, my cap is going to go pretty fast. At the moment, engaging more than 3 frigates will reduce my cap to 50%, thats using 2 Type D cap relays. Deffo sucks harder than a cheap thai *****, gues I'm going to have to look for some decent armour plating. Another point, why does bolting some additional armour onto a ship take power and cpu anyways, I don't get it. The plating is dead so how does it work? A large velocity modifier maybe but power and cpu, eh no.
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.03.17 20:37:00 - [55] Quote: Thanks Jim. What did I do? ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Baun	Posted - 2004.03.17 20:42:00 - [56] I dunno, maybe Tomb's name is Jim. That would, however, be quite an odd name for an icelandic person. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Caeli Maren	Posted - 2004.03.17 21:08:00 - [57] I wonder if this means that Tech 2 cap power relays are going to come out soon. Since they're getting some balance attention.
Isiana	Posted - 2004.03.17 22:07:00 - [58] Edited by: Isiana on 17/03/2004 22:17:04 Edited by: Isiana on 17/03/2004 22:09:04 sooo low slot relays wont enable u to shield tank, as they give - to shield boosting......so they want us to use the mid slot one's intead, here the thing tho, they take up mid slots, so cant tank that way either!!! with the still huge cap cost of lasers, amarr ships can't use lasers and armor tank since there aren't enough mid slots to power lasers even with rechargers. And armor tanking requires multiple low slots. and cap booster charges still take up a lot of space and using the large charges (which are the only worthwhile ones) is effectively burning mega and zyd So they want us all to armor tank???? why not leave things that work?? this is just a bad not thought through idea Carebear\|Me Alts
Ciar Meara	Posted - 2004.03.17 22:13:00 - [59] TOMB Would you please, please, please stop ***** around with things that didn't have a problem to start with. There comes a point where you have to STOP fiddling with the little nobs and MOVE ON, damnit there a thousands things that could use a change in eve and you pounce on the one thing that actually worked well. What is the point of an Amarr ship I ask you, lasers can't be used cause cap relays to modifie the duration of fire your shields up so the bonus on amarr ships is useless, armor tanking is pretty useless also, its to slow and requires to many modules to make it effiecent. I am an amarr roleplayer, I WANT to use lasers, but you will have to bloody well allow me to use them without stripping me of defensive and offensive capabilities! PIE Inc A friend of death, a brother of luck and a son of a ***
KamiCrazy	Posted - 2004.03.17 22:17:00 - [60] Edited by: KamiCrazy on 17/03/2004 22:20:15 Actually unless you have tried armor tanking you have no idea what you're talking about. Without counting a shield amp, armor tanking is more cap efficient meaning you can use lasers for longer. EDIT: not to mention that if you are an amarr roleplayer you should be armor tanking not shield tanking.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.