| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Greg Vesper
   |
Posted - 2008.01.25 01:50:00 -
[1]
Ok assuming all other missile skills are equal, only difference being the tech 2's have specialization to lvl 5 added to them, can anyone tell me the difference in rate of fire, looking to purchase them, but dont want to invest the isk for minimal gain in rof...any help would be appreciated...oh and for sake of technical details, lets assume your fitting on either a drake or a nighthawk.
|
Panch0Villa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 01:57:00 -
[2]
Unless Evemon is incorrect, 10.5 on the CN vs. 12 on the T2.
ROF is just a component of DPS btw, the details are irrelevant. Now if you want a DPS argument, that's gonna be a threadjack OP.
|
Dr Fighter
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 01:58:00 -
[3]
the difference between t2 and faction at max skills is about 2-3% so unless you got isk to burn they are probly not worth it
|
Last Wolf
Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 02:01:00 -
[4]
The reason to fit CN launchers is because they have less fitting requirements. The DPS gain is too minimal to be worth the cost alone. A full rack of CN launchers just might let you fit that NOS or MWD or cap injector you couldn't with T2.
|
Kate Vesper
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 02:16:00 -
[5]
ah ok ty, nah was really hoping that their rof would help boost my dps for the nighthawk, which has no prob with fitting, have a good setup for that and wouldnt change any of the modules significantly (faction would be nice thu),at the mo its 304.9 damage on hull, at 4.85 seconds, thu one more lvl of advanced weapons and ill be able to add a 4th bcu 2, thu i prefer the PDU 2 for the tank anyways, doesnt sound like the navy launchers is gonna cut down rof much for the price. Thanks for the quick input but i think nighthawk does just fine tech 2 fitted, for me its a mission runner to make isk not to pour money into after all
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 02:33:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Last Wolf
The reason to fit CN launchers is because they have less fitting requirements. The DPS gain is too minimal to be worth the cost alone. A full rack of CN launchers just might let you fit that NOS or MWD or cap injector you couldn't with T2.
This is *only* true if you do not have spec 5. For most of the world, you'll find that CN launchers are *lots* better than T2.
-Liang
--
If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt.
Consider yourself warned. ^_^ |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 03:09:00 -
[7]
IIRC, the CN launchers also have a larger ammo capacity - which slightly increases DPS due to less frequent reloading.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Dryxonedes Sae
Aussie Eve Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 03:23:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Dryxonedes Sae on 25/01/2008 03:24:05
If you have spec level 5, T2 launchers run at 0.9 (90%) of the stated RoF (before rapid launch and missile op), where as navy launchers run at 0.875 (87.5%) of the T2. So... Dps difference is there for sure, compound that with lower fitting reqs, and they can be a viable alternative. Only down side being unable to use T2 missiles, but IMO those are far to gimped to be useful in "most" situations.
Edit: On top of what Malconis posted... AFAIK the navy siege launchers are the only ones that do not have larger capacity, they are actually smaller.
****
Where's the problem? It's called natural selection - The bottom of the ****ing food chain. -Denis Leary |
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 06:37:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Dryxonedes Sae
Edit: On top of what Malconis posted... AFAIK the navy siege launchers are the only ones that do not have larger capacity, they are actually smaller.
Navy have 1,4m3 capacity, t2 1,2m3 (checked yesterday).
|
Graalum
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 07:10:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Dr Fighter
the difference between t2 and faction at max skills is about 2-3% so unless you got isk to burn they are probly not worth it
assuming you have cruise spec 5, not many do, and paying 200-300 mil for a bit more dps in addition to not having to train cruise spec to 5 is a good deal imo. Also, as has been noted cn's need to be reloaded less often thanks to larger capacity.
The main reason for buying cn launchers is the reason I own a rack of them, because you have crap missiles skills and its way better than arbalest.  Also fitting, but thats not really a problem on a cruise raven in my experience.
|
Dr Fighter
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 07:17:00 -
[11]
well for people like me who hav spec 5 and a cnr its just not worth it, plus i can load prec's at the end of a spawn and bbq the frigs and cruisers like no tomorrow...
T2 all the way
|
Law Enforcer
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 09:31:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Law Enforcer on 25/01/2008 09:31:03
you buy caldari navy launchers when:
a) your missile skills suck and you want that little extra bit of dps.
b) you have ubah cruise spec v + implants and you want that last bit of dps to make level 4's even more of a cake walk then they already are.
c) you're just "that" obsessed with being number one on the kill mail.
|
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 09:58:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Andrue on 25/01/2008 10:00:35
CN launchers are worth it when DPS is borderline. They have a slightly faster ROF (4.63 IIRC) and bigger capacity (45 missiles per launcher). I found Rachen Masuna to be a lot easier once I got CN launchers on my Nighthawk even though I had L5 of the spec skill. He went from being a tedious pain to a minor irritation.
I no-longer have to reload when fighting Rachen and in fact I usually still have a dozen missiles left in each launcher when he's gone. If I use Navy missiles I can deck him in even fewer rounds.
Not saying they are essential or even a requirement for most ships but for the NH I would say that they are worth the cost and highly recommended. In any case - the NH is a pimp-mobile (not much use in PvP) so why not pimp it 
--
(Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |