Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Andre Ricard
Gallente EnTech Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 18:36:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Ariel Darklight Ok, has anyone done the actual math? I mean this can't be a mystery on whether SMCs or CCCs are better for capitals and subcapitals.
CCCs are superior in capitals. Anyone who argues contrarywise does not understand how capitals work and has never flown one. ----- Character back under original management. |
Wrayeth
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 18:59:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Andre Ricard
CCCs are superior in capitals. Anyone who argues contrarywise does not understand how capitals work and has never flown one.
Not true. CCCs are superior for traveling, but for actual capital combat the SMCs are superior. The reason for this is twofold. First, they give you more total capacitor to work with, which is a godsend when you're taking heavy fire and getting nossed/neutralized. Secondly, they increase your peak recharge area, meaning a cycle of your capital shield booster/armor reps (which eat a large chunk of capacitor) is less likely to knock you past it. At the same time, you gain almost as much effective recharge as you would from CCCs. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 19:04:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Andre Ricard
Originally by: Ariel Darklight Ok, has anyone done the actual math? I mean this can't be a mystery on whether SMCs or CCCs are better for capitals and subcapitals.
CCCs are superior in capitals. Anyone who argues contrarywise does not understand how capitals work and has never flown one.
Disclaimer: I'm not a cap-pilot, this is a purely theoretical comment.
SMCs have quite a large benefit if you active your capital ships Siege Module or Triage module. There's no way in hell you can stay cap-stable in most cases, so every second you buy with the added cap of an SMC is a bonus, and may allow you to survive. Granted CCCs will give you a faster recharge to the point where you can cyno out, but endurance in Siege or Triage can be very important i imagine, especially if you're pinned down and need to hold for reinforcements to arrive.
|
Si Delane
Sector 7 Visions of Warfare
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 20:40:00 -
[34]
For traveling in a capital, you'd want CCC rigs every time, since what matters is the "time until cap is 70% and you can jump again". For combat the semimems provide the deepness for the hilariously unsustainable tanks which you're hoping is enough to give you the time to do something fancy and get away.
The argument should be whether you should fit for jumping around or for fighting. Personally when I fit a gank cap thirsty build that caps out in a minute or two, I don't rig it. I make sure I insure it and buy a new ship with all the isk I saved not rigging it. In the end isn't everyone isk-tanking anyway?
------------------------- Actually this IS my main. |
Gazghkull
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 20:43:00 -
[35]
If you fitted a large battery to a cruiser class ship then 3 SMC would the SMC bonus stack with the battey bonus giveing you some crazy high cap or something? as i see it haveing 3 CCC causes diminishing returns where as 3 SMC would stack?
|
pandymen
The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 22:31:00 -
[36]
Seriously people, just think about it. The fact that CCC have slightly more cap regen/sec than SMC's mean nothing. And if you have a pvp fit ship that actually is cap stable, then you are doing something wrong. A cap booster is never enough to sustain my fits indefinitely...at least if i'm running my neuts all the time.
Having a few of these SMC's are great because it gives me much more time before cap out. I usually begin boosting almost right away since my cap will inevitably fail. So this extra buffer gives me quite a bit more time.
And on cruisers and below...do you honestly rig them at all? If they are t2, maybe. And in that case, I would still want SMC's. The bonus may be just a little bit smaller, but you forget that it also affects how much cap you regen/second.
|
Yargo Metash
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 00:38:00 -
[37]
I'd say the primary decision between the two would be the ships capacitor size. Ships with TONS and TONS of (ergo, Cap ships) will benefit more from the SMC than the CCC.
Ships with less capacity will find the CCC's more useful... Also depends on what you expect to face and if you fit Cap Flux coils or not.
|
Pans Exual
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 01:00:00 -
[38]
In the face of all math CCC supporters are spouting off with, I I prefer the advantage of a larger buffer provided by SMCs. On one hand you have a couple of % recharge time, and on the other hand you have a larger buffer. The choice is yours.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 03:45:00 -
[39]
It's simple, really.
For PvE, where your goal is usually perma-tanking, CCCs offer a slightly better cap recharge for half the cost. For capital ships, in "travel mode", again, CCC offer you what you need most. For EVERY OTHER situation, SMCs are better, but the cost is double that of CCCs.
Case closed.
1|2|3|4|5. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 04:18:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Goumindong on 27/01/2008 04:18:21
Originally by: Beness
Going back to the original math, the CCC provides a 17.64% increase in recharge rate, while the SMC provides a 15.00% increase in recharge rate. This is at all times - whether at 2% cap or at 98% cap.
At x% cap you regen y cap/second
When x is closer to 1/3 cap you regen faster.
On a ship with 1000 cap. 100 cap is 10% of the total cap.
On a ship with 1500 cap. 100 cap is ~7% of the total cap.
Such.
When these two ships regen 100 cap starting at 1/3 cap.
Ship 1 with 1000 cap total will have 433 cap and be at 43% of total.
Ship 2 with 1500 cap total will have 600 cap and be at 40% of total.
40% is closer to 33% than 43% is to 33%.
Ergo, even if the ship with higher cap recharge might have a better cap/second peak, the ship with more cap may, over the time it takes to regen some amount of cap, have a higher total cap/second rate.
In order to sustain the 100 cap use/x seconds module your average regen over the 100 cap use area between 1/3 cap and 1/3 cap +100 must be higher than the cap/second use of the module.
This is why making sure your modules activate at different times can have subtle effects on your cap stability, because the cap/second average being closer to 1/3 cap is higher and has less peaks. If all your cap using modules activate at once, your cap stability due to the decrease in average cap/second as the time between cap usage increases.
The easiest example of this is a ship with 1000 cap and 100 cap recharge time.
This ship will recharge 24 cap per second peak. But it cannot sustain a module that uses 500 cap every 25 seconds. Even though 500/25 is 20 cap/second and the ship peaks 24 cap/second.
Now lets look at a ship with 100000 cap and 1100 cap recharge time. It easily sustains a module that uses 500 cap every 25 seconds. Even though its peak cap is only 21 cap/second. Lower than the ship with 1000 cap with a 100 cap recharge time! But since 500 cap doesnt even get close to pushing you under 20 cap/second average cap recharge the module is easily sustained.
tl:dr
I am right, you are wrong.
|
|
Tasko Pal
Heron Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 03:47:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Akita T It's simple, really.
For PvE, where your goal is usually perma-tanking, CCCs offer a slightly better cap recharge for half the cost. For capital ships, in "travel mode", again, CCC offer you what you need most. For EVERY OTHER situation, SMCs are better, but the cost is double that of CCCs.
Case closed.
Indeed.
I think this summarizes the thread nicely. A final remark on CCCs. They do stack and each one contributes that 2% extra. So collectively, using three of the same rigging, you're going to have more than 6% better recharge rate using CCCs than using SMCs.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |