EVE Search - Cap batteries - For boost patch

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Cap batteries - For boost patch

» 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)
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:36:00 - [1] Just had a though for the poor cap batteries that currently are a waste of space. My thoughts are that the battery provides a portion of Cap that is immune to NOS/Neutralizers. So if fitted for example on a laser boat, it means that even against a massive Neuting ship like a Domi, the cap dependant weapons of the ship can keep firing and it is not completely disabled until a cap injector fires (if the pilot is lucky enough to have fitted one). Just a thought that occured since you're talking of making the Deimos an active tanker. You need a passive kind of module imho to try to counter the mass neut effect we're getting post NOS changes. Thanks.
Takeshi Yamato	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:43:00 - [2] I would rather have medium and large batteries buffed to be more competitive with cap boosters. Imo even with your change people would still fit cap boosters if they're afraid of neuts. Small cap batteries are useful. Personally i use small cap batteries for making stilettos cap stable and for letting my cheetah warp long distances in one go.
Siltan	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:46:00 - [3] Large cap batterys also have use on logistics ships to boost thier overall cap recharge and make them more cap stable. They arnt completlty useless just mostly.
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:58:00 - [4] If the fitting numbers were lowered, I think they'd be more attractive The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
DMF KingBob	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:07:00 - [5] Edited by: DMF KingBob on 04/02/2008 12:08:06 make imune against neutralizer this is a realy great idea
xttz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:13:00 - [6] Originally by: Vyktor Abyss My thoughts are that the battery provides a portion of Cap that is immune to NOS/Neutralizers. /signed
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:26:00 - [7] The cap batteries CPU fitting requirement is maybe too high. Having 75 CPU for the medium cap battery II is quite high, and close to no HAS can afford this. The fact is that on a zealot's pulse setup, having a cap battery would be a good boost, but it is simply too short in CPU. For deimos, it's too short in pwg... For shield tankers, it's a waste of meds... Cap batteries should be the 'weapon' of choice for the amarr, but amarr always have low CPU. So, lowering the cap batteries CPU need could boost the amarr (sounds like a cap battery best named or T2 is a better deal than a cap recharger II to improve cap on most cruiser sized capacitors). -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:49:00 - [8] There is a trend to increase capacitor capcity (next patch: Deimos and several amarr ships, Trinity 3 MWD dependant ships, other changes in the past). That is hurting the capacitor batteries as the increase they give become less interesting as the ship increase base capacitor (while the cap increase remain the same in absolute value, it decrease as a % of the base capacity). So I would suggest a increase in all the cap battery storage capacity to keep them on line with the generally larger basic capacity of the current ships.
HEINZ ZERO PsyCorp Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.02.04 15:33:00 - [9] hmm.. lowering the cap batteries fittings would be nice.. but cap batteries are overpowert if they increase cap too much -> more cap recharge rate a good change would be to boost the cap and nerf the recharge rate -> same cap recharge rate but bigger cap buffer what about XLarge Cap batteries or even Capital Cap batteries?
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.02.04 15:34:00 - [10] Currently their fittings are much too high to use over, say, a cap recharger.
Y3R M4W	Posted - 2008.02.04 16:26:00 - [11] Cap Batteries only become really useful when you use a lot of other passive cap mods, otherwise a cap booster is far easier to fit and far, far better. To fix: either increase the cap battery cap bonus, add an inherent recharge bonus, ot simply reduce the fitting requirements. Note: YER MAW! is Scottish for Your Mother.
Andreya Direct Intent	Posted - 2008.02.04 16:57:00 - [12] dont just lower the pg requirements... make them have more cap hell i fit a battleship cap battery on a few of my hacs, and i still dont htink its giving me enough cap :S _________________________________________________________ Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigator ([email protected])
HEINZ ZERO PsyCorp Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:31:00 - [13] Originally by: Andreya dont just lower the pg requirements... make them have more cap hell i fit a battleship cap battery on a few of my hacs, and i still dont htink its giving me enough cap :S yeah that what I thought.. give them 100% cap bonus but -50% Cap recharge rate ..so you will get same recharge rate but a nice cap buffer
Ezekiel Sulastin Gallente Eve University	Posted - 2008.02.04 18:29:00 - [14] Originally by: HEINZ ZERO Originally by: Andreya dont just lower the pg requirements... make them have more cap hell i fit a battleship cap battery on a few of my hacs, and i still dont htink its giving me enough cap :S yeah that what I thought.. give them 100% cap bonus but -50% Cap recharge rate ..so you will get same recharge rate but a nice cap buffer Why would anyone use them then? I'd rather use a cap booster in that case in order to get more cap when I need it; with no change in recharge rate of cap/s, you'd be better off taking the lesser fitting requirements of a booster and not carry any extra charges; the net benefit would be the same.
Y3R M4W	Posted - 2008.02.04 19:06:00 - [15] It depends what you're looking for when you equip it. Personally I use it to help stabilize setups where I'm fitting a lot of other passive cap mods, so it has a greater benefit. Nowhere near enough cap is gained to make it useful as a buffer, and the fittings are so high you may aswell just cap inject and get the same sort of imited sustainability. Note: YER MAW! is Scottish for Your Mother.
Andreya Direct Intent	Posted - 2008.02.06 06:22:00 - [16] Originally by: HEINZ ZERO Originally by: Andreya dont just lower the pg requirements... make them have more cap hell i fit a battleship cap battery on a few of my hacs, and i still dont htink its giving me enough cap :S yeah that what I thought.. give them 100% cap bonus but -50% Cap recharge rate ..so you will get same recharge rate but a nice cap buffer heck no, i need that recharge rate.. thats the only reason i fit the things. i thn, fitting one of these batteries should require a load of PG AND cpu, but provide a significant boost to your ships cap and cap regen... currently i have to fit a large battleship cap battery to my cruisers.. yet i still do not think its enough _________________________________________________________ Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigator ([email protected])
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy	Posted - 2008.02.06 09:09:00 - [17] Currently cap batteries are near worthless if you can't "oversize" it for the boost to cap recharge... it's the fittings that's wrong really - I'm a nice guy!! But hook me up with some pew pew, because I'm really bored...
Grytok moon7empler Ev0ke	Posted - 2008.02.06 11:48:00 - [18] Large Cap Batteries are very good for Cruisers actually, as long as you can stay out of beeing NOS/Neutralized. They have slightly too much fitting-costs, but the other stats are fine for them. A reduction in CPU and Powergrid of maybe 10% would be perfectly fine, but the CPU gets lowered by the Energy Grid Upgrades skill allready. A fitted Large Cap Battery II uses 75TF/275MW after skills applied. If this would be something like 60TF/250MW after skills it would be sweet. . CCP gave us shiny new graphics. Too bad they removed Anti Aliasing for me :\
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.02.06 13:19:00 - [19] A medium cap battery II adds around the same capacitor recharge rate than a cap recharger II on the cap of a zealot, which has a very high capacitor amount (maybe the highest of all T2 cruiser class ships). So, it is quite interesting fitting one on a cruiser, it helps more than a cap recharger (because the cap amount is lower so the battery give even more recharge rate). From what I remember, a medium cap battery II adds like 21% recharge rate to my zealot's cap, and the amount increases much, which is very good in the end. But I had no way of having enough CPU (spare grid on zealot pulse setups is common). So, keep the grid requirement, lower all CPU requirement on cap batteries, they are just insane! Not many ships uses cap batteries, it could change with a much lower CPU requirement, they need to be interesting, adding a medium cap battery to a cruiser should not cost you the same CPU as your tank or your weapons, or people will just continue fitting the cap rechargers that have low grid and CPU requirements. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Yon89	Posted - 2008.02.06 13:21:00 - [20] I think that cap boosters should inject diferent type of cap (sounds stupid how can we have types of cap) but this cap would be injected into the existing ships capacitor. Thos cap could be displayed as red in the capacitor display. The cap that was injected would would slowly disapate . This would allow cap boosters to be increased from 800 to about 2000 and the rate that the cap disapate would be greater when more "red" cap is in the ship. Sort if this makes no sense but me tyred thanks Yon ============= SIG SIG SIG
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.06 14:19:00 - [21] Originally by: xttz Originally by: Vyktor Abyss My thoughts are that the battery provides a portion of Cap that is immune to NOS/Neutralizers. /signed That would simply help even more the nanoships, since neutralizers are the best countner for them right now. No thanks. The caoutner to neutralizers are injectors. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Brother Welcome	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:34:00 - [22] Edited by: Brother Welcome on 06/02/2008 18:34:58 Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Just had a though for the poor cap batteries that currently are a waste of space. My thoughts are that the battery provides a portion of Cap that is immune to NOS/Neutralizers. So if fitted for example on a laser boat, it means that even against a massive Neuting ship like a Domi, the cap dependant weapons of the ship can keep firing and it is not completely disabled until a cap injector fires (if the pilot is lucky enough to have fitted one). Just a thought that occured since you're talking of making the Deimos an active tanker. You need a passive kind of module imho to try to counter the mass neut effect we're getting post NOS changes. Thanks. I've noticed the same sorts of issue. Cap batteries are heavy, and don't quite add enough compared to the mighty booster. What batteries are about is increasing your capacitor by a fixed amount, irrespective of what it was to start with. That means they benefit different ships to different degrees. Making them un-neutable might be just giving nanoed ships the game. I suspect all they need is a tweak. A few % more cap. A tiny bit less CPU/PG cost. I agree with those who feel the latter is best accomplished through the skill buff amount.
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.02.06 23:08:00 - [23] Multiply the cap boost batteries give by 1.4 and add a 15% penalty to cap recharge time. Also large ones need another 110% increase to bring them in line with med and small. This will let them actually do their job and give you a deep capacitor to draw on, without giving you a significantly faster recharge rate than chargers do, but for the fittings they require, they should be about as good for long term charge rate in addition to giving a deep reservoir for emergency use. That would mean a T2 large battery would add 2,058 cap, which is 41.1% of a dominix's base cap. A 41.1% increase in cap with a 15% penalty to charge time gives a 22.7% increase in charge over time, which isn't quite as good as a T2 cap charger. Looking at a cruiser a T2 med battery would add 588 cap which is 42.7% of a thorax's base cap. With the 15% penalty to charge time that gives a 24.1% increase in charge over time, which is about what you would get from a T2 charger. Close to cap charger in terms of cap over time, harder to fit, but gives a deeper capacitor to draw on which means it's longer before you cap out in high drain use. That actually might make them worth using, at least for pvp. Also bear in mind that you will get diminishing returns trying to fit more than one battery since the additional + to cap will be a lower percentage increase.
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.02.07 11:02:00 - [24] I just want their CPU reduced, not the powergrid. For people saying 'OMG nanofit boost!'... The speed modules cost NO CPU, so, actually the only ships that can afford fitting this crap are the nanoships! Wake up, nanofits use powergrid for MWD, maybe some for cap booster, and all the remaining grid is going to the weapons and shield extenders. They don't care at all the CPU because they have saved around 20-30 per low slot that was planned in the ship design... Inties are the exception, their design is to nano, anyway, a small cap battery is just a joke to a medium neut, and you have tackling gear to fit on meds, often not enough powergrid to fit these. And the 'neut immunity', immunity? No, it's adding at best 5-10 seconds of cap survival for these ships, one cycle. So, it's capacitor hardening, just as we tank in everything else. No other tanking equipement has so high CPU use and is meant for all ships (shield tanking ships usually have more CPU, yet CPU can still be an issue for them). -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Brother Welcome	Posted - 2008.02.10 10:56:00 - [25] Originally by: Eleana Tomelac And the 'neut immunity', immunity? No, it's adding at best 5-10 seconds of cap survival for these ships, one cycle. Fail. It prevents you neuting them on the one shot you get while you're locked and they whizz past.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2008.02.10 12:48:00 - [26] Halving the fittings on the batteries would go a _long_ way towards making them useful. As it is, 275grid is a huge amount on anything smaller than a BS, which is the only place where 700 cap more is remotely useful. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Koti Resci Knighthawk Light Industries	Posted - 2008.02.11 21:50:00 - [27] I do not agree with the OP. Having capacitor that is immune to nos/neut is bad. Imagine an interceptor (or any nanofag) who's (relatively-ish) cap stable and cannot be neuted. If it stays out of web range, it's invulnerable. Without a consequent boost to nos/neut, that had better not happen. However, I think halving the batteries' fitting requirements and/or doubling the capacitor given would be effective.
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.02.12 13:24:00 - [28] Originally by: Brother Welcome Originally by: Eleana Tomelac And the 'neut immunity', immunity? No, it's adding at best 5-10 seconds of cap survival for these ships, one cycle. Fail. It prevents you neuting them on the one shot you get while you're locked and they whizz past. Neuted on one shot? That's called a huge vulnerability... and if you neut them in two shots, they may flee? Yes, but they may not hurt you if they can't come several time to make a few shots on you. Anyway, if it was that good, seeing the low CPU usage on cruiser sized nanoships, they would already use it. It's as usual, people don't see how much CPU is available on nanoships to do what you want while the more regular tanking or damage dealing fits are short in CPU and won't fot those things... -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
El Mauru Amarr Nexus Analytics Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.12 23:24:00 - [29] Yeah- all cap batteries need is a slight decrease in their powergrid requirements. To actually get a worthwhile recharge out of cap batteries you need to fit so many of them it`s just not feasable- and even if you had slots left you`d have to have the grid remaining to actually do something with it. Try fitting a curse using cap batteries instead of CPRs and CRs and you will see what I mean -
Grytok moon7empler Ev0ke	Posted - 2008.02.13 11:09:00 - [30] Originally by: El Mauru Yeah- all cap batteries need is a slight decrease in their powergrid requirements. To actually get a worthwhile recharge out of cap batteries you need to fit so many of them it`s just not feasable- and even if you had slots left you`d have to have the grid remaining to actually do something with it. Try fitting a curse using cap batteries instead of CPRs and CRs and you will see what I mean Only CPU is a problem, not the Powergrid. . CCP gave us shiny new graphics. Too bad they removed Anti Aliasing for me :\

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.