EVE Search - New EM nerf makes me think of switching out low slots on thanny

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

New EM nerf makes me think of switching out low slots on thanny

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rand Ferros	Posted - 2008.05.01 01:28:00 - [1] With the new em nerf, running the standard duel cap rep with 3 active harderners and a dcII leaves a pretty big hole in em resist. As a result, i've now switched to 2 cap reps, 1 T2 active explosive, 2 T2 EANM, and 1 T2 suit case. With armor comps to 4, i still only get like 67 resist on kinetic and thermal, but at least i don't have 55 something on em as I do with the 3 active hardners. Is this wise, or should i go back to the 3 active hardners seeing as more people probably will use kinetic and thermal damage with Gallante being so popular. Or the other side of the argument suggests that with the em nerf, that more peeps will start leaning toward amarr ships. Any thoughts or ideas?
NoNah Tenth Legion Holdings Tenth Legion	Posted - 2008.05.01 01:35:00 - [2] I consider DC II's somewhat useless on carriers. That means I can fit a faction EANM right of the bat. Which means... you don't end up with that low EM resistance ;) I would however not say they're that rare of a damagetype. And def. won't be ahead. But it's your call ofc. Postcount: 123155
Wu Jiun State War Academy	Posted - 2008.05.01 01:35:00 - [3] i'd go for eanm instead of dcu tbh. so 3 x hardener + eanm + 2 x cap rep. but thats just me and if i am ever going to own a carrier it'll be an archon which doesn't have that problem. as for amarr ships. they are quite popular on bs level from what i can see. in a carrier you can expect a lot of battleships shooting you. i'd say megas/ravens/geddons/abaddons are those you will meet the most. Don't forget raves can do 100% em damage and if they know their game thats exactly what they'll do when attacking a thanatos or any t1 active tank for that matter.
Rand Ferros	Posted - 2008.05.01 01:51:00 - [4] umm... with 187,000 structure, DCII is a must in my opinion.
Dianeces Minmatar The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.05.01 01:54:00 - [5] Just sayin'.
NoNah Tenth Legion Holdings Tenth Legion	Posted - 2008.05.01 02:00:00 - [6] Originally by: Rand Ferros umm... with 187,000 structure, DCII is a must in my opinion. Somewhere you have to consider what good a static buffer is to you. If there's enough force to break your tank and you're primaried, you will be dead. You're not going to suffer from alphas, you don't personally deal enough damage to make a difference in this size of engagements. You do however cripple yourself by putting the DC there as all remote logistics will be less effective in armor due to your lower resistances. In the end it's a matter of taste. I stop using DC's after battleships. Postcount: 639623
Bertn Erney The Fudge Packers Union	Posted - 2008.05.01 02:00:00 - [7] Originally by: Rand Ferros umm... with 187,000 structure, DCII is a must in my opinion. thats what happens when you play eve on paper..... back in the real game there are plenty of reasons to fit a eanm over dc 2 and they outweigh the fewer and fewer reasons daily to fit a dc 2 fit eanm over dc2 fix your resist hole and voila
Crackzilla The Shadow Order SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.01 02:03:00 - [8] Originally by: Dianeces Just sayin'. Even assuming all EM damage, replacing the dc2 with an em hardner doesn't make that massive of a difference. With enough raw dps and jammers to prevent remote rep they were hosed. Omni tank or not. Having said that omni tanking caps is a good idea. Ironically the EM nerf has meant that many now must tank for it making it sometimes the highest resist.
Liang Nuren Black Sea Industries Insurgency	Posted - 2008.05.01 02:08:00 - [9] Originally by: NoNah Somewhere you have to consider what good a static buffer is to you. If there's enough force to break your tank and you're primaried, you will be dead. You're not going to suffer from alphas, you don't personally deal enough damage to make a difference in this size of engagements. You do however cripple yourself by putting the DC there as all remote logistics will be less effective in armor due to your lower resistances. In the end it's a matter of taste. I stop using DC's after battleships. http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/0804/WOOOHOOOOO.jpg The carrier survived. Just saying. -Liang -- Originally by: Blake Abadon, Morsus Mihi insirgency caused the turn arround in the war against bob, when they forced the MM capital fleet to move back to defend their homeland.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.05.01 02:45:00 - [10] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 01/05/2008 02:45:44 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: NoNah Somewhere you have to consider what good a static buffer is to you. If there's enough force to break your tank and you're primaried, you will be dead. You're not going to suffer from alphas, you don't personally deal enough damage to make a difference in this size of engagements. You do however cripple yourself by putting the DC there as all remote logistics will be less effective in armor due to your lower resistances. In the end it's a matter of taste. I stop using DC's after battleships. http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/0804/WOOOHOOOOO.jpg The carrier survived. Just saying. -Liang How'd you make it out of that one? (also grats) __________________________________

NoNah Tenth Legion Holdings Tenth Legion	Posted - 2008.05.01 02:48:00 - [11] Originally by: Terianna Eri Edited by: Terianna Eri on 01/05/2008 02:45:44 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: NoNah Somewhere you have to consider what good a static buffer is to you. If there's enough force to break your tank and you're primaried, you will be dead. You're not going to suffer from alphas, you don't personally deal enough damage to make a difference in this size of engagements. You do however cripple yourself by putting the DC there as all remote logistics will be less effective in armor due to your lower resistances. In the end it's a matter of taste. I stop using DC's after battleships. http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/0804/WOOOHOOOOO.jpg The carrier survived. Just saying. -Liang How'd you make it out of that one? (also grats) What doesnt show is the serie of stabs and the DD just waiting to go off in the background, and the fact that all carriers in the next second locks him up and pumps him up to 100% shield - instantly. Postcount: 140965
Liang Nuren Black Sea Industries Insurgency	Posted - 2008.05.01 03:26:00 - [12] Originally by: NoNah What doesnt show is the serie of stabs and the DD just waiting to go off in the background, and the fact that all carriers in the next second locks him up and pumps him up to 100% shield - instantly. There was no DD in that one... but without a DC, the other carriers wouldn't have been able to lock him in time (it wasn't me). Suffice it to say that DC's are important. -Liang -- Originally by: Blake Abadon, Morsus Mihi insirgency caused the turn arround in the war against bob, when they forced the MM capital fleet to move back to defend their homeland.
NoNah Tenth Legion Holdings Tenth Legion	Posted - 2008.05.01 03:30:00 - [13] Edited by: NoNah on 01/05/2008 03:33:21 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: NoNah What doesnt show is the serie of stabs and the DD just waiting to go off in the background, and the fact that all carriers in the next second locks him up and pumps him up to 100% shield - instantly. There was no DD in that one... but without a DC, the other carriers wouldn't have been able to lock him in time (it wasn't me). Suffice it to say that DC's are important. -Liang Not saying they're not - saying it's a matter of taste. At the point where the screenshot is take he wouldn't have been in hull if had a nano fitted instead. That said, with that amount of carriers around, I'd rather drop a repper, fit a DCU and always keep another carrier locked, for much faster spider repping. I still stand by my matter of taste and situation comment though. =) Postcount: 838718
Liang Nuren Black Sea Industries Insurgency	Posted - 2008.05.01 03:32:00 - [14] Originally by: NoNah Not saying they're not - saying it's a matter of taste. At the point where the screenshot is take he wouldn't have been in hull if had a nano fitted instead. That said, with that amount of carriers around, I'd rather drop a repper, fit a DCU and always keep another carrier locked, for much faster spider repping. I still stand by my matter of taste and situation comment though. =) Sure, I can totally understand where you're coming from on that one. ^_^ -Liang -- Originally by: Blake Abadon, Morsus Mihi insirgency caused the turn arround in the war against bob, when they forced the MM capital fleet to move back to defend their homeland.
Rand Ferros	Posted - 2008.05.01 08:14:00 - [15] I think maybe this goes to the two schools of thought in regards to carriers. There are those that believe loading up the rig slots with trimarks, and those that go for cap rechargers. Trimark argument states that your going to get neuted out, so its best to have as much of a buffer as you can, where cap recharge goes to the idea that you can tank an absurd about of dps with duel reps. I suppose my thought on the DCII is that you can run a duel repping tank, but then have the DCII to create that buffer that the trimark argument leans too. with it only requiring 1 cap point to run, you can run that dcII for a while. If you load a nos in your high, which many, including myself think might be a waste of a high slot, you can at least support that buffer while your getting neuted. While only periodicly through neut cycles and nos cyles, it still can provide a good buffer, especially with an thanny. Thoughts?
Eclip SUBLIME L.L.C.	Posted - 2008.05.02 06:20:00 - [16] Its more personal taste. Its the whole passive vs active tank routine we see on BS's as well. Fitting a DC on capitals gives you the buffer of 60% hull at less resistance to armor then an EANM. EANM gives you more armor resist and hence effective rep amount but no hull resistance. So if you make it to hull ur active reppers did squat to thawt the incoming damage. Difference to personal tank with DC is 2889 on eft to 3296 with a amarr navy EANM or 3176 with a T2 one. 300dps with a T2 EANM more tanked or 400 with a faction one. 947k EHP vs DC's 1.2mill so what like 253k more hit points with a DC. assume what like 80BS's putting out 400dps each for a T2 sniping fleet. DC gives you 8s more for your friendly carriers to get reps on you as opposed to you dying horribly if they cant get reps on you in time. its very situationally dependant, the remote are more effective if they get them on you but they have to get them on you first I personally prefer the DC option with 3 EANM's as alot of sniping fleets are amarr which do good dps at range then even if you get neuted to 0 and all your hardners switch off you can be remote repped effectivally still. Personal preferance. IF they didnt want it to be personal preference they would ahve given you limited slots
Maeltstome Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.05.02 15:26:00 - [17] Carriers are not solo ships, they are strong logistics platforms built for fleet warfare. Adding survivability to yourself is imperative, however 2 remote repping carriers will still out perform 2 heavily buffer tanked ones in real situations. Cap regen > HP's - because it not only benefits your own survivability, but allows you to sustain a remote rep longer. And if you don't put DC on your carrier it's silly, the % res bonus across the board add's alot mroe HP than simply structure. Not to mention DC's dont stack against other hardeners as heavily (iirc)


Pages: [1] :: 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.