Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Khana Loaris
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 14:14:00 -
[1]
According to the item descriptions the following modifiers are in effect:
Capacitor Control Circuit: -15% capacitor recharge rate (= faster recharge) Semiconductor Memory Cell: +15% capacitor capacity (= more cap)
However, there appear to be some issues here.... According to EFT, the CCC gives ONLY its described effect of -15% capacitor recharge rate. However, the SMC gives effect for BOTH capacitor recharge rate AND capacitor capacity. This is not mentioned in the description or shown in the compare tool.
Q. Is this the intended effect for the SMC? ie to increase the capacitor amount AND the recharge rate? This might be the assumed intention so that increasing the cap amount does not have a drawback on the recharge rate. If so, should it then be equivalent to give an overall effect of zero% on the recharge? Or should the SMC give ONLY an increase in cap amount and NO increase to the recharge rate?
Currently the recharge for the SMC, though slightly less than the CCC, is comparable. Apart from the hugely increased cost of the SMC, surely this makes the CCC redundant??
One gets the feeling that this is a similar situation to the NOS/Neut issue.... |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 14:18:00 -
[2]
Recharge rate = x * maxcap / rechargetime x is a value depending on percentage of capacitor full, and peaks at almost x=2.5 for a capacitor slightly below 30% full.
CCC decreases the recharge TIME with 15%, therefore you get (1/0.85=1.17647) +17.647% capacitor recharge rate. SMC increases max capacitor amount by 15%, therefore you also get +15% capacitor recharge rate.
SMCs cost exactly twice as much as CCCs. CCCs give a better peak recharge, but no extra reserves.
|
Thoris Levithar
Gallente Gadget Factory
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 14:20:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Khana Loaris However, the SMC gives effect for BOTH capacitor recharge rate AND capacitor capacity. This is not mentioned in the description or shown in the compare tool.
Using a SMC increases the recharge rate BECAUSE it increases the capacitor size. Bigger cap size divided by constant recharge TIME = greater recharge RATE.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 14:23:00 -
[4]
Now, you could argue that the SMCs give too much extra cap, or that the CCCs don't give enough cap recharge, but that's a completely different matter. If you look at the only other pair of similar rigs (affecting shield), you get purgers with -20% shield recharge time (which means +25% shield recharge rate), while the extender rigs only give +15% maxshield. However, Purgers and Extenders have the same component costs.
Is it balanced ? Probably not. But how exactly do you propose to change it, if at all ?
|
Kehmor
Caldari PAK
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 14:36:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Akita T Now, you could argue that the SMCs give too much extra cap, or that the CCCs don't give enough cap recharge, but that's a completely different matter. If you look at the only other pair of similar rigs (affecting shield), you get purgers with -20% shield recharge time (which means +25% shield recharge rate), while the extender rigs only give +15% maxshield. However, Purgers and Extenders have the same component costs.
Is it balanced ? Probably not. But how exactly do you propose to change it, if at all ?
if they both gave the same bonus to recharge rate why would anyone choose the purgers? |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 14:40:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Akita T on 03/05/2008 14:43:18
Originally by: Kehmor if they both gave the same bonus to recharge rate why would anyone choose the purgers?
That wasn't the point. The point was that on one hand, CCC-vs-SMC is "slightly better peak recharge vs double price and more reserves", while on the other hand Purger-vs-Extender is "same price but significantly better peak recharge without extra reserves". So, the question is, what would you prefer ? The SMC/CCC pair changed to follow the Purger/Extender pair logic, or vice-versa ? Or no change at all since "it's fine as it is" ?
And in case you missed it the first time... Extenders and SMCs both grant 15% maximum (shield and capacitor, respectively), which translates into the same +15% recharge rate. Purgers however give +25% (shield) recharge rate while CCCs only give around +17.647% (capacitor) recharge rate. It's NOT the same bonus.
|
Kehmor
Caldari PAK
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 14:45:00 -
[7]
with hp extension is a far more valuable asset than with cap when compared to recharge. Extra cap only helps when you're being neuted which isn't all the time. on the other hand you take damage in any fight |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 14:51:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Kehmor with hp extension is a far more valuable asset than with cap when compared to recharge. Extra cap only helps when you're being neuted which isn't all the time. on the other hand you take damage in any fight
But cap WILL translate into armor or shield if you're active-tanking, and most PvP setups do suffer from a capacitor shortage. So, why is it that the Auxiliary Nano Pump is only +15% armor repair effectiveness and suffers from stacking-nerfs, while on the other hand the Purgers give a +25% tank effectiveness and does NOT suffer from stack nerfs ? Out of all tanking methods, active shield tanking gets the shortest straw, active armor tanking the middle, and passive shield tanking the best place. How's that "fair" ?
|
Weeka
Amarr Tetragrammaton
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 15:28:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Akita T Extenders and SMCs both grant 15% maximum (shield and capacitor, respectively), which translates into the same +15% recharge rate. Purgers however give +25% (shield) recharge rate while CCCs only give around +17.647% (capacitor) recharge rate. It's NOT the same bonus.
Certainly not, you simply trade a large buffer for slightly better recharge. ò You can use the one with better recharge, and achieve a sustainable setup. or òYou can use the one with slightly worse recharge, but at least that one is sure to last longer under heavy fire / heavy nos/net which would break the sustainability of the former choice earlier.
For example in fleet engagements you wouldn't really dream of using the purger rig oder the extender rig now would you? |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 15:33:00 -
[10]
*sigh* for the... what... 3rd ? 4th time...
It's NOT about CCC-vs-SMC, nor about Purger-vs-Extender. It's about the CCC/SMC balance vs the Purger/Extender balance. About the +25% of purgers vs the +17.647% of CCCs, compared to the "half relative price" of CCCs.
|
|
Khana Loaris
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 16:06:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Khana Loaris on 03/05/2008 16:08:36
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 17:02:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Kehmor with hp extension is a far more valuable asset than with cap when compared to recharge. Extra cap only helps when you're being neuted which isn't all the time. on the other hand you take damage in any fight
But cap WILL translate into armor or shield if you're active-tanking, and most PvP setups do suffer from a capacitor shortage. So, why is it that the Auxiliary Nano Pump is only +15% armor repair effectiveness and suffers from stacking-nerfs, while on the other hand the Purgers give a +25% tank effectiveness and does NOT suffer from stack nerfs ? Out of all tanking methods, active shield tanking gets the shortest straw, active armor tanking the middle, and passive shield tanking the best place. How's that "fair" ?
As far as "maximum potential" goes, isn't it just the opposite? That is, the best possible tank in the game is an active shield tank, followed by an active armor tank, followed by a passive tank. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 17:10:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Wet Ferret As far as "maximum potential" goes, isn't it just the opposite? That is, the best possible tank in the game is an active shield tank, followed by an active armor tank, followed by a passive tank.
If you leave Crystal implants and faction boosters out of the equation, active shield and active armor are basically tied in the T2-and-below sector (shield wins with single-slot on amount, armor wins in single-slot with effectiveness plus ability to use rigs to get even better effectiveness... with two-slot and no rigs shield wins both amount and effectiveness... but bring rigs in and again armor is slightly above ; and let's not forget, the slightly higher resists on armor, but the lack of passive recharge). Heck, for cap ship gear, they're nearly identical too.
|
achoura
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 18:50:00 -
[14]
It's not about balance at all it's about a disgruntled player and their rigs
Anyway, CCC have a single effect, SMC have a single effect however the by-product of it is also beneficial hence double the cost (twice as long to gather materials etc.).
As for the op and cost redundancy, goggle "economics" sometime |
Lord WarATron
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 19:43:00 -
[15]
3 x CCC rigs are approx 8% faster recharge than 3 x SMC's.
SMC's are in my opinion, the useless rigs. I cannot tell you of a single realistic situation where somebody would want them.
PvP? Not really, cap boosters render it rather obsolete. PvE? Well, cannot think of a single pve situation where someone would want it over the 8% faster recharge of 3 x CCC's. |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 21:37:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Lord WarATron 3 x CCC rigs are approx 8% faster recharge than 3 x SMC's.
SMC's are in my opinion, the useless rigs. I cannot tell you of a single realistic situation where somebody would want them.
PvP? Not really, cap boosters render it rather obsolete. PvE? Well, cannot think of a single pve situation where someone would want it over the 8% faster recharge of 3 x CCC's.
Capital ships would be the first ones to come to mind - afterall they don't really benefit from cap boosters. SMC rigs can extend their maximum possible effort time by a number of minutes.
As far as the sheld versus armor versus passive tank question goes, if you don't count BC/Command Ships then active shield tank <- Active Armor Tank <- Passive shield tank <- Buffer Tank (strongest to weakest tank)
That being said, when you throw in commmand ships (like the vulture) you start seeing the capacity for 1000+ dps omni passive tanks with t2 gear. |
Lord WarATron
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 21:45:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Lord WarATron 3 x CCC rigs are approx 8% faster recharge than 3 x SMC's.
SMC's are in my opinion, the useless rigs. I cannot tell you of a single realistic situation where somebody would want them.
PvP? Not really, cap boosters render it rather obsolete. PvE? Well, cannot think of a single pve situation where someone would want it over the 8% faster recharge of 3 x CCC's.
Capital ships would be the first ones to come to mind - afterall they don't really benefit from cap boosters. SMC rigs can extend their maximum possible effort time by a number of minutes.
No capital pilot worth their salt would use SMC's. CCC's are better because cap recharge time > capacity on a capship due to the way jumpdrives work. |
AKULA UrQuan
Caldari Druuge Crimson Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 23:10:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Lord WarATron SMC's are in my opinion, the useless rigs. I cannot tell you of a single realistic situation where somebody would want them.
Battleship fits where a Heavy cap booster is very imporant, dual LAR anything for example. Since your cap ammount is going to be makeing wild swings all over the place passive regen is of little value. That's pretty much the only time where the SMC rig is the better choise if your going to use a cap related rig at all. |
Lord WarATron
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 23:20:00 -
[19]
Originally by: AKULA UrQuan
Originally by: Lord WarATron SMC's are in my opinion, the useless rigs. I cannot tell you of a single realistic situation where somebody would want them.
Battleship fits where a Heavy cap booster is very imporant, dual LAR anything for example. Since your cap ammount is going to be makeing wild swings all over the place passive regen is of little value. That's pretty much the only time where the SMC rig is the better choise if your going to use a cap related rig at all.
So, insted of theory, could you advise a real world fit on a real world ship that takes advantage of SMC's which are better than, say, Trimarks, CCC rigs or even other rigs?
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
|
Posted - 2008.05.03 23:35:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Lord WarATron 3 x CCC rigs are approx 8% faster recharge than 3 x SMC's.
SMC's are in my opinion, the useless rigs. I cannot tell you of a single realistic situation where somebody would want them.
PvP? Not really, cap boosters render it rather obsolete. PvE? Well, cannot think of a single pve situation where someone would want it over the 8% faster recharge of 3 x CCC's.
Capital ships would be the first ones to come to mind - afterall they don't really benefit from cap boosters. SMC rigs can extend their maximum possible effort time by a number of minutes.
No capital pilot worth their salt would use SMC's. CCC's are better because cap recharge time > capacity on a capship due to the way jumpdrives work.
That's a valid point. And I'd be inclined to agree, and stick with CCCs.
However, I'd make the counter argument that when you're tanking up a dread, what you're really needing is to be able to run your tank flat out for the duration of your siege cycle.
~50% more cap, increases how long you can run a tank flat out for.
It also makes you more resistance to being neutralised, which really is the achillies heel of a capital tank.
*shrug*. I'd probably go with CCCs too, but I did consider SMCs for the reasons listed above. |
|
AKULA UrQuan
Caldari Druuge Crimson Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.05.04 00:00:00 -
[21]
The one, and only one, example of a dual LAR setup I have is in my personal PvP rotation. That one I won't give out. But I do have another that is also flying on the PvE front in my collection on TQ.
Quote: [Rokh, Mission] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
X-Large C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I Shield Boost Amplifier I Invulnerability Field II Heat Dissipation Field II Ballistic Deflection Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L
Hybrid Metastasis Adjuster I Hybrid Locus Coordinator I Semiconductor Memory Cell I
Hammerhead I x5
Turn off the XL sheild booster and cap booster. SMC rig extends the capout point 43 seconds over the CCC rig (I do have a capacitor implant involved in those numbers). In pratice that 43 seconds ends up to be somewhat longer due to the small pauses in gunfire between targets. With a quick refit that ship can also work in fleet blobs with a 180km optimal and some limited EWAR power. Not like that is of much use to me these days.
I will agree that the SMC rig has a very limited use in general and normaly the CCC rig is the better call 99% of the time. |
Lord WarATron
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.05.04 17:35:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 04/05/2008 17:35:58 Thats not a realistic pve setup for a rokh |
AKULA UrQuan
Caldari Druuge Crimson Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.05.04 18:37:00 -
[23]
Yes it is and I find that fit quite fun thankyou very much.
What that ship isn't is newbie friendly in both skill points and pilot personal skill. Takes alot of labor and game mechanic knowledge to make it work. Alot things you have to do right or you're warping out, or worse.
You wanted a pratical ingame fit where a SMC rig was a better choise over a CCC rig, I gave you one. I do define "pratical" as me jumping into it, useing it and then being happy enough to use it again. Wouldn't mind seeing the SMC rig buffed slightly anyway. |
Lord WarATron
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.05.04 19:05:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 04/05/2008 19:06:49
Originally by: AKULA UrQuan Yes it is and I find that fit quite fun thankyou very much.
What that ship isn't is newbie friendly in both skill points and pilot personal skill. Takes alot of labor and game mechanic knowledge to make it work. Alot things you have to do right or you're warping out, or worse.
You wanted a pratical ingame fit where a SMC rig was a better choise over a CCC rig, I gave you one. I do define "pratical" as me jumping into it, useing it and then being happy enough to use it again. Wouldn't mind seeing the SMC rig buffed slightly anyway.
Eh?
I put your setup into EFT. When you have Cap booster chargers, neither SMC or CCC matters much, but CCC will still recharge you faster so CCC wins for as long as you have booster charges.
When you run out of charges, taking a typicall 3 Invul II as your hardners, your setup lasts 1min, 15 seconds with no cap mods. With SMC, it lasts a massive 13 seconds longer.
With CCC it lasts 2 seconds longer. If you do what most Rokh pilots do which is to have 3-4 cap mods, then the difference is in teh CCC rigs favor, since CCC rigs compound the recharge bonus. However, the difference of 11 seconds in your "mission setup" only applicable if you dont use cap booster charges in the first place. Because if you do, then the gap has dissapears after a average of 5-10 mins from the moment of recharging (do the maths yourself on this, this is a rough estimation)
Tell me, do your missions last less than 10mins or so? |
AKULA UrQuan
Caldari Druuge Crimson Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.05.04 20:57:00 -
[25]
Capouts with my skills, Cap and sheild booster both off: CCC = 5:44 SMC = 6:27
Capouts with my skills, Cap and sheild booster both on: CCC = 3:15 SMC = 3:42
looks like 43 seconds to me on the first set of numbers with the trend holding on the second although closer. I've just trippled checked these numbers & double checked if I was useing the right clone for the calcs.
Far as useing it goes. it's a combo of resource management, kill stuff ASAP at range and don't bite off more than I can chew. Hold the sheilds in the 40% - 60% band depending on incoming damage so passive regen is usefull. Then it's a matter of milking 20x 800 charges for all their worth. It's a balanceing act for sure but it can be done. |
Sekh Ondaari
|
Posted - 2008.05.04 21:09:00 -
[26]
I fly destroyers most of the time. SMC's actually work way better than CCC's for this. And it lets me pop everything from inties, AFs, dictors to the tiniest lil pod. |
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.05.04 21:19:00 -
[27]
SMCs are worth the ISK on heavy Cap injected Fittings(Dualrepp Mega, Activetanked Abaddon) that even canŠt substain with a heavy Cap booster. The Rig itself gives more time till zero Cap becomms a issue. This 30-45 Seconds donŠt look mutch but are actualy a livesaver in many tight small Gang or solo Fights.
In PVE they are only worth Fitting for buffer style Tanks(aka Gank fittings that tank till everything is dead, not perama). But this kind of PVE style is not that common so mostly people fit CCCs for a reason here. |
Lord WarATron
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.05.04 23:10:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Jill Antaris SMCs are worth the ISK on heavy Cap injected Fittings(Dualrepp Mega, Activetanked Abaddon) that even canŠt substain with a heavy Cap booster. The Rig itself gives more time till zero Cap becomms a issue. This 30-45 Seconds donŠt look mutch but are actualy a livesaver in many tight small Gang or solo Fights.
In PVE they are only worth Fitting for buffer style Tanks(aka Gank fittings that tank till everything is dead, not perama). But this kind of PVE style is not that common so mostly people fit CCCs for a reason here.
People use Trimarks etc on those types of ships. You are almost always dead or make a kill before you run out of cap booster charges, hence cap is less of a issue than buffer. |
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.05.04 23:20:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Jill Antaris on 04/05/2008 23:23:51
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Originally by: Jill Antaris SMCs are worth the ISK on heavy Cap injected Fittings(Dualrepp Mega, Activetanked Abaddon) that even canŠt substain with a heavy Cap booster. The Rig itself gives more time till zero Cap becomms a issue. This 30-45 Seconds donŠt look mutch but are actualy a livesaver in many tight small Gang or solo Fights.
In PVE they are only worth Fitting for buffer style Tanks(aka Gank fittings that tank till everything is dead, not perama). But this kind of PVE style is not that common so mostly people fit CCCs for a reason here.
People use Trimarks etc on those types of ships. You are almost always dead or make a kill before you run out of cap booster charges, hence cap is less of a issue than buffer.
Depends on the size of the Gangs, 0.0, Low Sec, etc. Trimarks and Nano Pumps are also good choices but if I can decide if i survive some more seconds without cap, impossble to do damage or with cap impossible tank a few seconds more i prefere the Damage. Especialy vs Neut/Nos Setups I realy prefere more Cap to more Armor/better Reppingpower, but this is more a personal choice of mine. |
Nomakai Delateriel
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 01:22:00 -
[30]
Well. Maybe CCP has a bite more data on this, but as things stand I'd say that SMCs do offer situational advantages over the CCC (almost the same cap recharge and increased size), but between CCCs, Trimarks and Cap boosters you'll find that their advantage isn't really worth 2xCCC price. And they have a problem. Because if you improve them you relegate CCCs (on anything but capitals) to a "poor mans SMC". Thus my own opinion is that SMCs should be somewhat dropped in salvage requirements. More than CCCs, but not quite as much as it is. 10% more salvage perhaps? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |