EVE Search - Statistics on Beam Lasers vs. Railguns

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Statistics on Beam Lasers vs. Railguns

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)
Titan AE	Posted - 2004.05.17 13:36:00 - [31] Thank you for the post on what your working on Tom. However I must say I am a little peeved with your comparing a lvl 5 BS skill for Amarr on a lazer with a Hybrid with no BS damage bonus. Are you saying that the 90ish day train for lazer useage on a Amarr BS 5 is just what you have to do be be like a hybrid user without any bonus to damage for BS? This comparision is bunk, and frankly I think its your attitude toward lazers that keeps them gimped. The days of stacked mods are over, they are not going to come back and haunt you if you actually give them the power they should have when compared to SIMILAR types of damage from other weapons at similar skill levels. I think that showing that you expect a lvl 5 BS skill to be a prerequisite for amarr to compare favorably to a hybrid without that very long train is way off base. Thank you for your excellent communications of late, I hope you won't take my opinion too personally. Keep up the good work (over-all)
Hardin	Posted - 2004.05.17 14:05:00 - [32] I personally want to thank TomB and the devs for the work in this field. Amarrian ships using lasers have simply not been as effective and this move goes some way to redress the balance. Though ofc it could still be better - after all those terrorist Minnies do need to be punished
Dash Ripcock	Posted - 2004.05.17 15:15:00 - [33] Quote: Now, I posted this before in the sticky in ships 'n' modules, but it got ignored by people getting excited about Apocalypses. It would appear that battleship-size Blasters (haven't tried cruiser or frigate) are completely FUBAR-ed (pardon my German) on Chaos at its current build. I have over a million skill points in gunnery, and Gallente Battleship @ level 4, yet I'll be damned if I can get damage on my Ion Blasters to go over 200 hit points (even with 2 damage mods and a tracking enhancer in the low-slots). Now I don't know what has been done, but it has made the Megathron and the Dominix practically redundant up close. The only problem is, everyone is so excited about Ravens at the moment that nobody is flying anything but them, so getting a general consensus is somewhat tricky. For example, I fought a Raven today with a tried-and-trusted setup of mine. I armour-tanked his damage until my cap boosters ran out, and how much damage had I done? A couple of minutes of orbiting at 2.5-5Km, with a webifier and 6 Blaster-class weapons onboard armed with Antimatter - and his shields were at 75%. I really do hope this gets looked at and remedied; otherwise Gallente boats are destined to lick rocks for the near-future. I just posted this in the Patch board, but I think it also belongs here. At the current, Blaster weapons are really, really bad on Chaos. I know that there have been changes to hybrids and lasers, and I was wondering whether this has had an inverse effect on Blaster-class weapons - it's practically made Blaster-boats redundant. Hope it gets looked into Battle Angels Inc - The Movie
qrac	Posted - 2004.05.17 15:52:00 - [34] Originally by: Dash Ripcock Quote: Now, I posted this before in the sticky in ships 'n' modules, but it got ignored by people getting excited about Apocalypses. It would appear that battleship-size Blasters (haven't tried cruiser or frigate) are completely FUBAR-ed (pardon my German) on Chaos at its current build. I have over a million skill points in gunnery, and Gallente Battleship @ level 4, yet I'll be damned if I can get damage on my Ion Blasters to go over 200 hit points (even with 2 damage mods and a tracking enhancer in the low-slots). Now I don't know what has been done, but it has made the Megathron and the Dominix practically redundant up close. The only problem is, everyone is so excited about Ravens at the moment that nobody is flying anything but them, so getting a general consensus is somewhat tricky. For example, I fought a Raven today with a tried-and-trusted setup of mine. I armour-tanked his damage until my cap boosters ran out, and how much damage had I done? A couple of minutes of orbiting at 2.5-5Km, with a webifier and 6 Blaster-class weapons onboard armed with Antimatter - and his shields were at 75%. I really do hope this gets looked at and remedied; otherwise Gallente boats are destined to lick rocks for the near-future. I just posted this in the Patch board, but I think it also belongs here. At the current, Blaster weapons are really, really bad on Chaos. I know that there have been changes to hybrids and lasers, and I was wondering whether this has had an inverse effect on Blaster-class weapons - it's practically made Blaster-boats redundant. Hope it gets looked into looks like they might need a little tracking boost? ------------------------------------------- Insanes numquam moriuntur!
DarkStar251	Posted - 2004.05.17 20:14:00 - [35] If laser users are to get an uber closerange weapon to compare with my blasters, I want a 550mm Railgun to compare to their Tachyons lol.... Lets face it, CCP decided the Amarrians were to be a long range race, just as they decided they were to have the most powerful bship class weapon and that caldari were to rely on missiles...
Man'corr	Posted - 2004.05.17 20:48:00 - [36] Edited by: Man'corr on 17/05/2004 20:50:07 hrm Darkstar, Please do look at statictics first, before you post here, base range 425mm : 48 klicks base range tach: 40 klicks I dont know, but thats 20% extra range.............hrm hrm cant see a need for a even bigger weapon in the hybrid class, based on a range argument. All of above post was formulated wth 100% honesty and 100% sarcasm. Now i only need to get drunk The 3rd turret is the Malediction is missing. Plz make as much noise as possible so that CCP gets us a remedy for that, possibly before X-Mas this year.
Krendig	Posted - 2004.05.18 02:10:00 - [37] And to pound the nail a little farther, I should point out that even the Neutron Blaster has better falloff, and hybrid users have more choices for range-- there's a gaping hole at the "0%" range for lasers. --Krendig
Max Hardcase	Posted - 2004.05.18 21:00:00 - [38] Are 200mm railguns coming ?
RiGHTy	Posted - 2004.05.19 02:28:00 - [39] Blasters got "fixed" in castor and get nerfed back down now? projectile weaponry for frigates might need a look btw
Aerfen	Posted - 2004.05.20 15:19:00 - [40] After trying the tach/mega v 425rail on the apoc with these changes in place, I have to say the 425 is, in my opinion, still the more attractive turret. I will say lasers are looking a damn site better now tho but still not enough to make them my weapon of choice for amarr ships in general. My idea, for what it's worth, would be to give a slight reduction in damage for each weapons race damage, when not used on that races ships. For instance, rails would get a -5% to kinetic damage when not used on gallante ships. This damage type bonus could be then added as a ship class bonus (not ship bonus) so e.g. 5% bonus to kinetic damage per level for galante bs, would give u an unaffected weapon at level 1 (the 5% lost would be regained) and +20% at level 5. For lasers and projectiles this would be straight forward, tho for caldari and gallante there would be a 1 off 5% bonus to either thermal or kinetic as needed. For missiles, all would get a 5% damage reduction but caldari would have the thermal bonus added to make up the loss. This way there would be a genuine incentive to use your ships race weapons, with non race weapons not being too unuseable. I hope that made some sense.

Man'corr	Posted - 2004.05.20 15:28:00 - [41] Aerfen, I prefer an incentive to use the right weapon more. Do look at the megathron, it gets 20% more DoT on hybrids at lvl4...............so its just what you are talking about, already in game. IMHO the apoc needs a definite Laser Damage (tracking/big range) bonus as an incentive to use lasers, instead of a cap bonus, where all of the sudden all weapons seem to be euql, where you then take the less cap greedy weapon. As i posted above, a EM damage bonus, would be a nice incentive to use lasers........a simple cap bonus is nice, but doesnt help to push amarr flyboys into using lasers at all. And the cap bonus simply helps alleviate a penalty........and at lvl5 youre same same with the rail..............it should be lvl4 IMHO; as nearly nobody has BS lvl5......... All of above post was formulated wth 100% honesty and 100% sarcasm. Now i only need to get drunk The 3rd turret is the Malediction is missing. Plz make as much noise as possible so that CCP gets us a remedy for that, possibly before X-Mas this year.
Aerfen	Posted - 2004.05.20 15:48:00 - [42] Edited by: Aerfen on 20/05/2004 15:51:33 I know what u mean, tho this is why I said ship class bonus not ship bonus. With this added damage bonus kept out of the ship bonus it would go some way to making the acctual ship bonus look a bit better as well as making your ships racial weapons more attractive. So for instance with the current apoc ship bonus you would have 5% cap capacity, -10% large laser cap use and 5% EM laser damage. Not perfect but still a bit better than at present. This reduced damage for using weapons on the wrong ships would then mean the likes of lasers would be able to take a slight drop in cap and pg as they will be slightly less attractive on other ships. As for the Megathron, that would give the oportunity to get a different bonus instead of 5% damage as it would already have it in the ship class, maybe somthing to make mwd a bit nicer to blasterthrons . Also level 4 would be 20% more than other race ships would get, but would be 15% more than current.
Man'corr	Posted - 2004.05.20 17:23:00 - [43] Aerfen, I understood you quite well. But I believe a bonus is nicer than a penalty to make ppl use something. And from most currents within eve, the devs seem to think so as well. Currently there is no penalty for doing something, you simply get no bonus. Personally i think it should stay that way, especially its a bad idea, to do something like this after the game is a year old(ok now you can bash me, cause TomBs changes are quite a bit drastic as well, though mostly for the better(unless you pilot a raven it seems) and such a penalty would only hurt and and not give ppl something) All of above post was formulated wth 100% honesty and 100% sarcasm. Now i only need to get drunk The 3rd turret is the Malediction is missing. Plz make as much noise as possible so that CCP gets us a remedy for that, possibly before X-Mas this year.
Damaclease	Posted - 2004.05.21 12:04:00 - [44] having maxed out CAP skills and sitting on lev4 amarr BS CAP is not my problem if i use CAP relays however CPU / powergrid mean i can only fir 5 tachyons or 6 megabeams leaving 2 slots with not enough of either to be useful. Maybe increase powergrid and lower CPU on the lasers so the amarr ships can handle more with out cramming the low slots with CPU IIs and RCUs. just my suggestion
Arthur Guinness	Posted - 2004.05.21 12:38:00 - [45] TomB, with these changes, i do think you should have a look at the other apoc bonus, the 5% to capacitor capacity. It seems that this gives the apoc to much tanking ability. Energy Weapons don't use that much more cap than a 425mm rail anymore, not with the 40% reduction from bs lvl4 and the 25% reduction from controlled bursts. However, with the current bonuses the apoc has about 30% more capacitor capacity than a megathron. to balance things a bit, it might be interesting to change the 5% capacitor cap to a 5% em damage bonus. This would make the apoc what it imo should be, a gun ship, not a ³ber tank ship.
Man'corr	Posted - 2004.05.21 14:57:00 - [46] Well I can say that at battleship lvl4 a megabeam uses 27% more cap per second that a rail. Quite a bit, though I agree, that a slight boost in cap, and a damage bonus would be nice for the apoc. All of above post was formulated wth 100% honesty and 100% sarcasm. Now i only need to get drunk The 3rd turret is the Malediction is missing. Plz make as much noise as possible so that CCP gets us a remedy for that, possibly before X-Mas this year.
Dayon	Posted - 2004.05.22 13:06:00 - [47] TomB you need to compare the Rails of the Gallente Flagship to the Apoc to see the real deal when comparing the Rails to lasers. 425mm Railgun I (On the Megatron) Optimal Range 48000 m Accuracy Falloff 24000 m Trackingspeed / Accuracy 0,003475 (other 0.00278) Damage Multiplier: 2.75 Capacitor Need: 35 Rate Of Fire: 9562.5 Damage Multiplier Per Sec: 0.288 Capacitor Need Per Sec: 3.66 Damage Per Sec (Antimatter L): 13.80 Damage Per Cap Per Sec: 3.7714286 Gallente Level 5 Damage Per Sec (Antimatter L): 17,25 Gallente Level 5 Damage Per Cap Per Sec: 4,7131147 Mega Beam I Optimal Range 40000 m Accuracy Falloff 16000 m Trackingspeed / Accuracy 0.0033 Damage Multiplier: 2.75 Rate Of Fire: 9000 Damage Multiplier Per Sec: 0.306 Damage Per Sec (Multifrequency L): 14.67 Capacitor Need: 70 Capacitor Need Per Sec: 7.78 Damage Per Cap Per Sec: 1.8857143 Amarr Level 5 Ship Bonus (-10% need per level): 3.89 Amarr Level 5 Damage Per Cap Per Sec: 3.7714286 Tachyon Beam I Optimal Range 40000 m Accuracy Falloff 16000 m Trackingspeed / Accuracy 0.0033 Damage Multiplier: 4.25 Rate Of Fire: 12500 Damage Multiplier Per Sec: 0.340 Damage Per Sec (Multifrequency L): 16.32 Capacitor Need: 125 Capacitor Need Per Sec: 10.0 Damage Per Cap Per Sec: 1.632 Amarr Level 5 Ship Bonus (-10% need per level): 5.0 Amarr Level 5 Damage Per Cap Per Sec: 3.264 from 24 to 28 Conclusion: Apocalypse with Mega Beam vs. Megathron with 425mm rails With the new rules these are the two gun types that needs to be compared because they use close to the same % of the ships Powercore/cpu with level 5 in each ship type the Apoc has +33% more total cap then the Mega. 425mm has +20% optimal range 425mm has +50% Accuracy Falloff 425mm has +5% Trackingspeed / Accuracy 425mm has +17% on Dam per sec Mega Beam on an Apoc has an effective 25% less Cap use per sec when we take the 33% larger capacity of the Apoc into account. In short the Megathron could use only 5 rails where the Apoc would use 6 Mega beams and still out gun the Apoc in every way and almost have the same amount of spare cap for other systems. And because of the lower Power/CPU use needed for one less gun the mega would have more flexibility with the low slots.
Sea Edge	Posted - 2004.05.22 23:15:00 - [48] I'm new to EVE and can't even fly a BS, but i made some calculations on Apoc with lasers and rails. All skills that modify weapon's stats are at level 5. With the new changes Apoc can fit 7 Mega Beams or 6 Tachyons or 8 425mm Rails without any cpu or grid upgrade modules. The used ammo: Multifequency crystal and Antimmatter charge. The weapon's basic stats on Apoc at all BS skill level: 7xMega Beam Damage Mod: 3.4375 Tracking: 0.004125 ROF: 6.48s Optimal range: 50km Falloff: 20km EM damage: 577.5 TH damage: 577.5 EM damage/s: 89.12 TH damage/s: 89.12 6xTachyon Damage Mod: 5.3125 Tracking: 0.004125 ROF: 9s Optimal range: 50km Falloff: 20km EM damage: 765 TH damage: 765 EM damage/s: 85 TH damage/s: 85 8x425mm Rail Damage Mod: 3.4375 Tracking: 0.003475 ROF: 6.8832s Optimal range: 60km Falloff: 30km KI damage: 770 TH damage: 550 KI damage/s: 79.9 TH damage/s: 111.86 BS skill level 2: 6600 cap with 692.25s recharge turrets: 7xMega Beam / 6xTachyon / 8x425mm Rail cap usage:--------- 294 \| 450 \| 180 cap usage/sec:----- 45.37 \| 50 \| 26.15 cap recharge/sec:-- 9.534 \| 9.534 \| 9.534 cap usage/recharge: 4.758 \| 5.244 \| 2.743 The cap recharge rate is not the correct value, but helps in comparison. The cap usage/recharge shows cap usage/sec : cap recharge rate ratio. The smaller value is the better. BS skill level 3: 6900 cap with 692.25s recharge turrets: 7xMega Beam / 6xTachyon / 8x425mm Rail cap usage:--------- 257.25 \| 393.75 \| 180 cap usage/sec:----- 39.69 \| 43.75 \| 26.15 cap recharge/sec:-- 9.967 \| 9.967 \| 9.967 cap usage/recharge: 3.982 \| 4.389 \| 2.623 BS skill level 4: 7200 cap with 692.25s recharge turrets: 7xMega Beam / 6xTachyon / 8x425mm Rail cap usage:--------- 220.5 \| 337.5 \| 180 cap usage/sec:----- 34.03 \| 37.5 \| 26.15 cap recharge/sec:-- 10.4 \| 10.4 \| 10.4 cap usage/recharge: 3.272 \| 3.605 \| 2.514 BS skill level 5: 7500 cap with 692.25s recharge turrets: 7xMega Beam / 6xTachyon / 8x425mm Rail cap usage:--------- 183.75 \| 281.25 \| 180 cap usage/sec:----- 28.35 \| 31.25 \| 26.15 cap recharge/sec:-- 10.83 \| 10.83 \| 10.83 cap usage/recharge: 2.617 \| 2.885 \| 2.414 Now see how Rails work on Mega. It can be equipped with 6 425mm Rails without problems. Permanent weapon stats: Cap usage: 135 Cap usage/sec: 19.61 Cap recharge/sec: 8.12 Cap usage/recharge: 2.415 BS skill level 2: 5625 cap with 692.25s recharge 6x425mm Rail Damage mod: 3.78125 Tracking: 0.0038225 KI Dam: 635.25 TH Dam: 453.75 KI Dam/sec: 92.28 TH Dam/sec: 65.92 BS skill level 3: 5625 cap with 692.25s recharge 6x425mm Rail Damage mod: 3.953125 Tracking: 0.0039962 KI Dam: 664.122 TH Dam: 474.375 KI Dam/sec: 96.48 TH Dam/sec: 68.92 BS skill level 4: 5625 cap with 692.25s recharge 6x425mm Rail Damage mod: 4.125 Tracking: 0.00417 KI Dam: 693 TH Dam: 495 KI Dam/sec: 100.68 TH Dam/sec: 71.91 BS skill level 5: 5625 cap with 692.25s recharge 6x425mm Rail Damage mod: 4.296875 Tracking: 0.0043437 KI Dam: 721.86 TH Dam: 515.58 KI Dam/sec: 104.87 TH Dam/sec: 74.9 I don't want to make any conclusions, because i have no experience in battleships, but one thing is certain the 7 Mega Beams are better then the 6 Tachyons. Sorry for the long post and my english.
JoCool	Posted - 2004.05.23 14:36:00 - [49] Well, depends. You're able to fit two further launchers when using Tachyons, with Megabeams you could just get one. Tachyons also profit more from Heat Sinks due to their higher base values (like the 1400mm).
Aronis Contar	Posted - 2004.05.23 15:15:00 - [50] Originally by: JoCool Tachyons also profit more from Heat Sinks due to their higher base values (like the 1400mm). I just love that comment, always pops up somewhere... You DO realise that if 7 Mega Beams do more damage than 6 Tachyons, that also 7 Mega Beams + 2 Heatsinks will do more damage than 6 Tachyons + 2 Heatsinks? The relative difference between the two setups will remain constant - if the first is 1.1 times better than the latter, no matter how many Heatsinks you put on, it will always be 1.1 times better. Ciao, Aronis!

Hellek	Posted - 2004.05.23 15:16:00 - [51] Edited by: Hellek on 23/05/2004 15:17:30 Quote: Well, depends. You're able to fit two further launchers when using Tachyons, with Megabeams you could just get one. which CPU and grid do you use for the 2 launchers? there is none left for them.
John Blackthorn	Posted - 2004.05.23 18:27:00 - [52] Do we really need balanced weapons between the classes? Such as a 425mm damage the same as a mega beam, the same as a 1200 projecitle or something? I don't think so. Besides I've always wanted to use multi weapons such as two mega beams and two rails or something. Each having a strenth/weakness and not nessary the same weapon with just differnt damage types. The beams being better agaist shilds, and the rails better gaist armor, the beams distance and the rails closeness. etc etc depending on how you set them up. The ability to use cobinations is better than everyone just trying to "get the very best" and all of the same type of weapons.
SwitchBl4d3	Posted - 2004.05.23 22:54:00 - [53] With the balance, Can u also add laser sounds for the weapons I mean Some of the sounds you hear are like a JCB tearing down a house "Teh lord of Nonni"
Dayon	Posted - 2004.05.24 03:04:00 - [54] Edited by: Dayon on 24/05/2004 04:15:36 Edited by: Dayon on 24/05/2004 04:02:03 Edited by: Dayon on 24/05/2004 03:55:22 Sea Edge Think it could be usefull for you to post how much Core/cpu there is left after each of the gun setups. Apoc: 8x rails core: 2375 cpu: 205 Apoc: 7xMegaBeamcore: 1625 cpu: 336.25 Apoc: 6xTachyon core: 1875 cpu: 355 Mega: 6xrails core: 2250 CPU: 372.5 when we take this into account I for one can begin to see a small reason for apoc owners to use laser (CPU)but still very small compared to the better range, less cap use of the rails BTW I am the owner of both Mega and Apoc but am a bit disappointed at the Apoc being weaker in both offence and defence as it is the most expensive ship of the two.
T'el'Alana Luathin	Posted - 2004.05.26 17:02:00 - [55] I've always thought comparisons between hybrid and projectiles and lasers to be a bit... silly. First, lasers only do EM and thermal damage.. hybrid do em, thermal and kinetic.. and projectiles do EM, thermal, kinetic and explosive. All of these work differently against shields, and again differently against armor.. Then there is also the factor that big guns are supposed to be almost ineffective against smaller/faster ships Where do you balance the items, and where do you make sure they are different enough to validate their own theme? I think you should be tempted to have a laser turret on your ship, no matter what the ships' race, or hybrid, or projectile.. but then you have to enhance the differences between them. DoT is not a good benchmark.. unless you take in the resistances between shield and armor into the equation. Add that, and you've got a better overview of the balancing differences. If everyone is using em-hardener in their fitting, then the reason why must be discovered and dealt with. blah, I might just be blabbing.. just writing what I'm thinking.. Can someone compare the stats of the 3 fittings which seem to be the default turret setups against shield/armor? Something like: 5 tachyons/6megabeams/7rails give X Dot vs megathrons' shield with 1 em ward, and Y Dot against megathrons' armor, meaning Z minutes until you've podded the mega - and something similar Vs the apoc. T. -- always look on the bright side of the cloning facility.
qrac	Posted - 2004.05.26 18:28:00 - [56] Quote: Something like: 5 tachyons/6megabeams/7rails give X Dot vs megathrons' shield with 1 em ward, and Y Dot against megathrons' armor, meaning Z minutes until you've podded the mega nobody has done anything similar with the new changes but i did it with the current tranquility stats in a thread called "tomb love thy tachyon". it showed that an apoc with rails was superior to an apoc with lasers. the changes that are on chaos now seem to be balanced imo. ------------------------------------------- Insanes numquam moriuntur!
Kaylona Tso	Posted - 2004.05.26 22:55:00 - [57] Edited by: Kaylona Tso on 28/05/2004 13:39:39 Edited by: Kaylona Tso on 26/05/2004 22:57:47 We just need damage mods to be race bonus specific. Put a fitting penalty ( cpu fitting to be exact ) for using dmods on your ship if its not your races weapon. Role plays into eve well. AKA: -50% cpu bonus for ballistic dmod for caldari ships. -50% cpu bonus for laser dmod for amarrian ships -50% cpu bonus for hybrid dmod for gallente ships -50% cpu bonus for projectile dmods for minmatar ships. Delete the stacking penalties if its on the proper ship. You can even go further to give non-race specific cpu decrease bonuses for other races like -40% to caldari for hybrid dmods. Stop juggling all these numbers around with the guns. Its got to stop somewhere... and I say Role play it into the systems that run the damn gun. You can increase gun bonuses even better by adjusting dmods stats for each race instead of gun stats. So if you double the cpu usage to say 80... then with the race bonus -50% will make it 40 again. Then your skills will lower it and its biz as usual. If your not using the proper gun on the ship... going for more dmod and rof will cost you. -----
Muaddid	Posted - 2004.05.29 21:25:00 - [58] hmmm I've just spotted this... why are 425mm Rails going to be using 5 more cap ??? whats that 16.67% cap usage increase for On vacations (need a new sig too)
Serret	Posted - 2004.05.30 00:06:00 - [59] Originally by: Kaylona Tso We just need damage mods to be race bonus specific. Put a fitting penalty ( cpu fitting to be exact ) for using dmods on your ship if its not your races weapon. Role plays into eve well. At that point, why don't you just institute a rule that you can only use one kind of weapon on any ship? That's where it sounds like you're going... and what does that have to do with 'role playing'?
Hellek	Posted - 2004.06.01 15:30:00 - [60] Originally by: TomB Amarrians are designed as turret humping lovebirds, allowing them to use other kinds of turrets as their flexability. Energy Turret is the premium weapon if in place with the other turrets for a given ship, although they don't damage as greatly as a megathron with railguns, they do have their positives: no reloads, free cargo space for cap boosters and loot. One major problem I have with Apoc + Lasers is CPU. Why? As, due to the lack of a damage bonus, its necessary to fit a lot of turrets (often 8), which of course need a lot of CPU and the Apoc is the ship with the lowest CPU. For example try fitting pulselasers. You will have a lot of CPU problems when trying to fit them, but at the same time a few thousand grid that you can't use up. So you would have to fit a CPU mod, but with a CPU mod you have the CPU for Blasters as well and will of course use them instead as they do about 50% more damage. Therefore I think that the Apoc should either get a CPU boost, or the CPU requirements of items used on them should be reduced (armor repairers and hardeners, all types of lasers). I don't want it to be uber, but especially the problem with the Pulselasers is something that is very bad, and of course the problem that armor-tanking an apoc takes only about 30 less CPU than shield-tanking it but 4000 more grid, so I really want armor hardeners to get reduced CPU use. Concerning the Lasers: For example I don't understand why a 1400mm needs only 45 CPU and a megabeam/megapulse uses 55/50 (tachyon even 60) as Tempest has a lot more CPU and fits less guns.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.