| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pulsarr1
   |
Posted - 2009.01.16 06:27:00 -
[1]
What is the point of using Tech II armor plates over Rolled Tungsten? In all circumstances Rolled Tungsten has better fitting requirements, the same armor bonus as tech II (or at least within 3HP), and the kicker, a LOT less mass than Tech II. The only use I can see out of Tech II armor plates is cost, Rolled tungsten does get a bit pricey.
You can see how bad it really is here.
50mm Rolled Tungsten Plate
+131 Armor
+13,750 kg Mass
3 CPU
1 MW
50mm Reinforced Steel Plate II
+131 Armor
+18,750 kg Mass
6 CPU
1MW
100mm Rolled Tungsten Plate
+263 Armor
+27,500 kg mass
8 CPU
6 MW
100mm Reinforced Steel Plate II
+263 Armor
+37,500 kg Mass
11 CPU
6 MW
200mm Rolled Tungsten Plate
+525 Armor
+137,500 kg Mass
13 CPU
10 MW
200mm Reinforced Steel Plate II
+528 Armor
+187,500 kg Mass
17 CPU
12 MW
400mm Rolled Tungsten Plate
+1,050 Armor
+275,000 kg Mass
18 CPU
30 MW
400mm Reinforced Steel Plate II
+1,053 HP Armor
+375,000 kg Mass
23 CPU
35 MW
800mm Rolled Tungsten Plate
+2,100 Armor
+1,375,000 kg Mass
23 CPU
200 MW
800mm Reinforced Steel Plate II
+2,103 Armor
+1,875,000 kg Mass
28 CPU
230 MW
1600mm Rolled Tungsten Plate
+4,200 Armor
+2,750,000 kg Mass
28 CPU
500 MW
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plate II
+4,200 Armor
+3,750,000 kg Mass
33 CPU
575 MW
How about some love for Tech II plates CCP?
|
Spaztick
Canadian Imperial Armaments
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 06:29:00 -
[2]
T2 plates are fine. Manufacturable too.
...but on a serious note, more people should have some type of spacer in their sigs to show it's not part of the post.
|
Nomakai Delateriel
Amarr
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 06:42:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Pulsarr1
What is the point of using Tech II armor plates over Rolled Tungsten? In all circumstances Rolled Tungsten has better fitting requirements, the same armor bonus as tech II (or at least within 3HP), and the kicker, a LOT less mass than Tech II. The only use I can see out of Tech II armor plates is cost, Rolled tungsten does get a bit pricey.
[etc, etc]
Seriously. I see one of these posts at least once every month.
Why can't people accept that sometimes T2 isn't the best choice in terms of stats?
T2 items are simply the upper tier of manufactured goods and named items are the lower tier of ratloot (the higher being faction, deadspace and officer).
______________________________________________
-My respect can not be won, only lost. It's given freely and only grudgingly withdrawn. |
Pulsarr1
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 06:55:00 -
[4]
I don't necisarrily want it to be better than Rolled Tungsten, but it'd be nice if it was on par instead of significantly worse.
|
Garia666
Amarr
T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
White Core
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 07:48:00 -
[5]
i barly use tech II thungsten are enough in the server to keep @ decent price level.
www.garia.net |
P'uck
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 07:52:00 -
[6]
I think it was nice when t2 used to be better in performance on almost every mod and best named was slightly worse but much easier on fitting. I'd like to have it back that way tbh, a lot of modules are still like that anyway.
RT and T2 1600s have been skewed like this as far as I can remember, however.
|
TimMc
Gallente
Brutal Deliverance
OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 08:00:00 -
[7]
Newbs ***** when T2 is better, and when its not...
|
Nomakai Delateriel
Amarr
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 08:06:00 -
[8]
Originally by: P'uck
RT and T2 1600s have been skewed like this as far as I can remember, however.
Actually the only thing that has changed since T2 was introduced in terms of T2 vs named balance is that Warp Disruptor IIs suddenly became useful compared to j5s and Faints when they got an extra 4km range (around the time WCSs were nerfed).
And the MWD modification of course, but that goes without saying.
Other than that named vs T2 has been pretty much the same ever since T2 was introduced.
______________________________________________
-My respect can not be won, only lost. It's given freely and only grudgingly withdrawn. |
P'uck
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 08:10:00 -
[9]
Edited by: P''uck on 16/01/2009 08:13:56
Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel
Actually the only thing that has changed since T2 was introduced ...
Afaik the named scrams didnt always have almost and up to t2 range, that is just one example, the MWD changes actually shouldn't go without saying. T2 MWD just got served by best named. Badly 
|
achoura
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 12:19:00 -
[10]
The day you find yourself fighting in a region where you don't really find plates, like the top of Branch for example, you'll be glad one of your corp mates can build tii ones for you  |
Tyrael Primus
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 13:25:00 -
[11]
Yea and I think the T1 version of eccm modules are larger than the named T1 and T2 versions. what's with that huh i can't fit them in my shuttle!
|
Sean Faust
Gallente
Point of No Return
Eradication Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 13:43:00 -
[12]
T2 _ALWAYS_ comes with a penalty. In the case of most modules that penalty is simply increased cpu/pg/cap use, but in the case of modules such as inertia stabilizers, armor plates, and shield extenders that naturally come with a penalty anyway, the penalty is ALWAYS more severe with T2. Is this something that needs to be looked at? Maybe, maybe not, but regardless, there's a list a mile long of things that CCP should be addressing before even glancing at this issue. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |