Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 [50] .. 53 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
NVRYNZWS Escort
Escort Local Operations Wing
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 03:40:00 -
[1471] - Quote
re: the plates not listed under the bonus
1600mm 400mm
isn't the easy way to say it is
those are the only two which already had the proper weight marked on their labels
and now the ones listed have been adjusted to show their actual weight as they have always been
re: the ammo on these aar's
isn't it about the amount of nanite repair paste?
re: the powergrid use
doesnt this mean simply again that better testing of already constructed devices with better measuring and assesment equipment has led to the inaccurate descriptors being recalculated to more apparent actualities than any inherent redesign...
that would surely address the faction modules created in pirate factions lab as still being in research to figure out how and why they work
from a logistics point of view any and all tools that affect my targets is of interest for those using armor i see nothing but usable applications of the information here
kudos |
Dr Romulous
Strategic Solutions Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 10:51:00 -
[1472] - Quote
Where can i get the BPC for the Ancillary Armor Repairer? |
Alxea
Blood RaiderZ.
116
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 11:02:00 -
[1473] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote:Quote: Change the penalty on all active armor rigs (Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accelerator, and the new Nanobot Overcharger) to increase the powergrid use of local armor reps by 10% instead of reducing ship velocity.
This makes the hyperion very hard to fit, also your new mod is not as good as two faction reps. I was able to fit a hyperion with 2 T2 large reps and a large AAR perfectly fine with armor rigs. Perhaps your skills are in need of upping to fit a beast hype properly. Its cap stable for me and will tank like a beast. 2 faction reps are not cost effective. |
Mund Richard
333
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 11:22:00 -
[1474] - Quote
Alxea wrote:Allison A'vani wrote:Quote: Change the penalty on all active armor rigs (Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accelerator, and the new Nanobot Overcharger) to increase the powergrid use of local armor reps by 10% instead of reducing ship velocity.
This makes the hyperion very hard to fit, also your new mod is not as good as two faction reps. I was able to fit a hyperion with 2 T2 large reps and a large AAR perfectly fine with armor rigs. Perhaps your skills are in need of upping to fit a beast hype properly. Its cap stable for me and will tank like a beast. 2 faction reps are not cost effective. Not sure why Alxea said the new mod ain't as good as two faction reps when it ain't as good as two T2 reps, just opened himself to a retort like that.
With the change to LAR PG and the rigs, with a skill of V, using 2 LAR and 2 rigs, you in fact win a tiny bit of PG, and with skill at IV you lose around 2.25% of the PG of the LARs, which I hope is somewhere around 93 PG for double large T2 (tiny bit less less than 0.43% of a Hyperion's total grid with engineering), slightly less for LAR+LAAR.
The main problem(?) is not that it's not twice as effective as T2 even while loaded, ASBs aren't as well, the difference is that ASBs do so without cap, and being oversized you don't need multiple repair modules.
>> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
armed okie
Black Security Services The Foundation To Protect Endangered CareBears
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 18:37:00 -
[1475] - Quote
Ancillary Armor Repairer Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end. Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper When not loaded with Nanite Repair Paste, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer When loaded with Nanite Repair Paste triples rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded) Same cycle time and fittings as T1 reps Smalls use 1 paste per cycle, mediums 4, larges 8. Can hold 8 cycles worth of paste at a time. Reload time is 1 minute just like an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads Limited to one per ship
ok since you did this where can i locate these since there are none on the market in the meedium and small sizes what npcs am i supposed to go after to get em?
|
Zach meii
Nintendo Power Monkeys with Guns.
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 07:23:00 -
[1476] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:xo3e wrote:lold
so :ccp: are you even playing your own game?
armor is so bad not because reps rep nothing or because buffer is insufficient.
the problem with armor is generally because majority of armor boats cant do shet against kiting and it follows that you cant escape shet when you need to. and all your super-slaved-buffers-with-bonus-legion will not help you.
im talking about solo-to-small-scale warfare. If only we were letting you reduce the mass penalty of all your plates by 25%, and for active tankers remove the speed penalty on the rigs? That would be great maybe we should do that.
|
Zach meii
Nintendo Power Monkeys with Guns.
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 07:35:00 -
[1477] - Quote
And my part of post doesn't show up awesome. |
Mund Richard
335
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 08:50:00 -
[1478] - Quote
Zach meii wrote:And my part of post doesn't show up awesome. Forum eats a lot of posts. Something to do with drafts and the way they are handled. Had Google Chrome save me several times going "back". >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
956
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 04:00:00 -
[1479] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ancillary Armor Repairer[/u]
Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end. Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper When not loaded with Nanite Repair Paste, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer When loaded with Nanite Repair Paste triples rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded) Same cycle time and fittings as T1 reps Smalls use 1 paste per cycle, mediums 4, larges 8. Can hold 8 cycles worth of paste at a time. Reload time is 1 minute just like an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads Problem here is that cap boosters are made from common belt minerals and are thus are easily to manufacture and/acquire in absurd quantities. Nanite paste, on the other hand, is a PI product and pretty complicated one at that. It's a whole level of magnitude more of a headache to manufacture and/or acquire.
So either make it use cap boosters, invent a new thing for AAR fuel made just as easily as cap boosters, or move nanite paste out of PI and into the plain old fashioned BPO zone. I know none of these ideas will make you happy, but you can't deny that there is a fairness imbalance when it comes to feeding these two modules (ASB vs AAR). EvE Forum Bingo |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 06:05:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ancillary Armor Repairer[/u]
Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end. Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper When not loaded with Nanite Repair Paste, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer When loaded with Nanite Repair Paste triples rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded) Same cycle time and fittings as T1 reps Smalls use 1 paste per cycle, mediums 4, larges 8. Can hold 8 cycles worth of paste at a time. Reload time is 1 minute just like an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads Problem here is that cap boosters are made from common belt minerals and are thus are easily to manufacture and/acquire in absurd quantities. Nanite paste, on the other hand, is a PI product and pretty complicated one at that. It's a whole level of magnitude more of a headache to manufacture and/or acquire. So either make it use cap boosters, invent a new thing for AAR fuel made just as easily as cap boosters, or move nanite paste out of PI and into the plain old fashioned BPO zone. I know none of these ideas will make you happy, but you can't deny that there is a fairness imbalance when it comes to feeding these two modules (ASB vs AAR). It was cap boosters before. Due to popular demand they changed it to Paste. It appears they just can't appease everyone. |
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
107
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 06:50:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:So either make it use cap boosters, invent a new thing for AAR fuel made just as easily as cap boosters, or move nanite paste out of PI and into the plain old fashioned BPO zone. I know none of these ideas will make you happy, but you can't deny that there is a fairness imbalance when it comes to feeding these two modules (ASB vs AAR). I suggest there should be BPOs to create all PI products out of minerals. Otherwise, we can witness a total fairness imbalance throughout EVE. Also, there should be BPOs to create moon materials. And nano-ribbons. Yes, please fix ASAP. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
333
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 10:39:00 -
[1482] - Quote
AARs were originally designed to use Cap Boosters. The community asked for nanite paste because of its size.
Right now a Navy Cap booster 400 is going for about 110k in jita and takes up 12m3. 8 charges of nanite paste will set you back double that, (at the currently inflated price due to the new module,) but you could fit 1200 units of nanite paste in the same space, enough for 120 cycles of a large AAR. The price of paste will normalise back to its previous 15k per unit.
Would you rather have all your cargo space taken up with mutliple sizes of cap boosters? MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
524
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 11:27:00 -
[1483] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:AARs were originally designed to use Cap Boosters. The community asked for nanite paste because of its size.... Won't speak for anyone else but size was far from my mind when I supported the idea .. just makes a ton more sense for modules that sport the description "This module uses nano-assemblers to repair damage done to the armor of the ship", to use nanite paste rather than generic batteries when going super-charged .. plus it helped set it apart from the module which must not be named.
Cost is irrelevant. Most combat operations already have you lugging around a small fortune in ammo/drones so paste cost is just another drop in the ocean .. well paid if it prevents a death which is more than can be said for ammo/drones (not to same degree at least). Either way, CCP can always manipulate paste price if need be but doubt if it will ever be necessary. Buffers will still rule BC/BS fits so the biggest 'on-paper' consumers are out of the picture and the handful of cruisers that can/will benefit from (ab)using the AAR will not be enough to push price much in any direction (SAAR paste use is as most things frigate, damn near perfect in cost/benefit so 'meh')
Also, if you dual-rep you need boosters as well but it is a benefit to not have to lug around multiple shapes and sizes. Shopping runs in general as they pertain to AAR vs "the unnamed one" will be much easier if done outside of the major hubs. |
Theia Matova
Pink Bunny Recreation Assembly
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 17:34:00 -
[1484] - Quote
Thanks for the armor tanking love that we received in Retribution 1.1 . Armor tanking certainly needs it for the non capital ship sizes! However there are still several major issues that remain. My points are mostly for PVE and I do not consider PVP med slots!
- armor tanking in general is too cap heavy! Why? Armor tanking races Amarr, Gallente both also have gun systems that stress cap intensively! This issue is less when you get high enough skills and mix turrets with missile launchers but this issue needs to be fixed especially for new players that take first steps with battleships!
- I constantly make different ship fits and compare them and in average I found that shield fit BS get about 300-400 dps tank to factional damage type. When armor gets about 250-300. This is with about same DPS levels yet armor tanks usually get less DPS as well since you need to compromise DPS to tank since damage modules are fit in low with the tank mods.
- When shield and armor tanking are compared shield gets also passive tank from buffer and certain types of mods. This more than makes up the penalty that shield tank ships get from signature radius. Thanks to reactive hardening we now have similar mechanism for armor that stiffens the tank lower it gets. But we still could use mechanism that would allow armor to regenerate. I want this because I like to keep my armor buffer full and not every station have repairs. This would be also very important for wormhole / null sec roaming for solo ship. With lore it could simply be just these nanobots that would activate when the ship was not in combat state. This can be out of combat very slow even when its just there. This could be applied in special ship mode that would not be wise / could not be put on during combat. Making you stationary whatever. Just please give us in space armor rep since shields have that too even in combat!
- When its spoken about ship defenses shield is on top of armor. This means that to blow a ship you have to penetrate their shield, armor and hull. This means that shield ship still has HP left before they even go to hull Since they have armor as well. Armor tanking needs something to get over this lack. My suggestion would be that armor resistance mods could give slight bonus to hull resistances. So it would balance the hp that armor lacks after their tank is blown up.
- Armor and shield resistance flatting between damage types: more flat resistance types for both armor and shield, damage type plays too big role in the game which I do not find very appealing. For example it makes lasers to be quite unusable in many situations. Giving missiles and projectile weapons too big edge over the other weapon systems. NOT FLAT just less big holes in resistance types thank you!
Summary
- Less cap intensive armor tanking!!!!! especially for new people skills count too much especially for amarr!!!! See above
- Give armor some reasonable ability to regenerate without repairers. See above
- Armor modules resistance bonus minor applying to hull. See above
- Armor and shield resistance flatting See above
- PVE racial damage type tanking balanced (armor vs shield) See above
I would like to see balanced EVE where one could fly any ship without feeling the ship or weapon or tank type sucked. To be able to fly Minny PVE with Amarr ship if I so liked (now its not worth the trouble at all). Please give people reasons to play also different races than Minmatar and Caldari in PVE highsec!
P.S I am sad to see that ships get rebalanced now when there is more severe balance issues between shield vs armor tanking. Armor tanking is very bad for solo flying anything. When shield is awesome for that. Also smaller ships cruisers, bc, bs suck tanking armor ( bit better now with changes ) compared to shield. When Shield tanked cap ships stink bulls arse. These issues should have been issued before doing individual ships! |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 18:58:00 -
[1485] - Quote
armour tanking is still somewhat handicapped compared to ASB's as AAR's require nanite paste on top of needing cap boosters for cap. Then with the slower cycle time the rep amount isn't even close and their is a limit of one per ship. Also the gal bc's bonus isn't enough to make them worth using maybe 10% bonus and a buff to armour rep amount on AAR's/armour reps in general and then less cap usage would help with the sustainable reps but once the paste runs out i don't think the AAR's will be much use with the 3/4 rep amount i think should be removed as the ASB doesn't give you less rep amount with no cap boosters. And the overheating rig could be a saving grace BUT how useful will it be if it just burns the AAR to smithereens after a few reps? Some extra thought is needed to balance these to make them worth using over ASB's . Extra HP amount on armour reppers might help ... i say help more a case of mandatory to make the overheating rig viable. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
615
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 20:33:00 -
[1486] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:armour tanking is still somewhat handicapped compared to ASB's as AAR's require nanite paste on top of needing cap boosters for cap. Then with the slower cycle time the rep amount isn't even close and their is a limit of one per ship. Also the gal bc's bonus isn't enough to make them worth using maybe 10% bonus and a buff to armour rep amount on AAR's/armour reps in general and then less cap usage would help with the sustainable reps but once the paste runs out i don't think the AAR's will be much use with the 3/4 rep amount i think should be removed as the ASB doesn't give you less rep amount with no cap boosters. And the overheating rig could be a saving grace BUT how useful will it be if it just burns the AAR to smithereens after a few reps? Some extra thought is needed to balance these to make them worth using over ASB's . Extra HP amount on armour reppers might help ... i say help more a case of mandatory to make the overheating rig viable.
Reduction of capacitor needs per activation+reduction (25 to 35%) of cycle would be enough (red: from 15 to 10 max 11.5s before skills) *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 00:32:00 -
[1487] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:armour tanking is still somewhat handicapped compared to ASB's as AAR's require nanite paste on top of needing cap boosters for cap. Then with the slower cycle time the rep amount isn't even close and their is a limit of one per ship. Also the gal bc's bonus isn't enough to make them worth using maybe 10% bonus and a buff to armour rep amount on AAR's/armour reps in general and then less cap usage would help with the sustainable reps but once the paste runs out i don't think the AAR's will be much use with the 3/4 rep amount i think should be removed as the ASB doesn't give you less rep amount with no cap boosters. And the overheating rig could be a saving grace BUT how useful will it be if it just burns the AAR to smithereens after a few reps? Some extra thought is needed to balance these to make them worth using over ASB's . Extra HP amount on armour reppers might help ... i say help more a case of mandatory to make the overheating rig viable. Reduction of capacitor needs per activation/cycle (25 to 35%)+reduction of cycle would be enough (red: from 15 to 10 max 11.5s before skills)
problem is the longer cycle time is the advantage over the ASB's as it will last longer on higher reps as when the paste is used the AAR is next to useless and rigs/skills already reduce cycle time so it needs to be about higher reps and less cap as to differentiate from shield reps and reduce the need for cap boosters and paste as their is a finite amount of cargo space.
Also on the OH rigs the bonus needs to change from bonus to reps and reduced cycle time to just extra reps as again the only advantage of AAR's over ASB's is longer cycle time/less paste used |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
156
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 11:51:00 -
[1488] - Quote
Heres to make the AAR even worse than we already thought it was on the maths done so far. Large Reppers Overheated T2. 880 Repped over 12.75 Seconds. 69.01/sec. AAR. 1250 Repped over 15 seconds. 83.33/sec. The AAR is a bare 20% better than an overheated T2 for burst tanking
Now.... yes, you 'can' overheat the AAR also, but I did this comparison for the following reason. If I overheat pulse my T2 rep, I then shut it off every once in a while to repair it with nanite paste, during which time I get no reps. If I run my AAR normally, I shut it off every once in a while to reload it with nanite paste, during which time I get no reps. If I then overheat my AAR, not only do I have to do a 60 second reload sooner, I then ALSO have to repair it. Taking even longer with no reps.
So for burst tank, an Overheated T2 vs an AAR is a more appropriate comparision than a T2 running normally, as both consume nanite paste at that point, and require shutting off periodically.
So.... what does this mean, it means that unless it takes 60 seconds to repair the T2 with nanite paste from overheat damage of 90 seconds of cycles, The T2 pulsed in overheat cycles will rep MORE than the AAR. And probably use LESS nanite paste to do so in this manner, as well as maybe being sustainable for more than 90 seconds of overheating. (Depending on skills). Of course, since I can also use as many T2's like this as I want, I can alternate my T2 dual fit like this, while I can only single fit an AAR.... Major win, T2. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
248
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 12:07:00 -
[1489] - Quote
IMO, the biggest problem of armor tanking is that EWAR don't translate into EFT numbers... |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
589
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 14:09:00 -
[1490] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Heres to make the AAR even worse than we already thought it was on the maths done so far. Large Reppers Overheated T2. 880 Repped over 12.75 Seconds. 69.01/sec. AAR. 1250 Repped over 15 seconds. 83.33/sec. The AAR is a bare 20% better than an overheated T2 for burst tanking
Now.... yes, you 'can' overheat the AAR also, but I did this comparison for the following reason. If I overheat pulse my T2 rep, I then shut it off every once in a while to repair it with nanite paste, during which time I get no reps. If I run my AAR normally, I shut it off every once in a while to reload it with nanite paste, during which time I get no reps. If I then overheat my AAR, not only do I have to do a 60 second reload sooner, I then ALSO have to repair it. Taking even longer with no reps.
So for burst tank, an Overheated T2 vs an AAR is a more appropriate comparision than a T2 running normally, as both consume nanite paste at that point, and require shutting off periodically.
So.... what does this mean, it means that unless it takes 60 seconds to repair the T2 with nanite paste from overheat damage of 90 seconds of cycles, The T2 pulsed in overheat cycles will rep MORE than the AAR. And probably use LESS nanite paste to do so in this manner, as well as maybe being sustainable for more than 90 seconds of overheating. (Depending on skills). Of course, since I can also use as many T2's like this as I want, I can alternate my T2 dual fit like this, while I can only single fit an AAR.... Major win, T2.
Your logic is flawed, you can easily heat a repper for 8 cycles without burning it out and you don't have to reload it when it runs out.
A AAR outperforms a t2 rep for 19 cycles, then the t2 overtakes. Beyond Divinity Recruitment is open! |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
619
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 15:27:00 -
[1491] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:problem is the longer cycle time is the advantage over the ASB's as it will last longer on higher reps as when the paste is used the AAR is next to useless and rigs/skills already reduce cycle time so it needs to be about higher reps and less cap as to differentiate from shield reps and reduce the need for cap boosters and paste as their is a finite amount of cargo space
This could be true if your module wouldn't get burn by the end or before the use of those nanite paste, and provided your ship has enough armor hit points to survive the higher dps incoming than it can rep or with a bit of chance the AAR reloading timer.
One of the misconceptions about active armor tanking is that everyone and his mother thinks an active tank is about plates and triple reps. Maybe the lol triple reps myrmidon and double rep hype have something to do with, however I'm not even close to get impressed by those, their dps is so anemic once you know how to force them loosing some, the lol'ish cap boosters management is nothing but fap keyboard keys for a pathetic result.
Sure someone can show lots of km's where it wins sometimes but will never show how many more fail doing it once you get on skilled vs skilled player.
In short: there is no advantage on having a longer cycle reping less p/s if you have either a low buffer (sustainability) or resists (burst). Whatever case you'll pick, a ship with hull resist bonus and same active tanking fit will always have the upper hand over the one with active tank bonus, because it uses rigs resists and buffer completely differently and far more effective unless the pilot is extremely stupid. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
411
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:23:00 -
[1492] - Quote
I wish they made the AAR like the ASB was proposed in the first place. Draw charges directly from the cargo hold instead of loading charges in the module. Armor is supposed to be the sustainable tanking style. Give us this. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Fade 2 Black
369
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 02:39:00 -
[1493] - Quote
Already deployed and working as intended... Time to start new treads! Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
157
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 04:43:00 -
[1494] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Your logic is flawed, you can easily heat a repper for 8 cycles without burning it out and you don't have to reload it when it runs out.
A AAR outperforms a t2 rep for 19 cycles, then the t2 overtakes.
No, my logic isn't flawed, that was exactly the point I was making, that you can run a T2 Repper on overheat, and repair with nanite paste as needed, and it vastly out performs the AAR. And this was with just T2 reppers without stepping up to deadspace. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
529
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:07:00 -
[1495] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Your logic is flawed, you can easily heat a repper for 8 cycles without burning it out and you don't have to reload it when it runs out.
A AAR outperforms a t2 rep for 19 cycles, then the t2 overtakes.
No, my logic isn't flawed, that was exactly the point I was making, that you can run a T2 Repper on overheat, and repair with nanite paste as needed, and it vastly out performs the AAR. And this was with just T2 reppers without stepping up to deadspace. In my experience the time it takes to repair the heat damage from 8 cycles takes longer than the 60s reload of the AAR .. and that is with the repairer nested in the middle of the rack, maxed skills etc. Could just be that those kind of waiting periodds always seem longer, but pretty sure it exceeds the 60s .
But if you are in a fight that lasts long enough to warrant repairing that amount of heat damage in the first place, you are better off with the AAR + its reload time than having a T2 AR that is borderline and thus cannot be heated anymore unless you want to offline it. Even has the option of heating the AAR itself for ++ performance for those extra intensive fights (read: short and brutal).
That is what the AAR is/does .. it gives you heated performance without the heat.
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:19:00 -
[1496] - Quote
You would think that since nanite paste hardly takes up much volume that a reload would be much quicker if you actually really needed to you would think you could run it forever without needing to reload it. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
157
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 09:37:00 -
[1497] - Quote
Performing two tests with a Medium T2 Rep. Inferfacing 0, Operation 1, Thermo 1. So about as low skills as you can get. Total Nanites used over both tests to repair all modules. 31. Total Nanites an AAR would have used. 64 (16*4) Test 1, 13% heat damage, 25s repair. Test 2, 38% heat damage, 85s repair
So yes, at bad skills like mine the AAR is probably going to be slightly faster reload than overheat repair. At good skills, that repair time should be halved and the heat damage will be less. Meaning even the high end of damage is going to be under 45s repair. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1087
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:57:00 -
[1498] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:IMO, the biggest problem of armor tanking is that EWAR don't translate into EFT numbers... With active armor tanking you lose the mid slots to capacitor booster mods. Example is dual rep incursus needs a cap booster to make it go. With that cap booster it's down to a scram and therefore can't control range.
Etc.... |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2097
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 16:39:00 -
[1499] - Quote
There's only a few armor ships with 5 mids, and only two of them are viable active tankers. Most armor ships have 3 or 4 mids, leaving no slots for this mystical EWAR advantage or even full tackle, like X illustrated above.
It is a balancing factor for buffer tanks, you trade speed and damage for tank and utility mids.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
134
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 17:46:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Hopefully we'll see a fix for mandatory cap boosters when the battleships get redone (right?). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 [50] .. 53 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |