These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Technology and Research Center » Player Features and Ideas Discussion » Stacking Penalty on Cargo Expansion - or...

Topic is locked indefinitely.

Previous page12

Stacking Penalty on Cargo Expansion - or Making Armor Haulers Work
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Reaver Glitterstim

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 3,058

#21 - 2014-12-04 03:30:08 UTC

Sigras wrote:

Operating under the assumption that they wanted "tanky hauler" to remain a T2 ship specialization, please point out where the fleet hanger fix falls short.

It offers no compromise between cargo space and tank.

Regular industrials: cargo space -or- armor tank (either way you can have shield tank)
Deep Space Transports: can have cargo space AND tank! Maximizing tank doesn't affect cargo space much.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Komi Toran

Perkone

Caldari State

Likes received: 533

#22 - 2014-12-04 03:43:43 UTC | Edited by: Komi Toran

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

After checking EFT I see that the Bustard does actually net higher EHP than the Impel, but only slightly. I'm not sure what you're doing wrong with your Impel fit.

Or it could be a problem with your Bustard fit. I get 239,246 EHP out of the Bustard, and 194,148 out of the Impel. And that's with an AB on both (otherwise the Bustard gets 322,516 EHP as that gets it a second LSE, and it doesn't really buy the Impel anything). You need a Slave set for the Impel to compete.

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

Sigras wrote:

Operating under the assumption that they wanted "tanky hauler" to remain a T2 ship specialization, please point out where the fleet hanger fix falls short.

It offers no compromise between cargo space and tank.

That's the entire point of the DST, because the Blockade Runner is already hands down the best choice for cargo up to 11k m3, and nothing the DST could ever do would ever compete with it.

Expecting a compromise in this area is just bringing us back to the days when no one flew these things, opting for an Orca instead.

Sigras

Conglomo

Likes received: 1,109

#23 - 2014-12-04 04:13:40 UTC

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

Sigras wrote:

Operating under the assumption that they wanted "tanky hauler" to remain a T2 ship specialization, please point out where the fleet hanger fix falls short.

your proposal doesnt change that... it just gives regular industrials cargo + tank too... if in fact you consider the 3 slot pathetic 13,000 EHP on the bestower a tank...

Meyr

Di-Tron Heavy Industries

OnlyFleets.

Likes received: 392

#24 - 2014-12-04 05:22:51 UTC | Edited by: Meyr

Fitting options are a good thing, and provide pilots with more choices. +1

And, yes, that it might take FOUR Catalysts to gank a hauler instead of three just tears my heart to pieces. Poor babies, you might actually have to take a bit of care in selecting a target...

AWWWWWWW!!!

HTFU, YOU PANSIES! You had the most popular racial T1 haulers gift-wrapped for you to kill with little more than a mean look in their direction, and, when someone proposes making them a SLIGHTLY more difficult target, you cry into your beer.

Contract me your stuff, and go play Day-Z.

Reaver Glitterstim

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 3,058

#25 - 2014-12-04 06:03:55 UTC

waiting for the incoming "slight buffs to industrial tank pushes them ever closer to carrier durability!" or "it wouldn't matter if they had carrier durability, gankers still gonna gank"

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

McChicken Combo HalfMayo

The Happy Meal

Likes received: 1,155

#26 - 2014-12-04 08:37:25 UTC | Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo

Komi Toran wrote:

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

After checking EFT I see that the Bustard does actually net higher EHP than the Impel, but only slightly. I'm not sure what you're doing wrong with your Impel fit.

I've meddled with the fits for both these ships and find the Impel can score a slightly larger tank when both are using a propulsion module. I have an Impel fit at 275,000 EHP with all T2 modules, a T2 Bustard from my experience cannot match that with a prop mod fit.

Without a prop mod things get a bit... wacky. With lower tier modules the Bustard comes out on top but with high-end deadspace modules the Impel takes the lead again. This is probably because the Impel uses an extra slot for it's tank, meaning the overheat bonus is more substantial as it rises with increased module tier.

With a set of Slaves the Impel is always the winner.

These are my findings at least.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin

Reaver Glitterstim

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 3,058

#27 - 2014-12-04 09:02:25 UTC

The real point is that they are reasonably similar in EHP when fit for full tank, but very different when fit for full cargo. With a stacking penalty on cargo expansion, they would have similar tank either way.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Andrew Indy

Cleaning Crew

Likes received: 291

#28 - 2014-12-04 09:20:59 UTC

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

well i thinks thats what the OP is saying.

Not that we need tankier Haulers but that he wants some sort of comparison between shield and Armor Haulers.

If you compare the Tayra to the Bestower with max cargo fits the Tayra has almost as much cargo but with almost double the EHP and its not like the Tayra does not make up for the lower cargo hold in other ways as well. Mainly a faster align and higher speed.

With 2 MSEs and a 10MN AB (plus invlus for the Tayra) you get about 11k vs 6k EHP and 37 vs 39k m3.

I'm not saying that the PO's suggestion is the correct fix or that its worth fixing (give dev time) just that I recognize the issue.


Reaver Glitterstim The Scope Gallente Federation Likes received: 3,058	#29 - 2014-12-04 09:26:23 UTC Thank you, finally someone who understands what I'm saying! P.S. I'm the OP. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Komi Toran

Perkone

Caldari State

Likes received: 533

#30 - 2014-12-04 09:26:25 UTC

McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:

I'm very curious about that fit. Two 800mm plates, two trimarks, three hardeners, a damage control, and reactor don't get me anywhere near that. What modules are you using to make up the 80,000 EHP difference? And then what is it once you throw Slaves on it???

Reaver Glitterstim

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 3,058

#31 - 2014-12-04 09:34:55 UTC | Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim

Komi Toran wrote:

I believe he is overheating the hardeners.

With T2 fittings, overheating, and a boosting ship (no implants), I can get the Bustard to 351,811 EHP. But with no fleet boosts, overheating or implants, it's only 178,549 EHP.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Komi Toran

Perkone

Caldari State

Likes received: 533

#32 - 2014-12-04 09:36:30 UTC | Edited by: Komi Toran

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

I believe he is overheating the hardeners.

That still leaves an 80,000 EHP gap, because I'm overheating them as well. Or did you think the 320k EHP Bustard was pre-overheat?

Edit: And boosting ship? Hell, let's just throw a group of 10 logi ships in there as well.

If you need 2 - 2.5 billion in implants and a booster to compete with the Bustard, the Bustard wins.

McChicken Combo HalfMayo

The Happy Meal

Likes received: 1,155

#33 - 2014-12-04 10:53:50 UTC | Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo

Komi Toran wrote:

McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:

284,500 EHP and aligns in 10 due to the MWD. 453,000 EHP with a set of Slaves.

[Impel, EHP High-Sec T2]

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

[empty mid slot]
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I

800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
2x Armor Thermic Hardener II
2x Armor EM Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II
Armor Explosive Hardener II

2x Medium Trimark Armor Pump II

1000x Nanite Repair Paste

With an extra 40 million ISK in modules (to save CPU), it looks like this instead. Capable of the cloak-MWD maneuver. Same EHP numbers.

[Impel, EHP High-Sec Cheap]

[empty high slot]
Improved Cloaking Device II

Small Capacitor Booster II (Navy Cap Booster 400)
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I

800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
True Sansha Armor Thermic Hardener
Armor Thermic Hardener II
2x True Sansha Armor EM Hardener
True Sansha Armor Kinetic Hardener
Armor Explosive Hardener II

2x Medium Trimark Armor Pump II

1000x Nanite Repair Paste
20x Navy Cap Booster 400

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin

Reaver Glitterstim

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 3,058

#34 - 2014-12-04 12:11:19 UTC

Komi Toran wrote:

Edit: And boosting ship? Hell, let's just throw a group of 10 logi ships in there as well.

If you need 2 - 2.5 billion in implants and a booster to compete with the Bustard, the Bustard wins.

I was only pointing out that folks weren't being specific enough about what they used or didn't use, and that probably had something to do with the large difference in figures.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."


Komi Toran Perkone Caldari State Likes received: 533	#35 - 2014-12-04 16:09:08 UTC McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: 284,500 EHP and aligns in 10 due to the MWD. 453,000 EHP with a set of Slaves. Very nice! Fitting saved. Only change I'd make on the first, since there's no cloak, is an AB for a 7.5 sec align time.


Andrew Indy Cleaning Crew Likes received: 291	#36 - 2014-12-05 02:03:12 UTC Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Thank you, finally someone who understands what I'm saying! P.S. I'm the OP. I was thinking that an easier fix would be to just drop the tank on the shield haulers, that way the tank would be the same and everyone can fit bulk heads ect to add to the overall EHP if you want to gain tank. Still not perfect.

Previous page12