These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EANM vs. Adaptive Nano Plating?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Melted Yeti
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-06-29 01:04:35 UTC
I think I am missing something and my google skills are failing me tonight. Looking at these modules they do the exact same thing except the EANM also requires 28 cpu, and in the tech 1's at least the plating has slightly higher resists.

So the question is, what is with these two seemingly similar modules and why would one choose a EANM over Adaptive Nano Plating?

Any help is appreciated, thank you.
Belthazor4011
Battle BV Redux
#2 - 2012-06-29 01:05:46 UTC
EANM (T2) just does better, not much but a bit.
Backfyre
Hohmann Transfer
#3 - 2012-06-29 01:15:21 UTC
Aye, EANM is a bit better so if you have the CPU you use them. The little differences do add up. That said, if all an armor tanker has left is a few CPU, you stuff a plate in that low slot.
Majuan Shuo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2012-06-29 04:12:08 UTC
dark blood plating

yw :-)

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-06-29 07:14:10 UTC
CPU can be tight especially on smaller ships. My Incurses always fits a Adaptive plating
kyrv
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-06-29 13:25:31 UTC  |  Edited by: kyrv
If you using t1 tier 1 battleship then your best bet is sheer numbers of other players and play the odds and aim for fire-power using the adaptive's.

The Faction/Tier 3 do deserve the faction and named at that setting you back some cost.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#7 - 2012-06-29 13:31:51 UTC
Melted Yeti wrote:
I think I am missing something and my google skills are failing me tonight. Looking at these modules they do the exact same thing except the EANM also requires 28 cpu, and in the tech 1's at least the plating has slightly higher resists.

So the question is, what is with these two seemingly similar modules and why would one choose a EANM over Adaptive Nano Plating?

Any help is appreciated, thank you.


c-type adaptive nanos have about the same resists as a t2 eanm for no cpu. This module is very useful on gallente and amarr battleships as well as afs.
Busta Annages
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2012-06-29 16:40:50 UTC
I have a-type adaptive nanos on most of my PVE ships. Resists percentages are higher than the T2 EANM and they don't cost that much for what you get. If you are close to going over on a nice fit........do the adaptive nanos.
Bill Serkoff2
Tachyon Technology
#9 - 2012-06-29 16:57:32 UTC
T2 EANM has to be the most versatile mod in all of EVE. Besides the laser.

"The Cyclone and the Drake are two ships which will basically never be good for shield tanking, primarily because they have almost no lowslots in addition to shield tanking bonuses. " -Iam Widdershins
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#10 - 2012-06-30 12:40:32 UTC
Bill Serkoff2 wrote:
T2 EANM has to be the most versatile mod in all of EVE. Besides the laser.



*Pzzzt....Pzzzt...Pzzzt*

*Pouf*

On topic:

T2 EANM is the best choice before Faction, once you get all your passive tank certificates to elite you'll see Energised Platings are always best but require CPU and this only means you need to work your Core certificates.
Once you have them CPU it's not much of a problem nor PG, it's always cap recharge and how good you can manage your cap.

However Faction Platings are awesome when you have CPU issues.

brb
Alara IonStorm
#11 - 2012-06-30 13:31:21 UTC
---

T1 NAP 8%, 50k
T2 NAP 15.36% 600k
True Sansha NAP 17.5% 7mil
C-Type NAP 19.56% 20mil

0 CPU

---

T1 EAMN 15% 50k
T2 EANM 20% 1.2mil
True Sansha EANM 22.5% 50mil

T1 / Faction 30 CPU, T2 36 CPU

---

It is performance vs cost vs fitting. If I have the 36 CPU and need to fit something else why settle for a lesser plate or a 20mil plate that is about equal when a 1.2mil plate gives me the best performance for my buck. Many of my setups have 20-30CPU left over even after EANM's so not using them would either make my ship weaker or more expensive. Even a T1 EANM costs less for the about the same performance as a T2 NAP.

These plates all have benefits and weaknesses but just because something has a draw back in fitting costs on paper does not make it so on ships that have an abundance of fitting.

Here is an Example.

This former Harbinger of mine (May she Rest in Pieces.) did have the extra fitting to put on a 1mil T2 EANM but not 2 of them. I wanted more resists then the NAP II offered so I used one the C-Types I got through exploration, net value at the time 15mil.

The ship and fit was worth 79mil without the Plate, 94mil with the plate. I decided to add the extra capital to make the ship more survivable which sometimes works out and sometimes doesn't depending on the situation you put it in.

Point is that if I used 2 C-Types cost would have been higher and 2 NAP II's stats would have been lower.
Idicious Lightbane
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-06-30 14:37:07 UTC
Use c-type ANP's if you run into cpu issue's, basicly the same resists as the EANM for 10-15 mil a pop.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#13 - 2012-06-30 15:50:18 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
---

T1 NAP 8%, 50k
T2 NAP 15.36% 600k
True Sansha NAP 17.5% 7mil
C-Type NAP 19.56% 20mil

0 CPU

---

T1 EAMN 15% 50k
T2 EANM 20% 1.2mil
True Sansha EANM 22.5% 50mil

T1 / Faction 30 CPU, T2 36 CPU

---

It is performance vs cost vs fitting. If I have the 36 CPU and need to fit something else why settle for a lesser plate or a 20mil plate that is about equal when a 1.2mil plate gives me the best performance for my buck. Many of my setups have 20-30CPU left over even after EANM's so not using them would either make my ship weaker or more expensive. Even a T1 EANM costs less for the about the same performance as a T2 NAP.


You're going to run into cpu issues on a couple pvp af fits and geddon/megathron pvp fits to name but a few. Freeing up large amounts of cpu can also allow you to move from a named dcu (expensive) in favor of a cheap and more effective t2. The c+ type adaptives truly allow for greater min maxing on cpu tight ships.
Alara IonStorm
#14 - 2012-06-30 16:12:03 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
---

T1 NAP 8%, 50k
T2 NAP 15.36% 600k
True Sansha NAP 17.5% 7mil
C-Type NAP 19.56% 20mil

0 CPU

---

T1 EAMN 15% 50k
T2 EANM 20% 1.2mil
True Sansha EANM 22.5% 50mil

T1 / Faction 30 CPU, T2 36 CPU

---

It is performance vs cost vs fitting. If I have the 36 CPU and need to fit something else why settle for a lesser plate or a 20mil plate that is about equal when a 1.2mil plate gives me the best performance for my buck. Many of my setups have 20-30CPU left over even after EANM's so not using them would either make my ship weaker or more expensive. Even a T1 EANM costs less for the about the same performance as a T2 NAP.


You're going to run into cpu issues on a couple pvp af fits and geddon/megathron pvp fits to name but a few. Freeing up large amounts of cpu can also allow you to move from a named dcu (expensive) in favor of a cheap and more effective t2. The c+ type adaptives truly allow for greater min maxing on cpu tight ships.

Okay so you quote the first part of my post to say that and omit the second part which says the exact same thing as you said in regards to cost vs performance.
Alara IonStorm wrote:

This former Harbinger of mine (May she Rest in Pieces.) did have the extra fitting to put on a 1mil T2 EANM but not 2 of them. I wanted more resists then the NAP II offered so I used one the C-Types I got through exploration, net value at the time 15mil.

The ship and fit was worth 79mil without the Plate, 94mil with the plate. I decided to add the extra capital to make the ship more survivable which sometimes works out and sometimes doesn't depending on the situation you put it in.

What an odd thing to do. =/
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#15 - 2012-06-30 16:16:22 UTC
No reason to get all butt hurt over me quoting a portion of your post... Was not meant to be insulting in any mannerRoll

I simply omitted the specifics you posted about the harby and posted some specific ships that benefit greatly from the modules as well as explained how you can reduce cost of ships by moving the cpu saved from a named dcu to a c type adaptive.
Alara IonStorm
#16 - 2012-06-30 16:24:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
No reason to get all butt hurt over me quoting a portion of your post... Was not meant to be insulting in any mannerRoll

I'm not butt hurt or felt insulted. Just wondering why you quote my post to say the same thing with different examples.

No reason to get all butt hurt over me finding it odd that you would parse my post... Was not meant to be insulting in any manner. Roll

I simply wondered why you parroted specifics I posted about the harby and then posted some specific ships that benefit greatly from the modules. Good idea to explain to the OP how you can increase resists of ships by moving the cpu saved from a named dcu to a c type adaptive. I use one on my Geddon.

I am glad no one feels mad about similar opinions. P