These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Cap Battery Tiericide

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#101 - 2016-02-14 23:00:47 UTC
Kalen Pavle wrote:
How about we go one step further and completely change cap batteries to an active module?

We'll continue with it providing (passive) resistance to nos/neut. Then we add an active whereby the amount of capacitor the mod provides is directly injected to the capacitor but with 100% nos/neut resistance. Give it a reactivation delay of 20sec or something.

A small should apply an injection equal to 3/4 of an average capacitor pool for frigates, continuing up through the classes as appropriate.


like i pointed out in my last post

- midslots are always active mods
- lowslots are always passive (bar resist mods)

so looking at cap batteries they are a passive but adds resists mod ... should be a lowslot module unless they add a inject function maybe a spool up timer or a reserve held back for when you want it

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Lugh Crow-Slave
#102 - 2016-02-14 23:10:28 UTC
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:


If an explosive armor membrane cost that much fitting resources to use, you'd never use them. You'd just double-up on repair modules that repair your armor no matter what depleted it.


Comparing capacitor tanking with classical damage tanking is actually a great point of view. Capacitor is extremely simplistic (having only 1 damage type), but still functions almost identically to shield tanking. You have a buffer of GJ, with a recharge curve along the whole of the buffer. As it stands (given that 99.999% of the player base considers them beyond useless), there are no resist mods or buffer mods for capacitor. So the template needs to be Shield buffer and repair modules. Since most pilots will agree that they are fairly balanced among themselves.

Large ASB...........100Cpu ... 150 PG.... boosts a total of 3510 hp across 32 seconds with a 60 second reload.
(92 seconds to get back to square 1)

Large SE ............45Cpu ... 120 PG... adds a base of 2600 hp which upgrades hp/s passive recharge variably.
(crusiers shoulder these 2 modules quite often and have a base shield of about what these modules provide 2500-3500)

Invuln ................. 44 Cpu ... 1 PG ...... reduces incoming damage by 30%.

Cap boosters should be treated like a shield booster. It is functionally identical in operation and intent. It pulses a large amount of hp/gj into the pool to offset damage/neut and to aid natural recharge shield/cap with a single mid slot item. Since we are looking at Large ASB and SE which are often found on cruisers. lets look at the medium CB.

Medium CB .............25Cpu ... 165 PG... boosts a total of 1200 gj across 36 seconds with 10 second reload. (navy 400)
(cruisers typically have 1500-1800 capacitor in total)

With only a 10 second reload, these can be considered to have an almost permanent upkeep. unlike ASBs. And now you want to add a buffer resist combo module. After all, cap warfare is far simpler and uses far less slots. we don't need a whole lot of complexity and granularity in this regard. space for midslots is already hard enough to come by. 1 module would be more than sufficient. What would it have to look like to be balanced? Lots of people fit LSE and lots of people fit ASB. It all depends on how you're flying and what kind of ship you're in. But EVERYBODY fits cap boosters if there is even a vague chance they will be under neut pressure. or even not. A lot of people set aside a slot for that ubiquitously.

Medium Battery II .................... 50 Cpu ... 150 PG ... adds a base of 1000 gj and provides 25% resist to capacitor warfare.

BUT. That would only make sense if cap boosters had 60 seconds of reload. ASB's are not as broken powerful as Cap boosters. If ASB's had a 10 second reload like cap boosters, then every ship in space would have a token asb on it, they would be horrifying. IF cap boosters got a 60 second reload like ASB's, or even a 30 second reload, the following batteries as buffer resist mods would see widespread competitive use.

Small Battery II .......... 30 Cpu ... 5 Pg ... adds a base of 250 Gj and provides 25% resist
Medium Battery II ......... 45 Cpu ... 150 Pg ... adds a base of 1000 Gj and provides 25% resist
Large Battery II .......... 60 Cpu ... 1500 Pg ... adds a base of 4000 Gj and provides 25% resist

None of these would be capable of being fit on downsize ships, and only niche cases of fitting them on upsize ships because of grid issues to squeeze out that last bit of cap along with a neut resist would happen. Until Cap boosters get a 30-45 second reload however, batteries will NEVER be able to compete with a Gj stream into a ships capacitor that can in some cases quadruple the Gj/s that ships get naturally.



However nerfing what is generally considered a balanced module just to make a week one an option isn't really the best choice

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#103 - 2016-02-14 23:56:37 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

However nerfing what is generally considered a balanced module just to make a week one an option isn't really the best choice

When Cap Boosters are considered a must fit on about 90% of PvP fits that indicates that there isn't actual balance on it at all. People just don't see the issue as obviously because it's 'hidden' and people don't want to nerf themselves normally.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#104 - 2016-02-15 02:07:22 UTC
Harvey James wrote:

like i pointed out in my last post

- midslots are always active mods
- lowslots are always passive (bar resist mods)

so looking at cap batteries they are a passive but adds resists mod ... should be a lowslot module unless they add a inject function maybe a spool up timer or a reserve held back for when you want it


I actually kind of like this. Make cap batteries low slot mods at the currently listed values and I could suddenly see a lot of fits that might use one. Not competing directly with injectors and precious mids might make the neut resist and passive regen bonus worth trading against, say, a 3rd damage mod or some armor resist. Or even replace a dcu, with the coming dcu changes too.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2016-02-15 02:24:29 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

However nerfing what is generally considered a balanced module just to make a week one an option isn't really the best choice

When Cap Boosters are considered a must fit on about 90% of PvP fits that indicates that there isn't actual balance on it at all. People just don't see the issue as obviously because it's 'hidden' and people don't want to nerf themselves normally.

The exact same thing could be said of prop mods.

Right now cap booster modules take a lot of fitting to install on an appropriate-sized vehicle, and therefore already take sacrifices to other parts of the ship to make sure you can use them. They are essential on 90% of PvP fits because running everything you need in an engagement (repair modules, prop mod, point, weapons, resist modules, ECCM) will already cap you out in a short time. You can pulse any or all of them, but even so your cap recharge will not keep up through the end of an engagement (unless you never really need to repair, in which case, kudos and good kill!). Which means...yes...you are going to need cap injections to keep the fight going.

So cap boosters and prop are already musts. That's two mids to start. Now your remaining mids must compete with long points, scrams, webs, a dual prop option, ECCM, tracking computers, tank, etc.

Where do you imagine fitting these batteries? I (and some others) have already said the only useful thing to do is to get a larger ship (like cruisers and up) and fit and undersized battery because it has low fitting requirements and gives you the neut resistance. But you could also just install a small cap booster instead because that will actually feed you cap (and still takes less fitting resources).

These batteries are being treated by the dev team as combined resist + buffer modules, which nobody "buffer tanks" their capacitor. They either boost it for acute engagements, or fit a recharger if doing drawn-own PvE stuff. We just want the resists, but the dev team is asking way too much of us with giving us the "extender" portion of the battery so they can justify these fitting numbers. The reality of this game is that the module the devs want to give us just won't work with how the game is played.

Again...I am listening and downright eager to hear anybody give me realistic and common usage scenarios where these batteries are actually a better option than cap boosters (or any other module). I want to be enlightened here. These batteries are cool in concept and I'd happily use them if I could justify it. But nothing presented here today is usable, and any PvP-intended ship that undocks with a battery appears to be a failfit from the start. But someone here has an idea in their head how they'd use these batteries, and I want to know. Please?

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Lauren Vaille
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2016-02-15 04:25:27 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

However nerfing what is generally considered a balanced module just to make a week one an option isn't really the best choice

When Cap Boosters are considered a must fit on about 90% of PvP fits that indicates that there isn't actual balance on it at all. People just don't see the issue as obviously because it's 'hidden' and people don't want to nerf themselves normally.

The exact same thing could be said of prop mods.

Right now cap booster modules take a lot of fitting to install on an appropriate-sized vehicle, and therefore already take sacrifices to other parts of the ship to make sure you can use them. They are essential on 90% of PvP fits because running everything you need in an engagement (repair modules, prop mod, point, weapons, resist modules, ECCM) will already cap you out in a short time. You can pulse any or all of them, but even so your cap recharge will not keep up through the end of an engagement (unless you never really need to repair, in which case, kudos and good kill!). Which means...yes...you are going to need cap injections to keep the fight going.

So cap boosters and prop are already musts. That's two mids to start. Now your remaining mids must compete with long points, scrams, webs, a dual prop option, ECCM, tracking computers, tank, etc.

Where do you imagine fitting these batteries? I (and some others) have already said the only useful thing to do is to get a larger ship (like cruisers and up) and fit and undersized battery because it has low fitting requirements and gives you the neut resistance. But you could also just install a small cap booster instead because that will actually feed you cap (and still takes less fitting resources).

These batteries are being treated by the dev team as combined resist + buffer modules, which nobody "buffer tanks" their capacitor. They either boost it for acute engagements, or fit a recharger if doing drawn-own PvE stuff. We just want the resists, but the dev team is asking way too much of us with giving us the "extender" portion of the battery so they can justify these fitting numbers. The reality of this game is that the module the devs want to give us just won't work with how the game is played.

Again...I am listening and downright eager to hear anybody give me realistic and common usage scenarios where these batteries are actually a better option than cap boosters (or any other module). I want to be enlightened here. These batteries are cool in concept and I'd happily use them if I could justify it. But nothing presented here today is usable, and any PvP-intended ship that undocks with a battery appears to be a failfit from the start. But someone here has an idea in their head how they'd use these batteries, and I want to know. Please?


Well, you sort of answered your own question - short engagements. In PVP, you add more to your cap and a resistance to neuts - if you're punching out enough damage then it's quite possible you could kill the enemy ship before it has successfully neuted you out.
Plus, the bonus from the extra cap does help your recharge rate, so there's that too.

In terms of PVE, you can do something like this and be more than 50% stable, compared to 30% with another cap recharger.
This is what I used to roll around in high sec with.

[Ishtar, Ishtar purty in blue]

Centum C-Type Medium Armor Repairer
Shadow Serpentis Armor Kinetic Hardener
Shadow Serpentis Armor Thermal Hardener
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Corelum C-Type Medium Armor Repairer

Large Capacitor Battery II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II
10MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner

Drone Link Augmentor II
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
Drone Link Augmentor II

Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump II
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II


Hammerhead II x5
Ogre II x5
Salvage Drone I x5
Hobgoblin II x5
Warrior II x5


Optimal Range Script x1
Tracking Speed Script x1
Sisters Core Scanner Probe x8
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2016-02-15 09:43:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
This is a good change from how cap batteries are now. However, i don't feel the different sizes are well balanced.

In a situation where the cap pool is not important and all you are interested in is neut resistance, there will be no incentive for you to fit the large battery when you can fit a small one for a fraction of the fitting cost. This situation will occur in drawn out engagements, when using cap boosters or where other ships are feeding you capacitor.

For this reason i feel that cap battery resistance should increase with module size. No doubt my opinion/reasoning will fall on deaf ears but what's new.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars
#108 - 2016-02-15 10:16:05 UTC
Hi Fozzie, thanks for the second pass on CPU requirements.

After a brief review of the new stats, I notice that the T2 version sticks out like a sore thumb on requirements. 60 CPU and over 400PG is waaaaay too high. It will never be employed as it stands. The T1 and T2 versions would benefit from fitting costs a bit closer to the faction versions.

Giving a small resist advantage to larger modules would be nice, too. Perhaps just 1 or 2 percentage points not to overdo it. Bear in mind that capacitor resist is not as effective as the old reflect mechanic.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#109 - 2016-02-15 15:35:17 UTC
Harvey James wrote:


like i pointed out in my last post

- midslots are always active mods
- lowslots are always passive (bar resist mods)

so looking at cap batteries they are a passive but adds resists mod ... should be a lowslot module unless they add a inject function maybe a spool up timer or a reserve held back for when you want it


Cap recharger?

Passive shield resist?

Shield extenders?

Scanning upgrades?

Since when are those active?

Also, low slot active also have armor and hull reppers.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#110 - 2016-02-15 15:54:48 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Kalen Pavle wrote:
How about we go one step further and completely change cap batteries to an active module?

We'll continue with it providing (passive) resistance to nos/neut. Then we add an active whereby the amount of capacitor the mod provides is directly injected to the capacitor but with 100% nos/neut resistance. Give it a reactivation delay of 20sec or something.

A small should apply an injection equal to 3/4 of an average capacitor pool for frigates, continuing up through the classes as appropriate.


like i pointed out in my last post

- midslots are always active mods
- lowslots are always passive (bar resist mods)

so looking at cap batteries they are a passive but adds resists mod ... should be a lowslot module unless they add a inject function maybe a spool up timer or a reserve held back for when you want it


There are tons of mid slot modules which are passive. Your premise is false.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#111 - 2016-02-15 18:46:11 UTC
Zetakya wrote:
A question regarding fall-off and cap resist;

Will the cap resist effect stack additively or multiplicatively with the reduction in cap neuted due to fall-off?

In other words, if you have 25% neut resist and are being neuted by someone who is at Optimal+(1.5*Falloff) and would normally neut 25% of the neuts listed value, will the neut fail, or will they neut 19.75% of the neuts listed value?


Falloff on neuts should be calculated first followed by your neut resist percentage. If it is not like this, I would be very very surprised.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#112 - 2016-02-15 19:02:59 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Zetakya wrote:
A question regarding fall-off and cap resist;

Will the cap resist effect stack additively or multiplicatively with the reduction in cap neuted due to fall-off?

In other words, if you have 25% neut resist and are being neuted by someone who is at Optimal+(1.5*Falloff) and would normally neut 25% of the neuts listed value, will the neut fail, or will they neut 19.75% of the neuts listed value?


Falloff on neuts should be calculated first followed by your neut resist percentage. If it is not like this, I would be very very surprised.

If they are multiplied, order of effect is pretty irrelevant anyway.
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#113 - 2016-02-16 08:26:36 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:

The exact same thing could be said of prop mods.


No it can't. There are more than one kind of prop. Choosing which properties you want to emphasize on your ships mobility gives real benefit to the system. "props" are must haves. Just like "modules" are must haves. There are options. Currently, there are no cap options. Its cap booster or you have no cap.

Balancing out multiple 'cap' options would be wildly good for the game. and a nerf to cap boosters is probably a necessity at this point. The fact that they have existed in a vacuum with no competition is mainly why people don't see them as overpowered for their purpose.
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
#114 - 2016-02-16 10:42:17 UTC
LoL. The second you suggest nerf to cap booster, you will be lynched by all of that oversized shield booster and dual/triple rep folks. That is one of the core tanking mechanics of the game.

Current proposed version benefit/cost ratio is way less than with booster or a cap rech.

There is several ways:
1) buff benefits
2) make fitting worh the benefits
3) do nothing and have something to do in next "balancing" pass.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2016-02-16 12:40:18 UTC
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:

The exact same thing could be said of prop mods.


No it can't. There are more than one kind of prop. Choosing which properties you want to emphasize on your ships mobility gives real benefit to the system. "props" are must haves. Just like "modules" are must haves. There are options. Currently, there are no cap options. Its cap booster or you have no cap.

And there's more than one cap mod. Cap recharger, cap flux coil, cap power relay, power diagnostic systems. Also, Nosferatu. You can say that some or all are either "crap" or "not optimal", but I can say the same of afterburners. Right now in this game, outside of niche cases, it's MWD or GTFO. If you have the fitting room to slap on an afterburner for dual-prop, it's considered a huge game changer in your favor. So if people have the sort of fitting room for a cap battery, they're more likely to dual-prop anyway. Which just further proves my point about these cap batteries as presented.

Quote:
Balancing out multiple 'cap' options would be wildly good for the game. and a nerf to cap boosters is probably a necessity at this point. The fact that they have existed in a vacuum with no competition is mainly why people don't see them as overpowered for their purpose.

Even if we disagree on the semantics of what's available, we do agree here. That's why I've been so fervently fighting in this thread to get cap batteries into something useful. I still believe the best way is to divorce the battery from the neut resist. We can have batteries (with reduced fitting) that act as cap buffer (plus maybe 5-10% neut resist?), and then lowslots for 20-30% neut resist mods with no added cap (insulated capacitor nodes, we'll call them), with officer variants going up to 37.5%, stacking penalties and all that.

If nerfing cap boosters is coming up for discussion solely to make another poor choice more viable, then you're probably already off to a bad start. I'm not saying it can't work, just that, well, it's not an optimal way to approach the subject. Cap batteries are important in PvP fights completely absent of any cap warfare, because as I mentioned earlier in the thread, these ship systems are balanced so you cap yourself out quickly. That's an important balancing part of the game - cap regen is weak so you can't go full-throttle everything without cap support in some form. And right now those ships' fitting are balanced around current cap booster requirements.

If you tweak cap boosters, you're likely to make a lot of ship balance fall apart like a collapsing Jenga tower. I don't think you want to start messing with something so central to PvP gameplay unless you're ready to re-tweak the balance of ships across all walks of life again, plus balancing all the new cap mods and cap warfare mods again after all the dust settled and once we know what we're playing with.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#116 - 2016-02-16 22:11:41 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:

And there's more than one cap mod. Cap recharger, cap flux coil, cap power relay, power diagnostic systems. Also, Nosferatu.

You can say that some or all are either "crap" or "not optimal", but I can say the same of afterburners. Right now in this game, outside of niche cases, it's MWD or GTFO.

If nerfing cap boosters is coming up for discussion solely to make another poor choice more viable.

If you tweak cap boosters, you're likely to make a lot of ship balance fall apart like a collapsing Jenga tower.


I'm all for giving you the NOS as a cap option. Frigs use them to maintain tackle and hardeners a lot. But they never fuel lasers/hybrids or reps. They're just not for that. They're for keeping the lights on in the dark so to speak. BUT, the others you listed are wholesale NOT pvp modules. Saying that a cap flux coil is a cap option is like saying an overdrive injector is a prop.

Afterburners are an amazing prop for pvp. Especially on smaller ships that know their enemy will commit, and on acceleration gates. Not exactly "niche".

nerfing cap boosters is not coming up as an "option" to make another choice viable, its coming up as a pointed statement that NOTHING will ever compete with them until its utterly broken stat wise, or cap boosters are given a weakness. Of some kind. Even a small cooldown on cap boosters like 20 seconds could radically bring their power into line. Give neut ships a window of opportunity. Much like the ASB needs its window of opportunity for ships to start hitting armor and structure before the tank resumes.

If batteries are to truely be an option, they need to provide a gargantuan amount of buffer to force neuts to chew through. If that needs to be coupled with a cap recharge time nerf to balance GJ/S then that sounds great. +100% cap-cap and +100% cap recharge, 25% neut resist would be a great option. BS's would love that.
Cartheron Crust
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#117 - 2016-02-16 23:21:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Cartheron Crust
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:

And there's more than one cap mod. Cap recharger, cap flux coil, cap power relay, power diagnostic systems. Also, Nosferatu.

You can say that some or all are either "crap" or "not optimal", but I can say the same of afterburners. Right now in this game, outside of niche cases, it's MWD or GTFO.

If nerfing cap boosters is coming up for discussion solely to make another poor choice more viable.

If you tweak cap boosters, you're likely to make a lot of ship balance fall apart like a collapsing Jenga tower.


I'm all for giving you the NOS as a cap option. Frigs use them to maintain tackle and hardeners a lot. But they never fuel lasers/hybrids or reps. They're just not for that. They're for keeping the lights on in the dark so to speak. BUT, the others you listed are wholesale NOT pvp modules. Saying that a cap flux coil is a cap option is like saying an overdrive injector is a prop.

Afterburners are an amazing prop for pvp. Especially on smaller ships that know their enemy will commit, and on acceleration gates. Not exactly "niche".

nerfing cap boosters is not coming up as an "option" to make another choice viable, its coming up as a pointed statement that NOTHING will ever compete with them until its utterly broken stat wise, or cap boosters are given a weakness. Of some kind. Even a small cooldown on cap boosters like 20 seconds could radically bring their power into line. Give neut ships a window of opportunity. Much like the ASB needs its window of opportunity for ships to start hitting armor and structure before the tank resumes.

If batteries are to truely be an option, they need to provide a gargantuan amount of buffer to force neuts to chew through. If that needs to be coupled with a cap recharge time nerf to balance GJ/S then that sounds great. +100% cap-cap and +100% cap recharge, 25% neut resist would be a great option. BS's would love that.


Doubling your cap and then doubling your recharge time (ie making it worse) sounds like more of a balanced option tbh (plus the neut resist bonus obviously). Sort of like buffer tanking your cap instead of active tanking it (with a cap booster).

[EDIT] - Maybe would even have to triple the recharge time because of how recharge works in conjunction with total cap amount. Not too sure on the actual maths. Smile
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#118 - 2016-02-17 00:59:22 UTC
Kalen Pavle wrote:
How about we go one step further and completely change cap batteries to an active module?

We'll continue with it providing (passive) resistance to nos/neut. Then we add an active whereby the amount of capacitor the mod provides is directly injected to the capacitor but with 100% nos/neut resistance. Give it a reactivation delay of 20sec or something.

A small should apply an injection equal to 3/4 of an average capacitor pool for frigates, continuing up through the classes as appropriate.


I like where this is going.

If I may add a few changes, I would say give them fixed values for their ship size and a "recharge time" just like rechargable batteries we all use every minute of every hour of a day - the lithium ion-battery.

So it becomes an active mod that "injects" a fixed value of cap when you activate it and it takes 10 seconds to recharge for the frigate one, 15 seconds for the cruiser one and 20 seconds for the battleship one to recharge.

An average value for cap injection would be 200 cap for the frigate one, 800 for the cruiser one and 1600 for a battleship one and the cap injection would be one second, followed by the recharge timer and keeping a neut resistance of 40% for the frigate mod, 45% or a little bit higher for the cruiser one and 50-60% for the battleship one.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2016-02-17 12:11:15 UTC
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:


If batteries are to truely be an option, they need to provide a gargantuan amount of buffer to force neuts to chew through. If that needs to be coupled with a cap recharge time nerf to balance GJ/S then that sounds great. +100% cap-cap and +100% cap recharge, 25% neut resist would be a great option. BS's would love that.


I posted almost the same suggestion earlier in the thread. This is exactly what cap batteries need to become a competitive choice with cap boosters, or really to even fulfill their stated design goals effectively. Hell, a small cap booster can boost for more in one charge than the entire capacity of some frigates. For cruisers, it's often for two thirds of their capacity.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#120 - 2016-02-18 06:30:37 UTC
I'm still wondering if the neut resistance bonus will be added to the fitting window, or if it will remain a hidden stat that will only be revealed by my calculator on my desk.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.