Can you link these fits? Also is the Tengu still doing any damage with this fit?
And in general active armor is supposed to rep less pure hp/s than active shield.
Itâs an age old thing. Armour tends to have more buffer and take less damage down to sig. Shield gets better peak hp/s plus passive regen. Itâs not really a T3 specific thing here. The raw figure comparison gets massively skewed when you start including anciliary shield boosters with their lack of cap usage and boost amount.
That said the Proteus does look to struggle on the active tank side of things unless you skip damage mods, it seems to lack low slots all the time for me.
Yeah itâs the Ancillary boosters that make it so much better. I know that you have to reload eventually but often you have already won by that point.
I just think local armour repping should have an equivalent ability. i.e. cap-less repping or some kind of passive regen.
Behold my T2 PVE fitting skills!
The Proteus actually needs the drones to achieve better dps than the Tengu, while also having about 30k less ehp. I think one of the problems here is the adaptive invulnerability field has no armor equivalent, EANM is good, but I canât overheat it, so itâs not getting any bonus.
All of this is with level 2 and 3 subsystem skills.
Agreed. I sent an email to fozzie today saying the same thing.
Itâs not a very useful bonus for armour PVP because you are often fighting up close and you have to deal with neuts. Post-patch, people will still use passive hardeners because of this.
For PVE the ships like the tengu become the best option every time because of the benefits you get with shield tanking.
Please swap the model for the projectile scoping array with the turret concurrence registry.
The new projectile subsystem contains the tracking/damage bonus from the existing concurrence registry. It is more akin to the concurrence registry than the scoping array (no ROF bonus, only the optimal tracking and damage which were all on the concurrence registry). Also, the scoping array looks terrible, and the concurrence registry looks dope.
I have to disagree with you there. I like the current model of the projectile scoping as it is, while Inrun concurrence registey on TQ as it stands, primarily for the bonuses and not the looks.
I just put that fit together on Sisi⌠Damn them resistance are so low and with that 19k Effective HP. What kind of PVE are you planning on doing with that ship?
Me personally? None whatsoever - Legion ftw! 
Compare it to the fit that I was replying to! Can definitely get more out of the ship, especially with some more pimp on it.
Itâs a thrown together fit to give the guy an idea of fitting for the ships actual bonuses. Yeh itâs tank and buffer isnât great, but like for like the same fit would be similar right now on TQ. Switched to specific resistances youâll be fine for highsec missions and anoms in nullsec in most regions. With a bit more tank youâll be fine in a C3 wormhole too, ~500dps tank in an AB ship picking off targets appropriately will get you through some C3 anoms.
Iâve flown a not entirely dissimilar Tengu in Serpentis 10/10s without any issues staying alive recently fwiw.
i feel like the RoF bonuses on RLMLâs should be removed from all cruisers, they are just too strong when bonused and just nerf the alpha on light missiles, then the RoF can be improved on the launchers themselves instead as it stands HAMâs RoF is only a tad lower then RLMLâs which is very strange donât you think?..
What will happen to datacores that drop from WH Data Sites? Will Electronics and Engineering Subsystem engineering datacores be merged together?
What was the thinking behind giving the Proteus PvP focused Augmented Plating 1M, 3L and the more generic use Nanobot Injector 2M, 2L?
Mid slots are more useful to PvP fits. Lows are better for non-PvP use on armour tanked ships where we donât need ewar modules.
Please swap the slots on these two subsystems; or at least give Nanobot injector 1M, 3L.
Apologies for asking again, but I had no response so have directly replied to your Proteus post this time.
This is literally what theyâre doing⌠Iâm really not sure what youâre complaining about here.
If you think a subsystem is being converted incorrectly then report it.
If youâre upset that your fitted ship isnât going to have two defensive subs because of the slot conversions Iâm really not sure what to tell you. CCP arenât going to give you a ship that literally canât render in-game on patch day. If you want all your subs to convert regardless of slot changes then dock up all your T3s and strip all the subs off them.
Fair enough, though personally I think you havenât exactly been arguing from good faith here.
Doesnât really matter whether you believe Iâm a dev or not though. What Iâm citing are just software development best practices. Make the best use of your time to benefit the most users. Niche features that are time consuming to implement, of questionable utility, and have no direct ROI are the exact opposite of that.
Exactly none of what you quoted there was ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is when you attack the person not their argument, I was just being sarcastic. Your argument that âIâve never had those issuesâ is a ridiculous one. Itâs not relevant if youâve had those issues or not, the point was that the T3 rendering code is not terribly robust in the first place and I provided examples.
All of whom still have to make the same sorts of determinations about how they spend their time. See above for why this isnât a high value change.
Itâs like if I complained that I donât think ships in Eve have enough engine nozzles, so CCP should go through and add another one on to every ship. Itâs a completely cosmetic change of questionable benefit that takes way longer than itâs worth.
Because until your previous post you hadnât made any kind of clear transition between your original idea and your current one? If you want people to understand these things you need to communicate them in a clear and concise fashion rather than swapping between two very similar topics and just expecting people to follow along.
Okay, but itâs still a generally accepted definition. Your definition is just that, yours. You shouldnât expect anyone else to be using it, let alone random strangers on the Internet.
Todayâs XKCD is rather oddly appropriate I think: xkcd: Communicating
If a little harsher than this conversation warrants, since itâs aimed at a much more vitriolic topic, but I digress.
You donât need to read it broadly at all to define Eve as a game. Eve as a whole is a system of rules under which its universe operates. What you can fit, what you can fly, what you can buy, how CONCORD and NPCs behave, ect. All of these are game rules.
Simulations can contain rules as well, certainly, and they can be games, but they also have to be simulating something, which indicates an attempt at imitation or simacrilim. Eve isnât imitating anything, itâs not trying to be anything other than itself.
To borrow the Mirriam-Webster definition of Simulation: âthe imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of anotherâ
Eve isnât doing that, and youâve provided no case or argument for why you feel it is doing so.
So what youâre saying is they are working as intended? Well, would you look at that.
@CCP_Fozzie - based on the spreadsheet listed in the devblog, the only way for logistics T3s to get the new support subsystem is to have a warfare processor subsystem already fitted onto the strategic cruiser. Absolutely no version of the loose subsystem module will convert to the support subsystem, directly counter to what was said by @CCP_Lebowski in the discussion thread when the changes went in on Sisi. Is that correct?
Yup that is correct. With loose subsystem conversions our #1 priority is that if a hangar has enough subsystems to fit a working T3 before the patch it needs to be able to fit a working T3 after the patch. With fitted ships we have the luxury of looking over the entire ship to see what other subs are there, but trying to do that with every possible permutation of stacks of subs in a hangar would be impossible. For every loose sub we decided to convert it to the most similar sub in the same slot.
So that means both support and covert subsystems wonât get created by the loose subsystem conversion. Theyâll be created on fitted ships and theyâll be inventable right away so that the market can meet any missing demand quickly.
1 Like
On that note, wouldnât it be reasonable to have a temporary NPC exchange so that people can trade similar subsystems to get those two? Or some other way to do a one time switch between the two like a NPC store exchange for a small lp cost / sink, or a single run BPC that lets you switch a similar rig to a support or covert system.
It seems kind of impractical to expect the entirety of New Eden to go without Covert and Support subs for possibly weeks, oe both of them being wildly overpriced, when offering a time limited solution to obtain them for a fair trade (destroy a weapons sub to get a covert as a random example) would be possible.
Absolutely not. Just because you - the guy who says he is a game developer - link some little infopaper of someone who quotes another computer game developer it doesnât mean it is generally accepted. Specifically in game sciences the mentioned definition would fail completely. I mean even from a logical standpoint it fails without even knowing what games are.
Cade, I know you want to roleplay the ultra-conservative opinion here on the forums, but seriously, if everyone was like you, we wouldnât have computers, because Silicium would be for building sand castles. mehâŚ
So when you go to the bathroom and take a dump, this is a game too right? Because from what you say all you need is rules and some possiblity to âmove freelyâ within them. Thatâs the most lame definition Iâve ever heard. Following this logic everything is a game and a game is everything. Every first grader (no offense first graders) could define sex parties as âa system with some freedom and rulesâ. Yeah. So EVE is a sexparty, congratulations. I mean you are either not being able to see the obvious or deliberately missing the point.
EVE goes beyond the logic of game, it simulates a system far to complex to describe in any kind of rules, including game mechanics and code. You seem to forget that a great part of EVE are the players, we create and change this universe as much as sets of rules shape it in ways too. It is a great thing, it is what makes EVE so special. You said you are a dev yourself, please never work for CCP because I fear youâd make our nice simulation into a boring set of rules. Thanks in advance.