Why can cruisers fit Large Battery?

Seriously? Why? Isn’t cap stability supposed to come at a price? There are cap stable 1000dps tanking cruisers on SiSi right now and even with triple heavy neuts cannot be broken. Something not right

1 Like

3 Likes

Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they should, they didn’t stop to think if they could .

3 Likes

Why not? It takes up more CPU/PGU than medium batteries, so if you have the space, go for it. 480 VS 90 PGU, so thats a lot of power requirements.

if it were the same CPU/PGU as medium batteries, then you would have a point. But it isnt. Large Cap Batteries take up more CPU/PGU, and this is the price. For most ships, this means you cant fit other modules without sacrificing a rigslot for more PGU.

6 Likes

Also, on the flipside, were you aware that there are cruisers with large shield extenders on SiSi and in-game? You dont seem to be outraged about that.

3 Likes

280 pg for thukker. The most commonly used battery for an obvious fittings advantage. Yes you are supposed to use rigs and lowslots for fitting if you want to go oversized, a certain few lucky ships can almost ignore this because their PG is natively too high. Some modules are absolutely limited by module size, be they S, M or L or XL and batteries would be better if they followed this rule or had over 1000pg requirements to cut down how ubiquitous they are.

image

Look at those fitting requirements, they are all over the fricken place and not consistent at all.

Ive an Omen with a 500mn MWD.

Is this morally defensible?

4 Likes

Dont they cost like 40, 50 million isk for those? That is 20, 30 times the cost of the Tech 2 modules. So you are paying a far higher price, are you not?

Why some, and not others.

Again, I fit 100mn to my phantasm, and Large shield extenders to my other cruisers, yet you seem to find no problems with that. Your personal opinion of what makes a module “ubiquitous” seems to be based on personal opinion. Do you have an actual argument or case to make, other than “This feels wrong”?

2 Likes

What is that comparison supposed to prove?

Is a Small, Medium and Large sheild extender, the exact same PG/CP requirements as a 1mn, 10mn, and 100mn afterburner? Or are they different? Infact, arent all the modules, different in PG/CP requirements? Whats the point in Comparing a 1mn and small cap battery, versus medium or large, when they are different from Shield extenders or Armor plates or anything else?

This is where I get to say “posting in a thread from someone who got killed by a cruiser with a large battery on it”.

13 Likes

That’s because devs deliberately decided to let cruisers fit 100mn when they rebalanced it. Go look at the thread covering the details. Rise even said it was to maintain a wider range of “options” surrounding fits and that the argument to limit them was strong too.

As for large extenders that really has more to do with smalls being almost useless, much like the now deleted 50mm armour plates. The Large extender is really a cruiser module, shield battleships are supposed to abuse range or be active repped. That 130pg didn’t give it away to you?

2 Likes

Sure. So doesnt the same apply to Cap Batteries?

Thats actually wrong, there were micro sheild extenders back then too. So if youre going to compare the 50mm Armor plates, why not compare it to the actual shield extender equivalents, and not the smalls?

https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Rokh/Fittings
https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Raven/Fittings
https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Tempest/Fittings
https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Maelstrom/Fittings

I guess no one told the people over at EVE Uni that. They made a big mistake, it looks like. How embarrassing. Why dont you contact them and tell them they are wrong?

You mean, as opposed to the 280 PG for the thukker cap batteries? Maybe the Large Cap batteries are designed for cruisers.

1 Like

That’s less than half. extenders are modules that cost mostly powergrid.
What he’s saying, is that there is no battleship-level buffer modules.

Indeed. The thing is that in FLEET fights you don’t care about local rep, you care about buffer. Since there is no BS-level buffer, you use BC-level buffer.

Ever wondered why there was S, M, L extenders but S, M, L, XL shield boosters ? There is no BS extender, no BS plate.

Back to topic, I agree that I don’t care. Large cap battery is very good on cruiser but require some sacrifices.
It’s even better on armor BC …

Sure, and it makes sense. Most people will fit more than one shield extender, before fitting more than one cap battery.

Since there were no micro shield boosters to my knowledge, but there were micro shield extenders, now changed to the storyline versions, no, I never wondered that at all. The small, med, large and xl shield boosters seem to match up perfectly with micro, small, med and large extenders.

Thing is, when you add plates and extenders, the EHP hovers around 100-150k for battleships. Are you saying it should be much, much more?

not should but would .
And yes.
see this post for why that would not be balanced XLSE (eXtra-Large Shield Extender)

Damn thats an old post.

in eve the smallest advantage and convenience can cost a high about of isk

I kinda agree, to a point…

Part of Tiericide involved renaming things so they made more sense. Instead of random techno jargon, we have useful keywords like Compact or Scoped. I’d also like to see them fix the naming for the sizes of modules as well.

Small Armor Repairer is meant for a Frigate. Medium Armor Repairer is meant for a Cruiser. Large Armor Repairer is meant for a Battleship. In most cases, it’s impossible to fit the next size up without gearing your whole fit just to squeeze it in. And the Ancillary repairers simply will not let you fit more than one.

Meanwhile, it’s very common to see Frigates sporting a Medium Shield Booster, or a Cruiser sporting a Large. And it’s also super common to see them sporting several Ancillary boosters, even oversized.

If it’s really their intention to have Frigates sometimes use Small modules, but other times use Mediums… then they should call all of them Small. If the current Smalls are meant to be weak and pathetic, only for plugging a slot if you happen to have a sliver of PG or CPU to spare, then call those Micros like they used to. But it’ll make it easier for everyone, especially new players, to recognize “should I be fitting this Small module to my Frigate, when all the guides suggest this Medium one instead.”

Greetings Capsuleer Caleb Seremshur. Pilot, I’ve run T3C on SISI that could harass and tank the subcaps and take out fighters all day (or at least til HAMS run out), with about 500 unheated DPS applied very poorly; but of course couldn’t scram, web, TP anything. Fun and novel on SISI doesn’t necessarily translate to usable or practical on TQ. If there were no allowances for novel or eccentric fits, how much fun would Eve be? There are trade-offs with every ship, making each one imperfect in its own way, and always slightly dissatisfying. Would you prefer it to be holey dissatisfying? It is a game, for fun (albeit pretty serious fun). Why not just fly these cruisers with the fits you mentioned? Fitting is where I spend most of my time and have the most fun, to be honest. Finding nuances deeper in the meta are what make the game worth playing for me. Almost always, just when I think I am on to something that seems like an exploit, or OPd, I realize the hard way that I missed something. So maybe the ships you describe are susceptible to e-war, maybe they just need to be hit real fast and hard with a gank… there are always ways… Now me, I would just learn the fits and fly that myself, if OPd, until the re-bal/nerf hand comes along. In our Oneness, Rumi Shanti o7

2 Likes

I think the power grid cost of cap batteries is pretty fair. They take enough power grid that you need to consider using different guns and different tanking modules. I don’t see how they imbalance the game, except that cap batteries are better used on armor tanking ships. You can say that about cap boosters too though.

3 Likes