15/05/11 08:39 AM
Arkonor 285
Bistot 217
Mercoxit 192
Crokite 187
Hedbergite 171
Hemorphite 168
Jaspet 152
Dark Ochre 147
Pyroxeres 118
Kernite 106
Veldspar 99
Scordite 93
Gneiss 90
Plagioclase 88
Spodumain 82
Omber 81

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. CCP hf. has granted permission to Our EVE to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, Our EVE. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Clean Up On Aisle 4

On Using The Noctis [or not]

In a recent discussion with Penny [thank you for helping to keep Our Eve stocked and readable], the subject of the Noctis was brought up. Penny and I [and the boys too] have popped a couple Noctises [Nocti? Noctae? Noctices?] in wormholes since ORE began shipping the blueprints for manufacture and have seen a few different fits. This has raised several questions about the usage of and consequently the fitting for a Noctis. In view of my own usage, the Noctis – I would have to say that the answer to the first question is a resounding, “Maybe” and the second question has an even more amorphous answer.

On the one hand, a pilot could try and fit his salvage ship to survive. Plates and resists for protection and rigs to round out its ability to tank. This seems like a fairly tenuous position as the ship is quite fragile and will not be able to mount a very effective escape with such a high armor burden. The other option might be to generate as much speed as possible though it will be impossible to outrun all but the most inexperienced pilots.

Still a third option might be to use a cloak in a high slot to help “hide” for a moment to possibly confuse and confound a potential attacker. This can work for some ships, but the Noctis is still a big target that will be hard to miss when it does uncloak. Another problem with the cloak is the amount of time it adds to the job that the ship is supposed to be performing. Every decloak will engender a delay in targeting and the fitting of the cloak will increase the amount of time necessary to target the wrecks themselves. This can be mitigated to some extent by the application of Sensor Boosters and Signal Amplifiers. This is akin to ships fitting Ancillary Current Router rigs on Caldari ships so that anything “proper” will fit.

Penny is of the opinion that the best way to protect a Noctis is to let it do its job as quickly as possible. The less time that it spends in open space, the less time its pilot will spend updating his clone. This is true to a large extent and I believe that the fitting is only a small part of it. I would suggest that with the added bonuses to salvagers [and especially if you fit Salvage Tackle] that the onus for efficiency will fall on the tractors. Thus in general, a five-three split of tractors and salvagers will likely serve you better. This should hold true for high-sec as well as wormhole clean-up. I would suggest against a cloak as it is going to decrease the speed at which you get the wrecks locked and consequently the speed at which to process the trash floating around in space.

For the mids slots I would lean toward a microwarp drive for its ability to burn toward a gate or wormhole. It is going to make little or no difference in salvation of the ship should sneaky seeds of Satan show up to snatch your scow from you. It will however potentially get you to your destination in a more timely manner. A Sensor Booster [SeBo] is going to help get the wrecks locked more quickly and generally enable you to spend more time frantically mashing F1-F8 to clean the mess that was left floating behind. The other alternative is a Capacitor Recharger but will largely be a matter of choice.

Finally in the low slots do we come to the bones of contention. Cargo, Speed, Armor – which direction should you head? From the beginning I would suggest against a plate. It will do more harm that good to try and slap on a plate that eats up your powergrid, offers only limited improvement in tank and slows down your ability to turn, accelerate and go fast. Resists are a great option and will generally help bolster your tank so that your fleet-mates can arrive on grid in time to see you explode save you. I would avoid the expanded cargoholds unless you are working in High Security Space and you need the 3-4k m3 to store the level 4 mission loot you are collecting. Speed then is a great option to help you get close to the wrecks that are just outside your 68-80km tractor range or align when local/dscan spikes.

Your rigs are likely to just be Salvage Tackle and possibly a Low Friction Nozzlejoint or CCC if you have poor cap skills.

As I write this I am hearing and seeing a lot of negative commentary to the discussion of ship fitting in general and industrial ships in particular. Not everyone understands why they are told to fit a ship certain ways, and many more will believe whatever it is they want about ship fitting in denial of and with disregard for any suggested fittings. For those of you looking to shoot the Noctis, the best advice is just get in and apply alpha as it will go down very quickly. For those of you trying to survive, your best bet is to keep your eyes open and stay out of harms way.

My Planets Do Not Interact

On Deciding What To Do With The Coloured Balls In Space

A recent post by Letrange has twinged my industrial nerves and I was motivated to actually put words to thoughts about Planetary Interaction. I have had my own opinion swing back and forth a number of times on the subject as I give weight to various facets of the whole operation. On the one hand there is the raw price breakdown where P3 > P2 > P1 but balanced by the fact it is so very, very easy to just dump P1 [or even P2] on the market without worrying about colony setup/mainenance/balance.

The P1-chain is a pure set and forget production line with only a basic industry facility. It does not take much work and can easily be exported, scooped and marketed.

A quick and dirty look at P2 gives us a slightly more complicated chain for about 8% increase in isk. Again not bad if the markets hold and the post-production transport/sales are easy.

The P3-chain is another 8-9% increase in revenue but with a much higher investment and management cost. So far, I have been able to generate more than 10% in excess of the necessary P2 reagents for producing P3. This negates the increased revenue from the P3 by sheer volume of P2 [and even P1] produced.

For anything greater P4 and even tower/array building [tower prices on the rise], it takes a significantly larger time investment that I have not been able to integrate.

So in the end, I build some P3 [Robotics] to use for fuel because it is easier than importing to the wormhole, but much prefer to just produce P1 or P2 for market sales. Getting it to the market can be a bit annoying from deep in w-space, but is not something that must be sold quickly to maintain the operation.

Fitting the Manticore

On making the best use of a bomber

Fying around w-space on my own or in a pair, the stealth bomber makes for an excellent ambushing ship. And, being Caldari, my stealth bomber of choice is the Manticore. Because of the types of ship that are needed to engage Sleepers, I am generally restricted to ambushing miners and salvagers in the Manticore, which affects how the ship is fitted. My current fit is as follows:

High slot Mid slot Low slot
1 × cov-ops cloak 1 × afterburner 2 × ballistic control system
1 × bomb launcher 1 × warp disruptor
3 × siege launcher 1 × sensor booster
1 × target painter
Rig None

The high slots should be obvious, they’re for the pew. The choice of afterburner instead of MWD in the mid is because I am generally cloaked and cannot use an active propulsion module, and don’t want the sig radius bloom or need the speed to keep up with my target. Maybe the extra speed could help me escape when necessary, but the ship is so fragile it may not really matter. The target painter is to make the bombs and torpedoes hit harder against the non-battleship targets. And the sebo, loaded with a scan resolution script, is to help me catch pods. The BCS in the lows give my torpedoes more punch.

The fitting is situational, the one above being mostly for solo runs against salvagers and miners. A second Manticore in the same bombing run needn’t have the point or sebo, and can be adapted to complement the first. A good second fitting, which Fin uses, has remote sensor dampers, which can be used against combat ships to prevent reciprocal locking, either to stop the target from shooting back or damping a combat ship that is guarding the target. A damper can also be used to break a lock and shake off a point, to help you escape.

Most of the modules are Tech II, except for the siege launchers and target painter. The meta 4 target painter, the PWNAGE, is as effective as its Tech II equivalent but requires less CPU, helping the fit. Tech II siege launchers, even with advanced weapon upgrades V, simply don’t fit. At least, not with two BCS in the lows, which is the topic of debate amongst Fin and myself at the moment.

I have the meta 4 launchers and considered the extra rate-of-fire of the T2 launchers to be less desirable than the boost to damage the extra BCS gives. This was purely based on assumption, though. Fin ran some numbers, meta 4 launchers against T2, with no BCS, one BCS, and two BCS, the latter option only available to the meta 4 launchers because of the tight fitting restriction. It turns out that T2 launchers with one BCS would give a minor, albeit real, increase in DPS over the meta 4 launchers with two BCS. I think that surprised us both.

Low slots Meta 4 launchers
faction ammo
Tech 2 launchers
faction ammo
T2 launchers
T2 Rage ammo
338.8 DPS 368.4 DPS 498 DPS
1 × ballistic control system 416.4 DPS 462.7 DPS 515.5 DPS
2 × ballistic control system 498 DPS

Of course, I tried to justify my position, but not merely out of pride. My first argument that flying a fully T2 ship would be too expensive is rather silly when my alternative is to fit meta 4 items, which generally tend to be more expensive than their higher-tech equivalents. However, my other argument concerns how much use we get out of the launchers in the first place. There are few times when our bombers are engaged in a sustained attack on a target, and if we are then time is not really a concern. Normally, we only have the opportunity to fire one or two volleys of torpedoes, if any at all, before needing to warp away or cloak.

If we only get to launch a single volley of torpedoes then damage-per-second is not a useful metric. What we need to know is the alpha strike, the single volley damage of the launchers. And as the T2 launchers don’t add to the damage directly, just the rate-of-fire, the volley damage should be higher with a second BCS, which can only be fitted with the meta 4 launchers. If we only get one shot, we need to make sure it counts. But after spending so long training AWU V and advanced torpedo specialisation to get the snazzy T2 launchers fitted there must be some advantage to fitting them, and the advantage is that the extra damage of T2 missiles, only usable in T2 launchers, offsets the missing BCS.

Naturally, T2 ammo is expensive, but over the average life of one of my Manticores in w-space it will probably work out cheaper to fit T2 than meta 4. So it seems like the best option is to fit T2 launchers and sacrifice a BCS. The damage will still be equivalent, or better, as will the cost, whilst freeing up a low slot. Unless a mid slot fitting is reduced to a T1 module, the spare low slot will need to have a co-processor fitted. But making the switch allows for the low slot to be used for a nanofibre modification, to improve agility for fleeing, or an overdrive to increase cloaked velocity, both options appealing to the covert ambusher.

But there is another option, which Fin cleverly realises. Keeping the co-processor in the low slot allows for rigs to be fitted, covering the penalty of higher CPU requirements for the launchers. Specifically, warhead calefaction catalyst rigs can be fitted, which are effectively each a direct replacement for a BCS, at least for the damage bonus. With two rigs and a single BCS in the low slot, the Manticore has the equivalent of three BCS fitted, all with the added benefit of T2 missiles. As Fin calculates, ‘for maximum alpha, an SB pilot could fit two rigs pushing its alpha another 700 damage higher to outpace the Meta 4 setup by 793! The total is about 5255 [with all skills at V], which is almost like hitting them with another 2/3rds of a bomb!’ A test firing with the new configuration confirms this, the only relevant skill I’m missing being warhead upgrades V. So my new fitting is:

High slot Mid slot Low slot
1 × cov-ops cloak 1 × afterburner II 1 × ballistic control system II
1 × bomb launcher 1 × warp disruptor II 1 × co-processor II
3 × siege launcher II 1 × sensor booster II
1 × target painter II
Rig 2 × warhead calefaction catalyst

And that packs one hell of a punch.