Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: Wither Painite? Painite wherefore art thou?

  1. #16
    What are screening shells?
    (consults oracle)

    Oh they’re fast reload time.
    My frags are double shot corrosive or incinderary (don’t ask - when I say the build is terrible I mean it’s wrong for several reasons).

    Not sure if faster is better.

  2. #17
    Originally Posted by _Flin_ View Post (Source)
    Is it still possible to make a treasure map for mining?
    Yes. I linked a few up there.

    Originally Posted by DNA-Decay View Post (Source)
    What are screening shells?
    An experimental effect for fragmentation cannons.

    It reduces the reload time and makes them effective against mines/missiles/torpedoes.
    Using that gives you higher DPS and a manual counter measure.

  3. #18
    Originally Posted by YinYin View Post (Source)
    ...

    Apart from recommending a thermal resist reactive surface, yes. With a standard military bulkhead, tank the hull all the way.

    You get the better numbers using heavy duty/deep plating on the reactive bulkheads, and then using thermal/deep plating on your smallest HRP, and HD/deep on all the rest.

  4. #19
    The last Run I had around 150 Painite. I started with 550+ Limpets. I stuck with the Big 3 Painite, Palladium and Platinum and my Junk ores Gold and Osmium.

  5. #20
    Originally Posted by Bob Lighthouse View Post (Source)
    You get the better numbers using heavy duty/deep plating on the reactive bulkheads, and then using thermal/deep plating on your smallest HRP, and HD/deep on all the rest.
    Is that new with the engineering update/specific to some ships or did I just never pick up on that?

    edit: difference is preetty tiny, but you're right https://s.orbis.zone/e-8

    And as mentioned above - better resistances from that result in worse integrity.

    For a ramming/brawler/plasma facing ship I'd still go for higher integrity. Else for the better resistances.

    edit: oh and it also results in a heavier ship - that might be the reason I'm not doing that for this little change.

  6. #21
    Originally Posted by DNA-Decay View Post (Source)
    Alliance girls get me hard.





    But it's not over.

    Okay - if you persisted with this thread and have come back after reviewing the works of Sash Grey above.
    (Here's one of my favorite video works by Ms Grey.)

    Did you know she fronted for seminal art/punk band Throbbing Gristle?
    No?
    She did:



    Here's a real question for you Elite Combat Ranks and above.
    I've got this Hull-Tank Frag Krait. Mostly PvE but needs to have survivability in PvP.
    Love her to death.

    So now it's morning after with Selene Jean, and over coffee and cigarettes, I have to decide what to do with my ship.
    So there's a pile of HRPs and some Mil Spec hull.

    Do I go for the same modification on everything?
    Do I spread the mods around?

    If I was chasing a couple of experimental effects, what should I go with?

    Do they get in each other's way? or do they stack nicely?

    I'm getting hard here - help me out.


    Go for reactives if you can.
    Then use heavy duty/deep plating on the bulkheads, thermal/deep plating on your smallest HRP, and HD/deep on all the rest.


    Screening, corrosive and drag are what I use on frags.
    You'll be able to fire the screening way more often but that's the only issue using all 3.
    Corrosive and drag don't stack.

    This is my full combat build, for reference on the hull/hrps.
    Krait is very mass tolerant.
    https://s.orbis.zone/e-4

  7. #22
    Originally Posted by YinYin View Post (Source)
    Is that new with the engineering update/specific to some ships or did I just never pick up on that?
    It's like that on all ships post 3.0 afaik, but I can't speak for prior to that.
    Going thermal on the bulkheads is more "costly" than on one of the HRPs.

  8. #23

  9. #24
    Originally Posted by Bob Lighthouse View Post (Source)
    Going thermal on the bulkheads is more "costly" than on one of the HRPs.
    Good call. Warrants retooling some of my engineering plans.

  10. #25
    I came for Sasha and stayed for the Pain-ite. It took me 200 Limpets to polish her off.

    Recently worked through Selene's unreasonable demands too. I was looking for an invitation to go see Bill "I said Bromelite NOT Bromeliads!!" Turner.

    A big ol' Gnosis data dump in your California sector got me on good terms with the Alliance again.

  11. #26
    Originally Posted by YinYin View Post (Source)
    Is that new with the engineering update/specific to some ships or did I just never pick up on that?

    edit: difference is preetty tiny, but you're right https://s.orbis.zone/e-8

    And as mentioned above - better resistances from that result in worse integrity.

    For a ramming/brawler/plasma facing ship I'd still go for higher integrity. Else for the better resistances.

    edit: oh and it also results in a heavier ship - that might be the reason I'm not doing that for this little change.
    For the edits:

    My 900t Krait still boosts to 518.
    It is very mass tolerant.
    The resistances have diminishing returns.

    According to coriolis (errors aside) my compete build has integrity of 3684 and resistances between 42.6 and 44.4.
    Swapping them to thermal reactives and all HD HRPs loses me ~150 absolute hp(3537) and gives very slightly worse resistances of 41.9 to 44.4.
    It results in a 3m/s boost gain.

  12. #27
    It is ship or rather build dependant then.

    Because my sample gains integrity, simply because I put more focus on module reinforcements - making the smallest hull reinforcement a 4, not a 2.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12