User:Hirmuolio Pine/sandbox3: Difference between revisions

Line 74:

* Remote armor repairers require less capacitor than remote shield boosters. Not only do armor repairers require less capacitor per cycle, they are also more cap efficient (requiring less cap per repair amount) relative to shield boosters. This means that armor-repairing ships have more cap room for other active modules, and are less sensitive to enemy neutralizers and Nosferatus, than shield-boosting ships. Because of their cap efficiency, armor logistics ships are more practical for activities where cap stability may be an issue.

* Remote shield boosters deliver more HP/cycle, so they have more repair "alpha". Combat ships are sometimes judged by how much damage they can deliver in their first ("alpha") volley. Logistics ships can be compared by a very similar measure, by how much damage they can repair in their initial repair cycle. By this measure, remote shield boosters are better than remote armor repairers—they repair more damage, right away.

Revision as of 12:25, 4 March 2021 view source Hirmuolio Pine (talk \| contribs) 11,367 edits →Remote Repair: Comparing Shield, Armor, and Hull ← Older edit		Revision as of 12:25, 4 March 2021 view source Hirmuolio Pine (talk \| contribs) 11,367 edits m →Characteristics of different remote repair types Newer edit →
Line 74:		Line 74:

	* Remote armor repairers require less capacitor than remote shield boosters. Not only do armor repairers require less capacitor per cycle, they are also more cap efficient (requiring less cap per repair amount) relative to shield boosters. This means that armor-repairing ships have more cap room for other active modules, and are less sensitive to enemy neutralizers and Nosferatus, than shield-boosting ships. Because of their cap efficiency, armor logistics ships are more practical for activities where cap stability may be an issue.		* Remote armor repairers require less capacitor than remote shield boosters. Not only do armor repairers require less capacitor per cycle, they are also more cap efficient (requiring less cap per repair amount) relative to shield boosters. This means that armor-repairing ships have more cap room for other active modules, and are less sensitive to enemy neutralizers and Nosferatus, than shield-boosting ships. Because of their cap efficiency, armor logistics ships are more practical for activities where cap stability may be an issue.


	* Remote shield boosters deliver more HP/cycle, so they have more repair "alpha". Combat ships are sometimes judged by how much damage they can deliver in their first ("alpha") volley. Logistics ships can be compared by a very similar measure, by how much damage they can repair in their initial repair cycle. By this measure, remote shield boosters are better than remote armor repairers—they repair more damage, right away.		* Remote shield boosters deliver more HP/cycle, so they have more repair "alpha". Combat ships are sometimes judged by how much damage they can deliver in their first ("alpha") volley. Logistics ships can be compared by a very similar measure, by how much damage they can repair in their initial repair cycle. By this measure, remote shield boosters are better than remote armor repairers—they repair more damage, right away.