open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked It's time to rebalance the weapons.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Vecila
Live and Learn Inc.
Posted - 2009.05.24 14:56:00 - [31]
 

I agree with the op, my pulses arn't big enough and require oversized variants Laughing

Really though, laser cap dependence is frequently ignored, and the solution of simply increasing damage output does not solve either problem nor does it sort the buffer tanking we've the past years since the hp buff. Increasing the effectiveness of active tanking again would work wonders but ccp already backed out of that with the deimos last year, the only blaster boat without a rep bonus actually got on on sisi and they pulled it before it went live. There are two sides to each coin and the op seems blinded by the shiny side Embarassed

Although, i don't imagine arty users would complain if say, their clip size were doubled ugh

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.05.24 15:10:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 24/05/2009 15:15:21
Originally by: Raimo
I pretty much agree with the OP, but thread became TL:DR when TrollmoreX showed up, sorry.

I can't see TrollmoreX in this topic. I think i saw him in another topic earlier when i was reading a topic.

EDIT: I found his last reply here.

EDIT 2: Just to have it said. Stop dreaming to have your instapwn machine for frigs and cruisers back. It wont happen, EVER.

Blasters are good enough now, and then you STILL want a boost to Blasters?. JeeezRolling Eyes.

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.05.24 15:25:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: RedSplat on 24/05/2009 15:25:33
Blasters need a boost to tracking and falloff equation tweak

AC'S need Falloff increased and the falloff/=/damage equation tweaked and a bump to base damage if the equation cant be changed

Artillery needs a MASSIVE increase in Alpha, increase to optimal, with a corresponding increase in cycle time; bringing DPS up v. Slightly, making Alpha useful again and giving us a useful sodding Snipe fit for the Tempest that lets it compete with other races.

Pulse lasers need optimal reduced slightly and cap use increased; no i don't care, you fit Cap boosters anyway. Have some real penalty for Scorch Cystals online.

Tom Hanks
The Warped Corpe
Posted - 2009.05.24 15:53:00 - [34]
 

I agree about the megapulse lasers needing to have their optimal lowered. As it stands Amarr BS are super easy to use. Warp in, open fire. They dont have to worry about much at all with range since they can instantly switch crystals with no delay. And they have fantastic optimal ranges.

Optimal range on megapulse should be lowered, but not too much, since amarr BS are too damn slow to really adjust their range to target quickly, even with MWD


Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2009.05.24 16:05:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 24/05/2009 15:15:21Just to have it said. Stop dreaming to have your instapwn machine for frigs and cruisers back. It wont happen, EVER.

Blasters are good enough now, and then you STILL want a boost to Blasters?. JeeezRolling Eyes.
Pulse lasers are FAR superior at insta-pwning frigs and cruisers because of their disproportional range and tracking. As far as blasters being good enough? Yeah, they're good as far as raw DPS is concerned, but without a ship that has bonuses to tracking, they're next to useless, and you know it.

Just because large projectiles need a huge DPS increase, does not invalidate the fact that blasters need a boost to tracking speed.

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.05.24 16:06:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Vecila
I agree with the op, my pulses arn't big enough and require oversized variants Laughing

Really though, laser cap dependence is frequently ignored, and the solution of simply increasing damage output does not solve either problem nor does it sort the buffer tanking we've the past years since the hp buff. Increasing the effectiveness of active tanking again would work wonders but ccp already backed out of that with the deimos last year, the only blaster boat without a rep bonus actually got on on sisi and they pulled it before it went live. There are two sides to each coin and the op seems blinded by the shiny side Embarassed

Although, i don't imagine arty users would complain if say, their clip size were doubled ugh

The deimos had a low slot removed, a mid slot added and a armor rep bonus. At the time i tested the "new" deimos and its active tank was actually a bit less strong than the regular deimos. Due to the fact that one low slot was removed, you missed out on some resists given by an extra EANM.

darkmancer
Posted - 2009.05.24 16:43:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: darkmancer on 24/05/2009 16:44:28
Laser cap use is irrelevant.

Most Amarr ships have larger capacitors, faster cap regen, are buffer tanked, and have a bonus to laser cap use anyway. Think the 52 cap per second of the megapulse abaddons bad? Try the 72 of the x-large shield booster, not to mention your hardners don't nick 20% of your cap.


Standard fit Apocalyse pulse laser cap use 26, rokh neutron blaster cap use 25.2/sec. Lets face it most ships run of cap boosters, and cap boosters easily coverpulse cap usage. Its not that Amarr ships dont have cap issues, but it's not like other races have either.

Lets compare the Blokh to the Abaddon, Ab with 5% resist and 5% damage bonus, and the Blokh with is 5% resist and its "damage" bonus of 10% optimal.

Rokh (8 x Neut, 3 damage mods, Navy Antimatter)
855 DPS, 3707 Alpha, 6.8 optimal + 13 falloff

Abaddon (8 x Pulse, 3 Heat Sinks, Navy MF)
916 DPS, 3971 Alpha, 15 optimal + 10 falloff

So blasters have no real advantage. Cap use? thats whats the 800 charges are for, fitting? Megapulse Ab **** easy, Blokh Pain in the ass PG wise.

Tracking? well the Rokh can't hit **** below 5km, and above 6.8 you lose any gains in dps due to fall off.

All this is ignoring the dps gained by the Abaddon when closing in on the target / manoeuvring (next target/gate/RR ball).


Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.05.24 17:51:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Vecila

Really though, laser cap dependence is frequently ignored, and the solution of simply increasing damage output does not solve either problem nor does it sort the buffer tanking we've the past years since the hp buff. Increasing the effectiveness of active tanking again would work wonders but ccp already backed out of that with the deimos last year, the only blaster boat without a rep bonus actually got on on sisi and they pulled it before it went live. There are two sides to each coin and the op seems blinded by the shiny side Embarassed



It was quite awful, people whined, it got pulled out, rightly so.

That being said, QR changed a lot of things and these days I'd love to see something like that with the Deimos... Though preferably without losing a low slot and I'm still not too keen with the rep bonus either. But I'd LOVE to have the 4th mid tbh.

No, I don't think Pulses need oversized variants but a lot of other stuff in the OP made sense. It's not the only way to change things but IMO some change would be good.

Originally by: NoobmareX

EDIT 2: Just to have it said. Stop dreaming to have your instapwn machine for frigs and cruisers back. It wont happen, EVER.

Blasters are good enough now, and then you STILL want a boost to Blasters?. JeeezRolling Eyes.


Please shut up and leave these threads alone already, you've had your say on the matter and nobody listened, 20 pages of your rants is not helpful to anyone. Luckily the mods down here won't allow that I hope...

Yes, I do think that in their current state, medium and large blasters and/ or their bonused ships could have some tweaks, even boosts, made to them. Boost/ fix tracking, maybe increase falloff a tad especially with Null (OR like in the OP), unnerf T2 short range ammo (for all other weapon types as well I guess) etc

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.05.24 18:54:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 24/05/2009 19:01:53
Originally by: Raimo
Originally by: NightmareX

EDIT 2: Just to have it said. Stop dreaming to have your instapwn machine for frigs and cruisers back. It wont happen, EVER.

Blasters are good enough now, and then you STILL want a boost to Blasters?. JeeezRolling Eyes.


Please shut up and leave these threads alone already, you've had your say on the matter and nobody listened, 20 pages of your rants is not helpful to anyone. Luckily the mods down here won't allow that I hope...

Yes, I do think that in their current state, medium and large blasters and/ or their bonused ships could have some tweaks, even boosts, made to them. Boost/ fix tracking, maybe increase falloff a tad especially with Null (OR like in the OP), unnerf T2 short range ammo (for all other weapon types as well I guess) etc

I wont leave those topics only because some players who are lazy as **** and can't use Blasters how they are meant to be used. And then cries to CCP to let them do the job for you by boosting the weapons so you can have the easy mode backRolling Eyes.

Ask Darknesss if Blasters are as crap as you think they are. He will laught hard at you if you tell him that Blasters are crap / poor. And i think i trust that man when he says that Blasters is totally fine / very good atm. Same with Leilani Solaris. Both of them have shows that Blasters are working good in their movies.

I will say it again and i hope i wont have to say this any more times. Increasing tracking on Blasters is going to make them the instapwn machine against frigs and cruisers again. The only reason CCP nerfed the webs was to let the BS'es not to be the instakill ships for frigs and cruisers.

Increasing the tracking goes against that now.

And also, since CCP boosted the tracking on Lasers so they could hit cruisers and HAC's better, because they was so fast. Is that tracking boost really needed today when CCP nerfed the speed quite alot now?.

JinChilla
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.05.24 19:39:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: JinChilla on 24/05/2009 20:07:38
Well i thought perhaps some visual math could give us some dev-attention.
I have played around with eft and made a picture ;)

Thing to say:
One of each turrets mounted on a ship without bonusses on the turrets.

Attacking ships are the same type and are not moving.
Target ship has a bigger Sig than the resolution of the turrets and is moving with 9m/s transversal. It has also balanced ressistances.

Ammunition ist standard and has no range effects.

I thought this would provide an objective view on the turrets.

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

What would i do to balance out the lines:

First of all tracking is ok.
Dmg of Laser and Blaster is ok.

To work out the characteristics on the weapons:
Blaster heavy shortrange wepon, laser midrange with constant dmg, and ac...
well ac something in between of the other two.

Blaster + 1k optimal
=> more effetive range, also better chance to hit cause of the range vs tracking

Laser -2k optimal -2k Falloff (or -1k optimal -3k falloff /or -4k falloff)
=>it would have the high constant dmg with some less range and a higher dmg decrease after optimal point.

AC's, well since they are falloff weapons an increase of falloff would make sens, in combination with a little dmg increase the effective range should be near Lasers
Falloff +4k dmg +10%
=> it would not overpover AC's cause they would still have the lowest dmg

I'll make the new curve later, feel free to discuss ;)

fly safe

Beardponderer
Aliastra
Posted - 2009.05.24 20:12:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: darkmancer
Edited by: darkmancer on 24/05/2009 16:44:28
Laser cap use is irrelevant.

Most Amarr ships have larger capacitors, faster cap regen, are buffer tanked, and have a bonus to laser cap use anyway.




They're only buffered tanked because you can't fit an active tank because lasers take too much cap to use, even with Dual Heavies.

Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2009.05.24 20:50:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: JinChilla
Stuff
So you're applying the quality of hits taking nothing except optimal and falloff, but using a whopping 9m/s transversal to throw a curve? Is this some kind of joke?

darkmancer
Posted - 2009.05.24 22:03:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: darkmancer on 24/05/2009 22:04:40
Originally by: Beardponderer


They're only buffered tanked because you can't fit an active tank because lasers take too much cap to use, even with Dual Heavies.


No it's because nine times out of ten in pvp buffer > active, the sheer EHP you recieve via a buffer tank exceeds what a rep gives you over the short time your being shot, without the difficult fitting reqs, and large cap cost.

I mess around with a active tanked blokh occasionally but I always go back to passive mainly due to cap issues, again cap issues are not the preserve of laser users, if you offered neutron users more dps for a higher cap use I don't think they'd be many moaning.

Personally I think both rails and blasters should get a small increase to their damage mod, and and a decrease in ROF (same dps, less cap), a optimal increase for blasters, a falloff increase for rails, and as mentioned else where a small boost to web strength (65% - 70%).

Lasers themselves are fine I think the optimal bonus for scorch for pulses already large optimal is a bit ott though, and perhapes a look at tracking.

Bassai Sho
Sacred Templars
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2009.05.24 22:30:00 - [44]
 

The problem with Blasters at the moment is range/tracking. Blasters have very short range in relation to Auto's/Lasers. But the had pretty good tracking meaning you would hit well once you got into range.

For instance the blaster mega. People used to sacrifice tank to get that extra DPS, now they have to stop moving in order to hit something... and thats a mega! its gets a tracking bonus ffs. =(

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2009.05.24 22:55:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
The only reason CCP nerfed the webs was to let the BS'es not to be the instakill ships for frigs and cruisers.


That's simply not true.
The nerf was because they felt any ship hit with a 90% web, was dead no matter what, they wanted all ships to have some sort of chance to get out.
It was not just because of battleships, you sir are being economical with the truth.

Personally I think 60% was overkill, I believe 70%/75% should have been the level set.

Daemon Vlad
Posted - 2009.05.24 23:05:00 - [46]
 

I agree that ammo type affecting falloff, lasers needing a significantly reduced optimal and falloff, and a small buff to blaster range are warranted. However, with these adjustments to range, all the other issues will be reduced enough to fine tune them later.

As for missiles, I agree with everything said (hooray for rockets and cruises being useful!), except for the guidance formula. The absolute damage reduction is an absolute evil, but it's a necessary one. I think the explosion radius being half the size of the standard resolution (20/62.5/200) would be a fair compromise.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.05.24 23:21:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 24/05/2009 23:21:21
Originally by: Mag's
Personally I think 60% was overkill, I believe 70%/75% should have been the level set.


70% is max, and that's something i can agree to be done. Instead of changing the tracking on Blasters, then you have to change something on Autocannons, and then again, since you changed something on 2 weapon types, then you have to change something on Torps again.

Going that way i can guarantee you that CCP wont take.

They rather change the webs from 60 to 70% or they will give the Megathron a boost in one of it's bonuses.

Lady Aja
Posted - 2009.05.25 00:43:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Grez
No-one ****ing takes cap usage into account.


thats because they dont train up thier ****ing characters properly....

ffs you morons.. train up all cap skills etc... both in gunnery and engineering.. or youre flippen lasers/blasters will eat youre cap!

Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
Posted - 2009.05.25 03:38:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 25/05/2009 03:45:19
Originally by: JinChilla
Edited by: JinChilla on 24/05/2009 20:07:38
Well i thought perhaps some visual math could give us some dev-attention.
I have played around with eft and made a picture ;)...

Target ship has a bigger Sig than the resolution of the turrets and is moving with 9m/s transversal. It has also balanced ressistances...



Better graphs for you.
Using average battleship signature radius and approximate velocity of bs in a theoretical perfect orbit(80m/s).
Graph with no resists
Graph with armor resists
Graph with shield resists
bonus:
Graph(no resists) with web taken into account

EFT doesn't show effective dps in graphs, but dps before resists
Originally by: Bassai Sho
The problem with Blasters at the moment is range/tracking. Blasters have very short range in relation to Auto's/Lasers. But the had pretty good tracking meaning you would hit well once you got into range.

For instance the blaster mega. People used to sacrifice tank to get that extra DPS, now they have to stop moving in order to hit something... and thats a mega! its gets a tracking bonus ffs. =(

heh, I remember the old tactics of flying a blasterthron was to ram target and sit still next to it and that was long before web changes Laughing, nothing changed then according to you Wink

Tiddz
Posted - 2009.05.25 03:59:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Tiddz on 25/05/2009 03:59:50
Originally by: Lady Aja
Originally by: Grez
No-one ****ing takes cap usage into account.


thats because they dont train up thier ****ing characters properly....

ffs you morons.. train up all cap skills etc... both in gunnery and engineering.. or youre flippen lasers/blasters will eat youre cap!


I dont think that was what he ment.

Pulses eat your cap like crazy (even with cap skills), so it's fair that they have both good damage and good range. If you use AC's you can fire until you pop no matter what happens. You may not be able to hit very well, but at least you're shooting.

As for blasters, which are very (!) short range, I'd say boost the damage a little :)

Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
Posted - 2009.05.25 05:18:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Tiddz
Edited by: Tiddz on 25/05/2009 03:59:50
Originally by: Lady Aja
Originally by: Grez
No-one ****ing takes cap usage into account.


thats because they dont train up thier ****ing characters properly....

ffs you morons.. train up all cap skills etc... both in gunnery and engineering.. or youre flippen lasers/blasters will eat youre cap!


I dont think that was what he ment.

Pulses eat your cap like crazy (even with cap skills), so it's fair that they have both good damage and good range. If you use AC's you can fire until you pop no matter what happens. You may not be able to hit very well, but at least you're shooting.

As for blasters, which are very (!) short range, I'd say boost the damage a little :)
Right, AC's fire imaginary bullets, no need to carry around ammo that takes a good chunk of your cargo capacity.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.25 06:02:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Better graphs for you.


Those are indeed interesting. Another interesting thing is the recent trend towards shield buffer tanking to maintain maneuverability and damage.

Let's look at frequent recommendations for common PVP ships:
- Almost all frig class ships, speed or speed/shield

Gallente
- Hype, Plate/Rep + Tackle or Active Shield, No Tackle
- Mega, Plate + Tackle
- Domi, Plate + Tackle
- Myrmidon, Shield Buffer/PST + Disruptor
- Brutix, Shield Buffer + Scram
- Thorax, Shield Buffer + Scram
- Vexor, Shield Buffer + Scram
- Ishtar, Plate + Tackle, Shield Buffer + Disruptor
- Diemost, Plate + Tackle, Shield Buffer + Scram

Minmatar
- Mael, Active, No Tackle, Shield Buffer + Disruptor
- Tempest, Plate/Rep or Plate
- Phoon, Plate/RR, Plate, Shield Buffer/"Nano"
- Hurricane, Shield Buffer
- Cyclone Shield Buffer, Active Shield no tackle
- Muninn, Shield Buffer [if anything]
- Vaga, Shield Buffer

Caldari, Shield Buffer with exceptions:
- Raven, Shield Buffer, Plate/RR
- Scorpion, Plate/ECM

Amarr, Almost all armor

So what do se see here? The traditional bias against lasers because of EM damage and the ubiquity of omnitanking is very quickly becoming a Myth. Shield (buffer) tanks are becoming more and more the reality and norm. If I had to guess, it's because of agility and roaming that this is happening.

Anyway, I don't really care anymore because I've got about 117 days until Liang is a borderline perfect Amarr pilot (Incl Frig/Cruiser/BS 5, Sm/Med/Lg Beam/Pulse Spec 4).

-Liang

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.25 06:04:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Tiddz

I dont think that was what he ment.

Pulses eat your cap like crazy (even with cap skills), so it's fair that they have both good damage and good range. If you use AC's you can fire until you pop no matter what happens. You may not be able to hit very well, but at least you're shooting.

As for blasters, which are very (!) short range, I'd say boost the damage a little :)


This would be true if and only if they removed cap boosters from the game. As it stands, no it is not 'fair'. It's not balanced. In fact, it's overpowered. Hence, I will at long last train it.

-Liang

Andreya
Red Federation
Posted - 2009.05.25 07:29:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Allen Ramses

ever deal full damage to their intended target, specifically Minmatar ships which have much lower than average signature radii. It is in my opinion that this mechanic be removed from the game.

Discuss.


dude your kidding me right!??!!? thats one of the few reason that minmatar have even a slight chance of living through damage.
you dont give minmatars proper shields, nerf our speed, screw our artys, split our weapon system, and cant armour tank either (compared to the other races) ...
and your concerned about minmatar's sig radius!?
that theory of yours is what makes me wary of all your other ideas.
just imo of course

Julie Thorne
14th Legion
Posted - 2009.05.25 07:34:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Another interesting thing is the recent trend towards shield buffer tanking... Shield (buffer) tanks are becoming more and more the reality and norm.
Erm. I just went through more than a hundred killmails (I know you like kbs) and I found 1 (one) shield tanked Myrmiddon - every other Gallente ship that was bigger than a destroyer was armor-tanked. Also every Minmatar ship was armor-tanked except cyclones, stabbers and maels. I can't see the trend you`re talking about.

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.05.25 13:39:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Julie Thorne
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Another interesting thing is the recent trend towards shield buffer tanking... Shield (buffer) tanks are becoming more and more the reality and norm.


Erm. I just went through more than a hundred killmails (I know you like kbs) and I found 1 (one) shield tanked Myrmiddon - every other Gallente ship that was bigger than a destroyer was armor-tanked. Also every Minmatar ship was armor-tanked except cyclones, stabbers and maels. I can't see the trend you`re talking about.


I think it matters quite a bit *what* killboards you look at... I don't think it's as common as Liang suggests it but it is still happening.

I personally am predominantly shield buffering my gallente boats, Deimos, Ishtar and recently a gank Hype. I don't fly BCs much but I see quite a bunch of Shield Brutixes around. At least for me the main reason is my love of speed and agility (yeah, I'm training Minnie Cruiser V soonish), they took almost all of that away in the ridiculous nano nerf, I'll try to hold to what I can... I do EM rig all my shieldfits though.

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.05.25 14:15:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Seishi Maru on 25/05/2009 14:26:58
For god's sake. Please stop everyoen from trying to nerf everythign to be equal to others. That jsut diminishes the fun on eve. The balance shoudl be achieved by focusign more each weapon on its strenghts.

Lasers have range.. OK. seems to work ok now. But they coudl loose a bit their tracking. Because they need to be weak at some point... like the other weapons. Not much.. 10% would be enough

Blasters have dps.. but they do seems to have been suffering a bit too much. Maybe increase a bit their DPS so when they manage to get on their fightign envelope the rule!

AC are theoretically versatile.. but well won 't even comment. They woudl need a boost to falloff and trackign to be really versatile (be able to find sub envelope of engagements where they can be superior). Also the damage selection must be corrected. Make top damage ammo be fusion, second be Plasma, third be a NEW emp with only EM and little kin damage.

Arties need WAY more alpha. MOre specialization

RAils and beams seems balanced...


Missiles.. think their speciality is never missing? Well I see 2 paths.. make them low dps always hit. Or very high dps.. very easy to avoid using speed and signature.

Julie Thorne
14th Legion
Posted - 2009.05.25 14:18:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Julie Thorne on 25/05/2009 14:22:14
Originally by: Raimo
I think it matters quite a bit *what* killboards you look at... I don't think it's as common as Liang suggests it but it is still happening.
I looked at evekb.co.uk and battleclinic. Mostly I agree with you but just to make it clear I said I did't see a trend based on the killboards. Obviously there are people flying around in shield tanked Gallente ships (like you) it's nothing new but for every shieldtanked Myrm I found 6 armortanked. I checked a few hunred more killmails and it's the same.

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.05.25 14:21:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Seishi Maru on 25/05/2009 14:25:19
Originally by: Julie Thorne
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Another interesting thing is the recent trend towards shield buffer tanking... Shield (buffer) tanks are becoming more and more the reality and norm.


Erm. I just went through more than a hundred killmails (I know you like kbs) and I found 1 (one) shield tanked Myrmiddon - every other Gallente ship that was bigger than a destroyer was armor-tanked. Also every Minmatar ship was armor-tanked except cyclones, stabbers and maels. I can't see the trend you`re talking about.


You not payign much attention to minamtar ships..

Vagabond, Rapier, Scimitar, Huggin, Claymore, Sleipnirs, (naglfars now), jaguar and some gank tempests, and hurricanes (artie cane works best with shield tank.. by far).

Armor tankers: typhoon, tempest (listed as both because they do are used as both),hurricane, rupture, nidhogur, wolf... . Not listing ships like munin that do not tank at all.... or ships like bellicose that are not even flown :P

its more or less even. You find less shiedl tanked ships on killboards because the minmatar ships taht shield tanks are the ones that usually best avoid being killed (as rapiers and vagabonds)

Julie Thorne
14th Legion
Posted - 2009.05.25 15:00:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Seishi Maru
You not payign much attention to minamtar ships.
Heh. Yes, I'm like that ignoring details jumping cluelessly in the middle of discussions. That trend Liang was talking about does not exist according to the killboards and listing minmatar ships that were and are shieldtankers (and because of that completely irrelevant) doesn't change it. And for the record I didn't want to derail the discussion.


Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only