open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Drake Nerf - W T F
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]

Author Topic

Suboran
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2010.12.05 21:00:00 - [121]
 

nerf drake

boost myrmidon

Ulstan
Posted - 2010.12.05 21:35:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: Ulstan on 05/12/2010 21:40:24
Originally by: Lili Lu
Opposing fleets could easily tank against Zealot damage. It is a ship that has no damage options, unlike the Drake, which is using that flexibility to great effect.


You can tank drake's damage. It's kinetic. If they switch away from kinetic they lose their damage bonus.

Quote:
We could see AHACs again as the preeminent fleet type. However, if that would occur I would find it less distressing to the game because it would be a ship class, not a particular ship.


Well, if the Drake fleets continue to rule, but there are some feroxes in there as well, you would find it less distressing because it's a ship class instead of one ship? The solution to your problem is obviously for CCP to make more/better shield bc's. ;)

Would there really be anything wrong with drake/ferox/shield logis vs zealots/munnins/armor logis as the fleet that currently happens to be ruling the roost?

Quote:
And, I admittedly have not crunched the numbers but I doubt there is only a couple million separating the loss of a fitted drake and a fitted BS.


The rigs point is a good one, but rigs vary wildly in price so it's often hard to compare properly. At any rate, my point is the difference is an L4 mission or two. Hardly anything in the same category of difference as the old snake polycarb vagabonds of old compared to drakes. All T1 subcaps are relatively cheap. The cost issue is a slight one.

Quote:
Ravens are harder to skill into for one thing.


What? No they aren't. Caldari BS takes caldari cruiser IV and the Drake takes Caldari cruiser III. Tech II Cruise Missiles take Heavy Missiles III. That's it. The cruise ravens range is so ridiculously huge you could even get away without training the range skills up. Are you honestly complaining over a whole 3 days, maybe a week of training difference? The training time argument, like the cost argument, does not indicate a nerf is required. If Chinese farmers can manage to get into cruise ravens, I'm quite sure real players can do it.

There are ****tons of Ravens out there too. They are a huge pve ship. An alliance asking for everyone to bring a raven would have as much manpower as one asking for everyone to bring a drake. Hell you could hire chinese farmers to bolster your numbers :p

Quote:
As to other BSs, it is far easier to herd an alliance of pilots into an armor BS fleet as they have more choices. For shield BSs there is the Rokh, Raven, and Mael only, unless one were to attempt to shoehorn the Hyperion, Domi, and Tempest into them with their 5 mids. Much easier to shoehorn the other direction into armor.


That's a valid point, but now we're in the realm of saying "There are counters to the drake fleet, people are just too lazy to train them" which makes me singularly unsympathetic.

A fleet of ravens fighting drakes would outdamage them and *massively* outrange them. Since we're operating under the assumption, as you've said, that the enemy fleet is to bubbled/lagged to warp out, this lets cruise ravens use their extra range to their full advantage.

So we know, positively, a certain BS fleet would annihilate drakes - and it's one of the weaker BS options you could put together, honestly. But no one flies those BS fleets. Why? That's the real problem.

When BS>BC>AHAC>BS, and no one flies BS, *that* is your problem. Not that BC> AHAC. Making it be AHAC> BC won't help.

Quote:
Sorry, they are not large mixed shield BC fleets.


Because harm, mrym, and hurricane are armor, and only the drake is shield. All t1 bc's arbitrarily hampered by the tier system. So you're arguing against a whole class of ships. Not our fault CCP has only put one ship in that class. If there were two shield tanked buffered bcs, I'm sure you'd see them both.

Ulstan
Posted - 2010.12.05 21:48:00 - [123]
 

Edited by: Ulstan on 05/12/2010 21:50:27
Originally by: Call187
A fully fitted drake costs only 50m thanks to cheap medium extender rigs. Medium is cheap. Shield is cheap.

50m minus 14m of insurance is 36m

Moreover Battleships fully fitted costs 160m+ Unless you fly raven/rokh. Large is expensive. Trimarks is expensive. Big guns, and mods are expensive.

170m minus 30m of insurance is 140m

140m = 36m * 4 approximately. 4 times the cost.


So if trimarks are too expensive, don't use them? What's that you say? Trimarks are mandatory so you can have a big enough buffer? I think we found our problem. Buffer tanks are the only ones worth anything in pvp. (Aside from sig tanking BS weapons).

Why not ask CCP to fix that instead of nerfing the ships that are supposed to be good at buffer tanking?

Drake: 30m
Typhoon: 50m

The mid/low slot costs should be largely the same. BCS, Damage controls, EANMs, LSE IIs, Propulsion mods, etc

High points: 5 siege II cost about 9 mill. 7 HML II's are about 6 million.

Difference in mods, rigs aside, looks to be less than 10m. So maybe 30m difference between drake and fitting and typhoon and fitting. That's hardly breaking the bank. Go kill rat spawns for 15 minutes or blitz an L4 mission.

I'm sure someone is going to say "but no one uses the typhoon in fleet fights!" and that's exactly my point: why?

And yes, once you add trimarks, the cost is substantial. I think you should ask CCP why one of their rigs is just so more popular than all the others, and thus more costly.

Ulstan
Posted - 2010.12.05 22:02:00 - [124]
 

Edited by: Ulstan on 05/12/2010 22:09:49
Summary:

Fleet pvp is structured so that buffer shield tanks are best. Buffer > active, shield reps> armor reps in lag. It just so happens that there is only one shield buffer battlecruiser, the drake. This leads to fleets of only drakes, giving the impression the drake is overpowered. It's not. If there were other battlecruisers with good shield buffers, you'd see those too. The drake is a well balanced ship when compared to the other tier 2 battlecruisers - it's one of the best balanced ship classes in the game.

In sufficient numbers, fleets of battlecruiers make a good counter to AHACS. (There are no SHACS worth flying, but no one complains about this...why?) These fleets of battlecruisers are in turn countered by fleets of battleships, which are in turn countered by fleets of AHACS.

We have rock, paper, scissors. But for some reason, scissors is broken and no one flies them. (Moms, probing, importance of speed, etc). We have a broken game, where paper > rock. However, the solution is *not* to set fire to paper leaving it a useless empty husk (as removing the drake's resist bonus would do). You need to bring back scissors (battleship fleets) or your balance will still be broken.

And you would have to gut the drake to end drake fleets. A full fleet backed up by shield logistics is the absolute best case for the drake. That's where it shines. If you were to gut the drake so it wasnt' worth flying there, it wouldn't be worth flying anywhere. And you would have to gut it. Would 10% resist or dps reduction end drake blobs? Nope, and both of those are crippingly large nerfs. Remember, a 5.7% boost to rocket damage was seen as such a big deal it got a whole page dedicated to it for one of CCP's headline expansions. The drakes stats are largely secondary to the reason it is chosen for fleets, which are underlying structural concerns.

So what should be done?

1. Make BS fleets more viable. Reduce cap damage vs BS, for one thing. Investigate all the ways in which a BS's larger size and lower speed makes them so undesirable compared to AHACS.
2. Investigate and fix the lag in huge fights, which makes missile flight delay have less of an impact than it should, and make armor logistics work less well than it should.
3. Introduce more shield tanking BC's. Simply making the tier 1 BC's not suck would help tons.
4. Investigate shield logistics vs armor logistics. Having two 'oh **** I need hp now' one of which works instantly and one of which works only some time later, is rather suspect in any situation in which you have lag.
5. Investigate buffer tanking and why it's the only one people use in large fleet fights. This may not be an easy (or even possible) fix, but it's a start
6. Investigate why armor RR BS gangs are common but no one runs shield RR BS gangs.
7. Find out why the only HAC gangs are armor, and no one runs shield HAC gangs.
8. Investigate railguns, which are also supposed to be good medium of the road weapons operating at similar ranges to missiles, and why no one uses them.
9....finally, if none of the above have succeeded in restoring a better balance to the game, consider nerfing the drake. But that's literally the last item on the list CCP should be looking at.

Derekian
Percone
Posted - 2010.12.05 22:34:00 - [125]
 

Quote:
So if trimarks are too expensive, don't use them? What's that you say? Trimarks are mandatory so you can have a big enough buffer? I think we found our problem. Buffer tanks are the only ones worth anything in pvp. (Aside from sig tanking BS weapons).

Why not ask CCP to fix that instead of nerfing the ships that are supposed to be good at buffer tanking?

Drake: 30m
Typhoon: 50m

The mid/low slot costs should be largely the same. BCS, Damage controls, EANMs, LSE IIs, Propulsion mods, etc

High points: 5 siege II cost about 9 mill. 7 HML II's are about 6 million.

Difference in mods, rigs aside, looks to be less than 10m. So maybe 30m difference between drake and fitting and typhoon and fitting. That's hardly breaking the bank. Go kill rat spawns for 15 minutes or blitz an L4 mission.

I'm sure someone is going to say "but no one uses the typhoon in fleet fights!" and that's exactly my point: why?

And yes, once you add trimarks, the cost is substantial. I think you should ask CCP why one of their rigs is just so more popular than all the others, and thus more costly.


Simple.

A battleship without trimarks will have less EHP then a typical 4-slot-tank fleet drake.

Moreover, the Drake could still dish out 2.5K-3K alpha per drake, which is hardly reduced by cruiser class ships specially when lots of paints are dished out.

HAC's can fit to resist kinetic, but a typical zealot has 2/3 damage mods, 2/3 tracking mods, 1/2 sebo, 1 LSE, a prop mod and a damage control. All very important for range/speed/damage reasons, while replacing any would probably give very little.

Moreover not many battleships could do more then 462 dps when em drakes warp in 60KM away. right outside drone and any pulse range.

Ulstan
Posted - 2010.12.05 23:20:00 - [126]
 

Eh? Every battleship can do that.

Any pulse using ship can hit out that far using scorch and a range enhancing mod/rig or two.
Apoc's don't even need that.

Any cruise missile using BS can do that.
Any arty using BS can do that.

Even the much maligned and sucktacular rail BS can manage that.

ac34
Posted - 2010.12.06 00:21:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Ulstan
Edited by: Ulstan on 05/12/2010 21:40:24

When BS>BC>AHAC>BS, and no one flies BS, *that* is your problem. Not that BC> AHAC. Making it be AHAC> BC won't help.




there are these things called bombers; they kind of remove BS from the rock, paper, scissors equation.

I'm not convinced that it isn't bombers that need the 'nerf' to adapt to a post DD world. Bombs should be universally effective against all fleets and not just clusters of battleships(and drakes on jump in).

the age of the armor tanked battleship died with dominion and the current bomber should have too.

Ravenal
The Fated
E.Y
Posted - 2010.12.06 01:05:00 - [128]
 

This is wrong, Drake does not need a nerf, shield extenders need a penalty change.

why and how?
Why: because currently they give a bonus to both HP amount AND shield HP recharge amount. They should only give HP amount
How: Either make all ships have a fixed shield hp regen instead of a time to fully recharge or have the shield extender give a penalty to shield recharge.

It's HP buff amount would need to be increased though at the same time and sig radius penalty removed imo...

Lili Lu
Posted - 2010.12.06 02:08:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Ulstan
You can tank drake's damage. It's kinetic. If they switch away from kinetic they lose their damage bonus.
Yes they do, but guess what they are, and it is not changing the outcome. Basically to take on a Drake fleet you have to omnitank. I've experienced this first hand in the firewall fleets against SE. They're not stupid and blindly stuck with kinetic. They just changed to widomaker and thunderbolt and continued to have success.

Originally by: Ulstan
Well, if the Drake fleets continue to rule, but there are some feroxes in there as well, you would find it less distressing because it's a ship class instead of one ship? The solution to your problem is obviously for CCP to make more/better shield bc's. ;) . . . Because harm, mrym, and hurricane are armor, and only the drake is shield. All t1 bc's arbitrarily hampered by the tier system. So you're arguing against a whole class of ships. Not our fault CCP has only put one ship in that class. If there were two shield tanked buffered bcs, I'm sure you'd see them both
As to the first stament, not really. It would still be a Caldari monoculture. How would it be better than an Amarr BS monoculture with amarr logistics. It wouldn't.

As to the second statment, I agree. Yes CCP needs to buff tier 1, so Cyclones could join in, and maybe rearrange the Myrm to 5 high, 6 med, 6 low, and give it 25m3 more bandwidth. Then I would say ok, maybe we would see shield BC fleets of these 4 ships with some viability. Should those BC fleets be defeating BS fleets of equal size? No. But really would be better with shield BS choices, so the game would have either mixed tank BS fleets with assigned wings, or battles between shield BSs and armor BSs with relative parity, so FC decisions and pilot abilites to fit and fly the ships would matter ro the outcome. That is what we all want anyway, a "good fight." Or at least when we aren't engaged in serious internet space territorial conquests where we have a spy on the other voice comms.Laughing

Originally by: Ulstan
The rigs point is a good one, but rigs vary wildly in price so it's often hard to compare properly. At any rate, my point is the difference is an L4 mission or two. Hardly anything in the same category of difference as the old snake polycarb vagabonds of old compared to drakes. All T1 subcaps are relatively cheap. The cost issue is a slight one.
I don't agree, the cost differential between med extender and large trimarks is considerable ~23.5mil v ~3.5mil, that's 3x20mil=60mil per ship! Now start adding up the differences between 1600 rolled tungstens and LSEs, 1400 IIs and heavy launcher IIs, etc. Then lastly add the differential between the now nerfed insurance and the hull cost, on ships that do not require similar amounts of mins.

Originally by: Ulstan
When BS>BC>AHAC>BS, and no one flies BS, *that* is your problem. Not that BC> AHAC. Making it be AHAC> BC won't help.
The equation is not so simple in my experience. I'm not so certain as you about the Raven beating Drake scenario for one thing. Please though if you have any influence with a fleet commander in a major alliance convince him to give it a try. Would be a good experiment. Also, BC is a misnomer, it's really Drake. And, Drake does not always beat AHAC. AHAC beats Drake up to a certain size, depending on logi support. But once the number gets big enough, around 200+/-, the Drakes ability to volley overwhelms the smaller buffers on the AHACs, whereas the Drakes will still have enough to survive the intitial shock of the ahac damage and have the shield logis quicker reps pull them back possibly. Yes there are problems for BSs in the present environment. But fixing those alone would not cure the Drake proliferation, economics, rr differences, lag benefits, out sized tank for ship class, a better omnitank due to resist bonus, and other factors still favoring the Drake.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.12.06 02:38:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Lili Lu
Yes they do, but guess what they are, and it is not changing the outcome. Basically to take on a Drake fleet you have to omnitank. I've experienced this first hand in the firewall fleets against SE. They're not stupid and blindly stuck with kinetic. They just changed to widomaker and thunderbolt and continued to have success.



Even if you do change damage types, the loss of the bonus makes a huge difference. It's not like the RoF bonuses the Raven gets where you can fire any missile with impunity. 25% is a lot to lose.

Originally by: Lili Lu

As to the first stament, not really. It would still be a Caldari monoculture. How would it be better than an Amarr BS monoculture with amarr logistics. It wouldn't.



Caldari gotta be good at something...

Originally by: Lili Lu

As to the second statment, I agree. Yes CCP needs to buff tier 1, so Cyclones could join in, and maybe rearrange the Myrm to 5 high, 6 med, 6 low, and give it 25m3 more bandwidth.



Never happen, at least not 6 med, 6 low. Even 25m3 more bandwidth is still day dreaming. CCP hit the myrm hard and they rarely retract a nerf.

Originally by: Lili Lu

Then I would say ok, maybe we would see shield BC fleets of these 4 ships with some viability. Should those BC fleets be defeating BS fleets of equal size? No. But really would be better with shield BS choices, so the game would have either mixed tank BS fleets with assigned wings, or battles between shield BSs and armor BSs with relative parity, so FC decisions and pilot abilites to fit and fly the ships would matter ro the outcome. That is what we all want anyway, a "good fight." Or at least when we aren't engaged in serious internet space territorial conquests where we have a spy on the other voice comms.Laughing



Where are you still getting the idea that there are shield BS fleets? There was never a time when that was something viable.

Originally by: Lili Lu

I don't agree, the cost differential between med extender and large trimarks is considerable ~23.5mil v ~3.5mil, that's 3x20mil=60mil per ship! Now start adding up the differences between 1600 rolled tungstens and LSEs, 1400 IIs and heavy launcher IIs, etc. Then lastly add the differential between the now nerfed insurance and the hull cost, on ships that do not require similar amounts of mins.



That might be right... if you weren't comparing medium extenders to large trimarks. I will agree that trimarks have always been ridiculously overpriced, but that just further shows how much more popular armor tanking is to shield tanking.

Originally by: Lili Lu
The equation is not so simple in my experience. I'm not so certain as you about the Raven beating Drake scenario for one thing. Please though if you have any influence with a fleet commander in a major alliance convince him to give it a try. Would be a good experiment. Also, BC is a misnomer, it's really Drake.



Drake heavy, I'll give you that, but not Drake exclusive. Ravens WOULD beat Drakes if people actually used them, but again, no one flies shield BS. You'd have to have an all Caldari fleet and no one is willing to do that for BS, especially given lameness that is the Rokh.

Originally by: Lili Lu

And, Drake does not always beat AHAC. AHAC beats Drake up to a certain size, depending on logi support. But once the number gets big enough, around 200+/-, the Drakes ability to volley overwhelms the smaller buffers on the AHACs,



Really? 200? ANYTHING wins at 200+. This is just a pointless argument.

Originally by: Lili Lu

whereas the Drakes will still have enough to survive the intitial shock of the ahac damage and have the shield logis quicker reps pull them back possibly.



Unless there are 200+ AHACs in which case its the same scenario.... 1 volley and boom. Again with using lag as an argument. You can't base a nerf on lag. That's just silly. If missiles cause lag then clearly the mechanics behind missiles need to be revisited, not the ship's that fire them.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.12.06 10:48:00 - [131]
 

I saw Raven mentioned few times - Raven can be used quite ok instead of Drake, if one so desires.

Something like
6x Cruise II 2x whatever fits
100MN MWD, 2x Invul, Heavy Cap booster, LSE II, Sensor booster II
3x BCU II, DCU II, Signal Amp II or whatever
3x Large Shield Extender rigs (or 2x EM 1x Thermal, if you want to go cheap)

And there you are. Throw into mix 5x EC-600 and 5x Warrior II and there you go. Can hurl missiles as far as you can lock, that should be ~200 km with gang leadership bonuses. Can play around with last 3 slots as well without breaking the setup. It's even shield buffered. Only downside is, that it takes up to ~25 seconds for your damage to arrive. When I was fresh player then cruise ravens were actually used in the fleets I was in, they shot at secondary. Nowadays you dont see ravens anymore that often in the fleets. Price difference, althogh not huge is there, few seconds in aligment speed. Not as cap stable on MWD - and one important factor that should be mentioned as well. You almost always go thrugh jump bridges + Titan jump. Battleships weight considerably more than Drakes, so for an alliance it's logisticallly more inconvinient to move BS fleet.

Derekian
Percone
Posted - 2010.12.06 11:09:00 - [132]
 

Edited by: Derekian on 06/12/2010 11:15:43

Snipelots needs 170 volleys to shoot down a typical 4-slot omni drake.

However Drake only needs 8-10 shots to taker down snipelots. how is that fair? i bet those things fall like flies even if the drakes just took "random top 15 targets by distance"

Adst
Posted - 2010.12.06 12:38:00 - [133]
 

Tell me - If the drake is nerfed, what happens next?

Do we suddenly get fleets containing six different BCs?

Of course not.

We get the next BC to make 200+ Blobs.

Then we're sat in this same position all over again.

Have you guys ever flown a drake solo? It's a pretty balanced solo ship - hell I'd say worse than some other BC.

Drake isn't the problem: Blobs are. Fix blobs first, otherwise a Drake nerf will just mean a different BC blob will take its place and we'll be sat, in 3 months time complaining again.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.12.06 14:54:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: Carniflex
I saw Raven mentioned few times - Raven can be used quite ok instead of Drake, if one so desires.

Something like
6x Cruise II 2x whatever fits
100MN MWD, 2x Invul, Heavy Cap booster, LSE II, Sensor booster II
3x BCU II, DCU II, Signal Amp II or whatever
3x Large Shield Extender rigs (or 2x EM 1x Thermal, if you want to go cheap)

And there you are. Throw into mix 5x EC-600 and 5x Warrior II and there you go. Can hurl missiles as far as you can lock, that should be ~200 km with gang leadership bonuses. Can play around with last 3 slots as well without breaking the setup. It's even shield buffered. Only downside is, that it takes up to ~25 seconds for your damage to arrive. When I was fresh player then cruise ravens were actually used in the fleets I was in, they shot at secondary. Nowadays you dont see ravens anymore that often in the fleets. Price difference, althogh not huge is there, few seconds in aligment speed. Not as cap stable on MWD - and one important factor that should be mentioned as well. You almost always go thrugh jump bridges + Titan jump. Battleships weight considerably more than Drakes, so for an alliance it's logisticallly more inconvinient to move BS fleet.


Raven < Drake. Slower locking, slower align, slower top speed, more expensive price tag, and it doesn't even have an extra mid slot. Some genius thought the Raven needed 5 lows and 6 mids instead of 4 lows and 7 mids, so you don't even get any extra utility. And who in the hell thought 8 high slots would be useful? With 6 launchers on, cruise or torp, tank, and an MWD you'll NEVER have enough fitting power to put that 8th slot to use. 1 utility high is more than enough. Take away a high and give me a mid. The Raven will NEVER replace the Drake, nor will it ever have a place in a long range BS fleet because of the horrendous damage delay.

Ulstan
Posted - 2010.12.06 15:07:00 - [135]
 

Edited by: Ulstan on 06/12/2010 15:14:13
Originally by: Lili Lu
Originally by: Ulstan
You can tank drake's damage. It's kinetic. If they switch away from kinetic they lose their damage bonus.
Yes they do, but guess what they are, and it is not changing the outcome. Basically to take on a Drake fleet you have to omnitank. I've experienced this first hand in the firewall fleets against SE. They're not stupid and blindly stuck with kinetic. They just changed to widomaker and thunderbolt and continued to have success.


I think you've made a very powerful point, that I've also been making. Essentially you're saying nerfing the Drake's damage by 25% (removing the damage bonus) has no effect whatsoever on drake blobs.

Yet that is a huge freaking godawful nerf.

This is because drake blobs form because of how various underlying factors interact: lag, logistics (shield vs armor) tank (buffer vs active vs regen), lack of BS fleets, and so on. The actual stats of the Drake itself are not overpowered, and in fact adjusting them by huge margins has no effect on the drake blob.

The only way to make drakes in a drake blob not worth it would be to make the ship not worth flying in the *best* cast situation, and a laughable steaming pile of crap in every other.

Quote:
Yes there are problems for BSs in the present environment. But fixing those alone would not cure the Drake proliferation, economics, rr differences, lag benefits, out sized tank for ship class, a better omnitank due to resist bonus, and other factors still favoring the Drake.


You'd have to fix BS, lag, and logistics. But you should be fixing those anyway, no?

The Drake should continue to have advantages that favor it. It should still be a useful and powerful BC in BC fleets backed up by shield logistics. I'd like to see it not be the only one, but it probably should continue to be the best.

My point is: You can address several of the underlying factors and cure the Drake proliferation properly, or you can make the Drake not worth flying in any situation ever. (Which is what it would take for people to not use it in drake blobs if the current mechanics are left unchanged).

I think the former approach is universally more appealing, particularly as I have a fondness for battlecruisers (BC 5 on every account checkin in !) and would hate to see the balance there ruined.

I would love to see the tier 1 BC's made more capable though. I already <3 the Cyclone.

Regarding bombers; Drakes, unlike most other BC, because of their BS sized tanks, would be equally as vulnerable to bombs as BS if it weren't for the speed issue. This is yet *another* issue where slow speed causes problems to BS.

I don't know what the best solution is: adjusting BS or adjusting bombs. But when you have a class of ship that just doesn't get used in PvP fleets because of bombers and moms, you obviously have a problem that is *not* going to be solved by nerfing one of the two classes of ships that does get used.

Indeed, if drakes were nerfed, there would be even less incentive to use BS. Why would anyone fly anything other than AHACS?

Also, how come you don't see SHAC gangs? Isn't that at *least* as troubling as how come you don't see armor BC gangs?

Gabriel Youngs
Caldari
The Lunatic Collective
Corcoran State
Posted - 2010.12.06 17:51:00 - [136]
 

First of all, isnt this a clone of a monster thread from two months ago?

Oh Well

As for Drakes, one of the problems is the issue with missiles and lag, they go together like drugs and alcohol, they multiply eachother....fix the lag and that will go a long way to fixing the issue

The other issue is with missile mitigation, there isnt any. Defenders are worthless, and there is no way to directly affect missile damage without targeting and damping EVERY missile boat on the field.

My suggestion is a high slot module, a Point Defense Module, with two modes. The main mode (scriptless) is the attempt to intercept any missile moving through a bubble (engagement envelope) some distance from the ship regardless of the missiles actual target. This could be modified with a script to only try to intercept missiles headed for a targeted friendly ship.

Perhaps a special ship (destroyer sized) could fill the role of point defense support.

The chance of interception would have to be low and with a stacking penalty, and should only work against guided missiles (Standard, Heavy, Cruise, not Bombs, Rockets, Heavy Assault, or Torps)

This would change the "Firewall" from using smartbombs (which is not what SBs are for anyway) and allow a support fleet to mitigate some of that guaranteed hit long range missile spamming damage.

Think about it....

P.S. I am caldari, I fly drakes, I love missiles.....so I am not a drake hater, dont change the drake.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.12.06 17:51:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: Ulstan

Also, how come you don't see SHAC gangs? Isn't that at *least* as troubling as how come you don't see armor BC gangs?


I saw shield HAC gang (fleet) over the weekend. Unfortunately I was unable to participate as I was busy in RL so dont know how it went. I think that armor BC's are often allowed in armor HAC gangs if they can keep up - dunno have not flown in those gangs recently.

At a glance on the killboard I dont see huge red spike on the 'losses' side so I can speculate that it was probably not total failure.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]

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