open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Will the Drake's absurd tank ever be nerfed?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8

Author Topic

Amanda Mor
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.07 14:39:00 - [121]
 

Edited by: Amanda Mor on 07/07/2010 14:49:38
Originally by: Liang Nuren

Numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. An endless supply of numbers, OH PLEASE MAKE THEM STOP!!!!



Sweet Jesus Liang, you're like Rain Man with this stuff Shocked

It's too early for me to properly go thru your post right now, but I'll throw up the Myrm fit I used in my post for comparisons sake:

[Myrmidon, Armor Repper]
Armor Thermic Hardener II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II

Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Warp Scrambler II
Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800

220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M

Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I


Hammerhead II x5
Hobgoblin II x5
Warrior II x5
Vespa EC-600 x5

And the Drake (mind you, I haven't flown a Drake, but this seems to be one of the two or three common fits):

[Drake, HAM Drake]
Reactor Control Unit II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II

Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Stasis Webifier II
Invulnerability Field II
10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Warp Scrambler II

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile
[empty high slot]

Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I


Warrior II x5

Probably doesn't change your numbers too much, but it makes me feel good that I've now caused you to spend another 30-45 minutes running the numbersLaughing



Atsuko Ratu
Caldari
Quafe Industries
Posted - 2010.07.07 14:47:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 07/07/2010 14:49:00
Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 07/07/2010 14:48:13
Originally by: Liang Nuren

Myrm
6x 425mm AC II
10mn MWD I, Med EC Cap Booster, Disruptor II, 2x Web II
2x MAR II, 2x EANM II, DC II, Gyro II <-----------------
2x Nano Pump, Nanobot Accel
5x Hammer II

513 DPS:
- 275 DPS @ 20.7 EM, 4.6 Kin, 2.3 Exp [ 27.6 ], 238 DPS @ 100% Thm
- Profile: 206.25 EM / 45.8 Kin / 22.9 Exp / 238 Thm

Tank (WRT Drake):
- Shield: 8829 + 21/2 HP/s
- Armor: 17398 + 461
- Hull: 13428

Drake
7x HAM II
10mn MWD I, LSE II, 2x Inv II, Scram II, Fleeting Web
3x BCU II, DC II <------------------
3x CDFE I
5x Hob II

618 DPS (CN Terror)
- Profile: 519 Kin + 99 Thm

Tank (WRT Myrm):
- Shield: 61875 + 147/2 EHP/s
- Armor: 8192
- Hull: 12206

Myrm TTK Drake:
- Shields: 61875 / (513 - 147/2) = 135 sec
- Armor: 8192 / 513 = 16 sec
- Hull: 12206 / 513 = 24 sec <-------------- Why does the Myrm do full dps to 60% resisted hull?
- Total: 175 sec

Drake (CN Terror) TTK Myrm:
- Shield: 8829 / (618 - 21/2) = 16 sec
- Armor: 17398 / (618 - 461) = 110 sec
- Hull: 13428 / (618 - 461) = 86 sec <------------------
- Total: 212 sec


Does DC II not mean damage control II for the drake? See bolded (arrows for clarity, it's a lot of info).

Amanda Mor
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.07 14:51:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: Gligan
I don't know - this whole thing looks like a troll post to me. I think we took the hook line and sinker and are flipping this way and that just for the amusement of the OP.


Regardless of whether it's a troll OP or not, this thread seems to be exactly what the Ships and Modules forum is about - discussing ships, comparing fits etc.

Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow

I disagree. Admittedly Ive been on a bit of a tirade regarding Tier 2 BC's being over powered compared to CS's. I honestly think its an issue that CCP needs to resolve.

I understand CCP's "political" reasoning here. The idea is to allow newer players to play in the sandbox with the vets and get some heavy gunnery out into the field, and feel like they are contributing in order to keep a new player base engaged (and obviously fund the game). With that being said, its unfortunately a bit of an unintentional slap in the face to those of us who have put in A LOT of time and effort to train up good CS skills and the corresponding leadership skills.

(Now again admittedly the whole Destroyer and Assault Frig issue should be resolved first, as a wider range of player base uses those ships. This statement better not come back to bite me in the *ss :P)


Re: BC vs CS - not sure what the complaint is here; CS's can do as much or more DPS, tank alot more dmg, and can fit ganglinks. Sure they cost a hell of a lot more, but they're best used in fleets of 15-20+++++ ships, where the total cost is in the 10's of billions, so even cost isn't a huge issue.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.07 15:02:00 - [124]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 07/07/2010 15:02:44
Originally by: Atsuko Ratu

Originally by: Liang Nuren

- Hull: 12206 / 513 = 24 sec <-------------- Why does the Myrm do full dps to 60% resisted hull?



Does DC II not mean damage control II for the drake? See bolded (arrows for clarity, it's a lot of info).


You don't think a Drake has 12206 raw hull do you? I already calculated the hull EHP and subtracted normalized DPS.

-Liang

Ed: I think I cited the Drake.

Cosmic Rainbow
Posted - 2010.07.07 15:04:00 - [125]
 

Edited by: Cosmic Rainbow on 07/07/2010 15:04:42
Originally by: Amanda Mor

Re: BC vs CS - not sure what the complaint is here; CS's can do as much or more DPS, tank alot more dmg, and can fit ganglinks. Sure they cost a hell of a lot more, but they're best used in fleets of 15-20+++++ ships, where the total cost is in the 10's of billions, so even cost isn't a huge issue.


Interesting point your making there, but I completely disagree (Im sure you're shocked right about now). DPS and tank wise, CS's have either no advantage, or a slim advantage over Tier 2 BC's

(Note: Broad statement made there to encompass both the field and fleet command ships averaged out vs Tier 2 BC's. In fact, of the field command ships, there is only 1 at present that actually stands out for its usefullness and value - the Sleipnir. That means that there are 7 other command ships that are either utilized in very slim roles (NH), or not utilized at all. Now when you add in Tech 3 cruisers, suddenly the usefulless of the CS becomes EVEN LESS)

Certainly there is not enough of an advantage with CS's to justify both the cost and exorbinant training time required in order to fly them, which is why they are under utilized.

I have to ask you - which CS or CS's do you fly?

To address your second point - that they are only to be used in large fleets. You could make that argument for Fleet Command Ships, but cetainly not Field Command Ships. They are supposed to be valuable for small to medium gangs to provide heavy gankage and tank, which all but 1 does not do at present.

Lastly - regarding your fleet boosting point - I dont buy that argument. All BC's can equip warfare links, therefore Tier 2 BC's can too. Tech 3 Cruisers can also equip warfare links - so suddenly its not just a niche little skill anymore is it?

So what do you have for all of that training time? Tier 2 BC's can put out just as much DPS if not more, and can sport as much or more of a tank than field command ships. They can also equip a warfare link too, just like field command ships. Tech 3 cruisers can equip warfare links too, and have bonus's. So whats the point here of having CS's?

Atsuko Ratu
Caldari
Quafe Industries
Posted - 2010.07.07 15:42:00 - [126]
 

Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 07/07/2010 15:47:02
Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 07/07/2010 15:46:18
Originally by: Liang Nuren


You don't think a Drake has 12206 raw hull do you? I already calculated the hull EHP and subtracted normalized DPS.

-Liang

Ed: I think I cited the Drake.


Ya, actually I realized that as I was eating breakfast. This is what I get for posting 15 minutes after waking up Laughing

Raw dps and raw tank are kinda silly, seeing as how the drake will always have the speed + range advantage, making all of that sort of unrealistic.

Originally by: Amanda Mor


Re: BC vs CS - not sure what the complaint is here; CS's can do as much or more DPS, tank alot more dmg, and can fit ganglinks. Sure they cost a hell of a lot more, but they're best used in fleets of 15-20+++++ ships, where the total cost is in the 10's of billions, so even cost isn't a huge issue.


Unless you plan on pimping your nighthawk, it's not gonna outperform the drake by much in any department. The drake can even field a ganglink just as easily.

Amanda Mor
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.07 16:21:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow
Edited by: Cosmic Rainbow on 07/07/2010 15:04:42
Originally by: Amanda Mor

Re: BC vs CS - not sure what the complaint is here; CS's can do as much or more DPS, tank alot more dmg, and can fit ganglinks. Sure they cost a hell of a lot more, but they're best used in fleets of 15-20+++++ ships, where the total cost is in the 10's of billions, so even cost isn't a huge issue.


Interesting point your making there, but I completely disagree (Im sure you're shocked right about now) (yes, I am completely shocked that someone would dare to disagree with me!!!). DPS and tank wise, CS's have either no advantage, or a slim advantage over Tier 2 BC's

(Note: Broad statement made there to encompass both the field and fleet command ships averaged out vs Tier 2 BC's. In fact, of the field command ships, there is only 1 at present that actually stands out for its usefullness and value - the Sleipnir. That means that there are 7 other command ships that are either utilized in very slim roles (NH), or not utilized at all. Now when you add in Tech 3 cruisers, suddenly the usefulless of the CS becomes EVEN LESS)

Certainly there is not enough of an advantage with CS's to justify both the cost and exorbinant training time required in order to fly them, which is why they are under utilized.

I have to ask you - which CS or CS's do you fly?----->I don't fly any yetEmbarassed

To address your second point - that they are only to be used in large fleets. You could make that argument for Fleet Command Ships, but cetainly not Field Command Ships. They are supposed to be valuable for small to medium gangs to provide heavy gankage and tank, which all but 1 does not do at present.

Lastly - regarding your fleet boosting point - I dont buy that argument. All BC's can equip warfare links, therefore Tier 2 BC's can too. Tech 3 Cruisers can also equip warfare links - so suddenly its not just a niche little skill anymore is it?

So what do you have for all of that training time? Tier 2 BC's can put out just as much DPS if not more, and can sport as much or more of a tank than field command ships. They can also equip a warfare link too, just like field command ships. Tech 3 cruisers can equip warfare links too, and have bonus's. So whats the point here of having CS's?


Point(s) taken; now excuse me while I remove Command Ships from my painstakenly constructed 1 year EveMon skillplan...

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.07 16:42:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Atsuko Ratu

Ya, actually I realized that as I was eating breakfast. This is what I get for posting 15 minutes after waking up Laughing

Raw dps and raw tank are kinda silly, seeing as how the drake will always have the speed + range advantage, making all of that sort of unrealistic.



Heh, yeah... first thing I did when I got up was check this thread. :P What did you think of the method for calculating overheat effects? I thought it was interesting that a 2 MAR/2 EANM/DC setup myrm was able to (theoretically.........) take a Drake. In reality 6 seconds isn't much of a margin when you're sporting an unrealistic fit (2/2/1) and are more susceptible to damage reduction (falloff, tracking).

It makes me wonder if even taking the time to pop the Hobgoblin II would make it literally impossible for them to kill you before they died? But then most tanky Myrms either sport Tri-hards or triple EANMs... and the Myrm can throw some Exile on top of it. Which takes us back to the point where "yeah, a myrm that can flat tank the Drake will kill it". But 2 Drakes vs 2 Myrms and the Drakes win...... again. :-/

Blah.

Quote:
Unless you plan on pimping your nighthawk, it's not gonna outperform the drake by much in any department. The drake can even field a ganglink just as easily.


Yeah, the NH is the most egregious example of this, but its common with all the command ships. Tier 2 BCs didn't obsolete command ships, but they definitely deliver similar results for a much better price. Some simple boosts would make most of the problems go away with command ships (compared to Tier 2 BCs) and would then clear the way for Tier 1s to be boosted to Tier 2 levels - it sucks that blaster pilots [Ferox/Brutix] take a backseat to Drone/Missile pilots [Myrm/Drake], for example.

-Liang

Amanda Mor
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.07 16:55:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Atsuko Ratu

Ya, actually I realized that as I was eating breakfast. This is what I get for posting 15 minutes after waking up Laughing

Raw dps and raw tank are kinda silly, seeing as how the drake will always have the speed + range advantage, making all of that sort of unrealistic.



Heh, yeah... first thing I did when I got up was check this thread. :P What did you think of the method for calculating overheat effects? I thought it was interesting that a 2 MAR/2 EANM/DC setup myrm was able to (theoretically.........) take a Drake. In reality 6 seconds isn't much of a margin when you're sporting an unrealistic fit (2/2/1) and are more susceptible to damage reduction (falloff, tracking).

It makes me wonder if even taking the time to pop the Hobgoblin II would make it literally impossible for them to kill you before they died? But then most tanky Myrms either sport Tri-hards or triple EANMs... and the Myrm can throw some Exile on top of it. Which takes us back to the point where "yeah, a myrm that can flat tank the Drake will kill it". But 2 Drakes vs 2 Myrms and the Drakes win...... again. :-/
-Liang


HA! Not if they shoot Myrm #1 while Myrm #2 reps him with his remote armor reppers - and if you don't fit remote armor reppers on your Myrm, then I just don't want to know what kind of crap fittings you've been sporting tbh... Laughing

In all seriousness tho, the BC class is probably the most balanced in the game, so any talk about nerfing this or buffing that is unnecessary (and risky).

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.07 16:58:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Amanda Mor

HA! Not if they shoot Myrm #1 while Myrm #2 reps him with his remote armor reppers - and if you don't fit remote armor reppers on your Myrm, then I just don't want to know what kind of crap fittings you've been sporting tbh... Laughing



I'm not sure you can actually argue this successfully. The EHP gained from a medium rep compared to the DPS lost from a gun may not actually be worth it. But then that's the nature of resist bonuses vs rep bonuses. /shrug

Quote:
In all seriousness tho, the BC class is probably the most balanced in the game, so any talk about nerfing this or buffing that is unnecessary (and risky).


I think it's pretty easy to say that Tier 1 BCs and the Myrm could use some love.

-Liang

Amanda Mor
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.07 17:11:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Amanda Mor

HA! Not if they shoot Myrm #1 while Myrm #2 reps him with his remote armor reppers - and if you don't fit remote armor reppers on your Myrm, then I just don't want to know what kind of crap fittings you've been sporting tbh... Laughing



I'm not sure you can actually argue this successfully. The EHP gained from a medium rep compared to the DPS lost from a gun may not actually be worth it. But then that's the nature of resist bonuses vs rep bonuses. /shrug



I was completely kidding here - you're right, 2 Drake v 2 Myrm, the Drakes win everytime

Quote:
In all seriousness tho, the BC class is probably the most balanced in the game, so any talk about nerfing this or buffing that is unnecessary (and risky).


I think it's pretty easy to say that Tier 1 BCs and the Myrm could use some love.

-Liang


Tier 1 BC's sure, but I'm having plenty of fun with my newly skilled Myrm, so I don't see a need to buff it tbh. Granted, I usually fight solo, and against smaller gangs, where it's best-in-class active tank is much more useful. The larger the gang, the less useful a Myrm becomes obviously - and it may shock you to know that occasionally that juicy cruiser flying around the glory belt in Amamake is, in fact, a trap, so you takes your chances sometimes with it.

That being said, I've seen a non-lol fit for a Myrm that gives it over 100K+ EHP with a couple 1600 plates - throw a tracking disruptor in place of the second web, and I'd consider taking on a BS solo with it.

Cosmic Rainbow
Posted - 2010.07.07 17:32:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

I think it's pretty easy to say that Tier 1 BCs and the Myrm could use some love.

-Liang


Or just de-buff the drake and other Tier 2 BC's. Im more in favor of this.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.07 17:49:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Amanda Mor
Tier 1 BC's sure, but I'm having plenty of fun with my newly skilled Myrm, so I don't see a need to buff it tbh.


I think the problem here is that you haven't flown the other batttlecruisers with good to make an informed decision. I've flown all the Battlecruisers, and I was historically a *huge* fan of the Myrm. But spending some time in a well skilled Drake cured me of that right quick! No, like I've said in many posts - Tier 2 BCs are the best balanced of the classes, and there's no lack of cool **** you can do in Eve with any race... but that doesn't mean that some lovin doesn't need to be spread around some. ;-)

-Liang

Backho
Posted - 2010.07.07 17:56:00 - [134]
 

If you involve shield transfers, drakes, win again....with the insane 70-85% across the board resistances, each shield transfer can easily add 200-400 dps tank on top of drakes insane passive tank....which becomes even more insane when you start overheating invuls.
Resists are shield's forte, as invuls are insanely good at the job.

Of course, they would need to use heavy missiles, But heavy missile fits with +1 bcu -1 dc2 +1 lse/invul has around the same EHP as a HAM fit, shy 30-35 dps, but can shoot +45km optimal at any range. Plus faction and precisions and FOF's makes me prefer HM's.

I dont really like when everyone compares stuff with HAM drake. 1v1. sure. go for it. But other then that, HAM's sacrifices too much snipe for a stick.


Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.07 18:02:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Backho
I dont really like when everyone compares stuff with HAM drake. 1v1. sure. go for it. But other then that, HAM's sacrifices too much snipe for a stick.


I think it depends where you live. In low sec, the DPS from HAMs is as a whole worthwhile. But there's a sly attraction to permatanking the sentries with a HML fit... YARRRR!!

-Liang

Meeko Atari
Posted - 2010.07.07 18:38:00 - [136]
 

Here is an Idea..

Fix rockets, Assault Frigs, Black Ops , Hybrid Turrets , etc

I also think there was a post by a Dev a year or two ago saying they knew about issues with the Nighthawk ( although its a little fuzzy now )

There is plenty to "fix" but the Drake and tier 2 BC's are not one of them its the most balanced ship class in eve.

Fix things that are really broke, Don't break things because you couldn't kill a passive drake in a belt.Rolling Eyes

Cosmic Rainbow
Posted - 2010.07.07 18:51:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: Meeko Atari
Here is an Idea..

Fix rockets, Assault Frigs, Black Ops , Hybrid Turrets , etc

I also think there was a post by a Dev a year or two ago saying they knew about issues with the Nighthawk ( although its a little fuzzy now )

There is plenty to "fix" but the Drake and tier 2 BC's are not one of them its the most balanced ship class in eve.

Fix things that are really broke, Don't break things because you couldn't kill a passive drake in a belt.Rolling Eyes


You've got some valid points in there - there are other issues that need to be fixed as well, however the Drake currently represents the second largest number of flown ships in EVE (Seen QEN report Q1 2010). Granted the QEN is a snapshot, but I think most players can agree, there are an awful lot of drakes flying around out there.

Ship type No. of ships % of total Change
Hulk 16,917 2.44% +1
Drake 15,669 2.26% -1
Kestrel 11,506 1.66% -
Rifter 11,120 1.60% -
Retriever 10,184 1.47% +1
Raven 8,100 1.17% +1
Catalyst 7,325 1.06% +1
Cormorant 7,179 1.04% +1
Dominix 6,880 0.99% +1
Condor 6,868 0.99% +1
Rookie ships, shuttles and capsules 290,372 41.87%
Other 301,344 43.45%

Why do I mention this? Because if you have a ship class that is over powered, and it is the most widely used ship in the game, a strong argument can be made that it is having a significant impact (negatively) on overall game play.

IMO CCP has made Tier 2 BC's an easy obtainable powerful class of ships to use in order to entice players. Fine. That means that there will be more players using the BC class, and thus it needs one of the greatest attentions to detail wrt (with respect to) to balance.

Rockets? Yes I agree they need attention, but I think less of importance than BC's.

AF's? I think these have more of a priority since more players would most likely use them than BC's and thus should be given a higher priority.

Destroyers? Same as AF's - higher priority as more players are likely to use them if they had a good role and were effective in some aspects of EVE other than salvaging.

Black Ops? Last on the list imo. Why? Potentially game breaking, as well as that it is a very skill intensive class that a small percentage of the player base can access at present.

Hybrids? Need a fix yes, but I would slot it after AF's and destroyers, and after Tier 2 BC's. Why? because they do work, they arent horribad, and can be used, especially large T2 hybrids for fleet combat.

Lucky for you guys I dont make the EVE software development schedule :)

Meeko Atari
Posted - 2010.07.07 19:01:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow
Originally by: Meeko Atari
Here is an Idea..

Fix rockets, Assault Frigs, Black Ops , Hybrid Turrets , etc

I also think there was a post by a Dev a year or two ago saying they knew about issues with the Nighthawk ( although its a little fuzzy now )

There is plenty to "fix" but the Drake and tier 2 BC's are not one of them its the most balanced ship class in eve.

Fix things that are really broke, Don't break things because you couldn't kill a passive drake in a belt.Rolling Eyes


You've got some valid points in there - there are other issues that need to be fixed as well, however the Drake currently represents the second largest number of flown ships in EVE (Seen QEN report Q1 2010). Granted the QEN is a snapshot, but I think most players can agree, there are an awful lot of drakes flying around out there.

Ship type No. of ships % of total Change
Hulk 16,917 2.44% +1
Drake 15,669 2.26% -1
Kestrel 11,506 1.66% -
Rifter 11,120 1.60% -
Retriever 10,184 1.47% +1
Raven 8,100 1.17% +1
Catalyst 7,325 1.06% +1
Cormorant 7,179 1.04% +1
Dominix 6,880 0.99% +1
Condor 6,868 0.99% +1
Rookie ships, shuttles and capsules 290,372 41.87%

Other 301,344 43.45%

Why do I mention this? Because if you have a ship class that is over powered, and it is the most widely used ship in the game, a strong argument can be made that it is having a significant impact (negatively) on overall game play.

IMO CCP has made Tier 2 BC's an easy obtainable powerful class of ships to use in order to entice players. Fine. That means that there will be more players using the BC class, and thus it needs one of the greatest attentions to detail wrt (with respect to) to balance.

Rockets? Yes I agree they need attention, but I think less of importance than BC's.

AF's? I think these have more of a priority since more players would most likely use them than BC's and thus should be given a higher priority.

Destroyers? Same as AF's - higher priority as more players are likely to use them if they had a good role and were effective in some aspects of EVE other than salvaging.

Black Ops? Last on the list imo. Why? Potentially game breaking, as well as that it is a very skill intensive class that a small percentage of the player base can access at present.

Hybrids? Need a fix yes, but I would slot it after AF's and destroyers, and after Tier 2 BC's. Why? because they do work, they arent horribad, and can be used, especially large T2 hybrids for fleet combat.

Lucky for you guys I dont make the EVE software development schedule :)



so what your saying is..besides the Drake all these other ships need to be nerfed because a lot of people fly them?

That is not a reason to nerf anything besides most of those drakes will never fly anywhere outside of hi-sec.

Unless those are the players you wish to annoy, and if that is your agenda...count me in!

Lugalzagezi666
Posted - 2010.07.07 19:15:00 - [139]
 

Imo hulk should be nerfed too. Seriously, too much ppl fly it, its op. And kestrel next!
Laughing

Cosmic Rainbow
Posted - 2010.07.07 19:19:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: Meeko Atari


so what your saying is..besides the Drake all these other ships need to be nerfed because a lot of people fly them?

That is not a reason to nerf anything besides most of those drakes will never fly anywhere outside of hi-sec.

Unless those are the players you wish to annoy, and if that is your agenda...count me in!


Clearly not what I said - the number of people flying the drake is but one reason to give it a higher priority in the queue for alterations. The other reasons have been well articulated in the post - that being it is over powered. Of course you'd know that, if you had read it.

Twin blade
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.07.07 19:25:00 - [141]
 

Edited by: Twin blade on 07/07/2010 19:25:09
I hope so just so we will never see them again in the Alliance Tournament even when they got blown up it was do dull and slow it was not fun.

Augin Soric
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.07.07 19:45:00 - [142]
 

Drakes aren't imbalanced, they're just boring.

Meeko Atari
Posted - 2010.07.07 19:49:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow
Originally by: Meeko Atari


so what your saying is..besides the Drake all these other ships need to be nerfed because a lot of people fly them?

That is not a reason to nerf anything besides most of those drakes will never fly anywhere outside of hi-sec.

Unless those are the players you wish to annoy, and if that is your agenda...count me in!


Clearly not what I said - the number of people flying the drake is but one reason to give it a higher priority in the queue for alterations. The other reasons have been well articulated in the post - that being it is over powered. Of course you'd know that, if you had read it.


Well that is where you and me differ in opinion, I do not see the drake as over powered.

I find it DPS a little low and delayed, the fact that 3 of the tier 2 BC can armor tank and are welcome in armor RR gangs also puts the drake at a loss.

Drakes are also slow even with a MWD and because its a shield tank has a massive sig radius, and will have to sacrifice tank for tackle

And it usually cant fit a Med Neut for frig defense so it will have to rely on drones or drop a launcher.

There are only 3 different fits for a drake, so if you are caught off guard...you failed

Plus the Myrm is a better passive shield tank if that's what your really mad about.

The Tier2 BC's are balanced.

Cosmic Rainbow
Posted - 2010.07.07 19:54:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: Meeko Atari
Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow
Originally by: Meeko Atari


so what your saying is..besides the Drake all these other ships need to be nerfed because a lot of people fly them?

That is not a reason to nerf anything besides most of those drakes will never fly anywhere outside of hi-sec.

Unless those are the players you wish to annoy, and if that is your agenda...count me in!


Clearly not what I said - the number of people flying the drake is but one reason to give it a higher priority in the queue for alterations. The other reasons have been well articulated in the post - that being it is over powered. Of course you'd know that, if you had read it.


Well that is where you and me differ in opinion, I do not see the drake as over powered.

I find it DPS a little low and delayed, the fact that 3 of the tier 2 BC can armor tank and are welcome in armor RR gangs also puts the drake at a loss.

Drakes are also slow even with a MWD and because its a shield tank has a massive sig radius, and will have to sacrifice tank for tackle

And it usually cant fit a Med Neut for frig defense so it will have to rely on drones or drop a launcher.

There are only 3 different fits for a drake, so if you are caught off guard...you failed

Plus the Myrm is a better passive shield tank if that's what your really mad about.

The Tier2 BC's are balanced.


Please read the thread, those points have largely been addressed.

Besides, Im not mad about other Tier 2 BC's. The only thing that yanks my chain is the power of the drake and other Tier 2 BC's compared to CS's. Yes I think the drake is the most over powered BC out there of all of them, but all Tier 2 BC's need a debuff.

They are wayyyyyyyy too powerful compared to CS's and other ships, and I would argue even compared to many of the HAC's out there. Once you get a few more skill points, re-evaluate again.

Lugalzagezi666
Posted - 2010.07.07 19:59:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow
...

You are incompetent and clueles - or troll. Or both.

Cosmic Rainbow
Posted - 2010.07.07 20:02:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: Lugalzagezi666
Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow
...

You are incompetent and clueles - or troll. Or both.


Very constructive. Not sure what you are referring to.

Meeko Atari
Posted - 2010.07.07 20:02:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow
Originally by: Meeko Atari
Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow
Originally by: Meeko Atari


so what your saying is..besides the Drake all these other ships need to be nerfed because a lot of people fly them?

That is not a reason to nerf anything besides most of those drakes will never fly anywhere outside of hi-sec.

Unless those are the players you wish to annoy, and if that is your agenda...count me in!


Clearly not what I said - the number of people flying the drake is but one reason to give it a higher priority in the queue for alterations. The other reasons have been well articulated in the post - that being it is over powered. Of course you'd know that, if you had read it.


Well that is where you and me differ in opinion, I do not see the drake as over powered.

I find it DPS a little low and delayed, the fact that 3 of the tier 2 BC can armor tank and are welcome in armor RR gangs also puts the drake at a loss.

Drakes are also slow even with a MWD and because its a shield tank has a massive sig radius, and will have to sacrifice tank for tackle

And it usually cant fit a Med Neut for frig defense so it will have to rely on drones or drop a launcher.

There are only 3 different fits for a drake, so if you are caught off guard...you failed

Plus the Myrm is a better passive shield tank if that's what your really mad about.

The Tier2 BC's are balanced.


Please read the thread, those points have largely been addressed.

Besides, Im not mad about other Tier 2 BC's. The only thing that yanks my chain is the power of the drake and other Tier 2 BC's compared to CS's. Yes I think the drake is the most over powered BC out there of all of them, but all Tier 2 BC's need a debuff.

They are wayyyyyyyy too powerful compared to CS's and other ships, and I would argue even compared to many of the HAC's out there. Once you get a few more skill points, re-evaluate again.


HAC's are cruisers, more powerful and maneuverable cruisers,
they were not designed to go toe to toe with a battlecruiser.

And I agree Command ships as a whole need looking into, but again are not designed to be a T2 tank / gank Battlecruiser, they are for fleet support / gang bonuses, Do they need help? hell yes!

But tier 2 battle cruisers are balanced, you may not like the fact that every mission runner has a drake but that does not mean that for PvP Drakes or any tier 2 Battle cruiser is overpowered.

Cosmic Rainbow
Posted - 2010.07.07 20:11:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: Meeko Atari


HAC's are cruisers, more powerful and maneuverable cruisers,
they were not designed to go toe to toe with a battlecruiser.

And I agree Command ships as a whole need looking into, but again are not designed to be a T2 tank / gank Battlecruiser, they are for fleet support / gang bonuses, Do they need help? hell yes!

But tier 2 battle cruisers are balanced, you may not like the fact that every mission runner has a drake but that does not mean that for PvP Drakes or any tier 2 Battle cruiser is overpowered.



My fault for expanding the arguments about HAC's - let me retract that because quite honestly while I feel its true, no sense in exacerbating a debate. We'll deal with the Tier 2 BC front first.

Also - in the interest of saving time, Im just going to copy and paste a previous post (see below) I made address your point of CS's being fleet boosters - because this point was already made, and it was addressed, that being your point is, no other way to say it, wrong.

One other point that I havent made thus far, but Ill make it here. Game design mechanics regarding MMORPG's genearlly agree that you dont want to buff up. It leads to further escalations and a never ending spiral of upwards power, one that cant ever be satisfied. Balancing becomes trickier if you bufff up. The idea is you want to "buff down" as it were.

You agree that CS's are under powered compared to Tier 2 BC's - therefore the opposite must also be true, that Tier 2 BC's are over powered compared to CS's. If CS's are supposed to be the Tech 2 equivalent to the BC, then it is true that they should be more powerful and useful than Tier 2 BC's - therefore Tier 2 BC's are over powered.


Previous post:
_________________________________________________________________________
"Interesting point your making there, but I completely disagree (Im sure you're shocked right about now). DPS and tank wise, CS's have either no advantage, or a slim advantage over Tier 2 BC's

(Note: Broad statement made there to encompass both the field and fleet command ships averaged out vs Tier 2 BC's. In fact, of the field command ships, there is only 1 at present that actually stands out for its usefullness and value - the Sleipnir. That means that there are 7 other command ships that are either utilized in very slim roles (NH), or not utilized at all. Now when you add in Tech 3 cruisers, suddenly the usefulless of the CS becomes EVEN LESS)

Certainly there is not enough of an advantage with CS's to justify both the cost and exorbinant training time required in order to fly them, which is why they are under utilized.

I have to ask you - which CS or CS's do you fly?

To address your second point - that they are only to be used in large fleets. You could make that argument for Fleet Command Ships, but cetainly not Field Command Ships. They are supposed to be valuable for small to medium gangs to provide heavy gankage and tank, which all but 1 does not do at present.

Lastly - regarding your fleet boosting point - I dont buy that argument. All BC's can equip warfare links, therefore Tier 2 BC's can too. Tech 3 Cruisers can also equip warfare links - so suddenly its not just a niche little skill anymore is it?

So what do you have for all of that training time? Tier 2 BC's can put out just as much DPS if not more, and can sport as much or more of a tank than field command ships. They can also equip a warfare link too, just like field command ships. Tech 3 cruisers can equip warfare links too, and have bonus's. So whats the point here of having CS's?"

Meeko Atari
Posted - 2010.07.07 20:14:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: Lugalzagezi666
Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow
...

You are incompetent and clueles - or troll. Or both.


In 100% agreement

Cosmic Rainbow
Posted - 2010.07.07 20:19:00 - [150]
 

Originally by: Meeko Atari
Originally by: Lugalzagezi666
Originally by: Cosmic Rainbow
...

You are incompetent and clueles - or troll. Or both.


In 100% agreement


Glad to see you are capable of a logical and well thought out discussion.

Its interesting how the dim witted collapse in the face of a well constructed argument.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8

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