These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Drake and Tengu - more popular than anything else by a huge margin
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#81 - 2012-05-03 19:36:56 UTC
Personaly i am against nerf of the missile weaponry.
But still, i agree that overpopularity of this two warships is a problem. There must not be the best ship in EVE online. Today Amars, Minmatars and galents buying those two ships. They are too effective, meantime requires not so many skills, drake is a cheap one also.

I hope that someone from CCP will read this. I have personal experience of drake and tengu combined negative influence on EVE. I know personaly two guys, all of them was amars, who leave EVE, because they was disapointed that uber ships exists in EVE. Both of them did not want to learn Caldari ship skills, missile and shield tanking skills because it is quite boring. "I've lost four months for what? To understand that i was wrong? And now i must start everything from begining?. No, thank you"
If CCP will not change situation, EVE will lost a big part of interest in the game, and players as a result.

I realy like CCP's idea to rebalance ships. I hope that they will do this with cold head. I very like diagramm in devblog about ship rebalancing. I hope that they will make T3 as it should be - universal multirole good ships, but not the universal answer to all demands. T2 ships must be more effective, but have no such number of roles, they must be specialist ships.T3 must combine 2, 3, 4 roles in single ship. Let say it would be good damager with good tank, with good scaning posibilities, and good electronic warfare, meantime T2 BC (field comand ships) must be excelent damagers with excelent tank, but ordinary scaning, cloaking and other posibilities. Don't kick me about details please, it is only example. Tengu breaks this example. You don't need nighthawk any more, even as a damager. Also nighthawk demands much more skills.

There is also huge advantage of those two ships - they uses shield tank. Armor tank should be boosted also. If you disagree with me, then name at least single armor tanked warship, who can deal with 5th level missions solo.

Tengu must be a very good ship, but not the uniqe one.

PS Sorry for my English
Lili Lu
#82 - 2012-05-03 22:35:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Timm Tachyon wrote:
Are you sure you are even reading the kill stats right?

For excample the drake is the only real missile dps hull. If you want to bring a missile cruiser/bc there is only the drake. The ferox/cyclone have less launchers/no bonus, the caracal is more an anti frig platform than a brawler.

It might make more sense to group the other ships by main armament.

I mean if you want to do large artillery alpha there are 3 hulls to do this, the mael for max tank, the tempest for a mix of tank/speed/utility and the tornado for max alpha/speed. Depending on the situation the large arty kills spread on those 3 hulls. Whereas if you want medium missiles there is only the drake, or when you have much isk the tengu. All other ships able to carry medium missiles are speciality hulls that are not really damage dealers.

In short the other weapons only seem that far behind because they are split over multiple hulls whereas the drake is the only real missile hull.


If you watch the eve-kill top 20 stats you will see that heavy missile launcher II and limos together will outnumber or double outnumber any collection of other weaponry (including 425mm and 220mm ac). So while you have a valid theory it does not prove out.
Lili Lu
#83 - 2012-05-03 22:53:28 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
You seem fixated on use of Drakes by Goons. While the CFC is a large block of pvp pilots it is not just they that use them. Drakes predominate in smaller gang warfare as well, because everyone wants that cheap powerful tank.


That "fixation" is also there for a good reason: the extended discussion of "Drakes in numbers, means numbers".

You used the 200+ figure as part of an argument: . . . (long post, much like mine lol)


I used 200 example in the context of comparing tanks of a drake and an AHAC in a conflict between them. We found that at about 170-200 tipping point (many factors affect it though, engagment range, tackle compliment, logi and ewar compliment, etc) the AHACs could no longer prevail because they would get volley'd by the drakes but not vice versa.

I agree with you though that coalition blob warfare has a role in exagerating stats. However, it is not just large fleet actions that use Drakes. They are a go to ship for many smaller gangs. Especially if your logi complement is small or lacking. Drake use for smaller battles is not receiving the coalition mega-blob bump. Your valid concern does not explain the extent of the stats.

Also, another behavioral aspect of the Drake popularity is that noone likes going down in flames quickly at the beginning of a skirmish. When the call to scramble comes many reflexively jump into Drakes for the cheap/insurable resist bonus. It is nice to delay the possibility of having your ship shot out from under you before you have fun in the battle. Not everyone sees themselves as the damn the torpedos full speed ahead type P This accounts for much of the Drake popularity, whether elite pvp-ers poopoo that "cowardly" instinct or not. Few want to risk a shiny recon etc especially if their corp or alliance is not infused with moon goo and has a generous ship replacement program.
drdxie
#84 - 2012-05-03 22:56:20 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Theyre popular cos they require no skill or effort to fly.


This is why i fly them..

Caldari Loving needed.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1608277&#post1608277
Lili Lu
#85 - 2012-05-03 23:20:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Malcanis wrote:
How will nerfing the Drake bring more Harbingers into fleet fights? I'm fascinated to learn.

See, if I wanted to bring Harbs into fleet fights, I'd increase their fitting capability to make Heavy beam fits viable, and maybe add a touch of agility. I can't for the life of me see how nerfing the Drake will make the Harb viable for fleet fights, because viable Drakes isn't what's keeping Harbs out of fleets. It's the fact that there are a large number of other better-than-harb fleet doctrines.

So getting Harbs into fleets your way is going to involve nerfing a hell of a lot more ships than Drakes. In fact just about every core fleet ship would have to be nerfhammered pretty hard to make Harbs a popular fleet ship.

EDIT: Just so we're clear here: is it that you have a problem with there being a relatively cheap, easy-to-train-for ship that allows newer players to have access to fleet combat or is it that you have a problem with there being only one relatively cheap, easy-to-train-for ship that allows newer players to have access to fleet combat.

If you're looking to raise the bar for joining into fleet combat, then fine, carry on with your anti-scrub crusade. I just wanted to make sure, because it sounds a bit like you're trying to argue both sides at once.


Ah, now we're getting somewhere. If I read your sentence after "EDIT:" correctly I think you left out another possibility. Unfortunately you characterize any position other than the two you listed, as arguing both sides at once. However, your premise is incorrect in that there is not simply two sides to the issue. And, the two choices your presented are not mutually exclusive.

My main concern is yes that there is only one cheap easy-to-train entre into fleet fighting, the Drake (and I would add that it has the same unique easy entre to level 4s in pve). Of course nerfing the Drake is not going to make Harbingers fleet worthy against BSs or massed HACs or tech III (assuming that weren't just the Tengu fleets and that there could be massed Legion or Proteus or Loki fleets as well).

I don't agree with your characterization of nerfing Drakes as an "anti-scrub" crusade. If you are going to paint me with that charge of snobbery then go ahead and paint CCP with it since the Drake will be nerfed. I hardly think CCP is on an "anti-scrub" crusade, what with all the changes over the years to starting attributes and sp accumulation, and the impending reductions in skill reqs for specialized ships (I really hope CCP does not dumb down the skill tree).

We do not know however what may come with the tiericide. It is concievable that "scrubs" as you put it may find utility in new tech I ewar or logistic cruisers. They will probably just be fodder what with Alpha Maels probably topping the killboards after Drakes recede. We will see.

But regardless, Malc, you and I grew up in an eve where you needed to skill into a sniper BS, or a specialized smaller hull tech II ship such as a dictor or cov ops or ceptor to get involved in fleet battles. Nothing wrong with that tbh. Eve is about goals. If it si easy for "scrubs" to fly a Drake in a fleet fight, then it is also easy for every vet to skill an alt into a Drake flying blob stuffer. Does that help the game and the situation we have now?

I'm hopeful, even though I prod them with sarcasm on the forums, that CCP is finally getting serious about giving every ship some utility. Drakes have become a feedback loop. Hey noob, skill this ship, it's cheap and easy for making isk in missions, and you can also get into the action (as fodder in the blob). Everyone is steered, funnelled, into one ship and ship progression Drake>Tengu. This does not make a healthy game, for "scrubs" or anyone.
Lili Lu
#86 - 2012-05-03 23:36:22 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
Having more ships become worth flying is good. If it works out that way.


Nerfing the Drake won't miraculously make other BCs viable... in the end it's taking away one hull you swear up and down is currently usable ("stepping outside it's class"). You also seem to want a Tengu nerf, turning sov fights into "MORE BATTLESHIPS" and taking away one common comp that is able to fight effectively under tracking titans.


I guess I dislike all tech III because of what they have been doing to combat commands and Hacs, so some of my disdain for the Tengu is coming from that. It seems CCP recognizes that problem now. Unfortunately the Tengu gets my full fire because well it is head and shoulders above the others except for small niche roles like incursion vanguards, or tackle support in armor fleets.

Wouldn't it be great though if HACs got a slight buff and could compete again with BSs? Or if tech IIIs, all of them, while not as powerful as the current Tengu still retained a place as a backbone ship for fleet battles. Can't argue with your sentiment there.

As my main dispute is with Tengus, you are probably saying buff the others don't nerf the Tengu. Problem with that though is would it leave ALL the combat hacs and commands in the same state as the current Cerb, Eagle, and Nighthawk? That does not seem to me to be a solution on the horzon with CCP. Concurrently of course all the HACs and Commands could get a buff, along with those remaining tech IIIs. I wonder if that would happen? Even though individually they all need some to differing extents.

Also, even though you probably don't care about it, the real Tengu problem in my eyes is the huge advantage it has in pve (unprobable, or wormholes, or level 5s, or whatever) Oh well, just wanted to explain my Tengu distaste as of course it is not topping the kill stats like the drake and is an expensive ship to lose.
Lili Lu
#87 - 2012-05-03 23:49:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Anyone who substitutes BS for Drakes (without massive numbers advantage) is silly.


Won't find me disagreeing there. And yet, Drakes proliferate. And not just in large fleet actions. Coalition blobbage does help skew the numbers, but it is not the explanation.

Mfume Apocal wrote:
We don't fly Muninns in large fights. When we do, we get stomped, because HACs are a completely non-viable shipclass for large-scale fights, outside of AHAC Zealots. For casual roaming and fight-crashing, Muninns work fine, but once people put seriousfaces on and start maxing out fleets, it's not a good ship to be in. AHAC Muninn checkin' in. 12km of AC falloff, 371 turret DPS.

What?


Yeah sad that is. 720mm shield Muninns not good for large battles. Although iirc we went with 650s on Muninn AHACs. Regardless yeah the dps and range is not so great on those. Ship could lose a high for another low or mid imo, and all HACs a slight hp buff.

edit- Off to watch the Flyers v Devils on the tele. Go Flyers >_> <_> <_<
Noisrevbus
#88 - 2012-05-04 00:37:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Lili Lu wrote:

I used 200 example in the context of comparing tanks of a drake and an AHAC in a conflict between them.


Exactly so mate, the example itself is largely irrelevant. The issue is that there is a tipping point to begin with, and before that there are no larger issues with the Drake, as a ship. It's still a powerful ship but counters to it, like AHACs, work to balance it. AHACs were first used to battle Drakes, the problem is that the largest scale groups in the game realized they could re-counter that by just bringing more Drakes. That is what disrupted balance.

That is the reason we even discuss numbers versus Titans now, because the problem wasn't nipped in the bud.

It's not the Drake that tip the scales, it's the numbers game.

The problem isn't the Drake, it's the numbers.

By focusing on the Drake you are focusing on the wrong thing. You focus on the symptoms instead of the illness.

Neutering the bonuses of the Drake, the Tengu or Heavy missiles does not deal with the issues.

To effectively nerf the "Drake" you need to deal with the true imbalances: cost-efficiency and scaling of numbers.

Those are the real reasons the ship is popular.

Giving the Drake 60k EHP and letting it fire 110km, instead of having 90k EHP while firing kinetic 80km, will not make the ship any less popular in "200-man fleets". It will make smaller fleets even less likely to engage them!

Making sure losing a Drake cost closer to losing a Maelstrom or Deimos will, along with looking to find a balance between numbers that encourages people to engage both up and down. That is how you get emergence. Not just reach the critical mass of "200-man fleets" on grid to discourage others from interacting with you. That is a blob.

To fix these things you need Soundwave off the kool-aid, because he's still in awesome-land thinking the game need more risk-free and meaningless explosions. Look at any recent dev-vlog and observe his terminology.

It's monocles!
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#89 - 2012-05-04 01:06:09 UTC
drdxie wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Theyre popular cos they require no skill or effort to fly.


This is why i fly them..

qft

I should buy an Ishtar.
Noisrevbus
#90 - 2012-05-04 01:50:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Quote:
However, it is not just large fleet actions that use Drakes. They are a go to ship for many smaller gangs. Especially if your logi complement is small or lacking. Drake use for smaller battles is not receiving the coalition mega-blob bump. Your valid concern does not explain the extent of the stats.


As for this bit or the PvE bit, i'm not sure what else to say. The Drake being a useful ship at a smaller scale does not equal a problem. All races have competent and available options to deal with Drakes at that scale. The fact that you might need to wait a day or two to train BS 3 does not write off the Domi as an example when it comes to easy-access level-up PvE. All other races have 100m3+ drone BS whose skillset tie perfectly into Carriers.

If i bring BS Arty i can alpha through the Drakes, assuming gangs as small as 15. I can outrange them with any ships that can fire 100km. I can tank them with an AB, wether that's 10mn or 100mn, it will make their damage output at smaller scale ridiculously low. I can engage them with anything that have larger tanks and equal range (BS, even with short-range weapons). I can rush them down with any ship that is faster and can stay alive while ontop of them (through better tank-spank, utility or mitigation).

There are so many options to beat them hands down, that i simply can not see how anyone would consider them overpowered. As Malcanis has pointed out to you a couple of times already, at the large fleet scales it has the same reputation. That is, of course, as long as we ignore cost-efficiency and scaling of numbers (numerical advantage).

What kind of problem do you have with them at smaller scales? I need to know what the problem is to help you.

"The hostile gang had logies, we didn't, yet still tried to brawl them in more thinly buffered ships" isn't a very good example to start from. The only hugely popular tactic that doesn't work very good on Drakes is that kind of oldschool nano-esque kiting, and them having crucial support for what they do but you don't say more about you than them.

As you put it, cowardice or stupidity, are not reasons to nerf the Drake either. Remember, we have this discussion because you see grounds to tamper with the Drakes' stats and bonuses. We're not debating wether or not the Drake is a good or popular ship. I think we all agree that it's both good and popular. What we discuss here is the motives to change it. I've only seen invalid or irrelevant motivation so far.

I'm no larger fan of Drakeblobs than you are, i just don't want the game to have less and lesser alternatives Roll.
drdxie
#91 - 2012-05-04 01:58:12 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
drdxie wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Theyre popular cos they require no skill or effort to fly.


This is why i fly them..

qft


Me.. never.. I was sharing.. on the other hand... you added no content to the discussion you TROLL you !!!!!! Big smileP

Caldari Loving needed.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1608277&#post1608277
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2012-05-04 05:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mfume Apocal
Lili Lu wrote:
I guess I dislike all tech III because of what they have been doing to combat commands and Hacs, so some of my disdain for the Tengu is coming from that. It seems CCP recognizes that problem now. Unfortunately the Tengu gets my full fire because well it is head and shoulders above the others except for small niche roles like incursion vanguards, or tackle support in armor fleets.


What did T3s do to "combat commands" (I assume you mean field CS) and HACs? Legions didn't replace Zealots, Lokis didn't replace Vagas or Sleipnirs, did anyone unironically fly Nighthawks beside Fon Revedhort?

Quote:
Wouldn't it be great though if HACs got a slight buff and could compete again with BSs?


This is what T3s are currently. They just have a different name and appropriate increase in price.

Quote:
As my main dispute is with Tengus, you are probably saying buff the others don't nerf the Tengu. Problem with that though is would it leave ALL the combat hacs and commands in the same state as the current Cerb, Eagle, and Nighthawk?


The Tengu didn't come into existance and make the Eagle suck balls. It's bonuses and stats make it suck balls. The Nighthawk has PG problems. *I* think the Cerb is alright though, if overshadowed a bit by the Caracal Navy Issue.

Quote:
Also, even though you probably don't care about it, the real Tengu problem in my eyes is the huge advantage it has in pve (unprobable, or wormholes, or level 5s, or whatever) Oh well, just wanted to explain my Tengu distaste as of course it is not topping the kill stats like the drake and is an expensive ship to lose.


Yeah, I don't really care about PvE balance. Why does it matter at all which ship is best at making isk?

Lili Lu wrote:
My main concern is yes that there is only one cheap easy-to-train entre into fleet fighting, the Drake (and I would add that it has the same unique easy entre to level 4s in pve). Of course nerfing the Drake is not going to make Harbingers fleet worthy against BSs or massed HACs or tech III (assuming that weren't just the Tengu fleets and that there could be massed Legion or Proteus or Loki fleets as well).


1. The Maelstrom is nearly as newbie friendly, since you don't need T2 guns for the comp to work and the Maelstrom itself is a 1 bonus ship as a part of Alphafleet.
2. There have been Legion and Loki fleets employed.

I'm actually legitimately curious where your fleet experience comes from that you haven't seen any T3 fleet other than Tengus...?
Federigo Mondial
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#93 - 2012-05-04 06:37:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Federigo Mondial
@ the OP, nerfing Drakes and Tengu won't do anything at all. It would just make the Maelstrom or Hurricane take the top spot . Then what would you do ? Start the whining all over again ? Roll

And before calling me off, I have far moar gun skills than I have in missiles in this alt alone. If Drakes and Tengus are "too viable", the focus should be to BOOST the other BCs and T3s instead.

Nerfing a Drake isn't going to make Harbinger or the Myrm popular, it would just shift the Hurricane back to the BC of choice and you get the same circle over and over again.