These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing ships and ammo !

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2014-09-14 07:24:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Veers Belvar wrote:
thankfully I survived.


Then you've really got nothing to complain about, have you. Because at the end of the day, if you can do it, my pet cockatiels probably could too.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Heavy Met4l Queen
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#142 - 2014-09-14 07:32:54 UTC
In my humble opinion, nothing of value was lost.

In the game of conquest, who cares about the pawns if the king yet reigns?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#143 - 2014-09-14 07:42:01 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Ok, its late and this conversation is kind of stale. I don't think we are communicating here. Last post on this tonight.


Fine, maybe it was unfair of me to start attacking other posts of yours out of context. I think you can agree that your fundamental views on hisec are quite antithetical to the views some others in thread support?



Well, that's fair enough. I definitely have deep disagreements with Remiel, Kauuros, Baltec1, etc....


About what in relation of battleships do you disagree with me about?
Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#144 - 2014-09-14 07:50:20 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


I was warping to an incursion site 60 au from the dockup. How would dscan help find the catas that were bouncing around? I had no idea they were in sys....and even if i found them on scan it would be too late to do anything about it. They happened to meet me at the gate by sheer luck. There was nothing to do about it, thankfully I survived.



1. The longer the warp the more you get to scope the system out enroute
2. Always know who is in system with you
3. It's never too late - the odds of failure are drastically increased when you lack belief
4. Wait you warped 60 au to a site from a station and then to the gate - how far was gate from site? how far was gate from station? Most locations in system are clustered together in groups you have travelled through 3 clustered groups.

I would consider myself a run of the mill bitter vet, not an expert on much in Eve Online, but I know there is always ways to make things swing more in your favour. Before aiming to change the mechanics of the game, learn the depth of use of possible mechanics:

bump aligning, dscan focus, web aligning, slingshoting, corp, alliance standing, criminal standing, bounty standing, shiptype overview selection, cloaked warp in, in line safes, bouncing safes...

...all of these mechanic utilisations can be used with differing effect in different space types.
Crazy Candy
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#145 - 2014-09-14 08:36:52 UTC
IDK why this is coming up like two months after we did it. I guess GG losing a multi-bil pod in hisec finally made him crack.

The effort we had to put in setting up the gank is more than enough to signify that the current state of suicide ganking is fine. As Prize Bot alluded to, we had a ridiculously small window to execute on. If it wasn't us, somebody else would have got him - numerous people said they had been scouting to kill GG as well.

Also lmao we would have lost a lot more than 600mil if I didn't hit him for 12,000 on my cycle, this stuff is really costly. TL;DR get good and use a scout, or stop flying stupidly blinged ships.
Lister Dax
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2014-09-14 08:56:51 UTC
Nice stealth grr-ganking thread with the misleading title.

So are you still upset about the Pasta guys?
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#147 - 2014-09-14 09:33:31 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Agreed.

Game Mechanics have been heavily skewed to favor Suicide Ganking which has become the top play option available in this game.



DMC


If you leave hisec, you'll find that we call this activity "PvP" and don't get butthurt over it.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#148 - 2014-09-14 09:58:08 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

wait let me get the eyeroll smiley ready, here we go

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Agreed.

Game Mechanics have been heavily skewed to favor Suicide Ganking which has become the top play option available in this game.



DMC

Roll
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#149 - 2014-09-14 10:00:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
i read that article this morning and thought to myself " i know im going to have to kill someone over this".

i get here and yup, heresy all over my morning read....

that aside
Veers Belvar wrote:

B. Battleships are the ugly duckling of Eve. They are used by mission runners who generally are not worried about getting ganked since it is a pain to scan them down and gank them. They are not seen as much in low/null because of their relatively high cost, and the easy of ganking them with frigs, cruisers, bombers, etc.. etc...

wrong, they are the easiest things in highsec to find with probes, and always worth scanning down, frequently no ganking required.

if thers more than one of us in system we have to call out the sig so we dont all land on grid at the same instant

im not adressing the rest of the thread as its just veers continuing to be wrong for 8 pages.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
El Space Mariachi
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#150 - 2014-09-14 10:03:47 UTC
GG we're still sad you left, you realise no one was actually going to awox you right? We're not that kind of people, we don't awox our friends and members. Come on home brother : - )

gay gamers for jesus
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2014-09-14 10:26:04 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
i read that article this morning and thought to myself " i know im going to have to kill someone over this".

i get here and yup, heresy all over my morning read....

that aside
Veers Belvar wrote:

B. Battleships are the ugly duckling of Eve. They are used by mission runners who generally are not worried about getting ganked since it is a pain to scan them down and gank them. They are not seen as much in low/null because of their relatively high cost, and the easy of ganking them with frigs, cruisers, bombers, etc.. etc...

wrong, they are the easiest things in highsec to find with probes, and always worth scanning down, frequently no ganking required.

if thers more than one of us in system we have to call out the sig so we dont all land on grid at the same instant

im not adressing the rest of the thread as its just veers continuing to be wrong for 8 pages.


Yah, all I have to say about that is,

Raven.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#152 - 2014-09-14 10:36:16 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
i read that article this morning and thought to myself " i know im going to have to kill someone over this".

i get here and yup, heresy all over my morning read....

that aside
Veers Belvar wrote:

B. Battleships are the ugly duckling of Eve. They are used by mission runners who generally are not worried about getting ganked since it is a pain to scan them down and gank them. They are not seen as much in low/null because of their relatively high cost, and the easy of ganking them with frigs, cruisers, bombers, etc.. etc...

wrong, they are the easiest things in highsec to find with probes, and always worth scanning down, frequently no ganking required.

if thers more than one of us in system we have to call out the sig so we dont all land on grid at the same instant

im not adressing the rest of the thread as its just veers continuing to be wrong for 8 pages.


Yah, all I have to say about that is,

Raven.

Shockedstacking penalties much!?
250mm Railgun IStraight
lol, good kill.

on a similar note...tengu

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2014-09-14 10:48:10 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:


Yah, all I have to say about that is,

Raven.

Shockedstacking penalties much!?
250mm Railgun IStraight
lol, good kill.

on a similar note...tengu


Already seen that. I expect you guys to upstage me, so I'm not surprised. I could probably learn a lot from you, Feyd and the others.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#154 - 2014-09-14 11:54:58 UTC
I think the OP is an impersonator; as "gaming gods" go he's not very good at this one because that pod loss is hilarious, also this thread.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#155 - 2014-09-14 13:49:21 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
Veers Belvar wrote:
Robart Baboli wrote:
a few notes for people not familiar with the guy talking about an incursion fit ship.
Incursion ships are put together with the least practical buffer for the application. they use shiny mods to free up space. that he has 2 A types and a DCU on there makes it overtanked as far as mods go by incursion standards. most people run less. that he only had 127K ehp still suggests he had damage rigs.
I agree with the people on the side of the catalysts here. 27 toons. either a hell of a computer, or a couple of them, if it really was a boxer. and he still didn't manage to kill you. you're complaining that a guy with enough time to run 27 accounts, for a godawful plex total didn't manage to kill your mach? FFS man, deal with it.

Welcome to new eden sir. anything expensive, people will want to take away from you. especially as an incursion runner. the only reasons the guy likely didn't do you in was overheating, and perhaps not accounting for boosts.

and to the other people: Incursions aren't missions. the meta is towards pirate battleships, with logi support. missiles are fairly strictly not allowed. about 2 groups allow them. just because you have a random fit which manages a better EHP number doesn't mean it's useful. and the guy with the rattle fit, you're talking about EHP numbers on one of the three battleship hulls in the game with a resist bonus per BS skill level, which is designed, like the rest of the scorpion hull based ships, around a stupid number of mid slots. also, passive tank in incursions is useless, as is local tank. the incoming DPS is intended to require a fleet to deal with, at least in HQs, which is about the only place you'll see a double A type mach. you use remote reps. he was warping to a beacon with an acceleration gate, rather than a normal gate or a mission gate you need to scan down. so A), he couldn't take gate as soon as he landed, he needed to get up to speed, and B), anyone else could easily warp to it.

for that matter, many communities will tell people with thick tanks to reduce it, as it isn't needed. although, if you can't replace it, don't fly it.

And yes, it is rather scatter brained. sorry.


My complaint is specifically about the relative dps of cheap gank ships to the ehp of expensive battleships. Personally I don't think that cheap 2 mil catas, even 27 of them, should have enough dps to take down a 700 mil battleship before CONCORD arrives. The dps and ehp are completely arbitrarily determined by CCP, and in my view they chose to make suicide ganking too easy. If people want to use nados, I could handle that - I just don't think that ultra cheap catas should be effective gank ships.


Stop right there. What you are saying is that even if 700 cheap gank ships doing 25dps each should not bring down a Battle ship?

And you are screaming "Balance"
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#156 - 2014-09-14 14:19:35 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Ok, its late and this conversation is kind of stale. I don't think we are communicating here. Last post on this tonight.


Fine, maybe it was unfair of me to start attacking other posts of yours out of context. I think you can agree that your fundamental views on hisec are quite antithetical to the views some others in thread support?



Well, that's fair enough. I definitely have deep disagreements with Remiel, Kauuros, Baltec1, etc....


About what in relation of battleships do you disagree with me about?


Nothing specific, I was talking about game mechanics, bumping, safety in highsec in general, etc....
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#157 - 2014-09-14 14:22:42 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
i read that article this morning and thought to myself " i know im going to have to kill someone over this".

i get here and yup, heresy all over my morning read....

that aside
Veers Belvar wrote:

B. Battleships are the ugly duckling of Eve. They are used by mission runners who generally are not worried about getting ganked since it is a pain to scan them down and gank them. They are not seen as much in low/null because of their relatively high cost, and the easy of ganking them with frigs, cruisers, bombers, etc.. etc...

wrong, they are the easiest things in highsec to find with probes, and always worth scanning down, frequently no ganking required.

if thers more than one of us in system we have to call out the sig so we dont all land on grid at the same instant

im not adressing the rest of the thread as its just veers continuing to be wrong for 8 pages.


And yet barely anyone seems to go gank them. In running thousands of missions I've had 3 people show up - all of them the flashy yellow "space trash collectors" who I troll by threatening to shoot, getting them all excited, and then never actually shoot, making them sad. I've never had any real suicide gankers show up, and I think the incidence of such is extremely low.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#158 - 2014-09-14 14:24:31 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:


Stop right there. What you are saying is that even if 700 cheap gank ships doing 25dps each should not bring down a Battle ship?

And you are screaming "Balance"


Personally I would like to see a World of Tanks style system where shields have a certain thickness and guns have a certain penetration, so small guns could not really do any damage to battleship shields, even 700 of them. This would not have stopped the Pasta folks, who brought real gank ships, but it would steap the cheap suicide ganks with catalysts.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#159 - 2014-09-14 14:24:33 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
My complaint is specifically about the relative dps of cheap gank ships to the ehp of expensive battleships. Personally I don't think that cheap 2 mil catas, even 27 of them, should have enough dps to take down a 700 mil battleship before CONCORD arrives. The dps and ehp are completely arbitrarily determined by CCP, and in my view they chose to make suicide ganking too easy. If people want to use nados, I could handle that - I just don't think that ultra cheap catas should be effective gank ships.


James 315, Supreme Protector of Halaima and Savior of Highsec,
'Manifesto II' wrote:
At the heart of the ideological battle between the carebears and the rest of us, is a conflict of visions. There are two completely different visions about the way EVE should be. There is no room for compromise. Maybe you believe there is a middle ground. Through an endless series of nerfs, those favoring PvP (or "grief") have indeed been forced to compromise. But if the carebears were interested in compromise, they would have stopped bleating for nerfs long ago, as they already received more than their fair share of favors. The carebears continue in their efforts--accelerating them, actually--because they are not interested in compromise or middle ground. They, too, understand that you can only have one vision or the other: Either a ship in highsec can be killed, or it can't. As long as the mining ships aren't invincible while AFK, the carebear is not satisfied. Thus, you either have a PvP game, or a pure PvE game.

Some carebears still claim to be moderates, expressing a wish for "more limited" or "balanced" PvP in highsec. That argument may have flown years ago, but since the demand for nerfs has never ended, it's fair to say that they can only have one aim in mind.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#160 - 2014-09-14 14:29:13 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Gaming God wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Gaming God wrote:

So a 5 mil gang shooting down a 22 bil defencles ship in 5 secs ...


If it's only taking 5 destroyers to kill a Marauder, someone is doing something very wrong on the Marauder end...

And since when are Marauders defenceless? This is the first I've heard of it...



Ok it was 6 desytroyers i checked the kill mail . There was nothing wrong wit the marauder or de player behind it . It just went so fast that even 18 of the 22 gankers dit not get on the kill mail it went so fast there was no time to enable any mod on the ship to defend it self Thats what i mean with Defencless marauder :)

KILL Link


Those aren't destroyers, they are battlecruisers, and they cost substantially more than 1 mil a piece. I suggest learning more about the game before asserting it needs better balance.

And that Marauder fit is terrible. I could make a list, or call Bingo right now, but I need only mention stacking penalties on Ballistic Controls. You have too many, and no DCU.


Gamming Gods don't need to ltp they just know.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.