These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Gallente tactical destroyer - Forced to use MWD setups not fun.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#81 - 2015-07-09 13:51:41 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Go away troll.


Implying the OP was not...
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#82 - 2015-07-09 14:12:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Nidal Fervor
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
...I am forced...


Let me stop you right there.

No one is forcing you to do anything.


Anyone can take a sentence out of context by quoting only a small part of it. Well done you, you're a big boy now. Let's put it back into context: I am forced to use MWD or else I won't be taking advantage of the propulsion mode
Syrilian
Doomheim
#83 - 2015-07-09 14:15:03 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
...I am forced...


Let me stop you right there.

No one is forcing you to do anything.


Anyone can take a sentence out of context by quoting only a small part of it. Well done you, you're a big boy now. Let's put it back into context: I am forced to use MWD or else I won't be taking advantage of the propulsion mode


Nope, still makes sense. No one is forcing you to use an MWD. You aren't force to take advantage of anything. You can either use it or not.
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2015-07-09 14:20:47 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
...I am forced...


Let me stop you right there.

No one is forcing you to do anything.


Anyone can take a sentence out of context by quoting only a small part of it. Well done you, you're a big boy now. Let's put it back into context: I am forced to use MWD or else I won't be taking advantage of the propulsion mode

Context is irrelevant for this snippet, because it stands on it's own quite fine. You used "being forced" wrongly and I guess you never REALLY have been forced to do anything considering your childish, immature, self entitled behaviour.

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#85 - 2015-07-09 14:31:55 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
Just don't understand what this thread is all about. Why would you want AB on a blaster fit?


*notsureifserious*
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#86 - 2015-07-09 15:10:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
...I am forced...


Let me stop you right there.

No one is forcing you to do anything.


Anyone can take a sentence out of context by quoting only a small part of it. Well done you, you're a big boy now. Let's put it back into context: I am forced to use MWD or else I won't be taking advantage of the propulsion mode
By that metric I'm forced to use an active armour tank on my Myrmidon or else I'm not taking advantage of the armour repair bonus... oh wait no I'm not; shield tanking a Myrm works quite nicely.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#87 - 2015-07-09 15:27:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Nidal Fervor
Sure sure. We'll see who is right in the end; you all go on trolling. Give it a few weeks and see how the hecate is doing then.

Killboard stats have hecate as the worst of the T3 destroyers by a mile. I knew it would be before it was even released; that ship has numerous issues that hold it back from being a great ship.

Until then, not using that ship is a great option; one I shall be using.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#88 - 2015-07-09 15:31:33 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
The bottom line is roles by definition are anti-sandbox.


...really? Of anything else you might have said, you're going for this absurdity?

Ship roles are this game's substitute for character classes, genius. They are a necessity to the sandbox, and are what primarily allows for diversity between ship types, as opposed to "Generic Minmatar Medium ship, Generic Amarr Medium ship", etc.


No they are not a necessity. They are a crutch for folk with no imagination. The question is - in a sandbox, who should decide what role a ship fills? The devs or the players? Do you really think in a sandbox where there were no roles that there would be uniformity? No, there would still be logi, dps, hauler, etc. . . It would just be up to the players to make the roles from generic hulls. of course the problem is that some folk just want content spoon fed to them.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#89 - 2015-07-09 15:36:42 UTC
Harrison Tato wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
The bottom line is roles by definition are anti-sandbox.


So shovels and pails should do the exact same thing?


With enough time and money I could definitely turn a shovel into a pail and back, just as if I had the time money and inclination I could turn an aircraft carrier into a cruise ship. Ofc there maybe inefficiencies but so what? An orca may not be the best battle ship platform because its big and slow due to its size, but because its so big, with enough isk you should certainly be able to send it into a dry dock to fit hard points to mount any number of guns or missile turrets.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2015-07-09 15:37:45 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
The bottom line is roles by definition are anti-sandbox.


...really? Of anything else you might have said, you're going for this absurdity?

Ship roles are this game's substitute for character classes, genius. They are a necessity to the sandbox, and are what primarily allows for diversity between ship types, as opposed to "Generic Minmatar Medium ship, Generic Amarr Medium ship", etc.


No they are not a necessity. They are a crutch for folk with no imagination. The question is - in a sandbox, who should decide what role a ship fills? The devs or the players? Do you really think in a sandbox where there were no roles that there would be uniformity? No, there would still be logi, dps, hauler, etc. . . It would just be up to the players to make the roles from generic hulls. of course the problem is that some folk just want content spoon fed to them.


being supplied a ship that can do a specialist job is not being spoonfed

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#91 - 2015-07-09 16:41:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Nidal Fervor
Lan Wang wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
The bottom line is roles by definition are anti-sandbox.


...really? Of anything else you might have said, you're going for this absurdity?

Ship roles are this game's substitute for character classes, genius. They are a necessity to the sandbox, and are what primarily allows for diversity between ship types, as opposed to "Generic Minmatar Medium ship, Generic Amarr Medium ship", etc.


No they are not a necessity. They are a crutch for folk with no imagination. The question is - in a sandbox, who should decide what role a ship fills? The devs or the players? Do you really think in a sandbox where there were no roles that there would be uniformity? No, there would still be logi, dps, hauler, etc. . . It would just be up to the players to make the roles from generic hulls. of course the problem is that some folk just want content spoon fed to them.


being supplied a ship that can do a specialist job is not being spoonfed


In what way is it a specialist? Because its bonus limit it to MWD only unless you want to have really gimped speed? The other T3's can use MWD and afterburners very effectively; you call being pigeonholed into MWD by bad bonus design being specialised? They didn't give it the MWD only bonuses because it is "specialised" - it really does nothing special. They gave it the MWD only bonus to stop people using 10mn afterburners, which they should have done another way.
Paxx Mandragoran
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#92 - 2015-07-09 17:08:54 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Even if an afterburner bonus was given, the hecate would still be the worst performing T3 destroyer, as it currently is; check kb stats, worst by far.


For now, those KB stats are apples to oranges. If the Hecate wasn't performing worse than the others at this point it would be a big red flag.

First, People are still learning to use the dang things. Some will figure out fits/strategies that work well for them and will continue to use them, but at higher efficiency. And some will decide that the hull doesn't fit their style and will go back to other ships and stop sucking in the Hecate. Both of those factors will increase the efficiency.

And there is a the small matter of skill training. A lot of those losses were pilots flying with the Gal Tactical Destroyer skill at level 3, and nobody has level 5 yet. That isn't a huge issue, but those bonuses to damage and application can and do make a difference in some fights.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#93 - 2015-07-09 17:21:53 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:
I am forced to use MWD or else I won't be taking advantage of the propulsion mode


And?

You can still fit an AB on it.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#94 - 2015-07-09 17:31:11 UTC
Better not tell the OP that AF are just as common with AB and dont take advantage of sig reduction bonus.

OP. Learn to be creative, i can almost garauntee if you exert a smidge of mental capacity, you can make an ab fit work just fine. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#95 - 2015-07-09 18:04:59 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
...I am forced...


Let me stop you right there.

No one is forcing you to do anything.


Anyone can take a sentence out of context by quoting only a small part of it. Well done you, you're a big boy now. Let's put it back into context: I am forced to use MWD or else I won't be taking advantage of the propulsion mode

Are you really so dumb that you think you can't fly a T3 destroyer without utilizing every single one of its bonuses? You fit the ship to do a task, you fly the ship in an appropriate way to complete the task. If your strategy doesn't require use of the propulsion mode, then you simply ignore it and focus on the other two modes which are available. Cool! That's up to 33% more uptime on the things which are useful.

Oh god.
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2015-07-09 18:15:09 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
The bottom line is roles by definition are anti-sandbox.


...really? Of anything else you might have said, you're going for this absurdity?

Ship roles are this game's substitute for character classes, genius. They are a necessity to the sandbox, and are what primarily allows for diversity between ship types, as opposed to "Generic Minmatar Medium ship, Generic Amarr Medium ship", etc.


No they are not a necessity. They are a crutch for folk with no imagination. The question is - in a sandbox, who should decide what role a ship fills? The devs or the players? Do you really think in a sandbox where there were no roles that there would be uniformity? No, there would still be logi, dps, hauler, etc. . . It would just be up to the players to make the roles from generic hulls. of course the problem is that some folk just want content spoon fed to them.


being supplied a ship that can do a specialist job is not being spoonfed


In what way is it a specialist? Because its bonus limit it to MWD only unless you want to have really gimped speed? The other T3's can use MWD and afterburners very effectively; you call being pigeonholed into MWD by bad bonus design being specialised? They didn't give it the MWD only bonuses because it is "specialised" - it really does nothing special. They gave it the MWD only bonus to stop people using 10mn afterburners, which they should have done another way.

We clearly see how you have left this topic completely behind you. Lol

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#97 - 2015-07-09 18:21:34 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
...I am forced...


Let me stop you right there.

No one is forcing you to do anything.


Anyone can take a sentence out of context by quoting only a small part of it. Well done you, you're a big boy now. Let's put it back into context: I am forced to use MWD or else I won't be taking advantage of the propulsion mode

Are you really so dumb that you think you can't fly a T3 destroyer without utilizing every single one of its bonuses? You fit the ship to do a task, you fly the ship in an appropriate way to complete the task. If your strategy doesn't require use of the propulsion mode, then you simply ignore it and focus on the other two modes which are available. Cool! That's up to 33% more uptime on the things which are useful.


Wait.. so the optimal bonus on the svipul does almost nothing for acs?! I demand CCP change this so all my modes and bonuses are viable. Isnt OP flying svipul now? Blasphemy! He is using a t3d with an under utilized bonus.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#98 - 2015-07-09 18:33:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
I am forced to use MWD or else I won't be taking advantage of the propulsion mode


And?

You can still fit an AB on it.


Tried it, it's not a good idea, there are much better T3 destroyers for that; all of the others.
Syrilian
Doomheim
#99 - 2015-07-09 18:35:22 UTC
Nidal Fervor wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
I am forced to use MWD or else I won't be taking advantage of the propulsion mode


And?

You can still fit an AB on it.


Tried it, it's not a good idea, there are much better T3 destroyers for that; all of the others.


Then fly those.
Nidal Fervor
Doomheim
#100 - 2015-07-09 18:36:12 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Nidal Fervor wrote:
...I am forced...


Let me stop you right there.

No one is forcing you to do anything.


Anyone can take a sentence out of context by quoting only a small part of it. Well done you, you're a big boy now. Let's put it back into context: I am forced to use MWD or else I won't be taking advantage of the propulsion mode

Are you really so dumb that you think you can't fly a T3 destroyer without utilizing every single one of its bonuses? You fit the ship to do a task, you fly the ship in an appropriate way to complete the task. If your strategy doesn't require use of the propulsion mode, then you simply ignore it and focus on the other two modes which are available. Cool! That's up to 33% more uptime on the things which are useful.


Wait.. so the optimal bonus on the svipul does almost nothing for acs?! I demand CCP change this so all my modes and bonuses are viable. Isnt OP flying svipul now? Blasphemy! He is using a t3d with an under utilized bonus.


That's just one bonus. All of the t3 destroyers have a useless bonus for basically every fit. The hecate just has more useless bonuses than the rest. Balance!