These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Drake rebalance

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2012-06-13 13:18:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:
Really and to decrease lag you give it a RoF bonus.

Good point. Higher ROF means more missiles on the field. If this was done in the interest of decreasing lag it's a pretty poor choice.



No, fewer drake on battlefield create less lag than rof changes and dont forget the rof changes is just a provisional idea.
-50% drake numbers vs 5.0s duration (the old was 6.4sec)
That is 892 fewer missile than original 1785 missiles/salvo (calculated with full 255 drake fleet numbers)

But the right choices would be from CCP.
Remove resist bonuses and change to 5%/lvl decrease in factor of target's velocity for heavy and heavy assault missiles bonus.
Decreasing drake shield HP with 20-25% too. Drake has 2k shield advantage than any armor BC and shield extenders easier fitteable than 1600mm plates. (500PG vs 150 pg)
Their kinetic damage bonus change to all damage bonus instead rof bonus.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2012-06-13 13:21:22 UTC
Pinky Denmark wrote:
But on the other side the Drakes will be easy to kill in fleet warfare and as such might potentially lag more at first but not for long...

It will take time to get people away from Fleet Drake habits, however if done right Drakes will be too short lived to be the cheap-fleet mainstay as it is right now, but in return be way more fun for roams and other small stuff :-)

Pinky


+1
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#83 - 2012-06-13 16:34:30 UTC
Just to chime in on the appeal of the drake.

Low dps is irrelevant, you can hit out to 100km, very hard to bring down with logi support, relatively quick with perma-mwd fits out there, and you can just sit and turtle up with 60 of them, and outlast anything with your missile spam. You don't have to worry about range, and can just kite as much as you want.

This usually happens by having all the fleet orbit the anchor, who then moves the ball-o-drakes around as they just spam their missiles at anything.

In a war of attrition the initial dps means very little.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#84 - 2012-06-14 08:15:29 UTC
I don't think nerving it to dust will be a good step.

I understand there is a blob problem, (witch is something different than CCP don't wantinhg us to use missile ships) but that shouldn't be done by making it useless.

I don't have the math but -20 to 25% shield and the removal of the resistance bonus will make it compleet and utter useless for heavy assault missiles wich isn't a bad thing if you'd create a second ship for Assault missile launchers. and fit the current drake as a base for a Navy BC, that will probebly price it arround 150 - 200 mil isk for the hull.

That will reduce the blods as well.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#85 - 2012-06-14 10:10:29 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:


-20 to 25% shield


Where does this -20-25% shield come from if it's not the resistance bonus ?!!
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#86 - 2012-06-14 10:22:23 UTC
There's 3 dominant issues with the drake:

Remove the resist bonus and replace it with a flight time bonus.

Remove 150 base power grid so a drake can't fit so many ******* extenders so easily.

Remove the drone bay and quit giving every god damn ship in game a drone bay you ******** fucks... drones are not meant to be in every ******* ship.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2012-06-14 11:05:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
I'm Down wrote:
There's 3 dominant issues with the drake:

Remove the resist bonus and replace it with a flight time bonus.

Remove 150 base power grid so a drake can't fit so many ******* extenders so easily.

Remove the drone bay and quit giving every god damn ship in game a drone bay you ******** fucks... drones are not meant to be in every ******* ship.



The flight time bonus is bad idea. Now a drake can shot to ~75km.
If CCP give to them more ranges, their numbers wont be decreasing, because they remain more than useable in short and long range battles.

Much better solution if they get +5%/lvl decrease in factor of target's velocity for heavy and heavy assault missiles bonuses.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2012-06-14 11:20:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Mike Whiite wrote:
I don't think nerving it to dust will be a good step.

I understand there is a blob problem, (witch is something different than CCP don't wantinhg us to use missile ships) but that shouldn't be done by making it useless.

I don't have the math but -20 to 25% shield and the removal of the resistance bonus will make it compleet and utter useless for heavy assault missiles wich isn't a bad thing if you'd create a second ship for Assault missile launchers. and fit the current drake as a base for a Navy BC, that will probebly price it arround 150 - 200 mil isk for the hull.

That will reduce the blods as well.


No, this is not true. Already the drakes have atleast +20% HP advantage than any BC.

Check this out:

Harbinger with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16000 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 65k EHP
Brutix with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16300 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 61k EHP
Hurricane with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16800 armor. 59k EHP
Drakes with 2x shield extenders +3x CDFE rigs has ~21400 shield (fitteable to HAM) 96.5K EHP

I hope you see the differences.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#89 - 2012-06-14 16:23:53 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:
I don't think nerving it to dust will be a good step.

I understand there is a blob problem, (witch is something different than CCP don't wantinhg us to use missile ships) but that shouldn't be done by making it useless.

I don't have the math but -20 to 25% shield and the removal of the resistance bonus will make it compleet and utter useless for heavy assault missiles wich isn't a bad thing if you'd create a second ship for Assault missile launchers. and fit the current drake as a base for a Navy BC, that will probebly price it arround 150 - 200 mil isk for the hull.

That will reduce the blods as well.


No, this is not true. Already the drakes have atleast +20% HP advantage than any BC.

Check this out:

Harbinger with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16000 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 65k EHP
Brutix with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16300 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 61k EHP
Hurricane with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16800 armor. 59k EHP
Drakes with 2x shield extenders +3x CDFE rigs has ~21400 shield (fitteable to HAM) 96.5K EHP

I hope you see the differences.



Shield cane?


lso, I'm not sure why people think CCP cares about missile use in 0.0. They don't, it doesn't increase server load enough to warrant changing ship balance or the weapons used on a ship.
Levy Break
State War Academy
Caldari State
#90 - 2012-06-14 16:45:09 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:


On your first paragraph, it appears they were proposing losing both current bonuses, so the ship will not have a kinetic and a rof bonus.



Never said it was going to have a kin and rof bonus, simply a rof bonus. 25% rof bonus is a 33% universal dmg bonus instead of the 25% to just kinetic. So you end up with a significant increase in explosive, thermal, and em dmg compared to current drake and a small increase to kinetic missiles over current drake.


Yes but its a bonus to one group, not all of them at once. The drake problem was never just it's DPS, but the DPS/Tank ratio.

It is the same issue with the Dramiel, Having a ship be really good at one thing is fine. Having a ship that is really good at EVERY thing is bad.

In which case, what is the drake bad at?

Speed? Perma-MWD drake blobs are very common.
Range? Not with heavy missiles
DPS? pretty good with kinetic missiles which aren't often a default resistance.
Tank? Default 20-25% resistances make it pretty awesome in tank.
Cap warfare? Passive tank and missiles don't use cap.
Ewar? Sensor strength is about the only thing it is average on.

Compare this to say, a Harbinger or hell any Gallente BC.


You forgets what drakes sacrifice for this, spped, manuverability, and sig. Their sig is larger than a carrier, and their base speed is slow as ****. Nano/MWD drakes seek to fix those problems, but sacrifice DPS to do it. A drake can do alot of things well, but just not all at once.
Lili Lu
#91 - 2012-06-14 17:35:18 UTC
Levy Break wrote:
You forgets what drakes sacrifice for this, spped, manuverability, and sig. Their sig is larger than a carrier, and their base speed is slow as ****. Nano/MWD drakes seek to fix those problems, but sacrifice DPS to do it. A drake can do alot of things well, but just not all at once.

And yet drakes continue to proliferate. Sure you Drake apologists can keep posting that it's really not that good and we make fitting sacrifices (as if no other ships force equal or more costly fitting choices) . . . but apparently you aren't convincing people to stop using them so much more than other ships.Lol
Lili Lu
#92 - 2012-06-14 17:38:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Ribikoka wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:
I don't think nerving it to dust will be a good step.

I understand there is a blob problem, (witch is something different than CCP don't wantinhg us to use missile ships) but that shouldn't be done by making it useless.

I don't have the math but -20 to 25% shield and the removal of the resistance bonus will make it compleet and utter useless for heavy assault missiles wich isn't a bad thing if you'd create a second ship for Assault missile launchers. and fit the current drake as a base for a Navy BC, that will probebly price it arround 150 - 200 mil isk for the hull.

That will reduce the blods as well.


No, this is not true. Already the drakes have atleast +20% HP advantage than any BC.

Check this out:

Harbinger with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16000 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 65k EHP
Brutix with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16300 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 61k EHP
Hurricane with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16800 armor. 59k EHP
Drakes with 2x shield extenders +3x CDFE rigs has ~21400 shield (fitteable to HAM) 96.5K EHP

I hope you see the differences.

It's the resist bonus and being tier 2. Fit a 1600 plate etc on a prophecy and it starts comparing favorably to a drake, but whoops not tier 2 base armor hp. And whoops nowhere near the range on the weapons, etc.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#93 - 2012-06-14 18:46:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
PinkKnife wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:
I don't think nerving it to dust will be a good step.

I understand there is a blob problem, (witch is something different than CCP don't wantinhg us to use missile ships) but that shouldn't be done by making it useless.

I don't have the math but -20 to 25% shield and the removal of the resistance bonus will make it compleet and utter useless for heavy assault missiles wich isn't a bad thing if you'd create a second ship for Assault missile launchers. and fit the current drake as a base for a Navy BC, that will probebly price it arround 150 - 200 mil isk for the hull.

That will reduce the blods as well.


No, this is not true. Already the drakes have atleast +20% HP advantage than any BC.

Check this out:

Harbinger with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16000 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 65k EHP
Brutix with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16300 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 61k EHP
Hurricane with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16800 armor. 59k EHP
Drakes with 2x shield extenders +3x CDFE rigs has ~21400 shield (fitteable to HAM) 96.5K EHP

I hope you see the differences.



Shield cane?


lso, I'm not sure why people think CCP cares about missile use in 0.0. They don't, it doesn't increase server load enough to warrant changing ship balance or the weapons used on a ship.


Because they cares about lag believe me. Missiles eat almost 4 times server resources than guns and too much drake blobs use in 0.0.

Shield cane much worse, because cane have fewer mid slots, so they dont use with two extender an invu field if they want to use mwd and warp disruptor.

Hurricane with 2x shield extender +3x CDFE has ~18100 shield. 49k EHP
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#94 - 2012-06-14 18:53:25 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:
I don't think nerving it to dust will be a good step.

I understand there is a blob problem, (witch is something different than CCP don't wantinhg us to use missile ships) but that shouldn't be done by making it useless.

I don't have the math but -20 to 25% shield and the removal of the resistance bonus will make it compleet and utter useless for heavy assault missiles wich isn't a bad thing if you'd create a second ship for Assault missile launchers. and fit the current drake as a base for a Navy BC, that will probebly price it arround 150 - 200 mil isk for the hull.

That will reduce the blods as well.


No, this is not true. Already the drakes have atleast +20% HP advantage than any BC.

Check this out:

Harbinger with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16000 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 65k EHP
Brutix with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16300 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 61k EHP
Hurricane with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16800 armor. 59k EHP
Drakes with 2x shield extenders +3x CDFE rigs has ~21400 shield (fitteable to HAM) 96.5K EHP

I hope you see the differences.

It's the resist bonus and being tier 2. Fit a 1600 plate etc on a prophecy and it starts comparing favorably to a drake, but whoops not tier 2 base armor hp. And whoops nowhere near the range on the weapons, etc.


You wrong too:
Check datas

Prophecy with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~17100 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 88.8k EHP
24km shot range with scorch vs. 75km shot range. -250 m/s speed differences, hard to manage the cap because laser cap useage.
Lili Lu
#95 - 2012-06-14 21:00:49 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
No, this is not true. Already the drakes have atleast +20% HP advantage than any BC.

Check this out:

Harbinger with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16000 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 65k EHP
Brutix with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16300 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 61k EHP
Hurricane with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16800 armor. 59k EHP
Drakes with 2x shield extenders +3x CDFE rigs has ~21400 shield (fitteable to HAM) 96.5K EHP

I hope you see the differences.

It's the resist bonus and being tier 2. Fit a 1600 plate etc on a prophecy and it starts comparing favorably to a drake, but whoops not tier 2 base armor hp. And whoops nowhere near the range on the weapons, etc.


You wrong too:
Check datas

Prophecy with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~17100 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 88.8k EHP
24km shot range with scorch vs. 75km shot range. -250 m/s speed differences, hard to manage the cap because laser cap useage.

Lol, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Also, you just proved the validity of my statment. Harb 65k ehp, Brutix 61k, Cane (plated) 59k, Cane (shield) 49k, Drakes - 96.5 . . . Prophecy 88.8 which would be around 96.5 or more like the Drake if the prophesy had a tier 2 base armor hp

The point is it is the intersection of the higher tier 2 base hp and the resist bonus that create the huge buffer advantage of the Drake over other BCs. Were the Prophecy a tier 2 ship with the higher hp it would sync with the resist bonus similarly. That is what is unique with the Drake. And well also for pve the absurd skewing of the overall BC shield regen stats.
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#96 - 2012-06-15 01:07:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Hungry Eyes
i came back after 6 months and this still isnt resolved. the Drake has been a problem for over 3 years now. no wonder only ~35k are on at peak hours, even after Inferno went live. now theyre saying they wont touch BC's and t1 cruisers until next year. i seriously lol'd then i cried.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#97 - 2012-06-15 08:05:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Lili Lu wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
No, this is not true. Already the drakes have atleast +20% HP advantage than any BC.

Check this out:

Harbinger with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16000 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 65k EHP
Brutix with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16300 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 61k EHP
Hurricane with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16800 armor. 59k EHP
Drakes with 2x shield extenders +3x CDFE rigs has ~21400 shield (fitteable to HAM) 96.5K EHP

I hope you see the differences.

It's the resist bonus and being tier 2. Fit a 1600 plate etc on a prophecy and it starts comparing favorably to a drake, but whoops not tier 2 base armor hp. And whoops nowhere near the range on the weapons, etc.


You wrong too:
Check datas

Prophecy with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~17100 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 88.8k EHP
24km shot range with scorch vs. 75km shot range. -250 m/s speed differences, hard to manage the cap because laser cap useage.

Lol, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Also, you just proved the validity of my statment. Harb 65k ehp, Brutix 61k, Cane (plated) 59k, Cane (shield) 49k, Drakes - 96.5 . . . Prophecy 88.8 which would be around 96.5 or more like the Drake if the prophesy had a tier 2 base armor hp

The point is it is the intersection of the higher tier 2 base hp and the resist bonus that create the huge buffer advantage of the Drake over other BCs. Were the Prophecy a tier 2 ship with the higher hp it would sync with the resist bonus similarly. That is what is unique with the Drake. And well also for pve the absurd skewing of the overall BC shield regen stats.


Ok,sry i misunderstood you. :P

So, everyone can see from the data the drakes is OPed and missile spamming need more server resources than any gunboat fleets. Need to handling this. I understand the new players who fly drakes, this nerfing wouldn't good for them, because easy to fly with a passive drake and not need to much learning time, but already it is necessary to handle the drake blob problems.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#98 - 2012-06-15 08:39:07 UTC
Why does people suddenly compare a tier 2 battlecruiser with brutix?
And why do people suddenly compare a Drake using 2 vital medslots to get an extra 5,5k shield with ships using 1 plate in a lowslot getting 4,2k armor (Besides I have a Harbinger easily fitting 2 plates)?

The ships have about equal amount of slots and PG/CPU to match the modules so even though extenders take less PG the Drake doesn't have as much PG as the armor ships. shield and armor have different pro's and con's but that particular complaint is far from anything we can use in the debate...

I think CCP plan to remove the resistance bonus and replace it with a missile velocity bonus (buff for HAMs and nice to hit targets at range faster). To compensate they want to give the Drake a RoF bonus basically giving 33% better damage with all missiles rather than just 25% to kinetic (traded for lower alpha).

Whatever else happening with the Drake will likely be part of the big balance of battlecruisers coming likely in autumn 2013 and unless they want time to check how the bonus change affects the Drake I don't see how they will change the Drake until then...
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2012-06-15 09:09:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Pinky Denmark wrote:
Why does people suddenly compare a tier 2 battlecruiser with brutix?
And why do people suddenly compare a Drake using 2 vital medslots to get an extra 5,5k shield with ships using 1 plate in a lowslot getting 4,2k armor (Besides I have a Harbinger easily fitting 2 plates)?

The ships have about equal amount of slots and PG/CPU to match the modules so even though extenders take less PG the Drake doesn't have as much PG as the armor ships. shield and armor have different pro's and con's but that particular complaint is far from anything we can use in the debate...

I think CCP plan to remove the resistance bonus and replace it with a missile velocity bonus (buff for HAMs and nice to hit targets at range faster). To compensate they want to give the Drake a RoF bonus basically giving 33% better damage with all missiles rather than just 25% to kinetic (traded for lower alpha).

Whatever else happening with the Drake will likely be part of the big balance of battlecruisers coming likely in autumn 2013 and unless they want time to check how the bonus change affects the Drake I don't see how they will change the Drake until then...


You easily fitting harbinger with two 1600 plates? Teach me master. And what you will to use ? Small guns ? Or you lose some low and rig slots for PG mods/rigs?
2x 1600 plates need 2x500PG + smallest med guns need 833 PG (with AWU 5)
And you still not fitted mwd cap booster etc.

Ok it's time to bring passive Myrm to line. (but everyone know this ship better with active repairers because bonuses)
Myrmidon with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16900 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns or use ACs). 81k EHP

No matter which BCs to compare with drakes.

"remove the resistance bonus and replace it with a missile velocity bonus (buff for HAMs and nice to hit targets at range faster)"

I hope not, that's not handling to missile spamming and drake blobs, thats would be just generating more drakes on battlefields and would be create a new missile sniper boat which can to shot over 100km. It's a bad idea.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#100 - 2012-06-15 13:13:39 UTC
Tell that to CCP... It's how they bonused the caracal and raven :-)
Obviously creating fleet monsters widely used to lag out the server cluster?

I agree missile velocity is not a great bonus for a ship with long range missiles, however it's still a good buff to HAMs. And no the Harbinger isn't difficult to fit though you will obviously compromise a little:

Before you start reacting on the fit plz notice it was only to stop the debate about how Drake could fit 2 extenders when other ships could only fit 1 plate. Setup has flaws but still a purpose. Evemail me if you don't like me but try to keep the Drake debate on track plz. This has about 23k armor (90k EHP) when solo as well as 590 dps incl. 430 dps from the guns.

[Harbinger, Brick]
Damage Control II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Heat Sink II

10MN MicroWarpdrive II
Small Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 200
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Warp Scrambler II

Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
[empty high slot]

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I