These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lili Lu
#3661 - 2012-09-30 21:41:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Noemi Nagano wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Is there any consideration that comes from the alliance tournament?

To me it seems to be a good reference point on capability.

Drakes and tengus did ok, but only if they use kiting with hmls..

Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?

And didnt that very same team use winmatar the whole way through?

If hmls are so op, then how come they didnt pwn on a level playing field?

Granted I will say that tengus did outperform other t3s, but it underperformed to sleips and clays by a lot.

I would have to say that winmatar noticeably shined in the alliance tournament, and hmls underperformed in the alliance tournament.

However, gallente was almost missing from the battlefield besides the kronos.

I take that back, gallente was present, but mostly in the form of drone boats.


Well, thats my point too. Where else than in a tournament can you see which ships are considered to be top for PvP?

And about PvE: if you go to missions hubs of corps with decent LP shops you will find those Machariels and Vargurs in dozens.

No. You can't use the Alliance Tournament for any valid analysis of the current eve battlefield balance. It is an artificial environment within an artificial environment. There are point costs for ships which determine their relative value in the tournament. The fittings will be different because tackling considerations are different. There is limited space for the fight, the arena boundaries. etc. The alliance tournament will not help you apologize for the drake or tengu, sorry. Lol
Ivian Khorn
PROSPERO Corporation
#3662 - 2012-09-30 22:31:09 UTC
At gang-pvp battlefield limited too. Taklers, jammers, and risk to lose target when it fly so far from scrammble. It is short-range combat. At range useful tempest or other, who takes down many sub-kaps by alpha-shotout. Or you somewhere see Alpha-shot wing with missile? (zerg-rush without comments)
Ludiah
GOTTEG Mining and Industrial Union
#3663 - 2012-09-30 22:48:46 UTC
I have not had time to read through all 183+ pages of this discussion. I did want to talk about the overblown Hurricane nerf though.

I can understand your issues with the PG requirements of the long range weapons for the Amarr. However, I don't think that the Hurricane needs to be singled out for a nerf to justify the unnecessary decrease to the arty PG requirements. First of all, I don't think the reduction in PG usage by arty is justified at this point; nor do I think that the reduction in PG for the Hurricane was justified either.

I think the comparison of the base/bonused PG's of the Myrmidon (with the recent hybrid buff I think this is a good ship to compare the Hurricane to)and the Hurricane would help demonstrate my point a bit. As well as the PG usage (before and after 10% reduction in PG usage for Arty) between the 720mm TII arty and the 250mm TII railguns.

So. Using Pyfa and setting the Character to All 5, no implants.

Hurricane (current): 1350 MW (Base) 1687.5 MW (Bonused)
Hurricane (proposed): 1125 MW (Base) 1406.25 MW (Bonused)
Myrmidon: 1,175 MW (Base) 1468.8 MW (Bonused)

So the Hurricane is going to be sitting on a 17% NERF to it's Base PG. All because we are also 'getting' a 10% reduction in Arty PG fitting. Thanks, I'll pass. You can keep your 10% reduction to arty PG. I've never had issues fitting Arty on any cruiser sized ship I wanted to use it with (even if it required a PG module/implant/rig).

Here's the PG requirements (base and skill V) for the different weapons both before the proposed power reductions for arty and after.

250mm Railgun II - 208 MW (Base) 187.2 MW (Skill V)
720mm Howitzer Artillery II (current) - 275 MW (Base) 247.5 MW (Skill V)
720mm Howitzer Artillery II (proposed) - 247.5 MW (Base) 222.75 MW (Skill V)


Using the, overused, 2 T2 LSE passive shield Hurricane (for PvE) I can't fit a full rack of 720mm's now without an implant/rig/module and that's before I put anything in the 2 utility high's. The same is true of a dual MAR Myrm with a full rack of T2 250mm's (similar-ish peak paper repair/recharge rates though the Myrm can usually fit a better omni tank). So obviously the part about them not wanting us to carry a full rack of 720mm's isn't talking about one of the most common shield PvE layouts for the Hurricane. Using armor on the Cane gives worse repair rates (as the 'Cane isn't bonused to armor rep) and worse PG usage (MAR's use more PG than LSE's do).

As a side note: Active shield is weird with the 'Cane right now with the ASB's. Do you design a cap-stable (but only when the ASB has charges) tank, or a cap-unstable (aka pulsed, and no cap boosters) normal shield booster with a shield Amp tank(to get closer to those higher recharge rates of dual MAR/passive shield)?

Swapping to a prototypical shield cane for PvP (dropping the purgers for extenders and EM screens, dropping the SPRs for more Gyros and TE's, and dropping the Shield Recharger/AB/LSE's for MWD, Invuln-field, a webber and a disruptor) the 'Cane can 'just' fit a full rack of 720's (98.31% PG used) and two free high-slots with only 28.5 MW of PG remaining. That's with the current PG requirements. I can *MAYBE* see nerfing it's PG by say 50 MW or so to force the use of a PG implant/rig/module.

With the proposed changes the Cane isn't anything but gimped intentionally (imho). You can't fit that overused passive shield Cane with a full rack of 425mm's and a couple of medium neuts (it would require 1487.9 MW while the changed Hurricane would only have 1406.25 MW), let alone a full rack of 720mm's. But you can fit that paper myrm with a full rack of Heavy Neutron II's. Granted they are two different guns, but the concept is that if a (formerly) tier 2 BC can fit a full rack of their largest short-range mediums then surely their racial counterparts should also be able to fit a full rack of 'their' largest short-range mediums. (What types, pg usage, cpu usage etc are different but could be worked out).

According to the patch notes from Crucible (when the hybrid weapons got their PG usage cut):

CCP: "Hybrid turrets now use 12% less powergrid, rounded to the nearest number, with the exception of the Light Electron Blaster I, Light Ion Blaster I, 125 mm Railgun I and 75mm Railgun I which remain unchanged."

There was no corresponding cut to PG on hybrid ships (and for a justifiable reason their PG's tended to either be on the small side or just weren't up to handling the PG requirements of the old Hybrids. But there the hybrids were changed across the board. If you want to cut the PG requirements for Arty as WELL as the Base PG for Hurricanes but not do the same to AC's then it's quite obvious that this is just a distraction in order to be able to nerf the Hurricane before the 'balancing' component which you already have (imho) hinted at nerfing further.

CCP: "The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons."

That isn't a problem. That is a load of bullcrap designed to take our eyes of the fact that the Amarr are getting quite lovely drops in PG usage for their long (and short) ranged weapons without any comparative 17% nerf to their respective PG's. WE DON'T WANT THAT KIND OF NERF! You are 'Fixing' a problem that quite frankly just doesn't f'ing exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Cont.
Ludiah
GOTTEG Mining and Industrial Union
#3664 - 2012-09-30 22:50:14 UTC

To repeat. As it stands now. One cannot fit a full load of 720mm T2's into a Hurricane with normal fittings for long-range encounters.

CCP: "The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm."

We already cannot fit a full rack of 720's on a T2 fit ship without those things. So you are nerfing our range, and dps on our AC's but not giving us anything we don't already have! If you INSIST on dropping the PG requirements of the arty by 10% and use this to demand a PG drop (which should be across the board if you aren't planning on over-nerfing the Hurricane intentionally) then the only way you can justify any PG drop is to limit it to that SAME 10%!!!! But by doing that you are just cancelling out the change. So really. . . . All this is? Is justification to unnecessarily beat the ever-living-daylights out of the Hurricane (so it can't live up to its description) when it doesn't need it.

I highly doubt CCP will actually listen to the pilots who've flown these ships and know that they don't need this nerf. It'd hurt but it might be enough to get me to cancel my three accounts and to try to convince my friends to quit playing as well. The funny thing is? I don't even know that I own a Hurricane currently. It's not useful for what I've been doing in game. But this mainstay of the Minmatar fleet is the product not of an overpowered PG; but by a combination of: love by the pilots to find optimal configurations for their ship, and a good slot layout. I BEG CCP to wait to nerf the Hurricane till they've looked at all the rest of the ships in the BC line-up. PLEASE wait till you have the cruisers balanced and have actually started working on the BC's before you nerf the heart and soul out of the Hurricane!!!!!

I was so looking forward to the otherwise positive changes that I've been seeing in the balancing act. Now I'm dreading what other Minmatar ships that CCP will unjustifiably pillage and trash in this balancing act. The Rifter's already been knocked to the middle/bottom of the pack, and the Cane looks like it'll make the Myrm look like a freaking battleship after these changes (the Myrm will easily have a better tank, and dps than the Cane could hope to reasonably get).
Ares Desideratus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3665 - 2012-09-30 22:59:35 UTC
I can understand nerfing heavy missile launchers, but the Cane is perfect the way it is, and not in a bad way. The Cane is what every other battlecruiser should be modeled after.
Operative X10-4
Doomheim
#3666 - 2012-09-30 23:15:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Operative X10-4
As a missile user I have to say that I loved the missile changes, and I agree about the heavy missiles damage nerf. Let me tell that all weapons systems besides drones have 2 types: short range + high damage, long range + low damage, and everybody knows that heavy missiles are not like that right now.

But there is one thing, as a long range weapon it's meant to be use as a sniper fit, and one thing that makes snipers weapons class usefull is the insta strike of turrets.

Can some one answer me how can I use a missile as a sniper weapon on a fleet engagement without my targets warp away even before my missiles reach half the distance bettween us?? Impossible right... epecially without tacklers... something that turrets dont have to deal with.

So ok nerf the damage, it makes sence, but buff INSANELY MISSILE SPEED LOL, so that way my "missile sniper boat" something that nowadays is non existent will hit its targets. .... Bring new "warp missiles" class FTW!!! hahahaha :3

FOREVER PIRATE 07 FLY DANGEROUSLY.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3667 - 2012-09-30 23:26:13 UTC
Ares Desideratus wrote:
I can understand nerfing heavy missile launchers, but the Cane is perfect the way it is, and not in a bad way. The Cane is what every other battlecruiser should be modeled after.


Err .. no. The Cane is even more OP than the Drake in BC vs BC encounters (although not as a long range platform, there the Drake is strong/stronger in certain ranges). Thats why Canes numbers are also bigger than Drakes (in lowsec and highsec PvP), and the Drake is only really OP in nullsec blobs. So your assumption of the Cane being fine is while in the same posting understanding the HML nerf is strange. The Cane is the best of 4 (although IMO overall pretty balanced) tier 2 BC atm, and if you consider the Drake to be OP, the Cane by definition is OP too.

Besides: people here really forget all the time to judge things as a whole - I am so tired of explaining this again and again, but for one more time:

EHP, range and DPS are not all which counts. Dronebay/bandwith, speed, agility, fitting variance, sigradius, locking range and so on are all important when it comes down to real fights. If its just a slugout of EHP and DPS the HAM Drake would win vs the other 3 tier 2s. In real Eve it loses though, to all of them (has been tested, and can be tested again, some guy who claimed the opposite rejected my offer to show him and kill his Drake). If you dont know about things like that, then I suggest you should first get your facts straight. No offense intended, to anyone, but sticking with facts would help this whole thing.

Best regards.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#3668 - 2012-09-30 23:32:21 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Noemi Nagano wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Is there any consideration that comes from the alliance tournament?

To me it seems to be a good reference point on capability.

Drakes and tengus did ok, but only if they use kiting with hmls..

Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?

And didnt that very same team use winmatar the whole way through?

If hmls are so op, then how come they didnt pwn on a level playing field?

Granted I will say that tengus did outperform other t3s, but it underperformed to sleips and clays by a lot.

I would have to say that winmatar noticeably shined in the alliance tournament, and hmls underperformed in the alliance tournament.

However, gallente was almost missing from the battlefield besides the kronos.

I take that back, gallente was present, but mostly in the form of drone boats.


Well, thats my point too. Where else than in a tournament can you see which ships are considered to be top for PvP?

And about PvE: if you go to missions hubs of corps with decent LP shops you will find those Machariels and Vargurs in dozens.

No. You can't use the Alliance Tournament for any valid analysis of the current eve battlefield balance. It is an artificial environment within an artificial environment. There are point costs for ships which determine their relative value in the tournament. The fittings will be different because tackling considerations are different. There is limited space for the fight, the arena boundaries. etc. The alliance tournament will not help you apologize for the drake or tengu, sorry. Lol


So it is ok if caldari DPS cruisers and BCs have 0 roles within 125 km arena ?
That does not mean anything ?
Not even the completely OP Ham drake made it in and that says nothing ?

Or, did you say that the people who organise the tournament messed up the value assigned to ships to a point where none of the caldari was good enough ?

Not only is the tournament a perfect indicator of ships power, it is the best.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#3669 - 2012-09-30 23:34:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:


Actually, what I see happening with the drake is..

remove kinetic bonus and give RoF bonus to bring all damage types up to the (soon to be nerfed) kinetic damage.
Reduce the shield recharge rate.
Give it a flight time/velocity bonus to heavy missiles to bring the range back up 10-15% from where they nerfed it.

This does several things.
Give the drake back some range, but not full range.
Gives it the same damage with all missiles, but not the damage it currently has on live.
Reducing the shield recharge rate takes away the ability to passive tank. - This ultimately gives the drake more fitting capabilities since it won't be using most of its slots for tank, but also makes them mre suseptible to cap warfare which is ultimately what gives them the upper hand in pvp compared to other bcs.


RoF>damage bonus because 1/0.75 = 1.333*. So with a RoF bonus rather than a damage boost it will be doing more dps than with the Kinetic dam bonus. so HAM drakes will be easily doing over 600dps of any damage type they like. it will be awesome. (i imagine the HM damage will be lower than now for obv reasons yeah)

yeah i believe they want to prevent the Drake from running level 4's so easily. and since it has a much faster recharge rate than the caldari battleships, this is a long time coming. But it will still have nearly 90k ehp even without a resist bonus.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3670 - 2012-09-30 23:34:24 UTC
Operative X10-4 wrote:
As a missile user I have to say that I loved the missile changes, and I agree about the heavy missiles damage nerf. Let me tell that all weapons systems besides drones have 2 types: short range + high damage, long range + low damage, and everybody knows that heavy missiles are not like that right now.

But there is one thing, as a long range weapon it's meant to be use as a sniper fit, and one thing that makes snipers weapons class usefull is the insta strike of turrets.

Can some one answer me how can I use a missile as a sniper weapon on a fleet engagement without my targets warp away even before my missiles reach half the distance bettween us?? Impossible right... epecially without tacklers... something that turrets dont have to deal with.

So ok nerf the damage, it makes sence, but buff INSANELY MISSILE SPEED LOL, so that way my "missile sniper boat" something that nowadays is non existent will hit its targets. .... Bring new "warp missiles" class FTW!!! hahahaha :3


I could agree with you about maybe nerfing current t1, t2 fury, t2 precision and faction HMLs, so they would have less range than now but still their damage (so they would be in line with high damage ammo for long range medium turrets, which out-DPS a HML atm by a fair margin, but only on shorter ranges. In addition we would need another t2 long range missile type, which has maybe some other drawbacks, but should have:

- DPS similar to turret long range ammo , balanced like that - in useful sniper ranges like 70km it should be a bit less than turrets, on 80 similar, and on 90 more (turrets DPS go down with range, so missiles would need to be adjusted they correlate with turret DPS on 80).

- extremely reduced flight time, and extremely increase speed - 2-4 seconds flight time would be good, although we will end up probably with more.

Would give Caldari a long range option to snipe and not be completely too late in those long range fights, and no one could complain about DPS. It would apply like normal missiles: active flying could not really harm it, but high speed can, so burning towards a HML-Sniper is less dangerous than towards and turret-ship, but you can never get the damage to zero. I am sure it would be possible to make such a system working and balanced.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#3671 - 2012-09-30 23:39:45 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:


Actually, what I see happening with the drake is..

remove kinetic bonus and give RoF bonus to bring all damage types up to the (soon to be nerfed) kinetic damage.
Reduce the shield recharge rate.
Give it a flight time/velocity bonus to heavy missiles to bring the range back up 10-15% from where they nerfed it.

This does several things.
Give the drake back some range, but not full range.
Gives it the same damage with all missiles, but not the damage it currently has on live.
Reducing the shield recharge rate takes away the ability to passive tank. - This ultimately gives the drake more fitting capabilities since it won't be using most of its slots for tank, but also makes them mre suseptible to cap warfare which is ultimately what gives them the upper hand in pvp compared to other bcs.


RoF>damage bonus because 1/0.75 = 1.333*. So with a RoF bonus rather than a damage boost it will be doing more dps with ALL missile types. so HAM drakes will be easily doing over 600dps of any damage type they like. it will be awesome. (i imagine the HM damage will be lower than now for obv reasons yeah)

yeah i believe they want to prevent the Drake from running level 4's so easily. and since it has a much faster recharge rate than the caldari battleships, this is a long time coming. But it will still have nearly 90k ehp even without a resist bonus.


If the real problem about drakes is that they run L4 while other BCs may have problems. Just put restrictions at mission gates and/or change the rats.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#3672 - 2012-09-30 23:42:40 UTC
Bloutok wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:


Actually, what I see happening with the drake is..

remove kinetic bonus and give RoF bonus to bring all damage types up to the (soon to be nerfed) kinetic damage.
Reduce the shield recharge rate.
Give it a flight time/velocity bonus to heavy missiles to bring the range back up 10-15% from where they nerfed it.

This does several things.
Give the drake back some range, but not full range.
Gives it the same damage with all missiles, but not the damage it currently has on live.
Reducing the shield recharge rate takes away the ability to passive tank. - This ultimately gives the drake more fitting capabilities since it won't be using most of its slots for tank, but also makes them mre suseptible to cap warfare which is ultimately what gives them the upper hand in pvp compared to other bcs.


RoF>damage bonus because 1/0.75 = 1.333*. So with a RoF bonus rather than a damage boost it will be doing more dps with ALL missile types. so HAM drakes will be easily doing over 600dps of any damage type they like. it will be awesome. (i imagine the HM damage will be lower than now for obv reasons yeah)

yeah i believe they want to prevent the Drake from running level 4's so easily. and since it has a much faster recharge rate than the caldari battleships, this is a long time coming. But it will still have nearly 90k ehp even without a resist bonus.


If the real problem about drakes is that they run L4 while other BCs may have problems. Just put restrictions at mission gates and/or change the rats.


not the real problem with the drake or heavy missiles, but i believe it was the inspiration behind reducing the passive recharge rate of the drake. AND also cause it doesn't really make sense to have a drake with a better passive tank than a Rokh, when they have the exact same mids and resist bonuses

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3673 - 2012-09-30 23:49:06 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:


yeah i believe they want to prevent the Drake from running level 4's so easily. and since it has a much faster recharge rate than the caldari battleships, this is a long time coming. But it will still have nearly 90k ehp even without a resist bonus.


How so? Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby ..
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#3674 - 2012-10-01 00:04:02 UTC
Operative X10-4 wrote:
As a missile user I have to say that I loved the missile changes, and I agree about the heavy missiles damage nerf. Let me tell that all weapons systems besides drones have 2 types: short range + high damage, long range + low damage, and everybody knows that heavy missiles are not like that right now.

But there is one thing, as a long range weapon it's meant to be use as a sniper fit, and one thing that makes snipers weapons class usefull is the insta strike of turrets.

Can some one answer me how can I use a missile as a sniper weapon on a fleet engagement without my targets warp away even before my missiles reach half the distance bettween us?? Impossible right... epecially without tacklers... something that turrets dont have to deal with.

So ok nerf the damage, it makes sence, but buff INSANELY MISSILE SPEED LOL, so that way my "missile sniper boat" something that nowadays is non existent will hit its targets. .... Bring new "warp missiles" class FTW!!! hahahaha :3


Fine, buff the missile speed to bullet speed and make a bunch of amo types with different ranges and damage comparable to a Cane Arty. Then make the drake speed about the same as the Cane speed. I am all fine with that.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#3675 - 2012-10-01 00:13:06 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:


yeah i believe they want to prevent the Drake from running level 4's so easily. and since it has a much faster recharge rate than the caldari battleships, this is a long time coming. But it will still have nearly 90k ehp even without a resist bonus.


How so? Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby ..


like a boss i did not think of doing this the simple way like u did, and i probably have an arithmetic error somewhere.

i literally just looked up the EHP of the shields on eft and divided by 1.25, then added EHP of armour and structure. Fitting is the same and i got 87k ehp.

confirming, done properly EHP goes to 82,791. thanks.

(i may have been on my power dag fit at the time)

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Lili Lu
#3676 - 2012-10-01 01:17:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Noemi Nagano wrote:
The Cane is even more OP than the Drake in BC vs BC encounters (although not as a long range platform, there the Drake is strong/stronger in certain ranges). Thats why Canes numbers are also bigger than Drakes (in lowsec and highsec PvP), and the Drake is only really OP in nullsec blobs. So your assumption of the Cane being fine is while in the same posting understanding the HML nerf is strange. The Cane is the best of 4 (although IMO overall pretty balanced) tier 2 BC atm, and if you consider the Drake to be OP, the Cane by definition is OP too.

Besides: people here really forget all the time to judge things as a whole - I am so tired of explaining this again and again, but for one more time:

EHP, range and DPS are not all which counts. Dronebay/bandwith, speed, agility, fitting variance, sigradius, locking range and so on are all important when it comes down to real fights. If its just a slugout of EHP and DPS the HAM Drake would win vs the other 3 tier 2s. In real Eve it loses though, to all of them (has been tested, and can be tested again, some guy who claimed the opposite rejected my offer to show him and kill his Drake). If you dont know about things like that, then I suggest you should first get your facts straight. No offense intended, to anyone, but sticking with facts would help this whole thing.

Best regards.


Hmm, you say a lot as if you have experience with "BC v BC" duels and "lowsec and highsec PvP". So I looked for you on eve-kill. Guess what it said: "Search results No results." Meanwhile that "some guy who claimed the opposite" has a record on eve-kill http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=65946 . So I think you have got a lot to prove.

And you don't prove anything by making unsupported categorical statements like "the Cane by definition is OP too." I love the Drake whiners like yourself who deflect attention to Hurricanes, as if it somehow will save their drakes. And I would like to see how you prove that somehow Canes vastly outnumber Drakes in lowsec to make up for their obvious overrepresentation in null sec. You explain nothing, but you do post over and over again fact-less wastes of space itt.

And then there's this gem of a post by you -
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby ..

Ugh Ok, no Drake is ever flown with the BC skill at 0. I mean wtf do you smoke? We have no knowledge that the resist bonus is going anywhere. And then you keep bringing up HG Slaved Harbys as if they are everywhere. You clearly must be hallucinating them everywhere. I know this is an artificial reality, but you take it to a whole new level. I pray you never sell what you are smoking because the world will be doomed if you do.Lol The more I'm reading your posts the more I think you have to be putting one on. I applaud your mastery of the art sir.P

Moving on,
Bloutok wrote:
So it is ok if caldari DPS cruisers and BCs have 0 roles within 125 km arena ?
That does not mean anything ?
Not even the completely OP Ham drake made it in and that says nothing ?

Or, did you say that the people who organise the tournament messed up the value assigned to ships to a point where none of the caldari was good enough ?

Not only is the tournament a perfect indicator of ships power, it is the best.


Dear Bloutok,

Your 4th question comes closest to understanding. You were almost there. But then you had to say "messed up the value assigned." You see, they knew very well what they wanted those values to select for. So it was, as they say, working as intended. Additionally, you had to mess up that dawning understanding in your 4th question by mistaking the values to be race specific.

Did you even ever look at the ATX website and read the rules etc.? The point values were class specific ffs. http://at.eve-ic.net/10/index.php?view=rules (expand ships and points) Tier 2 BCs this year were made cost inefficient by design. Tier 1 and tier 3 were made more desirable. And what was the result of it? Oh hell, look here and sort by class http://at.eve-ic.net/10/index.php?view=statistics&tab=ships&sortby=class&range=all Notice the relative lack of all tier 2 BCs and the better representation of tier 1 and tier 3 BCs.

So you see the tournament is not "a perfect indicator of ships power" nor "it is the best."(sic)

You two make me laugh. Keep posting. You will move this thread well past page 200.Pirate
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#3677 - 2012-10-01 01:35:48 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Noemi Nagano wrote:
The Cane is even more OP than the Drake in BC vs BC encounters (although not as a long range platform, there the Drake is strong/stronger in certain ranges). Thats why Canes numbers are also bigger than Drakes (in lowsec and highsec PvP), and the Drake is only really OP in nullsec blobs. So your assumption of the Cane being fine is while in the same posting understanding the HML nerf is strange. The Cane is the best of 4 (although IMO overall pretty balanced) tier 2 BC atm, and if you consider the Drake to be OP, the Cane by definition is OP too.

Besides: people here really forget all the time to judge things as a whole - I am so tired of explaining this again and again, but for one more time:

EHP, range and DPS are not all which counts. Dronebay/bandwith, speed, agility, fitting variance, sigradius, locking range and so on are all important when it comes down to real fights. If its just a slugout of EHP and DPS the HAM Drake would win vs the other 3 tier 2s. In real Eve it loses though, to all of them (has been tested, and can be tested again, some guy who claimed the opposite rejected my offer to show him and kill his Drake). If you dont know about things like that, then I suggest you should first get your facts straight. No offense intended, to anyone, but sticking with facts would help this whole thing.

Best regards.


Hmm, you say a lot as if you have experience with "BC v BC" duels and "lowsec and highsec PvP". So I looked for you on eve-kill. Guess what it said: "Search results No results." Meanwhile that "some guy who claimed the opposite" has a record on eve-kill http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=65946 . So I think you have got a lot to prove.

And you don't prove anything by making unsupported categorical statements like "the Cane by definition is OP too." I love the Drake whiners like yourself who deflect attention to Hurricanes, as if it somehow will save their drakes. And I would like to see how you prove that somehow Canes vastly outnumber Drakes in lowsec to make up for their obvious overrepresentation in null sec. You explain nothing, but you do post over and over again fact-less wastes of space itt.

And then there's this gem of a post by you -
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby ..

Ugh Ok, no Drake is ever flown with the BC skill at 0. I mean wtf do you smoke? We have no knowledge that the resist bonus is going anywhere. And then you keep bringing up HG Snaked Harbys as if they are everywhere. You clearly must be hallucinating them everywhere. I know this is an artificial reality, but you take it to a whole new level. I pray you never sell what you are smoking because the world will be doomed if you do.Lol The more I'm reading your posts the more I think you have to be putting one on. I applaud your mastery of the art sir.P

Moving on,
Bloutok wrote:
So it is ok if caldari DPS cruisers and BCs have 0 roles within 125 km arena ?
That does not mean anything ?
Not even the completely OP Ham drake made it in and that says nothing ?

Or, did you say that the people who organise the tournament messed up the value assigned to ships to a point where none of the caldari was good enough ?

Not only is the tournament a perfect indicator of ships power, it is the best.


Dear Bloutok,

Your 4th question comes closest to understanding. You were almost there. But then you had to say "messed up the value assigned." You see, they knew very well what they wanted those values to select for. So it was, as they say, working as intended. Additionally, you had to mess up that dawning understanding in your 4th question by mistaking the values to be race specific.

Did you even ever look at the ATX website and read the rules etc.? The point values were class specific ffs. http://at.eve-ic.net/10/index.php?view=rules (expand ships and points) Tier 2 BCs this year were made cost inefficient by design. Tier 1 and tier 3 were made more desirable. And what was the result of it? Oh hell, look here and sort by class http://at.eve-ic.net/10/index.php?view=statistics&tab=ships&sortby=class&range=all Notice the relative lack of all tier 2 BCs and the better representation of tier 1 and tier 3 BCs.

So you see the tournament is not "a perfect indicator of ships power" nor "it is the best."(sic)

You two make me laugh. Keep posting. You will move this thread well past page 200.Pirate


Can you find me a place where CCP says they killed tier2 voluntarily, or is it just that cyclones with ASB were simply better ?
Lili Lu
#3678 - 2012-10-01 01:56:36 UTC
Bloutok wrote:
Can you find me a place where CCP says they killed tier2 voluntarily, or is it just that cyclones with ASB were simply better ?

What are you talking about? Look at the table. Tier 2 cost more than tier 3 and even more points as against tier 1.

The teams in the torunament chose the ships and gangs based on point cost. Choice in what ships to field is an exercize in maximizing return on the point cost. Tier 2s were simply overpriced. CCP well knew what it wanted in point cost. They tweek it every year.

In prior years there were lots of Drakes. CCP apparently did not want another drake and hurricance fest. So they overpriced tier 2 BCs this year and it kept them scarce in the tournament.

And yes, Cyclones with ASB are starting to appear a whole lot in small gang fighting. But once you start getting more than 10 or so in a gang and the gangs it is likely to fight, and you have logi support, the old standby buffered ships start to take over, like the Drake.

The tournament limits logis to one and limits the number of ships on each side. So even without the point cost the new ASB Cyclone was looking pretty darn good simply by gang size, and the cheap cost in points pretty much sealed the deal. This resulted in that plethora of Cyclones. It had nothing to do with some sudden disfavor for the Drake.

The teams chose to fly Feroxes and Brutixes more than Drakes and Canes. And it was not because they knew these two ships were getting a nerf in the near future. It had everything to do with the points. And the points were not set by CCP by throwing a dart at a dartboard.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#3679 - 2012-10-01 02:22:31 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Bloutok wrote:
Can you find me a place where CCP says they killed tier2 voluntarily, or is it just that cyclones with ASB were simply better ?

What are you talking about? Look at the table. Tier 2 cost more than tier 3 and even more points as against tier 1.

The teams in the torunament chose the ships and gangs based on point cost. Choice in what ships to field is an exercize in maximizing return on the point cost. Tier 2s were simply overpriced. CCP well knew what it wanted in point cost. They tweek it every year.

In prior years there were lots of Drakes. CCP apparently did not want another drake and hurricance fest. So they overpriced tier 2 BCs this year and it kept them scarce in the tournament.

And yes, Cyclones with ASB are starting to appear a whole lot in small gang fighting. But once you start getting more than 10 or so in a gang and the gangs it is likely to fight, and you have logi support, the old standby buffered ships start to take over, like the Drake.

The tournament limits logis to one and limits the number of ships on each side. So even without the point cost the new ASB Cyclone was looking pretty darn good simply by gang size, and the cheap cost in points pretty much sealed the deal. This resulted in that plethora of Cyclones. It had nothing to do with some sudden disfavor for the Drake.

The teams chose to fly Feroxes and Brutixes more than Drakes and Canes. And it was not because they knew these two ships were getting a nerf in the near future. It had everything to do with the points. And the points were not set by CCP by throwing a dart at a dartboard.



Blah blah blah blah blah!!!

What i am saying is that CCP is either super bad at balancing things or voluntarily making some stuff bad for unknown reasons. Well, unknown to me..

I mean Sleipner + cyclone + Web....... Yeah, they know how to balance stuff. Or they have a goal..... That goal clearely includes drake being nerfed to unusable level.
Lili Lu
#3680 - 2012-10-01 02:26:30 UTC
Bloutok wrote:
What i am saying is that CCP is either super bad at balancing things or voluntarily making some stuff bad for unknown reasons. Well, unknown to me..

I mean Sleipner + cyclone + Web....... Yeah, they know how to balance stuff. Or they have a goal..... That goal clearely includes drake being nerfed to unusable level.

I guess it makes you feel better to think your precious drake will be unusable. Carry on.