Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Rapid light missile Caracal?
Hawk? One of the best AFs btw.
Hookbill?

Yup and those are just overloading the top 20 over all the other better options out there right?
You see so many of these great combos used so often that they are never even breaking top 20 ever.
So again my point still stands.

My bet is you should really just *fly* the thing, and then come back. CM Ravens suck for *way* longer in PvP than HML Drakes have really been used in PvP in numbers. You need to get a clue of a topic before you start examining stuff. You, Bouh, have no idea of missiles first hand. You cant fly a single medium or large Caldari combat ship. You throw around numbers (sometimes random made up stuff, sometimes you try to stick with formulas ..) and dont see how much you fail to get the point: missile ships in PvP do different on the server than they do in theory. In theory you can sometimes get the best numbers (like with HML Drakes!) but on the server it will somehow not work like you thought it would. Welcome to missile PvP. Thats also the reason why Eve is NOT Drake online. There are plenty of other ships which are used everywhere, and esp. in lowsec PvP (where fleet doctrines are not really an issue, and where anyone who likes to pew pew tries to use whats best for the job) the Drake is NOT OVERREPRESENTED AT ALL.

If you feel like getting into missile PvP, train for missiles, use them, and then (or better *then*, or even better THEN!!) you should come back and ask again. Not before.

Its a bit like telling a blind person about colours, and how they look. You just know black, and nothing else. How could we possibly explain to you anything? But you are lucky - you can do something to get over this blind state of yours. Dont wait any longer. Change your training queue now, and see the light.

But seriously, dont come back to missile threads before you did so.

Apart from that, even Lili did not say the Raven was viable or was obsoleted by HML Drake. She has too much reputation to lose with such a statement ;)

Best regards.

PS: What I mean here, Bouh, is not you should "believe" in something. I tell you more than that. You simply will not understand this thing if you dont get into it. And the fact you ask here for the 100th time when you have been given plenty of reasonable answers before just shows how right I am.

Either you understand missiles and you can try to explain, or you don't.

And just look at any lowsec pvp killboard. You *will* see drakes, and a *lot* of them. They most probably be the second most represented ship, just behind the hurricane. It's not like if I was *actually* fighting in lowsec. I prove you they do are overrepresented.

Now, the problem you are talking (years ago) most probably refer to missile velocity posing problem in fleet because of ships warping before they were hit by the missiles. Though, fleet fights these times were at far greater ranges than now (mind you, I heard it was the Megathron the best fleet ship at this time). But things evolved blablabla. You must know the story.

Finaly, in current EVE, missile flight time is not the problem.

But you don't care anyway, and I'm strating to doubt you can even understand these consideration (the whole picture, as you call it, though you certainly not look at the same picture).

May I ask you to stop trying to ban people from the conversation and actually take part to the discussion ?
I know it's hard to debate and actually use arguments instead of using ad hominem to discredit them, though that's what smart people do when they debate.

As a side note, asking me skill up and try myself is a bit stupid, or dishonest, because it would take me some months to do so and would not prove anything.

PS : if you think missiles do differently in TQ than in theory, then you really don't understand anything at the theory.

I love how everyone is trying to throw the use of ad hominem around ever since I used it lol.
It is quite funny especially when it is used improperly.

She is using logic and reason to discredit you not ad hominem used in the since of a fallacy,
In some cases a ad hominem argument is a legitimate rhetorical tool.
Saying you do not have room to speak on missiles because you have no prior experience in the subject, therefor are not qualified to have a credible input on said subject fits this type off attack and makes it a valid argument to use.
It is just good debating.

Had she said your argument on Missiles is not valid because you **** small children and have an IQ lower then 75, and you enjoy the company of Nazis there for no one should listen to you. THAT'S ad hominem its an attack in you not the subject.

She directly attacks the subject at hand and gives factual information by stating the reasons you are not qualified to address missile changes as you have no prior experience in them.
Like I said that's just good debating.

How ever ironically accusing her of using ad hominem against you in her attempt to discredit you when in fact she did not, That was your attempt to use ad hominem against her,
and further more all the times when you bring up the hybrid turrets buff as a viable option for caldari missile pilots on post that specially state it's about missiles and not other weapons systems that is what we call a red herring .

Both tactics are often used when the other side of the debate has nothing to strike back with.

EDIT: And on of the first rules of debating and choosing when to debate on a subject is you should consider topics you know something about and are prepared to deal with thoughtfully and use A well-supported argument.
Throwing out hypothetical situations and made up numbers just makes you look bad.

I support her request for you to stop your arguments until you have a solid understanding and first hand experience on the subject you are trying to debate. Or at the very least make people aware of your unsupported attacks so that they might have the common since to just roll their eyes when they see your name at the header of the post and just sigh and skip what you have said.

really ?

a criuse raven has more dps at 70k than a hml tengu ? what are you smokeing with a 2 bill fit and t2 fury yeah it has about 100 more dps on paper but not in reality with t1 (virtualy only usable criuse currently) it is less or about the same dps than the tengu.

pluss for missions a tengu has a stronger tank

there is many many issues to work out with a raven before a tengu nerf such as tank and dps if a raven could fit 2 invulns a nice sb an sba an em specific and therm specific hardner and then have room for a tp without having to drop its three bcus in lows then maybe just maybe itll be a fiesable bs

Thats so wrong in so many ways :D

you seem to have even less clue of whats going on than I thought.

The only thing which is correct there: a Tengu can speed/sig tank and cover the rest with very few modules. And for some situations that will be best choice. But all the rest of your statement is wrong. 3,5k unheated perma tank vs. omni res is possible with an active Tengu for example with a still reasonable price tag.

But you are the only one here left without a combat record Jorma, so no wonder you dont know anything about Eve. Go back and play Pyfa little boy :)

Here the maths of future fury HM.

About the Raven, I made a mistake : the "thundercat" have more dps than the Raven ; though the Raven still outdps a 100MN AB tengu, a fleet Rokh and a fleet Maelstrom.

http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/20661-Tengu-4000-DPS-Tank.html


No wonder you think HMLs suck...
Or that "they aren't OP"...

tengu has more dps period and a tengu dose not die if it stops moveing go build a mission tengu and actualy use it in missions. and yes a tengu has room for all that and rigs to help for explosive rad rigs.

i dont even have a ab on me mission tengu and it hasnt came close to losing its tank with just sitting there and popping things