These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

AAR = Devs Completely Shield Biased
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#201 - 2013-02-27 05:15:02 UTC
Paikis wrote:
DRAEKs were used in nullsec because they were easy to fly, relatively effective with low SP and cheap. NOT because they were particularly effective. The word Drake is a synonym for the word average. Also, Drakes were not the most used ship in low, not even close. The most used BC was the cane by far.

You suggesting that the Drake's position on a killboard has anything to do with how effective they are is laughable. 100 drake pilots all ***** onto a kill, let's say it's a ratting carrier that they caught. That is 100 kills attributed to Drakes. 1 ship died to a blob of drakes, and +100 drake kills is recorded.

Being high on a killboard doesn't tell you squat about how effective a thing is, it only tells you how many pilots flying that particular ship managed to land a hit on a ship that exploded. If a nullsec block decided that they were going to use fleets of n00bships and dragged them up to the top of eve-kill, would you be in here telling us all how overpowered the n00bships are?


Easy to fly? What, and flying a harbinger would have just KILLED those newbies right? Way beyond their capabilities?

Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#202 - 2013-02-27 05:28:17 UTC
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
Easy to fly? What, and flying a harbinger would have just KILLED those newbies right? Way beyond their capabilities?


Harbingers need cap injectors, harbingers have optimal and falloff and tracking to worry about, harbingers have crystals that need to be swapped depending on range. Harbingers have more buttons to push, more things to worry about and yes, are harder to fly.

Yes, the Drake is easy. FC fleet warps his fleet to position and calls primary. Plebs in the fleet target what he tells them to and push F1. That's it. No crystal swapping, no manual piloting to reduce transversal, no worrying about range to target, or capacitor. Just target, F1.

Drakes are simple. They are hard to screw up.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#203 - 2013-02-27 09:02:53 UTC
Armortanking atm is so good, I secretely refit my zealots to shield when FC isn't watching <,<

Drake has never been on top because it was good or anything. Also Heavy Missiles haven't been nerfed to reduce the drakes formerly unmatched damage-projection in the 80mil-class. Also Drakes don't have 90k+ EHP in a tankfit or still 50k+ EHP even in a podlafit. Totally not very good that ship. Totally overrated and nerfhammered Roll

PS: I really like those new AARs, though it seems they are just a small fraction superior to deadspace reppers.
Looks now a bit like Brutixes with a few-cycles-a-type-MAR.
Lili Lu
#204 - 2013-02-27 15:46:34 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
Easy to fly? What, and flying a harbinger would have just KILLED those newbies right? Way beyond their capabilities?


Harbingers need cap injectors, harbingers have optimal and falloff and tracking to worry about, harbingers have crystals that need to be swapped depending on range. Harbingers have more buttons to push, more things to worry about and yes, are harder to fly.

Yes, the Drake is easy. FC fleet warps his fleet to position and calls primary. Plebs in the fleet target what he tells them to and push F1. That's it. No crystal swapping, no manual piloting to reduce transversal, no worrying about range to target, or capacitor. Just target, F1.

Drakes are simple. They are hard to screw up.

And this is not "effectiveness", this is not it "being good" ? I answered your challenge and question. You answered your own question and challenge. Inkarr pointed out to you how Harbys were not similarly blessed with usage. Myrms were not similarly utilized by the eve population. The ship was not popular for its looks. It was popular because as I answered, it was cheap, it was easy, it had good range, it had a good tank, it even ffs had mobility advantages.

Also, you are sounding like a certain person who loved to post in the HM nerf thread and claim that Canes were everywhere in lowsec while Drakes were not. And that all the Drake usage was in nullsec. Care to present some data to support your claim? Data, not your subjective perception and belief.

Nope didn't think so. We (non CCP employees) don't have any data on the distribution of Drake usage. So my claim that Drakes predominated in lowsec as well is just as supported as yours that they weren't used and it was all Canes. Regardless, whatever the actual distribution was, it cannot absolve the ship from the raw number usage. Maelstroms, Abaddons, and even Canes got on plenty of nullsec blob battle kills as well. But they still didn't have the raw kill numbers of Drakes. Noone was putting up the numbers with any plated brick BSs. Nor definitely were there any plated brick, oops I'm out of cap because I simply can't cram enough 800 cap boosters in my hold, Harbys.

The ship was cheap. But so were Harbys and Myrms. The ship was good. But so were Maelstroms and Abaddons. However, in the combination, the ship was too good, it was too effective. It is now a little less so in range and tank. It may be enough to restore BSs in nullsec wars. But we won't know until the blue donut of nullsec grows some red mold on it. And whatever the outcome there it certainly won't be AAR fitted active armor bonused Gallente ships dominating eve-kill. Armor honeycombing will probably not be enough to tilt the balance toward being a plated short range armor buffered brick either. But we shall see.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#205 - 2013-02-28 19:08:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
Marcus Gideon wrote:
So far I've seen 2 pages of weak arguments trying to say "Hey, don't bash on Armor tanking. It's good already... I mean, it's not Shield Tanking, but it's getting better"

So far, few have addressed my initial complaints (other than saying I should just get over it and quit whining)

- Shield ships can fit SEVERAL ASB, while Armor ships will be hard locked to using just 1 AAB. Again, CCP admits multiple ASB made shields very powerful. But rather than go back and hard lock ASB, they just pre-nerf AAB.

Fitting multi armor reps is a very common fitting style. it is easy to do. Dual and even triple armor reps were very common long before this module was added. Fitting dual or tripple AAR would be well over powered as you would have double the rep for the same power grid and cap use. The nanites may cost more than booster charges, but you can fit way way more in your cargo hold.

It is very rare to see a dual or triple SB fit. You will usually see a single larger unit used instead. Fitting dual ASB really gimps any fit due to the fitting requirements of those modules. Also fitting dual ASB, will give you double reps, at the cost of the the extenders, hardeners, or ewar mods, you have to drop to make it fit. Also with ASB the size of the cap boosters is a big problem. Even running a single ASB your cargo is ussually full of charges. A dual ASB will burn them twice as fast, meaning you can not perma tank with it, but will only be able to carry enough charges for 1-2 reloads each.

These are two completely different tanking styles, and can not be compared in an apples to apples fashion. You have stated all the benifits of the ASB and all the negatives of the AAR but have ignored the negatives of the ASB or the benefits of the AAR. For an accurate comparison you need to consider all aspects, not just the parts that seem to support your argument.

Marcus Gideon wrote:
- Shield ASB are Capless, for no particular reason. Ordinary Shields Boosters aren't Capless, but they made a special exception. Ordinary Armor Reppers aren't Capless either, and CCP decided to "stick to their guns" in that regard.

XL-ASB reps just over double compared to a normal XL-SB(980 vs 450 or 117% bonus) but not as high as the boost L-AAR gets(1350 vs 600 or 125% bonus). When burning charges the AAR boosts 3 times what it does without charges. (450*3=1350) Sure it still burns cap, but gets more than double the rep of a standard AR(600) for the same cap use,compared to the ASB also give more than double the boost but burning 3 times the cap. But when not burning charges the AAR used the same cap as the AR(400GJ) While the XL-ASB burns more than triple the cap of a XL-SB(1320GJ vs 400GJ) when run without charges.

ASB are not capless, they just get their cap from the charges. But these charges do not increase the repair value of the module like the AAR does. Also with the cap booster charges being so bulky you can not carry very many in your cargo hold. It is a fairly even trade off. Once the charges are gone, the XL-ASB maintains the double boost over the XL-SB while burning 3 times the cap. While the L-AAR only gives 75% of the boost the L-AR gives but continues to burn the same cap. Also the XL-ASB holds less charges, and less spares in the cargo hold, meaning you will runout sooner. But the L-AAR has less of an issue with running out of charges, but get hurt more when it does.


Marcus Gideon wrote:
- Shield ASB burn charges that cost as little as 400 ISK each. Armor AAB burn charges that cost 30,000 ISK each. I just went back and updated the OP, since I didn't factor the Paste costs right before. Maybe if people take a look at how expensive it is to run an AAB compared to an ASB...
Sure the nanite paste does cost a lot more, but as its demand goes up, the supply will be increased and the prices will come down. Even if the price does not come down, you are still getting the benifit of much smaller charges, so you can carry way more, and a 300% increase in module effectiveness over the same size AR. While the ASB only gets about 117% better reps over the SB and has a much higher restriction on the number of charges you can carry.

To summarize the key points of the L-AAR that differ from the XL-ASB;
- charges give a 300% boost to repair amount
-charges are much smaller so you can carry way more extras
-when charges run out it burns the same cap(400GJ) same as the standard AR but gives 75% of the boost
-Stacks very nicely with additional standard AR's.

To summarize the key points of the XL-ASB that differ from the L-AAR;
-Charges remove cap but do not affect performance of the module
-Charges are much bulkier, and take up way more room in cargo hold
-ships can hold way less spare charges
-when charges run out it burns more than triple the cap of the XL-SB while only giving 45% more boost(1320GJ vs 400GJ)
- Is very difficult to stack with additional ASB's or SB's due to high fitting requirements.

Keep in mind that I am comparing the XL-ASB to the L-AAR, the L-AAR looks even better when compared to the L-ASB
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#206 - 2013-03-03 21:44:21 UTC
It's a stupid argument that you can carry more nanite paste. Why? Because you can only carry so many navy 800's to fill your 2 medium cap boosters, so you are just as limited as the ASB

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}