Ships & Modules

Well in my opinion slapping both damage and range was a bit overdoing it.

HE clearly stated CONSIDERING all damage hit on the arties as well. If you want to add the damage mitigation of AB, add the fact hat the arties will miss like 50% or more of the time.

Its not soemthign even open for discussion, its absolute, HM were TOO POWERFUL for their range.

No hatin' on alts, Malcanis .

I just solod the gallente epic arc in a tengu. Semi afk, more than semi drunk. With 90km missile rang and 600 dps, i couldnt do it in any other t3 cruiser that well. Sentry proteus would come close, but not nearly as mobile. Confirming, players that whine about hmls are useless

Gallente arc is a newb mission? You been drinkin son? Hmls were OP. They got nerfed. They're still awesome, get over it.

And you aren't smart enough to have read up a few posts where i addressed this.


Oh I'm very much an alt. We all are. But I'm not a noob corp, never fights, forum warrior, alt like you I'm on every day just about, blowing up **** and getting my own **** blown up. And then posting. Do you even have any pvp experience? Because you should either post with such a character, or tell us who your pvp alt is. Until you do your posts are those of some crazy rl identified with an in-game race but frightened to post with that main who may not even pvp either person not worthy of being credited with any actual knowledge.


But that's precisely it Naomi. You don't have any record of flying an Eagle or Cerb that you can point to. Step into the light. Come out of the npc corp cq closet. It get's better.


The day the Drake goes off that top 20 list people may complain about Drakes being too weak -"maybe". Because as things stand the top 20 is looking better balanced than it ever has. There is no ship sitting in first postion with two or three times as many kills as the second place ship. This is what the Drake was doing until the HM nerf.

Thanks balancing team. The HML Drake reign is over, maybe. Of course that doesn't mean that adequate balance has been acheived with the BCs. But that's another story. Here, itt, we are addressing the spurious claim that HMs have been nerfed to "useless". As long at either they or the ships that fit them appear on the top 20 they are clearly not useless. There are plenty of weapon systems/modules that don't appear and haven't appeared for years on that list that one could make a better argument about them being useless.

Here's your problem...



There never was a Drake reign. There is a Super king, there is a Capital queen and there is a Battleship jack. There are various Tech III aces.

All of them always trumphed Drakes, always.

As long as there are people like you around who don't realize that the same two issues that made Drakes "OP" are also what makes those other ships "OP", there will never be much change to the game, just new cards dealt.

Those issues are indiscriminate balance of EW (resulting in applied malbalance of the accuracy mechanics [not to be mistaken for true malbalance in the accuracy mechanics, because the actual equations are good], since accuracy modifying EW have been given advantages) and Economy (resulting in malbalance between new-old, small-big and few-many; making old players in big ships from large alliances better than they should be).

Unlike most blather on these forums those two issues are also real issues. Their ill effects can be traced throughout the game and are somewhat easily correctable. Fixing them would also have "nerfed" HML without requiring artificially going in and affect their parameters in functional equations.

Instead, we "fixed HML" but all of the problems that revolve around XL-guns blapping down, L-guns blapping down, Fighter bombers blapping down or Sentries blapping down persist. That's popular concepts like Alphamaels, Rokhs, Slowcats and Trackdreads, still in reign. Most of them have been throned for two years now, if not more. The majority can not competently use them yet.

Next, someone is going to propose we change Maelstroms and Arty, Carriers and Sentries, and Dreadnoughts and the accuracy equations... and the list just keeps going.

I realize this is hard for some of you to accept in some sort of psychological projection defense, but i keep repeating these things - not because i enjoy HML - but because i would like to see newer groups stand up to older groups better, i would like to see smaller ships stand up to larger ships better and i would like to see fewer pilots able to stand up to more pilots: so all of this can interact better. There is no Dragon slain here. The blobs will just shift to a new BC (Hello Prophecy!), a new "OP" weapon that the majority of you don't understand how it works and they will continue to cull you with free ships and overprojected damage. It's already happening.

Almost any change CCP have done in this regard have resulted in improvement of old players, large ships and big alliances. How can you be so blind as to not see that? It literally has nothing to do with HML, it has everything to do with incompetent and ineffective redesign of the game. The direction some of you here stupidly applaud because it serves some shortsighted agenda and schadenfreude to you.

Meanwhile, i will continue to use XL-guns and LR-drones while rolling my eyes at you on the forums .

What i have been saying since my first post in this thread or this long-running discourse is:

Fixing the actual problems in the game would balance Drakes, HML and alot more.

Let me try to point out to you why a shallow perspective on the game is bad:

Let's say "the Drake is OP".
A stupid person simply concludes that and is happy with any change to rectify it.
A smart person asks himself WHY and then goes to rectify that specific issue.
A smart person also examines his questions of WHY and concludes wether they are plausible.

There are levels of insight:

The Drake is OP.
The Drake is OP because of HML.
The Drake and HML are OP because of the accuracy equations.
The Drake, HML and accuracy equations becomes issues first on Painted and Webbed targets.
The Drake, HML, accuracy equations, Painters and Webs have become issues after the ECM nerf.
The Drake, HML, acc eq, Painters and Webs can be countered at long range (LR) by Dampeners.
The Drake, HML, acc eq, Painters, Webs lack plausible counters at medium range (MR).

Hence, changing HML, or claiming the accuracy equations are faulty is incredibly stupid because you have not examined wether HML hit Cruiser targets running propmods for full damage, or wether XL-guns hit Subcapital targets running propmods for an unreasonable percentage. They do, when webbed and painted.

You see people complaining about Slowcats now, i linked it in my last post. However, Sentries have always been balanced similar to HML with high-output, low-application. A smart person would realize that using Ishtars, Dominixes or Carriers. In fact, smart people did. Those people never had problems fighting Drakes.

Fixing the issues at the bottom of the staments, would sufficiently fix ALL the issues: HML, Sentries, XL-guns etc.


Let's look at a few more insights:

The Drake is OP.
The Drake is OP because of it's tank.
The Drake's tank is OP because of passive tanking.
The Drake's passive tank is OP because of Logistics.
The Logistics that maintain the Drake's passive tank can be countered at LR by Dampeners.
The Logistics that maintain the Drake's passive tank lack sufficient counters at MR and SR.

The Drake is OP.
The Drake is OP because of numbers.
The Drake and numbers are OP because the Drake can be replaced en masse.
The Drake, numbers and replacement of them are OP because the ship cost next to nothing.
The Drake, numbers and replacement can be done at a whim because it doesn't require pilot downtime to recoup losses.

The Drake is OP.
The Drake is OP because it's a BC.
The Drake and all BC are OP because of their cost-effect.
The Drake, all BC and all tier I cost-effect is OP because of the economy.
The Drake, all BC, Tier I and the economy is OP because of creation-destruction malbalance.
The Destruction is malbalanced because CCP are improving cheap ships (changing ISK-balance, ignoring Insurance).
The Creation is malbalanced since we have 100m+/hr faucets while CCP is screwing the sinks of destruction.

The Drake is OP.
The Drake is OP because it's a bigger ship costing as much as a smaller ship.
The Drake and any larger ship is OP because their cost-effect is higher than any smaller ship.
The Drake or any ship larger than it being better is not changed by Frigates or Cruiser being improved.
The Drake is not better than any ships larger than it.

If you pay close attention to every one of these statements you will be able to identify some common ground. The more shallow statements have more counter-arguments, the deeper statements all revert back to similar issues, and furthermore the issues all affect each other to some degree. Even the statements rooted the most in modules and their parameters can be traced over to volume of resources (pilots, ISK, shipsize). For example: the Drake is good at sitting still and projecting damage. Sitting still and projecting damage is better with more pilots, in larger ships.


Looking at your "only statistical source: Eve-kill" i am better than you :Molle:.
To me you are the noob that just started this game.

That however is an incredibly poor basis for discussion, balance of the game or anything that matters here on the forums.

That's why i am using an alt and why i write long expositions because i prefer to engage with you, help you learn and so on. I'd rather not treat you as a noob based on who you are and what you do, but based on what you say and how you act here. I try not to stoop to attacking your command of language, understanding of terminology in the game, age as a character, membership in any alliance or preferences as a player. I am not above commenting on it if you bring it up though, but given the choice i rather pay attention to the arguments you make and focus on them.

I like people to read what i write instead of staring at my alliance-tag or my killboard stats and draw their conclusions from there. Some would give me too little credit based on those data and others would give me too much credit. I'd rather they read what i write and draw their conclusions based on what i say too. Provided of course, that they do read and try to understand rather than stubbornly wave it away because it challenges them (wether that challenge is in understanding the information or understanding the wording).

I have described the two concrete issues and solutions before:
- Fix the EW hackjob and restore balance between offensive and defensive EW (buff counters to Web, Paint and Logi).
- Change the course of EVE's economy: make destruction more expensive (balanced to creation), make creation bottom-up.

I'd love to see you argue the point of how they are not, with regards to being balanced with a higher output to a lower application. Maybe you could make a case for DDamps and sway me as to why 800 dps Sentry Gilas and 1500 dps Sentry Carriers were good ideas for EVE Online.

Please, try to argue it.

I'm still waiting for any of you to come argue the point.

Did you run out of things to say; so you resort to petty sarcasm, personal slants and attack how i express myself now?

I'll take that as my arguments being sound, since you don't try to attack them. I win .