These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Sentry drone nerf?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#141 - 2014-01-30 15:46:39 UTC
Hey look, another thread derailed by how infinity ziona doesn't get eve.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#142 - 2014-01-30 23:18:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Layla Firoue wrote:
Tauranon wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

You've obviously not fought competent fleets with a Marauder. I have in a Golem and against people who know what they're doing your 1k dps will not do anything and your tank being active based is reliant purely on cargo hold. I had Oracles, SB, T3's, BC, legions with neut subs and had they not derped on the wormhole not realising I was a war target I would have died.

That was a 22k tank, 2900m3 cargo, duel XLASB setup doing 1100 dps. It was no where near sufficient to beat their local RR / nuets and EHP.


How could you possibly argue that you should be able to win this engagement?

This is just sad now. Ugh


Whats sad is the I Win Button of bringing more people. Its why PvP in EvE is so mediocre. You take a look at Afghanistan or Iraq, where technology > bunch of dweebs with 1950's designed AK47's.

EVE PvP is about as intelligent as 100 low tech insurgents beating 50 high tech first world soldiers. Shouldn't happen simply because they bring more numbers of crappy ships. Just like in Iraq or Afghanistan, high tech should give similiar casualty results, 200 insurgents corpses for 20 coalition deaths. Instead, one of the newest, highest tech, super expensive machines quite literally fails to kill even one crappy 20 mill cruiser due to lame RR mechanics.


Except that this is a naval simulator, and cruisers engaging beyond their class is a common theme in naval history. The Graf Spee, Scharnhorst and Bismark all had very specific issues with being unable to deal with British cruisers, that either lead directly to their loss, or directly to them not completing their objective and then subsequently being lost.

If you visit London, you can actually go see the Belfast, which was part of a 3 cruiser force protecting a convoy that engaged and drove off the nominally superior and supposedly largely invulnerable to 8in gunfire Scharnhorst (after the Norfolk poked it squarely in its one good eye). ie there is a bit of cruiser history you might even be able to board on a tour.



I too compare internet SPACE ships with WW2 SEA ships.
And to lump in the Graf Spee with Scharnhorst and Bismark Ugh
One was a cruiser class ship herself, the other was a battlecruiser and the third a fast battleship and circumstances were quite different with superior british forces always close by in all 3 cases as well as bad weather conditions for the Scharnhorst engagement and the cruisers shadowing the Bismark. Graf Spee was outnumbered.

But hey leave out the important parts.

EvE is based on naval warefare. Its why ships are called ships, ship classes match identically to all historical classes of naval vessels other than submarines which have been renamed stealth bombers, and Titans.

The Graf Spee and Scharnhorst were both pocket battleships, none were cruisers.... The Graf Spee engaged 3 cruisers, kicked their asses, took some damage and docked but was scuttled due to politics.

Scharnhorst along with her sister ship Gneisenau were both pocket battleships, they sortied together and at one point took on a battleship, aircraft carrier and two destroyers, they sunk both destroyers and the aircraft carrier before withdrawing.

The Bismarck was engaged in a multi-ship battle between multiple cruisers, a large battleship and the battlecruiser HMS Hood. She engaged the battlecruiser Hood and the battleship Prince of Wales. Destroying the Hood and damaging the Prince of Wales to such an extent it has to withdraw.

Examples of superior ships beating inferior ships with skill and technology.

The issue is not that I didn't win my engagement, the issue was I was not able to kill anything regardless of my technological advantage (faction fitted bastioned Marauder vs cruisers, BC, frigs)

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Jill Chastot
WE FORM BL0B Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#143 - 2014-01-30 23:24:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

No its not. Missiles and speed tanking make it mediocre.


Use the correct missiles for the job at hand.



NUUU MUSHT YUS MOAR SCOURGE FURY

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=298596&find=unread OATHS wants you. Come to the WH "Safety in eve is the greatest fallacy you will ever encounter. Once you accept this you will truely enjoy this game."
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#144 - 2014-01-31 01:04:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
Infinity Ziona wrote:


The Graf Spee and Scharnhorst were both pocket battleships, none were cruisers.... The Graf Spee engaged 3 cruisers, kicked their asses, took some damage and docked but was scuttled due to politics.


Pocket battleship is an arbitrary term that arose from treaties limiting cruiser guns to 8in, and from the Germans not being bound by treaty, so building their cruisers to deliberately obsolete treaty cruisers. It wasn't a German term (they were probably just called panzerschiffs).

The point being, that the strategy of the german navy command was ruined, because despite it being point superior to a treaty cruiser, it could not sustain material damage from a cruiser and continue with its mission, and since treaty cruisers were cheap and plentiful it was inevitable it would run into not an individual, but a squadron, which succeeded in their mission of patrolling for and preventing commerce raiding. Aside from the state of mind of the Captain a pressing physical reason for the Graf Spee being scuttled was it was an expensive ship with expensive engines that required a fuel purifier that either failed or was damaged in battle.

Quote:


Scharnhorst along with her sister ship Gneisenau were both pocket battleships, they sortied together and at one point took on a battleship, aircraft carrier and two destroyers, they sunk both destroyers and the aircraft carrier before withdrawing.



Both of these ships fit the definition of battleship, ie both of them carried 9 large cailbre guns, and armor thickness (though not as well arranged) similar to the bismark, and both of them had significant immune zones to their own fire (a common definition of battleship is armored against their largest calibre weapons), Yet it was chased off by 3 cruisers and failed in its mission to intercept the convoy. The cruisers however succeeded in their mission of defending the convoy without being sunk.

Quote:


The Bismarck was engaged in a multi-ship battle between multiple cruisers, a large battleship and the battlecruiser HMS Hood. She engaged the battlecruiser Hood and the battleship Prince of Wales. Destroying the Hood and damaging the Prince of Wales to such an extent it has to withdraw.



except that the only way the hood and POW intercepted it, was because it overran the patrol line of cruisers, which subsequently followed it and reported positions to the intercepting Hood and POW, something that the bismark could not prevent them doing. ie the cruisers pressed home their mission in the face of a superior enemy and didn't get sunk doing it.

Quote:


The issue is not that I didn't win my engagement, the issue was I was not able to kill anything regardless of my technological advantage (faction fitted bastioned Marauder vs cruisers, BC, frigs)


I'm not focusing at all on whether a cruiser should be able to solo a marauder, I'm focusing on whether cruisers should be able to perform their tasks on a battlefield populated by poorly supported marauders, and the answer is yes, and so it should be.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2014-01-31 07:32:14 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:


The Graf Spee and Scharnhorst were both pocket battleships, none were cruisers.... The Graf Spee engaged 3 cruisers, kicked their asses, took some damage and docked but was scuttled due to politics.


Pocket battleship is an arbitrary term that arose from treaties limiting cruiser guns to 8in, and from the Germans not being bound by treaty, so building their cruisers to deliberately obsolete treaty cruisers. It wasn't a German term (they were probably just called panzerschiffs).

The point being, that the strategy of the german navy command was ruined, because despite it being point superior to a treaty cruiser, it could not sustain material damage from a cruiser and continue with its mission, and since treaty cruisers were cheap and plentiful it was inevitable it would run into not an individual, but a squadron, which succeeded in their mission of patrolling for and preventing commerce raiding. Aside from the state of mind of the Captain a pressing physical reason for the Graf Spee being scuttled was it was an expensive ship with expensive engines that required a fuel purifier that either failed or was damaged in battle.

Quote:


Scharnhorst along with her sister ship Gneisenau were both pocket battleships, they sortied together and at one point took on a battleship, aircraft carrier and two destroyers, they sunk both destroyers and the aircraft carrier before withdrawing.



Both of these ships fit the definition of battleship, ie both of them carried 9 large cailbre guns, and armor thickness (though not as well arranged) similar to the bismark, and both of them had significant immune zones to their own fire (a common definition of battleship is armored against their largest calibre weapons), Yet it was chased off by 3 cruisers and failed in its mission to intercept the convoy. The cruisers however succeeded in their mission of defending the convoy without being sunk.

Quote:


The Bismarck was engaged in a multi-ship battle between multiple cruisers, a large battleship and the battlecruiser HMS Hood. She engaged the battlecruiser Hood and the battleship Prince of Wales. Destroying the Hood and damaging the Prince of Wales to such an extent it has to withdraw.



except that the only way the hood and POW intercepted it, was because it overran the patrol line of cruisers, which subsequently followed it and reported positions to the intercepting Hood and POW, something that the bismark could not prevent them doing. ie the cruisers pressed home their mission in the face of a superior enemy and didn't get sunk doing it.

Quote:


The issue is not that I didn't win my engagement, the issue was I was not able to kill anything regardless of my technological advantage (faction fitted bastioned Marauder vs cruisers, BC, frigs)


I'm not focusing at all on whether a cruiser should be able to solo a marauder, I'm focusing on whether cruisers should be able to perform their tasks on a battlefield populated by poorly supported marauders, and the answer is yes, and so it should be.

You pretty much got everything wrong there. The Graf Spee damaged the Exeter, knocking out all her guns and forcing her to withdraw. Despite being a battleship she was faster than the cruisers but engaged anyway outnumbered. She docked in Montevideo (sp?) because she had orders not to risk being sunk and giving the allies a morale boost. She was scuttled for the same reason not because she was incapable of winning outnumbered, she was.

The pocket battleships were indeed battleships, the ToV prohibited ships over 10,000 tons (large cruisers) however the pocket battleships were twice that and has 8 inch guns which were battleship sized guns albeit not large ones.

The cruisers shadowed the Bismarck allowing the Hood and PoW to engage after which they were defeated, the Bismarck subsequently losing them and escaping into the Atlantic with minimal damage (she skill and isk tanked).

A marauder is a marauder. From a play experience its poor gameplay for only large fleets to be able to harm individual ships in other large fleets.

In any game a high experienced high value ship should be able to engage a fleet and cause some damage. If a marauder engages 2 T3's, 2 Oracles, 3 stealth bombers, a Thorax in a suicide attack you would expect it reasonable that the maruader would eventually be destroyed however it is as reasonable to expect that the Marauder would be able to destroy an Oracle (cheap, low ehp), a thorax (super cheap, super low ehp) in exchange.

The reason this is so is a) an inability to harm any fleet ship without another fleet eliminates any reason to engage with inferior numbers b) encourages blobbing c) its fracking stupid..

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#146 - 2014-01-31 07:54:23 UTC
I really don't understand why people are complaining about tracking with sentries.
If you use the scripts your tracking got BETTER. It's just that you can't get a range bonus at the same time.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#147 - 2014-01-31 07:57:33 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
In any game a high experienced high value ship should be able to engage a fleet and cause some damage. If a marauder engages 2 T3's, 2 Oracles, 3 stealth bombers, a Thorax in a suicide attack you would expect it reasonable that the maruader would eventually be destroyed however it is as reasonable to expect that the Marauder would be able to destroy an Oracle (cheap, low ehp), a thorax (super cheap, super low ehp) in exchange.

I dare say your inability to do so was probably not the ship's fault.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#148 - 2014-01-31 08:44:30 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
In any game a high experienced high value ship should be able to engage a fleet and cause some damage. If a marauder engages 2 T3's, 2 Oracles, 3 stealth bombers, a Thorax in a suicide attack you would expect it reasonable that the maruader would eventually be destroyed however it is as reasonable to expect that the Marauder would be able to destroy an Oracle (cheap, low ehp), a thorax (super cheap, super low ehp) in exchange.

I dare say your inability to do so was probably not the ship's fault.

No it was more the fault that 8 high slots of damage from an advanced battleship costing a billion + with fittings costing billions requiring many months of training can be completely defeated by one or two cheap low skilled cruiser remote repairers that somehow magically put ships together again.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#149 - 2014-01-31 08:58:46 UTC
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
Vald Tegor wrote:

Pre patch Garde with two omnis
45.6 Optimal + 12k falloff ~ 50 k effective range, half dmg at ~ 58k, 0 dmg at 70k

Post patch Garde with two omnis range scripted
39K Optimal + 19.7 falloff ~46 k effective range, half dmg at ~ 58k, 0 dmg at 78k

No, the sky didn't fall range wise on "unbonused" boats.

What the patch did hurt, is your ability to actually track small, high transversal targets maintaining that 50km range. Which was part of the problem with drone boats overperforming, particularly the range and tracking bonused hulls. When it comes to tracking a target at a more reasonable range, switching to tracking scripts nets you a 9.35% buff before overheating.

Care to elaborate what PvE content features small signature hostiles orbiting at 50+km, making unbonused ships with the new Omni useless? Furthermore, why should battleship class guns be used to fire at them, instead of switching to a more reasonable anti-frigate drone choice or using the high slots? After all, the sentry Myrm is little more than the drone version of a 6 gun Talos. Would you expect a blaster Talos to track sig tanking frigates at 50+km?

Seems you have stuffing for brains also.

Vexor Navy, 2 omni's.

Garde II 34.4km+15.5km (pyfa)

You mention nothing about tracking, but then you have no clue cause you haven't tried it.

Nice job tossing out insults, for someone who managed to not script the omnis and failed to read past the first four lines of the post.

Arsine Mayhem wrote:

Oh yea, what was I thinking. Idiot.

Garde II Targeting Scripts 30+13 Tracking .0708
Garde II Range Scripts 39+19.7 Tracking .0432

Now you go out and test it. See what you hit.

Let alone Bouncer, Warden, Curator.

For targets at less than 30 odd K, you hit more than before the patch...
For targets beyond 34K, there won't be much difference in shooting battleships and battlecruisers (the intended targets of a 400 sig res weapon). Frigates and cruisers moving directly towards/away from you will be no real change from before. Small ships actively attempting to evade your fire at high range is what will change, as intended. As I posted the first time.

You really need to clarify what situations you are talking about being a problem here, that are not answered by "use your spare drone bay space and bonused anti-frigate drones, or fit anti-frigate guns in your empty highs".

If you're deploying the long range variants, they blap just fine in PvE. After all, everything at their expected range should be moving towards you, so tracking doesn't matter.

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Also, now, I have cap issues on a ship that was barely stable.

Yes, this 0.4 cap per second is absolutely terrible. I too lament my loss of afk ability cap stability on my ratting ship. With my less than perfect cap skills, it now caps out in 44 minutes!

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
course, the CCP apologists will say "whaa whaa, guns have this issue already".
Of course, we all know about the drawbacks that sentries already imposed on a pilot, before the nerf, making the gun comparison completely idiotic, but these devs and their apologists never let facts get in the way of ideology.


Why is it idiotic to reference a 400 signature resolution weapon to another 400 signature resolution weapon, when your ship posesses no less than two alternative weapon systems for dealing with 30m targets?
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#150 - 2014-01-31 08:58:51 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
X why cant i solo structures designed to provoke fleet fights


Result: "CCP should remove POCO timers!"

Infinity Ziona wrote:
X why cant i solo fleets more prepared than i am


Prediction: "CCP should remove logistics ships!"
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#151 - 2014-01-31 09:34:31 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
X why cant i solo structures designed to provoke fleet fights


Result: "CCP should remove POCO timers!"

Infinity Ziona wrote:
X why cant i solo fleets more prepared than i am


Prediction: "CCP should remove logistics ships!"

Strawmen. I have no issue dying to a fleet. I have issue dying to a fleet full of newbs in newb ships and not being able to take out even one due to wow style healer modules.

But back on topic, the nerf / buff that was Omni's completely missed what was OP about drones. The only conclusion that could be drawn, CCP got some chars in PL / N3 and don't want to screw the wrecking ball. No other reason they would address the drone problem without addressing the drone problem.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#152 - 2014-01-31 10:10:15 UTC
Bit late for the wrecking ball.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#153 - 2014-01-31 10:13:11 UTC
Bismark was able to be sunk because its rudder had been damaged by a Torpedo from a biplane.


... just saying
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2014-01-31 10:21:45 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Bismark was able to be sunk because its rudder had been damaged by a Torpedo from a biplane.


... just saying



on a stupid lucky hit equivalent in eve of a 300 man fleet all hitting with a wreacking shot on the first salvo.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#155 - 2014-01-31 10:23:07 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
X why cant i solo structures designed to provoke fleet fights


Result: "CCP should remove POCO timers!"

Infinity Ziona wrote:
X why cant i solo fleets more prepared than i am


Prediction: "CCP should remove logistics ships!"




Well to be frank, POCOS could very well ahve a bit less HP. There are more than enough things in eve that invite to use of a dread to kill. We coudl use a few more things under 1 million EHP.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#156 - 2014-01-31 10:24:38 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
In any game a high experienced high value ship should be able to engage a fleet and cause some damage. If a marauder engages 2 T3's, 2 Oracles, 3 stealth bombers, a Thorax in a suicide attack you would expect it reasonable that the maruader would eventually be destroyed however it is as reasonable to expect that the Marauder would be able to destroy an Oracle (cheap, low ehp), a thorax (super cheap, super low ehp) in exchange.

I dare say your inability to do so was probably not the ship's fault.

No it was more the fault that 8 high slots of damage from an advanced battleship costing a billion + with fittings costing billions requiring many months of training can be completely defeated by one or two cheap low skilled cruiser remote repairers that somehow magically put ships together again.



Each time you post you show more and more proof that you have no clue in this game..

HOW IN HELL you have 8 HIGH SLOTS in damage on a marauder?


PLEASE, STOP POSTING.. and go to eve uni.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#157 - 2014-01-31 10:35:31 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

You pretty much got everything wrong there. The Graf Spee damaged the Exeter, knocking out all her guns and forcing her to withdraw. Despite being a battleship she was faster than the cruisers but engaged anyway outnumbered. She docked in Montevideo (sp?) because she had orders not to risk being sunk and giving the allies a morale boost. She was scuttled for the same reason not because she was incapable of winning outnumbered, she was.

The pocket battleships were indeed battleships, the ToV prohibited ships over 10,000 tons (large cruisers) however the pocket battleships were twice that and has 8 inch guns which were battleship sized guns albeit not large ones.

The cruisers shadowed the Bismarck allowing the Hood and PoW to engage after which they were defeated, the Bismarck subsequently losing them and escaping into the Atlantic with minimal damage (she skill and isk tanked).



You are hilariously missing the point, and you have no idea what a treaty cruiser is (hint Versailles did not bind the british navy to build cruisers to a certain size, the Naval Treaty of Washington did, which the Germans were not a party to, therefore they put larger guns on their heavy cruisers intending to directly obsolete British heavy cruisers). Lanngsdorf was sent out with order to commerce raid. He failed the moment he took material damage from the Exeter. Ultimately Lanngsdorf committed suicide. Harwood had orders to find and stop the commerce raider, and he succeeded. He was >>knighted<< for his success, despite the fact his ship got shot up. It still did not sink, and it was still on station outside the River Plate when it needed to be. ie material damage to the Spee was strategically more important than material damage to the Exeter.

Quote:


A marauder is a marauder. From a play experience its poor gameplay for only large fleets to be able to harm individual ships in other large fleets.

In any game a high experienced high value ship should be able to engage a fleet and cause some damage. If a marauder engages 2 T3's, 2 Oracles, 3 stealth bombers, a Thorax in a suicide attack you would expect it reasonable that the maruader would eventually be destroyed however it is as reasonable to expect that the Marauder would be able to destroy an Oracle (cheap, low ehp), a thorax (super cheap, super low ehp) in exchange.

The reason this is so is a) an inability to harm any fleet ship without another fleet eliminates any reason to engage with inferior numbers b) encourages blobbing c) its fracking stupid..



There is a penny arcade shirt with a heavy and a doctor. There is an arrow pointing to the doctor, with the legend. SHOOT THIS GUY FIRST. If I find out the RR was coming from an actual RR boat like an exeq in that fleet, then I'm going to split my sides laughing.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#158 - 2014-01-31 10:37:43 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:


HOW IN HELL you have 8 HIGH SLOTS in damage on a marauder?


PLEASE, STOP POSTING.. and go to eve uni.


Its a pretty well understood shorthand for the marauder weapon bonuses.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#159 - 2014-01-31 10:41:00 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:


HOW IN HELL you have 8 HIGH SLOTS in damage on a marauder?


PLEASE, STOP POSTING.. and go to eve uni.


Its a pretty well understood shorthand for the marauder weapon bonuses.




Coming from him.. i doubt it... he sheer amount of nonsense he posts does not support that

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#160 - 2014-01-31 10:43:25 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

No it was more the fault that 8 high slots of damage from an advanced battleship costing a billion + with fittings costing billions requiring many months of training can be completely defeated by one or two cheap low skilled cruiser remote repairers that somehow magically put ships together again.


One more thing I might add, is that had you brought along 1 friend with an alpha maelstrom, then you may in fact have been able to shoot more than the repairable buffer in a single salvo, which would have meant in 2 or 3 salvos that thing was going to pop, even if it could repair more dps than the Maelstrom fired.

ie there is a very good weapon out there for ruining cruiser buffers through RR.