These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Worst Ship Bonus Thread
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#101 - 2011-12-16 09:57:57 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
No I didn't. Liang made a claim and made it sound like the norm, and I called BS on it. Claiming that the bonus is wasted due to a lack of mids is reasonable, but liang had explicitly started off by mentioning the " 'solo' logisticS" Oneiros is capable of making good use of them if the setup benefits from TLs. Also, if the scimi is not underpowered, then it doesn't need the proposed boost to make it better at what it does.


I said a solo logistics gets forced off the field in under 2 minutes. You say it doesn't. He shows it happen. What's hard to understand aside from the fact you're talking out your ass and have no clue how fights actually happen? In this thread you've gone from "I blob" to "I don't even fight at all". -_-

Quote:
I just slapped an XL booster and a t2 invuln on a sleip, then tried the same thing but with an added invuln on the logi (and a smaller booster). Not sure how that would translate to your fit (which is undoubtedly more expensive) but go give that a try.


Ok, apples to apples comparisons:
- Burst tank: 2545 Scim (~1:30), 4690 Sleip (~3 minutes)
- Sustained Tank: 1756 Scim, 2360 Sleip
- EHP: 22k Scim, 57k Sleip
- Speed: 972 m/s Scim, 2040 m/s Sleip

Anyway, its not even close to the same level of tank a Sleip has. Just give it a ******* rest.

Quote:

Cripes your reading comprehension is bad. I don't blob, in fact I'm not even fond of even fights, I prefer to fight at least slightly outnumbered. HOWEVER, that is a HORRIBLE way to balance a ship, from that perspective. "This ship is underpowered because I was only just barely able to win an outnumbered fight with it" is an absurd argument to make, regardless of skill level or experience.


Its very simple:
- TL bonus is somewhere between almost entirely and completely useless.
- Logis are not overpowered solo, in small gangs, in medium gangs, or in large gangs
- Scim is worse in large gangs
- Scim is worse in medium gangs
- Scim is worse in small gangs
- Scim is worse as solo logi
- Scim is worse as a logi altogether.
- Scim needs a boost to small gang performance
- Active tanks are only useful in small gangs

Conclusion: Replace the useless bonus on the Scim with a useful bonus to the area its supposed to be good at.

... cont ...

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#102 - 2011-12-16 10:03:42 UTC
Cambarus wrote:

You're considering the advantages of a tracking linked fleet over one that has none, and using same size ships in the supposed engagement. Lol Come on, at least TRY to view it from the other side.
1-I figured as much
2-If the proph is as good as you say, why would it need to be changed?
3-For someone who claims that conventional wisdom is often wrong, you seem to GROSSLY underestimate a ship capable of 150 dps with 5 mids on a frig, based on what conventional wisdom says its good at. I would suggest actually flying the ship in question before assuming that it's ****.


1. -_-
2. -_-
3. I have tried it. I don't like it, and it doesn't work as well as many other options.

Quote:
1-Again, I NEVER said that.
2-Those 2 mods you fit on the sleip, fit on the scim but with a LSB equivalent and an extra invuln.
3-You're doing the EXACT SAME THING. And to top it off, now you're doing it based on a statement I never made.

Don't have time to address the other post atm, I'll deal with it when I get back home.


1. Fine, apparently you simply don't fight at all.
2. Yeah, you're doing it wrong.
3. Now you're ignoring the point - buffer logis (even at range) get forced off the field quickly. Keep **** talking about a topic you don't have a ******* clue about - by your own admission.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Smiling Menace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2011-12-16 11:23:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Smiling Menace
Liang Nuren wrote:
Cambarus wrote:

In the end though it doesn't matter. Look at the first page, literally a quarter of the posts are people defending the TL bonus, and more than half the posts on the second page debating about it back and fourth (with liang on one side and most everyone else on the other), You're not just wrong, you're so wrong that you've derailed the entire thread arguing with all the people who TELL you that you're wrong. And this isn't some sort of argument based in logic either; you claim that the bonus is useless, a bunch of people come in and say they make use of it, which makes you wrong. Period.


Don't lie. Its 4 for them (Mfume Apocal, Shlakkk, Cambarus, Tamiya Sorassa [who also thinks Damps are good]), 3 against (Verity Sov, Liang Nuren, Elcholo), and 100% of the people for them are claiming use strictly in Incursions. On that front, there's two competing stories - one where they made literally no difference and one where they might have made a difference. Oh, and on top of that numerical analysis shows that 4 bonused TLs are less effective than a single unbonused web. Roll

-Liang

Ed: Also, painters + webs is better than TLs for dicking around with dreads. Both because it helps everyone and because its just more effective.


Think you missed this part in his post. It's not whether it's a good idea or even useful, the fact is people do make use of it irrespective of anything you might say about the bonus. So if some people use it, regardless of niche situations, then it can't be that useless.

I think this thread is more about those ships that have bonuses that are never used in any circumstance. Those bonuses need to be changed for something that might actually be useful without making these ships OP.

Also I would suggest making another thread rather than derail someone else's if you wish to debate this further.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#104 - 2011-12-16 11:31:56 UTC
The -50% cap usage bonus on the Coercer: makes your cap last 4 minutes instead of 2 when fights are over in less than a minute.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#105 - 2011-12-16 13:17:27 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

I said a solo logistics gets forced off the field in under 2 minutes. You say it doesn't. He shows it happen. What's hard to understand aside from the fact you're talking out your ass and have no clue how fights actually happen?
It occurs to me that this may just be us talking about 2 different things, since both our statements were a tad ambiguous. I'm working under the assumption that you're assuming that getting forced off the field in under 2 minutes happens most of the time. If this is not the case, I apologize. If this IS the case, stop talking out your ass.

Liang Nuren wrote:

In this thread you've gone from "I blob" to "I don't even fight at all". -_-
I actually haven't gone anywhere. YOU went from making a claim about me based on something I never said, to making a DIFFERENT claim about me based on something ELSE I never said. Good job, keep up the good work.

Liang Nuren wrote:

Ok, apples to apples comparisons:
- Burst tank: 2545 Scim (~1:30), 4690 Sleip (~3 minutes)
- Sustained Tank: 1756 Scim, 2360 Sleip
- EHP: 22k Scim, 57k Sleip
- Speed: 972 m/s Scim, 2040 m/s Sleip
Anyway, its not even close to the same level of tank a Sleip has. Just give it a ******* rest.
Mind sharing your fit?
I also like how you left out the sig radius in your little comparison, since it's the single biggest advantage the logi has Big smile
As it stands though, a run of the mil, t2 fit on both yields very similar tanks, and your crystal-using, gang-linked, blue pill popping deadspace fit should not be what you use to compare the 2.


Liang Nuren wrote:

Its very simple:
- Logis are not overpowered solo, in small gangs, in medium gangs, or in large gangs


Conclusion: Replace the useless bonus on the Scim with a useful bonus to the area its supposed to be good at.

... cont ...

-Liang
This is the main point I would like to address in this list, because something occurs to me that had not before:
You were undoubtedly OK with how the scimitar performed prior to discovering the basilisk. Why? If the scimi really is so bad at what it does, why DID you fly it? And why is it that the scim is underpowered, rather than the basilisk being overpowered? If you have a perfectly viable ship (and it IS viable), one that gets used all the time because people at the very least PERCEIVE it to be good, and after a while you find a ship that does everything this viable ship does, only better, despite them having different roles, isn't that usually an indication that the latter ship is overpowered, and needs some changes made to make it LESS viable (in this case in small gang logis)

Note that I'm not actually going to address your second post, as literally the entire thing is a stream of ad hominems based on nothing.

I do however have another question:
You go on and on, and on and on, about how bad it is to adhere to conventional wisdom, and yet you seem to think that your individual experience carries weight in this conversation. Why then, is your supposed "hundreds of hours of experience" to be taken as being better than tens of THOUSANDS of hours of experience, across hundreds, if not thousands of players? Why should anyone take your demands of being listened to seriously, while you're shouting at the same time that listening to others is a bad idea?

Not that I'm disagreeing with the sentiment, as I'm rather well versed myself in doing exactly what other people tell me not to (more on that in a moment), but why should I (or anyone for that matter) take YOUR wisdom, based on YOUR experience, over everyone elses?

Now. It's no secret that I'm something of an incursion whore (or was anyway, it's been a loong time now Big smile ). Even when they were fairly new I challenged the notions of "fit lots of buffer and resists" and "bring a fleet to run sites" and people though I was going to explode the instant I warped in to a site (my vindi did eventually die, but not before paying for its replacement, an utu, a dozen well skilled alts and plexs for 6 accounts for 6 months or so). Initially it was 1 vindicator and 2 basilisks. Once I had the setup fine-tuned, I could, using only one ship for DPS, clear an NCO in 7-8 minutes. Switching to TLing scimitars dropped that down to 6. For reference, that's about the same improvement I saw when bringing in a second vindicator (piloted by a friend), and your average t3/zealot fleet runs them in about half that (with 8 times as many DPS ships).

Oh and you still haven't responded to my point about using same-size ships to compare performance of TLing logis to ones with more reps, or how the 2 theoretical fleets would compare at certain ranges (because range scripts are a thing).

Also, have you ever tried flying a basi with a frigate gang? (not t1 frigs, before you even TRY to put words in my mouth) That was my main use for the scimi in particular (as I've mentioned a few times already that I prefer the onei for TL work, though I've seen the onei used in the same way with frigs, which makes me sad that it can't shield tank any more) They're quite notably better suited for that than their beefier counterparts, which, given that lack of small/large logi ships seems like a pretty decent role to fill, even were it NOT viable in cruiser sized gangs (which they are).
Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
Scotch And Tea.
#106 - 2011-12-16 17:39:09 UTC
Talk about thread derailment.

The whole point of a big scimmy debate proves it is NOT the "Worst ship bonus" as the thread was suppose to be about. Take your debate elsewhere.

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#107 - 2011-12-16 18:21:39 UTC
Karash Amerius wrote:
Talk about thread derailment.

The whole point of a big scimmy debate proves it is NOT the "Worst ship bonus" as the thread was suppose to be about. Take your debate elsewhere.


No. Its here - deal with it.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#108 - 2011-12-16 18:28:56 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
The -50% cap usage bonus on the Coercer: makes your cap last 4 minutes instead of 2 when fights are over in less than a minute.



Yea, in general I think the -10% cap use is a pretty lame bonus.
It doesn't make the weapon perform better, just longer... and Autos/missiles will already perform much longer assuming you brought enough ammo.
I guess a while back they buffer lasers so that the laser base stats are just higher, making the weapons usable/competitive with only 1 bonus that increases their effectiveness.


I guess in this case, its a bonus that is useful for using it in PvE.... but the destroyers use in PvE is very small (for new characters, or older characters grinding low level missions for a faction with standing so low that they can't get lvl 2s, but even then I think their utility over a good frigate is questionable).

The lasers on the coercer have quite a few bonuses, so you are going to use them, and thus the -10% cap use bonus will provide some benefit for PvE.
Its not a great bonus, but I still think its way better than the other -10% cap usage bonuses on ships with no other laser bonus - which means they don't bother using lasers at all, which means the bonus is completely wasted.


What I love instead of the -10% cap use bonus, is a double turret damage bonus (like on the nightmare, or the amar slicer that at lvl 5 has a +125% damage bonus). If 2 guns do the work of 4, you only use half the cap, so its at least as good as the -10% cap bonus, but you also generally have easier fittings, a utility high, and of course, your ammo/crystals usage is halved, which is nice.
It can add up to quite a bit over time.

It also allows you to sneak the reduced cap usage bonus in there without "using up a bonus"


*side note, why is the slicer the only faction frig to get a 25% damage bonus, all the others just have a 20%, which makes their 2 guns/launchers function as 4 un-bonused guns/launchers at lvl 5, whereas the amarr slicer reaches that at lvl 4, and then at lvl 5 has its 2 guns function as 4 guns with a 12.5% damage bonus)
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#109 - 2011-12-16 18:47:25 UTC
Smiling Menace wrote:

Think you missed this part in his post. It's not whether it's a good idea or even useful, the fact is people do make use of it irrespective of anything you might say about the bonus. So if some people use it, regardless of niche situations, then it can't be that useless.

I think this thread is more about those ships that have bonuses that are never used in any circumstance. Those bonuses need to be changed for something that might actually be useful without making these ships OP.

Also I would suggest making another thread rather than derail someone else's if you wish to debate this further.


If there is anything I have learned from this thread, its that someone, somewhere, is using whatever bonus you think is useless. And will defend it to the death as a useful bonus.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#110 - 2011-12-16 19:37:30 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

I said a solo logistics gets forced off the field in under 2 minutes. You say it doesn't. He shows it happen. What's hard to understand aside from the fact you're talking out your ass and have no clue how fights actually happen?
It occurs to me that this may just be us talking about 2 different things, since both our statements were a tad ambiguous. I'm working under the assumption that you're assuming that getting forced off the field in under 2 minutes happens most of the time. If this is not the case, I apologize. If this IS the case, stop talking out your ass.


It does happen most of the time. I don't know how you continue to justify your opposition to the idea to yourself when you don't PVP and don't even LIKE to PVP (by your own admission).

Quote:

You were undoubtedly OK with how the scimitar performed prior to discovering the basilisk. Why? If the scimi really is so bad at what it does, why DID you fly it? And why is it that the scim is underpowered, rather than the basilisk being overpowered? If you have a perfectly viable ship (and it IS viable), one that gets used all the time because people at the very least PERCEIVE it to be good, and after a while you find a ship that does everything this viable ship does, only better, despite them having different roles, isn't that usually an indication that the latter ship is overpowered, and needs some changes made to make it LESS viable (in this case in small gang logis)


Maybe you weren't paying attention (again). I was searching for a ship to replace the Scimitar because it WASN'T performing effectively. I've said this repeatedly in this thread.

Ultimately, you are looking at the Basilisk and saying "Oh wow, its better than the Scim it must be overpowered!" but that's an incorrect way to look at it. Its far better to look at the role the Basilisk is filling and ask yourself whether that role is overpowered when filled by that ship. The answer to this is trivially "No". So then we should ask ourselves why the Basilisk is superior... and the answer is pretty blindingly obvious: The Scim has a useless bonus.

BTW: You are making the exact same argument here that you have so vehemently argued against in the "Nerf Warrior II" threads.

Quote:

I do however have another question:
You go on and on, and on and on, about how bad it is to adhere to conventional wisdom, and yet you seem to think that your individual experience carries weight in this conversation. Why then, is your supposed "hundreds of hours of experience" to be taken as being better than tens of THOUSANDS of hours of experience, across hundreds, if not thousands of players? Why should anyone take your demands of being listened to seriously, while you're shouting at the same time that listening to others is a bad idea?

Not that I'm disagreeing with the sentiment, as I'm rather well versed myself in doing exactly what other people tell me not to (more on that in a moment), but why should I (or anyone for that matter) take YOUR wisdom, based on YOUR experience, over everyone elses?


I'd say that the key problem is that there really isn't a whole lot of conventional wisdom for flying as the solo logi in a small gang. People are taking the conventional wisdom that they have already accrued when flying in larger gangs where the performance or individual logis doesn't matter as much and where individual survivability is at a much higher premium. Basically - people think that things scale down the same way that they do for DPS - and they don't. If you've played games other than Eve, this probably won't be a surprise.

Basically what I'm telling you that there isn't thousands of hours of experience and most people have never bothered to look beyond the "Basilisks require a cap buddy" mentality. For what its worth, I've talked this over with other logi pilots with extensive experience and most of them support my point of view.

Quote:

Initially it was 1 vindicator and 2 basilisks. Once I had the setup fine-tuned, I could, using only one ship for DPS, clear an NCO in 7-8 minutes. Switching to TLing scimitars dropped that down to 6. For reference, that's about the same improvement I saw when bringing in a second vindicator (piloted by a friend), and your average t3/zealot fleet runs them in about half that (with 8 times as many DPS ships).


I want to be absolutely clear:
- What was the time with Vindi + 2 Basis?
- What was the time with Vindi + 2 Scims?
- What was the time with 2 Vindi + 2 Scims?
- What was the time with 2 Vindi + 1 Scim?
- Is 2 logis the minimum viable?

I have a meeting - I don't want to lose this and I'll respond to the rest later.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#111 - 2011-12-16 19:48:56 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Smiling Menace wrote:

Think you missed this part in his post. It's not whether it's a good idea or even useful, the fact is people do make use of it irrespective of anything you might say about the bonus. So if some people use it, regardless of niche situations, then it can't be that useless.

I think this thread is more about those ships that have bonuses that are never used in any circumstance. Those bonuses need to be changed for something that might actually be useful without making these ships OP.

Also I would suggest making another thread rather than derail someone else's if you wish to debate this further.


If there is anything I have learned from this thread, its that someone, somewhere, is using whatever bonus you think is useless. And will defend it to the death as a useful bonus.

-Liang

To be honest I'd say the issue at hand is less should the bonuses be changed, and more does the ship need a buff.
A useless bonus is irrelevant if the ship itself is useful despite having said bonus. For example the drone damage bonus on the helios, because not only is the bonus pretty much useless even when you make full use of it (battlehelios with a hob) it's put there at the expense of a highslot, making the helios the worst covops ship at doing all the scanny things covops do. It's a useless bonus that makes the ship subpar for having it.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#112 - 2011-12-16 20:23:05 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

It does happen most of the time. I don't know how you continue to justify your opposition to the idea to yourself when you don't PVP and don't even LIKE to PVP (by your own admission).
Where exactly did I say any of this? It seems that you're incapable of supporting your arguments without making up claims about me based on things I never said. I don't like to BLOB, nor am I fond of lowsec. There is more to pvp than blobbing and lowsec, is there not?

Liang Nuren wrote:

Maybe you weren't paying attention (again). I was searching for a ship to replace the Scimitar because it WASN'T performing effectively. I've said this repeatedly in this thread.
The bulk of eve (myself included) have no problems with the scimitar as it is now. There aren't threads popping up about how the scimi needs a buff, and the ship sees just as much, if not MORE, use than its caldari counterpart. Ignoring for a moment which of the 2 is better, if the ship were REALLY that bad, it wouldn't get used.
I guess the main problem with your line of thinking is you seem to have a clearly defined line where your ship must put out X amount of repping to be useful. The scimi is a good ship, the fact that the basi is better doesn't change this.

Liang Nuren wrote:

Ultimately, you are looking at the Basilisk and saying "Oh wow, its better than the Scim it must be overpowered!" but that's an incorrect way to look at it. Its far better to look at the role the Basilisk is filling and ask yourself whether that role is overpowered when filled by that ship. The answer to this is trivially "No". So then we should ask ourselves why the Basilisk is superior... and the answer is pretty blindingly obvious: The Scim has a useless bonus.

BTW: You are making the exact same argument here that you have so vehemently argued against in the "Nerf Warrior II" threads.
It really depends on which ship you use as a measure. I would argue, that since we're talking about the supposed role of the scimi, that it be from the scimitars point of view. Like I said, YOU might not like the scimi, but most of us DO. A ship being provably better than the scimi at its own role is therefore in need of a nerf. What's more is that the answer to your question is not trivially "No", it's a definite "Yes". You're talking about a ship with a completely separate role, that is ALSO good at the scimitar's role. This means the ship is a jack of all trades, while being the master at all of them, and not because the opposition sucks, but because of its own positive attributes. You can argue that the scimi is underpowered until you're blue in the face, but the rest of the game seems to think otherwise.

BTW: No, I'm not. I've yet to try this active tanked basi fit of yours, but if it's as good as you claim it to be, then it needs a nerf, because yes, that is overpowered.

Liang Nuren wrote:

I'd say that the key problem is that there really isn't a whole lot of conventional wisdom for flying as the solo logi in a small gang. People are taking the conventional wisdom that they have already accrued when flying in larger gangs where the performance or individual logis doesn't matter as much and where individual survivability is at a much higher premium. Basically - people think that things scale down the same way that they do for DPS - and they don't. If you've played games other than Eve, this probably won't be a surprise.

Basically what I'm telling you that there isn't thousands of hours of experience and most people have never bothered to look beyond the "Basilisks require a cap buddy" mentality. For what its worth, I've talked this over with other logi pilots with extensive experience and most of them support my point of view.


This much I'll somewhat agree to, truth be told I groan rather loudly when I stuck flying a solo logi, though I cannot stress enough that in frigate gangs the scim is AMAZING. The onei was too, before they changed it. But tbh that just illustrates the main reason why logis as a whole bother me so much. The fact that there's only 1 shipsize of logi, 1 ship per race, means it's REALLY hard to argue whether or not they're balanced even with the game, let alone each other. With any other ship, waving the you-need-good-gang-composition flag is absurd, because there should always be multiple viable options, and if there isn't then there's a problem with balance.

Logis on the other hand are exempt from this rule, because remote repping is useless on non-logi ships (mostly) so it is a huge, very important, aspect of the game (and having a good fleet comp), I'd love to see some frigate and BS sized logis added to fix this issue.
Let me ask you this: If you were to think of scimi as a logistics frigate (since there is no actual FRIGATE for logistics) would it still be underpowered?
Liang Nuren wrote:


I want to be absolutely clear:
- What was the time with Vindi + 2 Basis?
- What was the time with Vindi + 2 Scims?
- What was the time with 2 Vindi + 2 Scims?
- What was the time with 2 Vindi + 1 Scim?
- Is 2 logis the minimum viable?

I have a meeting - I don't want to lose this and I'll respond to the rest later.

-Liang
I never ran with one logi, the second vindi was a fourth ship being brought in.
1 vindi 2 basilisks: 7-8 minutes
2 vindis 2 basilisks (one vindi being a different person) 6 minutes
1 vindi 2 scimitars: 6 minutes
Haven't run the 2 scimi setup with the second vindi so I can't give a time, it was shortly after the scimi conversion that I stopped running sites.

Also, 0 logis is the minimum viable number to complete sites, as cap chaining marauders can local tank NCOs and NMCs. This was tested on sisi, but I wasn't fond of the completion times and never brought that setup to TQ (though I may do that soon since I want some isk and sold 1 of my logi 5 alts)
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#113 - 2011-12-16 20:45:31 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

The only common case where the Basilisk doesn't just flat kick the **** out of the Scim is the EMP Cane. Lets just be real - this is a very real weakness - but its just not as common as it really sounds like it might be.


I only have a single lowsec lossmail in the last month that doesn't have copious amounts of EM damage on it. Either in the form of Amarr BS or Canes or even a heavy neut/torp Rokh firing EM torps.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#114 - 2011-12-16 21:38:26 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Smiling Menace wrote:

Think you missed this part in his post. It's not whether it's a good idea or even useful, the fact is people do make use of it irrespective of anything you might say about the bonus. So if some people use it, regardless of niche situations, then it can't be that useless.

I think this thread is more about those ships that have bonuses that are never used in any circumstance. Those bonuses need to be changed for something that might actually be useful without making these ships OP.

Also I would suggest making another thread rather than derail someone else's if you wish to debate this further.


If there is anything I have learned from this thread, its that someone, somewhere, is using whatever bonus you think is useless. And will defend it to the death as a useful bonus.

-Liang

To be honest I'd say the issue at hand is less should the bonuses be changed, and more does the ship need a buff.
A useless bonus is irrelevant if the ship itself is useful despite having said bonus. For example the drone damage bonus on the helios, because not only is the bonus pretty much useless even when you make full use of it (battlehelios with a hob) it's put there at the expense of a highslot, making the helios the worst covops ship at doing all the scanny things covops do. It's a useless bonus that makes the ship subpar for having it.


Holy ****, you're describing the Scimitar. -_-

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#115 - 2011-12-16 21:47:27 UTC
Poor Liang, Warrior through so many Wall of text.

My sympathy.

Now, where is AF's bonus? Give cloaky industrial a non tanking bonus. Give freighters a slot, don't force them to log off, give them a cloak.

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again
Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#116 - 2011-12-16 21:52:39 UTC
Ulstan wrote:
Active tank bonuses on tech II haulers.

If you're getting shot at, you're dead, unless you are in high sec and your buffer is > than the DPS they can put out.

If these were buffer bonuses they'd actually be useful.


we need ECM burst bonus and warp core stabs per level bonus... we can be fired at, by we get +1 warp core strenght per level. Sounds logical to me. F off!@ I paid 120 mill for this badger, you can fu#k off, 6 warpcore strenght. Designers would build it around this thing in mind.

Active tanking bonus is retarted. Give resist or EHP bonus. It's a deep space transport. WCS, extra armor... nothing else protects the goods. It's not war zone action trooper, thus it needs not tank anything, but withstand pirates attempts. NPCs often attack DST in asteroid mining ops. Extra EHP and resists and ore is safe.

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#117 - 2011-12-16 22:27:12 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

It does happen most of the time. I don't know how you continue to justify your opposition to the idea to yourself when you don't PVP and don't even LIKE to PVP (by your own admission).
Where exactly did I say any of this? It seems that you're incapable of supporting your arguments without making up claims about me based on things I never said. I don't like to BLOB, nor am I fond of lowsec. There is more to pvp than blobbing and lowsec, is there not?


Me: "Buffer Scimitars get forced off the field pretty easily and under 2 minutes"
You: "Nonsense!"
Me: "WTF m8?"
You: "POPPYCOCK I SAID! I NEVER GET FORCED OFF THE FIELD! I DON'T FLY IN LOW SEC! YOU ARE STUPID BECAUSE LOW SEC!"
ElChlo: "Here's a video demonstrating an average fight... where a buffer scim is forced off the field in short order"
You: "OH NO WONDER!! You were fighting outnumbered!!"
Me: "You never get forced off the field, express 'No ****' because he was outnumbered. Ergo, you blob."
You: "NONSENSE I DON'T BLOB! I FIGHT OUTNUMBERED!"
Me: "Calling bullshit..."
You: "I don't even like to fight."
Me: "Ok, so now you blob

Yeah... you really did. -_-

Quote:
The bulk of eve (myself included) have no problems with the scimitar as it is now. There aren't threads popping up about how the scimi needs a buff, and the ship sees just as much, if not MORE, use than its caldari counterpart. Ignoring for a moment which of the 2 is better, if the ship were REALLY that bad, it wouldn't get used.
I guess the main problem with your line of thinking is you seem to have a clearly defined line where your ship must put out X amount of repping to be useful. The scimi is a good ship, the fact that the basi is better doesn't change this.

It really depends on which ship you use as a measure. I would argue, that since we're talking about the supposed role of the scimi, that it be from the scimitars point of view. Like I said, YOU might not like the scimi, but most of us DO. A ship being provably better than the scimi at its own role is therefore in need of a nerf. What's more is that the answer to your question is not trivially "No", it's a definite "Yes". You're talking about a ship with a completely separate role, that is ALSO good at the scimitar's role. This means the ship is a jack of all trades, while being the master at all of them, and not because the opposition sucks, but because of its own positive attributes. You can argue that the scimi is underpowered until you're blue in the face, but the rest of the game seems to think otherwise.

BTW: No, I'm not. I've yet to try this active tanked basi fit of yours, but if it's as good as you claim it to be, then it needs a nerf, because yes, that is overpowered.



It really depends on which drone you use as a measure. I would argue, that since we're talking about the supposed role of the acolyte, that it be from the acolyte's point of view. Like I said, YOU might not like the hobgoblin, but most of us DO. A ship being provably better than the acolyte at its own role is therefore in need of a nerf. What's more is that the answer to your question is not trivially "No", it's a definite "Yes". You're talking about a drone with a completely separate role, that is ALSO good at the acolyte's role. This means the drone is a jack of all trades, while being the master at all of them, and not because the opposition sucks, but because of its own positive attributes. You can argue that the acolyte is underpowered until you're blue in the face, but the rest of the game seems to think otherwise.


Hmmm, pretty nice fit for your argument. But lets take a look at your nerf cry: this is exactly the wrong approach to take. You are EXACTLY claiming that we should nerf Warriors because they're better than Acolytes in the role that should arguably be the Acolyte's top domain - killing shield tanked frigs.

Again, no - you have to look at the ship performing the role itself. Is it overpowered? Trivially, no. Thus we have NO CHOICE but to look at what is holding the Scimitar back... and the answer there is pretty trivial too - the wasted Link bonus.

Quote:

This much I'll somewhat agree to, truth be told I groan rather loudly when I stuck flying a solo logi, though I cannot stress enough that in frigate gangs the scim is AMAZING. The onei was too, before they changed it. But tbh that just illustrates the main reason why logis as a whole bother me so much. The fact that there's only 1 shipsize of logi, 1 ship per race, means it's REALLY hard to argue whether or not they're balanced even with the game, let alone each other. With any other ship, waving the you-need-good-gang-composition flag is absurd, because there should always be multiple viable options, and if there isn't then there's a problem with balance.

Logis on the other hand are exempt from this rule, because remote repping is useless on non-logi ships (mostly) so it is a huge, very important, aspect of the game (and having a good fleet comp), I'd love to see some frigate and BS sized logis added to fix this issue.
Let me ask you this: If you were to think of scimi as a logistics frigate (since there is no actual FRIGATE for logistics) would it still be underpowered?


I'm totally down for new sizes of logistics ships... but that's really sidestepping the point I made. As to whether the Scim is a logi frigate: yeah I'd say its still underpowered. Frig brawls tend to have a high focus on scrams and thus you're looking at the difference between an AB Scim and an AB Basi ... which isn't enough to justify the performance difference.

Bleh - I'm out of room. More later.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#118 - 2011-12-16 23:07:28 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

The only common case where the Basilisk doesn't just flat kick the **** out of the Scim is the EMP Cane. Lets just be real - this is a very real weakness - but its just not as common as it really sounds like it might be.


I only have a single lowsec lossmail in the last month that doesn't have copious amounts of EM damage on it. Either in the form of Amarr BS or Canes or even a heavy neut/torp Rokh firing EM torps.


Comments:
- I tend to find battleships to be kinda rare - this could be a matter of environment or timezone. Its true though - Amarr BS are the biggest source of recognizable EM damage in the game. They're also supremely unable to hit both ships so it doesn't matter much. :)
- Its been damn near a year since I saw a Rokh in space... its probably been 2-3 since I saw a Torp/Neut Rokh.
- The Canes may or may not have been spouting EM damage. You can't use your own prejudice towards ammo to know that - I've found that I'm generally able to tank 2-3 Canes at a time so most of them are probably running Fusion, Barrage, or PP.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Goose99
#119 - 2011-12-16 23:32:24 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

The only common case where the Basilisk doesn't just flat kick the **** out of the Scim is the EMP Cane. Lets just be real - this is a very real weakness - but its just not as common as it really sounds like it might be.


I only have a single lowsec lossmail in the last month that doesn't have copious amounts of EM damage on it. Either in the form of Amarr BS or Canes or even a heavy neut/torp Rokh firing EM torps.


Comments:
- I tend to find battleships to be kinda rare - this could be a matter of environment or timezone. Its true though - Amarr BS are the biggest source of recognizable EM damage in the game. They're also supremely unable to hit both ships so it doesn't matter much. :)
- Its been damn near a year since I saw a Rokh in space... its probably been 2-3 since I saw a Torp/Neut Rokh.
- The Canes may or may not have been spouting EM damage. You can't use your own prejudice towards ammo to know that - I've found that I'm generally able to tank 2-3 Canes at a time so most of them are probably running Fusion, Barrage, or PP.

-Liang


All the canes or any other AC boats I've crossed... or flew, seem to use either emp or barrage for range. Haven't noticed much fusion. And nobody in their right mind uses phased plasma.Roll

Between Winmatar, which everyone and their mother seems to be flying, and Amar boats, EM is where it's at. I've even seen drakes packing em missiles with surprising frequency. Lulz.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#120 - 2011-12-17 00:27:41 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

You: "I don't even like to fight."
Please quote the relevant statement from the post in which I originally mentioned it. I said I don't like to fight in LOWSEC, and that I don't like to BLOB. If you take this as meaning that I don't fight than that says much more about your views on pvp than my own... As for the being outnumbered comment, I will make this as clear, and as simple, as I possible can because christ are you going out of your way to avoid the point:

YOU DO NOT BALANCE A SHIP BASED ON HOW WELL IT PERFORMS WHEN OUTNUMBERED.
YOU DO NOT ARGUE THAT A SHIP IS UNDERPOWERED BY SHOWING IT IN THE PROCESS OF KICKING ASS.
The guy even came back and said he DIDN'T think that the scim was underpowered...

Liang Nuren wrote:


Hmmm, pretty nice fit for your argument. But lets take a look at your nerf cry: this is exactly the wrong approach to take. You are EXACTLY claiming that we should nerf Warriors because they're better than Acolytes in the role that should arguably be the Acolyte's top domain - killing shield tanked frigs.

Again, no - you have to look at the ship performing the role itself. Is it overpowered? Trivially, no. Thus we have NO CHOICE but to look at what is holding the Scimitar back... and the answer there is pretty trivial too - the wasted Link bonus.
The 2 do have something in common, but it's none of the crap you mentioned:
In both cases, whether something needs a buff or a nerf hinges on how the group as a whole is used. If you came up with a fit that made EM drones not only better than thermal drones WRT DPS, but also faster than EXP drones, then yes, they would need a nerf. In the case of logis, you look at a ship class that was working fine, found a way to improve it, and now are whining that the ship you used to use is terribly underpowered.

With drones you're looking at nerfing something that's been fine the way it is for ages.
With logis you're looking at something that's been fine the way it's been for ages, until someone found a way to do it better, that entails one entity being better at literally everything than the other.

As I've said before, the rest of the game has no problem with scimitars (but go ahead, start a thread, see where everyone stands on the issue)

Liang Nuren wrote:

I'm totally down for new sizes of logistics ships... but that's really sidestepping the point I made. As to whether the Scim is a logi frigate: yeah I'd say its still underpowered. Frig brawls tend to have a high focus on scrams and thus you're looking at the difference between an AB Scim and an AB Basi ... which isn't enough to justify the performance difference.

Bleh - I'm out of room. More later.

-Liang
A frigate gang is a gang that CONTAINS frigates, not a gang that fights them. You MWD fit for them, because when you bump into another fleet, you take out the tackle first (which is much easier with a frig gang)