EVE Information Portal

They occupy those moons as much as anyone occupies any moon. I don't see whats different between a NPC nullsec raider, a Torrinos highsec corp, and a Sov 0.0 alliance bloc holding any particular moon.



Its a different kind of space, and thats how you attack it. So sorry that its not just like the absentee sov 0.0 you're used to.

-Liang

I wrote a blog post about the wormhole session http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/2012/01/my-take-on-december-csm-summit.html

The Drake.

Does not.
Need.
Nerfing.

It's arguably the best-balanced ship in the game. It's also easy to get into as a PvE ship, and will grow with a pilot into many different roles as a PvP ship, and this versatility, combined with its' forgiving, easy-to-fit and fly nature (especially for beginners) is why it's so popular, and why it should be.

Hello, pants-on-head stupid-holios?

Let me educate you, given that I actually play the game. In PvP situations, even!

No matter how you fit a Drake, it's design will always be at least slightly biased towards tanking over ganking, so that balances its' DPS. (The Hurricane is the gank-boat of the four, and it loses out elsewhere to balance that well, imho.) Oh, and switch to any damage-type other than kinetic, and wave buh-bye to 30% of your raw DPS, which for kinetic is shooting into the second-strongest native resist of most shield-tanks, and usually at least somewhat shored up in armour-tanks--that's notwithstanding T II resists, either (IE, Gallente and Amarr being practically immune to Kinetics with a bit of fiddling.).

It's small(-ish)-city sized signature radius will ensure, that no matter how "bricked" it is, it will usually/always have to tank most, if not all the damage anyway. No sig-tanking in this boat! So that balances out its' tanking abilities.

Dual nano/HM/web (or two webs, which many people use--I prefer two invulns/one web, but that's just personal preference): Yes, it's got tremendous range, but it sacrifices a lot of DPS for that range, and isn't super-fast to maintain that range--it's just fast enough in this configuration imho, and much more manoeuverable than a similar Hurricane, but:

Those dual nanofibres mean you sacrifice at least 1 BCU and your Damage Control, which chops like 40% off your EHP right there, and that much less DPS. Drop a second invuln for second web/ewar, and hey...Tank? What tank? Break through it's peak-recharge--something an Oracle, among others, can do quite well, thanks to the aforementioned city-size sig and its' own huge optimal range, and as-good or better speed--and it's going down, fast, unless it can range its' enemy.

HAM/Gank Drake: Not that fast, and the aforesaid city-size sig, plus the fact that HAMs really aren't all that great against sub-BC sized targets. Plus your effective "steel-on-target" range is, at most 15km (with my maxed missile-support skills, but no implants, anyway), which means you're probably going to get webbed, neut'ed, and maybe scrammed--and thus needing to make full use of that tank, and hope that neut doesn't shut off your shield-hardeners.

The Drake, and Tier 2 BCs in general, are among the best-balanced ships in the game especially with respect to each other...The fact that cruisers suck, and half the 1337-PvO'ers don't know how to fit or fly their ships is no reason to nerf them--if anything, the Myrmidon could use a buff--mainly application of DPS and speed.

Oh, and one other thing:

By what logic do reach the conclusion that if you want to improve the Nighthawk, you should nerf the Drake? I got a radical idea--to improve the Nighthawk, you should maybe, like...Improve the motherfucking Nighthawk. Just a thought

Oh, and a missile-velocity bonus? Are you people totally clueless? The thing can already shoot HMs as far as it can target, and its' realistic HAM range puts it almost right into scram/web/medium energy-neutraliser brawling range, which is as it should be. And again, load any of the other three damage types, lose ca. 30% of your raw DPS.

No:

The Drake, and Tier 2 battlecruisers are as they are, and as poular as they are, because they are actually one of the few examples of good game-design in EVE. Maybe you fools should stop fellating these nulltards and fix the ships/features that suck? Like, first?

This is a very good point.

The greatest advantage of the older players/accounts is the ownership of high SP toons, most of which were painstakingly trained up and not bought off market. Allowing new accounts to simply purchase their way to high SP toons is pretty much P2W - which I seem to recall that many players were virulently against this past summer.

As a compromise, however, I might suggest that toons can only be purchased by accounts which are old enough to have actually trained such a toon. In other words, a 3 month old account cannot purchase a toon which would have required a year to train up, but a 1 year old (or older) account can. This can be easily implemented by comparing the birth date of the toon to the buyer's account creation date.

^^This.

60 days from the account going dark should be enough, and 90 days would be plenty, by any reasonable definition. If after that, the person decides not to re-sub, then it's not un-reasonable to assume that they almost certainly never will.

FYI - you just voted to support the "nerf the Drake" cause.

A BC isn't supposed to be able to tank a L4 mission. Esp. when flown by a new or intermediate player.

Player advancement says that you use BCs for L3 missions and move up to a BS (ex. Raven) for solo'ing a L4.

Wat. This is provably wrong and is extremely short sighted.

-Liang

Do you actually know anyone that has not been unsubbed for more than 3-6 months over the course of a few years playing Eve? I don't think I do.

-Liang

Ed: Also, I don't have the "hard numbers" - but CCP does. I only have the numbers for me and my friends - of which all of them have been unsubbed at various points for significant time periods. And I assure you that saying such silly things does nothing but marginalize every opinion you espouse.

please...lol
if that was the case i would not be here now.
if they need a limit then at least make it a year.
i left for a year once.
did not like how the game was going for me.
was playing wow at same time at that time and when i seen they love to keep you as a noob i quit and came back to eve.
and as i said if it was not for the test server i would of quit eve again.
i cant play on the live.
so as i said good thing i get to stay on the test server as long as i keep an account going.
they need to at leat have a 2ed live server for builders and no pvpon that server like on test server.
they just open an account for that server or something like that.
myself i love just to have a home ver of the game with no net.
but i know thats not going to happen.

Actually I don't, but anecdotal evidence =/= representative evidence.

For every "on-hiatus" player, how many inactive accounts are there that have been dark that have no intention of coming back? I suspect many, many more.

We need numbers on this, CCP, plx, kthxbai.