These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why are "generalized" t3's betters at "Specialization" Command ships at givi

First post
Author
Robert Tables
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2012-05-28 01:10:19 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

(1) Uh a RoF bonus is a DPS bonus. No one cares about volley damage for PvE; RoF is almost always a better bonus.

(2) Yes that's what I was saying: CMs need looking at so that they're not obsoleted by HMLs.


This was a fun challenge to figure out, even though it proved me wrong.

You're right. In the case of both Heavy launchers and Cruise launchers (and their respective missiles), +25% fire rate produced more sustained damage than 25% heavier warheads; 8% more in both cases.
Jace81
Sacred Sacrifice
#42 - 2012-05-28 04:12:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jace81
T3's are not the issue its that T2's are very bad in comparison

Example Tengu 6 launchers and 7.5% ROF bonus

Cerberus 5 Launchers 5% ROF Bonus

Just by this example alone the short comings are obvious.

You can go through the whole line and see similar discrepancies.

Command ships are Battle cruisers why would they even be inferior to a cruiser platform?

I could go on but that's my .2 isk worth.
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#43 - 2012-05-28 04:47:08 UTC
There's also the fact that many HAC's are just simply not great. 5 out of the 8 HAC's are lacking ships.

The Cerberus has fitting issues and the only thing its good at is spamming heavy missiles at a long long range. The ranges you engage with a cerberus is lame because those missiles will take a very long time to reach the range they were bonused for. Giving plenty of time for the target to align and warp out. With typical engagement range the drake is just better.

The Eagle is a complete joke of a ship, I don't need to go into details how terrible and lolworthy it is. If you want range, go fly a Naga.

The muninn is not that great when the hurricane can do the same job.

Despite the buff, the Deimos is still, well the diemost. With how fragile it is and how its usually primary due it being a glass cannon, I'd much rather fly the brutix for the same gank power and 5x times cheaper.

The sacrilege is slow with short range missiles. Its dps is low and I'd rather just fly a drake(the drake will become better after the change than the sac)

There are 2 good HACs and 1 ok HAC

2 Good:

Vagabond - moves fast, has range its the paragon of nanofag ships. Few ships can outspeed the vagabond.

Zealot - it excels as an low sig fast moving armor AB ship. It has excellent range and deals out damage, while maintaing a good tank and speed. Quote Shadoo: Armor Hacs! ARMOR Hacs!! ARMOORRR HACCSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11



The ok HAC:

Ishtar - its a miniature and mobile dominix. Its a very flexible ship that can either armor or shield tank. Its drone capability allows the flexibility of engaging different targets. But it has fitting issues and only has a few turret slots with a rather wasted damage bonus.
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#44 - 2012-05-28 04:49:40 UTC
Jace81 wrote:
T3's are not the issue its that T2's are very bad in comparison

Example Tengu 6 launchers and 7.5% ROF bonus

Cerberus 5 Launchers 5% ROF Bonus

Just by this example alone the short comings are obvious.

You can go through the whole line and see similar discrepancies.

Command ships are Battle cruisers why would they even be inferior to a cruiser platform?

I could go on but that's my .2 isk worth.


Command ships are forgotten dinosaurs of old times, Field Commands have less slots and hitpoints than tier 2 Battlecruisers.
These ships have never been looked at.

The damnation and claymore are fleet command ships that can perform their role. The Vulture and EOS are weak in tank and have mostly useless bonuses.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2012-05-28 05:30:02 UTC
Pink Marshmellow wrote:
The damnation and claymore are fleet command ships that can perform their role. The Vulture and EOS are weak in tank and have mostly useless bonuses.


The Vulture has a better tank than the Claymore.
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#46 - 2012-05-28 07:41:47 UTC
Let me, as a Tengu pilot, say this: nerf accelerated ejection bay.
It makes all other tengu offensive subs, and some other caldari ships, obsolete.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#47 - 2012-05-28 09:07:31 UTC
The Vulture can be useful for a large Drake fleet, handing out respectable shield bonuses. But not that useful. Despite having 100K tank, it's much more effective to deploy an alt into an off-grid boosting position because it can't be primed and removed from the fight. Tengu wins.

For small fleets, you are much better running a Claymore, as maneuverability and scram range buffs are much more useful in small roaming gangs. But even here, unless you are rolling a sniper naga fleet or similar, you may as well have an off-grid safespot prepared to toss a gang loki into because of the better bonuses. Loki wins over Claymore, both over a Vulture.

As for the discussion about balance, well, I think a lot of people are crying into their vodka a bit early with talk of balance and taking it to mean nerfing T3's to hell and making them as useful as T1's. No. By itself a gang boosting role is achieved by three classes of ships; T1 tier 1 battlecruisers (unbonused), fleet command ships (better), and Tech 3 cruisers (best).

EWAR bonuses, again, get the same treatment, except it is in the following order of potency for the buffs: tech 1 cruisers (luls), tech 3 cruisers (better), tech 2 cruisers (best). This is as per Fanfest, the way CCP apparently wants to see it go. Eg, typically T2 webs on a web Loki top out at 24km - a huge improvement on a T1 hull, but well below the T2 Huginn. Hence you see Huginns (and Lachesis and Curses and Rooks) used regularly.

The key difference, aside from cost which is meaningless, is that your tech 3 cruiser gets versatility in terms of roles it can fulfil as a single-purposed fit (ie; cloaky+tank or nullifier+tank) or as a combination fit (cloaky-nullified, or cloaky-booster or cloaky-nullified-booster). This is a capability which exceeds all tech 2 hulls, and indeed, tech 3 cruisers can sport multiple bonuses on the same hull (and the nullifier subsystem being unique to T3's).

The anomaly in all of this is the magnitude of the T3's gang link bonuses to the links, not the fact they have them. If they get nerfed below T2 links (and my personal preference is that T2 and T3 exchange the bonuses here) its hardly a slap in the face of all wormholers like Jack thinks, or the end of the effectiveness of T3's like others are carrying on about.

You could still fit a cloaky gang-boosting nullified T3. It has zero tank or DPS, but it will still do a respectable job of providing multiple gang links, in an interdicion nullified package, for the same price it did before. It's just that the Claymore, Vulture, Damnation or (hah) Eos who cannot warp out of the bubble nor warp cloaked nor be practically unscannable will do it better.

Right now you have to dump 3 months more into skilling into these ships, for no benefit in any way. Of course, there's no risk to the SP investment, and it all helps make your T3 booster better, but hey...if you don't want to risk your SP's, don't undock you whining carebears.

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#48 - 2012-05-28 09:51:03 UTC
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
Seriously an insult not just to Command Ships but the entire balance and design philosophy of this game in general.

T3 cruisers are supposed to be "generalized" ships, doing everything pretty well but not as excellent as a T2 ship in its specialized role.



They're not better directly, you can't say it's op just by looking at the hull specs but when you add "MECHANICS", and those are the real problem.

Put aside any T3 vs command ship they're not that OP but then there is off grid stuff and suddenly T3's are OP. What's the real problem here, the ship or the mechanic?

Seems pimpy Tengus push 1k dps and 5k speed, well they're aloud to fit 100mn ab's in the first place, then dps is not that much ubber if you consider a simple T1 brutix can do over 1k dps. WHat's the problem here, the ship or the mechanic?

Before you say some ship it's OP you need to take a look at all the aspects and then you realise the real OP ships in the game are angel ones.

brb

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#49 - 2012-05-28 09:55:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.

The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.



See my post above and think about it. The problem it's not the ships themselves, it's the lack or abuse of mechanics intended and implemented by "you".
Before start making players unhappy by throwing nerf sticks all over the place my bet is on those mechanics around fittings and game play.

Edit: Take the Tengu example, what makes you think it's overpowered?

-aren't the heavy missiles projection and damage one of the problems?

-isn't the ability to fit oversized modules one of the problems?

-aren't some game mechanics in need of serious changes?

-how much overpowered is Tengu vs another T3 all full T2 fitted with regular mods of their size?

Since Tengu is one tears creator for no reason, it's the best example I can throw out there to find out some questions that need to be answered before even touch a single ship.

But then there are Angel ships:
-agility and fire power/projection highly above everything else in the game
-ridiculous fitting stats and slots layout

Then another question must be raised, why the heck Cynabal is that overpowered? -Why the heck Machariel is that overpowered?

brb

Noisrevbus
#50 - 2012-05-28 13:12:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Buzzmong wrote:

Thing is, T3 are not meant to be better than T2.

I'd post CCP's diagram from Fanfest if I can be bothered to find it to show you their official view, but T2 are meant to be the best in the area they specialise in, T3 are meant to be mearly good but across multiple areas.

A good example in terms of bonuses only is that when using the exploration sub, T3's can probe just as well as a Cov Ops can as they get the exact same probe strength boost. This is wrong, irrelevent of the differences in cost, as it puts them on par as a dedicated prober, while also allowing them to obsolete said dedicated ships by being able to do more stuff on top (ie, also do combat exploration sites with relative ease).

T3's are meant to embody the "jack of all trades, master of none" philosophy, instead for the most part they're currently "jack of all trades, master of all".

If you leave T3 alone and balance the other ships around them, you have a bigger problem: Power Creep.
Power Creep is a massive problem as it affects so many other things.


Buzz however, Buzzmong, do not include integrity and is not the way to build a game, which is why you see the community correcting Ytterbium - and with good reason.

What something is meant to do is largely irrelevant if that is not functional; and a change is counter-productive if it run the risk of replacing both existing function and larger balance with dysfunction. Tech III ships are not "jacks" and will not become such by nerfing their tank-spank to Tech II levels (that in turn is largely inferior, production hampered and overtly cost-inefficient to Tech I). In the greater scheme of things Tech III is reasonably balanced while Tech II is not. Relegating them to some advertised standard will just produce more "Tech II" ships that don't get used - as has already been pointed out by previous posters in this thread.

Not to mention, the only Tech II ships that don't fare very well atm. is cruiser sized ships with a tank-spank profile. Once again, their problem has nothing to do with the "power creep" of post-Apocrypha changes; they've been challenged in their roles for much longer, and the "orphans" as Malcanis called them, have had the roles defined by their bonuses supplanted by larger mechanical changes in the game - not just ship balance or new items. The only real creep in the game in recent years is the Tier 3 BC and i think it's dawning on most people by now that their introduction had a negative effect on overall balance.

If there's something Ytterbium should do, it's looking at production, availability and cost-efficiency in the game as a whole, and then direct specific attention to the bonuses of certain outdated Tech II ships (such as post-probing 200km snipers). Those are the things that affect balance within class and balance between class, tier and tech.

Lin Young wrote:

Edit: Take the Tengu example, what makes you think it's overpowered?

Then another question must be raised, why the heck Cynabal is that overpowered? -Why the heck Machariel is that overpowered?


(Stupid) People only think the Tengu is overpowered (while the others are not) due to popularity.

Popularity is a direct product of trend and scaling.

Other things: such as BS Scorch and Alpha define trend, as much as HML (which of course also do define it).

You don't see as many HAM-brick Legion gangs because they do not catch Tier 3 BC abominations, undertrack BS Pulse or deal with a blob of Drakes well enough (at large scale) to make them popular. An example in paradox: The Legion was the first Tech III to be used mainline at fleet scale with some recurrence (PL, 2010; prior to the "Hellcat" trend). It just didn't scale to suit versus the numbers of the time in existing "doctrine".

That tend to relegate the other Tech III into various support-roles, that make up a smaller ratio of a gang, and a smaller portion of a gang as it grow to larger scales.

It doesn't make the other Tech III worse by any stretch just less popular as they excel at roles at a smaller in-gang ratio or at smaller scales altogether. If anything, the problem is that those scales are not promoted enough by the game to create content that in turn would render numbers in statistics (small gang objectives, discouragement to blobs etc.)

Recons are not bad ships simply because you tend to have a higher ratio of general purpose ships like BS, BC or HAC.

The same goes for the Machariel. It's a good ship, but most of those highly expensive Pirate BS tend to excel at something. A Machariel is by no means a better ship than a Vindicator - but they do lend themselves to different roles, with different ratios and different appeal to popularity or amassment of numbers to scale. Like the other Tech III the Vindicator lend itself to smaller scales or support-roles.

Another tragi-comic example is that prior to the consolidation of current trends (say, around 2010) people were experimenting quite heavily with other potential roles for some of these ships. Tech III lend themselves quite well to sniping with additional support while then recently improved combat Recons had begun taking root as support, and from there, experimented with for mainline use. Not that it made popular ground, but the stagnance toward the summer of rage, the profileration of current trends and the introduction of new ships to feed that trend put a halt to all that ingenuity.

The Drake, Tengu, Machariel or Cynabal had very little to do with that. They just, still, fit into those trends better.

In the case of the Tengu, Crucible just made it stronger, by cementing the need to deal with reach, speed and tanking BS-sig; while other emerging trends (like Gallente-based gangs) got snuffed out. Counter-production and all that Roll.
Viribus
Furnace
Thermodynamics
#51 - 2012-05-28 14:58:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Viribus
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.

The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.


This problem is intractable. The most popular ships in the game are ships that are either excellent in a specialized role (recons, most HACs), or flexible and very good at many roles (hurricanes, drakes, T3s, for example). There is no ship that's viable for pvp while also having every conceivable role being better filled by something cheaper. No one would fly a loki for webbing if it couldn't fit a better armour tank than a huginn. No one would ever fly a tengu if it did the same dps as a cerberus.

Making T3s worse while touting "flexibility" as an advantage is hilariously misguided for a few reasons:

- You have to dock up to reconfigure a T3 anyway, so you might as well just hop into a "better" HAC or Recon instead.
- You can't change the rigs on a T3 without destroying them and since many configs require different rigs, you often have to buy a separate T3 for each configuration.
- You can buy like, 3-4 T2 cruisers for the price of a T3.

Am I the only person who thinks a 500m ship should perform better than a 120m one?

Anyway, I still see HACs and Recons around, although no one's ever seen an eagle or cerb because they're awful and CCP hates caldari, which is apparently why both the drake and tengu are getting nerfed, so we're left with the falcon and rokh as the sum-total of viable caldari pvp ships. Also, despite what the OP might be hysterically screaming, command ships are still popular for large fleets because, surprise surprise, they can fit a tank.

tldr No-one's going to look at a nerfed tengu and think "I'm okay spending half a bil on this crappy cerb because I'd I switch out a subsystem I can have a crappy eagle!!!".
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#52 - 2012-05-28 19:41:07 UTC
Viribus wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.

The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.


This problem is intractable. The most popular ships in the game are ships that are either excellent in a specialized role (recons, most HACs), or flexible and very good at many roles (hurricanes, drakes, T3s, for example). There is no ship that's viable for pvp while also having every conceivable role being better filled by something cheaper. No one would fly a loki for webbing if it couldn't fit a better armour tank than a huginn. No one would ever fly a tengu if it did the same dps as a cerberus.

Making T3s worse while touting "flexibility" as an advantage is hilariously misguided for a few reasons:

- You have to dock up to reconfigure a T3 anyway, so you might as well just hop into a "better" HAC or Recon instead.
- You can't change the rigs on a T3 without destroying them and since many configs require different rigs, you often have to buy a separate T3 for each configuration.
- You can buy like, 3-4 T2 cruisers for the price of a T3.

Am I the only person who thinks a 500m ship should perform better than a 120m one?

Anyway, I still see HACs and Recons around, although no one's ever seen an eagle or cerb because they're awful and CCP hates caldari, which is apparently why both the drake and tengu are getting nerfed, so we're left with the falcon and rokh as the sum-total of viable caldari pvp ships. Also, despite what the OP might be hysterically screaming, command ships are still popular for large fleets because, surprise surprise, they can fit a tank.

tldr No-one's going to look at a nerfed tengu and think "I'm okay spending half a bil on this crappy cerb because I'd I switch out a subsystem I can have a crappy eagle!!!".


You seem to not understand the key point about T3's. They are meant to be good for at least FIVE roles AT THE SAME TIME while not having an exclusive advantage over the T2's in their ONE role of specialization.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#53 - 2012-05-28 20:56:27 UTC
Jace81 wrote:
T3's are not the issue its that T2's are very bad in comparison

Example Tengu 6 launchers and 7.5% ROF bonus

Cerberus 5 Launchers 5% ROF Bonus

Just by this example alone the short comings are obvious.

You can go through the whole line and see similar discrepancies.

Command ships are Battle cruisers why would they even be inferior to a cruiser platform?

I could go on but that's my .2 isk worth.


Sorry but the idiotic massive power creep you are proposing is exactly that, idiotic... You start boosting hacs, and commands to the levels of t3s and you just broke the entire game.... (btw, I do support mild specific buffs to both of the classes of ships u listed) If the issue is t3s being way beyond any comparable t2 ship wile retaining the same resists, 2 more MORE POWERFUL bonuses and 3 rigs then the issue is the t3s, not every other blood ship in the game.... Ask yourself this, why does the tengu tank better than the nighthawk, do proteus dps to 100km, fly faster than a bc, have better resists than a command ship, smaller sig than a bc, AND the option to swap subsystems? Let me give you the answer... Because the people responsible for balancing it n the first place failed extremely hard...

t3s are broke, have been since implementation. Time ccp gets off their fail chair and start balancing their "sandbox".

@ ccp: and btw, "fixing" 5 of your t1 frigs by furthering the gap between them and the lower tier ships is exactly the opposite of your intended goal. Further more, the changes to t1 frigs have made them superior to many of the faction frigs... You know the ships that are intended to be the most powerful in each class?

Conclusion: CCP has no idea what they are doing.
Viribus
Furnace
Thermodynamics
#54 - 2012-05-28 21:18:09 UTC
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
You seem to not understand the key point about T3's. They are meant to be good for at least FIVE roles AT THE SAME TIME while not having an exclusive advantage over the T2's in their ONE role of specialization.


Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize that each individual subsystem added an additional role to T3s, my mistake. Apparently there are dedicated ships for having 25% bonus powergrid or 75% reduced MWD cost? (I'm being sarcastic)

The subsystems are there to allow many different configurations typically specialized for one (sometimes two, as is the case with a webbing loki being able to do DPS and have bonused webs) role in any given configuration. Lemme reiterate: subsystems are components for building a role-focused ship, not roles themselves. Making an unspecialized ship that is a jack of all trades but kind of crappy all-around is a complete disaster and makes the ship inviable to fly, especially when it costs five times as much as the ships it's supposed to compete with.

Have you ever even flown a T3?

Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Ask yourself this, why does the tengu tank better than the nighthawk, do proteus dps to 100km, fly faster than a bc, have better resists than a command ship, smaller sig than a bc,


Respectively:

1. Because it costs over twice as much
2. I wasn't aware a tengu could do 1000 dps at 100km, thank you for enlightening me, you're obviously an expert on T3s to be able to talk so knowledgeably about them (again, I am being sarcastic)

I know you idiots think the tengu is overpowered because you look at EFT stats and don't actually consider the practical limitations and vulnerabilities of the ship but do you really have to straight-up make **** up out of thin air? It makes you look stupid(er).
3. Because it's a cruiser.
4. Because it costs over twice as much
5. Because it's a cruiser

Quote:
t3s are broke, have been since implementation. Time ccp gets off their fail chair and start balancing their "sandbox".


There are a lot of things wrong with eve, but the fact that a half-bil cruiser is better than a hundred-mil cruiser isn't one of them.

This is what happens when people who don't pvp have opinions about ship balance.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#55 - 2012-05-28 21:55:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
with perfect skills and implants and heat, a tengu can project 1k dps to 100km. just sayin...

I should buy an Ishtar.

Lili Lu
#56 - 2012-05-28 22:08:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Viribus wrote:
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
You seem to not understand the key point about T3's. They are meant to be good for at least FIVE roles AT THE SAME TIME while not having an exclusive advantage over the T2's in their ONE role of specialization.


Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize that each individual subsystem added an additional role to T3s, my mistake. Apparently there are dedicated ships for having 25% bonus powergrid or 75% reduced MWD cost? (I'm being sarcastic)

The subsystems are there to allow many different configurations typically specialized for one (sometimes two, as is the case with a webbing loki being able to do DPS and have bonused webs) role in any given configuration. Lemme reiterate: subsystems are components for building a role-focused ship, not roles themselves. Making an unspecialized ship that is a jack of all trades but kind of crappy all-around is a complete disaster and makes the ship inviable to fly, especially when it costs five times as much as the ships it's supposed to compete with.

Have you ever even flown a T3?

Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Ask yourself this, why does the tengu tank better than the nighthawk, do proteus dps to 100km, fly faster than a bc, have better resists than a command ship, smaller sig than a bc,


Respectively:

1. Because it costs over twice as much
2. I wasn't aware a tengu could do 1000 dps at 100km, thank you for enlightening me, you're obviously an expert on T3s to be able to talk so knowledgeably about them (again, I am being sarcastic)

I know you idiots think the tengu is overpowered because you look at EFT stats and don't actually consider the practical limitations and vulnerabilities of the ship but do you really have to straight-up make **** up out of thin air? It makes you look stupid(er).
3. Because it's a cruiser.
4. Because it costs over twice as much
5. Because it's a cruiser

Quote:
t3s are broke, have been since implementation. Time ccp gets off their fail chair and start balancing their "sandbox".


There are a lot of things wrong with eve, but the fact that a half-bil cruiser is better than a hundred-mil cruiser isn't one of them.

This is what happens when people who don't pvp have opinions about ship balance.

You're getting aweful mad. Take a deep breath and go back and read the dev post on the first page. Ok well here it is -
Ytterbium wrote:
Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.

The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.


But don't get so worked up yet. Notice the "when we get to it." It appears that balancing is still sidelined to improtant stuff like creating a wonderful new inventory system.Lol So your tech III Tengu supremacy is probably safe for the next few years. Afterall we got 5 frigs altered and no promise of anything else in this expansion. So 5 more firgs in about 6 months, by the time they get to your precious tengu we'll all be old and grey and probably no longer playing.Straight
Viribus
Furnace
Thermodynamics
#57 - 2012-05-28 22:29:19 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
with perfect skills and implants and heat, a tengu can project 1k dps to 100km. just sayin...


Show me this fit, then do the same to a proteus.
Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#58 - 2012-05-28 22:40:25 UTC
Viribus wrote:

1. Because it costs over twice as much, and I risk up to a week of SP loss every time I board it.
4. Because it costs over twice as much, and I risk up to a week of SP loss every time I board it.


Fixed it for you.

Also, to be fair, if you are talking about T3 fits with crazy DPS or tank, you have to also account for the uber faction mods when comparing to the other ships. Not fair to compare a T2 fit HAC with a multi billion faction fit T3.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#59 - 2012-05-28 22:48:35 UTC
Viribus wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
with perfect skills and implants and heat, a tengu can project 1k dps to 100km. just sayin...


Show me this fit, then do the same to a proteus.


regular mission fit with +6 implants and faction BCUs. just use a t2 RoF rig.

I should buy an Ishtar.

Viribus
Furnace
Thermodynamics
#60 - 2012-05-28 22:52:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Viribus
Daniel Plain wrote:
Viribus wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
with perfect skills and implants and heat, a tengu can project 1k dps to 100km. just sayin...


Show me this fit, then do the same to a proteus.


regular mission fit with +6 implants and faction BCUs. just use a t2 RoF rig.


895 DPS overheated with 6% plugs and furies. Sorry, try again. Under the same conditions, a proteus does 1475 dps.

Again, the assertion was that the "tengu does proteus dps out to 100km", which is so insanely stupid I don't see how anyone could defend it.