These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Drake and Hurricane rebalancing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
SB Rico
Sumo Wrestlers
#41 - 2012-07-26 16:22:42 UTC
Denuo Secus wrote:
I miss the good old days when ppl laughed at me for bringing a Drake into PvP. "lol noob l2p Drake cannot be used in PvP". Funny/sad part is, poor Drake didn't change a bit since then.


Nerfs in action :) I too remember those days.

In fact I remember an FC saying on comms "ditch the BS time for smaller ships and if you bring a drake I'll pod you myself."

Scammers are currently selling killrights on this toon for up to 5mil, if you have paid for this service demand your money back at once.

Killing me should be for free.
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#42 - 2012-07-26 16:25:56 UTC
Anyone suggested removal of 1 utility high from the cane?

The only reason it has 2 spare highs is due to the old cane having 7 turrets rather than 6.

This would majorly bring it into line with other BC's.

I have said before and will say again, the hurricane is the single most versatile bc in the game, as soon as the drake gets nerfed everyone will be back to flying shield canes.

Why?

Capless weapons
x2 neuts
Fast as fuk
Easy as hell to fit, like srsly
Its impossible to tackle one in a frig and survive
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2012-07-26 17:23:46 UTC
Gibbo3771 wrote:
Anyone suggested removal of 1 utility high from the cane?

The only reason it has 2 spare highs is due to the old cane having 7 turrets rather than 6.

This would majorly bring it into line with other BC's.

I have said before and will say again, the hurricane is the single most versatile bc in the game, as soon as the drake gets nerfed everyone will be back to flying shield canes.

Why?

Capless weapons
x2 neuts
Fast as fuk
Easy as hell to fit, like srsly
Its impossible to tackle one in a frig and survive

I'd rather see the PG of ACs raised or the PG of the cane nerfed. I like the eight highs due to the missile hardpoints. Two med neuts is absurd, but even two smalls wouldn't be so bad.
Lili Lu
#44 - 2012-07-26 17:31:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
SB Rico wrote:
Denuo Secus wrote:
I miss the good old days when ppl laughed at me for bringing a Drake into PvP. "lol noob l2p Drake cannot be used in PvP". Funny/sad part is, poor Drake didn't change a bit since then.


Nerfs in action :) I too remember those days.

In fact I remember an FC saying on comms "ditch the BS time for smaller ships and if you bring a drake I'll pod you myself."

And of course nothing else changed in the game since then.Roll Oh wait, medium rig sizes, speed nerf, sniper BS nerf, probing changes which now favor the Drake range sweetspot, etc. . . . and the biggest thing was re-tards stopped showing up for fleets with purger rigged bricks thinking they could tank in pvp like they do in pve.

Anyway, when this http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 happens for the umpteenth month, nay second or maybe third year in a row, it has to end sometime. Look at them Drakes - 309k, Tengus - 116k, Hurricanes 97k, Tornados 64k, then things become rather even looking.

Hell let's just ditch the other ships between noobship and Drake, and Drake and Caps, and call the game Drakes Online.
Lili Lu
#45 - 2012-07-26 17:50:22 UTC
SB Rico wrote:
Funny cos i remember when CCP nerfed HACs (nano nerf) to stop them munching BS, ever since the whole ship class has been in a slow spiral till now the only ones you see regularly are the vaga (which is still fast) and the zealot. I would love the days of the BS killer solo HAC to return. I could dust off the old nano-ishtar fit :).

Oh and a slight note, when a t2 cruiser costs more than a BS why shouldn't it be able to kill one? What is wrong with that principle?

As the first person to suggest buffs vs nerf in this thread I feel it my duty to point out that I actually suggested CCP try to improve the gallente and amarr BC to try and acheive more parity between races rather than smack down the cane and drake because people whine when a ship becomes good. In fact buffing things will enforce the same changes as nerfing but will do so in a more positive way.

Which statement make you feel happier? Your cane is going to become worse or Your Harby is going to get even better.

Would CCP have needed to nerf Falcons for example if they had given ships with long range weapons (e.g Rokh, apoc, muninn, Zealot) a boost in sensor strength?

Cost should not be a balancing factor. Otherwise you risk inducing botting or rmt to compete. SP can be a balancing factor in a game such as eve because there is no way to grind it directly. One can grind for isk to buy a character on the character sales forum but at least that gives us all an option of killing a pimped expensive ship being flown by a guy who thought the sp and isk alone would insure victory.

Buffs of course can be positive. Frigates and cruisers need them to not be lost in the race to BC as the game has been the last few years. However, you can't buff everything all the time, and nerfs are not always negative. The Cane becoming worse statment makes me happier. It means that Cruisers become more viable. It means that newer players aren't instant fodder for older players. It means that there are more options to fly than just grab a BC.

As for Falcons, they hardly got a nerf. They lost range but for some reason CCP couldn't just outright nerf the damn things like they did to rapiers with the web nerf or arazus with the damp nerf. Witness increase in jammer strength bonuses for ecm boats as they lost range, but no buff given to web boats with the web nerf, no buff for damp boats with the damp nerf. As for a boost in sensor strength I'm all for that. I'd rather it came through a new set of skills than changes to ship stats though. And other ewar boats appears slated for buffs finally with 10% bonuses instead of the pidly 5% currently, and tracking enhancers being converted to weapon disruptors so as to also affect missiles.

Buffs are good. And can be an alternative to nerfs. But too much of a good thing can make you sick. We are basically all children playing this game. And if there's candy to be had we gobble it up. But, sometimes you need to have the candy taken away for your own good.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#46 - 2012-07-26 18:13:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
Traejun DiSanctis wrote:
Marzuq wrote:
Whar Target wrote:
Did you seriously make a thread to state that two battlecruisers are able to kill frigates and cruisers and this somehow makes them OP? Wtf?

Just no...all around just no..

Nuets are the primary defense against being swarmed by frigs, and most importantly, the main reason for people to think about cracking open that wallet and buying a bigger ship. Over half the players you run into in low sec are in frigates, not because they offer some tactical advantage, but because they are scared to fly a real ship.

As far as balance between the different races BC's, that's slated to be addressed, so nothing to talk about there. Lasers with scorch give autocannons a run for the money any day.

And a power grid nerf on minmatar? You must want artillery removed from the game because even with AWU5 there are minmatar ships that need multiple power grid mods to fit the max size artillery as well as a tank and prop mod, so no, I don't think they need a PG nerf at all.. Also look at the range on autocannons with a given ammo when you consider the paper dps. At one falloff it's half the paper dps.

TLDR
OP is an amarr pilot and seemingly one who has an aversion to flying man-ships (BC+) and this has caused him to request bc nerfs.


Either Amarr should be given more powergrid, or minmatar needs a reduction to balance the field.

Sure scorch makes pulses good, but compare beam lasers to artillery, its no contest.


I agree with these statements. Amarr ships (particularly BC and below) need more PG to be able to utilize it's slots. And I agree to an extent on the use of beam lasers in PvP. They DEFINITELY have their value in PvE, but in PvP, it's pulse or GTFO. I think you're overstating your position a little, but you are generally on point.

I would actually like to see a significant drop in PG requirements for all lasers, beam and pulse. It is not so much that amarr ships have low PG in comparison, just lasers use to much PG considering the added cap they use. This is why fitting projectiles is so popular on Amarr ships. Amarr ships already use a lot of cap to keep their guns going. the PG should be lower to compensate. Currently the only real compensation they get is not needing ammo. I would gladly give up the basically unlimited ammo (even faction and T2 crystals far out last their projectile and hybrid counter parts) in exchange for lower PG requirements for lasers. Ammo is never really a consideration in PVP fits in my experience.

So players would even say that Amarr ships equipped with projectiles are OP as it free's up a massive amount of cap to use in an active tank. But that is a different discussion entirely.
Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2012-07-26 18:29:50 UTC
Don't nerf the good stuff, buff the weak crap.

Drake and Tengu are only as popular as they are because of heavy missiles and their damage projection. The medium long range turrets suck compared to them for any general sort of pvp or pve use.
SB Rico
Sumo Wrestlers
#48 - 2012-07-26 20:50:43 UTC
Lets say this again, I am not against rebalancing of ships, I just feel that if CCP continually nerf they take enjoyable tactics out of the game.

I am trying to point out a more positive way to achieve parity is not to kick one thing in the b****x but to make other things BETTER.

Scammers are currently selling killrights on this toon for up to 5mil, if you have paid for this service demand your money back at once.

Killing me should be for free.
chris elliot
Seal Club Six
Plug N Play
#49 - 2012-07-26 23:00:47 UTC
TL:DR,


I am going to assume though that the op was something like this.

I am bored, lazy, and inflexible, I also have a doctor diagnosed case of severe whining.

To the forums!!!!!! Let my keyboard wrath singe the ears of CCP. o/

Onward yon forum war....... oh never mind, no one cares anyway.
Noisrevbus
#50 - 2012-07-27 00:59:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Marzuq wrote:
I believe the hurricane and drake are simply too versatile and cheap.

Everyone and their grandmother flies one. Even low skilled poor noobs fly them.

There needs to be more variety in the game.

Battlecruisers should not be a go to ship for 9/10 situations as they currently are.

Their cost effectiveness needs to be reduced. Battlecruisers are only a little bit more expensive than flying Cruisers considering Insurance.


You need to learn when to stop. Up until this point you had a sound argument, past that, you only delved down into unfounded slogan blurting.

What seems not to have dawned on most of the people lodging these complaint threads is... that once BC cost-efficiency is dealt with the so called "Drake issue" will be solved by the same obscurity that always cast it's shadow over EVE.

There are already a majority of other ships in the large fleet world that out-do the Drake. The Baddon is better, the Mael is better, the Rokh is better and so forth. Those ships are used based on cost-efficiency too. They are more cost-efficient than AHACs, Tech 3 and Capitals.

If you for no actual or defined reason axe a couple of ships over percieved unfairness in popularity, all you will achieve is causing an actual imbalance at the scale when they are within tolerable difference (ie., balanced).

Stop trying to image it as a balance problem within the class, when you clearly have trouble working that angle and don't understand the mechanics involved. You need to separate popularity and balance. It's an incredibly stupid conclusion trying to equate the two. "It's popular, must be too good - let's try to find what's too good", yet none of you have succeeded to voice any actual (mechanical) balance concerns yet. Instead you state the obvious: "the Drake can shoot far and maintain a buffer". Quite the divination there, it's not like anyone else could be scrying that from it's ship bonuses or how missile fitting is reversed. It is that for a reason though, and if you don't understand why you should probably try to learn why first so you can see the actual balance issues without hasty conclusion hops.

It will never make the Harby or Myrm accepted in the blobfare of the bad alliance you have just joined, that tell you to train for a Drake before you can join it's overblown fleet, to keep a uniform "doctrine".

Regardless if you nerf the Drake or Cane into oblivion (and ruin smaller scale balance in the process) or deal with the cost-efficiency of the BC class - the natural progression of a figure in the blob will be one of the BS that are already somewhat affordable yet perform better.

It isn't more difficult than that. One of those issues is an actual issue, solving it will solve more problems than one and affect all scales positively, rather than just one.

In small to medium gang sizes you see all of the BC, you see the Myrms and Harbs as well as the Canes and Drakes.
Lili Lu
#51 - 2012-07-27 06:27:41 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
You need to learn when to stop. Up until this point you had a sound argument, past that, you only delved down into unfounded slogan blurting.

What seems not to have dawned on most of the people lodging these complaint threads is... that once BC cost-efficiency is dealt with the so called "Drake issue" will be solved by the same obscurity that always cast it's shadow over EVE.

There are already a majority of other ships in the large fleet world that out-do the Drake. The Baddon is better, the Mael is better, the Rokh is better and so forth. Those ships are used based on cost-efficiency too. They are more cost-efficient than AHACs, Tech 3 and Capitals.

If you for no actual or defined reason axe a couple of ships over percieved unfairness in popularity, all you will achieve is causing an actual imbalance at the scale when they are within tolerable difference (ie., balanced).

Stop trying to image it as a balance problem within the class, when you clearly have trouble working that angle and don't understand the mechanics involved. You need to separate popularity and balance. It's an incredibly stupid conclusion trying to equate the two. "It's popular, must be too good - let's try to find what's too good", yet none of you have succeeded to voice any actual (mechanical) balance concerns yet. Instead you state the obvious: "the Drake can shoot far and maintain a buffer". Quite the divination there, it's not like anyone else could be scrying that from it's ship bonuses or how missile fitting is reversed. It is that for a reason though, and if you don't understand why you should probably try to learn why first so you can see the actual balance issues without hasty conclusion hops.

It will never make the Harby or Myrm accepted in the blobfare of the bad alliance you have just joined, that tell you to train for a Drake before you can join it's overblown fleet, to keep a uniform "doctrine".

Regardless if you nerf the Drake or Cane into oblivion (and ruin smaller scale balance in the process) or deal with the cost-efficiency of the BC class - the natural progression of a figure in the blob will be one of the BS that are already somewhat affordable yet perform better.

It isn't more difficult than that. One of those issues is an actual issue, solving it will solve more problems than one and affect all scales positively, rather than just one.

In small to medium gang sizes you see all of the BC, you see the Myrms and Harbs as well as the Canes and Drakes.

Fit a cane, or a Harby, or a Myrm, that can put out 350 to 400 dps at 70km and either tank around 100k ehp or perma mwd instead then. Then talk about how he's blurting. Frankly your posts are tiresome because you keep harping on about the blob and cost efficiency being the cause of the drake phenomenon and ignore the fitting and module differences which when combined with ship bonuses allow Drake fleets to flourish and not Myrmidon or Harby fleets.

Similarly, Drakes are preferred in smaller scale engagements not just blob fleets for all the same reasons. Few people like to fly high damage, close range, glass cannons. You tend to get primaried that way and miss out on kills. Far more poeple like to sit in a beefy tank and plunk away from a safe(r) range. Drakes are used more than the other BCs in small gang stuff just as they are puffed in numerical usage by CFC (and other alliances) blobs.

Nerfing the Drake and Cane does not have to be "into oblivion." Seems to me your exageration is bourne out of fear. You must be quite attached to your Drakes even though you profess not to be. Also, the popularity is indicative of it's unique abilities in its class, which are yes, shooting far with adequate dps at range while sporting an acceptable tank to benefit from logi support. Eve players must be stupid and gravitate toward making a bad or simply equal ship so popular if we follow your logic. No they are not stupid, and have gravitated toward a ship that is out of balance possessing unique features which make it a better choice.

The only thing I agree with you is that the blob sucks. Propose some ideas and mechanics to the devs on how you would dissuade 700 ship coalition multi-fleets then. As for cost efficiency then propose some ideas on how to make losing a BC similar in cost to losing a BS. I'm sure everyone will love you for that. Then noone will fly them and you will nerfed them "into oblivion." Fortunately the devs have stated the Drake will get nerfed. So your blurting is all for naught. Unfotunately we will all have to wait another year or more for them to get nerfed since they can't seem to recognize interim adjustments as possible.
pyronatic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-07-27 07:26:58 UTC
this is a fail forum post i laughed the whole time while reading it
Armeggeda iscariah
Ganja Labs
Exodus.
#53 - 2012-07-27 08:49:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Armeggeda iscariah
Marzuq wrote:
Armeggeda iscariah wrote:
Oh boy another "NERF THESE SHIPS BECAUSE I PROBABLY DIED TO THEM TO MUCH OR I CANT FLY THEM CORRECTLY" thread. Roll

Learn to counter the ship. like really.

And let me laugh at you on several points.

Their tank and dps completely obsolete cruisers and creep into battleship territory.
Lol what. geddons can get 1.2k dps and 20k worth of armor. and they are the cheapest bs around.
Tempests definitly get more dmg. then a cane ever could.
Do i even need to point out the maelstrom or abbadon ?
And on the case of obsoleting cruiser , No ******* **** sherlock holmes. Thats the point of it being a step up from cruisers. they do more dps and tank. But yes lets nerf BC's because were all stupid and want every ship to be on the same level because your to stupid to figure out the class difference of ships on a game.

They are able to take on a wide variety of targets ranging from frigates to capitals.
Thats the point of the battlecruiser hull. they are DESIGNED to be versitile In RL and game.

The drake has very good damage projection and tank. It has the tendency to outlast and destroy any sub battlecruiser ships. I really cant beleive i saw this statement. Caracals can outrange a drake. and if your stupid enough to sit there and get plinked by a drake at 50kms in your t1 cruiser without outrunning it or warping you deserve to die.

The harbinger is a ship with good damage projections, but is more suited to fleets and has a strong weakness to neuts.
Id seriously love to see a harbinger fleet. But no ive seen more solo harbi's then canes.

The drake and hurricane should be readjusted to the same level as the harbinger and the myrmidon.
Stupid statement within itself. Every ship in eve has its own niche and has its own situations. If your seriously to stupid to relise this then quit eve and go play WoW.
Seriously go fight RvB with a drake or cane and see how fast they whelp you with t1 cruisers m8


You just don't want your winmatar ships gone.

A battlecruisers can easily kill a cruiser. Blobbing doesn't mean anything.

A battlecruiser in RL is a fast moving ship with big guns, its defences are weak. Tier 3 BC are TRUE BCs.

Lol you must be mad cause your got you ass kicked in ATX. Lolololol Cry more baby.


Lolwhat. Because im definitly crying about atx by proving your wrong on several points because your a scrub ? Cool story mate. Get as far as we did then talk **** , k ? Roll

And i rarely fly canes, Only thing i fly are huginns,drakes or navy geddons so im unbiased about winamtar dps :P , if your gonna complain about something , complain about the nighthawk that thing needs a buff.

chris elliot wrote:
TL:DR,


I am going to assume though that the op was something like this.

I am bored, lazy, and inflexible, I also have a doctor diagnosed case of severe whining.

To the forums!!!!!! Let my keyboard wrath singe the ears of CCP. o/

Onward yon forum war....... oh never mind, no one cares anyway.


Someone upvote this guy to heaven because this the exact TLDR of the OP.

Hail Satan.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#54 - 2012-07-27 09:28:55 UTC
Gibbo3771 wrote:
Anyone suggested removal of 1 utility high from the cane?

The only reason it has 2 spare highs is due to the old cane having 7 turrets rather than 6.

This would majorly bring it into line with other BC's.

I have said before and will say again, the hurricane is the single most versatile bc in the game, as soon as the drake gets nerfed everyone will be back to flying shield canes.

Why?

Capless weapons
x2 neuts
Fast as fuk
Easy as hell to fit, like srsly
Its impossible to tackle one in a frig and survive

This ! The ability to fit *two* neut with it's capacitor dedicated to them on top of normal BC capacities is often appalling. That only make this ship a nightmare for any active tanked BC and anything smaller.

This ability is due to easy fitting of AC, generous fitting of the ship, the second utility slot, and the capacitor to run everything correctly.

As said, no need to nerf it into oblivion, but it definitely have more advantages than the the others.

And to CptBranko : a lot of ships can fit a rack of weapons, decent tank and prop mod, but only autocanon ships can do it and fit neuts (plural, like with TWO of them) on top of all this.

The drake is another problem though, and it's planed rebalance is a good thing IMO. Though I think the problem come from heavy missiles. They are evry long range weapons, though they have tremendous damage for this range and precision, allowing them to compete with *short* range weapons. Heavy missiles, IMO, are the problem of drake and tengu.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2012-07-27 10:32:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Heavy missiles, IMO, are the problem of drake and tengu.


The problem with the Tengu is mostly the bonuses on the missile subsystem. It gets a +100% dps bonus and +50% range bonus. Other offensive subsystems only get between +50% to +66% dps. Other than that the Tengu just happens to have well thought out subsystem combinations (unlike say the Legion).

In PvE it can also use deadspace shield boosters which for some reason are miles better than deadspace armor reps, giving them much better tanks compared to armor users.
Denuo Secus
#56 - 2012-07-27 10:57:05 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
The drake is another problem though, and it's planed rebalance is a good thing IMO. Though I think the problem come from heavy missiles. They are evry long range weapons, though they have tremendous damage for this range and precision...


HMLs have good range and good damage projection. But they suffer from other issues. They don't have precision! And precision missiles are a joke atm. Ever tried to shoot a frig which isn't piloted by an idiot outside of webrange and/or without TPs on that frig? Missiles have other weaknesses in exchange for their good damage projection.

In fleets or blobs this does not matter since there are always suited targets available. In small scale this aspect of missiles matters much more. Turret ships can just 'blap' said frig from range. A missile ship relys on webs or TPs to make some damage in that case. Which leads to other issues. Web and TP are med slot modules, which weaken a Drakes tank. Atm this works still for the Drake because of the resist bonus. Other Caldari T1 missile ships have weak tanks or no tackle when fitting webs.

Bouh Revetoile wrote:
....allowing them to compete with *short* range weapons. Heavy missiles, IMO, are the problem of drake and tengu.


Nonsense. What kind of *short* range weapons do you have in mind? A proper fitted HML Drake does <400DPS. With 3 BCUs it does 414 DPS (but then the Dake is slow). Compare that with other short range turrets. Blasters (on a Brutix - a tier1 BC) can do more than twice the damage. Lasers with short range ammo on a Harb do ~600DPS - not counting 50m3 of drones.

A Drake can fit HAMS to come close in damage. But the mentioned issues against small/fast ships is even bigger here.

---
In short: missiles have clear weaknesses. In fleets this isn't such an issue. In small scale or solo PvP it is. Maybe the Drake perfoms very well in blobs. But I think it's bad to balance ships around their performance in big fleets.
Cpt Branko
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2012-07-27 11:55:31 UTC
I don't get the moaning about utility highs on the Hurricane. It's often (as in, in every non-solo situation) better to fit missile launchers or whatever really then neutralizers.

The surge of popularity of neutralizers has more to do with the fact we don't have 90% webs anymore and nobody likes dying to frigates, so you need some anti-frigate tool unless you have two webs, and with the trend of shield-fit AC Hurricanes (which are actually not that good) which are for some unfathomable reason popular now.

I mean... defeating active tanks, what nonsense. A plated Hurricane can just punch through more or less any active tank, load Hail M, stick (don't orbit, stay and control transversal) at 500 metres and melt it. I once melted an active tanked Astarte like that before his alt in Geddon jumped, warped and landed on grid. Of course this is impossible because in forum Hurricane fights in falloff and Hail M is worthless.

Arty fits can't fit dual medium neuts (the best you can squeeze on is dual smalls which will perhaps work on a more ******** kind of frig pilot in a pinch) or anything sensible in those two highs (HMLs or even AMLs won't fit). You need a ACR to fit a very light tank and arties. I think that is quite sensible / balanced.

As for Drake, the one and only reason why Drake is so popular is because of HML damage at range being reasonably good with reasonably long range, nothing else. HAM Drakes, while actually quite good, are not OP by any standard. Even HML Drakes are not OP, until you bring a blob of them.

As for the other two Tier 2 BCs, the Harbinger is actually reasonably good although it lacks is a bit of fitting space - HPLs only realistically fit with a shieldtank, and beams don't fit. Hence it gets flown with shieldtank and HPLs more often then anything. Before you go on with "other ships can't fit proper guns and tank", yes they damn well can.

Myrmidon needs a rethink because it is a ship which can't make up it's mind what it is. It has an active armour tanking bonus, 6 turret slots, and drones with drone bonus (but not enough m3 to work based on drones alone). It can't do all three naturally. As a result of it's lack of clear focus / purpose, it's best fits are fits which completely ignore the repair bonus.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#58 - 2012-07-27 11:58:29 UTC
@Denuo Secus : a frigate can kill any long range ship provided she goes under 20km of him. That cannot be said of HML. HML can hit almost any target from 0 to 70km ; and if they need nearly more time to kill a frigate than a cruiser, they still can do it whereas a long range ship tackled by a frigate is doomed. And with web and TP, frigates are not a threat anymore.

And still, HML damage are the best of all long range weapons.

So, sure, some missiles have weaknesses, but HML are not among them. Even interceptors slowly die under HML fire and eventualy need to warp off.

In the end, their only drawback is a lower dps than close range weapon, which is expected, at least, for a long range system.

Crazy bonuses of tengu only emphasize this : HML tengu have almost the dps of LARGE long range weapons with short range ammo, though they hit frigates fairly good considering the range they have.
Cpt Branko
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2012-07-27 12:19:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Branko
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

And to CptBranko : a lot of ships can fit a rack of weapons, decent tank and prop mod, but only autocanon ships can do it and fit neuts (plural, like with TWO of them) on top of all this.


Yes they can.

But since you will of course not drop a turret to fit neut, only ships with two "spare" highs are going to consider fitting two neutralizers (or, ships which are surprise fitted to, well, surprise smaller ships, but that is "gimmick" fitting). There are five direct combat ships (not recons and such) which have two+ spare highs, which are Rupture, Hurricane, Dominix, Tempest and Bhaalgorn.

So yes, it's mostly Minmatar ships which are in realistic fits going to use dual neuts, but this is not because they're the only ones which can fit dual neuts which they are not, but because some of them have got two "unbonused" weapon slots. Shield Harbinger would use dual neuts just fine if it had 6 turrets. It can actually fit dual neuts, HPLs and a tank easier then 7 HPLs + neut, but everyone would rather have one bonused turret more then a second neutralizer. The issue is that it's very hard to fit those 7 HPLs, not to mention beams, not that it's hard to fit dual neutralizers.*

As for "devote entire capacitor to it", only the Hurricane can really liberally neut without having a cap booster. Tempest MUST have a T2 cap booster to power the MWD + neuts. Rupture just doesn't have the capacitor for liberal neuting since it's a cruiser.

And finally, these spare highs for neuts are only really relevant in solo-type situations, and chiefly serve the purpose of anti-frig defense for shield fits in case of Rupture / Hurricane, or clobbering sub-BS ships in case of Tempest/Dominix. Kiting fits are going to try to not be even in range to use these two medium neutralizers, since they put themselves in web range by doing so.

*Compare and contrast: Amarr BS can fit a decent tank and full rack of biggest pulses.
Denuo Secus
#60 - 2012-07-27 12:46:48 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
...And still, HML damage are the best of all long range weapons....


True. This is what defines long range missiles. Why take it away? We discussed the disadvantages of them already. Arty has alpha, Beams have tracking + best turret damage at range. It's all fine imho (medium rails could need a buff or something unique tho).

Bouh Revetoile wrote:
So, sure, some missiles have weaknesses, but HML are not among them. Even interceptors slowly die under HML fire and eventualy need to warp off.


I marked the important part. It's all situational. If I have the time to fend off a tackler HMLs are cool and very reliable. If I, however, only have seconds and need to get out QUICKLY, the ability to 'blap' frigs is essential. Under my guns or not: with missiles I just cannot do this except I specialize my fitting against frigs.

Example: I was flying a shield, pulse Harbinger. A shield Rupture attacked me, knowing his buddy in a Falcon was around. I just had seconds to fight the Rupture. And it worked with the Harb. The moment the Rupture exploded his buddy appeared. I was permajammed but got away with one kill. A HML Drake cannot do this.

Weapon systems are different and work very well in certain situations. I'd call this variety. A pulse laser is very dangerous to any (very common) shield tank @30km or below. HMLs are perfect at range whan damage projection + relieable damage against equally sized targets matters.