These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tech 3, maybe a mistake.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#121 - 2012-11-12 17:35:10 UTC
Vilnius Zar wrote:

That's a lot of words trying to say "nuh uh". Still if you really feel that checking a person's fitting choices (through losses on his KB in this case) doesn't give some sort of indication on his actual knowledge&experience (even more if you can't even get fleet fits right or worse yet, tell others that they should use it as a fleet fit) then uhm... yeah. I guess that would explain a lot.



You're not even trying now. I asked you what apart from the ONE fit you pointed out (which I have explained) showed any indication that I had totally no clue what I was doing. You haven't done so.

If you do actually have anything to back yourself up feel free to put it forward, it would only help me if you were right, and you will look stupid if you are wrong.

Or I suppose you could continue to dodge my point and just say "lol KBs are the most important thing in EVE".

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#122 - 2012-11-12 18:10:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Vilnius Zar
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Vilnius Zar wrote:

That's a lot of words trying to say "nuh uh". Still if you really feel that checking a person's fitting choices (through losses on his KB in this case) doesn't give some sort of indication on his actual knowledge&experience (even more if you can't even get fleet fits right or worse yet, tell others that they should use it as a fleet fit) then uhm... yeah. I guess that would explain a lot.



You're not even trying now. I asked you what apart from the ONE fit you pointed out (which I have explained) showed any indication that I had totally no clue what I was doing. You haven't done so.

If you do actually have anything to back yourself up feel free to put it forward, it would only help me if you were right, and you will look stupid if you are wrong.

Or I suppose you could continue to dodge my point and just say "lol KBs are the most important thing in EVE".



Sure, if you really want to look like a clown, here we go:

No DC and no damage mods, just piled on speedmods because uhm... err.... I dunno. 2 nanofibers and 3 polys means hilarious stacking penalties, but don't let that stop you

Drake with a CPR, there's no logic in the world where that makes sense, no matter how much you try

Kestrel with 2 launchers and a cap flux coil, not even going to try and figure out if that makes any sort of sense (hit: it doesn't)


No fit at all on this executioner, I guess it's cheaper to lose them this way

No DC, or any sort of tank, on this rifter, just piled on the speedmods again but at least you didn't get 3 polys on it. (hint: if you want to user a tackler there's better ships for it in the minmatar line). You lost 3 of those so I guess in your mind they make sense, ok

This drake is just bad


Mind you, these are not cherry picked losses instead they're all on your first (and only) loss page and all from this year. There not one loss on that page that makes sense fitting wise, so you can boast about how much you FC and all that but I'm seeing just words... nothing more. What does that teach us about you? That you don't really know wth you're doing (or someone else who has no real clue is telling you the wrong stuff).

Bah, that was a lot of effort, something that shouldn't be needed because anyone who DOES have a clue has just to glance at your fits and come to the same conclusion in a second, but I guess you need to have it spelt out for you. And again, it's not about stats, it's about having a clue. If you look at Kil2's stats for instance they don't look brilliant at first glance. Thing is, that's not because he's clueless but because does solo/small group without using training wheels, which inevitably means he'll lose a ton of ships making him "look bad" on the KB, but not really.


- edit -

I don't want to derail this thread any further so I'll leave it at that, just know that if you somehow go all hurf blurf people might have a peek to see if your barking is backed by any actual sort of biting, which in your case it isn't.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2012-11-12 18:18:06 UTC
Must be cool to be a fittings expert... Congratulations.

Should we get back on topic?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#124 - 2012-11-12 18:59:18 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Must be cool to be a fittings expert... Congratulations.

Should we get back on topic?




Me too would like to have some expert fittings available on this thread. Clearly, I'd have the feeling I'm good for once Lol

brb
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#125 - 2012-11-12 19:13:19 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Azrin Stella Oerndotte wrote:

Because a battleship can totally apply full "1000" DPS on almost any ship and zip around at a couple of km/s with a tiny sig and a +80km range.


You're not going to get all 3 of those things on a T3 Strat Cruiser either so holding that up as the "Pièce de résistance" is faulty at best.

I don't think I've ever seen a T3 Cruiser with 1000 DPS with +80km range (applied dps otherwise it doesn't matter at all).

It's a trade off to fit these for 1000 DPS. To do so you lose some of the mobility (there goes the + km/s) and a LOT of the range you speak of. At that point you have to be very specific about how you engage in them otherwise you can't apply much of that paper DPS.

You can brick tank them like a mofo (600k EHP proteus comes to mind) but you're relegated to brick tackle or bait tackle (or some other non-DPS and non-mobile role as you're fat and slow at that point).

You can make them cloaky and scanny - but in order to do that you, again, lose some of the tank and gank. 1 v1 in that scenario against some unlucky PVE fit ship will go in the T3 favor. But cloaky/scanny T3 against a comparably piloted PVP setup won't fair so well.

Point being that T3 is not the "Easy Butan" that people make them out to be. One of the huge benefits of the platform is the ability to customize and in that customization lies it's strengths. But that customization doesn't make the ship unbeatable or even the best choice for all engagements.

Add in the bonuses from gang links etc etc and that changes the argument(s) fairly significantly but then that's a separate topic.



Jesus!! -happy someone else here understands and flies T3's too.

o7

brb
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#126 - 2012-11-12 19:21:21 UTC
Vilnius Zar wrote:

Sure, if you really want to look like a clown, here we go:

No DC and no damage mods, just piled on speedmods because uhm... err.... I dunno. 2 nanofibers and 3 polys means hilarious stacking penalties, but don't let that stop you

Drake with a CPR, there's no logic in the world where that makes sense, no matter how much you try

Kestrel with 2 launchers and a cap flux coil, not even going to try and figure out if that makes any sort of sense (hit: it doesn't)


No fit at all on this executioner, I guess it's cheaper to lose them this way


No fit at all on this executioner, I guess it's cheaper to lose them this way

No DC, or any sort of tank, on this rifter, just piled on the speedmods again but at least you didn't get 3 polys on it. (hint: if you want to user a tackler there's better ships for it in the minmatar line). You lost 3 of those so I guess in your mind they make sense, ok

This drake is just bad



That's cool, that frigate goes 4km/s. It's a poor man's interceptor that I don't mind welping.


Unless you know, you need to be cap stable in a fleet because it's a MWD drake fleet and you don't have the skills yet. Of course it effects your shield boosting but I don't have shield boosters fitted and when you're in massive fleet fights buffer is > then recharge rate on shields.

As already explained, I was leading a fleet, got blown up and bought whatever was in the station I could fit on it.

Was moving the ship from one station to another and accidentally got caught by a roaming group with dictors.


Rifters are cheap, i had one sitting around, I made it go fast. I'm terrible at EVE.


You haven't even offered an explanation there. However that is the EXE doctrine Drake fit, considering the rest of your totally nonesensical sperging I'll trust the guys in EXE's over your opinion everyday.



If you want a TL;DR response to your post:


lol

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Jassmin Joy
Pulling The Plug
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#127 - 2012-11-12 19:46:48 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost....


My job isn't to balance ships, so that's my personal opinion after having been a PvPer for best part of 10 years Smile



I commend you for actually saying it, too many people these days are of the opinion everyone should be equal, despite time invested into skills or isk invested into ships/modules, it's sickening.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#128 - 2012-11-12 20:09:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
Pinky Denmark wrote:
There are a few good indicators of wether a ship might be too much for balance :

  1. Does this ship cost a lot and yet people still pvp with it all the time?
  2. Will people pimp this ship with expensive modules even for pvp?
  3. Are people on the forums claiming balance is fine because it cost a lot?
  4. Are people training alts/characters specifically for this ship?
  5. Are players normally forced to bring the same ship or more numbers to win against this ship?

For the sake of Eve T3 cruisers has to be balanced. At the same time I think CCP have a huge task actually making the strategic cruisers more versatile and fun for people. Having more than 3.000 configs available on a ship and only seing 5-6 of them used by experienced gamers is such a shame. Especially when most of those configs are obsoleting other ships...
But it's tricky to make ships versatile when the ultimate versatility require a player to carry around 25 submods, 2-3 weapon types and possible 2 types of tanks and rigs cannot be changed...

I think I would merge all the submods into 1 unit and enable people to config it in the fitting screen while docked or near a fitting possibility in space... As an alternative I would create a special submod hangar in the ship only for these and cut production price to 20%, however I think people won't buy the modules in the first place.

I would make the ship skill a bit more important not only having a bonus for overheating but also a bonus to the effectivity of the submod(s) themself.... Cut submod bonus in half and let each skill level on the shipskill give a 20% bonus.
Also I would have the slot layout almost fixed to the hull, but allow some submod options to add slots.
Then just give each submodule 1 bonus, 1 slot and maybe a bonus to some stats...

EG a LOKI:

The hull itself would have a fixed 5/4/4 slot layout 5 turrets/0 launchers

Then weapons submod could have 5 options:
  1. Autocannons: 2,5% RoF pr. submod level (remember hull bonus doubles this at lv 5)
  2. Artillery: 2,0% damage pr. lv, +1 hi-slot (w/ turret slot)
  3. Missile launchers: 2,0% damage pr. lv, +1 hi-slot (-5 turrets, +6 launchers)
  4. Extra Firepower: +1 lowslot, half reload time
  5. Drones: +25 drone bandwith and +25 drone bay

...and the sensor submod could have these 5 options:
  1. Tracking: 5,0% projectile tracking pr lv. / better explosion velocity for missiles
  2. Range: 2,5% falloff pr lv / better flight time for missiles
  3. Explorer: Probing bonus and +1 hi-slot (maybe +1 medslot)
  4. Eccm: 5% better sensor strength pr lv.
  5. Commander: Warfare Link bonus

...and the engineering submod could have these 5 options:
  1. Cloaking: +1 hi-slot and ability to warp cloaked, cpu reduction pr level to proper cloak
  2. Interdiction Nullifier (someone will HAVE to make a choice now)
  3. Enlarged capacitor: 2,5% bigger capacitor pr lv.
  4. Extra cooling: extra bonus to overheating
  5. Extra power: bonus to powergrid, but I'd make the hull have a rather limited base to avoid oversized mods

etc etc etc with defensive and propulsion submods as well as other ships

Something to play with....


Do people train Alts for Transports, Jump Freighters, Cyno ships? Must be too powerful then. I've never trained an Alt specifically for a T3. Most of my training on this character has also been coincidental where it moves towards T3. I've got Gallente Cruiser 4, and that's as close as I am to flying a Proteus still.

My Alt has Battle Cruisers and Destroyers V yet not even close to flying a T3 with 7 million in Gunnery. Why is that?

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because as much as I like them, I can't afford to fly them and lose them. People fly and pimp T3 for PvP if they generally expect not to lose them. Either they are PvP fit doing PvE because of where they are and the risk they are taking, or they are so secure in their position that they worry not a shred.

edit: ..you also realize there isn't a ship in the game that has bonuses that low?
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#129 - 2012-11-12 20:09:17 UTC
Jassmin Joy wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost....


My job isn't to balance ships, so that's my personal opinion after having been a PvPer for best part of 10 years Smile



I commend you for actually saying it, too many people these days are of the opinion everyone should be equal, despite time invested into skills or isk invested into ships/modules, it's sickening.


Well Said

As in real life, the only people who talk about "equality" as if everyone were equal are people with inferiority complexes.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#130 - 2012-11-12 20:09:25 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Vaga, much weaker tank, and not faster/better in any way. You don't apparently know what you can do with a loki.

Please, do tell me about this Loki that doesn't gimp its fit or use ridiculously expensive mods to match the Vagabond for speed.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#131 - 2012-11-12 20:11:19 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:

Do people train Alts for Transports, Jump Freighters, Cyno ships? Must be too powerful then. .


How dare you shoot down the posters book lenght post with one sentence demonstrating the fatal flaw in his logic? That's just mean!

(And by mean I mean "awesome")
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#132 - 2012-11-12 20:14:18 UTC
I trained an alt for PI.
Nerf PI.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#133 - 2012-11-12 20:32:49 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I trained an alt for PI.
Nerf PI.



I've got an alt trained for....wait he didn't trained a single Sp

Nerf alts, nerf forum, nerf everything, NERF NERF NERF !!

Nao !

brb
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#134 - 2012-11-13 20:51:23 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Trolling is bad for your forum posting health - CCP Falcon


Good work homes, keep up the good publicity by removing anything that questions the behaviors you want subscribers to pay for.

Best way to fix the game, ignore the players and remove concerns.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#135 - 2012-11-15 11:56:21 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
Pinky Denmark wrote:
There are a few good indicators of wether a ship might be too much for balance :


Do people train Alts for Transports, Jump Freighters, Cyno ships? Must be too powerful then. I've never trained an Alt specifically for a T3. Most of my training on this character has also been coincidental where it moves towards T3. I've got Gallente Cruiser 4, and that's as close as I am to flying a Proteus still.

My Alt has Battle Cruisers and Destroyers V yet not even close to flying a T3 with 7 million in Gunnery. Why is that?

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because as much as I like them, I can't afford to fly them and lose them. People fly and pimp T3 for PvP if they generally expect not to lose them. Either they are PvP fit doing PvE because of where they are and the risk they are taking, or they are so secure in their position that they worry not a shred.

edit: ..you also realize there isn't a ship in the game that has bonuses that low?


Transportation ships are different because they perform a role pretty much unique to these ships with little actual competition between the ships (It's rare to see haulers engaging other haulers in combat and as). But if CCP introduced T3 haulers making T1 and T2 obsolete I would call it a bad decission for Eve.

About you not using T3 ships: You cannot expect ALL players to be the same and what 1 player does cannot be regarded as a rule for the majority. I don't want to fly T3 a lot either, however you have to look into statistics and many people ONLY fly T3 because even if they cost a fortune they are pretty sure never to lose the ship as long they play somewhat safe and have their neutral logistic logged in... I see a lot of T3 users using these ships not because they are versatile, but because they are better at specializing. The effectual oposite of CCPs intentions...

Last: The T3 cruisers potentially have 1-2 bonus pr submod + 1 bonus on the hull itself giving it more bonus than other shiptypes. This is why I don't necesarily mind some bonus to be lower than other ships. Having more than double the qamount of bonuses than other ships makes it versatile and means the bonuses doesn't necesarily have to be as strong. You can see CCP are already changing the command link bonus to smaller than the bonus any other ship has.

Pinky
Zhao-luojao Shou
Doomheim
#136 - 2012-11-15 13:58:11 UTC
Fix Lag wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:


My job isn't to balance ships, so that's my personal opinion after having been a PvPer for best part of 10 years Smile




As soon as you log in to Eve Online, you engage in the mythical "Pee Vee Pee" that everyone so desperately seeks, so calling yourself a "PvPer" is entirely redundant and inherently a part of being a player in this game.



I have been reading a lot of post as of late due to mining being so boring and i have seen ppl say that this is only a pvp game. so mining is pvp?? what about scanning sites?? or hey if i make a hulk or a mining laser thats gotta be pvp.

as i have said before, let the flaming begin.
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#137 - 2012-11-15 15:38:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Vilnius Zar wrote:

This drake is just bad


You haven't even offered an explanation there. However that is the EXE doctrine Drake fit, considering the rest of your totally nonesensical sperging I'll trust the guys in EXE's over your opinion everyday.

there are only so many ways to fit a perma-MWD Drake...

Let's compare your fitting to the CFC fitting I saved half a year ago:
Drake, EXE wrote:
[Drake, Fittings.]
Capacitor Power Relay II
Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II

EM Ward Field II
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Thermic Dissipation Amplifier II
Kinetic Deflection Amplifier II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
[empty high slot]
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile

Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hornet EC-300 x5

Drake, CFC wrote:
[Drake, Perma-MWD Drake T2]
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Capacitor Power Relay II

Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Large Shield Extender II
EM Ward Amplifier II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
[empty high slot]
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile

Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hornet EC-300 x5


.EXE Drake:
Resistances (overheated): 84.7%, 80.8%, 85.6%, 79%
EHP (overheated): 90,658
Capacitor: Stable at 54%

CFC Drake:
Resistances (overheated): 81%, 76.9%, 82.7%, 85.6%
EHP (overheated): 101,237
Capacitor: Stable at 50%

I like your fitting better: As long as reps catch in time resistances are preferable to buffer.

My only point of criticism would be that the .EXE fitting allows you to replace the CPR with a PDS (stable at 44%, 1% over CPU) while still leaving enough of a safety margin to allow for non-perfect skills (stable at 37% with High Speed Maneuvering IV, 27min with High Speed Maneuvering IV and Energy Management IV).
The older CFC fitting would be barely cap stable using a PDS (at 34%) with much less room for non-perfect skills (18min with High Speed Maneuvering IV, 11min with High Speed Maneuvering IV and Energy Management IV).
I think you should make use of your increased cap stability compared to the reference fitting by using the PDS (especially if you use T1 launchers - you won't even need a cpu implant in that case).

As to your lossmail: The mid slots are arranged nicely but you are wasting some of the heatsink potential of your utility high by having it at the end of the rack.

I guess Vilnius just hates the concept of perma-MWD Drakes, not your particular fitting.

.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#138 - 2012-11-16 20:06:39 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:



Jesus!! -happy someone else here understands and flies T3's too.

o7


hehe thanks

I'm right behind you
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#139 - 2012-11-16 20:15:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Karrl Tian
CCP Falcon wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost....


My job isn't to balance ships, so that's my personal opinion after having been a PvPer for best part of 10 years Smile




Is that why your name is "Falcon?"
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#140 - 2012-11-16 20:36:02 UTC
Karrl Tian wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost....


My job isn't to balance ships, so that's my personal opinion after having been a PvPer for best part of 10 years Smile




Is that why your name is "Falcon?"

Wild speculation here, but maybe his name actually has nothing to do with the ship?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)