These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New [scratch] Tiericide the T1 Battlecruisers.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kiran
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#101 - 2011-10-17 18:04:14 UTC
humm I can fit a pretty mean cyclone that can do 600 dps with a decent tank.

As for the drake over powered?
Its a flying brick crap damage, crap speed, yes its tank is awesome but it can still die easy.

I use to run forlorn sites in Catch in a cyclone. You just need to know how to fit it.
Kyneska
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#102 - 2011-10-17 19:36:04 UTC
drake is op so what. just train for it. apart from the drake this game pratically just revolves around minmatar.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#103 - 2011-10-17 21:28:04 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:

All of these ships are still very capable against their intended targets of T1 cruisers. The only reason that they're not used is because they're obsoleted by the tier 2s.


Okay, so I am saying, let us break down that Tier 1 vs Tier 2 barrier. Now do you recommend a nerf for the T2s or a buff for the T1s? Both? Meet them half way?


I would advise nerfing the tier 2s, rather than buffing the tier 1s. The reason for this is to increase the viability of T1 cruisers that aren't the Blackbird, and close-range HACs like the Deimos and Sacrilege, all of which are close to worthless in a world where tier 2 BCs exist.

Currently, the tier 2 BCs obsolete all cruisers that aren't the Blackbird. The Hurricane can fit to be faster and more agile, with more, better-tracking, longer-ranged DPS, and more EHP, than a Rupture. A Drake with 5 TDs is a better TD platform than an Arbitrator, with more EHP and much more DPS. With tier 2 BCs basically being better than cruisers at being cruisers, the reasons for flying a non-Blackbird cruiser can basically be summed up "disguising your own strength" - which acknowledges that you're flying a bad ship, and cost - and that cost difference is not nearly enough to justify the increase in performance from cruiser to BC.

Nerfing the tier 2s will move the game away from "battlecruiser spam everywhere" (Drakes and Hurricanes, really), increasing the range of ships seen in space and the variety of the resultant combat, as some current BC pilots will move away to BS and to cruisers. It will help new players, by making a cheaper, less SP-intensive class (cruisers) more viable.

If CCP chooses to go down the other route, of boosting the tier 1s, we simply engrain the current problems even further. The Deimos will still be worthless after the hybrid fix, as it competes with the Brutix. The Sacrilege will still largely be obsoleted by the Drake. T1 cruisers will become even less useful. Less variety means fewer tactics available. I don't think "Battlecruisers-Online" is good for the game.

But, I'm under no illusions here. CCP, in its new self-flagellation mode, will not nerf the most popular ship class in the game. But there's a reason why they're so popular.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#104 - 2011-10-18 00:33:06 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:

But, I'm under no illusions here. CCP, in its new self-flagellation mode, will not nerf the most popular ship class in the game. But there's a reason why they're so popular.


That was my first conclusion, which started this thread.

The trouble with nerfing BCs is that they are really the only cheap ship that you can gang against T3s. I won't even talk about battl ships, they **** me off.

I prefer a Cyclone to a Hurricane because for some reason, I get primaried almost every time, with a Large or X-Large booster, I can tank a gang or small fleet. Hurricane? I would be lucky to get more than 560 tank and sustained is better for PVE not the shortness of gang battles.

However, I do think that the Cyclone could do with another slot, either a mid for some prop mod or scrambler or a low slot for a little extra damage.

I think that the basic T1 cruisers for example, should become more heavy in their roles. For example, I can only fit 3 Mercoxit turrets to a Scythe but I can fit six to a Hurricane.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#105 - 2011-10-18 00:51:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Kiran wrote:
humm I can fit a pretty mean cyclone that can do 600 dps with a decent tank.


How decent is that tank?

I think this ship tells you the problems with a Cyclone. All skills at V and look what it needs in rigs and lows? Why does it need run with those mediums? Size of the guns?
Quote:

[Cyclone, DPS]
Damage Control II
Co-Processor II
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Gyrostabilizer II

X-Large C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I
'Copasetic' I Particle Field Acceleration
Y-S8 Hydrocarbon I Afterburners
Medium F-RX Prototype I Capacitor Boost, Cap Booster 800
Invulnerability Field II

220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
'Malkuth' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Torrent Assault Missile
'Malkuth' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Torrent Assault Missile
'Malkuth' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Torrent Assault Missile

Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defence Capacitor Safeguard I
Medium Core Defence Capacitor Safeguard I


Hammerhead II x4

489 DPS with drones
419 / 500 tank
needs power grid implants +1%
32K eHP

--------- "Over powered, that is what this next one is called -------------

[Cyclone, Cyclone: goddamn overpowered peice of spaceshit]
Pneumatic Stabilization Actuator I
Quantum Co-Processor I
F-aQ Phase Code Tracking Subroutines
Pseudoelectron Containment Field I

Invulnerability Field II
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Warp Disruptor II
Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Large Shield Booster II

220mm Medium Gallium I Machine Gun, EMP M
220mm Medium Gallium I Machine Gun, EMP M
220mm Medium Gallium I Machine Gun, EMP M
220mm Medium Gallium I Machine Gun, EMP M
220mm Medium Gallium I Machine Gun, EMP M
'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile
'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile
'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I

422 DPS
217 / 265 tank
33K eHP

"lol wut?"


--------------- C2 Sleepers? Forget C3 that Drakes can do! --------------------

[Cyclone, Cyclone cap test]
Damage Control II
Gyrostabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Co-Processor II

Dread Guristas Large Shield Booster
Photon Scattering Field II
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Invulnerability Field II
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800

425mm AutoCannon II, Fusion M
425mm AutoCannon II, Fusion M
425mm AutoCannon II, Fusion M
425mm AutoCannon II, Fusion M
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Fulmination Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Fulmination Assault Missile
E50 Prototype Energy Vampire
E50 Prototype Energy Vampire

Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I


Hammerhead II x4

402 DPS with drones (kill the frigates first, hence tracking enhancer)
525 sustained tank for as long as your magic pills are taking you on that magic carpet ride (fit about 10 - 13, so not long)
Need to vamps to last a bit longer.
37K eHP



Just what are you doing for this 600 DPS + "decent tank"?

You see? To me a "decent tank" starts from 500+

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#106 - 2011-10-18 08:10:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
What the hell are those Cyclone fits? Only one appears to be a PVP fit anyway:

Quote:
[Cyclone, Cyclone: goddamn overpowered peice of spaceshit]
Pneumatic Stabilization Actuator I
Quantum Co-Processor I
F-aQ Phase Code Tracking Subroutines
Pseudoelectron Containment Field I

Invulnerability Field II
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Warp Disruptor II
Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Large Shield Booster II

220mm Medium Gallium I Machine Gun, EMP M
220mm Medium Gallium I Machine Gun, EMP M
220mm Medium Gallium I Machine Gun, EMP M
220mm Medium Gallium I Machine Gun, EMP M
220mm Medium Gallium I Machine Gun, EMP M
'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile
'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile
'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I, Thunderbolt Heavy Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I

422 DPS
217 / 265 tank
33K eHP

"lol wut?"


Try this:

[Cyclone, New Setup 1]
Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II

Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
X-Large C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Invulnerability Field II

425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Gremlin Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Gremlin Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Gremlin Rocket

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I

Hobgoblin II x2
Hammerhead II x3

556 DPS, 220/454 DPS tanked. Overloading the Invuln takes you to 496 DPS tanked.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#107 - 2011-10-18 10:08:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mfume Apocal
Gypsio III wrote:
I don't think "Battlecruisers-Online" is good for the game.


I think it's good for the game that you have a shipclass that can act as a SP equalizer, is relatively cheap and tanky enough to survive well into two or three stupid mistakes before dying in a fire. If you want to fly a Sacri or Deimos and not die in a Scourge and EMP-fueled fire, you should perhaps learn to play EVE Online.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#108 - 2011-10-18 11:03:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
I don't think "Battlecruisers-Online" is good for the game.

Scourge and EMP-fueled fire, .

Omni, omni, omni! Lol

Gypsio - thanks btw

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#109 - 2011-10-18 12:53:15 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
I don't think "Battlecruisers-Online" is good for the game.


I think it's good for the game that you have a shipclass that can act as a SP equalizer, is relatively cheap and tanky enough to survive well into two or three stupid mistakes before dying in a fire.

Sounds like tech3 cruisers.

If anything, can we please have the same SP equalizer at supercapital class, too? Roll

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#110 - 2011-10-18 13:35:31 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
I don't think "Battlecruisers-Online" is good for the game.


I think it's good for the game that you have a shipclass that can act as a SP equalizer, is relatively cheap and tanky enough to survive well into two or three stupid mistakes before dying in a fire. If you want to fly a Sacri or Deimos and not die in a Scourge and EMP-fueled fire, you should perhaps learn to play EVE Online.


Agreed, but I just feel that cruisers would be better for that role. You could argue that cruisers aren't "tanky enough", but I might say that the reason that they aren't tanky enough is because they exist in a world full of tier 2 BCs.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#111 - 2011-10-18 15:00:15 UTC
*Battle* cruisers and command ships.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2011-10-18 15:33:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mfume Apocal
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Sounds like tech3 cruisers.

If anything, can we please have the same SP equalizer at supercapital class, too? Roll


I doubt very many, other than Pixel UA, can sustain the consistent loss of T3s, day in, day out.

I'm not sure why you direct the supercap comment at me; I don't own a supercap, I'm not in a supercap-heavy alliance and the only gangs that had supercaps were using them to kill station hugging carriers (working as intended!). Winter is coming, etc. and I'll be glad when it's here, because I'm sure there will be people who didn't get the memo and continue to be silly with very expensive ships.

Also, totally unrelated to this: how do you square a dislike for Drakes with being in DarkSide? Just curious.

Gypsio III wrote:
Agreed, but I just feel that cruisers would be better for that role. You could argue that cruisers aren't "tanky enough", but I might say that the reason that they aren't tanky enough is because they exist in a world full of tier 2 BCs.


The last time someone threw a T1 cruiser gang against one of BL's HAC gangs, we were literally dropping targets before they could be called, popping them one every 3 seconds (it was a very short fight). The existence of tier 2 BCs doesn't affect my Munnin's alpha; Tier 2 BCs aren't the reason cruisers get stomped, it's because cruisers are actually bad ships. And frankly, I don't want the isk bar raised on being effective in PvP; people are risk-averse enough (with tier 2 BCs) as-is. I'd hate to see how lame they get or how little they undock when the cheapest decent ship costs 150M to buy and fit, with a crap insurance payout to compensate.
Insane Randomness
Stellar Pilgrimage
#113 - 2011-10-18 17:24:06 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Cypermethren wrote:

Try taking that drake into a C3 or up and see just how far you get......
.

Wrong

Corp mate's ship

- 7x Heavy Missile Launcher I (I don't know why he isn't using Meta)
- 1x Drone Link Augmentor
- 2x Large Shield Extender II
- 3x Shield Recharger
- 1x Invulnerability Field II
- 4x Shield Power Relay II
- 3x Medium Core Defence Field Purger I
- 5x Hobgoblin II

As you can see a pretty horrible fit. He does Druze solo. I have just tried to help him in the C3 and had to keep warping in and out. I agree it should take a battle ship or a T3. He stayed in, didn't break a sweat and did way more damage than I did.


just so you know, thats a 650 DPS passive tank, it should be able to run C3's. And you don't know why he's not using meta? Why would he, he's got the skills for T2 which are faster, hold more missiles, so you don't need ot reload all the time, and you can use the uber epic T2 missiles, which the precision missiles can hit frigs perfectly, or nye on close to perfect, and the heavy damage dealers mean way more firepower on the larger targets. This dude is doing the drake right.

Still prefer the hurricane much more. Fastest damn thing I've ever known for it's size.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#114 - 2011-10-18 17:40:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Tier 2 BCs aren't the reason cruisers get stomped, it's because cruisers are actually bad ships.


No, this doesn't make sense. Balance is relative, not absolute. If T1 cruisers are bad, which they are, then they are bad relative to something else; the existence of another ship class makes them bad. That "something else" is, in this case, the other ships that are used in the same roles as cruisers.

You mention HACs, but HACs aren't really used in the same roles as cruisers. Your average cruiser is (was?) set up for a close-range fight, while your typical HAC is set up to operate at considerably greater range. Well, I'm assuming that you weren't flying a gang of autoMuninns here, right? In any case, the price difference between cruiser and HAC is far greater than between cruiser and BC, and while price isn't a primary balance factor, nor can it be ignored.

Instead, the class that is used in the same role as cruisers is battlecruisers. Both cruisers and BCs are generally used as cheap, disposable, close-ish range general-purpose PVP ships. The problem is that the BCs are so much better than cruisers in every field, have taken every role that cruisers had, even in terms of mobility and tracking, that cruisers are now dismissed as "bad" in an absolute sense, even though absolute badness is a logical impossibility.

Anyway, presumably you would advocate boosting tier 1 BCs to tier 2 levels, on the basis that T1 BCs aren't balanced or useful in a world where the tier 2s exist. That's a perfectly respectable opinion - but what would you do to make cruisers balanced and useful? Boost them all too? It wouldn't be enough to just do Tiericide on cruisers, the class need significant all-round help to give them a role in a world where BCs exist. But this would make destroyers and frigates less viable...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#115 - 2011-10-18 19:42:51 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Nerf the Drake. Nerf the Hurricane. Nerf all tier 2 BCs.

They're too common. They obsolete tier 1 BCs, cruisers and close-range HACs like the Deimos and Sacrilege. Nerf them to tier 1 levels and let's get some variety back, rather than just another tier 2 BC blob.


Even the trolls come up. LOL. The Drake is fine. It is only OP because it is easy to figure out how to fit well, easy to fly, and easy to overcome server lag. The other ships require some careful thought about fitting well, but they can be fit very well. Now that Time Dilation is on its way, the active tank will stand as good a chance through server lag as the passive one, hps for hps. In a sense, CCP has correctly chosen TiDi as a way to balance all other ships with passive tankers and make pvp battles fair again.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#116 - 2011-10-18 19:47:39 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:

Also, totally unrelated to this: how do you square a dislike for Drakes with being in DarkSide? Just curious.

I treated fugly drakes as OP long before I joined [DarkSide.] and see no reason why would I change my mind upon joining.

Moreover - I for one do use Machariel yet this doesn't prevent me from saying it's OP.

I hope that helps.

Quote:
Even the trolls come up. LOL. The Drake is fine. It is only OP because it is easy to figure out how to fit well, easy to fly, and easy to overcome server lag. The other ships require some careful thought about fitting well, but they can be fit very well.

lol

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#117 - 2011-10-18 21:34:14 UTC
Insane Randomness wrote:

Corp mate's ship

- 7x Heavy Missile Launcher I (I don't know why he isn't using Meta) <----- T1 not Meta
- 1x Drone Link Augmentor
- 2x Large Shield Extender II
- 3x Shield Recharger <----- T1 not Meta
- 1x Invulnerability Field II
- 4x Shield Power Relay II
- 3x Medium Core Defence Field Purger I
- 5x Hobgoblin II

just so you know, thats a 650 DPS passive tank, it should be able to run C3's. And you don't know why he's not using meta? Why would he, he's got the skills for T2 which ....

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2011-10-19 01:29:57 UTC
******* foums ate my first post.

Gypsio III wrote:
No, this doesn't make sense. Balance is relative, not absolute. If T1 cruisers are bad, which they are, then they are bad relative to something else; the existence of another ship class makes them bad. That "something else" is, in this case, the other ships that are used in the same roles as cruisers.


Yes, this is true. Placed alongside BS and HACs in terms of EHP/DPS they are positively awful, a single competent bomb run will wipe them out (which BCs actually can sustain, if barely), they can't realistically tank fighters in orbit, etc. etc.

Quote:
You mention HACs, but HACs aren't really used in the same roles as cruisers. Your average cruiser is (was?) set up for a close-range fight, while your typical HAC is set up to operate at considerably greater range. Well, I'm assuming that you weren't flying a gang of autoMuninns here, right? In any case, the price difference between cruiser and HAC is far greater than between cruiser and BC, and while price isn't a primary balance factor, nor can it be ignored.


lolno, automunnins suck ******* penis.

People do run Arty Rupture and Sniper Caracal gangs, from what I've seen they do pretty well against kitchen-sink rabble fleets. But I compare apples to apples. Can a competent nano-Rupture pilot ever beat a competent Vaga pilot without some form of outside advantage, i.e. sentries, rat DPS/EWAR, Vaga being gloriously AFK, etc. Can he ever engage the same range of targets as that competent Vaga? Will a competent arty Rupture gang beat a competent Muninn gang? Or Tempest? Or Hellcat? Or literally any other common (non-BC) fleet comp out there?

And it's silly to say you can't ignore price in balancing, of course you can. It is good for the game that those who are barely able to fund PvP can still repeatedly kill those flying moneyboats, whether it's a Dram losing to a trio of Rifters, a Loki dying to two Drakes or a Aeon folding to thirty Tempests.

Quote:
Instead, the class that is used in the same role as cruisers is battlecruisers. Both cruisers and BCs are generally used as cheap, disposable, close-ish range general-purpose PVP ships. The problem is that the BCs are so much better than cruisers in every field, have taken every role that cruisers had, even in terms of mobility and tracking, that cruisers are now dismissed as "bad" in an absolute sense, even though absolute badness is a logical impossibility.


My views are relative, but holistic. In a gang setting, if a ship can't sport at least 50K EHP (shield tanking, it's more for armor) and 2K alpha or 600 DPS, I have no use for it. Unless it bubbles. That's a fairly rigid set of standards that isn't going to change unless CCP does a radical overhaul of combat mechanics and weapon attributes.

Quote:
Anyway, presumably you would advocate boosting tier 1 BCs to tier 2 levels, on the basis that T1 BCs aren't balanced or useful in a world where the tier 2s exist. That's a perfectly respectable opinion - but what would you do to make cruisers balanced and useful? Boost them all too? It wouldn't be enough to just do Tiericide on cruisers, the class need significant all-round help to give them a role in a world where BCs exist. But this would make destroyers and frigates less viable...


You presume wrong. In my opinion, Tier 1 BCs should stay crap, they are Tier 1. Whether or not the tier system is a good idea is a separate discussion. Also, you couldn't possibly make frigs and destroyers (esp. T1) any less viable than they are now: HACs chew up them up at hilariously lop-sided rates and even BSes can deal with them fine under realistic medium gang conditions (blobs spread out slightly to lower transversal and the cloud of Warriors instapop them).

In my perfect world, the (potentially) decent cruiser (Omen, Thorax, Caracal) would get more PG and baseline shield/armor, some of them are hilariously under-gridded for what is considered a standard tank and gank setup and even their T2 counterparts are so squishy you have to be selective in what you choose to fight in them.
uglybass
Spatial Idiocity Inc.
#119 - 2011-10-19 11:24:20 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:


Quote:
Damage Types
Sleepers do omni damage. Missiles do two types and their lasers do the other two types. This means you will need to set up your ship for balanced resists.

Tentative Sleeper resists: Armor is 70/70/70/70 with Structure being 0/0/0/0.



On the surface, I'd say you're better off keeping the bonuses you get for kinetic.


I am not going to go into the technical on this with graphs and such. I don't know which is better for a Drake. For a Cyclone, the Havocs are better:

Base Shield Damage - 76.8
Base Armour Damage - 172.8

Scourge
Base shield Damage - 115.2
-(default for people as it is an all round missile but sleepers have no shields)
Base Armour Damage - 144.0


This is little bit OT, but no-one seemed to correct this so I will.
This base armor damage is calculated against 60/35/10/25 "base armor resistance" (which actually minmatars have).
because sleepers tank 70/70/70/70 it doesn't matter which kind of missiles you use (if you are not getting racial dmg bonus, eg. drake with kine)
Jenshae Chiroptera
#120 - 2011-10-19 17:42:33 UTC
uglybass wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I don't know which is better for a Drake.For a Cyclone, t

Base Armour Damage - 172.8



, eg. drake with kine)

...

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.