These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Very serious danger for all people who like to do missions in faction ships

First post
Author
Dirk Massive
D.O.O.M.
#341 - 2014-02-17 20:22:44 UTC
Oh wow, please stop posting on this thread or the OP will never stop. Either that or he will have a heart attack. Some people just don't get it.

**Bringing WAR and TERROR to a system near you.... **

Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#342 - 2014-02-17 20:35:34 UTC
I take it you were in a Marauder without a Bastion module or DCUII. If you had had both, 14-15 destroyers will NOT pop you--even in a .5 system--before CONCORD arrives to save your dumb ass.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Si1viu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#343 - 2014-02-18 14:34:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Si1viu
Anya Klibor wrote:
I take it you were in a Marauder without a Bastion module or DCUII. If you had had both, 14-15 destroyers will NOT pop you--even in a .5 system--before CONCORD arrives to save your dumb ass.

Yes, they used 24 destroyers and killed maradeurs with DCU and Bastion modules fitted. You cannot tank +20 destroyers, your only chance is to not be there when they land.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#344 - 2014-02-18 14:42:39 UTC
Si1viu wrote:
Anya Klibor wrote:
I take it you were in a Marauder without a Bastion module or DCUII. If you had had both, 14-15 destroyers will NOT pop you--even in a .5 system--before CONCORD arrives to save your dumb ass.

Yes, they used 24 destroyers and killed maradeurs with DCU and Bastion modules fitted. You cannot tank +20 destroyers, your only chance is to not be there when they land.

For 171k EHP (Quick fit on EVE-HQ) Maurader, gank numbers needed are in the linked Image.

http://imgur.com/3Ey2iNE

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.

Si1viu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#345 - 2014-02-18 14:48:24 UTC
It seems even 17 destroyes are enough to kill a well tanked Paladin in a 0.6 system. He had fitted t2 trimark, t2 1600 plate, 2 deadspace EANM, t2 DMC and deadspace large rep, so plenty of buffer tank and reps.
For the proof look on the JIis character killboard linked on first post, and search for this kill: "Lost in Korsiki (0.6) to JIis and 16 friends on 2014/02/08 20:40"
I cannot link the kill directly (forum rules) but is easy to find it.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#346 - 2014-02-18 15:09:24 UTC
Si1viu wrote:
It seems even 17 destroyes are enough to kill a well tanked Paladin in a 0.6 system. He had fitted t2 trimark, t2 1600 plate, 2 deadspace EANM, t2 DMC and deadspace large rep, so plenty of buffer tank and reps.
For the proof look on the JIis character killboard linked on first post, and search for this kill: "Lost in Korsiki (0.6) to JIis and 16 friends on 2014/02/08 20:40"
I cannot link the kill directly (forum rules) but is easy to find it.

Found it, yeah I was close 171,571ehp EVE-HQ or 155,487ehp EVE
Only way the numbers work is if he forgot to turn on his Bastion module (110k ehp) and the destroyers were closer to 350dps each.

http://imgur.com/6f6FuhG

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.

Si1viu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#347 - 2014-02-18 15:16:37 UTC
A well trained character flying a catalyst can put an astonishing 650-700 dps with overheat. Theoretical max dps for a catalyst using t2 guns with void ammo, with maxed skills and +5% damage implants is 756 DPS!!!

That is just sick and explain how they manage to destroy so fast battleships well tanked...

New security tags who make able players to use high skilled chars for suicide ganking activity without thrashing their security status makes things much worse...
Orlacc
#348 - 2014-02-18 15:45:23 UTC
Thread is too long. I am gathering that well-skilled and well-organized pilots are bad?

"Measure Twice, Cut Once."

Salvos Rhoska
#349 - 2014-02-18 19:54:20 UTC
Si1viu wrote:
A well trained character flying a catalyst can put an astonishing 650-700 dps with overheat...


ZOMG!

Maybe you should run your missions in one then?
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#350 - 2014-02-19 10:34:30 UTC
Si1viu wrote:
A well trained character flying a catalyst can put an astonishing 650-700 dps with overheat. Theoretical max dps for a catalyst using t2 guns with void ammo, with maxed skills and +5% damage implants is 756 DPS!!!

That is just sick and explain how they manage to destroy so fast battleships well tanked...

New security tags who make able players to use high skilled chars for suicide ganking activity without thrashing their security status makes things much worse...



Starting to think the only real "problem "here is the catalyst being OP :P


A damm destroyer having 3/4 of the DPS of a battleship is indeed a bit over the top.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Salvos Rhoska
#351 - 2014-02-19 10:46:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Kagura Nikon wrote:
A damm destroyer having 3/4 of the DPS of a battleship is indeed a bit over the top.



Consider a comparable IRL fleet battle for some perspective.

If 12 Destroyer class vessels are able to isolate and engage a single Battleship class, that crew is going home in row boats.
Epikurus
TheBlacklist
#352 - 2014-02-19 11:07:43 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
A damm destroyer having 3/4 of the DPS of a battleship is indeed a bit over the top.



Consider a comparable IRL fleet battle for some perspective.

If 12 Destroyer class vessels are able to isolate and engage a single Battleship class, that crew is going home in row boats.


Please don't do that. It's neither helpful, representative, nor historically accurate.
Salvos Rhoska
#353 - 2014-02-19 13:27:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Epikurus wrote:
Please don't do that. It's neither helpful, representative, nor historically accurate.


Its actually all three.
Helpful as it demonstrates the actual, real, scale of this kind of engagement.
Historically accurate in that there are many Battleship class vessels that got isolated or lost from their escorts and overwhelmed by smaller ship classes.
Representative in that it reminds of the fact that, nominally, lerger hulls are still vulnerablw to smaller ones. Especially in numbers.
Battleships are designed to fight large hulls primarily, although they can be fitted for small target specialisation.

This is what hull sizes are all about in EVE.

Not to mention that its 12 individual players vs 1, in which case the outcome should be obvious anyways.

These over-shiny ships have nothing to fear from the NPCs.
The risk is, and needs to be vested, in other players.
Epikurus
TheBlacklist
#354 - 2014-02-19 14:36:18 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Epikurus wrote:
Please don't do that. It's neither helpful, representative, nor historically accurate.


Its actually all three.


Let's see ...

Quote:

Helpful as it demonstrates the actual, real, scale of this kind of engagement.

There is no actual, real scale of this kind of engagement. This is a computer spaceship game and the ship classes are not analogous in either design, purpose or capability to the real world ships that happen to share the same name and which may have provided a very vague inspiration.

Quote:

Historically accurate in that there are many Battleship class vessels that got isolated or lost from their escorts and overwhelmed by smaller ship classes.


Please give one example of a battleship being destroyed by a swarm of destroyers (and you better not be thinking of the Hiei at Guadalcanal). There may be one but there are certainly not 'many'. And if you can find an example where the BS was PvE fit and running missions against computer controlled rats you'll get a bonus cookie.

Quote:

Representative in that it reminds of the fact that, nominally, lerger hulls are still vulnerablw to smaller ones. Especially in numbers.
Battleships are designed to fight large hulls primarily, although they can be fitted for small target specialisation.

This is what hull sizes are all about in EVE.


That's why it's not representative. Historical naval battleships were perfectly well equipped to destroy smaller ship classes. They were not 'balanced' in the same way as are eve spaceships.


Si1viu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#355 - 2014-02-19 15:02:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Si1viu
Orlacc wrote:
Thread is too long. I am gathering that well-skilled and well-organized pilots are bad?


When you are able to use them for suicide ganking in hisec without thrashing their security status, yes is a very serious drawback because you can use much less ships to kill better tanked targets. Before security tags was introduced in game, using an old and skilled character for suicide ganking cursed you with a long and painful repetitive ratting activity, to regain your access to high sec. Now that is at few clicks distance with new security tags.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
A damm destroyer having 3/4 of the DPS of a battleship is indeed a bit over the top.

Consider a comparable IRL fleet battle for some perspective.

If 12 Destroyer class vessels are able to isolate and engage a single Battleship class, that crew is going home in row boats.


Don't forget most important aspect, that destroyers attacks happen in high sec where a entity called "Concord" is supposed to put some limits. Now that limits don't work anymore as gankers can kill any ship anytime, no matter how well is tanked, and moreover at very low cost (destroyers are dirty cheap ships)
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#356 - 2014-02-19 15:21:11 UTC
Si1viu wrote:


Don't forget most important aspect, that destroyers attacks happen in high sec where a entity called "Concord" is supposed to put some limits. Now that limits don't work anymore as gankers can kill any ship anytime, no matter how well is tanked, and moreover at very low cost (destroyers are dirty cheap ships)


No, CONCORD exacts revenge (and if you play the game right, perhaps 'rescue'), it does not provide protection or "limits".

If you get ganked, you simply did something wrong and are playing the game poorly

Like missioning in a ship that's too blingy in an 0.5 system (0.5 should be renmaed "damn near low sec") without fitting proper tank and other defensive mods/equipment like micro jump drives, ECM drones, or a target spectrum breaker (TSB is good, if you can get 1 or 2 of the bad guys to unlock you can survive till CONCORD arrives) ect ect.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#357 - 2014-02-19 15:25:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
Epikurus wrote:


Please give one example of a battleship being destroyed by a swarm of destroyers (and you better not be thinking of the Hiei at Guadalcanal). There may be one but there are certainly not 'many'. And if you can find an example where the BS was PvE fit and running missions against computer controlled rats you'll get a bonus cookie.



This is 12 suicidal destroyers catching a stationary and potentially engaged battleship. it only took 1 U-boat to sink a stationary battleship in scapa flow (similar torpedoes, superior to aerial torpedoes).

Quote:


That's why it's not representative. Historical naval battleships were perfectly well equipped to destroy smaller ship classes. They were not 'balanced' in the same way as are eve spaceships.



it isn't representative to fly unescorted battleships, hence its really no problem if unescorted battleships are lost to gross numbers of suicidal escorts imo.

In any case, no they didn't perfect equipment for this task, and the secondary was usually fitted in such a way that only half can be brought to bear on the engaged side, and often couldn't fire astern in a chase (even if turret fited they may not necessary be safe to fire directly astern. a battle line was good at making the close ground pretty toasty, but a single battleship, has a lot of weaknesses to torpedo boats.

the whole point to the existence of destroyers, was to stop torpedo boats getting to range on the ships the destroyers were escorting. that they immediately took on both the role of torpedo boat and destroyer, didn't diminish the roles.
Epikurus
TheBlacklist
#358 - 2014-02-19 15:46:47 UTC
Tauranon wrote:


This is 12 suicidal destroyers catching a stationary and potentially engaged battleship. it only took 1 U-boat to sink a stationary battleship in scapa flow (similar torpedoes, superior to aerial torpedoes).

it isn't representative to fly unescorted battleships, hence its really no problem if unescorted battleships are lost to gross numbers of suicidal escorts imo.

In any case, no they didn't perfect equipment for this task, and the secondary was usually fitted in such a way that only half can be brought to bear on the engaged side, and often couldn't fire astern in a chase (even if turret fited they may not necessary be safe to fire directly astern. a battle line was good at making the close ground pretty toasty, but a single battleship, has a lot of weaknesses to torpedo boats.

the whole point to the existence of destroyers, was to stop torpedo boats getting to range on the ships the destroyers were escorting. that they immediately took on both the role of torpedo boat and destroyer, didn't diminish the roles.


I think I'm being misunderstood here. I have no problem whatsoever with battleships getting ganked by gangs of destroyers in EvE. I'm all for that and think the 'problems' identified by the OP are no problems at all (except possibly the Catalyst needs a touch of balancing). Despite that, I think the comparison with real life destroyers and battleships is worse than useless as a justification for the mechanics in EvE because there is hardly any analogy at all between EvE ships and real ships with the same name.
Si1viu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#359 - 2014-02-19 15:56:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Si1viu
Jenn aSide wrote:
Si1viu wrote:


Don't forget most important aspect, that destroyers attacks happen in high sec where a entity called "Concord" is supposed to put some limits. Now that limits don't work anymore as gankers can kill any ship anytime, no matter how well is tanked, and moreover at very low cost (destroyers are dirty cheap ships)


No, CONCORD exacts revenge (and if you play the game right, perhaps 'rescue'), it does not provide protection or "limits".

If you get ganked, you simply did something wrong and are playing the game poorly



YES. concord provide limits, first and most obvious limit, very easy too see even by a ******** guy, is the TIME limit.
You have just an limited amount of time at disposal to kill a target. That mean that you need less time when you have more dps on hands, or longer time when you have less dps.

Multiply dps with the time available till concord arrive and you will know what you are able to kill in that window of time. When a catalyst can do easy 700 dps, because you can use higher skilled chars, you are able to pull out 14000 damage from a damn destroyer before concord arrives and jam you...

Second thing, drop that hoax with the victim fault, meant just to give you a false sensation of security. You don't need to do anything wrong to die to 20 catalysts, if some guys want to kill you ATM you will die in pain and flames no matter what you do ;)
Salvos Rhoska
#360 - 2014-02-19 16:06:12 UTC
Epikurus wrote:
blah blah


None of that has reduced the validity of my observation, that in EVE as well as IRL, Battleships are vulnerable to smaller ships if isolated or without their Escorts.