These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Argument is Over
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Julia Connor
P R O M E T H E U S
From Anoikis
#161 - 2011-12-09 02:52:31 UTC
Emily Poast wrote:
Yes, its over. If you continue to argue that there is no issue with Matar and/or projectiles after this, i just dont know what to say.

Now, how do we buff the other races up to par, without having to nerf Matar into the Stone Age?

EDIT: Just so my personal (and frankly unimportant) opinion is stated here: I have said many times: 1) we should play out the hybrid buff first, and 2) I DONT think Matar should be nerfed if it can be helped. I prefer buffs to balance.

Anyway, Here are the cold, hard facts:


CCP Diagoras wrote:
Arkady Sadik wrote:

Maybe we can get some current numbers from CCP? Weapons and ships used this year?

(Final blow is a bit tricky, as high RoF skews that a lot :-))


Final blows, weapon type, 2011 only, PVP only:

Group:
Projectile Weapon 1,455,484
Energy Weapon 392,605
Hybrid Weapon 250,858
Combat Drone 221,329
Heavy Missile 203,896

Type:
425mm AutoCannon II 388,602
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 207,378
200mm AutoCannon II 163,613
150mm Light AutoCannon II 144,349
720mm Howitzer Artillery II 136,879

By ship type scoring the final blow:
Hurricane 378,864
Drake 272,204
Sabre 124,472
Dramiel 118,128
Vagabond 117,136
Cynabal 113,905
Abaddon 80,659
Tengu 79,493
Harbinger 71,286
Rifter 67,721

So much for comparing different weapon systems and ships and then expecting to get similar results. IIRC, CCP went as far as to give the descriptions for each weapon system stating their pros and cons so if you are disappointed with the range of blasters, get what works for you and you should be fine.
If any weapon system could be used in any situation then I see no reason to create other weapon systems. Maybe for ***** and giggles?
one should be fine and to add that no one is nailed to a particular faction makes all your comparisons result into nothing but hilarity.

p.s. I'll admit that blasters were terribad before crucible mainly due to fitting issues and maybe close range performance on certain blaster platforms.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#162 - 2011-12-09 03:59:00 UTC
Thelron wrote:
Fair enough, no, HAMs aren't going to evaporate before -50% ammo-using 425s. Lasers probably *are* going to want a crystal change if you're moving between 1k and 13k on them, and are you really suggesting someone using Heavy Neutrons have a 12km-wide "actually effective" band with AM given that hands them a 1.5km base optimal and 2.5km base falloff?


I deliberately said nothing about blasters at all.
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#163 - 2011-12-09 05:47:14 UTC
Grog Barrel wrote:
Roosterton wrote:

OTOH, I will agree that the Sleip and Abso are quite OP compared to the NH/Astarte...



Wondering why you put the Absolution in the same box as the Sleipnir. Makes no sense at all.


Sleip is only really superior for active tanking, which collapses when 3+ targets start to shoot at you, at which point a buffer tank is far superior. Absos do the buffer tank + spank role considerably better than Sleips, imo. This also makes them more useful for gangs with logi support.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#164 - 2011-12-09 06:17:16 UTC
Actually. The Absolution has the better active defence. Even with low grade crystals on the Sleipnir. The Absolution is still superior. However, it does not come close in terms of damage output. but yeah! It takes High grade crystal's before the Sleipnir has a superior active tank.

The Claymore is better than both for direct combat solo. Mainly because of the it's immense tank. While out damaging a Absolution and even a Astarte because of damage selection. Cost to preformance there is no reason to buy a Sleipnir over a claymore solo, but it makes sense for fitting artillery and superior damage with logistics back up.

In fact it takes high grade crystals for any active shield tanking ship to out tank it's Armour counterpart. Been a long time myth that shield active tank is superior. It is in the sense the boost is instant. However you have to put alot into shield active ships (implants) to compete on sheer amount of damage mitigation of active armour ships.
ElCholo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#165 - 2011-12-09 06:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: ElCholo
m0cking bird wrote:
Actually. The Absolution has the better active defence. Even with low grade crystals on the Sleipnir. The Absolution is still superior. However, it does not come close in terms of damage output. but yeah! It takes High grade crystal's before the Sleipnir has a superior active tank.

The Claymore is better than both for direct combat solo. Mainly because of the it's immense tank. While out damaging a Absolution and even a Astarte because of damage selection. Cost to preformance there is no reason to buy a Sleipnir over a claymore solo, but it makes sense for fitting artillery and superior damage with logistics back up.

In fact it takes high grade crystals for any active shield tanking ship to out tank it's Armour counterpart. Been a long time myth that shield active tank is superior. It is in the sense the boost is instant. However you have to put alot into shield active ships (implants) to compete on sheer amount of damage mitigation of active armour ships.


I really have to wonder if you've ever flown a Claymore or/and a Sleipnir in combat. The Sleipnir is far and above the better PvP ship be it solo or in small gang warfare. I'm finding it hard to take anything you say seriously because of your claims otherwise.

I would love for you to show us this amazing Claymore that is so far better than either a Sleipnir or an Absolution in 1v1 or gang pvp. I'm starting to blelieve that you are simply trolling at this point.


Edit: Poor grammar.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#166 - 2011-12-09 11:12:14 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
See the problem with some pilots in this thread is. They're from northern coalition. So they're terrible @ this game and not worth the time. The question is so unbelievably ******** that it boggles the mind. Stick to blobbing Dual nano-Nightmares in the north (NCDOT has dropped Titans on me 4 times solo, which is 3 less than Russian related alliances) and leave pvp to those who know what they're talking about.

The level of retardation of that question. No wonder Lord is from this alliance of fails and rejects who think they're good. Not surprised he joined Raidon with this amount of retards around. Almost as bad as most PL pilots.

I tend to ignore your post anyway. Now I'll have to write you off completely, which is good because I need to preserve what sanity I have left. (can't believe I almost joined your alliance last year)


-proxyyyy
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#167 - 2011-12-09 19:18:52 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:
Actually. The Absolution has the better active defence. Even with low grade crystals on the Sleipnir. The Absolution is still superior. However, it does not come close in terms of damage output. but yeah! It takes High grade crystal's before the Sleipnir has a superior active tank.

The Claymore is better than both for direct combat solo. Mainly because of the it's immense tank. While out damaging a Absolution and even a Astarte because of damage selection. Cost to preformance there is no reason to buy a Sleipnir over a claymore solo, but it makes sense for fitting artillery and superior damage with logistics back up.

In fact it takes high grade crystals for any active shield tanking ship to out tank it's Armour counterpart. Been a long time myth that shield active tank is superior. It is in the sense the boost is instant. However you have to put alot into shield active ships (implants) to compete on sheer amount of damage mitigation of active armour ships.


Yeah, but once you do it is superior.

Slightly.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.