These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Dev Blog: CSM December summit – meeting minutes are out

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#561 - 2012-01-28 06:17:58 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:

1. /me says hi to EM damage...oh wait the only thing that does pure EM is missiles and the only bc that's going to rock missiles is the drake, we doing drake vs drake damage profiles now? cause I thought we were doing drake vs other bc's.... You are welcome to drop the invul's and go for whatever specific you want, but the point is that the projectile and hybrid can easily swap ammo out and then attack whatever your current hole is while still getting to use all of their ships bonus. The drake can't do that because to not use kinetic means to ignore half of the ships bonuses. I will grant you that the laser boats have sorta the same problem being stuck with EM/Therm but that's not a reason to nerf the drake's shield bonus. Personally I would love to swap out the kinetic bonus on a drake for a rof and create some different ammo types for the laser boats so then everyone could swap ammo as they desired and still get to use all the ships bonuses, but that isn't on the agenda atm is it?

2.Then the fit you had saved was utter nonsense to begin with. Your drake fit can't do enough dps to kill my drake fit thou can it? But My drake fit even with ****** dps can still kill your drake fit or force you to warp away...end of the day I win, who's the moron?

3. If you would keep up with the conversation instead of trying to bring my bio into it then maybe it would have dawned on you that all the non-missile bc's do their damage as soon as they fire the weapon and dont have to wait for a missile to travel to its target thus their damage can be coordinated to hit all at once while you can't do that with a missile due to everyone not being the exact same distance from the target much less the same missile velocity from skills/fit. With incoming dps able to be timed to be all at once from the non-missile weapons ehp is MUCH more important than just pure resists or you will instapop.


1. Whatever, run a photon or a Second invuln. Don't care too much. The point about the resists is that all that Raw HP and regen doesn't help you once the Logi turned on. You keep conflating fleets and terribad Solo fits.

2. Now that you bring up 1v1, my Cane could absolutely demolish your Drake before you killed me. Neuts FTW. And it's because you're slow (so I can rock Hail), lack a point (so there's no actual way you can kill me), and have no DPS to kill me before I cap you out.

In a fleet, you still want DPS to kill the opposing fleet.

3. You really think the tenth of a second difference due to distance is gonna cause bigger problems than the timing issues EVERY fleet has with switching primaries? Really?

1. "All that raw hp and regen" equals to 20959 shield hp and a shield regen of 215.93 per sec peak. The reason my fit works is from effective regen not just raw regen. Effective regen combines raw regen plus resists. That's why logi works better on me than on you.

2. I challenge you to a 1v1 anytime in any cane fit vs my tank drake fit. Because even with no cap I still get an effective regen of 603.73 omni. I may or may not force your cane away but you wont kill my TANK drake.

3. ***non-missile fleet***
FC-"everyone target tags 1-5"
Fleet-*targets 1-5*
FC- (after eveyone is done targeting thus not letting the enemy know which of those targets will get hit first)"Shoot 1"
Fleet-*fires at tag 1*....tag 1 instapops because everyone clicked fire at the same time thus putting all their volleys on it at the same time and the enemy logi's had to watch 5 different people not knowing which to put reps on until it was too late.
***missile fleet***
FC-"everyone target tags 1-5"
Fleet-*targets 1-5*
FC- (after eveyone is done targeting thus not letting the enemy know which of those targets will get hit first)"Shoot 1"
Fleet-*fires at tag 1*....tag 1 calls out he's being red boxed, logi's have 13 secs (assuming drakes are using their range to their advantage like the CSM are complaining about) to get staggered reps on tag 1. Even with the missile fleet firing at once due to the travel time and not being the exact same range from the target the missiles damage is split over about a 2.5-3 sec time period. Thus giving the staggered reps time to heal some of the damage done to the tag 1 thus potentially saving his ship.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#562 - 2012-01-28 06:23:44 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

PvE Ship Balance doesn't actually matter. Sorry. Nobody cares what people run PvE content in.

All that matters there is relative reward for various activities.

Drakes are too versatile in PvP. And that's where balance between ships actually matters.


And here, for all to read is my primary issue with everyone who sees PvP as the Be All and End All of EVE… and this include the current CSM;

“PvE Ship Balance doesn't actually matter. Sorry. Nobody cares what people run PvE content in.”

I agree in that PvE fits are not a balance fit, they fit to tank against and DPS for well known and static (unchanging) ship fits. NPCs fit one way and one way only for their race/faction/ship . The only real changes are target switching and the addition of web, nuet and scram as the missions get harder, but they still have very well understood tanks and DPS output.. so PvE fits are often cookie cutter fits. I personally reached a point where my Drake fit was perfected against C2 Sleepers so much so that I could run sites solo & (almost) AFK…



I wasn't claiming PvP is the only valid "endgame." Just that I'm perfectly ok with having a "best" PvE ship, so long as the income it brings in is at whatever the current acceptable level is. I don't care if someone doesn't like that they need to change their style of flying to max out their income. It just doesn't matter.

Having a "best" PvP ship is disasterous (as we saw with Supers).

That's the balance I'm getting at.

RubyPorto wrote:

PvE Ship Balance doesn't actually matter. Sorry. Nobody cares what people run PvE content in.

All that matters there is relative reward for various activities.

Drakes are too versatile in PvP. And that's where balance between ships actually matters.
Saying no one cares about PVE and that it doesn't matter IS claiming that PVP is the "Be All and End All of EVE"....which is very much so wrong.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#563 - 2012-01-28 06:33:39 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
]Saying no one cares about PVE and that it doesn't matter IS claiming that PVP is the "Be All and End All of EVE"....which is very much so wrong.


That's true. Which is why I'm glad I didn't say that.

I said "Nobody cares about PvE Balance. If, by some accident, there are PvE ships that excel in different areas, great. But is it going to break the game if everyone uses the same ship to PvE because it's the best in every situation? No.

Is it going to break the game if everyone uses the same ship to PvP because it's the best in every situation? Probably. Because then there would be no way to fly smart and hit above your weight class.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#564 - 2012-01-28 07:44:43 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
]Saying no one cares about PVE and that it doesn't matter IS claiming that PVP is the "Be All and End All of EVE"....which is very much so wrong.


That's true. Which is why I'm glad I didn't say that.

I said "Nobody cares about PvE Balance. If, by some accident, there are PvE ships that excel in different areas, great. But is it going to break the game if everyone uses the same ship to PvE because it's the best in every situation? No.

Is it going to break the game if everyone uses the same ship to PvP because it's the best in every situation? Probably. Because then there would be no way to fly smart and hit above your weight class.

PVE balance and PVE are the same thing. PVE affects PVP just like PVP affects PVE. To affect the "balance" of one is to affect the "balance" of the other. Oh and the 80-90% living in highsec not PVP'ing in null apparently care alot...cause they PVE it up in high.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#565 - 2012-01-28 07:53:56 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
]Saying no one cares about PVE and that it doesn't matter IS claiming that PVP is the "Be All and End All of EVE"....which is very much so wrong.


That's true. Which is why I'm glad I didn't say that.

I said "Nobody cares about PvE Balance. If, by some accident, there are PvE ships that excel in different areas, great. But is it going to break the game if everyone uses the same ship to PvE because it's the best in every situation? No.

Is it going to break the game if everyone uses the same ship to PvP because it's the best in every situation? Probably. Because then there would be no way to fly smart and hit above your weight class.

PVE balance and PVE are the same thing. PVE affects PVP just like PVP affects PVE. To affect the "balance" of one is to affect the "balance" of the other. Oh and the 80-90% living in highsec not PVP'ing in null apparently care alot...cause they PVE it up in high.


Tell me, why does there need to be different ships of equal efficacy in PvE (a state that doesn't really exist atm*)?

*NM for Sansha(+other EM hole rats) and Incursions, Mach for else.

I think it's likely that we're using "balance" to mean different things in this context. In a PvE setting, two ships in balance with each other are ones who earn very similar amounts of isk/hr (the only important PvE metric). Right now, the NM and Mach are roughly balanced with each other, and enormously better than the rest.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#566 - 2012-01-28 08:38:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Xorv
Omega Flames wrote:
No one is forcing the PVP'ers to PVE either ya know....


Seriously? How many players in EVE genuinely fund their characters solely from combat PvP? PvE is a necessity for most to be able to PvP, and those few that manage to keep themselves sufficiently in the ISK from PvP, would have earned way more for their time and effort from High Sec PvE.


Omega Flames wrote:
. Oh and the 80-90% living in highsec not PVP'ing in null apparently care alot...cause they PVE it up in high.


80-90% where did you pull that number from? BTW the stats provided by CCP are for characters not players. Many of those High Sec numbers are alts of players from non High Sec. See my first comment for why.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#567 - 2012-01-28 09:55:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Omega Flames
Xorv wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
No one is forcing the PVP'ers to PVE either ya know....


Seriously? How many players in EVE genuinely fund their characters solely from combat PvP? PvE is a necessity for most to be able to PvP, and those few that manage to keep themselves sufficiently in the ISK from PvP, would have earned way more for their time and effort from High Sec PvE.


Omega Flames wrote:
. Oh and the 80-90% living in highsec not PVP'ing in null apparently care alot...cause they PVE it up in high.


80-90% where did you pull that number from? BTW the stats provided by CCP are for characters not players. Many of those High Sec numbers are alts of players from non High Sec. See my first comment for why.

1. can you say suicide gankers? cause from the looks of the kill stats in jita vs all of null combined i'd say they earn plenty from pvp, guess you arent doing it right.

2. ya cause ratting in nullsec never made me 40+ mil isk per hour (in a drake, i wonder what a bs could do), no wonder so many nullsec'ers pve in empire..../rolls eyes. Only reason a nullsec guy needs 1 alt in high is as a market/hauling alt to buy stuff and get it rolling along whatever logistics system your alliance has in place to your other chars in null.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#568 - 2012-01-28 10:18:50 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
]Saying no one cares about PVE and that it doesn't matter IS claiming that PVP is the "Be All and End All of EVE"....which is very much so wrong.


That's true. Which is why I'm glad I didn't say that.

I said "Nobody cares about PvE Balance. If, by some accident, there are PvE ships that excel in different areas, great. But is it going to break the game if everyone uses the same ship to PvE because it's the best in every situation? No.

Is it going to break the game if everyone uses the same ship to PvP because it's the best in every situation? Probably. Because then there would be no way to fly smart and hit above your weight class.

PVE balance and PVE are the same thing. PVE affects PVP just like PVP affects PVE. To affect the "balance" of one is to affect the "balance" of the other. Oh and the 80-90% living in highsec not PVP'ing in null apparently care alot...cause they PVE it up in high.


Tell me, why does there need to be different ships of equal efficacy in PvE (a state that doesn't really exist atm*)?

*NM for Sansha(+other EM hole rats) and Incursions, Mach for else.

I think it's likely that we're using "balance" to mean different things in this context. In a PvE setting, two ships in balance with each other are ones who earn very similar amounts of isk/hr (the only important PvE metric). Right now, the NM and Mach are roughly balanced with each other, and enormously better than the rest.

The drake isnt a bs thou so it can't solo all the lv4's or run incursions like those 2 can. The drake really shines as a transition point between lv3's and as an intro to lv4's. Low skill chars can solo lv3's while high skill chars can tank the easier lv4's and still put out decent dps, pair a high skill drake to tank with a high skill char to dps and all lv4's can be done quickly. The drake is cheap enough to be affordable when starting lv3's but tankable enough to introduce the easier lv4's when solo. I will always recommend someone spends a week or 2 training drake related skills until they decide and train for whatever bs they go for to solo all lv4's.

The drake still isnt the best in every situation in pvp. I've made so many examples of that that if you still cant see past your apparent hatred of the carebears who love the drake then I give up.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#569 - 2012-01-28 14:06:34 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:

The drake isnt a bs thou so it can't solo all the lv4's or run incursions like those 2 can. The drake really shines as a transition point between lv3's and as an intro to lv4's. Low skill chars can solo lv3's while high skill chars can tank the easier lv4's and still put out decent dps, pair a high skill drake to tank with a high skill char to dps and all lv4's can be done quickly. The drake is cheap enough to be affordable when starting lv3's but tankable enough to introduce the easier lv4's when solo. I will always recommend someone spends a week or 2 training drake related skills until they decide and train for whatever bs they go for to solo all lv4's.

The drake still isnt the best in every situation in pvp. I've made so many examples of that that if you still cant see past your apparent hatred of the carebears who love the drake then I give up.


I don't care what it does in PvE and I never claimed it's the best in every situation. What the drake is is too good in too many PvP situations. That's a problem. That's why it'll likely get some adjustment.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#570 - 2012-01-29 01:17:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Omega Flames
RubyPorto wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:

The drake isnt a bs thou so it can't solo all the lv4's or run incursions like those 2 can. The drake really shines as a transition point between lv3's and as an intro to lv4's. Low skill chars can solo lv3's while high skill chars can tank the easier lv4's and still put out decent dps, pair a high skill drake to tank with a high skill char to dps and all lv4's can be done quickly. The drake is cheap enough to be affordable when starting lv3's but tankable enough to introduce the easier lv4's when solo. I will always recommend someone spends a week or 2 training drake related skills until they decide and train for whatever bs they go for to solo all lv4's.

The drake still isnt the best in every situation in pvp. I've made so many examples of that that if you still cant see past your apparent hatred of the carebears who love the drake then I give up.


I don't care what it does in PvE and I never claimed it's the best in every situation. What the drake is is too good in too many PvP situations. That's a problem. That's why it'll likely get some adjustment.

CSM Minutes wrote:
The Drake: The CSM and CCP both acknowledged the need to rebalance the Drake, which ‘does everything too well’. CCP is considering giving it a more offensive role like a Raven or Caracal where it would lose the shield resistance bonus and the 5% Kinetic damage bonus and instead gain a rate of fire bonus and a missile velocity bonus. The CSM vehemently approved of this idea. CCP and the CSM also agreed that this possible change to the Drake would help add more uniqueness to the Nighthawk, which is presently overshadowed entirely by the Drake.


You have constantly during this entire debate been agreeing with the statements of the CSM and CCP. My point is to leave it alone because I see all it's strengths and flaws in both PVE and PVP. You have vehemently rejected any concern of the impact changing the drake would have on the PVE aspect of EVE and have been whining cause it has a better tank than the other bc's so therefore it must automatically be a better ship while trying to say it can do the same damage output. I have proven multiple times now how to best tank a fleet of drakes while you have not provided any counter a drake fleet would have vs the non-missile instantaneous damage bc's other than "it has a better tank". Well it NEEDS that better tank because it's missile travel/distance dependant damage is not as effective as the other bc's (read my methods on how to tank drake fleets). By agreeing with the CSM and CCP on their proposed change you are in fact agreeing and therefore stating "rebalance the Drake, which ‘does everything too well’ (quote from minutes above)". So yes you are saying the drake does it all too well and I have proven it's fundamental difference in how it damages a target can be easily countered in PVP which is your's, CCP's, and the CSM's only apparent concerns.
Cash Stalker
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#571 - 2012-01-30 21:50:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Cash Stalker
Well... when players have to wait to log on its time to make a 2ed live server. Shocked
the server is full.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#572 - 2012-01-31 02:29:15 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Omega Flames wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:

The drake isnt a bs thou so it can't solo all the lv4's or run incursions like those 2 can. The drake really shines as a transition point between lv3's and as an intro to lv4's. Low skill chars can solo lv3's while high skill chars can tank the easier lv4's and still put out decent dps, pair a high skill drake to tank with a high skill char to dps and all lv4's can be done quickly. The drake is cheap enough to be affordable when starting lv3's but tankable enough to introduce the easier lv4's when solo. I will always recommend someone spends a week or 2 training drake related skills until they decide and train for whatever bs they go for to solo all lv4's.

The drake still isnt the best in every situation in pvp. I've made so many examples of that that if you still cant see past your apparent hatred of the carebears who love the drake then I give up.


I don't care what it does in PvE and I never claimed it's the best in every situation. What the drake is is too good in too many PvP situations. That's a problem. That's why it'll likely get some adjustment.

CSM Minutes wrote:
The Drake: The CSM and CCP both acknowledged the need to rebalance the Drake, which ‘does everything too well’. CCP is considering giving it a more offensive role like a Raven or Caracal where it would lose the shield resistance bonus and the 5% Kinetic damage bonus and instead gain a rate of fire bonus and a missile velocity bonus. The CSM vehemently approved of this idea. CCP and the CSM also agreed that this possible change to the Drake would help add more uniqueness to the Nighthawk, which is presently overshadowed entirely by the Drake.


You have constantly during this entire debate been agreeing with the statements of the CSM and CCP. My point is to leave it alone because I see all it's strengths and flaws in both PVE and PVP. You have vehemently rejected any concern of the impact changing the drake would have on the PVE aspect of EVE and have been whining cause it has a better tank than the other bc's so therefore it must automatically be a better ship while trying to say it can do the same damage output. I have proven multiple times now how to best tank a fleet of drakes while you have not provided any counter a drake fleet would have vs the non-missile instantaneous damage bc's other than "it has a better tank". Well it NEEDS that better tank because it's missile travel/distance dependant damage is not as effective as the other bc's (read my methods on how to tank drake fleets). By agreeing with the CSM and CCP on their proposed change you are in fact agreeing and therefore stating "rebalance the Drake, which ‘does everything too well’ (quote from minutes above)". So yes you are saying the drake does it all too well and I have proven it's fundamental difference in how it damages a target can be easily countered in PVP which is your's, CCP's, and the CSM's only apparent concerns.


The Drake has a significantly (~50%) better tank at a negligibly (~10%) smaller damage output. There are issues with missiles that I am leaving out, just like there are issues with turrets that you are leaving out. I think the issues result in a similar reduction in applied DPS in real situations.

That is my problem with it.

You countered with an absolutely useless all-tank drake fit, lacking even the basics of a point and prop mod. No idea where you wanted to go with that.

EDIT: Oh, I've been agreeing with the CSM's positions because I think those positions I agree with would improve the game.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#573 - 2012-01-31 08:22:14 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:

The drake isnt a bs thou so it can't solo all the lv4's or run incursions like those 2 can. The drake really shines as a transition point between lv3's and as an intro to lv4's. Low skill chars can solo lv3's while high skill chars can tank the easier lv4's and still put out decent dps, pair a high skill drake to tank with a high skill char to dps and all lv4's can be done quickly. The drake is cheap enough to be affordable when starting lv3's but tankable enough to introduce the easier lv4's when solo. I will always recommend someone spends a week or 2 training drake related skills until they decide and train for whatever bs they go for to solo all lv4's.

The drake still isnt the best in every situation in pvp. I've made so many examples of that that if you still cant see past your apparent hatred of the carebears who love the drake then I give up.


I don't care what it does in PvE and I never claimed it's the best in every situation. What the drake is is too good in too many PvP situations. That's a problem. That's why it'll likely get some adjustment.

CSM Minutes wrote:
The Drake: The CSM and CCP both acknowledged the need to rebalance the Drake, which ‘does everything too well’. CCP is considering giving it a more offensive role like a Raven or Caracal where it would lose the shield resistance bonus and the 5% Kinetic damage bonus and instead gain a rate of fire bonus and a missile velocity bonus. The CSM vehemently approved of this idea. CCP and the CSM also agreed that this possible change to the Drake would help add more uniqueness to the Nighthawk, which is presently overshadowed entirely by the Drake.


You have constantly during this entire debate been agreeing with the statements of the CSM and CCP. My point is to leave it alone because I see all it's strengths and flaws in both PVE and PVP. You have vehemently rejected any concern of the impact changing the drake would have on the PVE aspect of EVE and have been whining cause it has a better tank than the other bc's so therefore it must automatically be a better ship while trying to say it can do the same damage output. I have proven multiple times now how to best tank a fleet of drakes while you have not provided any counter a drake fleet would have vs the non-missile instantaneous damage bc's other than "it has a better tank". Well it NEEDS that better tank because it's missile travel/distance dependant damage is not as effective as the other bc's (read my methods on how to tank drake fleets). By agreeing with the CSM and CCP on their proposed change you are in fact agreeing and therefore stating "rebalance the Drake, which ‘does everything too well’ (quote from minutes above)". So yes you are saying the drake does it all too well and I have proven it's fundamental difference in how it damages a target can be easily countered in PVP which is your's, CCP's, and the CSM's only apparent concerns.


The Drake has a significantly (~50%) better tank at a negligibly (~10%) smaller damage output. There are issues with missiles that I am leaving out, just like there are issues with turrets that you are leaving out. I think the issues result in a similar reduction in applied DPS in real situations.

That is my problem with it.

You countered with an absolutely useless all-tank drake fit, lacking even the basics of a point and prop mod. No idea where you wanted to go with that.

EDIT: Oh, I've been agreeing with the CSM's positions because I think those positions I agree with would improve the game.

What issues are there with turrents I am leaving out?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#574 - 2012-02-01 01:07:47 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


The Drake has a significantly (~50%) better tank at a negligibly (~10%) smaller damage output. There are issues with missiles that I am leaving out, just like there are issues with turrets that you are leaving out. I think the issues result in a similar reduction in applied DPS in real situations.

That is my problem with it.

You countered with an absolutely useless all-tank drake fit, lacking even the basics of a point and prop mod. No idea where you wanted to go with that.

EDIT: Oh, I've been agreeing with the CSM's positions because I think those positions I agree with would improve the game.

What issues are there with turrents I am leaving out?


Falloff, Tracking. You focus on "ooh, drakes don't do their full dps anyway" while ignoring that Neither do turrets

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#575 - 2012-02-01 07:52:56 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


The Drake has a significantly (~50%) better tank at a negligibly (~10%) smaller damage output. There are issues with missiles that I am leaving out, just like there are issues with turrets that you are leaving out. I think the issues result in a similar reduction in applied DPS in real situations.

That is my problem with it.

You countered with an absolutely useless all-tank drake fit, lacking even the basics of a point and prop mod. No idea where you wanted to go with that.

EDIT: Oh, I've been agreeing with the CSM's positions because I think those positions I agree with would improve the game.

What issues are there with turrents I am leaving out?


Falloff, Tracking. You focus on "ooh, drakes don't do their full dps anyway" while ignoring that Neither do turrets

when exactly did i say drakes don't do their full dps? I said their dps can not be instantly applied all at once like that of the turrent weapons. In a 200 man fleet hitting bc's with medium weapons any tracking issue is non-existant (not to mention if the drakes are 60km away using hm's then angular velocity is going to literally be 0 at that point). All the turrent guys have to do is switch to their long range ammo and they are well within falloff/optimal again. If they manage to get closer so they can use shorter range then not only does their dps increase but tracking issues are still non-existant when hitting something as big as a drake on top of it drakes have the slowest base speed off all the the bc's so it is quite impossible for them to speed tank another bc. Maybe they can speed tank a titan...that's about it thou.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#576 - 2012-02-01 08:44:03 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


The Drake has a significantly (~50%) better tank at a negligibly (~10%) smaller damage output. There are issues with missiles that I am leaving out, just like there are issues with turrets that you are leaving out. I think the issues result in a similar reduction in applied DPS in real situations.

That is my problem with it.

You countered with an absolutely useless all-tank drake fit, lacking even the basics of a point and prop mod. No idea where you wanted to go with that.

EDIT: Oh, I've been agreeing with the CSM's positions because I think those positions I agree with would improve the game.

What issues are there with turrents I am leaving out?


Falloff, Tracking. You focus on "ooh, drakes don't do their full dps anyway" while ignoring that Neither do turrets

when exactly did i say drakes don't do their full dps? I said their dps can not be instantly applied all at once like that of the turrent weapons. In a 200 man fleet hitting bc's with medium weapons any tracking issue is non-existant (not to mention if the drakes are 60km away using hm's then angular velocity is going to literally be 0 at that point). All the turrent guys have to do is switch to their long range ammo and they are well within falloff/optimal again. If they manage to get closer so they can use shorter range then not only does their dps increase but tracking issues are still non-existant when hitting something as big as a drake on top of it drakes have the slowest base speed off all the the bc's so it is quite impossible for them to speed tank another bc. Maybe they can speed tank a titan...that's about it thou.


Long range ammo costs quite a bit of DPS. That's not true of the Drake. And at Optimal+Falloff, a turret ship does ~60% of their paper DPS, while the drake does 100% of their (~10% lower) paper DPS.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#577 - 2012-02-07 06:53:17 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Two step wrote:
I am one of the dissenters on respecs on the CSM, for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I view respecs as taking away one of the really interesting, unique things about EVE's skill system.

The right thing for CCP to do with the SC/Titan nerf would have been to refund supercap pilots's drone SP. There is no need to invent a respec mechanism to solve that problem.

First paragraph good. Second paragraph what?

Those supercap pilots fotm chased. We all saw it happening. The buff on sisi, the threads warning this is over the top, etc. It made it into game. Supercaps uber alles. Then they were rightfully nerfed.

Meanwhile for how long did those pilots make use of those drone skills? Too long, and those skills changed the history of the game. They can still make use of fighterbombers and their supercarriers. They just can't any longer kill everything with them. Does needing a support fleet now make the skills worthless? No. Can we undo their use of those skills when they were used to kill everything? No. What is the logic of allowing them to reallocate that sp into the new shiney ships? None.


If CCP would be so stupid that they re-allocate the SP from the drones, my superpilots would like their FB-SP removed and keep all their rest SP in drones thank you very much. It's FB's that are the issue, drone skills never have been bad (or overpowered, on either super).

It's both amusing and sad to see players actually believing these ridicilously hard-hitting monsters should stay in the game with that damage output. You know moms had those dronebays for years before they got the FB's? You know their dronebays never was an issue back then? You know producers didn't feel it was worth their time to build moms back then? You know people generally laughed at players having them? You know even scrub lowsec industrial alliances with a couple of dreads + carriers would easily kill a mom? You know noone took them on ops because a) they jumped shorter than the rest of the fleet, and b) it was such a high production price for 'just two carriers worth of dps, and one carrier worth of rr"?

Motherships needs: the extra hp they were given, the extra jumprange they were given, they need ewar immunity, and access to all dronetypes (excluding fb's). What they don't need, is FB's, to be dockable, to have any kind of more blob incentitives (like "bring a support fleet", **** that ****, you'd see alot more of them die if more was used smallscale, easier to kill both for smaller AND bigger entities - and less lag on the server).

Your average mom pilot, with a 5% agilty implant and no fleet bonuses, still take over half a minute to align out. It still can be bumped (ask older pilots how we killed them before CCP gave us the lazymans hics, pff, players today need everything on a silver platter?). Ask any capital pilot, don't even have to be a super, how they can cyno out with no cap. Ask any decent combatprober how long even a recon with t1 expanded probelauncher and t1 combat drones how long it takes to probe a capital that has warped off a grid (hint; panning camera around to see where he warps, using dscan, and having scouts helps).

How about requesting smaller groups of players who are not only too stupid to use the lazy-hics, but also too dumb to not know how to bump/neut/probe, not get kills? And how about nerfing everything unecessary on these ships, that makes them too powerful in blobs, like say, removing their high damage output, letting them deal damage to smaller stuff, etc. That includes giving back Titans the ability to DD non-caps, and to DD in lowsec.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#578 - 2012-02-07 07:04:20 UTC
Cash Stalker wrote:
Well... when players have to wait to log on its time to make a 2ed live server. Shocked
the server is full.


And PvP been 'full' since 2007-2008. I agree, there's too much players in this game right now. Unfortunately CCP want more and have sold out. This is no longer EVE online, it's another game, where players are supposed to be safe in high and move in gigantic nodebreaking blobs anywhere else. Including lowsec.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.