These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Communication Center » EVE General Discussion » Nerfing Caldari?

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page1213141516Next pageLast page

Nerfing Caldari? First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Val MeR

W12 Corp

Likes received: 17

#261 - 2012-01-19 03:16:57 UTC | Edited by: Val MeR

Corina Jarr wrote:

Why do people see a minor nerf? I see a major buff.

Who cares what CCP thinks they are bringing it in line iwth. Its getting a large damage boost with selectable damage types for a minor drop in passive tankability (so make the thing a little more active, not like missiles use cap).

... and they promised torpedo/cruise Naga ...

CCP has a tendency to push their own vision first and only if something is totally broken - start fixing things. Isn't it time to look into Caldari? They are flying the Drake for one reason only - there is nothing else worth flying! Above mentioned "offensive" Raven or Caracal both have a single role they are good at - "sitting in stations" waiting for "walking in ships" to be noticed...

Normal pvp Drake is 40-60k ehp with 400-480 dps (from heavies +ecm drones) around 1000ms on MWD (if not nanoed - dps)... imaginable 100k ehp 700 dps fits just can't co-exist in a single Drake or they will be missing something like: mwd, point, web, bcs. Its not a bad ship even compared to others, but overpowered only inside its pity Caldari line up.

Here is an idea, instead of nerfing what works, try buffing what doesn’t and you will see a decline in Drakes… re-working cruisers and bc tier 1 is a good start, so they can be cheap and viable pvp opponents to battle cruisers tier 2. Some HACs and Battleships are in need of attention as well. Try looking into torpedoes, cruise missiles... and… defenders! :)

249
Spineker Likes received: 249	#262 - 2012-01-19 03:32:11 UTC HACS should get a buff period to make them viable. Nerfbatting drake is not going to make the poor pitiful HACS better. Why not just grab a Hurri or Brutix.

Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

Likes received: 1,098

#263 - 2012-01-19 03:35:09 UTC | Edited by: Fon Revedhort

Alright, CCP, how about you leave bonuses as they are (definitely don't go for ROF bonus - we don't need those drake pilots realizing they can use multiple damage types), but fix slots and CPU/grid instead?

You seem to agree that this is an issue as well.

Say, remove a med slot, utility high and some cpu/grid. Might work wonders actually.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Lekgoa

Free State Project

Likes received: 16

#264 - 2012-01-19 03:59:09 UTC

If this actually happens it'll be a buff for Caldari. Here's why:

Drake "nerf": Caldari has enough bricks already. This will give them a decent T1 dps boat.

ECM nerf: The "complete lockdown" mechanic makes pvp straight up boring no matter which side you're on. Nerfing jam boats, particularly falcons, will open up a wider range of gang setups and make the game more fun for everyone.

And if you want some concrete proof that CCP still likes Caldari, check out the new Hawk stats.

Val MeR

W12 Corp

Likes received: 17

#265 - 2012-01-19 03:59:10 UTC

Fon Revedhort wrote:

I've seen your posts and you seem to be very disturbed by the sole Drake presence in game - why don't you ask CCP to remove it completely? That should work... at least for you.

Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

Likes received: 1,098

#266 - 2012-01-19 04:04:26 UTC

Val MeR wrote:

Fon Revedhort wrote:

I've seen your posts and you seem to be very disturbed by the sole Drake presence in game - why don't you ask CCP to remove it completely? That should work... at least for you.

In this particular case I consider myself as a surgeon: it's better to amputate a member to let the body live.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Val MeR

W12 Corp

Likes received: 17

#267 - 2012-01-19 04:06:06 UTC | Edited by: Val MeR

Lekgoa wrote:

I would give up Drake, make it another glass cannon with missles for all I care, in favor of buffing other Caldari ships, but it seems Drakes make some players frustrated on a regular basis... so lets wait and see what solution CCP comes up with and I hope it won't be a simple nerf to cripple a good, working ship, into "Raven state"... (now I know why raven looks this way... some surgeons had a go at it while it was good to make it what it is now... “the looks” just proves my theory Smile

).

Hawk? Would you care to elaborate how is it any better than other races Assault Frigates?


Spineker Likes received: 249	#268 - 2012-01-19 04:21:08 UTC \| Edited by: Spineker I agree Val why don't we see WHOLE FLEETS of hawks blobing the galaxy!? I wonder if he ever flew one instead of looking at stats? Hawk has been broken for years in fact.

Mina Sebiestar

Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate

Likes received: 1,231

#269 - 2012-01-19 05:23:22 UTC

Good news i hope they will nerf it to lvl of other BC's and take a look at mirm/prop as well they both look like birds of some sorts and they both suck balz.

Era of ******** drake fleets is coming to an end and not mentioning how much i enjoy in explicit amount of tears in this thread would mean that im becoming better person don't worry i do not. :)

Moar tears plox.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Leisen

Deep Core Mining Inc.

Caldari State

Likes received: 67

#270 - 2012-01-19 05:23:29 UTC

Sure smells like EFT warrior in here.

Sure, the Cane has less EHP than the Drake, as it should. I mean it's not like the Cane is faster, has a larger drone bay, can fit more utility, has a larger capacitor that can support two medium neuts, or benefits from having turret DPS that can do more damage against smaller targets when dual webbed (did I mention it can fit more utility?). Face it, the Drake can fit a nasty tank, that's what it's good at, and that's what it ought to be good at. Most people never mention how you can fit a stronger shield tank on a Myrmidon, or anything of that nature. Caldari ships sacrifice everything for the sake of tank, so why take their tank away, unless you're going to give them what other ships have? The Cane is versatile as hell, that's why people like it. The Drake tanks well, so it's noob friendly, but it's slow and dumb (and has a signature larger than a battleship MAKING IT THE WORST TIER 2 BATTLECRUISER TO TAKE AGAINST A LARGER SHIP CLASS) and as long as you're not a moron you can control the engagement in a way that will leave a Drake nearly helpless, or, worst case scenario, unable to hold you down while you run off and save your ass.

Hungry Eyes

Imperial Academy

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 470

#271 - 2012-01-19 05:31:38 UTC | Edited by: Hungry Eyes

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

a bunch of awesome stuff .

wow, thanks for acknowledging that tier 2 bc's overshadow so many other ships including HAC's and CS's. it took you guys over 2 years to realize it. well said on the talos vs naga. theyre both fine. down with drakes and canes. up with HAC's and CS's because theyre awesome ships that take sooo long to train for.

also, turning the myrm into a proper drone ship? what is this i dont even

also, pleeeeease make the Eos awesome.

awesome changes incoming. yaaaay \o/

Surge Roth

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 48

#272 - 2012-01-19 05:43:36 UTC

Leisen wrote:

I like you. You're one of the few people left with some sense in them.

Buff Jesus

Likes received: 20

#273 - 2012-01-19 05:58:12 UTC

Leisen wrote:

This would be a half decent thread if there were more people in it that actually have used a Drake and less that surmise that it's some kind of unstoppable juggernaut of doom.

New Favorite Eve Hobby: Bumping BS's with a Crow.

Valei Khurelem

Likes received: 457

#274 - 2012-01-19 06:01:00 UTC | Edited by: Valei Khurelem

Quote:

Incorrectly funnel new players: don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP. What's the point of a Bellicose? Exequror? Maller? Moa? They shouldn't be things you just skip on the way to a greater purpose, like a leaf of salad in my 250gr double-layered onion and egg hamburger.

I am going to copy and paste this to my signature and spam it at anyone who tries to troll other players over blatant balance issues, there's hope for EVE Online and CCP yet.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP." - CCP Ytterbium

Spineker

Likes received: 249

#275 - 2012-01-19 06:10:01 UTC

Buff Jesus wrote:

Leisen wrote:

This would be a half decent thread if there were more people in it that actually have used a Drake and less that surmise that it's some kind of unstoppable juggernaut of doom.

I think the hype has scared them to flying away. LOL

Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

Likes received: 1,098

#276 - 2012-01-19 06:16:08 UTC

Hungry Eyes wrote:

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

a bunch of awesome stuff .

wow, thanks for acknowledging that tier 2 bc's overshadow so many other ships including HAC's and CS's. it took you guys over 2 years to realize it. well said on the talos vs naga.

Merely 2 years? You're way too kind here Big smile

Check my sig - CS's were of the same appeal in 2008 as well. So it's more likely to be 4 years, given how tier2 BC's were OP from the very introduction.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

JC Anderson

RED ROSE THORN

Likes received: 1,234

#277 - 2012-01-19 07:19:30 UTC | Edited by: JC Anderson

Fidelium Mortis wrote:

Super Chair wrote:

Rather than nerfing ECM...why not buff sensor damps like they intend to? A celestis/arazu/lach damping a falcon/rook is already very effective against birds at range....

This. Also need to take a look at the light ECM drones. They are currently a bit too effective for the relative cost (price and risk/reward).

I absolutely love ECM and it is one of the major reasons I trained recon ships 5 early on. However, I completely agree that the drones are a bit much.

When not sitting in a falcon, I'll usually hop into a curse. I tend to carry a flight of ECM drones for "emergency" situations but always feel like a big jerk worthy of being slapped around the moment that I launch them.

Even when flying my VAGA, I carry a flight of them... They are like crack. I know they are wrong, but I can't help myself.

Fon Revedhort wrote:

Hungry Eyes wrote:

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

a bunch of awesome stuff .

wow, thanks for acknowledging that tier 2 bc's overshadow so many other ships including HAC's and CS's. it took you guys over 2 years to realize it. well said on the talos vs naga.

Merely 2 years? You're way too kind here Big smile

Check my sig - CS's were of the same appeal in 2008 as well. So it's more likely to be 4 years, given how tier2 BC's were OP from the very introduction.

I believe they were introduced in 2006. I purchased one the day they were implemented and I seem to remember it being within that timeframe. So it's more like 6 years or so.

Then again, didn't they get hit with the nerf bat once or twice since then?

Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

Likes received: 1,098

#278 - 2012-01-19 07:38:02 UTC | Edited by: Fon Revedhort

JC Anderson wrote:

There were no nerfs. Not a single one. Unless, of course, you dare to refer to shield recharge rate fix as 'nerf', which it wasn't.

On the other hand, there were many indirect boosts - introduction of medium rigs, web nerf (battleships really suffered from this one) etc. What's the point in flying clumsy and inaccurate battleship when you can get such a powerful (yet free) ship as tier2 BC with wonderful medium weapons?

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Mars Theran

Foreign Interloper

Likes received: 1,781

#279 - 2012-01-19 08:27:31 UTC

I don't usually do this; but I'm going to pick at this a bit. I'm going to write in the margins so to speak, as cutting it up into quotes won't work.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Please keep in mind these notes date back from December, and as such some points may have evolved as we are gathering more data with time.

..snip.. not important atm

DRAKE (and to an extent, tier 2 battlecruisers):

There is a reason why it is the most used battlecruiser out there. The problem with the Drake is that it is does everything too well for little cost or sacrifice, while being easy to train for. Thus, and to an extent most of the tier 2 battlecruisers create a certain number of issues that should be addressed:

(Yes, leaving tier 1 battlecruisers out of the discussion because there is no point arguing with the obvious fact they need some attention).

Overshadow other tech 1 hulls: the leap in performance between cruiser and tier 2 battlecruiser classes is just too great for too little cost (average slot count, EHP mainly). This, coupled with the gain in damage for having access to more weapon slots, as well as extra fitting power (ever tried squeezing turrets into an Omen and keep a decent fit?), makes the small loss of speed irrelevant when leaving the cruiser class as battlecruisers still remain fairly mobile. That's partly why the Hurricane also is so popular.

Overshadows tech 2 counterparts: Heavy Assault Ships and Command Ships are suffering from this situation. This is most apparent with the Nighthawk, but any ship that shares a common role with them is affected. Why take the time to train up and pay for an expensive hull when there is an easy to get into and cheap option available that almost have the same performance?

Incorrectly funnel new players: don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP. What's the point of a Bellicose? Exequror? Maller? Moa? They shouldn't be things you just skip on the way to a greater purpose, like a leaf of salad in my 250gr double-layered onion and egg hamburger.

Have odd, conflicting, or too much versatile roles: Drake has both a shield resistance and damage bonus, making it quite effective at passive tanking, but doesn't give it a focused purpose. Then you have the Myrmidon, which doesn't really know what it is supposed to do, like some Japanese anime characters don't know which gender they are trying to be: it's a mix of a turret ship without turret bonuses (and often ends up with autocannons fitted, the blasphemy), but also is a drone ship for its drone bonuses, while lacking the bandwidth or bay to support this claim. Some examples to solve this could be to turn the Drake in line with the Caracal and Raven in term of role, as a heavy offensive medium range missile platform, and to turn the Myrmidon into a proper drone ship. That would also help having a consistent, logical progression line between the cruiser and battleship roles as well, if we are careful not having the larger versions override the smaller ones.

But why so serious? Let's put a smile on these faces.

There are a lot of ships that needs to be looked into and were not mentioned here: they evolved, they rebelled and they have a plan™. If all goes well, expect a blog to come out soon™.

- Easy to train for is relevent in some respects. Regarding the Drake, it's mostly due to missile training not requiring specialization in smaller launchers. This is a problem with Missiles, rather than Ships; and should be counted as such. There are more launcher classes than turrets though.

- Cruisers suffer in fitting, because they are lacking in that area in many regards; though this doesn't apply to all of them, as the Maller, for example, actually has decent powergrid while being only marginally shy in CPU for some fittings. They should be brought up a little; perhaps using the Maller and Arbitrator as examples. Both are good ships in their own right.

- This isn't due to the Battle Cruisers being overpowered as a group; but more the result of HACs and Command Ships suffering in some respects. The Sleipnir is an exception, and actually appears to be the model by which other Command ships should follow. Any more powerful than this though, and they're likely to outstrip all other sub-caps. HACs suffer from being only the barest step above T1 Cruisers; when they should be near equivalent to Command ships, with somewhat higher speed and agility, and a little less EHP.

- A good point here, would be to change the training requirements for Command ships. Rather than just Cruisers 4 or whatever limited skill is required, (Don't remember exactly, but it's not much), add a secondary skill like Gunnery 5 or Missile Launchers 5, possibly even a Tertiary Level 5 Skill Requirement like Leadership 5. Aside from that, go back and buff the Cruisers as mentioned earlier.

- Drakes Shield resist bonuses are not exclusive. Plenty of other T1 ships have the same benefit for armor or shields. Lowering the actual shields and regen would be more practical and better recieved I think. A 5-10% reduction in both of these would likely balance out the Drake nicely. Incidently, I'm for a 5% missile damage bonus on all Caldari, instead of strict Kinetic bonuses.

- Turning the Myrmi into a dedicated Drone boat would make me and many others cry I think. That would effectively just make it another Vexor, with slightly more EHP. Drones do pathetic DPS, and Gallente have more than enough Drone boats. I'm happy with Myrmi in a cross-roles position. Boosting its Cap a bit and giving it a reason to fit hybrids would be nice.

zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub

Mutnin

SQUIDS.

Likes received: 476

#280 - 2012-01-19 08:32:07 UTC | Edited by: Mutnin

Tippia wrote:

So wait…

…they are suggesting a significant increase in the Drake's damage output and projection, at the cost of a tanking bonus that it doesn't particularly need, and people are railing against it being nerfed?! Ugh

IDGI.

Oh, and Endeavour Starfleet, the Drake is ridiculously easy to train for. Shield skills are cheap (and the meta shield mods are excellent until you get your skills up), as are medium missiles. That's why everyone + dog gravitates towards them, you know… Compare it to a properly fit L4 Myrm (which, people's claim to the contrary, do indeed work just as well as the Drake for L4s), where the T2 senties/heavies (preferably both) alone takes almost as much time as an entire Drake fit.

I understand you mentioned Shields but lets not forget about the weapon system and training shields for a Drake or a Cane takes exactly the same amount of time, so shield skills do not make a Drake any easier to train vs a Shield Cane. The only difference is if you compare training for a Armor Cane vs Shield Drake.

Mars Theran wrote:

Claiming it's less to skill for is not really true because Missile skills take longer to train for than Gunnery. It's just with Gunnery you get the small guns included in your training for less time, with missiles you still have to train more to be able to use your small weapon systems.

Basic Missile Support skills

Missile Launcher Operation (Rank 1)
Missile Bombardment (Rank 2)
Rapid Launch (Rank 2)
Target Navigation Prediction (Rank 2)
Missile Projection (Rank 4)
Guided Missile Precision (Rank 5)
Warheads Upgrades (Rank 5)

If you Train T2 Heavy Missile Launchers and train the Spec skill to level IV then max all all the missile support sills it takes 147 days on a "base nural mapping" with no implants.

Basic Gunnery Skills

Gunnery (Rank 1)
Motion Prediction (Rank 2)
Rapid Firing (Rank 2)
Sharpshooter (Rank 2)
Surgical Strike (Rank 4)
Trajectory Analysis (Rank 5)

If you Train T2 Med auto cannons with the spec skill at level IV, then train all the supporting Gunnery skills to level V it takes 121 days using the same base nural mapping a Char starts with. Added to this not only does it take less time you also get T2 small A/C's with that 121 days. For Missiles you would have to Train even more to get either Rockets or Standard Missile launchers at T2.

Next advantage of Guns is to train the secondary system like Arti's you only have to then Train the Spec skills to be able to use them. With Missiles you would have to train Heavy Assualt Missiles which is yet another Rank 3 as well as the spec skill.

I didn't add weapons upgrades or advanced weapon upgrades as it would be same training time for both. Missiles require 7 support skills 2 of which are Rank 5's .. Meanwhile Gunnery requires only 6 for auto cannons with only one being a Rank 5.

Even if you train Hybrid guns and have to train Controlled Bursts to V it's still less time than training Missiles. Added to this if you fly a Shield Cane as most do it's the exact same skill training for it's shields as it is for a Drake. This means you can max out a Hurricane Faster than you can max out a Drake by a little over 25 days faster using a base Char with no implants.

If you train both weapon systems for the Drakes as well as the Hurricane, a Hurricane Pilot can actually max out his T2 Guns gunnery support skills & Train his BC to V in the same time it takes to train both Med Missile weapon system and Max out the supporting Missile skills. (assuming both pilots had BC IV)

So can we please stop the non sense in claiming that Drakes are easier to train for. The only real advantage a Drake has over a Hurricane with T1 weapons is the Drake still gets same range of fire by using t1 or Faction ammo where the Hurricane requires Barrige to get it's max range with the T2 ammo.

I hope this helps to show those whom love to Claim it's easier to spec out a Drake are living in wishful thinking wonderland and haven't actually sat down to compare the reality of 2 sets of skill plans for the Drake vs a Hurricane. Big smile

First pagePrevious page1213141516Next pageLast page