These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Nerfing Caldari?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hainnz
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2012-01-17 23:13:52 UTC
Nothing has happened yet. :) I'm going to operate on the assumption that CCP aren't stupid.
Fredfredbug4
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-01-17 23:17:37 UTC
Although I like my shiny Caldari ships, I would much rather see further boost to Gallente. Specifically the Drone Boats. I'd like to see them do something other then say "herp derp" while their drones do a minor amount of DPS.

Watch_ Fred Fred Frederation_ and stop [u]cryptozoologist[/u]! Fight against the brutal genocide of fictional creatures across New Eden! Is that a metaphor? Probably not, but the fru-fru- people will sure love it!
Ursula LeGuinn
Perkone
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-01-17 23:23:47 UTC
I'd honestly started to forget that the other races even had T1 BCs.

Even so, I still don't think the Drake should be nerfed... but what will be, will be. Hopefully the Myrmidon will be un-nerfed at the same time, and new players will finally recognize that word (Myrmidon) as actually being a ship you can fly in EVE again.

"The EVE forums are intended to provide a warm, friendly atmosphere for the EVE community." — EVElopedia
Endeavour Starfleet
#44 - 2012-01-17 23:24:30 UTC
I am about one hundred THOUSAND percent against any kind of change to the drake.

Are you out of your mind?! The resistance bonus the drake gets are the REASON to get newer players to train the battlecruiser skill and a nice spread of other skill. The drake IS the whole idea of "train subskills first THEN ship"

Do NOT do this CCP. The drake is NOT overpowered. It takes extreme training to use right!
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#45 - 2012-01-17 23:42:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
Soulpirate wrote:
Balancing based on PvP is bad for ANY game. Well, unless it's an FPS and has no other game play.


Balancing based on PvP is the only way to balance in a PvP-oriented game. I'd agree with you, if all we had were instanced fights; but that is most definitely not the case.

PvE is easy. What am I fighting? What am I going to fit? What ship will I use? 3 questions easily answered, and the rest is history.

edit: Balancing based on the Bolb is wrong. Nothing matters when there is a blob, and balance is irrelevent, unless it is relevent to SuperCapitals and Titans.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Lord Aliventi
Minmatar Fleet Logistics
Minmatar Fleet Associates
#46 - 2012-01-17 23:43:07 UTC
Alright let me get this straight.: CSM wants to nerf the drake by taking away it's drake bonuses and giving it Tengu-like ROF and velocity bonus. 716 DPS at 100km on a drake? Hell yeah! Nerf away!

But in all reality drakes don't need to be nerfed. One of my corp members recently went to the drone regions in a dram and soloed 3 ratting drakes. If you all stopped flying your Canes without RF EMP and put projectile turrets on your Winmadons so you could use RF EMP with excellent drone bonuses you wouldn't have this issue.

Here is a secret about missiles: If you move fast, and keep your sig radius low a drake's missiles don't hit well.

As a Caldari pilot I know drakes, tengus, and ECM don't need a nerf. You all just need to HTFU and not suck so much. I mean when your BC has 500m sig radius that goes to 2.5km when you turn your MWD on you can complain about drakes. When you have to sacrifice tank on your drake to fit a web or a TP so you can hit for decent damage you can complain about the drake. When you can fit a 12k EHP tank to your Falcon because you have a bunch of jammers then you can complain. And Tengu's are like any other t3 cruiser.

Really it isn't hard to kill a drake. If you suck less and fly drakes enough to realize just what their drawbacks are you will have no problem killing them.
Endeavour Starfleet
#47 - 2012-01-17 23:51:21 UTC
They have medium DPS for good tank (With heavy HEAVY training especially for newer players) that is perfect for newer players to spend time getting used to and learning to quirks of before going on to other ships.

Changing the drake bonus would show that CCP only favors large alliances in this game. Because #1 it is currently the only thing that can reasonably stop their Win Alpha fleets. and #2 It allows newer players to make funds in the game without needing a giant alliance at first.

Such changes will give large alliances that can field huge alpha and force members to go on CTAs even more power.
Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-01-18 00:05:30 UTC
Do what ever you want to anything :3 Just don't touch my Tengu.

Ferox #1
Hanoch Wheel
Free Wheeling Industries
#49 - 2012-01-18 00:10:48 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
They have medium DPS for good tank (With heavy HEAVY training especially for newer players) that is perfect for newer players to spend time getting used to and learning to quirks of before going on to other ships.

...



This is something I've noticed as well, and failed to mention in my post.

Drake initially gives you a platform to stop getting clobbered in, but you aren't very effective with offensively. It takes a lot of skilling and research to learn how to fit and fly a drake well.

Its a great platform to develop good pilots on (even if they end up with tons of SPs in Missiles, which don't translate well to other things except Tengu and maybe stealth bombers).
Hanoch Wheel
Free Wheeling Industries
#50 - 2012-01-18 00:14:36 UTC
Lord Aliventi wrote:
Alright let me get this straight.: CSM wants to nerf the drake by taking away it's drake bonuses and giving it Tengu-like ROF and velocity bonus. 716 DPS at 100km on a drake? Hell yeah! Nerf away!

...



Actually from the notes, it was CCP that proposed this. But the CSM enthusiastically agreed.

Trend is for more firepower and less survivability? More explosions? More replacement ships? Is this the goal?
Hoskoal Ricks
#51 - 2012-01-18 00:16:44 UTC
Hanoch Wheel wrote:
Lord Aliventi wrote:
Alright let me get this straight.: CSM wants to nerf the drake by taking away it's drake bonuses and giving it Tengu-like ROF and velocity bonus. 716 DPS at 100km on a drake? Hell yeah! Nerf away!

...



Actually from the notes, it was CCP that proposed this. But the CSM enthusiastically agreed.

Trend is for more firepower and less survivability? More explosions? More replacement ships? Is this the goal?




Just makes alpha look better and better.
Endeavour Starfleet
#52 - 2012-01-18 00:17:13 UTC
Hanoch Wheel wrote:
Lord Aliventi wrote:
Alright let me get this straight.: CSM wants to nerf the drake by taking away it's drake bonuses and giving it Tengu-like ROF and velocity bonus. 716 DPS at 100km on a drake? Hell yeah! Nerf away!

...



Actually from the notes, it was CCP that proposed this. But the CSM enthusiastically agreed.

Trend is for more firepower and less survivability? More explosions? More replacement ships? Is this the goal?





Very doubtful. The goal is to remove the ability of newer players to enjoy eve without joining a super big alliance that has NAPed areas for moon goo in my opinion. Otherwise why on earth would CCP propose this in the first place?

What on earth is going on CCP? Please say you will NOT implement this!
Hoskoal Ricks
#53 - 2012-01-18 00:21:29 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Hanoch Wheel wrote:
Lord Aliventi wrote:
Alright let me get this straight.: CSM wants to nerf the drake by taking away it's drake bonuses and giving it Tengu-like ROF and velocity bonus. 716 DPS at 100km on a drake? Hell yeah! Nerf away!

...



Actually from the notes, it was CCP that proposed this. But the CSM enthusiastically agreed.

Trend is for more firepower and less survivability? More explosions? More replacement ships? Is this the goal?





Very doubtful. The goal is to remove the ability of newer players to enjoy eve without joining a super big alliance that has NAPed areas for moon goo in my opinion. Otherwise why on earth would CCP propose this in the first place?

What on earth is going on CCP? Please say you will NOT implement this!


Can we please not derail an important discussion about caldari ships with your tinfoil asshattery?

thnx <3
Endeavour Starfleet
#54 - 2012-01-18 00:22:35 UTC
Hoskoal Ricks wrote:
Hanoch Wheel wrote:
Lord Aliventi wrote:
Alright let me get this straight.: CSM wants to nerf the drake by taking away it's drake bonuses and giving it Tengu-like ROF and velocity bonus. 716 DPS at 100km on a drake? Hell yeah! Nerf away!

...



Actually from the notes, it was CCP that proposed this. But the CSM enthusiastically agreed.

Trend is for more firepower and less survivability? More explosions? More replacement ships? Is this the goal?




Just makes alpha look better and better.



Which of course benefits greatly large alliances. This nerf and nerfs like it that are a boon to nullsec alliances need to be opposed greatly.
Endeavour Starfleet
#55 - 2012-01-18 00:25:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
Hoskoal Ricks wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Hanoch Wheel wrote:
Lord Aliventi wrote:
Alright let me get this straight.: CSM wants to nerf the drake by taking away it's drake bonuses and giving it Tengu-like ROF and velocity bonus. 716 DPS at 100km on a drake? Hell yeah! Nerf away!

...



Actually from the notes, it was CCP that proposed this. But the CSM enthusiastically agreed.

Trend is for more firepower and less survivability? More explosions? More replacement ships? Is this the goal?





Very doubtful. The goal is to remove the ability of newer players to enjoy eve without joining a super big alliance that has NAPed areas for moon goo in my opinion. Otherwise why on earth would CCP propose this in the first place?

What on earth is going on CCP? Please say you will NOT implement this!


Can we please not derail an important discussion about caldari ships with your tinfoil asshattery?

thnx <3


Not tinfoil in the least. There is NO other argument for nerfing the drake other than "WAHHH MAH ARTY ALPHAS CANT ONE SHOT IT NERF NERF NERF!" It may be partly that but it is 90 percent punishing newer players.
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#56 - 2012-01-18 00:25:32 UTC
Dunno if this is serious or not.

Drakes die all the time, they don't need to be nerfed. Armor needs to be buffed. Oh wait, this is EVE where we play a perpetual game of unsustainable PvP and wonder why people quit when they are broke, again.
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#57 - 2012-01-18 00:32:16 UTC
Soulpirate wrote:
Balancing based on PvP is bad for ANY game. Well, unless it's an FPS and has no other game play.


So very true, unless you are playing EVE Online.
Leisen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#58 - 2012-01-18 01:03:59 UTC
Awww sheeeeeeeit. I'm bout ta drop dis like a hawt Incarna.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#59 - 2012-01-18 01:31:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Val MeR wrote:
http://www.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2011/CSM_CCP_Mettings_7-9_12_2011.pdf

It seems like CCP is favoring Minmatar, while CSM is made up of Gallente... well, of course its all made in the name of "balance", but see for yourself if you like those small changes:

“CCP and the CSM discussed the new Tier 3 battlecruisers. CCP noted that the Talos needs adjustment upwards; the CSM noted that the Naga is too powerful compared to the Talos. CCP acknowledged this, citing the difficulty of finding a role for blasters as well as the power of passive shield tanking.”

Naga is overpowered? Power of passive shield tanking on a Naga?

“CCP and the CSM agreed that remote sensor dampeners have been rendered useless and need rebalancing. CCP wants to look into this, as well as the damping ships themselves. The CSM also discussed the merits (or lack thereof) of ECM.”

Yeah, Caldari are unworthy of ECM magic…

“The CSM and CCP both acknowledged the need to rebalance Drake, which ‘does everything too too well’. CCP is considering giving it a more offensive role like 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.”

Nerf Drake, so it can become as “desirable” as “offensive Raven or Caracal”… NightHawk will finally “shine”… at least when compared to a NEW "offensive Drake."




Whoa!

Looks like they are not going into that "show Gallente some love and boost blasters" thing but are instead looking at the reason why a blaster boat cannot get within a proper range in the first place.

Blasters will do heinous damage in the right range, got the loss mail to prove it, but a Gallente ship has a lot of trouble just getting there. Many times it's been said to put Gallente weapons on par with the others, but I always felt it's not the damage or the short range, it's not having superiority or some balance in resisting damage and webs. A ship that is going to have to go in closer, and do this with a bad traversal, is going to get a lot flak.


OR...

Would be nice to see Gallente ships be able to field 7 drones like the other races can field 7 of their signature weapon.


Edit: if the want the nighthawk to get off the backburner, stop making them so damned fugly.

Furthermore, as a drake pilot who crosstrained from Suck.... er... Gallente - a lot of Drakes used in missions are speed-tanked anyway. Lol

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#60 - 2012-01-18 02:07:09 UTC
If I could survive the Artillery wall 50 km behind it, my Harbi would melt a Drake.