Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tibrius Archer
Kurai-Komichi Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 00:49:00 -
[211]
Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 10/05/2007 00:53:09 Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 10/05/2007 00:51:45 Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 10/05/2007 00:45:23
Originally by: Spacer John ---"Erm... every other caladri ship does already excel at sniping. Caladri Assualt frigs can snipe over 100KM!. Moa and Egal, enough said. The ferrox enough said . the rohk you mentioned.
it seems already long range railguns is the secondary caldari attcak trait. Like the gallante ability for good droning.
It seems the caldari have the longest range snipers in every class. Seems it is a trait, so whats your point?
The ability to tank is on the other hand is race wide. So my comment about the option to prehaps make passive shield tanking an option on all caldari ships was very on the ball.
Another spacer John post that does not actually rebuff any one of my points but serve's to highlight he is not thinking."---
EVERY other ship in Caldari does NOT excel at sniping. Many do, just as more than just the Drake passive shield tanks well. Which post shows Im not thinking?
In your OP you asked passive shield tank pilots for education. We've given it to you over and over again, its not our problem you refuse our education.
If the Drake is a ship that does OK in PVP, how is it "bugged" exactly? Because you think the devs wouldn't want it? Let them design their game, the Drake isn't wreaking havoc on their PVP so at worst case scenario isn't THAT broken.
You also haven't educated me on how a %5 boost to shield hp and regen stregenths it by %33.
AND paragrah after paragraph you haven't explained why as a whole the passive shield tank on the Drake should force the devs to change it. It's a middle of the road PVP ship at best, end of story. Keep crying if you want to.
By saying the passive shield recharge is not bugyou are saying that it was also diliberate on the myrm which in terms of hp/s can tank I have heard a lot more than the drake drake? You also say mention confusingly passive tanking is a caladri thing trait, Where are the passive tanking ravens then eh? surly a passive scorp should be though the roof too? No its not a feature its just a bug people have noticed after the HP increases.
So you do you think the myrm needs adjusting too as you think I am a whinning fool arguing about passive tanks? Y/N please. <-- (this question should expose you as a fool because either way you answer your argument falls apart.
Ah I said the two 5% skills will equal a lot more than the intial 10% boost they appear to be.
Only at 33% shield level those 2 skills have there big compounding effect as the shield recharge equation is an exp(F) function (natual log raised to a power) (me thinks is it?). Imagine componding between the 2 skills then a big bonus at 33% from the e^x cuve peak.
I said this as you tried to argue the level 5's would not not make much of a differance. As you were trying to claim the drake in the video had many level 4's and thus the Hp/s values I were talking about could not be achived. and that somehow I was lying about shield recharge.
I am not going to go into the nitty gritty maths as I honestly can't remember them. Thats why I used quick fitter. You can read about these thinks in the stickys.
i think you need to go read some stickys.
Oh and download quick fitter and get into this arguement instead of just posting things that detract from Dark Kavar arguements. At least he is asking me to prove myself on quick fit. I will do tomorrow when I have more time. I got an anoying exam at 10 so I am off to bed for now. I will post my quick fits tomorrow. *****************************************
"Get in my way and I will burn your fleet from stem to stern" |
Liang Nuren
Templars of Space CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 02:59:00 -
[212]
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=434498&page=2
In the above thread, there have been some Drake PVP setups that I thought didn't completely suck, and didn't have the DPS of a wet noodle. For those people who keep saying that the Drake has insane tank and marginal gank, please post your setups there (and no whining and nerfing, keep that here please), so that the rest of the world may share in your wisdom.
The standard module stacking nerf for modules (More than 3 modules on the same attribute are completely useless) would completely kill passive shield tanking, and that's not really an acceptable solution, though I admit that it having integer multiples of the tank my Dual rep, cap injected Myrmidon has is irritating (And yes, Tibrius is completely insane when he's making allegations of 4 reps on a Harby to equal the tank on the Drake I posted).
In short, please visit the above link, and no nerf whining there please... just fittings, setups, and comments on will/won't work and why. Oh, and don't nerf passive tanking. ;-)
Liang My opinions are my own, and do not in any way reflect the beliefs of my corp/alliance. |
Dark Kavar
Caldari Aionios Diadochi The Makhai
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 03:36:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Tibrius Archer Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 10/05/2007 00:53:09 Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 10/05/2007 00:51:45 Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 10/05/2007 00:45:23
Originally by: Spacer John ---"Erm... every other caladri ship does already excel at sniping. Caladri Assualt frigs can snipe over 100KM!. Moa and Egal, enough said. The ferrox enough said . the rohk you mentioned.
it seems already long range railguns is the secondary caldari attcak trait. Like the gallante ability for good droning.
It seems the caldari have the longest range snipers in every class. Seems it is a trait, so whats your point?
The ability to tank is on the other hand is race wide. So my comment about the option to prehaps make passive shield tanking an option on all caldari ships was very on the ball.
Another spacer John post that does not actually rebuff any one of my points but serve's to highlight he is not thinking."---
EVERY other ship in Caldari does NOT excel at sniping. Many do, just as more than just the Drake passive shield tanks well. Which post shows Im not thinking?
In your OP you asked passive shield tank pilots for education. We've given it to you over and over again, its not our problem you refuse our education.
If the Drake is a ship that does OK in PVP, how is it "bugged" exactly? Because you think the devs wouldn't want it? Let them design their game, the Drake isn't wreaking havoc on their PVP so at worst case scenario isn't THAT broken.
You also haven't educated me on how a %5 boost to shield hp and regen stregenths it by %33.
AND paragrah after paragraph you haven't explained why as a whole the passive shield tank on the Drake should force the devs to change it. It's a middle of the road PVP ship at best, end of story. Keep crying if you want to.
No its not a feature its just a bug people have noticed after the HP increases.
Actually no, there were passive tanked feroxes (and I'm sure other ships) long before kali, passive tanking is even mentioned in the tanking article in Eon # 2 by Nyphur
Kind of like the Triforce in Zelda, only not quite as potent.
|
Santa Anna
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 04:33:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Tibrius Archer No its not a feature its just a bug people have noticed after the HP increases.
The recharge rates remained neutral with respect to the hitpoint change. Passive tanked BC's went from merely good to "uber" because of the recharge rate rigs and, to a lesser extent, the invention of T2 SPR's.
It's rather foolish to complain about passive tank drakes, though. They do cruiser damage, are bigger and slower than most BS's, offer less strategic flexibility, can't tackle or ewar, and are limited to missiles and drones. Pretty much the only way that a player can die to a drake in 1v1 pvp is if he goes afk and his tank turns off or if he strokes out from boredom. If you aren't in 1v1, just kill his friends first then the damage from even a small gang will be able to overwhelm the drakes's tank. SPR's and recharge rate rigs should probably get a stacking nerf, but unless you're just forum whoring while burning through a drake tank you've got to have better stuff to do. |
Alex Verrel
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 08:15:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Alex Verrel on 10/05/2007 08:16:16 Edited by: Alex Verrel on 10/05/2007 08:15:40
Originally by: Santa Anna SPR's and recharge rate rigs should probably get a stacking nerf, but unless you're just forum whoring while burning through a drake tank you've got to have better stuff to do.
Actually stack-nerfing SPRs sounds like a good idea. It would make those extreme-tanked setups impossible, so no reason to whine anymore. It would also strike passive tank Myrmidon setup pretty heavily since its main power comes from huge number of SPRs it can fit.
On the other hand it won't hurt 'balanced' passive Drake setups as much, because most of them use only two SPR IIs anyway, reserving the remaining lowslots for BCS IIs.
Having said that I still have to express disagreement with the arguments that the OP keeps bringing up. There is just no such thing as a super passive-tanked PvP Drake. Its either superior tank or PvP. Every PvP module you fit is a serious hit on the tanking ability. Yes, the Drake can keep significant tanking ability while PvP fitted, but it's nowhere near 'overpowered'. And then even a 'PvP fitted' Drake is not such a big threat in PvP as somre other ships.
Furthermore even with insane skillpoint investments the Drake is still inferior to an average BS. The point is, anyone in their right mind would go for BS skills anyway, instead of wasting their training time to get only a marginaly useful ship.
This whole argument about nerfing the Drake looks a bit like the following:
A: 'I think we sould hunt and kill all those giant turtles. They are a significant threat --- their shells are really tough.'
B: 'But they are harmless! And all they do is sit in their pond anyway. Shouldn't we hunt lions insted? Those beasts have killed a lot of our cattle recently'
A: 'No, no! You don't get it. Those Turtles are really tough and scary. Think of The mighty Shells! And they are not harmless at all! I've seen on a scientific channel, that turtle's bite is ways stronger than that of a lion. And just think of all that crushing power if a giant turtle jumps one of our cows from a tree?... What?... Well, of course they can't climb trees by themselves, but what IF someone helps them?!'
...
A (some time later, in a clinic): '...And I've done some calculations, doctor! Given enough time, one turtle could rip apart the whole herd while taking virtually NO damage!...'
|
Ulii
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 08:34:00 -
[216]
haha! I liked your little story about the turtle... funny and relevant tho this discussion
|
Liang Nuren
Templars of Space CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 09:00:00 -
[217]
I had my bonused, BC4 + Durability 4 Vespas 2 volleyed by a Drake tonight .... to say it has no DPS is a lie, and to say it is not at all a threat in PVP is also a lie. Many ships can't simultaneously do all of the things you're saying a Drake cannot do - but this does not make them useless in PVP. Neither does it make the Drake useless.
Now, I don't think the Drake merits a nerf, but the arguments people are using both to argue for and against the nerf are downright fallacy. The Drake is nothing but a floating missile spammer with semi respectable damage if it fits for full tank. This is ok, because you can run. If you can't run, you got ganked by a gang, not a Drake.
If the Drake fits for gank, its still pretty low DPS (all things considered), but that also is their (valid) choice. It might even be safe since you wouldn't even bother shooting them on the bet that they had super passive tank. ;-)
If the Drake fits a passive / semi damage / pvp fit, this is *FINE*. It makes a tradeoff - lower DPS (which is *guaranteed to be lower*, due to the nature of the damage), for a infinite capless tank (with well defined limits).
This "middle ground" pvp tank is easily better than a dual rep cap injected Myrmidon tank, but the Myrmidon has better damage than the Drake. Again, another trade off.
There's nothing to nerf here, except perhaps SPR II's, to keep the Myrmidon from having the super passive tank it has. It might nerf the 4th low slot the Drake would use for SPR2's, but then they might have to mount a BCU2, so they can actually get some damage out of it. Most places where I've seen people use a passive tank Drake, the tank is *much better* than it needs to be. Cut a little tank, add a little gank... not a big deal!
The Drake's balanced, it might even need a boost. +1 low slot anyone?
Liang My opinions are my own, and do not in any way reflect the beliefs of my corp/alliance. |
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:06:00 -
[218]
---"So you do you think the myrm needs adjusting too as you think I am a whinning fool arguing about passive tanks? Y/N please. <-- (this question should expose you as a fool because either way you answer your argument falls apart."---
I wouldn't know if the Myrmidon needs changing, haven't flown any or against enough to have the experience to comment on them. I have heard on other threads that it can attain BETTER passive shield tanking than the Drake AND put out more DPS. So that sounds like it can have it's cake and eat it too.
My argument is that the Drake as an overall PVP ship is an average PVP performer. Being average it would be stupid to nerf it in the ONE area it truly excels at (especially considering even with this area of excellence the ship is elevated to only mediocre performance). How does my argument fall apart exactly?
Keep studying for those exams. Im sure all that schooling makes you feel really good and superior, can't wait to hear your next attack on my intellect.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:18:00 -
[219]
---"Only at 33% shield level those 2 skills have there big compounding effect as the shield recharge equation is an exp(F) function (natual log raised to a power) (me thinks is it?). Imagine componding between the 2 skills then a big bonus at 33% from the e^x cuve peak."---
Again, Im no EVE math wiz. From what Ive read in other threads the peak regen is not exponentially faster than at other shield levels. The figure I read was 2.6x that of the hp/s regen. I included that 2.6x peak regen point in my simple calculations I asked you to debunk. Maybe Im wrong but youve done nothing to set me straight other than sling insults at me.
I have quickfit for your information and seem as well informed of stickies as you do. Let me break this down for you one more time:
Drake tank = Great Drake overall PVP effectiveness = Lackluster (but not worthless or terrible, merely OK)
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:24:00 -
[220]
---"Actually stack-nerfing SPRs sounds like a good idea. It would make those extreme-tanked setups impossible, so no reason to whine anymore. It would also strike passive tank Myrmidon setup pretty heavily since its main power comes from huge number of SPRs it can fit."---
This idea sounds alright to me. I use 2 BCUs on my setup anyways. Not that the Drake needs this change to bring it in line with other ships, but if it makes people feel all warm inside then they can go for it for all I care.
|
|
smallgreenblur
Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:25:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Ulii Edited by: Ulii on 10/05/2007 08:48:03 haha! I liked your little story about the turtle... funny but irrelevant to this discussion
fixed that for you
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:29:00 -
[222]
---"The Drake's balanced, it might even need a boost. +1 low slot anyone?"---
Liang your assesment of the Drake seems dead on from my experience. I'd love to get another low slot on the Drake, and I wouldn't even put an SPR II on it just for Tibrius. Also nice link of fits, if you see any other please post it for us.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:40:00 -
[223]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by: Ulii on 10/05/2007 08:48:03 haha! I liked your little story about the turtle... funny but irrelevant to this discussion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---fixed that for you---
The turtle has a strong shell thats hard to break but not very ferocious offensive power. How is that not a good simile of the Drake?
The story then goes on to illustrate the silliness of asking for eradication of something when things of a much higher threat are on the hunt. How is that irrelevant?
The story may not mirror the argued issue precisely but I think its hardly irrelevent.
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 11:43:00 -
[224]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 10/05/2007 11:52:35 For the love of all things holy! will people stop trying to use quickfit as a proof, it screws up far too muchà
I've splattered plenty of Drakes and Myrmidons, so what I want to see (because quite frankly I think you're all talking nonsense about these '1500 dps' tanked passive setups) is a screenshot, of the shield attributes, of a full T2/rigged passive Drake with near maximum skills, and likewise for a Myrmidon.
If you can't provide that proof, then frankly you have no argument.
Edit: and no funny business! I want to see the 'fitted modules' page of the attributes too...
----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Tibrius Archer
Kurai-Komichi Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 13:49:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Tibrius is completely insane when he's making allegations of 4 reps on a Harby to equal the tank on the Drake I posted).
The drake you quoted was too pages ago. Very good. By your own words the number were:
"You can run the scram and hardener for 40 minutes before running out of cap, doing 337.5 DPS, and tanking (424 EM, 1060 Exp, 706 Kin, 530 Thm, 605 Avg)".
Let me now then average them for you properly without mistakes ; 680hp/s on average.
The hargbringer has no repping bonus. A medium armour repairer 2 reps at; 35.555555555555555555555555555556hps/s 4 of them together therefore rep at 142.22222222222222222222hp/s.
The harbringer now has 2 low slots left.
Now to "seal the point" I am going to use two Chelms Modifield nano adaptive membranes that each give -30%.25 resistance base on all resistances at the cost into the billions provided Farjung has not bought them all:)
This gives the harbringer a perky average resistances of 82.56% 65.12% 65.88% 71.66% resistances EM Explosive Kinetic and Thermal respectivily.
I will now convert these resistances using the rep rate of the 4 reppers worked out earlier to damage tanked in hp/s per damage type.
The numbers for damage tanking on each resist are: 815.49hp/s EM 407.74hp/s Explosive 416.82hp/s Kinetic 501.84hp/s.
I will now average these as I did with Liang Nurens. The damage tanked per second is 535.463hp/s
Please note, that the damage tanked with this setup is 73% that of Laings Nurons Passive drake. Also realise with max cap skills and other moduales running that tank lasts only 55secs approx.
Now lets take another look at what Liang then said about me.
Quote:
Tibrius is completely insane when he's making allegations of 4 reps on a Harby to equal the tank on the Drake I posted).
Think about that. She diagnosed me with insanity. Just look at that. she really did. I just now have come home from an exam and torn her post apart. I have corrected her calculations for her. Proven they tank more. Proven a crazy expensive impossible harby tanks less.
Just look at what she said again:
Quote:
Tibrius is completely insane when he's making allegations of 4 reps on a Harby to equal the tank on the Drake I posted).
Why? why did she say that?
I have just taken the time there to compare a super duper activie tanking setup on a ship of the same class with faction gear. To prove even her rather lame 680hp/s figure is still too much. Remember she can distrupt too.
If more older chars posted on the this thread and it was not, "lets say Tib lies time" this post I just made would blow her out. But no. your all against the idea of loosing a I-win opertunity too much to see any reason. So after this I look forward to being called a fool or having to defend previous calculations.
*****************************************
"Get in my way and I will burn your fleet from stem to stern" |
Tibrius Archer
Kurai-Komichi Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 13:52:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 10/05/2007 11:52:35 For the love of all things holy! will people stop trying to use quickfit as a proof, it screws up far too muchà
I got loads of work on atm, and using quick fit saves me so much time. If someone proves that a calculation I have made to back up a point is wrong as they have taken the time to do it on paper I will back down. I am not here to "win". Only to make a point and get information. *****************************************
"Get in my way and I will burn your fleet from stem to stern" |
0raven0
OUTLAWZ IMMORTAL
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 21:04:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 10/05/2007 11:52:35 For the love of all things holy! will people stop trying to use quickfit as a proof, it screws up far too muchà
Nope quickfit is accurate to 1 or 2 hp/sec. Tested in game with same results as quckfit. ------
Quote: tuxford: AT LEAST ITS SPEELED CORRECTLY tuxford: spelled* Oveur: rofl
|
Thoughtless Legion
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 22:36:00 -
[228]
Ok, did anyone else notice he used the long range cyrstals on a ship 63m away? And as far as tanking, my passive tank Drake got wtfbbqed by a Claymore, should we now nerf the Claymore since it was able to decimate a CLEARLY overpowered ship?
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 08:06:00 -
[229]
---"I got loads of work on atm, and using quick fit saves me so much time. If someone proves that a calculation I have made to back up a point is wrong as they have taken the time to do it on paper I will back down. I am not here to "win". Only to make a point and get information."---
Quickfit is fine as far as Im concerned. Nobody is arguing that the Drake has a poor tank Tibrius. You've tried to make the point that the Drake's tank is too good to be kept as it is in relation to PVP. Nearly all the rest of the EVE community recognizes that even with a good tank the Drake is not the top dog for PVP gang or solo.
You can bring out as many 1bil ISK quickfits of possible drake setups. You can show that with a reduced tank it can have some utility and still tank decently, but no matter how many fits you come up with, the Drake is not overpowered and most everyone agrees with this.
How is it that you ask for information, then when told by many people with experience that the shield tank does not cause the Drake to be imbalanced, you rally out against all of them and call them all fools? It doesn't really make any sense.
I have agreed with the statement of Drakes being overpowered in PVE. Ive conceded that reducing the Drakes tank would be fine as long as it was boosted in other PVP useful areas. Ive also allowed that a SPR II stack nerf would be acceptable. The truth of the matter is that these things aren't needed at all in regards to making the Drake more in line PVP power wise with other ships.
Your limited Drake experiences tell you that the Drake's tank makes it overpowered. Most people with experience with the ship tell you that is not the case, what further information are you looking for?
It must be so frustrating for you to be sitting on that ego and try to argue a point that just isn't there. Sorry, come back with something else.
P.S. A few have mentioned that the only problem they have with passive shield tanking is that there is no counter to it. It is not something that needs to be countered. Train higher skills, bring a friend, or fly away, all options to "counter" high passive shield tanks.
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 08:24:00 -
[230]
Originally by: 0raven0
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 10/05/2007 11:52:35 For the love of all things holy! will people stop trying to use quickfit as a proof, it screws up far too muchà
Nope quickfit is accurate to 1 or 2 hp/sec. Tested in game with same results as quckfit.
Great, then you'll post a screenshot of a 1500 dps passive T2 tank?
(I don't trust quickfit because I see many 'setups' posted here that a)have the wrong dps, and b)sometimes don't even fit) ----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
|
Pottsey
Gallente Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 12:04:00 -
[231]
ôGreat, then you'll post a screenshot of a 1500 dps passive T2 tank?ö If you use Eve search and search for my old posts you should find one sooner or later. I posted various screenshots from 1000 (lowest resistance) to 3000+dps tanks. Never posted the 4000dps tank. If you dont find them let me know I can post some here when I get home from work.
I agree on not trusting quickfit. Its useful but often wrong, I find its always got my hitpoints a fair bit lower then I get in game. Quickfit seems to handle the gang skills wrong.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Tibrius Archer
Kurai-Komichi Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 15:49:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Spacer John ---"I got loads of work on atm, and using quick fit saves me so much time. If someone proves that a calculation I have made to back up a point is wrong as they have taken the time to do it on paper I will back down. I am not here to "win". Only to make a point and get information."---
Quickfit is fine as far as Im concerned. Nobody is arguing that the Drake has a poor tank Tibrius. You've tried to make the point that the Drake's tank is too good to be kept as it is in relation to PVP. Nearly all the rest of the EVE community recognizes that even with a good tank the Drake is not the top dog for PVP gang or solo.
You can bring out as many 1bil ISK quickfits of possible drake setups. You can show that with a reduced tank it can have some utility and still tank decently, but no matter how many fits you come up with, the Drake is not overpowered and most everyone agrees with this.
How is it that you ask for information, then when told by many people with experience that the shield tank does not cause the Drake to be imbalanced, you rally out against all of them and call them all fools? It doesn't really make any sense.
I have agreed with the statement of Drakes being overpowered in PVE. Ive conceded that reducing the Drakes tank would be fine as long as it was boosted in other PVP useful areas. Ive also allowed that a SPR II stack nerf would be acceptable. The truth of the matter is that these things aren't needed at all in regards to making the Drake more in line PVP power wise with other ships.
Your limited Drake experiences tell you that the Drake's tank makes it overpowered. Most people with experience with the ship tell you that is not the case, what further information are you looking for?
It must be so frustrating for you to be sitting on that ego and try to argue a point that just isn't there. Sorry, come back with something else.
P.S. A few have mentioned that the only problem they have with passive shield tanking is that there is no counter to it. It is not something that needs to be countered. Train higher skills, bring a friend, or fly away, all options to "counter" high passive shield tanks.
If you want to continue debating the issue its fine John. If I am arguing "a point that just isn't there. " Then stop posting. In arguements there are clearly those who will never agree, so why post again on my thread?
You agree prehaps its unfair in PvE, so thats as far as your willing to conceed on my point. Fine. The discusion is over for you.... but when I debate with someone else you are always one of the first ones to repsond? If watching me "sitting on that ego" is too much for you and you have made all the arguements you have wanted to make by your own admission why post again?
If your willing to back up your arguement properly post some examples, theory, numbers some sort of case thats baesed on facts other than what you think other people think I am very intrested to read what you say mate. *****************************************
"Get in my way and I will burn your fleet from stem to stern" |
Tibrius Archer
Kurai-Komichi Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 16:02:00 -
[233]
Originally by: Thoughtless Legion Ok, did anyone else notice he used the long range cyrstals on a ship 63m away? And as far as tanking, my passive tank Drake got wtfbbqed by a Claymore, should we now nerf the Claymore since it was able to decimate a CLEARLY overpowered ship?
First of all it was T2 close range conflag ammo. So asuming you have good eye sight I am going to assume your a newbie, and that you read up a little before joining in the debate. Claymore? Is that not a the low DPS minmatar fleet command T2 battlecriuser? You could not passivily shield tank a drake at all if you got ripped apart by that.
Earlier on in the thread its been proven that a max PvP setup passive shield tanking drake can withstand the max damage DPS of a PvP batttlecriuser. To think you went down to one that problaby did not do damage that favoured your weakest damage types and it was the low dps fleet command version suggests you not just a newbie but a n00b. *****************************************
"Get in my way and I will burn your fleet from stem to stern" |
Tibrius Archer
Kurai-Komichi Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 16:33:00 -
[234]
Ok, can someone make a real quantative arguement in support for the Drakes, and not just the drakes the other New battlecriusers' high recharge times relative to shild size. I am willing to bet nobody can. But if you think you can POST away with some evidence based on maxed skills.
BTW no more n00b posts please I am tired of correcting them and picking them apart. If you are sure someones wrong, take the time to double check. Then destroy them. *****************************************
"Get in my way and I will burn your fleet from stem to stern" |
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 16:44:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Pottsey ôGreat, then you'll post a screenshot of a 1500 dps passive T2 tank?ö If you use Eve search and search for my old posts you should find one sooner or later. I posted various screenshots from 1000 (lowest resistance) to 3000+dps tanks. Never posted the 4000dps tank. If you dont find them let me know I can post some here when I get home from work.
I agree on not trusting quickfit. Its useful but often wrong, I find its always got my hitpoints a fair bit lower then I get in game. Quickfit seems to handle the gang skills wrong.
I have the utmost admiration for the setups you come up with, I doubt anyone (including CCP) understands this subject better than you do I mean who have imagined a hauler standing up to what you proved it could do?!?!?
But I believe the request was because of 1 vs 1 combat, and the ungodly tanking situations you show heavily use gang/fleet bonuses and modules. I don't think they apply in this case..... <-----------> Factional Warefare:
The LowSec wars which never happened. |
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 16:48:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Tibrius Archer Ok, can someone make a real quantative arguement in support for the Drakes, and not just the drakes the other New battlecriusers' high recharge times relative to shild size. I am willing to bet nobody can. But if you think you can POST away with some evidence based on maxed skills.
BTW no more n00b posts please I am tired of correcting them and picking them apart. If you are sure someones wrong, take the time to double check. Then destroy them.
Many people have voiced their opinion (which is what you asked for originally) disagreeing with your opinion. You in turn call them n00bs and disregard citing numbers they can't duplicate.
Nothing to see here, move along. Trolls within. <-----------> Factional Warefare:
The LowSec wars which never happened. |
Igualmentedos
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 17:33:00 -
[237]
Jesus, it takes THIRTEEN slots (counting rigs and all) to have a good passive tank. Just accept that caldari has a good ship and stfu.
|
Liang Nuren
Templars of Space CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 18:31:00 -
[238]
A Dual rep cap injected rigged Myrmidon only gets 150 raw HP/sec. Its really quite easy to get similar resists (because of the resist bonus), higher resist rates, and a much larger buffer with 9-10 slots. I posted some setups in the thread linked above.
Even still, the Drake is not overpowered, really. It's not quite powerful enough, really... it could really use 1 extra low slot.
Myrmidon = 5 mids, 6 lows (11 total) Drake = 6 mids, 4 lows (10 total)
Liang My opinions are my own, and do not in any way reflect the beliefs of my corp/alliance. |
Tibrius Archer
Kurai-Komichi Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 19:08:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Tibrius Archer Ok, can someone make a real quantative arguement in support for the Drakes, and not just the drakes the other New battlecriusers' high recharge times relative to shild size. I am willing to bet nobody can. But if you think you can POST away with some evidence based on maxed skills.
BTW no more n00b posts please I am tired of correcting them and picking them apart. If you are sure someones wrong, take the time to double check. Then destroy them.
Many people have voiced their opinion (which is what you asked for originally) disagreeing with your opinion. You in turn call them n00bs and disregard citing numbers they can't duplicate.
Nothing to see here, move along. Trolls within.
They can't duplicate my numbers because there n00b what am I ment to do? eh? Congratulate them for not being able to follow a simple quickfit setup I gave them? What can I then do if there numbers are wrong and the facts they give are wrong too? Give them some isk? I am fine with people disagreeing but if they fail to give numbers or give wrong numbers or irrelavant examples and then attempt to me a liar because they don't understand my numbers can I do?
"citing numbers they can't duplicate" - Another indirect way off just saying my facts are made up because you don't understand them? I am no n00b to eve. Why on earth would I post numbers on the forum that are just made up? Why would I do that, do you think I would enjoy getting flamed?
If someones makes a point gives numbers to support that point that are correct there is nothing I can do.
When people do that I mitigate the point prehaps, what I don't do is call them n00b. But if they attempt to flame me with poor understanding or just to say a figure is false because it looks unrealistic and they cannot do it or belive it thats just rubbish.
*****************************************
"Get in my way and I will burn your fleet from stem to stern" |
Tibrius Archer
Kurai-Komichi Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 19:37:00 -
[240]
Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 11/05/2007 19:39:25
Originally by: Igualmentedos Jesus, it takes THIRTEEN slots (counting rigs and all) to have a good passive tank. Just accept that caldari has a good ship and stfu.
Why should I STFU on a thread I started mate? Why don't you just not view it?
13 slots? You must be talking about the 1200hp/s+ passive tank setup. Its funny because with 13 slots on any other non-capital ship active tanking in eve its near impossible to get that tank.
But I will admit it is only nearimpossible on other ships. Problaby possible on a raven or something with say slots 4-5 of which are XL boosters. But can you not see all those tanks last for like 30secs so there OK in 1v1! Passive tanking last forever! Get that point into your skulls.
Threads got so long people are coming up with old points that have been thrown out long ago. (oh and don't any n00b rush a post out saying that invunrability fields use cap that will cause the tank to fail.., because I blew that point out pages ago)
I also noticed that "Just accept that caldari has a good ship" line. Do you think I am like some sort of Eve racist. Or some sort of fanboy for one race? I am not a 12yrs old trying to argue a point soley on the ground that there my favriotes and there not my favriotes. Why on earth do people every page of this thread keep at some point suggesting anti-caldrism if such a thing is possible for a completly ficticous game. I just want a game balanced game. I am not trying to set myself up the win through forum subversion.
How you should have argued that was to:
1) Cut out the smack 2) Prove to me that the ship suffers more to the use of 13 slots on its tank compared to the boon of tanking 1200+dps, this could be done by showing me a setup of another ship (preferable in its class) that can thak that well activily using 13 slots and is cap stable with say, better damage. (the passive myrm is not an example that is acceptable) 3) Don't ever suggest Eve racism because you sound 12.
*****************************************
"Get in my way and I will burn your fleet from stem to stern" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |