Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.10.26 18:59:00 -
[1]
Hi,
our corp tested ongoing changes on Sisi with a focus on AF. We basicaly tested some cruiser vs. AF scenarios. Munin/Cerb/Deimos vs. AF. We did it because on TQ , flying assault coffins against cruiser is pointless.
Conclusions: cruiser sized weapons (even ACs) could not own a AF in TQ style. Support is needed (destroyers??), frigate size weapons and drones and of course neuts. A single web isn't a sure way to own a frigate. TP is helping.
Some fun and new fittings we tested: Jag with mwd+aft , hard to catch. Wolf equiped with oversized aferburner. Going 1800 , 2200 with hardwirings.
AFs have a normal agility now. You actualy could think, you flying a frigate now :) Good job CCP.
If a frigate gang is sharing tasks wisely (dmg, tackling, ew) , frig gangs have a chance to become potent part of guerillia warfare in future. |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.26 19:01:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks
If a frigate gang is sharing tasks wisely (dmg, tackling, ew) , frig gangs have a chance to become potent part of guerillia warfare in future.
This is what I have said to the nano whine squad for months. Guerilla warfare will be just fine after patch. |
Aya Vandenovich
|
Posted - 2008.10.26 19:20:00 -
[3]
AF and HAC gangs are going to be the new...HACs.
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2008.10.26 22:55:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Dex Nederland on 26/10/2008 23:01:46 Hell AFs are going to be even better for ratting.
Two Battlecruiser rats on a gate in my Hawk; not moving very little damage done to me; add a little speed and nothing. However my own missiles on my hawk could not do anything to a Dire Guristas Frigate (or a Battleship, need to test on the BCs and Cruisers).
I think something is wrong w/ the current SiSi build.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.26 23:12:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks
If a frigate gang is sharing tasks wisely (dmg, tackling, ew) , frig gangs have a chance to become potent part of guerillia warfare in future.
This is what I have said to the nano whine squad for months. Guerilla warfare will be just fine after patch.
Hardly... they sure have the "run" part of "hit and run" solved nicely, but dps is seriously lacking. Unless your idea of "guerilla warfare" is blobbing T1 cruisers with 15:1 odds, no, AFs are not going to be the solution.
I do, however, agree that it will be just fine, especially with the new agility changes. The difference is it's going to be with recon/Cerberus/Zealot/Vagabond gangs, not AFs. |
Bushmiller
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
|
Posted - 2008.10.26 23:18:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Bushmiller on 26/10/2008 23:19:25
Originally by: Dex Nederland I think something is wrong w/ the current SiSi build.
Everything works as intended. Confirmed.. |
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.10.26 23:32:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 26/10/2008 23:36:34
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
guerilla warfare" is blobbing T1 cruisers with 15:1 odds, no, AFs are not going to be the solution.
You do not need 15 frigates for a T1 cruiser, not even on TQ. I spoke of a well balanced dps/ew/tackling group not a dps blob.
"guerilla warfare" , I think today it's mainly harassing enemy. Temporary blobing (e.g. killing farmers) is a part of it. Basicly the job of today Hac/Recon gangs. And TQ AF cannot even participate in roaming, because of it's crap agility (It can of course but why to do it, when a nano Hac is more agile/speedy than a AF)
On the other side, I'm aware of limited guerilla capacity of Eve at all. You cannot do very much strategical damage with fast roaming gangs. In RL we have all sorts of asymetric warfare, including sabotage, pirating and so on. Eve have not any of this possibilities, besides of metagaming or cap blobs. Cap & metagaming can hit strategical targets. Roaming gangs are mostly fun. I would be nice if CCP would create some possibilities to hit ...moon mining or other stuff in 0.0.
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
I do, however, agree that it will be just fine, especially with the new agility changes. The difference is it's going to be with recon/Cerberus/Zealot/Vagabond gangs, not AFs.
Testing isn't over now. |
Syrinthal
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.26 23:57:00 -
[8]
Hey,
Agreeing with the point, AF's are rather fun to fly now - rather enjoyable :D
However, one thing that I think needs to be looked at is that you require 2 webs to be able to kill a light drone in sufficient time.
Other than that - frigs for the most part are quite nicely balanced I find (besides the Ranis, it needs a buff since the speed nerf really makes it more like a weak AF)
|
Shard Merchant
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 00:00:00 -
[9]
I've been testing Gallente AF all day, and it only served to remind me how bad the Enyo is in comparison to Ishkur.
With the new speed changes, Ishkur is considerably faster. It also doesn't have fitting issues, and can use a web. Damage output is very similar as well.
Enyo has 10 powergrid advantage over Ishkur but 2 more high slots. A 150mm railgun or standard launcher would be closer to 20 powergrid required. That's an afterburner setup, and not MWD. But that's a general problem with all Roden ships: they're terrible.
|
Evan Batarr
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 02:37:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks Conclusions: cruiser sized weapons (even ACs) could not own a AF in TQ style. Support is needed (destroyers??), frigate size weapons and drones and of course neuts. A single web isn't a sure way to own a frigate. TP is helping.
While I agree that AFs need love you really think it's a good change that a Frig cannot be hit by med size short range guns even if webbed? And your solution is to bring MORE ships? And neuts and drones and whatever - to kill a fecking AF?? Why not DD it ?
|
|
Kaahles
Jion Keanturi Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 05:25:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Evan Batarr
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks Conclusions: cruiser sized weapons (even ACs) could not own a AF in TQ style. Support is needed (destroyers??), frigate size weapons and drones and of course neuts. A single web isn't a sure way to own a frigate. TP is helping.
While I agree that AFs need love you really think it's a good change that a Frig cannot be hit by med size short range guns even if webbed? And your solution is to bring MORE ships? And neuts and drones and whatever - to kill a fecking AF?? Why not DD it ?
DD is something for ppl with too much money and a way too large... ah let's skip that one
But more seriously: I think you read it wrong. The solution is not to have the bigger gang/blobb to kill a af for example. The solution will be mixed gangs of various shiptypes. One ship alone isn't going to kill everything anymore. Quite interseting times ahead. I loved to fly af's "back in the old days" and I'd love to see this times coming back |
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 10:09:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 27/10/2008 10:10:33 @ Evan Batarr this:
Originally by: Kaahles But more seriously: I think you read it wrong. The solution is not to have the bigger gang/blobb to kill a af for example. The solution will be mixed gangs of various shiptypes. One ship alone isn't going to kill everything anymore.
Think of a big ship in one of todays navies, I don't think they can hit a fast thingy or a speed boat. They had to release own speed boats, use proper small size weapons or call support. Big ships have enough possibilities to kill frigates. You can use drones, neuts, small size weapons (e.g. assault launcher) and sometimes smart bombs. On Sisi only their main weapons systems cannot effectively destroy small vessels. So yes, I think it is a good thing.
|
Mikal Drey
Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 10:28:00 -
[13]
hey hey
have you tested a single huginn Vs any AF ?
|
Snow Banshee
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 10:35:00 -
[14]
quick question: plated vexor will still own all AF ( iskur included) ?
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 10:39:00 -
[15]
Rapier vs. AF.
I tested a "conventional" TQ Nanorapier against AFs. I changed slightly med modules to test TP-bonus potential. Hi: 650mm arty Med: mwd,LSE,2 x TP, 2 x web Low: nano stuff Rigs: Poly, Aux
Rapier going 2200 with hardwirings (not sure if our gang mod was active). Agility is worse than on TQ but still ok.
Scenario 1: Rapier is able to web AF at medium range (20+). AF dying rel. fast to arty and drones. Scenario 2: AF is able to close gap and go in close range orbit. With disabled Mwd Rapier cannot gain distance and medium arty cannot hit AF. Drones do fine. Don't think med AC's can help either. We tested a 180mm Muninn vs. AF scenario. ACs were not hitting very good if AF was in close orbit. |
Mikal Drey
Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 11:09:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks Rapier vs. AF.
I tested a "conventional" TQ Nanorapier against AFs. I changed slightly med modules to test TP-bonus potential. Hi: 650mm arty Med: mwd,LSE,2 x TP, 2 x web Low: nano stuff Rigs: Poly, Aux
Rapier going 2200 with hardwirings (not sure if our gang mod was active). Agility is worse than on TQ but still ok.
Scenario 1: Rapier is able to web AF at medium range (20+). AF dying rel. fast to arty and drones. Scenario 2: AF is able to close gap and go in close range orbit. With disabled Mwd Rapier cannot gain distance and medium arty cannot hit AF. Drones do fine. Don't think med AC's can help either. We tested a 180mm Muninn vs. AF scenario. ACs were not hitting very good if AF was in close orbit.
Just as i thought. :''(
|
Elaine Celeste
Celeste Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 13:06:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 27/10/2008 10:16:32
@ Evan Batarr this:
Originally by: Kaahles But more seriously: I think you read it wrong. The solution is not to have the bigger gang/blobb to kill a af for example. The solution will be mixed gangs of various shiptypes. One ship alone isn't going to kill everything anymore.
Think of a big ship in one of todays navies, I don't think they can hit a fast thingy or a speed boat. They had to release own speed boats, use proper small size weapons or call support. Big ships have enough possibilities to kill frigates. You can use drones, neuts, small size weapons (e.g. assault launcher), EW and sometimes smart bombs. On Sisi only their main weapons systems cannot effectively destroy small vessels. So yes, I think it is a good thing.
Actually, large military ships can hit whatever they want to. We're not in the 1940s anymore. What, you think every time the ships patrolling the coast of Somalia see a pirate speed-boat they just shoot it over and over without hitting while the pirates are laughing their asses off and talking ****? It might not be as easy as hitting a large ship, but it's still pretty damn easy.
When's the last time you saw little speed-boats protecting the USS Iowa?
Sorry, but the idea of modern navies needing to "release [their] own speed boats" to hit smaller vessels is just ridiculous. Also, Eve is supposed to take place in the future where technology is even more advanced.
So really, let's stop comparing Eve to RL. It's a spaceship game after all...
Celeste Industries - BPOs, BPCs, ships, components, ammo, etc. |
Jarne
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 13:29:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Jarne on 27/10/2008 13:32:08 LOL @ Elaine: Do you agree to Zhula or don't you? If you do, then why disagree with him in a post totally off the actual topic? If you don't then why do you base your argument on a RL example while at the same time stating that RL comparisons are stupid? A few other flaws in your argument then: That technology is far more advanced doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have any drawbacks that its predecessors didn't have. Also, the IOWA class ships were used to escort aircraft carriers, thus they were actually support themselves... now somehow some ships in RL did still need support.
[Edit]And one last thing: In RL comparisons please remember that the military does not try to balance their ships for more fun as CCP does with EVE. RL comparisons are just for the flavour :). So I'd say RL comparisons aren't stupid, they are sometimes very nice actually. They should not be the base for balancing the game. They should be made after balancing to "justify" the changes for all the role players out there :).[/Edit] |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 13:34:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks Hi,
our corp tested ongoing changes on Sisi with a focus on AF. We basicaly tested some cruiser vs. AF scenarios. Munin/Cerb/Deimos vs. AF. We did it because on TQ , flying assault coffins against cruiser is pointless.
Conclusions: cruiser sized weapons (even ACs) could not own a AF in TQ style. Support is needed (destroyers??), frigate size weapons and drones and of course neuts. A single web isn't a sure way to own a frigate. TP is helping.
Were your tests and so your conclusions based on 1 v 1 scenarios or gang vs gang scenarios because in all our tests friggie gangs were useless against cruiser and BC gangs.
Yes yes 3 or 4 friggies could beat a couple of ratting BC or cruisers but in every case where both gangs were fitted smartly for pvp friggates were pointless and melted in seconds. |
Elaine Celeste
Celeste Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 13:45:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jarne Edited by: Jarne on 27/10/2008 13:32:08 LOL @ Elaine: Do you agree to Zhula or don't you? If you do, then why disagree with him in a post totally off the actual topic? If you don't then why do you base your argument on a RL example while at the same time stating that RL comparisons are stupid? A few other flaws in your argument then: That technology is far more advanced doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have any drawbacks that its predecessors didn't have. Also, the IOWA class ships were used to escort aircraft carriers, thus they were actually support themselves... now somehow some ships in RL did still need support.
[Edit]And one last thing: In RL comparisons please remember that the military does not try to balance their ships for more fun as CCP does with EVE. RL comparisons are just for the flavour :). So I'd say RL comparisons aren't stupid, they are sometimes very nice actually. They should not be the base for balancing the game. They should be made after balancing to "justify" the changes for all the role players out there :).[/Edit]
Oh, I agree with Zhula. I just think it's ridiculous comparing interwebs spaceshipz to RL.
Sorry, I simply couldn't resist bashing the idea of large ships deploying smaller speed-boats to fend off pirates. |
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 13:54:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 27/10/2008 13:55:24 @Elaine
"Eve is supposed to take place in the future where technology is even more advanced."
It's just matter of scale. You arguing with future technology. But even future technology has issues with scale divergence. On one side you have advanced nanotechnology with some kind of nano-bots on the other huge death rays. Both works fine if applied to their proper scale.
Your wish is a omnipotent general death device which can pulverize all kind of ships. We already have it and it's called DDD. Applying your logic to other weapon systems would just end with "I have moooarh of anything, die you noob!" "I have more ISK than you, die noob!" . This way leads to a boring single dimensional warfare , where almost everybody flying same ships and fittings. CCP is trying to enhance variability and force players to user their brains not just raw DPS.
As for RL (again). I'm pretty sure todays big ships have lot of support craft nearby. Real BS are out of duty today (almost) but think of a lone WWII BS trying to achieve something on his own. This BS would fail for sure. I know.. let's not compare RL to Eve, then let just all train for BS or caps and delete rest of Eve.
Small speedboat...ok just an idea :) Of course a future technology would be something totaly different but basicly the same..let's call it drones , ok :) ???
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 13:58:00 -
[22]
Originally by: lecrotta
Were your tests and so your conclusions based on 1 v 1 scenarios or gang vs gang scenarios because in all our tests friggie gangs were useless against cruiser and BC gangs.
Yes yes 4 or 5 assault frigates could beat a solo or maybe a couple of ratting BC or cruisers but in every case where both gangs were fitted smartly for pvp assault frigates were pointless and melted in seconds.
Yes I know. Just only basic testing. Sisi is wating for you! :) |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 14:03:00 -
[23]
Edited by: lecrotta on 27/10/2008 14:03:28
Originally by: Zhula Guixgrixks
Originally by: lecrotta
Were your tests and so your conclusions based on 1 v 1 scenarios or gang vs gang scenarios because in all our tests friggie gangs were useless against cruiser and BC gangs.
Yes yes 4 or 5 assault frigates could beat a solo or maybe a couple of ratting BC or cruisers but in every case where both gangs were fitted smartly for pvp assault frigates were pointless and melted in seconds.
Yes I know. Just only basic testing. Sisi is wating for you! :)
Been on it every day pal testing one setup and problem after another, and apart from the occasional player who makes a post about how he thinks things are fine cos half a dozen or more frigates with ewar fitted can gank a solo ratter the changes are particularly bad. |
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:02:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Elaine Celeste
Actually, large military ships can hit whatever they want to. We're not in the 1940s anymore. What, you think every time the ships patrolling the coast of Somalia see a pirate speed-boat they just shoot it over and over without hitting while the pirates are laughing their asses off and talking ****? It might not be as easy as hitting a large ship, but it's still pretty damn easy.
When's the last time you saw little speed-boats protecting the USS Iowa?
Sorry, but the idea of modern navies needing to "release [their] own speed boats" to hit smaller vessels is just ridiculous. Also, Eve is supposed to take place in the future where technology is even more advanced.
So really, let's stop comparing Eve to RL. It's a spaceship game after all...
Sorry to jump into real life here, but you are just plain wrong on many, many counts when it comes to actual Terrestial navy ships:
1. Battleships have not played a major part in naval combat since WWII. Some would even say WWI because their primary role in WWII was as fast AA platforms to protect carrier groups and to bombard shore targets. The USN reactivated several battleships of the USS Iowa class for the Korean and Vietnam conflicts and again during the 80's and early 90's, but by and large, the battleship has been dead as a class of ship for 60 years.
2. Current large military ships most certainly cannot hit whatever they want to and are incredibly vulnerable to attack by swarms of small boats. Read up on the USS Cole for an example of what one small, fast craft filled with explosives can do against a hundreds-of-millions dollar warship. This incident also serves as an exmaple of what happens when people rley too much on technology and not enough on armor plating to protect ships and sailors.
3. The primary focus of the US Navy today is aircraft carriers. They are weak on their own but their strength comes from the large number and wide variety of aircraft they can launch. They provide an amount of flexibility that is generally unmatched by any other surface combatant. It's no coincidence that whenever a crisis pops up in the world, one of the first questions asked is usually, "Where's our closest carrier?"
I make no claims that this is the way that things should be for real-world naval ships, only that this is the way things are.
I also make no claim about how this should or should not impact EvE; I am simply setting someone straight regarding real-world navies. Elaine, if you wish to discuss the matter further feel free to contact me; this is not the place for such a discussion. Same applies to anyone else as well. |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:18:00 -
[25]
Edited by: lecrotta on 27/10/2008 15:19:22
Originally by: Bronson Hughes 1. Battleships have not played a major part in naval combat since WWII. Some would even say WWI because their primary role in WWII was as fast AA platforms to protect carrier groups and to bombard shore targets.
AA platforms?????, as in killing very small, extremely fast moving and maneuverable targets?.
Originally by: Bronson Hughes 2. Current large military ships most certainly cannot hit whatever they want to and are incredibly vulnerable to attack by swarms of small boats. Read up on the USS Cole for an example of what one small, fast craft filled with explosives can do against a hundreds-of-millions dollar warship.
A stationary BS NOT FIRING on the approaching target and it getting so close in a peaceful harbour that they were exchanging greetings with the sailors on the BS before setting off the explosives?....and this is your example of a large ship not being able to hit a small one?. Bud theirs systems around now that can kill missiles in flight heading towards ships let alone being able to hit small ships.
Originally by: Bronson Hughes 3. The primary focus of the US Navy today is aircraft carriers. They are weak on their own but their strength comes from the large number and wide variety of aircraft they can launch.
They are not weak its just that offensive weapons systems have progressed much further in RL than defensive ones. 1 Missile can carry a nuke in its payload or even enough high explosive to wreck any ship in any navy unlike in the past where gunnery was relied upon and had considerably less effect against large ships. |
Jarne
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:06:00 -
[26]
Sry Elaine, I hope I wasn't too negative in my comment.
And I fear Zhula didn't quite understand you when he tried to counter your arguments which weren't any to counter his ;). He's a nice guy though.
Ah the forums is just such a nice place to get upset very fast about other posters and post crap as a consequence (I plead guilty here myself, too)...
Please try to keep nice to each other!-)
P.S.: We probably need a new sub forum for those interested in contemporary military technology to share their thoughts about the real life world :), but this is not the place. - Success=Achievements/Expectations
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:13:00 -
[27]
@Elaine , Yes sorry Elaine :) Forums are not good if ppl going emo about something. Plain text is not enough if you cannot see others face or know him very good.
Btw: Jarne would make a good mod here :)
|
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:20:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Bronson Hughes Elaine, if you wish to discuss the matter further feel free to contact me; this is not the place for such a discussion. Same applies to anyone else as well.
Violating my own post slightly, but....
Originally by: lecrotta
AA platforms?????, as in killing very small, extremely fast moving and maneuverable targets?
Absolutely. WWII Battleships were literally bristling with AA weaponry. 20mm/40mm machine guns, 3in/5in DP guns, AA radars, rudimentary tracking computers, etc. The only platform that proved really effective in killing battleships in WWII was aircraft so naval designers made bloody well sure that battleships could defend themselves from aircraft. As an EvE comparison, imagine a battleship with 16 high slots; 8 of them with no module size restrictions, 8 of them limited to frigate-sized guns. This is the kind of weaponry that last generation Terrestial battleships sailed with.
Originally by: lecrotta A stationary destroyer NOT FIRING on the approaching target and it getting so close in a peaceful harbour that they were exchanging greetings with the sailors on the BS before setting off the explosives?....and this is your example of a large ship not being able to hit a small one?. Bud theirs systems around now that can kill missiles in flight heading towards ships let alone being able to hit small ships.
While a large part of the success of this attack was the element of suprise, a lot of people in naval circles agree that it could have just as likely succeded if they were at sea and the attackers had a big flashing sign on the boat announcing their intentions. At the time of the attack, there were very few weapons on most US destroyers that could have hit, let alone stopped, a small, fast attacking ship in that situation. That attack served as a wake-up call and most combat ships have gotten an upgrade in their small-caliber weaponry and port security in general has been beefed up considerably.
As an aside, if this attack had happened against any WWII era battleship, they probably wouldn't have even noticed it until they put into drydock to get their hull painted. The armor plating on 'modern' naval vessels is suprisingly light, which is why you have 'destroyers' the size of WWI battleships yet weighing a fraction as much.
Originally by: lecrotta They are not weak its just that offensive weapons systems have progressed much further in RL than defensive ones. 1 Missile can carry a nuke in its payload or even enough high explosive to wreck any ship in any navy unlike in the past where gunnery was relied upon and had considerably less effect against large ships.
When I was calling the carrier weak, I was refering to their on-board weaponry, barring aircraft, compared to other combat ships. Your statement above is, in general, correct. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
Elaine Celeste
Celeste Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 17:22:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Bronson Hughes
Originally by: Elaine Celeste
Actually, large military ships can hit whatever they want to. We're not in the 1940s anymore. What, you think every time the ships patrolling the coast of Somalia see a pirate speed-boat they just shoot it over and over without hitting while the pirates are laughing their asses off and talking ****? It might not be as easy as hitting a large ship, but it's still pretty damn easy.
When's the last time you saw little speed-boats protecting the USS Iowa?
Sorry, but the idea of modern navies needing to "release [their] own speed boats" to hit smaller vessels is just ridiculous. Also, Eve is supposed to take place in the future where technology is even more advanced.
So really, let's stop comparing Eve to RL. It's a spaceship game after all...
Sorry to jump into real life here, but you are just plain wrong on many, many counts when it comes to actual Terrestial navy ships:
1. Battleships have not played a major part in naval combat since WWII. Some would even say WWI because their primary role in WWII was as fast AA platforms to protect carrier groups and to bombard shore targets. The USN reactivated several battleships of the USS Iowa class for the Korean and Vietnam conflicts and again during the 80's and early 90's, but by and large, the battleship has been dead as a class of ship for 60 years.
2. Current large military ships most certainly cannot hit whatever they want to and are incredibly vulnerable to attack by swarms of small boats. Read up on the USS Cole for an example of what one small, fast craft filled with explosives can do against a hundreds-of-millions dollar warship. This incident also serves as an exmaple of what happens when people rley too much on technology and not enough on armor plating to protect ships and sailors.
3. The primary focus of the US Navy today is aircraft carriers. They are weak on their own but their strength comes from the large number and wide variety of aircraft they can launch. They provide an amount of flexibility that is generally unmatched by any other surface combatant. It's no coincidence that whenever a crisis pops up in the world, one of the first questions asked is usually, "Where's our closest carrier?"
I make no claims that this is the way that things should be for real-world naval ships, only that this is the way things are.
I also make no claim about how this should or should not impact EvE; I am simply setting someone straight regarding real-world navies. Elaine, if you wish to discuss the matter further feel free to contact me; this is not the place for such a discussion. Same applies to anyone else as well.
#2 voids your entire argument. Blowing up a ship while it's in a port says nothing about its defensive or offensive capabilities.
If a speed-boat (or 30 of them for argument's sake) approaches a large military ship in open waters, they are not going to come close enough to do enough damage.
Honestly... if speed-boats are the ****nit all of a sudden, then why aren't modern countries investing in, uh, combat speed-boat technology?
Celeste Industries - BPOs, BPCs, ships, components, ammo, etc. |
Kadoes Khan
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:08:00 -
[30]
Eh, this is the AF thread right? I'm not lost?
Anyways, AF's certainly perform a bit better but they still are quite lacking in some areas. Their tank is where it should be(nearly double a normal frigs) however it's DPS isn't really where it needs to be, it needs to come up just a bit. Also some, like the retribution, need to be made so that they are mildly useful. Having a ship with 1 mid is not very useful. With ships like that I'd rather crack out a gank fit crusader or something as it will perform much better. It needs at least 2 mids, unless you want the ship to slowboat around(and AFs are not quick ships even with a MWD), which is worthless for a frig. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |