EVE Search - Upcoming drake nerf, train minmitar or amarr?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Upcoming drake nerf, train minmitar or amarr?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.10.23 23:25:00 - [31] Originally by: OT Smithers CCP does not want missile boats in fleet PvP. Incorrect. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
OT Smithers	Posted - 2010.10.24 01:30:00 - [32] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: OT Smithers CCP does not want missile boats in fleet PvP. Incorrect. You're probably right. I am quite sure that they are ignoring all of the laughably unbalanced ships and weapon systems in the game and instead considering nerfing a ship that they admit is well balanced in everything except fleet play, after openly stating that missile spam is causing them server problems, because they really want MORE of them slogging down their servers. Or perhaps not. Maybe, just maybe, the only sensible reason they offered for wanting to nerf the thing is, in fact, the truth. Two-hundred Drakes spamming each other with missiles could easily add almost 3000 unique server tracked objects for them to handle. It's no wonder lag is such a huge problem.
Captain Sweatervest	Posted - 2010.10.24 01:33:00 - [33] Except server problems post-dominion didn't coincide with the onset of popular drake fleets, they far preceeded the drake fad in-fact. If drakes are ccp's excuse for having nodes die after dominion then they've got a bit more explaining to do.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.10.24 01:43:00 - [34] Originally by: Captain Sweatervest Except server problems post-dominion didn't coincide with the onset of popular drake fleets, they far preceeded the drake fad in-fact. If drakes are ccp's excuse for having nodes die after dominion then they've got a bit more explaining to do. There have been about a dozen dev blogs explaining the situation. Maybe you should go read them and stop being a pretentious asshat. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.10.24 01:51:00 - [35] It seems Drakes are considered overpowered because of the massive tank that they're able to fit, the shield resist bonus likely being the primary cause of their popularity as buffer ships. A blob of shield tanked drakes is in many respects better than a blob of tanked battleships because whilst their damage output is lower, they're also a hella lot cheaper to lose than even the (often useless for fleet PvP) tier one BS - let alone the 80 or 120m required for T2 or T3. The missiles load on the server has already been identified as a HUGE lag problem (see the Dev blog post on fighter bombers and the server load they cause!) because Eve apparently interprets a missile as an entity in space which requires a great deal more server traffic. Obligatory Gallente Butthurt Section A battlecruiser should NOT be able to out-tank a battleship whilst doing respectable dps/support, end of discussion. I see no reason why the Drake shouldn't suffer along with the Brutix and Myrmidon as a gimped active tank cap-dependent failship that will die inside of a minute. A resists bonus to armor or shield is exactly the kind of passive bonus that can't really be worked around. Maybe if the resist bonus only applied to one of the four possible resists.. now there's an idea - what do the Amarr whine squad have to say to that? It'd fix active tanking (sorta) by making the blanket resist bonus less ******edly OP.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce	Posted - 2010.10.24 02:03:00 - [36] Originally by: Ogogov It seems Drakes are considered overpowered because of the massive tank that they're able to fit, the shield resist bonus likely being the primary cause of their popularity as buffer ships. A blob of shield tanked drakes is in many respects better than a blob of tanked battleships because whilst their damage output is lower, they're also a hella lot cheaper to lose than even the (often useless for fleet PvP) tier one BS - let alone the 80 or 120m required for T2 or T3. The missiles load on the server has already been identified as a HUGE lag problem (see the Dev blog post on fighter bombers and the server load they cause!) because Eve apparently interprets a missile as an entity in space which requires a great deal more server traffic. Obligatory Gallente Butthurt Section A battlecruiser should NOT be able to out-tank a battleship whilst doing respectable dps/support, end of discussion. I see no reason why the Drake shouldn't suffer along with the Brutix and Myrmidon as a gimped active tank cap-dependent failship that will die inside of a minute. A resists bonus to armor or shield is exactly the kind of passive bonus that can't really be worked around. Maybe if the resist bonus only applied to one of the four possible resists.. now there's an idea - what do the Amarr whine squad have to say to that? It'd fix active tanking (sorta) by making the blanket resist bonus less ****edly OP. tbh, the shield resist bonus could be the only thing that needs to be fiddled on. but CCP's track record (AKA "sledgehammer approach") implies that, beyond fiddling with the shield resist bonus they will also: kill recharge rate of shields; decrease shield HP; swap kinetic damage bonus for a +10% missile flight time bonus, AND delete one of the missile slots. so in the end, CCP will nerf the drake so hard that it becomes useless. --- Quote:** The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Captain Sweatervest	Posted - 2010.10.24 02:05:00 - [37] Edited by: Captain Sweatervest on 24/10/2010 02:16:10 Edited by: Captain Sweatervest on 24/10/2010 02:13:45 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Captain Sweatervest Except server problems post-dominion didn't coincide with the onset of popular drake fleets, they far preceeded the drake fad in-fact. If drakes are ccp's excuse for having nodes die after dominion then they've got a bit more explaining to do. There have been about a dozen dev blogs explaining the situation. Maybe you should go read them and stop being a pretentious asshat. -Liang Please enlighten me, fellow pretentious asshat? Or was that post ironic? I've read the "lag" related dev blogs and I haven't noted anything that pointed a finger at any particular ship, weapon system, or uh anything else for that matter. Are you supposing that drakes should take one for the team, or just being a snyde prick about something you assume everyone should understand?
SheriffFruitfly Caldari	Posted - 2010.10.24 04:56:00 - [38] First it was BECAUSE OF FALCON, now it's BECAUSE OF DRAKE. lols __________________________________________________________ Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Kokura Nin	Posted - 2010.10.24 10:07:00 - [39] Edited by: Kokura Nin on 24/10/2010 10:13:43 Originally by: Pinky Starstrider Missle spam is easy to fix, and would likely be more welcome than a nerf on on of the most popular PVE ships, and current FOTM. Just get rid of missile flight time and make the damage instant, tack the flight time onto launcher duration and call it a day. I made a post last night when it popped into my head that DPS could remain unchanged with missiles becoming instant damage like turrets. Basically Base Duration + Distance/Missile Velocity = Launcher Duration. ex. 10s (Bd) + 70K(D)/5K(Mv) = 24 MLd this cuts out missiles needing to be tracked an keeps the DPS equal to what it was before, as you get closer the rate of fire increases (as in the current state missiles take less time to reach target). Strictly speaking the DPS here is lower but its instant, old scheme was higher DPS but it was delayed by flighttime. With the this scheme we'd also get an extra bit of range since now some flighttime is lost by missiles turning. This would open the door for "faster" missiles ( since server doesnt need to track em ). Missile speed would need a looking over tho...with your proposal you can easily cut theoretical dps by over half.
Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.10.24 11:24:00 - [40] Lower missile ROF, Increase damage, increase missile velocity, lower flight time... voila! less missiles around in space. As for the Battleship comparison, people use Drakes for cost/low sp reasons/:effort:/:lazy Fc'ing: , you can even get a Scorpion, a battleship without ANY damage or tank bonus to MATCH the Drake in DPS/Buffer Tank and still have space for 3 ECM Jammers and 2 Signal Distortion amplifiers, I'm sure the other battleships can do even better..
captain foivos	Posted - 2010.10.24 11:31:00 - [41] Originally by: SheriffFruitfly First it was BECAUSE OF FALCON, now it's BECAUSE OF DRAKE. lols Hide your supercaps, hide your dramiels, and hide your drakes 'cuz they be nerfin' errbody out there. Drakes are the most balanced and noob-friendly ship in the entire game. Hence, why everyone and their mother likes them for fleet PvP. Really, all they need to do to fix missile lag is make the damage an instantaneous occurence, which can be done using suggestions already listed here. Bam. Server lag reduced. In short, nerf my Drake, and I'll just settle for the next best battlecruiser, which happens to be Amarr (at least with my skills, I don't have the 'Cane trained up, so Minmatar dudes don't bother whining). Also posting to support a Ferox buff. -- Warning: sensors indicate an unusually low level of content in this thread.
Kokura Nin	Posted - 2010.10.24 11:35:00 - [42] Originally by: Rastigan Lower missile ROF, Increase damage, increase missile velocity, lower flight time... voila! less missiles around in space. As for the Battleship comparison, people use Drakes for cost/low sp reasons/:effort:/:lazy Fc'ing: , you can even get a Scorpion, a battleship without ANY damage or tank bonus to MATCH the Drake in DPS/Buffer Tank and still have space for 3 ECM Jammers and 2 Signal Distortion amplifiers, I'm sure the other battleships can do even better.. Cost and speed will be lacking tho.
Pinky Starstrider	Posted - 2010.10.24 16:31:00 - [43] Originally by: Kokura Nin Edited by: Kokura Nin on 24/10/2010 10:13:43 Originally by: Pinky Starstrider Missle spam is easy to fix, and would likely be more welcome than a nerf on on of the most popular PVE ships, and current FOTM. Just get rid of missile flight time and make the damage instant, tack the flight time onto launcher duration and call it a day. I made a post last night when it popped into my head that DPS could remain unchanged with missiles becoming instant damage like turrets. Basically Base Duration + Distance/Missile Velocity = Launcher Duration. ex. 10s (Bd) + 70K(D)/5K(Mv) = 24 MLd this cuts out missiles needing to be tracked an keeps the DPS equal to what it was before, as you get closer the rate of fire increases (as in the current state missiles take less time to reach target). Strictly speaking the DPS here is lower but its instant, old scheme was higher DPS but it was delayed by flighttime. With the this scheme we'd also get an extra bit of range since now some flighttime is lost by missiles turning. This would open the door for "faster" missiles ( since server doesnt need to track em ). Missile speed would need a looking over tho...with your proposal you can easily cut theoretical dps by over half. How so? If it takes 14 seconds for a missile to travel from point A to point B how does taking that 14 seconds and adding it to the initial launch change the DPS? You still deal the same damage in the same time frame there for you deal the same DPS. As you get closer and the distance changes your ROF increases to match. It is the exact same function we have now, except instead of giving a silly animation and having an object in space being tracked it is just a fire and hit animation like turrets.
Kokura Nin	Posted - 2010.10.24 16:43:00 - [44] As is : DPS goes up to full after the first missiles hit. Your scheme : DPS will stay lower if target remains @ same range.
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2010.10.24 19:16:00 - [45] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: OT Smithers CCP does not want missile boats in fleet PvP. incorrect. Correct. It's pretty obvious they don't want missiles prevalent in pvp, or Caldari in general. In before the, but you have ECM! dev alts and fan boys. Cald ECM isnt Op, fit ECCM foo, the others just suck horribly. They nerfed Cruise into general uselessness. No one uses Cruise Ravens for pvp, barring boring ass pos shoots maybe. There is simply no pvp niche for it to fit into that can't be totally wtfpwned by another weapon system. Anything requiring range + tracking + DPS = Amarr BS, or just range = Rokh (lol dps). The expl velocity/radius missile nerf forced torp Ravens to fit painters and webs thus creating a super weak tank. Everyone primaries these first, asuming any are on the field in pvp, there arent mostly now, but you might see one at a gate camp , maybe. Better off in an Amarr BS with great tracking, similar range and no need for 2 painters and triple webbing on the target. The slotting for these ships was created WAY before the massive change the missile nerf brought. It hasnt been fixed, or ever will be. I know this, most pvp'ers know all this, CCP must know this, so it must be what they want. And now they are talking nerfing the Drake, the only decent and inexpensive solo/small gang ship which is no more op than any other top/popular ship of it's respective shipclass; Hell, Chronitis even admitted this. How long has the Drake been like this? Years! And suddenly they are Op? LOL! So to sumarize: Cald got the ECM nerf, the Falcon nerf, the missile nerf which reduced applied dps across the board and took from needed midslots of multiple ships not to mention ruined Cruise for pvp, Raven is meh now, the various shield regen nerfs, rails still suck terribad in all ways except the most useless, and you want to nerf the Drake? Rofl facepalm If it's a matter of tank or gank, you already boned us with the missile nerf once Chronitis. Want to do something constructive? Improve rail dps and/or tracking and look at blasters.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce	Posted - 2010.10.24 19:21:00 - [46] Originally by: Soporo So to sumarize: Cald got the ECM nerf, the Falcon nerf, the missile nerf which reduced applied dps across the board and took from needed midslots of multiple ships not to mention ruined Cruise for pvp, Raven is meh now, the various shield regen nerfs, rails still suck terribad in all ways except the most useless, and you want to nerf the Drake? Rofl facepalm tbh the problem is not them ships being nerfed, but the fact that CCP thinks that applying sledgehammer to the ships is the way to go. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Exploited Engineer	Posted - 2010.10.24 19:25:00 - [47] Just change the current "homing" missile system to one where missiles have a turn radius of zero, e.g. missile impacts as soon as (current flight time * missile velocity) >= (distance to target). It won't really make a difference in 99% of all situations and simplify missile flight path calculations immensely, thereby allowing the servers to easily cope with lots of missiles in flight. And for anyone saying that this isn't realistic: Missile damage is based on an absolute velocity. Missing realism starts here, as there's no such thing as an absolute velocity in space.
Kontract Killa	Posted - 2010.10.24 21:45:00 - [48] So does anyone know exactly how or if they are going to nerf the Drake? All I'm seeing is a lot of bickering back and forth about the ship's flaws/strengths. I just want to know if they are going to nerf it, and exactly how they will be doing it. I want stats so I know whether to keep training the skills for the Drake(if it's even worth doing), or start looking into flying another type of Battlecruiser.
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2010.10.24 22:27:00 - [49] Originally by: Grimpak what was seen from people with some sense of vision is, the drake was getting a nerf sooner or later. now I don't mind a nerf that would make the ship still ok. but knowing CCP, they will pretty much drop a sledgehammer on it. See, that's the thing. they have no sense of vision whatsoever. The (alleged upcoming) balance isn't to nerf the ship, the drake itself. Its to counterbalance the exploit.
Leksi Bar'zuk	Posted - 2010.10.24 22:48:00 - [50] Originally by: Kontract Killa So does anyone know exactly how or if they are going to nerf the Drake? All I'm seeing is a lot of bickering back and forth about the ship's flaws/strengths. I just want to know if they are going to nerf it, and exactly how they will be doing it. I want stats so I know whether to keep training the skills for the Drake(if it's even worth doing), or start looking into flying another type of Battlecruiser. Given that a dev has made three posts on the issue thus far (none too reassuring based on CCP's past), I'd hedge my bets and start training turrets.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.10.24 22:50:00 - [51] Originally by: Kontract Killa So does anyone know exactly how or if they are going to nerf the Drake? No. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Don Pellegrino Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.10.25 02:32:00 - [52] Troll thread rating: 8/10 +2 for the insane number of bites = 10/10. Would read again.
Pinky Starstrider	Posted - 2010.10.25 05:49:00 - [53] Originally by: Cipher Jones Originally by: Grimpak what was seen from people with some sense of vision is, the drake was getting a nerf sooner or later. now I don't mind a nerf that would make the ship still ok. but knowing CCP, they will pretty much drop a sledgehammer on it. See, that's the thing. they have no sense of vision whatsoever. The (alleged upcoming) balance isn't to nerf the ship, the drake itself. Its to counterbalance the exploit. What exploit? A BC shooting from range to counter HAC fleets? How is that any more an exploit than HAC fleets countering BS fleets? or BS fleets countering BC fleets? Or is it because there is actually a use for a non-armor tanked, non Amarr/Minny ship in PVP.
Solid Star	Posted - 2010.10.25 06:20:00 - [54] Edited by: Solid Star on 25/10/2010 06:22:49 What really made the Drake explode in popularity was the huge speed nerf CCP did where fast ships were moving at half the speed. What this essentially did was double the time to get to a (and run away) from a hostile (so they cant hit you twice as long). Couple this with the increase in logistics (which inherently works better with high resist ships) and the drop in drake prices and it is not rocket science to figure out why the Drake is such a popular pvp ship. It is ship with good range, high resists, low sp training, and cheap. If you follow the stats you will see a steady rise after the nano nerf in people flying T1 BCs. Before the great speed nerf I don't think the drake was even in the top 5 in kills (based on the eve kill). Now the drakes kills is about the same as the next 5 pvp boats combined (again, eve kill site). Statistically, no ship has ever even come close to the numbers you see with the drake. Not the falcon nor the Vaga. And if that is not enough, the drake is the only ship that has a whole gang type named after it. If CCP is to nerf the drake I think they should look at the whole line of Caldari though as their pvp options are not all that great. Though, I think Gallente should be looked at before Caldari as drones just don't work (well) in PVP anymore.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.10.25 06:37:00 - [55] Originally by: Captain Sweatervest Please enlighten me, fellow pretentious asshat? Or was that post ironic? I've read the "lag" related dev blogs and I haven't noted anything that pointed a finger at any particular ship, weapon system, or uh anything else for that matter. Are you supposing that drakes should take one for the team, or just being a snyde prick about something you assume everyone should understand? I was simply responding to your post in the spirit with which you posted it. The dev blogs have been pretty clear that the majority of the "Dominion Lag" actually originated from a bug written for Apocrypha. However, Dominion also made several changes that increased the popularity of "missile" ships (SCs, Drakes, Bombers, etc). The steady rise of popularity in "missile" ships is quite likely keeping pace with the performance improvements the Devs are making. Furthermore, the Devs are pretty well correct - the Drake is overpowered in that situation. It has spectacular HP, awesome damage projection, and pretty decent mobility. So CCP suggests changing the Drake and you flip out. Smooth move slick. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter Blog
Mfume Apocal Minmatar	Posted - 2010.10.25 06:48:00 - [56] Edited by: Mfume Apocal on 25/10/2010 06:50:31 Originally by: Solid Star Edited by: Solid Star on 25/10/2010 06:22:49 What really made the Drake explode in popularity was the huge speed nerf CCP did... As late as seven months ago, the Drake was considered by everyone I talked to as primarily a PvE ship, with it's only PvP purpose being bait. Of course, back then the armor tanked BS was still considered subcap king of the grid and putting Drakes on the field with those just ends in a lot of dead Drakes. When it's natural predator was hunted to near extinction by afterburning armor HACs, the Drake population exploded. Especially since you can have strong tank and good enough DPS out of a Drake with under 3M SP, allowing everyone and their dog to fly one effectively.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.10.25 08:45:00 - [57] Edited by: Tippia on 25/10/2010 08:48:02 Originally by: Solid Star What really made the Drake explode in popularity was the huge speed nerf CCP did where fast ships were moving at half the speed. No. Then we would have seen this two years ago. We didn't, mainly because the speed nerf coincided with the missile nerf, making the two come out at almost status quo in the end. What made the Drake explode in popularity was the implosion in popularity of its main predator: the battleship. This coincides with the increase in popularity of the battleship's main predator: the (super)carrier and the HAC, the latter of which, in spite of the speed nerf, was still a viable ship ù the speed nerf just changed out they were set up. Yay for ship ecology! ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.10.25 13:04:00 - [58] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Captain Sweatervest Please enlighten me, fellow pretentious asshat? Or was that post ironic? I've read the "lag" related dev blogs and I haven't noted anything that pointed a finger at any particular ship, weapon system, or uh anything else for that matter. Are you supposing that drakes should take one for the team, or just being a snyde prick about something you assume everyone should understand? I was simply responding to your post in the spirit with which you posted it. The dev blogs have been pretty clear that the majority of the "Dominion Lag" actually originated from a bug written for Apocrypha. However, Dominion also made several changes that increased the popularity of "missile" ships (SCs, Drakes, Bombers, etc). The steady rise of popularity in "missile" ships is quite likely keeping pace with the performance improvements the Devs are making. Furthermore, the Devs are pretty well correct - the Drake is overpowered in that situation. It has spectacular HP, awesome damage projection, and pretty decent mobility. So CCP suggests changing the Drake and you flip out. Smooth move slick. -Liang I have exactly as much respect for the people whining about drakes now as I had for the people whining about bombers this time last year. None. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
Diesel47	Posted - 2010.10.25 13:37:00 - [59] If minmitar want the drake nerfed... Then Caldari want the hurricane and rifter nerfed.
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2010.10.25 13:52:00 - [60] Originally by: Tippia What made the Drake explode in popularity was the implosion in popularity of its main predator: the battleship. This coincides with the increase in popularity of the battleship's main predator: the (super)carrier and the HAC, the latter of which, in spite of the speed nerf, was still a viable ship ù the speed nerf just changed out they were set up. Yay for ship ecology! This is it, and CCP's attention is in the complete wrong area. The problem with F/Bs hitting BSes is going to be addressed (neat dev blog about it), and if the devs have any traces of intelligence, they'll wait to see how that affects the popularity of the BS class before dinking with the Drake. It may not be big enough of a nerf to SCs, but we'll see. (On a side note, there's plenty of research into EVE because of its economy, I wonder if anyone has been tempted to study its ecology before.)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.