| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
omgfreemoniez
   |
Posted - 2010.10.26 21:15:00 -
[151]
 Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: omgfreemoniez
If I had my way CCP would remove all money from the development budget and focus entirely on server upgrades. EVE is at the most balanced it's ever been; nerfs and buffs and new features are simply not required at this time.
Funny, CCP just released a dev blog stating why server upgrades are not the answer you're looking for. Yeah, multi core systems and such can help - and maybe even help a lot - but Eve players have shown repeatedly that they're ready, willing, and able to bring as many people as are necessary to crash a software system. The dev blog specifically called out that long term solutions to lag will be with game design changes.
-Liang
If it's gonna crash it's gonna crash then, Drakes or no Drakes. People will bring 1000 Drakes or 2000 BS, either will crash the server.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 21:19:00 -
[152]
Originally by: omgfreemoniez
If it's gonna crash it's gonna crash then, Drakes or no Drakes. People will bring 1000 Drakes or 2000 BS, either will crash the server.
CCP has the responsibility to do what they can to support server infrastructure and stability.
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
Amaha Masane
Caldari
Avalon Advanced Research and Development
Eclectic Collective
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 21:19:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I want to be clear here: I am not saying that Drakes = Lag. I'm pointing out that CCP says that the current implementation of missiles creates lag. I've had personal experience that certainly validates it, and I've seen lots of battle reports that would further validate it. But really, no player is in a position to speak authoritatively on what is causing server lag - not you and not me. But the Pros are saying something and I'm very inclined to listen to them on it.
Furthermore, if Drake blobs are causing lag (or any other ship/module/tactic) then CCP has every right and responsibility to nerf/change it.
-Liang
I've been following this thread for a while and been reluctant to post in it since I don't use drakes, but I have seen a increase in use of them (I prefer EWAR). but this one made me want to chime in. I agree with Liang pretty much, they probably see more of the problem than we do, and it wouldn't be the first time CCP would broadly change a game mechanic to increase server performance (remember WTZ? or the Sledgehammer to drones that was bandwith and changes to drone skills?). In some of those cases I could see them tout that it was for balance purposes (particularly with drone changes) but I think most of us read between the lines and saw that server performance was an ulterior motive.
What I don't agree with, and what I think majority of the rage I'm reading, is that it is CCP's RIGHT to nerf to fix the problem. If lag is their only concern, not balance, it's their job to fix it on THEIR end before they even CONSIDER changing something that affects how WE play. And by fix, I mean exhaust EVERY. SINGLE. OPTION. Upgrade hardware, pay for more bandwith, Hell; purchase a small tropical island and erect a nuclear plant and move the servers there. But we pay them to deal with that, Not to change our playstyle to make their job easier.
Let's put it this way: if I prescribe a good Medicine for a disease, and suddenly half the population gets that disease, I don't tell them "Well, I can't keep up, so I'm gonna switch you guys to a medicine that's not as good, but I can get a hold of easier.". No, I find a way to find more for them, cause that what I'm paid to do.
So like I said, I agree with you Liang except for that last part. because the last thing I wanna see develop is a blind acceptance that changing the decreasing the client experience solely to increase the server performance is something that we should expect and moreover be okay with.
/Soapbox rant
*Dons Flameproof raincoat*
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 21:20:00 -
[154]
Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 26/10/2010 21:23:44
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: omgfreemoniez
If it's gonna crash it's gonna crash then, Drakes or no Drakes. People will bring 1000 Drakes or 2000 BS, either will crash the server.
CCP has the responsibility to do what they can to support server infrastructure and stability.
-Liang
They could free up more overall bandwidth by nerfing ravens to the ground.
They could certainly free up more on grids by removing drones. While that affects more ships than a HML nerf (which just ****s caldari), it's all for server stability so it's ok right?
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 21:23:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
You're talking about logic and your own opinions in tandem again. It's really not healthy.
WTF? It's perfectly fine to state logic and opinion - and even to reinforce stated opinion with logic.
Quote:
but what you're suggesting is gutting the ship out of spite. Which is immature, pathetic, and certainly not logical given the caldari fleet lineup is in pretty sad shape at this juncture.
And just what do you think I'm suggesting?
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 21:27:00 -
[156]
Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 26/10/2010 21:32:59
Originally by: Liang Nuren
And just what do you think I'm suggesting?
-Liang
You have made it quite clear. You want drakes nerfed to decrease their numbers in fleets in order to indirectly increase server stability. Which is probably the weakest argument you have made thus far.
Drakes have weaknesses: A gaping EM hole, lack of manuverability, delayed and fairly mediocre damage, difficulty fitting into a fleet that isn't a homogenous drake/logi gang, and a massive signature radius.
You've continued to harp on the strengths of the drake (namely: tank and reliable mid-range projection) without regard to their weakness, but rather than debate their strengths and weaknesses you devolved your arguments to include lag (necssarily caused by drakes, you said) and it's rapidly snowballing into fail.
|
Rahnim
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 21:32:00 -
[157]
Make missiles work less like an object and more like an animation on client side, and same with drones, making damage somehow the same, that should help alot.
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 21:43:00 -
[158]
Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 26/10/2010 21:46:59
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Kaliba Mort
I'm hoping you are not alluding to nerfing the drake because missiles cause load.
Nope, not at all, the balancing part as stated above is considered separate discussion which mostly revolves around class comparison and explaining popularity. We would definitely not nerf it because missiles caused load. That is a side effect on its own.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
As stated in earlier responses which I see some of you skipped(!), we would never nerf the drake because it used missiles and missiles cause additional load, that would be nonsensical indeed as many note.
And this is the primary reason your argument is bunk Liang.
Now, literally speaking, i'm sure they'd be more than willing to nerf the drake for just that reason. Lord knows they've nerfed things for less (ie. damps). But, logically, per Chronitis' feedback, there's no reason to assume they would do so.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 22:13:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/10/2010 22:15:09
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
And this is the primary reason your argument is bunk Liang.
Now, literally speaking, i'm sure they'd be more than willing to nerf the drake for just that reason. Lord knows they've nerfed things for less (ie. damps). But, logically, per Chronitis' feedback, there's no reason to assume they would do so.
Actually, it doesn't materially affect my argument since it's based on statements from dev blogs and previous dev posts. CCP has a responsibility to maintain the server and provide a fun game environment for us to play. What that quote tells us is how much effort they're willing to spend on the second solution (best effort, properly fixing missiles) and how much time they're willing to **** up everyone's game. And really - it's an admirable trait to want to fix good gameplay instead of removing it. But ultimately they may have to create different good gameplay in order to keep the game fun.
-Liang
Ed: I am not trying to say that CCP *will* nerf the Drake or HML expressly because they created lag. I'm saying it would be ok and correct if they did.
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 22:30:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
You have made it quite clear. You want drakes nerfed to decrease their numbers in fleets in order to indirectly increase server stability.
No, I'm making the argument that it would be ok if CCP nerfed (preferably, changed) the Drake for that purpose.
Quote:
Drakes have weaknesses: A gaping EM hole, lack of manuverability, delayed and fairly mediocre damage, difficulty fitting into a fleet that isn't a homogenous drake/logi gang, and a massive signature radius.
Comments:
- Sorry, but resist bonused ships don't really have "gaping" resist holes.
- The Drake nanos up pretty well, actually... and can afford to nano up because it doesn't have to fill its lows with TEs. ;-)
- Delayed damage, yes. Mediocre, no. It's pretty damn good, especially for the range it can do it at.
- Shield gangs, yeah... more rare than perhaps they should be.
- MASSIVE sig radius... freaking huge. Myrm has this problem too.
Quote:
You've continued to harp on the strengths of the drake (namely: tank and reliable mid-range projection) without regard to their weakness, but rather than debate their strengths and weaknesses you devolved your arguments to include lag (necssarily caused by drakes, you said) and it's rapidly snowballing into fail.
The lag argument is completely separate from the strengths vs weaknesses of the Drake.
The problem here is that you're combining arguments I'm not trying to combine:
1. The Drake has fantastic EHP+Damage+Tackle. It is, hands down, the best brawling BC.
2. The Drake has fantastic EHP+Range+Damage. Also, the Drake's resist bonus dovetails nicely with Scim support. If you can afford the delayed damage, it's hands down the best ranged BC.
3. Resist bonuses are unquestionably more useful than active tanking bonuses.
If it makes you happy, we can keep the lag posts to alternating posts.
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
Quendishir
Caldari
The Immortal Dawn
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 22:32:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: omgfreemoniez
If it's gonna crash it's gonna crash then, Drakes or no Drakes. People will bring 1000 Drakes or 2000 BS, either will crash the server.
CCP has the responsibility to do what they can to support server infrastructure and stability.
-Liang
CCP has no responsibilities, especially towards you as the consumer. Their own EULA acknowledges this fact. Blizzard Entertainment does the exact same thing. It is common practice to offer customer service and attempt to resolve disputes and server instances, and it's good market practice for maintaining a steady source of revenue. However, CCP could wait until you've paid for your next month of play and then one minute later cancel your account. They have no requirement to inform you of why they have done it.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 22:33:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Quendishir
CCP has no responsibilities, especially towards you as the consumer. Their own EULA acknowledges this fact. Blizzard Entertainment does the exact same thing. It is common practice to offer customer service and attempt to resolve disputes and server instances, and it's good market practice for maintaining a steady source of revenue. However, CCP could wait until you've paid for your next month of play and then one minute later cancel your account. They have no requirement to inform you of why they have done it.
Let's examine what I said:
CCP has the responsibility to do what they can to support server infrastructure and stability.
Where do you see "me" or "customer" in that? CCP has this responsibility because it's critical to their business.
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
Quendishir
Caldari
The Immortal Dawn
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 22:38:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Quendishir
CCP has no responsibilities, especially towards you as the consumer. Their own EULA acknowledges this fact. Blizzard Entertainment does the exact same thing. It is common practice to offer customer service and attempt to resolve disputes and server instances, and it's good market practice for maintaining a steady source of revenue. However, CCP could wait until you've paid for your next month of play and then one minute later cancel your account. They have no requirement to inform you of why they have done it.
Let's examine what I said:
CCP has the responsibility to do what they can to support server infrastructure and stability.
Where do you see "me" or "customer" in that? CCP has this responsibility because it's critical to their business.
-Liang
And let's look at what I said, in just the first sentence:
"CCP has no responsibilities, especially towards you as the consumer."
The only legal obligations they have is to protect your personally identifiable information, as well as your method of payment.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 22:47:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Quendishir
[
And let's look at what I said, in just the first sentence:
"CCP has no responsibilities, especially towards you as the consumer."
The only legal obligations they have is to protect your personally identifiable information, as well as your method of payment.
I would argue that any business (CCP included) has responsibilities to its stakeholders (generally, this is employees and stock holders). Notably its customers are not its stakeholders.
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
Grog Barrel
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 22:48:00 -
[165]
Node crashes should not be fixed by modifing the game play itself, not even as a last resort, in my opinion.
It's not only a devolution for the game itself, having to make a ship less attractive in order to get some lag fixed (what is going to be next? or you really thought after doing this, there is no other ship/tool which will be used by those now using drakes, as a node crasher?), but it's also an indirect statment, which says "we couldnt handle this via our engineer's team nor any other of our teams, we failed".
Are the coalitions wars really dictating everything of what should and should not be done by DEVs?
Are those alliances within the coalitions so efficient at lobbying CCP?
ps: am i gay?
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 22:59:00 -
[166]
Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 26/10/2010 23:03:06
Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 26/10/2010 23:02:17
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Comments:
- Sorry, but resist bonused ships don't really have "gaping" resist holes.
- The Drake nanos up pretty well, actually... and can afford to nano up because it doesn't have to fill its lows with TEs. ;-)
- Delayed damage, yes. Mediocre, no. It's pretty damn good, especially for the range it can do it at.
- Shield gangs, yeah... more rare than perhaps they should be.
- MASSIVE sig radius... freaking huge. Myrm has this problem too.
Comments:
-Sorry but without a photon amp or hardener (don't even try to claim this is default for spec) to close it, the resist gap is substantial and easily exploited by amarr and minmatar ships (conincidentally, the most popular non-drake ships in the game).
-A drake with more than a single nano is giving up a lot of dps in most fleet fits. How many BCU's are you going to throw out? Do you want to calculate their dps based on 3 bcu's and then list their speed at what they could have with 3 nanos in the lows?
-Given a turret ship shoots 2 volleys before a nearly max range missile lands.. i'd say that's fair. And yes, HML damage in a fleet fit is mediocre.
-Thanks for conceding that. Shield gangs are nearly non-factors without drake fleets to consider.
-You shield tanked myrm is a seperate (and important, I might add) issue with gallente and their own terrible issues (active tank bonuses are just terrible for fleet ships namely and hybrids are undesireable, but that is also a caldari issue, keep in mind). I assume you just felt the need to make another bullet point though (since your argument is borderline at best).
|
Quendishir
Caldari
The Immortal Dawn
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:00:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Quendishir
[
And let's look at what I said, in just the first sentence:
"CCP has no responsibilities, especially towards you as the consumer."
The only legal obligations they have is to protect your personally identifiable information, as well as your method of payment.
I would argue that any business (CCP included) has responsibilities to its stakeholders (generally, this is employees and stock holders). Notably its customers are not its stakeholders.
-Liang
These are referred to as "customer service" or "technical support", not "responsibilities". Your argument, while valid on it's face, is null on basis of fact.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:01:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Grog Barrel
Node crashes should not be fixed by modifing the game play itself, not even as a last resort, in my opinion.
A noble opinion, but not really grounded in reality.
Quote:
but it's also an indirect statment, which says "we couldnt handle this via our engineer's team nor any other of our teams, we failed".
Sometimes the laws of physics just don't cooperate. That doesn't really fault their engineers. TBH, CCP has pushed Eve much further and harder than many many other distributed computing projects.
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:04:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Quendishir
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I would argue that any business (CCP included) has responsibilities to its stakeholders (generally, this is employees and stock holders). Notably its customers are not its stakeholders.
These are referred to as "customer service" or "technical support", not "responsibilities". Your argument, while valid on it's face, is null on basis of fact.
Wait what? What the hell do customer service or technical support have to do with anything?
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:13:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
-Sorry but without a photon amp or hardener (don't even try to claim this is default for spec) to close it, the resist gap is substantial and easily exploited by amarr and minmatar ships (conincidentally, the most popular non-drake ships in the game).
The Drake does not have a gaping resist hole. Please see the Cyclone or Raven or something for gaping resist holes.
Quote:
-A drake with more than a single nano is giving up a lot of dps in most fleet fits. How many BCU's are you going to throw out? Do you want to calculate their dps based on 3 bcu's and then list their speed at what they could have with 3 nanos in the lows?
You have a real talent for confusing the issue. Let's go back to my original statement, because I said exactly what I wanted to say:
- The Drake nanos up pretty well, actually... and can afford to nano up because it doesn't have to fill its lows with TEs. ;-)
Quote:
-Given a turret ship shoots 2 volleys before a nearly max range missile lands.. i'd say that's fair. And yes, HML damage in a fleet fit is mediocre.
Uh, so just how much DPS do you think other BCs do at 85km?
Quote:
-Thanks for conceding that. Shield gangs are nearly non-factors without drake fleets to consider.
Even still, they are something to consider.
Quote:
-You shield tanked myrm is a seperate (and important, I might add) issue with gallente and their own terrible issues (active tank bonuses are just terrible for fleet ships namely and hybrids are undesireable, but that is also a caldari issue, keep in mind). I assume you just felt the need to make another bullet point though (since your argument is borderline at best).
I was agreeing with you, and pointing out that it isn't a problem peculiar to the Drake. BTW, I was referring to armor tanked Myrms having a pretty enormous sig radius.
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:28:00 -
[171]
1. For a ship that gets a resist bonus, it is a massive hole. For a ship FAMOUS for it's buffer, it can be melted in seconds by an amarr bs. I call that a hole. You may continue to debate the efficacy of my descriptor, but there is a notable reason to use EM against a drake.
2. You have a real nack for making UNIVERSAL issues (homg, missile launchers don't need tracking enhancers!) to be drake issues. The drake doesn't 'nano' up with more than a single nano because it's fitting BCU's or it's doing sub-par dps even by it's own mediocre standards. With that nano it is still one of the slowest t2 bc's without being plated.
3. 85km? So now we're going to use the launcher-rigged variant for comparison? If you're engaging a drake fleet at 85k in another bc fleet, you're a ****ing idiot, end of story. If drakes engaged a bruitx fleet point-blank, the drakes would loose. You're creating a scenario whereby the enemy engages at the drake's MAXIMUM effect. Do drakes move so fast they can just bee-line out of range when an enemy jumps on top of them? No. Do they alpha targets like a hurricane gang at 50km? No. Do they project MEDIOCRE damage across a wide range that punishes other fotm ships? Yes. Note also: at 85km a standard bs fleet will melt the drakes into powder in seconds. Apoc hoooo!
4. What?
5. Ok...
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:41:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
2. You have a real nack for making UNIVERSAL issues (homg, missile launchers don't need tracking enhancers!) to be drake issues. The drake doesn't 'nano' up with more than a single nano because it's fitting BCU's or it's doing sub-par dps even by it's own mediocre standards. With that nano it is still one of the slowest t2 bc's without being plated.
Uhm. Right. Basically you're an idiot, got it.
Quote:
If you're engaging a drake fleet at 85k in another bc fleet, you're a ****ing idiot, end of story.
Exactly.
Quote:
If drakes engaged a bruitx fleet point-blank, the drakes would loose.
No they wouldn't.
Quote:
Do they alpha targets like a hurricane gang at 50km? No.
Yes.
Quote:
Do they project MEDIOCRE damage across a wide range that punishes other fotm ships? Yes.
I underlined the part that's an outright lie.
Quote:
Note also: at 85km a standard bs fleet will melt the drakes into powder in seconds. Apoc hoooo!
Just to be clear here: are you telling me that engaging Drakes requires battleships and/or capitals?
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:49:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Uhm. Right. Basically you're an idiot, got it.
AKA you concede the point, all launchers benefit from this. Thanks.
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Exactly.
Thanks?
Originally by: Liang Nuren
No they wouldn't.
Magic drakes that swap to HAMS when things get close, right?
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I underlined the part that's an outright lie.
Sigh
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Just to be clear here: are you telling me that engaging Drakes requires battleships and/or capitals?
At over 80km you'd be wise to bring a battleship fleet, but that's pretty ****ing obvious don't ya think?
I guess every long-range mediocre-dps ship in the game is OP by your logic? Rokh... definitely OP. Eagle? Wow, amazing ship. Cerb? Just say in place for 30 more seconds..... I think you get the point. Don't act like a moron.
Fleets engage at appropriate range for their ships. Drake range is not OP with the delay and want of burst damage that you'd otherwise have with a turret ship (inb4youcryaboutTE'sagain).
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:53:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
At over 80km you'd be wise to bring a battleship fleet, but that's pretty ****ing obvious don't ya think?
Are you reshipping to BSs before or after you got slaughtered in these mobile bubbles?
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:55:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
At over 80km you'd be wise to bring a battleship fleet, but that's pretty ****ing obvious don't ya think?
Are you reshipping to BSs before or after you got slaughtered in these mobile bubbles?
Must suck to have no intel/scouts and fly blind with a fail fleet.  I feel quite sorry for you.
"Oh look drakes, everyone warp to 80km guys, we have to have something to cry about on the forums tonight!" 
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 23:55:00 -
[176]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/10/2010 23:56:59
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
AKA you concede the point, all launchers benefit from this. Thanks.
Wait what the **** are you talking about man? IIRC this point was all about mobility, and the Drake does nano up well.
Quote:
Magic drakes that swap to HAMS when things get close, right?
Well, two things:
- You specified the Drakes engaging at close range. This definitely implies you're talking about brawling Drakes.
- Even if a HML Drake fleet engaged the Brutixes, I'm highly skeptical that the Brutixes would even kill a third of the Drakes. It's too easy for the Drakes to pull range and just kill them all.
Quote:
At over 80km you'd be wise to bring a battleship fleet, but that's pretty ****ing obvious don't ya think?
And at close range too? 
Quote:
mediocre-dps
You need to stop this bull**** - the Drake most certainly does not have mediocre DPS.
-Liang
Ed: Formatting
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.27 00:00:00 -
[177]
Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 27/10/2010 00:05:11
You specified hml range, we're talkin about hml drakes. Please stop pretending drakes carry 10 loadouts in their cargo hold.
Your argument gets sadder by the post Liang. And yes, go take your beloved EFT and call up some battlecruiser fits. The drake with HMLs hits around half of what most other non-fail (ferox, prophecy) battlecruisers can achieve. Granted they gain range for this, BUT that's a tradeoff which is in tandem with delayed damage.
You're trying to create a no-win situation for other ships by modifying the drake for every scenario. At close range a drake fleet with HMLs is not rolling anything and will be entirely dependant on logistics to grind out the win (which has a LOT to do with how great scimatars are at this role). I'm not sure if your premise is 'drakes can't loose' or if you're just arguing with the wind here, but you have apparently not been met with succsess when you fought them. I'm sorry that you are not a creative tactician or brilliant strategist that can think outside the box and overcome fotm. Like every other fotm befor it, drake fleets have weaknesses that are exploitable, but players like you would much rather cry than actually take advantage.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.10.27 00:00:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Are you reshipping to BSs before or after you got slaughtered in these mobile bubbles?
Must suck to have no intel/scouts and fly blind with a fail fleet. I feel quite sorry for you.
You obviously do not pvp if you assume things always go as planned...
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.27 00:04:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Are you reshipping to BSs before or after you got slaughtered in these mobile bubbles?
Must suck to have no intel/scouts and fly blind with a fail fleet. I feel quite sorry for you.
You obviously do not pvp if you assume things always go as planned...
You obviously don't pvp if you assume things always go as planned for the enemy...
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.10.27 00:08:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Leksi Bar'zuk
You specified hml range, we're talkin about hml drakes.
Ok, fine. The Brutixes still lose.
Quote:
The drake with HMLs hits around half of what most other non-fail (ferox, prophecy) battlecruisers can achieve. Granted they gain range for this, BUT that's a tradeoff which is in tandem with delayed damage.
So just how much DPS do you think beam harbies do? I mean, granted they gain range for this but that's a trade off they make...
Quote:
You're trying to create a no-win situation for other ships by modifying the drake for every scenario.
No, I'm not.
Quote:
but you have apparently not been met with succsess when you fought them.
"I flew Drakes before they were popular".
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
Blog
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |