EVE Search - Elite Indys have more armor/structure than heavy assaults?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Elite Indys have more armor/structure than heavy assaults?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Falzone	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:41:00 - [1] Edited by: Falzone on 01/02/2005 21:42:19 What is up with this? why do the carebears get more armor and structure on an indy than a heavy assualt cruiser has? If anyone knows pls tell me
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:43:00 - [2] How are the resistances. Armor and structure don't mean much if it is vulnerable to most damages. __________ Capacitor research
Falzone	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:45:00 - [3] same resistances as the heavy assault cruisers.
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:49:00 - [4] Well that seems odd they should tank pretty well then Seems a bit excessive imho. __________ Capacitor research
Falzone	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:49:00 - [5] I compared the occator elite mk5 to the diemos heavy assault. Occator 3700 structure 2700 armor armor 84% kinetic resist 64 thermal Diemos 1800 armor 1450 structure same resists
Hakera	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:52:00 - [6] cool - no weapons but sure wont get ganked so easily now..might even make a little ew inty killer out of the two weapon version. Dumbledore - Eve-I.com
Noriath	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:52:00 - [7] They can't carry a lot of weaponry, and instead of tanking a hauler people will rather put cargo expanders in them anyways.
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:55:00 - [8] Originally by: Noriath They can't carry a lot of weaponry, and instead of tanking a hauler people will rather put cargo expanders in them anyways. In t1 indies it didn't matter how hard you tried to tank your indy it still wasn't a very good tank so you might as well stuff as many expanders there as you can. This beast however can tank for a very long time well long enough to log off at least __________ Capacitor research
Paw Sandberg	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:56:00 - [9] ITS A HAULLER of course it got more armor than a Cruiser the shields are no where near as good as a cruiser however they got strong (heavy) Armor and are extremely slow also they dont have the high slots that the cruisers got I say its about time we got some ships that can tank damage and that are not flimsy also note the use of it BLOCADE RUNNER and DEEP SPACE HAULLER if you are going to take a hauller and turn it into a better ship the first thing you will do is add some Armor because a current hauller no matter how well its equiped will die the minute a PvP player lock onto it (not to mention a NPC BS) I say that CCP did a good thing with these ships Thank You Paw Sandberg for all your BPC needs see http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
RollinDutchMasters	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:56:00 - [10] Oh fun. The only thing missing is a 'ESCAPE CURRENT HOSTILE SITUATION' button on the HUD thats bound to ctrl+q. Originally by: Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:59:00 - [11] Blame insta-ganking kestrel-alts. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Sokudo	Posted - 2005.02.01 21:59:00 - [12] There's also the matter that these are expensive elite ships in their own right... and they're intended (I think) to replace the Exequror as a valuable-cargo vessel. They also probably figured that a barely-armed Transport should have some kind of survival rather than just be frigate-fodder. Of course, if you're THAT worried about it, feel free to take a Transport into combat, since you're obviously in awe of it... I guess the pirates will have more problems with the Trans than they will with the Indys.
RollinDutchMasters	Posted - 2005.02.01 22:02:00 - [13] Originally by: Joshua Calvert Blame insta-ganking kestrel-alts. I blame people whining about getting ganked. Which causes CCP to put in ships that can survive a gank long enough to log. Which causes people to bring even more to gank a single ship. Repeat cycle for HP increases. Make sure to introduce meaningless 'fixes' to logoff mechanics that make logoffs even more appealing. Originally by: Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2005.02.01 22:03:00 - [14] Out of curiosity, I'm not wise in such matters , how much firepower would be needed to take down this hauler in under a minute? __________ Capacitor research
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2005.02.01 22:06:00 - [15] Originally by: RollinDutchMasters Originally by: Joshua Calvert Blame insta-ganking kestrel-alts. I blame people whining about getting ganked. Which causes CCP to put in ships that can survive a gank long enough to log. Which causes people to bring even more to gank a single ship. Repeat cycle for HP increases. Make sure to introduce meaningless 'fixes' to logoff mechanics that make logoffs even more appealing. It was either increase HP/resistances or nerf the kestrel/Caracal/Raven to such an extent that they couldn't insta-gank a cargo container. Seeing as you're so proud to say you're a good pvp'er, I'm sure you'd rather they messed with some piddly little industrials WHICH WILL STILL DIE EASILY rather than mess with an entire class of primarily pvp-used ships. You seem to suggest that using an alt to gank indies has less detrimental effect on the game than logging - I'd like to suggest otherwise. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Sokudo	Posted - 2005.02.01 22:06:00 - [16] I still think that they should make log-offs just make NPCs ignore them and keep them around longer. If you're accidently logged off, you'll have a rough deal, but from the sounds of it, too many cowards are escaping PVP fights by logging. But that should not penalise the honest pilots - not even those who keep you fighter-pilots flying by hauling cargo.
Clearly Forgivin	Posted - 2005.02.01 22:08:00 - [17] Edited by: Clearly Forgivin on 01/02/2005 22:19:10 It's amazing how some people just wake up in the morning and decide to *** about the simplest things like its the end of the world. I say get a hobby peoples. Because no matter how they do it, somone will always be unhappy.....always. Not one adjustment ccp has ever made has happened without at least **ing off dozens of players. Fact of life....you can't satisfy everyone.
RollinDutchMasters	Posted - 2005.02.01 22:18:00 - [18] Originally by: Dust Puppy Out of curiosity, I'm not wise in such matters , how much firepower would be needed to take down this hauler in under a minute? You would need to be doing at least 300 DpS to kill this ship in under a minute assuming that it only uses one lowslot for a hardener of its weakest resistance. If youre doing the damage types thats its racially strong on, then that number is closer to 450 DpS. Originally by: Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2005.02.01 22:26:00 - [19] Originally by: RollinDutchMasters Originally by: Dust Puppy Out of curiosity, I'm not wise in such matters , how much firepower would be needed to take down this hauler in under a minute? You would need to be doing at least 300 DpS to kill this ship in under a minute assuming that it only uses one lowslot for a hardener of its weakest resistance. If youre doing the damage types thats its racially strong on, then that number is closer to 450 DpS. So that's like a battleship or 2? Doesn't really matter though because the problem isn't really with it being to strong but the log off tactic. Personally I think that your ship should remain in space as long as it is targeted by another player. This has the obvious drawback of ****ing people off that didn't mean to log off but where cut off regardless. I now it must be annoying to lose a ship like that but I still think it works better that way. __________ Capacitor research
RollinDutchMasters	Posted - 2005.02.01 22:30:00 - [20] Originally by: Dust Puppy So that's like a battleship or 2? Doesn't really matter though because the problem isn't really with it being to strong but the log off tactic. Personally I think that your ship should remain in space as long as it is targeted by another player. This has the obvious drawback of **ing people off that didn't mean to log off but where cut off regardless. I now it must be annoying to lose a ship like that but I still think it works better that way. A torp raven with lvl 4 skills and stock mods does 225 DpS. Most other battleships are around there until you start counting damage mods. A scorp does 120 DpS. Originally by:** Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
Grimpak	Posted - 2005.02.01 22:31:00 - [21] well.. see the good way: DS haulers are SLOW and sure as hell that they must be damn sluggish and can't carry any kind of weapon (xcept maybe a nos or smart bomb?) ....blockade runners are a different thing thou.... ------------------- Quote: Fragm's Oversized Ego Cannon barely scratches the forums, inflicting omgnoonecares damage
have2laugh	Posted - 2005.02.01 22:45:00 - [22] I think the point here is not that they have good resistances, nor that they have good armour. I think the issue is more to do with the fact that they are more survivable than a ship that it takes (litterally) 2 months or so for the average year old character to train for. Not to mention the insane prices charged for heavy assaults. Still, that aside, the resistances and armour could probably STILL be endured by the majority of PvPs if it wasnt for the now infamous log off exploit. I mean seriously, what are the chances of destroying that in under 2 minutes? not much. other than caldari Missile boats I have a harpy that BS's cant destroy in under 2 minutes. Theres no doubt in my mind that these ships are going to be used for hauling the very expensive goods, and every POS in EVE is gonna start recieving regular visits from them, which is fine. After all that was thier intended use. however when they become some kind of insane moving giant secure can which is totally ungankable, it just annoys me.
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2005.02.01 22:51:00 - [23] Originally by: have2laugh I think the point here is not that they have good resistances, nor that they have good armour. I think the issue is more to do with the fact that they are more survivable than a ship that it takes (litterally) 2 months or so for the average year old character to train for. Not to mention the insane prices charged for heavy assaults. Takes quite a while to to train industrial to level 5 plus whatever secondary skill it requires. __________ Capacitor research
Ulfar	Posted - 2005.02.01 23:16:00 - [24] Oh boo hoo. Sorry can't feel any sympathy. So they can log off, that's just as lame as everyone lurking offline and logging in when the scout on teamspeak tells them its time for an ambush. Maybe people will use them for what they are intended running blockades and gate camps. You guys new it was coming and I don't think this will be the last measure CCP implements so that people have a chance of running a blockade. Personally I can see them being used to mine high end ore. with a chance to survive. Hmmm there is an idea can we have combat mining barges.
Infinity Ziona	Posted - 2005.02.01 23:17:00 - [25] I think this is good. It means people WILL log off more, causing a greater outcry and more complaints threads possibly causing CCP to fix logging off. Additionally, I've always thought that Industrials were way too weak. As a realism freak, it made no sense that in such a hostile environment such as the EVE universe, companies would make weak transports, when they obviously have the capability to make behemoths like the Apoc, Raven, Mega and Tempests. Maybe now we have these indies, we can remove insta's.!!! Infinity Ziona
Kin'Tarr	Posted - 2005.02.01 23:28:00 - [26] Hey Rollin, doesnt suprise me that your here whining :) you and your little frig wnt be able to pwn lone haulers then log off once ppl come to rescue the pilot, now the hauler can either wtfpwn your elec systems or just wait for a friendly inty to come along and pop your a** lolol good changes imho, there large and bulky, wouldnt make sense if they pop like a jett can.
Mrissa Easeah	Posted - 2005.02.01 23:30:00 - [27] nods Indies that take almost as long to train for as HAC's. Have no idea yet how expensive they're going to be to make, but I'd be willing to bet construction costs will be close to the HAC II. 30-50 million isk hauler had BETTER be able to last more than a minute or two. You're basically paying only for that defense, not increased size, volume, and certainly not speed.
RollinDutchMasters	Posted - 2005.02.01 23:33:00 - [28] Edited by: RollinDutchMasters on 01/02/2005 23:35:32 Originally by: Kin'Tarr Hey Rollin, doesnt suprise me that your here whining :) you and your little frig wnt be able to pwn lone haulers then log off once ppl come to rescue the pilot, now the hauler can either wtfpwn your elec systems or just wait for a friendly inty to come along and pop your a lolol good changes imho, there large and bulky, wouldnt make sense if they pop like a jett can. I see the carebear end of Force of Evil doesnt like me. I do have to give your corp some credit though, I've never had one of you guys log on me. More then can be said for most. Originally by:** Mrissa Easeah 30-50 million isk hauler had BETTER be able to last more than a minute or two. I agree. The problem is, the logoff mechanics mean anything that can survive more then a minute or two is essentially invulnerable to anything short of a large gank squad. I want haulers that can put up a fight, yes. I do not want haulers that are de facto invulnerable to anything short of multiple battleships. Originally by: Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
Mrissa Easeah	Posted - 2005.02.01 23:55:00 - [29] Agreed.
Amerame	Posted - 2005.02.02 00:04:00 - [30] Those industrials are fine, don't forget they're likely to cost quite a few isk, it's not like a 300k expandable hauler. What is NOT fine is the "ctrl-q" log off.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.