EVE Search - [proposal] balancing the Drake

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[proposal] balancing the Drake

» 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)
Rakamy	Posted - 2011.03.18 17:58:00 - [1] Anyone who is serious about making eve more balanced will tend to agree that the drake is over powered. After comparing it to other BC in the game I have come up with a simple way to balance it with the rest of the tech one BC. My idea is to simply drop (or remove) one of it's many (to many) mid slots, and drop is CPU by 5%. The reduction of the mid slots will limit the shield/tackle mods that can be put on the ship and dropping the CPU along with this, insures the CPU to mid slot ratio remains the same as it currently is. Ok let the flame rage begin.
Korg Tronix The Mabinogion	Posted - 2011.03.18 18:24:00 - [2] Thats a terrible idea and most people I have talked to say that battlecruisers at least on a tier 2 level are one of the most balanced sets of ships in the game. The drake to do a proper tech 2 heavy missile fit with a web and point requires an implant so i dont see how lowering cpu will help. Taking away a mid slot is also a fairly stupid idea. The drake is not overpowered, it still dies regularly in a small gang or solo situation.
Liang Nuren	Posted - 2011.03.18 18:37:00 - [3] The Drake is the best BC, but that doesn't mean you should all but remove it from the game outright. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
Just fearless Caldari Phantom Squad En Garde	Posted - 2011.03.18 19:09:00 - [4] its the only caldari ship that is worth pvping in. and is the only real ship u can solo in for the caldari.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.18 19:19:00 - [5] The Drake is not overpowered, the only reason there are so many used is because it is good at PVE and good enough at PVP. Every noob and their dog have trained to fly drakes. If an FC asked for any uniform fleet of ships, they would be unlikely to get them because not everyone has trained every ship. Drakes, however, are common ratting ships, so many people have them trained. If you want to see fewer drakes, make other PVP ships more effective at PVE. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.18 19:32:00 - [6] The Drake itself is fine, it just scales insanely well compared to alternatives. Main reason for the huge difference is in engagement ranges. While other BC's can get respectable ranges they have to forego anything resembling tank in the process. Solution: Reduce Heavy Missile range by 25%. - Does not impact PvE to any large extent. - Allows for current ranges at a cost (rigs) thus reducing tank. - Does not impact Caracal line unduly due to inherent locking range limits and massive range bonuses. - Brings Drake fleet performance in-line with the alternatives.
Goose99	Posted - 2011.03.18 19:36:00 - [7] This is a _____ whine. (fill in blank) Nerf you, buff me. (you are drake) Oh noes, Caldari has mids and cpu, boohoo
Alekseyev Karrde Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.03.18 21:45:00 - [8] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida The Drake itself is fine, it just scales insanely well compared to alternatives. Main reason for the huge difference is in engagement ranges. While other BC's can get respectable ranges they have to forego anything resembling tank in the process. Solution: Reduce Heavy Missile range by 25%. - Does not impact PvE to any large extent. - Allows for current ranges at a cost (rigs) thus reducing tank. - Does not impact Caracal line unduly due to inherent locking range limits and massive range bonuses. - Brings Drake fleet performance in-line with the alternatives. ---
Munimentum	Posted - 2011.03.19 04:23:00 - [9] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida The Drake itself is fine, it just scales insanely well compared to alternatives. Main reason for the huge difference is in engagement ranges. While other BC's can get respectable ranges they have to forego anything resembling tank in the process. Solution: Reduce Heavy Missile range by 25%. - Does not impact PvE to any large extent. - Allows for current ranges at a cost (rigs) thus reducing tank. - Does not impact Caracal line unduly due to inherent locking range limits and massive range bonuses. - Brings Drake fleet performance in-line with the alternatives. Sounds good to me
Swynet	Posted - 2011.03.19 13:17:00 - [10] Drakes are not overpowerd dam, it's the current playstyle that makes him shine and nothing else. The single point I can agree is the absurd distance you can shoot stuff with heavy's, it's not related to the drake, some flight time reduction could be enough but don't touch dmg output he's fine. Don't touch the drake, caldari pilots deserve this ship even if I think he's the pain in the ass whenever I've got one on my hud, this doesn't mean he can not be countered. ________________________________________________ Originally by: Goose99 In EVE, PVE can happen anywhere, anytime. Whenever you undock, you subject yourself to involuntary PVE.
Scandal Caulker	Posted - 2011.03.19 16:58:00 - [11] Heavy missiles are the issue. Not the drake. The problem with heavy missiles is that they deal very good dps at extreme range without the need to sacrifice mid/low slots for that range. Reduce guided\ heavy missile range by 30-40%. (flight time not velocity) Introduce mid\low slot modules that increase missile range and explosion velocity (scripts) This will mean that missile boats when fitted for range will have to use up their tanking/gank slots to give them the engagement range they want
Mielono Caldari SWARTA	Posted - 2011.03.19 17:24:00 - [12] Originally by: Scandal Caulker Heavy missiles are the issue. Not the drake. The problem with heavy missiles is that they deal very good dps at extreme range without the need to sacrifice mid/low slots for that range. Reduce guided\ heavy missile range by 30-40%. (flight time not velocity) Introduce mid\low slot modules that increase missile range and explosion velocity (scripts) This will mean that missile boats when fitted for range will have to use up their tanking/gank slots to give them the engagement range they want that seems like almost a reasonable suggestion, but I keep feeling like most people starting these post do not actually fly Drakes and thus do not know how lacking they are at some basic abilities most other ships have. All they are is tank and low damage, the only good thing is that when you have 30 friends suddenly the low damage does not mean as much as before. Originally by: Culmen A cat is like that carebear who sticks around only while there's food, and at best kills a few rats.A dog F*cking enforces NBSI, and deep down is slightly disappointed you aren't tak
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.03.19 17:59:00 - [13] Originally by: Mielono ..... If you want to use the "low damage" argument then you need to compare the appropriate weapon system, which means HAM's on the Drake not heavies .. and the HAM Drake is probably the one BC you do not want barrelling down on you in a fight .. just sayin' :) Long range it gets 400dps using the now standard navy ammo projected out beyond 80km .. Closest you get with other BCs (damage+range) is the Arty Cane but it has precious little tank if it tries and it still does less dps with only 30% more alpha or so .. Harbinger has even less left than the Cane after fitting guns to hit that range. Gallente are just *******sed up in general so no need to mention them at all. Heavy ranges involved are pretty much where the thing breaks the "system". Cutting it down some brings far more counters into play without completely ruining the Drake and other missile lobbers.
MeBiatch	Posted - 2011.03.19 18:33:00 - [14] yes dont nerf the drake... nerf the missles... imo missles should have a long range booster mod just like guns do (TE and TC) So the idea is reduce the range of Missles by a lot... then introduce a mod that increases the range and lets say reduce the exlosion radius too (hamms and torps could use a boost) now if you want to hit to 70km+ you either need a mid slot or low slot to get to that range which will make it much harder to get good ehp and dps... (pick one or the other just like every other ship) also as a drake/gila/snake pilot i would like to see passive regen tank nerfed too! its boring only having named and Tech II shield regen mods... reduce the effectiveness or add stacking penilties and add faction/ded/officer gear... that way i can chuck on one estamel's Shiled flux coil and still get the same tank but now i can put on some damage mods...
Goose99	Posted - 2011.03.19 19:49:00 - [15] Originally by: Mielono Originally by: Scandal Caulker Heavy missiles are the issue. Not the drake. The problem with heavy missiles is that they deal very good dps at extreme range without the need to sacrifice mid/low slots for that range. Reduce guided\ heavy missile range by 30-40%. (flight time not velocity) Introduce mid\low slot modules that increase missile range and explosion velocity (scripts) This will mean that missile boats when fitted for range will have to use up their tanking/gank slots to give them the engagement range they want that seems like almost a reasonable suggestion, but I keep feeling like most people starting these post do not actually fly Drakes and thus do not know how lacking they are at some basic abilities most other ships have. All they are is tank and low damage, the only good thing is that when you have 30 friends suddenly the low damage does not mean as much as before. Pretty much this^ People don't know how missiles work. Guns have tracking, while missiles have explosion radius and explosion velocity. This is why you can volley frig for big damage far off with guns, but never with missiles. The one factor (tracking) for guns are alleviated with tracking comp/enhancer mods, the 2 factors for missiles cannot be alleviated, except with 2 different types of rigs.
Cassus Temon	Posted - 2011.03.20 18:28:00 - [16] Drakes are not overpowered. Fitting one with a half decent tank, while using point and/or Web; means you can't fit decent DPS, and you rarely have room for anything else. They're a chunky, awkward ship; that's ill-fitting, with little purpose. That's why, there are only 2-3 recommended fits for a Drake; because the rest are crap. If you ever flew one, and tried to solo PvP; you'd know, they fair no better than anything else T1. We don't need ships to be nerfed, to balance EVE; they've already been nerfed enough. Now, everything requires squeaky fittings, that leave slots empty; and the ship is generally still underpowered, and easily ganked. Anyone who flies solo, in anything but a Cov Op's; is easily ganked, to put that in perspective. You just can't fit a ship to survive; as you sacrifice the ability, to achieve the goal. Fit for Tank, and lose the ability to apply DPS. Fit for DPS, and lose your ability to tank. Fit for Tackle, and lose your ability to tank or DPS. EVE is balanced so pilots, require other pilots; to attempt any sort of PvP, or succeed in it. There is no versatile ship platform; and soloing is out of the question. I say we add one Mid, and one Low slot; to every ship available in the game. Then make sure anything above Destroyer; has more than 4 weapons available. Sure Scorpion has EWAR; but you need every mid-slot, to ECM a Tempest effectively. Which means, you have a 4 slot armor tank; and can't apply bonuses to your ECM. I flew a Scorpion with a full passive tank; and got taken down in about 45 second's, by a lowsec gang. It was just a test, of course; but it was kind of pathetic, how poorly it fared. For Reference, I have almost max shield skills; and max Capacitor skills. I also proved to myself; that ECM burst modules, were completely useless. I got ECM'd out, Neuted completely in less than 10 seconds; didn't have range, or targeting to apply NOS, and had no DPS. It was a short battle; and not much of one. No More NERFing!!
Scandal Caulker	Posted - 2011.03.20 21:26:00 - [17] Originally by: Cassus Temon ....some ***ing..... You're doing it wrong Cassus Temon. Sorry but I thought I had to say it. Give your minge a wipe and learn how to fit your ships. Drakes are exceptional ships because of their excellent bonuses and weapon systems. I don't want and most other people do not want to nerf the ship. (almost) All of us can see that the problem lies with guided missile range. HAM Drake: 570 DPS Kin 475 all others (before overload) out to 20km+ 77.8k EHP (before implants, overloaded invuls and fleet bonuses) Tackle (point and web) MWD and a small NOS to keep those invuls alive when you're getting neuted. HML Drake: 520 DPS with T2 Scourge 434 with T2 others (before overload) out to 75km+ 75k EHP (before implants, overloaded invuls and fleet bonuses) Tackle (point) target painter (it does help with those T2 heavy missiles a lot but optional slot for something else) MWD Medium Neut if you need it or if you're a *** fit a NOS These are both solo fits that will cause your enemies a lot of grief. If you get ganked solo that's just Eve for you. Not much solo stuff happens in eve any more and there is no such thing as a fair fight. The fact a missile boat can get over 75km range and keep its MWD/tackle/tank and most of it's DPS is the problem. No other weapon system can compete.
Goose99	Posted - 2011.03.20 22:49:00 - [18] Originally by: Scandal Caulker The fact a missile boat can get over 75km range and keep its MWD/tackle/tank and most of it's DPS is the problem. No other weapon system can compete. Sniper mid guns get 100+ km, and snipe small targets. Missiles can't. Damage take long time to project, hits for almost no damage on smaller faster targets regardless of lack of transversal, lacking tracking mod but rather have to use valuable rig slots on two separate tracking rigs (rigor and flare catalysts). If you want short range use hams, long range weapons are supposed to have long range, nothing wrong with it. Just because you got killed by a drake blob doesn't mean "nerf you, buff me" is warranted.
Louise Achura	Posted - 2011.03.20 23:43:00 - [19] I have to agree with goose, heavy missile range isn't an issue. Do you have problems with caracals? Nighthawks? or Sacrilige? Nope. The problem with the drake is it's tier 2 so get a hp bonus and on top of that gets a resist bonus making it a huge brick. In fights with low numbers you may have problems getting over the shield regen hump, never mind the huge number of hit points; and with larger numbers (drake blobs) the resist bonus basically gives a 33% remote shield rep boost, along with large amount of time the buffer gives the logis to lock and save the primary (similar problem with hellcat fleets notice abaddon = top tier with resist). I dont think the Drake needs a nerf, just change the resist bonus to a rof bonus and remove a launcher. Works out less hp and alpha, but more damage, for a more balanced and importantly easier too kill drake.
Scandal Caulker	Posted - 2011.03.20 23:45:00 - [20] Edited by: Scandal Caulker on 20/03/2011 23:47:32 @goose Seriously? You think guided missiles with a target painter are inferior to turrets at applying damage to small targets? Are you ****ed? just go into EFT and create a new DPS graph and see the difference between arties/failguns/beams vs HML's. Oh yeah, and remember that the turret boats can't fit TP's/webs/points as they're too busy filling their mid slots with tracking computers. Which missile boats don't require I'll save you some time. The HML's hit, the turrets don't. And the HML's get the same hits at ALL ranges where as the turrets get even worse at close range. The fact of the matter is that guided missiles outmatch LR turrets as they do not need mid/low slots to get the desired range. I fly the Drake. I fly it a lot. Even I know that HML's are a problem. Reduce the flight time. Introduce modules that increase flight time/explosion velocity (scripted modules) Balance achieved!
Goose99	Posted - 2011.03.20 23:57:00 - [21] Edited by: Goose99 on 20/03/2011 23:59:17 Originally by: Scandal Caulker Seriously? You think guided missiles with a target painter are inferior to turrets at applying damage to small targets? Are you ****ed? just go into EFT and create a new DPS graph and see the difference between arties/failguns/beams vs HML's. Oh yeah, and remember that the turret boats can't fit TP's/webs/points as they're too busy filling their mid slots with tracking computers. Which missile boats don't require I'll save you some time. The HML's hit, the turrets don't. And the HML's get the same hits at ALL ranges where as the turrets get even worse at close range. The fact of the matter is that guided missiles outmatch LR turrets as they do not need mid/low slots to get the desired range. I fly the Drake. I fly it a lot. Even I know that HML's are a problem. Reduce the flight time. Introduce modules that increase flight time/explosion velocity (scripted modules) Balance achieved! Undock once in a while. TPs suffer heavy stacking, paint something very small and it's still very small. Not to mention speed is also a big factor (flare), not just sig. If you've actually shot at interceptors you'll know that missiles do no dps after long chase, while guns sometimes score devastating volleys at long range. Missile dps are poor to begin with, and the EFT warrioring kinetic dps rarely translate well on anything smaller than a stationary BS and don't somehow has a kinetic hole. Whinning about tank is one thing, but whining about a drake's dps elicits no sympathy.
Scandal Caulker	Posted - 2011.03.21 00:01:00 - [22] Edited by: Scandal Caulker on 21/03/2011 00:02:50 Edited by: Scandal Caulker on 21/03/2011 00:01:45 Drakes have good DPS. L3rn2f1t I love killing intys with missiles. I think it's hilarious. And very easy Oh and kinetic hole on ships? Ever heard of T2 Minnie ships. They love engaging Caldari missile boats.
nugget906	Posted - 2011.03.21 00:04:00 - [23] Originally by: Scandal Caulker Edited by: Scandal Caulker on 21/03/2011 00:01:45 Drakes have good DPS. L3rn2f1t I love killing intys with missiles. I think it's hilarious. And very easy Lol, fail post of the year.
Scandal Caulker	Posted - 2011.03.21 00:09:00 - [24] Edited by: Scandal Caulker on 21/03/2011 00:09:45 Seriously. You do get good DPS out of Drakes if you don't passive tank them which is the impression I'm getting from everyone in here saying "Drakes don't deal DPS". You must be doing it wrong if you can't get at least 500 DPS out of them
nugget906	Posted - 2011.03.21 00:34:00 - [25] Originally by: Scandal Caulker Edited by: Scandal Caulker on 21/03/2011 00:09:45 Seriously. You do get good DPS out of Drakes if you don't passive tank them which is the impression I'm getting from everyone in here saying "Drakes don't deal DPS". You must be doing it wrong if you can't get at least 500 DPS out of them A 3 bcs hml buffer fit pvp drake get 400 dps kinetic and 300 dps anything else, with max skills. In game kinetic deals much less dps than em or explosive. 3 shield expander rigs leave no room for missile rigs. It won't hit the broad side of a barn, worse if t2 instead of faction ammo. They are overtanked sheeps individually, only dangerous in blobs where they don't die. Drakes were the laughing stock for pvp for a long time, with the same stats, the only difference now is blobs grew larger.
leich Amarr bish bash bosh	Posted - 2011.03.21 15:22:00 - [26] Dont Nerf Drakes (Unless your going to remove them from game coz i hate them) On the other hand. There is nothing wrong with them. Apart from Low DPS. wich is made up for by numbers. I Love killing them. If your going to nerf them remove them alltogeather because like most caldari ships they are as ugly as i am with a hangover.
Orion Teller	Posted - 2011.03.21 16:37:00 - [27] You can only even try to argue that the drake is unbalanced under very specific and limited cases. Outside of those cases, the fitting capabilities and attributes of the drake are as limited and specific as any other tier 2 bc. I've fitted Drakes, Harbingers, Hurricanes, and Myrimidons before and they all have similar problems and limitations when attempting to fit for just about any situation.
Orange Inc	Posted - 2011.03.21 18:36:00 - [28] I agree that the Drake seems overpowered. But since you can technically train for any ship in eve to fly it- without a fair nerf I would leave it as is. My arguement for the Drake is that it can solo c2' wormholes and c3's easily- but any other bc cannot. But then again -anyone can train for it - so its not such a big big issue in my eyes.
The Offerer	Posted - 2011.03.21 18:53:00 - [29] I agree. Drakes are not balanced. They should get increased powergrid, because having a little bigger powergid than a Thorax is a disgrace. It should also have an option to fit active tank, like Cyclone for example (which can be passive tanked too), because Caldari as a shield race does not have an active shield tanked battlecruiser. Oh, and while we're at it, it's not fair that missiles take damage reduction on all ship movement and can't even hit a target when it's moving fast enough even on a straight line while all gun based weapon systems take damage reduction only when there's a high traversal and will always hit a target moving on a straight line.
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari draketrain Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.03.21 21:03:00 - [30] confirming draketrain is totes op

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.