|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 38 :: one page | |
| Author | Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
 csebal Rage of Angels Morsus Mihi    |
Posted - 2005.08.31 19:38:00 -
[961] Edited by: csebal on 31/08/2005 19:47:22
Just because you are seemingly obsessed with numbers. Short range is anything below 40km for me. between 40 and 80 km, it is medium range, and outside 80km, it is long range.
To answer your question. Because in an armageddon, i can have 10 times the armor, 5 times the hitting power just from the guns, and 2 more heavy drones out. Is that an answer good enough for you? I wouldnt fly any other TL1 cruiser though, as they are not worth flying. If you want to achieve that with the rax, then go ahead. You'll be first to leave when EVE becomes a boring piece of sh!t from all the nerfings, so maybe we'll get our chance to make somehting out of it before the end.
I would challenge you to come up with a rax, and prove me that it is so uber, but since you would be beaten and on the ground in about 30 seconds, i rather not do it. Why are you so obsessed with other cruisers? Other cruisers do not pose a threat to the rax, because they are unbalanced, extremely weak compared to the rest of EVE. Try comparing the rax to an assault frig (or two for that matter) or a HAC, maybe a BS. Those are that you face in your thorax, not Moas and Ruptures, because noone uses Moas and Ruptures. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE ONE BIG STEAMING PILE OF SH!T. Again, as a RAX user, i repeat. Hear that? I REPEAT, as i already said it once. YES. THE RAX IS UBER. How so? All other TL1 cruisers are utterly useless for PvP. Only the rax has a chance ATM. Now if you think, that TL1 cruisers have no place in PvP, then use that as an argument, but do not compare the rax to them again, as, and i say it again, they are clearly inferior to the rax and noone really questioned that. What people question tho is whether the rax is right the way it is, or is it TOO powerful compared to the other ships in EVE? Compared how TL1 cruisers should be?
Please do not ask. It would be one more pointless question to ask. Answer my question about where the TL1 cruisers should be in EVE please. Then tell me which one is at the right place. The Moa (or the Rupture, or Omen) or the Thorax? My post does not represent the general or official opinion of anyone else besides me. No matter what YOU believe. Rest.In.Peace HUN |
 Nyxus |
Posted - 2005.09.03 20:07:00 -
[962] I have been waiting for someone to calculate all the pertinent numbers for a plated cruiser comparison. When none was forthcoming I decided that there was nothing to be done but do it myself. The results themselves are not surprising, however the sheer % difference between ships was. ItĘs is crystal clear now why everyone flies the Rax over anything else. A couple of important points. All ships are based on the idea that they will mount thier races best long range small weapon for frig killing/best small missile and a 1600plate. This means all guns/Launchers are T2 versions. Since there are so many gunnery skills I have calculated DPS on base values as listed in the Item Database of Eve-O. Hence, Gun/Missile DPS values will be slightly below actual "live" performance. All drone damage is based on skilling Heavy Drones to 4. As this is the only common skill for Drone damage it was easy to incorporate. Therefore drone damage dps should be very, very close to actual use. I have used the top 2 cruisers from each race except the Caracal, as plates are fairly useless. I have included the Moa assuming that it will fit a 1600mm plate, even tho this is unlikely and perhaps impossible given its grid. As I do not fly Caldari cruisers I can't say, but wanted to at least include the Moa for comparison's sake. I hope beyond hope that CCP will adjust Shield Extenders similarly to plates to help even the playing field. Armor with Plate No suprises here, maller has 150 more armor than anything else. Interestingly enough, the close range ship the Stabber actually has 250 less armor than the other close range ship the Rax. The Thorax is 2nd only to the super defensive Maller.
Weapon Points and DPS Interesting results here. While the Matari have extra high weapon slots (6 vs 5 for other races) thier overall dps is lower with weapons. I would assume this is for the supposed greater flexibility that missiles grant. They have greater volley damage with projectiles with slightly lower DPS on the turrets as shown by comparison of the Moa. The Rax ties for first with the Maller if it uses small beam II's, but comes in a close 3rd if it uses it's racial T2 150's.
Dronebay Again no surpises other than sheer percentage. The Vexxor should have twice the dronebay as it needs it to make up the DPS on it's lack of turrets. But the Rax not only has more, it as over three times more than the Rupture, and Eight times more than the Omen. We start to see a discrepency......
|
 Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three |
Posted - 2005.09.03 20:07:00 -
[963] I have been waiting for someone to calculate all the pertinent numbers for a plated cruiser comparison. When none was forthcoming I decided that there was nothing to be done but do it myself. The results themselves are not surprising, however the sheer % difference between ships was. ItĘs is crystal clear now why everyone flies the Rax over anything else. A couple of important points. All ships are based on the idea that they will mount thier races best long range small weapon for frig killing/best small missile and a 1600plate. This means all guns/Launchers are T2 versions. Since there are so many gunnery skills I have calculated DPS on base values as listed in the Item Database of Eve-O. Hence, Gun/Missile DPS values will be slightly below actual "live" performance. All drone damage is based on skilling Heavy Drones to 4. As this is the only common skill for Drone damage it was easy to incorporate. Therefore drone damage dps should be very, very close to actual use. I have used the top 2 cruisers from each race except the Caracal, as plates are fairly useless. I have included the Moa assuming that it will fit a 1600mm plate, even tho this is unlikely and perhaps impossible given its grid. As I do not fly Caldari cruisers I can't say, but wanted to at least include the Moa for comparison's sake. I hope beyond hope that CCP will adjust Shield Extenders similarly to plates to help even the playing field. Armor with Plate No suprises here, maller has 150 more armor than anything else. Interestingly enough, the close range ship the Stabber actually has 250 less armor than the other close range ship the Rax. The Thorax is 2nd only to the super defensive Maller.
Weapon Points and DPS Interesting results here. While the Matari have extra high weapon slots (6 vs 5 for other races) thier overall dps is lower with weapons. I would assume this is for the supposed greater flexibility that missiles grant. They have greater volley damage with projectiles with slightly lower DPS on the turrets as shown by comparison of the Moa. The Rax ties for first with the Maller if it uses small beam II's, but comes in a close 3rd if it uses it's racial T2 150's.
Dronebay Again no surpises other than sheer percentage. The Vexxor should have twice the dronebay as it needs it to make up the DPS on it's lack of turrets. But the Rax not only has more, it as over three times more than the Rupture, and Eight times more than the Omen. We start to see a discrepency......
|
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three |
Posted - 2005.09.03 20:07:00 -
[964] I have been waiting for someone to calculate all the pertinent numbers for a plated cruiser comparison. When none was forthcoming I decided that there was nothing to be done but do it myself. The results themselves are not surprising, however the sheer % difference between ships was. ItĘs is crystal clear now why everyone flies the Rax over anything else. A couple of important points. All ships are based on the idea that they will mount thier races best long range small weapon for frig killing/best small missile and a 1600plate. This means all guns/Launchers are T2 versions. Since there are so many gunnery skills I have calculated DPS on base values as listed in the Item Database of Eve-O. Hence, Gun/Missile DPS values will be slightly below actual "live" performance. All drone damage is based on skilling Heavy Drones to 4. As this is the only common skill for Drone damage it was easy to incorporate. Therefore drone damage dps should be very, very close to actual use. I have used the top 2 cruisers from each race except the Caracal, as plates are fairly useless. I have included the Moa assuming that it will fit a 1600mm plate, even tho this is unlikely and perhaps impossible given its grid. As I do not fly Caldari cruisers I can't say, but wanted to at least include the Moa for comparison's sake. I hope beyond hope that CCP will adjust Shield Extenders similarly to plates to help even the playing field. Armor with Plate No suprises here, maller has 150 more armor than anything else. Interestingly enough, the close range ship the Stabber actually has 250 less armor than the other close range ship the Rax. The Thorax is 2nd only to the super defensive Maller.
Weapon Points and DPS Interesting results here. While the Matari have extra high weapon slots (6 vs 5 for other races) thier overall dps is lower with weapons. I would assume this is for the supposed greater flexibility that missiles grant. They have greater volley damage with projectiles with slightly lower DPS on the turrets as shown by comparison of the Moa. The Rax ties for first with the Maller if it uses small beam II's, but comes in a close 3rd if it uses it's racial T2 150's.
Dronebay Again no surpises other than sheer percentage. The Vexxor should have twice the dronebay as it needs it to make up the DPS on it's lack of turrets. But the Rax not only has more, it as over three times more than the Rupture, and Eight times more than the Omen. We start to see a discrepency......
|
 Nyxus |
Posted - 2005.09.03 20:09:00 -
[965] Drone DPS With Heavy Drones 4 (easy to achieve) Drone DPS is as follows; Heavy - 21.12 DPS, Medium - 8.64 DPS, Light - 3.84 DPS. All numbers are rounded for ease of use. The Vexxor is high on the list since it was low on the list for turrets, and this seems to follow for all other ships. The Thorax however is an aberration as it tops both.
Total DPS This is where it just gets scary. A drone ship DPS should be slightly higher than a turret ship, as drones take time to reach target, can be destroyed, are sometimes stupid. But here it is clearly evidenced how overpowering the DPS is on a ship that has the highest Turret DPS, Drone DPS, while sporting the 2nd most armor in it's class. 
Thats right - The Thorax does twice the DPS of a Rupture, three times that of Moa, and FOURof a Maller. Doesn't that seem a little excessive? Total DPS over a 60 second Interval A lot of the Rax supporters say that the time it takes for drones to travel to a target 15km away takes away from the overall damage. So I have calculated a scenario in which the Thorax starts a fight at 15km from it's target and releases drones. Heavy drones have an optimal of 1000km +4000km falloff leaving them 10km of distance to travel while inflicting zero damage. Heavy drones traveling 1050m/s cross this distance in 10 seconds. In this 15km scenario the 8 heavy drones inflict damage for 50sec (60sec-10sec for travel). The total damage in a 60 second instance for each ships turrets plus drones is as follows:
Again we see clearly why the Thorax is overpowered. An average three times the damage output over 60 seconds starting at 15km over any other cruiser. This is while having the second best armor in it's class. Shooting down the Rax's drones is not an option, as the Heavy drones have a combined armor total of 2400hp. The Thorax's drones are the equivalent of an extra cruisers worth of armor and firepower. The solution is clear. Reduce the Thorax Dronebay to 100. This still leaves the Thorax stronger (considerably) than other cruisers, but at least it's a bit closer. The other solution is to limit all cruiser's dronebays to medium drones only. This would reduce the total damage potential of the Thorax, but other cruisers as well. Rather than place an arbitrary restriction on all cruisers I would rather adjust just one. All cruisers are not totally "teh suck" - but they are when compared to the Thorax. After the Rax's dronebay is adjusted here is what can be done to help all cruisers. |
 Nyxus |
Posted - 2005.09.03 20:09:00 -
[966] OMG help for cruisers! Some of the setups above were not reasonable because the comparison needed an "apples to apples" base from which to compare. The Moa and Stabber come mind. However, since these are by far the currently most accepted setups for most ships we can see we can make some suggestions based on these setups.
More survivability is critical. With an 800mm plate cruisers + the new armor base cruisers would reach where there are curretly with a 1600mm plate. This is about right.
These changes are coming in Mk2. Thank you CCP. It's needed. Please don't forget Battlecruisers though. They are just a bit better than Cruisers, but are more like battleships in handling/sig radius. Mk2 Battlecruisers should be where T1 Cruisers are now.
With the MK2 changes, Medium Turrets and Missiles need to be adjusted so they can hit medium targets better than any other weapons, including small T2. The smallest Medium weapons should have similar tracking and sig rad of the largest T2 small weapons. This would encourage the use of Medium Weapons on Medium (Cruiser) vessels. The fact that small T2 weapons have better damage and tracking than the medium weapons meant to go on a cruiser is utterly retarded. A Medium Beam II (small laser) should never be doing better more consistant damage on cruisers and BS than a Heavy Pulse I(or II). Currently this is not so. The greater fitting and firing requirements should be rewarded by better damage. Cruisers are made for cruiser weapons. T2 smalls should not be the best for all occasions.
Think about it. All weapons have a lower limit to sig radius at which point the guns hit extremely poor. They should also have an upper limit at which point they cease to gain any advantage. T2 small weapons that wreck and hit for "perfect" every time when placed on a cruiser will beat any cruiser weapon that hits for "average" becuase of sig rad. Additionally these small weapons hit frigates 100x better than Medium weapons. Medium weapons on Medium ships for Medium Targets. This will provide more incentive to put medium weaps on cruisers, as well as give T2 (and T1) destroyers more of a niche. Right now, destroyers are redundant because Cruisers with Small Weaps fill the anti-frigate role as well as the anti-cruiser role adequetly with small T2 weapons. If Cruisers equipped Medium Weaps (and used thier bonuses as well) then destroyers would have a place by destroying friggies Well there you go folks. The reasons why the Rax needs adjustment as well as cruiser fixes. Your thoughts are appreciated, however, more substantial numerical analysis to refute the ones I have put forward will be taken more seriously. If you just post your biased opinion (omg i luv mah rax, leave it alone or go trane 4 an uber rax) without any backing and you will be ignored. Nyxus |
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three |
Posted - 2005.09.03 20:09:00 -
[967] Drone DPS With Heavy Drones 4 (easy to achieve) Drone DPS is as follows; Heavy - 21.12 DPS, Medium - 8.64 DPS, Light - 3.84 DPS. All numbers are rounded for ease of use. The Vexxor is high on the list since it was low on the list for turrets, and this seems to follow for all other ships. The Thorax however is an aberration as it tops both.
Total DPS This is where it just gets scary. A drone ship DPS should be slightly higher than a turret ship, as drones take time to reach target, can be destroyed, are sometimes stupid. But here it is clearly evidenced how overpowering the DPS is on a ship that has the highest Turret DPS, Drone DPS, while sporting the 2nd most armor in it's class.
Thats right - The Thorax does twice the DPS of a Rupture, three times that of Moa, and FOURof a Maller. Doesn't that seem a little excessive? Total DPS over a 60 second Interval A lot of the Rax supporters say that the time it takes for drones to travel to a target 15km away takes away from the overall damage. So I have calculated a scenario in which the Thorax starts a fight at 15km from it's target and releases drones. Heavy drones have an optimal of 1000km +4000km falloff leaving them 10km of distance to travel while inflicting zero damage. Heavy drones traveling 1050m/s cross this distance in 10 seconds. In this 15km scenario the 8 heavy drones inflict damage for 50sec (60sec-10sec for travel). The total damage in a 60 second instance for each ships turrets plus drones is as follows:
Again we see clearly why the Thorax is overpowered. An average three times the damage output over 60 seconds starting at 15km over any other cruiser. This is while having the second best armor in it's class. Shooting down the Rax's drones is not an option, as the Heavy drones have a combined armor total of 2400hp. The Thorax's drones are the equivalent of an extra cruisers worth of armor and firepower. The solution is clear. Reduce the Thorax Dronebay to 100. This still leaves the Thorax stronger (considerably) than other cruisers, but at least it's a bit closer. The other solution is to limit all cruiser's dronebays to medium drones only. This would reduce the total damage potential of the Thorax, but other cruisers as well. Rather than place an arbitrary restriction on all cruisers I would rather adjust just one. All cruisers are not totally "teh suck" - but they are when compared to the Thorax. After the Rax's dronebay is adjusted here is what can be done to help all cruisers. |
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three |
Posted - 2005.09.03 20:09:00 -
[968] OMG help for cruisers! Some of the setups above were not reasonable because the comparison needed an "apples to apples" base from which to compare. The Moa and Stabber come mind. However, since these are by far the currently most accepted setups for most ships we can see we can make some suggestions based on these setups.
More survivability is critical. With an 800mm plate cruisers + the new armor base cruisers would reach where there are curretly with a 1600mm plate. This is about right.
These changes are coming in Mk2. Thank you CCP. It's needed. Please don't forget Battlecruisers though. They are just a bit better than Cruisers, but are more like battleships in handling/sig radius. Mk2 Battlecruisers should be where T1 Cruisers are now.
With the MK2 changes, Medium Turrets and Missiles need to be adjusted so they can hit medium targets better than any other weapons, including small T2. The smallest Medium weapons should have similar tracking and sig rad of the largest T2 small weapons. This would encourage the use of Medium Weapons on Medium (Cruiser) vessels. The fact that small T2 weapons have better damage and tracking than the medium weapons meant to go on a cruiser is utterly retarded. A Medium Beam II (small laser) should never be doing better more consistant damage on cruisers and BS than a Heavy Pulse I(or II). Currently this is not so. The greater fitting and firing requirements should be rewarded by better damage. Cruisers are made for cruiser weapons. T2 smalls should not be the best for all occasions.
Think about it. All weapons have a lower limit to sig radius at which point the guns hit extremely poor. They should also have an upper limit at which point they cease to gain any advantage. T2 small weapons that wreck and hit for "perfect" every time when placed on a cruiser will beat any cruiser weapon that hits for "average" becuase of sig rad. Additionally these small weapons hit frigates 100x better than Medium weapons. Medium weapons on Medium ships for Medium Targets. This will provide more incentive to put medium weaps on cruisers, as well as give T2 (and T1) destroyers more of a niche. Right now, destroyers are redundant because Cruisers with Small Weaps fill the anti-frigate role as well as the anti-cruiser role adequetly with small T2 weapons. If Cruisers equipped Medium Weaps (and used thier bonuses as well) then destroyers would have a place by destroying friggies Well there you go folks. The reasons why the Rax needs adjustment as well as cruiser fixes. Your thoughts are appreciated, however, more substantial numerical analysis to refute the ones I have put forward will be taken more seriously. If you just post your biased opinion (omg i luv mah rax, leave it alone or go trane 4 an uber rax) without any backing and you will be ignored. Nyxus
|
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three |
Posted - 2005.09.03 20:09:00 -
[969] Drone DPS With Heavy Drones 4 (easy to achieve) Drone DPS is as follows; Heavy - 21.12 DPS, Medium - 8.64 DPS, Light - 3.84 DPS. All numbers are rounded for ease of use. The Vexxor is high on the list since it was low on the list for turrets, and this seems to follow for all other ships. The Thorax however is an aberration as it tops both.
Total DPS This is where it just gets scary. A drone ship DPS should be slightly higher than a turret ship, as drones take time to reach target, can be destroyed, are sometimes stupid. But here it is clearly evidenced how overpowering the DPS is on a ship that has the highest Turret DPS, Drone DPS, while sporting the 2nd most armor in it's class.
Thats right - The Thorax does twice the DPS of a Rupture, three times that of Moa, and FOURof a Maller. Doesn't that seem a little excessive? Total DPS over a 60 second Interval A lot of the Rax supporters say that the time it takes for drones to travel to a target 15km away takes away from the overall damage. So I have calculated a scenario in which the Thorax starts a fight at 15km from it's target and releases drones. Heavy drones have an optimal of 1000km +4000km falloff leaving them 10km of distance to travel while inflicting zero damage. Heavy drones traveling 1050m/s cross this distance in 10 seconds. In this 15km scenario the 8 heavy drones inflict damage for 50sec (60sec-10sec for travel). The total damage in a 60 second instance for each ships turrets plus drones is as follows:
Again we see clearly why the Thorax is overpowered. An average three times the damage output over 60 seconds starting at 15km over any other cruiser. This is while having the second best armor in it's class. Shooting down the Rax's drones is not an option, as the Heavy drones have a combined armor total of 2400hp. The Thorax's drones are the equivalent of an extra cruisers worth of armor and firepower. The solution is clear. Reduce the Thorax Dronebay to 100. This still leaves the Thorax stronger (considerably) than other cruisers, but at least it's a bit closer. The other solution is to limit all cruiser's dronebays to medium drones only. This would reduce the total damage potential of the Thorax, but other cruisers as well. Rather than place an arbitrary restriction on all cruisers I would rather adjust just one. All cruisers are not totally "teh suck" - but they are when compared to the Thorax. After the Rax's dronebay is adjusted here is what can be done to help all cruisers. |
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three |
Posted - 2005.09.03 20:09:00 -
[970] OMG help for cruisers! Some of the setups above were not reasonable because the comparison needed an "apples to apples" base from which to compare. The Moa and Stabber come mind. However, since these are by far the currently most accepted setups for most ships we can see we can make some suggestions based on these setups.
More survivability is critical. With an 800mm plate cruisers + the new armor base cruisers would reach where there are curretly with a 1600mm plate. This is about right.
These changes are coming in Mk2. Thank you CCP. It's needed. Please don't forget Battlecruisers though. They are just a bit better than Cruisers, but are more like battleships in handling/sig radius. Mk2 Battlecruisers should be where T1 Cruisers are now.
With the MK2 changes, Medium Turrets and Missiles need to be adjusted so they can hit medium targets better than any other weapons, including small T2. The smallest Medium weapons should have similar tracking and sig rad of the largest T2 small weapons. This would encourage the use of Medium Weapons on Medium (Cruiser) vessels. The fact that small T2 weapons have better damage and tracking than the medium weapons meant to go on a cruiser is utterly retarded. A Medium Beam II (small laser) should never be doing better more consistant damage on cruisers and BS than a Heavy Pulse I(or II). Currently this is not so. The greater fitting and firing requirements should be rewarded by better damage. Cruisers are made for cruiser weapons. T2 smalls should not be the best for all occasions.
Think about it. All weapons have a lower limit to sig radius at which point the guns hit extremely poor. They should also have an upper limit at which point they cease to gain any advantage. T2 small weapons that wreck and hit for "perfect" every time when placed on a cruiser will beat any cruiser weapon that hits for "average" becuase of sig rad. Additionally these small weapons hit frigates 100x better than Medium weapons. Medium weapons on Medium ships for Medium Targets. This will provide more incentive to put medium weaps on cruisers, as well as give T2 (and T1) destroyers more of a niche. Right now, destroyers are redundant because Cruisers with Small Weaps fill the anti-frigate role as well as the anti-cruiser role adequetly with small T2 weapons. If Cruisers equipped Medium Weaps (and used thier bonuses as well) then destroyers would have a place by destroying friggies Well there you go folks. The reasons why the Rax needs adjustment as well as cruiser fixes. Your thoughts are appreciated, however, more substantial numerical analysis to refute the ones I have put forward will be taken more seriously. If you just post your biased opinion (omg i luv mah rax, leave it alone or go trane 4 an uber rax) without any backing and you will be ignored. Nyxus
|
 Ithildin |
Posted - 2005.09.03 21:22:00 -
[971] Neat comparison, Nyxus, but I have a request for you. Make a similar comparison making two vital assumptions: 1. Oversized plates will not remain viable for long due to their unintended use and that they are removing medium turrets from game (save for HACs, who can afford the lack of plates in order to get more firepower) 2. Thorax dronebay is axed, but without increasing any fitting numbers. Granted that you'll have to make some realistic setups to complete this, but a few general guidelines can be used such as a rail-Thorax using 200mm Rails at most or a blaster-Thorax using Electron blaster at most. -- Ligh weight. Some people fly Thorax or Armageddon to compensate what their body lack. I fly Dominix. |
 Ithildin Gallente The Corporation Cruel Intentions |
Posted - 2005.09.03 21:22:00 -
[972] Neat comparison, Nyxus, but I have a request for you. Make a similar comparison making two vital assumptions: 1. Oversized plates will not remain viable for long due to their unintended use and that they are removing medium turrets from game (save for HACs, who can afford the lack of plates in order to get more firepower) 2. Thorax dronebay is axed, but without increasing any fitting numbers. Granted that you'll have to make some realistic setups to complete this, but a few general guidelines can be used such as a rail-Thorax using 200mm Rails at most or a blaster-Thorax using Electron blaster at most. - EVE is sick. |
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation Cruel Intentions |
Posted - 2005.09.03 21:22:00 -
[973] Neat comparison, Nyxus, but I have a request for you. Make a similar comparison making two vital assumptions: 1. Oversized plates will not remain viable for long due to their unintended use and that they are removing medium turrets from game (save for HACs, who can afford the lack of plates in order to get more firepower) 2. Thorax dronebay is axed, but without increasing any fitting numbers. Granted that you'll have to make some realistic setups to complete this, but a few general guidelines can be used such as a rail-Thorax using 200mm Rails at most or a blaster-Thorax using Electron blaster at most. - EVE is sick. |
 DigitalCommunist |
Posted - 2005.09.03 21:52:00 -
[974] 18 pages about one single number in a database. Wow. Wish that many people cared about removing instas :\ Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning. |
 DigitalCommunist Evolution Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2005.09.03 21:52:00 -
[975] 18 pages about one single number in a database. Wow. Wish that many people cared about removing instas :\ Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
DigitalCommunist Evolution Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2005.09.03 21:52:00 -
[976] 18 pages about one single number in a database. Wow. Wish that many people cared about removing instas :\ Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
 Ithildin |
Posted - 2005.09.03 22:05:00 -
[977]
Very, very, good point. I think it also has to do with the extremely sexy look of the Thorax. People feel good flying it, contrary to (for example) Rupture, Maller, or Dominix. And I do care about (for) removing instas. Care to start a thred about it? Remove the need for instas, granting a 5km warp-in. Also, remove aggression timers for stargates and do something about insta-docks. Possibly the bottlenecks will have to be moved slightly further out from secure space so that one can pursue people who jump through and so on... -- Ligh weight. Some people fly Thorax or Armageddon to compensate what their body lack. I fly Dominix. |
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation Cruel Intentions |
Posted - 2005.09.03 22:05:00 -
[978]
Very, very, good point. I think it also has to do with the extremely sexy look of the Thorax. People feel good flying it, contrary to (for example) Rupture, Maller, or Dominix. And I do care about (for) removing instas. Care to start a thred about it? Remove the need for instas, granting a 5km warp-in. Also, remove aggression timers for stargates and do something about insta-docks. Possibly the bottlenecks will have to be moved slightly further out from secure space so that one can pursue people who jump through and so on... - EVE is sick. |
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation Cruel Intentions |
Posted - 2005.09.03 22:05:00 -
[979]
Very, very, good point. I think it also has to do with the extremely sexy look of the Thorax. People feel good flying it, contrary to (for example) Rupture, Maller, or Dominix. And I do care about (for) removing instas. Care to start a thred about it? Remove the need for instas, granting a 5km warp-in. Also, remove aggression timers for stargates and do something about insta-docks. Possibly the bottlenecks will have to be moved slightly further out from secure space so that one can pursue people who jump through and so on... - EVE is sick. |
 Nomen Nescio |
Posted - 2005.09.03 22:36:00 -
[980]
We care (C) |
 Nomen Nescio |
Posted - 2005.09.03 22:36:00 -
[981]
We care (C) |
Nomen Nescio |
Posted - 2005.09.03 22:36:00 -
[982]
We care (C) |
 Ravenge |
Posted - 2005.09.03 23:51:00 -
[983] Just a few questions... How long would it take a person to train up to be able to use a rax that does the 169 dps with its drones .. can fit 1600 plates, and use t2 weapons? as the biggest argument is that, a new players can jump into a rax and do all this.. Plus why is it that people like to ignore the whole point that a rax without battleship plate isn't the uber ship they think it is? Once the oversized plate issue is sorted out and (hopefully) becomes a thing of the past, the rax will revert back to a mining role due to being castrated by people who want eve to be a game fought with smacktalk in shuttles. oh and nerf the maller... as its going to be the new overpowered cruiser.. if the rax gets ruined. |
 Ravenge |
Posted - 2005.09.03 23:51:00 -
[984] Just a few questions... How long would it take a person to train up to be able to use a rax that does the 169 dps with its drones .. can fit 1600 plates, and use t2 weapons? as the biggest argument is that, a new players can jump into a rax and do all this.. Plus why is it that people like to ignore the whole point that a rax without battleship plate isn't the uber ship they think it is? Once the oversized plate issue is sorted out and (hopefully) becomes a thing of the past, the rax will revert back to a mining role due to being castrated by people who want eve to be a game fought with smacktalk in shuttles. oh and nerf the maller... as its going to be the new overpowered cruiser.. if the rax gets ruined. |
Ravenge |
Posted - 2005.09.03 23:51:00 -
[985] Just a few questions... How long would it take a person to train up to be able to use a rax that does the 169 dps with its drones .. can fit 1600 plates, and use t2 weapons? as the biggest argument is that, a new players can jump into a rax and do all this.. Plus why is it that people like to ignore the whole point that a rax without battleship plate isn't the uber ship they think it is? Once the oversized plate issue is sorted out and (hopefully) becomes a thing of the past, the rax will revert back to a mining role due to being castrated by people who want eve to be a game fought with smacktalk in shuttles. oh and nerf the maller... as its going to be the new overpowered cruiser.. if the rax gets ruined. |
 Nyxus |
Posted - 2005.09.04 01:25:00 -
[986] Ithildin - I have to agree with your line of thought. I am interested in the same numbers. I will start the process of crunching in the next couple of days. I will use my skills for base grid/cpu etc but if people here know decent turrets to use for each ship I would appreciate the input. I will probably use base values for turrets again so as to have an apples to apples comparison while using my base skills as a frame of reference for each ship. Ship fitter 4tw! I hope some sort of drawback is provided for oversized plates soon. Sig Rad hopefully as I am sick of seeing every inty sport a 400mm plate. 
I would guess about a month minimum, maybe 5 weeks. You need Cruiser 4, T2 Beams or Rails, and Heavy Drones 4. A few other engineering skills for cap and such, although its not very hard to fit the small guns and plate.
Because the Rax does TWICE the damage of the Rupture while having the SAME armor? Why do you continue to focus on plates when it's the damage output of the drones that are unbalanced? Nyxus |
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three |
Posted - 2005.09.04 01:25:00 -
[987] Ithildin - I have to agree with your line of thought. I am interested in the same numbers. I will start the process of crunching in the next couple of days. I will use my skills for base grid/cpu etc but if people here know decent turrets to use for each ship I would appreciate the input. I will probably use base values for turrets again so as to have an apples to apples comparison while using my base skills as a frame of reference for each ship. Ship fitter 4tw! I hope some sort of drawback is provided for oversized plates soon. Sig Rad hopefully as I am sick of seeing every inty sport a 400mm plate.
I would guess about a month minimum, maybe 5 weeks. You need Cruiser 4, T2 Beams or Rails, and Heavy Drones 4. A few other engineering skills for cap and such, although its not very hard to fit the small guns and plate.
Because the Rax does TWICE the damage of the Rupture while having the SAME armor? Why do you continue to focus on plates when it's the damage output of the drones that are unbalanced? Nyxus
|
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three |
Posted - 2005.09.04 01:25:00 -
[988] Ithildin - I have to agree with your line of thought. I am interested in the same numbers. I will start the process of crunching in the next couple of days. I will use my skills for base grid/cpu etc but if people here know decent turrets to use for each ship I would appreciate the input. I will probably use base values for turrets again so as to have an apples to apples comparison while using my base skills as a frame of reference for each ship. Ship fitter 4tw! I hope some sort of drawback is provided for oversized plates soon. Sig Rad hopefully as I am sick of seeing every inty sport a 400mm plate.
I would guess about a month minimum, maybe 5 weeks. You need Cruiser 4, T2 Beams or Rails, and Heavy Drones 4. A few other engineering skills for cap and such, although its not very hard to fit the small guns and plate.
Because the Rax does TWICE the damage of the Rupture while having the SAME armor? Why do you continue to focus on plates when it's the damage output of the drones that are unbalanced? Nyxus
|
Kaeten |
Posted - 2005.09.04 01:28:00 -
[989] Edited by: Kaeten on 04/09/2005 01:29:27 ppl dont understand that 8 heavy drones are very easey to destroy, especially with medium drones... the plate issue has nothing to do wit hthis as all cruisers can fit the same. One thing that is unfair is that the maller gets an extra high and low slot over the thorax, is that fair or does the drone bay balance it out, people forget to bring every advantage in. |
 Kaeten Hybrid Syndicate |
Posted - 2005.09.04 01:28:00 -
[990] Edited by: Kaeten on 04/09/2005 01:29:27 ppl dont understand that 8 heavy drones are very easey to destroy, especially with medium drones... the plate issue has nothing to do wit hthis as all cruisers can fit the same. One thing that is unfair is that the maller gets an extra high and low slot over the thorax, is that fair or does the drone bay balance it out, people forget to bring every advantage in. Pwnage PvP Recruitment |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 38 :: one page | |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page | |
Originally by: Nyxus| Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,17s, ref 20251018/1857 EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP. |
| 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. |