EVE Search - 250mm Railguns. Ishtars. Heavy Missiles

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

250mm Railguns. Ishtars. Heavy Missiles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 310	Posted - 2014.11.27 22:20:32 - [1] - Quote Warde Guildencrantz wrote: rails are not broken, if they are OP it would be by a very small margin. Their lack of damage choice and tracking is their weakness. weakness in tracking is directly mitigated by their increased range. Being able to reduce rad/s with extreme range or by using tracking scripts where arty or beams would need optimal to achieve the same range pretty much negates the "disadvantage" of bad tracking. Damage selectability isn't nearly that big of deal, since every other weapon system is more-or-less subject to similar restrictions (beams obviously, Tremor is kin/exp, most long range missile ships are only bonused for kinetic damage, etc.) and everyone plugs their resist holes anyway Quote: heavies suck indeed, but only in comparison to how OP they were before, they still have obscene projection and reasonable damage. wanna have your mind=blown?? here goes: heavy missiles were never very OP. The big clue is that they were only widely used on two hulls: tengus and drakes (funny how this "OP" weapon system never manifested in the popularity of Cerbs, or Caracals, or Nighthawks). Anyway, Tengus because they're an intrinsically powerful hull, and are currently flexing that power with the oh-so-balanced 250mm railguns, and Drakes mostly because they're mindless and very newbie friendly. Low-SP corps could get all their guys in drakes in a few weeks and have a halfway-decent fleet, while their line members could happily rat in their purger-rigged drakes to fund PVP. Outside of that, blob drakes were a one-trick counter to the AHACs of the day, and even then didn't work very well. Furthermore they got completely slaughtered by battleships, namely Hellcats, were easily countered by firewalls (just like Tengus), and were even more vulnerable to bombing than BS are, having nearly the same sig but about 2/3rds the EHP. In small gangs, drakes were either used as point-and-click low DPS ships for newbies to fly, or as decent kiting ships that could fit a tank, two webs, and a point. For the former, they were terrible and worse than most other BCs, and for kiting they were made completely obsolete by the introduction of tier3 BCs. The ultimate irony is that by the time CCP got around to nerfing HMLs and especially Drakes the metagame had already moved onto bigger and better things, yet out-of-the-loop scrublords on EVE-O are still bleating on about how supposedly broken they were. But hey you're a step ahead of CCP; at least you recognize HMLs suck. watch me be a scurb and get owned
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 311	Posted - 2014.11.27 22:33:41 - [2] - Quote anyway while we're living in a fantasy world where CCP actually takes an interest in the balance of their game, i've compiled an abridged list of things that are a complete joke in PVP for the highly-competent balance wizards of Crowd Control Productions to consider: Medium autocannons Hurricanes Drakes Harbingers Prophecies Brutixes Heavy missiles Cruise missiles Torpedoes Pretty much every tech 1 battleship, but especially the Raven and Whyphoon (named because why would you fly one??) Target spectrum breakers (i forgot these existed for the better part of a year) Pilgrims Every sansha ship Cynabals Dragoons Coraxes Exequror NIs Nighthawks while we're at it, whatever genius thought it was a good idea to give bubble immunity to interceptors needs his brain examined, maybe even replaced watch me be a scurb and get owned
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 313	Posted - 2014.11.27 23:52:04 - [3] - Quote Harvey James wrote: corax's, highthawks,dragoons and prophecies whats up with them? .. the rest i get corax is an inferior talwar, there's really no reason for it to be in the game nighthawk has a bizzare slot layout, horrible fitting, and uses missiles without having a rapid light bonus dragoons are just terrible, literally nobody thinks they're good prophecy's are a worse myrmidon, it's just a big slow garbageheap of a ship that does worse damage than most cruisers watch me be a scurb and get owned
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 314	Posted - 2014.11.28 00:14:46 - [4] - Quote St'oto wrote: blah blah blah i've spent a decade in a scrub-filled echochamber i take it you've never heard of the "firewall" before well gather 'round and i'll spin you a yarn of long ago, when people actually flew missile doctrines it used to be common practice to have a few brick-tanked T3s with smartbombs in your fleet to position between your fleet and the drakes or tengus shooting you it was actually very effective fin watch me be a scurb and get owned
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 326	Posted - 2014.11.29 04:53:12 - [5] - Quote esteemed video game publication Kotaku's front-page headline 2 weeks from now: rhea: biggest disappointment of 21st century?? watch me be a scurb and get owned
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 328	Posted - 2014.11.29 12:23:22 - [6] - Quote Zavand Crendraven wrote: i dunno cruise missiles seems quite ok and sansha ship seems to kinda work but yea else cant say i disagree. though i think raven and phoon might be tied to torps being quite literal **** well they suck for kiting in comparison to every turret, since they pretty much cannot apply dps to cruisers or frigates. Even a typhoon (with its explosion velocity bonus) can't even get 300 dps applied to a painted MWDing shield thorax. Cue morons saying "just bring a huginn with webs and paints!!!" Why would I do that when I can just bring another dps ship, one that doesn't require a recon to babysit them? and they suck for fleets because of missile travel time, which both effectively reduces the damage output of your fleet whenever a target dies with missiles in the air and telegraphs to enemy logi what the next primary is, and because, again, they absolutely require webs and paints to have a hope of doing any damage, pretty much limiting them to 75km (the range of a linked huginn's webs), completely wasting their range "advantage" over turrets they just suck in fact I'd say that torps and cruises are probably the two worst things in the entire game, worse even than heavy missiles, worse than small beams, worse than medium autocannons it's just they've been terrible for so long that people simply forgot they existed, and they exist only within the realm of EFT, never once appearing on any player's radar so they'll never get buffed watch me be a scurb and get owned
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 334	Posted - 2014.12.01 12:52:24 - [7] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Capqu wrote: Honestly they should just remove 25MB. Would anyone stop flying Ishtars if they were 80% as powerful as they are now? Probably not, but at least it would bring them more in line numbers wise. I see this suggested often, and I agree with it, but I think it's a band-aid solution that doesn't solve a deeper problem. The problem isn't so much the Ishtar, but in sentry drones themselves. Fix sentry drones and people will still use and adore the Ishtar, and it won't need any sort of nerf. I dunno, sentries are fine on, say, Dominixes, where they have the damage and range that's appropriate for a battleship, and all the drawbacks that come along with it. The fact that a HAC can fit the same damage and range of a battleship without sacrificing any tank or mobility is just insane watch me be a scurb and get owned
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 335	Posted - 2014.12.01 22:45:35 - [8] - Quote Anhenka wrote: It was only a half serious proposal anyway, poking fun at the part where 80% of this thread seems to be insisting Ishtars be nerfed to equal or lower DPS while retaining all of the downsides of having your primary weapon systems be a deployed system. maybe people are short with you because you're so dense that even after 5 pages you still don't realize there are huge advantages to using drones that outweigh their destructibility, namely: damage output is unaffected by EWar no cap usage no ammo usage totally selectable damagetypes, and by far the biggest one: you can fit for high dps and range without sacrificing tank or mobility. 1600 plate + dualprop? 100mn AB with a shield tank? No fitting mods, no problem! You'll still do more damage than a heavy pulse zealot that can't even fit an AB without using an ancillary current router but oh sentries are soo vulnerable! you only have to do 70k damage to get rid of an ishtars dps (until he warps off to a mobile depot) god ishtar apologists are just the worst watch me be a scurb and get owned
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 347	Posted - 2014.12.10 08:15:51 - [9] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Capqu wrote: These things need changes, and I think most of the community knows it. I'm tired of **** posting in all the meaningless "balance" threads with irrelevant changes and just want to see some actual meaningful changes for once in my goddamn life. The above sentiment (at least in my mind) also applies to adding content and paradigm shifts for: Incarna Capital Ships PI And yet we're still making rant topics about the same old ship / module balancing drama that has been happening for the last 11 years.... Incarna was a failed attempt to make a spaceship game about walking your barbie around and 95% of players would rather just forget about it Did you miss the massive change to capital mechanics that happened all of 6 weeks ago? PI by all accounts seems to work fine did you just want an excuse to use the phrase "paradigm shift"? watch me be a scurb and get owned
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 347	Posted - 2014.12.11 11:10:46 - [10] - Quote i killed a hurricane a month or two ago. he was cyno bait but didn't bring enough ozone. that's all the hurricane is good for. watch me be a scurb and get owned

Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 347	Posted - 2014.12.16 03:17:38 - [11] - Quote Anhenka wrote: The ones that were not were choosing to compare it to gun ships and cut back all the stats until they matced the other gun HAC's, so I was poking fun at the observation that if you want to cut it back to exact gun HAC stats, then it should be able to mount its weapon systems in a non vulnerable state, like gun HAC's. and yet you consistently ignore that drones have actual advantages over guns as a weapon system, namely independence from fitting restrictions (which make things like the no-fitting-mods 700 dps 100mn ishtar possible) and invulnerability to EWAR Sort of like how the dominix does a fair bit less DPS than comparable battleships yet still remains popular. Gee what a mystery??? I almost cannot believe you're seriously still arguing that, because you can kill an ishtar's drones (with 70k of damage), it makes it perfectly acceptable for the ishtar to have like 50% more damage at 70km than other HACs watch me be a scurb and get owned

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.