|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spacer John
   |
Posted - 2007.05.05 23:22:00 -
[1]
Oh I see. Nobody graphed out their response to your mathematical argument that passive shield tanking is overpowered? Oh wait, I dont remember your chart detailing the unbalanced ratio between tankable damage vs outputted damage that numerically proves that shield tanked Drakes are superior to Geddons. Get a grip, you made an emotionally charged argument that something needed to be nerfed. People didn't agree with you and expressed why they felt you were wrong. Then you get mad and cop out saying the "opposition" didn't prove their point to your satisfaction (obviously because their maturity level cant match what was once seen on these boards) and therefore will just let the whole argument die.
There are too many variables in open EVE PVP to graphically prove most things one way or another. To most people's experience Drakes dont pose enough of a threat to deserve a nerf. Graph me up a tankable dps + output dps = X pts. chart of all ships. Wont prove anything, but Id be interested to see where the Drake ranks compared to the Geddon and other ships. Do that and maybe Ill attempt to draw up some graphs of my own.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 23:58:00 -
[2]
After reading that last post I went back to see if the video was finally done downloading. This whole thread, I assumed it took the Geddon 5 minutes or more to break the Drakes tank. For people that dont feel like taking the time to wait for all 60MB to download, the Drake sits there unable to do much of anything, and the Geddon annihilates it in about 30-40 seconds. Sorry Tibrius, your argument went from bad to silly. The message posted at the end of the video is "Do Not Mess with a Geddon". How it got turned into a nerf Drake thread is beyond me.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 00:25:00 -
[3]
No your missing the point. Your wide SP gap argument is flawed. The drake had all the skills for Tech2 tank gear. The Geddon had the skills for tech2 gank gear. You cannot say 5mil SP vs 38mil SP because honestly the lvl 5 skill is still the same 2 or 5 % increase of all other levels and cost 5-6 times the SP for it. It takes EXPONENTIONALLY more SP for the same small increase of previous levels.
256000 SP for Rockets lvl 5 will only give me a 5% dmg increase over 45000 SP for Rockets lvl 1+2+3+4. Taking that example 256000/45000 (Rocket lvl 5/Rocket lvl 4)= 5.5/1 ratio for %5 effectiveness increase
38000000/5000000 (SP ratio of characters that you claim should mean something in your argument)= 7.5/1 ratio. Skill gain in EVE is not linear, so please stop trying to fool people with fallable arguments.
The Drake had BC lvl 2, but his other shield skills were lvl 4. The Geddon had his skills 1 level above. And he ripped through the Drake anyway. The Drake tank bar inched up once during the fight, the Geddon didnt battle it down, it just wiped it out like it should. The Drake had a full t2 tank setup with rigs. Higher BC level would help, but not make or break your argument.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 00:49:00 -
[4]
---"You can't prove things, too many varibles? What? eh? I suppose old style multispecs of death were balanced. At least with them more than one or two ships in eve could do that party trick. If people want a lowish DPS class of ship in the game that can TANK anything there should be a new ship group like "Bait ship" And each race should recive a ship that can NOS proof tank crazy damage."---
I said MOST things affecting open PVP environments couldn't be proved one way or another with charts and graphs. The main point of that post was that you asked for numerical arguments but posed none yourself.
Then you say the Drake can TANK ANYTHING, but it can't and didn't even come close to your one piece of "evidence" the video.
Then you make a point about how if CALDARI Drakes can do something all other races should have it too. That's not how the game works, Caldari don't have ships with huge drone bays like other races, is that imbalanced?
Also just because a ship fills a certain role well, does not mean that it needs whole new ship class.
---"Just because drakes don't pose enough threat to be nerfed to you that does not mean they should be left. If that was the case we would still have a thorax that could launch 8 heavy drones and chew through any other criuser easy peasy. Cause they never posed a threat to my mega."---
Again you are WAY off the mark. A Tank Drake can't web or scram ANY ship. Not just some, ANY.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 01:04:00 -
[5]
---"The 5% from level 5 that the drake was missing was in shield managment and shield operation. So thats recharge and shield ammount. At a crude glance it seems that its only 10% off max but when you factor in how these %'s stack once applied to each other then the ship it becomes huge. Then that 5% becomes monsterous at 33% shield strength. That drake is not quite only slightly worse than MAX recharge recharge as you would try and fool people with your fallable arguement."---
Ill admit I have almost no experience with EVE calculations and haven't used math much in a long time, but how does it affect the shield strength by 33%?
My own simple calculations (probably worthless)
Setup A (representing lvl4)= 10,000shield / 100sec shield recharge = 100/sec regen x 2.5 - 250/sec peak shield regen
Setup B (represesting lvl5)= 10500(10,000*1.05 or 5%) / 95 (100*.95 or -5%) = 110.5/sec regen x 2.5 = 275/sec peak shield regen.
275/250 = 1.1/1
Im probably missing something, but 33% seems like alot for 2 skills going up 5% each. Mind explaining how you came to your conclusion for me?
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 01:29:00 -
[6]
---"Sorry clarify? Whats bull? what do you mean"---
He means that without you running the numbers on it, he is calling your bluff, saying you are wrong.
Im not convinced any Drake setup could have held its tank against that Geddon.
---"geddon with conflag barely breaking the tank of n00bish Drake"---
It didnt "barely break" the tank, it smashed it open right away. And the Drake had top t2 modules for tanking plus rigs.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 19:36:00 -
[7]
---"Actually I am saying I am not clear about that remark.lol. But if you want to turn me asking someone to clarify what they are saying into further "proof" that I am wrong be my guest"---
Actually I WAS clarifying his remark for you. I didn't use it as "proof" for anything. He said he didn't believe a comment you made, not sure what needs clarifying. Give him a video of 2 max Gank Ravens not being able to break 1 Tank Drakes shields and I'm sure he'll retract his remark.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 19:46:00 -
[8]
---"Again, this post was created out of the divine horror of a the possibilty suggested by that video of a GANK Drake tanking a Geddon. The drake in the Video clearly went past 33% shield and thus went down. I posteed asking for more information. I must admitt I am a bit lazy to run the numbers for myself but someone said the drake can tank 1500dps. If this is true that puts it beyond the damage of Gank battleships, My near max Hyperion I think gets under 1400dps.
Unless this is not true. Can everybody stop saying "Well in the video the Drake lost". Can a expert shield tanker spread any further light on the figures."---
The video had nothing to do with a GANK Drake, ALL his mods were fit for TANKING. Not only did the Drake lose in the video, he didn't have a even a prayer of his tank holding. The video you used as evidence doesn't show the Geddon having ANY problem chewing the Drake up. I'd say your best off leaving the video out of your argument because it doesn't strengthen your standpoint at all, quite the opposite really.
Also if you want to argue for a Drake nerf, post the numbers yourself, Im sure there will be plenty of people who will concur or refute your numbers for you. Without the numbers your argument is vague, and people who have used and fought Drakes are saying that your vague statements seem incorrect. I love "The Colbert Report" but using his "gut feeling" argument as a solid grounds to start asking for nerfs are not going to cut it. Also real life comparisons against EVE are completely worthless.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 19:55:00 -
[9]
---"Yeah a shield tanker is all about the "Boost to day have no cap for tomorrow school of thought" Thats fine over a short period Sheild boosters should all be king. As I said before I bet a scorpion with a 8 slot shield tank consisting of harndeners, Invunfields and dual XL boosters with an amp could problaby tank 1300+ hp/s quite comfortably. Thats ok because it is using cap and thus cannot run at those huge power levels for long. Problem here lies in that it can run forever against a ganker. Gankers high slots don't really have room for NOS so the drake can last forever against any ship sub carrier it seems. The devs specifically said they don't want this in a blog."---
You keep making this argument without ever giving any proof. The devs dont want a ship that can last forever against any sub carrier ship? well thats fine, like I said, show me a video of a Drake against that Geddon that holds his tank indefinitely.
You also haven't explained to me how a %5 increase in shield total hp and regen increases the total shield strength by 33%, I'm skeptical of that, but more than willing to see the calculations that back that statement up.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 20:05:00 -
[10]
---"So what, it can't web scramble. its firing missiles. If some Thorax or rupture or caracal is shooting him he can hit them back no problem. Also its no leap of the imagination to imagine a skilled passive drake tanker with shield Management 5 and operations 5 could simply remove that last shield recharge in the mid slot and fit a scrambler! Ok, ok mabye now a expert drake would now not last against a geddon (I am not convinced on this but giving you the benefit of the doubt) it would still PWN blobs of criusers srambling and missiling them one by one with the criusers hepless to do enough damage. Plus you really need high DPS in a huge burst to try and bust past 33% shield recharge something criusers can't do.
To answer your point saying saying that its a caldari thing. So having a bait ship class is silly. Well ok if this passive tanking caladari, Why can't other cladari ships it? I find it almost amusing spaceman that you still cannot see the recharge time as a bug. If you were to look at a graph of shield hitpoint VS recharge time there would be a smooth line and then a huge troph on the value that represents the drake."---
So now your argument is that the Drake should be nerfed because in the right type of situation it can be dangerous to Cruisers? I actually have a scram on my Drake, its not hard for most PVP ships to fly out of 20km range and warp off, especially the smaller faster ones. So what you usually end up with is a ship that can tank well, hold bigger slower ships that happen to not have AB or MWD, but doesn't have the DPS to take them down, and the power to destroy smaller ships, but no way to pin them down long enough to do it. I still fail to see how the threat a Drake poses is so much greater than other PVP ships out there.
Even if there is a graph of shield hitpoint VS recharge time and the Drake represents a huge trough, why is this deserving of a nerf or "fix" if it can't be utilized well against other ships in PVP? Just because you like your theoretical graphs to be nice and neat? What about a shield hitpoint VS drone bay size chart? Think there are any ships that would represent a trough in that one? Do they need to be "fixed"?
|
|
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 20:10:00 -
[11]
---"Ok Imagine your in a ship that has less mid slots than caladari frigates and has only 450cpu, but you make up for this will 8 low slots. Explain to me in this situation what playing smart is?
I am obvliously a n00b and after all my years of playing I am lost and need help. So how can the geddon play smart? How can the gallante blasterships play smart?"---
What exactly do you mean "play smart"? I haven't seen the forums flooded by complaints of how there is no way to "play smart" with their gallente blasterships. In fact in most threads the gallente blasterships are the PVP envy of other races, seems they can't do anything but "play smart".
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 20:21:00 -
[12]
---"Your comment about "all you can do is sit there" is wrong. Your sitting there with enough DPS to destroy criusers and ganking battlecriusers that have Passive armour tank that can't come close to breaking your tank. Like I said earlier you CAN fit a warp distrupter on that passive tank. Taking that mid slot shield recharger off you can still have a Very good passive tank particulary if you have you skills to level 5."---
So your contention is that its easy to fit a Drake so that it can DPS enough to kill other ships of even class and skill level, hold it there with a scram, and keep a shield tank that those even class and skill ships can't break? Do you really believe that Drakes are the be-all kings of solo PVP because of the great disproportional shild tanking they can achieve?
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 20:28:00 -
[13]
---"Tibrius, what really is going on here I think is you are focused on PvP, but what all the people (blah blah ing about how passive tanked drakes are not broken) are worried about is losing their cheap I-win button for mission money. I don't think any other BC can run a level 4. I'm training into an Abaddon for running level 4s, I know I'm an idiot for doing so. One would think a tier 3 BS in any race in this game should be the ship to run level4s. But no, you can just train into a Caldari BC, hit the f1-8 (all the dps arguments appear to be bs btw if you can kill BSs in level 4s) shield tank your Drake, I-win level 4s, and let the ISK flow into your wallet. I have energy sys ops 5, and shortly controlled burst 5. I still anticipate extreme cap issues with the Abaddon. Anyway, take the response as indication that you're hitting too close to the bone for the JAR and FAD crowd. DPS arguments are bunk. Only theoretically in this game gunships out damage missile boats"---
Well if the cry for nerfing Drakes is because they are too good for missions, then I can agree on that point. If the devs want to put them more in line with the mission running effectiveness of other ships and in turn boost the Drakes effectiveness in solo PVP Id be all for that. I have a Drake and I never use it for missions. I'd personally love for Caldari ships in general to be less effective in missions and more effective in PVP.
Go ahead and make another thread about nerfing Drake mission running effectiveness, but leave that argument out of this one, it doesn't apply considering the OP at all.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.06 20:30:00 -
[14]
--"easy fix, raise the skill reqs for large shield extender 2's, shield power relay 2's and any newb cant use em yes?"---
This sounds fair, make the ship keep its potential and demand higher SP for it. Id rather have a less than average PVP ship that takes longer to get maxxed out, than a ship that you can max its efficiency out really early on, but will always be worthless no matter how much SP you put into it.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 04:54:00 -
[15]
---"Passive shield tanking can go 2 ways:
1)The Drake should get nerfed and passive tanking disapears from the game. Passive recharge refinds its rightful place as a way for shields to recharge in between fights and a help to shield boosters as there shields reach 33% to compensate them for the lower amount of HP shields have compared to armour.
2)We accept shield tanking as a new Caldari trait. And thus nerf the drake so that it can only tank a balanced amount of damage and upgrade all Caladari ships for passive tanking as I would rightfully expect a scorpion being a battleship to out passive tank a BC.
Please all VOTE EITHER OPTION 1 or 2.
my vote
I am not sure, I would rather have option 1 and have NOS fixed."---
Just to be clear, as far as I know this is a discussion about the Drake's passive shield tanking setup being overpowered against other ships in PVP, correct?
ISK making abilities for low SP characters are a given with this ship (you can get it early and cheap and run lvl 3's with ease). So leave it out of the argument because it has no place. The Drake can also tank sentry guns well (as far as Ive heard). This also has very little connection with the argument at hand, so let's leave it out also and get at the core.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 04:54:00 -
[16]
Option 1:
The Drake would no longer be useful at ALL if passive shield tanking dissapears. Why vote to make a ship completely useless? Option 1 is obvious garbage.
Option 2:
The Rokh is an excellent long range sniper. According to your logic if the Rokh can excel at it, so should every single Caldari ship. Another garbage option.
Your argument points:
A: Drake can tank ALL non-cap ships
B: You can have a cheap PVP Drake with t1 rigs
C: The Drakes possible shield recharge rate is not in line with other ships as far as you see it
D: Its easy to fit web and scram for PVP and give the Drake utility
E: The Drake with certain setups in certain situations can tank some BSs indefinitely
As far as I can tell these are the main points of your argument Tibrius. You contest that all these observations are clear proof that overall the Drake is overpowered against other ships in PVP.
The problem is that you are very emotional with your arguments. Pulling exaggerated numbers from all extremes from all setups you can think of and claiming them as overall potential proving that the Drake is all too good at everything at once.
Things to think of when weighing your proofs:
A: Drake can tank ALL non-cap ships
- With only a maxxed out tank setup (read- 500mil ISK ballpark, maxxed skills, no PVP mods)
B: You can have a cheap PVP Drake with t1 rigs
- While cheaper than t2 rigs, t1 rig Drake setups are not cheap (150mill+).
C: The Drakes possible shield recharge rate is not in line with other ships as far as you see it.
- This is a totally subjective view point. You see it as seeing patterns and all that. All ships have pros and cons. The Drakes pro is its possible shield recharge rate (read - not a skill that translates as a threat to you or anyone else). You believe there is a number that is "right" and that the Drakes figures are "wrong" the most prominent argument that this is true according to you is that it is "obvious". Let go of the number and judge the ship on its collective overall PVP potential.
D: Its easy to fit web and scram for PVP and give the Drake utility
- Good point, but with this fit your other argument points don't apply. The Drake has a HARDER time fitting web and scram as many other PVP ships out there. Don't use this as an argument (most other ships can fit these mods without sacrificing as much) as it argues a setup that is not in line with the setup that your other argument points attack.
E: The Drake with certain setups in certain situations can tank some BSs indefinitely
- Gank and Tank are not Apples to Apples. If they are equal, then a tie or mutual death applies. Gank overpowers Tank and Gank destroys the other ship. Tank prevails over Gank and the normally destroyed ship, isn't.
People seem to be of the opinion that a tank holding against a ship is equivalent to a "Win". It isn't. If a random Drake is able to tank a random Geddon, the Drake doesn't beat the Geddon, the Geddon flies away.
I will make this entire argument very easy for you. Answer this question and you win the argument, don't and you lose it:
How does a ship that can tank a lot of dmg pose enough of a threat to warrant a nerf? Countless people attest that there are numerous things that gimp the Drake in PVP. How does the recharge rate of the Drake eclipse all other significant difficulties it encounters for PVP and makes it unbalanced enough that they need to recode the ship design?
I don't care that you feel that the number of hp it can recharge blah blah sounds unbalanced to you. Maybe you are obsessive compulsive and can't stand that it doesn't "fit" in line with the numbers other ships put out in that one area of ship attributes. That feeling you get in your gut has no bearing on how the ship as a WHOLE will perform out in open PVP in EVE.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 05:00:00 -
[17]
The main reason, as I see it, that people react to a nerf Drake thread is that it is one of the very few options Caldari pilots have to PVP even decently well with. I believe that most people argueing against you would have no problem giving some shield tank for a more viable PVP useful Drake.
Not because the shield tank makes Drake overpowered, but because some Caldari enjoy having a decent PVP ship. The shield tank makes it an OK PVP ship. Take the shields away by all means, but add something to make up for it.
Or just leave it, why cry and scream for changes to a ship that isn't even remotely considered the best or most dangerous in PVP?
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 22:21:00 -
[18]
--"Edit2: I'd still like someone experienced with the drake to comment on the setup I posted above. I know it's not the most amazing setup, but it should do passably.
My opinions are my own, and do not in any way reflect the beliefs of my corp/alliance."---
Liang, I use a very similar setup on my Drake in PVP but I put 2 BCU IIs on mine. It gimps the tank even more but gives me a greater chance of killing a scrambler before his buddies come and *****me. That way when they take me down at least I was able to take one theirs as well.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 22:40:00 -
[19]
---"Erm... every other caladri ship does already excel at sniping. Caladri Assualt frigs can snipe over 100KM!. Moa and Egal, enough said. The ferrox enough said . the rohk you mentioned.
it seems already long range railguns is the secondary caldari attcak trait. Like the gallante ability for good droning.
It seems the caldari have the longest range snipers in every class. Seems it is a trait, so whats your point?
The ability to tank is on the other hand is race wide. So my comment about the option to prehaps make passive shield tanking an option on all caldari ships was very on the ball.
Another spacer John post that does not actually rebuff any one of my points but serve's to highlight he is not thinking."---
EVERY other ship in Caldari does NOT excel at sniping. Many do, just as more than just the Drake passive shield tanks well. Which post shows Im not thinking?
In your OP you asked passive shield tank pilots for education. We've given it to you over and over again, its not our problem you refuse our education.
If the Drake is a ship that does OK in PVP, how is it "bugged" exactly? Because you think the devs wouldn't want it? Let them design their game, the Drake isn't wreaking havoc on their PVP so at worst case scenario isn't THAT broken.
You also haven't educated me on how a %5 boost to shield hp and regen stregenths it by %33.
AND paragrah after paragraph you haven't explained why as a whole the passive shield tank on the Drake should force the devs to change it. It's a middle of the road PVP ship at best, end of story. Keep crying if you want to.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:06:00 -
[20]
---"So you do you think the myrm needs adjusting too as you think I am a whinning fool arguing about passive tanks? Y/N please. <-- (this question should expose you as a fool because either way you answer your argument falls apart."---
I wouldn't know if the Myrmidon needs changing, haven't flown any or against enough to have the experience to comment on them. I have heard on other threads that it can attain BETTER passive shield tanking than the Drake AND put out more DPS. So that sounds like it can have it's cake and eat it too.
My argument is that the Drake as an overall PVP ship is an average PVP performer. Being average it would be stupid to nerf it in the ONE area it truly excels at (especially considering even with this area of excellence the ship is elevated to only mediocre performance). How does my argument fall apart exactly?
Keep studying for those exams. Im sure all that schooling makes you feel really good and superior, can't wait to hear your next attack on my intellect.
|
|
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:18:00 -
[21]
---"Only at 33% shield level those 2 skills have there big compounding effect as the shield recharge equation is an exp(F) function (natual log raised to a power) (me thinks is it?). Imagine componding between the 2 skills then a big bonus at 33% from the e^x cuve peak."---
Again, Im no EVE math wiz. From what Ive read in other threads the peak regen is not exponentially faster than at other shield levels. The figure I read was 2.6x that of the hp/s regen. I included that 2.6x peak regen point in my simple calculations I asked you to debunk. Maybe Im wrong but youve done nothing to set me straight other than sling insults at me.
I have quickfit for your information and seem as well informed of stickies as you do. Let me break this down for you one more time:
Drake tank = Great
Drake overall PVP effectiveness = Lackluster (but not worthless or terrible, merely OK)
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:24:00 -
[22]
---"Actually stack-nerfing SPRs sounds like a good idea. It would make those extreme-tanked setups impossible, so no reason to whine anymore. It would also strike passive tank Myrmidon setup pretty heavily since its main power comes from huge number of SPRs it can fit."---
This idea sounds alright to me. I use 2 BCUs on my setup anyways. Not that the Drake needs this change to bring it in line with other ships, but if it makes people feel all warm inside then they can go for it for all I care.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:29:00 -
[23]
---"The Drake's balanced, it might even need a boost. +1 low slot anyone?"---
Liang your assesment of the Drake seems dead on from my experience. I'd love to get another low slot on the Drake, and I wouldn't even put an SPR II on it just for Tibrius. Also nice link of fits, if you see any other please post it for us.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:40:00 -
[24]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by: Ulii on 10/05/2007 08:48:03
haha! I liked your little story about the turtle... funny but irrelevant to this discussion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---fixed that for you---
The turtle has a strong shell thats hard to break but not very ferocious offensive power. How is that not a good simile of the Drake?
The story then goes on to illustrate the silliness of asking for eradication of something when things of a much higher threat are on the hunt. How is that irrelevant?
The story may not mirror the argued issue precisely but I think its hardly irrelevent.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 08:06:00 -
[25]
---"I got loads of work on atm, and using quick fit saves me so much time. If someone proves that a calculation I have made to back up a point is wrong as they have taken the time to do it on paper I will back down. I am not here to "win". Only to make a point and get information."---
Quickfit is fine as far as Im concerned. Nobody is arguing that the Drake has a poor tank Tibrius. You've tried to make the point that the Drake's tank is too good to be kept as it is in relation to PVP. Nearly all the rest of the EVE community recognizes that even with a good tank the Drake is not the top dog for PVP gang or solo.
You can bring out as many 1bil ISK quickfits of possible drake setups. You can show that with a reduced tank it can have some utility and still tank decently, but no matter how many fits you come up with, the Drake is not overpowered and most everyone agrees with this.
How is it that you ask for information, then when told by many people with experience that the shield tank does not cause the Drake to be imbalanced, you rally out against all of them and call them all fools? It doesn't really make any sense.
I have agreed with the statement of Drakes being overpowered in PVE. Ive conceded that reducing the Drakes tank would be fine as long as it was boosted in other PVP useful areas. Ive also allowed that a SPR II stack nerf would be acceptable. The truth of the matter is that these things aren't needed at all in regards to making the Drake more in line PVP power wise with other ships.
Your limited Drake experiences tell you that the Drake's tank makes it overpowered.
Most people with experience with the ship tell you that is not the case, what further information are you looking for?
It must be so frustrating for you to be sitting on that ego and try to argue a point that just isn't there. Sorry, come back with something else.
P.S. A few have mentioned that the only problem they have with passive shield tanking is that there is no counter to it. It is not something that needs to be countered. Train higher skills, bring a friend, or fly away, all options to "counter" high passive shield tanks.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 00:47:00 -
[26]
Tibrius, I suppose since we for the most part agree that the Drake has a good tank, but differ in opinion about how that affects its overall PVP effectiveness there is nothing to do but agree to disagree.
I was somewhat hoping your argument had more depth than "look at how much a 1bil ISK Drake tanks!" and that you would expound on why you disagree with almost everyone that plays this game in regards to the Drakes tank making it overall overpowered in PVP.
In regards to disputing your numbers, which you claim you would never post if they were incorrect or exaggerated, here it goes:
---"g) ship in the video was 150m TOPs. A good passive drake with 1 a warp distrupter that can tank over a 1000/hps and can be had for 100m if not less I imagine."---
Here is the setup I get from Quickfit:
HIGH-SLOTS :
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- [ 0 | 0] Launcher Slot x 7
- [ 0 | 0] Empty Slot
MED-SLOTS :
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- [ 1 | 44] Warp Disruptor I
- [ 123 | 46] Large Shield Extender II x 3
- [ 0 | 44] Invulnerability Field II x 2
LOW-SLOTS :
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- [ 0 | 1] Shield Power Relay II x 4
RIG-SLOTS :
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- [ 50] Core Defence Field Purger I x 3
SHIP'S ATTRIBUTES :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Powergrid : 373.75 MW / 1062.5 MW
CPU : 274.0 tf / 656.25 tf
Capacitor (regen) : 3515.625 Energy (1868.35sec)
Max Cap Regen : 4.61 per sec (approx.)
Max Cap Needed : 10.15 per sec
Velocity : 161.0 m/sec
Signature : 404.923 m
Target Range : 75000.0 m
Scan Resolution : 243.75 mm
ECCM Gravimetric : 19.0 points
Shield HP (regen) : 16680.0 HP (160.14sec)
Max Shield Regen : 260.4 per sec (approx.)
Shield EM : 61.19 %
Shield Explo : 84.48 %
Shield Kinetic : 76.71 %
Shield Thermal : 68.95 %
Armor HP : 4882.5
Armor EM : 60.0 %
Armor Explo : 10.0 %
Armor Kinetic : 25.0 %
Armor Thermal : 45.0 %
Structure HP : 4882.5
Drone Capacity : 25.0 m3
Capacity : 345.0
Warp Max Distance : 386.1AU
==> 0.0 DPS <==
EM: 61.19
EXP: 84.48
KIN: 76.71
THERM: 68.95
----------
AVG: 72.84
(100-72.84=27.16% or .2716 1/.2716 = 3.68
260hp/sec x 3.68 = 956.8 avg dps tanked/sec
COST:
Drake - 35mil
rigs - 54mil
SPR2s - 18mil
Invul2s - 8mil
Extender2s - 12mil
Warp Dis. - 0
-----------
Total Cost = 127mil
That is 956/sec tanked for 127mil ISK with NO weapons at all. If there is something about my numbers that are wrong please let me know, it's very possible I am way off. The market prices I chose for the Equip was on the low end, so if you got rock bottom prices on everything, not counting transporting to lowsec or 0.0 you MAY save a few million.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 01:18:00 -
[27]
---"h) you can use T1 and still max out at around 1200. you can run my PvP 2 slot free passive drake with T1's and get 770hp/s"---
T1 Drake maxxed tank Quickfit:
MED-SLOTS :
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- [ 1 | 44] Warp Disruptor II
- [ 112 | 34] Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction x 3
- [ 0 | 40] Invulnerability Field I x 2
LOW-SLOTS :
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- [ 0 | 1] Shield Power Relay I x 4
RIG-SLOTS :
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- [ 50] Core Defence Field Purger I x 3
SHIP'S ATTRIBUTES :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Powergrid : 340.0 MW / 1062.5 MW
CPU : 230.0 tf / 656.25 tf
Capacitor (regen) : 3515.625 Energy (1868.35sec)
Max Cap Regen : 4.61 per sec (approx.)
Max Cap Needed : 11.75 per sec
Velocity : 161.0 m/sec
Signature : 392.923 m
Target Range : 75000.0 m
Scan Resolution : 243.75 mm
ECCM Gravimetric : 19.0 points
Shield HP (regen) : 15273.75 HP (196.61sec)
Max Shield Regen : 194.22 per sec (approx.)
Shield EM : 55.97 %
Shield Explo : 82.39 %
Shield Kinetic : 73.58 %
Shield Thermal : 64.78 %
Armor HP : 4882.5
Armor EM : 60.0 %
Armor Explo : 10.0 %
Armor Kinetic : 25.0 %
Armor Thermal : 45.0 %
Structure HP : 4882.5
Drone Capacity : 25.0 m3
Capacity : 345.0
Warp Max Distance : 386.1AU
EM: 55.97
EXP: 82.39
KIN: 73.58
THERM: 64.78
---------
AVG: 69.18
(100-69.18=30.82% or .3082) 1/.3082 = 3.25
194hp/sec x 3.2 = 620.8 avg dps tanked/sec
-------
PVP setup t1 with 2slots free:
Quickfit:
MED-SLOTS :
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- [ 112 | 34] Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction x 3
- [ 0 | 40] Invulnerability Field I
- [ 1 | 25] Stasis Webifier I
- [ 1 | 40] Warp Disruptor I
LOW-SLOTS :
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- [ 0 | 1] Shield Power Relay I x 3
- [ 1 | 35] Ballistic Control System I
RIG-SLOTS :
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- [ 50] Core Defence Field Purger I x 3
SHIP'S ATTRIBUTES :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Powergrid : 341.25 MW / 1062.5 MW
CPU : 245.0 tf / 656.25 tf
Capacitor (regen) : 3515.625 Energy (1383.96sec)
Max Cap Regen : 6.22 per sec (approx.)
Max Cap Needed : 8.5 per sec
Velocity : 161.0 m/sec
Signature : 392.923 m
Target Range : 75000.0 m
Scan Resolution : 243.75 mm
ECCM Gravimetric : 19.0 points
Shield HP (regen) : 15273.75 HP (245.76sec)
Max Shield Regen : 155.37 per sec (approx.)
Shield EM : 43.75 %
Shield Explo : 77.5 %
Shield Kinetic : 66.25 %
Shield Thermal : 55.0 %
Armor HP : 4882.5
Armor EM : 60.0 %
Armor Explo : 10.0 %
Armor Kinetic : 25.0 %
Armor Thermal : 45.0 %
Structure HP : 4882.5
Drone Capacity : 25.0 m3
Capacity : 345.0
Warp Max Distance : 386.1AU
EM: 43.75
EXP: 77.5
KIN: 66.25
THERM: 55
---------
AVG: 60.625
(100-60.625=39.375% or .39375) 1/.39375 = 2.54
155hp/sec x 2.54 = 393.7 avg dps tanked/sec
Note: even with all t1 gear this drake will cost close to 100mil ISK, much more with decent missile launchers.
As always point out any mistakes (should be none considering this is all copy paste from Quickfit).
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 01:19:00 -
[28]
Oh and all Quickfits are using MAX skills (all shield and missile related skills to lvl 5) that would take months if not years to train.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 01:32:00 -
[29]
---"exchange the mids for 2 Large Extender II, 3 passive hardeners (preferable the lowest resists) and one invul field or wathever you like, maybe another em resist, but invul gives a decent bonus to all resistences even if not activated, then it get's to a more realistic fitting which will make you able to get some weapons.
greets Kara"---
That fit can fit any heavy launchers you want and fill the extra slot with anything else. It was to illustrate the cost of a max tank, 127mil without weapons is more than under 100mil as Tibrius contended.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 01:44:00 -
[30]
Nope Tibrius, the point was not that it was under 1000 dps/sec tanked, it was that it was 27% over your max imagined cost. You said 100mil and that you imagined it would be less. It's not less its quite a lot more. With decent weapons it'll be at least 150mil, thats 50% more cost than the max you claimed to imagine. I figured the 4% less tank was good, because it's close enough to 1000/sec that we could compare the cost difference as apples to apples.
You also made a big deal about people not using numbers. That you double checked the figures you used in your arguments. Every time someone made a calculation that was off at all you correct them and claim that you "ripped their post apart" or showed them to be "n00b". If you want to make arguments based on numbers get them right, its a 2-way street.
|
|
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 01:53:00 -
[31]
---"I mean are you that sad in the head to think I ment that 1000 to like 4 significant figures? lol I used to do that when I was a kid to annoy my brother I used to ask him the time and he would say for examp;e "twenty-to-four" I used to look at my Brand new casio watch and say acutually its "Three-fourty-two" followed by me crying "stupid head"....lol"---
We differ in opinion on this issue, as such I have kept my insults to a bare minimum and attempted to explain why I (and most of the EVE community) do not agree with your conclusions. If you want to talk about immature behaviour maybe you should look inward.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 04:24:00 -
[32]
Browsing the forums I came across this thread. A list of top tank ships and their setups. Apparently the creator tried hundreds of setups and posted the top 10. All tanks listed can be held indefinitely according to creator.
Tank Spreadsheet in Excel Thread
Looks as though many ships have the potential to tank well, most look like Caldari. You were asking for numbers and this seemed like a good resource.
Note: I believe the spreadsheet was made before SPR IIs, not sure how that affects the figures or rankings.
Also it looks like the Rokh has the best potential to tank damage, better than the Drake and that is in line considering it is a BS.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 20:20:00 -
[33]
---"ösing the forums I came across this thread. A list of top tank ships and their setups. Apparently the creator tried hundreds of setups and posted the top 10.ö
I never liked that list as it doesnÆt factor in hitpoints. Some of the high hitpoint ships have a longer survival time then the regen ships yet are listed as a worse tank. Surly if you take longer to die you have the better tank?"---
Hmm good point, Ill keep that in consideration if I ever apply anything discovered on that chart.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 20:46:00 -
[34]
---"Nice link.
Yeah I see that, I have even remarked a Raven could out tank the Drake. The thing that the Rohk not only is a battleship but it repquires monster cap to do that. The Devs have said caladri should tank the best over the short term and Armour tankers over the longer term. Passive tanking is a violation of this tanking relationship between amrour and shield. Yes the ammount tanked by the passives is distressing but the real problem is it never stops. You can run armound in front of gate guns all day."---
---"Edited by: Shadarle on 03/01/2007 17:47:02
The tanks I am listing are indefinite. You can maintain the tank forever vs the dps listed. As long as you are taking less dps than the listed "tank" value by the time you're at peak regen you will be able to survive forever.
It also does not mean you can run an active shield booster forever per say. It means that you have enough cap to average the tank listed... turning it on and off in order to keep your cap at its peak regen."---
According to the person who made the spreadsheet, those active tanks can be run indefinitely against the damage it can tank listed. Meaning it too can run around and tank that amount of damage indefinitely. The Rokh active setup maxxed out at over 1000hp/s regen much more than double the max for passive Drake. Maybe I missed your point but it seems that given that evidence:
Rokh - Double+ indefinite tank potential of Drake, cap is used on and off to maintain peak regen (or could drain its cap fast and tank EVEN more for a shorter period of time).
Drake - Less than half indefinite tank potential of Rokh, because of SPRs and such has very little cap usage at all to speak of.
I'm not sure in the above scenario I understand where the Rokh is getting the short end of the stick (maybe because the pilot needs to have skill at managing their cap?). Maybe there is a game mechanic that I'm not factoring in? Is the spreadsheet guy wrong? I'd honestly like to know if he is.
Also someone did suggest that stacking penalties be applied to SPRs. In this way the extreme tank setups would be impossible and the module wouldn't be useless if you only used 2. In the case of the Drake specifically I don't believe this is needed, but as a fix for extreme shield tanks across the board (Mrym with more low slots for SPRs) it sounds acceptable. What did you think of that suggestion? How about you Pottsey?
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 23:20:00 -
[35]
OK sounds like there is a lot to consider. I was looking at a SPR stacking penalty solely from a Drake perspective. I have little experience with other races ships. Guess changing SPRs wouldn't be a good thing across the board.
Doesn't sound like there is much more to debate. If they do rework the ships affected by passive shield tanking I only hope they give at least as much as they take (in the case of the Drake at least).
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.05.13 11:53:00 -
[36]
---"If the rohk can run 1000hp/s active forever the drake can run over that passive.
I am thinking the guy means the rohk can boost well over a 1000hp/s when its boosters on but it drains quickly. switching it of at 33% capacitor levels then waiting for cap regen to go back up to say 40% and switching it on again, an average of damage repaired is a 1000hp/s. But that would drop if the rohks used cap to fire a full rack of its heaviest weapon.... unlike the drake that does not need cap. Also the 1000hp/s Drake I think your talking about had a warp distrupter on where I am guessing that the rohk did'nt. More imporatantly the Rohk is the top end caladri battleship with a tanking bonus it really should be king of the hill anyway by a decent margin, Its not like we would have the Moa beating the Drake, so why are the drake and rokh so close with having the rohk to fiddle about with cap.
I am confuesed by this
[Quote]
Drake - Less than half indefinite tank potential of Rokh, because of SPRs and such has very little cap usage at all to speak of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said a rohk tanks 1000hp/s on average. half of that means the Drake tanks 500hp/s. I have proved the cap stableness of a 1000+ hp/s Drake for 1000sec+. Don't take my word for it simulate it in quick fit. I would bet a lot of money that if I bothered to stagger the Invurablity fields it would last forever."---
The main point of the post (reading back over it, not very clearly written) was that the figures were for indefinite dps tanking. Not burst tanking then turning off cap, but turning cap on and off and averaging the amount of DPS tankable listed. What I forgot to factor in was that the Rokh uses cap for weapons also. Without the weapons it would out tank the Drake by 2 fold indefinitely. But seeing as how its weapons will be needed to be used I have no idea what the practical tanking figure ends up being.
You'll be happy to know that they apparantly upped the shield recharge from 1250 to 1400 for BC. The Drake was considered by many to be Caldari's best solo PVP option, but still be less desirable than other races ships. Now the only thing it had going for it is less effective. Sad day for Caldari Drake pilots, though I suppose the nerf wasn't too drastic. Just sucks to have a overall weak ship nerfed any more at all.
|
Spacer John
|
Posted - 2007.06.13 03:22:00 -
[37]
---"I think that knock down is fair just on looking at in raw (I have not worked anything out yet) It still is too much Vs the amarr but I am not goning to argue for a further decrease as its more an amarr problem than everyone elses."---
Why do you think it is fair only if the ship can tank equal to other ships in its class when it has the lowest DPS of it's class. Where is the BIG EVE CRY about the Drake's DPS "not being in line".
Somehow that gets conveniently ignored, and you claim that the nerf is fair as long as it changes the tank potential to that of other same class ships.
It is fair only in a sterile hypothetical 'only comparing tank strength' scenario, not to the ship PVP wise as a whole. They needed to take the shield strength down (mainly for PVE reasons) and adjust other factors to balance it out (mainly for PVP reasons).
Oh well, I guess the people that don't fly the ship will be happy now. Plus all the pilots that fly the ship for PVE can still upgrade to a Raven like they should have (If mission running was done for the purpose of gaining ISK) a long time ago.
Do you also feel that these same changes being applied to command ships are fair?
|
|
|
| |
|