Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Well as far as the video quality is concerned its fine for what it shows.

Have I missed something in eve? Surely a Geddon should be able to annihilate a Drake? Have I missed something? Surely ANY character with 30+ million SP should annihilate ANY character with only 4 million sp in an outclassed ship.

I was not really playing eve when the new BC's came out. Its absolutly shocking that the drake should even take as long as it did to die... Passive shield tanking in a 4m SP character nearly defeating a MAXED, GANKED geddon? What? Shield tankings gone mad? You mention a debate about people saying its impossible to kill solo!!! OMG I can't belive it did so well against a maxed geddon.

I have always attacked the myrm for its stupid slot layout stupid grid/cpu amounts and stupid bonus'. OMG whats going on. New BC's are ruining the game along with the usual NOS-Drone boat setups.

CCP:
You fixed kill everything lasers (a while ago now)
You fixed kill everything missiles.
You fixed Kill everying Scorpions and ECM in general
You fixed WCS.
You fixed Nanofibres.

Now;
Fix NOS
Fix blasters (should not take -5% Cpu turret implants to fit a T2 mega) p.s fix their tracking too.
Fix myrm and now fix the drake.
Fix t2 repper amounts on ships. noboddy reps anymore unless you have you have plex reward mods...

I am big cry baby

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

To passive tank like that you have to devote every single slot to tanking, including rig slots. This means no tackling, no e-war, no dps. There is no problem, the only place where this ship is useful anymore is in pve, gate camping, and baiting. This ship cannot solo pvp, it is near useless in small-medium gang pvp, it is useless in large gang-fleet pvp. Stop whining.

---

Originally by: Stevobob

---

Originally by: Slaptastic

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

To passive tank like that you have to devote every single slot to tanking, including rig slots. This means no tackling, no e-war, no dps. There is no problem, the only place where this ship is useful anymore is in pve, gate camping, and baiting. This ship cannot solo pvp, it is near useless in small-medium gang pvp, it is useless in large gang-fleet pvp. Stop whining.

---

What I found funny was you just pretty much summed up Amarr. No e-war, practically no DPS, near useless, cant PvP solo, and only really good for baiting.

---

Ever fight a properly set up Abaddon?

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Originally by: Jim McGregor

---

I hear myrmidon can kill some battleships.

---

Depending on the pilots, their skills and many other factors you can kill BBs with a cruiser.

Put equally skilled (for their ships, BBs need more skills to use effectively) and prepared pilots at each other and the BC loses. Put long range sniper BBs at point blank range and a short range BC wins. Put short ranged BB against a short range BC and the BB wins.

Its about chosing your targets. Most BB pilots that get killed by BCs shouldn't be flying a BB yet as they don't have the skills needed to use them effectively.

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

If I had the choice between fighting a close range battle in either a Auto cannon/criuse missile phoon or a Ogre2 half NOS half gun EW myrm with dual reps. I will pick the myrm. I will out rep the phoon and have enough dmage to break the phoons tank in time and the 3 medium nos will keep my cap alive in concert with my injectors. Easy kill.

---

And the above situation indicates a serious issue with NOS. Without it the Phoon's tank will easily hold long enough to pop your drones then its their native DPS against yours. Large NOS on the Phoon and you are dead before your drones get through the its shields as your tank can't hold without power and it is sucking you dry.

If you are passive tanked instead of active it is going to pop your drones then work on you until you are dead, or not bother and just run since you can't passive tank well AND scram.

Plus don't forget the Phoon's drones, it can easily mount 5 ogre 2s also. Discounting the output from those is gimping your scenario.

The issue in this case is the NOS, not the BC. Remove the NOS from the picture and the BC loses.

---

Originally by: AegriSomnia

---

Edited by: AegriSomnia on 04/05/2007 21:11:02
What I cant believe is this level of homoerotic complaining is possible. You wanna nerf sheild tanking? Then keep it balanced and nerf drone bonuses and bigger drone bays for Gallente. Why does one race get higher drone capacity and damage? Are the Gallente the only race to figure out they can double or triple their DPS with more drones of bigger size? What, A ROBOT does more damage because of who owns it? Why should a Thorax be able to carry 5 Hammerheads when a Drake can only carry 5 Hobgoblins? The Drake is a bigger ship, vastly bigger, yet has the same cargo hold and LESS drone capacity than a Thorax? Where is your 17th century quote on that one, Genius? Does that make any sense? How about the fact that AMARR are completely useless and the whole race should be nerfed? What about that?

Just about the only thing Caldari has going for them right now is the passive shield tank. And BOO HOO that the Drake does it better. Stop crying and figure out a way to beat them. I popped a Drake just a week ago, so I KNOW it can be done. Try using some of the energy you spend crying over this issue to develop a solution or a tactic that will render the Drake useless. With thousands of ship fits out there, I know there has to be one.

And a note to CCP. I hope you arent even considering nerfing shield tanking, as you will neuter ANOTHER (amarr being the first) entire race. May be the game will be SOOO much fun if we are all Gallente scum...........

NERF AMARR!!!!!!!!!

---

Originally by: Matiaj

---

Edited by: Matiaj on 05/05/2007 00:19:59

CCP help me im in a battleship like the fracking USS ALABAMA and I can't break a battlecruiser which only dedicated 6 meds 4 lows 3 rigs for tanking. Please nerf BC passive tanking ! Bigger ships should be able to gank any smaller ship in less than 30s, whatever their setup are. That is called balance.

And while you're at it, please nerf intys, they're only frigates and I can't hit'em at all with my BATTLESHIP !

---

Originally by: Santa Anna

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Originally by: AegriSomnia

---

Edited by: AegriSomnia on 04/05/2007 21:11:02
I am not just attacking races I don't fly. ...
So basically you belive its ok that a Battlecriuser can tank a Battleship cap free? Really? Thats ok? ok fine.

---

Try sticking 3 or 4 SPR's on a Drake. You will find that it is anything but cap-free. Passive-tank drakes give up all their cap before they leave the station.

As for you not being able to instapop a drake in your gankageddon... Use 13 slots (6 mid, 4 low, 3 rig) to tank any ship and you'll have trouble bringing it down solo (at least in a timely fashion).

---

I will conceed some ground on cap.. Though launchers don't use cap, its tanks is not needing any to repair. A small amount is needed to run hardeners. Any ship that can NOS the drake on the video to the point that its hardeners turn off less than 5mins problaby does not have the DPS to break its tank with them off anyway.

Thing is exploiting shield recharg. It is not really using all slots to tank. The geddon cannot use its med slots to help tank. Oh yes they can power a tank. But the rep rate is very limited. Dual rep setup is not even possible on a PVP geddon if its using the standard megapulse nor does the geddon have CPU to fit a good set of hardners on the low slow slots. Also the drake does this with a full load of its heaviest highslot weapon?

I utterly reject the argument some people have made that this shp is using all its slots to tank blah blah. Even an apoc with 3 large reps with 3 hardens and ENAM2 will struggle to tank as well as that BATTLECRIUSER. I can't belive there is so much reisitance to this. I am really amazed that people think the shield recharge needs no tweak.
*****************************************

"Get in my way and I will burn your fleet from stem to stern"

Originally by: Santa Anna

---

It's certainly using all of its slots to tank. That's why it's so useless in pvp. Passive tank drakes are immobile, have minimal damage output, and can't tackle. People who deviate from the pure passive tank end up with an immobile ship with an okay tank, bad damage, and mediocre tackling ability. They're an npcer's dream because the tank runs forever, but once you try to do anything with them beyond that their limitations quickly become apparent.

---

Quote:

---

That being said, modules/rigs effecting shield and cap recharge time will almost surely get a stacking nerf. BC's with passive shield tanking (though 7/8 low-slot BS's can run enough spr's to get interesting too) and cap ships with sub-1 minute cap recharge times are ridiculous, as are some of the perma-run mission setups.

---

Quote:

---

I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of rep amp that fit in a mid slot, or some "memory metal armor" module that allowed a player to give his ship a passive recharge to armor or structure. That last one may not be very easily integrated into the existing framework, though.

---

Quote:

---

I'm guessing the heaviest tanked Geddon possible still out-damages a drake by a wide margin, and scoffs at the drake's damage

Quote:

---

No way. Maybe you don't fly the geddon. It looks so GOOD at a glance if your caladri. Huge grid loads of slots rof bonus 5 heavy drones... 450cpu. Yes thats right. Caladri criuser CPU. Small powergrid relative to how much megapulses take up. Geddon simply cannot afford the grid/cpu for a second large armour repper 2 unless it uses dual heavy pulse lasers. Problem is their optimal is so poor that you then have to fit a AB/MWD to get in range, oh wait. You have just had to reused the grid and cpu you saved by fitting the smaller guns in the first place:) ...Filling your last 2 high slots with a Web and distrupter you realise with no cap injector your dps is only prehaps equal to the passive drakes and you have no way to power your tank apart form a rig. Ultimatly you would not win.

Quote:

---

Its heaviest highslot weapon is the Heavy Assualt Missile Launcher which cannot be fit with the uber-passive tank. Speed and tackle gear would also be required to use HAMs effectively.

---

You sound like your using guns! Missiles hit all the time! If ANY ship criuser or bigger can hit you with guns they MUST be moving slow enough for you to hit for full damage with missiles.

Quote:

---

just go do something else. It's not like that drake can stop you from warping away.

---

Yes in 0.0 his bubble will. Warping is not a valid escape route these days
*****************************************

"Get in my way and I will burn your fleet from stem to stern"

Originally by: Spoony

---

Who won? the awnser tells you that passive tanking does not need to be nerfed, the geddon may have to have sat there for a while shooting it, but did the drake come anywhere near to killing the geddon?

I think not, pure and simple as, this is an example of what eve ship fitting is:

you can tank and you can shoot, but to tank better your dps goes down, to increase dps your tank suffers.

Look at the dps of a drake 7 heavy missile launchers with only 5% bonus to kinetic ROF (per lvl), if it wants to increase its dps it has to go for heavy assault missile launchers, and my freinds guess what? It cant tank as well!

The ship is balanced, passive tanking is balanced.

---

Originally by: Masakari God

---

First and for most I would like to get my anger out (people who are ****ed that they donÆt have skills to kill a passive tanked bc just need to shut up and train the skills needed to kill said bc). Now that thatÆs out of the way :).

The drake is balanced to the same way a myrmidon is. These are new (NEW) Battle cruisers. The battle cruiser is intended primarily for ship-to-ship action and its weaponry is heavily slanted towards taking on enemy warships, preferably from ambush. They evolved from armored cruisers as new technology made it possible to build bigger ships. The main difference was their uniform main armament, compared to armored cruisers which had large and intermediate sized guns. That is the definition of a battle cruiser for those whom want to argue (look it up).

Hence the ability to be able to tank a Battleship class. The sole purpose though it has been used for other things both in our Real Life (where CCP got there ideas on balancing in this game and in the Game universe). The way CCP balanced everything is to its class and then the class as a whole to the next class up, giving ship of a cruiser class the ability to tank and deal damage as well as have a chance of tanking the next class up. Mind that the pilot needs have the skills for said actions to be possible. Just as a noob pilot flying a thorax has no chance of winning a battle between a pilot flying Thorax of with one year of skills trained.

Now all that being said, if a Battle cruiser taken into battle has the ability to tank a Battleship it is one of two things or BOTH. The pilot of the battle cruiser has spent many hours in the training of the skills required for a good tank, be it passive or active, or the Battleship pilot does not have sufficient skills to kill the Battle cruiser. That does not qualify as an unbalance in the game. As far as that bc's ability to take down the Battleship, in the case of a (Drake Topic on hand ), there is no way a drake can kill a Battleship alone if the Battleship pilot has decent tanking skills trained and fitted. if the Battle cruiser pilot has been able to kill a Battleship pilot Alone then that battleship pilot needs to look at his/her self and re-evaluate there SKILLS/ and or SHIP SET-UP.

The Drake setup is just fine leave it alone! And as said before if you cant kill it then donÆt bother trying. More then likely unless your skills suck for tanking it will not be much of a bother since it's DPS sucks because of the passive tank.

---

Originally by: MissileRus

---

Originally by: JamnOne

---

My personal Opinion...leave the BC alone and fix the BS.

There problem solved. Then you will have your Frigates, your Cruisers, your Battlecruisers and Battleships. Now, if a cruiser can tank a BS then something is truly wrong and you need to fix the cruiser.

---

id agree to that too.. battleships are pretty weak now a days, easy to avoid with smaller ships only a threat to other BS's, battlecruiser is a threat to everything below it, and even things above it.

i thought CCP wanted no solopwnmobiles, Battlecruisers are exactly that.. difference between small/med weapons counter their ship sizes is smaller then the difference with large weapons.

any BC pilot can avoid BS damage if smart, so in a real fight a passive drake with scrambler buddy would easely pwn that geddon since the drake wont be just stuck there with 0 trans and 43 meters range...
now a Cruiser pwning a BC with 1 buddy scrambling is another thing.. only threat to BCs with scrambler buddy is drones, witch they blow up extremely fast.

so imo boost battleships because now their not balanced with the other ship classes if you take above example. it makes perfect sence to me atleast!
BC's are solopwn mobiles, i doubt CCP will nerf small/medium weapon difference and change multible ship classes to balance it that way so easiest is to just boost the BS's a bit more.
their kings of the hills, but can be taken down quite easely while "above mid" class ships can take out the kings with 1 buddy while being able to take out most smaller generaly easely solo.
BS's should have no problem killing BC's imo, even if they have a scrambling/web buddy, add a tracking disrupter to that and it doesnt realy matter who pilots the BS or what uber faction fittings it has.

BC's have the widest range for killing stuff, Frigs have the smallest with BS's close to them. this is general fittings ofc! a BS can surely change their field and fit small guns but it would still be limited in range of its killing tree.

BC's dont need to change fittings generaly to something wierd to be able to kill the greatest range in the killing tree. imo..

---

Originally by: Nian Banks

---

Two threads of the same complaint about tanking so this is a copy paste reply...




Ok here's the thing you guys who are complaining seem to have forgotten.

There were two design philosophies for battlecruisers, the british and the german versions.

Now lets compare three main points for WWI BC's and EVE's.

BRITISH GERMAN EVE
High Speed X X X
BS Guns X
BS Armour X X


Now do we notice something? Yes that's right the EVE battlecruiser is more in line with the german vessels. Germany made their battlecruisers fast by keeping smaller cruiser sized guns but increased the armour to withstand battleship guns. On the other end the british had battleship sized guns but cruiser sized armour. Both these designed allowed for reduced weights and so the increased speed.

So a battlecruiser that can withstand a battleships firepower is more than reasonable. Infact its expected, if not. Then the battlecruiser needs large guns. Now another sticking point is that the battlecruisers hitpoints are still less than a battleships. So if we are going for nautical definitions then instead of nerfing the Drake, its hitpoints actually need to be increased.

---

Originally by: Igualmentedos

---

Wow. What's this!? A Caldari ship that actually can hold its own against a Gallente ship!?!? OMG it must be NERFED quick or we're all gonna die! How could they give Caldari a GOOD ship?

Seriously if you don't like the game, leave. Nobody cares to hear you complain about how Caldari actually has a good ship for ONCE.

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

I remember the days when people showed analytically in DPS vs Range graphs that showed that pulse lasers and their crystals were broken. Seems the days of such good debate are over.

---

You show one video of a BB having an issue killing a drake. You claim its unbalanced. We know nothing about either ship or pilot and cannot base "its overpowered" on ONE video. What were the fittings on both ships? BC level 2? What other skills? Level 5 with the guns? What other skills? Seriously, ONE instance is hardly "proof" when we have different experiences and different views of what is "balanced".

We have hundreds of killboards showing Drakes being killed by multiple types and sizes of ships. We claim it isn't overpowered based on that and the fact we fly them and lose them. We have hundreds of killboards showing that those drakes don't score huge numbers of kills, showing the weakness of the ship.

Which do we have to go by? Our personal experiences of getting drakes blown out from under us and blowing them out from under others? Real-game experiences show more than charts and graphs? Or one person's rant about not being able to gank one, even though the person DID kill it?

As for threatening to quit over ONE perceived imbalance when NOTHING in this game is fair, bye bye. Stupid arguement, only makes you look like a spoiled teenager and destroys any arguement you might have had.

---

Originally by: Rid**** Valer

---

The real reasons a lot of people whine about passive tanked drakes

1) They can't kill it easily. If their setup kills everything else, it should be able to kill passive-tanks also. It doesn't work like that. Different setups have different strengths. A Passive tanked drake's strength is its complete dedication to tanking damage.

2) Immune to nos. Too many people have come to depend on nos in their pvp setups. When they hit a ship that doesn't power their own cap, something must be wrong. Nos isn't an i-win button. Passive-tanks are the counter to it. Deal with it.

Reasons why people will never complain about the drake

1) A passive tanked drake killed them. Unless you're an idiot, you can tank the dps of a passive drake. I run 7 t2 heavies with near maxed missile skills, and my dps still sucks.

What to do if you aren't setup to fight passive tanks:
Scramble it and call friends. Don't bother webbing. It can't go that fast anyway.
Or. Kill all his friends, loot their wrecks, and laugh at him because he contributed nothing to his gang.


Summary: The drake tanks like a BS, ganks like a cruiser, and flies like a pregnant whale.

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

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.

---

Originally by: Valandril

---

Imo only problem with passive tanks is that there is no counter for them, for full active tank with injectors, rechargers and heavy resists you bring nossing.
For passive u can't bring dps, u can't bring nossing just there is no counter. It is getting even more funny when passive setup fit 1-2neutras *.*

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

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.

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

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.

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

---"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.

---

Originally by: Rid**** Valer

---

If a quick gank against an "overpowered" tank isn't effective, I need to check effective again. Do you mean that a tanked ship should be instapopped by a full ganked ship? It seemed to me that drake went down fairly fast. The DPS on a drake with V missile skills (except for heavy missile spec IV) against 0 resists using kinetic (highest damage for BC V) missiles is

Damage Output Stats
[ 100 | 41] Heavy Missile Launcher II [40xScourge Heavy Missile]Scourge Heavy Missile
Rate of fire : 8.262 sec
Explosion Radius : 106.25
Explosion Velocity : 1125.0
Missile Velocity : 5625.0
Flight Time : 15.0 sec
Range (meters) : 84375.0
Chance to hit : 100%
Velocity Penalty : 0.0%
Signature Penalty : 0.0%
Shield
One Shot Damage (EM+TH+KI+EX) : 0.0 + 0.0 + 257.8 + 0.0 = 257.8
Damage / sec (EM+TH+KI+EX) : 0.0 + 0.0 + 31.2 + 0.0 = 31.2

So, if I had 7 full launchers with a full tank setup, I'm doing a grand total of 218.5 dps and an alpha (delayed because its missiles) of 1804.
My alpha is only a bit more then some gank BS's dps. I actually have an AF than can hit more than 218 dps with maxed skills, and they were less SP intensive to do also (and a lot cheaper).
In return for sacrificing dps, I get a decent tank. Now, if I want to tank with invuls, I'm still vulnerable to nos. If I chose to use amps, I can't get hit by nos, but I also will have a weak resist somewhere. If you hit that resist, my tankable dps goes down. My tank isn't impossible for a BS to break, just the non-gank ones have trouble. Gank fits still burn through me, it just might take minutes instead of seconds. Isn't that what CCP wanted? Longer PvP fights? Also, keep in mind I have no scramble or web ability, and my max speed is something like 180 kps. Notice I'm not including drones, because 5 lights, while useful, aren't going to make a huge amount of difference. Especially since almost any BS I fight, and many BCs have more drone space.

If I chose to fit 1 more BCU in my low slot, it has a drastic effect on my tank. 2 will mess it up even more. If I put a mid slot in for EW or AF, I have to lose a resist or take out an extender. Both of which ruin my tank.

Passive tanking is good for missions, bad for PvP (myrmidon doesn't count. Drones always wreck numerical arguments. It needs a bit less shield and a bit more armor). However, it does hurt gankbears looking for the quick easy...

---

Originally by: AegriSomnia

---

Originally by: Masakari God

---

Now all that being said, if a Battle cruiser taken into battle has the ability to tank a Battleship it is one of two things or BOTH. The pilot of the battle cruiser has spent many hours in the training of the skills required for a good tank, be it passive or active, or the Battleship pilot does not have sufficient skills to kill the Battle cruiser. That does not qualify as an unbalance in the game. As far as that bc's ability to take down the Battleship, in the case of a (Drake Topic on hand ), there is no way a drake can kill a Battleship alone if the Battleship pilot has decent tanking skills trained and fitted. if the Battle cruiser pilot has been able to kill a Battleship pilot Alone then that battleship pilot needs to look at his/her self and re-evaluate there SKILLS/ and or SHIP SET-UP.

The Drake setup is just fine leave it alone! And as said before if you cant kill it then donÆt bother trying. More then likely unless your skills suck for tanking it will not be much of a bother since it's DPS sucks because of the passive tank.

*******************************************************************
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
Mark Twain
*******************************************************************

---

THIS IS MY POINT!!!!! This is a pilot, skill, training issue, not a broken shield tanking issue. A BS pilot can train the necessary skills to neuter the BC DPS. But a fully tanked Drake will take FULL DAMAGE from torps and cruise missles. The DPS is nowhere NEAR the same.

The video link in the OG is a testament to how AMARR and LASERS are flawed, NOT the Drake.

However, being the magnanimous, benevolent dictator that I am, I will compromise. Increase the shield recharge time. Fixed.

NEXT TOPIC : NERF AMARR!!!!!!!!

---

Originally by: Zaal Nubar

---

Did the battleship in the video remove the heatsinks before shooting the drake?

---

Originally by: Pinky Denmark

---

Even a noob with the correct hardeners can tank for quite a while...

---

Originally by: Pinky Denmark

---

Edited by: Pinky Denmark on 06/05/2007 09:08:03
Even a noob with the correct hardeners can tank for quite a while...

BTW - THAT Drake is getting RIPPED APART... I'm training Geddon now

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

---"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.

---

Originally by: earthless

---

Originally by: Badhands

---

The reason BCs passive tank so well is that they have the same shield recharge time as cruisers, but have much more shield. This is such an obvious flaw that it seems ridiculous to me to even argue other fixes. Increase the base shield recharge time to somewhere between cruiser and battleship and the pasive tank problem is fixed.

---

This.

---

Originally by: Ethyn

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

To passive tank like that you have to devote every single slot to tanking, including rig slots. This means no tackling, no e-war, no dps. There is no problem, the only place where this ship is useful anymore is in pve, gate camping, and baiting. This ship cannot solo pvp, it is near useless in small-medium gang pvp, it is useless in large gang-fleet pvp. Stop whining.

---

QFE!!!

Exactly, people need to realize what good is living forever if all you can do is sit there.

Stop looking for the I Win button and play smart!

---

Originally by: Lili Lu

---

Edited by: Lili Lu on 06/05/2007 15:30:27
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. [\quote]

yeah I am guessing that too now. Though I gave those DPS figures for missiles compared to guns to show what at best is achiviable. To show the things that guns CAN do and what missiles CANNOT do. Yes mission horing.... I could not give a RATs arse about PvE balance.
*****************************************

"Get in my way and I will burn your fleet from stem to stern"

Originally by: Spacer John

---

---"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.

---

Originally by: 0raven0

---

Edited by: 0raven0 on 07/05/2007 16:11:15
The facts are that the drake kills stuff solo that it shouldn't be able, and that means it will get nerfed.

The drake getting nerfed is a fact. The modules will get a stacking penalty, requirements will be raised for the modules, and if thats not enough other nerfs will come as well <-- fact.

---

Originally by: AegriSomnia

---

Edited by: AegriSomnia on 07/05/2007 22:36:51

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 07/05/2007 21:25:45

The facts are that the drake kills stuff solo that it shouldn't be able, and that means it will get nerfed.

The drake getting nerfed is a fact. The modules will get a stacking penalty, requirements will be raised for the modules, and if thats not enough other nerfs will come as well <-- fact.

---

I love you. Someone who can see clearly see pattarns and identify whats wrong. The people who think passive tanking should out rep and last longer than active tanking are so slow in the head. I have proven you can have an passive tank with 20K scram that can out tank the DPS of all battleships and can out tank a few even with gank fittings... and its a battlecriuser.

---

Originally by: 0raven0

---

Edited by: 0raven0 on 07/05/2007 16:11:15
The facts are that the drake kills stuff solo that it shouldn't be able, and that means it will get nerfed.

The drake getting nerfed is a fact. The modules will get a stacking penalty, requirements will be raised for the modules, and if thats not enough other nerfs will come as well <-- fact.

---

Originally by: Alex Verrel

---

Edited by: Alex Verrel on 08/05/2007 01:12:44

Originally by: Eva Archer

---

Stuff about ...6 Heavy launcher Drake of doom setup it can tank 1390Hp/s...

...all realistic situations count the 1390hp/s passive Drake UNBREAKABLE...

---

So now you basically resort to lies and exaggeration to prove your point. What else does the Drake of Doom do? Runs now and then to the nearest food-store to get some fresh beer for its owner?

Isn't having '1390hp/s' and 'realistic' in the same post a bit strange?

You take purely theoretical extreme all-out tanking drake setup then go about it tanking 'realistic' BSes.

If its so great for PvP just build one for yourself already and see how it goes.

I bet the typical situation will be: you run into a BS -> he scrambles you, and tanks your pathetic DPS -> you sit right there with absolutely no way to escape, other than just to log, which is lame and pathetic, and is not limited to Drakes anyway -> he either: A)takes his time to finally break your tank; B) fails to break the tank on your super-all-T2-including-rigs-stupidly-expensive-Drake solo, so he calls a friend and they proceed to happily destroy those hundreds of millions of isk spent on a harmless flying piece of shield.

If someone gets together that expensive a ship, what exactly would they do that for? To be able to sit there for those extra 5 minutes until the opponents get more DPS on them? It achieves no goal in PvP at all. You can't defend you friends, you can't disable your enemy, you can't even escape! You just sit there for those extra 5 minutes. Wow!

Drake is only good when its relatively cheap. Otherwise a Raven does all that Drake does and more, and it does it better. Don't bother with numbers, smarter people have done it for you long ago. Raven's active tank is still better than Drake's passive. The stuff you are talking about sounds like it costs more and requires more skills than a Raven. And still the only thing it does is tanking. Wouldn't it be stupid to go for that instead of just getting a Raven (with a potentially stronger tank and a lot more versatility)?



I don't mind Drake-nerf much just because of that. This ship is mostly useless for anything. It's a fun ship for lvl4s, cause unlike Raven it's not 'uber' for those: you always have that problem of balancing your tank and DPS output. Other than that a Raven is better anyway so i'll go for it eventually.

So nerf the Drake's tank. But in that case be sure to give it something in return, otherwise you would just ruin the ship.

OR, while you are at it, just nerf the **** out of Gallente. Now that would be fun! Nerf 'em NOS, Myrm, Domi, Moros, dual-reps, drones, other stuff i've forgotten. Yeah!

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Originally by: AegriSomnia

---

Edited by: AegriSomnia on 07/05/2007 22:36:51

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 07/05/2007 21:25:45

The facts are that the drake kills stuff solo that it shouldn't be able, and that means it will get nerfed.

The drake getting nerfed is a fact. The modules will get a stacking penalty, requirements will be raised for the modules, and if thats not enough other nerfs will come as well <-- fact.

---

I love you. Someone who can see clearly see pattarns and identify whats wrong. The people who think passive tanking should out rep and last longer than active tanking are so slow in the head. I have proven you can have an passive tank with 20K scram that can out tank the DPS of all battleships and can out tank a few even with gank fittings... and its a battlecriuser.

---

Neither if you can see this issue clearly. You are lumping everything together and right now you got apples and oranges in the same basket.

ACTIVE TANK = ALL ABOUT THE RESISTANCES/BOOSTS

PASSIVE TANK = ALL ABOUT THE RECHARGE RATE (and thats it)

There is only one point of discussion that is valid in this ENTIRE thread, and that is the PEAK RECHARGE RATE of a passively tanked Drake being upwards of 1400 dps, which even a Drake-fairy like me can admit is a lil much. I DO NOT think saying "Active should be better" because its just not a comparison that leads to a productive discussion. It is not very well thought out and totally invalid.

---

Where are you getting this damn 1400 dps? That would be solely explosive, and you would have to have atleast one passive explosive hardener on there. It seems to me you know nothing of what you are talking about, atleast do your homework before you come whining on the forums for something that you don't like to be nerfed.

---

Originally by: Terianna Eri

---

Edited by: Terianna Eri on 08/05/2007 02:59:00
I would like every single one of you running around whining about the drake to read the "Myrmidon Passive Shield Tanking" thread. It's about 7 pages long.

It passive shield tanks better than the drake. It simply can tank MORE DPS THAN THE DRAKE. And the ship has no bonus to shield tanking, and a respectable bonus to armor tanking (which it also does very well)
It also has 5x bonused ogre IIs.

But the important part, here, is that:
THE MYRMIDON PASSIVE SHIELD TANKS BETTER THAN THE DRAKE

Next most important part:
THE MYRMIDON DEALS MORE DPS WHILE DOING SO

The next most important part:
THE MYRMIDON ALSO HAS A PRETTY GIGANTIC ADVANTAGE IN VERSATILITY OVER THE DRAKE

Okay?
So stop whining about nerfing the drake's tank. That's all the ship can do at the moment. If you MUST, give SPRs a stacking penalty (will nerf myrm somewhat) and replace the resist bonus with a RoF bonus so that the ship can deal somewhat respectable damage.

Honestly, the only challenge involved in killing a drake is getting your friends in there to blow up the drake before his friends arrive, assuming you can't break it solo.

Remember the nanophoon? The whole issue was that it was impossible to beat a nanophoon: you either died or made it run away.
LOSE___DRAW___WIN
_X_______X_______

For the drake it's more like
LOSE___DRAW___WIN
________X______X_
when you're fighting one.

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 08/05/2007 18:11:53
Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 08/05/2007 18:09:36

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

Where are you getting this damn 1400 dps? That would be solely explosive, and you would have to have atleast one passive explosive hardener on there. It seems to me you know nothing of what you are talking about, atleast do your homework before you come whining on the forums for something that you don't like to be nerfed.

---

Go on quickfit. Fit out the lows with shield recharge relys 2's Add 4 Large shield extenders'2s. The 2 invunrability fields and have bttlecriuser level 5 and have shield management 5 and shield operation 5 and in the rigs have the T2 recharge mods and its 1400 to 2 significant figures monkey.

The figure for it tanking 770 DPS on average is achived simularly with a 2 shield Extenders removed for PvP modules and the cheap T1 rigs. (with the 7th laucher back on too) For me that is a highly PvP-able setup.

If your arguement is that quick fitter is a little out I can accept that. But I don't think you mean that I think you just don't know what your talking about.

---

That is not a passive tank, it is vulnrable to nos, and it cannot run those 2 invuln fields with 4 shield power relays for longer than a couple of minutes. Again do your homework before calling for a nerf

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Go on quickfit. Fit out the lows with shield recharge relys 2's Add 4 Large shield extenders'2s. The 2 invunrability fields and have bttlecriuser level 5 and have shield management 5 and shield operation 5 and in the rigs have the T2 recharge mods and its 1400 to 2 significant figures monkey.

The figure for it tanking 770 DPS on average is achived simularly with a 2 shield Extenders removed for PvP modules and the cheap T1 rigs. (with the 7th laucher back on too) For me that is a highly PvP-able setup.

If your arguement is that quick fitter is a little out I can accept that. But I don't think you mean that I think you just don't know what your talking about.

---

You did WHAT to "prove" its over-powered?

So, based on what you just posted you wind up with about a 600M Drake that still can't kill anything. And right now in The Forge (Jita) you can't even BUY enough T2 Shield Purger Rigs to fill the rig slots at any price.

If you are going to base your entire arguement on things that small fraction of the player base can afford (and definitely NOT a n00b with low skill points as the original claim), that you CANNOT BUY, then you better put all faction items on the shooter too because they are easier to come by than T2 Purgers.

Gads, put the absolute best stuff on a ship and whine that its over-powered.

---

Originally by: Big Al

---

Edited by: Big Al on 09/05/2007 01:58:29
The large numbers people are quoting for passive tanks are with active hardeners. When you slap all shield power relays on your cap recharge rate is crap. Nos + damp these ships and guess what?

Your gank geddon can break them.

Whine about myrmidon dps? Guess what, if he has heavies he has only 5 of them, kill them. The passive myrm has no web, ab/mwd away.

It is true that the myrm is a bit imbal with 6 nos, but like I said, keep range (he has no web or ab/mwd) or damp him and it's not an issue.

Whine about drake dps? There is no drake dps with a good passive tank.

They are NOT GOOD PVP SETUPS. Good for bait ships, or in a sentry tanking gang (not the myrm). Not for much else though, in a gang you could fit for more damage, solo stuff will just lollerskate away from you.

In conclusion, cry more noob.

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

And we are saying in the real game those numbers don't work like that

*I* can't tank sentry guns, I can barely keep up with level 3s with a supposed 385dps tanked on its weakest resists, using every slot and all three rig slots for the tank. If I drop one of the extenders or rechargers to fit Invul fields I LOSE on the tanking because the higher resists do NOT make up for the recharge. If I put on a BCU or anything to get higher DPS I LOSE tanking ability and a pair of cruisers can now kill it.

You were trying to make the case that a n00bish Drake can tank a very high skilled BB pilot and we know it isn't the case because we ARE THERE. My Alt's (3.9M skill points) Typhoon can rip apart my main's drake, they are on different accounts and I've DONE IT. Incidentally the Phoon was in no danger at any time. I couldn't break it with her Hurricane solo, but the Drake couldn't break it either.

I think I am about "typical" for a Drake pilot, having almost maxed missile skills in Light and Heavy launchers, plus support skills, high engineering and electronics skills and about 7 months experience of playing. Not all skill points were invested in this character, but there isn't a lot I could do to make her "better" in her drake either, with all relevant skills at 4s and 5s. No, I don't have any faction gear, T2 purgers or T2 shield power relays. Nor can I solo a level 4 even though I have the standings to do it, the ship gets ripped apart in short order. If I make it "stronger" by switching and using Invul fields, then I don't have the endurance to complete them.

I am a "typical" player and it isn't anywhere near over-powered for players like me, the average person that is flying a BC. Now if I was willing to spend 600M+ then I would also expect it to perform like it, wouldn't you? The Drake is a great mission ship for Level 3s and low Level 4s and that is about it.

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

Option 1:

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.

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

Option 1:

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.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Assumes appropriate skills, and most support skills to level 4 (including missiles, and BC)

Highs: 7 Heavy Missile Launcher 2, 1 Sm Nos
Meds: 3 LSE2, Shield Recharger 2, Thm Amp 2, Warp scram
Lows: BCU2, 3 SPR2
Drones: 5x Hobgoblin 2

Capacitor: Regens 4/sec, needs 3/sec
Optional Implants: kva1000 (3 mil, 3% shield amount), kya1000 (4 mil, 3% recharge rate)

Tankable DPS [without implants, with implants]
EM (20% resist): 279, 296
Exp (68% resist): 696, 740
Kin (52% resist): 466, 494
Thm (64.8% resist): 635, 673

Scourge Heavy Missiles: 300 DPS
Scourge Fury: 337 DPS

Most people carry Thermal damage, and it seems to be exceedingly common in PVP (You're banking on that by only carrying a passive thm amp). Your tank can be greatly improved by swapping out the passive thermal amp with a T2 Invuln field, or by losing a bit of damage (337 to 288 DPS on Scourge Fury), so I'd say this has a bit of flexibility in your setup. I would probably go for tank over gank on a Drake though.

In all resists except EM, you can permatank most common Domi and Myrmidon setups. You will not tank any harbingers anytime soon. You will will wtfpwn a Myrmidon, and you can definitely tank sentry guns with this. Even if you made this an active hardener setup, you could still tank sentry guns long enough to solo kill a freighter in lowsec (~8 mins).

Note: Yes, I used Quickfit's average damage calculation.
This is about as good as I can make the Drake run on a PVP setup, though it can be outfitted it to tank almost anything.

Something slightly more amusing:

Drake

Heavy Missile Launcher II [40xScourge Fury Heavy Missile]
Heavy Missile Launcher II [40xScourge Fury Heavy Missile]
Heavy Missile Launcher II [40xScourge Fury Heavy Missile]
Heavy Missile Launcher II [40xScourge Fury Heavy Missile]
Heavy Missile Launcher II [40xScourge Fury Heavy Missile]
Heavy Missile Launcher II [40xScourge Fury Heavy Missile]
Heavy Missile Launcher II [40xScourge Fury Heavy Missile]
Small Diminishing Power System Drain I

Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Shield Recharger II
Invulnerability Field II
J5 Prototype Warp Inhibitor I

Shield Power Relay II
Shield Power Relay II
Shield Power Relay II
Ballistic Control System II

Rigs : Core Defence Field Purger I \ Core Defence Field Purger I \ Core Defence Field Purger I \
Hobgoblin II
Hobgoblin II
Hobgoblin II
Hobgoblin II
Hobgoblin II

16493 shield, 237.34/s, E/T/K/Ex=43/55/66/77
4882 armor, E/T/K/Ex=59/44/25/10
3515.625 cap, +3.75/s, -7.57/s
168.0 m/s
337.5 DPS

You can run the scram and hardener for 40 minutes before running out of cap, doing 337.5 DPS, and tanking (424 EM, 1060 Exp, 706 Kin, 530 Thm, 605 Avg). There are probably better setups. For the curious, you'll do 280 DPS, with an alpha around 1000 to Ogre II's, which have [fully maxed, bonused, and resisted] 785 shield HP. Praetor II's (which should be more scary, honestly), have a whopping 560 shields [Again, fully maxed, bonused, and resisted].

I'd say the Drake isn't a bad PVP ship, and I'm sure there's better setups. Is it *TRULY* worthy of a nerf? Probably not by itself, but passive shield tanking probably is, with the way command ships use it.

Liang

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

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?

---

Originally by: Caol

---

Edited by: Caol on 09/05/2007 11:04:05

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 04/05/2007 00:29:56
Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 04/05/2007 00:29:24
I posted this after watching some guys vidi. I am not a shield tanker and did not realise this level of homoeroticness was possible.

Watch the vid for yourself. Linkage although it goes down eventually I find it shocking that we play a game where the geddon in full gank mode STRUGGLES with max skills to kill a n00bish BC with a passive tank!!!! and BC 2 for FFS!!!!!

---

Eh? Kinda read the whole thead. I watched the video, it took the geddon 30-40s to get the drake down past a 1/4 shields where he stops, am i watching the wrong video? He doesn't cap out at all, sits at over 3/4 ish at the end it looks like.

The geddon was also unrigged and didn't seem use his drones at all, though that may be the angle he was filming from.

True, 30mil char vs 4mil, but then 4mil in one area giving the 4mil char a completely t2 tank. /shrug, don't see anything wrong with it myself.

---

Originally by: Augeas

---

I have a rigged, T2 fitted passive Drake. But I've only used it in pvp about twice, because it's completely useless, solo or in gang.Sure it can tank like hell, but solo, with only room for one tackle slot, anyone else can slowboat out of range and then warp off. Alternatively, they can get a mate to join in while I'm pinned helpless and (albeit slowly!) kill me.

In gang, you'd just be left to last and then killed.

Maxed passive Drakes in pvp are useful as bait and for the surprise factor, and nothing else. Boost Drake passive tanks please.

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

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.

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

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.

---

Originally by: kill0rbunny

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Problem is 1v1.

---

There are no fair 1vs1s. I begin to believe you do not pvp at all.

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Gang arguments are no good when measuring the nerf bat. We all no the NOS mym and Nos domi are over powered but in a gang fight they would just get Ganked in a few seconds. So by your logic they are balanced.

---

I don't consider the nos myrm overpowered, it's medium nos range is too low to be a real danger for smaller ships. It can take on larger ships, but it is pretty helpless against any small ship that operates out of nos range.
Domi can nos any ship dry that doesn't carry a faction disruptor while doing enough damage to break a nosed dry tank.

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

U also say ships will just fly away from you, A gank geddon if he can't break your tank can't fly away if you have him scrambled (u can tank like 1000-1100 dps and have a distrupter on) A gank or tank absolution tipically have no speed to slow boat away with there armor rigs. Not everybody can fly away from the drake. You can eventually kill any ship that relys on cap injections if you have them scrambled and webbed (think all amarr ships and a lot of gallante). And again I included a cheap scramble web drake setup to prove this.

---

You have to fit an mwd/ab to do this, as any half decent geddon pilot will be fasterthan the average drake by fitting one. Then you need to fit a webber, because the geddon pilot will just approach the gate, where 90% of the fights take part and jump while your still aggroed. That leaves you with 3 Med slots for tanking. Hoorray, what tank?

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

All the people who belive in tank forever in anyshape or form need to go back and read some of the Dev blogs.

---

All people that whine about forever lasting tanks should sit in one, feel themselves it is total crap for everyday pvp and just stfu.

---

Originally by: Arakidias

---

Jesus, this thread is so overflowing with false naval history that i don't even know where to begin with. 'Shaurnhorst' (sic!) being called a pocket battleship. Someone saying that battlecruisers evolved out of armored cruisers, no doubt quoted from wikipedia. Someone implying that no BC ever engaged an enemy battleship willingly. I quit reading after the third page.

And to make this post on-topic. The best way to win a battle with a passive tanked drake is just to warp away if you can't break its tank. It's not like it's going to hurt you or scramble you. If it could (fitting BCU's and tackling gear) you could easily break its tank as well.

Coming in close second is the option of pinning the drake down and calling in a friendly torp raven.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 09/05/2007 17:00:14

Originally by: "Tibrius Archer"

---

You have gimped the Passive tank alot. I duno waht skills your using. Even this *gimped* shield tank is too much as its a tank factors times better than other ships.

A maxxed 3! armor repper criuser gets about 90 hp/s that goes to 270dps asumming average 67% resistance. And he would have his capped eaten very fast by 3 reppers yet still cannot catch the passive tank.

Ok a hargbringer with 4 reppers and faction ENAM's can repp as much your drake. Sounds fair does't it. A Myrm with 3 medium reps can do, but whould have no cap left in no time. I agree shield boosting should rep more. But the passive tank uses no cap!

---

I freely acknowledge that I "gimped" the passive drake's tank a bit to give it some PVP ability, however I still don't see this ship being the 1v1 pvp king. Incidently, I can get 150 dual rep raw HP/S out of a rigged Myrmidon with BC4, and most resists through the roof.

2x MAR2, 1x DCU2, 3x EAMN2 (I'm at work or I'd post specifics). It's not quite as good as the Drake's tank, but then again, it does alot more damage. It probably evens out in the end.

As much as it pains me to say it (because I fly Gallente ships), the Drake is fine. I do, however, still find it very amusing how people get all hot and bothered when people suggest nerfing it. ;-)

Liang

Edit: Oh, and the skills were level 5 on tank, and 4 on alll support (including AWU4, compensations, missile skills, etc).

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.

---

Originally by: Exlegion

---

So what do you suggest the Drake gets in return for this nerf you advocate? Or is this just another I'm rock. scissors is fine. nerf paper. kind of thread? The Drake is quite possibly the only ship with potential to be 100% immune to Nos, sacrificing in return fire power. But you insist on having specifically the Drake nerfed because in your opinion it is the better of all the battlecruisers.

I'm willing to bet you don't have a problem with the Rifter being quite possibly the best PVP ship from all the frigs given that you're Minnie.

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

Option 1:

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.

---

Tuxford i think him. Said in the Dev blogs before the HP increase that they above all things do not want to create any unbreakable tanks. The drake qualifies. As see this as meaning 1v1 because outside that even a Avatar with faction mods can go down.

---

You just listed off 3 or 4 ships that can break this tank solo

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Edited by: Tibrius Archer on 09/05/2007 12:16:57

Originally by: Augeas

---

I have a rigged, T2 fitted passive Drake. But I've only used it in pvp about twice, because it's completely useless, solo or in gang.Sure it can tank like hell, but solo, with only room for one tackle slot, anyone else can slowboat out of range and then warp off. Alternatively, they can get a mate to join in while I'm pinned helpless and (albeit slowly!) kill me.

In gang, you'd just be left to last and then killed.

Maxed passive Drakes in pvp are useful as bait and for the surprise factor, and nothing else. Boost Drake passive tanks please.

---

Problem is 1v1.

Gang arguments are no good when measuring the nerf bat. We all no the NOS mym and Nos domi are over powered but in a gang fight they would just get Ganked in a few seconds. So by your logic they are balanced.

U also say ships will just fly away from you, A gank geddon if he can't break your tank can't fly away if you have him scrambled (u can tank like 1000-1100 dps and have a distrupter on) A gank or tank absolution tipically have no speed to slow boat away with there armor rigs. Not everybody can fly away from the drake. You can eventually kill any ship that relys on cap injections if you have them scrambled and webbed (think all amarr ships and a lot of gallante). And again I included a cheap scramble web drake setup to prove this.

All the people who belive in tank forever in anyshape or form need to go back and read some of the Dev blogs.

---

You cannot tank that much em and thermal unless specificly tanked for it, get it through your head, the drake does not tank em and thermal to that level, hell even for explosive and kinetic it barely tanks that much unless specificly for it

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Originally by: Exlegion

---

So what do you suggest the Drake gets in return for this nerf you advocate? Or is this just another I'm rock. scissors is fine. nerf paper. kind of thread? The Drake is quite possibly the only ship with potential to be 100% immune to Nos, sacrificing in return fire power. But you insist on having specifically the Drake nerfed because in your opinion it is the better of all the battlecruisers.

I'm willing to bet you don't have a problem with the Rifter being quite possibly the best PVP ship from all the frigs given that you're Minnie.

---

Ironically I only have minmatar frigate level so I have never flown a rifter 2:)

Well the drake should really have a ROF bonus instead of a kin missile bonus. Thats fair. But your missile damage with all its boons(No anti missile EW modules like the Tracking distrupter any choice of damage.) is fair.

---

The drake originally had a ROF bonus, but people whined that the dps was too high from heavy assualt missiles with that bonus

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

---"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.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Tibrius is completely insane when he's making allegations of 4 reps on a Harby to equal the tank on the Drake I posted).

---

Quote:

---

Tibrius is completely insane when he's making allegations of 4 reps on a Harby to equal the tank on the Drake I posted).

---

Quote:

---

Tibrius is completely insane when he's making allegations of 4 reps on a Harby to equal the tank on the Drake I posted).

---

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 10/05/2007 11:52:35
For the love of all things holy! will people stop trying to use quickfit as a proof, it screws up far too muchà

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

---"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.

---

Originally by: Thoughtless Legion

---

Ok, did anyone else notice he used the long range cyrstals on a ship 63m away?
And as far as tanking, my passive tank Drake got wtfbbqed by a Claymore, should we now nerf the Claymore since it was able to decimate a CLEARLY overpowered ship?

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Ok, can someone make a real quantative arguement in support for the Drakes, and not just the drakes the other New battlecriusers' high recharge times relative to shild size. I am willing to bet nobody can. But if you think you can POST away with some evidence based on maxed skills.

BTW no more n00b posts please I am tired of correcting them and picking them apart. If you are sure someones wrong, take the time to double check. Then destroy them.

---

Many people have voiced their opinion (which is what you asked for originally) disagreeing with your opinion. You in turn call them n00bs and disregard citing numbers they can't duplicate.

Nothing to see here, move along. Trolls within.

---

Originally by: Igualmentedos

---

Jesus, it takes THIRTEEN slots (counting rigs and all) to have a good passive tank. Just accept that caldari has a good ship and stfu.

---

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

A Dual rep cap injected rigged Myrmidon only gets 150 raw HP/sec. Its really quite easy to get similar resists (because of the resist bonus), higher resist rates, and a much larger buffer with 9-10 slots. I posted some setups in the thread linked above.

Even still, the Drake is not overpowered, really. It's not quite powerful enough, really... it could really use 1 extra low slot.

Myrmidon = 5 mids, 6 lows (11 total)
Drake = 6 mids, 4 lows (10 total)

Liang

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Very well, to answer the ORIGINAL post (since you asked for VIEWS, not proof):

1) IMHO the Drake is not over-powered in 1 vs. 1 PvP. Why?
a) Uses all/almost all of its slots, including rigs, to tank that well.
b) In return it has very glaring holes in:
b1) DPS - Poor compared to other BCs
c) Ewar capability as it uses all its mids to be most effective
d) Scramming/webbing capability is reduced due to needing teh mid-slots for the tank.
e) Does not have the capacity to run active resistance modules for extended periods and not hurt its recharge rates
f) Its a slow pig that cannot run from anything. If it mounts ABs/MWDs then it loses significantly on its tank.
g) Is tremendously expensive to setup like the demonstration video. 600M+ ship makes it more than 20x the cost of the base ship in order to tank in that extreme.
h) Equipment availability. The T2 Purger rigs were not available in any quantity in the 6 regions I checked last night, INCLUDING Jita.
i) Pottsey (the recognized authority in passive tanking) thinks it could use a small adjustment. NOT a nerf. Pottsey's extreme demonstrations on its abilities are using multiple gang members and hence outside the realm of this arguement.

That is the gist of what we are saying against the nerf. In return you post numbers from Quickfit that several of us have not been able to duplicate.

The ship you are describing is an extreme. You don't nerf an entire style of fitting based on an extreme.

/signs off

---

Originally by: Santa Anna

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Ok, can someone make a real quantative arguement in support for the Drakes, and not just the drakes the other New battlecriusers' high recharge times relative to shild size. I am willing to bet nobody can. But if you think you can POST away with some evidence based on maxed skills.

BTW no more n00b posts please I am tired of correcting them and picking them apart. If you are sure someones wrong, take the time to double check. Then destroy them.

---

It's not a new battlecruiser issue -- the old battlecruisers pre-kali had similar passive tanking abilities when using the same mods. SPR2's and rigs gave passive tanks the extra oomph. As for a "real, quantitative argument" what do you want? No one disputes that drakes have good passive tanks for around 150M isk and great passive tanks if you spend more. You seem to be the only person with a problem with drakes in 1v1 combat, as most people consider the drake's inability to effectively tackle and tank at the same time to be an effective tradeoff, given the drake's damage. Perhaps a drake is good at tackling freighters as they align for warp. Other than that, though you need at least 2 and preferably 4 mid slots to solo pvp effectively. A 20k+ scram also takes up way too much cap to run for long enough to kill much of anything, and anything it could last long enough to kill should be able to escape before dying as the drake has a top speed around 170 m/s w/o speed mods.

You can make absurd setups that will tank a lot of damage for a very long time, but if you ever tried to solo in them you'd realize that it's hard to kill much of anything solo with that supertank.

If you've ever run a drake in a gang op, you'd also realize that just about any other ship works better, especially after taking cost into account. If you're limited to caldari ships, a Raven does a ton more damage with a pretty good tank while a scorpion can be fit with best named/t2 jammers and equipment for less than half the cost of a good ..........

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Ok, can someone make a real quantative arguement in support for the Drakes, and not just the drakes the other New battlecriusers' high recharge times relative to shild size. I am willing to bet nobody can. But if you think you can POST away with some evidence based on maxed skills.

BTW no more n00b posts please I am tired of correcting them and picking them apart. If you are sure someones wrong, take the time to double check. Then destroy them.

---

Many people have voiced their opinion (which is what you asked for originally) disagreeing with your opinion. You in turn call them n00bs and disregard citing numbers they can't duplicate.

Nothing to see here, move along. Trolls within.

---

They can't duplicate my numbers because there n00b what am I ment to do? eh? Congratulate them for not being able to follow a simple quickfit setup I gave them?

---

You never gave the quickfit set up, all you give is numbers no evidence, if you truly have a quickfit set up like that then post it plz

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

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.

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

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.

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

Edited by: Dark Kavar on 12/05/2007 01:32:13

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Oh people are reposting points that have been thrown out pages ago. I am getting tired of writing 1000's of words a day because of people to lazy to take the 15mins it takes to catch up on the post.

I just though now I would make up a quick fit setup for the drake. Some people seem to think it has no potential as it can't MWD, EW, and do all these thing while passive shield tanking. lol... Like any ship should! But to somehow appease these people I did this in quickfit...

7 T2 launchers with small Nos

2x invunrability field 2
1 tracking distrupter 2's
MWD Hydrocarbon
Warp distrupter
medium cap booster (electrochemical)

4 shield power relays OFC

3 T1 core defense ofc

---

LOL cap dies as soon as you run out of cap boosters, good luck with that, that set up is crap i'm sorry but i had to be honest. Take that out into a pvp situation and you will see how that is not an overpowered set up.

Edit: and in the end of the day you are still flying a drake and you can't kill anything

---

Originally by: Noisrevbus

---

Edited by: Noisrevbus on 12/05/2007 02:51:22
I must stem in with the crowd here.

Tiberius Archer, what exactly did you set out to accomplish here? See, you seem very undecided in your arguments wether Passive tanking is a problem, or wether it is a problem that the Drake is a very good (passive-) tank.

Whatever you wanted other people to discuss with you has been answered countless of times already. To meet the argument of passive tanking in general, people have mentioned racial balance, and that the only advantage a shield tanker has is the choice between active and passive tanks. You feel it may be injustice that a ship can passtank like that? Yet i belive most shieldtankers feel a great injustice over not being able to set their active tanks up as well as armor tankers do due to the allocation of slots on a ship (for example the argument put forward about midlot fitting of EW).

The second argument you seem to push is that the Drake is too much of a tank compared to battleships (who you belive should be better tanks due to their larger sizes or higher requirements on skills, cost or whatever pseudo-scientific / real world physics reason you wish to apply?). What most players have met that argument.

....

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

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.

---

Originally by: Captain Crimson

---

a huge lol at Tiberius and the thread.

---

Originally by: Pottsey

---

ôTHe passive shield tank is stronger on a myrm that is CLEARLY ment to armour rep due to its armour rep bonus and belongs to an armour repping race.ö
Gallente are the passive shield tanking race they are not a pure armour tanking race. Its crazy that people are complaining that they are the best at it. For years only they did it and only recently did Caldari join in. Gallente have been the best at it for over 4 years now. Why should that change after all this time?

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

"The plebs have spoken and its here to stay for now at least. So since I am Gallante Maxed I will hop in my Myrm with another months training be able to run a 1500hp/s passive tank with 466 dps from my maxed ogre 2's NOSSING away. Maybe even put some of my maxed neutron blasters on Just to take the ****"

Ya good luck with that, that will mostly be useful for missions only

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

---"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?

---

Originally by: Spacer John

---

---"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.

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

"The plebs have spoken and its here to stay for now at least. So since I am Gallante Maxed I will hop in my Myrm with another months training be able to run a 1500hp/s passive tank with 466 dps from my maxed ogre 2's NOSSING away. Maybe even put some of my maxed neutron blasters on Just to take the ****"

Ya good luck with that, that will mostly be useful for missions only

---

Oh shut up mate. When are your posts gona evolve into dicussion rather than quoting me then saying that will be rubbish or simply I don't think so.

I absolutly would hand you your arse in passive myrm if the Hp/s values are correct. Hell I would not even need to tank, just my NOS+ nos slave implants and max drone skills would win it for me before I am in half my armour .... but that has less to me being good, more to do with how broken the myrm and NOS are.

Your posts are just aimed at trying to show people up rather make a point? When I post I analyse someones post which could result in a minor flame but the 4/5 paragraphs I post will be reply worthy arguements. I go over there arguments and show why its flawed if it is flawed others wise I just say nice post. When spcerJon comented that my reply to a post saying a good setup can be had for 100m he worked it out with market prices, he did not just leave it with a annoying sentence of nothingness saying "your wrong" he explained which bit why and by how much.

Why post at all? What have you posted could of not happily remained in your head. Nobody who supports your views will even repect that. Why have you done it mate? I give you the oppertunity now to explain why a passive mym with NOS and Max drone skills is no use in PvP?

---

Becuase it can't hold anythign down, that is why, it's slow, can't warp scramble, can't web, and in gang pvp what use is it to have a super strong tank? If you get primaried, then the opposing gang's fc will just primary a differen't target or just pop your drones. I have stated this again and again about the drake but you seem to ignore the posts, so i'm sure you will ignore this one as well.

---

Originally by: Misanth

---

Think it's time that you stop bumping this thread Tiberius..

You ask us for constructive posts and yet you treat every reply that doesn't back you up with disgrace? Not to mention the obvious flaws and wrongs in your statements - like saying that drake in the video "almost defeated" the geddon. It's funny to read the OP in the very link you posted: "I was fed up of people telling me that the drake was impossible to kill its tank solo", and then he totally annihilate it. Already here you gave false information in your initial post.

Later you posted in the very thread you linked to (don't you think we would read below the first post with the link to the video?) -



http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=515323

lol please go to my thread on this topic and laugh at some brain dead arguments by people say a BATTLECRIUSER!!!! that is T1!!!!!! Should passivily TANK BATTLESHIPS!!!!!!!! lol. I spent hours rebuffing there arguments but I then worked out they must be mega n00b after all to think that its ok.

..............

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

Originally by: Dark Kavar

---

"The plebs have spoken and its here to stay for now at least. So since I am Gallante Maxed I will hop in my Myrm with another months training be able to run a 1500hp/s passive tank with 466 dps from my maxed ogre 2's NOSSING away. Maybe even put some of my maxed neutron blasters on Just to take the ****"

Ya good luck with that, that will mostly be useful for missions only

---

Oh shut up mate. When are your posts gona evolve into dicussion rather than quoting me then saying that will be rubbish or simply I don't think so.

I absolutly would hand you your arse in passive myrm if the Hp/s values are correct. Hell I would not even need to tank, just my NOS+ nos slave implants and max drone skills would win it for me before I am in half my armour .... but that has less to me being good, more to do with how broken the myrm and NOS are.

Your posts are just aimed at trying to show people up rather make a point? When I post I analyse someones post which could result in a minor flame but the 4/5 paragraphs I post will be reply worthy arguements. I go over there arguments and show why its flawed if it is flawed others wise I just say nice post. When spcerJon comented that my reply to a post saying a good setup can be had for 100m he worked it out with market prices, he did not just leave it with a annoying sentence of nothingness saying "your wrong" he explained which bit why and by how much.

Why post at all? What have you posted could of not happily remained in your head. Nobody who supports your views will even repect that. Why have you done it mate? I give you the oppertunity now to explain why a passive mym with NOS and Max drone skills is no use in PvP?

---

Becuase it can't hold anythign down, that is why, it's slow, can't warp scramble, can't web, and in gang pvp what use is it to have a super strong tank? If you get primaried, then the opposing gang's fc will just primary a differen't target or just pop your drones. I have stated this again and again about the drake but you seem to ignore the posts, so i'm sure you will ignore this one as well.

---

Thing is we proved you can have a formidable tank of 770hp/s (that pushes you beyond the killerable range in your class) Also all that Hp/s is very useful if your -10 and want just sit at gates indefinatly flouting game mechanics. (yes gate camping tanking setry guns is fine, but to do it forever solo with no support is not, mechanic exploit)

---

You didn't really respond to what I said, how do you kill something if you cannot warp scramble/web it? All it does is run lvl 4's as good as a dominix. And can you explain how it's an exploit to gate camp a gate solo?

---

Originally by: Misanth

---

Edited by: Misanth on 14/05/2007 11:52:28

Originally by: Tibrius Archer

---

I stand by my post in the other thread, Every non-n00bpro-drake person who prehaps dislikes me/my arguement in here agrees that there needs to be some adjustment. (look back on the thread). We just don't agree on why and how much and theorys behind ship abilitys. I say again, if you think passive shield tanking needed no adjustment in either recharge or pentaly on the mods that enable it you are a n000000b and I will smack from here to rens, then Jita then...

---

Well you know what.. the funny thing is I agree that the Drake is too powerful, considering how little skillpoints you need to make the tank great.

The problem I had with your post was all your obvious lies, guesstimations and obvious flaws in the post.

See my point? I agree with your core issue, the problem I have is your way of addressing it - since you are ruining all constructive arguments on this matter by discussing on a ridicilously low level.

I have a (soon) 3 mil SP Caldari alt and I know how silly they are in regards of tanking and low SP-requirements. The problem here is you in your first posts saying stuff like "the drake almost defeated the geddon" (lie), "gank bs should always beat a tank bc" (lie, just put a nossing myrmi on that geddon and say that again please.. there's other examples).. as well as arguing that a 38mil sp pilot always should beat a 3-4mil sp pilot (ehm, you can't argue on that level, too much variables).

My earlier post also gave you some hints;
Argue on a fair level if you want your points to come through. First off, you think a passive tanked Drake is overpowered, right?
Then post facts for that, and bring up issues with it:
* like the 1250 shield recharge rate (which is 1400 now on SiSi)
* the fact that it doesn't use cap neither for tank nor shooting, unlike a Myrmidon (or hell even a tier1 prophecy, which can be a formidable tank but dies to nos: and need a crapload of more sp)
Do not bring up things that is irrelevant/false:
- post a link to a video saying the drake almost kills a bs while in fact it doesnt
- post generalisations that a gank bs should always beat a bc (then you fail to understand eve, where balance here is the rock-scissors-paper pvp, most ships has weaknesses as well as strenghts, you can't simplify it by saying a bigger ship always beat a smaller, that's ridicilous and noone will agree with you)
- divert the subject from your OP and start discussing tank stats while in fact your OP is just "a gank bs should always beat a bc"; stick to your subject, or clarify your original post that the subject has changed.
- don't just to conclusions that people disagree with your point, just because they disagree with your ways to present the discussion.

That is why I think you should close this and make a new thread.

---