EVE Search - Real reson not to NERF the Drake and Myrm

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Real reson not to NERF the Drake and Myrm

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Pottsey Gallente Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.05.20 09:08:00 - [31] ôYou know CCP didn't mean it to be a shield-tanker. Why are you surprised when they try to make you actually use its armor tanking bonus?ö It was made as an passive shield tanker. All passive shield tanking bonus where stripped from none faction ships a while ago. Just because it has an amour bonus doesnÆt meant thatÆs all it was meant to do. Its not like you can get a none faction ship with passive tanking bonus anymore so if you only use the ships with passive bonus you cannot tank like that. As for the nerf I donÆt see the problem both ships still have a stronger passive tank then they had 6 months ago even with the nerf. When a ship can get upwards and over 600hp/s regen on a BC it needs a nerf. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Chi Quan Jade Phoenix Deutschland Event-Horizon	Posted - 2007.05.20 14:12:00 - [32] having no passive tank makes nosing more powerfull, a while back on sisi i had the chance to see the difference between active/passive tanking and being nosed while under it (flying drake). in that situation i was holding up quite well against a nosdomi, as i targeted his drones first. he downed me nonetheless, but the passive tank was holding longer. i fail to realize the sense of faction ships being excusively able to passive tank.
marioman Caldari Eye of God X-PACT	Posted - 2007.05.20 15:48:00 - [33] Edited by: marioman on 20/05/2007 15:46:22 Originally by: EadTaes ...Plus not to mention that 1 on 1 the drake seems to overpower every other BC without a problem. Plus the drake can tank 3 BSs by it self i dont think BCs were emnt to be able to tank BSs like that either. uh no the drake prolly has the worst dmg of all the tier 2 BC's. The Myrm has the same dmg output from its drones as the Dominix, and then u have amarr and min with their guns that i'm pretty sure both get better DPS than a missile boat.
Agnar Koladrov Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2007.05.20 15:59:00 - [34] I think the Drake shouldn`t had been given (grammer?) the resistance bonus in the first place when it was designed. It should have gotten a missle rof bonus or something like that, making it an true misslle assault bc. Ah well.... ________________________________________________ -- What a Revelation! -- Where was the creativty for speed/mass/etc when the tier2 Battlecruisers were designed? Why the same for each race BC?
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.05.20 16:18:00 - [35] Originally by: Meeat These are the ONLY 2 ships that can actually passive tank. Incredibly False. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Star Commander
Lab Ratta	Posted - 2007.05.20 21:13:00 - [36] Originally by: Pottsey ôYou know CCP didn't mean it to be a shield-tanker. Why are you surprised when they try to make you actually use its armor tanking bonus?ö It was made as an passive shield tanker. All passive shield tanking bonus where stripped from none faction ships a while ago. Just because it has an amour bonus doesnÆt meant thatÆs all it was meant to do. Its not like you can get a none faction ship with passive tanking bonus anymore so if you only use the ships with passive bonus you cannot tank like that. As for the nerf I donÆt see the problem both ships still have a stronger passive tank then they had 6 months ago even with the nerf. When a ship can get upwards and over 600hp/s regen on a BC it needs a nerf. Potsy if this is done then a fully fitted 3billion+ isk should be used when balancing that ship vs the others. I mean it is active tanking 3kdps so it definalty means all ravens should be nerfed using your criteria.
Lab Ratta	Posted - 2007.05.20 21:15:00 - [37] Originally by: Agnar Koladrov I think the Drake shouldn`t had been given (grammer?) the resistance bonus in the first place when it was designed. It should have gotten a missle rof bonus or something like that, making it an true misslle assault bc. Ah well.... Cant remember for sure but i think it did have a RoF bonus in the very beginnning but then the whinners got it nerf then and they continued to whine so now it is going to get the axe again. All this does is put everything back to where 2 or 3 ships is all that this game should have since all the rest are nerfed to uselessness.
Scordite	Posted - 2007.05.20 21:28:00 - [38] Originally by: Meeat So many ships in this game have no purpose due to the fact that there are other ships that fill the role better. Please do not push the Drake and Myrm into this area. I'm surprised no one's commented on this yet. Myrm will have a purpose even if they removed it's shields entirely. ----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.05.20 21:43:00 - [39] Originally by: marioman Edited by: marioman on 20/05/2007 15:46:22 Originally by: EadTaes ...Plus not to mention that 1 on 1 the drake seems to overpower every other BC without a problem. Plus the drake can tank 3 BSs by it self i dont think BCs were emnt to be able to tank BSs like that either. uh no the drake prolly has the worst dmg of all the tier 2 BC's. The Myrm has the same dmg output from its drones as the Dominix, and then u have amarr and min with their guns that i'm pretty sure both get better DPS than a missile boat. contrary to popular belief, missiles do not do bad DPS. If you look at a graph of reasonable fittings, you will notice that the drake only does less damage than the other battlecruisers at very short ranges[<10km] and above that outdamages all but the heavy drone myrm. If you add in tracking this changes farther due to the inability to hold high speed orbits close to targets. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Slaptastic	Posted - 2007.05.20 23:31:00 - [40] I said it in the last 3 Drake threads and I'll say it again. Drake does not have that bad of DPS. Why? Lets take a look... 1: Turret ships only do good damage in their optimal/close range ammo, which is under 15km except on Minmatar ships with Falloff. 2: Missiles do constant DPS at all ranged up to their flight time. Turret ships have to change ammo to get longer ranges, and that screws with their DPS. 3: Missile ships can do constant damage on 1 type of resistance. Turret ships can only do EM/Therm, Kin/Therm and on Minmatar you can do up to 3 damage types. (Which isnt exactly a good thing all the time.) 4: HAMs are close range weapons with about a 15km range, just like all the other close range weapons. A heavy pulse laser II with conflag only hits out to about 7km, so infact your getting twice the range of most close range ammo. (Blasters do much much less...under the 5km range.) I mean, Missiles are almost just like turrets TBH. Close range weapons (HAMs/Pulses/Blasters) hit out at about 15/7/4km respectively, and long range guns (Heavies/Beams/Rails) hit out to about 100/25/25km respectively. I fail to see how Missile ships are lacking. So whats the lesson here? Fit short range weapons to get good damage, not Heavy Missiles... Originally by: Slaptastic Its amazing how many people quote themselves on the EvE Online forums.
Lab Ratta	Posted - 2007.05.21 01:27:00 - [41] Originally by: Scordite Originally by: Meeat So many ships in this game have no purpose due to the fact that there are other ships that fill the role better. Please do not push the Drake and Myrm into this area. I'm surprised no one's commented on this yet. Myrm will have a purpose even if they removed it's shields entirely. Yeah thats what is sad this ship is not even using the bonuses and out shield tanks the Drake
Agnar Koladrov Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2007.05.21 01:39:00 - [42] Edited by: Agnar Koladrov on 21/05/2007 01:38:53 Originally by: Lab Ratta Originally by: Agnar Koladrov I think the Drake shouldn`t had been given (grammer?) the resistance bonus in the first place when it was designed. It should have gotten a missle rof bonus or something like that, making it an true misslle assault bc. Ah well.... Cant remember for sure but i think it did have a RoF bonus in the very beginnning but then the whinners got it nerf then and they continued to whine so now it is going to get the axe again. All this does is put everything back to where 2 or 3 ships is all that this game should have since all the rest are nerfed to uselessness. I think it was Tux who said and proclaimed the added rof was a "I win" thingy. To me that sounded like "WTF?!?!?" back then, the res bonus was always the real culprit in my opinion and THAT should have been changed to kenetic dmg bonus instead of rof -> ken bonus. ________________________________________________ -- What a Revelation! -- Where was the creativty for speed/mass/etc when the tier2 Battlecruisers were designed? Why the same for each race BC?
Phrixus Zephyr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.05.21 02:13:00 - [43] Edited by: Phrixus Zephyr on 21/05/2007 02:12:54 If a BC can tank a full gank T2 BS with minimal effort, even if it uses most of its slots, its still broken. Edit: I have no problem with said BC killing said Gank BS. It just shouldn't be able to tank it indeffinatly. Originally by: Benglada And whos going to tackle for them? Jesus?
Pottsey Gallente Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.05.21 06:00:00 - [44] ôPotsy if this is done then a fully fitted 3billion+ isk should be used when balancing that ship vs the others. I mean it is active tanking 3kdps so it definalty means all ravens should be nerfed using your criteria.ö My Myrm can hit way over 600 HP/s while boosting resistance for way under 1 billion. Not looked at recent prices but I would guess 150 million. When I start using the costly modules like Purgers T2 we are talking way over 600 HP/s. ItÆs in need of a nerf. Passive shield tanking guide click here

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.