| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
welsh wizard
0utbreak
   |
Posted - 2007.08.04 23:21:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Djerin
The Eagle is a worthwhile HAC to fly. Just dont use it against heavy targets and without a fleet or think outside of the box..
ie,, its not as worthwhile flying it as the other hacs.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 21:33:00 -
[2]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 05/08/2007 21:40:37
Originally by: Hannobaal
If you give it more guns, you should drop its optimal range bonus. You can't expect to have both range and damage, and most Caldari pilots who complain about how weak Caldari are don't care for the extra range anyway.
Why? One extra gun will still only give it about 60% of your precious Diemos damage. You ever tried fitting rails to a Diemos? Makes a good sniper, better than the Eagle because in Eve-Online damage is preferable to range.
Further have you ever tried shooting an assault frigate in an Eagle? With full skills its gonna take about 30 seconds to blow it up. That's a HAC, shooting a moving frigate, in its optimal, with antimatter. Do you think that is good enough?
Basically they needed to add an extra turret or two to every single Caldari ship (apart from the Harpy & Rokh) after they implemented the hitpoint buff because right now, none of them are good enough.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 22:26:00 -
[3]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 05/08/2007 22:28:56
I'm beginning to wonder whether 'Caldari' burnt down your house or something Goumindong.
"Give them an extra 25% damage then take it away again! Also leave them with one less missile launcher slot!" Great call.
Face it, in this particular instance you're arguing for the sake of it. The Eagle sucks, the Moa sucks and the Ferox sucks in comparison to their racial opposites that we pay the same amount of isk for.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 23:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 05/08/2007 22:46:45
Originally by: welsh wizard
Edited by: welsh wizard on 05/08/2007 22:28:56
I'm beginning to wonder whether 'Caldari' burnt down your house or something Goumindong.
"Give them an extra 25% damage then take it away again! Also leave them with one less missile launcher slot!" Great call.
Face it, in this particular instance you're arguing for the sake of it. The Eagle sucks, the Moa sucks and the Ferox sucks in comparison to their racial opposites that we pay the same amount of isk for.
The ferox, moa, and eagle all do need some love, but i just dont think that in the case of the eagle, it should be in that area. That the range bonus, in combinataion with the types of ammo that it uses when performing its role make it quite well performing, and that making it better performing in that area would unbalance it with regards to the rest of its competitors.
Ferox +2 turrets[and cpu/pg to fit them],+1 mid, +1 high
Moa, +1 turret[and cpu/pg to fit them], +10 cubes[to 25 cube drone bay]
Eagle, +1 turret[and cpu/pg to fit them], -dmg bonus, +shield hp bonus, + 25 cube drone bay.
Vulture, unchanged.
That's actually a nerf to the Eagles weapon damage though isn't it? It's one more turret that can miss and one less missile launcher. A drone bay to compensate? No, its a sniping ship. If your intentions are to make it a close range boat then fair enough. But only if we keep the damage bonus and lose the optimal bonus. I want a buff to the Eagle, not a nerf.
Ferox and Moa changes are basically perfect. The Ferox outdamaging its tech II counterpart though? Massive tank isn't compensation enough as far as I'm concerned. I would raise the Eos as the reason why but the Eos needs a damage nerf anyway which I'm sure you'll probably agree with.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 23:16:00 -
[5]
I'm sorry but a 5th turret is going to make the Eagle an even worse sniper than it is right now if the damage bonus is removed. I'm all thumbs up for the Eagles role as a sniper, it just doesn't do enough damage to be worthwhile ahead of anything but the Moa on a battlefield.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.06 13:30:00 -
[6]
As it stands the Deimos post nerf is undeniably more worthy of its price tag than the Eagle. The same goes for most Caldari ships. This is the gripe, this is why the majority of people fly the other races in pvp. If you can prove to me that people don't fly Caldari ships in pvp because they're blatantly ignoring superior ships then you may well be onto something.
You can't, because you're wrong, and the denizens of Eve prove it daily, by not flying the ships in question.
Simpily the Eagles capacity to snip at 230km is not as useful as the Deimos' ability to field drones, do massive damage, tank and tackle at close range while at the same time having the capacity to fit rails. It DOES NOT justify the same price tag, I would like changes to be made that makes me feel that my isk is well spent on my ship ahead of another races ship.
Does this compute?
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 10:32:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Wayward Hooligan
Split weapon systems aren't bad. They make a ship versitile. The down side is the ship isn't as good at any one thing.
People love the drone ships because of this versatility.
Go and make your own Gallente thread. You are adding nothing to this one.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 21:32:00 -
[8]
Needs a 5th turret, no other changes. Whack it on the test server and we'll see just how "overpowered" it really is.
Fixed.
The blind bias in here is killing me, I'm out.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 12:06:00 -
[9]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 13/08/2007 12:13:35
Well you really aren't adding much to the topic are you? You continue to ignore the huge benefits both the Muninn and the Zealot has over the Eagle. You completely underestimate the usefullness of alpha damage, you underestimate the speed advantage and the drone advantage. In fact your only counter-argument appears to be the range bonus the Eagle has over the other two.
Once again, you don't even fly it. Have you been playing eve since the need for speed initiative and the hitpoint buff? Are you aware of just how obsolete vast range has become at the top level of pvp? I'll fly at Eagles all day long in my Crow and they won't touch me before I'm ontop of them in less than 15seconds.
The consensus is that the Eagle doesn't do enough damage, your consensus of one disagrees and you don't even fly it.
The best course of action is to try it out on sisi, whether the developers will actually take heed is another matter.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.14 19:27:00 -
[10]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 14/08/2007 19:33:19
Originally by: Interval
Nerf the Harpy tbfh. 4 guns and damage bonus. How dare they commit such an atrocity! I mean, look at all those damn Harpy pilots ruining everyone's time.
Honestly, give the eagle its damn 5th slot. If it proves overpowering I would be willing to sign a petition where you can remove them from the game in that case. I bet it will be as overpowering as the harpy is right now.
The more I think about the funnier it is. Basically Goumindong it really is just starting to sound like you're happy if the other races ships can counter the equivalent level of ship but Caldari can't.
The Rokh is essentially a big Eagle, it gets a full quota of guns and it outranges the other battleships. It isn't overpowered is it? "But it doesn't get a damage bonus!" etc.. Irrelevant, it gets 1 or 2 more guns than some of the other battleships, a 25% damage bonus on the Eagle isn't equivalent to two extra guns. Basically the Eagle missed out on the size:damage ratio increase. Harpy gets 4 guns + damage bonus, Eagle gets 5 guns + damage bonus, Ferox/Vulture get 7 guns, Rokh gets 8 guns. Atleast thats how it should be.
The Eagle needs one more gun to bring it inline with the other hacs of its level because right now it can't compete with them in the current Eve universe where quick kills, speed and tackling are king.
The fact that you're not even supportive of tests on sisi is indicative of irrational bias as far as I'm concerned.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.14 19:38:00 -
[11]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 14/08/2007 19:44:16
No, the range bonus is allegedly strong on paper not when applied to actual gameplay.
Basically further reductions in speed across the board (before you bring up my other thread about missile ships and high mass), or a hitpoint reversal would ultimately have the same effect.
The hitpoint buff happened, the need for speed initiative happened, the Eagle remained unchanged although its bonuses were hit significantly harder than the other hacs by both of these changes.
If it is to compete at Revelations II levels it needs the extra turret with the damage bonus in place. Currently it is obsolete, a weakness in a fleet which another ship of similar or lower cost can perform as well as or better.
edit: You're also using frigates of a lower level than assault frigates to make these assumptions about tech I ammo. It's a Heavy Assault Cruiser Goumindong, not a cheap ship with a poor fit designed for killing frigates. The Eagle can't kill assault frigates nevermind ships of its own size, the other hacs can.
If the Eagles only role was to kill tech I frigates, interceptors and destroyers and it cost about 10 million isk I'd be inclined to agree with you.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.14 19:46:00 -
[12]
Originally by: MailFan
...I on the other hand have the practical experience.
This is the problem with his argument, hes making assumptions based on an Eagles absolute peak performance on a completely hypothetical battlefield. His argument falls flat on its face when applied to Tranquility.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.14 23:41:00 -
[13]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 14/08/2007 23:43:13
Originally by: Goumindong
.....
Whats your point? Range is a hopeless advantage without high damage since the hitpoint/speed buffs.
I'm still pretty sure you have absolutely no idea just how long the Eagle takes to kill a ship that isn't a tech I frigate/destroyer. We're talking 20-30 seconds for a relatively fast interceptor (or never if its too fast and the pilot is remotely intelligent), 30s+ for an assault frigate and atleast 1m30s for a tech I cruiser with any kind of tank. Now couple in all the time wasted shooting opponents that are too fast/too tough to bother shooting.
Now think about this for a minute, no really, think. Just how small is the niche that the Eagle is able to fill?
-The Muninn gets by with better ammo selection, massive alpha, a drone bay and far better speed/agility. In short it is able to improvise any given situation.
-The Zealot again is a fast hac, it murders fast frigates with its huge raw damage, fast frigates that generally rely on passive shield tank to live through a fight, they don't last long to focussed em/thermal damage.
Both of these ships have a far easier time displacing small ships than the Eagle. Trust me I have experience in all three.
Now the Eagle has no way to improvise, all the pilot is able to do is hit F1-F4 and hope that
a) It isn't noticed by a fast tackler, a 10km/s interceptor/dictor (not uncommon these days) is on that defenceless Eagle at 200km in 25 seconds. If the Eagle pilot is lucky enough to have chosen a tackled, slow tech I frigate/destroyer as his primary target he may be blessed with a kill before being incapacitated and ultimately deaded.
b) He/she isn't immediately removed from the fight by a dampening platform.
c) the target is too silly to warp out/is tackled and webbed in a bubble.
d) ...a number of other criteria that need to be met if the Eagle is to have any kind of impact.
In summary the Eagle is poor at its supposed role and extremely poor at any other operation. It is a better blaster ship than it is a rail ship because it can make use of its large blaster range and heavy shield tank.
Theres a number of crucial factors that you keep ignoring in your posts:
a) The relative worthlessness of DPS in comparison to alpha damage when applied to the Eagles preffered role.
b) The relative worthlessness of the Eagles poor-moderate DPS when applied to a scenario since the hitpoint buff.
c) " " " " applied to a scenario since the need for speed initiative.
d) Ignorance of the time frames in which the Eagle is able to make any kind of difference in a generic battle on tranquility.
e) Ignorance of just how small the Eagles niche role is and how useful it is when applied to Revelations Eve combat.
There are other ways to fix the Eagle: eg,, A speed nerf across the board, a reversal of the hitpoint buff or a complete change of role (different bonuses + drone bay). I'm fully supportive of all three as an alternative.
Personally I like the idea of an Eagle as a sniper ship, but currently it just is not powerful enough to pull it off in a fashion that supports its status as a Heavy Assault Cruiser. I mean why not fly a Ferox? It does precisely the same damage + it has a drone bay. There really is no reason to fly the Eagle ahead of the Ferox. You've already stated your support for a Ferox with 2 extra turrets, where the hell would that leave the Eagle!?
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 00:29:00 -
[14]
There is no need to character assassinate him folks. His arguments are very persuasive and the majority of the time they're correct.
Just not this time (in pretty much everyones opinion :P).
If you can't be arsed replying in a constructive manner then there is probably no point replying at all.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 00:42:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Goumindong
...interdictors/interceptors that are 100-200km and warp out arent a thread to the fleet. and other arguments which have little basis in reality
You need to play Revelations II a bit more Goumindong. I'm positively soaking my pants in anticipation of taking on your wonderful gang full of sniping Eagles 'Winning the day!'.
You seem to be a bloke who takes pride in logic and yet you reach your conclusions without ever having flown the ship in question.
Simpily experience > mathematical conclusions applied to ideal hypothetical scenarios. Your Eagle doesn't do anything in practice.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 18:19:00 -
[16]
Keep it up folks, if this thread passes 15 pages the powers that be will start to take notice. :P
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 19:52:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 16/08/2007 19:35:47
Originally by: KD.Fluffy
for a comparison to show how the eagle would not be broken with 5 turrets consider this........
harpy: 4 turrets, 2 range bonii, 1 damage bonus
enyo: 4 turrets, 1 range bonis, 1 damage bonus, 1 tracking bonus
jaguar: 4 turrets, 1 range bonus, 2 damage bonus
retribution: 4 turrets, 1 range bonus, 1 damage bonus, 1 laser cap usage bonus
funny, harpy is the little brother of the eagle. It gets the same amount of turrets as all the other ships in its class (thank goodness). So by goumendog's logic, it should be broken compared to the other assault frigats, but its not. The harpy is a sturdy ship that is very well balanced. Giving the eagle the same turrets as other ships in its class will only balance it in the same way the assault frigats are......
we have been over this already. See the graph of the cormorant if you think that the harpy is overpowered. They do roughly the same DPS. It is outdamaged at all ranges by the Moa, let alone the Eagle when shooting at all targets at all reasonable ranges.
What?
a) He's saying the Harpy is nicely balanced, it holds its own against the other assault frigates but if stuck in their optimals will generally get boned. The Eagle does not share this trait with the Harpy as it has 1 less turret than its racial counter-parts.
b) It's a frigate, outdamaged by a tech I cruiser (Moa), how is this a valid argument in terms of comparisons with the Eagle?
c) The cormorant has absolutely nothing to do with it.
What hes trying to say is that the damage:turret ratio should be exactly the same for the Eagle, and why the hell not?
You're clutching at straws.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 20:10:00 -
[18]
Laughable analysis.
Fly the ships.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.18 11:03:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Lisa More
The Eagle need that 5th turret before hp buff its was a nice anti-support ship.
After the buff the Eagle sucks hard i cannot shoot down a single interceptor with spike wtf
Use tech I ammo, you'll hit him a bit unless hes got the sense to rack up some high transversal or simpily fly out of your range. It's very unlikely you'll kill it but you may force it out. Spike has a tracking penalty you see.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.18 12:17:00 -
[20]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 18/08/2007 12:27:03
Originally by: Lisa More
Edited by: Lisa More on 18/08/2007 11:55:23
Originally by: welsh wizard
Originally by: Lisa More
The Eagle need that 5th turret before hp buff its was a nice anti-support ship.
After the buff the Eagle sucks hard i cannot shoot down a single interceptor with spike wtf
Use tech I ammo, you'll hit him a bit unless hes got the sense to rack up some high transversal or simpily fly out of your range. It's very unlikely you'll kill it but you may force it out. Spike has a tracking penalty you see.
Its not the tracking its the lack of dps to get inty¦s down. I know that Spike has a tracking penalty but i stay 170km away from gate when a inty is straight burning to me i cant get him down
I don't agree with much of what Goumindong has said but if an inty with velocity lower than 6-7km/s flies straight at you from 150km or more its toast, even with low damage ammo loaded. With Spike it'll evaporate in about 2-3 volleys.
A slight deviation from the straight line (even with tech I ammo loaded) and its a different story, especially with a fast interceptor (8km/s or more). In practice an Eagle can't hope to kill these interceptors unless they're not at full speed with low transversal or lagged out or something. Goumindong seems to think his ideal dps graphs say otherwise but he is just plain wrong. The best you can hope for in these situations is landing one reasonable volley which makes the interceptor panic and warp out.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.18 21:44:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Katashi I****uka
Give it up already!...
Oh, ok.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.20 17:59:00 -
[22]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 20/08/2007 18:03:15
Of course the ultimate solution is to reverse the HP buff and nerf speed properly (not a half-arsed job). This way the Eagle is instantly effective again. Alternatively increase its lock range slightly and open up combat beyond 250km.
Right now the range advantage is diluted to a point where it actually means very little. When an interceptor or interdictor can close on your sniping spot in 10-20 seconds theres gotta be something wrong. What happened to actually having to use warp in spots to get snipers? Does anyone do that anymore because we don't, we just fly at the enemies position and the whole process takes less than 20 seconds on average.
It's how the Eagle relates to the game we play everyday, not what its theoretically capable of in a perfect scenario.
All of these changes are pipe dreams unfortunately..
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.20 18:29:00 -
[23]
Made a thread about it...
I encourage you to add your opinions but lets not turn it into a "My Eagle doesn't do enough damage" flame war.
Thanks.
Linkage
|
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.08.26 10:58:00 -
[24]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 26/08/2007 10:59:12
You make it sound as though there isn't a problem, Caldari ships can fit a shield tank, tackle with damage and compete? No they can't.
If this were the case Goumindong there wouldn't be a problem. The evidence suggests there is a problem because the significant majority of engagements like this go the other 3 races way.
Why is this?
It's because the armour tanker invariably dictates the range, whether or not the fight happens in the first place, usually has higher raw damage output, is more likely to be packing ewar and almost always has the ability to decide whether to stay if its going badly. The shield tanker doesn't make any of these decisions, they either die or force the armour tanker out (vagabond being the exception).
In summary if shield tankers really could fit tackle, tank & damage and use them successfully as you seem to be suggesting then there wouldn't be a problem. I know you badly want to believe it but a shield tanker sacrificing any more than 1 mid slot for other uses is not going to be successful in any capacity outside of a gang.
With the nos nerf this imbalance may even out a little as shield tanks are far more sensitive to nos (unable to fit cap boosters without compromising setup, high cap use and frequency of boosting). Despite what others say shield tanking is not as cap efficient as armour tanking unless you're packing a gist booster and/or nerfing the rest of your setup with CCC rigs/SBA's etc.
|
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.08.26 11:51:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
What IS the Eagles role again ? It seems it falls in the same role as the Rokh among battleships. 50km range where it is more effective than other HAC/Cruiser/BC snipers. But it is still inside BS range, so actualy not usable. The Rokh at least has a unique 50km niche. The Eagle has NONE.
Tracking & sig resolution. BS sized turrets are not really very good at shooting at small support 150k away. The eagle is. The zealot and muninn have to get to 100k to do that.
It has just the same 50k niche as the rokh has.
BSs can get the same range as the eagle, but not the same accurancy. If they would make it obsolete they would make ALL sniper HACs obsolete.
I'm confused, why doesn't the Rokh with 8 turrets make the other battleships with equivalent numbers of turrets (taking damage bonuses into account) obsolete?
Why is the Harpy balanced with 4 turrets and a damage bonus, equivalent to the other races...?
Why is this ratio different for the Eagle but not the other hacs? What makes the Eagle the exception to this rule? Perhaps its because of its nifty blue paint job?
Same goes for the Ferox Moa & Vulture, all equally as redundant through lack of damage.
|
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.08.26 13:50:00 -
[26]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 26/08/2007 13:50:39
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Yes, and in order to do that, it needs Spike ammo. That's were it drops 30% below Zealot and Munin. 50km is transversed by a competent inty in 5-6 seconds. That's 1 ROF cycle for the Eagle. With Spike level damage, it is unable to kill a tackler even in 2 volleys. And after 2 volleys, that target comes into the other snipers range (particularly cormorant and harpy). Where is the advantage again ?
Firstly, no, it doesn't need spike. It can reach a 180k optimal with t1 ammo. And even if it did need it at 150k then the zealot and muninn would need their sniper t2 ammo at 100k, too. No difference.
Secondly, even disregarding that you would then have a damaged tackler while the zealot and muninn will have an undamaged one. Essentially, you have at the very minimum 33% more time to kill it (100k vs 150k). This easily makes up for the damagedifference.
Originally by: welsh wizard
I'm confused, why doesn't the Rokh with 8 turrets make the other battleships with equivalent numbers of turrets (taking damage bonuses into account) obsolete?
Why is the Harpy balanced with 4 turrets and a damage bonus, equivalent to the other races...?
Why is this ratio different for the Eagle but not the other hacs? What makes the Eagle the exception to this rule? Perhaps its because of its nifty blue paint job?
Same goes for the Ferox Moa & Vulture, all equally as redundant through lack of damage.
Rokh - because it can rarely use its rangebonus to the full extend compared to the other BS. The eagle can almost always use its rangebonus.
Harpy - Eagle - the eagle has a resistancebonus. The harpy hasn't. (And, no, the t1 resistance bonuses of the AFs are not that, this is something build in already in the eagles base stats)
Vulture dps is not worse than that of claymore & damnation. The eos is the imbalanced ship for fleet commands.
Ferox dps isn't so hot compared to the cyclone and prophecy either. Again, the ga÷e ship stands out there.
And moa has a massive range advantage.
Then why do people rarely use these supposed Caldari gunboat advantages in pvp? Is it the pilots obliviously neglecting using range to their advantage or is it simpily the fact that range is so diluted as an advantage that it makes negligible difference?
|
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 20:44:00 -
[27]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 05/09/2007 20:53:13
Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 05/09/2007 17:03:03
Originally by: Neuromandis
...
There is no question about whether or not a 5 turret eagle is the best at shooting interceptors and cruisers in a fleet. It just utterly trounces all the other HACs in DPS at all ranges
But they're far more capable of manouvering into their optimals, have drone bays and can tackle without sacrificing tank. The Eagle doesn't do any of this and is pigeonholed into one use that it barely performs better than the other ships. It may aswell be the undisputed master of its art to make up for its multitude of shortcomings.
I'm firmly of the belief that the hitpoint buff and rise of the nano are the two reasons the Eagle doesn't compete anymore. These changes will never get rolled back so the ship itself needs to change to stay with the times.
Your argument would make perfect sense if we were still playing the Eve of 18 months ago. Unfortunately your perfect hypothetical scenarios do not cater for todays Eve. They spare no thought for lag, reload times, target speed or damage lost through your apparently borked idea of how well the Eagle tracks.
Look at the game we play and consider all extenuating circumstances and external influence before you decide just how well the Eagle performs.
|
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 12:13:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Zixxa
...make fleets from the Rokhs and you will win every battle.
I assume you're being sarcastic but if you did that you probably would win every fleet fight, Rokh's are the best fleet ship but only as a fleet of rokh's.
This isn't about the Rokh thought its about the Eagle. Goumindongs numbers are generally without fault (apart from his borked tracking equations) but he has no basis with which to compare them to actual Eve gameplay. He only sees how the numbers work in a perfect hypothetical scenario and he thinks that makes his argument infallible.
This is his downfall which surprises me. He seems like an intelligent bloke but spurns experience in favour of faultless scenarios without external influcence. Bad move.
Simpily his margin of error is enourmous but he can't/won't accept it.
|
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 12:42:00 -
[29]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 10/09/2007 12:42:15
.
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 09:46:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Goumindong
You have to do no such thing with Ammo, you can simply load an advantaged ammo[the 99km ammo] and then keep using it. Or you can load long range ammo and use that. You just choose where to be shooting. With 5 turrets you would not have any disadvantage using any ammo.
First off, you track fine, better than an unrigged Muninn[no, an unrigged Muninn doesnt tracking .56 since it cant fit the tracking computer].
You have point defense[1-2 launcher points].
You have perfectly acceptable DPS similar to all other snipers in the same range.
Its stupidly easy to fit for fleet actions unless your skills suck, but then again, what the hell are you doing in a HAC if your support skills suck?[also, this might be your problem]
Eve doesn't work like this.
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 00:50:00 -
[31]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 17/09/2007 00:52:26
No EM hardeners on a caldari shield tank?
You see goumindong, this is the problem with flying quickfit. To paraphrase your own words, "You don't have a bloody clue and your setups are incompetent".
You don't shield tank with caldari resists, you don't fly the Eagle and you blatantly ignore basic game mechanics when applied to the ship in question.
I'd fancy my chances in a retribution against those setups.
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 01:22:00 -
[32]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 17/09/2007 01:25:04
We want the Eagle to do what its supposed to do as well as the other hacs do their jobs. You believe it already does even though the evidence is very heavily weighed against you;
a)Its the cheapest hac on the market.
b)It is arguably the least prominent solo hac.
c)It is the second slowest hac.
d)It cannot utilise optimal ammunition rapidly enough to be useful
d)It cannot tackle and tank successfully at the same time.
e)It is not capable of matching the other hacs firepower in its defined area of operation (Comparitively, to their defined area of operation)
f)Its defined area of operation is extremely limited.
g)Its defined area of operation is very skill intensive, for little end result.
h)In the modern Eve game its advantages are significantly offset by both the prominence of nano ships and the hitpoint buff. Advantages which all of the other hacs are able to utilise more successfully.
i)It struggles to kill certain types of frigate.
j)It is arguably the least useful hac in current server conditions (lag) due to the nature of its task.
k)It has no useful point defence system (2 missile launcher do not in any way compare to 5 light drones).
l)It does not dictate the fight unless setup to be a below par close range vessel.
m)It is arguably the least popular hac.
n)Its a stupid colour.
You repeatedly ignore all of the above with hastily devised graphs and theoretical outcomes based on entirely hypothetical situations in perfect conditions.
Pretty much everything and everyone suggests that you are wrong. You are of course welcome to your opinion but you simpily must acknowledge experience ahead of an (admittedly well designed) fitting tool which at best provides a very very rough idea of performance ingame.
Now, I will take my leave and you can post more superlatives describing your disbelief of our apparent lack of insight.
It's been tiring o7
edit: repeated myself
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 01:33:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Goumindong
Write it on the board 100 times. Then support a change that fixes its deficiencies without making it overpowered in the long range.
It will not make it overpowered at long range.
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 12:14:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: MailFan
Originally by: tartrus
hehe i give up...i cbf fighting with u over somthing u know nothing about...but then again eft told u it was right so it must be
but hey im not claiming to know everything but i can say this if the eagle gets a buff u can exspect a buff muninn thread cus right now they seem even.
edit :Spelling
I love it how you suddenly come in this thread, where we have been saying Goumingdon should stop playing EFT-Online and listen to people who actually fly the ship. And now you're here complaining that the rest of us don't know what we are talking about 
Did you even try to read the whole thread?
Well, you dont...
Can I play?
Neither do you.
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 15:10:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Interval
Well, glad to see this is still going.
Some more fuel to keep this going:
Most people don't carry all the ammo types and a calculator when they go fly an Eagle.
Well they should!!!!
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 10:58:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: KD.Fluffy
Quote:
It doesnt have 30% more DPS you freaking liar.
uhm excuse me...?
Eagle dps 114km: = 173 dps
muninn dps 114km = 223 dps
thats a full 27% more dps. And thats with the eagle using caldari navy lead charge. Only advantage eagle gets is shooting inties, which muninn makes up for with its 25m3 drone ba y. So if you give it a 5th turret, eagle will still be slightly out damaged, but lack speed, mobility, drone bay, and a missle launcher point. Not sure what would be unbalanced about that exactly....
How many fing times do you have to be informed about tracking and changing ammo?
This has clearly become a vendetta for you. Did you read past "is shooting inties" ?
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 11:30:00 -
[37]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 23/09/2007 11:30:01
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Augeas
Quote:
Remember what we discussed about changing ammo mid fight?
Yes, we said it didn't happen. Making your points about a 5T Eagle outDPSing other HACs at their optimal (let's forget for a second that these other HACs aren't dedicated snipers and the fact that people use them as such instead of the Eagle is clear evidence that the Eagle is underpowered) irrelevant, because the Eagle wouldn't have that ammo loaded.
It can start a fight with CN thorium loaded if it thinks it will be engaging at 100km. A Muninn cannot start a fight with Tremor loaded unless it wants to be useless in its role.
But a muninn is much better at adapting to a changing combat envrionment. The Eagle warps out or dies.
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 11:43:00 -
[38]
Hitpoints make sod all difference if you're tackled.
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 11:55:00 -
[39]
Way to completely disregard important game mechanics that must be considered in matters of balance.
This is futile, you're clearly too close minded to listen to anyone else and vice versa with regards to everyone else in your eyes.
I think we've given this proverbial brick wall a proper good bashing to so we may aswell agree to disagree. Goumindong, its been frustrating o7.
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 12:01:00 -
[40]
see: post
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 12:17:00 -
[41]
...
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 12:24:00 -
[42]
See it coming? No, I didn't think anyone would be likely to recycle a joke aimed at them only minutes prior. It's like being 5 years old all over again.
My dad is bigger than your dad btw.
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 12:28:00 -
[43]
I expect many would beg to differ, if only to bath in the shining glow that is 'making Goumindong look an idiot'.
Perhaps a little silly of me to expect you to understand this though...
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 12:34:00 -
[44]
You're brilliance personified Goumindong. Anyway, I'll leave you to the adulation of your many adoring fans in this thread.
Almost 50 pages!!
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 16:45:00 -
[45]
Thats extra cap use, fitting and less effective turret dps.
Not good enough.
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 19:15:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: MailFan
Originally by: Goumindong
The number of people arguing has nothing against me has nothing to do with the veracity of their claims or quality of their arguements.
And what about experience?
You mean the none of it that you have?
You didn't answer his question.
[Balance] The Caldari problem. |
| |
|