Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
553
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 23:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
I am about one hundred THOUSAND percent against any kind of change to the drake.
Are you out of your mind?! The resistance bonus the drake gets are the REASON to get newer players to train the battlecruiser skill and a nice spread of other skill. The drake IS the whole idea of "train subskills first THEN ship"
Do NOT do this CCP. The drake is NOT overpowered. It takes extreme training to use right! |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
555
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 23:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
They have medium DPS for good tank (With heavy HEAVY training especially for newer players) that is perfect for newer players to spend time getting used to and learning to quirks of before going on to other ships.
Changing the drake bonus would show that CCP only favors large alliances in this game. Because #1 it is currently the only thing that can reasonably stop their Win Alpha fleets. and #2 It allows newer players to make funds in the game without needing a giant alliance at first.
Such changes will give large alliances that can field huge alpha and force members to go on CTAs even more power. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
555
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 00:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hanoch Wheel wrote:Lord Aliventi wrote:Alright let me get this straight.: CSM wants to nerf the drake by taking away it's drake bonuses and giving it Tengu-like ROF and velocity bonus. 716 DPS at 100km on a drake? Hell yeah! Nerf away!
...
Actually from the notes, it was CCP that proposed this. But the CSM enthusiastically agreed. Trend is for more firepower and less survivability? More explosions? More replacement ships? Is this the goal?
Very doubtful. The goal is to remove the ability of newer players to enjoy eve without joining a super big alliance that has NAPed areas for moon goo in my opinion. Otherwise why on earth would CCP propose this in the first place?
What on earth is going on CCP? Please say you will NOT implement this! |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
555
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 00:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hoskoal Ricks wrote:Hanoch Wheel wrote:Lord Aliventi wrote:Alright let me get this straight.: CSM wants to nerf the drake by taking away it's drake bonuses and giving it Tengu-like ROF and velocity bonus. 716 DPS at 100km on a drake? Hell yeah! Nerf away!
...
Actually from the notes, it was CCP that proposed this. But the CSM enthusiastically agreed. Trend is for more firepower and less survivability? More explosions? More replacement ships? Is this the goal? Just makes alpha look better and better.
Which of course benefits greatly large alliances. This nerf and nerfs like it that are a boon to nullsec alliances need to be opposed greatly. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
555
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 00:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Hoskoal Ricks wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Hanoch Wheel wrote:Lord Aliventi wrote:Alright let me get this straight.: CSM wants to nerf the drake by taking away it's drake bonuses and giving it Tengu-like ROF and velocity bonus. 716 DPS at 100km on a drake? Hell yeah! Nerf away!
...
Actually from the notes, it was CCP that proposed this. But the CSM enthusiastically agreed. Trend is for more firepower and less survivability? More explosions? More replacement ships? Is this the goal? Very doubtful. The goal is to remove the ability of newer players to enjoy eve without joining a super big alliance that has NAPed areas for moon goo in my opinion. Otherwise why on earth would CCP propose this in the first place? What on earth is going on CCP? Please say you will NOT implement this! Can we please not derail an important discussion about caldari ships with your tinfoil asshattery? thnx <3
Not tinfoil in the least. There is NO othwe argument for nerfing the drake other than "WAHHH MAH ARTY ALPHAS CANT ONE SHOT IT NERF NERF NERF!" It may be partly that but it is 90 percent punishing newer players.
|

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
555
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ocih wrote:If I could survive the Artillery wall 50 km behind it, my Harbi would melt a Drake.
This....
Drakes have to plug an EM hole the size of New York, Are VERY skill intensive to use right, And require alpha support to keep enemies off of them.
For newer players this is the time of their EVE life. And then they can use their PVE drake to make funds to go out again.
The drake is by FAR one of the best balanced ships in the game. DON'T CHANGE IT! |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
563
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 07:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
What people don't get is that drakes are very skill intensive to fly right.
You need heavy navigation skills, heavy heavy shield comp skills, medium to heavy training on missiles.
Multiple remaps many skills to buy. Those looking to nerf the drake think they are some magic bullet for newer players when the good ones you see in battle are those people spent month after month training.
Do NOT nerf the drake! |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 08:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
Cyzlaki wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:What people don't get is that drakes are very skill intensive to fly right.
You need heavy navigation skills, heavy heavy shield comp skills, medium to heavy training on missiles.
Multiple remaps many skills to buy. Those looking to nerf the drake think they are some magic bullet for newer players when the good ones you see in battle are those people spent month after month training.
Do NOT nerf the drake! 3 week old characters can fly drakes just fine 
Can fly POS drakes just fine. To fly them well takes ALOT of training. They do NOT need to be touched as they are VERY balanced for several roles depending on skills skills skills.
|

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 08:51:00 -
[9] - Quote
Hershman wrote:I know I'm a little late to this party but I'll go ahead and state my views. Perhaps they will shed light on a new perspective.
The shield regeneration algorithm for passive recharge rates is slightly overpowered. Slightly.
However, the same distinction is present in armor defenses with the potential amount of armor hp for some ships.
In a way, these two peaks balance out in the realm of passive defense tanking. Thus this divergence is not game breaking.
If anything the proper solution is to give a minuscule buff to active shield and armor defense tactics.
Though I'll say again, the difference in tactics is negligible and is not game breaking.
Not overpowered at all. It takes serious training to get good regen levels like it takes serious training to do other things in the game. They do NOT need to be changed. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 09:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
So dull to fly? Maybe for you. As a new drake pilot at the time I absolutely loved flying them. They are perfectly balanced to rise well from heavy skill dedication.
They need to be left alone. And considering the CSM wants the drake nuked from orbit I seriously question their views on the Naga as well. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 09:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
SukaNaft wrote:Just answer this question - if Drake is nerfed, what would you fly instead? NightHawk? ... or crosstrain to fly other races?
There is no IF. I am going to oppose the drake nerf and alot of people will do as well. I did not put in months of training to fly the Nighthawk. I put them into the Drake because it is the most balanced and fun ship in the game.
They do NOT need to be nerfed or changed. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP you went and locked the other topic and yet wont respond in this topic?
Are we back to the days of Incarna CCP? Don't bother replying to topics that oppose your plans? |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
When the CSM geenlights something as horrible as a Drake nerf. That is not something of minutes = nothing.
Why did they wait for the CSM to reveal their want of nuking the drake from orbit? Why not make a topic about it if they wanted our thoughts?
They need to talk to US the players not the CSM about such things. They need to say what they are thinking so we can discuss it. Otherwise we are back to the days of Incarna. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:45:00 -
[14] - Quote
JC Anderson wrote:St Mio wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Caldari has the 14 inch *****. Best ship in the game IMHO. Indeed! Ferox for the win! The last time I actually flew one was the day prior to the patch that added the Drake. :P (Same patch that added the Rokh... But lets not speak of that) Not like we had any other choice in BC's at the time.
The Ferox needs a new role. I support giving it a new role as a between T1 logi and T2 logi. 90 percent of the rep ability at full battlecruiser level V (A VERY long training run) That means that medium rails for caldari will remain useless but it atleast gives caldari something else to use in fleet operations. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:46:00 -
[15] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:The problem isn't the Drake, it's PVE and tier 2 BCs in general. Now, nobody really cares about PVE and Gurista-Drake balance, but let's pretend that they do. Fix this by giving BCs the shield recharge rates of BS. The PVP effect will be minimal.
Now to solve the problem of tier 2 BCs obsoleting tier 1s, cruisers and (to a considerable extent) close-range HACs, with the result that cruisers have no role and half the gangs that you see in space are tier 2 BC blobs. Fix this by cutting tier 2 BCs down to tier 1 levels; cutting their slots, HP and making the Hurricane in particular much harder to fit.
There, fixed.
As in Nuke half of EVE from orbit right?
Do not change the Drake! |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:01:00 -
[16] - Quote
Melangell wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Why did they wait for the CSM to reveal their want of nuking the drake from orbit? Why not make a topic about it if they wanted our thoughts? .
why did they talk to the group whose job it is to represent the players views first rather than coming straight to the players? nope you got me there. I can't see any reason a group designed to represent the players views would be consulted in this. meantime in-between your entitled raging and my inconsequential cheering of changing a boat I am not a fan of for no other reason than that :- there is some really good well thought out commentary on this thread.....
The representing players part is HIGHLY questionable and should be relied on only when you cant understand why you have three threadnaughts on the same page about your BS.
Something of this magnitude should have been a topic. You don't have to fly a bunch of people out there to learn that changing the drake is bad. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:26:00 -
[17] - Quote
There is no need for a drake nerf. The regen is balanced by moderate DPS. The Naga has great DPS but crap tank.
This is just a bad idea by CCP and the CSM and should be treated as such. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:43:00 -
[18] - Quote
Missljud wrote:Well with a buff to missile velocity, will it maybe interfere in the bonuses the Cerberus have... I don't mind nerfing the Drakes eHP but buffing the range on missiles am I not that happy about. However going from 5% kinetic damage to a general damage bonus/buff seems fair to me.
So an extra few megatons from orbit makes things better?
Wow... Just wow 
It does not a resist nerf or a hp nerf or a regen nerf. It needs to be left alone as it is balanced. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 12:47:00 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Please keep in mind these notes date back from December, and as such some points may have evolved as we are gathering more data with time. TALOS VS NAGA:
- Surprisingly enough, the Talos seems quite popular, and a lot better performance wise than the initial feedback suggested. Even if we have been discussing its relative balance with the Naga, nothing is planned to be changed on either of them for now; in the remote possibility we tweak them, it would most likely be modifications affecting all tier 3 battlecruisers, like a slight speed decrease. But again, tier 3 battlecruisers are not on the top of our balancing list right now.
Nuking craft from orbit not the best idea. Players with axes to grind against craft. New things? I think not. No need to reduce their speed either.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:DRAKE (and to an extent, tier 2 battlecruisers):
There is a reason why it is the most used battlecruiser out there. The problem with the Drake is that it is does everything too well for little cost or sacrifice, while being easy to train for. Thus, and to an extent most of the tier 2 battlecruisers create a certain number of issues that should be addressed:
(Yes, leaving tier 1 battlecruisers out of the discussion because there is no point arguing with the obvious fact they need some attention).
Wrong...
Easy to train for? You call the months I spent training to use it well Easy? It does not do everything too well in the least. It is a good tank with medium DPS. Perfect for the BC role. People with axes to grind will have you believe they are titans if they could get away with it.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
- Overshadow other tech 1 hulls: the leap in performance between cruiser and tier 2 battlecruiser classes is just too great for too little cost (average slot count, EHP mainly). This, coupled with the gain in damage for having access to more weapon slots, as well as extra fitting power (ever tried squeezing turrets into an Omen and keep a decent fit?), makes the small loss of speed irrelevant when leaving the cruiser class as battlecruisers still remain fairly mobile. That's partly why the Hurricane also is so popular.
- Overshadows tech 2 counterparts: Heavy Assault Ships and Command Ships are suffering from this situation. This is most apparent with the Nighthawk, but any ship that shares a common role with them is affected. Why take the time to train up and pay for an expensive hull when there is an easy to get into and cheap option available that almost have the same performance?
Limited quotes on this forum (Why if its a direct quotes? Why not make it prevent multiple quotes of quotes instead?) So ill have to answer these in one quote.
It does not overshadow other hulls on purpose. It is just that it is the best balanced ship in a sea of unbalanced craft and your Tier 1 BC stuff ought to show that better than anything.
Does not overshadow T2 counterparts. I see them used all the time. Where are you getting this data? The CSM?
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Incorrectly funnel new players: don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP. What's the point of a Bellicose? Exequror? Maller? Moa? They shouldn't be things you just skip on the way to a greater purpose, like a leaf of salad in my 250gr double-layered onion and egg hamburger.
Have odd, conflicting, or too much versatile roles: Drake has both a shield resistance and damage bonus, making it quite effective at passive tanking, but doesn't give it a focused purpose. Then you have the Myrmidon, which doesn't really know what it is supposed to do, like some Japanese anime characters don't know which gender they are trying to be: it's a mix of a turret ship without turret bonuses (and often ends up with autocannons fitted, the blasphemy), but also is a drone ship for its drone bonuses, while lacking the bandwidth or bay to support this claim. Some examples to solve this could be to turn the Drake in line with the Caracal and Raven in term of role, as a heavy offensive medium range missile platform, and to turn the Myrmidon into a proper drone ship. That would also help having a consistent, logical progression line between the cruiser and battleship roles as well, if we are careful not having the larger versions override the smaller ones.
As for point one you are nuking the drake from orbit instead of giving those craft better roles and buffs that makes them viable? Wut? No thanks fix them instead.
Odd roles? It is the most balanced craft in game. Make it in line with the Raven? WHAT?! Because a higher end ship is fail you want to unbalance the lower end version because "misery loves company?"
CCP Ytterbium wrote:But why so serious? Let's put a smile on these faces.
There are a lot of ships that needs to be looked into and were not mentioned here: they evolved, they rebelled and they have a planGäó. If all goes well, expect a blog to come out soonGäó.
You are out to nuke a ship that many have spent month after month training and you want us to smile and not take it seriously. Have you learned nothing from Incarna?
Please just remove this completely from the dev time. It is nuking the drake from orbit because people are screaming that they can't use their Alpha fleets to kill it in one volley. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:01:00 -
[20] - Quote
jolas apt wrote:I won't smile until I get a refund of my heavy missile skill points.
I would want just about all my missile and shield skills refunded to me in this crap actually go through. Because I know the Tengu is next. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
566
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
WisdomLikeSilence wrote:im 8 years in the game and can fly any race well or at max skills (barirng supercaps) for every combat ship, so it no longer makes any difference to me which race they boost or which they nerf: Im not biased toward any of them.
Having said that, the Drake is all too prevalent in fleet makeups. It does everything very well, and requires very little isk to purchase.
If CCP is all about maximising the diversity in the game, then drakes need their enormous tanks downgraded a little.
Ya you arent biased at all. Are you? 
Btw while we are at it. Lets give newer players a "get well in half a decade" card while force feeding them moon goo.
Nullsec alliances must be jumping for joy right now. CCP is about to remove one of the biggest nemesis to their recruiting of virtual slaves to defend moon goo. Ability of newer pilots to run PVE or small gang warfare. Sign here and off to the arty training! Cant fly one? Well just use whatever POS we have back at home to rat at 100 percent corp tax to fund our good ole boy logi club.
This is a gift to huge alliances and a slap to the face of newer players. As well as a baseball bat to the face of people who actually do things right in eve and train subskills before ship.
This change does NOT need to happen. CCP leave the drake alone!
|

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
566
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:42:00 -
[22] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:can i point out that reducing the tank and increasing the gank on a drake isnt exactly a nerf
that ship had plenty of tank, it can spare a little bit
also, STFU about nulsec alliances and your batshit insane conspiracy theories
#1 this isn't going to be a "little bit" nerf. Removing the resist bonus will gut its ability to tank anything other than Kinetic. That will destroy its Lvl4 ability right there.
#2 CCP went to the CSM FIRST instead of the community about this load of crap. They need the green light from a bunch of nullsec players before they can even talk to us about it? This should have been posted the moment it arrived as in idea at the office so we could have said it was a terrible idea then instead of now. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
566
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:02:00 -
[23] - Quote
The CSM does not exist to be a good ole boy club to greenlight BS that CCP does. They completely and utterly failed to stop CCP's head dive into incarna and greenlighted this POS despite many in the community that oppose it.
Now we have to do this months later when this could have been put on the shelf months ago and focus put on the CSM talking about stuff that needs to be NDA for now. Drake nerfs are nothing to NDA unless of course you want to try to rush them in before the community can react. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
567
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:27:00 -
[24] - Quote
Kingwood wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:can i point out that reducing the tank and increasing the gank on a drake isnt exactly a nerf
that ship had plenty of tank, it can spare a little bit
also, STFU about nulsec alliances and your batshit insane conspiracy theories #1 this isn't going to be a "little bit" nerf. Removing the resist bonus will gut its ability to tank anything other than Kinetic. That will destroy its Lvl4 ability right there. #2 CCP went to the CSM FIRST instead of the community about this load of crap. They need the green light from a bunch of nullsec players before they can even talk to us about it? This should have been posted the moment it arrived as in idea at the office so we could have said it was a terrible idea then instead of now. Noone cares about your missions.
Oh nullsec alliances care. Lvl4 missions and incursions means newer players have a choice in EVE that isn't being fodder for moon goo. It means their own players can log in alts to avoid BS CTAS.
The Drake was a thorn in their moon goo encrusted side now once this crap goes through they can be removed from the field both on and off. And go back to the KM generating alpha spree.
|

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
568
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:30:00 -
[25] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:The CSM does not exist to be a good ole boy club to greenlight BS that CCP does. They completely and utterly failed to stop CCP's head dive into incarna and greenlighted this POS despite many in the community that oppose it.
Now we have to do this months later when this could have been put on the shelf months ago and focus put on the CSM talking about stuff that needs to be NDA for now. Drake nerfs are nothing to NDA unless of course you want to try to rush them in before the community can react. You know, i think you are about 2 months too late on this whole 'hate on CSM' deal. The current CSM have handled the previously self destructive urges of CCP quite well i think, and we are currently headed towards the most brightest future EVE has known for quite some time. Also, tell me why you are so mad about them exchanging some of the Drakes tank for gank. There is literally nothing to complain about here, so stop trying.
The CSM does NOT deserve credit for stopping CCP. It was the community doing mass unsubs and protests that did it. CSM went there to say the same thing the forum was saying.
The CSM should be there to present ideas and thought. Not be a traffic light for CCP ideas that could benefit their moon goo and power them through CTAs.
CCP should present their ideas to US the players first. THEN the CSM should remind CCP on what CCP can clearly read on the forums if needed. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
568
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:41:00 -
[26] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:i hate to be so droll, but post with your nulsec main and then we'll see if you qualify as an authority on the matter
also, stop the bullcrap about missions and incursions. Only a fool would take a Drake into either.
No thanks.
As for you 2nd point I read it as "YAHHH F THE NEW GUYS! Join my alliance"
Besides CCP can spend two seconds and know who I am and know I have plenty of experience dealing with bullcrap nullsec politics. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
568
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:47:00 -
[27] - Quote
Train for a Tengu? Are you playing EVE online? How on earth are they supposed to afford A Tengu.
Ohhh I see now. Maybe they will earn enough in nullsec to get one between defending moon goo on multiple CTAs in the same day.
+1 Huge alliances. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
569
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
You do realize that then the same exact excuse that they will use to nerf the drake can and will be used to nerf the Tengu right? |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
569
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:03:00 -
[29] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:You do realize that then the same exact excuse that they will use to nerf the drake can and will be used to nerf the Tengu right? I've already stated that Caldari should be rebalanced as a whole rather than a single ship.
Wow so not only should we nuke the Drake from orbit. Lets drag up all the nukes ever made and nuke an entire in game race.
BRILLIANT! |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
569
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:11:00 -
[30] - Quote
It is a huge nerf for a great many that actually use them. The newer players as their first real ship. For the same players that decide THAT is the ship they are going to fly well.
I and many others see that as a nerf. A bit more HAM or HM range is meaningless when your drake melts. |

Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
569
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:13:00 -
[31] - Quote
Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:dose any one even relise that the drake was and is the problem it breakes the mold, its the deffence of the Caldari gun boats with the mids of our sheild boats. I can't wait for my drakes to get this well needed damage boost! ROF on a BC till now thats been a BS and up thing. Hi-sec mission runners you can do the exact damage you need at ranges to far for the NPC's to fight back from and 25%ROF is more that 25%dammage to one type. Low sec PvPers HAM's any one? I like the idea of going toe to toe with canes  null sec get back in your tempest, why were you even in drakes before? Oh ya every one can fly them.
You don't run missions do you.
By the time your burn out of range you will be destroyed. |
|
|