Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
109
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 21:12:00 -
[121] - Quote
Quote:You think that by calling people names and insulting them untill they stop talking to you, you are WINING a debate. No, I think I'm winning the debate by completely blowing your flawed, newbish argument out of the water. Insulting you is just a bonus.
My (somewhat justified) slurs on your intelligence and skill in no way invalidate the points I've made (and you've ignored). The Drake is head and shoulders above other BCs, it is incredibly blob-friendly, and the change will not nerf it into brokenness. These are facts. |
Korg Tronix
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
40
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 23:14:00 -
[122] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:Numbers can show anything.
Changing the way those numbers are presented tells a whole different story:
Minmatar: 308695 Caldari: 210891 Amarr: 119615 Pirate: 14129 Gallente: 11781
To me, that says Winmatar are over powered and Gallente are under powered.
I would look at ways to nerf Winmatar in general,(probably a small nerf to autocannons) and a buff to Gallente (possibly speed?)
Give it a few months and then see how it shakes out.
That shows me that Minnie and Calgary are used more in blobs and Gallente are more small gang Evil: If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One! [zaps one of his minions accidentally, minion screams] http://themabinogion.blogspot.com/ |
Katalci
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 05:31:00 -
[123] - Quote
The Drake is fine as it is -- just because many people are flying it, it doesn't mean that it's a problem.
Korg Tronix wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:Numbers That shows me that Minnie and Calgary are used more in blobs and Gallente are more small gang Your post shows me that you are an idiot. |
Korg Tronix
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
40
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 10:30:00 -
[124] - Quote
Katalci wrote:The Drake is fine as it is -- just because many people are flying it, it doesn't mean that it's a problem. Korg Tronix wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:Numbers That shows me that Minnie and Calgary are used more in blobs and Gallente are more small gang Your post shows me that you are an idiot.
I think you misunderstood, all those numbers show is on top of the small gang use for the Minnie and Caldari ships they array used loads in blobs as well (whelp canes, drake fleets etc.) this skews the numbers heavily as 100 drake killing a single ship will add 100 to that number of Caldari kms. Its flawed statistics and in no way shows what is op just what the latest fleet fotm is.
Also my phone autocorrecting caldari to Calgary every time I use it is effing annoying Evil: If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One! [zaps one of his minions accidentally, minion screams] http://themabinogion.blogspot.com/ |
shadowace00007
Beyond The Gates
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 11:37:00 -
[125] - Quote
Its not broken. its working properly.
why there are so many drake kills is because.... They are EVERYWHERE!
That is all.
Born Amarrian Raised Minmatar. |
Vala Kyrija
LUX Uls Xystus LUX aRe us
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 11:49:00 -
[126] - Quote
In my opinion those drake changes are the worst idea in eve ever. Why do all ships have to be the same?
I like the drake because it can tank. I'd keep on liking it if it did less damage. But if it does more damage and tanks less i couls just as well fly every other BC.
I like it if differen ships are different. I hate it if everything has to be made similar, just with different skins.
The caracal sucks, the raven sucks, all those tank by dps suck in my book. While I own a variety of ships including faction BS I use my Nighthawk to fly missions and the nighthawk or drake for trips to low or WH space because they can tank stuff.
Please don't start what killed other mmos --> by taking the differences away. |
Bearilian
Man Eating Bears
78
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 12:54:00 -
[127] - Quote
My vote goes to Nerfing less. i do support leaving the drake mostly alone, but i dont like the talk of changing the cane. that would be a sad day indeed. what i would really like is for ccp to spam us with ships so there is to great of a selection for people to complain about unbalance, because there would be to much. but i realize how this would probably get out of control and might destroy ingame mechanics. soo... lets focus on more innovative aspects of gameplay, to utilize the limited ccp man power we have.
(and as far as them trying to make the drake "like" another ship, thats just weak. lets make it, "different" if anything...)
|
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
110
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 15:18:00 -
[128] - Quote
Quote:but i dont like the talk of changing the cane. Awwww, does the little winmatar pilot not want his pwnmobile nerfed?
And regarding the drivel about how they should be making the Drake different - they are. With this change, it would be more than just an upgraded, missile spewing Ferox. |
Spugg Galdon
Mak Mining Corp
31
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 15:53:00 -
[129] - Quote
On many occasions Duchess Starbuckington and I have been in disagreement over certain topics.
However, we seem to be of the same opinion that this is (more of) a BUFF for the Drake and not (that bad) a nerf.
I would like to see the Ferox receive a slight buff in the form of +1 turret (not high slot) and to swap some CPU for PG. Then it would be a worthy PvP option.
|
Markus Reese
Debitum Naturae White Noise.
12
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 17:05:00 -
[130] - Quote
Read the original thread, didn't read the replies, tl:dr all of that.
Anyways, my two bits. The drake tank, isn't the resists or the missiles, blah blah blah, the only reason it's "Tank" is so strong is the amount of passive resistance it can get due to the base shield recharge rate. Now that is the one thing about it that is off balanced. The recharge rate was or is a bit higher than other ships default, I haven't looked in a while or maybe made my calculations were incorrect. But this means that by fitting the exact same shield modules as any other ship, it will have superior defences. Take a raven with hardeners, dual LSE, etc. It's passive recharge rate is less because the base hp's are about the same to a drake with the same shield hp, but less recharge rate.
Now that being said, that is the problem with all of the passive shield ships. Not the shields, not the ships, but the LSE. What is needed is the recharge rate for an LSE and the CFE rig need to modify the recharge rate. The way to do this would be instead of the recharge rate being time based, it actually needs to be a rate. Get rid of the 12k hp in 1000 seconds or whatever. Make it peak recharge (30% sheild) of 10hp/s So if you got 500k hp of shield, you still recharge the same. This puts it on par with armor ships in small gang. Large fleet warfare, primaries are not alive enough for recharge to matter.
This might require other tweaking. I would need to look it up, but I believe the shield extenders don't give an hp bonus matched to their armor counterparts, and if so, that would need to be tweaked to give an increased hp bonus. We cannot nerf something because it is popular we need to look at the whole of the design. In the case of the drake, it isn't the ship itself, but the extender.
Personally, I like the drake. But I don't fit the extremely high double LSE/relay fit for small gang. When I am only with a few people, I prefer a higher damage output fit. Typically one LSE/resists, and the mwd/point. for mids. Offensive, a ham drake can put out excellent dps. Not worrying about a high recharge, suddenly I have lowslots. This can allow for a pair of BCU, and the other slots for maybe a pair of nano on the ham drake and/or pds for more powergrid, dcu, kinda depends on my mood. Haven't flown it in a while cannot remember my fit off top of head.
Point is, that this fit is quite fun, and effective. It also doesn't have the massive dps/passive tank in small scale pvp that makes the drake get called O/P
Anyways, final words, Fix passive recharge, not drake. |
|
XXSketchxx
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
170
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 17:14:00 -
[131] - Quote
Seriously, anyone that thinks this is a nerf is a moron.
Sure the tank will no longer be >80k, but ffs it will be a sick, cheap and effective HAM brawler. If you can't see this, then you either A) only fly it for lvl 3 missions or B) have only ever used it in a big gang at long range or C) are an idiot or D) some combination of A, B, and C. |
Rune Scorpio
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 17:46:00 -
[132] - Quote
I dunno if the drake needs to be balanced. I think the issues that need addressing here are passive shield tanking issues. A drake shouldnt be capable of 100k passive tank or a 350/sec passive regen tank. That makes things unbalanced IMO. 0 cap spent no speed lost and low slots to push out dps makes armor tanks crap for fleets unless they are bait. Rebalancing the armor tanks against shield tanks would make people use a larger variety of ships. Also the op has a point. 13 minmatar ships in the list... thats a sure sign of unbalanced game design. The drake is good because its got an actual tank and *MISSILES* they hit and do damage irregardless. Any rookie can hit f1 and orbit at 20. Guns miss and lose out on dps. They get outranged easily. Also as far as I can see majority of fleets are using the LOLCANE cus its so damn fast. It outruns all other bc's and outranges gun bc's with good dps. IMO cane needs a rebalance. That or more buffs for amarr and gallente bc's. Even with shield tanks amarr and gallente are both still too slow to catch canes easily and with crappy range comparison... yeah
If theres gonna be ANY battlecruisers nerfed I say speed drop for drake and cane. Or a lower shield tank because they are so damn fast. Wont do much for fleets, but it might balance the numbers from small gang warfare. |
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe R.E.P.O.
34
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 18:05:00 -
[133] - Quote
Ok, lets assume that these changes go through and lets do some reducto ad absurdum stuff.
Giving the drake a velocity bonus for missles will gave HAMs a long range and give HMLs an even longer range. Drakes can easily get 120km+ missile range at this point, pushing them further into the nanofleet roles, and close to 150km with rigs. Is this desired? HAM drakes will have a 30km+ range which is a lot, and spit out even more DPS.
Changing the 5% kinetic bonus to a Rate of Fire bonus will add a lot more DPS to drakes. I know several people use EM missiles vs. known shield fleets simply because the resist holes for EM are much larger than kinetic for T1 Shield ships.
As far as tanking, people will most likely compensate the loss of resists with another resist mod and lose a tackle mod or whatnot.. |
Bearilian
Man Eating Bears
78
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 19:15:00 -
[134] - Quote
let me repost what i was trying to say, as it seemed some people didnt comprehend the thought. its not about leaving overpowered ships on the top. rather than nerf something, which only creates animosity to the pilots of those ships, buff other ships to create the ballance you want. as far as drake goes, i do see your guys point about passive regen, but i dont feel making such a drastic change would be a good thing. Id rather just straight up see another ship, if they are trying to change its role in anyway.
personally i disagree with most peoples arguments of ships being over powered which somehow unbalance the game. its not like you cant train to fly it yourself. if you dont like your race, why did you choose them? I'm all for having ccp design a gellente and/or an amarr bc overpowered in their own way. I say things are too even, and should be more diverse. |
XXSketchxx
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
170
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 20:00:00 -
[135] - Quote
Bearilian wrote: personally i disagree with most peoples arguments of ships being over powered which somehow unbalance the game. its not like you cant train to fly it yourself. if you dont like your race, why did you choose them? I'm all for having ccp design a gellente and/or an amarr bc overpowered in their own way. I say things are too even, and should be more diverse.
diversity and balance are two different things
ships can be diverse and balanced |
Kyrplexa Insanitus
Psycho Tech Industries
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 21:24:00 -
[136] - Quote
I have to say... raw numbers never give the truth in-depth.
The drake is a strong candidate for pvp because it has a great slot layout, great bonuses for a tier 2 BC, and is easy for PvE players to switch into.
Ask yourselves this:
What do all of the other Tier 2 BC's have for bonuses? exactly.
When was the last time this ship was nerfed? k.
I mean, if you're going to argue that the ship shouldn't be nerfed, bring more to the table than a single list of kills. There is more at work in each kill involved than is stated, which can give people a biased decision.
CCP also nerfs ships on occasion and buffs them. Deal with it like everyone else. One niche ship should not stay niche forever. the minmatar ships work well in pvp because people simply don't have the patience to combat fast ships correctly (at least in my experience with fleet warfare).
All CCP really has to say is "The Drake does not follow the standards of Tier 2 Battlecruisers." and the nerf ensues.
-Personally, I don't want the Drake to be 'nerfed,' but realistically.... you have to have seen it coming eventually... people have been complaining about its capabilities for ages. |
Ramadawn
Quantum Cats Syndicate
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 01:27:00 -
[137] - Quote
Kyrplexa Insanitus wrote:I have to say... raw numbers never give the truth in-depth.
The drake is a strong candidate for pvp because it has a great slot layout, great bonuses for a tier 2 BC, and is easy for PvE players to switch into.
Ask yourselves this:
What do all of the other Tier 2 BC's have for bonuses? exactly.
When was the last time this ship was nerfed? k.
I mean, if you're going to argue that the ship shouldn't be nerfed, bring more to the table than a single list of kills. There is more at work in each kill involved than is stated, which can give people a biased decision.
CCP also nerfs ships on occasion and buffs them. Deal with it like everyone else. One niche ship should not stay niche forever. the minmatar ships work well in pvp because people simply don't have the patience to combat fast ships correctly (at least in my experience with fleet warfare).
All CCP really has to say is "The Drake does not follow the standards of Tier 2 Battlecruisers." and the nerf ensues.
-Personally, I don't want the Drake to be 'nerfed,' but realistically.... you have to have seen it coming eventually... people have been complaining about its capabilities for ages.
Glad to see this post generating this discussion.
With all the love/hate relationships people have the drake, this conversation was long overdue.
I also hope our vaunted CSM (and cpp) is reading this, because with so much disagreement with your unanomous vigorous support of this change. This thread shows decisively how OUT OF TOUGH our CSM is with the player base they represent.
At the very least they should have said that a LARGE portion of the player base will dislike this change. |
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
111
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 13:05:00 -
[138] - Quote
Quote:At the very least they should have said that a LARGE portion of the player base will dislike this change. Only the ones who suck at flying them. For the rest of us, this change is actually a huge buff. (Oh and the carebears flying them in level 4s I guess, but the Drake sucks at that anyway so this'll be doing them a favour.) |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1143
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 13:18:00 -
[139] - Quote
Just curious and slightly off topic here....
But where can I get my hands on a list like this for capital ship/super hulls? |
Ramadawn
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 23:02:00 -
[140] - Quote
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:Quote:At the very least they should have said that a LARGE portion of the player base will dislike this change. Only the ones who suck at flying them. For the rest of us, this change is actually a huge buff. (Oh and the carebears flying them in level 4s I guess, but the Drake sucks at that anyway so this'll be doing them a favour.)
A person's right to be properly represented is not invalidated by the flapping of your arrogent mount.
But once again, thank you for bumping this thread and keeping it active.
Seeing how active you are on these forums, I'd tell you to unplug from your computer, go out side, have sex or get yourself a girl friend or something...anything other that this piontless existence which you seem to lead...
but hey...your keeping my thread bumped so good job, carry on with the nice work.... |
|
Soldarius
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
141
|
Posted - 2012.01.29 23:27:00 -
[141] - Quote
With the proposed changes, why would you fly a Drake when you could fly a Naga? HAM kiting? wtf drugs are you people on? A Caracal could kill a HAM Drake with the proposed changes. HAMs only go about 20km currently. So you get an extra 25% range total, which is what an extra 50% velocity would give. Now you can hit at about 25km. Hooray. That's not kiting. That's spitting into the wind.
Caracal gets 50km with fricking standard missiles. 115km with heavies. Only 30km with navy HAMs, and that is with a 10% per level missile velocity bonus. So what do you think a 5% per BC level boost will do? Crap, that's what. Worse, HAMs don't do spit vs frigates. At least with heavies you can kill frigates.
Yes, I know. Drone bay.
Have any of you actually tried to fit a full set of HAMs and 2x LSE IIs on a Drake? It r4pes the PG so badly you have to pull 2x BCS for Reactor Control Units.
The entire concept of repurposing the Drake for some sort of aborted HAM kiting platform is so r3tarded I can't even begin to rage enough about it. "How do you kill that which has no life?" |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
91
|
Posted - 2012.01.30 03:18:00 -
[142] - Quote
I agree with the OP.
The drake is not over powered, it just is a good Caldari PvP ship. It does not do a whole lot of damage, but it can do consistent damage. The tank is strong, but usually needs active modules to make it strong.
Considering how many Caldari pilots there are, and how many hone the races skill for PvE, it is no wonder the ship is used in PvP the most.
Furthermore, the number of kills with the Drake has been on the decline. The hurricane has surpassed it in some months. Getting other ships in the #1 and #2 spot should be the real priority. Give the Mymidon back its 5 heavy drones and you would have a Gallente ship in those spots ASAP.
For the Drake to use HAMs it would need a complete overhaul. By the time the devs were done, it would no longer be a Caldari ship. |
Soldarius
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
141
|
Posted - 2012.01.30 05:33:00 -
[143] - Quote
Agreed. Complete overhaul would be required. And that is beyond the scope of tweaks/rebalance. It would be a completely new ship.
Also just want to clarify, I also do not support the nerfing of Drake. You get less dps in exchange for better tank. The damage projection is not a result of Drake being OP. But of missiles having better damage projection than turrets of the same size and category. That is by design. Working as intended.
If you want to make the Nighthawk more competitive, perhaps we should have cloaky command ships. Oh, wait. Tech 3s already do that. Oops. Left hand, meet right hand.
Other option is to either boost the Nighthawk's passive recharge or dps. Well, Nighthawk already ahs a better passive tank than the Drake, and that is with less modules. Its a command ship. So it doesn't get 7 launchers. If you want to get more dps, give it more launchers or a RoF bonus. Heck, give it the aforementioned all-damage-type bonus. Leave the Drake as is. Then the Nighthawk really will be better.
But wait! The Drake costs a fraction what the Nighthawk does, and it takes far less SP to fly. These two factors will always override what the Nighthawk can do. Risk vs Reward. There is no increased reward to flying an expensive command ship in PvE. And there is an increased risk because its bling. Perhaps what needs to be examined is why no one flies Nighthawks in PvP?
As far as the Drake doing everything too well, it's a battlecruiser! It's supposed to do that. Its only a measure of how crap the gallente and amarr BCs are that they don't get flown so much, except the Brutix for suicide ganks. But now even that has been eclipsed by the new Tier 3 BCs.
If the Drake gets its passive tank nerfed, it won't hurt its PvP activities at all. Most folks buffer fit Drakes. Yes, it'll lose s bit of EHP. But with logistics, it won't matter much. It will adversely impact all yon carebears up in highsec, which comprise 80% of your subscriptions.
I predict a lot of pissed subscribers if Drake gets nerfed.
"How do you kill that which has no life?" |
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
117
|
Posted - 2012.01.30 08:08:00 -
[144] - Quote
Ramadawn wrote:More baseless accusations and general bullshit /Yawn.
Quote:Now you can hit at about 25km. Hooray. That's not kiting. That's spitting into the wind. 30km actually, and that extra distance makes a lot more difference than you'd think considering missiles range is slightly less than on paper. The current 20km theoretical range is actually more like 18 or less vs a target that's moving.
Quote:Have any of you actually tried to fit a full set of HAMs and 2x LSE IIs on a Drake? No, because that's a hilarious lolfit. LSE + 2 invul is how you tank a Drake.
Quote:It does not do a whole lot of damage That's relative. When you get down to applied DPS, it's as ganky or more so than the other BCs (with the exception of a point-blank range Brutix) and that's with HAMs. At long ranges it leaves every other BC in the dust.
Quote:For the Drake to use HAMs it would need a complete overhaul. By the time the devs were done, it would no longer be a Caldari ship. Not really, no. It's a perfectly fine HAM ship as it is, and even more so with this change. The only thing it arguably needs is a 5% grid buff there. |
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
117
|
Posted - 2012.01.30 08:08:00 -
[145] - Quote
Quote:If the Drake gets its passive tank nerfed, it won't hurt its PvP activities at all. Most folks buffer fit Drakes ... You've seriously missed the point if you think this was a passive tank nerf. Know what also benefits from resists? Oh yeah, buffer. Said buffer has now been reduced from a completely absurd 80k to a more balanced 60. Hardly game-breaking. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
554
|
Posted - 2012.01.30 08:29:00 -
[146] - Quote
Drake is owerpowered in neeed to be balanced |
Mike Whiite
Progressive State
9
|
Posted - 2012.01.30 11:44:00 -
[147] - Quote
Ramadawn wrote:The following is an excerpt from the December 2011 meeting minutes:
[bSource: Eve Kill Top 20 ships in PVP
Rank Ships Kills 1 Drake 115829 2 Tengu 82773 3 Maelstrom 81285 4 Hurricane 68436 ....................
Those numbers by itself say almost nothing:
The only clear answer those figures give you is that 115829 ships were killed by ships that had at least one drake hull among them. ThatGÇÖs all!
We donGÇÖt know by how many different drakes they were killed, we donGÇÖt know how many PvP drakes are out there. We donGÇÖt know the skill sets of the players (Young low sp level player or veterans), we donGÇÖt know for certain if these where blob, small gang or solo kills. IGÇÖm not interested if this purposed change is a buff or a nerf, IGÇÖm more interested at the goal CCP and CSM try to reach by changing the Drake. Why does it need to change? Because it is used to much? Used to much for what? Mission running?, small gang PvP, large fleets? And what will happen when you remove the ability to use the drake for one of more of these purposes. Will it be replaced by another ship? Or will it be replaced by several other ships?
Personally I think the unbalance within EVE needs to be addressed on a larger scale. 1)Make Sisi 2 and do a full rescale/nerf of the entire fleet of ships, test them on both PvP PvE, run this test for 6 months and then nerf rescale the entire fleet at once during an expansion. 2)Make clear definitions on what ships and weapons system should be good at an stick with them.
This nerfing rescaling of ships and bonuses one at the time only shifts the over use of one ship to the next ship. And Play with the insurance possibilities, now the gap between a 100 million ISK drake that gets 30 million from insurance when shot down and a 350 million ISK Nighthawk without refund might be the bigger problem of people hardly using them or other ships in PvP than the abilities of the Drake.
|
|
ISD Eshtir
Community Communications Liaisons
56
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 19:33:00 -
[148] - Quote
Closed for cleanup. Will reopen the thread when finished. ISD Eshtir Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Obsidiana
White-Noise
91
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 21:35:00 -
[149] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:Ramadawn wrote:The following is an excerpt from the December 2011 meeting minutes: Source: Eve Kill Top 20 ships in PVPRank Ships Kills 1 Drake 115829 2 Tengu 82773 3 Maelstrom 81285 4 Hurricane 68436 .................... Those numbers by itself say almost nothing: Actually, those number do say something by themselves: all of those ships have high alpha strikes. The Tengu is, IMHO, an exception (I would like to know how many of those kills were in WS); it usually is lower in rank. The Maelstrom and Hurricane are definitely high alpha ships. Beyond that, we need more data. Let's take a look at some more numbers.
This month has already seen the Hurricane at the top spot. It is still early, but the Hurricane has beat the Drake before. Note the Abaddon, which also has nice alpha, is currently above the Tengu.
RankShipsKills 1Hurricane3913 2Drake3710 3Tornado2117 4Abaddon1577 5Tengu1561
My curiosity is this: how many of these Drakes are flown by low to mid range pilots? If the Drakes are acting as damage assist ships, then naturally younger players will tend to fly them. We have seen a lowering trend in the number of drakes flown. Don't believe me? Have look at around November of 2010, a much older month:
RankShipsKills 1Drake339383 2Hurricane107923 3Megathron86696 4Tempest72612
Yes, that is one third of a million kills for Drakes back them. As for the month before that:
RankShipsKills 1Drake228783 2Hurricane81233 3Zealot47443 4Megathron40535 5Tempest34198
That month is lower than the other one, but still shows that Drake usage is on the decline. What I would like to know is if this was before the first time the Drake was nerfed (shield recharge rate lowered). That would account for the decline.
Additionally, I think this is a sign that the Caldari lack a PvP battleship. With tech 1, PvP, Caldari ships capping out at the Drake (I seem to be only one who used a Raven out in 0.0 back in the day), it forces a high population of players into the ship. Let's not forget that some people are skipping BS training in favor of Tech 3 ships. That will keep players flying a Drake longer than you might expect.
Keep in mind a few key things:
- The most popular race for a character is Caldari, presumably for PvE reasons.
- The Caldari only have one decent PvP BS, the Raven, which is mainly a damage assist ship.
- That pushes a lot of Caldari focused players into the Drake.
IMHO, the past domination of the Drake has made it hated by many players. I believe the PvP failings of the race, combined with the PvE success of the race, are the cause of the high number of ships flown. That would account for why the Drake is flown so much and why it is hated so much. Still, I would like more numbers. |
Ares Renton
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 20:14:00 -
[150] - Quote
If the Drake is going to be changed to make it more "specialized"... why is its tank being taken away? The Drake's claim to fame was its tank and it blows my mind how the very people who designed it don't realize that.
It's just going to become some sort of ****** sibling of the Raven and Caracal after these changes. Heavy Missiles have a good range already, the extra range is useless to me. If it needs to be changed, I'd much rather have its resistance bonus doubled and damage bonus taken away. There, now it's specialized. (Not that it would make a difference anyways, I'd just drop a Shield Relay for a Ballistic Control Unit).
Hearing about this made me switch training into projectiles. Honestly, there's so few decent missile ships as it is, it's a bad idea to tinker with the ones that work. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |