EVE Search - I am bored of the battlecruiser nerf debate...

All Channels

Ships and Modules

I am bored of the battlecruiser nerf debate...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ris Dnalor Minmatar Four Rings Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.11 19:28:00 - [1] Edited by: Ris Dnalor on 11/11/2007 19:28:41 The following fittings are with my skills. These are on EFT and use the following implants. KVA1000, KYA1000, PG4. I never use more than 1 active hardner on a my 'passive' shield tanks b/c i want to have some ability to run the tank for a long time and some tank even if i am cap neutralized. These are pve setups designed to last defensively in pvp for a long time while waiting on help to arrive to save your buttox. Quote: DRAKE: DEFENSE: 868 dps(avg'd dmg types) DEFENSE W/ ZERO CAP: 661 dps OFFENSE: 333 dps CAPACITOR: runs forever with smartbomb off and for 16 minutes with smartbomb running. HIGH: 7x HML II (caldari navy scourge) 1x Sm Plasma Smartbomb II (vitally important to kill attacking pvp drones) MIDS: 3x LSE II 1x Magnetic Scattering Amp II 1x Heat Dissipation Amp II 1x Invuln II LOWS: 4x Shield Power Relay RIGS: 3x Core Defense Field Purger I DRONE: 5x Hobgoblin II Quote: MYRMIDON: (pre-nerf) DEFENSE: 788 dps DEFENSE W/ ZERO CAP: 551 dps OFFENSE: 572 dps CAPACITOR: runs forever with smartbomb off, and 15 minutes with sb active. HIGHS: 5x 650mm Artillery Cannon II ( rep fleet EMP) 1x Sm Plasma Smartbomb II (v. important as defensive weapon vs. pvp drones) MIDS: 4x LSE II 1x Invulnerability Field II LOWS: 5x Shield Power Relay II RIGS: 3x Core Defense Field Purger I DRONES: 5x Ogre II Quote: HARBINGER: DEFENSE: 715 dps DEFENSE W/ ZERO CAP: 537 dps OFFENSE: 311 dps CAPACITOR: Runs for over an hour with Smartie off and for 13 minutes with Smartie active. HIGHS: 7x 650mm Artillery Cannon II 1x Sm Plasma Smartbomb II MIDS: 4x LSE II 1x Invuln II LOWS 6x Shield Power RelayII RIGS: 3x Core Defense Field Purger I DRONES: 5x Hammerhead II Quote: HURRICANE: DEFENSE: 666 dps DEFENSE W/ ZERO CAP: 501 dps OFFENSE: 340 dps CAPACITOR: Runs forever without smartie and for 14 minutes with smartive active HIGHS: 4x 720mm Howitzer Artillery II (Rep Fleet EMP) 3x 'Arbalest' Heavy Missile Launcher I ( Caldari navy havoc missiles) (used named vs t2 b/c of cpu requirements) 1x Sm Plasma Smartbomb II MIDS: 3x LSE II 1x Invuln II LOWS: 5x Shield Power Relay II 1x Power Diagnostic II DRONES: 1x Hammerhead II 4x Hobgoblin II -- Talking in Circles is more dizzying than walking in them... Tralala
Ris Dnalor Minmatar Four Rings Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.11 19:38:00 - [2] Edited by: Ris Dnalor on 11/11/2007 19:40:10 the problem (If there is a problem) is in how LSE II's affect Battlecruisers. If LSE II's didnt fit on battlecruisers these ships would not tank like they can. The numbers above are straight from EFT. These ships won't tackle you if you attack them. if their damage is more than yours you will be able to warp away providing you don't stick around for too long while help comes. These fittings are either bait ( don't fall for it ) or they are missioners wanting to go about their business. they don't affect dynamics of pvp in the end. also these ships cost over 100m isk to fit properly and use expensive ammo and drones to achieve what they do. They are not 35m isk ships. the insurance return on these babies is not much better than t2 ships, b/c of the rigging and high end modules needed to make them work. Draw your own conclusions from the numbers above. but don't cry for a ship nerf when in truth these ship fittings only work b/c a battleship mod's fitting requirements allow it to be used en masse with battlecruisers. Perhaps CCP wanted a cheap platform for ppl to earn isk with. Perhaps it was a loophole in design that they did not forsee. And to those of you who are losing the damage advantage ( as seen above ) that the Myrm had over the other BC passive shield tankers, I do feel for you, as i can fly myrms as well. But it will bring their damage in line with the 300+ dps that these other ships can achieve without using cap. -- Talking in Circles is more dizzying than walking in them... Tralala
Iota Belisarius Ion Corp. Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.11 22:11:00 - [3] I stopped reading about the point where you started complaining caldari BC's were better shield tankers than the other ARMOR TANKING RACES. --------------------- Your sig is inappropriate. Please read the forum rules before reposting. -Tirg Sig jacked and nerfed in one day, just my luck.
Wrayeth Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.11 22:35:00 - [4] Edited by: Wrayeth on 11/11/2007 22:36:30 LSEs are needed for other ships, so a nerf to them would be a very bad idea. The huginn, rapier, and rook, for instance, generally get by on a single LSE. Take that away and they'll instantly pop the moment just about anything shoots them. P.S. WTF are you putting a shield tank on a hurricane? The ship isn't designed for it at all. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Fehnrail Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.11.11 22:36:00 - [5] Yeah, let's nerf Caldari. There is fighting, and then there is fighting: Some weapons are more useful than others, and not all battles must be won.
Ris Dnalor Minmatar Four Rings Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:00:00 - [6] Originally by: Iota Belisarius I stopped reading about the point where you started complaining caldari BC's were better shield tankers than the other ARMOR TANKING RACES. perhaps you should read more. Only thing i'm complaining about is that people are blaming a ship for something that is caused by a module. And in fact it's not a problem for me, but it is for some. I am merely clarifying the source of their concern. -- Talking in Circles is more dizzying than walking in them... Tralala
Ris Dnalor Minmatar Four Rings Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:03:00 - [7] Edited by: Ris Dnalor on 11/11/2007 23:05:34 obviously i overestimated the attention span of some of the posters that have responded. I don't want anything changed. I like to fly the current BC's. I can solo level 4's in my drake. I don't want to lose that. are you crazy? I don't have a problem with the way things work now. However, some people do. Their problem stems from LSE's going onto BC's in multiple numbers. I am pointing out the cause of the issue that they deem to be a problem, as most have mis-identified it as something else. Just because I don't want something doesn't mean I cannot discuss it. That isn't changed by the fact that other ships need LSE's as they are. BC's are still tanking better than BS b/c of the way LSE's work on BC. meh, if u can't be arsed to read the post then don't respond. you only make yourself look less intelligent than you are to those who did read the whole op. -- Talking in Circles is more dizzying than walking in them... Tralala
Ris Dnalor Minmatar Four Rings Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:08:00 - [8] Originally by: Wrayeth . P.S. WTF are you putting a shield tank on a hurricane? The ship isn't designed for it at all. To make a point. As you say it isn't designed for it at all yet it still puts forth a very good passive shield tank b/c of the LSE's. -- Talking in Circles is more dizzying than walking in them... Tralala
OneSock Crown Industries	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:10:00 - [9] The "problem" is the fundamental difference between Armor and shield. If you view Shield Extenders as a HP boost in the same way as say a 800mm plate, then there is really no problem with putting a "battleship" size mod on a smaller ship (provided grid/cpu are appropriate). The problem is that the 800mm plate gives nothing to armor rep rate. While the extra HP on the LSE boosts not only max HP but also shield recharge. Armor tanks just don't compare to passive shield tanks. Anyway, nerf caldari !
Ris Dnalor Minmatar Four Rings Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:21:00 - [10] well to be honest there is one other issue... I've always hated how ccp called the recharge 'rate' a flat number of seconds. if it were a true rate that would solve alot of issues as then the LSE's would no longer cause a faster recharge rate. I dunno how to simply express a rate, however, considering they treat the shields like a capacitor in terms of a variable recharge rate. the other option is for the 'rate' of recharge to stay the same when you fit LSE's which means it would take longer to recharge shields to full with the lse's, so a 10% increase in total shields would increase recharge time by the same amount. that would, however be such a dramatic change that it would break a lot more than it would ever fix i fear. -- Talking in Circles is more dizzying than walking in them... Tralala
Ilatius	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:24:00 - [11] It's easy an easy fix, nerfarize shield power relays, who really uses these except to passive tank?
08891	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:36:00 - [12] Repeat after me: LSEs are NOT battleship sized modules. The closest thing fitting/hp wise is an 800mm plate.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:41:00 - [13] Originally by: 08891 Repeat after me: LSEs are NOT battleship sized modules. The closest thing fitting/hp wise is an 800mm plate. Heavy drones are not battleship sized weapons. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
08891	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:43:00 - [14] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Heavy drones are not battleship sized weapons. Indeed.
Luke Lor'aul	Posted - 2007.11.12 00:31:00 - [15] Originally by: Ris Dnalor the other option is for the 'rate' of recharge to stay the same when you fit LSE's which means it would take longer to recharge shields to full with the lse's, so a 10% increase in total shields would increase recharge time by the same amount. incorrect, while it would take longer to recharge, the way shields, and capacitors work, is the more cap/shields there is, the higher the recharge rat is at peak. for instance, fit a cap battery on a ship. The peak recharge actually goes UP. Having full shields is not the goal of a solid passive tank. a solid passive tank tanks at 33% and stays there.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.12 01:55:00 - [16] A couple of things to remember: 1. Mid slots are more important than low slots (provably so). 2. Shield extenders trade actual HP for shield recharge 3. Shield extenders are designed for ships that are naturally low on PG A word about stack nerfing the shield recharge attribute: There were 7 modules (3 rigs, 4 SPR II's) dedicated to lowering the shield recharge rate (essentially using the 7 slots as a single un-neutralizable shield booster). Using your first setup as the test subject: 7x HML II 3x LSE II, Invuln, EM Amp II, Thm Amp II 4x SPR II 3x CDFP I It has 16680 HP, and recharges in: 1050 * .8 * .8 * .8 * .76 * .76 * .76 * .76 = 179.4 sec 223.2 HP/sec peak, 846 tankable (peak) averaged Stack nerfing shield recharge: 1050 * ((.8 * .8 * .8 * .76 * .76 * .76 * .76) ((1.0/7.0).25)) = 354.2 sec 113.0 HP/sec peak, 428 tankable (peak) averaged Well, it's pretty silly to keep stacking those modules on there like that, so let's try this out instead: 7x HML II 3x LSE II, Heat Amp II, EM Amp II, Invuln II 3x SPR II, DCU II 3x CDFE I Currently: 25368 HP, 460.9 sec recharge, 132 HP/sec (peak), 569 tankable (peak) averaged Post-nerf: 1050 * (.76 * .76 * .76 ((1.0 / 3.0) .25)) 25368 HP, 492 sec recharge, 123 HP/sec (peak), 530 tankable (peak) averaged So, you managed to cut the 13 slot Drake's tank from 1000+ tankable to 530 (max) tankable. Ships without a resist bonus will be even more screwed, and the Ferox is just SOL as an active or passive tanker. Well hell, that's really reasonable! Except for this: That's the best tank you're going to get on a shield tanking battlecruiser. Period. That's fine, right? Not really, because you've just removed passive tanking BC's from PVP entirely. This would be come "the passive tanking PVP Drake" 7x HML II, 2x LSE II, 2x Invuln II, Web II 3x SPR II, DCU II Current: 20378 HP, 460.9 sec recharge, 106.11 HP/sec (peak), 444 average (peak) tankable Post Nerf: 20378 HP, 492 sec recharge, 99 HP/sec (peak), 415 average (peak) tankable PROBLEM: Cruisers put out 415 DPS. Consider: 4x HP II, 3x FMP II (AN Multi) 10mn MWD II, J5 Disruptor, X5 Web, Sm Cap Booster (200's) 1600 RT, DCU II, EANM II, 3x HS II 3x Trimarks 5x Hammerhead II 62k eff HP, 408 Thermal, 351 EM, 759 Total DPS The above Drake has 91k eff HP to this harbinger, and 326 DPS tankable. Time until this harbinger (solo) killed the Drake: 66852.0 / (759.0 - 326.0 * 1.7 / 2.5) + 24157.0 / 759.0 = 156 seconds Time until this Drake (solo) killed the Harbinger: 178 sec The Harbinger wasn't even in armor yet. =( Consider: 6x Heavy Ion II (CN Antimatter) 10mn MWD II, Electrochem Cap Booster (800's), Disruptor II, Web II, Sensor Booster II 2x MAR II, 3x EANM II, DCU II 2x Aux Nano Pump, 1x Accel 2 Ogre II, 2 Hammerhead II, 1x Hobgoblin II 588 DPS, the Harbinger has to engage within web range, the Myrmidon is faster and has a bigger cargo hold for cap boosters. The Myrmidon has 45k eff HP, can tank 604 DPS of the gank Harby's 725 - constantly (not just at peak). TTP = 6217.0 (shields) / 759.0 + (39060.0 (armor + hull) / (759 - 604.0)) = 260 sec Harbinger pops in: 64255.0 / 588 = 109 sec What's the moral of this story? The Drake, with already vastly substandard damage, loses its only effective tank for the sake of gankers who want to complain that it takes more than 30 seconds to gank it. The Myrmidon, which has 5 mids for ewar/tackle/propulsion takes the bait tank role from it. That said, I don't condone the use of the full passive slot tank... it's a waste and rather insulting to take into a gang. Your slots are better used for ewar/tackle and damage mods (unless you're filling the bait tank role). Liang -- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU. Yarr?
Trishan Green Men Incorporated	Posted - 2007.11.12 02:11:00 - [17] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: 08891 Repeat after me: LSEs are NOT battleship sized modules. The closest thing fitting/hp wise is an 800mm plate. Heavy drones are not battleship sized weapons. Yes, yes they are. Heavy drones ARE battle ship sized weapons.
Naomi Wildfire Amarr Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire	Posted - 2007.11.12 02:47:00 - [18] Nerf Spammers, ever heard of editing posts?
DarkStar251	Posted - 2007.11.12 02:54:00 - [19] Edited by: DarkStar251 on 12/11/2007 02:54:11 Originally by: Trishan Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: 08891 Repeat after me: LSEs are NOT battleship sized modules. The closest thing fitting/hp wise is an 800mm plate. Heavy drones are not battleship sized weapons. Yes, yes they are. Heavy drones ARE battle ship sized weapons. Then capital sized drones are fighters so the moros needs to be boosted so that it uses them. I can't wait for my 5 Firbolgs with +250% dmg/hp!
Malaan Tabfassh Penguin Mining Operations and More	Posted - 2007.11.12 03:07:00 - [20] I lost a Drake in PvP yesterday, the fitting was near the one posted by the OP. I had no scrambler/webber fitted, cause I was doing some ratting for fun and it had gimped my tanking ability. Behind a gate there was a Sleipnir waiting and after a minute I made him run. When I had fitted tackling gear I don't think I had chance, cause he had eaten my shields like nothing. He got some friends and killed me an hour later. In this final fight I made a Hurricane run, but there was absolutely nothing I could do to prevent my death after this fight started. What I wanna say: Sure the drake can fit a very strong tank, but there is a price for that. So please don't complain and take a view from a larger scale.
Father Weebles	Posted - 2007.11.12 03:32:00 - [21] Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 11/11/2007 22:36:30 LSEs are needed for other ships, so a nerf to them would be a very bad idea. The huginn, rapier, and rook, for instance, generally get by on a single LSE. Take that away and they'll instantly pop the moment just about anything shoots them. P.S. WTF are you putting a shield tank on a hurricane? The ship isn't designed for it at all. Don't forget about the vaga. Decent fitted Huginns/Rapiers/Vagas use 2 LSE IIs. "You leave anything for us?" "Just bodies."
Atsuko Ratu Caldari Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2007.11.12 04:52:00 - [22] So what's the point in trying to nerf a near useless fitting? It has no tackle gear at all, so it can't solo and lacks use in any realistic gang. It can't mwd, point, web, or anything, so it just sits there and fires its 300 dps at anything within range, assuming it isn't being perma jammed by a single ecm or just damped by 1 or 2 damps. How is this a problem again? That isn't even much of a tank, a single gank BS "with max skills" can easily kill that, and so can 2 bcs, not like the passive tanked BC is ever going to kill you...
Wrayeth Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.12 06:29:00 - [23] Originally by: Father Weebles Don't forget about the vaga. Decent fitted Huginns/Rapiers/Vagas use 2 LSE IIs. D'oh! I knew I forgot something. I even (occasionally) fly my vaga, too. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Incantare Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.12 06:32:00 - [24] Originally by: Atsuko Ratu So what's the point in trying to nerf a near useless fitting? It has no tackle gear at all, so it can't solo and lacks use in any realistic gang. It can't mwd, point, web, or anything, so it just sits there and fires its 300 dps at anything within range, assuming it isn't being perma jammed by a single ecm or just damped by 1 or 2 damps. How is this a problem again? That isn't even much of a tank, a single gank BS "with max skills" can easily kill that, and so can 2 bcs, not like the passive tanked BC is ever going to kill you... But it doesn't die fast enough!
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.12 07:04:00 - [25] ôRepeat after me: LSEs are NOT battleship sized modules. The closest thing fitting/hp wise is an 800mm plate.ô They are very much battleship module and used to be battleships only. PG was lowered a little to make them work better on battelships and now BC and cruiser use them. For years LSE's where battleship only. ôI stopped reading about the point where you started complaining caldari BC's were better shield tankers than the other ARMOR TANKING RACES.ö Caldari are the active shield tankers the main passive shield tank race are Gallente. So Gallente should be best at passive tanking. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Incantare Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.12 07:24:00 - [26] I agree with Pottsey, LSEs are clearly battleship sized. That they had battleship level fitting reqs in the past says nothing. That they are useful on some battleship fits does not make them battleship sized.
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2007.11.12 07:34:00 - [27] Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 12/11/2007 07:34:39 ôI stopped reading about the point where you started complaining caldari BC's were better shield tankers than the other ARMOR TANKING RACES.ö Caldari are the active shield tankers the main passive shield tank race are Gallente. So Gallente should be best at passive tanking. Clearly. Thats why they have shield bonuses and more shield than armor. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.11.12 08:05:00 - [28] Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 11/11/2007 22:36:30 LSEs are needed for other ships, so a nerf to them would be a very bad idea. The huginn, rapier, and rook, for instance, generally get by on a single LSE. Take that away and they'll instantly pop the moment just about anything shoots them. And the Nighthawk. Preventing Command Ships from fitting LSE II would destroy its ability to passive tank. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
xiao chin	Posted - 2007.11.12 10:56:00 - [29] well wtf i say if its stops people from constantly whining then nerf the bloody LSE to death..oh btw i only use 1 on my drake..all i ever needed...and lets consider nerfing the way over power elite cruisers..
Eva Reedy	Posted - 2007.11.12 11:03:00 - [30] hmm way i see it is the elite cruisers are one step above cruisers and command ships are 1 step above BC's..so why is it that elite cruiser pilots think they should be co-equals with command ships..hmmmmmmm
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.12 11:07:00 - [31] ôAnd the Nighthawk. Preventing Command Ships from fitting LSE II would destroy its ability to passive tank.ö Caldari battlecruiser size ships where made to active tank not passive. Would it really hurt it to force it back to active tanking only like it was made for? It was only an accident they could passive tank. Not a planed change. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Horus Dark	Posted - 2007.11.12 11:08:00 - [32] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARBINGER: DEFENSE: 715 dps DEFENSE W/ ZERO CAP: 537 dps OFFENSE: 311 dps CAPACITOR: Runs for over an hour with Smartie off and for 13 minutes with Smartie active. HIGHS: 7x 650mm Artillery Cannon II 1x Sm Plasma Smartbomb II MIDS: 4x LSE II 1x Invuln II LOWS 6x Shield Power RelayII RIGS: 3x Core Defense Field Purger I DRONES: 5x Hammerhead II ----------------------- a harbinger with Artillery cannons and 5 mids?
DarK STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.11.12 12:26:00 - [33] Originally by: Pottsey ôAnd the Nighthawk. Preventing Command Ships from fitting LSE II would destroy its ability to passive tank.ö Caldari battlecruiser size ships where made to active tank not passive. Would it really hurt it to force it back to active tanking only like it was made for? It was only an accident they could passive tank. Not a planed change. Evidence that caldari aren't meant to passive tank? ECM was initially a gallente electronic warfare system too, suppose you'll be wanting that back too! Oh wait, that doesn't impact your gallente shieldtanking fetish!
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.12 13:53:00 - [34] "Evidence that caldari aren't meant to passive tank?" For years Caldari couldnÆt passive tank. When Caldari BC came out they where very rubbish passive tanks and where only active tanked. Proving they where made as active tank ships. Gallente where the ones who invented passive tanking and have did it for years longer then Caldari. Gallente also hold all the records like fastest recharge, most HP regen e.c.t During the hitpoint change to extend combat extenders where tweaked to work better on battleships. Due to an oversight passive tanking got a massive boost and this was when we started seeing Caldari passive tanks. Before then Caldari passive tanks where extremely rare you only had Gallente doing it. Going by the dev blogs of the time it wasnÆt planed to make Caldari passive tanks it was a mistake. Undo the extender change and passive tank will stop working on Caldari ships. The extender change wasnÆt for passive tanking it was to extend combat with hit points. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Atsuko Ratu Caldari Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2007.11.12 13:59:00 - [35] Originally by: Pottsey "Evidence that caldari aren't meant to passive tank?" For years Caldari couldnÆt passive tank. When Caldari BC came out they where very rubbish passive tanks and where only active tanked. Proving they where made as active tank ships. Gallente where the ones who invented passive tanking and have did it for years longer then Caldari. Gallente also hold all the records like fastest recharge, most HP regen e.c.t During the hitpoint change to extend combat extenders where tweaked to work better on battleships. Due to an oversight passive tanking got a massive boost and this was when we started seeing Caldari passive tanks. Before then Caldari passive tanks where extremely rare you only had Gallente doing it. Going by the dev blogs of the time it wasnÆt planed to make Caldari passive tanks it was a mistake. Undo the extender change and passive tank will stop working on Caldari ships. The extender change wasnÆt for passive tanking it was to extend combat with hit points. You're missing the main point though. Passive tanking is one of the most useless setups in game. It's tanking ability is worse than active setups, and it can't do anything else at the same time. So why does it matter? Making them harder to fit would nerf a lot more than just the drake that can't move. A lot of recons and some hacs require one to survive for more than 2 shots. Ever fly a falcon? The biggest irony though is your argument. CCP wanted to extend combat, and that's exactly what they did with the PG reduction. Now recons, hacs, and bcs have much more hp than they had before, effectivly increasing the length of combat.
Ms Belle	Posted - 2007.11.12 14:08:00 - [36] I find the point about uber passive tanks on caldari ships a little mute as in order to make an effective passive tank you give up all your mids/lows and rig slots. Now I am not sure about anyone else but that is one hell of a price to pay for a capless tank and what use is it in PvP when all the enemy has to do is ignore you. Lets look at the senarios: DEFENCE: Passive Tanked Battlecruiser ratting in a belt. Gets tackled by a hostile if the Ratting pilot is ignoring local. Attacking ship cannot break Passive Battlecruiser and the ratting ship has the same problem vs the attacker (unless the Ratting ship is tanked specifically against the rats it is hunting or is being pounded by a battleship spawn as well). Net result the attacker either gets friends to help or has NPC's do the extra DPS needed. Passive Battlecrusier jumps into a gatecamp... Need I say more its a brick with hitpoints and a tank. its going to die regardless as it is too fat and slow to escape. OFFENCE: Passive Battlecrusier with a roaming gang only has a use as extra DPS or as bait because of its tank. a canny fleet commander will have scouts or leave the Battlecruiser till last. Fleet battles. the passive battlecruiser is only really useful as an antisupport ship but not great at it. its ok but for the cost you might of well brought a sniper fitted Mega and be more useful. so in summary I see no need to nerf the ship. It has enough drawbacks built in to justify the impressive tank.
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.12 14:42:00 - [37] öPassive tanking is one of the most useless setups in game. It's tanking ability is worse than active setups, and it can't do anything else at the same time. So why does it matter?ö I proved that wrong many times. Look at my hyper setup thread. Better tank, more range, better damage then the dual amour rep active tank. Passive tanks can do other stuff at the same time. ThatÆs a stupid myth thatÆs not true about then doing nothing else. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Neon Genesis The Landed Gentry	Posted - 2007.11.12 14:53:00 - [38] There is no problem with passive tanking and drakes. The tanks are extremely good but the dps is awful. Not a good balance considering the current climate. _
Matiaj	Posted - 2007.11.12 15:24:00 - [39] Edited by: Matiaj on 12/11/2007 15:35:46 Originally by: Pottsey Look at my hyper setup thread. Better tank, more range, better damage then the dual amour rep active tank. Passive tanks can do other stuff at the same time. ThatÆs a stupid myth thatÆs not true about then doing nothing else. Your hyperion setup has no damage mod, no propulsion mod, and no tackle at all. So yeah, it does absolutely nothing except crap dps, and is basically useless in PvP. Which is exactly what we're saying. Thanks for confirming that.
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.12 16:20:00 - [40] ôYour hyperion setup has no damage mod, no propulsion mod, and no tackle at all. So yeah, it does absolutely nothing except crap dps, and is basically useless in PvP.ö Your wrong. 3 damage mods and room for propulsion. No tackle as its not needed as my gang mate would do it. Why would it do crap DPS with 8 of the largest weapons and 3 damage mods? Passive shield tanking guide click here
haniblecter	Posted - 2007.11.12 16:51:00 - [41] Originally by: Ris Dnalor Edited by: Ris Dnalor on 11/11/2007 20:56:35 The following fittings are with my skills. These are on EFT and use the following implants. KVA1000, KYA1000, PG4. I never use more than 1 active hardner on a my 'passive' shield tanks b/c i want to have some ability to run the tank for a long time and some tank even if i am cap neutralized. These are pve setups designed to last defensively in pvp for a long time while waiting on help to arrive to save your buttox. Quote: DRAKE: DEFENSE: 868 dps(avg'd dmg types) DEFENSE W/ ZERO CAP: 661 dps OFFENSE: 333 dps CAPACITOR: runs forever with smartbomb off and for 16 minutes with smartbomb running. HIGH: 7x HML II (caldari navy scourge) 1x Sm Plasma Smartbomb II (vitally important to kill attacking pvp drones) MIDS: 3x LSE II 1x Magnetic Scattering Amp II 1x Heat Dissipation Amp II 1x Invuln II LOWS: 4x Shield Power Relay RIGS: 3x Core Defense Field Purger I Wow, thats some compelling information there Ris. TOo bad you have NO TACKLING MODULES. So, that's an entirely unpractical fit for anything but gangs. And in all honesty, who cares if a 333dps drake has a super tank, just means the opposing gang will kill you last, *****.
haniblecter	Posted - 2007.11.12 16:56:00 - [42] Originally by: Pottsey ôYour hyperion setup has no damage mod, no propulsion mod, and no tackle at all. So yeah, it does absolutely nothing except crap dps, and is basically useless in PvP.ö Your wrong. 3 damage mods and room for propulsion. No tackle as its not needed as my gang mate would do it. Why would it do crap DPS with 8 of the largest weapons and 3 damage mods? Oooh, so you have a gang mate. So this isnt a 'solopwnmobile' whine? Well that's funny, who cares what combination of ships might be good, its still 2x ships vs. one in your arguement, and that should almost always trump 1 ship in labratory like settings, as you and most all EFT ******s argue. And to stop your next logical argument right now, "But what if we're fighting 2x ships", who fricking cares. Those two ships, assuming they're flying together with a plan, like your drake and his lame friend, are probably going to be using an ever more powerful combination, like a huginn and lachesis. So in the end, Ill only really respect solopwnmobile whiners (maringally more mind you) if you have a valid 1v1 OP'd statement that also recognizes that you need to at least be able to put 1 point on them.
Matiaj	Posted - 2007.11.12 17:04:00 - [43] Edited by: Matiaj on 12/11/2007 17:06:47 Originally by: Pottsey Your wrong. 3 damage mods and room for propulsion. No tackle as its not needed as my gang mate would do it.Why would it do crap DPS with 8 of the largest weapons and 3 damage mods? Sure, and now that you have 3 lowslots used for damage mods, and 1 medslot used for a mwd (and an injector would be wise too), your Hyperion can't tank for crap.
Terianna Eri Amarr STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.12 17:10:00 - [44] Originally by: Pottsey ôAnd the Nighthawk. Preventing Command Ships from fitting LSE II would destroy its ability to passive tank.ö Caldari battlecruiser size ships where made to active tank not passive. Would it really hurt it to force it back to active tanking only like it was made for? It was only an accident they could passive tank. Not a planed change. Okay. I think we should then nerf every gallente ship that fulfills a role for which it was not initially designed. How bad could it be? Get off your high horse; Gallente shouldn't be the only race that can get an effective tank via hitpoints and recharge. __________________________________
08891	Posted - 2007.11.12 17:14:00 - [45] Originally by: Pottsey ôRepeat after me: LSEs are NOT battleship sized modules. The closest thing fitting/hp wise is an 800mm plate.ô They are very much battleship module and used to be battleships only. PG was lowered a little to make them work better on battelships and now BC and cruiser use them. For years LSE's where battleship only. ôI stopped reading about the point where you started complaining caldari BC's were better shield tankers than the other ARMOR TANKING RACES.ö Caldari are the active shield tankers the main passive shield tank race are Gallente. So Gallente should be best at passive tanking.
Atsuko Ratu Caldari Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2007.11.12 17:25:00 - [46] So you brag about your uber passive tank because you can deal average dps with an above average tank, while having no tackling gear? And it is somehow more effective than a armor setup? Have you actually compared a no-tackling, no-mwd armor tanker against that flying rock? Probably not. You know what would happen in that gang fight? The tackler would be ECMed and whoever you attack will just warp out. All your allies will be killed and your tank would break against the average gang pretty quickly. There is no point bragging about a setup that can't even move or keep something still.
JamnOne Amarr	Posted - 2007.11.12 17:49:00 - [47] Originally by: Ris Dnalor Edited by: Ris Dnalor on 11/11/2007 20:56:35 Quote: HARBINGER: DEFENSE: 715 dps DEFENSE W/ ZERO CAP: 537 dps OFFENSE: 311 dps CAPACITOR: Runs for over an hour with Smartie off and for 13 minutes with Smartie active. HIGHS: 7x 650mm Artillery Cannon II 1x Sm Plasma Smartbomb II MIDS: 4x LSE II 1x Invuln II LOWS 6x Shield Power RelayII RIGS: 3x Core Defense Field Purger I DRONES: 5x Hammerhead II No Self Respecting Amarrian will put LSE on a Harb or any other Amarrian Ship! We are Armor tank. Now that is out of the way - something you need to remember - A battlecruiser is part BS and part Cruiser. So it can't use heavy guns but it can use heavier tanking modules. These heavier tanking modules increase the sig radius of the ship making it easier to target and they also slow the ship down. Don't look at your skills and how you can setup a ship. Look at the other players skills and how they can rip into any ship you throw at them. If you think I am wrong for this statement, take all 4 of these ships to 0 I am sure there are a few pilots who would be more than willing to give you a lesson about tanking and throwing damage. ________________________ Originally by: CCP Prism X Hah! Vengeance is sweet!
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:04:00 - [48] ôOooh, so you have a gang mate. So this isnt a 'solopwnmobile' whine? Well that's funny, who cares what combination of ships might be good, its still 2x ships vs. one in your arguement,ö You donÆt have to have a gang mate and I wasnt thinking 2v1. I was pointing out no damage mod, no propulsion mod, and no tackle is not true. Saying the ships is useless as it has none is stupid. As it has some of that stuff. I donÆt solo apart from pre arranged battles which is why my setup is not a solo setup. When I spend 100% of my time in gangs why on earth would I fit as though I am solo? I was thinking more 2v2 or small gang v small gang. I find 1v1 very rare. Never happens apart from pre arranged battles or pirates hunting miners for easy targets. Passive tanks work best in gangs due to massive bonusÆs they get. ôThose two ships, assuming they're flying together with a plan, like your drake and his lame friend, are probably going to be using an ever more powerful combination, like a huginn and lachesis.ö I donÆt fly Caldari ships, so no Drake. My point was Passive tanks are not useless as they are not 100% tanking, slow, no damage, no nothing else. I was only pointing out passive tanks dont have to use up 100% of slots on tanking. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:15:00 - [49] Edited by: Pottsey on 12/11/2007 18:27:17 ôAnd it is somehow more effective than a armor setup? Have you actually compared a no-tackling, no-mwd armor tanker against that flying rock? Probably not.ö Do you even bother to read my post? ItÆs not a flying rock that cannot move, it can fit tackling gear. I choose not to as itÆs not my job in my gang. ItÆs more effective then the amour version as it can fit more powerful weapons and have better range. ôThe tackler would be ECMed and whoever you attack will just warp out.ö Wait so if my target warps out and my target is the person doing ECM then my tackler is no longer locked down, what if my tackler locks him down first? If my target stays he is to focus on me dealing high damage. I have damage mods remember and the biggest battleship weapons fitted. ôSure, and now that you have 3 lowslots used for damage mods, and 1 medslot used for a mwd (and an injector would be wise too), your Hyperion can't tank for crap.ö With a web, microwarp, 2 damage mods I have over 23k hitpoints (without resistance) and 110 HP regen. How is that a crap tank? The hitpoints alone keep you alive with resistance for a while. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:19:00 - [50] Originally by: Pottsey ôSure, and now that you have 3 lowslots used for damage mods, and 1 medslot used for a mwd (and an injector would be wise too), your Hyperion can't tank for crap.ö With a web, microwarp, 2 damage mods I have over 23k hitpoints (without resistance) and 110 HP regen. How is that a carp tank? The hitpoints alone keep you alive with resistance for a while. Consider what a basic plate tank will get you - 100k hp, 3x damage mods, and cap/tackle/mwd/everything. It really is a carp tank. (ha ha, get the pun?) Liang -- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU. Yarr?
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:29:00 - [51] öConsider what a basic plate tank will get you - 100k hp, 3x damage mods, and cap/tackle/mwd/everything.ö Can you show me this setup on a hyper? I donÆt see how it could all fit without downgrade the railguns or something along those lines. So you can get over 100 HP/s regen, lots of hitpoints and everything else the passive tank has? Passive shield tanking guide click here
Serilla The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:29:00 - [52] Originally by: Ms Belle I find the point about uber passive tanks on caldari ships a little mute as in order to make an effective passive tank you give up all your mids/lows and rig slots. If you don't inject for an armor tank (ie passive cap recharge) you end up using all your mids, lows and rig slots for your tank too. __________________
Matiaj	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:37:00 - [53] Edited by: Matiaj on 12/11/2007 18:44:48 Originally by: Pottsey With a web, microwarp, 2 damage mods I have over 23k hitpoints (without resistance) and 110 HP regen. How is that a carp tank? The hitpoints alone keep you alive with resistance for a while. 90k effective hp, with 110 hp peak regen? Yep, that's a crap tank. A plated hyperion (not the best ship for the job) with 2 damage mods has 113k effective hp, can still fit a full rack of neutrons, and has three more medslots than you do. :/ Edit : lol, I thought you were speaking about 110 dps tanked, not 110 hp regen. 23k shield with 110hp regen? Are you not using any hardeners? This is getting ridiculous. -_-
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:47:00 - [54] I normaly use Inv feild(s). There was 1 fitted to the setup. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Matiaj	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:50:00 - [55] I can't get anywhere near your numbers without using implants. Care to share your setup?
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:58:00 - [56] Implants are fine. Lets say 100mill max on implants, does that sound reasonable? I see no reason why you couldnÆt have the 5% repair speed implant. Passive shield tanking guide click here
dAn melax Beyond Divinity Inc Terra Incognita.	Posted - 2007.11.12 20:20:00 - [57] Edited by: dAn melax on 12/11/2007 20:20:29 God ... stop whining and play the game ... adapt or die painfully Play Hard. Go Pro.
Graalum Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.12 20:22:00 - [58] Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 11/11/2007 22:36:30 LSEs are needed for other ships, so a nerf to them would be a very bad idea. The huginn, rapier, and rook, for instance, generally get by on a single LSE. Take that away and they'll instantly pop the moment just about anything shoots them. P.S. WTF are you putting a shield tank on a hurricane? The ship isn't designed for it at all. the vagacane? Your signature graphic must reflect your ingame persona as per The Forum rules - Kreul Intentions ([email protected])
Graalum Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.12 20:32:00 - [59] Originally by: Pottsey ôAnd the Nighthawk. Preventing Command Ships from fitting LSE II would destroy its ability to passive tank.ö Caldari battlecruiser size ships where made to active tank not passive. Would it really hurt it to force it back to active tanking only like it was made for? It was only an accident they could passive tank. Not a planed change. but it was intended that gallentee be allowed to passive take? Your signature graphic must reflect your ingame persona as per The Forum rules - Kreul Intentions ([email protected])
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.12 22:13:00 - [60] ôbut it was intended that gallentee be allowed to passive take? ö Well originally they could passive shield tank but not amour tank and 3 of the 4 shield recharge modules are low slot based. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Atsuko Ratu Caldari Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2007.11.12 22:26:00 - [61] Originally by: Pottsey ôThe tackler would be ECMed and whoever you attack will just warp out.ö Wait so if my target warps out and my target is the person doing ECM then my tackler is no longer locked down, what if my tackler locks him down first? If my target stays he is to focus on me dealing high damage. I have damage mods remember and the biggest battleship weapons fitted. Well I was trying to be fair and not ECM you, since it would totally destroy your setup (not to mention that a falcon could easly ECM both you and your tackler, if he has the right ECMs, which he does cause we're using the perfect examples here right?) If it was simply you and a tackler, you'd have no real chance of ever winning against the standard gank setup with a ECM frig with him.
Ulstan Caldari	Posted - 2007.11.13 02:03:00 - [62] There's nothing wrong with the LSE's fitting requirements, it's just that there is no battleship sized shield extender module. Shield tanking already suffers enough compared to armor tanking, due to the fact that fitting the necessary web/mwd/warp scrambler severely impacts your ability to tank. It certainly doesn't need to be made any worse.
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.13 07:02:00 - [63] ôWell I was trying to be fair and not ECM you, since it would totally destroy your setup (not to mention that a falcon could easly ECM both you and your tackler, ......ö Bit of a moot point really as in that situation the active tank would be totally destroyed just as much as the passive tank. How is that an advantage to the active tank version of my ship? Also I fail to see how me in a gank setup with an ECM frig friend is that different from someone else in an active tank setup and a ECM gank friend. You cannot have everything you have to choose something to lose even if your an active tank or passive tank. This is not something I would do but it would be very easy for my Domi PvP ship to fit anti ECM module(s) without much impact on the ship. DonÆt think I could git anti ECM onto my Hyper though not without lowering the turrets down to 350mm. There is no reason a passive tank cannot fit anti EW. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Miss Ion	Posted - 2007.11.13 07:22:00 - [64] sigh EFT reers its ugly head..look none of you seems to be taking sig radius into account when discussing LSE II.that leads me to believe at least some of you arm chair pilots have no clue as to what realy happens with "passive tanks". i've been there done that..i didn't sit for hrs fiddling with EFT to make a point..
Pottsey Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.13 07:33:00 - [65] I find once your sig goes over a certain point it makes no real difference. I have 485 base sig. I hardly thinking going to 525 or what ever it is will make much difference. Passive shield tanking guide click here
Tarron Sarek Gallente Endica Enterprises Alternative Realities	Posted - 2007.11.13 11:13:00 - [66] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 13/11/2007 11:15:57 Stacking penalty for Cap Power Relays and Shield Power Relays. There, problem solved. Decent non extreme setups will hardly suffer, if at all. Regarding sig radus - Sig radius is a laughable penalty to begin with. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters
Laughing Mime Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.13 12:04:00 - [67] I'm quite puzzled as to why you think 1 small smartbomb is good for drone defense. It will take a republic fleet small SB over 10 minutes to kill a myrm's Ogre IIs assuming he doesn't scoop. But then again you think artillery is a valid weapon choice for the Harbinger, continue playing EFT.
Ipos	Posted - 2007.11.13 12:35:00 - [68] Seriously, how daft are some of you? Why would you want to nerf the Drake's tank? Remove that and there's no reason to fly it at all, sure it's a 30mil ship with a BS tank but when you toss in thoose purgers you're suddenly looking at a very different cost. Drop the tank on the drake and it would need a complete redesign altogether. The Drake is a gang ship, not a solo ship and in gangs there are many just as viable BC's as the drake (myrm and cane beeing two) that ALSO excel at solo PvP. - Yes, please nerf Caldari.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Endica Enterprises Alternative Realities	Posted - 2007.11.15 02:42:00 - [69] Seriously, isn't it unnecessary to call names? The Drake can have decent DPS. You just have to fit BCS instead of Shield Power Relays in the lows.. It will never be the most damaging BC in the game, but it can do up to 589 DPS with a decent PvP fitting, still tanking more than most, if not all other BCs with a dmg fit. ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters
E Vile Fifth Exiled Legion SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.15 03:02:00 - [70] If anything add Extra Large Shield Extenders for BS. Quit crying nerf because passive shields are not overpowered. Besides, they already nerfed them.
VB Sarge	Posted - 2007.11.15 03:14:00 - [71] I still dont' see the issue. Sounds almost like the people crying to nerf the Drake tank are the ones not saying a word about myrmi or cane dps and tank. And everyone hates amarr anyways... Granted the Cane isn't the #1 choice for dps (might be after the patch) and the Myrmi loses damage past close range, the fact that they can fit gank and tank at the same time and still be effective is a testiment to how strong they are. Sure, they might not be able to go afk while tanking sentry guns, but they can sure as hell kill faster. LSE's aren't the issue here, it's people thinking EFT answers all questions, and like to put numbers together that really don't amount to anything. Your tank and DPS numbers are skewed in EFT by an unseen variable that all of you supposed EFT ninja's are missing... it's called reality, or at least as it pertains to EVE. Fly the ship, and I guarentee you wont see those numbers as concrete facts anymore. Enjoy undocking, it's actually kind of fun.
Shiodome Caldari Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.15 07:03:00 - [72] what the hell are people on about anyway, has everyone forgotten the drake has already recently been nerfed? (shield recharge). takes a lot of hard work and thought to make a drake useful in combat. compared to the "engage single brain cell - win" ships some other races have it's a long way off needing any kind of nerf for balance reasons. i mean come on, who seriously has a problem killing a drake anyway? if you come across a drake, it's got zero chance of escaping before your friend turns up, then it dies, with virtually no risk to most attackers... yeah, nerf that mofo hard. _____________________________________ today i am this cool: [uncool]================[*]====[cool]
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.11.15 07:58:00 - [73] Originally by: Pottsey ôAnd the Nighthawk. Preventing Command Ships from fitting LSE II would destroy its ability to passive tank.ö Caldari battlecruiser size ships where made to active tank not passive. Would it really hurt it to force it back to active tanking only like it was made for? It was only an accident they could passive tank. Not a planed change. Yes it would hurt. It would remove the Nighthawk's one saving grace IMO. It's damage output isn't too hot but at least right now it's a relaxing way to amble through missions. Not a major bread winner (unless you really push the skills) but less stressful. Destroy that ability and a lot of NH pilots will give up and switch to a CNR (and what happens to CCP's desired variety then?) or another command ship. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Bentula	Posted - 2007.11.15 09:07:00 - [74] Originally by: Shiodome Edited by: Shiodome on 15/11/2007 07:09:09 what the hell are people on about anyway, has everyone forgotten the drake has already recently been nerfed? (shield recharge). No the drakes shieldrecharge didnt get nerfed, all BC sized ships got nerfed including even the CS afaik. Also pottsey is correct that passive tanking is a gallente speciality. Unlike what people think passive tanking requires more lowslots than medslots while still keeping a critical number of medslots. And the gallente slot distribution is best suited for this, try to passive tank a raven and compare it to passive tanked domi to see what i mean. Also the reason gallente where born passive tanks is droneships. Gallente ships could fit undersized guns or nos in highslots to afford the huge PG drain of extenders while still doing decent dps due to drones. The only caldari ships that compare are those with a resist bonus, yet not even that is enough sometimes. What i dislike about extender setups is the fact that they have such a low fitting that people can fit huge buffertanks while still fitting largest weapons. Anyone who ever tried fitting plates on a harbinger will know what i talk about. People just look at the tankable dps and say its not that good if want any tackling. So what? Armortanks have fitted buffertanks with 0 tankable dps for years. I think ships should either have high hp buffer but bad tank, or good tank but bad buffer. And if ships are so bad that a passive tank is the only good setup, then that only shows that there is something wrong with those ships. No ship should be forced to fit a passive tank to be able to compete, for many reasons already laid out by the people defending the passive tanked drake. Im not saying nerf the drake or any other passive tanking ship, im saying those ships need to have a choice. Sandbox and stuff, you remember?
N1fty Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2007.11.15 09:29:00 - [75] Edited by: N1fty on 15/11/2007 09:31:29 Filling your medslots with shield extenders makes you about as threatening as a dead kitten. You can't tackle anyone, so your only use is as described above, PvE and PvP baiting. I'm not sure I see whats 'wrong'. Just because you post up a bunch of EFT numbers and say how overpowered these ships are, doesn't mean you don't sacrifice a lot to get that kind of tanking. ============================================
Shiodome Caldari Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.15 09:52:00 - [76] quit comparing ships and going "x ship has this, but y ship doesn't; therefore unbalanced" and instead look at how the ships work ingame, where it matters. drake: +tank -manouverabilty - gank - tackle any people are saying nerf the tank? okaaaaay you seriously think the drake would be better/'fairer' if you took away the HP buffer, and left if with 75%-80% resists, no gank, no speed. just lol. get your head out of EFT and the forums and look at the ships in the context of how they fly in real situations. _____________________________________ today i am this cool: [uncool]================[*]====[cool]
LiMu Bai RIMTECH Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.15 10:02:00 - [77] A fully tanked Drake can nothing, but tank. DPS, Agility, Speed are really bad. All Midslot-dependant options like Sensorboosting, E-War or tackling also are no way for a Drake. It also cannot regain its cap, due to the ultra-low recharge rate... So in a decent fight with alot of warping between Safespots, for instance, will cap-out a Drake really fast. A Drake with standart setup (tank), is just a horrible PvP-ship. So stop complaining. [url=http://hydraalliance.org/kb/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=17878] [/url]
Xaldor	Posted - 2007.11.15 12:04:00 - [78] This thread is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin, the fact a Myrm can passive shield tank comparable to a Drake is probably the major reason the nerf was incoming. Drake can be built to be a brick wall but it is hopeless at anything else. Now if you are not an idiot, you would be armour tanking a Myrm and while you wont get the same kind of tanking ability with T1/T2 modules you can get a sustainable 500+ tank allowing you to fit in ALL the PvP toys into the midslots. I just threw a pre-nerf Myrm together without a great deal of thought but it has a 500+dps tank, inflicts about 600dps and has a MWD, Web, Scrambler and 3 neuts. It doesn't matter if something has a better tank than what you can dps, whatever it is it is relying on cap to tank well, even if its a passive drake because you eliminate it's cap and it can't run invulnerability fields your 5 T2 Ogres will sodomize a Drake with a basic tank. This was the fundamental problem with the Myrm design. Had a ****load of mid slots for an armour tanker allowing you to utilise cap boosters and the PvP toys, it didn't need ANY guns at all for dps so you can load up with nos/neuts to just cripple the opposition. It was just too good, too much damage, too versatile in PvP. It was just light years better than any other BC.
Bentula	Posted - 2007.11.15 12:35:00 - [79] Originally by: LiMu Bai A fully tanked Drake can nothing, but tank. DPS, Agility, Speed are really bad. All Midslot-dependant options like Sensorboosting, E-War or tackling also are no way for a Drake. It also cannot regain its cap, due to the ultra-low recharge rate... So in a decent fight with alot of warping between Safespots, for instance, will cap-out a Drake really fast. A Drake with standart setup (tank), is just a horrible PvP-ship. So stop complaining. Come trinity half the ceptors have 29km warp scram range, gallente EW frigs surpass 35km afaik, and gallente recons go past 40km. I dunno about you, but i could think of a few ways where a heavily tanked ship that does constant dps and isnt affected by cap much could be handy. Again i dont really have a problem with passive tanked drakes, but saying lacking dps and speed makes it bad for pvp purposes is wrong. It simply means you have to create situations where the enemy cant run away, while still being in the drakes weapon range by other means. Just an example: MWD fitted passive drake, 1 damage mod. Does about 300 dps with kinetic at 80 km range. Lets say it flys in tandem with a speedtanking keres(gallente EW, up to 36km scramrange with t2). Now the keres scouts for targets, tackles them, and the drake warps in at >50km and tries to keep that distance. Overly powerful combo? No. But very safe. Keres is a frigate keeping over 30km distance and can leg it pretty fast if something goes wrong, and the prealigned drake at 50km can do the same. Sure other BCs can project 300dps over 50km aswell, but they dont have a 400dps tank while doing so, and are likely in a dedicated sniperfit ontop. Worst case for this combo is something warping ontop of the drake that puts out quite alot more than 400dps, is faster than a mwding drake(ok, thats not really excluding much), and cant be taken out/forced off by 300dps. And in all fairness that would have taken out any other rangesetup BC aswell.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

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