|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Semkhet
KR0M
The Red Skull
   |
Posted - 2007.12.23 12:00:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Xequecal
You are completely missing the point. The Vagabond isn't overpowered because it can kill everything. The Vagabond is overpowered because it's impossible to kill it.
If the vaga isn't caught near a station or a gate, you can kill it provided your gang is specifically set up for anti-nanoship warfare.
If the complaint refers to vagas engaged near a gate or station, then many ships can either redock or reach the gate without any particular need to be nanoed, so I don't see how nanoships could be singled out for a tactic available to such wide range of ships.
The most common complaint is that nanoships can engage at will since they will be able to escape if things don't unfold as expected. But whiners often conveniently forget to specify that they did not set up their gang for that precise task. A simple gallente/minmatar recon combo well set up can be deadly for most nanoships. It's none of the nanopilots responsability that so few players train for these recons, and even less seem willing to work togheter.
Hell, it's like complaining against streets awash with gangs while not bothering to fund and train police forces...
|
Semkhet
KR0M
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 12:08:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Dreadpilot Roberts
You have obviously never flown a vaga and are talking out of your ass based on things that you heard from your mates. It's supposed to be hard to kill, it's a 250 mil ship ( including polies and fit ) and it's skill intensive. and NO it is not withing falloff at 22k. That's only with mad skills at lvl5 including hac 5, and falloff rigs + implants which is ridiculous. Oh and ppl dont use barrage on vagas .... And as long as it cant kill you with its crappy dps and it's tank is paper-thin and a small pilot-error or low reflex can get it popped ... I dunno what all of the fuss is about. First try flying it and then start to whine about it. I'm Amarr and I trained Minnie cruiser V cuz I thought once I get sleipnir and vaga all my troubles would end but you whiners cannot even begin to imagine the problems that you find yourself up against when trying to fit a nano ship and how many sacrifices you have to make to reach those speeds.
Next thing you know you're gonna start whining to ccp that you cant blow up asteroids and stations in your drakes right ? Cuz that's what a solo vaga is to a well pvp-fitted ship ( bc hac command recon or bs. ) a crappy object orbitting you and waiting for you to get agressed by rats to do the job for him 
If you think about what sacrilege and ishtars can do compared to vagas, the simple fact that vaga-whining is recurring shows how much the majority of non-nano pilots are clueless.
|
Semkhet
KR0M
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 12:36:00 -
[3]
Originally by: d026
Originally by: Semkhet
But whiners often conveniently forget to specify that they did not set up their gang for that precise task.
Did you set up your vagabond specifially to kill my *insertshyptipe*? NO you didn't! you use your cooky cutter set up for everything.
If you can't tank a vaga's pathetic dps, then pretty much every ship could kill you 
And if you got ganked then it doesen't really matter if they were nanoships anyhow...
|
Semkhet
KR0M
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.12.23 23:31:00 -
[4]
Why the hell people are still talking about Vaga's ? For pete's sake, it's the only nanoship which in order to do any kind of basic damage except its lil drones, must expose itself to major damage since it must slowdown in order to hit anything smaller than the wide side of a barn !!!
Nanoships in all their splendor are ships like the Ishtar or the Sacrilege. And I would say that the best of all is the Sacrilege since this ship is so effective that you don't even need to fit HAM's to kick butts, HM's are more than enough and give you a range no other cruiser-sized nanoship can compete with.
And guess what ? Incidentally the sacrilege is the slowest of all classic nanoHAC's. In fact a Sac can mix permamwd with a pretty tank and decent dps which isn't tracking dependent.
So leave these poor Vaga's in peace. They are hard enough to fly and frustrating enough by fighting at the end of their barrage M falloff...
|
Semkhet
KR0M
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 10:56:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: The Nastrond
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
-If you keep dying in a vaga, maybe you better stick with simpler ships. This is a total FAILed argument and is basically a terrible lie. Vagas dont just die left and right.
The recent report done by CCP showed that Vagabonds were being destroyed at a rate pretty much the same as all other HACs; clearly they're not the god-mode people make them out to be.
Being someone who enjoys going after outlaws (since they tend to give the best fights), I never really worry about seeing them in Vagabonds as they've got a snowflake's chance in hell of breaking my tank and can't do anything about me going back to a gate or station. Plus if theres a lag spike or they make a mistake, its easy for their action to result in me scooping their loot.
Also fail. You know why they get destroyed at the same rate? Because they are pushed further and closer to danger, because they can. Other hacs are more careful but it doesnt mean that you can fly other hacs solo in 0.0 and have the same survival rate as a vaga. This is not true and this is what you are trying to say.
Want to buy a clue: Top 20 T2 ship destruction rates
As we can see, the vagabond destruction rate is just a bit higher than the one concerning cerberus'es.
Also, taking into account that the average stay on an EvE player corresponds to approximately 7 months, first not everybody and it's mother are flying HAC's, and despite Caldari being the major race in demographic density, second not every Caldari mission runner is regularly loosing cerberuses in missions.
So maybe Lyria could explain us HOW THE HELL cerberus & vagabond destruction rates are almost similar given the complete different set of abilities and role these ships imply.
I know that being able to display OBJECTIVE & FACTUAL numbers showing that vaga's have almost the same destruction rate like a non-nano HAC isn't what the anti-nano whining crowd appreciates, but so is reality.
And that you don't want to cope with reality should remain your sole and private burden...
|
Semkhet
KR0M
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 11:16:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Inflexible
Originally by: Semkhet
Want to buy a clue: Top 20 T2 ship destruction rates
As we can see, the vagabond destruction rate is just a bit higher than the one concerning cerberus'es.
Also, taking into account that the average stay on an EvE player corresponds to approximately 7 months, first not everybody and it's mother are flying HAC's, and despite Caldari being the major race in demographic density, second not every Caldari mission runner is regularly loosing cerberuses in missions.
So maybe Lyria could explain us HOW THE HELL cerberus & vagabond destruction rates are almost similar given the complete different set of abilities and role these ships imply.
I know that being able to display OBJECTIVE & FACTUAL numbers showing that vaga's have almost the same destruction rate like a non-nano HAC isn't what the anti-nano whining crowd appreciates, but so is reality.
And that you don't want to cope with reality should remain your sole and private burden...
Let's fly hulks, thay are almost indestructible \o/
Well, statistics told me that...
Either you can't interpret statistics and replace them in the appropriate context, either your cheap sarcastic remark does NOT apply on vaga's vs cerberus'es since BOTH the built numbers and the destroyed numbers are almost similar.
Next.
|
Semkhet
KR0M
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 11:37:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Im 110% sure that you actually didnt read what I wrote. You totally ignored that I above did explain the reason why destruction rates are the same of vaga and other hacs. WTB brain and glasses for you so you can read first. 
Cope with reality? You gonna start getting on with personal attacks now just like the guy in the other thread? How about you just stfu and actually read what I posted instead. There we go, now we are speaking in the same manner. Happy?
And you should start to use your brain for what nature intended it: THINKING.
A) Number of built Cerberus = Number of built Vagabonds.
B) Number of popped Cerberus slightly below number of popped vagas.
You are implying that Vagabonds used in PvP enjoy a much higher survival rate than Cerberuses, but this automatically implies that most of Cerberus deaths come from mission running.
In order words, you're stating that almost 50% of the Cerberus pilots are skilled enough to fly a HAC but don't know how to do these repetitive missions without loosing their ship.
Conclusion: You believe almost half of Cerberuses pilots are ********, while I believe most of the anti-nano whiners are so smart that they did not realize yet that pwning nanoships needs a bit more than just locking and opening fire...
|
Semkhet
KR0M
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 11:47:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Inflexible
Yes it was sarcastic remark. I'm certain you know cerberuses are used for carebearing in empire and are being used at least five times less than vagas in PvP. It is because vaga is largely superior to cerb.
If you believe a Vaga is superior to a Cerb we can stop talking right now. A Cerb just need to maintain its trail of missiles up the vaga's butt, and as soon the vaga wants to slowdown to take a few shots it will begin to take consistent damage.
And unless you too believe that Cerberus pilots can't do missions without loosing their ship, it means that Cerberus'es die as much as Vaga's in PvP, or vice-versa.
I'm bored of clueless nanowhiners complaining about the least effective nanoship. The only thing a vaga is good at is at having the highest amount of failed engagements, while other ships might not attack as easy once they have you in their sights, you're almost sure to get popped.
|
Semkhet
KR0M
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 11:55:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Semkhet on 25/12/2007 12:01:50
Originally by: Inflexible
Originally by: Semkhet
A) Number of built Cerberus = Number of built Vagabonds.
B) Number of popped Cerberus slightly below number of popped vagas.
You are implying that Vagabonds used in PvP enjoy a much higher survival rate than Cerberuses, but this automatically implies that most of Cerberus deaths come from mission running.
WRONG.
Cerbs deaths come from much lesser survival rate. The are used much less and still have similar numbers destroyed.
And about brain... I don't think you are dumb but you are underestimating other people inteligence when juggling with facts as you see fit.
Wow... LMAO:
CCP simply tells us that in the same amount of time, there are as many cerbs than vaga that get built, and there are almost as many cerbs than vagas which get popped.
You and your kind are the peeps who have to come with uncheckable arguments like "cerbs are used more often than vagas in PVE" in a pathetic attempt to save your agenda.
You want to know the truth ? Go check a fair amount of the KB's of the biggest alliances and find out how many times you find a vaga winning a 1vs1 against anything equal or bigger than a HAC, then get back and we can talk.
What counts is what a given setup can kill, not how many times you can play the clown.
|
Semkhet
KR0M
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 12:12:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Inflexible
It's not about who can kill what. Compare survival rate of Vaga and Cerb in bubblecamp. I'm not implying all cerbs manufactured and not used in PvP are used in mission runing. It's not my problem what they are doing but certainly they are not all PvPing. Or if they are PvPing they die before they arrive to region where I'm used to be. Fact is that cerb is much less used than vaga and have similar losses, period.
Edit for clarity
At the end of the day, everything boils down to who can repeatedly and consistently kill, or fail.
Cerb and Vaga have complete different abilities & roles. Despite the fact that it's possible to somewhat nano a Cerb, it is seldom used that way.
Hence, in your example, there's way more chances that the cerb will sit with the bubblecamp, while the vaga will roam around and will have to break through said camp.
I always find funny when people compare things while conveniently silence the natural roles of ships which intrinsically dictate what will be their probable profile of engagement & the resulting combat scenario.
Besides, there's way more caldari pilots than minmatar pilots. Exactly 38% of pilots are caldari, while minmatar = 20%. So it's a ratio 2:1 in favor of caldari. So would be nice you take into account the big picture, unless you want also to claim that caldari pilots consistently cross-train and use other HAC's than their racial ones when they PvP...
|
|
|
Semkhet
KR0M
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.12.25 12:52:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Semkhet on 25/12/2007 12:52:32
Originally by: Inflexible
I largely overestimated cerberus use in PvP, here is some statistic:
0utbreak
AAA
Triumvirate
I never said that vaga's aren't extensively used. I say that as soon they are NOT in gang, they seldom represent a threat for a similar or bigger ship.
And as soon a vaga is ganged, their effectiveness is a moot point because they are NOT the ship which will deliver the main DPS which will bring down the target.
Besides, when you fly Caldari, you usually go either for crows, recons or BC/CS in PvP because they're much more effective than caldari HAC's, either in abilities or due to a cost perspective, as simple as that.
I particularly appreciate your Triumvirate KB link, because since they are highly specialized in roaming nanogangs, no reason for them to use vaga's right ? 
The Outbreak KB is more interesting, with Sabre as NŠ 1, Vaga NŠ 2, and... Megathron NŠ 3
AAA is the most interesting since the set of stats is much more complete. Just check the number of destroyed vagas for the last 3 days... And we are talking about an invulnerable ship right ?
|
|
|
| |
|