EVE Search - The Upcoming Speed Nerf

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The Upcoming Speed Nerf

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
xXHeRoInERaBBiTXx Minmatar Veni Vidi Vici.	Posted - 2007.12.24 22:49:00 - [211] firstly could goonswarm please stop postin in my topic... second its easy to lose a vagabond very easy and requires tons of isk and skill at manual piloting od's are getting a second penalty so we are going on modules from 2 bonuses to 2 penaltys and 1 bonus so we have a difficult to pilot ship with high cost and extremely high risk of dying lets not forget a raven with precisions fitted could solo not one but 2 vagas with ease... most vagabonds arent going over 7km..with good skills and implants (not any snakes or w/e) i go about 6.5lkm without gang bonus with a FULL speed fit and no damage mods.... lets not forget that most pilots train skills to 4 not 5 most of the time... those dps calcs are way off i dont know what exactly kind of dps i do with lvl 4-5 skills in a vagabond but i do know its no where near 300+ not even close, maybe 200 max, and lets not forget shields 60% resists to explosive...and vagabonds standard dmg type exp but thats not even the point, point is if polys/ods get stack nerfed now vagabond will be going sub 5km on a t2 setup and probably die everytime due to its natively low dps and that bs technique does work, esp on slower nanos (long range ammo in short range weapons the nerf whining is getting old, and frankly im really starting to tire of a game with so many nerf whiners.. minmatar is percieved the best for one reason... because it changes the least...and the best avail setups are widely known...not because its actually the best... For All that has been said and done, you will suffer...
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising	Posted - 2007.12.24 23:42:00 - [212] Originally by: xX****ERaBBiTXx firstly could goonswarm please stop postin in my topic... second its easy to lose a vagabond very easy and requires tons of isk and skill at manual piloting od's are getting a second penalty so we are going on modules from 2 bonuses to 2 penaltys and 1 bonus so we have a difficult to pilot ship with high cost and extremely high risk of dying lets not forget a raven with precisions fitted could solo not one but 2 vagas with ease... most vagabonds arent going over 7km..with good skills and implants (not any snakes or w/e) i go about 6.5lkm without gang bonus with a FULL speed fit and no damage mods.... lets not forget that most pilots train skills to 4 not 5 most of the time... those dps calcs are way off i dont know what exactly kind of dps i do with lvl 4-5 skills in a vagabond but i do know its no where near 300+ not even close, maybe 200 max, and lets not forget shields 60% resists to explosive...and vagabonds standard dmg type exp but thats not even the point, point is if polys/ods get stack nerfed now vagabond will be going sub 5km on a t2 setup and probably die everytime due to its natively low dps and that bs technique does work, esp on slower nanos (long range ammo in short range weapons the nerf whining is getting old, and frankly im really starting to tire of a game with so many nerf whiners.. minmatar is percieved the best for one reason... because it changes the least...and the best avail setups are widely known...not because its actually the best... -May I post in your thread? -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. -Minmatar is seen as a good pvp race because they have speed. Speed gives longer life time for you ships, superior damage avoidance and less cost to nano stuff to reasonable levels. No cap use on guns added and you got your nice little solo race. -Uhm you talking about damage types? FAIL. It has launchers and drones. FYI thats 4 damage types to complement the explo heavy damage. You know it, I know it, so dont try to hide it to make weak arguments like that. --------------------------------------------- [Video]The Inquisition I - Swift Justice
The Nastrond	Posted - 2007.12.24 23:59:00 - [213] 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.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising	Posted - 2007.12.25 00:02:00 - [214] 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. --------------------------------------------- [Video]The Inquisition I - Swift Justice
Koro Carpathia	Posted - 2007.12.25 04:15:00 - [215] If they are taking a broad swing at lowering speed which hits once again... frigate class ships that really have little choice but to speed tank, then they need to drastically decrease the speed of Warrior II drones and eliminate Drone Nav. Comps.
xXHeRoInERaBBiTXx Minmatar Veni Vidi Vici.	Posted - 2007.12.25 04:24:00 - [216] are you stupid, barrage is essentially the only thing you could use in a vagabonds turrets as for the rest.. clearly kin or em for various reasons, although with 3 ods you dont get all that much room for ammo so youll hae to choose wisely before hand For All that has been said and done, you will suffer...
Rasclot	Posted - 2007.12.25 05:17:00 - [217] Most of the whines are about these 9km+ "speedtanking" ships. So, what exactly is speedtanking? Is it that you can run away from a fight? This is what most people try to say in their complaints. Not very convincing. Not pvp, if you ask me. Talking about races, "minmatar" is really not a synonym of speed, like "all-out implantz + rigz + full skillz klaymore + heatz + trix & cheatz on max skillz vaga" Your race or the ship doesnt count anything in comparison to your equipment. If you expect to face a pilot like described above every time you face a minmatar ship, get some help. How many of you have really tried speedtanking anyways? What about if we nerf speedmods rather than implants and rigs? Now only one to suffer are the newer players or those (of any race) who just cant, or dont want to go 20km+ to avoid all combat, but only want to speedtank with their t1 or t2 ships. I think HIGHspeedtanking is just fine now, as MWD'ing in combat works only as a good but temporary defense, as you cant keep it up all day. No-one whines about AB's, and EW as much, why is this?
Lysander Kaldenn	Posted - 2007.12.25 06:49:00 - [218] Edited by: Lysander Kaldenn on 25/12/2007 06:49:27 All hail the return of 17th Century War Theory! Stand in neat lines and get your asses shot off. Speed tactics are realistic. They are only invulnerable to people with small brains, buy brain age 2 for your nintendo ds and grab EFT while your at it. This is completely ********. When speed dies something new will arrive to kill your precious faction fitted ravens and then you can spam the forums with that garbage. And to CCP, if you nerf speed again the next thing you will be nerfing is heat, nano paste and the new feature of using innactive mods as heat sinks. Think about it.
King Hopy Beasts of Burden YouWhat	Posted - 2007.12.25 10:44:00 - [219] Originally by: Goumindong The rest is just dealing with drones, kite and kill them, then destroy the larger ship. You dont fly a vagabond much, do you? Vaga can't really kill anything above a bc. Even killing a bc is hard as hell if he has a decent tank.
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.12.25 10:56:00 - [220] 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...
Inflexible Shokei	Posted - 2007.12.25 11:08:00 - [221] 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...
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.25 11:12:00 - [222] 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... This. With all the 'x is unkillable' and 'you're a noob, you don't know how' arguments and counter-arguments, statistics are the best tool for proving that people who lament they can't kill vagas are indeed noobs which don't know how Rifters!
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.12.25 11:16:00 - [223] 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.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising	Posted - 2007.12.25 11:20:00 - [224] Originally by: Semkhet 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... 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? --------------------------------------------- [Video]The Inquisition I - Swift Justice
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.12.25 11:21:00 - [225] Edited by: Shadowsword on 25/12/2007 11:23:01 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... How many Cerberus are used in pvp, compared to the number of vaggabonds used in pvp? From my experience, I find about 7-8 Vaggabonds for every Cerberus, which, given their similar number of ships destroyed, would mean that a Cerberus life expectancy is 7-9 times higher... So long that most guns have about 0% chance to hit a speed-tanking ship and even some precision missiles do 0.0 damage, you can say anything you want, something is borked. Badly. ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising	Posted - 2007.12.25 11:24:00 - [226] Originally by: Cpt Branko 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... This. With all the 'x is unkillable' and 'you're a noob, you don't know how' arguments and counter-arguments, statistics are the best tool for proving that people who lament they can't kill vagas are indeed noobs which don't know how NOT this. Go read my post above about why other hacs have similar k/d ratios instead of reading whatever you like to read into the issue. --------------------------------------------- [Video]The Inquisition I - Swift Justice
Inflexible Shokei	Posted - 2007.12.25 11:30:00 - [227] Originally by: Semkhet 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. 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.
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.12.25 11:37:00 - [228] 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...
Inflexible Shokei	Posted - 2007.12.25 11:44:00 - [229] 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.
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.12.25 11:47:00 - [230] 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 - [231] 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.
Inflexible Shokei	Posted - 2007.12.25 11:55:00 - [232] Edited by: Inflexible on 25/12/2007 11:57:09 Originally by: Semkhet 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. 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
VoYvod Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.12.25 12:10:00 - [233] Nanoships aren't overpowered... if you think flying a nano ship is easy because you just press orbit and the mwd you're an idiot - go die in a fire , the amount of watching your speed, range , cap , drone health (depending the ship) and the sheer cost of the ship makes it balanced. now if they're gonna nerf anything they should nerf missiles a bit - they're too easy to use Cruise missiles are the end game - can actually hit stuff going 3k m/s very nicely all the way upto 250km? pretty much 1-2 volley a nano hac going 3k m/s , oh yeah and your transversal velocity on your hac doesnt mean anything lol.. now how is that balanced and tbh when a ship is heading to a missile boat and the missile ship launches missiles at the approaching , the missiles go right toward it then go behind it and approach and usually completely miss when it could of just slammed right into the approaching target - transversal velocity is broken for missiles - fix this before nerfing all the other ships Nano gangs = obviously organized gang vs. usually just a blob that undocks gonna nerf something , nerf jump bridges - its killing 0.0 roaming
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.12.25 12:12:00 - [234] 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...
Zeknichov Life. Universe. Everything.	Posted - 2007.12.25 12:35:00 - [235] WCS were nerfed because people could run from battles they've already engaged in. Speed needs nerfing because speed is allowing people to run from battles they've already engaged in. It's as simple as that. You should not be able to pick and choose your battles. Logic 101. 1. If everyone can choose their fight optimally everyone would choose a fight they can win in. 2. All fights result in a winner and loser. 3. Therefore in optimal circumstances no fights would ever occur when everyone has the ability to choose their fights because no one would want to lose a fight and all fights have losers. That means being able to pick fights is something that should be avoided or else fights would never occur. Of course human error in judgment will allow for fights and the 'it's just a game' factor will also result in fights. But fights on a whole are dramatically reduced if everyone can pick their fights. That is also why local must be removed.
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.12.25 12:52:00 - [236] 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 N¦ 1, Vaga N¦ 2, and... Megathron N¦ 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 ?
arbalesttom Caldari Glauxian Brothers	Posted - 2007.12.25 13:01:00 - [237] I find it more than funny that every time 'speed' and 'nano' are in a topic, 'rapier' and 'huginn' are mentioned, just like every player in eve can fly them. Yes, speed needs to be balanced, especially mwd - ab's. Nice hamster! - Mindstar Thanks! We wont touch this sig! - Cortes I lied - Cortes LIAR!
Inflexible Shokei	Posted - 2007.12.25 13:03:00 - [238] Originally by: Semkhet 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. They are much more used and still have comparable losses, see the problem? Originally by: Semkhet 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. Vaga don't need uber DPS, because he always dictates if there will be fight or not. And THATS what makes him overpowered. Did you even bother to read entire thread? Originally by: Semkhet 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? Of course they lose some - look how much they use them. But they have insane survival ratio. And I have one final question for you: Are you trying to troll or are you simply ignorant?
Silent Deviant	Posted - 2007.12.25 13:10:00 - [239] Can CCP just remove all ships and mount one weapon on our PoD ?
Ione Hunt 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.12.25 14:07:00 - [240] Yay, the F1-F8 theoretical EFT-setup crowd won \o/ No more painful thinking about tactics for them, no more challenges...we should all fly the same ship with exactly the same HP and damage output _______________

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.