EVE Search - A guide to Caldari/Amarr superiority, and why Gallente suck:

All Channels

Ships and Modules

A guide to Caldari/Amarr superiority, and why Gallente suck:

» 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 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.23 23:35:00 - [1] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 23/09/2008 23:36:07 There still seems to be some confusion on the forums as to exactly why Gallente and Minmatar suck so much. So I will explain it: The fundamental problem is the sharp division between Gallente and Amarr/Caldari (with Minmatar getting "win button nano setups"), each is focused strongly on its style of combat. Change the metagame to favor one of those styles, and you boost one side while nerfing the other into uselessness. As a final note: when I say "Gallente" or "Caldari" here, I am refering to the style, not the race. Ships from any race can fit either style, the names just reflect the dominant trend. The Gallente style: 1) DPS above all. And by this, I mean EFT dps, damage against a point-blank webbed target. Other concerns are often neglected, especially range/tracking, in favor of maximizing dps under ideal circumstances. This is not completely stupid, as Gallente-style PvP usually puts the ship in a situation where every bit of dps is necessary to break a target reasonably quickly. 2) Range is neglected. A fundamental rule is that combat happens within the 24km radius of a warp scrambler. Mid/long-range ships are ignored, as no warp scrambling happens at that range, and therefore the loser can always warp away. The Gallente pilot accepts the lack of answers to longer-ranged ships, as he will always have that escape option if the target refuses to come in close. In fact, many Gallente-style ships take it even farther, ignoring everything outside of 10km on the assumption that scoring the killmail requires a web. 3) Every ship fills every role. Every ship is expected to fit web/scram, bring high dps, do its own tanking, etc. Gallente ships are designed around solo PvP scenarios where this is necessary. Gangs are usually just multiple solo ships that happen to be together, a typical Gallente gang might include a Megathron, a Brutix, and a couple Thoraxes, all with virtually identical setups. Again, this isn't just complete stupidity, as most Gallente pilots prefer to work alone (or in very small groups), so their skills/setups reflect this. The Caldari style: 1) DPS is important, but not the only thing. Caldari ships still fit 3x damage mods and carry short-range ammo, but EFT dps is no longer the most important factor. Caldari ships focus on getting range and tracking on their dps ships, and are willing to bring in support ships with little or no dps. Other factors become more important than small dps increases, as focused fire from multiple ships ensures an un-tankable supply of damage. 2) Range is key. Even short-range setups have the ability to fight in the 20-50km range, while long-range setups can engage anything up to the 250km range cap (and even well beyond it, if it were to be removed). With dedicated tacklers available, combat is no longer limited to a 24km sphere, and fights can happen at any range from 0 to 250km, requiring the Caldari fleet to be prepared for it. 3) Every ship has its role. With the "must be solo capable" limit gone, specialization is more common. Support ships are not just allowed, but essential. Fleets are organized (at least ideally) as fleets with specific roles for each ship, not just as a group of ships that happen to be in the same place at the same time.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.23 23:36:00 - [2] 2
Lithel Shadow Incursion The Church.	Posted - 2008.09.23 23:39:00 - [3] This clearly shows Amarr superiority. Minmatar will ban this post. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 00:02:00 - [4] Not a bad post Merin. I want to disagree with you, but it's very hard. -Liang --
Khandara Seraphim StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.09.24 00:05:00 - [5] an interesting analysis. I personally disagree with the "Gallente are useless" sentiment but it was a good read regardless. another problem with Gallente in your gallente =/= fleet hypothesis is that gallente ships are built with heavy drone use in mind, something that never happens in fleets.
LordThyGod	Posted - 2008.09.24 00:07:00 - [6] I disagree with some of your assessment, solo pvp as always about finding that soft target and engaging only then. Granted you'll run into more fleets in low sec, but alot of them are concentrating on the new regions(not even really there black rise low secs are empty alot of the time). If you keep running into fleets in the systems you wanna solo in, find a new system. For pvp i would generally use blasters, so my range isnt that great either, its about filling in that role in your fleet. Gallentee cant run speced ships as well, you dont have to fit every single ship around with web/scram
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.24 00:11:00 - [7] 1. Nerf falcons. Falcon alts are destroying alot of potentially great solo or small gang fights. People see 2-3 unknowns in system along with a group of hostiles and always assume 2-3 falcons. So they wait so they can blob/overkill them to be safe instead of just going in with reasonable numbers. 2. Nerf nano and boost scrams to kill mwding. Forcing more fights, making it harder to run. Wich means you dont need a huginn to kill the average t2 cruiser. Encourages more pvping in smaller scale without x amount of must-have-ships to kill something. 3. Give a slight boost to active tanking, wich is generally more used by these two races and generally in smaller scale. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.24 00:15:00 - [8] Originally by: Khandara Seraphim another problem with Gallente in your gallente =/= fleet hypothesis is that gallente ships are built with heavy drone use in mind, something that never happens in fleets. Err, huh? How is this a problem with my post? If anything, the uselessness of drone ships in fleet battles is an argument FOR my position. Though it's not as crippling an issue as with blasters. At least with drones, you get 50km of range and aren't completely helpless against any random pulse ship. "Fleets" don't necessarily have to be 100+ people. Originally by: LordThyGod I disagree with some of your assessment, solo pvp as always about finding that soft target and engaging only then. Granted you'll run into more fleets in low sec, but alot of them are concentrating on the new regions(not even really there black rise low secs are empty alot of the time). If you keep running into fleets in the systems you wanna solo in, find a new system. For pvp i would generally use blasters, so my range isnt that great either, its about filling in that role in your fleet. Gallentee cant run speced ships as well, you dont have to fit every single ship around with web/scram The fact that you can occasionally get solo fights doesn't make any difference to my argument about general metagame trends. It doesn't matter if you can sometimes find a solo fight if you spend all your time moving to new regions, docking and hiding from gangs, etc. At some point, you just have to concede that you'd be better off if you just changed your tactics. And spec-ed Gallente ships? Yeah, right. The only "specialized" Gallente ships that don't suck horribly compared to their Amarr/Caldari alternatives are: 1) The Arazu, and only in small gangs where the ability to fit tackle is useful. Everywhere else, the Falcon is better. 2/3) The Ares/Eris, and only because all interceptors/interdictors are essentially equal.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.24 00:20:00 - [9] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 24/09/2008 00:21:03 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 1. Nerf falcons. Falcon alts are destroying alot of potentially great solo or small gang fights. People see 2-3 unknowns in system along with a group of hostiles and always assume 2-3 falcons. So they wait so they can blob/overkill them to be safe instead of just going in with reasonable numbers. This does nothing to fix the problem, and will just shift the complaints to Rooks/Scorpions instead. And it does even less to fix the problem of Gallente/Minmatar ships sitting helplessly as the pulse boats rip them apart without ever taking a shot in reply. Meanwhile you've killed the Falcon as a fleet ewar ship, the role it's supposed to fill. Oh, and blob/overkill? It's always a good idea. This is a perfect example of that fundamental difference in tactics between Gallente and Caldari players. Quote: 2. Nerf nano and boost scrams to kill mwding. Forcing more fights, making it harder to run. Wich means you dont need a huginn to kill the average t2 cruiser. Encourages more pvping in smaller scale without x amount of must-have-ships to kill something. This is true. The nano nerf is a boost to Gallente tactics, as they aren't so vulnerable to being pinned helpless by a Vagabond/Ishtar/etc and picked apart. At least against the pulse boats, they have a chance to get into range and do something before they die. The problem is this isn't enough. My argument is written from a post-nano-nerf perspective, assuming both of those changes happen. They'll help Gallente, but not enough to change the fundamental problems with the entire Gallente strategy. Quote: 3. Give a slight boost to active tanking, wich is generally more used by these two races and generally in smaller scale. Again, not enough of a change to matter. It would have to go way beyond "slight" to "it's impossible to kill an active tanked ship 1v1" for active tanking to be better than buffer tanking. And it still doesn't fix the fundamental issues with Gallente/Minmatar.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.24 00:22:00 - [10] As a minmatar pilot I am forced to agree with the OP. Merin usually represents a more black and white (cut and dry) version of my opinions. However, it's clear that you neglected the advantage of projectiles using no capacitor. This is a serious balance issue and must be addressed ASAP.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.09.24 00:24:00 - [11] Originally by: Merin Ryskin The second option is really the only option, but unfortunately, I don't really have any suggestions for the very complicated solution. I would disagree, but that would be for no other reason than principle, since I detest the idea of EVE without at least a shred of soloing. As is though, it would seem that Heavy Interdictors and Force Recon ships are the only ones with viable tools for this. And even this is pretty much ass-talk, because the low damage figures on those ships make for poor conditions. So, ultimately, I have to agree. Furthermore, if you want soloing back into the game, then nano and passive-tank solutions need to be actually looked at. Nanos build on the principle of invulnerability/combat domination through easily attainable speed/maneuverability. Which is achieved through stacking bonuses and massive MWD thrust factors. Passive tanks are based on the principle of practical invulnerability - at least long enough for their considerable firepower to deter any assault. This is achieved through massive shield regeneration, easily attainable through usage of mainly the mid slots, leaving both highs and several lows open for mounting numerous modules that allow for tremendous firepower. Taking into account that all true passive tanks use missiles, which consume no capacitor at all, this allows them to use modules that penalize their capacitor to no practical end, really, allowing them absolutely solid, no-thought setups that consume nothing else than ammunition. Both these setups are achieved through 'clever' use of modules and metagame. Immediately, stacking penalties and exclusion rules for modules come to mind as a solution.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.24 00:25:00 - [12] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Again, not enough of a change to matter. It would have to go way beyond "slight" to "it's impossible to kill an active tanked ship 1v1" for active tanking to be better than buffer tanking. And it still doesn't fix the fundamental issues with Gallente/Minmatar. Actually a well fitted repper BS should win against a plated BS. Generally in 1 vs 1 the better tanked ship wins. Repper domis are beasts. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Khandara Seraphim StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.09.24 00:54:00 - [13] Sorry, to clarify I was supporting your initial argument. I think that Gallente's reliance on drones is just as bad as their general closerange strategy. Nobody ever uses drones in fleet warfare, and the time it takes drones to fly 50km makes them all but useless in most combat situations where the target isnt in a closerange fight.
Bronson Hughes ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2008.09.24 00:58:00 - [14] A very thoughtful analysis. I'm cross-trained Caldari/Gallente, both in ships and style. I prefer 'Gallente Style' for everything but larger gangs and I agree that the niche filled by pilots like me is getting smaller and smaller. At least one thing that could be changed to help offset the trend we've been noticing is to buff Sensor Dampener based ships. Their whole purpose in life is to force your targets to engage at closer ranges, which makes perfect sense and fits with the Gallente paradigm very nicely. They already work to some extent on snipers and some nano-ships, but they just plain lack the oomph that ECM has in terms of dictating the terms of an engagement. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.09.24 01:17:00 - [15] Originally by: Merin Ryskin ...with Minmatar getting "win button nano setups Uhhh, no. Actually the Vagabond (the pinacle minmatar nano-ship) is pretty much a mediocre nano-ship and some say it is one of the worst. They get eaten by Curses, they have terrible range and terrible cap. Curses/Ishtars destroy tanks and do huge non-tracking DPS, a Sac can perma mwd and do a good amount of missile DPS. Zealots can pew pew with pulse at enourmous ranges and a Cerb @150km going 2.5km/s takes forever to catch. Minmatar are cetainly NOT the nano-race. Other than that point, your post is good, what is the point of a blaster ship if you cannot catch anything? It is a very sharp edge between blaster ships being able to catch everything and everything being able to get away from balster ships and laugh at them. But as you are, I am bored waiting for the new balance changes to arrive on Sisi so all this arguing is pretty much moot. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.09.24 01:19:00 - [16] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Actually a well fitted repper BS should win against a plated BS. Generally in 1 vs 1 the better tanked ship wins. Repper domis are beasts. Think of the capacitor. Knock out his drones (yeah, that's hard...) and then neuter him. Of course, this might bring it down to which one of you has most cap charges, but... Well, people know that fights that last long are fair fights. And so most tend to try and stay out of those. And it's really only in the long run that repping counts... Also, most battleships are not Dominixes.
Zana Kito	Posted - 2008.09.24 01:31:00 - [17] OP hit the issue dead on target. However, this isn't something that just happened overnight. Even years ago, in a medium to large gang blaster/ac ships were inferior. They simply waste too much time going from target to target.. and lose most of their "uber dps" in travel time. But Eve has steadily progressed towards gang combat, and ever larger ones. Ofcourse this leads to diminishing the roles of close range ships. Post nano nerf, where ships are even slower (especially BC/BS) will reinforce the strengths of range in any engagement. So perhaps blasters/AC needs to be re-looked. Torpedos and pulse work so well because they have a high dmg 20-30km option, and a medium dmg 45-60km+ option. Blaster/AC have high dmg <10km option, and medium dmg 20km options.. not much difference in the range. Barrage and Null needs a huge range/falloff increases. They are simply outclassed by Javelin and Scorch. These ammo on BS blaster/ac need to be able to hit out to ~40km reliably to be competitive. Then work on damp specialized recons/ships. Their bonuses also need to be increased, as now only ECM is the viable ewar.
Lysander Kaldenn Viper Intel Squad Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2008.09.24 02:15:00 - [18] Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't this a boost Amarr thread 3 months ago? The armor resistances changed 10% and now galente sucks? The races are balanced better than they ever have been. I think its time to give up your pacifier and security blanket. There is nothing wrong with galente.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 02:40:00 - [19] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 24/09/2008 02:41:33 Originally by: Lysander Kaldenn Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't this a boost Amarr thread 3 months ago? The armor resistances changed 10% and now galente sucks? The races are balanced better than they ever have been. I think its time to give up your pacifier and security blanket. There is nothing wrong with galente. I think the point of this is a metagame change. I'd link you to an exhaustive post that I did on the subject explaining how and why the metagame changed, but you're obviously too bullheaded to take it in and actually digest what it said. -Liang Ed: And BTW, Amarr has been "overpowered" since the last round of boosts. As an amusing exercise of the mind for you: Name 10 reasons why artillery need boosted. --
Battlecheese Caldari Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.09.24 06:05:00 - [20] Edited by: Battlecheese on 24/09/2008 06:07:10 Originally by: Liang Nuren I think the point of this is a metagame change. I'd link you to an exhaustive post that I did on the subject explaining how and why the metagame changed, but you're obviously too bullheaded to take it in and actually digest what it said. -Liang Ed: And BTW, Amarr has been "overpowered" since the last round of boosts. As an amusing exercise of the mind for you: Name 10 reasons why artillery need boosted. OMG. Amarr has been OP for 2 months. NERF! More seriously. Obviously, the op is correct; though all this is pretty obvious and hardly deserves a massive forum posting. These things cycle around over the years. Less whining. More dealing with the changes and flying what you like pls. Edit: The retained racial flavour (such that different ships suck in different situations) is v. good imo.
Omarvelous Caldari Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2008.09.24 06:31:00 - [21] Very well written - I had started to notice a change towards this from the Trinity Expansion. The problem with making a good solo ship is - if its good at solo, then its unstoppable in groups. A solo ship has no support and has to do it all - which would make it overpowered if it could. I totally agree the solo slot arrangement for Gallente BS is a thing of the past. BS blaster boats can still rely on warp in points with a covops. Falcons are all or nothing. If you adjust them in anyway - they'll become useless (no tank no gank no speed no tackle - just cloaked ecm). Sensor damps and ecm tend to step on each other's shoes because they affect locking. Boost one - the other becomes worthless. If ecm is weak, there is no reason not to use sensor damps since they're 100%, if ecm is strong then there is little reason to use sensor damps because they out range them. webs -> speed scrams -> tackle TP -> damage loss reduction TD -> turret damage reduction ECM -> locking - chance based SD -> locking - 100% IF criteria is met NOS/neuts -> cap duh I propose you eliminate the sensor damp module's current role with locking. Leave locking EWAR to ecm. Sensor damps should either be: - Missile EWAR - perhaps cause the missiles to lose velocity - wasting time to reach the target as their onboard guiding system gets compromised. Or they could perhaps double explosion radius to achieve the same thing. Ofcourse I think missile users ought to have an option to enhance their missiles like drone users have (onboard computer missile system - increases missile velocity/explosion vel, etc.) - Or you could have sensor damps act as damage enhancers. Rename the mod - tactical damage enhancement unit. Reduces opponent's resistances by 10% - scripits for specific type reduce by 15% (stacking penalties apply). Now you're enhancing the Gallente DPS above all else tactic. Hopefully this will open people eyes to adopt new tactics! __________________________________________________ Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
Battlecheese Caldari Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.09.24 06:56:00 - [22] Originally by: Omarvelous Hopefully this will open people eyes to adopt new tactics! I see no tactics - only sweeping gameplay changes to buff your favorite ships.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.09.24 07:06:00 - [23] I enjoyed reading your analysis, but I have to disgree. Your most relevant point was that Galente ships fail to adapt. Caldari lack the single focus of the Galente (except on a few ships like the ECM boats) so they are required to specialise and make the best fleet composition to complement the shortcomings. Galente are a brawler type race. Charge in with brute force and close range. However they still feature much flexibility. Noboty prohibits you to fit rails for longer range. You can still fight brawler type, just the range and fleet numbers change (you obviously need more ships to have good DPS in this case). Also Galente and Minmatar style can be modified to WARP in the dps ships on top of targets. This however requires more coordination and it is quite lag dependant. f.e. what is prohibiting the Galente and Minmatar to combine forces and use web recons to imobilise a target while blaster boats warp on top of it, melt it in a moment and warp out, while the same happens to a few more targets ? I know this requires lot of coordination and experience but should be very effective and disruptive. Solo PVP is not dead, just the overspecialisation of some ship types and the introduction of new ones makes it difficult to find suitable targets. overpopulation of some areas is also a problem in this. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.09.24 07:08:00 - [24] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 24/09/2008 02:41:33 Originally by: Lysander Kaldenn Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't this a boost Amarr thread 3 months ago? The armor resistances changed 10% and now galente sucks? The races are balanced better than they ever have been. I think its time to give up your pacifier and security blanket. There is nothing wrong with galente. I think the point of this is a metagame change. I'd link you to an exhaustive post that I did on the subject explaining how and why the metagame changed, but you're obviously too bullheaded to take it in and actually digest what it said. -Liang Ed: And BTW, Amarr has been "overpowered" since the last round of boosts. As an amusing exercise of the mind for you: Name 10 reasons why artillery need boosted. can you eve-mail me that link ? I'd be interested ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.24 07:20:00 - [25] First, a misunderstanding to correct: the question here is not "should there be solo PvP", it's "should two entire races be focused on solo PvP to the extent of being useless elsewhere, in a metagame biased towards 'elsewhere'". Quote: More seriously. Obviously, the op is correct; though all this is pretty obvious and hardly deserves a massive forum posting. Sure it does, I see post after post from people who clearly don't understand the fundamental differences and metagame shifts. Originally by: Lysander Kaldenn Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't this a boost Amarr thread 3 months ago? The armor resistances changed 10% and now galente sucks? The races are balanced better than they ever have been. I think its time to give up your pacifier and security blanket. There is nothing wrong with galente. No, several things happened. Balance-wise: 1) Armor resists changed MORE than 10% (do the math on 60% -> 50%). 2) Optimal range rigs were introduced, allowing pulse lasers to really blur the line between long range and short range. Falloff rigs do not do the same for other weapons, as there's no equivalent of TCs/TEs to stack with. 3) Pulse laser tracking was boosted, ensuring even fewer problems hitting the target. 4) Tier-2 BCs were introduced, finally giving Amarr a good BC and replacing the worthless Prophecy. 5) Tier-3 BBs were introduced, giving Amarr a second awesome battleship in the Abaddon, able to do 95% of the Megathron's DPS with a massive buffer tank. 6) The Apoc went from being "that useless ship that nobody flies" to the best fleet sniper in the game. Add them up, and Amarr are no longer the joke/RP race, and become a valid alternative to Gallente/Minmatar. And of course let's not forget the player choices: 1) FW was introduced, and the players overwhelmingly decided to use few large fleets and static camps, instead of large numbers of solo/small-gang roaming ops. 2) Players realized the advantages of ganking with overwhelming firepower, and decided to care less about the "honor"/fun/etc of solo fights. 3) Players decided to be more cautious around unknowns. A small ECM boost on the Falcon did not turn it into a "dock and log if you don't have 10x their numbers" threat. Falcons have been around a long time, and just as deadly in 1v1, what changed was the player response to a risky scenario, instead of "screw it, I'm going for the kill", players have become much more reluctant to engage without a promise of victory. 4) Newbies/carebears have become much more reluctant to go into lowsec (at least outside of FW fleets). The result is a pirate's target is, more often than not, another pirate. And dealing with a rival pirate means dealing with a 50/50 fight, not an easy ransom. The solution: bring a friend and tip the odds in your favor. Your rival's solution: bring two friends. And the arms race continues, until solo piracy is suicide. The result of these player choices: a shift from scenarios where Gallente tactics dominate to scenarios where Caldari tactics dominate.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.24 07:26:00 - [26] Originally by: Hugh Ruka Galente are a brawler type race. Charge in with brute force and close range. However they still feature much flexibility. Noboty prohibits you to fit rails for longer range. You can still fight brawler type, just the range and fleet numbers change (you obviously need more ships to have good DPS in this case). Guess what you get when you put rails on a Gallente ship: a sucky pulse boat. Unless you're determined to fly Gallente for RP reasons, there's no reason to fly a Gallente railboat over an Amarr or Caldari ship. Quote: Also Galente and Minmatar style can be modified to WARP in the dps ships on top of targets. This however requires more coordination and it is quite lag dependant. And it only works against a single target. Against multiple targets (at least multiple targets with some common sense), they scatter the moment you show up. You easily gank the first one, but then you die horribly as you MWD around trying desperately to get into range of a second target before your fleet dies. Quote: f.e. what is prohibiting the Galente and Minmatar to combine forces and use web recons to imobilise a target while blaster boats warp on top of it, melt it in a moment and warp out, while the same happens to a few more targets ? I know this requires lot of coordination and experience but should be very effective and disruptive. The fact that your Rapier just got blown away by a Cerberus, your blaster ships are jammed by a Falcon they can't hit, tackled by a Crusader they can't kill, and ganked by pulse Armageddons they couldn't kill even if the Falcon went AFK. Like I said above, you might get the initial target, but once that target goes down, you have a bunch of cap-dead ships that can't hit outside point-blank range. In other words, a huge pile of lossmails, with your only chance of escaping being the fact that you probably have more ships than your opponent has warp scramblers. Quote: Solo PVP is not dead, just the overspecialisation of some ship types and the introduction of new ones makes it difficult to find suitable targets. overpopulation of some areas is also a problem in this. It might not be dead, but it's close enough that it's just stupid to have half the ships in the game so focused around doing it that they can't do anything else.
Delichon The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET	Posted - 2008.09.24 07:55:00 - [27] Quote: 1) Bring the metagame back to its former state. The problem here is that CCP can not do this alone. If the players do not want to leave their fleets, no amount of (reasonable) balance attempts will ever make Gallente and Minmatar ships effective. ONLY CCP can do this. And they declare that they are looking into it when they say anything that is against blobs and current state of POS warfare. No one likes to lose. No one. As long as leaving the fleet meaning being brutally slaughtered with no chance to retaliate, people will blob and thinking otherwise is naive and outright dumb. Quote: 2) Find a new role for Minmatar and Gallente ships. Concede that the solo focus no longer works, and find something else to give them. You can't invent a role. Role is something that you identify through analysing the existing warfare. The only solution is to make gameplay changes, when there would be important PVP tasks that would only be achievable solo or tasks that require multiple teams acting at the same time (at which Gal. warfare paradigm would very good as it is easier to assemble 5 equal groups out of a bunch of unified ships, rather than from 3 tacklers, 5 DPS ships and 2 Falcons). Overall cookie-cutters are better than specialists in games, because establishing coordination in MMO is way harder than in RL. This is why everyone uses unified 150km snipers - it is easier to coordinate, rather than establishing a specific warp in point for Megas, a specific warp in for Rokhs and specific warp in for Apocs. The reason why Gal. warfare paradigm is experiencing a downfall ATM is because they are a bit OVER unified than required. But this can be changed. ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. They will be nerfing you directly next. EVE A new game every 6 months. (c) Atomos Darksun
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.24 08:08:00 - [28] Originally by: Delichon ONLY CCP can do this. And they declare that they are looking into it when they say anything that is against blobs and current state of POS warfare. No one likes to lose. No one. As long as leaving the fleet meaning being brutally slaughtered with no chance to retaliate, people will blob and thinking otherwise is naive and outright dumb. CCP can NOT do this simply by declaring it, the players have to go along with it. Superior numbers wins fights, period, no matter if you're talking about EVE, real life, or some other game. You can't change a fundamental law of combat. If players feel like bringing numbers, they will do so, and they will win easily over those who don't. FW is the perfect example. CCP didn't declare "FW is for blobs", they made lots of objectives spread out everywhere, a near-perfect environment for solo/small-gang PvP. But guess what happened: the players ignored the solo/small-gang options and brought blobs. Quote: You can't invent a role. Role is something that you identify through analysing the existing warfare. Sure you can. Before remote repair modules were in the game, there was no logistics role. Now the modules exist, and so does the role. Before interdictors, there was no area-effect fleet tackler role. Now interdictors exist, and the role is critical in 0.0 fights. Of course this role doesn't have to be something new, it could be an existing role. It just has to be something other than solo PvP. Quote: Overall cookie-cutters are better than specialists in games, because establishing coordination in MMO is way harder than in RL. This is why everyone uses unified 150km snipers - it is easier to coordinate, rather than establishing a specific warp in point for Megas, a specific warp in for Rokhs and specific warp in for Apocs. Or better: unified cookie-cutter setups. You don't need to worry about separate warp-in points if everyone admits that the Apoc is the best sniper, trains Large Energy Turret V, and flies the ideal Apoc setup. Quote: The reason why Gal. warfare paradigm is experiencing a downfall ATM is because they are a bit OVER unified than required. But this can be changed. And guess why this is: *because of their focus on solo PvP. To fight solo, your ship has to be able to do everything at once. You won't be as good at each role as the specialist, but you can do all of them. The problem comes when you try to fight outside of solo situations, and your lack of specialization becomes a liability. 5x Megathrons will die horribly to 3x Armageddons and 2x Falcons. Now, if you start breaking up Gallente ships into distinct roles and move away from the "one ship does everything" strategy in every class, you move away from solo PvP and towards exactly what I was suggesting*.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.09.24 08:38:00 - [29] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Hugh Ruka Galente are a brawler type race. Charge in with brute force and close range. However they still feature much flexibility. Noboty prohibits you to fit rails for longer range. You can still fight brawler type, just the range and fleet numbers change (you obviously need more ships to have good DPS in this case). Guess what you get when you put rails on a Gallente ship: a sucky pulse boat. Unless you're determined to fly Gallente for RP reasons, there's no reason to fly a Gallente railboat over an Amarr or Caldari ship. Quote: Also Galente and Minmatar style can be modified to WARP in the dps ships on top of targets. This however requires more coordination and it is quite lag dependant. And it only works against a single target. Against multiple targets (at least multiple targets with some common sense), they scatter the moment you show up. You easily gank the first one, but then you die horribly as you MWD around trying desperately to get into range of a second target before your fleet dies. Quote: f.e. what is prohibiting the Galente and Minmatar to combine forces and use web recons to imobilise a target while blaster boats warp on top of it, melt it in a moment and warp out, while the same happens to a few more targets ? I know this requires lot of coordination and experience but should be very effective and disruptive. The fact that your Rapier just got blown away by a Cerberus, your blaster ships are jammed by a Falcon they can't hit, tackled by a Crusader they can't kill, and ganked by pulse Armageddons they couldn't kill even if the Falcon went AFK. Like I said above, you might get the initial target, but once that target goes down, you have a bunch of cap-dead ships that can't hit outside point-blank range. In other words, a huge pile of lossmails, with your only chance of escaping being the fact that you probably have more ships than your opponent has warp scramblers. Quote: Solo PVP is not dead, just the overspecialisation of some ship types and the introduction of new ones makes it difficult to find suitable targets. overpopulation of some areas is also a problem in this. It might not be dead, but it's close enough that it's just stupid to have half the ships in the game so focused around doing it that they can't do anything else. you don't mwd to the next target after initial warp in. you warp out and wait for new target assignment ... think in wings and fleet organisation ... it does not work on BS/BC level maybe ... rails on galente ships ... well do you have any other option to gain some range ? of course it is not up to par with range on bonused caldari or lasers, but it's about the only option ... you see caldari got this all along. we are fleet ships, support ships etc ... now that lack of solo style ships turned to an advantage ... galente are stuck in the time prior cold war, where t2 was limited to hacs and afs and the only specialised ships were ECM boats ... they are like a dinosaur and only a change of mind will help them ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.24 08:53:00 - [30] Very well constructed, insighful analysis. If I had a criticism, it would be that, like nearly all Merin's posts it's a little bit too "black and white", but really he's pretty much 99% hit the nail on the head: 1 generalist ship will always beat a specialist ship; 20 specialised ships (in correct proportions) will always beat 20 general purpose ships. Or in other words, a team will always beat a mob. As the population (and population density) of the game grows, the trends outlined here will continue.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 09:28:00 - [31] Just look at Gallenet ships. 90% of them are designed as solo-capable boats: Hype - Close range blaster ganker/tackle kit/active tank Mega - Close range blaster ganker/tackle kit/buffer tank/decent sniper Domi - Close range drone ganker/tackle kit/buffer or active tank Rax - Close range blaster ganker/tackle kit/buffer Vexor- Close range or nano drone ganker/tackle kit Deimos - Close range Ganker/tackle/buffer Ishtar - (currently) nano drone ganker/tackle kit With the only real differences between the combat ships being what weapon system they use within scrambler range, and with successive EWAR nerfs rendering mid-slots uselss for anything other than shield tanking or packing tackle kit, Gallente combat boats basically ALL DO THE SAME THING. And suffer hugley in fleets as a result.
Gimpb Sturmgrenadier Inc Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.09.24 09:29:00 - [32] Edited by: Gimpb on 24/09/2008 09:31:40 Specialization wise, tackling isn't going out of style and at least that's still a forte for gallente and minmatar. It might not be glamorous but someone's gotta do it. The web changes don't seem like a bad thing though. Yes, the change is a direct hit to larger turret ships but honestly I don't think that's a bad thing. Smaller ship classes should be more than a poor man's alternative to a BS or nano, they should be ship classes with distinct advantages that can be exploited and currently those niches seem much to small. That's how things are intended to be I think but a variety of factor are preventing it: nanos, neuts, drones, 90% webs, and a tracking formula that allows low orbital velocity to compensate for sig radius. I can't disagree that it would be nice for minmatar and gallente to be more than "good tackler".
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.24 09:43:00 - [33] Originally by: Hugh Ruka you don't mwd to the next target after initial warp in. you warp out and wait for new target assignment ... think in wings and fleet organisation ... it does not work on BS/BC level maybe ... And then you lose X ships, where X is the number of ships in the hostile fleet with a warp disruptor fitted. Brilliant plan, kill one target, lose half your fleet. Quote: rails on galente ships ... well do you have any other option to gain some range ? of course it is not up to par with range on bonused caldari or lasers, but it's about the only option ... Yes, there's an awesome option: don't fly Gallente. Unless you're a RPer, you don't try and force the wrong tool to do the job, you train the right tool.
Lubomir Penev	Posted - 2008.09.24 10:10:00 - [34] Originally by: Merin Ryskin 3) Every ship fills every role. Every ship is expected to fit web/scram, bring high dps, do its own tanking, etc. Yeah Gallente ships are never seen in RR gangs, and are prohibited from fitting rails. Unwritten rule and you get banned if you violate it. -- I'm done whining about AFs, it looks like they are making them right \o/
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.24 10:13:00 - [35] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 10:14:34 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 10:14:01 Originally by: Merin Ryskin The proposed nerf means a webbed target will have 4x the transversal, dropping blaster damage to near-zero. Actually 4x transversal is not even remotely true. That assumes that all ships post nano nerf have the same travel speed as before and totally ignores the existance of the new mwd-killing warp scramblers. Wich is a crazy assumption at best. Besides, alot of blaster ships have room to fit 2xwebs. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 10:20:00 - [36] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 10:14:34 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 10:14:01 Originally by: Merin Ryskin The proposed nerf means a webbed target will have 4x the transversal, dropping blaster damage to near-zero. Actually 4x transversal is not even remotely true. That assumes that all ships post nano nerf have the same travel speed as before and totally ignores the existance of the new mwd-killing warp scramblers. Wich is a crazy assumption at best. Besides, alot of blaster ships have room to fit 2xwebs. Which Blaster ships?!?! Rax and Deimos have 3 mids, Mega has 4 but even plated needs at least a Medium Injector or its cap lasts about the same time as an abadonns when you factor in all the MWD'ing. Hype's have an extra mid slot sure, but requiring it to be used for an additional web instead of ECCM/dual Medium Injector (essential for an ion fit) TC is just an outright nerf to an already crappy ship. Astarte, 4 mids, needs an injector. So that leaves the Domi. Which is a drone boat.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.24 10:23:00 - [37] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 10:24:05 Originally by: bldyannoyed Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 10:14:34 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 10:14:01 Originally by: Merin Ryskin The proposed nerf means a webbed target will have 4x the transversal, dropping blaster damage to near-zero. Actually 4x transversal is not even remotely true. That assumes that all ships post nano nerf have the same travel speed as before and totally ignores the existance of the new mwd-killing warp scramblers. Wich is a crazy assumption at best. Besides, alot of blaster ships have room to fit 2xwebs. Which Blaster ships?!?! Rax and Deimos have 3 mids, Mega has 4 but even plated needs at least a Medium Injector or its cap lasts about the same time as an abadonns when you factor in all the MWD'ing. Hype's have an extra mid slot sure, but requiring it to be used for an additional web instead of ECCM/dual Medium Injector (essential for an ion fit) TC is just an outright nerf to an already crappy ship. Astarte, 4 mids, needs an injector. So that leaves the Domi. Which is a drone boat. Ive seen alot of passive setups though. Anyways, still doesnt change the fact that it wont be 4x transversal. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 10:31:00 - [38] The Domi can easily fit 2 webs certainly. But then the Domi is an exceptionally good ship, and anyone pretending otherwise needs help. And it says a lot about the Gallente rep bonus when passive tanking is often still preferable. I have flown these ships, and even passive they need an injector, its that simple. Gank Megas arent cap stable running theyre guns, blasters dont use much less cap than pulse lasers after you factor in the amarr cap reduction bonus, add the constant MWD'ing and even passive blaster boats (including those that wasted a rep bonus to passive fit) need an injector. Which means no dual web.
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.09.24 10:42:00 - [39] Originally by: bldyannoyed I have flown these ships, and even passive they need an injector, its that simple. Gank Megas arent cap stable running theyre guns, blasters dont use much less cap than pulse lasers after you factor in the amarr cap reduction bonus, add the constant MWD'ing and even passive blaster boats (including those that wasted a rep bonus to passive fit) need an injector. This. Also, when I flew Megathron (switched to Raven a long time ago), I would have _loved_ to have a target MWDing at web range. People didn't do it, though - it doesn't really hurt my tracking with the MWD sig radius bloom, it runs them out of cap really fast and it hurts their own tracking. Thus, MWD turn-off is a non-issue for orbit fights - the web nerf is indeed an effective quadrupling of transversal. (You can try to reduce that with your own maneuvering, but plated BSs don't do that too well.) -- Gradient forum
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.24 10:46:00 - [40] Ur missing something their merin.. In a large fleet a gallente ship can specialise. In a large fleet you simply fit many damage mods etc, and ur sole role will be dps. However i do agree that the fact lasers>proj/blasters makes gallente and minmatar ships a tad gimped. Over all, quite a nice summary.. Awesome EVE history
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 10:47:00 - [41] Edited by: Angelic Eviaran on 24/09/2008 10:47:33 What I don't understand in this argument about blasterships and tracking is how do you get into a situation where you are mwding faster then your opponent (obviously because nothing other then a blastership would want to be close to you) but when reaching web range you suddenly lose the range and transversal dictation. It doesn't add up. This whole blaster ship whine is uncalled for tbfh.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2008.09.24 10:53:00 - [42] Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 24/09/2008 10:54:14 Very well written although I have no clear idea what the purpose of it is. All you do is Recite the differences in ship design philosophies and their relationships and use it as a precursor to a discussion on where the Gallente and Matar will be after the speed limits. Mentioning faction warfare only serves to muddy the argument as it has nothing to do with it. On the Amarr/Matari front the war is primarily being fought in small gangs <10 with the large bonanzas being sporadic/intermittent at best (weekends and some evenings). The gangs are comprised of everything that is deemed required, be it tackle, E-War or DPS. I think both sides have grown tired of the constant blobs that grind everything within 10 jumps to a halt and are getting back to basics. Gallente are close range high damage, Matari rely on high speed with below average damage, Caldari have long (finite) range with average damage and Amarr have above average damage and range with below average damage type. All this is per design and unless you are part of a corporation following a specific dogma, nothing prevents you from flying whichever ship best suits a given engagement. Personally I hope that ECM is getting looked at in conjunction with the speed limits as the jamming ships will neigh impossible to reach/kill/drive-off without nano-hacs - unless you are a sniper fleet that is
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.24 10:57:00 - [43] I will also state this.. Gallente may not be fastest, longest hitting, best tanking etc.. But damn they are great all rounders.. Say hello to my scorpion, it cant undock and readily pvp without at least 3 ppl in a gang for me (1 to tackle, one for dps). If i have to fit tackle, mwd etc, i really gimp my ships role, so i have to specialise, its not all grass is greener stuff you know. Tho i will agree that i kinda prefer caldari's situation atm ;P (I doubt id solo anyway hehe) Awesome EVE history
arbalesttom Caldari Glauxian Brothers	Posted - 2008.09.24 10:58:00 - [44] Thanks Merin its a good read and foremost true. Im all gallente battleship and blaster specced, and feel exactly the same way you wrote it all down. At least i agree on this way more than on your raven-stealthbomber thread BOOST GALLENTE!!!!!! NOT BECAUSE WE SUCK BUT BECAUSE WE NEED IT!!!!!!! *Sig* Originally by: Cpt Branko That is a JoJo, a forum troll used by Amarr whiners.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 11:01:00 - [45] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Edited by: Angelic Eviaran on 24/09/2008 10:47:33 What I don't understand in this argument about blasterships and tracking is how do you get into a situation where you are mwding faster then your opponent (obviously because nothing other then a blastership would want to be close to you) but when reaching web range you suddenly lose the range and transversal dictation. It doesn't add up. This whole blaster ship whine is uncalled for tbfh. Becasue any non-nano pvp ship fits a web (whenever it possibly can) as soon as the Blaster ship has MWD'd into web range BOTH ships get webbed and stop moving. Theres also the fact that Eve tracking is ****ed, and orbiting a stationery target still induces transversal, whereas what should happen is the same aspect of your ship remains facing your target and your guns dont need to move. Then theres the 4.5KM optimal, and as everyone knows the closer you get to a target the harder it gets to hit for the same transversal velocity (becasue angular velocity increases exponentially as you get closer to a target). So basically, you get to 5km, orbit very slowly as you're both webbed and hope you win. Nerf webs to 60% and the target keeps moving, your plated blaster ship handles like crap meaning dictating transversal/range is very difficult and all it adds up to whopping great blaster nerf.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 11:01:00 - [46] Edited by: Angelic Eviaran on 24/09/2008 11:03:01 Originally by: bldyannoyed Becasue any non-nano pvp ship fits a web (whenever it possibly can) as soon as the Blaster ship has MWD'd into web range BOTH ships get webbed and stop moving. Theres also the fact that Eve tracking is ****ed, and orbiting a stationery target still induces transversal, whereas what should happen is the same aspect of your ship remains facing your target and your guns dont need to move. Then theres the 4.5KM optimal, and as everyone knows the closer you get to a target the harder it gets to hit for the same transversal velocity (becasue angular velocity increases exponentially as you get closer to a target). So basically, you get to 5km, orbit very slowly as you're both webbed and hope you win. Nerf webs to 60% and the target keeps moving, your plated blaster ship handles like crap meaning dictating transversal/range is very difficult and all it adds up to whopping great blaster nerf. Wait your plated blaster ship handles like crap? Ok what are you facing and why are you plated when people above where whining that they couldnt fit 2 webs because they needed boosters for the reppers?
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.24 11:03:00 - [47] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 24/09/2008 11:05:26 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 24/09/2008 11:04:15 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 10:14:34 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 10:14:01 Originally by: Merin Ryskin The proposed nerf means a webbed target will have 4x the transversal, dropping blaster damage to near-zero. Actually 4x transversal is not even remotely true. That assumes that all ships post nano nerf have the same travel speed as before... Which they generally do, unless you are talking about nanos. Non-nano targets will move roughly the same (virtually the same when talking about non-MWD speeds), which means you'll have 4x transversal to them. You're mixing things up intentionally. You will have issues hitting non-MWDing targets at blaster optimal and closer in a Mega with 60% web on it. Anyone using MWD in webrange now is being silly anyway, the 550% tracking boost you give the opponent is preety significant, you know? Often you get less of a speed bonus (mass/thrust) in a (typically plated) close-range ship with MWD on then 5.5x bonus. EvE tracking is messed up because it does not use distance as a factor. So, you'd require infinite tracking to hit at 0 metres Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Ok what are you facing and why are you plated when people above where whining that they couldnt fit 2 webs because they needed boosters for the reppers? Noob, people need a cap booster to run the guns on a Gallente BS. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 11:05:00 - [48] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Edited by: Angelic Eviaran on 24/09/2008 11:03:01 Originally by: bldyannoyed Becasue any non-nano pvp ship fits a web (whenever it possibly can) as soon as the Blaster ship has MWD'd into web range BOTH ships get webbed and stop moving. Theres also the fact that Eve tracking is ****ed, and orbiting a stationery target still induces transversal, whereas what should happen is the same aspect of your ship remains facing your target and your guns dont need to move. Then theres the 4.5KM optimal, and as everyone knows the closer you get to a target the harder it gets to hit for the same transversal velocity (becasue angular velocity increases exponentially as you get closer to a target). So basically, you get to 5km, orbit very slowly as you're both webbed and hope you win. Nerf webs to 60% and the target keeps moving, your plated blaster ship handles like crap meaning dictating transversal/range is very difficult and all it adds up to whopping great blaster nerf. Wait your plated blaster ship handles like crap? Ok what are you facing and why are you plated when people above where whining that they couldnt fit 2 webs because they needed boosters for the reppers? You're an idiot. You're plated because active tank sucks in PvP, and you have an injector because even plated the combinatin of heavy MWD use and Blaster drain (not noticeably less than lasers) WILL CAP YOU OUT VERY FAST. Simple innit.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 11:08:00 - [49] Edited by: Angelic Eviaran on 24/09/2008 11:08:25 Originally by: Cpt Branko Noob, people need a cap booster to run the guns on a Gallente BS. In case you haven't flown a BS, guns and MWD at BS level take far far more cap then on BC / cruiser / frigate level. And what exactly are you trying to kill in your BS? Frigs? What other BS can hit smaller ships post nano patch when they go under their guns?
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 11:09:00 - [50] Originally by: bldyannoyed You're an idiot. You're plated because active tank sucks in PvP, and you have an injector because even plated the combinatin of heavy MWD use and Blaster drain (not noticeably less than lasers) WILL CAP YOU OUT VERY FAST. Simple innit. Thats why alot of ships have a utility high to fit nos. L2p. Time to rethink fits instead of whining. Time to l2p and fit a nos on that blaster ship.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 11:18:00 - [51] LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL A Nos will offset the cap drain of maybe 2 of your guns, assuming you even have sufficient grid/cpu to fit a heavy. Which Gallente ships dont. Its you who needs to "L2P". Or actually playing at all might be a start. I mean what do you actually fly? Cos it sure as shit aint Gallente.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 11:20:00 - [52] Originally by: bldyannoyed LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL A Nos will offset the cap drain of maybe 2 of your guns, assuming you even have sufficient grid/cpu to fit a heavy. Which Gallente ships dont. Its you who needs to "L2P". Or actually playing at all might be a start. I mean what do you actually fly? Cos it sure as shit aint Gallente. Actually a plated mega with nos has more then enough cap to run guns and burst around with its mwd. YOU need to l2p and stop whining.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 11:25:00 - [53] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: bldyannoyed LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL A Nos will offset the cap drain of maybe 2 of your guns, assuming you even have sufficient grid/cpu to fit a heavy. Which Gallente ships dont. Its you who needs to "L2P". Or actually playing at all might be a start. I mean what do you actually fly? Cos it sure as shit aint Gallente. Actually a plated mega with nos has more then enough cap to run guns and burst around with its mwd. YOU need to l2p and stop whining. Post the plated Mega fit that has enuff fitting for a Heavy Nos. No really. I'm interested.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 11:31:00 - [54] Originally by: bldyannoyed Post the plated Mega fit that has enuff fitting for a Heavy Nos. No really. I'm interested. [Megathron, New Setup 1] Internal Force Field Array I Adaptive Nano Plating II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets Warp Disruptor II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Heavy Diminishing Power System Drain I Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Ancillary Current Router I Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I Ogre II x5 There you go. Now you can stop crying.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 11:36:00 - [55] Ewwwwwww. Barely 100K EHP, 60 mill in rigs and the awesome agility boost that is 3 plates. If its all the same to you I'll keep fitting a Medium Injector in that 4th mid and fly a ship that while gimped in a gang, isn't simply gimped full stop.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 12:07:00 - [56] Originally by: bldyannoyed Ewwwwwww. Barely 100K EHP, 60 mill in rigs and the awesome agility boost that is 3 plates. If its all the same to you I'll keep fitting a Medium Injector in that 4th mid and fly a ship that while gimped in a gang, isn't simply gimped full stop. Im sorry you feel that way. That your battleships should be able to do it all when other battleships cant hit small orbiting targets either.
Cautet Killer Koalas Kingdom of Butan	Posted - 2008.09.24 12:17:00 - [57] Nice OP, some valid points but some incorrect assumptions (in my view). I'm not going to go into blaster boats. I have always found them to be situational at best. And also there are plenty of good Galenti setups without using blasters so I can avoid touching on them. Galenti does have some nice boats which are able to perform some very varied roles very well. Fleet sniper: Whatever anyone says the Mega is a decent fleet sniper. Comparing it to the Rokh it outdamages the rokh at most ranges. Comparing anything to the Apoc is tricky because the Apoc is probably the best fleet sniper at the moment. Nano: Ishtar is a lovely nanoship that can pack a real punch. It has drawbacks, but so do most ships. Remote Rep gangs: Domi is a great RR ship. The mega is also a very popular choice. RR rep gangs alone make every Caldari pilot need to cross train. Interdictors: Does it's job. Inty's: Ranis is decent. Carrier: Very good Dread: Very good (perhaps the best all round) I haven't touched on every shiptype, and I have missed lots of good ships, just illustrated in every size of gang there is a Galenti ship that is very good. Cross training: Galenti and Caldari are very lucky in the ease of crosstraining. NB: Nano-nerf has not yet finished testing. Be patient. NB2: RR gangs are actualy very popular.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 12:20:00 - [58] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: bldyannoyed Ewwwwwww. Barely 100K EHP, 60 mill in rigs and the awesome agility boost that is 3 plates. If its all the same to you I'll keep fitting a Medium Injector in that 4th mid and fly a ship that while gimped in a gang, isn't simply gimped full stop. Im sorry you feel that way. That your battleships should be able to do it all when other battleships cant hit small orbiting targets either. Did you read the thread? It's not about small orbiting targets. Noone ever said it was, certainly not me. It's about how Blaster ships are becoming increasingly irrelevant in gang PvP and how solo PvP is on it's way out. It's about how the changes on sisi are going to nerf the shit out of blaster boats (60% webs will screw blasters). On sisi even webbed BS move fast enuff to reduce blaster damage at 5KM, and ships agility and mass has been screwed so badly even getting into range in the first place is a trial, let alone trying to stay there. It's about how Blasters dont even do that much more damage than far longer range weapon systems. Torpedoes and Mega Pulses make Blasters a joke. Christ, a Raven can do more dps at 30km than a Mega can at 5km, and Mega Pulse lasers lose probably only 5-10% dps compared to blasters and have 4 or 5 times the range. Generalised ships (pretty much the entire Gallente line-up) are rapidly becoming pointless. Thats the bone of contention here.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 12:32:00 - [59] Originally by: bldyannoyed It's not about small orbiting targets. Noone ever said it was, certainly not me Ok its not about small orbiting targets then. Originally by: bldyannoyed On sisi even webbed BS move fast enuff to reduce blaster damage at 5KM, So its about webbed BS. Ok but do you know how much dps the other BS loses by orbiting your "poor" blaster BS? Originally by: bldyannoyed Christ, a Raven can do more dps at 30km than a Mega can at 5km And since when did a mega need a TP to do full damage with its turrets? Originally by: bldyannoyed Thats the bone of contention here. The bone of contention is that youre exaggerating instead of adapting.
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.09.24 12:38:00 - [60] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran <sniping about single sentences deleted> Ok, I'll bite - what do you fly, and if it is Gallente, why? What, in your opinion, is a good reason to fly/train Gallente now instead of going for Amarr or Caldari? -- Gradient forum
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.24 12:46:00 - [61] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: bldyannoyed Post the plated Mega fit that has enuff fitting for a Heavy Nos. No really. I'm interested. [Megathron, New Setup 1] Internal Force Field Array I Adaptive Nano Plating II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets Warp Disruptor II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Heavy Diminishing Power System Drain I Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Ancillary Current Router I Trimark Armor Pump I Trimark Armor Pump I Ogre II x5 There you go. Now you can stop crying. lacks buffer, and relying on an ACR to shoehorn everything is even worse. anyways, meyrin is right, and I can't find anything in wich I disagree with her. only solutions I would do would to be "respec" some of the staple ships and improve others. like making the 'thron a better fleet ship and the hype a better B-ship (thron with more armor, targetting range and cpu, but less agility and more mass, and hype with a better(rof? armor HP?) bonus instead that repping bonus and a 8/4/7 slot setup). but that's just one of many ideas. ideally the solution would be to make blaster ships rely less on local tanking and more in remote tanking (yes, boost oneiros, and make remote repping a field where gallente would be the best), but still having some staple fleet ships. even other change that might help gallente would be to increase optimal of damps, but that's an whole diferent issue. I still believe that there is a way to put point-blank high-dps ships in game without screwing balance and still make them viable tools, but this means a revamp, in many aspects of pvp as we know it. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 12:46:00 - [62] Angelic, you're either trolling, stupid or both. A Raven needs a TP to do full DPS against SOME (not all) BS. A Mega needs to be at 5KM, be hitting a BS sized target or fitting a TP, and have low transversal, in order to do full DPS. And guess what. It still wont be doing much more damage than a Raven. And I have adapted. I've stopped flying ships that are bad and about to get worse. I haven't nothered with a Mega outside empire war station hugging in well over a year. Ditto the Hype. Theyre simply not good enough. Even before Lasers,Amarr and Torpedoes got buffed through the roof the drawbacks of blasters in gangs already outweighed the benefit of high DPS. Now you can get blaster DPS at 30KM there is no reason to fly them.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 12:50:00 - [63] Originally by: bldyannoyed Even before Lasers,Amarr and Torpedoes got buffed through the roof the drawbacks of blasters in gangs already outweighed the benefit of high DPS. Thats not true. Before torp buff and armor em nerf EVERYONE was flying around in blaster megas.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 12:54:00 - [64] Everyone eh? Well, everyone must have re-specced sharpish, and i suspect the few poor saps that are still flying them wont be after the nano/blaster/everything that needs to move in order to effective-nerf comes into effect.
Ceremony Garp	Posted - 2008.09.24 12:55:00 - [65] Originally by: Merin Ryskin ...FW is the perfect example. CCP didn't declare "FW is for blobs", they made lots of objectives spread out everywhere, a near-perfect environment for solo/small-gang PvP. But guess what happened: the players ignored the solo/small-gang options and brought blobs. I completely and utterly concur. I joined up in my one man corp for some extra fun with FW. I had no 'proper' access to 0.0 and wanted to be able to fight against the 'enemy' in low-sec without having to tank sentries, or stay in 0.4 or less. FW was for me, a superb addition to the game. Problem was, FW ended up being just like 0.0 without the bubbles, until Heavy Interdictors became more prevalent. No-one wanted to small gang with me as they preferred the relative safety of 25+ gateblobs. I don't know for sure, but suspect that CCP didn't really intend this to happen and merely wanted the Empire pvp'ers to have some added enjoyment since 0.0 is mostly alliance based and is practically for all intensive purposes, locked down to a lot of players not in corp' that are not in an alliance. I don't want to be in another alliance with all it's inherent politics and having to move stuff around for absolutely loads of jumps. I don't want to sit firing at an enemy pos for three hours and be gangwarped all over the bloody place, lol. Merin, I apologise if I have veered away from your main points, but as usual your understanding of EvE is way beyond my comprehension - not that I'm thick, lol, far from it - but I'm just not into it as much as you . I just wanted to lend my support to the point about FW being gazumped by what people perceive to be 0.0 in low-sec.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 12:57:00 - [66] Edited by: Angelic Eviaran on 24/09/2008 12:57:45 Originally by: Theron Gyrow Originally by: Angelic Eviaran <sniping about single sentences deleted> Ok, I'll bite - what do you fly, and if it is Gallente, why? What, in your opinion, is a good reason to fly/train Gallente now instead of going for Amarr or Caldari? Gallente is a good race for soloing, a race that isnt all that high sp to be useful in pvp. Gallente ships have perfect amount of mids. Gallente BS has no problem fitting full tackle injection and mwd unlike amarr and caldari BS. Gallente BS have alot more dps then minmatar BS. I think thats reason enough to train gallente. How about you show me amarr or caldari Bs that can fit injection, mwd, web, point and compare their tanks and dps and you might understand why.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.24 13:03:00 - [67] I don't think respeccing the ships to fleet ships is a good solution really. What most blaster ship pilots would prefer isn't really viability in large gangs / fleets (I doubt they'd be flying blasterboats if that were the case, they have always been inferior as gang sizes go up) - it's putting back their close-range superiority to the levels where it was before Amarr & Caldari DPS boosts. Not even touching the metagame shift, Caldari and Amarr could always do better at long range, but the torp buff (in case of Caldari) and the combined tracking buff + resist nerf + BS boosts (in case of Amarr) have largely reduced/eliminated their inferiority at close ranges even at situations which would traditionally favour blasterboats. Proposed web/MWD nerf just reduces any leftover blasterboat advantages in situations that should favour blasters in the first place, as range control has been made more difficult and tracking issues become more pronounced. I see the infringement of Caldari/Amarr on Gallente short range superiority a much bigger issue then the fact Caldari/Amarr are superior gang ships compared to blasterboats. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 13:12:00 - [68] Originally by: Cpt Branko I don't think respeccing the ships to fleet ships is a good solution really. What most blaster ship pilots would prefer isn't really viability in large gangs / fleets (I doubt they'd be flying blasterboats if that were the case, they have always been inferior as gang sizes go up) - it's putting back their close-range superiority to the levels where it was before Amarr & Caldari DPS boosts. Not even touching the metagame shift, Caldari and Amarr could always do better at long range, but the torp buff (in case of Caldari) and the combined tracking buff + resist nerf + BS boosts (in case of Amarr) have largely reduced/eliminated their inferiority at close ranges even at situations which would traditionally favour blasterboats. Proposed web/MWD nerf just reduces any leftover blasterboat advantages in situations that should favour blasters in the first place, as range control has been made more difficult and tracking issues become more pronounced. I see the infringement of Caldari/Amarr on Gallente short range superiority a much bigger issue then the fact Caldari/Amarr are superior gang ships compared to blasterboats. I would like to see a torp raven with mwd, point, web + another mid win against a blaster mega. Its not like the raven can tank, tackle and dps like the mega. Mega has high dps close, has full tackle and tank. Only downside is range of blasters really. How is the raven outclassing the mega? You people are making a chicken out of a feather.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 13:17:00 - [69] First off, when was the last time solo-BS PvP was really common? Cos thats what you're talking about. What everyone else is talking about is fleet and gang warfare, what 95% of all Eve PvP now revolves around. In a fleet a Raven can do Blaster DPS at 30KM with a better buffer than a Mega. It's a more useful ship. Same applies to Amarr BS, specially geddon and Abadonn. And actually, a Raven can be easily fitted with MWD, Point and buffer, and assuming the fight started outside web range could conceivably beat a Megathron 1v1 anyway.
Zana Kito	Posted - 2008.09.24 13:30:00 - [70] Also, don't leave out the efficiency and popular use of buffer tanks as more pvp evolves around gangs where active tanking is simply a no go. With buffer tanks, the major Amarr disadvantage of "lasers neuting cap" isn't much of a problem since no cap is needed to tank, thus there's plenty of cap to fire guns without worry. Really, there's 2 easy options CCP could to to boost matari and gallente viability post nano changes, especially with BS ships being so slow, close range guns are pointless in gangs. 1. As i've said, increase the range of barrage/null. Barrage/Null on BS guns should hit to ~30km +16km falloff (for blasters), and ~15km +30km falloff for ACs. Still not far ranged as scorch/javs, but they retain their niche of higher dps at shorter ranges. Numbers are just ideas and ofcourse needs to be tested. But definitely blaster/ac need a more effective long range option in null/barrage, currently it's simply not good enough. 2. A big dmg boost to blasters. It's lost its niche. Torps do near blaster dps, pulse does near blaster dps at much further range. A slight dmg boost to AC is also required. I'm eagerly awaiting ccp's dev response soon. It's been ages since their promised blog on the nano changes..
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.09.24 13:36:00 - [71] Originally by: bldyannoyed And actually, a Raven can be easily fitted with MWD, Point and buffer, and assuming the fight started outside web range could conceivably beat a Megathron 1v1 anyway. At any range, actually, which is the galling part. Either is hasn't a web but a second LSE and it wins because it has more EHP, no tracking or range problems and just a smidgeon less theoretical damage (a lucky Mega might manage to run out of scram range and warp before dying), or it has a web and wins because it is faster and more maneuverable and has no tracking or range problems. -- Gradient forum
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 13:44:00 - [72] Originally by: bldyannoyed First off, when was the last time solo-BS PvP was really common? Cos thats what you're talking about. What everyone else is talking about is fleet and gang warfare, what 95% of all Eve PvP now revolves around. In a fleet a Raven can do Blaster DPS at 30KM with a better buffer than a Mega. It's a more useful ship. Same applies to Amarr BS, specially geddon and Abadonn. And actually, a Raven can be easily fitted with MWD, Point and buffer, and assuming the fight started outside web range could conceivably beat a Megathron 1v1 anyway. 1. Yeah some of us do still do the solo thing. 2. Fleet warfare? Rails are awsome for that. There is nothing wrong with fitting rails, really. 3. Solo in raven? Fit full tackle and mwd? Sorry but that is fail. A mega will do that alot better.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 13:50:00 - [73] Soloing in a BS is not a good idea. I solo, I do it in stuff thats cheap so that i dont care when the inevitable 3 falcons decloak on my head. I'll use a BS solo in an empire war and thats about it. Second, rails in anything other than a total sniper fit are just a **** poor attempt at pulse lasrers. Worse tracking, worse DPS, and using closer range ammo they actually have less optimal than Mega Pulses and Torpedoes. Go figure. Third, a Raven can beat a Mega solo like i said, as long as the fight starts outside web range. The Raven is faster, and has better dps outside web ranges. The Mega takes full damage from faction torps wihout a painter, and once double or triple plated and triple armor rigged is so much slower than a Raven its funny. As a result the Raven needs only MWD and point. that leaves 3 damage mods and 5 slots to buffer tank. DCU II in a low slot and 4 shield mods. So actually it gets better dps at better range with a better buffer and all the tackle kit it needs to down a Mega. Next argument?
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 13:52:00 - [74] Originally by: bldyannoyed Soloing in a BS is not a good idea. I solo, I do it in stuff thats cheap so that i dont care when the inevitable 3 falcons decloak on my head. I'll use a BS solo in an empire war and thats about it. Second, rails in anything other than a total sniper fit are just a **** poor attempt at pulse lasrers. Worse tracking, worse DPS, and using closer range ammo they actually have less optimal than Mega Pulses and Torpedoes. Go figure. Third, a Raven can beat a Mega solo like i said, as long as the fight starts outside web range. The Raven is faster, and has better dps outside web ranges. The Mega takes full damage from faction torps wihout a painter, and once double or triple plated and triple armor rigged is so much slower than a Raven its funny. As a result the Raven needs only MWD and point. that leaves 3 damage mods and 5 slots to buffer tank. DCU II in a low slot and 4 shield mods. So actually it gets better dps at better range with a better buffer and all the tackle kit it needs to down a Mega. Next argument? Excuse me but if you wanted mid range ships, ie between rail and blaster range, why the hell did you not train a mid range race like AMARR?! Seriously, you have yourself to blame.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.24 13:55:00 - [75] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 24/09/2008 13:54:47 Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Excuse me but if you wanted mid range ships, ie between rail and blaster range, why the hell did you not train a mid range race like AMARR?! Seriously, you have yourself to blame. Tbh, if you want short range ships, you want to train Amarr too. That's what we're talking about The mid-range viability (without refitting!) is just a added plus. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 13:57:00 - [76] I did train Amarr. Now I have the best sniper, the best mid range and extremely competitive close range ships, in all classes except tech 1 cruisers. I'm a happy bunny. It's the Gallents i feel sorry for.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 13:58:00 - [77] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 24/09/2008 13:54:47 Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Excuse me but if you wanted mid range ships, ie between rail and blaster range, why the hell did you not train a mid range race like AMARR?! Seriously, you have yourself to blame. Tbh, if you want short range ships, you want to train Amarr too. That's what we're talking about The mid-range viability (without refitting!) is just a added plus. Geddon cant fit full tackle with 3 mids and abaddons cost alot in comparison. Blaster BS are still very viable for small gang and solo work. If you wanted the mid ranged 0.0 fleet BSs, outside the rail sniping ranges, you trained the wrong race.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:00:00 - [78] Originally by: bldyannoyed I did train Amarr. Now I have the best sniper, the best mid range and extremely competitive close range ships, in all classes except tech 1 cruisers. I'm a happy bunny. It's the Gallents i feel sorry for. Gallente have great solo ships in all ship classes and are very easy even for a noob to be efficient in. Ofcourse soloing is not for everyone and its a good thing you picked amarr so you can hide behind a fleet and pewpew all day.
Zana Kito	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:02:00 - [79] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 24/09/2008 13:54:47 Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Excuse me but if you wanted mid range ships, ie between rail and blaster range, why the hell did you not train a mid range race like AMARR?! Seriously, you have yourself to blame. Tbh, if you want short range ships, you want to train Amarr too. That's what we're talking about The mid-range viability (without refitting!) is just a added plus. Geddon cant fit full tackle with 3 mids and abaddons cost alot in comparison. Blaster BS are still very viable for small gang and solo work. If you wanted the mid ranged 0.0 fleet BSs, outside the rail sniping ranges, you trained the wrong race. 1. BS fitting tackle in a gang is rather self defeating. Your lock speed is too slow to catch stuff b4 its gone. Your speed is too slow to catch stuff to tackle if it intends to run. The tackle is done by real tacklers. Hence, in a gang, BS don't need their mids for tackle. With the prevalence of ECM falcons/bb/scorp, ECCM are the obvious choice for spare mids. A MWD, cap inject, 1 to spare. 2. Abaddon costs not much more after insurance. And yeah, blaster bs will always be viable for solo and tiny gangs. It's simply that you miss the point of the OP.
Lubomir Penev	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:02:00 - [80] Originally by: bldyannoyed In a fleet a Raven can do Blaster DPS at 30KM with a better buffer than a Mega. Try to pop a Sacrilege in a torp Raven and reconsider. The Mega is able to apply its dps to a way wider range of targets than a torp Raven. A torp Raven is seldom of any use against sub BC targets. Also torp ravens don't fit well in armor centric RR gangs, one of their biggest drawback. -- I'm done whining about AFs, it looks like they are making them right \o/
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:04:00 - [81] Originally by: Zana Kito 1. BS fitting tackle in a gang is rather self defeating. Your lock speed is too slow to catch stuff b4 its gone. Your speed is too slow to catch stuff to tackle if it intends to run. Then you have never seen pvp in low sec. Learn something about this game and then come talk.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:06:00 - [82] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Cpt Branko Tbh, if you want short range ships, you want to train Amarr too. That's what we're talking about The mid-range viability (without refitting!) is just a added plus. Geddon cant fit full tackle with 3 mids Not a issue if you have, like, two ships. In a small gang situation (say, <= 5 people) the lack of one midslot is a total non-issue. It is only a issue if you're soloing (not counting station hugging, which the Geddon does awesomely well anyway). Originally by: Angelic Eviaran and abaddons cost alot in comparison. They would if it wasn't for insurance. It costs maybe 10-15 million more when you consider that (driving the loss cost from about 75/80-ish million to 85-90ish million), and you get a completely solo-capable BS with full tackle, plenty of EHP and very high DPS. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:07:00 - [83] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: bldyannoyed I did train Amarr. Now I have the best sniper, the best mid range and extremely competitive close range ships, in all classes except tech 1 cruisers. I'm a happy bunny. It's the Gallents i feel sorry for. Gallente have great solo ships in all ship classes and are very easy even for a noob to be efficient in. Ofcourse soloing is not for everyone and its a good thing you picked amarr so you can hide behind a fleet and pewpew all day. I don't behind anything. I've also got Caldari and Minmatar trained, all the way to tech 2. I can pretty much fly the best ship for any given scenario with a full tech 2 fit. And guess what. 90% the time the best ship is Amarr or Caldari. Hell, Amarr even has better nano boats than Minmatar. I don't even bother to own a Megathron anymore. Even a 2 man gang benefits more from a Torp Raven or Amarr Mega Pulse kill boat.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:10:00 - [84] Edited by: Angelic Eviaran on 24/09/2008 14:11:25 double post, sucky forums.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:11:00 - [85] Edited by: Angelic Eviaran on 24/09/2008 14:11:10 Originally by: Cpt Branko They would if it wasn't for insurance. It costs maybe 10-15 million more when you consider that (driving the loss cost from about 75/80-ish million to 85-90ish million), and you get a completely solo-capable BS with full tackle, plenty of EHP and very high DPS. Not true. Abaddons fitting cost alot more. 8 megapulses are expensive compared to DHP. Generally geddon doesnt get rigged either because its extremely cheap while the price tag of abaddon + fitting does warrant trimarks. Its quite alot more then 10-15 mill. And not to mention abaddon doesnt have a utility high like mega and geddon.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:13:00 - [86] 2 points: 1. Who the **** needs to fit DHP's? 2. Generally Geddons, like most BS, DO get rigged because the performance boost is worth the cost increase.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:14:00 - [87] Originally by: bldyannoyed 2 points: 1. Who the **** needs to fit DHP's? 2. Generally Geddons, like most BS, DO get rigged because the performance boost is worth the cost increase. hahahahaha youre just so wrong.
bldyannoyed Killed In Action	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:15:00 - [88] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: bldyannoyed 2 points: 1. Who the **** needs to fit DHP's? 2. Generally Geddons, like most BS, DO get rigged because the performance boost is worth the cost increase. hahahahaha youre just so wrong. Good comeback.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:16:00 - [89] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Cpt Branko They would if it wasn't for insurance. It costs maybe 10-15 million more when you consider that (driving the loss cost from about 75/80-ish million to 85-90ish million), and you get a completely solo-capable BS with full tackle, plenty of EHP and very high DPS. Not true. Abaddons fitting cost alot more. 8 megapulses are expensive compared to DHP. Generally geddon doesnt get rigged either because its extremely cheap while the price tag of abaddon + fitting does warrant trimarks. Its quite alot more then 10-15 mill. Was comparing it to a Mega actually, but everyone I know fits trimarks, on all their BS (yes, tier 1 too). Plate tankers are very weak without trimarks on battleship level, they just don't compete with anything. All the geddon pilots I've flown with were trimarking their ships. My typhoons are always trimarked. Trimarks are, like, standard fitting for a BS. I don't see what reasonably fitted BS you could solo in a un-trimarked ship. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Bleedingthrough	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:18:00 - [90] I although I have decent skills i hardly ever fly blaster ships because itÆs always a kill or be killed game. Not good if you fight outnumbered most of the time. But I would think this is different in fleet battle: Would not 20+ cheap suicide Megas warping directly in an enemy fleet from a safe spot (to a ceptor/recon whatever) have a large impact on the battle? ThatÆs how IÆd use them. But I have little experience with this sort of operations.
Myra2007 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:25:00 - [91] Just to nitpick a little: 5x Megathrons will die horribly to 3x Armageddons and 2x Falcons. This is not a problem at all and has nothing to do with overspecialization of megathrons. 5 Armageddons die to 3 Megathrons and 2 Falcons just as easily. While i largely agree with your analysis (who wouldn't) statements like this are a bit deceptive.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:37:00 - [92] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 24/09/2008 14:38:41 Originally by: Myra2007 Just to nitpick a little: 5x Megathrons will die horribly to 3x Armageddons and 2x Falcons. Quoting that as a issue is being completely deceptive and mis-constructing the issue in order to kill the discussion. It's, in short, a intentional mis-direction. The issue is that 2 Armaggedons are better then two Megathrons. 2 Abbadons and it's not even worth discussing. In a sub 5 man gang, the gang with Armaggedons/Abbadons instead of Megathrons simply does a better job. In anything from 5 men to N, the gang with Armaggedons/Abbadons is still better, meaning they do small, medium and big gang better, and solo just as well if you consider the Abbadon. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Katy Karkinoff Minmatar Psycho Chicks	Posted - 2008.09.24 14:40:00 - [93] Originally by: Vaal Erit Originally by: Merin Ryskin ...with Minmatar getting "win button nano setups Uhhh, no. Actually the Vagabond (the pinacle minmatar nano-ship) is pretty much a mediocre nano-ship and some say it is one of the worst. They get eaten by Curses, they have terrible range and terrible cap. Curses/Ishtars destroy tanks and do huge non-tracking DPS, a Sac can perma mwd and do a good amount of missile DPS. Zealots can pew pew with pulse at enourmous ranges and a Cerb @150km going 2.5km/s takes forever to catch. Minmatar are cetainly NOT the nano-race. Other than that point, your post is good, what is the point of a blaster ship if you cannot catch anything? It is a very sharp edge between blaster ships being able to catch everything and everything being able to get away from balster ships and laugh at them. But as you are, I am bored waiting for the new balance changes to arrive on Sisi so all this arguing is pretty much moot. Wrong. Vaga will go the fastest for the cruisers period, giving it the most survivability. On top of that, the disgusting buffer and shield resists it has makes it the most difficult to work through. And while being in deep fall off may be obnoxious, it still deals enough damage to kill its usual targets (ratters). And it cant have its weapons blown up. You sir, probably do not play eve. My perspective comes from flying the ishtar and flying with friends who fly the sac and vaga.
H Lecter Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2008.09.24 15:24:00 - [94] First of all sorry for posting my comment without reading all 4 pages of previous posts. The longer I think about the role differenced/advantages/disadvantages of different races, the more I come to the conclusion that diversity wins Eve. The beauty about this game is, that you are not nailed down to one specific race. You can fly the Arazu? Fine, a few days (exaggerated but you get the point) to get you into a Falcon, soon after that a Rapier or Pilgrim. If you have the possibility to warp right on top of the target(s), why not bring a Megathron? If you know you are in for a long range engagement, bring some good snipers and leave the Megathron at home. At the end of the fight the winner will usually be the one who had the better information and could prepare in advance. That does not mean that necessarily all ships are perfect in their specific role - I still do believe that e.g. damps (though not being utterly useless) deserve some subtle but noticeable buff. But overall nobody is really forced to stick to one race exclusively.
Gimpb Sturmgrenadier Inc Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.09.24 15:27:00 - [95] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Gimpb Specialization wise, tackling isn't going out of style and at least that's still a forte for gallente and minmatar. It might not be glamorous but someone's gotta do it. Unfortunately, that someone isn't Gallente/Minmatar. Which kind of tackler do you want? Interceptor/interdictor? Pick one at random, all of them do the job equally well. You might as well just use the Caldari/Amarr version, since you already have the skills. Heavy tackler? Caldari have the best HIC, Minmatar the second-best, and Gallente the worst. I guess the Vagabond and Rapier count too. Minmatar aren't quite as screwed here, but this sure isn't the Gallente role. What I was referring to there is blaster boats with a disruptor and web holding down targets, not so much the specialized tacklers. There's a place for dictors, hictors, recons, and ceptors but I don't see those ships aren't a replacement for a standard point. They're great for initially getting a hold on something but all it takes is a single BS leaning on any of them to shut em down. Even a hictor, as tough as they are, can be shut down in short order with neuts. It's not the same story with a plated blasterthron--getting rid of that is a little more challenging. So I guess what I'm saying is there's a place for specialized tackling ship classes but the longer an engagement goes on the more important it is to have regular points in addition to your T2 tackling ship classes... at least imo. Quote: Quote: The web changes don't seem like a bad thing though. Yes, the change is a direct hit to larger turret ships but honestly I don't think that's a bad thing. Blaster ships require a web to hit the target. The proposed nerf means a webbed target will have 4x the transversal, dropping blaster damage to near-zero. And of course there's the increased problems getting into range in the first place... Quote: Smaller ship classes should be more than a poor man's alternative to a BS or nano, they should be ship classes with distinct advantages that can be exploited and currently those niches seem much to small. They are. The problem is the smaller Gallente-style ships are just as useless as the bigger ones. There's very little reason to ever fly a Deimos or Muninn over a Zealot, Cerberus or Eagle. I guess what I'm saying is if there's a problem with blasters where a blaster ship can't hit a ship of the same size fairly well, then that's a problem and they should adjust blasters but keep the web changes. But a BS having trouble hitting cruisers is no problem to me.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:11:00 - [96] Originally by: H Lecter The longer I think about the role differenced/advantages/disadvantages of different races, the more I come to the conclusion that diversity wins Eve. True. Quote: If you have the possibility to warp right on top of the target(s), why not bring a Megathron? Because of your previous statement: diversity wins Eve. The Mega is not diverse, and can only react to the single threat that you see before you. The moment that something else happens, you're boned... where other battleships ::cough-Geddon-Apoc-Abbadon-Raven-cough:: have the diversity to engage at range. Quote: At the end of the fight the winner will usually be the one who had the better information and could prepare in advance. Also true, but part of the information that you know is realizing that the unexpected can happen. -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:13:00 - [97] Originally by: Katy Karkinoff Wrong. Vaga will go the fastest for the cruisers period, giving it the most survivability. On top of that, the disgusting buffer and shield resists it has makes it the most difficult to work through. And while being in deep fall off may be obnoxious, it still deals enough damage to kill its usual targets (ratters). And it cant have its weapons blown up. You sir, probably do not play eve. My perspective comes from flying the ishtar and flying with friends who fly the sac and vaga. I am an Ishtar pilot. I've got 4 or 5 of the things to a single Vagabond right now. I love my Ishtars.... and I've killed lots of things with them (from solo to not), so take my word when I say this: Nano ships are dead on the test server. 100% inescapably dead. This includes the Vagabond. -Liang --
Take Enemy Amarr 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:22:00 - [98] Cache cleared.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:22:00 - [99] Originally by: Gimpb I guess what I'm saying is if there's a problem with blasters where a blaster ship can't hit a ship of the same size fairly well, then that's a problem and they should adjust blasters but keep the web changes. But a BS having trouble hitting cruisers is no problem to me. I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that the issue of battleships hitting cruisers is limited to close range ships only. Here's why: The tracking formula makes no allowances for range. The comparative tracking between a MP II with multi at it's optimal vs a blaster at it's optimal is pretty astounding (in a bad way for blasters), but the problem is worse than that. Moving 1km further in actually reduces your DPS much more significantly for the blaster ship than for the pulse ship (this is because each meter that you move further in is a much higher percentage of the total range). Then, after you've been screwed over once by having a range issue, it gets compounded by having a sig radius vs sig resolution multiplier. Thus, we can see that laser ships actually have no problems hitting cruisers at their intended operation range, while cruisers are literally (and I do mean literally) 100% immune to blaster fire. -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:24:00 - [100] Originally by: Myra2007 Just to nitpick a little: 5x Megathrons will die horribly to 3x Armageddons and 2x Falcons. This is not a problem at all and has nothing to do with overspecialization of megathrons. 5 Armageddons die to 3 Megathrons and 2 Falcons just as easily. While i largely agree with your analysis (who wouldn't) statements like this are a bit deceptive. To nitpick a little further: 5 Geddons vs 5 Throns, 5 geddons win hands down. The problem gets vastly more exacerbated as N goes up. The Falcon that you're throwing out is something of a red herring, though it is applicable. To nitpick even further: 5 geddons and 2 falcons vs 5 throns and 2 falcons and the geddons still win. There is simply no good reason to ever use a thron in gang. -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:25:00 - [101] Originally by: Lubomir Penev Also torp ravens don't fit well in armor centric RR gangs, one of their biggest drawback. Actually, they do. Just fit plates, 2 RR in the extra highs, and cruise missiles. Also, fit ECCM and sensor boosters so that you can hit out to 200+km and your gang is 100% immune to Falcons.... -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:28:00 - [102] Originally by: Bleedingthrough But I would think this is different in fleet battle: Would not 20+ cheap suicide Megas warping directly in an enemy fleet from a safe spot (to a ceptor/recon whatever) have a large impact on the battle? ThatÆs how IÆd use them. But I have little experience with this sort of operations. I've seen this tactic used. It works ok if you can pull it off... the problem is actually pulling it off against anyone that has a clue. Also, it almost explicitly requires that this happen in NPC space (lowsec, NPC 0.0) because you have to have brought close range battleships to a fleet fight that's going to happen at 200km (and bringing close range battleships while thier 200 battleships pound your fleet to oblivion from 200km is silly). -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:29:00 - [103] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran ... Wow, you're a terrible troll. Please come up with something semi intelligent if you're going to troll, otherwise it will be hard for CCP to see what the problem is. You're increasing the signal to noise ratio. Please stop. -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:29:00 - [104] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Actually 4x transversal is not even remotely true. That assumes that all ships post nano nerf have the same travel speed as before and totally ignores the existance of the new mwd-killing warp scramblers. Wich is a crazy assumption at best. Besides, alot of blaster ships have room to fit 2xwebs. Actually, it is. We've been over this before, Lyria, and you tucked your tail then too. Shall we repeat? -Liang --
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:32:00 - [105] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Actually 4x transversal is not even remotely true. That assumes that all ships post nano nerf have the same travel speed as before and totally ignores the existance of the new mwd-killing warp scramblers. Wich is a crazy assumption at best. Besides, alot of blaster ships have room to fit 2xwebs. Actually, it is. We've been over this before, Lyria, and you tucked your tail then too. Shall we repeat? -Liang Already repeated in the falcon thread x) Awesome EVE history
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:32:00 - [106] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Actually 4x transversal is not even remotely true. That assumes that all ships post nano nerf have the same travel speed as before and totally ignores the existance of the new mwd-killing warp scramblers. Wich is a crazy assumption at best. Besides, alot of blaster ships have room to fit 2xwebs. Actually, it is. We've been over this before, Lyria, and you tucked your tail then too. Shall we repeat? -Liang Liang vs Lyria fight n¦149783172843743 GO! --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
H Lecter Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:34:00 - [107] Originally by: Liang Nuren constructive post I am scared! Liang just agreed in 2 of 3 points with me What I meant about the Megathron was that it is a tool for a situation. Having it available in the fleet is nice. The ship itself does not need to be overly versatile, the fleet as a whole should. Why not have an Apoc, a Baddon and a Neut Domi in fleet as well?
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:40:00 - [108] Originally by: H Lecter What I meant about the Megathron was that it is a tool for a situation. Having it available in the fleet is nice. The ship itself does not need to be overly versatile, the fleet as a whole should. Why not have an Apoc, a Baddon and a Neut Domi in fleet as well? I know what you meant about the Mega - it's a tool for the situation. There are three problems with it though: - It's "specialized" in doing something that no longer exists. - It doesn't have the diversity to deal with the situation that is all too common (that what you see is often not what you get) - Other ships do have the diversity to deal with those situations, and as an added bonus do 95% of everything the thron does (Even if you 100% discount travel time). So, while the situation may appear (at first) to be one that favors the Thron... how quickly does that change, and how often? And should you spend 190M to outfit a battleship that can be used once every couple of months, or should you spend 190M to outfit a ship that can do everthing the above can and lots more? -Liang --
Omarvelous Caldari Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:45:00 - [109] Edited by: Omarvelous on 24/09/2008 16:45:03 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lubomir Penev Also torp ravens don't fit well in armor centric RR gangs, one of their biggest drawback. Actually, they do. Just fit plates, 2 RR in the extra highs, and cruise missiles. Also, fit ECCM and sensor boosters so that you can hit out to 200+km and your gang is 100% immune to Falcons.... -Liang Why why why - do people armor RR shield tanking ships. Up until recetly armor tanking close range BS were the only choice for gankfests, so most pvp BS are armor tankers - hence RR armor gangs. I would rather see that raven and other Caldari/shield tankers - fit RR shield transfers (it can be done - Caldari ships have the highest cpu/grid ratio to support these mods). RR Shield is superior to RR armor - and I hope caldari pilot stake advantage of it instead of gimping their dps/tank to fit armor RR. __________________________________________________ Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
H Lecter Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2008.09.24 16:49:00 - [110] Originally by: Liang Nuren - It's "specialized" in doing something that no longer exists. OK got you on that - my brain somehow tries to refuse the upcoming reality of the speed nerf. This freaking harmony is killing me
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 17:05:00 - [111] Originally by: Omarvelous Why why why - do people armor RR shield tanking ships. Up until recetly armor tanking close range BS were the only choice for gankfests, so most pvp BS are armor tankers - hence RR armor gangs. I would rather see that raven and other Caldari/shield tankers - fit RR shield transfers (it can be done - Caldari ships have the highest cpu/grid ratio to support these mods). RR Shield is superior to RR armor - and I hope caldari pilot stake advantage of it instead of gimping their dps/tank to fit armor RR. So that I can fit a mid rack full of sensor boosters and ECCM... -Liang --
Omarvelous Caldari Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2008.09.24 17:13:00 - [112] Edited by: Omarvelous on 24/09/2008 17:13:39 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Omarvelous Why why why - do people armor RR shield tanking ships. Up until recetly armor tanking close range BS were the only choice for gankfests, so most pvp BS are armor tankers - hence RR armor gangs. I would rather see that raven and other Caldari/shield tankers - fit RR shield transfers (it can be done - Caldari ships have the highest cpu/grid ratio to support these mods). RR Shield is superior to RR armor - and I hope caldari pilot stake advantage of it instead of gimping their dps/tank to fit armor RR. So that I can fit a mid rack full of sensor boosters and ECCM... -Liang Psshhh - and give up the Raven's dps advantage? Maybe... I'd fly a Scorp for the SB boosting ECCM purpose (yep and give up its ecm advantage - I'll leave the ECM to the T2 ships). __________________________________________________ Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 17:16:00 - [113] Originally by: Omarvelous Psshhh - and give up the Raven's dps advantage? Maybe... I'd fly a Scorp for the SB boosting ECCM purpose (yep and give up its ecm advantage - I'll leave the ECM to the T2 ships). The scorp doesn't have a velocity bonus to its cruise missiles (and thus actually is too short ranged to hit other ecm ships). I've actually put a fair amount of thought into that fit. ;-) -Liang --
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.09.24 19:15:00 - [114] Originally by: Liang Nuren The scorp doesn't have a velocity bonus to its cruise missiles (and thus actually is too short ranged to hit other ecm ships). I've actually put a fair amount of thought into that fit. ;-) -Liang This puts perspective on the Widow vs. the Rattlesnake as well...
Gimpb Sturmgrenadier Inc Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.09.24 19:24:00 - [115] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Gimpb I guess what I'm saying is if there's a problem with blasters where a blaster ship can't hit a ship of the same size fairly well, then that's a problem and they should adjust blasters but keep the web changes. But a BS having trouble hitting cruisers is no problem to me. I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that the issue of battleships hitting cruisers is limited to close range ships only. Here's why: The tracking formula makes no allowances for range. The comparative tracking between a MP II with multi at it's optimal vs a blaster at it's optimal is pretty astounding (in a bad way for blasters), but the problem is worse than that. Moving 1km further in actually reduces your DPS much more significantly for the blaster ship than for the pulse ship (this is because each meter that you move further in is a much higher percentage of the total range). Then, after you've been screwed over once by having a range issue, it gets compounded by having a sig radius vs sig resolution multiplier. Thus, we can see that laser ships actually have no problems hitting cruisers at their intended operation range, while cruisers are literally (and I do mean literally) 100% immune to blaster fire. -Liang I hear ya, and I understand the tracking formula. One of the things I've actually suggested before is perhaps they should cap the tracking / orbital velocity ratio at 1 and cap the sig radius ratio at 1. That would effectively separate the two factors and prevent low orbital velocity from compensating for a bad sig ratio, as you're describing.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.24 19:57:00 - [116] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Actually 4x transversal is not even remotely true. That assumes that all ships post nano nerf have the same travel speed as before and totally ignores the existance of the new mwd-killing warp scramblers. Wich is a crazy assumption at best. Besides, alot of blaster ships have room to fit 2xwebs. Actually, it is. We've been over this before, Lyria, and you tucked your tail then too. Shall we repeat? -Liang Ok tell me this, what ship is orbiting your blaster ship that you cant hit? ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:02:00 - [117] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Ok tell me this, what ship is orbiting your blaster ship that you cant hit? Pick one? Blaster ships on the test server (with the web changes that we're talking about here) have trouble hitting battleships - even at the range they supposedly deal "spectacular" damage. Seriously, I kinda can't wait for the patch to it so that I can score oh so many LOLMAILS from ******s that read your posts proclaiming how awesome blasters are. And after all this time, Lyria, and you still can't let it rest. You mercilessly campaign for Amarr boosts and nerf everyone else. And if their ships are so bad you can't find a legitimate complaint to nerf them, then, of course, their pilots need to just stop whining because their ships are "fine". Honestly, Lyria, the best indication that a ship is in deep trouble is the fact that you haven't started a "nerf ship X" thread recently. -Liang --
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:03:00 - [118] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 20:05:05 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 20:03:52 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Ok tell me this, what ship is orbiting your blaster ship that you cant hit? Pick one? Blaster ships on the test server (with the web changes that we're talking about here) have trouble hitting battleships - even at the range they supposedly deal "spectacular" damage. Seriously, I kinda can't wait for the patch to it so that I can score oh so many LOLMAILS from ******s that read your posts proclaiming how awesome blasters are. And after all this time, Lyria, and you still can't let it rest. You mercilessly campaign for Amarr boosts and nerf everyone else. And if their ships are so bad you can't find a legitimate complaint to nerf them, then, of course, their pilots need to just stop whining because their ships are "fine". Honestly, Lyria, the best indication that a ship is in deep trouble is the fact that you haven't started a "nerf ship X" thread recently. -Liang Ok what other turreted battleship can hit other battleships with the so called non-blaster-weapons-that-dont-suck while the blaster BS cant hit it back? Would be really intresting to hear. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:05:00 - [119] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Ok what other battleship can hit other turreted battleships with the so called non-blaster-weapons-that-dont-suck while the blaster BS cant hit it back? Would be really intresting to hear. The Raven distinctly comes to mind. Now, tell me what your Geddon can't hit at 15km (hint: there isn't anything the Geddon can't hit at 15km once the speed patch roles through). -Liang --
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:06:00 - [120] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 20:06:09 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Ok what other battleship can hit other turreted battleships with the so called non-blaster-weapons-that-dont-suck while the blaster BS cant hit it back? Would be really intresting to hear. The Raven distinctly comes to mind. Now, tell me what your Geddon can't hit at 15km (hint: there isn't anything the Geddon can't hit at 15km once the speed patch roles through). -Liang Can abaddon, geddon, apoc, maelstrom and tempest hit you while you cant hit them in your blasterrange? ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:09:00 - [121] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Can abaddon, geddon, apoc, maelstrom and tempest hit you while you cant hit them in your blasterrange? One question at a time, Lyria. I answered yours, now you answer mine. What can't you hit inside your effective engagement range of 10-50km? Maybe an inty orbiting at 25km if it's lucky? -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:12:00 - [122] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer also I said turreted BS. And the raven has to pay for that by not being able to fit full tackle and tank at the same time like the blaster BS. I frankly don't care what kind of ridiculous restrictions you try to put on my answers. This entire thread is about the game and metagame shifts that are driving the game away from play styles that favor Gallente and Minmatar. -Liang --
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:16:00 - [123] Originally by: Liang Nuren One question at a time, Lyria. I answered yours, now you answer mine. What can't you hit inside your effective engagement range of 10-50km? Maybe an inty orbiting at 25km if it's lucky? -Liang But that is not the issue youre talking about. You are saying "my blaster mega cant hit another BS in blaster range". I therefor have to ask if the other turreted BS can hit you at that range. And sure a pulse BS can hit BCs and BS at 10-40km range. They are mid range BS. Now the mega is short range blaster or sniping rails. Mega can fit full tackle and do more dps then a geddon. Geddon can hit farther out but has gimped mid slots. Abaddon has gimped cap but also consider, its a tier 3 bs. The hyperion can fit dual webs. It looks fine to me tbh. Just because alot of people in eve gear towards midrange does not mean your ships are broken. You need to train accordingly. You can twist words all you like, megas and hypes are still very viable solo and small gang battleships. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:20:00 - [124] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lyria Skydancer also I said turreted BS. And the raven has to pay for that by not being able to fit full tackle and tank at the same time like the blaster BS. I frankly don't care what kind of ridiculous restrictions you try to put on my answers. This entire thread is about the game and metagame shifts that are driving the game away from play styles that favor Gallente and Minmatar. -Liang You propose they change the whole race and their weapons to fit the combat style of the month? Its not really what they did to fix amarr. Amarr now just happens to be favored by the combat style currently dominating eve. It wont last forever. How would you change the races every time the players change the way combat is executed? ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:23:00 - [125] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer edit: also I said turreted BS. And the raven has to pay for that by not being able to fit full tackle and tank at the same time like the blaster BS. But if what liang says is the case (and from my testing I believe it to be so (soloing a shield tanking malestrom in a SHIELD extended and rigged thorax (massive sig given I have shield rigging 1) should just not happen ever - he ran out of cap boosters, and I never went below 1/2 shield), then you don't need a tank, enter orbit and your weak tank will not matter because it will only have to resist the odd wrecking shot and a few poor hits + drones. Brutix couldn't hit another BC unless I was stationary and the other was webbed by someone else too. I have more examples....
Win ISK	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:28:00 - [126] Edited by: Win ISK on 24/09/2008 20:30:13 Waaaaaaaaahhhhhh. Solo PVP is dead. Waaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh! Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!! -Liang
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:29:00 - [127] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer But that is not the issue youre talking about. It actually kindof is the issue we're talking about in this thread. Even the most die-hard blaster enthusiasts are giving up on blasters now that the 60% webs are almost certain to materialize. The reason for this is that there is a 4x increase in transversal velocity (and a corresponding drop in effective DPS) in the range that blaster ships are supposed to kick ass and take names. Quote: You are saying "my blaster mega cant hit another BS in blaster range". I therefor have to ask if the other turreted BS can hit you at that range. Actually, yes, they can. This comes from the way the damage formula works. Quote: And sure a pulse BS can hit BCs and BS at 10-40km range. They are mid range BS. Now the mega is short range blaster or sniping rails. Any time a Mega fits rails for any purpose other than 160km sniping, it's just trying to be a pitiful imitation of a pulse boat. Sad thing is that any time it fits rails for 160km sniping, it's trying to be a pitiful imitation of a beam boat. Quote: Mega can fit full tackle and do more dps then a geddon. EXCEPT THAT IT DOES NOT. The only way that a Mega is going to be dealing it's "magical" amount of DPS is under an extensively webbed target... except that webs are tracking nerfed and about the best that you can do with an arbitrary amount of webs is the equivalent of one modern day web. Thus, the Mega will never hit its magical monstrous DPS that is claimed... yet the Geddon actually will. Quote: Geddon can hit farther out but has gimped mid slots. Abaddon has gimped cap but also consider, its a tier 3 bs. The hyperion can fit dual webs. It looks fine to me tbh. See above where I said that if you can't find something to complain about because it sucks so badly that you'll contrive near falsehoods to justify it being fine? Perfect example. Go read the OP again. Quote: Just because alot of people in eve gear towards midrange does not mean your ships are broken. You need to train accordingly. Actually, it's not just that people are training long range combat - it's that CCP is making deliberate design decisions to encourage it. The ships are broken. Quote: You can twist words all you like, megas and hypes are still very viable solo and small gang battleships. Lyria, you can twist words and lie all you want, but it doesn't change the incontrovertible fact that solo BS combat is all but gone from Eve and won't be coming back... and it's already been shown that a small gang benefits far more from high DPS mid ranged BS's than it does high DPS close range BS's. You have no legs to stand on here, Lyria. Go away, troll. -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:30:00 - [128] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer You propose they change the whole race and their weapons to fit the combat style of the month? Its not really what they did to fix amarr. Amarr now just happens to be favored by the combat style currently dominating eve. It wont last forever. How would you change the races every time the players change the way combat is executed? I'd start by not overboosting one race and then overnerfing the others so that there is no choice in how to be efficient and effective in PVP. -Liang --
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:42:00 - [129] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 24/09/2008 20:42:38 Originally by: Liang Nuren Lyria, you can twist words and lie all you want, but it doesn't change the incontrovertible fact that solo BS combat is all but gone from Eve and won't be coming back... and it's already been shown that a small gang benefits far more from high DPS mid ranged BS's than it does high DPS close range BS's. Speak for yourself, just because you cant solo doesnt mean there arent people out there soloing. Actually there are quite alot of people soloing and doing small gang low sec stuff with battleships like hyperions. Im pretty much done with you anyway. If you cant discuss without making up stuff, exaggerating and insulting you can go troll by yourself. Putting your name in the end of a post doesnt make it more valid. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:49:00 - [130] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Speak for yourself, just because you cant solo doesnt mean there arent people out there soloing. Actually there are quite alot of people soloing and doing small gang low sec stuff with battleships like hyperions. And battleships like Geddons and Ravens too. Hell, people solo in Caracals, Punishers, and Retributions. Eve is full of stupid people... that doesn't mean that we should cripple those that aren't. Quote: Im pretty much done with you anyway. If you cant discuss without making up stuff, exaggerating and insulting you can go troll by yourself. Putting your name in the end of a post doesnt make it more valid. Good riddance. Let me know if you ever decide to post constructively again. It's rather nice when you do. -Liang --
Shosoru Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.24 20:54:00 - [131] I disagree with this guide. One douse not just fly gallente, one needs to know how to fly and warp or one is lost. If one doesn't know how to fly, one shall fly caldary. ------------------------------ WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape
Bronson Hughes ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2008.09.24 21:27:00 - [132] Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 24/09/2008 21:28:01 Originally by: Liang Nuren The reason for this is that there is a 4x increase in transversal velocity (and a corresponding drop in effective DPS) in the range that blaster ships are supposed to kick ass and take names. For those who were wondering: Target webbed with 90% web = 10% original velocity Target webbed with 60% web = 40% original velocity That means that ships will be moving 4x faster with a single web on them, all other factors being equal. If they're orbiting you, that means their angular velocity will be about 4x higher, so they'll be about 4x harder to hit with guns. However, all other factors are rarely equal and this case is no exception. Many ships will be moving more slowly after the nerf so there is some degree of compensation to offset the reduced web speeds. But they won't be going 4x slower so although a 4x increase in angular velocity is something of an overstatement, it's still looking pretty bad for blaster ships unless they get a goodly boost to tracking and/or damage. I won't even start on actually getting into blaster range without warping in right on top of your target. I can't really comment on Minmatar ships/weapons since I don't fly them extensively, but it seems like they'll be having many of the same issues as their Gallente allies. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 21:30:00 - [133] Originally by: Shosoru Liang Nuren < thee douse not know how to fly, one shall not listen to Liang Nuren for thee has no clue. Thee needs to learn, thee needs to stop being so ignorant, thee needs to think about what people say to thee and be willing to change thee's mined. If thee failles, thee shall be nothing more then pray. Ok. Come find me in Metro lowsec and see if I don't know how to fly. I'll even do you a favor and fly one of those horrible Gallente ships I keep complaining about. :) -Liang --
Shosoru Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.24 21:41:00 - [134] bronson , if targets get webbed to 60% you still have better tracking then all non missile boats in on on on. a missile boat usually doesn't fit a web so you are faster then it and can control the fight (in 1 on 1) and move according to his movements to reduce your angular velocity a bit. You can engage at 0 km and bath ships cant do much damage (the stupid hole even affects missiles iirc) you'd still have the better drones (perhaps can't brake the tank tho). You can simply fly away, your way faster. You can fit some web drones, a loss in total dps but it would boost your turret dps(drones can be shot T_T). If your not solo you can double web. ------------------------------ WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.09.24 21:44:00 - [135] Originally by: Shosoru Edited by: Shosoru on 24/09/2008 21:09:09 I disagree with this guide. One douse not just fly gallente, one needs to know how to fly and warp or one is lost. If one doesn't know how to fly, one shall fly caldary. Liang Nuren < thee douse not know how to fly, one shall not listen to Liang Nuren for thee has no clue. Thee needs to learn, thee needs to stop being so ignorant, thee needs to think about what people say to thee and be willing to change thee's mined. If thee failles, thee shall be nothing more then pray. Oh dear Hell, it's even possible to read his stupidity... Either way, I'm wondering whether if improving the tracking on blasters would satisfy people, if it's mostly the web-nerf you are complaining about. As is, they are about 25% better in that area than pulse lasers. One could add another 25%...
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 21:45:00 - [136] Originally by: Shosoru the stupid hole even affects missiles iirc You don't. -Liang --
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.09.24 21:46:00 - [137] Originally by: Shosoru bronson , if targets get webbed to 60% you still have better tracking then all non missile boats in on on on. a missile boat usually doesn't fit a web so you are faster then it and can control the fight (in 1 on 1) and move according to his movements to reduce your angular velocity a bit. You can engage at 0 km and bath ships cant do much damage (the stupid hole even affects missiles iirc) you'd still have the better drones (perhaps can't brake the tank tho). You can simply fly away, your way faster. You can fit some web drones, a loss in total dps but it would boost your turret dps(drones can be shot T_T). If your not solo you can double web. CHOO CHOO. Choo Choo. choo choo. choooo... Did you hear that? That was the clue train. It went right past you. Please refrain from posting.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 21:46:00 - [138] Originally by: Aleus Stygian Oh dear Hell, it's even possible to read his stupidity... Either way, I'm wondering whether if improving the tracking on blasters would satisfy people, if it's mostly the web-nerf you are complaining about. As is, they are about 25% better in that area than pulse lasers. One could add another 25%... See, that's exactly the point of this thread. Now that you see the problem with the web nerf, go read the OP again. -Liang --
Shosoru Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.24 21:48:00 - [139] Aleus Stygian are you sure you quoted the right post ? i am the one how seas that blasters have best tracking. ------------------------------ WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape
Bronson Hughes ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2008.09.24 21:54:00 - [140] Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 24/09/2008 21:54:49 Originally by: Aleus Stygian Either way, I'm wondering whether if improving the tracking on blasters would satisfy people, if it's mostly the web-nerf you are complaining about. As is, they are about 25% better in that area than pulse lasers. One could add another 25%... True, base tracking on Blasters is about 25% better than on the corresponding Pulse Laser (give or take, I'm not quibbling over exact numbers), but the optimal range on Pulse lasers is often about 200% greater than the optimal on Blasters. Let's look at an example: Neutron Blaster Cannon II: Tracking: 0.0433 rad/sec Optimal Range: 7200m Ideal Traverseral At Optimal: 311 m/s Mega Pulse Laser II: Tracking: 0.03375 rad/sec Optimal Range: 24000m Ideal Traversal At Optimal: 810 m/s Falloff is about the same for both systems listed, Signature Resolution is the same. This is just one example, but the general relationship holds. To put it bluntly, Pulse Lasers can handle a target orbiting almost 3x faster than Blasters can. And this is right now, before the upcoming web nerf. This needs to be looked at in a big way before webs get changed or Blaster ships are going to be just about useless. COMEDY EDIT: Originally by: AstroPhobic CHOO CHOO. Choo Choo. choo choo. choooo... Did you hear that? That was the clue train. It went right past you. Please refrain from posting. Oh good lord man, you win the Internet for today. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.09.24 21:58:00 - [141] Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 24/09/2008 22:01:39 Originally by: Liang Nuren See, that's exactly the point of this thread. Now that you see the problem with the web nerf, go read the OP again. -Liang I was wondering whether if that was going to be sufficient. And in my eyes it would be, after having seen Ranises and Throns at work. Perhaps together with just the slightest addition to blasters' range. Also, a possibility would be to allow bonuses that aid MWDing assault ships in using afterburners to greater effect, when there's hopefully going to be less swooping around the place from non-frigate vessels. I am one of those rare few people who rejoice at this, and personally I want to see the Mandatory Warp Drive taken down to the same level as the rest of the equipment around, and Afterburners gaining some PvP use at last. If you could give a maneuverability/hit-and-run boost to these blaster boats, allowing them to effectively execute hit-and-run strikes and escape from tackles, they'd gain a new level of use. Actually, I had thought of burner-fitting quite a few ships and see how well they do at escaping point after finding themselves in over their heads. But, as long as there's no standing bonus, I guess that a whole lot of pilots will ignore this ability in their ships. And a lot of people will probably cry 'cheap!'. I though, prefer it over the usual nano***gotry. If you have to get up close it's a lot more ballsy...
Shosoru Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.24 22:09:00 - [142] Quote: To put it bluntly, Pulse Lasers can handle a target orbiting almost 3x faster than Blasters can. And this is right now, before the upcoming web nerf. This needs to be looked at in a big way before webs get changed or Blaster ships are going to be just about useless. Your numbers are correct but if a blaster ship is in his optimal it has 25% better tracking then the lazer ship. Lets follow your logic, after your logic the best weapons in game are the long range railguns artillery etc cos those can handle ships orbiting them at 250km that fly ~30 times as fast as the ship in your lazer example. now don't get me wrong a free tracking boost id not say no but the facts are, if your in your range you have better tracking and more control. if not then tracking wont do you any good anyways. I even think that weber's now days make it a slight bit harder for me to get into optimal. ------------------------------ WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.24 22:11:00 - [143] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Speak for yourself, just because you cant solo doesnt mean there arent people out there soloing. Actually there are quite alot of people soloing and doing small gang low sec stuff with battleships like hyperions. Im pretty much done with you anyway. If you cant discuss without making up stuff, exaggerating and insulting you can go troll by yourself. Putting your name in the end of a post doesnt make it more valid. Oh FFS, would you please drop this strawman? The issue is not "it's impossible to solo", it's "two entire races are focused around solo fights to the extent that they can't do anything else, and the metagame is against solo fights". It doesn't matter if you can find a solo fight occasionally, and even do well in it, if two entire races are forced into an increasinly narrow niche role. And could you also make up your mind about whether solo PvP is dead or not? Here you claim it's alive and working just fine, in the Falcon thread you whine about how it's dead and there's no way to do it anymore. You can't have it both ways.
Shosoru Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.24 22:18:00 - [144] Edited by: Shosoru on 24/09/2008 22:22:02 So you see no use in gallente nor minmatar ships in fleet pvp but caldary with 50km range and 30 second flying missiles are better. huh Quote: The difference here is long range weapons are a significant damage drop from pulse lasers, while pulse lasers are only a very slight damage drop from blasters. Please actually look at a tracking/damage graph sometime. no you don't see that if you fly a blaster boat you are in the range or not and if your in it you do moar damage. Puls have their use no doubt but this is about damage. Puls less damage and less tracking vs a say megathron that isn't "stationary" or cant web so good is more dps. thats why gallente ships have all those midslots for tackle so that they can bend the situation to their will if possible. Tell me m8 what fleet sise are you talking about in the first place if its not solo and not gang and not big fleet ------------------------------ WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 22:21:00 - [145] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 24/09/2008 22:21:00 Originally by: Shosoru So you see no use in gallente nor minmatar ships in fleet pvp but caldary with 50km range and 30 second flying missiles are better. huh Gallente and Minmatar ships are useful in fleet combat in the same way that a pocket knife is useful in a sword fight. You know, if you got nothing else handy... -Liang --
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.24 22:21:00 - [146] Originally by: Shosoru So you see no use in gallente nor minmatar ships in fleet pvp but caldary with 50km range and 30 second flying missiles are better. huh And this is why you need to look at the numbers before making stupid posts. The only range where missiles have a 30 second flight time is *250km*. At 50km, the flight time is around 5 seconds, less time than a Minmatar/Gallente ship will take to MWD in range. The flight time issue is really pretty much irrelevant, if you know how to use missile ships properly. But, since you clearly don't, I'll leave you to your delusions.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.09.24 22:23:00 - [147] Originally by: Bronson Hughes True, base tracking on Blasters is about 25% better than on the corresponding Pulse Laser (give or take, I'm not quibbling over exact numbers), but the optimal range on Pulse lasers is often about 200% greater than the optimal on Blasters. Let's look at an example: Neutron Blaster Cannon II: Tracking: 0.0433 rad/sec Optimal Range: 7200m Ideal Traverseral At Optimal: 311 m/s Mega Pulse Laser II: Tracking: 0.03375 rad/sec Optimal Range: 24000m Ideal Traversal At Optimal: 810 m/s Falloff is about the same for both systems listed, Signature Resolution is the same. This is just one example, but the general relationship holds. To put it bluntly, Pulse Lasers can handle a target orbiting almost 3x faster than Blasters can. And this is right now, before the upcoming web nerf. This needs to be looked at in a big way before webs get changed or Blaster ships are going to be just about useless. CONTENT EDIT: I'm not suggesting that Blasters be able to handle the same traversal at optimal that Pulse Lasers can; that would be crazy given that any ship orbiting at that range will be going more slowly because maneuverability is not perfect. They just need some 'Oomph'. You make a very good and valid point. Note though that you're illustrating this with an example that takes place far out of web range, and more importantly, scrambler range. Sure, a lot of people don't have warp stabs. But a lot others do. And since any good blaster pilot likes to stick within at most six clicks, not to mention the optimal on Heavy Neutrons for those real, Cruiser-class assault boats is three km... See what I'm getting at? Blasters were made for the fast, hard, risky life inside point range. Let's make them good enough to be viable there, if they aren't already. And, as Merlin said, let's direct the metagame away from punishing ships that live within that range...
Shosoru Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.24 22:28:00 - [148] Quote: I'll leave you to your delusions. ima gona go to bead. Thee refuses to see, so thee is just pray. ------------------------------ WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape
Brother Nightfall Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.24 23:04:00 - [149] Originally by: Bronson Hughes Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 24/09/2008 21:28:01 Originally by: Liang Nuren The reason for this is that there is a 4x increase in transversal velocity (and a corresponding drop in effective DPS) in the range that blaster ships are supposed to kick ass and take names. For those who were wondering: Target webbed with 90% web = 10% original velocity Target webbed with 60% web = 40% original velocity That means that ships will be moving 4x faster with a single web on them, all other factors being equal. If they're orbiting you, that means their angular velocity will be about 4x higher, so they'll be about 4x harder to hit with guns. However, all other factors are rarely equal and this case is no exception. Many ships will be moving more slowly after the nerf so there is some degree of compensation to offset the reduced web speeds. But they won't be going 4x slower so although a 4x increase in angular velocity is something of an overstatement, it's still looking pretty bad for blaster ships unless they get a goodly boost to tracking and/or damage. I won't even start on actually getting into blaster range without warping in right on top of your target. I can't really comment on Minmatar ships/weapons since I don't fly them extensively, but it seems like they'll be having many of the same issues as their Gallente allies. Hmmm, the 4x increase in tranversal velocity point seems flawed, due to the fact that it doesn't take into account the upcoming MWD-disabling effect of warp scrams. 40% of non-MWD speed is lower than 10% of MWD speed, so things will actually get better for blaster boats in this specific respect.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.09.24 23:05:00 - [150] Originally by: Brother Nightfall Hmmm, the 4x increase in tranversal velocity point seems flawed, due to the fact that it doesn't take into account the upcoming MWD-disabling effect of warp scrams. 40% of non-MWD speed is lower than 10% of MWD speed, so things will actually get better for blaster boats in this specific respect. And here I was thinking that people were already taking that into account. In retrospect though, Nightfall's point may very well stand nonetheless, seeing some of the comments made...
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.24 23:25:00 - [151] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 24/09/2008 23:26:33 Originally by: Brother Nightfall Hmmm, the 4x increase in tranversal velocity point seems flawed, due to the fact that it doesn't take into account the upcoming MWD-disabling effect of warp scrams. 40% of non-MWD speed is lower than 10% of MWD speed, so things will actually get better for blaster boats in this specific respect. You are wrong. Let me spell it out. There are exactly two cases that are important: the opponent is running their MWD or they are not. Let's take the case where they are running their MWD. On TQ, I'd receive a 550% target painter bonus to hit them, and they'd be running at 10% of their normal speed. I'd be doing roughly 99-103% of my EFT DPS. Under the new system, they'll be going about 40% of their base speed, but will no longer give me such a fantastic chance to hit. This, obviously, is bad. Now, let's take the case where they are not running their MWD. Then they're going 4x faster than they were (maybe 3.5 considering mass/speed changes). This is just an outright nerf to blasters. Now, there's a third situation (which is altogether much more likely, since blaster battleships will not run with a warp scrambler) - that they have one and you don't. They sit either inside or outside your effective range and destroy you. No matter how you slice it, the MWD turnoff ability isn't really going to be that much of a blaster boost. :) -Liang Ed: Grammar. --
Ceremony Garp Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2008.09.24 23:38:00 - [152] Edited by: Ceremony Garp on 24/09/2008 23:45:30 Originally by: AstroPhobic Originally by: Shosoru bronson , if targets get webbed to 60% you still have better tracking then all non missile boats in on on on. a missile boat usually doesn't fit a web so you are faster then it and can control the fight (in 1 on 1) and move according to his movements to reduce your angular velocity a bit. You can engage at 0 km and bath ships cant do much damage (the stupid hole even affects missiles iirc) you'd still have the better drones (perhaps can't brake the tank tho). You can simply fly away, your way faster. You can fit some web drones, a loss in total dps but it would boost your turret dps(drones can be shot T_T). If your not solo you can double web. CHOO CHOO. Choo Choo. choo choo. choooo... Did you hear that? That was the clue train. It went right past you. Please refrain from posting. Ouch.
Brother Nightfall Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.25 00:12:00 - [153] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 24/09/2008 23:26:33 Originally by: Brother Nightfall Hmmm, the 4x increase in tranversal velocity point seems flawed, due to the fact that it doesn't take into account the upcoming MWD-disabling effect of warp scrams. 40% of non-MWD speed is lower than 10% of MWD speed, so things will actually get better for blaster boats in this specific respect. You are wrong. Let me spell it out. There are exactly two cases that are important: the opponent is running their MWD or they are not. Let's take the case where they are running their MWD. On TQ, I'd receive a 550% target painter bonus to hit them, and they'd be running at 10% of their normal speed. I'd be doing roughly 99-103% of my EFT DPS. Under the new system, they'll be going about 40% of their base speed, but will no longer give me such a fantastic chance to hit. This, obviously, is bad. Now, let's take the case where they are not running their MWD. Then they're going 4x faster than they were (maybe 3.5 considering mass/speed changes). This is just an outright nerf to blasters. Now, there's a third situation (which is altogether much more likely, since blaster battleships will not run with a warp scrambler) - that they have one and you don't. They sit either inside or outside your effective range and destroy you. No matter how you slice it, the MWD turnoff ability isn't really going to be that much of a blaster boost. :) -Liang Ed: Grammar. Good points all, however I would like to press on slightly if I may. In the first point, the fact that their signature radius is significantly smaller would seem to be a problem solely in the case of fighting sub-BS (and possible sub-BC) vessels; I would assume that you would be hitting my Raven quite optimally at its 'new webbed' speed of 56m/s. Given that said Raven will always be penalised against smaller vessels on account of signature radius versus torpedo explosion radius, it does not seem wholly improper to me that your Thron should suffer a similar fate. Indeed, might it be the fact that one ship type was able to devastate any opponent of any size that has contributed to CCP's proposal in the first place? Certainly, introducing a nerf to a speed-limiting module during a speed-limiting patch seems rather curious otherwise. To the second point, if they refuse to run their MWD while allowing you to run yours, then they have just conceded all control of range and distance during the encounter to you. Yes, you are notionally worse off under the upcoming rules, but again only in those conditions which might be considered overpowered anyway (e.g. shooting a frigate, for example). And hey, they're not using their MWD and you are. Indeed, you might need to turn yours off occasionally to maintain optimal range and transversal. Thirdly, while I can appreciate that many blasterboats might prefer to run a disruptor to a scrambler, it seems a trifle disingenuous to reject a module that a) helps your combat ethos so profoundly, and b) is still the second longest-ranged offensive system on your ship, and even that by a single kilometre only. Ultimately, I would not disagree with your assertion that blasterboats are worse off come the patch. However, in the particular area we are discussing, in many cases performance drops minimally if at all (e.g. against a similarly-sized foe), while the areas in which significant loss will be experienced were probably mandated anyway.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 00:39:00 - [154] Originally by: Brother Nightfall Good points all, however I would like to press on slightly if I may. Sure. ;-) Quote: In the first point, the fact that their signature radius is significantly smaller would seem to be a problem solely in the case of fighting sub-BS (and possible sub-BC) vessels; I would assume that you would be hitting my Raven quite optimally at its 'new webbed' speed of 56m/s. Ok, I'll deal 95% damage to a scrammed+webbed Raven where I previously did 103%... and I'll still die horribly to his torps. Also, your assumption here is that the Raven does not have a scram of his own... :) Quote: Given that said Raven will always be penalised against smaller vessels on account of signature radius versus torpedo explosion radius, it does not seem wholly improper to me that your Thron should suffer a similar fate. Indeed, might it be the fact that one ship type was able to devastate any opponent of any size that has contributed to CCP's proposal in the first place? Certainly, introducing a nerf to a speed-limiting module during a speed-limiting patch seems rather curious otherwise. It's funny, but you mention the Raven as though it were unable to deal effective damage to small ships in web range. The reality is that a Raven is the only battleship that's able to reliably deal absurd amounts of damage within web range. Additionally, are you so sure that the Thron should suffer the same fate (being unable to engage even battleship sized targets in web range) when lasers have no trouble engaging even interceptors in their intended engagement range, and ravens are 3 volleying tanked HACs? Quote: To the second point, if they refuse to run their MWD while allowing you to run yours, then they have just conceded all control of range and distance during the encounter to you. Yes, you are notionally worse off under the upcoming rules, but again only in those conditions which might be considered overpowered anyway (e.g. shooting a frigate, for example). And hey, they're not using their MWD and you are. Indeed, you might need to turn yours off occasionally to maintain optimal range and transversal. Your assumption that they're going to die and that the blaster ship might be considered OP is false. There are lots of reasons, but the easiest of which is that a 100% unfit Stabber is 100% immune to blaster fire at it's optimal engagement range. Can you say the same about missiles? Quote: Thirdly, while I can appreciate that many blasterboats might prefer to run a disruptor to a scrambler, it seems a trifle disingenuous to reject a module that a) helps your combat ethos so profoundly, and b) is still the second longest-ranged offensive system on your ship, and even that by a single kilometre only. :) I knew that this would come up. The reason that you won't see scrams on blaster boats (especially battleships) is because they won't be able to hold even unsuspecting targets down long enough for you to get into range to scram them. You're literally telling me that blaster ships have to start every fight at < 10km to be effective. Quote: Ultimately, I would not disagree with your assertion that blasterboats are worse off come the patch. However, in the particular area we are discussing, in many cases performance drops minimally if at all (e.g. against a similarly-sized foe), while the areas in which significant loss will be experienced were probably mandated anyway. I'd actually argue that in most cases that performance drops dramatically and that without redress. -Liang --
Battlecheese Caldari Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.09.25 01:16:00 - [155] Originally by: Liang Nuren Whinewhinewhinewhinewhine I'd actually argue that in most cases that performance drops dramatically and that without redress. -Liang Diddums? This thread is full of fail. Play the game and shut up or nick off.
Bronson Hughes ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2008.09.25 01:21:00 - [156] Originally by: Brother Nightfall Hmmm, the 4x increase in tranversal velocity point seems flawed, due to the fact that it doesn't take into account the upcoming MWD-disabling effect of warp scrams. 40% of non-MWD speed is lower than 10% of MWD speed, so things will actually get better for blaster boats in this specific respect. Liang said it better than I did, but I'll reply briefly anyways. Anyone who's running their MWD within Warp Scrambler range (aside from faction Arazu setups) is either approaching and will soon turn it off, is trying to run away, left it on by accident, or is chasing someone. The first two don't impact a real fight at blaster ranges, the third one doesn't really matter for the sake of argument because the pilot is being dumb, and the fourth one doesn't really apply heavily in a discussion about angular velocity since you're in a tail chase. So, like I said, the 4x angular velocity is a mild overstatement given that ship speeds are going to drop, it's still going to be bad because MWDs weren't ever used in blaster range in any situation where tracking mattered much. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 01:56:00 - [157] Originally by: Battlecheese Diddums? This thread is full of fail. Play the game and shut up or nick off. Excellent retort. I mean, I'm totally speechless. -Liang --
Brother Nightfall Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.25 02:05:00 - [158] Originally by: Liang Nuren Ok, I'll deal 95% damage to a scrammed+webbed Raven where I previously did 103%... and I'll still die horribly to his torps. Also, your assumption here is that the Raven does not have a scram of his own... :) In the case of mutual webbing and scramming, I doubt that you would die horribly to his torps, as his DPS and EHP would both be inferior to your own, assuming that both ships were fitting an MWD, web and scram in the mids. Outside web-range, Ravens enjoy several advantages; at close-quarters, the Megathron is the superior ship. This will remain true. Quote: It's funny, but you mention the Raven as though it were unable to deal effective damage to small ships in web range. The reality is that a Raven is the only battleship that's able to reliably deal absurd amounts of damage within web range. Reliability can be something of a canard; by the same token, missiles are the only weapon system that reliably fail to damage high-speed ships under the current rule set. Ravens' damage output is certainly reliable, but equally it is reliably subject to heavy penalty against smaller foes (absurd though the resulting damage still may be). Under the current rule set, the Megathron is more potent against small ships within web-range, whereas the future rule set is still indeterminate with regards to missile performance. Quote: Additionally, are you so sure that the Thron should suffer the same fate (being unable to engage even battleship sized targets in web range) when lasers have no trouble engaging even interceptors in their intended engagement range, and ravens are 3 volleying tanked HACs? I don't see that Throns will suffer the fate of being unable to engage battleships in web range, assuming the use of scrams and web, and they will remain signally potent in this regard. The other issues you raise are outside the original remit of our discussion, and I will not be lured onto them :) Quote: Your assumption that they're going to die and that the blaster ship might be considered OP is false. There are lots of reasons, but the easiest of which is that a 100% unfit Stabber is 100% immune to blaster fire at it's optimal engagement range. Can you say the same about missiles? They are certainly going to die at present. In future, this is far less certain, and I think this opens up new niches in the game that will be interesting (AFs, for example). I also find missiles to be a more problematic weapon system for PVP than blasters at present, and possibly equally as troubling in future. Quote: :) I knew that this would come up. The reason that you won't see scrams on blaster boats (especially battleships) is because they won't be able to hold even unsuspecting targets down long enough for you to get into range to scram them. You're literally telling me that blaster ships have to start every fight at < 10km to be effective. As I said earlier, I can appreciate that blasterboats would prefer to fit disruptors instead of scrams, and for precisely this reason. However, as this entire discussion has focused on what occurs within web range, the methodology and problems of closing to this range is somewhat moot. I do not dispute that your knowledge and understanding of the game eclipses mine; however, I still contend that the "OMFG transversal in web-range will increase by a factor of 4" argument is overly reductive and not necessarily true. I think that was only ever my point.
Solomon XI Hoist The Colors.	Posted - 2008.09.25 02:27:00 - [159] Edited by: Solomon XI on 25/09/2008 02:29:53 Quote: Find a new role for Minmatar and Gallente ships. Concede that the solo focus no longer works, and find something else to give them. Uh ... what? Solo PvP works just fine. You pick your targets and if you die, well, you screwed up didn't you? Solo PvP is a-ok. ----- That being said... ----- As far as the whole nano-nerf/blaster argument goes, Blaster pilots are screwed. With the addition of extra mass + a web nerf, we can't hold our enemy down. Our blasters have a SHORT range. It's damn near pathetic. This is a nerf to Gallente. To top this off, CCP is also discussing a possible drone nerf. So please. **** off to all who say Gallente and Blaster Boats will be fine post-patch. ~Solo Hoist The Colors. (CEO)
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.09.25 02:39:00 - [160] Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 25/09/2008 02:41:27 Drone nerf would be senseless. Drones are perfectly balanced as is, and probably will still be even after the addition of implants. They are vulnerable and killable, they have travel time and limited range, and they cost to lose when you have absolutely no chance of reeling them back in before you have to jump out. Mass addition to Minmatar and Gallente ships is senseless as well. We want to decrease the speeds attained, yes. But that is much more easily and cleverly addressed by working on stacking penalties, mutual exclusion rules for modules and adjusting the godawful thrust factor on MWDs before you begin adding unworkable penalties to ships that already have to turn off their MWDs to fire and already suffer from tremendous crappiness, such as the Vagabond and Tempest. If there's any race that should have a general mass addition to their ships, it should be the bloody Amarr. And that's coming from someone who flies almost exclusively Amarrian ships. Can I get the rest of the thread with me on these two?
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 02:40:00 - [161] Originally by: Brother Nightfall In the case of mutual webbing and scramming, I doubt that you would die horribly to his torps, as his DPS and EHP would both be inferior to your own ...at close-quarters, the Megathron is the superior ship. This will remain true. This isn't necessarily true. Even if the Mega lands at his optimal vs a torp Raven he has a very real chance of dying. Quote: Reliability can be something of a canard; by the same token, missiles are the only weapon system that reliably fail to damage high-speed ships under the current rule set. What you're neglecting to mention is that that ruleset is going away entirely. Missiles hit even the fastest of nano cruisers on test for overwhelming damage - I had no trouble killing any nano cruiser in under 3 volleys from my Raven. Quote: Ravens' damage output is certainly reliable, but equally it is reliably subject to heavy penalty against smaller foes (absurd though the resulting damage still may be). Under the current rule set, the Megathron is more potent against small ships within web-range, whereas the future rule set is still indeterminate with regards to missile performance. The problem is that there's no way to avoid missile damage. With a missile ship on the field, the primary will take the damage and like it... and after the web nerf, it's not really indeterminate whether missiles will be better than blasters. Quote: I don't see that Throns will suffer the fate of being unable to engage battleships in web range, assuming the use of scrams and web, and they will remain signally potent in this regard. The other issues you raise are outside the original remit of our discussion, and I will not be lured onto them :) They are not outside of the realm of the OP though - they're just more actual game changes that are pushing the Metagame away from traditional solo based ships. Quote: In future, this is far less certain, and I think this opens up new niches in the game that will be interesting (AFs, for example). I also find missiles to be a more problematic weapon system for PVP than blasters at present, and possibly equally as troubling in future. Take my word for it (8M in missiles) - they're far more than "problematic" in the future. It's lasers, missiles, or GTFO. Quote: As I said earlier, I can appreciate that blasterboats would prefer to fit disruptors instead of scrams, and for precisely this reason. However, as this entire discussion has focused on what occurs within web range, the methodology and problems of closing to this range is somewhat moot. Um, pardon me? The actual game is not moot, and if it's a very real problem to keep someone in the belt with you, then it's a very real problem that will be reflected in fits. Put it this way: fitting a warp disruptor is a million times more critical for a blaster ship to to deal damage than fitting a target painter on a torp ship. Quote: I do not dispute that your knowledge and understanding of the game eclipses mine; however, I still contend that the "OMFG transversal in web-range will increase by a factor of 4" argument is overly reductive and not necessarily true. I think that was only ever my point. Did you try it on test? I did... and the results merit far more than a "OMFG my ships suck" If you notice, I've even stopped complaining about Minmatar... because Gallente is royally **ed over by this patch ;-) -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 02:41:00 - [162] Originally by: Aleus Stygian Drone nerf would be senseless. Drones are perfectly balanced as is, and probably will still be even after the addition of implants. They are vulnerable and killable, they have travel time and they cost to lose when you have absolutely no chance of reeling them back in before you have to jump off. Mass addition is senseless as well. We want to decrease the speeds attained, yes. But that is much more easily and cleverly addressed by working on stacking penalties, mutual exclusion rules for modules and adjusting the godawful thrust factor on MWDs before you begin adding unworkable penalties to ships that already have to turn off their MWDs to fire and already suffer from tremendous crappiness, such as the Vagabond and Tempest. Can I get the rest of the thread with me on these two? Yes. :) -Liang --
Nikolae Varius Amarr Exiled. Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.09.25 04:30:00 - [163] As far as orbiting to dodge tracking when facing a megathron, that applies to everyone. And last time I checked, hybrids > pulse in tracking. Also note however that if you can orbit around a BS to dodge its guns, then isn't that mission success for CCP? The whole reason why there is tracking is so you can evade with smaller ships ala CCP's inspiration from the star wars series. Watch Episode IV and see if the death star's turbo lasers can track xwing fighers :P Personally, i feel that giving cruisers a chance to face BS's by creative maneuvers is a win. Granted there is some problems when it comes to every other weapon system that can start the damage before the cruiser reaches critical range or missiles lack of tracking but hey thats diversity and thats the lure of eve. The argument of the death of blaster boats is understandable due to range. This, everyone has concluded so FFS theres no point to argue against this. Small op + small falloff = fail unless you get 5km away but you can't get 5km away with sh!t webs and scrams. Those problems while very real seem to be more of an "unexpected side effect" of these changes to eve. Same stuff when suddenly the damage mods started to have the stacking penalty... ah.. 8x HS II <3 But good points and while I agree that there has to be some changes to counteract the blasterboats's inability to get into range, personally, it seems that this is a major gameplay shift that CCP may or may not have intended. The entire combat range has been shifted 10km out leaving blasterboats stranded but again, has already been mentioned and no point to elaborate. Personally, I'd like to see people try to find alternatives before ranting for a boost. And if nothing is there, well go for it. Rant for a boost but under reasonable consideration. TL;DR I support this thread. And if a boost is suggested, please do it in a reasonable manner. Also, I'm on top of the food chain now so until boost comes, plz deploy the nano patch so can rack up megathron killmails
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 04:40:00 - [164] Originally by: Nikolae Varius As far as orbiting to dodge tracking when facing a megathron, that applies to everyone. And last time I checked, hybrids > pulse in tracking. Not if you consider their relative engagement ranges. :) Quote: Also note however that if you can orbit around a BS to dodge its guns, then isn't that mission success for CCP? The whole reason why there is tracking is so you can evade with smaller ships ala CCP's inspiration from the star wars series. Watch Episode IV and see if the death star's turbo lasers can track xwing fighers :P You're looking for sig resolution vs sig radius. Tracking is entirely different, and is implemented incorrectly based on your observation. Consider that it does not take range into account, and that tracking is a multiplier for sig resolution vs radius. Quote: Personally, i feel that giving cruisers a chance to face BS's by creative maneuvers is a win. I would agree if it applied to all battleships. It doesn't - it only applies to blasters (and autocannons to a lesser extent). Again, look at relative tracking in their designed engagement ranges. Quote: Granted there is some problems when it comes to every other weapon system that can start the damage before the cruiser reaches critical range or missiles lack of tracking but hey thats diversity and thats the lure of eve. I suppose that having a totally suck race is the lure of Eve. I really prefer the "fairly well balanced" ideal though. Quote: The argument of the death of blaster boats is understandable due to range. This, everyone has concluded so FFS theres no point to argue against this. Small op + small falloff = fail unless you get 5km away but you can't get 5km away with sh!t webs and scrams. And then the problem comes that even if you do get to 5km you can't actually deliver your damage because they've got 4x the speed they used to. Oh, and don't forget the mass/agility additions that both nerf acceleration, top speed, align time, and capacitor. Quote: But good points and while I agree that there has to be some changes to counteract the blasterboats's inability to get into range, personally, it seems that this is a major gameplay shift that CCP may or may not have intended. The entire combat range has been shifted 10km out leaving blasterboats stranded but again, has already been mentioned and no point to elaborate. Personally, I'd like to see people try to find alternatives before ranting for a boost. And if nothing is there, well go for it. Rant for a boost but under reasonable consideration. Yeah, that's the kicker. I'm not sure how to fix it either... my best case right now is just to find a way to get closer (even though I know it hurts). -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 04:46:00 - [165] It occurred to me that you essentially agree: Blasters are getting a huge nerf, and the MWD-Scram change is 100% irrelevant. Let's use your logic. Originally by: Brother Nightfall In the first point, the fact that their signature radius is significantly smaller would seem to be a problem solely in the case of fighting sub-BS (and possible sub-BC) vessels; I would assume that you would be hitting my Raven quite optimally at its 'new webbed' speed of 56m/s. Using your logic: Very slightly worse against ships of the same size, but a huge nerf against smaller ships. Quote: To the second point, if they refuse to run their MWD while allowing you to run yours, then they have just conceded all control of range and distance during the encounter to you. Yes, you are notionally worse off under the upcoming rules, but again only in those conditions which might be considered overpowered anyway (e.g. shooting a frigate, for example). And hey, they're not using their MWD and you are. Indeed, you might need to turn yours off occasionally to maintain optimal range and transversal. Using your logic: Um, they give up range control. This may or may not matter to them... so at best "it's the same". We will ignore that they have 3.5-4x the transversal they previously would have had. Quote: Thirdly, while I can appreciate that many blasterboats might prefer to run a disruptor to a scrambler, it seems a trifle disingenuous to reject a module that a) helps your combat ethos so profoundly, and b) is still the second longest-ranged offensive system on your ship, and even that by a single kilometre only. At best, we take a huge nerf to disruptor range in order to (at best) maintain roughly what we have now against battleships and a huge honking nerf to anything with a sig radius < 300. Quote: Ultimately, I would not disagree with your assertion that blasterboats are worse off come the patch. That, right there, is really the only important part. You agree that they're nerfing blasters ... which are already facing a huge metagame nerf on TQ. Ergo, double whammy, and you 100% support Merin's OP. :) -Liang --
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.09.25 06:50:00 - [166] Forgive me if I'm wrong but can't you fix all of this by just giving AC/Blasters more DPS and removing the blackhole that sucks up all their fire 0km in front of them? TBH, I never understood why Blaster/AC didn't get more of a different in DPS than torps/pulse. Falloff reductions and holding fire until range is a disadvantage as is unless you're undocking on top of someone.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.09.25 08:13:00 - [167] Originally by: Beltantis Torrence Forgive me if I'm wrong but can't you fix all of this by just giving AC/Blasters more DPS and removing the blackhole that sucks up all their fire 0km in front of them? TBH, I never understood why Blaster/AC didn't get more of a different in DPS than torps/pulse. Falloff reductions and holding fire until range is a disadvantage as is unless you're undocking on top of someone. Ugh... I'm going to try this in my most kiddy-friendly tone. Okay, here's the thing... Firing on an opponent is not going to simultaneously slow them down and keep them from warping. It's going to make them upset and scared or angry, and then they will either run away or kill you. See that's how people react when you try to hurt them. And it's what's going to happen when they can both move and shoot, both at the same time. You got that? Good. Now, when these people run away, what good does shooting do you? Nothing. You just waste ammo. Got that too? And if they turn on you and shoot you back and kill you, if they know they can, because they are out of webbing and scramming range, what good does shooting do you? Nothing. See what I'm getting at here? So, if blasterboats can't keep their enemies in place and get within 6000 meters, and if shooting is just going to be a waste of ammo or kill you? And if you backtrack this whole explanation and realize that it's all about being able to keep enemies in place, not really the guns? Are you starting to work things out here?!
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.09.25 09:21:00 - [168] Originally by: Shosoru Quote: I'll leave you to your delusions. ima gona go to bead. Thee refuses to see, so thee is just pray. I like the poor 'olde' talk this guy spouts, it makes me laugh while I vomit at his rhetoric. On a more serious note, if webs were to remain at 60%, what could be changed to make blasters work again, and not overpowered?
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.25 09:25:00 - [169] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 25/09/2008 09:25:11 Originally by: Captator On a more serious note, if webs were to remain at 60%, what could be changed to make blasters work again, and not overpowered? Tracking formula to incorporate distance. It's very easy and fixes blaster/AC tracking at their intended ranges while leaving tracking at longer ranges largely untouched. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Furb Killer Gallente The first genesis Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.09.25 09:38:00 - [170] Quote: t's funny, but you mention the Raven as though it were unable to deal effective damage to small ships in web range. The reality is that a Raven is the only battleship that's able to reliably deal absurd amounts of damage within web range. I tried on sisi myrmidon (with t1 rep rigs) vs torp raven. First attempt torp raven used web + painter drones, i shoot painter drones, and i was almost repping as much as he damaged me. Was slowly getting more damage, but i still had armor left when i ran out of cap booster charges. Next attempt he fitted a real target painter instead of using drones, and yeah then he did do quite alot more damage and i went down, but still not that fast. vs a megathron i think even with web changes i would have gone down much faster.
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.09.25 09:55:00 - [171] Edited by: Theron Gyrow on 25/09/2008 09:56:04 Originally by: Furb Killer I tried on sisi myrmidon (with t1 rep rigs) vs torp raven. First attempt torp raven used web + painter drones, i shoot painter drones, and i was almost repping as much as he damaged me. Was slowly getting more damage, but i still had armor left when i ran out of cap booster charges. Next attempt he fitted a real target painter instead of using drones, and yeah then he did do quite alot more damage and i went down, but still not that fast. vs a megathron i think even with web changes i would have gone down much faster. I am afraid that your feelings are incorrect. Myrmidon with two armor rigs (armor rigging skill at 3): max speed 152m/s. With 60% web on, about 60m/s. Sig radius 300. When said Myrmi is orbiting a max-skilled Mega at 500m, Mega needs 0.16 tracking to get just 50% reduction to hit chance (about 62% reduction to damage). However, neutrons have tracking of 0.07442 with max skills. => at 500m orbit, webbed Myrmidon will not get any damage from neutron Megathron's guns unless Mega manages to reduce the transversal in a major way. And that is without any tracking disruptors. -- Gradient forum
NightmareX MAFIA Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:18:00 - [172] Edited by: NightmareX on 25/09/2008 10:23:31 I'm a bit late in this topic. But. Angelic Eviaran, the Megathron setup you posted without a cap injector. That setup sucks terribly. That Megathron will die to my Tempest in record time. Because without cap injector you cap will be totally fked up in no time when i neut your Mega with 2x Heavy neuts that i have on my Tempest. Think about that. A poor poor Tempest that will kill a Megathron because someone is stupid to not fit cap injectors. But yeah, for a player that have been using Minmatar ships for 3 years, some Gallente ships for 2+ years and Caldari ships from the beginning. I can say for sure that all of the races are pretty balanced now. Even Minmatar are pretty balanced, but balanced in Hard Mode. Yes i have been using 92% only Minmatar ships the last 3 years. Check out my new flash web page 'Quantum Singularity'
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:30:00 - [173] Originally by: liang What you're neglecting to mention is that that ruleset is going away entirely. Missiles hit even the fastest of nano cruisers on test for overwhelming damage - I had no trouble killing any nano cruiser in under 3 volleys from my Raven. I hate to break into Liang's rantings, but we know that missiles will be changed, so it's stupid to draw any conclusions about future missile performance from the test server.
Shosoru Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:36:00 - [174] Theron Gyrow In your example the hyp orbits at 500m. If both the mega and the hyp have web and mwd the meg is faster and the hyp would loose its sig radius bonus. so the meg would just fly to optimal using his cap intensive mwd for a few runs np and the hyp can either hit his mwd and fly toward the meg and get 104% damage for that time or he would be at a 5-6km range and the megas tracking is a bit better. ------------------------------ WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:40:00 - [175] Originally by: NightmareX Yes all Large turrets need to get the tracking boosted if the web and speed nerf hit TQ. Yeah but thats not what they want. They want only large blasters to get a tracking boost so their blaster ships can mwd orbit and collect win every time in web range and once again be solo pwnmobiles of the low sec.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:42:00 - [176] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 25/09/2008 10:43:21 Originally by: Shosoru Theron Gyrow In your example the hyp orbits at 500m. If both the mega and the hyp have web and mwd the meg is faster and the hyp would loose its sig radius bonus. so the meg would just fly to optimal using his cap intensive mwd for a few runs np and the hyp can either hit his mwd and fly toward the meg and get 104% damage for that time or he would be at a 5-6km range and the megas tracking is a bit better. (a) Wall of text! (b) He was talking about a Myrmidon, I believe. Anyway, Myrmidon uses a scrambler. Mega cannot MWD and control transversal anymore. Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: NightmareX Yes all Large turrets need to get the tracking boosted if the web and speed nerf hit TQ. Yeah but thats not what they want. They want only large blasters to get a tracking boost so their blaster ships can mwd orbit and collect win every time in web range and once again be solo pwnmobiles of the low sec. MWD orbit? In webrange? Lol, the noobs posting in this thread Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:42:00 - [177] Originally by: Nikolae Varius As far as orbiting to dodge tracking when facing a megathron, that applies to everyone. And last time I checked, hybrids > pulse in tracking. erm.... pulses can engage targets at 40km. blasters can't. considering those ranges, I'll say that the pulses have a freakin' great tracking. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:43:00 - [178] Originally by: Cpt Branko (a) Wall of text! (b) He was talking about a Myrmidon, I believe. Anyway, Myrmidon uses a scrambler. Mega cannot MWD and control transversal anymore. So a BC isnt automatically dead when fighting a BS? Oh the horror.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:44:00 - [179] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Nikolae Varius As far as orbiting to dodge tracking when facing a megathron, that applies to everyone. And last time I checked, hybrids > pulse in tracking. erm.... pulses can engage targets at 40km. blasters can't. considering those ranges, I'll say that the pulses have a freakin' great tracking. Yeah but pulses arent hitting anything in webrange either if the blasters arent. That is what you are whining about isnt it?
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:44:00 - [180] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Cpt Branko (a) Wall of text! (b) He was talking about a Myrmidon, I believe. Anyway, Myrmidon uses a scrambler. Mega cannot MWD and control transversal anymore. So a BC isnt automatically dead when fighting a BS? Oh the horror. Well, a BS being automatically dead when fighting a BC is balanced, then? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:47:00 - [181] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Cpt Branko (a) Wall of text! (b) He was talking about a Myrmidon, I believe. Anyway, Myrmidon uses a scrambler. Mega cannot MWD and control transversal anymore. So a BC isnt automatically dead when fighting a BS? Oh the horror. Well, a BS being automatically dead when fighting a BC is balanced, then? Can a BC hit 150km with sniper fittings? Can a BC tank as much as a BS? Nope. Its pretty much the same argument youre using that it is ok for pulses to lose in webrange and not being able to hit a BS sized target but blasters should just because pulses can hit 40km also. So wich is it going to be?
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:51:00 - [182] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Can a BC hit 150km with sniper fittings? Can a BC tank as much as a BS? Nope. Its pretty much the same argument youre using that it is ok for pulses to lose in webrange and not being able to hit a BS sized target but blasters should just because pulses can hit 40km also. So wich is it going to be? So, wait. Are you trying to say BCs don't have things battleships can't do and they can? Can a BS fit warfare links? Can a BS barbeque any sub 8km/s ceptor in 28km range? No. BCs can (well, admittedly, Harbringer/Hurricane are the only two capable of doing the latter). Should the 'win vs turret BS in webrange trivially' be added to their list of capabilities? No, not really. Furthermore, you're saying that being able to go to station, dock, refit a totally different fit which is useful for 150km sniping only is somehow equivalent (as you say, same argument) to being able to hit both in webrange well and up to 45 KM with the same fit? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:54:00 - [183] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Can a BC hit 150km with sniper fittings? Can a BC tank as much as a BS? Nope. Its pretty much the same argument youre using that it is ok for pulses to lose in webrange and not being able to hit a BS sized target but blasters should just because pulses can hit 40km also. So wich is it going to be? So, wait. Are you trying to say BCs don't have things battleships can't do and they can? Can a BS fit warfare links? Can a BS barbeque any sub 8km/s ceptor in 28km range? No. BCs can (well, admittedly, Harbringer/Hurricane are the only two capable of doing the latter). Should the 'win vs turret BS in webrange trivially' be added to their list of capabilities? No, not really. Furthermore, you're saying that being able to go to station, dock, refit a totally different fit which is useful for 150km sniping only is somehow equivalent (as you say, same argument) to being able to hit both in webrange well and up to 45 KM with the same fit? Every ship type has its ups and downs. BS shouldnt be a bigger and nastier BC, because that is what they are right now. Its not like BSs wont be used just because they cant hit a BC in webrange anymore. Its quite fine tbh.
NightmareX MAFIA Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:56:00 - [184] Edited by: NightmareX on 25/09/2008 11:03:45 Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Yeah but pulses arent hitting anything in webrange either if the blasters arent. That is what you are whining about isnt it? Pulses are hitting at their optimal ranges vs preety much everything. Blasters are not hitting properly at their optimal ranges. Are you being stupid on purpose? Well from my experience i have never had ANY problem at ALL to hit targets in optimal range when the targets are webbed with a Megathron. Not even frigs have been hard to hit. Like the time in my Megathron Federate Issue on sisi when the web and speed nerf was there. Then i was fighting a Pilgrim that had 2x Tracking Disruptors on me. And you can guess i had hard times to hit that ship when he was orbiting me at 300 m/s 5 km from me. But the thing is that i still did hit him, but not good enough to kill him. I had him down to structure though. And i will say by getting dual tracking disrupted, i will say the tracking is pretty good on a Mega when i still can hit him then tbh. Check out my new flash web page 'Quantum Singularity'
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:56:00 - [185] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 25/09/2008 10:56:55 Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Every ship type has its ups and downs. BS shouldnt be a bigger and nastier BC, because that is what they are right now. Its not like BSs wont be used just because they cant hit a BC in webrange anymore. Its quite fine tbh. Admittedly true, but what's the point of using a weapon system which does not have the tracking to fight at its optimal range, when systems which can suck just a bit more at short range while rocking at mid range are available? Originally by: NightmareX Well from my experience i have never had ANY problem at ALL to hit targets in optimal range when the targets are webbed with a Megathron. Not even frigs have been hard to hit. Discussion is assuming sisi web/scram changes are going through. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:58:00 - [186] Originally by: NightmareX Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Yeah but pulses arent hitting anything in webrange either if the blasters arent. That is what you are whining about isnt it? Pulses are hitting at their optimal ranges vs preety much everything. Blasters are not hitting properly at their optimal ranges. Are you being stupid on purpose? Well from my experience i have never had ANY problem at ALL to hit targets in optimal range when the targets are webbed with a Megathron. Not even frigs have been hard to hit. This. Alot of people are making up stuff that isnt true to boost blasters.
Furb Killer Gallente The first genesis Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:59:00 - [187] Edited by: Furb Killer on 25/09/2008 11:00:29 Imo BS are supposed to be win vs BC without many issues. BC are supposed to be win vs cruisers, but BS should not be win vs cruisers without any issues. (and besides blasters a mega still got plenty of drones and a heavy neut if he wants too to fight cruisers). Then: Assuming the myrm has a 500m orbit is easy, but not realistic imo. A myrm is barely faster than a megathron, and it isnt that easy to control range. Also, i seriously doubt i will ever put a warp scrambler on a myrmidon. Sure you got 5 mid slots, but then i rather use one mid for ECCM with all the falcons and ECM drones arround. And i do want to have a warp disruptor fitted on a myrmidon which can do damage outside 5km. And it is easy to say that the relative tracking of pulses is better because they got more range, but that isnt really important if the fight is still at close range. Imo what is the problem is that a pulse geddon for example does almost the same damage as a megathron, pretty much equal tank, but far better range. It should just have a reduction in dps, at range i dont care if it is much better than megathron, but give the mega the ability to really out dps a geddon at close range.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:59:00 - [188] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran This. Alot of people are making up stuff that isnt true to boost blasters. Unless you've tested the speed changes, your experience does not compute. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 10:59:00 - [189] Originally by: Cpt Branko Admittedly true, but what's the point of using a weapon system which does not have the tracking to fight at its optimal range, when systems which can suck just a bit more at short range while rocking at mid range are available? Dont need to crosstrain 15mill sp and you have good dps? And you have other great ships? And its an easy pvp race to train? Wait you want easy to train race, best close range solo weapons, best long range sniping, best t1 lineup and best everything right?
LadyLubU2 Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.09.25 11:05:00 - [190] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: NightmareX Yes all Large turrets need to get the tracking boosted if the web and speed nerf hit TQ. Yeah but thats not what they want. They want only large blasters to get a tracking boost so their blaster ships can mwd orbit and collect win every time in web range and once again be solo pwnmobiles of the low sec. HAHAHAhAHAHHAHHHAAAAhahAHhahahaahHaha.aha..hhaahahah......hah...
NightmareX MAFIA Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.09.25 11:06:00 - [191] And to tell this like it is. To those who say yeeeahhh, Amarr today is the absolute win in PVP, so you should all go Amarr. Do you know that by saying that, it will be the same as asking CCP to nerf Amarr right?. Check out my new flash web page 'Quantum Singularity'
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.25 11:07:00 - [192] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 25/09/2008 11:08:14 Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Cpt Branko Admittedly true, but what's the point of using a weapon system which does not have the tracking to fight at its optimal range, when systems which can suck just a bit more at short range while rocking at mid range are available? Dont need to crosstrain 15mill sp and you have good dps? And you have other great ships? And its an easy pvp race to train? Easy? Compared to who? Minmatar? Yeah. Good DPS? Yeah, but only in perfect situations and people stick at point blank ranges. Reviewing anything with 2-3 BS involved, Amarr BS just flat out outpreformed everyone else. Other great ships? Most races have more great ships then Gallente do. So it really boils down to, you can fly the ship with a lot of SP behind it and can't be bothered to cross-train. Which is a preety poor reason to fly it, you have to admit. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Princess 02	Posted - 2008.09.25 11:46:00 - [193] Edited by: Princess 02 on 25/09/2008 11:48:27 WOW... just WOW... a few months ago, Amarr was the underdogs... Now they rulz... LOL It took us more than 2 bloody years to convince the devs to take a look... more than 2 bloody years to suck it up and "adapt"... and now OMG they are overpowered... by changing the EM resist they are now overpowered?!?!!? What make you think Gallente need a BOOST ATM??? because of the upcoming nanonerf that NO PLAYER can confim how CCP goign to do it??? Emphaiss on ""CONFIRM""... Sisi is NO guarantee... Wait till we get another Dev blog and more info of what they have finally decided about what's going to be in the nano nerf ffs!!! If you think web nerf goign to affect only u Gallente, u are mistaken... even Amarr will be in trouble and dont have enough mid slots to adapt as ur "underpowered" blaster boats... However, I do agree Minmatar alpha-dammage needs to be addressed... and torps > blasters at close-/mid- range...
LadyLubU2 Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.09.25 11:49:00 - [194] Originally by: Princess 02 WOW... just WOW... a few months ago, Amarr was the underdogs... Now they rulz... LOL It took us more than 2 bloody years to convince the devs to take a look... more than 2 bloody years to suck it up and "adapt"... and now OMG they are overpowered... by changing the EM resist they are now overpowered?!?!!? You know, i could answer the same some people have been doing in this thread: Amarr has never been underpowered, there was a constant whining on the forums about it since the people that fly them had no ****ing clue... Now THATS a good argument amirite!?!?!
Shosoru Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.25 11:56:00 - [195] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 25/09/2008 10:43:21 (a) Wall of text! (b) He was talking about a Myrmidon, I believe. Anyway, Myrmidon uses a scrambler. Mega cannot MWD and control transversal anymore. Cpt Branko I meant a myrmidon but sad hyp sorry (hyp cant loose a sig radiouse advantage ^^) iv edited it. if the scrams get that ability a myrm and the myrm uses one and the mega also uses one the mega must just fly, the myrm isn't much faster then a mega and would be more like following the mega then orbiting it = lower transversal. with ab this might look different a bit. ------------------------------ WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.09.25 12:29:00 - [196] Originally by: Aleus Stygian Ugh... I'm going to try this in my most kiddy-friendly tone. Okay, here's the thing... Firing on an opponent is not going to simultaneously slow them down and keep them from warping. It's going to make them upset and scared or angry, and then they will either run away or kill you. See that's how people react when you try to hurt them. And it's what's going to happen when they can both move and shoot, both at the same time. You got that? Good. Now, when these people run away, what good does shooting do you? Nothing. You just waste ammo. Got that too? And if they turn on you and shoot you back and kill you, if they know they can, because they are out of webbing and scramming range, what good does shooting do you? Nothing. See what I'm getting at here? So, if blasterboats can't keep their enemies in place and get within 6000 meters, and if shooting is just going to be a waste of ammo or kill you? And if you backtrack this whole explanation and realize that it's all about being able to keep enemies in place, not really the guns? Are you starting to work things out here?! Jackass attitude aside - what you're describing isn't a "blasterboat" problem. Its a general combat problem. A torp boat, cruise boat, laser boat, or "chimpanzee's flinging poo" boat is still going to have to keep someone around ultimately long enough to die. Issues with the general web nerf that affect everyone equally isn't the issue. With weapon systems the differences primarily boil down to how much effective damage you're doing (after factoring in tracking) at what cost in terms of losing range advantage - with the general idea being that theoretically the closer you have to get the more damage you should do. If the issue is kiting I think the obvious thing is that "If they're not in your web/scram range, you're not in their web & scram range" so there's no obvious imbalance there.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 13:18:00 - [197] Originally by: Cpt Branko Amarr BS just flat out outpreformed everyone else. And the geddon and raven have how many mids for tackle? Thought so...
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.25 14:04:00 - [198] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Can a BC hit 150km with sniper fittings? My fleet ferox hits out past 150km.. Awesome EVE history
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 14:42:00 - [199] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Can a BC hit 150km with sniper fittings? My fleet ferox hits out past 150km.. Well the average BC cant, the point still stands. The average BS can though.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 15:13:00 - [200] Originally by: Gypsio III I hate to break into Liang's rantings, but we know that missiles will be changed, so it's stupid to draw any conclusions about future missile performance from the test server. We know that missiles will be changed, but we also know that the expressly quoted reason for the nano nerf is that missiles were unable to damage nano cruisers. I think it's fairly safe to say that they'll continue to be able to wtfpwn them. -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 15:14:00 - [201] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran And the geddon and raven have how many mids for tackle? Thought so... One and Five respectively. -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 15:19:00 - [202] Originally by: Princess 02 WOW... just WOW... a few months ago, Amarr was the underdogs... Now they rulz... LOL It took us more than 2 bloody years to convince the devs to take a look... more than 2 bloody years to suck it up and "adapt"... and now OMG they are overpowered... by changing the EM resist they are now overpowered?!?!!? What make you think Gallente need a BOOST ATM??? because of the upcoming nanonerf that NO PLAYER can confim how CCP goign to do it??? Emphaiss on ""CONFIRM""... Sisi is NO guarantee... Wait till we get another Dev blog and more info of what they have finally decided about what's going to be in the nano nerf ffs!!! If you think web nerf goign to affect only u Gallente, u are mistaken... even Amarr will be in trouble and dont have enough mid slots to adapt as ur "underpowered" blaster boats... However, I do agree Minmatar alpha-dammage needs to be addressed... and torps > blasters at close-/mid- range... Go read the OP again and you will begin to understand why what you're saying is silly. :) If you'd really like a run down on the list of boosts and nerfs that pushed Amarr over the top, I think I can go find it again. -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 15:22:00 - [203] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Can a BC hit 150km with sniper fittings? Mine can hit 200km.... not sure what your problem is. Quote: Can a BC tank as much as a BS? Yes... most of them can - especially if you take into account the damage reduction from a smaller sig radius. Quote: Its pretty much the same argument youre using that it is ok for pulses to lose in webrange and not being able to hit a BS sized target but blasters should just because pulses can hit 40km also. So wich is it going to be? So if I read what you're saying here right, you're saying that pulse lasers should do 95% of the damage of blasters at every range? Wow, you're dense. Just stop trolling... you've successfully distracted most people from the point of the OP anyway. -Liang --
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 15:42:00 - [204] Originally by: Liang Nuren One and Five respectively. -Liang Ed: But the real question here is how likely your BS is to be making the tackle. And remember that I'm a pirate in Minnie lowsec that believes that everyone fits a point. Raven has five mids for tackle? Wow, and would you like to compare the tank of that raven and the blaster BS? Thought so.
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 15:44:00 - [205] Originally by: Liang Nuren Mine can hit 200km.... not sure what your problem is. Dont be anal. You know most BCs dont hit anything near sniping battleship ranges. Originally by: Liang Nuren Yes... most of them can - especially if you take into account the damage reduction from a smaller sig radius Uhm no? BCs are actually known to pretty much take full damage from everything but not have the tank of a BS.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 15:46:00 - [206] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Raven has five mids for tackle? Wow, and would you like to compare the tank of that raven and the blaster BS? Thought so. I dunno, last I checked 120K EHP was pretty decent on a battleship. -Liang --
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 15:47:00 - [207] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Raven has five mids for tackle? Wow, and would you like to compare the tank of that raven and the blaster BS? Thought so. I dunno, last I checked 120K EHP was pretty decent on a battleship. -Liang And youre comparing that to the tank of a blaster mega with full tackle? Dont make me laugh.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 15:50:00 - [208] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Dont be anal. You know most BCs dont hit anything near sniping battleship ranges. Um. Right. Quote: Uhm no? BCs are actually known to pretty much take full damage from everything but not have the tank of a BS. Please look into something called signature resolution and signature radius. Turret Battleships have 400 sig resolution and BC's have sub 300 signature radius (especially armor based BCs). This acts as a multiplier for any transversal that you do have. To say that they receive "full damage" is extremely misleading (and in most cases outright false). Once the web nerf hits, you're just talking out your ass. If you posted less and read more, you might learn something. -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 15:52:00 - [209] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran And youre comparing that to the tank of a blaster mega with full tackle? Dont make me laugh. A similarly skilled blaster mega doesn't have 120K EHP unless he has slaves. Adding slaves into the equation favors the raven quite dramatically. -Liang --
LadyLubU2 Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.09.25 16:58:00 - [210] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Raven has five mids for tackle? Wow, and would you like to compare the tank of that raven and the blaster BS? Thought so. I dunno, last I checked 120K EHP was pretty decent on a battleship. -Liang And youre comparing that to the tank of a blaster mega with full tackle? Dont make me laugh. No, you make us laugh. Please keep up the good work (as a funny troll that is)!
Kurt Gergard Caldari Custodes Mandati Imperii	Posted - 2008.09.25 17:16:00 - [211] i was wondering ... what would happen if you fit a target painter on a blaster bs ? Could it be enough to offset the new problems? I could be wrong though so please correct me if so... ================================================ "No plan has ever survived the contact with the enemy" von Moltke
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.25 17:21:00 - [212] Originally by: Kurt Gergard i was wondering ... what would happen if you fit a target painter on a blaster bs ? Could it be enough to offset the new problems? I could be wrong though so please correct me if so... Only if you get a 400% target painter, which might be possible if you fit a Huggin with 4-5 TPs (they're stacking penalized) to offset the changes just to tracking (nevermind the inability to do transversal control thanks to scrams disabling MWD). So, in short, no. Fixing tracking is really the answer. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Shosoru Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.25 18:09:00 - [213] Originally by: Aleus Stygian Ugh... I'm going to try this in my most kiddy-friendly tone. Okay, here's the thing... Firing on an opponent is not going to simultaneously slow them down and keep them from warping. It's going to make them upset and scared or angry, and then they will either run away or kill you. See that's how people react when you try to hurt them. And it's what's going to happen when they can both move and shoot, both at the same time. You got that? Good. Now, when these people run away, what good does shooting do you? Nothing. You just waste ammo. Got that too? And if they turn on you and shoot you back and kill you, if they know they can, because they are out of webbing and scramming range, what good does shooting do you? Nothing. See what I'm getting at here? So, if blasterboats can't keep their enemies in place and get within 6000 meters, and if shooting is just going to be a waste of ammo or kill you? And if you backtrack this whole explanation and realize that it's all about being able to keep enemies in place, not really the guns? Are you starting to work things out here?! This and nothing ells. I am out of this stupid thread for good , all has been said already but epeen hugging guys hear still want to twist reality to their benefit. Twist your epeen's as much as you want, they'll only grow in your imagination. ------------------------------ WTB: Minmatar X-Type Duck-Tape
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.09.25 19:13:00 - [214] Originally by: Shosoru Originally by: Aleus Stygian Ugh... I'm going to try this in my most kiddy-friendly tone. Okay, here's the thing... Firing on an opponent is not going to simultaneously slow them down and keep them from warping. It's going to make them upset and scared or angry, and then they will either run away or kill you. See that's how people react when you try to hurt them. And it's what's going to happen when they can both move and shoot, both at the same time. You got that? Good. Now, when these people run away, what good does shooting do you? Nothing. You just waste ammo. Got that too? And if they turn on you and shoot you back and kill you, if they know they can, because they are out of webbing and scramming range, what good does shooting do you? Nothing. See what I'm getting at here? So, if blasterboats can't keep their enemies in place and get within 6000 meters, and if shooting is just going to be a waste of ammo or kill you? And if you backtrack this whole explanation and realize that it's all about being able to keep enemies in place, not really the guns? Are you starting to work things out here?! This and nothing ells. I am out of this stupid thread for good , all has been said already but epeen hugging guys hear still want to twist reality to their benefit. Twist your epeen's as much as you want, they'll only grow in your imagination. Except that isn't. Balancing weapons systems is not about making good solo ships. Balancing weapon systems is about trading range for damage. "If I can't keep X from warping...my ship is underpowered..." is different than saying "Blasters should get improved because I have no range and get nothing in return for that". The former applies for every battleship that fights at medium and long range too, so what?
Yzen Mors	Posted - 2008.09.25 19:37:00 - [215] Here's a thought... How about mixing Gallente and Calamari ships? I mean - honestly - Gallente aren't THAT bad at sniping, heck, a good Mega can snipe pretty well and hit things that a Caldari might not be able to, plus, the can get more distance out of a DCU with their superior structure. And a good Gallente pilot can easily cross train for Caldari because shield tanking doesn't take more than a month or so to get good at and hybrid turrets are already ready to go! Just my two cents, take it for what it is XD
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.25 19:41:00 - [216] Originally by: Yzen Mors Here's a thought... How about mixing Gallente and Calamari ships? I mean - honestly - Gallente aren't THAT bad at sniping, heck, a good Mega can snipe pretty well and hit things that a Caldari might not be able to, plus, the can get more distance out of a DCU with their superior structure. And a good Gallente pilot can easily cross train for Caldari because shield tanking doesn't take more than a month or so to get good at and hybrid turrets are already ready to go! Just my two cents, take it for what it is XD Yes there is too much gallente whine. They want their fotm period back.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.25 19:44:00 - [217] Originally by: Yzen Mors Here's a thought... How about mixing Gallente and Calamari ships? I mean - honestly - Gallente aren't THAT bad at sniping, heck, a good Mega can snipe pretty well and hit things that a Caldari might not be able to, plus, the can get more distance out of a DCU with their superior structure. And a good Gallente pilot can easily cross train for Caldari because shield tanking doesn't take more than a month or so to get good at and hybrid turrets are already ready to go! Just my two cents, take it for what it is XD Way ahead of you, actually. Gallente Frig 5, Calamari 4, Gallente Cruiser 5, Calamari 5, Gallente BS5, Calamari 4. ;-) I'll probably pick up a few more shield skills before I settle down for finishing up training for the Sin [and Widow]. I'll be in a Panther and Widow long before the Sin though. It'll be awesome, a pair of Widows... I can gossip with myself! -Liang --
Yzen Mors	Posted - 2008.09.25 20:51:00 - [218] Another thought: I've noticed that Gallente pilots are quite attached to their ships, personally I picked gallente because of the awesome looks of their ships, they don't make an ugly ship, (kicks his incurus under the rug). For many, picking their ship was a matter of what is the strongest, or the best at this, or the best at that, I finally decided, screw the best, go with the ships I thought were coolest to fly. Who honestly thinks that Caldari have cool looking ships, and Amarr are simply old-fashion looking, Minmatar look like something a three armed kid threw together with some old boards, duct tape and mama's d****s. Gallente are the most fashionable ships around, and why not fly for style... oh - and way superior raw DPS ;).
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.09.25 21:25:00 - [219] Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 25/09/2008 21:33:17 Originally by: Liang Nuren I'll probably pick up a few more shield skills before I settle down for finishing up training for the Sin [and Widow]. I'll be in a Panther and Widow long before the Sin though. It'll be awesome, a pair of Widows... I can gossip with myself! -Liang Why am I reminded of that Monty Python sketch, with the old ladies in the submarine? 'Mrs. Nesbitt's got one of her headaches again.' 'Oh, put her in the torpedo launcher. That always clears it up.' Personally, I will enjoy hopping from a Purifier into a Redeemer. Popping out to lock, fire, and then cloak again without having to wait for the hit will make it so much easier to CLEANSE AND PURGE! With HOLY FIRE! BURNINATE!
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.26 06:25:00 - [220] Well, this seems to have wandered a bit from the original point. The issue is NOT whether there is a point where blasters are more effective, there obviously is. It's small, and the advantage is tiny, but it's possible to get a blaster ship in a scenario where it will win 90% of the time. So what's the problem? "MWD up to point-blank range and gank the target" is no longer a winning strategy. Outside of solo fights with a covops giving you a perfect warp-in, you may kill the first target, but then you get kited and picked apart by ships with vastly superior range. Your HP/damage advantages disappear very quickly once you have to spend time (and tons of cap) MWDing into range, while the longer-ranged ships are already putting damage on target. Meanwhile the complete lack of ability to do anything else KILLS Gallente/Minmatar. The only Gallente ship capable of something besides "MWD point-blank and gank" is the Arazu, and it's only good because you can pair it with an Amarr or Caldari ship. As I made very clear in the OP, the issue is not a simple question of boosting tracking a bit (or some similar easy fix). It's a fundamental mismatch between Gallente/Minmatar tactics and the current metagame. Stop looking for the easy solution, and start looking at the fundamental concepts.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.09.26 07:56:00 - [221] I don't have much to add to this thread, but I did feel the need to comment that the originating post is well writting and insightful. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.09.26 07:58:00 - [222] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Well, this seems to have wandered a bit from the original point. The issue is NOT whether there is a point where blasters are more effective, there obviously is. It's small, and the advantage is tiny, but it's possible to get a blaster ship in a scenario where it will win 90% of the time. Um. No, no it isn't. Well-fit and well-flown torp Raven will always beat a similarly-fit blaster ship, no matter the starting situation. Well, ok, if the Mega has ECM and gets incredibly lucky, it can win. But there're missile changes coming in, so the OMGWTFBBQ torps might get balanced... Let's ignore them for now. </derail> With that out of the way, ummm... I agree with your main point completely. -- Gradient forum
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.26 08:24:00 - [223] Originally by: LadyLubU2 Originally by: Princess 02 WOW... just WOW... a few months ago, Amarr was the underdogs... Now they rulz... LOL It took us more than 2 bloody years to convince the devs to take a look... more than 2 bloody years to suck it up and "adapt"... and now OMG they are overpowered... by changing the EM resist they are now overpowered?!?!!? Amarr has never been underpowered, there was a constant whining on the forums about it since the people that fly them had no ****ing clue... Now THATS a good argument amirite!?!?! Oh whaddya know ur doing the same thing Awesome EVE history
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.26 08:25:00 - [224] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Well, this seems to have wandered a bit from the original point. The issue is NOT whether there is a point where blasters are more effective, there obviously is. It's small, and the advantage is tiny, but it's possible to get a blaster ship in a scenario where it will win 90% of the time. So what's the problem? "MWD up to point-blank range and gank the target" is no longer a winning strategy. Outside of solo fights with a covops giving you a perfect warp-in, you may kill the first target, but then you get kited and picked apart by ships with vastly superior range. Your HP/damage advantages disappear very quickly once you have to spend time (and tons of cap) MWDing into range, while the longer-ranged ships are already putting damage on target. Meanwhile the complete lack of ability to do anything else KILLS Gallente/Minmatar. The only Gallente ship capable of something besides "MWD point-blank and gank" is the Arazu, and it's only good because you can pair it with an Amarr or Caldari ship. As I made very clear in the OP, the issue is not a simple question of boosting tracking a bit (or some similar easy fix). It's a fundamental mismatch between Gallente/Minmatar tactics and the current metagame. Stop looking for the easy solution, and start looking at the fundamental concepts. You know gallente could fit rails..just maybe.. Then they can join the rest of the long range ships ;) Awesome EVE history
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.26 08:54:00 - [225] Originally by: BiggestT You know gallente could fit rails..just maybe.. Then they can join the rest of the long range ships ;) No, you really can't. Rails on a Gallente ship are inferior to lasers on an Amarr ship in virtually every possible scenario. The only reason to ever use rails on a Gallente ship is if you really need something to use while you wait for Large Energy Turret V to finish training. But really, this just gets the question backwards. What you should be asking is "what is the right tool for the job?", not starting with the assumption that you are going to use a Gallente ship.
Cautet Killer Koalas Kingdom of Butan	Posted - 2008.09.26 09:11:00 - [226] Edited by: Cautet on 26/09/2008 09:12:47 Originally by: Merin Ryskin The only Gallente ship capable of something besides "MWD point-blank and gank" is the Arazu, and it's only good because you can pair it with an Amarr or Caldari ship. 1. Domi 2. Myrm 3. Ishtar 4. Eris 5. Thantos 6. Moros 7. Mega (rail fit, great in fleets) 8. Vexor 9. Celestis (you mentioned arazu already though) 10. Nemesis 11. Taranis (well it can go into point blank with blasters but it does it well) 12. Ishkur * Not exhaustive list. In fact, you have effective non blaster ships in virtualy every single class available to you if you stick to flying only Galenti.
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.09.26 09:20:00 - [227] Originally by: Theron Gyrow Um. No, no it isn't. Well-fit and well-flown torp Raven will always beat a similarly-fit blaster ship, no matter the starting situation. No it wont. Oh yeah youre talking about fantasy pvp where you dont need tackle fitted on the raven right? You fail.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.09.26 09:32:00 - [228] Actually, in a 1v1, a tackle-fit torp Raven is competitive against a Mega. Unfortunately, it's not particularly meaningful, since BS 1v1s are so rare that's it almost absurd to attempt to balance around them.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.26 09:38:00 - [229] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 26/09/2008 09:45:18 Originally by: Cautet 1. Domi Is primarily a close-range neut/drone ship. While capable of engaging at longer ranges, it's still heavily focused on sub-24km (usually sub-10km) combat. So I'll be nice and concede this one. Quote: 2. Myrm It's a sucky Dominix and should never be flown. If you want a BC, get a Drake or Harbinger. Quote: 3. Ishtar It's a sucky Dominix post-nano-nerf and should never be flown. Quote: 4. Eris Unless you're refering to the role of "drop bubble, wake up in new clone" that all interdictors have equally (but the Eris really doesn't, since a prerequisite is "look pretty as you die"), its only combat "role" is close-range with blasters. Quote: 5. Thantos 6. Moros The obvious rule here is that we're talking about sub-capital combat. Capital ships play by completely different rules from the rest of the game, so they're irrelevant to balancing at the sub-capital level. Quote: 7. Mega (rail fit, great in fleets) It's a sucky Apoc. The only people who fly it in fleets are people who haven't finished Large Energy Turret V yet. Quote: 8. Vexor It's a sucky Dominix and should never be flown. Also, it's a T1 cruiser, and should never be flown, except by newbies (who should fly a Blackbird, Omen or Caracal anyway). Quote: 9. Celestis (you mentioned arazu already though) Without the warp scramble bonus, it can't do the Arazu's job, and is just a sucky Blackbird. Quote: 10. Nemesis It's a stealth bomber, and therefore capable of nothing. Quote: 11. Taranis (well it can go into point blank with blasters but it does it well) It's a sucky Crusader if it tries to do anything other than point blank with blasters. Quote: 12. Ishkur It's a sucky Dominx and therefore should never be flown (unless you're poor, in which case it's a sucky Vexor and should never be flown). Quote: In fact, you have effective non blaster ships in virtualy every single class available to you if you stick to flying only Galenti. No you don't. The non-blaster ships fall into two categories: 1) Ships that are inferior to the Dominix in every way, and therefore are not effective. The ability to use drones of any size makes any non-Dominix drone boat completely obsolete. AND 2) Ships that are not effective at all. Here we put worthless ships such as stealth bombers and assault frigates. So by the most generous analysis, Gallente have two ships that do not hopelessly suck: the Arazu and the Dominix.
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.09.26 09:41:00 - [230] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Quote: 3. Ishtar It's a sucky Dominix post-nano-nerf and should never be flown. Sacrilege is equal to the ishtar post nano nerf. Stop crying like a baby and face the fact that your race is just fine. Youre just angry your race isnt fotm anymore. Tough luck.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.26 09:57:00 - [231] Originally by: sdthujfg Sacrilege is equal to the ishtar post nano nerf. Stop crying like a baby and face the fact that your race is just fine. Youre just angry your race isnt fotm anymore. Tough luck. No it isn't. The Sacrilege is the top armor-tanked missile ship, and has no rival. It's very capable as a short-range solo/small-gang HAC, while keeping the ability to engage at impressive ranges thanks to javelin HAMs. The Ishtar, on the other hand, has direct competition in the Dominix, and it loses horribly to that competition. The Dominix brings the exact same drones (with more space for spares), but the option to fit heavy neuts. Post-nano-nerf, the Ishtar does not have the speed that is the only thing that makes it worth flying over the Dominix. Oh, and you seem to have missed my entire point in making this thread. It's not to cry that my race is nerfed. I realized the problems with Gallente a long time ago, abandoned the entire blaster idea, and switched to pure Caldari. I just think it's kind of silly to have two obsolete races like we do now.
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.09.26 10:01:00 - [232] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: sdthujfg Sacrilege is equal to the ishtar post nano nerf. Stop crying like a baby and face the fact that your race is just fine. Youre just angry your race isnt fotm anymore. Tough luck. No it isn't. The Sacrilege is the top armor-tanked missile ship, and has no rival. It's very capable as a short-range solo/small-gang HAC, while keeping the ability to engage at impressive ranges thanks to javelin HAMs. The Ishtar, on the other hand, has direct competition in the Dominix, and it loses horribly to that competition. The Dominix brings the exact same drones (with more space for spares), but the option to fit heavy neuts. Post-nano-nerf, the Ishtar does not have the speed that is the only thing that makes it worth flying over the Dominix. Oh, and you seem to have missed my entire point in making this thread. It's not to cry that my race is nerfed. I realized the problems with Gallente a long time ago, abandoned the entire blaster idea, and switched to pure Caldari. I just think it's kind of silly to have two obsolete races like we do now. You dont think sacrilege loses when compared to a BS? Sac and ishtar are equals in their roles after nerf. Just because sac doesnt have a big brother doesnt mean ishtar should get boosted above sac. Instead of flying a sac you can fly a geddon. And yeah people do train BS before hacs you know. The weaponsystem argument doesnt cut it. It was quite ok to have 1 obsolete race for years. You know wich one.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.26 10:17:00 - [233] Originally by: sdthujfg You dont think sacrilege loses when compared to a BS? There is no armor tanking missile BB, so no, it doesn't. I don't care about 1v1s, since as you might guess from actually reading the OP, 1v1s are not relevant. Quote: Sac and ishtar are equals in their roles after nerf. No they aren't. The Sacrilege can do the solo/small-gank role better than the Ishtar, and doesn't become useless as quickly as gang sizes start to increase. Javelin HAMs are an excellent weapon, and give the Sacrilege a reasonable engagement range. The Ishtar, on the other hand, is irrelevant. Post-nano-nerf it won't be fast, so the Dominix does everything it can do, and does it better. It out-tanks it, does the same damage, and massively out-neuts it. Quote: Just because sac doesnt have a big brother doesnt mean ishtar should get boosted above sac. An Ishtar boost would not put it above the Sacrilege. Done right, it might make it equal to the Sacrilege, but it still has quite a ways to go before it's the better ship. Quote: Instead of flying a sac you can fly a geddon. And yeah people do train BS before hacs you know. The weaponsystem argument doesnt cut it. Learn your ship roles. The fact that you think the Sacrilege and Armageddon overlap in roles makes you a perfect example of the obsolete Gallente "one ship does everything" philosophy. Here's a hint for you: Amarr and Caldari ships don't work like that.
Sombike Caldari Enterprise Estonia FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.09.26 11:11:00 - [234] Falcon jams ur mega? decloak ur arazu and damp falcons range to crap and move along ... adapt ppl adabt and stop whining
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.26 11:38:00 - [235] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Quote: 2. Myrm It's a sucky Dominix and should never be flown. If you want a BC, get a Drake or Harbinger. Admittedly, Myrmidon is the absolute king of short range BC gank platforms. If you absolutely must push 800+ DPS in a (solidly buffer tanked) BC, then a Myrm is your ship. It can be handy. The fact it's got one fairly useless bonus is rather annoying, of course, and its massive range disadvantage is a huge pain (while a, for instance, HAM gank Drake can just reload to javelin HAMs for 80km engagement range or have very solid gank in the <20km bracket with faction). Originally by: Merin Ryskin Quote: 3. Ishtar It's a sucky Dominix post-nano-nerf and should never be flown. The advantage over a Dominix is it's still much more mobile then a Dominix. HAC/Recon gangs are going to be, even post-patch, much better suited for actually moving around then BS gangs. The issue with the Ishtar is it has borked fittings and useless bonuses makes it a somewhat sub-par ship post nano nerf and is in need of a fix - but conceptually, nothing is wrong with a mini Dominix. Originally by: Merin Ryskin Vexor It's a sucky Dominix and should never be flown. Also, it's a T1 cruiser, and should never be flown, except by newbies (who should fly a Blackbird, Omen or Caracal anyway). In the T1 cruiser world, it's very good. While it fails for gang support (where Blackbird > everyone else) it's a quite good addition in cruiser gangs. Which are a cheap and effective. Particularly when you're looking for relatively quick moving 'bang for the buck' gangs. Originally by: Merin Ryskin Quote: 11. Taranis (well it can go into point blank with blasters but it does it well) It's a sucky Crusader if it tries to do anything other than point blank with blasters. Yeah, Taranis fails at rail fittings, but it is fairly useful for point blank with blasters. With heat, it's not uncommon to catch faster interceptors and gank them. All the blaster issues really don't hit the Taranis (small blasters, in fact) nearly as much as they hit larger blasters. Originally by: Merin So by the most generous analysis, Gallente have two ships that do not hopelessly suck: the Arazu and the Dominix. I'd seriously add the Taranis, the Myrmidon (if you can find a use for short range gank BCs, that is), Phobos (then again, all HICs are quite good) and the T1 cruisers are on the whole very solid (as far as T1 cruisers go). Also, Eos is useful, unless you consider information warfare links useless (more ECM power, more ECM range and more sensor strength, all very useful links - would you trade them for two links boosting active tanking and one boosting buffer and stacking nerfed with modules). It's still too few ships, of course. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.26 11:51:00 - [236] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 26/09/2008 11:51:57 Anyway, Merin is largely correct, but I would prefer boosting Minmatar/Gallente at what they are good at (with fixes to broken ships / weapons), as well as fixing tracking on the whole, rather then changing the concept of the races to adjust for the new metagame. People wishing to fly gang-only (I lie, there were always Caldari solo-capable ships, but it's a workable generalization) ships were flying Amarr/Caldari all along. The complaints are not directed at the top 'small gang/solo' ships being obsolete as gang sizes go up (we all knew that when we started training for them, after all, it's not like gangs are something which started happening this year), they're rather directed at Caldari/Amarr stealing both the 'small gang' role (even solo) AND the 'gang ship' ones. Furthermore, a solid part of the inferior gang performance of Gallente/Minmatar can be fixed by boosting railguns (which are quite suck on Gallente ships, and their fittings/bonuses are not really compatible with railguns on many ships) and particularly artilleries (the only ship which I find using artilleries are not horribly sucking on is the Trasher and they're somewhat passable on a Hurricane although you get a significantly sub-par ship for medium ranged combat to Amarr laser ships), to give them valid options for firing at range. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Mr Ignitious Gallente R.E.C.O.N. A.X.I.S	Posted - 2008.09.26 13:08:00 - [237] I agree that the myrm can be good, taranis and the others you listed are great in their ship class, however i would like to say i'm not overly impressed with the phobos. It has no definitive edge over ANY of the other hics, and being an armor hic it is extremely vulnerable to any cap warfare. I think what i would like to see is some amping to local tank ships or just trash the rep bonus, and go for the sexay hp bonus =) or something more creative, i'm open to new ideas
Cautet Killer Koalas Kingdom of Butan	Posted - 2008.09.26 13:12:00 - [238] Edited by: Cautet on 26/09/2008 13:14:08 I roughly agree with Capt Branko's analysis, although my point was really just that in every class of ship the Galenti have something which is very good for small gang work. Admitedly I favour the drone boats, and also admitedly I included classes which are currently not that great (af,stealth bomber) and classes where Galenti do the job but don't excell (interdictor, etc). The same can be said of every race - they all have good ships and bad ships - or rather they have ships of different flying styles, and some styles have less situations in which they excell. Two styles that are tricky to get maximum benefit from are for instance missiles and blasters (ignoring blasters on ranis and torps on raven). Potentialy they are devestating, but in reality they are tricky to deploy or they have limited actual targets within their expected potential types of targets. The mega with rails though has better tracking and more damage than a rokh at most ranges (although rokh has more flexible fittings and can increase its tracking it is still outdamaged by Mega), and has more dps and less alpha than a Tempest or Mael. The only long range ship arguably slightly superior to a Mega is the Apoc. Of course if both rails and large projectiles are in need of a boost maybe in fact it is just that lazors are too good. Or maybe it is just a question of perception.
Antikas Sourr Caldari Wild Card Legion	Posted - 2008.09.26 14:04:00 - [239] I quite enjoyed the read, Merin. I would just like to point out that Amarr are basically a brawler-only race and have few EW roles; they have a great logistics, of course. I think what makes Amarr so deadly is when a fleet or gang complements the great Amarr DPS/ranged ships with ships that have great EW; as pointed out before, the Falcon being quite the sidekick. One could also suggest that Minmatar EW ships could compliment the Amarr ships. Anyways, my point is this: Amarr are supposed to be the uber awesome DPS ships with great range and tracking with great the tanks that they currently are (and truely have no 'pure' EW role). Frankly, that's all they have and have been designed for; Caldari also follow that trend but, of course, missiles take time to reach their destined target and they get the role of specialized EW. But, I will say Gallente also need a more defining role considering range is becoming the de Facto of fleet PvP. Some have pointed out using warp-in points for blaster/AC and drone ships would work, and in my opinion that would tip the scales in a fight so drastically that the first side to send in close range brawlers to fight ranged ones in the sense that the short ranged are, in deed, in close range, would deny the enemy fleets of winning the ranged fight. Of course, it has its downfalls with lag and all other sorts of contamination. Do not forget, also, that in order for a pod pilot to make good use of Amarr ships, they need to their acquainted skills at level 5. Of course, they don't have that many skills. For Minmatar, I think it's quite obvious they are supposed to be lacking in areas to be noted as an underdog. I don't fly Minmatar, so I could be totally wrong. P.S., Forgive me if this a reiteration of 7 pages of opinions. _______________
SoftRevolution	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:41:00 - [240] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Well, this seems to have wandered a bit from the original point. The issue is NOT whether there is a point where blasters are more effective, there obviously is. It's small, and the advantage is tiny, but it's possible to get a blaster ship in a scenario where it will win 90% of the time. So what's the problem? "MWD up to point-blank range and gank the target" is no longer a winning strategy. Outside of solo fights with a covops giving you a perfect warp-in, you may kill the first target, but then you get kited and picked apart by ships with vastly superior range. Your HP/damage advantages disappear very quickly once you have to spend time (and tons of cap) MWDing into range, while the longer-ranged ships are already putting damage on target. Meanwhile the complete lack of ability to do anything else KILLS Gallente/Minmatar. The only Gallente ship capable of something besides "MWD point-blank and gank" is the Arazu, and it's only good because you can pair it with an Amarr or Caldari ship. As I made very clear in the OP, the issue is not a simple question of boosting tracking a bit (or some similar easy fix). It's a fundamental mismatch between Gallente/Minmatar tactics and the current metagame. Stop looking for the easy solution, and start looking at the fundamental concepts. So basically you're saying that tactics beats no tactics?
Mr Ignitious Gallente R.E.C.O.N. A.X.I.S	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:49:00 - [241] the tactic was to warp on top of the target and kill it. While you may usually kill that one, your tactic gets screwed by the more common tactic which is combat at mid range. Which if you read what merin and others are saying, the metagame has ruined the close range, small gang, high dps tactic. Does this help illustrate the problem for you?
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.26 15:52:00 - [242] Originally by: SoftRevolution So basically you're saying that tactics beats no tactics? No, she's saying that Gallente and Minmatar ships don't take well to tactics that the metagame favors like Amarr and Caldari ships do. -Liang --
Serin Shadowstalker	Posted - 2008.09.26 18:18:00 - [243] As long as the tactics Gallente and Minmatar ships excel at can be effective, even if not favored, balance changes shouldn't be made based on the metagame.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.26 18:28:00 - [244] Originally by: Serin Shadowstalker As long as the tactics Gallente and Minmatar ships excel at can be effective, even if not favored, balance changes shouldn't be made based on the metagame. Can be. No, I think there's something to be said for the ease with which those conditions occur. -Liang --
Serin Shadowstalker	Posted - 2008.09.26 19:09:00 - [245] Originally by: Liang Nuren Can be. No, I think there's something to be said for the ease with which those conditions occur. -Liang There is! I would even go as far to say that on live it is to easy.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.26 19:53:00 - [246] Originally by: Serin Shadowstalker There is! I would even say on live it is to easy. The only reason you could possibly say it's too easy is if you don't have experience engineering situations to your advantage. It's far easier to engineer situations to favor the "Caldari" attack pattern than the "Gallente" attack pattern. The funny thing is that it's getting easier by the day to swing things towards the Caldari way - and it's brutally obvious that the Caldari way completely outclasses the Gallente way as gang sizes increase. And gang sizes are increasing. -Liang --
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.09.26 19:58:00 - [247] Originally by: Serin Shadowstalker As long as the tactics Gallente and Minmatar ships excel at can be effective, even if not favored, balance changes shouldn't be made based on the metagame. Balance in combat is really a simple thing. Range/Tank vs DPS. Defense vs offense. When you have ships that do the same offense as longer range, better tanking ships, that isn't balance. I agree with Cpt. Branko - the basic problem is that rails/artillery suck and the ships can't tank in spite of that mediocrity. So they don't have defense and they don't have offense. That's a problem. There should be differences and fighting styles but there should also be some situations where one side has an advantage or disadvantage - not scenarios where the only time they have an advantage is filling a role that doesn't exist in the game (IE, solo PVP battleship). I think part of the issue is that both Gallente and Minmatar are meant to be 'versatile' - in that Gallente can fit various mids and Minmatar can fit various high slots. In reality, versatility only matters in short range, solo fights. I shouldn't have to train another race to perform some viable role in a fleet.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.26 20:01:00 - [248] Originally by: Beltantis Torrence Originally by: Serin Shadowstalker As long as the tactics Gallente and Minmatar ships excel at can be effective, even if not favored, balance changes shouldn't be made based on the metagame. Balance in combat is really a simple thing. Range/Tank vs DPS. Defense vs offense. When you have ships that do the same offense as longer range, better tanking ships, that isn't balance. I agree with Cpt. Branko - the basic problem is that rails/artillery suck and the ships can't tank in spite of that mediocrity. So they don't have defense and they don't have offense. That's a problem. There should be differences and fighting styles but there should also be some situations where one side has an advantage or disadvantage - not scenarios where the only time they have an advantage is filling a role that doesn't exist in the game (IE, solo PVP battleship). I think part of the issue is that both Gallente and Minmatar are meant to be 'versatile' - in that Gallente can fit various mids and Minmatar can fit various high slots. In reality, versatility only matters in short range, solo fights. I shouldn't have to train another race to perform some viable role in a fleet. Which is why I posted my semi-serious "what if" thread a few days back; what if minmatar ship turret bonuses applied to all turret types.
Antikas Sourr Caldari Wild Card Legion	Posted - 2008.09.26 20:21:00 - [249] Originally by: Katy Karkinoff Originally by: Antikas Sourr lots of stuff You basically just said that Gallente are a shorter range version of amarr. Fantastic... And with the dropping your blasters/acs on the pulse saying that you have that advantage, its already been said: Sure, you'll kill that ONE target, but now you have to get into range of all the others, and if by some blessing you do make it, its probably with you in extreme low armor and out of cap. woowee... isnt that appealing. Could you clarify for me what you think I said? I don't see any subtext comparing either Amarr or Gallente; I did contrast them, however. _______________
Nicola Sardonicus	Posted - 2008.09.26 21:57:00 - [250] Aside from the monkeys flinging poo, very enlightening thread. ____________________________________ War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
Pimp Cane The Order of Chivalry Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.09.26 22:28:00 - [251] A couple months ago, it was the universal reality that mid range combat never happened, and thus Amarrian and to a lesser extent, caldari ships were inferior and their tactics couldn't be as effective as MWD+web/scram+f1-f7 mega pilots. I honestly don't see the problem with mid-range combat as it stands now, although tbh I'd like to see webs change from being such a binary mod, and the whole proposed scram deactivating mwd is crap. other than that, I dont really have many complaints. blaster pilots will continue to find ways to get into range and do wtfpwn dps, laser pilots will continue to get the damage advantage via range since they cant outmaneuver anything, and in the end, ships still get blown up, people will still cross train for whats most effective at the time, and eve goes on. Gallente is still a great race, I don't see what the hullabaloo is all about.
Megan Maynard Minmatar 17th Minmatar Tactical Wing	Posted - 2008.09.26 22:29:00 - [252] Great points top to bottom. I fly minmatar 23/7. I cannot fly any other race by my choice alone. That being said, the fact that the minny ships MUST fit weapon rigs and shift down to a lower damage turret type. (220's or 180's) To make any shot at hitting going the speeds needed to begin to nano tank is a little ridiculous. To give an example. A vaga, needs to go AT LEAST 3800-4000 m/s to start to reap benefits of speed tanking. The only viable defense is to fit at least one poly carb and a LSE for some kind of buffer against pulse lasers. (Which hit at warp scram range and track well at those ranges.) It's a good idea to also fit a ambit extension rig to get some more falloff too. What you are left with is flying a stupidly fine line to stay out of web range, while hoping there aren't heavy neuts and if so if you should have fit that cap booster just in case all the while completely helpless against TD's that can cut your nutz off. Now, I am perfectly fine with all this, it makes for a VERY exciting pvp experience on my part but it can be seen that other races do not deal with all this crap at once to field an effective pvp ship. The rupture is our only break as it can pretty much WTFPWN everything in sight if it gets it webbed. (Is there a better t1 cruiser then the passive armor tanked ruppy?) All in all op has a good point, besides the unbonused missile slots and the AWFUL aspects of arty's (Can't even FIT arty's on a t1 cruiser except the ruppy, bellicose is supposed to be that role but good luck having PG.) the minny's have no real role outside of scram range. Munnin, Huggin, Tempest, Cruise-Phoon, maybe the cane, are really it for those roles.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.26 22:37:00 - [253] Originally by: Pimp Cane A couple months ago, it was the universal reality that mid range combat never happened, and thus Amarrian and to a lesser extent, caldari ships were inferior and their tactics couldn't be as effective as MWD+web/scram+f1-f7 mega pilots. This was never true, tbh. It happened all the time - people just closed their eyes to it and didn't try to take advantage of it. -Liang --
Serin Shadowstalker	Posted - 2008.09.26 22:38:00 - [254] Originally by: Liang Nuren The only reason you could possibly say it's too easy is if you don't have experience engineering situations to your advantage. It's far easier to engineer situations to favor the "Caldari" attack pattern than the "Gallente" attack pattern. I disagree, I find it the same to engineer situations for both attack patterns. The only difference I see is in what parts of your gang is vulnerable. I only think its easy for the Gallente because of the range your forced to use through choke points, but I will concede that as gangs get larger its less of an issue. I would consider it even if you could jump through a gate and have the same choice of range you appeared from the gate as you do warping to something. Originally by: Liang Nuren The funny thing is that it's getting easier by the day to swing things towards the Caldari way - and it's brutally obvious that the Caldari way completely outclasses the Gallente way as gang sizes increase. And gang sizes are increasing. -Liang Easier by the day, not patch. There hasn't been any Gallente nerf patch, people are just choosing Caldari over Gallente lately. I sure don't think its any better, just different. The only thing brutally obvious in this thread is that Gallente ships blow at filling the specialized role's needed by large Caldari style gangs.
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.09.26 22:38:00 - [255] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Pimp Cane A couple months ago, it was the universal reality that mid range combat never happened, and thus Amarrian and to a lesser extent, caldari ships were inferior and their tactics couldn't be as effective as MWD+web/scram+f1-f7 mega pilots. This was never true, tbh. It happened all the time - people just closed their eyes to it and didn't try to take advantage of it. -Liang wow, then 99% of eve wsa stupid eh?
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.26 22:40:00 - [256] Originally by: Serin Shadowstalker Easier by the day, not patch. There hasn't been any Gallente nerf patch, people are just choosing Caldari over Gallente lately. I sure don't think its any better, just different. The only thing brutally obvious in this thread is that Gallente ships blow at filling the specialized role's needed by large Caldari style gangs. The web nerf and mass/agility in the nano patch is going to royally screw Gallente pilots over. Not only are you dealing less damage by virtue of having terrible tracking for your range, but you can't get into range to start with. Thus, the ability to project blaster level damages at range is extremely important. Additionally, I really didn't appreciate what they did to my Arazu (though I was fineish with what they did to my Dampios). :) -Liang --
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.26 22:41:00 - [257] Originally by: sdthujfg wow, then 99% of eve wsa stupid eh? This should not surprise you. -Liang --
Megan Maynard Minmatar 17th Minmatar Tactical Wing	Posted - 2008.09.26 22:55:00 - [258] Edited by: Megan Maynard on 26/09/2008 22:55:32 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Serin Shadowstalker Easier by the day, not patch. There hasn't been any Gallente nerf patch, people are just choosing Caldari over Gallente lately. I sure don't think its any better, just different. The only thing brutally obvious in this thread is that Gallente ships blow at filling the specialized role's needed by large Caldari style gangs. The web nerf and mass/agility in the nano patch is going to royally screw Gallente pilots over. Not only are you dealing less damage by virtue of having terrible tracking for your range, but you can't get into range to start with. Thus, the ability to project blaster level damages at range is extremely important. Additionally, I really didn't appreciate what they did to my Arazu (though I was fineish with what they did to my Dampios). :) -Liang Arazu got royally screwed. The nos nerf wasn't even that bad. (Which was more of a minmatar nerf then anything else.) The patch, thank god, was not good and has gone back to the drawing board.
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.09.26 23:03:00 - [259] Originally by: Megan Maynard The patch, thank god, was not good and has gone back to the drawing board. Just because they werent finished with the missile adjustments for the latest patch and didnt deploy they changes doesnt mean is "back to the drawing board" the way you are thinking.
Serin Shadowstalker	Posted - 2008.09.26 23:11:00 - [260] Originally by: Beltantis Torrence Balance in combat is really a simple thing. Range/Tank vs DPS. Defense vs offense. When you have ships that do the same offense as longer range, better tanking ships, that isn't balance. I agree with Cpt. Branko - the basic problem is that rails/artillery suck and the ships can't tank in spite of that mediocrity. So they don't have defense and they don't have offense. That's a problem. There should be differences and fighting styles but there should also be some situations where one side has an advantage or disadvantage - not scenarios where the only time they have an advantage is filling a role that doesn't exist in the game (IE, solo PVP battleship). I think part of the issue is that both Gallente and Minmatar are meant to be 'versatile' - in that Gallente can fit various mids and Minmatar can fit various high slots. In reality, versatility only matters in short range, solo fights. I shouldn't have to train another race to perform some viable role in a fleet. My point is that the metagame favors large gangs with Caldari tactics at the moment, and balance changes shouldn't be made just because Gallente or Minmatar ships under preform in this situation when they have tactics that are equally effective and just are not being used. I agree with your idea of balance. There are specific ships that do have issues. I also have no problem with any race having a few ships ships that fill role's in other races style fleets.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.26 23:14:00 - [261] Originally by: Serin Shadowstalker My point is that the metagame favors large gangs with Caldari tactics at the moment, and balance changes shouldn't be made just because Gallente or Minmatar ships under preform in this situation when they have tactics that are equally effective and just are not being used. I agree with your idea of balance. There are specific ships that do have issues. I also have no problem with any race having a few ships ships that fill role's in other races style fleets. I would agree if it were just a matter of those tactics simply not being used. However, it isn't a matter of those tactics not being used, it's about them being entirely inferior and increasingly untenable to pull off. -Liang --
Megan Maynard Minmatar 17th Minmatar Tactical Wing	Posted - 2008.09.26 23:20:00 - [262] Originally by: sdthujfg Originally by: Megan Maynard The patch, thank god, was not good and has gone back to the drawing board. Just because they werent finished with the missile adjustments for the latest patch and didnt deploy they changes doesnt mean is "back to the drawing board" the way you are thinking. They are doing more then tweeking missiles. Go search a while you'll find it. (I believe they were looking at mass again also.)
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.26 23:21:00 - [263] Originally by: Megan Maynard They are doing more then tweeking missiles. Go search a while you'll find it. (I believe they were looking at mass again also.) I dunno, it seems like they would have been able to come up with something by now. -Liang --
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.09.27 00:52:00 - [264] Originally by: Serin Shadowstalker My point is that the metagame favors large gangs with Caldari tactics at the moment, and balance changes shouldn't be made just because Gallente or Minmatar ships under preform in this situation when they have tactics that are equally effective and just are not being used. I'd be 'Ok' with this if that was the case. IE, if I felt like Gallente/Minmatar really outclassed Torp Raven & Pulse Apoc/etc. at point blank range then I'd be 'Ok' with rails/artillery being totally outclassed at medium to long range. But I don't feel like they outclass a raven/apoc at short range, medium range or long range - if you make the assumption that the game doesn't involve dueling 1vs1 where ships need to fit full tackle (ie scenarios that never happen).
N Ano From beyond	Posted - 2008.11.01 23:05:00 - [265] Edited by: N Ano on 01/11/2008 23:06:21 Originally by: Yzen Mors Here's a thought... How about mixing Gallente and Calamari ships? I mean - honestly - Gallente aren't THAT bad at sniping, heck, a good Mega can snipe pretty well and hit things that a Caldari might not be able to, plus, the can get more distance out of a DCU with their superior structure. And a good Gallente pilot can easily cross train for Caldari because shield tanking doesn't take more than a month or so to get good at and hybrid turrets are already ready to go! Just my two cents, take it for what it is XD nvm he fixed the typos Originally by: destiny2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- yay for warp core stabalizers. --------------------------------------------------------
RedSplat Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.11.01 23:55:00 - [266] For all the things Merin says that i disagree with this thread represents several ideas that i can agree with. Sometimes 'black and white' is what's needed, its a simple problem and again a simple answer.
El Yatta Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.11.02 02:45:00 - [267] Merin is right, although he oversimplifies. Liang has also done a lot of good work here, a lot of important points raised and ones I 100% agree with. One tiny bone to pick - a proviso, as it were. I dispute that "no blaster BS will fit a scrambler". No pirate or solo blaster BS will fit a scrambler - they NEED their disruptor. In a small gang (the only other place to ever both with blasters), 90% of the time someone else in a smaller ship will point the target first (and you really ought to have a tackler/faster locker in a small gang), and the role of points on BS is to re-inforce that - usually you put your points on and your tackler switches to something else. This is perfect for scramblers, to be honest. Personally I have tried it a lot on my blasterships on sisi, and I will be carrying both in cargo, and choosing depending on exactly which gang mates I have. Wherever possible I will endeavour to use a scram, because the ability to immobilise a target who is raping my tracking at 1km, then pulse my MWD to 5k and try to get some hits is invaluable. This is problematic of course- quite often I will be forced back to a disruptor, and even if not, if my opponent has a scram I'm back to square one, having sacrificed my precious 24k anyway. There is no way to be pro-active and beat this - if my opponent comes prepared I can do nothing. _______________________________________________ Mercenary Forces
Ambrosious Martin Dominus Imperium	Posted - 2008.11.02 03:02:00 - [268] For once I have to almost totally agree with Merin about his evaluation of style of play! BUT... Hes still a fukkstick!!! To have such narrow minded views on what everyone thinks and "how everyone plays" is a showing of exactelly how much of a Fukkstick he is! I have to say that the thought process of "everyones ships should be as good as this other ship or they SUCK" is kinda lame... Oh hey My arazu can't web out to 40km, IT SUCKS. Oh hey my rapier cant scram out to 40, IT SUCKS. Oh hey my geddon cant fit full tackle and a sheild tank, IT SUCKS! Oh hey my tempest doesn't do 15000 DPS, IT SUCKS. Oh hey my carrier cant fit guns, IT SUCKS. Oh hey my pilgrim cant nuet out to 40km, IT SUCKS. Oh hey my whatever ship you wish to put in this blank ________, cant do whatever I want it to do, IT SUCKS!!!! NERF EVERYONE!!!!!!!!! Im so tired of all the stupid whining, by everyone! If you can't find a good reason to fly "X" ship, push the cancel button on the accounts management page. Merin just push the damn button already! -end rant-
Ambrosious Martin Dominus Imperium	Posted - 2008.11.02 03:16:00 - [269] Now for a constructive post!!! Before the patch and after, blasterboats will still be flown. Before the patch and after, Minmatar will still be awesome. Before and after the patch, Amarr will still be the FOTM. Only to be flown, until they get nerfed, then they'll go back to there crap existance. So tired of everyone thinking they are the resident expert! Why do I hear of NONE of you, thats pointing at you Merin, on the live server? Why are you not considered some of the best FC's? Or some of the BEST combat pilots, on the live server? Why do you sit and complain about all this and all that when you seem to have so much time to figure it all out? Go fly whatever ship you choose to be great and STFU! CCP are already doing a CRAP job of balance, they dont need all of your CRAP ideas!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [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.