EVE Search - Webs nerfed to -60% speed too far? What about -65% or -70% max?

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Webs nerfed to -60% speed too far? What about -65% or -70% max?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.10.20 08:42:00 - [1] I'd like to see some testing done with 65% and 70% webs compared to the 60% that's now on test. Maybe 60% for best in game is just a little low? Going from 90% to 80% is allowing a 100% increase in target speed, which is a large difference. Moving from 90% to 60% is a 400% increase in target speed. That's a huge change. Maybe CCP overshot the mark a bit with the nerf bat? Testing on TQ with 70% webs doesn't really help all that much, due to the changes of other things on SISI such as mass and agility, and the speed mod changes. I'm wondering if CCP will at least let us test some subtle changes in web effectiveness? Also, what about web strength rigs? Or web range rigs? Or low slot modules that add web strength or range? Giving up an entire rig/low slot just for additional webbing capability is a big deal. Particularly in that the additional rig/low slot mod wouldn't be as effective as simply adding a second web or using a higher meta level web. The question is there: would we see large numbers of players sacrificing DPS and tank in order to improve their tackling ability? Are webs really that important to the central core of PVP? Will a small 5-10% difference in web strength be the deciding factor of whether or not BS are able to hit BCs and cruisers with blasters? I'd like to find out. I don't think I'll ever get the chance. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Azuse Brotherhood of Suicidal Priests Pure.	Posted - 2008.10.20 09:11:00 - [2] You probably already know but the reason for the reduction is precisely the opposite of what you want, they are a death sentence for smaller ship on tranquillity and this is coming from someone who like blasters almost as much as you do. Difference is i spend the bulk of my time in the cruiser class and they finally stand a chance of surviving, my pilgrim for example is still fragile, but now has a chance when it gets webbed, likewise other hacs 9Ishtar, Deimos) arn't at a dead stop now negating damage. I've heard good thing about the af too up against hacs. It doesn't guarantee victory, you still die if the big ship shoots long enough, but it's moving pvp back to a similar style we hard around rmr without the web = die issue, i'm finding it quite enjoyable really even if my bs now needs another tackler to pin something unless i drop an eccm on the domi/hype for a second web. What i do find crap, are officer webs; Webifier II (for base) - 10km, 60% True Sansha - 15km, 55% Caldari Navy - 12km, 55% Dark Blood - 14km, 55% Domination - 15km, 50% Dread Guristas - 13km, 50% Gallente - 14km, 60% Khanid Navy - 12km, 60% Shadow Serpentis - 13km, 55% Gotan - 19km/ 57.5% Hakim - 18km/ 60% Mizuro - 17km/ 55% Tobias - 20km/ 60% an extra 3/4 km for an extra 2/3000 fitting. They cost a fortune, they can only be fit by bs (or oddball caps) tey used to have double the range despite the crappier webbing. If you're flying a bs are you going to give up 3k grid for an extra 5k range? Not likely. Bhaalgorn in particular are being shafted -------------------------
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.10.20 09:18:00 - [3] Originally by: Azuse You probably already know but the reason for the reduction is precisely the opposite of what you want, they are a death sentence for smaller ship on tranquillity and this is coming from someone who like blasters almost as much as you do. Difference is i spend the bulk of my time in the cruiser class and they finally stand a chance of surviving, my pilgrim for example is still fragile, but now has a chance when it gets webbed, likewise other hacs 9Ishtar, Deimos) arn't at a dead stop now negating damage. I've heard good thing about the af too up against hacs. It doesn't guarantee victory, you still die if the big ship shoots long enough, but it's moving pvp back to a similar style we hard around rmr without the web = die issue, i'm finding it quite enjoyable really even if my bs now needs another tackler to pin something unless i drop an eccm on the domi/hype for a second web. What i do find crap, are officer webs; Webifier II (for base) - 10km, 60% True Sansha - 15km, 55% Caldari Navy - 12km, 55% Dark Blood - 14km, 55% Domination - 15km, 50% Dread Guristas - 13km, 50% Gallente - 14km, 60% Khanid Navy - 12km, 60% Shadow Serpentis - 13km, 55% Gotan - 19km/ 57.5% Hakim - 18km/ 60% Mizuro - 17km/ 55% Tobias - 20km/ 60% an extra 3/4 km for an extra 2/3000 fitting. They cost a fortune, they can only be fit by bs (or oddball caps) tey used to have double the range despite the crappier webbing. If you're flying a bs are you going to give up 3k grid for an extra 5k range? Not likely. Bhaalgorn in particular are being shafted Here's the thing: I don't have any problems killing cruisers or frigs with my Raven, my Typhoon, my Tempest, my Geddon, blah blah blah... I neut the smaller ships and they stop dead, then I rip them apart. A few ships specifically have an almost impossible time doing this due to fitting factors or having to sacrifice too much in the way of DPS or tank to effectively use neutralizers: the Megathron, the Hype, the Astarte, Deimos etc. All the other ships are adaptable and work quite nicely. It's only the blaster ships that have significant problems. Is this acceptable? No it is not. Do I really like flying my other ships as much as I do my blaster ships? No I do not. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Kaileen Starsong Amarr Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.10.20 09:23:00 - [4] I'd also prefer to have it at 65 or 70% max. The problem is with multiple webs though, if CCP are so keen on removing stacking penalty on them.. well, just shows that they're forcing PvP even further from the solo/smaller gang kind of thing towards larger fleets.
LVirus Enterprise Estonia FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.10.20 09:38:00 - [5] that officer web nerf is just ******ed
Nuts Nougat SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.10.20 09:39:00 - [6] Fun fact: the mega has a huge drone bay. ---
Kaileen Starsong Amarr Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.10.20 09:42:00 - [7] Originally by: Nuts Nougat Fun fact: the mega has a huge drone bay. Now go check Arma or Phoon. Also check Mega's bonus. Funny how a BS with tracking bonus has tracking problems, whilst those other 2 not so much.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.10.20 09:51:00 - [8] Originally by: Nuts Nougat Fun fact: the mega has a huge drone bay. Fun fact: not everyone fights in 0.0. See how long your drones last while fighting solo under sentry guns and outnumbered. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Nuts Nougat SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.10.20 10:03:00 - [9] Armageddon can't track webbed frigs without a speed mod with old 90% web already. Typhoon uses missiles, which are obviously overpowered against smaller ships. Also is extremely SP intensive. And blasters have same tracking autocannons do. ---
Kaileen Starsong Amarr Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.10.20 10:06:00 - [10] Originally by: Nuts Nougat Armageddon can't track webbed frigs without a speed mod with old 90% web already. I suggest you reread the OP and try to find the word "frigate" in it
Nuts Nougat SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.10.20 10:09:00 - [11] Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 20/10/2008 10:14:20 Originally by: Kaileen Starsong Originally by: Nuts Nougat Armageddon can't track webbed frigs without a speed mod with old 90% web already. I suggest you reread the OP and try to find the word "frigate" in it Yes yes i know. But they can't hit cruisers either, so what's the point? edit: I also hate this shitty speed nerf, but at least it's also nerfing battleships in 1v1. You'll still be able to kill cruisers, just going to be a bit harder. ---
Kaileen Starsong Amarr Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.10.20 10:18:00 - [12] Edited by: Kaileen Starsong on 20/10/2008 10:20:35 Edited by: Kaileen Starsong on 20/10/2008 10:20:09 Originally by: Nuts Nougat Yes yes i know. But they can't hit cruisers either, so what's the point? Point is that Mega doesn't have a real sweetspot for hitting webbed cruisers/BC, while Arma has it at the web range's edge adn up to 15km, Phoon doesn't particularly cares. And Mega? Mega has a tracking bonus, but either misses due to tracking or hits for underwhelming damage at distance. Also, I don't agree with Bellum on everything. For example it's not that expensive to fit a heavy neut on a neutron Mega. But - it does issues being effective gunship post-patch. On the edit: Well, duh, I can't say I actually hate it. I'm looking forward to playing with a new ruleset. But the case is, Arma has its ownage card of 1k DPS at 45km(Scorch+T2 sentries), might drop sentries if uncomfortable. Phoon has the versatility of 3 weapon system - enormous SP investments required - yes, but it's very effective at being close range BS. And Mega is supposed to be point-blank pwnmachine, but it's not.
Nuts Nougat SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.10.20 10:40:00 - [13] Originally by: Kaileen Starsong Edited by: Kaileen Starsong on 20/10/2008 10:20:35 Edited by: Kaileen Starsong on 20/10/2008 10:20:09 Originally by: Nuts Nougat Yes yes i know. But they can't hit cruisers either, so what's the point? Point is that Mega doesn't have a real sweetspot for hitting webbed cruisers/BC, while Arma has it at the web range's edge adn up to 15km, Phoon doesn't particularly cares. And Mega? Mega has a tracking bonus, but either misses due to tracking or hits for underwhelming damage at distance. Also, I don't agree with Bellum on everything. For example it's not that expensive to fit a heavy neut on a neutron Mega. But - it does issues being effective gunship post-patch. On the edit: Well, duh, I can't say I actually hate it. I'm looking forward to playing with a new ruleset. But the case is, Arma has its ownage card of 1k DPS at 45km(Scorch+T2 sentries), might drop sentries if uncomfortable. Phoon has the versatility of 3 weapon system - enormous SP investments required - yes, but it's very effective at being close range BS. And Mega is supposed to be point-blank pwnmachine, but it's not. When you say it like that I can't really argue tbh. I do agree a mega should **** everything at <10km range. What I'd try doing is switching to longer range ammo and try to move to 8km+ (maybe even more and overload the web?). Don't know if this is enough to make the difference though, but if it is you should be able to melt them fast. With the BS agility down the drain this might be rather impossible though, and chances of lowering transversal by pulsing your mwd are screwed too :S ---
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.20 11:33:00 - [14] I would really like 70% webs (I originally suggested 75% somewhere in the feedback thread, which STILL allows the frigate/etc to mantain some speed under webs, while not nerfing tackle that badly), and I'm very much against removing the stacking penalities for webs (nerf the solo pilot and boost the blob is a bad way to go honestly). Fact is, given weapon/disruptor/etc ranges and the tracking formula, webbing is a very central concept of EVE, particularly for relatively short range ships. I'm tempted to fit scramblers post patch just to be able to keep a target pinned, but that severely nerfs the ability to tackle a target (as 9km is really too short). Personally, I see all these changes (including missile change, because it is very hard to do proper damage to same-size targets with missiles now if they have MWD off - unless you have a TP) hurting viability of solo in general. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Rivqua Caldari Omega Wing R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.10.20 12:54:00 - [15] Originally by: Kaileen Starsong Originally by: Nuts Nougat Fun fact: the mega has a huge drone bay. Now go check Arma or Phoon. Also check Mega's bonus. Funny how a BS with tracking bonus has tracking problems, whilst those other 2 not so much. Funnier Fact: A Armageddon with Dual Heavy Pulses (the better tracking kind) can't kill a 90% webbed cruiser (sig 140) on TQ today, at max web range (ie closest to optimal). Even funnier fact, a Mega tracks better then a Dual Heavy Pulse Armageddon at 10KM range, and will probably obliterate said cruiser. The relative tracking of those two BS on TQ does not change on SISI. /Riv
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.20 13:02:00 - [16] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2008 13:03:16 Originally by: Rivqua Originally by: Kaileen Starsong Originally by: Nuts Nougat Fun fact: the mega has a huge drone bay. Now go check Arma or Phoon. Also check Mega's bonus. Funny how a BS with tracking bonus has tracking problems, whilst those other 2 not so much. Funnier Fact: A Armageddon with Dual Heavy Pulses (the better tracking kind) can't kill a 90% webbed cruiser (sig 140) on TQ today, at max web range (ie closest to optimal). Orly. Let's assume it's some sort of fast cruiser which goes 500m/s non-MWDing. That means 50m/s when 90% webbed, which yields, provided the pilot did not train even motion prediction I, 70% at 8km. That's right, that's without motion predicition even trained. If it's a webbed MWD-ing nano-fit cruiser which goes 5km/s, and assuming 0 LSEs / etc (meaning it has 1405,5=770 sig radius), you still get 25% accuracy (without motion predicton I). Quote:* The relative tracking of those two BS on TQ does not change on SISI. Both won't be hitting shit up close, and pulse ships will still rule cruiser murder at 15+km thanks to firing in optimal, while in gangs focus webbing and droning ensures that webrange is still suicide Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
The Djego Minmatar merovinger inc	Posted - 2008.10.20 13:24:00 - [17] Edited by: The Djego on 20/10/2008 13:25:47 Edited by: The Djego on 20/10/2008 13:24:47 Would also agree that I would love to see some 70% Webs on Sisi for testing. Since this is the purpose of Sissi give it a spin, can¦t be this hard to change it in the DB. Also if you relay catch a Cruiser you will be quite close to it in a Blaster BS since it takes some time to slow down plated brigs, even more with the Sissi changes. Most people forget that if you realy put a Web on the Target the MWD cycle will get you closer/more distant to the target that you actualy desire most of the time, while a smart pilote can use this often against you especialy while flying something more mobile and agile. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Rivqua Caldari Omega Wing R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.10.20 14:33:00 - [18] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2008 13:03:16 Originally by: Rivqua Originally by: Kaileen Starsong Originally by: Nuts Nougat Fun fact: the mega has a huge drone bay. Now go check Arma or Phoon. Also check Mega's bonus. Funny how a BS with tracking bonus has tracking problems, whilst those other 2 not so much. Funnier Fact: A Armageddon with Dual Heavy Pulses (the better tracking kind) can't kill a 90% webbed cruiser (sig 140) on TQ today, at max web range (ie closest to optimal). Orly. Let's assume it's some sort of fast cruiser which goes 500m/s non-MWDing. That means 50m/s when 90% webbed, which yields, provided the pilot did not train even motion prediction I, 70% at 8km. That's right, that's without motion predicition even trained. If it's a webbed MWD-ing nano-fit cruiser which goes 5km/s, and assuming 0 LSEs / etc (meaning it has 1405,5=770 sig radius), you still get 25% accuracy (without motion predicton I). Quote:* The relative tracking of those two BS on TQ does not change on SISI. Both won't be hitting shit up close, and pulse ships will still rule cruiser murder at 15+km thanks to firing in optimal, while in gangs focus webbing and droning ensures that webrange is still suicide I know, that's what I calculated it too, unforunately, empirical evoidence says otherwise. /Riv
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.20 15:57:00 - [19] Originally by: Kaileen Starsong Originally by: Nuts Nougat Fun fact: the mega has a huge drone bay. Now go check Arma or Phoon. Also check Mega's bonus. Funny how a BS with tracking bonus has tracking problems, whilst those other 2 not so much. Actually the mega does NOT have a tracking problem wich was proven in the other whine thread. Get your facts straight and stop making things up that are not true.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.20 15:59:00 - [20] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I'd like to see some testing done with 65% and 70% webs compared to the 60% that's now on test. Maybe 60% for best in game is just a little low? Going from 90% to 80% is allowing a 100% increase in target speed, which is a large difference. Moving from 90% to 60% is a 400% increase in target speed. That's a huge change. Maybe CCP overshot the mark a bit with the nerf bat? Testing on TQ with 70% webs doesn't really help all that much, due to the changes of other things on SISI such as mass and agility, and the speed mod changes. I'm wondering if CCP will at least let us test some subtle changes in web effectiveness? Also, what about web strength rigs? Or web range rigs? Or low slot modules that add web strength or range? Giving up an entire rig/low slot just for additional webbing capability is a big deal. Particularly in that the additional rig/low slot mod wouldn't be as effective as simply adding a second web or using a higher meta level web. The question is there: would we see large numbers of players sacrificing DPS and tank in order to improve their tackling ability? Are webs really that important to the central core of PVP? Will a small 5-10% difference in web strength be the deciding factor of whether or not BS are able to hit BCs and cruisers with blasters? I'd like to find out. I don't think I'll ever get the chance. No thanks. This would make my pilgrim useless once more. The web nerf is the closest thing to a buff pilgrim will EVER see and I'm not giving it up for anything. Sorry. Webs should stay 60%.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.20 16:33:00 - [21] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Here's the thing: I don't have any problems killing cruisers or frigs with my Raven, my Typhoon, my Tempest, my Geddon, blah blah blah... I neut the smaller ships and they stop dead, then I rip them apart. A few ships specifically have an almost impossible time doing this due to fitting factors or having to sacrifice too much in the way of DPS or tank to effectively use neutralizers: the Megathron, the Hype, the Astarte, Deimos etc. All the other ships are adaptable and work quite nicely. It's only the blaster ships that have significant problems. Is this acceptable? No it is not. Do I really like flying my other ships as much as I do my blaster ships? No I do not. I have to disagree with you here. The Mega can be adapted to fit a neut without much sacrifice (cheap deadspace ANPs ftw) while the turret shield tank ships can not (the Rokh and the Maelstrom) due to using 8 turrets. The Hype might not be able to get a neut fit without making sacrifices but it can easily fit a second web. The Abaddon could get the second web fit as well, but without a speed mod it will have a difficult time taking advantage of it. The shield tank turret BS with one web and no speed mod are shafted against anything that tracks better than they do (this includes other BS with low-tier weapons or a TD). I hate the web change as much as you do, but the Mega/Hype aren't the only ships getting ****ed over here. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.20 16:49:00 - [22] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter I hate the web change as much as you do, but the Mega/Hype aren't the only ships getting ****ed over here. Truth is that all turret ships get a shaft AND ravens get their missiles shafted. Wait, all BS get an adjustment to the new patch. Now none of them can blast smaller ships to pieces like before. I don't see a huge problem here. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.20 16:53:00 - [23] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Gavin Darklighter I hate the web change as much as you do, but the Mega/Hype aren't the only ships getting ****ed over here. Truth is that all turret ships get a shaft AND ravens get their missiles shafted. Wait, all BS get an adjustment to the new patch. Now none of them can blast smaller ships to pieces like before. I don't see a huge problem here. All BS will still blast small ships to peices, the only difference is now it takes 3x webifiers to do the job, and the small ships will be getting blasted by larger gangs of BS + support instead of solo PVPers. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.20 16:58:00 - [24] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter All BS will still blast small ships to peices, the only difference is now it takes 3x webifiers to do the job, and the small ships will be getting blasted by larger gangs of BS + support instead of solo PVPers. Solo pvp isnt dying because of these changes. It is dying because of falcons. Different matter though. And still, I do not see the issue. Blaster mega, hype with 2 webs and domi will still eat cruisers alive. Your gallente BS are still the solo pwnmobiles they have been for years. Just because they are not THE best gang ships aswell you want a series of blaster boosts now and trying to use the patch as excuse? Sorry but alot of the arguments and calculations just don't justify what is being proposed. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.10.20 17:15:00 - [25] Their cap use is high. Their tracking at optimal is sub-par. Their damage is almost the same as that of weapons with many times the range. What is it that blasters are supposed to excel at?
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.20 18:02:00 - [26] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Their cap use is high. Their tracking at optimal is sub-par. Their damage is almost the same as that of weapons with many times the range. What is it that blasters are supposed to excel at? blasters have -less fittings then lasers -less cap use -dont use up one whole ship bonus -have higher damage -are the highest tracking guns in short range Not enough? Aye I see you want a gun thats OP. ok. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.10.20 18:34:00 - [27] Your looking at the weapon system independent of the ship, some examples: -less fittings then lasers Megathron with 7 Neutrons: 367.25 CPUr (+4%) 4488.1 Gridr Apocalypse with 8 Mega Pulse 313 CPUr 5825 Gridr (+29.8%) -less cap use Neutron Blaster 2.4 Megapulse 2.6 Diff = 8% Megathron peak cap recharge = 20.3 Apocalypse peak cap recharge = 27.1% Diff = 33% -dont use up one whole ship bonus Lasers effectively have a built in bonus that is countered by the thier high cap-use and counter-countered on many Amarr ships by the cap reduction bonus. To put it another way an Armageddon has two bonuses, +1 real bonus on ship, +1 for lasers, -1 for their cap use, +1 for cap use bonus. An Abbaddon also has two bonuses +2 on ship, +1 for lasers, -1 for their cap use. While this should mean that lasers are inherently better than other weapon systems comparison with a weapon system on another ship with the same number of effective weapon bonuses should yield balance. -have higher damage By a marginal 3-5% heavily countered by the time taken to get into range and apply that DPS. If it takes only 5% longer to get in range than another ship the extra damage is typically wasted. -are the highest tracking guns in short range When having the worst tacking at their optimal this is not a bonus.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.20 19:02:00 - [28] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Your looking at the weapon system independent of the ship, some examples: -less cap use Why dont you compare an abaddon and a hyperion and see who caps out first while they have guns and tank running. -higher damage is higher damage. Gallente are more geared towards small/solo warfare because of short range blasters. This is no news. If you wanted the great gang ships you should have trained amarr or caldari. Welcome to the knowlege of 2006. -highest tracking guns Yes this means that a blaster ship can get under the guns of other turret ships while still being able to hit himself. -Youre also not considering the huge advantage of having a utility high on the mega. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Myra2007 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.10.20 19:29:00 - [29] 1. Denial 2. Anger 3. Bargaining (itt) 4. Depression 5. Acceptance I've already reached 4 but 5 is a tough nut to crack. Not sure if i ever will. -- Originally by: Merin Ryskin Allow me to summarize the dev blog in a much simpler way: Dear players: F*** YOU. Love, CCP.
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.10.20 19:59:00 - [30] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Why dont you compare an abaddon and a hyperion and see who caps out first while they have guns and tank running. The Hyperion. But this is because, it would be running an active tank while the Abaddon would be running a passive tank. If you are trying to run the highest tier weapons and an active tank then yes, your going to run out of cap swiftly, especially given that the Abaddon effectively has a +25% penalty to laser cap use. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer -higher damage is higher damage. Gallente are more geared towards small/solo warfare because of short range blasters. This is no news. If you wanted the great gang ships you should have trained amarr or caldari. Welcome to the knowlege of 2006. 5% Higher damage and an optimal range so low most ships can avoid your damage does not a good solo ship make. 95% of that damage applied at much greater range is far, far better. I would certainly say that the Raven and Abaddon are far better at solo combat than the Megathron on TQ, especially during 1vMany combats. Also making the argument that Gallente and Minmatar should suck at gang warfare would be far more valid if we were still living back in '04 where solo and small gang were much more common. These days it is clear that solo combat is not a design consideration, yet two races are left strongly geared towards it. This is what has lead to this entire mess in the first place the shift in focus to larger gangs. I'm not arguing that this change of focus is wholly wrong, but I will argue that it requires CCP to reconsider their original concepts for the Gallente and Minmatar ships. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Yes this means that a blaster ship can get under the guns of other turret ships while still being able to hit himself. And most other ships can fire at ranges where it is unable to hit. One of these "windows" is typically open on multiple targets, the other is almost never open to more than one. One of these windows is very large and is almost guarenteed to be open for a period of time during a given fight, the other is very small, occurs far less often, and requires freedom of movement, greater speed and agility than the target, and considerable expenditure of capacitor. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer -Youre also not considering the huge advantage of having a utility high on the mega. I was also not considering many of the Apocs other fine features, I was responding to your points. A complete comparison of both ships would take me a very long time to write and while already being beyond the effort I'm willing to put into a forum discussion, undoubtedly miss some very valid points.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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