EVE Search - Alliance tourny showing that CCP knows what they are doing.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Alliance tourny showing that CCP knows what they are doing.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
echohead	Posted - 2009.02.06 04:19:00 - [1] If you read these boards you get the impression that Falcons are destroying Eve and that missles have been nerfed so bad you cannot use them without a fleet of target painters. Yet I watch the tourny and see ships fitted with some common sense, and I see some pretty interesting battles. -Minni ships seem to be doing well even though most people on the boards say they are useless -Missles and torps are doing well -Jammers are a part of successful fleets but not the only thing on the battle field -Caracals are wrecking people. (reports of their demise have been greatly exaggerated) I like what I am seeing out there. And I hope more people pay attention before they whine on the boards about ships being over/under powered. I am curious to see what other people are thinking.
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.02.06 04:25:00 - [2] Correct right up to the unfortunate point that ships on tq don't blow up after going a certain distance from the warp in and the totaly artificial point limit for opposing gangs to make sure they are equal. Otherwise yeah..
UMEE	Posted - 2009.02.06 05:57:00 - [3] you forgot to mentioned that abaddons are morbidly OP - toughest tank, highest dps. but other than that, yeah I feel the game is balanced nicely.
ShadowGod56	Posted - 2009.02.06 06:57:00 - [4] yeah all the people *****ing about falcons have there head stuck so far up there own ass. same thing with missiles because that's all i use and they still are awesome
Selia Rain	Posted - 2009.02.06 07:00:00 - [5] Edited by: Selia Rain on 06/02/2009 07:07:20 Have you ever tried putting a couple of your neuts on an abbadon? Clearly OP. A ship with clear and known weaknesses is just asking to have them exploited. Falcon is fine. Boosting it's ECM strength just brought it inline with rook(which is now underused for not being a hidden asset). The reason people use them is that other EW(except possibly TDs) just aren't an efficient use of ship(one arazu can tie down what, all of 1-2 targets now?). EW might possibly need a look at. I would like to see scriptable ECM for range or strength though, I think it would make things a bit more interesting. Missiles work fine as far as I can see. They're worse at hitting targets smaller than their intended audience(which is fine), and precisions need a relook(still!), as using faction usually results in a larger dps gain(via raw dps!) than loading precisions. Fast ships work better without being invincible(I like the vaga now that it's faster then everything else again!). This was a pleasant suprise to me. Scrams shutting off your MWD adds more excitement to the mix(and gets me more T1 frig kills!) Wish there was some reason to buy higher meta MWDs bwsides cap now though(a few percent speed boost would be nice) I don't like the web changes, but I can live with them. Of course getting webbed does not=insta death now, which is nice. Scram change works for me. It allows people to use AB fits and be effective in smaller ships, and the 2 midslot interceptors to be incredibly effective dogfighters(since digfighting another scrambling inty means that one of you is probably going to die), and 2 midslot ships in general to be more useful, since fitting a web is usually less of a speed reduction than scrambling someone by far. EDIT: I'm stupid. I haven't been following the tourney at all and I just posted my impressions from TQ.
Karl Luckner	Posted - 2009.02.06 07:03:00 - [6] Oh surprise, surprise, Caldari ships actually work if they don't have to worry about tackling. One thing I noted, was that FoF's are totally stupid, since they attack own logistics/logistic drones. Oh, and Drakes got spanked in most matches. Considering Minmatar ships: Well, I guess the fleet Stabber and Rupture gain even more popularity, but their quality was nerver diputed in the first place. And considering battleships...two matches where fleet Tempest respective a Mael were matchwinners. Otherwise, Abbadon all the way.
BiggestT Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.02.06 07:06:00 - [7] tourny != to tq. Last I checked a whole fleet of phantasm's wasnt a good idea for a reason... EVE history t2 precisions
Naomi Wildfire Amarr Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.02.06 08:35:00 - [8] Quote: .. Falcons are destroing eve .. You know .. you are not allowed to cloak in the tourney nor to warp out. To compare the tourney with regular tq pvp is very pointless.
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.02.06 09:18:00 - [9] Originally by: Selia Rain I would like to see scriptable ECM for range or strength though, I think it would make things a bit more interesting. If by "interesting" you meant "make ECM as bad as all the other electronic warfare modules are now" then yes, yes it would. In my opinion Scripts were introduced with good intentions but they were something of a mistake and now we're stuck with them. What I think would help now more than just adding more Scripts to more things is that since the Remote Sensor Dampner isn't an "every ship fitting must have one of these" module since Scripts were introduced and ECM "buffed", perhaps change the bonuses on the Gallente/Amarr Recon Ships to make the respective electronic warfare modules 100% more effective on both module affects - so that instead of having to choose between what affect the modules will have, they'll have both at their previous level of power on the very ships that they are supposed to be at their best when fitted. ... Also, as has been noted already: The EVE Alliance Tournament is not "real" PvP at all.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.02.06 09:27:00 - [10] Quote: Oh surprise, surprise, Caldari ships actually work if they don't have to worry about tackling. This. Until the alliance tournament allows warping & cloaking, what happens within the alliance tournament arena has absolutely no resemblence to the combat happening all over the rest of tranquility. As soon as warping becomes a viable mechanic within the alliance tournament, fits will once again include a mix of warp disruptors and warp scramblers, allowing direct comparisons to be made to combat within and without the alliance tournament. Some restrictions - such as remote repairing - make sense, but not alowing warping within the arena itself and penalising people that manage to escape death by destroying their ships when it's sound tactics to pull back and rejoin the fray afterwards mean that the alliance tournament is little more than fluff. I'd love it to be much more than that, but it's far too controlled an environment and it means that the balance of power is shifted in favour of ships that usually struggle to be effective.
bff Jill	Posted - 2009.02.06 09:37:00 - [11] I think ccp should try and make eve more like alliance tournament, it seems to work when you have: fixed restricted combat area no cap ships no cloaks no warp outs no need for tackle relatively even numbers Eve would make a wonderful team deathmatch game
Psiri	Posted - 2009.02.06 09:37:00 - [12] Agreed, the Alliance PvP Tournament has no resemblance of actual PvP.
Delichon The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET	Posted - 2009.02.06 09:42:00 - [13] Quote: Alliance tourny showing that CCP knows what they are doing. So I am the only one, who thinks that 50% of teams fielding 5-7 Ishtars means that the ship is not balanced given the tourney environment? ------------------------------------------ "Russian is an unusual language if you're not used to it. It is like speaking to angry aliens from the planet of Murder or something" Nick Breckon
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.02.06 09:48:00 - [14] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 06/02/2009 09:48:13 Quote: So I am the only one, who thinks that 50% of teams fielding 5-7 Ishtars means that the ship is not balanced given the tourney environment? The problem is not the Ishtar, but the fact that people need not tie up 1-2 mid slots for tackling gear and so can shield buffer tank and speed fit their Ishtars or armor buffer tank and load up on RSD. One client: Three Screens!
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.02.06 09:59:00 - [15] Rules are very restrictive so no conclusions about the state of PvP or specific ships can be made. Absolute maximum starting range is 100-120km and there is no cloaking allowed so Falcons are without their common life-lines. Caracal's do well only because its many mid slots, with no requirements to tackle or tank the lone interceptor it can overdose on eWar. Missiles were never bad in combat, the delayed damage just requires such elaborate tackling schemes that guns are generally better. Minnie ships have always been godly in PvP, same as the Gallente. They have some of the best slot distributions and weapon fitting/performance ratios around. Next tournament I want to see same, perhaps slightly larger arena with warping allowed. Gives the ability for close range ships to close distance together with small/fast buddies and break locks in the dampening/eWar hell of the tournament Either way I hope they keep the ship-point-costs, lovely to see the gank BS mixed with gank HACs and the like. So far ISK hasn't been a huge factor so it is working. Much more enjoyable this year
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.02.06 10:09:00 - [16] Originally by: Psiri Agreed, the Alliance PvP Tournament has no resemblance of actual PvP. Well, yes and no. I'd say this version of the tournament has more resemblance to real pvp than the earlier ones (less uber-expensive gear, less weird turtle-tanks, etc). People are using a lot of ships and tactics that you see in "real" fights, too. I like this a lot, myself. However, the tournament is an artificial environment. There is no need to tackle, so mids are used differently and ship roles are different. There is an enforced engagement range. There are points for ships and a max number of people per side. And above all: these are even and "fair" fights, something most people try to avoid normally. ...and no, this doesn't prove that Falcon's aren't overpowered. They are. It's just that the high point cost of recons in this tournament (brought on my the high power of Rooks, partly) makes them iffy for a lot of teams. In "real" pvp you don't have point costs, and you're almost always better off bringing a Falcon or three (and have no reason to bring a Rook or a Scorp). So... yes and no.
echohead	Posted - 2009.02.06 11:03:00 - [17] I am seeing a lot of posts that are in effect 'you don't have to worry about tackling so this isn't real pvp' Well fair enough, but the spirit of my OP was not that this was real pvp. But that ships and modules are in fact fairly balanced compared to what people say on this channel. And that ECM is not gamebreakingly powerful, and missles are not useless. More tackling thoughts: People say that the Caracal is only good because it doesn't have to worry about tackling in the tourny? Who are these people in real pvp tackling in caracals to begin with? I would think the the tourny just illustrates that in small gang pvp you should bring dedicated tacklers instead of being daft and tackling with a ship like a caracal in the first place. Use your midslot heavy cruisers for ewar (not just ecm) and leave the tackling to ships more suited to the role. Ishtar thoughts: I have watched every match, and I think the ishtar is just a good ship for the points cost. Sure many teams have used them, but with mixed results. Just like the Amarr BS, some teams many teams field them as well, but some of those teams also got waxed pretty bad as well. /end rambling post
Psiri	Posted - 2009.02.06 11:46:00 - [18] Quote: More tackling thoughts: People say that the Caracal is only good because it doesn't have to worry about tackling in the tourny? Who are these people in real pvp tackling in caracals to begin with? I would think the the tourny just illustrates that in small gang pvp you should bring dedicated tacklers instead of being daft and tackling with a ship like a caracal in the first place. Use your midslot heavy cruisers for ewar (not just ecm) and leave the tackling to ships more suited to the role. I don't think many here ever has complained about the usefulness of a Caracal in a gang, however note that a Caracal needs to gain some distance in order to truly shine and this is not always possible (especially in roaming small gangs). Quote: Ishtar thoughts: I have watched every match, and I think the ishtar is just a good ship for the points cost. Sure many teams have used them, but with mixed results. Just like the Amarr BS, some teams many teams field them as well, but some of those teams also got waxed pretty bad as well. I agree, Ishtars aren't win by default. Also, they're expensive T2 ships (I can loose five T2 fitted drakes for the price of one lost Ishtar) which needs to be taken into consideration.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.02.06 11:53:00 - [19] Quote: but the spirit of my OP was not that this was real pvp. But that ships and modules are in fact fairly balanced compared to what people say on this channel. It's in this spirit that we've responded with the comments about tackling and cloaking: If a ship is differently fitted for the alliance tournament than if it were to be used for "real" combat, you cannot conclude that there is a problem or otherwise with the balance of said ship. The same is true for specific modules. As for your comment about not fitting warp disruptors on a pvp ship, this is only applicable if the ship intends to operate outside scrambler/disruptor range and fits itself to stay outside this range. If a ship intends to get within 30km of it's target, it MUST fit tackling gear, if only to help it protect it's range advantage from smaller ships and to help ensure that any prospective target can't simply wipe out it's "dedicated tacklers" and fly off. However, I do understand the purpose of your thread, and I see no problem in general with either missiles nor ECM; they both work as intended. Missiles - specifically T2 missiles - still need some work to make them viable, and ECM could do with a better counter mechanic than "MOAR ECM! MWUAHAHAHA!" or a midslot module, which in turn would further reduce to the effectiveness of the two ships you mentioned - the Ishtar and Caracal. In that sense, buffing remote ECCM is probably the way to go to encourage gangs to run these modules more.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.02.06 13:52:00 - [20] Originally by: Karl Luckner Oh surprise, surprise, Caldari ships actually work if they don't have to worry about tackling. QFE __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.02.06 14:01:00 - [21] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Karl Luckner Oh surprise, surprise, Caldari ships actually work if they don't have to worry about tackling. QFE Thus using Caldari ships in gangs is win. No other ships can compete with them in numbers, well almost none.
Grendelsbane	Posted - 2009.02.06 18:17:00 - [22] Originally by: echohead If you read these boards you get the impression that Falcons are destroying Eve and that missles have been nerfed so bad you cannot use them without a fleet of target painters. Yet I watch the tourny and see ships fitted with some common sense, and I see some pretty interesting battles. -Minni ships seem to be doing well even though most people on the boards say they are useless -Missles and torps are doing well -Jammers are a part of successful fleets but not the only thing on the battle field -Caracals are wrecking people. (reports of their demise have been greatly exaggerated) I like what I am seeing out there. And I hope more people pay attention before they whine on the boards about ships being over/under powered. I am curious to see what other people are thinking. I'm not a Falcon whiner, but.... In terms of pure mathematical mechanics, you are correct. In terms of gameplay mechanics out "in the wild", so to speak... not so much. Real PvP is simply not the same thing as a pitched-battle tournament. There are simply too many differences to draw a meaningful conclusion either way - in the tournament, no one has to find and chase down the other fleet, and there is some semblance of numerical and technological parity. Most importantly, in real PvP fleets warp off at the slightest sign of trouble, because engagements are an all-or-nothing afair.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.02.06 19:07:00 - [23] Originally by: Delichon Quote: Alliance tourny showing that CCP knows what they are doing. So I am the only one, who thinks that 50% of teams fielding 5-7 Ishtars means that the ship is not balanced given the tourney environment? Yes, but that's much more a reflection of the environment than the ishtar
SecHaul	Posted - 2009.02.06 19:40:00 - [24] Minmatar ships in BC hulls and below have little problem. The problem comes in with large artillery and battleships, and if anything, the tournament is showing that in droves. How many Minmatar battleships have you seen compared to Caldari / Gallente and most notably Amarr battleships? Large lasers are so significantly better than the counterparts because: 1) You have guaranteed engagement start ranges greater than 20KM's 2) You have support ships to assist in tackling The only time, and this has been argued round and round with Goum and the Amarr fans, that another battleship makes sense is when in very small gangs (or solo), and engagement ranges start under 20km. In every other instance you may as well go with lasers.
echohead	Posted - 2009.02.06 20:09:00 - [25] "I'm not a Falcon whiner, but.... In terms of pure mathematical mechanics, you are correct. In terms of gameplay mechanics out "in the wild", so to speak... not so much. Real PvP is simply not the same thing as a pitched-battle tournament. There are simply too many differences to draw a meaningful conclusion either way - in the tournament, no one has to find and chase down the other fleet, and there is some semblance of numerical and technological parity. Most importantly, in real PvP fleets warp off at the slightest sign of trouble, because engagements are an all-or-nothing afair." I don't understand what you are getting at here. I understand that true pvp and the tourny are different, but I don't see how your post relates to falcons. I am not talking about game mechanics, I am talking about the balance of ships and modules. If you are talking about how effective real pvp is then lets face it only one thing matters most of the time, numbers. Most PVP takes place at a gate where some poor sap walks into a blob and gets wrecked instantly (brings to mind the idea of an eve gate camping tourny, lol) minmitar BS's: I seem to remember a few mealstroms and tempests doing alright. But along the same lines how many Rokhs have you seen in the tourny? none, does that mean they suck? Of course not they are a true ship of the line in many large battles. PS: I am very happy with the style of discussion on this thread. No name calling and very little snarkyness. I am sure this wont last
demonfurbie Minmatar Covert-Nexus	Posted - 2009.02.06 20:12:00 - [26] i was surprised to see the nighthawk and hurricane preforming as well as they have seeing as many people complain about min ships and the nighthawk... also it also seams that the jamming ships do die ....maybe people should look at that and stop complaining about ewar ... it can be killed
bff Jill	Posted - 2009.02.06 20:24:00 - [27] Originally by: demonfurbie it can be killed at 50km
demonfurbie Minmatar Covert-Nexus	Posted - 2009.02.06 20:27:00 - [28] Originally by: bff Jill Originally by: demonfurbie it can be killed at 50km the only diff between 50 and 100 km is ammo type
Kakuremichi	Posted - 2009.02.06 20:50:00 - [29] Originally by: demonfurbie Originally by: bff Jill Originally by: demonfurbie it can be killed at 50km the only diff between 50 and 100 km is ammo type And that to hit the second range you need to use a whole different load of guns.
Kakuremichi	Posted - 2009.02.06 20:53:00 - [30] Originally by: demonfurbie Originally by: bff Jill Originally by: demonfurbie it can be killed at 50km the only diff between 50 and 100 km is ammo type And that to hit the second range you need to use a whole different load of guns.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.