|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 15:27:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Whitehound No. Missile damage always gets a penalty with moving targets.
No, that's turrets (unless transversal is exactly zero despite movement ofc).
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 17:46:00 -
[2]
No, as I said, that's the wrong way round. When I get home I'll explain why, unless you can figure it out in the meantime.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:06:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Gypsio III No, as I said, that's the wrong way round. When I get home I'll explain why, unless you can figure it out in the meantime.
No. If you do not already understand when I write that you begin to compare apples with oranges then more factors you put into a comparison then there is no hope that you will understand anything that I write. Sorry.
Sigh.
A missile will do full damage if the target that it hits is A) travelling slower than its explosion velocity, and B) has a sig larger than its explosion radius. It will also do full damage to a target travelling faster than its explosion velocity if the target's sig is proportionally greater than its explosion radius. These conditions are fairly straightforward to meet.
A turret will do full damage if transversal is zero and tracking pays no part. Since transversal is almost never exactly zero, this condition is extremely hard to meet and therefore "full" damage is very hard to achieve, although obviously as transversal falls close to zero then damage will become very close to "full".
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.09 09:25:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Solid Star There are sooo many factors which contribute to how good a ship is. At the end of the day the closest you can get to determine how good a ship is would be to look at how many people pvp with the ship. So I go and check the eve-kill killboard (pulls from thousands of KBs) and I was surprised at how the Drake just dominates the the other ships in kills. I remember when the falcon was on top (then nerfed) and vaga was on top (then nerfed), but neither came ever came even close to the existing drake numbers.
Rank / Ship / Kills 1 Drake 196690 2 Hurricane 77399 3 Zealot 73885 4 Megathron 35232 5 Vagabond 34021 6 Harbinger 29020 7 Tempest 28938 8 Armageddon 23182 9 Apocalypse 22094 10 Muninn 21658
These numbers also include carebears getting ganked. For ships like the Muninn that's a pretty small number, but for the Drake it's a considerably greater contribution to those numbers...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 17:33:00 -
[5]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis The follow up really to this is should it be the only ship that does not have to choose between tank and gank.
This is pure facepalm, Chronotis. Sorry.
As others have stated, the entire point of shield-tanking is that it allows you to choose both gank and tank - at the cost of tackle and ewar.
You seem more concerned by theoretical balance issues - that the Drake finds it easier to fit HMLs than a Hurricane does artillery - rather than the reality. Such as the domination of armour HAC fleets by Zealots, or sniper fleets by the Apocalypse? Seeing Angel ships everywhere? Or carrier fleets only of Archons? Or the complete absence of shield tanks at BS-level or larger? You realise that you're criticising the only case where shields are currently useful in fleet? Yay for diversity... Sort out shield transporter CPU issues, railguns, the Eagle, Scorch and pulse laser tracking, then Drake changes might be slightly more acceptable.
Anyway, the problem isn't the Drake, it's the fleet fights. Get rid of the (super)capital proliferation that has driven BS from the field and you'll see the attractiveness of the Drake for proper fleet work disappear.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 21:14:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Talking balance: Fitting any of the other class ships, you are instantly forced into a choice when trying to fit weapons of equivalent range and power.
Er, yes, that's because the other battlecruisers use turret weapons that hit instantly.
And away from battlecruisers, have you noticed how Scorch Zealots and Apocs also have great range, don't have to compromise on tank or gank, and hit instantly to boot?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.22 12:37:00 -
[7]
Originally by: X Gallentius Drakes are no more overpowered in their class than rifters, thrashers, and sabres are in their class.
Or Zealots, Apocalypses, Archons or Aeons in theirs...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.23 10:31:00 -
[8]
Originally by: GamTen So everyone who says that the drake's resists are overpowered? The ferox has the same shield resists and bonus per level. Is the ferox overpowered too?
OMG NERF PROPHECY!!!
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.23 23:02:00 -
[9]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis It is a hot topic internally as the number of drakes present in fleet fights is rising dramatically in the last six months...
The Drake hasn't changed in the last six months. If people are using Drake blobs now, when they weren't six months ago, maybe you should look at what actually has changed in the past six months?
Such as BS fleets being obsoleted by Zealot/Guardian fleets? Or supercarrier fleets? Or logistics being unable to cope with the delayed missile damage because of laaaaaag?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 07:34:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
And now anyone will see that an argument like that is garbage after you've taken reality into account. And reality says, out of all the long range battlecruisers the drake has a huge powergrid advantage which allows its to fit a bs-level buffer fit while still having superior range and dps at that range compared to its counterparts
And just for the lols, HMLIIs should take approximately 177mw (without skills taken into account) at the least to bring them into balance with the turreted ships. Since they take 105mw now, that's around a 70% increase in pg requirements.
And now the missiles will hit instantly with no flight time? Excellent.
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 17:37:00 -
[11]
Originally by: rekcuf bmuD
Oh and at 70km the drake's DPS is comparable to other sniper BC's, and can be better, depending on the target.
It had bloody well better be, considering that it takes 15 seconds for the missiles to get there...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 10:58:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Yaay
Still have yet to hear one person's logic on why changing the resist to a 5% shield capacity bonus per level wouldn't work. Guess people want to avoid logic so they can keep their silly resist.
The Drake is not overpowered in small gang combat. Therefore, the problem is not the shield resist bonus itself. The problem appears with the combination of shield resists and logistics (and lag) Therefore, nerf logistics. (And lag.) This will also help the other side of the same EHP + resists + good damage problem - AhAC Zealots.
Well that was hard.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 23:06:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Yaay Armor hacs are the single best counter to any capital class ship. I've sat and fought for hours against them w/o a scratch. Can you break their RR? No, but they can't break your's either.
Ah, so you're saying nerf RR as well. Interesting.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.03 17:58:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Solid Star And anyone that believes there is nothing wrong needs their head examined. If CCP doubled the DPS and range of a tank they would still say the Drake is balanced.
If Drakes aren't overpowered solo and in small gang, but are overpowered in laggy blob with logistics support, then the problem isn't the Drake, it's the laggy blob or the logistics support.
Not much more to it than that, really. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.04 08:52:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Solid Star
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Solid Star And anyone that believes there is nothing wrong needs their head examined. If CCP doubled the DPS and range of a tank they would still say the Drake is balanced.
If Drakes aren't overpowered solo and in small gang, but are overpowered in laggy blob with logistics support, then the problem isn't the Drake, it's the laggy blob or the logistics support.
Not much more to it than that, really.
That is a logical fallacy. A being true does not make B false. By your logic, if we were to replace the drakes with the exact number of another ship type (of similar cost) they would do equally as well. We already know that is not true because the drakes range and resist bonus. For another BC to be equal (tank wise) you would need 25% more logistics in gang repping you. If you have ever engaged a drake gang you should know that most FCs target the Hurricanes and other non Drakes first. They do this because they know the logistics can't rep a Cane as well as it has no resist bonus.
Thanks for that, Captain Obvious. The point is that nothing about the Drake is overpowered solo or in small gang, and therefore any changes that you propose should not affect its ability there. That pretty much limits to you, well, nothing. And clearly indicates that the blob Drake is really a symptom of a larger problem.
|
|
|
|