EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2011-02-27 03:40
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-03-28 11:52
  • Number of Posts: 413
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

serras bang

Security Status 0.0
  • Caldari Provisions Member since
  • Caldari State Faction

Last 20 Posts

  • [Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Caldari in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Naomi Knight wrote:
    serras bang wrote:

    the raven for a good tank and good dps and im meaning good tank and around 700 dps we already sacrafise 1 mid, 2 lows and 2 rig slots to keep it running stable and its not even that stable at just 33% or so not something a mission runner wants in a room with potential neuts and a whole crap load of incomeing em and therm dmg with warp scrams on em but we do it anyways.

    thats pve I wrote about pvp
    sorry but I think ships should be balanced with pvp in mind ,
    still i cant see why you need more cap than the current raven as it probably can do lvl4-s as you wrote
    btw there are many better alternative ships to do missioning


    erm yeah what other bs can a caldari missle specalist fly ? and although a ship can be used for pvp it should not be ballanced with the view soley on pvp witch currently a lot of ships have been as it leave mission runners and people that just generaly wanna play for fun out in the cold.

    as for current raven doing lvl 4-s as i wrote it it can but with faily major problems especialy with explosive radius and trying to kill smaller faster ships and oh yeah the setup i wrote down you need to spend around 2 billion isk on that setup.

    if you dont you have a raven with a massive tank and low dps or a raven with a bad tank and mediocer dps.

  • [Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Caldari in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Naomi Knight wrote:
    Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
    Grunnax Aurelius wrote:
    Can we give the Raven some more cap and cap recharge please, or give all the Attack Battleships a role bonus that reduces cap requirement of MicroWarpdrives by 25%?

    MWD on a battleship is fail. the sig bloom gives you the signature radius of a small POS. The huge signature radius makes you so easy to hit the increased speed will not help you much. Except for traveling between gates.


    sig bloom or not sorry but the raven is already over the sig treshold no matter how much larger it gets it stills hit for full dmg:I

    and mwd fail? that is one of the best modules in eve ,even for a bs, it just gives you so many options it is a must fit in most situations
    ab good luck reaching anything or anybody, anyway pointless to sig tank in a shield tanking caldari bs
    mjd could work ,but not so great for attack bs role imho, thou this needs some testing in actual pvp

    I dont think the raven needs more cap ,you could fit a cap booster and have plenty for the fight.


    the raven for a good tank and good dps and im meaning good tank and around 700 dps we already sacrafise 1 mid, 2 lows and 2 rig slots to keep it running stable and its not even that stable at just 33% or so not something a mission runner wants in a room with potential neuts and a whole crap load of incomeing em and therm dmg with warp scrams on em but we do it anyways.

  • [Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Caldari in EVE Technology and Research Center

    the raven looks good however will that extra mid actualy be usefull as for pve the mid that should have been spare and usualy some of the lows had to be used with cap rechargers ect so my question is is this problem fixed with the update or just amplified more ?

    the raven would have been fine as is with its slot layout if the cap issue was fixed enough to have fread up the slots in the first place.

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Nevyn Auscent wrote:
    Mund Richard wrote:
    Dana Gilmour wrote:
    2. It would have the same damage with BC IV and will be better with BC V. Where exactly is the nerf, you plan to fly the ship with skill II and want it balanced at that skill? Beyond laughable.

    3. You two read your posts again and go sit in a corner for not making any sense and being totally clueless about the subject at hand.

    Ofc you realise that even at max skill, if your opponent is someone with a naturally high kinetic resistance (T2 gallente hulls for instance), this change will be limiting your choices.
    Before, you could carry around a few unbonused missiles, and shoot with that at a Deimos for instance, accepting a 25% loss of paper dps, but regaining it by not shooting the strongest resist.
    Now? Your paper dps gets cut by 50% for swapping ammo, or an added 15% worse than the current TQ version.



    Lrn 2 Maths.
    Though you are correct that there is a DPS drop for non Kinetic.
    However it is not 50% of your DPS.

    Your non Kinetic DPS is 100%. Lets just say 300 for a nice easy number.
    Under the old (current drake) you would have had 350 DPS instead.
    300/350 = 85.7%. That bit you are close on. So ok, you have taken a 14/15% DPS nerf here.
    The Drake always was going to get Nerfed.

    However, now let us calculate the Kinetic damage.
    300*150% = 450.
    Vs old Kinetic Damage
    350*125%= 437.5.
    103%.

    Non Kinetic damage vs Kinetic.
    = 67% damage, not 50%. here is where you went wrong. 50% of 150% = 75%, not 100%. percentages don't add & subtrace the same to reach the same end number.

    So yes, overall it is a slightly high Nerf. In general you are going to pretty much use kinetic since you need them to have a really big resist hole before you bother changing ammo.
    But, now consider you also have 1/7th less the ammo cost. Pay less to fit your drake since you need one less launcher. And you have a nice utility high sitting there for a link to slot into once boosts have to be on grid so as not to be obvious booster even.
    On the whole, the Drake is still in a very good place.


    althoug drake could always fit a gang link n the first place this is nothing new

  • Add a new penlaty to shield modules in EVE Technology and Research Center

    im gonna have to agree with lagus a lot of shield tanking ships at least active tanked ships are barely cap stable if at all and generaly the only active shield tank ships that are stable is pve ones and i mean barely stable at around 30 - 35% i.e its enough to warp of if the situation should arise.

    but most are passively tank i hear you cry or use asb ? well passive tanking is a lil harder and usualy results in little pg or cpu left or not enough forcing use to sacrifice dps. as with the asb the asb has such a massive cap useage that in most situations it must run on cap boosters with btw take up a lot of room in cargo holds and take i bilieve 60 seconds to reload so it has a massive massive hole for you to exploit.

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Pinky Denmark wrote:
    You're missing the point - T2 armor reps are usually better than Meta 4 with higher fittings in return.
    Anyway active tanking still has huge issues keeping up with the damage from even a single battlecruiser...

    Anyhow...

    I've been mesing around with the Drake. I have been rather obsessed with getting a bit more CPU, however I noticed that dropping the Warfare link makes it capable of becoming an insane monster.
    I think the real problem is the warfare links powergrid usage... 200/210 powergrid just enables people to fit a lot if they don't use the option.

    The Drake being able to fit like this can be rather overpowered :
    6x T2 HAMs, Empty slot,
    Named MWD, 2x Meta 4 Shield Extenders, 2x T2 Invulns, T2 Scrambler,
    T2 DC, 3x T2 BCS
    3x Shield rigs (extender and perhaps an em)
    5x Warrior II

    ~700 dps, ~75k EHP (85k EHP overloaded during entire fights) And thats without implants

    This could also be subscriped to the Drake having both top dps, but also 6 medslots (the most medslots for the 8 battlescruisers) and a 5% resist bonus. Not many of the other ships can compete with that perhaps except the Prophecy?

    Yes, this fit doesn't have a web and it's not that fast so being able to dictate range is a problem. However with HAMs reaching ~15km range that shouldn't really be an issue.


    dunno were your getting the 700 dps on a drake from

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    ok to wade in here as i usualy protect the cal pilots yes everyone im back to make your life hell on the forums.

    few points to make on both the ferox and the drake.

    1 why dose the ferox have a base lock range higher than the drake when we all know the drake will propabably out range it anyways.

    2. why is the shielding on the drake being reduced if its gonna be effectively a space brick that can tank well but deal little dmg with the removal of a high launcher (witch i aint complaining about the lesser dps here)

    3. why in gods name do we have all range setups ?

    basicaly there my points and my thoughts are next.

    it would seam more logical to allow the now space brick drake to be able to either tackle with high shields or to be able to ecceal at long range bombardment. if not both with the 100 km that damps can kick out to ( witch is a descusion for another time.)

    secondly we have no real brawling lineup why not give the ferox a hybrid dmg bonus 1 cause of the damps ect and 2 so we can fit it with blasters and punch people in the face with it so to speack you see my point here.

    that would give us both a long range bombardment ship and a very very close brawler. all you gotta do is add say another 500 shields onto the drake and change the bonus to the ferox as it stands now especialy with the naga fufilling the extream range and decent dps region.

  • Halaima Miner Bumping - REPORT #5 - Shareholder Vote! ELONAYA next! in EVE Gameplay Center

    Tort Funaila wrote:
    serras bang wrote:
    lol tbh i know something about the region your in that i aint gonna tell yah


    That there's a lot of AFK mining? We're on it!


    lkol missed the mark about certian system but you know im sure you guys will figure it out.

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Bouh Revetoile wrote:
    serras bang wrote:

    no cause even a cnr with an invuln and a em hardners still dosent pull the resists above 70% i.e bad and a raven has to be mission specific tanked with causes problem in other missions were you encounter all dmg.

    Haha, a few page more, and we will hear that shield need a buff because of the unfair EM hole...


    never did say that i said give it more cap so we can use the mid thats taken up with a cap booster with another invuln problem solved and as i said moveint the utility hi or enoug cap to move a low to a med slot for a tp wouldnt so amiss either but i can only hope and prey for another mid.

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Zyella Stormborn wrote:
    serras bang wrote:

    would also help if caldari actualy had a good bs for missions in the first place.


    ........Shocked

    You lost a lot of credibility here. Raven was absolute king of L4's for years.
    Mach and Vargur are considered by many to be the best nowadays (many also think a nerf will probalby eventually hit the Mach),
    But navy Raven is still right up there, and may even return to top or 2nd place after the incoming update.

    If you like playing it safer, the Navy Issue Scorpion is an absolutely absurd omni tank, and still blasts through L4's fast enough.

    Tengu's and Drakes can do them, but were never meant to do L4's as well (or at least as fast) as they currently can.

    ~Z


    no cause even a cnr with an invuln and a em hardners still dosent pull the resists above 70% i.e bad and a raven has to be mission specific tanked with causes problem in other missions were you encounter all dmg.

    theres a few things the raven but especialy the cnr needs the cnr need its mid that is taken up by a cap recharger to go to tank witch means it needs an increase in cap. and it would also be nice to get a low that generaly have to house a cap flux to change to a mid so we can mount a tp on it or perhaps an ab. so really the ravens need some work before there considerd mission worthy again.

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
    I agree that the Caldari battleships needs some love and the the Raven description is just plain wrong, but aren't these ships lined up for some tiericide treatment in any case? I might be wrong on the last point, but either way they should be rebalancd to behave as a new player who has read some of the eve chronicles and backstory might expect them too.

    Coming back to the main thread, missiles have always been underpowered as evidenced by an earlier post in which someone said that they offered the second best alpha in the game next to artiliieries. Thing is though, doesn't this mean that artillary weapons are over powered as after all we're looking for balance here. Artillary weapons don't have to wait as long as missiles to apply damage in any case so are doubly overpowered.

    I don't mind them being over powered, but I think that missiles should be buffed to be their equal, not further nerfed to be the most inferior of all weapon systems.

    As for the whole caldari shield question the most advanced shield systems belong to the minmater not the caldari as is claimed in the Eve backstory, you've only got to look at the Maelstrom for that with it's 8000 HP and 7.5% bonus to shield boosting per level. It can deploy power at sizeable range with it's projectiles and is in real terms everything that the Raven should be but is not.

    It's the new players I feel sorry for. They might like the look of a caldari character as most new players tend to and if they try and play out the racial stereotype and train rails and missiles they will all die horribly and be ***** slapped hard across the cluster by people who know better. It' probably wont be much fun for them and will increase the rate of churn that CCP currently has when it comes to new players, joining, trying and quitting.

    My final point is that nerfs cost ccp money in terms of lost subscriptions. No one who has trained hard for a skill or an ability to use a weapon likes to see it nerfed without an equivalent buff elsewhere. i.e. my heavy missiles don't do as much damage, are not as versatile against different size targets as they used to be and are incapable of going as far. I might forgive this if all launchers had an increase in ROF to make up for it or enlarged capacities so I don't have to reload as often.

    I will most probably forgive the proposed Drake nerf in which it loses it's sheild resist bonus but gets a ROF bonus for the missiles etc. I may even get to like it if it has an increase to passive regen (I'd lovbe to see that) but then again this latter point wont happen as we all know Caldari have the most advanced shield systems of anyone, so no need.


    so basicaly what your saying here is minmatar have the fastest, most alpha and the most advanced shield systems i so wanna call op here but i dont have to cause they were enslaved by armarr but seriously. if minmatar have the highest alph and the fastest ships something should be lacking in my opinion they should have an inferior shield to a race that uses ONLY shield. the most advanced shield systems dont belong on a race that cant decide if there armour or shield tankers.

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Faora Zod wrote:
    Lili Lu wrote:
    Ubat Batuk wrote:
    Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard...

    No it's called train a ******* BS and large weapons like every other race to do a level 4, and stop whining.Roll


    You should start thinking like a NEW player who has only been playing a couple of months, do you really think with the way the market is now that a newbie is going to be able to afford the couple of hundred million it takes to buy and fit a BS to do level 4s? Best day of my eve life was when i soloed my first level 4 in a Drake, i knew i was here to stay. If they are wanting to keep this game fun and interesting like CCP Fozzie claims it needs to stay fun and interesting for NEW players too. You slow down how fast it takes them to feel like the accomplished something on their own and they are going t o lose interest.


    would also help if caldari actualy had a good bs for missions in the first place.

  • Encouraging fleet mission running (all levels) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    quite frankly i like running missions solo i enjoy it more i cant always get a team of players to do lvl 4s with i wont go with randoms i prefer solo mission simple as that not everyone wants to come in after work spend an hour or 2 getting a team together from there corp and then only having an hour left to play or bother about people fat assing around ect people do like doing things solo.

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Gypsio III wrote:
    Bouh Revetoile wrote:

    Explosion radius ? With one rigor rig, you have almost the same application than fury heavy missiles. They have no problem hitting BC and up, and if you add some target painters, cruisers are not problem anymore.

    And I said it : the Raven is faster and more agile than any fleet tier 3 BS.


    CN Cruise with 1x rigour: radius 191.25, velocity 103.5
    Fury Heavy: radius 161.25, velocity 145.5

    So, your definition of "almost the same" involves having an explosion radius 19% greater and an explosion velocity 29% less.

    Do you begin to see your problem? Straight

    The mobility differences are basically inconsequential.


    tbh it would be more as you compairing cn criuse to furry not criuse fury to hml fury :P

  • Bring Big Ships Back To Small Scale / Solo: Remove Bonus Restrictions in EVE Technology and Research Center

    L4ST wrote:
    please do not refer to that one single example I gave. I am not complaining about how my shiny ship didn't blow up an Enyo (it wasn't a real fight anyway). I appreciate the effort, but I don't need guides how to kill an Enyo with a Vindicator.

    It's about the idea in general.

    "Also in eve you have to remember size =/= better."
    No. Less Size = Better in EVE. Thats exactly why I propose this.

    The same with this "Fleet" thing. A small ship currently can be Tackler, Webber and DPS at the same time. Especially this multi-talentedness should come at higher cost in ISK and size => BC/BS

    EVE is absolutely overdoing this "a small ship can do things too" imo, making larger ships less valuable (even large Fleets tend to go AHAC/T3BC). I can't imagine a situation where you have 1-5 ships in fleet looking for PvP and one of them being a T1 BS would be appropriate. If you shout "bait" now => *facepalm*



    will this also translate to msissle or do missle get the olde shaft stick again ?

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    -

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Ioci wrote:
    Bouh Revetoile wrote:
    Here a fleet Raven :
    [Raven, test_cruise]

    6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile)
    Heavy Energy Neutralizer II
    Medium Energy Neutralizer II

    100MN Microwarpdrive II
    2x Large Shield Extender II
    2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
    EM Ward Field II

    3x Ballistic Control System II
    Damage Control II
    Signal Amplifier II

    Large Core Defense Field Extender I
    Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I
    Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I

    CaptainFalcon07 wrote:
    If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs?
    First, I'm not saying the Raven is "great", I'm saying the Raven is not bad and may even have some qualities. In fact, that is exactly the question I am asking here : why the Raven is so bad ? Common answer is damage delay, though, again, cruise missile speed is the same than HML Tengu, and faster than HML Drake ; Fleet engagement range is often from 50 to 80km. If damage delay is not a problem with Drake or Tengu, why would it be with Raven ?

    And even with only 6 launchers, this Raven have the same dps than a standard Nulli fleet Rokh at 70km and a better alpha.

    Now, neither you or me have a fleet of Raven at disposal to test it. My hypothesis for the no use of the Raven are : 1) it is obsoleted by Tengu and Drake for missile warfare ; 2) Its reputation come from the old time of real long range warfare where damage delay was a real problem ; 3) damage application is still too low (I doubt it though, its better than LR turrets) ; 4) no alliance FC had the idea yet.

    @serras : I already told it. If we balance thing for pvp and not for pve, it's because that would bring massive imbalance for pvp whereas we can balance pve by tweaking NPC without ANY effect on pvp balance. There is also huge particularities in pve, like fit that tend to be massively pimp, and the fact there is no missile pirate BS.

    As for projectiles turret, and most notably arties being OP, I tend to agree (IMO, projectiles shouldn't be capless). Though that don't mean HML shouldn't be nerfed. And for now, the ships rebalance seem to solve a lot of problems, and the new Caracal don't seem to have any problem (those who tested it liked it it seem).

    With HML, you also need to shift paradigm : long range weapons never did a lot of dps at range except with HML. If you want dps, you need to go for HAML. HAML are being hugely buffed. Some don't believe it will be enough ; I think it will ; only tests will say who is right.


    Not to take away from your points. You made several but the issue with Caldari battle ships goes beyond the raven and the crippled dps aplication of Torps and cruisers. While when you compare them along side each other, lets compare your ship to my ship

    Your theoretic Ship
    My theoretic Ship

    Those are our Signature radius numbers.

    You are in a Raven Battleship,
    I'm in an Archon Carrier.


    dunno were or how you got a 3k sig radius on a raven from.

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Skahd Hii wrote:
    Should you not introduce a new module that improves the flight-time and/or max-velocity and/or explosion-radius and/or explosion-velocity of missile based weapons? Somewhat the missile equivalent of a tracking enhancer.


    no and niether should td's be applied to em we have rigs that can be applied to em just like guns witch give little boost but enough and we do not have to further break our tank because a guranteed hit interferance on something that dosent rely on tracing in the first place

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Bouh Revetoile wrote:
    Here a fleet Raven :
    [Raven, test_cruise]

    6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile)
    Heavy Energy Neutralizer II
    Medium Energy Neutralizer II

    100MN Microwarpdrive II
    2x Large Shield Extender II
    2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
    EM Ward Field II

    3x Ballistic Control System II
    Damage Control II
    Signal Amplifier II

    Large Core Defense Field Extender I
    Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I
    Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I

    CaptainFalcon07 wrote:
    If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs?
    First, I'm not saying the Raven is "great", I'm saying the Raven is not bad and may even have some qualities. In fact, that is exactly the question I am asking here : why the Raven is so bad ? Common answer is damage delay, though, again, cruise missile speed is the same than HML Tengu, and faster than HML Drake ; Fleet engagement range is often from 50 to 80km. If damage delay is not a problem with Drake or Tengu, why would it be with Raven ?

    And even with only 6 launchers, this Raven have the same dps than a standard Nulli fleet Rokh at 70km and a better alpha.

    Now, neither you or me have a fleet of Raven at disposal to test it. My hypothesis for the no use of the Raven are : 1) it is obsoleted by Tengu and Drake for missile warfare ; 2) Its reputation come from the old time of real long range warfare where damage delay was a real problem ; 3) damage application is still too low (I doubt it though, its better than LR turrets) ; 4) no alliance FC had the idea yet.

    @serras : I already told it. If we balance thing for pvp and not for pve, it's because that would bring massive imbalance for pvp whereas we can balance pve by tweaking NPC without ANY effect on pvp balance. There is also huge particularities in pve, like fit that tend to be massively pimp, and the fact there is no missile pirate BS.

    As for projectiles turret, and most notably arties being OP, I tend to agree (IMO, projectiles shouldn't be capless). Though that don't mean HML shouldn't be nerfed. And for now, the ships rebalance seem to solve a lot of problems, and the new Caracal don't seem to have any problem (those who tested it liked it it seem).

    With HML, you also need to shift paradigm : long range weapons never did a lot of dps at range except with HML. If you want dps, you need to go for HAML. HAML are being hugely buffed. Some don't believe it will be enough ; I think it will ; only tests will say who is right.


    you also gotta think about the explosive radius witch cant hit the broad side of a criuser or bc properly (not to sure about the broad side of a bs) but im guessing seing you aint useing tigor rigs anything bellow a buffer shield tanked bc this raven or any others will not lay full dmg on it.

    you have also got the fact that caldari ships are now the slowest and heaviest of all the ships so it can no longer kite properly pulling it so itll have a further disatvantage into gun range on a faster ship is bad why i bet you ask ?

    well every caldari pilot learns after shield are gone your screwd witch means a blaster, pulse, artie fit ship is on to of you your screwd as your shields plumet witch also heppend very very quickly if your webbed.

    thinking of all of the above i think anyone can work out why missle users have been fighting tooth and nail to keep as much range as possible on there ships.

  • Stop Tiericide After Cruisers! in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Harvey James wrote:
    a drake fully fitted is more like 65mil and all tier 2 bc's will get nerfed in slots and HP so the mineral cost may drop a little anyway.
    But this is no bad thing as cruisers will be more cost effective now so they might get flown more over bc's ... this is a good thing.


    drake costs closer to 100 mill to buy and fit