|
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
A gang that gets into tackle range loses control over the engagement and it is only by maintaining control that you can defend against massive escalation. What works well when your primary goal is getting as many f1tards on the field is not what works well when you're engaging in smallgang micro. What we do actually takes skill, charging in and hoping they have less shit on call than you do, not so much.
Suicide brawler BC gangs work alright in 0.0, when you at least have some indication of the numbers you'll be fighting (this is not a given, especially in *certain regions*). Given the amazing dps/cost ratio of BCs you can kill quite a lot of shit before dying in a fire.
Its not all about f1'ing too, there is a fair bit of burning out + gate splitting you can do to take on larger gangs. Of course, there's a point at which this generally doesn't matter, where all the tricks with brawler BCs won't help -- I personally find this point to be when you're outnumbered 2.5 v 1 (though I was a bad bad bad pilot so v0v).
That said, the strategy does involve hoping that the opposite gang fucks up in some way -- which is almost given if you pick the regions.
TL;DR thorax diaf-type gangs are not exclusively used by blobbers. You can use them to good effect in small (5 or below) gangs.
(Also: not having neutral ganglinks makes nano a lot harder to do. Not complaining or anything -- but you have to admit the interdiction bonuses (especially) give a huge advantage.)
|
Why does everybody think we have loads of ewar? We have a single falcon pilot and maybe one guy who can even use ewar drones.
|
On May 02 2011 07:18 pahndah wrote:
(hell I know is that Kwark shoots missiles at people, sends rifters to suicide on people that might kill him, has a max linked loki somewhere and has an army of black birds and falcons to gay it up amirite?).
Not so heavy on the BBs and Falcons. Heavy on the tackle, heavy on shield tank BC and below, basically.
Having EWAR support is the exception, not the rule.
|
On May 02 2011 07:18 pahndah wrote:
It has to be tonton trolling us. Also you should know Mumbles that I"m not in the Hatchery and what I say is far from representing how the Hatchery fights (hell I know is that Kwark shoots missiles at people, sends rifters to suicide on people that might kill him, has a max linked loki somewhere and has an army of black birds and falcons to gay it up amirite?). I don't see why you keep throwing up a bunch of information that's not relevant to the original point which was whether a thorax was as good as the ships I listed. I am under the assumption that you would not advocate for a shield thorax right?
You said "easily more than half" which I construe as 50% or greater. Perhaps this is another case where what you type out isn't what you really mean?
Of course shield ships can get in range...that's what they are meant for. I think by definition armor ships aren't fast though, perhaps you can link me a good fit that will let them catch up to a shield equivalent ship?
If you're running links with you to get into range that's great, but if you get links, why can't your opponents? Giving unfair advantages to one side to prove your point isn't a good basis for your argument.
I feel like you threw out a lot of fluff and blanket statements that didn't really address any of my earlier points?
If all I'm doing is throwing out fluff and blanket statements, then we need to first address why that's a bad thing, because nobody has done more to consider the possible effectiveness of short range PVP than to categorically declare that it's an old style and it doesn't work.
On May 02 2011 07:13 KwarK wrote:
A gang that gets into tackle range loses control over the engagement and it is only by maintaining control that you can defend against massive escalation. What works well when your primary goal is getting as many f1tards on the field is not what works well when you're engaging in smallgang micro. What we do actually takes skill, charging in and hoping they have less shit on call than you do, not so much.
Here is the root of the fallacy of your argument. Both sides get into tackle range AT THE SAME TIME. You might be misunderstanding that there are two ways to dictate range: one is to be massively faster, and the other is to fit a decent amount of tackle.
And I can't help but shake my head at your massive misrepresentation of the simplicity of fighting at short range.
If you are expecting escalation that you are unable to handle, then by all means have a way to get an out. Whether this is skilled and sufficient ECM support or kiting ships doesn't really matter. When escalation is unlikely, go for short range: you'll kill things faster, and it's much easier (that is, it's possible) to keep people from getting back to station/gate and docking/jumping out.
I'm not saying you should always use short range ships. Nobody is saying that, but everyone is acting like they are. I'm saying that short range ships are useful, viable, and a good thing to have in your repertoire. So far all you ever seem to use is shield kiting ships, which are fine for a lot of engagements... but you must remember that you still lose ships with clockwork regularity. Practically every engagement. Working towards having a variety of tactics available can help to remedy that.
On May 02 2011 07:07 Valenius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 07:01 Mumbleskates wrote:
It's true that when you are by yourself kiting ships are advantageous in uncontrolled situations, but when you are in gangs, which TL always seems to be, it is not as important. If you choose your engagements carefully, you could easily get as many kills as you do now; if you aren't careful, well, you're going to fail and lose ships no matter what you're flying. That's the thing.. We Aren't particularly careful now. Take E-Uni for example. Although they aren't exactly the best PvP-wise in the game, we're usually outnumbered by -at least- 2:1. As for choosing engagements carefully, that's rather boring isn't it? The most fun i get out of this is when we can walk away with minimal losses against a force much bigger and much more expensive than ourselves. If we tried to go into all these close-range encounters you seem fond of, with our majorly Low-SP Pilots.. I could not imagine it ending half as well as we currently do.
I suppose on the other hand if you are resigned to being a loosely organized group of uncareful and unskilled pvpers, you may as well always use the same tactics so you have a way for whoever is left to warp out. I can see the reasoning behind that.
p.s. Dismissing every argument for an unfamiliar point as trolling does not help you learn, nor does it raise anyone's opinion of you.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
I suppose on the other hand if you are resigned to being a loosely organized group of uncareful and unskilled pvpers, you may as well always use the same tactics so you have a way for whoever is left to warp out. I can see the reasoning behind that.
You know, if you're going to call people shit, at least have the decency to leave a killboard link.
The Hatchery, for being full of low-sp pilots, is pretty damn good at what they do (as I say often, was skeptical about their strats beforehand but the results speak for themselves).
I'm curious, by what metric are they 'unskilled'? In general, using 'abusive' strats like nano is also called 'not being retarded'.
PS for comedy purposes, could you supply what you think is a 'good' thorax fit?
|
I never said close range ships are bad, can you find this post of mine? Not sure where you got this idea, but you still fail to address any of my points in regards to what I first stated. I've stated my stance on the matter and provided what I would consider sound and factual information in regards to it. (thoraxes are okay, but not the best) while I haven't seen a relevant counter argument except an pseudo attack on the rest of us being close minded (which is not a counter argument).
|
United States42693 Posts
On May 02 2011 07:35 Mumbleskates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 07:13 KwarK wrote:
A gang that gets into tackle range loses control over the engagement and it is only by maintaining control that you can defend against massive escalation. What works well when your primary goal is getting as many f1tards on the field is not what works well when you're engaging in smallgang micro. What we do actually takes skill, charging in and hoping they have less shit on call than you do, not so much. Here is the root of the fallacy of your argument. Both sides get into tackle range AT THE SAME TIME. You might be misunderstanding that there are two ways to dictate range: one is to be massively faster, and the other is to fit a decent amount of tackle. And I can't help but shake my head at your massive misrepresentation of the simplicity of fighting at short range. If you are expecting escalation that you are unable to handle, then by all means have a way to get an out. Whether this is skilled and sufficient ECM support or kiting ships doesn't really matter. When escalation is unlikely, go for short range: you'll kill things faster, and it's much easier (that is, it's possible) to keep people from getting back to station/gate and docking/jumping out.
Number of recons in the average hatchery fleet: 0
Number of ewar cruisers in the average hatchery fleet: 0
Ratio of hostiles to friendly in the average hatchery fight: 2:1
If we get tackled, we're fucked. Fact. It doesn't matter if we tackle each other, they're bigger and there's more of them.
As for us still losing ships and different fleet compositions helping that, I'm not sure you quite understand our attack anything policy. I will, on a regular basis, attack 40 man fleets with 1-2 guys and links. Yes, sometimes we lose ships but if we showed anything like the caution of an armour fleet we'd not undock those ships. The reason we lose ships is because flying the way we do gives us license to be ambitious with targets.
As for us being uncareful and unskilled, I took a handful of battlecruiser pilots with 6-12m SP and a dozen week old rifters and carved out an 85% efficiency fighting ANZAC, Dark Rising and SUITS in their home system. Show me your killboard.
|
On May 02 2011 07:41 419 wrote:Show nested quote +I suppose on the other hand if you are resigned to being a loosely organized group of uncareful and unskilled pvpers, you may as well always use the same tactics so you have a way for whoever is left to warp out. I can see the reasoning behind that. You know, if you're going to call people shit, at least have the decency to leave a killboard link. The Hatchery, for being full of low-sp pilots, is pretty damn good at what they do (as I say often, was skeptical about their strats beforehand but the results speak for themselves). I'm curious, by what metric are they 'unskilled'? In general, using 'abusive' strats like nano is also called 'not being retarded'. PS for comedy purposes, could you supply what you think is a 'good' thorax fit?
I'm curious how he thinks breaking uniformity of tactics can possibly be a good idea before we have pilots with enough SP to be branching out. It isn't that we're afraid to branch out, it's that 3/4s of the corp is new enough of pilots that trying to control a more complex engagement will lose us more, not less.
KwarK could probably FC it, but that requires people understanding his instructions, which requires us starting all on the same page, and layering in new tactics. A full group with more experience and cohesion could do that, we certainly aren't there yet.
|
On May 02 2011 07:41 419 wrote:Show nested quote +I suppose on the other hand if you are resigned to being a loosely organized group of uncareful and unskilled pvpers, you may as well always use the same tactics so you have a way for whoever is left to warp out. I can see the reasoning behind that. You know, if you're going to call people shit, at least have the decency to leave a killboard link. The Hatchery, for being full of low-sp pilots, is pretty damn good at what they do (as I say often, was skeptical about their strats beforehand but the results speak for themselves). I'm curious, by what metric are they 'unskilled'? In general, using 'abusive' strats like nano is also called 'not being retarded'. PS for comedy purposes, could you supply what you think is a 'good' thorax fit?
I'm not the one who said you were unskilled or uncareful. I was responding directly to Valenius:
On May 02 2011 07:07 Valenius wrote:
...We Aren't particularly careful now....
...with our majorly Low-SP Pilots...
There are a couple good Thorax fits; you can get fairly big blasters and a mwd/scram on with EANMs and an 800 plate, or you can go for smaller guns with a 1600 plate, or even 2 1600 plates and small guns with AB for a bait fit. Those are some of the fits I've seen, but I don't have a lot of personal experience with the ship. I know the Rupture is generally considered to be better for that kind of thing.
And what's this about nano being... what was the word, abusive? It is almost surreal. I'm just here, writing responses to your posts, and now apparently I am claiming that fitting Nanofiber Internal Structure IIs and using Skirmish Warfare links is an exploit? Or were you talking to someone else?
|
On May 02 2011 07:46 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 07:41 419 wrote:I suppose on the other hand if you are resigned to being a loosely organized group of uncareful and unskilled pvpers, you may as well always use the same tactics so you have a way for whoever is left to warp out. I can see the reasoning behind that. You know, if you're going to call people shit, at least have the decency to leave a killboard link. The Hatchery, for being full of low-sp pilots, is pretty damn good at what they do (as I say often, was skeptical about their strats beforehand but the results speak for themselves). I'm curious, by what metric are they 'unskilled'? In general, using 'abusive' strats like nano is also called 'not being retarded'. PS for comedy purposes, could you supply what you think is a 'good' thorax fit? I'm curious how he thinks breaking uniformity of tactics can possibly be a good idea before we have pilots with enough SP to be branching out. It isn't that we're afraid to branch out, it's that 3/4s of the corp is new enough of pilots that trying to control a more complex engagement will lose us more, not less. KwarK could probably FC it, but that requires people understanding his instructions, which requires us starting all on the same page, and layering in new tactics. A full group with more experience and cohesion could do that, we certainly aren't there yet.
I would argue that going into PVP as a new player, it's much simpler to enter the field in short range fights where the FC knows when to engage and when to leave the enemy be. Kiting is one of the most difficult things to do, and having new PVPers or people who just transitioned from 500 meter scram Rifters start trying to effectively kite in a Drake probably won't end well.
On the other hand, getting into the fray and learning how larger ships move, when to get tackle on what, and applying damage is a much gentler learning curve that ought to lose you less expensive ships and should do pretty well. Hell, if you have links, you could even go for AB Ruptures and be hard as hell to track while dealing piles of damage. (Ruptures cost like 30m or less for a fully T2 fit, and deal more damage than a HML Drake in a variety of damage types.)
|
On May 02 2011 07:54 Mumbleskates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 07:41 419 wrote:I suppose on the other hand if you are resigned to being a loosely organized group of uncareful and unskilled pvpers, you may as well always use the same tactics so you have a way for whoever is left to warp out. I can see the reasoning behind that. You know, if you're going to call people shit, at least have the decency to leave a killboard link. The Hatchery, for being full of low-sp pilots, is pretty damn good at what they do (as I say often, was skeptical about their strats beforehand but the results speak for themselves). I'm curious, by what metric are they 'unskilled'? In general, using 'abusive' strats like nano is also called 'not being retarded'. PS for comedy purposes, could you supply what you think is a 'good' thorax fit? I'm not the one who said you were unskilled or uncareful. I was responding directly to Valenius: Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 07:07 Valenius wrote:
...We Aren't particularly careful now....
...with our majorly Low-SP Pilots... There are a couple good Thorax fits; you can get fairly big blasters and a mwd/scram on with EANMs and an 800 plate, or you can go for smaller guns with a 1600 plate, or even 2 1600 plates and small guns with AB for a bait fit. Those are some of the fits I've seen, but I don't have a lot of personal experience with the ship. I know the Rupture is generally considered to be better for that kind of thing. And what's this about nano being... what was the word, abusive? It is almost surreal. I'm just here, writing responses to your posts, and now apparently I am claiming that fitting Nanofiber Internal Structure IIs and using Skirmish Warfare links is an exploit? Or were you talking to someone else?
So...you agree with my original post than in regards to the thorax?
|
On May 02 2011 07:35 Mumbleskates wrote:
If all I'm doing is throwing out fluff and blanket statements, then we need to first address why that's a bad thing, because nobody has done more to consider the possible effectiveness of short range PVP than to categorically declare that it's an old style and it doesn't work.
To be fair he never said that specifically, he said that these two ways to PvP in EVE are used in two different situations. But you have to admit that in the area that we are fighting in, and with the ships and skills we have, short range fighting is the worst possible idea.
Here is the root of the fallacy of your argument. Both sides get into tackle range AT THE SAME TIME. You might be misunderstanding that there are two ways to dictate range: one is to be massively faster, and the other is to fit a decent amount of tackle.
If both sides get into tackle at the same time, the one with the combination of better ships and more ships (unless the you're really retarded and brought destroyers to a battleship fight) wins.
Guess what we don't have.
And I can't help but shake my head at your massive misrepresentation of the simplicity of fighting at short range.
It's a different animal from what we normally do. I would say it's even more complicated than a nano gang, needlessly complicated actually. Requires so much more planning (Can we get in range, can they get more ships than us?) and "oh shit dock up" than nano fleets.
If you are expecting escalation that you are unable to handle, then by all means have a way to get an out. Whether this is skilled and sufficient ECM support or kiting ships doesn't really matter. When escalation is unlikely, go for short range: you'll kill things faster, and it's much easier (that is, it's possible) to keep people from getting back to station/gate and docking/jumping out.
That is true, ECM is the great decider, but we don't have much ECM at all, and the very nature of lowsec is lower than normal accuracy on gauging enemy strength. Misjudge even slightly and a close range fleet is in quite a bit more trouble than a nano fleet.
I'm not saying you should always use short range ships. Nobody is saying that, but everyone is acting like they are. I'm saying that short range ships are useful, viable, and a good thing to have in your repertoire. So far all you ever seem to use is shield kiting ships, which are fine for a lot of engagements... but you must remember that you still lose ships with clockwork regularity. Practically every engagement. Working towards having a variety of tactics available can help to remedy that.
It sure feels like that's what you're saying, angerly even. We feel that using short range ships in this area of space is a bad idea, would you agree?
I suppose on the other hand if you are resigned to being a loosely organized group of uncareful and unskilled pvpers, you may as well always use the same tactics so you have a way for whoever is left to warp out. I can see the reasoning behind that.
We can't suddenly become massive powerhouses of 50 billion SP Battlecruiser pilots overnight piloting 3 accounts with a single hand, what are you talking about?
p.s. Dismissing every argument for an unfamiliar point as trolling does not help you learn, nor does it raise anyone's opinion of you.
You dismiss for worse reasons, what appears to be your own ego. It really appears you are actually trolling though, from this side.
You're just taking your own side in this discussion without seeming to look at the opposite. All things being equal, I can see brawls coming out in the favor of the players who brought a few more close range ships. But we can't do this yet, and we probably never want to do it, for our own reasons.
|
United States42693 Posts
On May 02 2011 08:00 Mumbleskates wrote:
where the FC knows when to engage and when to leave the enemy be
If ever I learned this the hatchery would probably cease to operate. Your point can basically be shortened to "armour fleets work when the FC can work out if he has more stuff than they have" which is exactly my point. Armour fleets rely on the number of pilots, their skill points and their ships, three categories in which we are massive underdogs. Nano fleets rely on your ability to isolate targets by microing your ship, your ability to co-ordinate your fleet effectively to control their mobility and the size of your balls, three areas in which we excel. Molden Heath is dangerous, come out here sometime, you'll find out.
|
On May 02 2011 08:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 08:00 Mumbleskates wrote:
where the FC knows when to engage and when to leave the enemy be If ever I learned this the hatchery would probably cease to operate. Your point can basically be shortened to "armour fleets work when the FC can work out if he has more stuff than they have" which is exactly my point. Armour fleets rely on the number of pilots, their skill points and their ships, three categories in which we are massive underdogs. Nano fleets rely on your ability to isolate targets by microing your ship, your ability to co-ordinate your fleet effectively to control their mobility and the size of your balls, three areas in which we excel. Molden Heath is dangerous, come out here sometime, you'll find out.
Seriously, if KwarK made rational decisions about when to engage, we'd never undock.
|
Hey look another argument over ships in the tl eve thread.
Where one sides assumes the hatchery should drop the nano-escapades and expand ships types, without actually being in the hatchery.
While the hatchery refuses to acknowledge that ships beyond rifter cane drake exist.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the boast of being 100 members strong on the first page is a bit of a misnomer, the hatchery from what i notice tends to have 10-15 guys including alts on at peak times. The majority in suicide frigs the rest in drakes and canes and the occasional harb.
Sure theres a couple guys with almost a year of sp but player turnover in the hatchery is pretty high. So when youre stuck out in lowsec, and a particularly busy part at that with only a couple of guys with sp, you nano end of story other ships that cant nano cease to exist.
hacs, thorax, other armor ships, battleships all have their places in this game but not in the hatchery they dont have the numbers or sp to accomplish much else but ill be damned if they dont abuse the hell out of nano and no one should knock them for what they get done.
|
On May 02 2011 08:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 08:00 Mumbleskates wrote:
where the FC knows when to engage and when to leave the enemy be If ever I learned this the hatchery would probably cease to operate. Your point can basically be shortened to "armour fleets work when the FC can work out if he has more stuff than they have" which is exactly my point. Armour fleets rely on the number of pilots, their skill points and their ships, three categories in which we are massive underdogs. Nano fleets rely on your ability to isolate targets by microing your ship, your ability to co-ordinate your fleet effectively to control their mobility and the size of your balls, three areas in which we excel. Molden Heath is dangerous, come out here sometime, you'll find out.
I dont think you guys give yourself enough credit on that regard. Your efficiency is high for a reason, you know what you can get away with and what you cant. You very much understand when its time to leave, which nano gives you the ability to test the waters a lot more.
The apprehension with armor is you typically have to bite the bullet anytime you engage which in your circumstances would be borderline retarded and you understand that point hence youre not a terribad fc.
|
Lalalaland34491 Posts
Oh god, if we were actually careful and sensible about what we engaged, this game would be so boring real quick. You see a gang enter local, you spend 30 minutes scouting them out, 30 minutes getting the correct composition to counter their forces with a brawling fleet, then you warp to them and find they're 10 jumps down the pipeline.
On May 02 2011 08:20 abominare wrote:
While the hatchery refuses to acknowledge that ships beyond rifter cane drake exist.
I resent this label! I flew a pest today whooooooooooooooooo
|
I posit that hatchery is able to fly freighters too. Kwark knows all too well that they exist.
|
On May 02 2011 08:20 abominare wrote:
Hey look another argument over ships in the tl eve thread.
Where one sides assumes the hatchery should drop the nano-escapades and expand ships types, without actually being in the hatchery.
While the hatchery refuses to acknowledge that ships beyond rifter cane drake exist.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the boast of being 100 members strong on the first page is a bit of a misnomer, the hatchery from what i notice tends to have 10-15 guys including alts on at peak times. The majority in suicide frigs the rest in drakes and canes and the occasional harb.
Sure theres a couple guys with almost a year of sp but player turnover in the hatchery is pretty high. So when youre stuck out in lowsec, and a particularly busy part at that with only a couple of guys with sp, you nano end of story other ships that cant nano cease to exist.
hacs, thorax, other armor ships, battleships all have their places in this game but not in the hatchery they dont have the numbers or sp to accomplish much else but ill be damned if they dont abuse the hell out of nano and no one should knock them for what they get done.
Thats not all of it, I really love my garmon rupture and my armor cane, but the fact of the matter is if I go gank a belt-ratting cane in my shield cane, I will get the kill for sure if he ends up being a bad, and if hes bait I will manage to get out (most of the time).
On the other hand, If I go for that same cane in my armor cane, I will again get that same kill if its a bad but ill lose my cane if he blobs.
Now, this by itself is not that big of a problem, and ive been one of those in the hatch who loves brawling ships the most, but when you apply that principle to a gang, and on top of that your gang are brand new players which only have the option to train for one type of ship (well they can always branch out but branching out before you can properly fit a t2 bc means you wont be flying much more then frigs for a long time), shield nano ships become the best options.
Also, Im a true believer that armor gangs can be some of the greatest fleets (guardians + webbing lokis + armorhacs for small gang pvp is bossmode), and to that extent im not one to totally disregard armor ships like some of the hatch members (I mean, theres other limitations to doing that, but still...).
My big problem with this discussion is the backing up behind blaster boats. I love armor ships, I believe they have a purpose, but I seriously believe there is something incredibly wrong with blasters. Either you go with an armor blaster, which, due to the way armor works, makes your ship too slow in any situation where you are not outnumbering/out-sping/out-supporting your ennemies, or you go with a shield-blaster, which, even though are awesome for the nice dps number in your EFT, go a bit against the purpose of using shield ships which is to trade out EHP for speed and agility (and you basically ram the guy and stop moving if you go shield blaster).
tldr ccp are bad and its known that blasters need to be rebalanced, (small are good, medium and large are the problem)
|
On May 02 2011 08:00 Mumbleskates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 07:46 JingleHell wrote:On May 02 2011 07:41 419 wrote:I suppose on the other hand if you are resigned to being a loosely organized group of uncareful and unskilled pvpers, you may as well always use the same tactics so you have a way for whoever is left to warp out. I can see the reasoning behind that. You know, if you're going to call people shit, at least have the decency to leave a killboard link. The Hatchery, for being full of low-sp pilots, is pretty damn good at what they do (as I say often, was skeptical about their strats beforehand but the results speak for themselves). I'm curious, by what metric are they 'unskilled'? In general, using 'abusive' strats like nano is also called 'not being retarded'. PS for comedy purposes, could you supply what you think is a 'good' thorax fit? I'm curious how he thinks breaking uniformity of tactics can possibly be a good idea before we have pilots with enough SP to be branching out. It isn't that we're afraid to branch out, it's that 3/4s of the corp is new enough of pilots that trying to control a more complex engagement will lose us more, not less. KwarK could probably FC it, but that requires people understanding his instructions, which requires us starting all on the same page, and layering in new tactics. A full group with more experience and cohesion could do that, we certainly aren't there yet. I would argue that going into PVP as a new player, it's much simpler to enter the field in short range fights where the FC knows when to engage and when to leave the enemy be.Kiting is one of the most difficult things to do, and having new PVPers or people who just transitioned from 500 meter scram Rifters start trying to effectively kite in a Drake probably won't end well. On the other hand, getting into the fray and learning how larger ships move, when to get tackle on what, and applying damage is a much gentler learning curve that ought to lose you less expensive ships and should do pretty well. Hell, if you have links, you could even go for AB Ruptures and be hard as hell to track while dealing piles of damage. (Ruptures cost like 30m or less for a fully T2 fit, and deal more damage than a HML Drake in a variety of damage types.)
Ralph pls go
edit: so if "Kiting is one of the most difficult things to do" and we have 85% efficiency on it, does that make us pro, no??
Id rather have people learning how to nano than to behave as a nullsec grunt.
edit2: i regularly fly 10+ t3 4+ guardian fleets in lowsec. they are...boring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
