Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8191
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 23:25:00 -
[421] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:Navy Geddon
the T1 Geddon kinda sux these days
You've got to be kidding me. Well you say that but there's a very obvious alternative explaination. Well I suppose there's more than one. My EVE Videos |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1396
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 06:20:00 -
[422] - Quote
Radius Prime wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:If its T3 cruisers the T3's will have bigger buffer tanks than the battleships. T3s are irrelevant when discussing ship balance. Wait until they are nerfed and then we can see how they compare to BSes (they won't lol). They will never be nerfed simply because the penalties that come along with flying T3's. Loss of SP must be reflected in something. They also represent future tech. For now only tech 3 cruisers been released. Some day CCP will get around to expanding the T3 ship tree. Price, required skills and penalty at death will save other ships from becoming obsolete as they do now. T3 battleship would kick strategic cruisers ass, that's for sure... CCP is very consistant when it comes to nerfing useful ships into useless crap. The devs are also consistant at showing their inability to understand EvE as its played by the players and tend to understand it only through paper based stats that dont translate well into the actual gameplay.
I have both Minnie and Gallante T3s trained with my Gallante subs to 5 yet havent used a T3 for about 4 months.
Its very likely they will take T3 and balance them based on that paper data making them useless in game. One of the methods of determining if something is ima is over representation in game. I dont think T3 are overrepresented. In comparison sentry based ship, suicide cats and Archons are.
That wont stop devs turning T3 into scrap though. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2316
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 06:28:00 -
[423] - Quote
Radius Prime wrote:Nothing wrong with a ship being OP if the cost or time to build puts it back on a level playing field. It doesn't. Ever.
Oh god. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2316
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 06:35:00 -
[424] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:The devs are also consistant at showing their inability to understand EvE Good job they have you to tell them how to fix Eve.
Oh god. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1396
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 06:38:00 -
[425] - Quote
Qweasdy wrote:Radius Prime wrote: ~snipped Quotes~
Bummer
No1 will use them anymore and I already feel like the trend of making all ships the same and boring, is out of control. Diversity is what keeps a game interesting and fun imo. Nothing wrong with a ship being OP if the cost or time to build puts it back on a level playing field. Caldari can have weak cruisers but above average battle cruisers and Minmater can have strong cruisers but weak battle cruisers. You could then balance a bit by providing more versatility to weaker ships or advantage in slots or something so players can fool around. Would reflect real life military a lot more and would keep things interesting.
As it is after the rebalance all races will end up with basically the same ships with different looks in their arsenal. What is the point in having different races then? I feel like CCP is throwing all the ice cream flavours together to create a single flavour no-one would chase the ice cream truck for.
Then where's my brawling amarrian battleship?... and the apoc doesn't count cuz lazorz v0v Battleships to me are the strongest 'all around' ship types, with the large number of slots, ehp and dps you can do a lot with them, comparing them in specific circumstances to a different ship type is just totally misunderstanding their role. Sure you can say an AF has a better sig tank and better applied dps but if that AF gets webbed and scrammed down by a small gang of T1 cruisers it's toast, a megathron for example gives not a single **** that it just got webbed and scrammed by 5 T1 cruisers, it doesn't NEED to be in an optimal situation to do well, it has the base stats to handle a wide variety of situations even with the major drawbacks that comes with a big unwieldy hull. You dont compare their performance in specific scenarios but rather their specific stats outside of specific scenatios.
If a frig scan res is 600mm, a cruisers is 400, a battlecruisers is 250 and a battleships is 120 is are the differences justified in consideration of the ships abilities.
Given 1 sebo on a 600mm will take scan res to inty lock time, 400 to frig lock time, 250 to cruiser lock time but 120 to only half of battlecruiser lock time is this justified based on ship performance.
Given BC and below 1 sebo will take lock times down to the next small class is BS requiring 3 sebos for the same result balanced.
Its about asking questions based on known data not opinion or fanboism.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1396
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 06:41:00 -
[426] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:The devs are also consistant at showing their inability to understand EvE Good job they have you to tell them how to fix Eve. would beif they listened to their players. . . |
rmb berserker
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 08:22:00 -
[427] - Quote
i fly BS whenever i runed mission |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9748
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 08:32:00 -
[428] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:The devs are also consistant at showing their inability to understand EvE Good job they have you to tell them how to fix Eve. would beif they listened to their players. . .
Every single balance pass with teircide has been modified after players were given the ships to test which has resulted in very few bad or overpowered ships.
T3s are going to be getting a savage nerf to turn them into the cruisers they are meant to be. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1396
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 09:26:00 -
[429] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:The devs are also consistant at showing their inability to understand EvE Good job they have you to tell them how to fix Eve. would beif they listened to their players. . . Every single balance pass with teircide has been modified after players were given the ships to test which has resulted in very few bad or overpowered ships. T3s are going to be getting a savage nerf to turn them into the cruisers they are meant to be. Lol. Self serving biased nonsense. T3 are exactly what the devs intended them to be thus the cost, skill loss and training time as opposed to T1 cruisers.
T3 are to T1 cruisers as supercarriers are to regular carriers. It makes as much sense to turn a T3 into a T 1-+5 as it does to turn a super into slightly buffed regular carrier without a complete overhaul of skill, subs and roles.
That is something given T3 usage which indicates theyre not overly capable, that they do not need and what other ships are more in need of. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1033
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 09:38:00 -
[430] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:baltec1 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:The devs are also consistant at showing their inability to understand EvE Good job they have you to tell them how to fix Eve. would beif they listened to their players. . . Every single balance pass with teircide has been modified after players were given the ships to test which has resulted in very few bad or overpowered ships. T3s are going to be getting a savage nerf to turn them into the cruisers they are meant to be. Lol. Self serving biased nonsense. T3 are exactly what the devs intended them to be thus the cost, skill loss and training time as opposed to T1 cruisers. T3 are to T1 cruisers as supercarriers are to regular carriers. It makes as much sense to turn a T3 into a T 1-+5 as it does to turn a super into slightly buffed regular carrier without a complete overhaul of skill, subs and roles. That is something given T3 usage which indicates theyre not overly capable, that they do not need and what other ships are more in need of.
Let me explain something. What you THINK does nto care. CCP devs disagree with you, most of the inteligent community disagree with you. And no matter how much wishful thinking you have. T3 will be nerfed.... All tiercide has been opposite direction of what you believe.
You will fall... and we will be here.. to laugh at you... even more "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -įthen you are -įsurely not using enough!" |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1033
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 09:40:00 -
[431] - Quote
Qweasdy wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote: Navy Geddon
the T1 Geddon kinda sux these days
Lies horrible lies! Just because you don't have a use for it doesn't mean it sucks. EDIT: Kind of off topic but that reasoning is more or less behind every bit of rebalancing tears you will come across, "But now I can't use RLMLs on my cerberus to OMGWTFBBQPWN everything! therefore you broke my game! CCP sux!" that's about the gist of it anyway...
It is a cap drain ship.. by definition its made to SUCK "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -įthen you are -įsurely not using enough!" |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1396
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 09:58:00 -
[432] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:[quote=baltec1][quote=Infinity Ziona] Lol. Self serving biased nonsense. T3 are exactly what the devs intended them to be thus the cost, skill loss and training time as opposed to T1 cruisers.
T3 are to T1 cruisers as supercarriers are to regular carriers. It makes as much sense to turn a T3 into a T 1-+5 as it does to turn a super into slightly buffed regular carrier without a complete overhaul of skill, subs and roles.
That is something given T3 usage which indicates theyre not overly capable, that they do not need and what other ships are more in need of. Let me explain something. What you THINK does nto care. CCP devs disagree with you, most of the inteligent community disagree with you. And no matter how much wishful thinking you have. T3 will be nerfed.... All tiercide has been opposite direction of what you believe. You will fall... and we will be here.. to laugh at you... even more Let me explain something to you :)
Not much if anything is yet known about T3 rebalancing. What individual players think definitely does matter. While the devs typically ignore player feedback; enough of a backlash to unpopular changes will prevent or unnerf planned nerfs.
I havent seen any developer consensus one way or the other regarding T3. You exxagerate.
Regarding most of "the intelligent" community disagreeing with me, so the vast majority agree then?
Im all for diversity of hulls and multiple hull roles (ie fleet, gang, solo roles for T1 BS)
If T3 are nerfed the way it appears dweebs want (T3 between T1and T2 cruisers) it will be the opposite of tiericide. Simply another generic strngth ship midway between cruiser HAC. Very tier like. |
Icarius
The Wings of Maak Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 10:05:00 -
[433] - Quote
I fly bs to kill people who does not expect to see a hostile bs in their overview |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9748
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 10:07:00 -
[434] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:[quote=baltec1][quote=Infinity Ziona] Lol. Self serving biased nonsense. T3 are exactly what the devs intended them to be thus the cost, skill loss and training time as opposed to T1 cruisers.
T3 are to T1 cruisers as supercarriers are to regular carriers. It makes as much sense to turn a T3 into a T 1-+5 as it does to turn a super into slightly buffed regular carrier without a complete overhaul of skill, subs and roles.
That is something given T3 usage which indicates theyre not overly capable, that they do not need and what other ships are more in need of. Let me explain something. What you THINK does nto care. CCP devs disagree with you, most of the inteligent community disagree with you. And no matter how much wishful thinking you have. T3 will be nerfed.... All tiercide has been opposite direction of what you believe. You will fall... and we will be here.. to laugh at you... even more Let me explain something to you :) Not much if anything is yet known about T3 rebalancing. What individual players think definitely does matter. While the devs typically ignore player feedback; enough of a backlash to unpopular changes will prevent or unnerf planned nerfs. I havent seen any developer consensus one way or the other regarding T3. You exxagerate. Regarding most of "the intelligent" community disagreeing with me, so the vast majority agree then? Im all for diversity of hulls and multiple hull roles (ie fleet, gang, solo roles for T1 BS) If T3 are nerfed the way it appears dweebs want (T3 between T1and T2 cruisers) it will be the opposite of tiericide. Simply another generic strngth ship midway between cruiser HAC. Very tier like.
We know that they will be between t1 and t2 cruisers, either on par with faction or slightly better. This means a hefty nerf and no chance of them keeping the battleship tanks. CCP have stated that they will be getting hit by a sledge hammer in most areas with improvements to the underpowered sub systems. They are going to be highly adaptable cruisers and not highly manoeuvrable pocket battleships the size of a cruiser. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Kajaastas
Death By Design
8
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 10:19:00 -
[435] - Quote
I don't know maybe it could just be that unlike OP individuals do exist that enjoy playing more than 10% of the games content . Sure in carebear land many superior options exist but I would like to you to point out a ship that does as much dps, with as large a buffer/resists for as cheap when using logistics during pvp.
PS. Mach, Vindi, Navy variants, black ops bs's. Nuff said. |
Qweasdy
Absolute Massive Destruction Cult of War
54
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 10:50:00 -
[436] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: Let me explain something to you :)
Not much if anything is yet known about T3 rebalancing. What individual players think definitely does matter. While the devs typically ignore player feedback; enough of a backlash to unpopular changes will prevent or unnerf planned nerfs.
I havent seen any developer consensus one way or the other regarding T3. You exxagerate.
Regarding most of "the intelligent" community disagreeing with me, so the vast majority agree then?
Im all for diversity of hulls and multiple hull roles (ie fleet, gang, solo roles for T1 BS)
If T3 are nerfed the way it appears dweebs want (T3 between T1and T2 cruisers) it will be the opposite of tiericide. Simply another generic strngth ship midway between cruiser HAC. Very tier like.
How is that the opposite of tiericide? As it stands right now T3s are very clearly in a different 'tier' to all the other cruisers, with ehp, dps, and damage application being in some cases several times greater than T1, T2 and faction cruisers performing a similar role.
And inb4 the bullshit about the on paper figures not being representative of the real ingame effectiveness I'll give the real ingame example of a proteus facetanking my 1500 dps vindicator for 10 minutes... buffer fit... and only getting to 1/3rd armour... |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4248
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 11:36:00 -
[437] - Quote
Carriers are crap because they can't solo and have worse stats than cruisers. You can't even grease them up good enough with K-Y jelly to get them to jump through gates. WTF is up with that? I like to fly carriers and I pay my sub but they are inferior for soloing so this must be fixed. Carriers should have built in projectable cyno so I odn't need a cyno alt to solo. CCP should fix that because I demand it, therefore it would be good for the game....
Hey guys, did i Infinity Ziona Carriers well enough here, or should I Infinity their Ziona's a little bit more? |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1396
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 12:03:00 -
[438] - Quote
Qweasdy wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: Let me explain something to you :)
Not much if anything is yet known about T3 rebalancing. What individual players think definitely does matter. While the devs typically ignore player feedback; enough of a backlash to unpopular changes will prevent or unnerf planned nerfs.
I havent seen any developer consensus one way or the other regarding T3. You exxagerate.
Regarding most of "the intelligent" community disagreeing with me, so the vast majority agree then?
Im all for diversity of hulls and multiple hull roles (ie fleet, gang, solo roles for T1 BS)
If T3 are nerfed the way it appears dweebs want (T3 between T1and T2 cruisers) it will be the opposite of tiericide. Simply another generic strngth ship midway between cruiser HAC. Very tier like.
How is that the opposite of tiericide? As it stands right now T3s are very clearly in a different 'tier' to all the other cruisers, with ehp, dps, and damage application being in some cases several times greater than T1, T2 and faction cruisers performing a similar role. And inb4 the bullshit about the on paper figures not being representative of the real ingame effectiveness I'll give the real ingame example of a proteus facetanking my 1500 dps vindicator for 10 minutes... buffer fit... and only getting to 1/3rd armour... Of course theyre in a different tier theyre Tech Three ffs.
As for facetanking a 1500 dps Vindi for 5 minute the issue is likely not a T3 problem its a large gun / sig / speed / tracking problem, depending on the situation, gang links / boosters / tracking disruptors its possible for large turret based shipstobe rendered useless against smaller targets. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2326
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 12:15:00 -
[439] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Of course theyre in a different tier theyre Tech Three ffs. Which belongs between T1 and T2. Oh god. |
Rastafarian God
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 12:29:00 -
[440] - Quote
We had a slow day at work and quess what I spent a good hour reading ;)
I get a kick out of how people forget that damn near everything in EVE has a counter. If you know what you are going up against you can almost always fit a ship to counter it regardless of what is fighting what. Considering that, these fits can still happen by chance.
Also.. 1V1 a BS will kill a Cruiser more then half the time.
To answer the OP's bulllcrap question. I dont have favorite fits or ships since it all depends on the use but overall my favorite BS is an Abaddon and my favorite BC is a Harby. At least within the same race like asked. If I was somehow able to magically fight myself in those two ships.. the battleship would win every time.
The OP asked why people fly BS's, and she (although probably he) got there answer 10 fold. There are a LOT of reasons to fly s battleship and the OP was told those reasons. Although apparently the OP has a hard on against BS's and just is not willing to accept an honest answer.
Also as far as battleship PVP goes. Close range guns,a point, and a web are basically default. Considering this, your speed tank means ****. Assuming the person you are fighting is not a noob. You will more often then not have to put yourself into a position that will allow the BS to warp away in order to kill a T1 BS in a T3,. granted all kinds of things can happen and that is why I love this game, but we are talking majorities, and what i refer to is most common.
Not to mention that a T1 BS cost a bit less then a T3 and if you are doing PVP you already have plans on replacing said ship. At least you should. If you do not, you are doing it wrong. Ive actually gotton to the point that I refuse to fly T3's because there is almost always something cheaper that does what a T3 can do.
If you want to ask a REAL question.. why the hell would you fly a strategic cruiser over something else?
|
|
Ice Eagle
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.08 12:41:00 -
[441] - Quote
surly someone remembers the BS glory days when they where the kings!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOb1aj6XFfg
bring it back i say |
Tajic Kaundur
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 19:38:00 -
[442] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Of course theyre in a different tier theyre Tech Three ffs. Which belongs between T1 and T2. Why?
Like, I get that T3s are blatantly overpowered at the moment. They absolutely need a nerf, they're probably some of, if not the, best subcaps at the moment.
But why between T1 and T2? T3s take more training than T2s (generally), cost more (though this isn't usually a factor for CCP), and are inherently riskier to fly due to the SP loss. Why should that put them between T1 and T2?
I can see a need for something between normal cruisers and HACs, for example, but I thought that's what faction cruisers were for.
I'm honestly confused why "between T1 and T2" is the sweet spot, rather than "slightly above T2" rather than the current "if you can fly this, do it" they are right now. |
Deunan Tenephais
70
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 21:20:00 -
[443] - Quote
Tajic Kaundur wrote:I'm honestly confused why "between T1 and T2" is the sweet spot, rather than "slightly above T2" rather than the current "if you can fly this, do it" they are right now. T1 are supposed to be an all around backbone, not optimized but flexible enough to be reliable. T2 are specialized in their own roles, T3 cannot be better at niche roles than T2 or they simply invalidate the ships' purpose. It looks like some people want to make T3 kind of a middleground between T1 and T2, but I fear there is not enough space in there to cram them in. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
18812
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 21:29:00 -
[444] - Quote
Tajic Kaundur wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Of course theyre in a different tier theyre Tech Three ffs. Which belongs between T1 and T2. Why? Because that was kind of the intent all along: their strength was adaptability, not raw power. And because the point of T2 is specialisation in one area, with very little adaptability.
So T3s will be worse than T2 in any given task for which there is a specialised T2 ship, but they will still offer an upgrade over the baseline of T1. Like now, they'll have about the same training requirement as T2, but what you'll be buying with that time is a jack-of-all-trades rather than master at one. GĒ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GėķvGėķ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GĒ„
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
129
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 23:28:00 -
[445] - Quote
Deunan Tenephais wrote:Tajic Kaundur wrote:I'm honestly confused why "between T1 and T2" is the sweet spot, rather than "slightly above T2" rather than the current "if you can fly this, do it" they are right now. T1 are supposed to be an all around backbone, not optimized but flexible enough to be reliable. T2 are specialized in their own roles, T3 cannot be better at niche roles than T2 or they simply invalidate the ships' purpose. It looks like some people want to make T3 kind of a middleground between T1 and T2, but I fear there is not enough space in there to cram them in.
Nor would anyone spend all that SP training for T3s and fly a ship that actually kills SP when you die if it was just a wishy washy T2.
A nerf on T3s would necessarily have to include a rework of the skill tree and probably a skill refund for people with existing skills.
That would also fit with the CCP new policy that all ships should be flyable by noobs with minimal training. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
962
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 23:47:00 -
[446] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:Deunan Tenephais wrote:Tajic Kaundur wrote:I'm honestly confused why "between T1 and T2" is the sweet spot, rather than "slightly above T2" rather than the current "if you can fly this, do it" they are right now. T1 are supposed to be an all around backbone, not optimized but flexible enough to be reliable. T2 are specialized in their own roles, T3 cannot be better at niche roles than T2 or they simply invalidate the ships' purpose. It looks like some people want to make T3 kind of a middleground between T1 and T2, but I fear there is not enough space in there to cram them in. Nor would anyone spend all that SP training for T3s and fly a ship that actually kills SP when you die if it was just a wishy washy T2. Ideally the would bridge the gap between different specialties combining into ships that have their own appeal without directly competing. A hard trick to pull off, but probably a worthwhile goal.
Hasikan Miallok wrote:A nerf on T3s would necessarily have to include a rework of the skill tree and probably a skill refund for people with existing skills. That would also fit with the CCP new policy that all ships should be flyable by noobs with minimal training. Where was that stated? |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1396
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 02:03:00 -
[447] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:[quote=Infinity Ziona][quote=baltec1] Let me explain something. What you THINK does nto care. CCP devs disagree with you, most of the inteligent community disagree with you. And no matter how much wishful thinking you have. T3 will be nerfed.... All tiercide has been opposite direction of what you believe.
You will fall... and we will be here.. to laugh at you... even more Let me explain something to you :) Not much if anything is yet known about T3 rebalancing. What individual players think definitely does matter. While the devs typically ignore player feedback; enough of a backlash to unpopular changes will prevent or unnerf planned nerfs. I havent seen any developer consensus one way or the other regarding T3. You exxagerate. Regarding most of "the intelligent" community disagreeing with me, so the vast majority agree then? Im all for diversity of hulls and multiple hull roles (ie fleet, gang, solo roles for T1 BS) If T3 are nerfed the way it appears dweebs want (T3 between T1and T2 cruisers) it will be the opposite of tiericide. Simply another generic strngth ship midway between cruiser HAC. Very tier like. We know that they will be between t1 and t2 cruisers, either on par with faction or slightly better. This means a hefty nerf and no chance of them keeping the battleship tanks. CCP have stated that they will be getting hit by a sledge hammer in most areas with improvements to the underpowered sub systems. They are going to be highly adaptable cruisers and not highly manoeuvrable pocket battleships the size of a cruiser. You know nothing. It's all speculation. The difference between T2 and T3 is close minimal. Who would spend 500 mill on a cruiser that tanks somewhere between a Thorax and a Deimos. Especially given the skill loss of T3. Hopefully devs are not that ********.
But yeah unless it's on Sisi being tested, in a dev blog or in patch notes you know as much as I do. Which is nothing. One dev may have expressed an idea but afaik the development of EvE is a team thing subject to a specific development process. |
Tajic Kaundur
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 02:13:00 -
[448] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Because that was kind of the intent all along: their strength was adaptability, not raw power. And because the point of T2 is specialisation in one area, with very little adaptability.
Makes sense. Would separate T3 roles work? Or is there just not enough design space left in the cruiser size to pull that off?
Like, T3s are the only cloaky/nulli cruisers, if built right, for instance. Rather than trying to squeeze them into "Faction cruisers, but different!", is there any other real options?
Personally I'd rather see T3 cruisers have their own special roles rather than "this is just every faction cruiser at once", but maybe that's just me. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8250
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 02:38:00 -
[449] - Quote
Tajic Kaundur wrote:Personally I'd rather see T3 cruisers have their own special roles rather than "this is just every faction cruiser at once", but maybe that's just me. No, it isn't. My EVE Videos |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13521
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 04:36:00 -
[450] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tajic Kaundur wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Of course theyre in a different tier theyre Tech Three ffs. Which belongs between T1 and T2. Why? Because that was kind of the intent all along: their strength was adaptability, not raw power. And because the point of T2 is specialisation in one area, with very little adaptability. So T3s will be worse than T2 in any given task for which there is a specialised T2 ship, but they will still offer an upgrade over the baseline of T1. Like now, they'll have about the same training requirement as T2, but what you'll be buying with that time is a jack-of-all-trades rather than master at one.
The problem with this post is that almost everything in it is completely wrong.
Let's start with the "intent" argument. To hell with "intent". There are multiple instances of ships having their "intended" role reworked - starting with the mining frigates an moving on. Who remembers the Sacrilege as a laser boat now? "Intent" is a meaningless reason to alter game balance. It was originally intended that Amarr ships were to be technically superior to the other races, this being balanced by them costing somewhat more.
Then there's the implicit assumption that T2 ships aren't better than T3s in their specialities right now. Orly? Name 3 T2 cruisers who don't exceed T3s in their specific specialisation. Cerb? Long range missile chucker with longer range than the Tengu. Huginn? Long range webber with longer range than the Loki. Ishtar? Specialised drone boat with more drones than the Proteus. On so on. I'll give you the Zealot, and maybe the Sacri. And ofc the Eagle but the Eagle is terrible anyway. But in general, T3s don't exceed T2 specialisations.
Compared to HACs and Recons, what T3s bring is a superior platform: they're tougher, have better resists, more EHP and a 3rd rig slot. But when I challenge people to provide examples of T3s making T2 cruisers that would be used if the T3s didn't exist* obsolete, actual examples are hard to come by.
And finally the worst of all, the "jack of all trades" thing. Versatility. Let me tell you about versatility. It's bullshit. It's a perfectly worthless reason to spend good ISK on a T3. Let me tell you who's going to spend ISK on T3s that can't do anything better than some other ship: idiots and no-one, that's who. Because "versatility" flies out of the window the second you undock, at which point you're as rigidly locked into your ship config as any HAC pilot. The only advantage you might - briefly - enjoy is your opponents wondering briefly whether your Legion is a crappy laser boat or a crappy HAM boat while they own your "jack of all trades, master of blowing up" T3.
And let's not forget the other stumbling block in the path of "versatility" - rigs. So you want to modify your "versatile" Tengu from a missile boat to a rail boat, do you? Pity about those T2 missile rigs you just fitted eh? I guess you'll just need to have 2 Tengu hulls after all. At which point, why bother?
Versatility would only be a worthwhile selling point if there were restrictions on supplying new ships, or if there was a limit to how many ships we could own or store. There aren't.
The only possible mechanism that would make versatility remotely worthwhile would be if T3s could reconfigure themselves (and I mean change subs, rigs and mods) while in space. I do not advise holding your breath for this one.
*Comedy fleets don't count
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |