Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3530
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:57:43 -
[121] - Quote
As one who owns all four T3s, this set of changes looks good to me. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
674
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:44:23 -
[122] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:now if only the prop mod bonus affected only 10mn classes. No, 100mn meta is good and completely balanced. It doesn't scale well and small gang/solo pvp has never been an issue.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
906
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:56:50 -
[123] - Quote
Prospector Monk wrote:Signature Radius: 150 (-15) Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening
+5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP)
Well I guess the lvl 5 mission runner are pleased?
AFAIK (haven't run the numbers) its just to offset the loss of passive regen from the loss of overall HP as its quite a big hit to PVE passive shield tanked setups - don't think you get anything extra out of it. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2736
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:10:02 -
[124] - Quote
My question is, is this slight nerf to the tanking capacities really so critical that these changes can't wait for the full balance pass of T3 cruisers? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
808
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:12:13 -
[125] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:i honestly can't help feel that the irrelevant 3% regen bonus and the extra 2.5% shaved off the tengu defensive sub is bullshit.
just nerf them all to 7.5%.
why because you don't know how to fit around regen?
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
808
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:13:03 -
[126] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:My question is, is this slight nerf to the tanking capacities really so critical that these changes can't wait for the full balance pass of T3 cruisers?
I would rather they slowly tweak the subs one at a time rather than do a blanket pass where they miss something this is a much more controlled way to do it
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
269
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:25:23 -
[127] - Quote
Looks a good start. Fixes the main issue with T3s as a whole, combined with some other tweaks they should still be strong ships to use without dwarfing what HACs/Command ships can do in 99% of scenarios. |
Talrath
Shifting Sands Trader Cartel Bleak Horizon Alliance.
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:25:47 -
[128] - Quote
So you want to nerf T3s...sure, then you need to start lowering their price and removing the risk of losing skillpoints -_- or else no one will fly them, cause the risk (Price and skillpoints) just arent worth it... We are spending a lot of isk on these ships and taking the risk of losing skillpoints cause they are "extremely powerful ships" if you take that away without giving something in return (like removing skill loss) why would anyone fly them?? I fly all T3s and dont see the logic in nerfing the tengu more than the others and adding some useless shield regen bonus...like thats gonna help...not everyone uses passive tanked tengus....! |
Lugh Crow-Slave
809
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:44:40 -
[129] - Quote
Talrath wrote:So you want to nerf T3s...sure, then you need to start lowering their price and removing the risk of losing skillpoints -_- or else no one will fly them, cause the risk (Price and skillpoints) just arent worth it... We are spending a lot of isk on these ships and taking the risk of losing skillpoints cause they are "extremely powerful ships" if you take that away without giving something in return (like removing skill loss) why would anyone fly them?? I fly all T3s and dont see the logic in nerfing the tengu more than the others and adding some useless shield regen bonus...like thats gonna help...not everyone uses passive tanked tengus....!
then don't use that sub that is the buffer sub getting that not the active one
also active tank shield fits do benefit for shield recharge rate
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
906
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:48:15 -
[130] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:My question is, is this slight nerf to the tanking capacities really so critical that these changes can't wait for the full balance pass of T3 cruisers?
It is an interesting question. |
|
Dave Stark
7401
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:50:34 -
[131] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Dave Stark wrote:i honestly can't help feel that the irrelevant 3% regen bonus and the extra 2.5% shaved off the tengu defensive sub is bullshit.
just nerf them all to 7.5%. why because you don't know how to fit around regen?
no. |
Tineoidea Asanari
Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion
37
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:10:01 -
[132] - Quote
Talrath wrote:So you want to nerf T3s...sure, then you need to start lowering their price and removing the risk of losing skillpoints -_- or else no one will fly them, cause the risk (Price and skillpoints) just arent worth it...
Compare the T3s with other ships with that pricetag: Those are mainly pirate or navy battleships. T3s dont only fit a far superior tank (in addition to a signature that is ridiculous), they also hit far better, align and warp faster, etc. pp. - long story short, they are preferred in every thinkable way and the only downside are the 4 days of additional trainingtime if you lose one. You dont lose T3 that often (unless you dont know what you do), so I'd call that pretty balanced.
With railguns getting nerfed (hitting both the aweful railgu and railprot doctrines) and T3s rebalanced, it might allow a new meta consisting of mainly battleship fleets crushing each others head instead of slippery petes and Ishtars cowarding everywhere. |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome.
355
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:26:11 -
[133] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:TheMercenaryKing wrote:now if only the prop mod bonus affected only 10mn classes. a more sensible way to fix this would be to just completely prevent people from fitting oversized or undersized prop mods
I dont have a problem with oversized mods, I just think the bonus and oversized combined is too powerful. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
907
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:43:52 -
[134] - Quote
Tineoidea Asanari wrote:Talrath wrote:So you want to nerf T3s...sure, then you need to start lowering their price and removing the risk of losing skillpoints -_- or else no one will fly them, cause the risk (Price and skillpoints) just arent worth it... Compare the T3s with other ships with that pricetag: Those are mainly pirate or navy battleships. T3s dont only fit a far superior tank (in addition to a signature that is ridiculous), they also hit far better, align and warp faster, etc. pp. - long story short, they are preferred in every thinkable way and the only downside are the 4 days of additional trainingtime if you lose one. You dont lose T3 that often (unless you dont know what you do), so I'd call that pretty balanced. With railguns getting nerfed (hitting both the aweful railgu and railprot doctrines) and T3s rebalanced, it might allow a new meta consisting of mainly battleship fleets crushing each others head instead of slippery petes and Ishtars cowarding everywhere.
Battleships still need a touch before people would really want to use them like that mind - after awhile the warp speed, etc. becomes mind numbing.
The "problem" with T3s IMO has always been that and, and, and, and factor rather than any one specific attribute being a problem (even EHP) I don't personally mind a T3 having a faction BS style tank or better but in no way should that be combined with HAC like mobility and signature.
Strategic cruisers should be powerful but there should always be a choice and compromise. |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1140
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:47:36 -
[135] - Quote
Rowells wrote:I believe the highest non-belonged set up I've seen on tengu reached 170 maybe.
Currently a Tengu can easily reach 340k EHP using a T2 fit.
To repost: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5526808#post5526808
And to summarize the above linked post for the lazy: The Tengu nerf is completely insufficient without a total rebalance on the slot layout and engineering subsystems.
btw, HMLs still suck.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Unamed Vyvorant
Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:24:44 -
[136] - Quote
T3s Vs FracBS -less tank -1.5X less dps -skill loss -less cap -less slots (vindi have 5 mid-slots proteus only 3) -less anti-jam -less optimal -MJD? -target count -lock range -fitting problems -learning subsis skills in 5 takes over 20 days
+agility +warp speed +scan res +mwd speed (20% more then Bs) +weapon sig rate +sig size +mass and why?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15273
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:32:13 -
[137] - Quote
Unamed Vyvorant wrote:T3s Vs FracBS -less tank -1.5X less dps -skill loss -less cap -less slots (vindi have 5 mid-slots proteus only 3) -less anti-jam -less optimal -MJD? -target count -lock range -fitting problems -learning subsis skills in 5 takes over 20 days
+agility +warp speed +scan res +mwd speed (20% more then Bs) +weapon sig rate +sig size +mass and why?
The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn
Querschlaeger
11
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:33:34 -
[138] - Quote
No bonus on shield transfer and remote rep range on the adaptive shielding / augmentor? I hoped for 20% or 30% per skill level. I'm sad now. :(
eHP nerf looks fine to me. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1098
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:33:55 -
[139] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:My question is, is this slight nerf to the tanking capacities really so critical that these changes can't wait for the full balance pass of T3 cruisers? I would rather they slowly tweak the subs one at a time rather than do a blanket pass where they miss something this is a much more controlled way to do it
they always miss something might aswell get as much bang for your buck as you can
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1098
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:35:03 -
[140] - Quote
Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn wrote:No bonus on shield transfer and remote rep range on the adaptive shielding / augmentor? I hoped for 20% or 30% per skill level. I'm sad now. :(
eHP nerf looks fine to me.
assuming they remove rigs then the HP is fine otherwise they will still be better than bc tanks, would be nice too see the T2 resists removed aswell its a must
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
871
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:39:13 -
[141] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Alundil wrote: Clearly you haven't seen what's typically flown in fleets where the most egregious issues are most 'abused'. There are no big proteus fleets. It's not something that has ever caught on, ever. Can't be that egregious.
Nerf the tengu and you will see them. Me and bullet don't see eye to eye on many things but on this he is spot on. The proteus is seriously out of whack in terms of tank compared to any cruiser and puts just about every batttleship to shame. Currently the bare hull gets: 125 shield EHP 125 armour EHP 2.32k hull EHP That's nothing I hear you cry, well yea buts that's before we slap on a subsystem. With the Augmented plating we get: 6.1K Shield EHP 14.9k EHP 2.32k EHP That's a little more than twice as much armour as a phobos, the supposedly superheavy cruiser for tackling titans.
I agree that with a Tengu nerf others will possibly see some more use. But in the current use cases for T3, comparing them to any other cruiser is destined for disappointment because the have overshadowed all of them in one way or another(s). Comparing them to a Phobos, for example, tackling a titan (while I know what point you're trying to make) isn't terribly relevant since they are different tools for different purposes even though they share the same hull size.
I don't mean to imply that T3 ships weren't, or aren't, in need of tweaking/balancing/iteration/whatever verb you choose. Simply pointing out that in the most typical PVP configuration and usage of the hull type (Tengu in 00 being rails and heavy buffer tank / Proteus and Legion in wspace being blasters/HAM and heavy buffer tank / Loki in wspace being webs and heavy buffer tank) show the Tengu typically far tankier than the Prot or the Legion and definitely the Loki. This is based on 3 damage mods and T2 setup. One needs to faction tank the Prot and Legion to get near the same EHP as a Tengu while still keeping the damage mod count the same and neither have the even close to similar mobility or projection.
To those saying "...proteus with >160k ehp...."; Yes it's very easy to do. Trivial once faction mods are thrown into the mix. But if the comparison is with a T2 RailGu with 3 damage mods (and that's the comparison I was working from) then you won't see a Prot or a Legion that meets it pound for pound.
As for the >500k ehp proteus comment - sure it's doable but that setup won't be doing much dps at all and is something rarely, if ever, seen in the wild and therefore pointless to consider in the discussion. It's possible to get a proteus up over 1 million ehp (wh effects, slaves, boosts officer mods) and but no one in their right mind will do it so it really doesn't matter.
That aside, CCP has stated that they will rebalance T3 hulls/subs and this is the first step and we're all along for the ride. It'll be interesting to see where they end up. Hopefully the changes still to be announced don't place them below T2 cruiser hulls in typical use cases as then there's less reason to use them over the T2 hulls making the cost and sp/time investment less useful but that remains to be seen.
I'm right behind you
|
Unamed Vyvorant
Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:47:37 -
[142] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Unamed Vyvorant wrote:T3s Vs FracBS
The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?! |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2736
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:48:24 -
[143] - Quote
Unamed Vyvorant wrote:baltec1 wrote:Unamed Vyvorant wrote:T3s Vs FracBS
The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?! Cost is not a balancing factor. |
Unamed Vyvorant
Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:58:54 -
[144] - Quote
z wrote:The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?![/quote] Cost is not a balancing factor.[/quote] Backline is balancing factor?, Then why is the opinion nullcitizens is balancing factor?! |
Blodhgarm Dethahal
Absolutely Certain
188
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:26:09 -
[145] - Quote
Unamed Vyvorant wrote:z wrote:The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?! Cost is not a balancing factor.[/quote] Backline is balancing factor?, Then why is the opinion nullcitizens is balancing factor?![/quote]
Cost is not considered in balance because ultimately price is set by the player base and the free market. As such prices change over time due to popularity, ship practicality, and the logistics in building it.
What IS considered in balancing is the fact that this is the only ship in the game that causes you to loose skillpoints on the ship's destruction.
-Bl+¦d
http://bloodytravels.blogspot.com/ -á-- My travels through space.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15286
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:19:38 -
[146] - Quote
Unamed Vyvorant wrote:baltec1 wrote:Unamed Vyvorant wrote:T3s Vs FracBS
The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?!
Cost means nothing in terms of balance.
Its a cruiser, so thats where it needs to be in terms of its stats. Not overshadowing battleships.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Talrath
Shifting Sands Trader Cartel Bleak Horizon Alliance.
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:52:34 -
[147] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Unamed Vyvorant wrote:baltec1 wrote:Unamed Vyvorant wrote:T3s Vs FracBS
The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?! Cost means nothing in terms of balance. Its a cruiser, so thats where it needs to be in terms of its stats. Not overshadowing battleships.
So you are saying that a 500 mil cruiser shud be weaker than a 50 mil battlecruiser? |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
268
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:06:37 -
[148] - Quote
The loki subsystem which lowers sig radius could use some love. It is seldom used and this balance change offers nothing to help it.
Also, if battleship EHP were increased it would help a lot with balancing strategic cruisers relative to other fleet concepts. Currently the strategic cruisers are more mobile, apply damage better and are more survivable relative to their heavier cousins. If battleships were to have much higher raw hp totals the strategic cruisers would be in a more interesting place. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15290
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:26:00 -
[149] - Quote
Talrath wrote:
So you are saying that a 500 mil cruiser shud be weaker than a 50 mil battlecruiser?
The 5-10 traillion isk federate megathron is weaker than a vindicator. So yea, a cruiser should never be better at being a battlecruiser than a battlecruiser.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1100
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:31:29 -
[150] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Talrath wrote:
So you are saying that a 500 mil cruiser shud be weaker than a 50 mil battlecruiser?
The 5-10 traillion isk federate megathron is weaker than a vindicator. So yea, a cruiser should never be better at being a battlecruiser than a battlecruiser.
excellent point , T3's are too expensive though atm, removing rigs would help cut off a good chunk, but making the subs cheap is where the cost needs too be reduced vastly and the nice side effect would be the increased versatility of being able too carry and change subs easier, and cheaper.
building the fittings and HP,pg etc into the hull would also help speed up the changing of configs.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |