Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Portiko
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 20:34:29 -
[31] - Quote
Leto Aramaus wrote:Quote:there's no point in balancing T3s [because I think the game is so unbalanced right now, that it needs massive overhaul of all ship stats] If that's your opinion, I just disagree completely. Understand? My opinion is that T3s aren't a harmful entity in the current meta, not like they might have been perceived to be in the past. I feel power creep has progressed enough that the OP stats of the T3 cruisers are not that important anymore. No one complains about OP T3s cruisers anymore. The only problem with T3 cruisers is that they are outdated and unloved. They could use a little polish with subs, maybe a few imaginative role bonuses. |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
325
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 20:43:07 -
[32] - Quote
They have already done T3's. I would personally like to have something done with Black Ops battleships. |
Leto Aramaus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
135
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 20:56:59 -
[33] - Quote
Portiko wrote: My opinion is that T3s aren't a harmful entity in the current meta, not like they might have been perceived to be in the past. I feel power creep has progressed enough that the OP stats of the T3 cruisers are not that important anymore. No one complains about OP T3s cruisers anymore. The only problem with T3 cruisers is that they are outdated and unloved. They could use a little polish with subs, maybe a few imaginative role bonuses.
Yea once again I completely, totally disagree there. I just can't wrap my head around that opinion at all. We could go through EFT numbers, 1 ship at a time, where I list the Batleship-level EHP that T3's can achieve, while still doing HAC-level DPS (often with better projection and application). I think this is bad.
A brief explanation is that I think T3s make T2 cruisers (HACS and Recons, think web Lokis and neut Legions), Battlecruisers, and Battleships obsolete.
In general, with a sensible fit, T3s don't get quite as much EHP as a sensibly fit Battleship, but it's close, and can easily exceed BS EHP with bling and coward-tank fitting.
They have lower sig radius than BS, BC, and some cruisers.
They do DPS to rival HACs and BCs, often with better projection and application. And they can overheat much longer, making their DPS even higher.
So in short they are better in almost every way, or at least in summary, they are a better choice than any of the 3 ship classes mentioned for fleet doctrines. Currently, as far as I can tell, Proteus, Tengu, and Legion are the best supcapital fleet doctrines available, rivaled on by Ishtars, and only because Ishtars have the unique Sentry method of applying DPS and being able to avoid being shot at.
I think T3s are insanely OP, and a dumb class that should have never been put in EVE.
If you want, tell me why you think I'm wrong, and they're cool/good for the game. But that was my brief attempt to explain why I think they are OP and dumb AF.
The UI update we deserve
|
Portiko
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 21:43:48 -
[34] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:They have already done T3's. qft |
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Easily Excited
104
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 23:06:33 -
[35] - Quote
And the motherloving Muninn! Give it some love! |
Kenrailae
Fallen Reich
362
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 03:49:36 -
[36] - Quote
Please halp nidhoggur :( t3's do seriously need rebalanced. Until they are everything will remain in a limboesque state.
The Law is a point of View
|
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems
357
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 05:52:50 -
[37] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Portiko wrote:The way I see it is; the point of rebalancing is just to clean up all the mess so you can see what you're dealing with before you start work. It's just the prep work and now it's time to start beating like bad parenting. Screw this 'minor changes' crap. It's a waste of time at the moment.
For a start, balancing the ship meta is a waste of time anyway if you don't have a clear vision of what that meta should be. Secondly, when it takes several years to rebalance the meta, releasing updates along the way, the meta changes as the game does, so the thinking behind rebalancing changes too. How are you supposed to know what the meta should be if you're constantly making changes to the way the meta evolves? You're undoing the work you've already done.
That's why many ships that were exciting when they were first tiericided are no longer exciting. Because other ships became tiericided (or new sips introduced) and they were even more exciting. We're back to square one, only now things are a lot better, but still not where they need to be. Nowhere close and CCP doesn't even have a vision for where we should be. Even if they had a vision, it would be something boring and homogenous. They don't need a perfect end result. It's good enough to know what you don't want and adapt your changes from there. It's a continuous process. Ishtar is a perfect example. Lots of smaller tweaks to it rather than a sledgehammer once and done.
Id prefer the sledgehammer.
Pretty sure the ishtar has earned it. |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems
357
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 05:55:22 -
[38] - Quote
Agondray wrote:the rebalances will never end
That's kind of the point.... |
James Baboli
Novablasters
887
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 06:31:20 -
[39] - Quote
Portiko wrote:Leto Aramaus wrote:Quote:there's no point in balancing T3s [because I think the game is so unbalanced right now, that it needs massive overhaul of all ship stats] If that's your opinion, I just disagree completely. Understand? My opinion is that T3s aren't a harmful entity in the current meta, not like they might have been perceived to be in the past. I feel power creep has progressed enough that the OP stats of the T3 cruisers are not that important anymore. No one complains about OP T3s cruisers anymore. The only problem with T3 cruisers is that they are outdated and unloved. They could use a little polish with subs, maybe a few imaginative role bonuses. There are fewer complaints because CCP went and hit the worst point that was being complained about some, and promised more rebalances.
They still out perform HACs when fit up like HACS, are much better combat recons than recons, can be the only cloaky nullified ships, scan as well as t2 scan frigs with more room for loot, and cloaky capability (and possibly nullification), have tanks battleships envy, etc.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers
135
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 06:43:47 -
[40] - Quote
Leto Aramaus wrote: 1. Yea once again I completely, totally disagree there. I just can't wrap my head around that opinion at all. We could go through EFT numbers, 1 ship at a time, where I list the Batleship-level EHP that T3's can achieve, while still doing HAC-level DPS (often with better projection and application). I think this is bad.
2. A brief explanation is that I think T3s make T2 cruisers (HACS and Recons, think web Lokis and neut Legions), Battlecruisers, and Battleships obsolete.
3. In general, with a sensible fit, T3s don't get quite as much EHP as a sensibly fit Battleship, but it's close, and can easily exceed BS EHP with bling and coward-tank fitting.
4. They have lower sig radius than BS, BC, and some cruisers.
5. They do DPS to rival HACs and BCs, often with better projection and application. And they can overheat much longer, making their DPS even higher.
6. So in short they are better in almost every way, or at least in summary, they are a better choice than any of the 3 ship classes mentioned for fleet doctrines. Currently, as far as I can tell, Proteus, Tengu, and Legion are the best supcapital fleet doctrines available, rivaled on by Ishtars, and only because Ishtars have the unique Sentry method of applying DPS and being able to avoid being shot at.
7. I think T3s are insanely OP, and a dumb class that should have never been put in EVE.
1. Yep that need fixing, even T3 pilots say that.
2. No they don't. They are different tools for different tasks with a different price tag. I fly T3, HAC, BC and Recons in almost equal proportions (BC a little less).
3. Again this is the one nerf they should get - CCP is on it.
4. They are cruisers after all what do you expect? As long as they have cruisers sig and their buffer tank is nerfed it's ok.
5. They cost 10 times what a BCs does and offten do less dmg (harbi vs laser legion). They cost twice more that a HAC. Do you cry because a BC has more buffer and dps than HAC? No? Why not? Do you imlply that all ~100 combat shpis in EVE should be equal in power?
6. This was said so many times that I feel strange telling you this again. Carrier spider tank fleets are also op. So are Ishtars. Why everybody is not flying carriers (price, risks, skill if you can't tell). But everyone flies Ishtar so maybe go bark that tree.
7. Are you often shot by a T3 or can't you afford one? Where does this rage come from? Again if were right everybody would fly T3. They clearly don't. |
|
Rawmeat Mary
Hunter Killers. Forsaken Asylum
59
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 12:23:09 -
[41] - Quote
Degnar Oskold wrote:Rawmeat Mary wrote: Aaaand CCP just anounced rebalance on Black Ops and a buff on the CBC class, both t1 and navy, hopefully it will help equilibrate the BS - BC - CR foodchain.
Where??? From the last 07 Metashow, transcription quote from tmdc: Also discussed on the ship front was upcoming balance changes for the combat classes of battlecruisers. Based on their tone and word choice, a buff will be coming to these ships soon to bring back some of their former glory. The changes will be coming in July, with more details to be released. Combined with the missile changes, your FC might just say yes when you ask to bring your Drake.
Link.
'If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins onto their clothing.
And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.'
Yeah, we're like that.
|
Kenrailae
Fallen Reich
363
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 12:23:29 -
[42] - Quote
Cassius invictus wrote:
1. Yep that need fixing, even T3 pilots say that.
2. No they don't. They are different tools for different tasks with a different price tag. I fly T3, HAC, BC and Recons in almost equal proportions (BC a little less).
3. Again this is the one nerf they should get - CCP is on it.
4. They are cruisers after all what do you expect? As long as they have cruisers sig and their buffer tank is nerfed it's ok.
5. They cost 10 times what a BCs does and offten do less dmg (harbi vs laser legion). They cost twice more that a HAC. Do you cry because a BC has more buffer and dps than HAC? No? Why not? Do you imlply that all ~100 combat shpis in EVE should be equal in power? T3 is stronger that T2, T2 is stronger than T1. Why can't people accept that fact is beyond me.
6. This was said so many times that I feel strange telling you this again. Carrier spider tank fleets are also op. So are Ishtars. Why everybody is not flying carriers (price, risks, skill if you can't tell)? But everyone flies Ishtar so maybe go bark that tree.
7. Are you often shot by a T3 or can't you afford one? Where does this rage come from? Again if you were right everybody would fly T3. They clearly don't. I fly mostly T3 gangs and you know what is my favorite ship recenlty? A Vindicator.
This may be the least sensible post I read today.... t3's are broken. You can fit hac/Bc level dps, have the ewar range of a recon, the raw buffer of a bs, and sig of a cruiser all on one fit. If you do actually fly t3 fleets, you know that is truth. How is that not op and instead different tools for different jobs? My Market memory may be off but last I checked a Bc hull was about 50/60 mil. A t3 hull with subs about 350/450, depending on the subs.... how is that 10 times the cost? What you fit to it is irrelevant. And last two things, people fly Ishtar because Ishtar is what you fly when you don't actually want to fight. Drop broken drones and run away. Just because sentries are broken we should ignore how badly broken t3's are? Please insinuate that I don't fly t3's or am just mad. I've flown them for a long time, and yes, they are badly broken. Your favorite ship has literally nothing to do with where t3's sit in the broken to horrifically broken scale. My favorite is a moros so because of that Ishtars aren't broken.
Lemme edit in two things here: not only do you get Bc grade dps, you get also get hac level tracking and application if not better, and as someone else pointed out somewhere recently, you can overheat for ages as well... on top of everything else. Clearly balanced.
One more thing: how do you go from starting this thread with t3's as your first hull to be rebalanced and end up at oh they only need one nerf? :/
The Law is a point of View
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers
135
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 12:57:44 -
[43] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote: This may be the least sensible post I read today.... t3's are broken. You can fit hac/Bc level dps, have the ewar range of a recon, the raw buffer of a bs, and sig of a cruiser all on one fit. If you do actually fly t3 fleets, you know that is truth. How is that not op and instead different tools for different jobs? My Market memory may be off but last I checked a Bc hull was about 50/60 mil. A t3 hull with subs about 350/450, depending on the subs.... how is that 10 times the cost? What you fit to it is irrelevant. And last two things, people fly Ishtar because Ishtar is what you fly when you don't actually want to fight. Drop broken drones and run away. Just because sentries are broken we should ignore how badly broken t3's are? Please insinuate that I don't fly t3's or am just mad. I've flown them for a long time, and yes, they are badly broken. Your favorite ship has literally nothing to do with where t3's sit in the broken to horrifically broken scale. My favorite is a moros so because of that Ishtars aren't broken.
First: favorite means that I fly a vindicator over proteus in a t3 gung. OPness that you point out means nothing actually: what that is mean? That the ship is stronger? Yep. can you not defeat it? No - a cheaper Command Ship has higher stats than T3 (its mass is the only problem in WH - I flown Absolution over Legion for a long time). If u did do a proper digging using search function u would find that what you write is well known AND accepted by T3 pilots. YES additional functions of T3 (recon, logi, ewar) should not outperform dedicated platforms unless their tank and DPS are massively reduced. YES buffer should be nerfed (but sleeper capable). YES IGÇÖm tired of flying T3 or nothing in WH.
If I liked the t3 as they are I would not ask for rebalance of them - so I have no idea what u have a problem with. The thing that I find repulsive are people suggestions that a T3 cruiser should be weaker than a T2 HAC (like T1 resists on T3). This is absurd - especially considering price tag (10 times, 6 times - whatever - I count fit you donGÇÖt*) and sp loss.
So yes nerf T3 where they need to be nerfed but don't cry that T3 is OP coz u canGÇÖt kill it with your HAC or BC - you should not be able to - that's a point of a high-end ship... if anything add T2 PvP BS so ppl stop comparing a ~150 mil T1 BS with a ~450 mil T3 cruisers and crying the latter is OP.
Again - rebalance the entire ship line ASAP (T3 included) and than you can do slight nerfs/buffs later to particular ships.
*man if u compare a T3 faction fitted cruiser with a T1, T2-modules fitted ship and cry OP than maybe you should try considering fit a factor... |
Kenrailae
Fallen Reich
364
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 13:44:17 -
[44] - Quote
Yeah right there went any and all credibility you may have had.... you can't compare fitted faction price to ship price... you also don't get to say that 'everyone says it's op as crap even the people flying it but that doesn't mean it is.' You also don't get to accuse people of not knowing what they are saying, then turn around and say exactly what they are saying like it is your own debate ending argument. This thread is P much over as OP Is not actually interested in what anyone else had to say or actual game balance. GL bro.
The Law is a point of View
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
731
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 14:18:49 -
[45] - Quote
Tech 3 cruisers are broken through their Tech 2 resist profiles and the HP bonus subs. T3Ds do not have T2 resist profiles - even in Defensive mode.
They also missed the chance to make T3 have only one rig slot, when T2 = Two rigs, T1 = Three.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers
136
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 06:02:13 -
[46] - Quote
May I just remind you that this topic is not about how to rebalance T3 but that this rebalance and other should happen ASAP before other major changes. |
Smelly PirateWhore
Reikoku Pandemic Legion
27
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 14:21:35 -
[47] - Quote
the only thing i really wanna see from t3 rebalance is for the covert ops sub and the interdiction nullifier sub to be in the same slot so you can choose one or the other, not both |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 22:09:01 -
[48] - Quote
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote:Removed a personal attack.
...and you missed a few. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers
136
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 08:12:10 -
[49] - Quote
Also an idea: since much part of T3 job is assisting dreads and carriers doing sleeper capaital spawns, I would like to see both those classes being rebalanced togehter.
|
Kenrailae
Fallen Reich
369
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 09:37:33 -
[50] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Also an idea: since much part of T3 job is assisting dreads and carriers doing sleeper capaital spawns, I would like to see both those classes being rebalanced togehter.
How would rebalancing a legion or proteus based on a loki being used in wh PVE be viable? Balancing is inherently dependent on relation to everything else, but one also can't balance something so prolific as t3's based on it's interactions in one particular scenario. T3's are used for so many other things than webbing sleepers. That is far and away not 'much' of their job. The same is true of carriers, whose arguably greatest imbalance is broken sentry drones, and logi which is also largely agreed as in need of rebalance. Dreads need some tweaking so that Rev and phoenix are actually dreads and not very large battleships, but in general are what they need to be. Maybe a slight damage buff or range increase as fighter bombers do stupid amounts of damage, but more or less ok. Rebalance the lot together, that is fine, just don't do it based solely on sleeper sites. Eve players will always find a new way to innovate, example jabbadon.
The Law is a point of View
|
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers
136
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 11:42:29 -
[51] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:Also an idea: since much part of T3 job is assisting dreads and carriers doing sleeper capaital spawns, I would like to see both those classes being rebalanced togehter.
How would rebalancing a legion or proteus based on a loki being used in wh PVE be viable? Balancing is inherently dependent on relation to everything else, but one also can't balance something so prolific as t3's based on it's interactions in one particular scenario. T3's are used for so many other things than webbing sleepers. That is far and away not 'much' of their job. The same is true of carriers, whose arguably greatest imbalance is broken sentry drones, and logi which is also largely agreed as in need of rebalance. Dreads need some tweaking so that Rev and phoenix are actually dreads and not very large battleships, but in general are what they need to be. Maybe a slight damage buff or range increase as fighter bombers do stupid amounts of damage, but more or less ok. Rebalance the lot together, that is fine, just don't do it based solely on sleeper sites. Eve players will always find a new way to innovate, example jabbadon.
Hay It's just a general idea. The thing that I had in mind is that while T3 need a slight nerf, they should not be nerfed to a point where they cannot assist capiatals in doing sleepers - i.e. thats how you can defnie how much can you nerf their armour buffer - and that also is dependant on how fast carriers rep, dreads kill sleeprs etc.
In summary T3 should be balanced for PvP but the bottom line for nerfs should be set according to sleeper sites. |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2250
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:00:44 -
[52] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Not to complain or anything but while you guys at CCP are focusing on adding new stuff, fixing PoS and other needed things (seriously) I would like to point out that the ship rebalancing is not over. Maybe it would be wise to finish it before balancing other parts of the game.
So my idea (after all its features & ideas) is to finish what you started and rebalance ASAP:
1) T3 cruisers 2) Black Ops 3) Capitals 3) Super Capitals
Thank you for you attention. How is any of this related to ship skins!?!!?
Oh.....its not related to microtransactions?
The amount of time that it's taking to release the T3 Destroyers is any indication of CCPs priorities. Don't hold your breath!!!
Hello, world!
|
Kenrailae
Fallen Reich
370
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:00:48 -
[53] - Quote
Quote: In summary T3 should be balanced for PvP but the bottom line for nerfs should be set according to sleeper sites.
And I cannot for the life of me figure out how you came to the conclusion that that is t3's most broken aspect, especially as that is only 1 t3 of 4 and the one t3 that might be closest to balanced. Do you have a particular vendetta against wormholes or loki's we should be aware of?
+1 for finishing the rebalance, -2 for listening to any of ops input on how.
The Law is a point of View
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1117
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:25:12 -
[54] - Quote
Smelly PirateWhore wrote:the only thing i really wanna see from t3 rebalance is for the covert ops sub and the interdiction nullifier sub to be in the same slot so you can choose one or the other, not both
Absolutely supported!
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
James Baboli
Novablasters
894
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:07:08 -
[55] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Smelly PirateWhore wrote:the only thing i really wanna see from t3 rebalance is for the covert ops sub and the interdiction nullifier sub to be in the same slot so you can choose one or the other, not both Absolutely supported!
Eh, I'm for giving them karmic balance. Interdiction nullifier blows up the sig and reduces agility massively such that they are easy to burn to and decloak (10+s align times). Now you CAN do the thing, but they CAN counter the thing. Then those who don't pay attention to things like rebalancing the ships get caught, and those who do need to change their fits but don't get an easy reminder because their t3 is now locked in station until a valid subsystem config is loaded.
Also, what about those t3s already in space with that configuration? do they get moved back to a station and told they need to refit? Do they explode out of nowhere? Do they get to keep using it, making them useful for any toon that never docks or put the ship in a hangar?
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Smelly PirateWhore
Reikoku Pandemic Legion
29
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:31:03 -
[56] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Smelly PirateWhore wrote:the only thing i really wanna see from t3 rebalance is for the covert ops sub and the interdiction nullifier sub to be in the same slot so you can choose one or the other, not both Absolutely supported! Eh, I'm for giving them karmic balance. Interdiction nullifier blows up the sig and reduces agility massively such that they are easy to burn to and decloak (10+s align times). Now you CAN do the thing, but they CAN counter the thing. Then those who don't pay attention to things like rebalancing the ships get caught, and those who do need to change their fits but don't get an easy reminder because their t3 is now locked in station until a valid subsystem config is loaded. Also, what about those t3s already in space with that configuration? do they get moved back to a station and told they need to refit? Do they explode out of nowhere? Do they get to keep using it, making them useful for any toon that never docks or put the ship in a hangar?
I honestly don't care how they go about it, they can teleport all t3s to station for all I care. The way things currently stand, any smart person with a t3 can cloaky nullify it, fill the lows with stabs and the cargohold with a mobile depot and alternate fit and fly around to their heart's content travelling to plexes and escalations through gate camps and crap and they are absolutely invulnerable unless they make a HUGE mistake. Your idea of the extra align time changes little except to those camps large enough to either have enough insta-lockers to either get enough points on that ship to counter the stabs in the lows or to simply instapop the ship, not a mean feat even to a travel fit t3. As it stands, a cruiser hull that can both warp cloaked AND is nullified, is nigh-on invulnerable for any pilot with the slightest competence |
vikari
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
125
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:45:12 -
[57] - Quote
I think tiericide need to take another swipe at Attack Frigs, after the introduction of T3 destroyers, their role has been heavily nerf. T3 destroyers have successfully fulfilled the roles the Attack Frigs filled in a much greater ability. |
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
245
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 00:03:30 -
[58] - Quote
What is rebalance? To have a ships able to do many things well or only one thing but at perfect level?
CCP rebalance is an attempt to react on meta which generated by community which is result of game proccess developed by CCP. Since CCP shaking game process more often now, it is hard to think of a proper balanced ships.
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers
136
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 08:08:39 -
[59] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Quote: In summary T3 should be balanced for PvP but the bottom line for nerfs should be set according to sleeper sites.
And I cannot for the life of me figure out how you came to the conclusion that that is t3's most broken aspect, especially as that is only 1 t3 of 4 and the one t3 that might be closest to balanced. Do you have a particular vendetta against wormholes or loki's we should be aware of? +1 for finishing the rebalance, -2 for listening to any of ops input on how.
What? I wrote (in T3 rebalance post that I have likned for you) that loki is well balanced and buffer mod shoud be exchanged for resists (wihout reps) for others... read first pls, and return to subject of this post if I may ask .
Tiddle Jr wrote:What is rebalance? To have a ships able to do many things well or only one thing but at perfect level?
CCP rebalance is an attempt to react on meta which generated by community which is result of game proccess developed by CCP. Since CCP shaking game process more often now, it is hard to think of a proper balanced ships.
I would say that rebalance is making all ships useful, fun to play and having a place in the game. It does not mean that all should be equal in power, equally used or, gods forbid, the same... it's also about fixing ships that are too powerful (overused). |
Kenrailae
Fallen Reich
375
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 09:44:21 -
[60] - Quote
No, you may not ask. I have been on subject every single post. I would suggest you follow your own suggestion, and read, then post on topic and stop bouncing all over the place. I very clearly posted on topic. +1 to finishing the rebalance. -2 to listening to any of ops ideas for it. It does not get anymore on topic than that. Good day.
The Law is a point of View
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |