Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
775
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:55:09 -
[61] - Quote
Maradusa Macarthy wrote:baltec1 wrote:Maradusa Macarthy wrote:
ewww, I hope not. That would make them totally worthless. Tech 3 is suppose to be better than Tech 2, no? Or else CCP should change their names to T2 Strategic Cruisers and not mislead everyone thinking they are suppose to be more powerful than T2 cruisers.
This is where they should be. CCP will be making savage nerfs to T3s and it is long overdue. So by this chart, are Pirate Faction hulls suppose to be the top tier per ship class? And when are these T3 destroying nerfs suppose to hit?
Not better in the raw sense, as a HAC or Recon will offer more highly-specialised performance than a Pirate cruiser.
// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)]
//
[Cruisers Online]
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
490
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 19:41:48 -
[62] - Quote
I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. I think T3's should be better than T2 by definition. I'm not sure how to fix them so that they're not a superior substitute for BC and BS among high level players, but the nerfs people are talking about here would see them relegated to uselessness. Maybe that's a desired result for some players.
What if you removed all weapon range bonuses from the subsystems? Would that solve the problem? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16369
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:57:28 -
[63] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. I think T3's should be better than T2 by definition. I'm not sure how to fix them so that they're not a superior substitute for BC and BS among high level players, but the nerfs people are talking about here would see them relegated to uselessness. Maybe that's a desired result for some players.
What if you removed all weapon range bonuses from the subsystems? Would that solve the problem?
You still have the issue of them getting better tanks than battleships.
T3 post nerf would still be effective ships, they just wont stomp all over everything like they do now.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1188
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 21:55:53 -
[64] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. I think T3's should be better than T2 by definition. I'm not sure how to fix them so that they're not a superior substitute for BC and BS among high level players, but the nerfs people are talking about here would see them relegated to uselessness. Maybe that's a desired result for some players.
What if you removed all weapon range bonuses from the subsystems? Would that solve the problem?
You can fit a plated/beam zealot, a legion and an absolution, then rip out the three trimarks from the legion, and get something like a beautiful, not even that linear progression. Legion and Prot without trimarks would sit at ~90k-100k ehp instead of 150-160k. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
491
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 22:29:25 -
[65] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. I think T3's should be better than T2 by definition. I'm not sure how to fix them so that they're not a superior substitute for BC and BS among high level players, but the nerfs people are talking about here would see them relegated to uselessness. Maybe that's a desired result for some players.
What if you removed all weapon range bonuses from the subsystems? Would that solve the problem? You still have the issue of them getting better tanks than battleships. T3 post nerf would still be effective ships, they just wont stomp all over everything like they do now.
If you take away the damage projection at range that would make battleships more likely to be chosen for fleets. Close range T3's get really really good buffer but battleships can get better active tank and 1 heavy neut spells doom for any cruiser. Maybe they just need to give the Megathron a utility high?
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 07:22:27 -
[66] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. I think T3's should be better than T2 by definition. I'm not sure how to fix them so that they're not a superior substitute for BC and BS among high level players, but the nerfs people are talking about here would see them relegated to uselessness. Maybe that's a desired result for some players.
What if you removed all weapon range bonuses from the subsystems? Would that solve the problem? You still have the issue of them getting better tanks than battleships. T3 post nerf would still be effective ships, they just wont stomp all over everything like they do now.
That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300-400 ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16376
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 09:10:38 -
[67] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:
That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.
No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 09:37:45 -
[68] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:
That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.
No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP.
Yea that's fine, IF you remove the SP loss on death AND reduce their cost to around 300 mill for the whole package. If CCP does this then I have no problem with them having 80k-100k EHP instead of 140k-200k EHP.
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
193
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 11:00:34 -
[69] - Quote
Prob replacing the buffer bonus with resist bonus for the culprit subsystem would solve the insane hp issue.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16376
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 11:24:08 -
[70] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:
That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.
No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP. Yea that's fine, IF you remove the SP loss on death AND reduce their cost to around 300 mill for the whole package. If CCP does this then I have no problem with them having 80k-100k EHP instead of 140k-200k EHP.
They already cost 300 mil fitted.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
779
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 12:08:40 -
[71] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that.
Ah, well you see - it is T3s current performance that is driving the demand, and consequently, the price. As baltec1 mentioned, T3Cs have gone down in price already.
// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)]
//
[Cruisers Online]
|
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
901
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 12:39:46 -
[72] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. Ah, well you see - it is T3s current performance that is driving the demand, and consequently, the price. As baltec1 mentioned, T3Cs have gone down in price already.
Materials for making them have become easier to get recently too.
No Worries
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 13:53:22 -
[73] - Quote
Does that mean CCP is actually getting ready to nerf these ships? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16380
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 16:48:45 -
[74] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:Does that mean CCP is actually getting ready to nerf these ships?
We can only hope.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 23:11:12 -
[75] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:Does that mean CCP is actually getting ready to nerf these ships? We can only hope.
NAY, not while I'm still maxing out Gallente Subs for my Rail Proteus.
|
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 06:50:30 -
[76] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:It's still weird that a BS-web does as much as a frig-web. If there was something cool to be done, then webbing a ship that is heavier than your own should result in less webstrength - unless you're flying a dedicated light/heavy tackle ship like an assault frigate, for example. Wanted to say interceptor but they're well off just being fast and blocking mwds.
So derptron webs BS, it moves 30% slower, CBC webs BS, it moves 50% slower, AF/BS or cap webbing a BS - full 60%. That'd be really cool and put CBCs back on the table as the sluggish, tackly brawling cruisers.
You could even reverse the effect. BS webs frigate - 1.5% effectiveness == 90% web; would help defend against frigates |
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 06:56:43 -
[77] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote: Logi? No hulls.
ehm, nestor anybody? |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
781
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 13:00:09 -
[78] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote: Logi? No hulls.
ehm, nestor anybody?
( -í~ -£-û -í-¦)
// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)]
//
[Cruisers Online]
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
735
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 20:44:36 -
[79] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:
That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.
No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP.
And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron.
Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds:
Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit.
I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Sleepaz Den
Artificial Memories
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 22:09:44 -
[80] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:
That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.
No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP. And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron. Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds: Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit. I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE.
That seems off-topic.
The impact of ehp-subs for pve just isn't there, mind that the only T3 seeing use in pve is a loki, and does really fine without one.
c4 solo tengus are a thing of the past since the RR-fixes, duo still works and entirely relies on range to tank sites, and they don't utilize buffer for that. C4 RR tengus don't even need an LSE, just the 4k-ish cruiser base hp. c5 tengus can be flown with LSEs albeit they also aren't necessary unless escalating. c6 you really want more buffer, but still far from supp screening buffer. The total ehp is not a concern for pve-purposes. Buffersubs and their impact is a thing for pvp, and its opppressive performance subtracts from diversity.
|
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 23:36:41 -
[81] - Quote
Sleepaz Den wrote:elitatwo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:
That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.
No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP. And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron. Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds: Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit. I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE. That seems off-topic. The impact of ehp-subs for pve just isn't there, mind that the only T3 seeing use in pve is a loki, and does really fine without one. c4 solo tengus are a thing of the past since the RR-fixes, duo still works and entirely relies on range to tank sites, and they don't utilize buffer for that. C4 RR tengus don't even need an LSE, just the 4k-ish cruiser base hp. c5 tengus can be flown with LSEs albeit they also aren't necessary unless escalating. c6 you really want more buffer, but still far from supp screening buffer. The total ehp is not a concern for pve-purposes. Buffersubs and their impact is a thing for pvp, and its opppressive performance subtracts from diversity.
With the exception of a cloaky Proteus, I'd never use a T3C for pvp unless I was in a fleet backed with logi. Only with logi support does the T3Cs impressive ehp resonates the OP-ness siren. If anything needs a nerf, its logi ships.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16391
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 09:40:46 -
[82] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote: With the exception of a cloaky Proteus, I'd never use a T3C for pvp unless I was in a fleet backed with logi. Only with logi support does the T3Cs impressive ehp resonates the OP-ness siren. If anything needs a nerf, its logi ships.
Logi also needs a nerf but t3 cruisers do desperately need to be trimmed down so they have the stats of a cruisers not battleships.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16391
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 09:42:36 -
[83] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:
And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron.
Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds:
Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit.
I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE.
That just goes to show how out of whak t3 cruisers really are. They need to have the stats of a cruiser not stats superior to ships two classes above them, especially when it comes to their tanking abilities.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1172
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 11:06:01 -
[84] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:
That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.
No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP. And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron. Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds: Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit. I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE.
So the acid test for BS viability is the ability to solo a C6 anom? Please link proteus fit that can solo a C6 anom.... please link any fit of any ship that can solo a C6 anom.
Quoted as a candidtate for the most rediculous forum argument of the year. |
Cannibal Zuza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 11:49:57 -
[85] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:elitatwo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:
That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.
No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP. And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron. Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds: Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit. I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE. So the acid test for BS viability is the ability to solo a C6 anom? Please link proteus fit that can solo a C6 anom.... please link any fit of any ship that can solo a C6 anom. Quoted as a candidtate for the most rediculous forum argument of the year.
You obviously have never witness the incredible might of Zuza's unstoppable Erebus. If CCP did the proper thang and allow my beautiful Erebus to enter those Whs, then even the sleepers would give witness to the spectacularness of Zuza's unstoppable Erebus.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1175
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 14:29:32 -
[86] - Quote
Please link erebus fit and also please breing to Ami system top belt so I can admire this magnificent beast. Post the time you'll be at top belt with the fit. I'm sure at least 4 folks will want to come admire it. |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
38
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 02:49:37 -
[87] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:elitatwo wrote:
And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron.
Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds:
Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit.
I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE.
That just goes to show how out of whak t3 cruisers really are. They need to have the stats of a cruiser not stats superior to ships two classes above them, especially when it comes to their tanking abilities.
So if CCP decided to remove the T3Cs armor/shield buffer subs entirely, would that satisfy you? I doubt it! If there is a particular ship class that some pilots (particularly vets) don't like or view as OP that CCP reasonably nerfs that still has some uses, the opposing pilots would still scream for another nerf until the ships are completely worthless. A perfect example is the Ishtar that many pilots wants CCP to remove it's sentry bonuses (which I also agree with), but all is gonna happen is that you'll be seeing Ishtars with geckos moving 3k while doing 900+ dps shredding BSs apart all the same. What would the masses whine about then?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16394
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 07:19:53 -
[88] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:baltec1 wrote:elitatwo wrote:
And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron.
Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds:
Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit.
I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE.
That just goes to show how out of whak t3 cruisers really are. They need to have the stats of a cruiser not stats superior to ships two classes above them, especially when it comes to their tanking abilities. So if CCP decided to remove the T3Cs armor/shield buffer subs entirely, would that satisfy you? I doubt it! If there is a particular ship class that some pilots (particularly vets) don't like or view as OP that CCP reasonably nerfs that still has some uses, the opposing pilots would still scream for another nerf until the ships are completely worthless. A perfect example is the Ishtar that many pilots wants CCP to remove it's sentry bonuses (which I also agree with), but all is gonna happen is that you'll be seeing Ishtars with geckos moving 3k while doing 900+ dps shredding BSs apart all the same. What would the masses whine about then?
T3s will only be balanced when they stop out classing t2 cruisers. As far as the gecko ishtar goes that is highly unlikely simply due to the ever rising cost and rarity of those drones.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
901
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 08:24:40 -
[89] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:baltec1 wrote:elitatwo wrote:
And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron.
Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds:
Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit.
I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE.
That just goes to show how out of whak t3 cruisers really are. They need to have the stats of a cruiser not stats superior to ships two classes above them, especially when it comes to their tanking abilities. So if CCP decided to remove the T3Cs armor/shield buffer subs entirely, would that satisfy you? I doubt it! If there is a particular ship class that some pilots (particularly vets) don't like or view as OP that CCP reasonably nerfs that still has some uses, the opposing pilots would still scream for another nerf until the ships are completely worthless. A perfect example is the Ishtar that many pilots wants CCP to remove it's sentry bonuses (which I also agree with), but all is gonna happen is that you'll be seeing Ishtars with geckos moving 3k while doing 900+ dps shredding BSs apart all the same. What would the masses whine about then? T3s will only be balanced when they stop out classing t2 cruisers. As far as the gecko ishtar goes that is highly unlikely simply due to the ever rising cost and rarity of those drones.
Also Utility highs... it would be sad to destroy all those geckos
No Worries
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
313
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 08:52:08 -
[90] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:This is where they should be. Nerf for T3s is needed but I don't think it will hit as hard as on that chart. CCP already have problem with Worm and Gila being to OP compared to others hull in their own class. We have problem with T3 being threat to higher classes which have to be solved. Balancing in same class is problem too. After T3s all we will be flying will be pirates ships, because they will be tops. Let's say tengu ability to be cloaky scanning boat will be nerfed below Stratios. Why use it then? I'll use best for the role, T3 flexibility will not be as much desirable then. Chart is wrong, it balances nothing apart from T1 and T2 in their roles and they are already balanced.
How to bring BS to fight? As RavenPaine wrote cruiser must have natural predator: BC. But how to balance it? Warp speed nerf won't help at all.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |