Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Omega Capsuleer
Order of Cut-Throats
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 00:46:45 -
[31] - Quote
Webvan wrote:EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking. Player generated content.
So think of new things to do with battleships. I am thinking of using mine like AirBnB. Another thought of mine is using them to blow up your salvage before someone pirates it from you.
We do not need new things, we just need to think of new ways to use the old things while CCP focuses in on...Stuff. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
528
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 01:22:42 -
[32] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote: Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.
You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS? Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles. What do you see the reason for T3s being if not the tank?
I second this. It's an honest topic for debate. If you take away T3's insane tanking ability, why would I choose one over say, a Stratios, for cloaky hunting? Over an Eagle for fleet scraps? Over a Deimos or Sacrilege for armor brawling?
The only advantage T3's will have is the ability to carry additional subs and refit on the fly, and of course the nullifier sub for getting through bubbles. That doesn't seem sufficient to justify their existence if you make them the second best option for everything else. I don't think battleships will see more use if T3's get nerfed. The reason battleships don't get used is because they are more skill intensive and most of all, their mobility sucks.
Why would people go to BS fleets over HAC's except in cases of a set piece battle unfolding right on their doorstep? |
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
11291
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 01:26:09 -
[33] - Quote
Omega Capsuleer wrote:Webvan wrote:EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking. Player generated content. So think of new things to do with battleships. I am thinking of using mine like AirBnB. Another thought of mine is using them to blow up your salvage before someone pirates it from you. We do not need new things, we just need to think of new ways to use the old things while CCP focuses in on...Stuff. Why do they need to only work on "stuff". Much of "player generated content" comes out of the sandbox systems. A bunch of codes or scripts or whatever to give players the tools to create and manage emergent game play. Look around, they are all around you helping you "think of new ways to use the old things".
Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2281
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 02:18:10 -
[34] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I second this. It's an honest topic for debate. If you take away T3's insane tanking ability, why would I choose one over say, a Stratios, for cloaky hunting? Over an Eagle for fleet scraps? Over a Deimos or Sacrilege for armor brawling?
The answer is you shouldn't. But that assumes you know you are doing cloaky hunting or armour brawling or..... The T3 should adapt on the fly much faster, Tactical Destroyers are a good example of this adaptation, though if they are truly OP or not is hard to judge with no T2 Assault Destroyers, only interdictors, to compare against.
As for the Battleship... Note 'Imperial Issue'. Look at the market, there are already two Imperial Issue Battleships. It's the same as the Tribal Edition etc, they are just fancy versions with higher stats of the current versions that get given out in a very limited number in some way. They wouldn't name a new T3 BS the same as an existing line like that, not to mention a new T3 Battleship would be utter crazyness when they haven't fixed Battleships and BC's place in the meta yet, or T3's being crazy OP. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16411
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 04:31:53 -
[35] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I second this. It's an honest topic for debate. If you take away T3's insane tanking ability, why would I choose one over say, a Stratios, for cloaky hunting? Over an Eagle for fleet scraps? Over a Deimos or Sacrilege for armor brawling?
That's the point. For specialised jobs you should be wanting to use the t2 ships, t3s should not be the answer to everything. T3s should be adaptable cruisers, not pocket battleships.
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: I don't think battleships will see more use if T3's get nerfed. The reason battleships don't get used is because they are more skill intensive and most of all, their mobility sucks.
They are not that much more skill intensive than t3s and mobility isn't everything.
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Why would people go to BS fleets over HAC's except in cases of a set piece battle unfolding right on their doorstep?
In a slugging match BS fleets will generally win, it doesn't matter how long it takes to get somewhere, what matters is what happens when they arrive.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
935
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 05:42:37 -
[36] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:it is a swiss army knife it can do all T2 roles decent, but a T2 specific hull would kick it`s A S S that is how it should be maybe a somewhat advantage on resists or tank but not a OP ship that pretty much defeats everything right off the bat I agree with the notion that specialized ships should be better, but saying that T3s should just perform T2 roles, but worse, is IMO wrong approach. If laser Legion is worse than Zealot, HAM Legion is worse than Sacrilege and Covops neut Legion is worse than Pilgrim, then there's no point in Legion at all - IF it keeps using existing mech.
There are two options, one being making sure they are decent in hybrid configuration (for example, neut+HAM Legion), another is making sure T3s are something unique (for example, build them around existing concept of refitting and reconfiguring in space completely changing capabilities, but never exceeding ones of existing ships). |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2325
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:10:06 -
[37] - Quote
The reason there is no real way of differentiating ships is because there is no real cost factor in operating ships. If operating a super was prohibitive to owning tons of supers there wouldn't be tons of supers meaning no reason to nerf them. Likewise if battleships were prohibitive to operate except when they were absolutely needed on field then EvE wouldn't have become battleships online requiring resulting in excessive over nerfing.
Same goes for T3s, or Ishtars, or any other flavour of the meta. Unlike in real life where over demand means extreme price rises (petrol for vehicles is a good example or taxi plates) to operate there is no limiting resource in EvE preventing overuse of a particular ship.
When you nerf T3 it will simply result in a useless ship. If you fix battleships it will simply turn into best of meta battleship blobs online.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:23:08 -
[38] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote: Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.
You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS? Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.
What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3? Just admit it, You want T3Cs obliterated from the game. Your opinions about T3 are just bias based on your personal dislike of them. CCP would be wise to never listen to your nonsense about T3s, or else they'll regret it. |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:28:55 -
[39] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Malcanis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote: Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.
You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS? Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles. What do you see the reason for T3s being if not the tank? it is a swiss army knife it can do all T2 roles decent, but a T2 specific hull would kick it`s A S S that is how it should be maybe a somewhat advantage on resists or tank but not a OP ship that pretty much defeats everything right off the bat
Sure, as long as they reduce their cost below that of a T2 cruiser and remove the SP loss on death and MAYBE someone will find a use for it, maybe.
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
420
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:45:03 -
[40] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[quote=Andreus Ixiris]Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles. Rather than dragging them down to the level of cruisers perhaps it would be as effective (more effective with regard to battleship utilisation perhaps) to make them behave a little more like Battlecruisers (speed, warp speed, agility, sig). When Stategics were unveiled at FanFest they were refered to as Battlecruisers, perhaps reeastablishing that parity would be the best option. |
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:45:32 -
[41] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:it is a swiss army knife it can do all T2 roles decent, but a T2 specific hull would kick it`s A S S that is how it should be maybe a somewhat advantage on resists or tank but not a OP ship that pretty much defeats everything right off the bat I agree with the notion that specialized ships should be better, but saying that T3s should just perform T2 roles, but worse, is IMO wrong approach. If laser Legion is worse than Zealot, HAM Legion is worse than Sacrilege and Covops neut Legion is worse than Pilgrim, then there's no point in Legion at all - IF it keeps using existing mech. There are two options, one being making sure they are decent in hybrid configuration (for example, neut+HAM Legion), another is making sure T3s are something unique (for example, build them around existing concept of refitting and reconfiguring in space completely changing capabilities, but never exceeding ones of existing specialized ships; they may be still comparable, but people won't use T3 just because if they will pay premium to do same job T2 can do for its T2 price).
I believe your concept on what a T3 should be is the most acute idea I've heard in the forums. A specialize ship that can perform many roles the same (NOT LESS) as their T2 Counters and have a sorta built in mobile depot like ability that can refit in space on the fly like a carrier. Have a 700 m3 cargo hold to be able to hold multiple subs & mods and having slightly less dps, but more tank than a HAC with no drone bays. |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:51:40 -
[42] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Murkar Omaristos wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote:baltec1 wrote:Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf. Kestral Anneto wrote:equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though. Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances. ^^ this. Why in the hell would anyone nerf T3s further? The tengu just got nerfed, and so did the proteus. Battleships need a buff. T3s are fine. It would be a huge mistake to break a whole line of ships in order to try and fix another. BTW, battleship fleets are already a thing - both PL and NC. use TFIs. T3s are fine OMG plz clarify how you imagine that a cruiser with BS tanks and BC DPS is fine and on top of that they have huge fitting options and are versatile and have huge cap too they are clearly OP if you REALY think they are fine you are high.
I guess you don't know a thing about neuts. All it takes is ONE heavy neut to cap out a T3C. No cap, no tank, = dead T3C. What? Cap Boosters you say, please. Just how long can a T3 hold up on heavy neut pressure with only a 280 m3 cargo bay, hmm?
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
936
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:55:24 -
[43] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3? Something T2 can't do. This is the only way to exist in EVE without stepping on anyone's toes while being useful. They already have an ability to completely change themselves by refitting subs in addition to refitting any other ship is capable of. New T3Cs can be developed around this general idea.
Sure, this won't be a fleet ship at this point. Not that they must be.
Daniela Doran wrote:Sure, as long as they reduce their cost below that of a T2 cruiser and remove the SP loss on death and MAYBE someone will find a use for it, maybe. SP loss, I'm ok if it goes away tbh. Just personal preference. Other than that, if T3s cease to be min/max material and become that "Swiss army ship" they were advertised as but never truly were, then their versatility will sure cost something over T2 ship they can mimic. The only thing I suppose must happen is subs price adjustment to ensure that having spare ones in cargohold (or better yet - in dedicated subsystems hold) is not a luxury or foolish endeavour, but standard way of flying new T3Cs. |
Sianca
Spessart Rebellen
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 08:18:48 -
[44] - Quote
I have a proposal, T3 are sleeper tec. optimized for j-space. Let T3 perform in J-space are the way they are now, if a T3 entering k-space it performs all at 50% to 70% (speed, resistance, dps). Tuned down to cruiser level. |
Aladar Dangerface
13. Enigma Project
191
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 10:30:10 -
[45] - Quote
Wait, new battleships? where did this come from?
I don't need twitter.
I'm already following you.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10856
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 10:32:28 -
[46] - Quote
Aladar Dangerface wrote:Wait, new battleships? where did this come from? CCP posted this , started the rumormill.
=]|[=
|
dor amwar
Interstellar Renegades Advent of Fate
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 10:35:17 -
[47] - Quote
Sianca wrote:I have a proposal, T3 are sleeper tec. optimized for j-space. Let T3 perform in J-space are the way they are now, if a T3 entering k-space it performs all at 50% to 70% (speed, resistance, dps). Tuned down to cruiser level.
have thought the same since introduced, came from there tech works there. t3 closed off a lot of roles for other existing ships for 2 reasons only: 1) someone thought it as a cool idea and, 2) ccp was needing to introduce new skills to keep keep high skill players interested. ccp has always been a bit schizophrenic about retaining old or recruiting new players, a difficult task as the spread/disparity between young and old increases. A new BS? no, thanks. |
Aladar Dangerface
13. Enigma Project
191
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 10:43:35 -
[48] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Aladar Dangerface wrote:Wait, new battleships? where did this come from? CCP posted this , started the rumormill. At work, site block :(
Can i get a tl:dr?
Edit: Nvm, suppose i could use my phone
I don't need twitter.
I'm already following you.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2282
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 10:55:36 -
[49] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
There are two options, one being making sure they are decent in hybrid configuration (for example, neut+HAM Legion), another is making sure T3s are something unique (for example, build them around existing concept of refitting and reconfiguring in space completely changing capabilities, but never exceeding ones of existing specialized ships; they may be still comparable, but people won't use T3 just because if they will pay premium to do same job T2 can do for its T2 price).
Solution 1 is the one that best fits the space CCP have said a T3 is meant to fill. If it does both roles at the same time at lets say.... 75% efficiency compared to the T2 specialist ship.... you then have 150% of both if you get two T3's, while only 100% of both if you go one specialist in each. Which means T3's become ideal for covering a large number of roles in a small gang, but a large fleet or a very purpose built gang you are going to see T2's as specialising is best when you have the numbers or only plan for one thing.
Unique roles are more suited to a specialist ship, being...... specialists and all that jazz. |
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
936
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:00:20 -
[50] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Solution 1 is the one that best fits the space CCP have said a T3 is meant to fill. If it does both roles at the same time at lets say.... 75% efficiency compared to the T2 specialist ship.... you then have 150% of both if you get two T3's, while only 100% of both if you go one specialist in each. Which means T3's become ideal for covering a large number of roles in a small gang, but a large fleet or a very purpose built gang you are going to see T2's as specialising is best when you have the numbers or only plan for one thing.
Unique roles are more suited to a specialist ship, being...... specialists and all that jazz. This kinda makes sense, although I think there may be a way to somewhat make both solutions working together. I've made a proposal btw and I hope for some healthy discussion.
Meanwhile, back to battleships, I guess.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16415
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:17:53 -
[51] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote: What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3?
Whats the point in t2 cruisers if T3 overpower them at their specialty?
Reducing them down to below t2 cruisers would not make them useless, they can still retain their adaptability and with the mobile depot they can swap to be something different on the fly like no other ship can. Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:39:41 -
[52] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote: What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3?
Whats the point in t2 cruisers if T3 overpower them at their specialty? Reducing them down to below t2 cruisers would not make them useless, they can still retain their adaptability and with the mobile depot they can swap to be something different on the fly like no other ship can. Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships.
With the SP loss on death and the double price tag, I can see plenty of reasons to fly my Deimos over a Proteus or My Zealot over a Legion. My Legion has yet to leave Hi-Sec because of these risks while I've use both my Zealot and Deimos many times in WHs and null sec.
Now If CCP removes the SP loss on death and reduce the T3Cs price to the same level as HACs, then I'll have no argument about SOME of your proposed changes baltec1.
Why don't you make a thread with some figures on how you believe the T3Cs should be properly balanced (not reduced to redundancy) and let's see how the mass view these changes that you propose. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1046
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:43:04 -
[53] - Quote
Kestral Anneto wrote: equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.
you mean they need a way to somehow defend against bombs, which in turn were introduced into the game to counter blobs of battleships in the first line? In any nerf of bombs will allow BS blobs to rise, will simply render bombs a useless counter and greatly fail its purpose.
I kinda miss BS fleets but if I had a choice between blobs of T3 and blobs of BS I would rather pick the first. Popping a T3 is simply more satisfying due to its cost and skill loss for the pilot compared to a fully insured BS. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16415
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:47:36 -
[54] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote: With the SP loss on death and the double price tag, I can see plenty of reasons to fly my Deimos over a Proteus or My Zealot over a Legion. My Legion has yet to leave Hi-Sec because of these risks while I've use both my Zealot and Deimos many times in WHs and null sec.
Now If CCP removes the SP loss on death and reduce the T3Cs price to the same level as HACs, then I'll have no argument about SOME of your proposed changes baltec1.
Why don't you make a thread with some figures on how you believe the T3Cs should be properly balanced (not reduced to redundancy) and let's see how the mass view these changes that you propose.
Here is what CCP think should happen.
And I agree with them. I have no issue with getting rid of SP loss and it doesn't work. Price wise the market will naturally adapt to demand and prices will drop, if CCP need to fiddle with build costs per ship then so be it. In the end though these ships desperately need to be dragged into line as they cause the bulk of the ship balance issues.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Zero Conscience
DPS-K
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:50:06 -
[55] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[quote=Daniela Doran] Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships.
all kinds of wrong. In the last few months BS hulls have poured into lowsec (possibly null too but im there less so i see less) - solo'ers and gangs. A few tweaks here and there and a mass of pew vids to educate the playerbase has made alot of difference. Yep tech 3 cruisers are powerful (multi skill requiring, expensive etc) and do still get roflstomped. The gaps between hulls are also being misreported. So a tengu will smash a mega (usually) assuming equal skill and the fact the mega got fit for all guns in highs no webs etc. WHAT A SUPRISE! but a brawler t1 BS should die to a Tengu that doesnt mess up.
Now take that same 'Gu against a Geddon (still t1 basic) or a Rattlesnake (still t1 but coloured :) ) or how about a good old Vindi? T3 survival drops sharrply huh? Of course we can counter each others arguments with statements like "Mebbbe i cant tackled tenguuu) - Which brings response "fly betterer?)
So. T3s rock BSs rock D3s are broke except Hecate.
Have a nice day |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16415
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 12:04:00 -
[56] - Quote
Zero Conscience wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Daniela Doran] Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships. all kinds of wrong. In the last few months BS hulls have poured into lowsec (possibly null too but im there less so i see less) - solo'ers and gangs. A few tweaks here and there and a mass of pew vids to educate the playerbase has made alot of difference. Yep tech 3 cruisers are powerful (multi skill requiring, expensive etc) and do still get roflstomped. The gaps between hulls are also being misreported. So a tengu will smash a mega (usually) assuming equal skill and the fact the mega got fit for all guns in highs no webs etc. WHAT A SUPRISE! but a brawler t1 BS should die to a Tengu that doesnt mess up. Now take that same 'Gu against a Geddon (still t1 basic) or a Rattlesnake (still t1 but coloured :) ) or how about a good old Vindi? T3 survival drops sharrply huh? Of course we can counter each others arguments with statements like "Mebbbe i cant tackled tenguuu) - Which brings response "fly betterer?) So. T3s rock BSs rock D3s are broke except Hecate. Have a nice day
Tell me why a tengu, a cruiser, should have more EHP than a megathron but with a sig a quarter the size while moving almost six times faster.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lucius Kalari
Limited Power Inc It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 12:32:47 -
[57] - Quote
Battleships need a tracking, dps and tank buff as they're currently just big floating pinatas.
Hi, I'm Lucius Kalari and I'm .LIMP
LichReaper - according to zkill they probably wont make it past the undock
|
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
5430
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 13:20:52 -
[58] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:I don't think battleships will see more use if T3's get nerfed. The reason battleships don't get used is because they are more skill intensive and most of all, their mobility sucks. This is precisely the reason that nerfing T3s to encourage use of battleships will not work - you'll just have another class of ships that people are just as reluctant to use in PvP. Battleships need a very serious change in how their damage application against smaller ships works.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16417
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 13:30:19 -
[59] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote: This is precisely the reason that nerfing T3s to encourage use of battleships will not work - you'll just have another class of ships that people are just as reluctant to use in PvP. Battleships need a very serious change in how their damage application against smaller ships works.
Lucius Kalari wrote:Battleships need a tracking, dps and tank buff as they're currently just big floating pinatas.
Battleship tracking is just fine.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lim Hiaret
Hiaret Family
16
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 13:34:57 -
[60] - Quote
It could just as well be an AT price ship or the missing Abaddon Navy Issue. Than again Amarr was first on the D3 race so they might also get a T3 BS first if there should ever be one.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |