Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
14
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 17:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Aineko Macx wrote: Without sticking on complex mods on the ship T3's don't get to 2 bil. In fact, the cookie cutter alliance Tengu/Loki fit is 600-700 mil. That is less than a Mach or a Carrier and still Tengus have way less weaknesses than those (yeah I know, different ship classes, but when people bring arguments like "it costs so much, it should pwn" it has to be mentioned).
I did say 500m-2b :P Most solo T3 pilots will stick on some seriously expensive mods, T2 rigs etc. and those are the T3s that really pwn. As for "it costs so much, it should pwn", a carrier plays a different role, and in most fights is considerably more useful than another T3. Funny you should bring up pirate faction battleships though, would you fight a Bhaalgorn in a Tengu? Or a Machariel for that matter? Proteus vs. Vindicator? Anyway, I'll admit a fleet of 600-700m ISK T3s are pretty awesome, especially with logistics support. But then again, if you kill one or two of them even sacrificing a scorpion and a fleet of whelp canes would still leave you ISK positive at the end. And if you can't kill them, because you don't have any ewar, logistics or webbers, then you probably wouldn't have won even if they weren't flying T3s. From someone who killed 1 Loki and sent the other off the field with a 'Cane and a friend in a Drake: Keep the changes small. Lengthening the training time of subsystems would be a good idea if something was needed to compensate for any future removal of the exploding-T3 skillpoint loss, and the Tengu might be able to do with its missle subsystems rejiggered (making the missile subsystems into a choice between the Accelerated Ejection Bay for high-to-facemelt-DPS HAM fittings a la the Legion counterpart or the Rifling Launcher Pattern for long-range, moderately-high-but-not-uber DPS HML fittings would be a good idea IMO.)
Also, more and more varied uses for Sleeper loot/salvage would be a Good Thing IMO. T3 ammo might be an interesting concept to ponder... |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 18:13:00 -
[32] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:We need more T3s available... from frigates on up to Battleships. IMO T3's are a result of CCPs inability to find roles for new ships. So they went "hey lets make modular ships that do it all, just better", vandalizing the delicate inter ship class balance. If strategic cruisers are any indication of how the other T3s are gonna be, eve would be better off without them. |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
87
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 19:42:00 -
[33] - Quote
I had a 650 dps arty loki with the web subsystem. It was pretty epic in most respects save one, it could only web to about 50km with a faction web and links. I wanted a 100km web, the rapier could provide that while the loki couldn't. I ended up never actually using that loki and sold it after a couple months of it collecting dust. I wasn't afraid to fly it. In fact I kept trying to come up with excuses to. But it just wasn't of any use, our little gangs needed the range of the rapier, not 300 more dps.
That situation is presented across most t3 setups. They can do several things at once which is great solo/duo. But in any larger gang you're better off with more specialized ships. And this is completely ignoring cost. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
309
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 13:55:00 -
[34] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:We need more T3s available... from frigates on up to Battleships. IMO T3's are a result of CCPs inability to find roles for new ships. So they went "hey lets make modular ships that do it all, just better", vandalizing the delicate inter ship class balance. If strategic cruisers are any indication of how the other T3s are gonna be, eve would be better off without them.
It's a good thing it is just an opinion then.
EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX!
Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
|
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
181
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 15:25:00 -
[35] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:We need more T3s available... from frigates on up to Battleships. IMO T3's are a result of CCPs inability to find roles for new ships. So they went "hey lets make modular ships that do it all, just better", vandalizing the delicate inter ship class balance. If strategic cruisers are any indication of how the other T3s are gonna be, eve would be better off without them.
So "Miss little NPC'er" wants to make them worse...not better.
I find this...amusing. |
Gempei
Siberian Khatru. Shadow Operations.
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 15:37:00 -
[36] - Quote
tengu is good balanced, other tech 3 cruiser are underpowered ... nerfing is ccp way past 2 year, eve need buffing, not nerfing! |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 15:45:00 -
[37] - Quote
Just finishing the T3 cruisers (where's that 5th subsystem?) would be nice. |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 15:46:00 -
[38] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:So "Miss little NPC'er" wants to make them worse...not better. I find this...amusing. What part of "nerf" did you not understand before? |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
181
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 15:51:00 -
[39] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:Drake Draconis wrote:So "Miss little NPC'er" wants to make them worse...not better. I find this...amusing. What part of "nerf" did you not understand before?
Aineko Macx wrote:IMO T3's are a result of CCPs inability to find roles for new ships. So they went "hey lets make modular ships that do it all, just better", vandalizing the delicate inter ship class balance. If strategic cruisers are any indication of how the other T3s are gonna be, eve would be better off without them.
Your implying they are unfocused...and your ignoring the obvious fact that Tech 3 ships have to be configured to fill those roles...and when they are..they end up being worse off in those roles they aren't configured for than they are in its intended role.
Already your being told by PVP'ers they tend to not use them as often as you hate them for fear them.
This smells like a carebear whine more than anything else.
Too many ships fill those roles better than a tech 3 does due to its extreme focus.
Tech 3 ships are fine as they are now...in-fact some are better off being buffed as opposed to nerf'd. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
498
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 15:54:00 -
[40] - Quote
I really don't understand why someone would care about anything that might be called "balance" in PVE. Use the best ship there is. If it's a T3, use it. If a marauder can do better, fly the marauder. If your primary complaint is that Tengus are too good at missions...FLY A TENGU AND CASH IN ON IT. Or if you prefer to feel like your missions are tougher, fly something else. But don't try to push change on everyone else just because you think a ship is too good at shooting NPCs. |
|
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
181
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 18:21:00 -
[41] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I really don't understand why someone would care about anything that might be called "balance" in PVE. Use the best ship there is. If it's a T3, use it. If a marauder can do better, fly the marauder. If your primary complaint is that Tengus are too good at missions...FLY A TENGU AND CASH IN ON IT. Or if you prefer to feel like your missions are tougher, fly something else. But don't try to push change on everyone else just because you think a ship is too good at shooting NPCs.
THIS |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 18:56:00 -
[42] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I really don't understand why someone would care about anything that might be called "balance" in PVE. Use the best ship there is. If it's a T3, use it. If a marauder can do better, fly the marauder. If your primary complaint is that Tengus are too good at missions...FLY A TENGU AND CASH IN ON IT. Or if you prefer to feel like your missions are tougher, fly something else. But don't try to push change on everyone else just because you think a ship is too good at shooting NPCs. THIS THIS |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 19:47:00 -
[43] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Your implying they are unfocused... Yes they are, but that's not the primary issue. The remark was a statement on CCPs game design. The issue is they offer a very compelling package of dps, survivability and variable extra abilities that is hard to beat. The only real downside is their cost (the skill loss doesn't count as its currently negligible). Trying to balance that out via cost is also bad game design at best, look at supercap proliferation for reference.
Quote:Already your being told by PVP'ers they tend to not use them as often as you hate them for fear them. Too many ships fill those roles better than a tech 3 does due to its extreme focus. You clearly haven't been doing much 0.0 or WH play lately, or you would know that is not true. The only typical fleet/gang role I don't see much T3's in are logistics, ECM and cap warfare.
Quote:Tech 3 ships are fine as they are now...in-fact some are better off being buffed as opposed to nerf'd. If you read my opening post you would've seen I support the buffing of specific T3's or aspects thereof.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I really don't understand why someone would care about anything that might be called "balance" in PVE. I know you have difficulty understanding it, so let me restate: I don't care about PvE. This proposal refers to T3's in a PvP context. I do, however, have the opinion that introducing ships which obsolete entire ship classes (isk not being a factor) and/or are overpowered, is bad game design that actually hurts the gameplay, no matter if in pvp or pve. And Mara brought up pve. Note: I stopped doing regular missioning/ratting/pve about 2 years ago.
Quote:Use the best ship there is. If it's a T3, use it. If a marauder can do better, fly the marauder. If your primary complaint is that Tengus are too good at missions...FLY A TENGU AND CASH IN ON IT. Or if you prefer to feel like your missions are tougher, fly something else. But don't try to push change on everyone else just because you think a ship is too good at shooting NPCs. By that logic nothing OP would ever be nerfed. And seeing that you are only in it for yourself, what are you doing in a proposal that is trying to improve the game? You're a textbook hypocrite. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
520
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 21:38:00 -
[44] - Quote
Classy. Also, you complete lack of comprehension of the nature of ADHD makes me chuckle, that you think it would prevent me from understanding anything.
Aineko Macx wrote:so let me restate: I don't care about PvE. So why are you replying to my post directed at people who do? And you say *I* have difficulty understanding?
Aineko Macx wrote: ships which obsolete entire ship classes (isk not being a factor) and/or are overpowered, is bad game design that actually hurts the gameplay But cost *is* a factor. Should CCP be balancing deadspace mods so that T2-fitted ships can compete with them? They cost more because they're more effective. T3s, same thing.
If T3s make so much obsolete, why aren't they the only ships on the field? Right...because they're woefully inadequate as main fleet ships. They do support well, they're great at solo and small gang combat, and they can bring unique abilities to bear, but they will MELT in the face of a more balanced fleet.
Aineko Macx wrote: By that logic nothing OP would ever be nerfed. And seeing that you are only in it for yourself, what are you doing in a proposal that is trying to improve the game? You're a textbook hypocrite. Context much? Let's go back to the part where I was replying to people complaining about Tengus being OP in missions.
Jeebus. And I'm supposed to be the one with a short attention span.
edit: you do realize that just because you started this thread, not every reply is about you, right? Sheesh, some people think the world revolves around them...
|
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
67
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 21:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
Floppie, your arguements give me wood. Masterfully played. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
808
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 21:56:00 -
[46] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:[quote=Aineko Macx] Sheesh, some people think the world revolves around them...
Right now theworld revolves around Destination Skillqueue. Don't believe me? Look at your likes...lol
This is now a "Likes" or "Destination Skillqueue" thread. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX!
Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
525
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 22:25:00 -
[47] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Right now theworld revolves around Destination Skillqueue. Don't believe me? Look at your likes...lol
This is now a "Likes" or "Destination Skillqueue" thread.
Most of my likes aren't from DSQ. Another 20 or so and I'll be a "natural" 500 :) |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
181
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 22:32:00 -
[48] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Classy. Also, you complete lack of comprehension of the nature of ADHD makes me chuckle, that you think it would prevent me from understanding anything. Aineko Macx wrote:so let me restate: I don't care about PvE. So why are you replying to my post directed at people who do? And you say *I* have difficulty understanding? Aineko Macx wrote: ships which obsolete entire ship classes (isk not being a factor) and/or are overpowered, is bad game design that actually hurts the gameplay But cost *is* a factor. Should CCP be balancing deadspace mods so that T2-fitted ships can compete with them? They cost more because they're more effective. T3s, same thing. If T3s make so much obsolete, why aren't they the only ships on the field? Right...because they're woefully inadequate as main fleet ships. They do support well, they're great at solo and small gang combat, and they can bring unique abilities to bear, but they will MELT in the face of a more balanced fleet. Aineko Macx wrote: By that logic nothing OP would ever be nerfed. And seeing that you are only in it for yourself, what are you doing in a proposal that is trying to improve the game? You're a textbook hypocrite. Context much? Let's go back to the part where I was replying to people complaining about Tengus being OP in missions.Jeebus. And I'm supposed to be the one with a short attention span. edit: you do realize that just because you started this thread, not every reply is about you, right? Sheesh, some people think the world revolves around them...
That Ladies and Gents...is prue....refined.... WTFBBQPWN.
Nicely said. You hit it right on the head.
PS: You only forgot to point out he's an NPC'er |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
525
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 22:37:00 -
[49] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:PS: You only forgot to point out he's an NPC'er
I don't play that card. Besides, so was Monk when he posted in this thread, and he's usually my CEO
|
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
181
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 22:40:00 -
[50] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Drake Draconis wrote:PS: You only forgot to point out he's an NPC'er I don't play that card. Besides, so was Monk when he posted in this thread, and he's usually my CEO
There are people who are NPC'ed for legit reasons.
and there are people who HIDE and make BS proopsals. |
|
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 07:44:00 -
[51] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:That Ladies and Gents...is prue....refined.... WTFBBQPWN. You must have low standards, that wall of text contains two arguments and a lot of deflection.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:But cost *is* a factor. Should CCP be balancing deadspace mods so that T2-fitted ships can compete with them? They cost more because they're more effective. T3s, same thing. I don't see much problem with complex mods except for the mostly lax fitting requirements. They are just more of the same, and the diminishing returns are okay.
Quote:If T3s make so much obsolete, why aren't they the only ships on the field? Right...because they're woefully inadequate as main fleet ships. Tengus are the new Drakes. Every alliance capable of fielding a fleet of them is doing so.
Quote:Context much? Let's go back to the part where I was replying to people complaining about Tengus being OP in missions. Stop deflecting. Just because you were responding to somebody else's argument doesn't make your stance any less self serving. |
Laechyd Eldgorn
Molden Heath Angels
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 08:45:00 -
[52] - Quote
tech 3 are pretty much balanced compared to isk value and skill loss
only real problem i see is offgrid gang boosting which isnt directly related to ships themselves
tengu has ordinary caldari advantages for pve but again not problem with ship itself and mission running tengus are easy to suicide for luls.
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
570
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 14:53:00 -
[53] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:But cost *is* a factor. Should CCP be balancing deadspace mods so that T2-fitted ships can compete with them? They cost more because they're more effective. T3s, same thing. I don't see much problem with complex mods except for the mostly lax fitting requirements. They are just more of the same, and the diminishing returns are okay. ....and you completely pass over the analogy I made. If complex mods are okay in spite of their being more powerful than T2 variants, why the whine about T3s?
Aineko Macx wrote:Tengus are the new Drakes. Every alliance capable of fielding a fleet of them is doing so.
Your point? Should CCP nerf Tengus so Drakes go back to being the spammobile? Then will you be whining for them to nerf Drakes? Just because a given ship is the flavor of the month doesn't mean it's OP. I don't recall any changes to Drakes or Tengus for quite some time...why would there be a shift from one to the other? My guess: Metagame. Drake armies aren't as effective as they once were, because they were so widely used that other fleets developed hard counters to them. When the Tengus are consistently trumped, they'll find another ship to blob.
Aineko Macx wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Context much? Let's go back to the part where I was replying to people complaining about Tengus being OP in missions. Stop deflecting. Just because you were responding to somebody else's argument doesn't make your stance any less self serving. You deliberately took my statement out of context and tried to apply it to PVP, which was obviously not my intent. Don't accuse me of deflecting when I point that out. Here, I'll spell it out, and try to use little words:
When you are shooting the little red plus signs, use any ship you want because you are the only person fighting and balance doesn't matter. If one ship does the job better than all the others, use that ship.
Also: I can't even fly a Tengu. I dislike Caldari ships and missile boats in general (exceptions made for the Sacrilege and Vengeance) |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
834
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 15:27:00 -
[54] - Quote
lol @ "little red plus signs". EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX!
Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
|
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
60
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 18:14:00 -
[55] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:....and you completely pass over the analogy I made. If complex mods are okay in spite of their being more powerful than T2 variants, why the whine about T3s? There are no complex mods that increase a cruisers dps and tank from average to that of a BS. Nor are there mods that give BS the speed, agility and sig radius of a cruiser. T3's have both.
Quote:Your point? Should CCP nerf Tengus so Drakes go back to being the spammobile? Then will you be whining for them to nerf Drakes? Just because a given ship is the flavor of the month doesn't mean it's OP. I don't recall any changes to Drakes or Tengus for quite some time...why would there be a shift from one to the other? My guess: Metagame. Drake armies aren't as effective as they once were, because they were so widely used that other fleets developed hard counters to them. When the Tengus are consistently trumped, they'll find another ship to blob. I'm actually liking your train of thought here, although I will disagree with your conclusion. Blobs of Tengus, in their current form and with the current other ships, will never find a hard counter. There are some tactics that offer a minimum of effectiveness against them, but engagements with similar numbers on each side tend to go heavily in favor of the Tengus.
Another cause for more and more people switching to T3's is the increase in purchasing power, which we already skirted before. Which shows another reason that balancing through cost is a bad idea.
Well, and about the Drake, many people including CCP have stated for years that it offers maybe a bit too much in a single package...
Quote:Aineko Macx wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Context much? Let's go back to the part where I was replying to people complaining about Tengus being OP in missions. Stop deflecting. Just because you were responding to somebody else's argument doesn't make your stance any less self serving. You deliberately took my statement out of context and tried to apply it to PVP, which was obviously not my intent. Don't accuse me of deflecting when I point that out. Here, I'll spell it out, and try to use little words: When you are shooting the little red plus signs, use any ship you want because you are the only person fighting and balance doesn't matter. If one ship does the job better than all the others, use that ship. None of the quotes were taken out of context. Your mistake is to believe there is no such thing as balance in pve, therefore you are assuming I am wrongly applying your pve statements in a pvp context. OP mission boats are one of the multiple reasons the isk faucets/sinks are out of balance. And again, introducing ships that obsolete all other hi end mission boats is just bad game design.
Finally, I don't think that the 3 nerf items I proposed are at all unreasonable. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
838
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 19:31:00 -
[56] - Quote
The horse isn't quite dead...but we are going to continue to beat it anyway... EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX!
Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
|
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
186
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 19:34:00 -
[57] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:The horse isn't quite dead...but we are going to continue to beat it anyway...
Indeed....still cant get over the fact this is a glorifeid carebear bash aruging over "its not fiar" (mispelling intentional) argument we should nerf tech3's cause its not fiar.
And to top that off....its an OP Who hides behind an NPC for whatever reason.
That's the trifecta of irony. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
838
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 19:41:00 -
[58] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:The horse isn't quite dead...but we are going to continue to beat it anyway... Indeed....still cant get over the fact this is a glorifeid carebear bash aruging over "its not fiar" (mispelling intentional) argument we should nerf tech3's cause its not fiar. And to top that off....its an OP Who hides behind an NPC for whatever reason. That's the trifecta of irony.
I don't think the OP has ever been inside a WH before. That's likely the real problem. T3's in terms of PvE were meant for WH space...are they overpowered for PvE in Empire and Null...hell yes...but they are just right for WH space. Then again...a supercarrier is OP for PvE. We should nerf them again...
Any kind of "balancing" should be geared towards PvP and PvP only. Period. No discussion...no if's, and's, or but's...Period. After that whatever ship fits best for the job in PvE gets the job...in this case it is the Tengu. Get over it. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX!
Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
579
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 20:37:00 -
[59] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:There are no complex mods that increase a cruisers dps and tank from average to that of a BS. Nor are there mods that give BS the speed, agility and sig radius of a cruiser. T3's have both. Show me a T3 that gets the DPS *and* tank of a battleship. Either you fail at fitting battleships, or you've seen some outrageously-fitted T3s. In its covert configuration, my Legion deals no damage at all. My Proteus will top out doing the damage equivalent of a BC and having the tank of a moderately-tanked BS. Unless, of course, I want to drop several billion on the right mods and implants.
Aineko Macx wrote: I'm actually liking your train of thought here, although I will disagree with your conclusion. Blobs of Tengus, in their current form and with the current other ships, will never find a hard counter. There are some tactics that offer a minimum of effectiveness against them, but engagements with similar numbers on each side tend to go heavily in favor of the Tengus.
For now. I don't play in the blob v blob world because it's never interested me, but it's been my experience that sooner or later someone decides there was never even a box to think outside of in the first place and arrives at a really surprising solution to a particularly troublesome problem like a Tengu fleet. I'd hate to see creativity lose its place in Eve in favor of instant rebalancing every time one ship type or another rises to dominance. Mostly because being creative is probably what I'm best at.
Aineko Macx wrote:Another cause for more and more people switching to T3's is the increase in purchasing power, which we already skirted before. Which shows another reason that balancing through cost is a bad idea. If the problem is an excess of isk, then you should be advocating a reduction in isk generation, or an increase in isk-sinks to pull it back out of the game. If T3s are a problem now only because people can afford them now, then your real issue is with the supply and demand mechanics.
Aineko Macx wrote:OP mission boats are one of the multiple reasons the isk faucets/sinks are out of balance. And again, introducing ships that obsolete all other hi end mission boats is just bad game design. I've seen people running missions in Machs and Nightmares with nearly as good efficiency as a Tengu. Shall we nerf them to dial down the isk faucet as well? Every ship you nerf for PVE, you inadvertently nerf for PVP as well. Eve needs more isk sinks and bot countermeasures, not nerfed ships. |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
187
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 21:06:00 -
[60] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Show me a T3 that gets the DPS *and* tank of a battleship. Either you fail at fitting battleships, or you've seen some outrageously-fitted T3s. In its covert configuration, my Legion deals no damage at all. My Proteus will top out doing the damage equivalent of a BC and having the tank of a moderately-tanked BS. Unless, of course, I want to drop several billion on the right mods and implants.
I can.....but its cheating.
Speed Tanking.
OK ill shut up.
DPS falls short but then not THAT short. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |