|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18862
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 00:20:31 -
[1] - Quote
There are several big issues with T3C.
First is the number of bonuses they are getting ( averages out at 8 bonuses) with most being 10% per level.
Second is the massive tanks they get coupled with the small cruiser sig and ability to run an AB forever. This means on paper they beat most battleships in EHP but in reality they are getting upwards of 3x more effective tank than battleships.
Third is the ability to fit both a cov ops cloak and be nullified at the same time. This makes them effectively unstoppable.
Next is a crazy amount of fitting room these ships have for a cruiser. For example a proteus can be getting 468 CPU and 1820 powergrid while a thorax gets 412.5 CPU and 1025 powergrid. Hilariously the proteus gets more powergrid than the command ships.
The rigs were always a problem as you cant have a ship that can change on the fly when the rigs cant be removed so that was a much needed fix.
The original idea behind these ships was to have a cruiser that was very adaptable, what we got was a pocket battleship that did the job of some 60+ ships only better. In the tiercide plan CCP have these ships slated to land somewhere between t1 and faction cruisers so given where they are today T3C are in for one hell of a beating from the nerf bat.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18862
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 00:44:29 -
[2] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:baltec1 wrote:The rigs were always a problem as you cant have a ship that can change on the fly when the rigs cant be removed so that was a much needed fix. Ah, one of my favorite forum regulars! Good to see you. I have a question about the quote above. I don't keep up with places like Reddit where stuff like this probably already got hashed out, but your reference to the rigs seems oddly phrased, or very deliberately phrased. " ...that was a much needed fix" That makes it sound like something already happened. I'm not aware of any announced balance changes for T3C yet. So are T3 ships getting rigs removed completely? I remember someone on the forums long ago made a very convincing argument for removing rigs from T3 ships. Is that something CCP is going to do?
Plan so far is to have them be removable like any other mod. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18867
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 11:20:55 -
[3] - Quote
Coralas wrote:
For the proteus, that would give you the option of a deimos that requires a whole new skill tree or a stratios that requires a whole new skill tree, level 5 skills and has no cargo capacity.
More like between a thorax and a navy exequror
Coralas wrote: Which has to go into a hauler mode to carry enough gear to do the clark kent thing at destination
Nah. You don't need a huge number of mods to radically change the ship.
Coralas wrote: I also think it has ramifications for the current "most systems are occupied" phenomenon in null (ie a great many systems became useful to run anoms and escalate from, after CCP changed the composition of ihub generated anoms in bad truesec systems - along with the sov changes).
If the covert/nullified ship isn't good enough to actually do the escalation anymore, most people would be far keener on abusing the predictability of the walker to keep the escalation in blue space - ie cluster up into the same old deadends they used to and fly an interceptor to the citadel containing their rattlesnake when they get an escalation, which might have to be moved 1 or 2 jumps tops. I certainly wouldn't do what I did before, which is go fetch them from red space.
Quite frankly I'm not too bothered if this makes doing things like 10/10s harder and riskier. If fewer run them then supply of the rewards drops and the people who do put in the time and effort get greater reward. I honestly think exploration was swung too far towards being easy.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18867
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 14:12:45 -
[4] - Quote
Coralas wrote:
I can't see the point to such a ship, if nothing else, we don't need more ships at that scale of hitpoints.
That's because you wan't something horrendously overpowered not something handy.
Coralas wrote:
The drone variant carries 225m3 of drones. The modules are 40m3 each. The depot is 50m3 if I recall. Even just going to covops/null and 1 combat fit works only because you can leave some of the drone bay on the ship.
drone bay and cargo hold a two different things. you dont have to have to carry 3 entire fits in the hold to radically change the ship.
Coralas wrote: I don't entirely disagree with that, but one problem is that it will be perceived as 2 player content, or rather, 2 account content done with blops which is imo a worse place to be as a game design than being done by solo t3s.
This is a multi player game, more working together is a good thing. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18868
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 15:04:53 -
[5] - Quote
Rroff wrote: For a serious fleet role (rather than casual roams or throw away PVP, etc.) take that WTFPWNMOBILE off the table though and you are still left with options that are either hamstrung by the high bar for entry i.e. commandships or wholly inadequate to perform the role in today's Eve regardless of compromises you make.
The only reason those ships are hamstrung is because T3C do the job so much better. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18868
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 15:14:49 -
[6] - Quote
Rroff wrote:baltec1 wrote: The only reason those ships are hamstrung is because T3C do the job so much better.
Nope. Spent many many hours in those kind of engagements - most of the other "options" in the line for that role are too laughable in today's Eve to even entertain, the others that are adequate are hamstrung by the bar for entry - personally I had my alt in a halo'd Eos or Astarte in a fair few cases but that isn't an option for many mainstream players.
Any why is that not an option given the fact that we are tossing around suicide dreadnoughts and carriers in fleets of hundreds?
There is nothing wrong with the likes of the zealot, the problem is the legion is a far better zealot. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18868
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 15:29:17 -
[7] - Quote
Coralas wrote:
Not only is that wrong, its not a rebuttal of the point. I do actually fly vexors.
And people who didn't want the nano nerf flew battleships. You are one of those people that follow the FOTM and don't want to see it go even if you don't think you are one of them. Other arguments we will see are "but its been in game forever like this", "but it costs a X amount" and "but nobody will fly it if its balanced with cruisers".
Coralas wrote:
The drones gotta go somewhere where you don't have the dronebay sub on it.
Why would you want to alter a droneboat into a railboat? Realistically its going to be more of a case of adapting Railboats to longer range, more tanky, ECM abilities, cloaking fits to combat fits, slapping on nullification or taking it off depending on bubbles and so on.
Coralas wrote: Its a pecularity of modular ships offering drone fits. If the revised game design is the modular exploration ship is underpowered and has to get past content by being flexible, then it needs to be able to bring all the flexibility.
You don't need or want to bring all the flexibility to everything at once. If you go with a droneboat you build your flexibility around that.
Coralas wrote:
and being perceived as having all the high end content be 2 account sweet spots isn't.
Why? You are far more likely to stay in this game if you play with others than going solo. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18868
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 15:34:49 -
[8] - Quote
Rroff wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Any why is that not an option given the fact that we are tossing around suicide dreadnoughts and carriers in fleets of hundreds?
Last number I saw on supers was we had 20,000 of them and that was several years ago. Everyone is spitting out supers and titans at an unbelievable rate but you seem to think people can't afford to fly a command ship or zealot.
There is nothing wrong with the likes of the zealot, the problem is the legion is a far better zealot.
Rroff wrote: Where did I say can't afford in context of a commandship?
most of the other "options" in the line for that role are too laughable in today's Eve to even entertain, the others that are adequate are hamstrung by the bar for entry - personally I had my alt in a halo'd Eos or Astarte in a fair few cases but that isn't an option for many mainstream players.
[quote=Rroff] its a fairly long skill train relatively speak - though I guess with the ability to inject SP these days its less of an issue. Thing is though not everyone is part of or even wants to be part of that aspect of Eve you are talking about.
So they won't miss T3C stepping on on those ships toes. [quote=Rroff] Personally if the Prot was taken off the table I'd just bring a tricked out Astarte - cheaper, has same tank as all but the silly blinged out T3s, 20% more DPS, utility highs, etc. - sig is a bit of an issue but I've enough experience to mitigate that somewhat.
The very fact you are having to compare a cruiser with a command ship (T2 battlecruiser) shows again how out of balance T3C are.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18868
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 15:54:22 -
[9] - Quote
Rroff wrote:baltec1 wrote:
The very fact you are having to compare a cruiser with a command ship (T2 battlecruiser) shows again how out of balance T3C are.
Personally I think it faulty to look at them as a cruiser - T3s should be looked at in the light of small, medium and the currently non-existent large varieties - would get a bit silly having T3 variants of every ship class in Eve - as interesting as the original concept of T3s might sound it really wouldn't work well in actual ingame gameplay anything like as good as it sounds - games like Brink are a testament to ignoring that one :s
Literally called tech 3 cruiser.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18868
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 16:10:45 -
[10] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Pedantically - Strategic cruiser and based off of sleeper tech where the sleeper drones also have somewhat out of class capabilities in terms of EHP, sig and mobility, etc.
AKA overpowered. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18868
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 16:20:08 -
[11] - Quote
Rroff wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rroff wrote:Pedantically - Strategic cruiser and based off of sleeper tech where the sleeper drones also have somewhat out of class capabilities in terms of EHP, sig and mobility, etc. AKA overpowered. Not arguing they aren't - I'm arguing that the changes that would bring the best overall result to the game aren't necessarily the ones that some, generally the most vocal, people think.
Given that CCP have already said these ships are supposed to be landing between cruisers and navy cruisers I think we have a very clear idea of how savage the nerfs have to be. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18868
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 16:40:23 -
[12] - Quote
Coralas wrote:
This is a false accusation combined with putting words out that i've never typed to cast the allusion that I'll make those flawed arguments.
The actual point is simple. Is there not something like 24 t1 cruisers in the game already. Why do we need another 4 t1 cruisers.
How many of those cruisers can swap out rigs without destroying them and change the very bonuses of the ship on the fly?
Coralas wrote: because I like flying drone ships, but some of the puzzles in the game are extensively anti drone and not only that, sometimes the deds roll a 30 second aggro timer that yes, means I need to pull my drones every 30 seconds to keep them alive. That **** that sleepers do, its a random roll on other encounters as well.
So if we are talking about nerfing the droneboat power to be more like a vexor, and thus taking a bloody minute+ to kill a single 500k bounty npc battleship - which will promptly regen a third of what I just shot off it, and for which there are 4 pockets of 5-10 ahead of me, then **** that, I'd like to switch to rails please and I'd prefer to not have to 10 jumps back and through a camp to do it.
If doneboats are no good for the task you want to do why bring one in the first place?
Coralas wrote: I do play with others. Escalations come from ratting which is an inherently solo activity, as quite frankly is going hunting for signatures and is doing the signatures before you have competition, and escalations pop when they want to which could be near the end of a play session, and when you can't count on being able to get to it before the timer runs out.
This is the incursion argument. What you mean to say is you don't want your isk generating power reduced. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18868
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 16:42:31 -
[13] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: All moot, CCP IS changing T3Cs, and most of us support their efforts.
Personally outside of these forums I've never heard anyone particularly unhappy with T3 cruisers - and a lot of my game time was spent in a coalition of 100s of players and alts in 1-2 large corps/alliances. Heard plenty of complaints about ECM alts and multiboxing, etc. most of what I've heard in regard to T3s has been about the underused sub-systems.
Same argument was used against the nano nerfs. People don't like having a FOTM nerfed and a lot abuse it. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18874
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 09:32:16 -
[14] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
They arent the "best". A Gila is better as a cheaper craft with less SP requirements. A Stratios is better as a dedicated covops scanning ship with a larger cargo hold and drone redundancy. HACs are well and fine in blue space, (albeit some are pretty crap such as Minmatar HACs. Ishtar stands head and shoulders above the rest).
TC3s are optimal for nomadic deepspace operations in hostile sectors and refitting for specific tasks onsite, albeit as higher cost, cargo space issues and risk of SP loss.
Furthermore the TC3s are different. For example the Loki being a suboptimal choice for PvE content.
TC3 changes need to include consideration of the above. There is a substantial segment of the playerbase using them for this kind of playstyle in the sandbox, and they should not be unduly penalized.
People who want to play this way, have invested into the skills and assets to do so in TC3s. So can anyone else, or they can run them in Gilas/Stratios/HACs if they wish as the game is right now. Nothing is stopping them from choosing either path, as suits their situation/means best.
Nerfing TC3s without consideration of this wont cause deepspace solo nomads to swap to Muninns or Gilas. It will just cause them to stop living that way ingame, as well as make WHs/Null even safer for locals as a result. It will remove content and activity.
They use them because they are overpowered. We have been here many many times and the arguments for keeping them overpowered are exactly the same. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18874
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 14:14:09 -
[15] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Thats like saying people use Machs for blitzing cos they are OP. Or people use Epithal cos its OP for PI shipping.
No.
People use them because they are ships which are optimal for that job.
In this case, T3Cs have the versatility that playing solo in hostile deepspace needs. T3Ds cant do it, and there is no T3BC in existence.
They are not "overpowered" for this purpose. They are ideal for it because of their versatility. A HAC or Faction cruiser does not have this kind of versatility. They are not a substitute for that versatility.
So I take it you think the dram wans't overpowered, or remote doomsday titans, or the nano age, or max heatsink geddons, or cavalry ravens.
All of these things were the optimal choice of their age because all of them were overpowered. T3C are just as bad or even more overpowered than these. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18875
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 17:08:51 -
[16] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote: Rails are absolutely a viable option here, you just don't seem to like the trade-offs they require in DPS and tracking. That doesn't mean that they're not usable though, it means that you either don't like them for arbitrary reasons or you haven't found a setup for them that works. Neither of those is a justification for keeping the Proteus in its current state.
We used rail prots quite a bit after the introduction of tier 3 battlecruisers, etc. separate to that personally I used to fly around wormhole space quite a bit with this ship: http://imgur.com/nDu3iTu (If you check one of the POS bashes in the killboard record for Rroff where I used a Prot you can see the faction railguns on there - this was before the changes to railguns where the faction variety had a slight advantage in actual damage application at range). You assume a ton about me that couldn't be further from the truth - as I mentioned before I spent long enough in the game I had the skills and ISK to turn to other options if the strat cruiser wasn't there (even if that meant putting slaves on a ship that you really shouldn't) so personally I'm not really that bothered what happens to them in that regard despite you thinking I'm being protective of them out of self interest.
You are putting up an awful lot of fight for someone not bothered if CCP nerf T3C down to cruiser/navy cruiser levels. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18877
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 17:26:39 -
[17] - Quote
In the last two pages we got:
People will quit if you nerf these ships
There are no other ships that can do what I currently do in a T3
But all of the other options are ****
dont take away my get past the gatecamp free card
But they cost so much
My OP ship nerf bingo card is just about full. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18878
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 19:42:17 -
[18] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: T3Cs cost more
Cost is always a poor way to balance things. See remote doomsday titans and CCP thinking only a handful would ever exist at any one time.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: T3Cs risk SP loss
Should be removed entirely, it doesn't work.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility
Any ship with a cov ops cloak can do that, what you want is a virtually guaranteed way to avoid gatecamps.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: These are important characteristics to consider in a nerf.
All 3 should have no place in the balance work.
Things that need to be considered is fitting room, base stats, and making sure they are balanced around where they are supposed to be which is between cruisers and navy cruisers.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Diversification of the 4 T3Cs is the best way forward.
No the best way forwards is to make them the generalists they were always supposed to be. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18879
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 20:18:14 -
[19] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility Any ship with a cov ops cloak can do that, what you want is a virtually guaranteed way to avoid gatecamps. Go check what ships can use covops cloak and name 3 that will be usefull for nomad life.
Purifier, stratios, pilgrim. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18879
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 20:32:12 -
[20] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:baltec1 wrote:Purifier, stratios, pilgrim. Do you know what "nomad life" mean? It's not roam for a day. Stratios? outside hisec? SB? for what? data site? DED?
I spend weeks at a time in a purifier. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18880
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 04:13:48 -
[21] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote: You flow megathron in frigates fleets, you are not good statistics example.
Unlike you I actually experiment with ships, the mega is for fun and provides challenge. You asked me for nomad ships and I provided them and told you I live out of a purifier for weeks at a time but apparently thats not a nomad life.
Tell me, what exactly do you consider a nomad life to entail? I'm alone in hostile space, I have enough ammo, paste and tools in the hold to last me that time and I don't dock again until I return home. Is that not a nomad life?
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Explain, specifically, how to achieve that without causing extinction of hostile deepspace nomads.
Use one of the other cloaky ships. You don't need an overpowered mini battleship to live that life.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: I proposed diversification of the 4 T3C hulls. You said no.
So what exactly do you propose?
Reduce powergrid down to match cruiser/navy cruisers, reduce the bonuses from 8 down to at most 4, slight nerf to cap amount and recharge rate, remove ability to fit nullification and cov ops at the same time, remove SP loss on death, lower build cost, ability to remove rigs without destroying them, bump cargo to around 400-450m3.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18882
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 05:24:55 -
[22] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote: Pretty much agree with all this, but I still say base buffer need to be hit hard to be brought down to below BC levels in conjunction to what you propose.
A good point.
For example, a cloaky loki gets 19k base EHP while the rapier only gets 7.7k. So it makes sense for the cloaky loki to at the very least be brought down to a similar level. It also should have 85% EM resists like the rapier. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18882
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 10:32:01 -
[23] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:remove ability to fit nullification and cov ops at the same time, remove SP loss on death. How convenient for PvP players, at the expense of PvE players. Are the occassional T3C interlopers running content in your space really such an inconvenience for you that you want to kill off nomadic deepspace runners entirely? So the ability to interdict or engage a fleet of T3Cs before they get to destroying your PVEers is a convenience for PVPers? I guess if you can only look at one side of an issue it would be. T3Cs are a tool for everyone. Nerfs or buffs would affect everyone too. Nomadic deepspace runners dont have fleets, nor do they benefit from the protection of locals. There is no need to remove SP loss, nor cloak/null which are core mechanics of T3Cs. You can engage the T3Cs once they refit to run content. If someone wants to run T3C fleets, go ahead. Removing SP loss just reduces risk and makes such fleets even more likely.
What risk? On average you have one big battle a week which is more than enough time to get that skill back. Any cov ops ship can be nomadic, what you want is the ability to bypass defences with no effort on your part while being able to do high end content at the same time. This all boils down to you not wanting to give up you low risk, overpowered money maker. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18884
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 15:44:17 -
[24] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
seriously mate, this game is supposed to be hard...
Yet here you are supporting a system that allows you to pass by the defenses of anyone simply by clicking warp to next gate. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 03:43:25 -
[25] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dracvlad wrote:
seriously mate, this game is supposed to be hard...
Yet here you are supporting a system that allows you to pass by the defenses of anyone simply by clicking warp to next gate. You should have to hunt them when they run stuff rather than easy certain death gate camps in choke points, is hunting too hard for you? I guess it is...
No its very easy
Because we use the T3C to get past any defenses the enemy has with zero effort on our part. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 05:03:11 -
[26] - Quote
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:If you're going out to null to just explore, there's already the wormhole express.
Escalation chasing is another story. That one says "go to X system within 24 hours." I've never chased a null escalation because the only realistic way to pass those null gatecamps with enough firepower to run the escalation is usually... cloaky nullified T3C, or maybe dotlan to find a wormhole within 10 jumps of the target system and hope you don't hit one on the way there. Or take an interceptor out and try to sell the escalation to someone just passing through. The last time I tried to sell an escalation, the locals thought I was trying to set them up to get hotdropped. Hmm...
Its a false argument anyway, escalations are generally run by the people that own the space, the very same people who generally have the gatecamps and bubbled gates too. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 05:11:05 -
[27] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Sorry, but this is nonsense. You might have time to replace the SP loss between battles, but it means you're spending your time keeping your ability to fly a T3 ship instead of training new skills. Over time the player who doesn't touch a T3 ship will have a significant SP advantage. And god help you if you decide to fly a T3 for more than the occasional once-per-week major fleet battle.
I trained up large blaster specialisation to V because I have nothing better to train for. I also pull a lot of work hours so one big fight is all I get. Its not nonsense, its a reality for a lot of us.
Merin Ryskin wrote: Of the covops ships available only the Stratios has the ability to be nomadic in any meaningful way, none of the others have the ability to even attempt anything like endgame content. It still has zero chance of doing the true high-end stuff, especially if you want to finish it in anything close to a reasonable amount of time. And its ability to be nomadic is severely hindered by how easy it is to instantly lose one with little or no chance of survival if you happen to jump into a bubble camp.
As I said, this is all about you not wanting to lose your effort free isk making machines.
Merin Ryskin wrote: The simple fact here is that T3s, using cloak + nullifier for travel, are the only viable option for high-end PvE content if you aren't a member of an alliance that owns space to PvE in. The only option that even comes close to being an alternative is a black ops with a cheap covops frigate alt, and paying a billion ISK per month for an alt means having to invest a lot of effort carebearing just to break even over staying docked for a month.
Or making friends. This is yet another argument made by someone who feels they are entitled to putting in no effort into penetrating hostile space just because they want to make isk. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 05:12:10 -
[28] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:baltec1 wrote:Shallanna Yassavi wrote:If you're going out to null to just explore, there's already the wormhole express.
Escalation chasing is another story. That one says "go to X system within 24 hours." I've never chased a null escalation because the only realistic way to pass those null gatecamps with enough firepower to run the escalation is usually... cloaky nullified T3C, or maybe dotlan to find a wormhole within 10 jumps of the target system and hope you don't hit one on the way there. Or take an interceptor out and try to sell the escalation to someone just passing through. The last time I tried to sell an escalation, the locals thought I was trying to set them up to get hotdropped. Hmm... Its a false argument anyway, escalations are generally run by the people that own the space, the very same people who generally have the gatecamps and bubbled gates too. I have seen escalations go as far as 17 jumps. That's still safely behind your intel channels and choke points?
You can go 40 jumps and still be in friendly space. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 06:05:15 -
[29] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Ok, great. I've been training for at least 7 of the past 10 years and I still have various relevant Vs to finish up. I suspect more people are in my situation than in yours, and you can't balance around the tiny minority of 2003 players who have nothing left to do.
You have to because you wind up with alliances like mine that can and will take advantage.
Merin Ryskin wrote:
"Effort free" is a lie. Covops + nullifier T3s can still be caught on a gate with bad luck
Bollocks.
Why do you think everyone used to send their booster t3's through the gate before the rest of the fleet? Its because no matter how many are on the other side they will not catch a cruiser that has a cov ops cloak and nullification. You have to be incredibly incompetent to be caught with one of these ships.
Merin Ryskin wrote: But really, if you want to see people demanding effort-free play, just look at the people who feel entitled to kill everything that jumps into "their" system just because they set up enough bubbles on the gate and brought enough DPS to insta-pop anything short of a carrier.
Once again I point out we are the ones effortlessly bypassing these camps and dropping your rorquals.
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Group play is not supposed to be mandatory. If solo PvE is not viable then something is badly wrong.
It is viable, what makes you think the very high end should be easy and soloable in a cruiser? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 07:47:24 -
[30] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:
The real answer here is that SP loss is a bad balancing mechanic and needs to be removed. The oldest players don't care, but everyone else is potentially crippled by it if they want to use T3s. That's not a good situation.
Already said SP loss doesn't work and should be binned.
Merin Ryskin wrote: People sent their booster T3s through because it required bad luck to be caught, as opposed to near-certain death for everything else. It was never 100% automatic safety. For example, what happens if your T3 jumps in within 2000m of an object and can't cloak? No amount of skill will prevent you from dying. If you jump in too close to a skilled interceptor pilot you get caught and die.
Blind luck is the best you can hope for in catching one of these things. This is why it is horribly overpowered and needs to go. If you want to get through the gatecamp then your should have to do what every other cov ops ship does. Beating a gatecamp should be based upon the piloting skill of the cov ops pilot and not be a simply selecting warp to next gate and hitting cloak.
Merin Ryskin wrote: I assume you mean "your" in a general sense, because I have neither alliance bubble camps nor Rorquals. And if by "dropping" you mean "hot dropping with black ops/capitals" then that has more to do with jump-capable ships being powerful than the cloak + nullifier combo.
Cant drop anything without a cyno ship and getting a cyno ship into the heart of an enemies ratting grounds is super easy with t3c as nothing can stop them.
Merin Ryskin wrote: T3s are not normal cruisers. They cost more than most PvE battleships, and the idea that hull size should be the primary factor in determining what content you can access is obsolete game design. Don't present this like people are going out in 10 million ISK T1 cruisers and soloing high-end content.
Cost means nothing in terms of balance, titans showed everyone that. It does also stand to reason that cruisers should not be soloing high end content. Again, this is all about you wanting to keep an overpowered money maker. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 07:51:17 -
[31] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
They also want T3Cs changed so that they are more useful for their own PvP fleets.
How exactly does nerfing T3C down to cruiser/navy cruiser levels of power make them more useful to our PvP fleets?
Less EHP, Less firepower, cant ignore bubble camps, harder to fit, cant be made cap stable as easily..
It makes all of our fleets less powerful. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 07:53:09 -
[32] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 claims cost and SP have nothing to do with balance.
Yet he wants T3C cost to build reduced, and SP loss removed.
Hmmm!
We toss around dreads like subcaps while the number of supers balloons by tens of thousands. Feel free to keep on saying cost and SP matter. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 08:25:05 -
[33] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
You do, but many dont.
Doesn't matter, fact is enough of us do and by enough of us I mean the bulk of null, WH and some lowsec organisations.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: That T3C you seek to "nerf" (cough, buff for your purposes) is for many their single most expensive asset, and the key to their livelihood and playstyle.
How is it a buff to my organisation?
Salvos Rhoska wrote: If cost and SP are not a balance issue, why adjust them in your proposal.
Because they will be greatly nerfed and SP loss has never worked and will never work due to plex and our ability to make vast sums of money quickly. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 08:35:33 -
[34] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Boo hoo, there's a ship that bubble camps, the laziest zero-effort form of "PvP" in EVE, aren't an automatic win against. If I had my way I'd make more ships immune to bubbles, starting with everything that can fit a covops cloak.
And make it even easier for us to kill capitals. This is what you can't seem to grasp, this would nerf the likes of us even harder than you. As for gatecamps being lazy, this from someone who wants to be able to avoid them by clicking warp to next gate and hitting cloak.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
It's also super easy to throw several cheap cyno ships at the problem. For the price of a single T3 you can buy several covops frigates or 2-3 recons, and it's pretty likely that one of them will get through. Cyno ganking is easy because it lets you instantly turn a single scout into a powerful combat fleet, not because of T3s.
Those ships cant ignore bubble camps and dont get massive tanks for when they tackle a supercap fleet.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Of course cost means something. The fact that certain alliances have way too much ISK to throw around doesn't mean that cost isn't a problem for everyone else. Otherwise there would be no reason for most ships to exist. Why take a T1 cruiser when you can take a HAC? Why take a battleship when you can take a faction battleship?
"We expect there to be only one or two titan in EVE at any point in time. The cost of these ships and the effort required is so high that they will be exceedingly rare."
Cost means **** all. Even the small guys can afford it.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
And, again, this is a stupid principle based on obsolete concepts about "leveling up" from frigate -> cruiser -> battleship. A high-end cruiser should be able to out-perform a low/mid-tier battleship that costs half as much, and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise based entirely on the fact that the cruiser is a cruiser. So stop acting like we're talking about cheap T1 cruisers soloing high-end content.
We are talking about a cruiser doing content that was built around the idea of needing multiple people or blingy battleships. The only reason t3c can do it where not other can is simply down to the massively overpowered tank on such a small hull. Its like saying nothing would be wrong with a frigate doing a level 4 mission as quickly as a battleship. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 08:53:12 -
[35] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:
The excessive tank on T3s, which is excessive no matter how they're fitted or used, is not relevant here. I am strongly in favor of nerfing T3 tanks to something more appropriate for a cruiser hull.
That tank is critical to running that high end content.
Merin Ryskin wrote: And no, there would be nothing wrong with a frigate doing a level 4 mission as quickly as a battleship, if it was a billion-ISK T4 super-frigate. The old "leveling up" through frigate -> cruiser -> battleship is supposed to be gone, battleships are not supposed to be the best at everything just because they're the biggest hull class.
There would be a massive issue with that, what point would there be in battleships if said frigate could do that job but better? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 08:59:36 -
[36] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:
I'm not sure who you think "I" am, given that the only capital I've ever flown is a carrier I use as a hauler and you're never going to kill it. I'm not shedding any tears for carebear capitals getting ganked because they can't cover nullsec in bubbles and have an eternity to dock up any time a hostile enters the region.
So you can't grasp the basic concept that is " nothing can stop PL from entering your space with a tackle tengu and doing what they want with zero effort on PL's part"
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Yep, a lazy counter for the laziest form of PvP. We can talk about having a more skill-demanding counter when gatecamps require more skill than pressing F1 every time something appears in the bubbles and farming the killmails.
Have you ever tried to catch something with a cov ops cloak? You answers here say no you haven't.
Merin Ryskin wrote:
The continued existence of T1 ships would disagree with this idea. If cost is not a factor then T2/faction ships are superior in every way, and we might as well remove every T1 ship from the game. But this doesn't happen because, despite your opinions otherwise, cost is absolutely a balancing factor.
Not out in null and WH it isn't.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 10:02:18 -
[37] - Quote
Shallanna Yassavi wrote: I thought the big blue donut didn't exist any more.
It never did, doesn't mean there isn't vast empires out there. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 10:04:26 -
[38] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:baltec1 wrote:Merin Ryskin wrote:I assume you mean "your" in a general sense, because I have neither alliance bubble camps nor Rorquals. And if by "dropping" you mean "hot dropping with black ops/capitals" then that has more to do with jump-capable ships being powerful than the cloak + nullifier combo. Cant drop anything without a cyno ship and getting a cyno ship into the heart of an enemies ratting grounds is super easy with t3c as nothing can stop them. Good. All you want to do is hide dead end pipes behind anchored bubbles and rat with your carriers. If T3C are the only one that can pass your defences then I'm okay with them. Your ISK printing sand castles should be vulnerable to attack. You are untrustworthy about removing covop cloak + nullifing. You are wirting that it is so easy for your alliance to pass the defences with those T3C but is goes both sides. It would be easy to pass yours as well.
Because PL is well known for its vast tracts of space and ratters behind bubble camps... |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 10:25:45 -
[39] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1
So let me get this straight:
1) You have so much isk, that you want T3Cs to cost LESS.
2) You have so much SP, that you want SP loss REMOVED from T3Cs.
3) Currently EVERYONE can fly a cloak/null T3C, but you want NOBODY to be able to do so.
4) You want T3Cs turned from a multi-tool for all, into a single use tool ideal for fleet PvP.
5) You want T3C cap/pg/cpu and fittings reduced, so that using it as a multitool becomes impractical, but use as a dedicated fleet PvP ship remains convenient.
6) Though you claim cost and SP are not relevant to balance, you use them as counterweights as equity for the "nerfs" you propose.
7) You refuse to acknowledge that the changes you propose will infact increase and incentivize use of T3Cs in fleet PvP, which is contrary of your own premise of there already being too many.
Do you really not recognize your own hypocrisy and blatant self-serving bias?
1. If you greatly reduce the capability of a ship from pulling battleship stats down to pulling between navy faction cruiser and T1 cruiser stats then you also alter the build costs to match. Almost every single ship that has been through balancing changes has seen its build cost altered to match.
2. SP loss does not work. The argument is the ships are so OP because of SP loss so get rid of it. You can buy SP now so not only does it not make much of a difference if you lose one at the weekend as come next weekend you have that skill back but you can also just buy SP to cover the loss. SP loss make no sense at all on a ship that is around the level of a cruiser/navy cruiser unless you want that to apply to all ships of that range and up?
3. Because its horribly overpowered and effectively make that pilot impossible to catch. If you want to go through a gatecamp you should have to rely upon your own skill as a pilot, not a get out of jail free card.
4. I want a multi tool cruiser that can change on the fly. What we have is a pocket battleship that invalidates or matches some 60+ other ships that cannot currently change on the fly.
5. Currently t3c get far more powergrid than t2 battlecruisers. Its a cruiser, it needs cruiser CPU and Powergrid
6. SP means nothing in ship balance and cost should reflect its position. If the ship is between cruisers and navy cruisers then its cost should be between a cruiser and a navy cruiser.
7. Explain to me why we would use T3 more than we currently do after the nerfs. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 11:07:33 -
[40] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 1) You stated cost doesnt matter in balance, Now you claim it does and has been seen in almost every change. Cheaper T3Cs means more T3Cs. You are a backpedalling hypocrite.
2) SP loss works just fine. Lose ship, lose SP. If you want to replace it with an injector, go ahead. If not, reskill with time. Its a unique core mechanic of T3Cs and there is no rationale to remove it.
3) Anyone can skill into a cloak/null, if they wish. How is bypassing gatecamps OP? Happens all the time by other means. JFs lol-cyno past LS gatecamps without even bubbles as an impediment.
4) T3Cs have nowhere near the dps of BS, they are not pocket battleships.
5) That is a problem with BCs, not T3Cs. Its a strategic cruiser which needs the cpu/pg to refit as a multitool. If there was a T3BC, it would no doubt have the same. Notably a Loki is very restricted in fitting a full 750mm rack.
6) Then why remove SP loss as somekind of equitable counterweight to this "nerf". No SP loss makes T3Cs even more attractive for fleet PvP where ship destruction is expected, rather than avoided. T3Cs are not between cruisers and navy cruisers, they are the pinnacle of the cruiser line, and hence more expensive and carry the SP loss (which was patched to avoid ejecting), inorder to have that versatility.
7) I already have. You propose a cheaper, non-SP loss T3C which can still manage enough bonuses/cap/fit to fultill a PvP fleet role, but loses its versatility elsewhere. You want the cloak/null removed because its an inconvenience for you, and you dont need it as you have other ships capable of inflitrating and delivering a cyno at far less cost.
1. I have been calling for this since the start, no back peddling and no hipocricy. But hey, if you want to pay out current T3C prices on a ship with stats a bit bettwe than T1 but worse than navy faction be my guest. You are the one that will lose out to your own blind stupidity because we will go back to using HAC's in HAC fleet.
2. Its entirely pointless and entirely avoided by the rich. But hey again, if you want a cruiser slightly better than t1 but not as good as navy faction to have SP loss then be my guest, we wont be using the loki in pace of a hugin anyway. Once again in your own stupidity you ****** yourself.
3. How do you get they cyno ship past the game camp? Again, a cov ops cloak is already a powerful tool and getting past a gatecamp should require the pilot to be good at flying their ship, same as how a gatecamp is only as good as the pilots doing the camping.
4. They out tank battleships.
5. No its a glaring fact that shows just how overpowered T3C are. No cruiser or battlecruiser can get close to the powergrid of a T3C.
6. T3C are slated to land between T1 cruisers and Navy cruisers, this has been stated several times by CCP so that is where I am balancing them.
7. I am reducing T3C capabilities to the level they should be according to CCP. In the process I am rendering a few dosen of PL's front line ship setups into the bin and reducing our ability both to infiltrate and fight. In order for T3C to be balance they must not step on the toes of the T2 specialist cruisers. To match where they are supposed to be they must also be slightly worse than navy faction too at what the navy faction ship do otherwise the navy faction ships would be invalidated.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 12:17:13 -
[41] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 1) You want cheaper T3Cs. That isnt going to make HACs more attractive. Quite the opposite. Furthermore you claimed cost was irrelevant in balance, yet here you are, suddenly using it as a balance tool. That is hypocrisy and backpedalling.
2) SP loss is as much a cost to everyone. That the rich can replace it with injectors is immaterial. Go ahead and spend your isk on that then, rather than injecting other skills or on other characters. That is your choice. None of which is a reason to remove SP loss and make it even cheaper for high SP players.
3) Yes, you already have cheaper ships to deliver cynos past gatecamps. Glad you agree. So we can ascertain there is no need to nerf T3C cloak/null, since you can do it with cheaper hulls anyways. Use your "pilot skills" on those instead to deliver your cynos :)
4) Out-tank (in some cases) yes, but not out dps. BS do easily twice the dps of T3Cs (and BCs, for that matter).
5) The PG on T3Cs is to enable versatility. Its still not sufficient for oversized modules except with sacrifice, BS all have enough PG to fit what they need. If not, faction/deadspace modules can be used and implants. As I said, Lokis even now dont have enough PG to fit a rack of 750s.
6) That obviously was not, nor ever was the case, despite what they said. Frankly, and you must see this, it is ridiculous to conceive that T3Cs with their cost and SP needs, would perform less than a navy cruiser. Thats like a Vargur underperforming a Maelstrom. Its like turning the ship trees upside down and inside out. T3Cs where included after existing PvE content was here, thus rationally they should be aligned largely accordingly.
If you are claiming CCP made a mistake in that, then it can also be said that the statement on which your whole argument is predicated, that T3Cs should perform worse than navy cruisers, was a mistake.
7) No, you are throwing 4 ships (T3Cs) into the dumpster for many players, just so you can have a cheaper, non-SP loss T3C that fits your needs.
I proposed diversification of the 4 hulls. You obviously dont want that, because you have your own selfish interests in mind.
8) What exactly do you think T3Cs will be good for after your proposed "nerfs"?
1. Why would we use a rebalanced t3c over a HAC for HAC fleet? The HAC would be a better ship. The lower cost was to reflect the new position the T3C would be in (aka they are between a t1 cruiser and a navy cruiser) but hey if you want to pay todays T3C prices for something a little better than a T1 cruiser go ahead.
2. So why would you be happy with SP loss on a cruiser a little better than a T1 cruiser?
3. Those other cov ops ships cannot ignore gate camps. Again I point out getting past the defenses of a rival should take piloting skill, not a simple click of the button.
4. In your EFT they do but in reality BS do a fraction of their DPS to a T3C while the T3C has more EHP.
5. The powergrid on T3C is crazy, lets look at it.
Thorax 1025 Navy Exequror 1038 Deimos 1313 Proteus 1820
Eos 1500 Astarte 1688
So we have a cruiser pulling better powergrid than the command ships and dwarfs the other cruisers. This is nuts.
6. T3C were not added to be better than everything else, they were added to be highly adaptable cruisers. CCP have stated in the tiercide plan that T3C will land between T1 cruisers and navy cruisers. T3C are the last ships to be looked at in this plan.
7. Let me be clear in this. After this change we will have absolutely no use for these ships in our fleets. We will go back to using the T2 specialists. We gain nothing from this change a lose a lot of ships from our current fleets.
8. They would be highly adaptable mid range cruisers, able to change both their fitting (including rigs) and the very bonuses on the hull on the fly. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 12:36:53 -
[42] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: They would be useless in EVE. Its not a strategic enough game for this to work other than for PvE purposes. Use your brain.
Either that or refittable like a supercap during combat. Noones going to drop a mobile depot to refit a ship in the middle of combat, combat is too quick, especially if the ship is a cruiser and its a little bit better than a t1.
You don't drop it in a fight, you refit for your wants and needs and then go fight. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 13:04:29 -
[43] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 1) Nobody will fly a T3C that underperforms a Navy Cruiser. GJ, you just wiped T3Cs out of the meta, and pissed off thousands of players.
2) Why would I fly a T3C instead of a Navy cruiser?
3) They can bypass gatecamps by being smart, using piloting skills, good fits/opportunity, and at much less cost.
4) No, in reality BS do roughly twice the dps of T3Cs. Tank is another issue.
5) PG is only relevant for fits. Even so, the PG is not enough to fit oversized modules. A ship only needs as much PG as it needs. Lokis cant even fit a full rack of 750s. The rest is manageable with faction/deadspace/implants, as is universal in EVE.
6) The notion that T3Cs should perform worse than Navy Cruisers is no longer workable and was a mistake.
7) So you will have no use for T3Cs, nor will anyone else. Gj for wiping out a complete ship class!
8) Why bother, if a Navy cruiser does better at a fraction of SP invested. Without cloak/null, they wont even be good for interloping in enemy space.
Jesus, man. Do you not realize the implications of what you are proposing?
T3Cs, the market on them and mats needed, and content enabled by them, will be wiped out overnight.
All of this, just so you dont have to deal with an occassional T3C running content in your space, or not fielding T3Cs to match your opponent in fleet battles.
1. You mean you won't fly it anymore because it doesn't overpower everything else. Welcome FOTM nerfs, enjoy your reward for chasing it. The exact same thing has been said about every other FOTM that has ever been nerfed into balance.
2. If you want to do what the navy cruiser does then you would't. If you want a highly adapatable cruiser then you would fly the T3.
3. Or spend the isk on a ship that simply ignores defenses with no effort required. As I said cost means nothing.
4. See this is where we spot someone who has no knowledge of fleet combat. Battleships do not do full damage to a T3C, the damage is mitigated both by the size of the sig, the speed of the T3C and the battleships own guns. The effect is T3C will tank up to 3x more than a battleship can.
5. You have to be kidding me. You honestly think adding an extra 500 powergrid onto a cruiser is not going to drastically improve its fitting options?
6. Its no mistake, thats the plan.
7. They will still have a good role to play, as you said before the T1 cruisers still get used.
8. Cov ops cloak is all you need for that.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 13:10:35 -
[44] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:NO ONE WILL FLY IT.
The words said before every single FOTM nerf ever made. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 13:25:23 -
[45] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Welp, looks like T3C are going to become inferior to Navy Cruisers at far higher SP and subsystem cost.
Prepare your butts.
Firesale all T3Cs, cos nobody will buy them, and re-align production to other products.
Buy extractors, cos the price is about to go through the roof as people desperately dump useless T3C skills.
Also prepare for hundreds/thousands players leaving in disgust at how NS interests "win" yet again.
GJ.
Would these be the same people who left when the rorqual got nerfed?
Or the ones that said the cynable nerf was the death of the ship and they too were going to quit?
What about the ones that insisted the ishtar nerfs were the end of that ship and they were going to quit?
Or the ones that said the T3D were perfectly fine and were going to quit if they got nerfed.
Or the dram nerf, the interceptor nerf, the supercarrier nerf, the tracking titan nerf, the remote doomsday nerf, the carrier nerf, the cane nerf and so on. FOTM chasers never change and neither do your arguments for keeping blatantly overpowered ships. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 13:34:20 -
[46] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:You wanted this.
Dont whine when you finally realize the repercussions of your selfish bias, rather than the good of the game.
Apparently dropping a few thousand more players is worth it, as long as it makes you safer in NS.
So be it then.
Drama queen all you want, nobody is quitting over this. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 13:48:50 -
[47] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:This topic is hilarious.
But what makes it even funnier, is that I doubt baltec1 would have the stones to argue this crap unless he already knew what he is saying is already impending.
That concerns me, and is suddenly no longer funny, for numerous reasons. Actually no, he is trying to wind people up, he was posting earlier that the Covert Cloak and Nullifier would be one sub-system, and that was hilariously wrong, though I was concerned about CCP losing the plot on that, so perhaps he did get me on it...
Never said that, feel free to find that post.
What I did say is that nullification and cov ops cloak should not be allowed on at the same time. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 13:55:28 -
[48] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
If changes go through as baltec1 proposes, your T3Cs will be useless in WHs.
You will be unable to clear content, and will lose to a Navy Cruiser in PVP.
baltec1 wouldnt make these claims, unless he has reliable info this is what will happen. (which is concerning if he has insider info that he shouldnt have)
Prepare for the worst.
T1 cruisers are perfectly able to take on and kill navy cruisers, what makes you think a new t3c could not? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18885
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 17:37:10 -
[49] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
It makes no logical sense to have a ship that's between T1 and faction cruiser. It makes even less logical sense to have T3 destroyers in their position and T3 cruisers in that position.
They made the exact same mistake with T3D so yea, they need fixed too. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18887
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 10:18:57 -
[50] - Quote
And the EFT shitfits start.
I wonder how many will notice you called the first one a t1 cruise when it is in fact a pirate cruiser and has hard to source mods fitted. None of the ships you cooked up can do the job of our proteus or legion. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18887
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 10:34:03 -
[51] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:I flew the Proteus almost exclusively for years and I don't think Baltec realises just how vulnerable it is with only 3 or 4 mids. Cap injector or web / scram, without the injector your dead against a neut, it can't run for crap, it can be kited really easily or with injector its very difficult to keep in range without the web. I think baltec1 is speaking from the huge fleet perspective, I was able to force proteus off the grid while in pve Gila (it was four man gang actually). My good man, the whole scope of T3 rebalancing IS exactly large fleet combat not pve.
Also small scale. A cloaky legion can get 400-500 dps, bonuses webs, nullification and fit a XL booster. Try to get a rapier close to that. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18887
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 10:53:20 -
[52] - Quote
I did |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18887
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 11:00:49 -
[53] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:baltec1 wrote:And the EFT shitfits start.
I wonder how many will notice you called the first one a t1 cruise when it is in fact a pirate cruiser and has hard to source mods fitted. None of the ships you cooked up can do the job of our proteus or legion. Lol. Shitfits my arse, hard to source mods my arse :). They're more capable than your 160k EHP Proteus brick with the speed of a snail. Heres another one: More EHP than a Proteus, more dps than a Proteus, better range than a Proteus, cap stable unlike a Proteus. You're obsessed with how overpowered the Proteus is yet I've posted 5 different hulls that are equal or better than your Proteus. You should give up. 180k ehp, 600 dps at 50k, 1k m/s, cap stable. According to you this is like better than a Battleship since Prot can get 160k ehp and 600 dps and you consider that a battleship :) [Nighthawk, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field 50MN Microwarpdrive II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Medium Energy Nosferatu II Medium Energy Nosferatu II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Warrior II x5 Gimme Sake wrote: A ship can only fit what pg/cpu allows it to fit. That's their only issue. CCP tried some timid nerfing last year but... without any conviction.
Not to mention a Rapier is a completely different super specialized ship that's not supposed to be anything like a T3C.
Heavy missiles apply **** all damage and their flight time means whatever you are targeting gets a long time to call for reps. You also have a massively larger sig and are far more vulnerable to bombs. You try this every time and never learn that spitting out EFT theory fits just results in you getting laughed at.
The rapier comment shows you simply do not understand the issue. The rapier is entirely invalidated as a solo/small gang and fleet ship because the loki does its job so much better. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18887
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 11:16:31 -
[54] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:My good man, the whole scope of T3 rebalancing IS exactly large fleet combat not pve. I'm no saying we have to balance hull via pve, but my pve fitted gila was able to chase off the field proteus that was in 4-man gang. Propablly fail fit.
Incompetent pilots does not mean the ship isn't overpowered. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18887
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 11:24:40 -
[55] - Quote
Infinity wrote: Depends on range, speed, tackle and target. A brick tanked rail prot with an med afterburner is not the king of dictating range. You could just as easily fit rlml or ham. A battleship is just as susceptible to bombs, so what?
And we see again that you have zero understanding of fleet combat or ships in general.
"Heavy missiles work if the enemy sit still and don't call for reps until damage starts to land!"
"PL HAC fleet relies entirely on the afterburner for their in battle mobility"
"I'm sure glad my tank that requires cap can't get turned off via being void bombed"
"Shield tank battlecruisers have roughly the same sig as armour tanked cruisers" |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18887
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 11:27:52 -
[56] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Link the Loki fit please.
Also, Medium ACs application....
Don't have it on the phone so I'll have to post it later. I can answer the second part though. Bonused webs. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18887
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 12:03:06 -
[57] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:baltec1 wrote:Infinity wrote: Depends on range, speed, tackle and target. A brick tanked rail prot with an med afterburner is not the king of dictating range. You could just as easily fit rlml or ham. A battleship is just as susceptible to bombs, so what?
And we see again that you have zero understanding of fleet combat or ships in general. "Heavy missiles work if the enemy sit still and don't call for reps until damage starts to land!" "PL HAC fleet relies entirely on the afterburner for their in battle mobility" "I'm sure glad my tank that requires cap can't get turned off via being void bombed" "Shield tank battlecruisers have roughly the same sig as armour tanked cruisers" Sounds to me like you're simply making excuses Baltec. Baltec> T3 are OP because they get 150k EHP and do 600 DPS! Nerf them!!!1 Me> Here are 5 different class non T3C that can get that easily too or even more Baltec> Goes on a ramble about bombs and PL tactics. The fact is your reasons for wanting a Nerf for T3 don't add up, almost all the high end cruisers and BC with resist bonuses can match or beat T3Cs. Reason? They can fit battleship sized mods too. Nerf those oversized fittings or shutup.
If by excuses you mean pointing out colossal flaws in your argument. Every single one of your ideas are terrible and would get wiped out by the very ships you are trying to beat. I mean seriously, rapid lights? Heavy missiles? 425 autos against a fleet with rails and beams? All you are looking at is DPS and tank with no thought about anything else.
Oversized mods are not the reason for T3C being overpowered. It's the 8 bonuses that average out at 10% each, it's the huge power grid that dwarfs every other cruiser and battlecruisers, it's the ease to get T3C to be cap stable, it's the abnormally high base EHP. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18887
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 12:23:45 -
[58] - Quote
Infinity wrote: The weapons systems are unimportant since they can easily be switched out.
Feel free to explain to us how you are going to fit anything but missiles on a ship with missile slots.
Quote: Your argument was the T3s are overpowered because EHP / DPS.
Wrong. I have always stated the above.
Quote: I clearly showed the other cruisers and BCs can do likewise. They were all cap stable, none had fitting problems, implants, or fitting only mods or rigs.
All of them are dogshit EFT warrior fits.
Quote: You are wrong. Admit and move on.
Said the guy who just seriously proposed flying a rapid light missile doctrine in place of what we use for fighting battleships. How about addressing what is actually being pointed out rather than tossing around useless fits nobody wants to use.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18887
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 12:26:27 -
[59] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1:
I dont see much use or interest for T3Cs after your proposed changes.
You yourself said you would not field any of them in your alliances fleets post-change.
With your proposed removal of cloak/null and drops in bonuses, I doubt they will be able to run deespace PvE content either.
For pure data/relics, Covops/SoE/Interceptors do it better already.
Some T3Cs might still have some use as a cloaky hunter, but thats quite a marginal activity.
From where Im standing, looks like a largely dead class thereafter.
People arent going to start running HACs and Pirate cruisers past NS gates/bubbles in hostile space to run content there that these ships can only barely handle, if at all.
In still encourage the specialisation of the 4 T3Cs, rather than a blanket nerf.
If you require an overpowered ship to do something then you shouldn't be doing that thing. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18888
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 13:26:58 -
[60] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Beast of Revelations wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: Not even baltec1s alliance will have use for T3Cs after the nerf he proposes.
Maybe I'm wrong (correct me if so) - I'm not some big alliance military strategist charged with coming up with fleet doctrines - but I don't see why big alliance fleets would in general want generalist ships (good at lots of things, not the best at any one thing) in their fleet compositions. Seems like they would craft their fleets out of non-generalist ships. Which is the paradox here. After his own proposed change, he says his alliance wont use any T3Cs in fleet combat. So what will they be used for /good for then?
Mid range cruiser work. T1 cruisers are massively popular, slightly better adaptable cruisers will be just as popular.
We meanwhile will use the specialist cruisers for their intended jobs. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18888
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 13:46:29 -
[61] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 1) What kind of cost would a T3C with subsystems have after your change?
The 40-50 mil mark sounds about right if it lands between T1 and navy cruisers.
Quote: 2) What exactly do you mean by "mid range" cruiser work?
Middle of the pack. Better than t1 but worse than the specialised cruisers.
Quote: 3) To what purposes would these post change T3Cs be adaptable?
Fit cov ops to get to an area then refit for dedicated brawler. Fit for brawler and refit for dealing with frigates. Fit for exploration then refit for combat. Fit for speed then refit for tank. And so on. Key thing would be the unique ability to refit the rigs without destroying them. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18888
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 14:20:11 -
[62] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) 40-50mil. Jesus... That will wreck the T3C market. Is that for just the hull, or including subsystems?
Including. It's a fair price to pay.
Quote: 2) There isnt much space between T1s and specialised cruisers. Many are asymmetrically aligned with pros/cons for that specialisation. Doesnt leave much space for a swiss-army knife.
There is a 300 power grid difference between the thorax and the demos as well as several differences in bonuses. There is plenty of wiggle room to play with.
Quote: 3) What kind of PvE content could a T3C in your proposal comfortably run? What DEDs, escalations, WH content?
Roughly the same as can be done with a navy cruiser.
Quote: 4) What about training time into a T3C?
Not much change needed.
Quote: 5) Why should such a gimped cruiser not be able to cloak/null simultaneously?
Because it makes it impossible to catch. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18888
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 14:27:58 -
[63] - Quote
Quote: 6) So a post-change T3C, with tank/dps between T1 and specialised cruisers, would have to carry a mobile depot, subsystems AND rigs inorder to be less effective than a specialised cruiser? Is that correct?
If it's as good as the specialised cruisers it would invalidate them just like today. I did say earlier on that I would quarter the size of subsystems and increase the size of cargo bays to compensate but you were too busy screaming to notice. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18888
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 15:41:14 -
[64] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 1) Is it even possible to reduce the cost of a T3C and subsystems to a 40-50mil cost? Wont that utterly wreck the market? Why punish manufacturers/material sourcers? Who would even buy the POS ships your changes make of T3Cs? Would you buy one? For what purpose?
Again, the T1 cruisers get a lot of use, highly flexible cruisers at the 40 mil mark will be popular and yes I would likely get one for cov ops blaster uses.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) PG is only one aspect of the existing differential between T1 and specialized cruisers. There are resist profiles, speeds, sigs, slots, etc that offer far more diversity across all cruiser classes, than the T3C in your proposal.
All of it gets looked at under my plan.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 3) VNI can run a 5/10 with extreme difficulty (probably several warp outs and drone losses) and looong completion time, forget about it with other navy cruisers. If the T3C in your proposal cant match even that, that relegates them to HS 4/10s which other cruisers can already run even better.
WH activity would be limited to C2 at most, and even that is a stretch.
People will adapt.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 4) Atleast, all T3C skills should be refunded (especially to stop extractor prices going through the roof) Only an idiot would skill into a T3C therafter, with no fleet use, and all other cruisers having better tank/dps to compete. EVE has never seen a class nerf as severe as the one you propose. You want to kill a class, just so you wont use them in fleet PvP. Its insane.
Only to you. Nobody gets SP back for when the FOTM they chased gets nerfed.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 5) Its a T1-Navy cruiser that cant even run any content in NS. Wtf are you afraid of? What are they going to do? That a T3C attacks a miner in NS and gets hotdropped by your ton of potatoes?
So, the exact same risk every other cruiser faces then.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 16:35:36 -
[65] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Nothing is stopping you from using T3Cs. Or from using HACs, or T1, or Navy cruisers.
Yet you want to nerf T3Cs so hard, that even your own alliance will no longer use them in fleet PvP. Why make a ship class so useless in PvP, that even you wont use it in PvP?
That doesnt make sense.
That's because you only think of yourself. You can't grasp that an alliance would back something that would hurt it, I see it as a necessary thing for overall game balance.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Im perfectly happy flying around in Pirate/HACs/BCs for most of my gametime. Occasionally, I run some more risk in T3Cs for greater profits in hostile space.
I have to get in, refit, run the content, and get out.
The cost differential and the SP loss, already balance the T3C.
No they don't. T3C competely invalidate almost ever cruiser in the game, overpower almost all battleship fleets and invalidate the battlecruisers. SP and cost mean **** all to us.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Having said that, since T3Cs seem to be such a problem for you in fleet PvP; Im ok with doubling the SP loss, and increasing the build cost.
Thats a 100+% increase in cost of loss of a T3C, as a factor of price and SP.
This doubles the cost of replacing a T3C.
If players in PvP fleet actions have enough isk/SP to deal with that, so be it. They will pay double of now.
Its hard to argue against doubling the cost as not being a significant nerf to PvP T3Cs. Twice the cost + build price as compared to now for replacing the same ship.
Its very easy because not only does it not work but you don't ficx the problem that is T3C invalidating things like the HACs and combat recons. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 17:04:04 -
[66] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Your isk/SP wealth is not an excuse or a premise for balance.
Again I point to titans to demonstrate that SP and ISK do not stop us from getting them in large numbers.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: You want T3Cs nerfed so hard, and specifically, that you will no longer field them in your PvP fleets.
That is a contradiction.
No thats what must happen. We will start using HACs in our HAC fleet again.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Why shouldnt T3Cs have cause to be fielded in PvP fleets?
They can be after the nerf, people use T1 hulls in fleets all the time, just not us.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: A 100%+ increase in cost of replacing a T3C is a HUGE nerf. Increase cost of T3Cs, and double the SP loss to two subsystems per destruction.
It nerfs nothing, T3C will still be a better HAC than a HAC.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 17:39:59 -
[67] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 1) You point to TITANS? Are you joking? Have you completely lost the plot? Your isk/SP wealth is not material to balance.
Titans, the single most expensive and SP heavy ship in the game. If cost doesn't stop us from forming entire fleets of them then what makes you think isk and SP will stop us from getting anything else?
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) Nothing is preventing you from using HACs right now.
Why would we fly a HAC over a T3C?
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 3) So other people do use T1 cruisers in fleets, but just not you. Hmmm.
Correct. You would know this if you paid any attention to what goes on in this game.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 4) Doubling the cost of of replacing a ship nerfs nothing? Im pretty sure a +100% nerf to cost and SP loss combined will make many think twice about choosing another hull instead.
We dump fleets of ships worth 5 billion isk each in suicide runs. All you did is push T3C away from the smaller guys and give us an even greater advantage. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 17:52:27 -
[68] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.
Again, how does nerfing most of the ships we use in our fleets and in our super hunting help me? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:37:24 -
[69] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1:
Lol at trying to skew this into a Malcanis Law issue by citing how many Titans you can field, how rich you are, and how little SP loss matters.
I see what you are trying.
Doubling the SP loss, and increasing build cost is sustainable by PvE pilots. Can you say the same for your PvP fleets?
Aside from that, the tank on some specific T3C builds is the only extraneous issue that needs addressing. I, and everyone else, agrees its too high.
You make it more expensive taking it away from smaller groups and leave it to be entirely abused by the rich. Congrats, you just ****** the little guy. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:43:41 -
[70] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote: This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.
Again, how does nerfing most of the ships we use in our fleets and in our super hunting help me? I answered this already.
You ignored it. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 19:14:06 -
[71] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote: Who broke Salvos? baltec1 is that you?
He went off the deep end.
But here is where CCP have said they want them
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.
Other things we know is they want them to gain the ability to unfit rigs without destroying them and there will be a round table to talk about T3C at some future date. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18891
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 06:07:16 -
[72] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:I look forward to the rebalance. Long overdue. Will effectively make other ship choices much more valid, no buffs required.
I don't see the plan to nerf them into the ground, but focus on what (should) make the ship class unique. The removeable rigs will be nice. Now if they can reduce the size of subsytems and/or increase the cargo hold this will be a good change.
Its what I called for earlier on. Reduce subsystems from 40m3 to 10m3 and bump up the cargo holds to 450m3. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18892
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 07:11:03 -
[73] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:sero Hita wrote:We use the Hac doctrines more often, because unleashing T3Cs means everyone docks up. Kinda funny conclusion, people won't fight T3Cs because they are OP so T3Cs are used less than HACs. Self-regulation.
Doesn't work. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18893
|
Posted - 2017.04.25 11:32:39 -
[74] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Tung Yoggi wrote:
Making out of the box fits for your activities do not equate making doctrine ships. You are not solving any problem with the proposed fits, besides maybe making Great Wildlands a better missioning place with all those Thukker items.
Making funky fits or out of the box stuff for your activities is one thing, making doctrine fits is another.
This is not about doctrine fits. Of all the PvP in game the minority is fleet fights. Doctrine need to be developed from ships balanced for the majority not the minority. The majority is small to medium gangs. Also thukker large extenders are cheap and plentiful. From memory 30 mill
You overheated all of the weapons too and failed to take into account reload timers. The mods you used are not easy to source, most of the fits are way more expensive for worse results and half of them are the class above cruisers. You also used drones which are notoriously bad in fleet fights as are missiles. Your fits are also very vulnerable to neuting, void bombs and bombing runs while sporting massive sigs. You also have huge EM resist holes with is a massive problem given the T3C you are trying to match are fighting nightmares and mach fleet. Even with you fiddling the numbers none of your fits matched the T3C in question. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18894
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 08:48:19 -
[75] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: Nonesense
Care to explain given what has been pointed out so far? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18895
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 17:43:37 -
[76] - Quote
I'm basing my working out on what CCP have told us so far with the exception of the null/cov ops combo which I see as too powerful and easy mode and SP loss which is frankly pointless. That said even that is up for discussion. There are some rather simple rules that are going to have to be followed.
First, T3C must be worse than the t2 specialists.
Second, T3C rigs must either be removable without destroying the rigs or just removed entirely.
Third, power grid and to a lesser extent CPU need to be brought down to cruiser levels.
There is a bunch of other tweeks needed but those three things are needed to balance them. The reason I went with what I did is because CCP have stated they want T3C to land somewhere between T1 and navy cruisers. They have not provided any changes to this plan so that's what I had to go with. The reason for the cost is simply to reflect the new position of the ships and what a fair price would be. Use age of these ships would probably go up as they are far more affordable so that should offset the reduction in build cost so WH don't lose out but I would expand the use of WH goods into, say, refinery construction and possibly capital construction. You can even put small amounts into various mod construction given they are doing another mod teiricide this summer. The options are there.
No matter what happens these ships are in for a massive nerf.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18896
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 18:47:56 -
[77] - Quote
A big chunk of the problem comes from the Vast fitting room so bringing that into line is a big help alone. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18900
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 09:01:34 -
[78] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: Then add one huge versatility item that lets T3C pilots switch roles on the fly. Let Tech 3 Strategic Cruisers (that don't at that moment have a weapons timer) refit from their cargo holds without need of a Ship Maintenance Array or Mobile Depot.
I can get behind this. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18900
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 11:18:55 -
[79] - Quote
Beast of Revelations wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: Then add one huge versatility item that lets T3C pilots switch roles on the fly. Let Tech 3 Strategic Cruisers (that don't at that moment have a weapons timer) refit from their cargo holds without need of a Ship Maintenance Array or Mobile Depot.
I can get behind this. I am not opposed to this either.
Also like the bonus to mobile depot deploy time too. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18903
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 21:39:55 -
[80] - Quote
Starrakatt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Beast of Revelations wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: Then add one huge versatility item that lets T3C pilots switch roles on the fly. Let Tech 3 Strategic Cruisers (that don't at that moment have a weapons timer) refit from their cargo holds without need of a Ship Maintenance Array or Mobile Depot.
I can get behind this. I am not opposed to this either. Also like the bonus to mobile depot deploy time too. Someone worded concerns about having subsystems and rigs into the Cargohold being messy and/or impractical: What about having a special Cargohold that can only contain Subsystems. The code already exist in the form of Fleet Hangar, Fuel Bay, and various dedicated cargo bays for indy/mining ships.
Only thing I would change is the size of subsystems from 40 to 10. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18903
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 22:00:58 -
[81] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Personally I feel like this kind of switching would only really be attractive to nomads and other very very niche play-styles, which is why CCP didn't go with it. There's little point in having a ship, especially one this design and art intensive to maintain, that serves a very niche role. The only time CCP have put in very niche ships like this is when they serve some useful and needed role, like hauling. Which is why I have evolved my proposal, to the ends that T3C would essentially become T2 emulators that can switch between roles with roughly equivalent stats as T2s of that role. Though the following is an abstraction, it is a framework of sorts regarding cruiser classes: -There is currently no cruiser class Command ship. T3Cs can fill that role. -T3Cs cannot emulate HICs or Combat Recons, as they lack DScan immunity and bubbles. -T3Cs can be rebalanced as Stratios equivalents for exploration/probing. -I dont think T3Cs should be able to emulate T2 logi. -That leaves HACs and Force Recons, both of which it should not be difficult to balance T3C subsystem fits to emulate. -The cloak/nulli fit is harmless, except for gatecamp penetration. As is the case with other covops ships, as long as its cloaked, it is harmless.
The result would be that if you have a specific role to fill, you are better off with a T2, as they are cheaper and incur no SP loss: -T3Cs would remain the cruiser class Command ship version to fill the lack of one (albeit, at T2C stats) -HICs/Combat Recon are not overlapped by T3Cs. -Stratios is drone/armor/energy weapon specific. The 4 T3Cs can offer options for exploration/probing around the Stratios stats, at equivalent efficiency. -T2 Logis would remain optimal with better bonuses. -HACs/Force Recon remain optimal as equivalent and cheaper and without SP loss. -Cloak/nulli fits are harmless. They are gimped if they take any action with this fit, and can be aggressed when they refit to sonething else.
Ideal, is that T3Cs become basically a T2 equivalent multitool. No more efficient at any task than a specific T2 tool, but versatile. That versatility is offset by cost and SP loss. If you want one tool, use a T2 at less cost and no SP loss. If you want multiple tools, use a T3C at T2 equivalency, but pay more and risk SP loss. In anycase, your ship will only have one fit at any given time. Its not like T3Cs will be HAC AND Force Recon equivalents, all at once. Just one or the other. PS: I chose to overlook you turning your previous "persuasive writing" spike into this passive-aggressive barb that I am not suggesting practical and realistic improvements/changes to the game.. I am Finnish, but I'm not stupid. Crap like that means nothing to me, like water running off a ducks back. Dont bother. Its not earning you any points either.
Why would anyone pick a t2 when the T3C will do the same job but with all of the other benefits of a T3C? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18903
|
Posted - 2017.04.30 17:02:22 -
[82] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The answer to that is in the quote.
It isn't.
Under your plan there would be no point in using a T2 cruiser because it would be less capable than a t3c at its specialised role. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18904
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 07:02:39 -
[83] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The answer to that is in the quote.
It isn't. Under your plan there would be no point in using a T2 cruiser because it would be less capable than a t3c at its specialised role. Incorrect. It would be roughly equivalent to T2 specialised ships for those roles, but more expensive and risk SP loss. The answers to your question are all in the post you quoted.
SP loss doesn't work, we tend to not lose them and when we do we have the skills back the next time we use them. On top of that we can simply buy the SP back if we want to. Cost for a T3C is between 20-50 mil more for the hull and subsystems than for a t2 cruiser so again cost isn't going to stop us. T3C will continue to be superior because they will do exactly the same thing the specialised t2 ships can do but with all of the other benefits T3C bring.
T3C must be worse than T2 otherwise ships like the HACs, recons and others will be pointless to fly. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18904
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 07:43:35 -
[84] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) SP loss matters. Removing it just makes T3Cs more attractive, not less.
All it does is punish the less well off and low skilled. Most of the people who use these have the means to pay their way past it. We also on average have one big fight at the weekends so the skills are back by the time you get around to flying it again. Its utterly pointless.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) I think a full V HAC/Force Recon should perform better than a full V T3C fit to fulfill that role. This can be achieved by nerfing subsystem bonuses to where they are less than T2 of that role. This also is why Im for removing rigs from T3Cs, as T2s could further augment their efficiency with rigs, whereas T3Cs could not.
Rigs are not what is causing balance issues. The problems are with the ship having 8 powerful bonuses, vast fitting room compared to the other cruisers and abnormally high base stats. The problem with rigs is they are stopping T3C from being adaptable.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 3) If anything, material costs for T3Cs/subsystems should be increased, not reduced.
Build cost should be altered depending on the changes made. If they get nerfed down to around navy cruisers then they should cost around navy cruisers. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18904
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 08:17:08 -
[85] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 1) How much money you or I have is not relevant to balance. The cost is the same for everyone. How much SP you have, or how rarely you use T3Cs, is again not relevant to balance. The loss and duration of recouping the loss is the same for everyone, in proportion.
Its not the same. SP loss is only a problem for the smaller guys, the null alliances can simply brush it aside. Putting unnecessary roadbloaks in front of the small guy only benefits the big guys out there. It's malcanis law in action.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Youve already said that if T3Cs are changed per your proposal, your alliance wont field T3Cs at all. That makes the SP issue redundant. If you wont use them even without SP loss, then whatv s the point in removing it, or that you have more wealth, or that you currently only fly them once a week.
We wouldn't use them because we would be using the T2 cruiser for their intended role. It not because the T3C would no longer be any good it's because we are returning to the ships we are supposed to be using (aka using HACs in HAC fleet) There is no justification for SP loss in this situation.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
2) Its easier to balance T3Cs around subsystems, without complicating the matter with rigs (much less, refittable rigs) T2s will be able to fit rigs to push past T3C subsystem bonuses for fulfilling that role. The abnormally high tank will be nerfed anyways, so its a non-issue, and discussion should consider that as understood and tabled.
Subsystems are the single most complicated ship "mod" system in the game. 8 powerful bonuses and the way they alter the fitting slots on the ship is far more complicated than 3 rigs that operate in the same general way as a damage mod.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 3) This isnt a "nerf" per se, its a re-balancing. T3Cs have arguably cost too little materials as is. If they are roughly brought inline with T2s, the material cost should exceed that of T2s by a substantial margin.
It's a nerf and a big one because it must be a big one to drag them down to cruiser level. CCP have never increased the build cost of a ship when nerfing it. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18904
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 08:58:06 -
[86] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) Its not Malcanis Law. That NS entities have the isk/SP to build and field Keepstar/Titans does not make them unfair to less wealthy/experienced players. How much money you or I have is not relevant to balance. Neither is the amount of SP you or I have. They are universal and apply to everyone.
You are locking out smaller and younger alliances and players with something we can simply work around. The larger and older players benefit from this.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) If you will no longer use T3Cs, then the SP loss is irrelevant to you. That is no justification to remove SP loss.
Unlike you I think of others and wider balance.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Youve already said repeatedly that the cost/SP loss is irrelevant to you EVEN NOW. So that makes it doubly irrational that you would argue for adjusting them in any direction. You are contradicting yourself.
No I'm looking into everything, you are just looking at your own selfish goals.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 3) Its a re-balance, not a nerf. As you pointed out, T3Cs are already too cheap compared to T2s. Once they are brought inline roughly with T2s, the cost should be adjusted so that they cost substantially more than T2s. That is as rational as your proposal to nerf them to <10% of value, as less than Navy hulls.
And we end up with a ship that is still better than T2 cruiser but is now even more exclusive to the larger older alliances. Incidently, if a ship is less powerful after a balance pass then it was a nerf.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Your proposal would utterly obliterate the WH market on gas/sleeper salvage, as well as T3D prices. My proposal makes T3Cs more expensive than T2s, to offset the versatility, and maintains the WH market status quo.
No, my plan is based upon the info given by CCP, they would still be highly popular ships much like their t1 counterparts and very capable. Your plan results in a still overpowered ship that is even more out of the reach of younger, less well off players. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18904
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 09:35:38 -
[87] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) Wrong. SP loss and cost as is, has demonstrably not locked anyone out of T3Cs. Larger/experienced alliances benefit from Keepstars and Titans too. You are missapplying Malcanis Law.
The SP loss/cost is the same for everyone.
That someone has more isk/SP than someone else, is not a balance issue.
Tell that to the people who do not have access to super carrier ratting.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) You wont use T3Cs after your proposal. Thus the SP loss is irrelevant for the impetus of your proposal, which is to remove T3Cs from fleets.
Its not to remove T3C from fleets, its to stop them overshadowing the specialist T2 ships. Again, I'm thinking of others not just myself or my alliance interests.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
3) The T3C in my proposal wont be better than any specialist T2 hull, for that role. They will however cost more, and incur SP loss as additional cost.
You said they would equal T2, that means they are just as good but with the added abilities that t3 bring. That makes them better than T2.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
4) Nobody will fly a T3C that performs equivalent to a T1C. I can promise you that.
Good thing I never said that then.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
5) Furthermore, your cost adjustment will have catastrophic effect on the WH gas/sleeper salvage markets by reducing them to <10% of current value. This will also have disastrous effects on the T3D market, as the market is flooded with stockpiles.
6) The demand for your proposed T1 equivalent T3Cs would have to increase by 900% inorder to offset that. If you think that is how popular crappy T1 equivalent T3Cs will be, when even your own alliance will no longer provide demand to the market, you have completely lost perspective.
There are other ways to increase WH material usage than just T3C. The new moon mining structures for example, CCP are also looking at making meta mods buildable and a teircide of mods in the summer. You can also look at capital build materials too for this. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18904
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 09:45:52 -
[88] - Quote
Beast of Revelations wrote:
So the question you should be asking him is, why does he not want to INCREASE SP loss instead of doing away with it altogether? I think his answer is, it's a bad mechanic for numerous reasons, and if the ship gets the nerfs it deserves, it won't need this kind of mechanic to balance it out anyway.
Increasing the cost/SP loss only does one thing. It makes it unaffordable to many which means those that can afford it have an advantage, I'm one of those people. Increasing the SP loss and cost only benefits us and hinders everyone else we face. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18904
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 17:17:04 -
[89] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) If they dont have super carriers, that is their own issue for lack of isk/sp to field them. It has nothing to do with super carrier balance.
How wealthy someone is, or how much SP they have, is not relevant to balance. I can right now buy 100 PLEX, and become a wealthy player with a ton of SP. Will that change the balance of the ships I fly? No. Ofc not.
You don't understand what I am saying.
The point is that in you attempt to stop people from using these ships via making them cost more and require more SP if killed you are taking them away from the little guy and handing the big guys a helping hand by ensuring that only they can afford to fly them.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) In my proposal, T3C stats wont overshadow T2 specialised hulls. Furthermore they will cost more, and incur SP loss.
3) I said roughly equal T2s. I said they wont have bonuses that exceed those of T2s specialised hulls towards their roles.
Its the combination of just about matching T2 and the other T3C abilities that will make them better than T2.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 4) Nobody will fly T1 equivalent T3Cs, that take 2 months longer to skill into, cost 4-5x as much, and lack tank/dps to run any content that a T1 would not be able to.
Again, I did not say they would be the same level as T1.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 5) WHs dont have moon mining. Your notion that meta mods or caps would involve T3 mats is nowhere on the drawing board, whilst your proposal of reducing T3Cs to <10% of current value would utterly obliterate WH markets and economy on gas/sleeper salvage which are WH exclusive.
Theses are ways of increasing demand for WH mats without relying on T3C. Seems to me this isn't about wormhole income and all about you trying to find an excuse to not go through with the T3C nerf. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18904
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 20:44:08 -
[90] - Quote
Egsise wrote:
Correct, I threw some ridiculous ideas to the air.
But as you pointed out the conditions don't forget that if you nerf the T3 cruisers you nerf the best ship in wormholes.
T3 cruisers are our battleships capitals supers and titans, all those in one hull.
T3 cruisers are broken only in kspace.
Wormholers use dreadnoughts and carriers, its a daft argument to be making there. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18904
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 21:03:19 -
[91] - Quote
Egsise wrote:But they can't travel, it's a bit of a drawback
They can travel, that's how invasions happen. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18912
|
Posted - 2017.05.02 23:27:11 -
[92] - Quote
Egsise wrote:how about the amount of bling T3 cruisers are used with. Hull+subs+rigs is 300mil, then we use on average 500mil for the modules.
It's the only way because there's no alternative. Battleship dps and ehp with 800mil but no insurance and sp loss if it explodes, yeah that sounds fair.
Subs in cargo, yup it's handy but the subsystem size is the problem so I hope CCP helps with that. The only T3 cruiser that I've used with dual purpose is a cloaky prober nullified laser Legion with depot+dps+ehp subs in cargo, it's possible only because the laser crystals are so small.
I think we need new toys. Nerf the T3 cruisers but give us new subs, new meta, new legos to play with. And since T3s are wh born I see that the sleeper material they are built from activates in wspace thus giving them better stats in wormholes, kinda like wormhole effects give you all kinds of boosts or nerfs.
There is a 50 mil difference between T2 and T3 cruisers. Price tag is no excuse for keeping something this blatantly overpowered. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18913
|
Posted - 2017.05.03 19:09:54 -
[93] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Currently T3 are not OP but hey if they must be changed they should be changed to something worthwhile to fly. The only thing OP about T3 (and all the other OP ships like Orthrus etc) is the fitting of BS sized mods which have silly fitting requirements. I can stick 4 battleship sized plates on a cruiser ffs.
Which cruiser? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18914
|
Posted - 2017.05.03 22:34:54 -
[94] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Also CCP have flatly stated, repeatedly, that T3 ships are supposed to be roughly equivalent to Navy Faction in terms of performance but more flexible. Quote that, because from fanfest presentation the only nerf so far is increased sig radius, no flatly stated "we will bring them to the level of navies", and so far it is the only viable source of information because it is "fresh". We have no idea where CCP want them. Fozzie and Larrikin didn't share the details.
Equally we have had no info saying they have changed the plan so right now that's what we have to work off. Frankly it also makes the most sense, you cant have them be as good as T2 and you won't see them drop to t1 levels so that means they have to land somewhere between those two levels. That means navy cruiser level.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18914
|
Posted - 2017.05.06 11:23:31 -
[95] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Large ship modules cannot be fit to T3 cruisers. End of story.
Yep its totally the oversized mods and not the fact that the proteus we use is getting 500 more powergrid than its nearest cruiser rival (several hundred more powergrid than T2 battlescruisers).
Infinity Ziona wrote: This is really a myth.
I just went through 20 pages of both PL and Goonswarm losses and I see no T3C fleets being used at all. Plenty of Moa's, Machs but not T3's, this is why 2/3 of the fits above, taken from PL's killboard are hot dropping ships. If T3C's are so fantastically overpowered why are they not being used?
Looking at top ships for those alliances, loki is number 1 for PL, Mach and Proteus are even, none of the T3's appear on the top ships for Goonswarm.
Now you are just talking ****, we still use them all the time. You won't find a lost T3C fleet because we don't lose them. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18917
|
Posted - 2017.05.07 11:45:14 -
[96] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
They don't have 50% more HP than other ships that's a lie.
Our AHAC proteus with just subsystems fitted. 23,2k EHP
Deimos, 13.2k EHP
Ishtar 11.9k EHP
Twice the base tank of an ishtar, close to twice the tank of a deimos so yes he is correct in saying T3C are getting twice the base tank of HACs.
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You can stupid tank them just like any other ship but they'll be bricks. The base Proteus has 23k ehp, the Phobos has 16k ehp. The Phobos is faster than the Proteus, warps faster, has longer targetting range, has more cap regen, and more power grid unless the Proteus fits the engineering sub. And of course the Phobos can pop a bubble, and doesn't need a mid slot for scram, and has infini point.
So using our AHAC proteus fit we find that the phobos runs out of cap in 60 seconds while the proteus is cap stable. phobos gets 92k EHP with the exact same fit while the proteus gets 135k EHP, Phobos warps at 3.3 AU sec while our proteus is getting 4.8 AU, phobos align time is 11.5 while the proteus is 9.17. Infact the phobos cant even fit the proteus fit because its 14.88% over its fitting limit.
Phobos is far inferior compared to the proteus at being a HAC.
Infinity Ziona wrote:
As for my Onyx having less dps, no not really, my Onyx against small ships has more deeps than a rail fit proteus using medium guns. Its all about application and role. An interceptor doesn't have an enormous amount of DPS so are you saying theyre useless?
No, we are saying your solo frigate puncher is useless vs anything with a moderate tank and a med neut fitted. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18920
|
Posted - 2017.05.08 10:29:39 -
[97] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: Once again restricting their use of BS sized modules removes around 30% of their total HP. In the case of your friends super tanked legion it removes more than 100k ehp. There is absolutely no reason to complete remake the ship which if history is repeated is either going to result in the T3C being completely irrelevant (the way you want it) or being exploited to be overpowered again because CCP will likely screw it up, Again.
I just put the exact same fit on both ships, the T3C was massively better in every way both in stats and in ability to actually use the fit. Its not the plate causing this it the hull.
Infinity Ziona wrote: Phobos is not far inferior to the Proteus. You simply do not understand the role of the HIC if you're saying that. Its not supposed to be equal to the Proteus or any other combat ship. Its not a combat ship. In addition the Phobos and the other HICS are the most agile cruisers in the game with their bubble out. I've exploited this to do things that no other cruiser in game can do - such as making 100mw mwd 7k p/s runs on kitey Orthrus, hitting my bubble on scram, giving me a 2sec align and perfect orbit at 2k p/s.
Again, exact same fit and the phobos was much worse in ever area including in agility.
I want to see this fit that gives a 2 second align time, that's faster than a lot of the interceptors out there.
Infinity Ziona wrote: I can hear your nonesense now, but but that doesn't conform to my alliances current meta. Well guess what, no one but your alliance cares, the majority of combat in EvE is not PL's metagame and the majority of ships blown up and not blown up by supercap drops, or 100's to 1000,s of people in fleets. The majority of combat is medium to small gangs and that's the thing CCP should be concentrating on. Not your minority style gameplay.
T3C overpower their t2 counterparts in every area from massive fleet fights right down to solo. Just because you are now getting torn apart does not mean we must ignore alliance level fights that happen all over the place all the time.
Infinity Ziona wrote: My solo Onyx was used to scram a bunch of ships so that the Horde fleet could then jump in an kill some of them trapped in bubble or on the other side of the gate after they've burned to it. It was to negate the efffect of the spys on the other side causing the Svipuls to warp off to safe when the Horde fleet warped to the gate. It was an extremely useful ship for that purpose given the difficulty we had with spys and the likelihood that they would attempt to pop and giving themselves a aggression timer. Hardly useless.
Again, 160 dps and your "massive tank" is shut down by a single med neut. Damn near anything will tank it and shut you down. You are also trying to compare it to our AHAC proteus which is just laughable as it cannot do a single thing our proteus does, none of your shitfit active setups are any good. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18922
|
Posted - 2017.05.08 13:58:03 -
[98] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Continued... ^
TLDR: -SP loss is a core mechanic on T3Cs that offsets the practical value of versatility from refitting subsystems.
SP loss was put in to try to justify T3C power. Remove that power and you have no excuse to keep SP loss.
It hurts poorer and newer players a lot more than it does the older players and doesn't work at limiting T3C use among alliances like mine because we can simply bypass it. It doesn't work and it won't be needed after the nerfs.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: -Removing SP loss only benefits older players. There is ZERO benefit to newer players over old from removing SP loss.
I just trained up citadel cruise missile specialisation V because I have nothing better to train for. I can also throw money into skill injectors because I have much better income than a new player. SP loss benefits older players because we don't need to be training into new ships because we generally have everything already and we are far richer. Newer player are far more hurt with SP loss than older players. This is Malcanis' Law in action, SP loss is of benefit to older players because it limits newer players ability to use T3C while having no impact on older players because we can avoid it. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18925
|
Posted - 2017.05.09 08:56:40 -
[99] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Snip 1) SP loss: The SP loss itself is the same for everyone. Replacing it with injectors is currently less efficient for older players, than newer. If SP loss is removed, this disparity is also removed, and the only equity gained, is by older players whom already have greater wealth to replace the SP loss in the first place. This means concretely that older players will benefit more from SP loss removal, than newer players. T3Cs will become proportionately cheaper for older players to replace as a result of SP loss removal, than they will become for newer players. This runs contrary to the impetus of incentivizing T3Cs for newer players, rather than older ones. You can argue how significant that is, but you cannot argue that it is not a mathematical fact.
I have the SP and the isk to not care about SP loss and can avoid it very easily.
Newer players are still having to train into a lot of ship and do not have the same level of income as older players so cannot afford to either throw isk at injectors or spend the time training T3C skills again over other things they need.
Newer players are clearly at a much bigger disadvantage than older players in terms of SP loss. There is also no reason at all to keep it from a balance point of view, T3C would be below t2 cruisers in terms of power so why keep a system of punishment that no other ship in this power range has? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
19001
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 11:30:07 -
[100] - Quote
Legion and Loki are now horribly overpowered, get training into them. |
|
|
|
|