|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18945
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 10:48:25 -
[1] - Quote
Few things in my book that need addressing.
Powergrid is way too high for a cruiser, for example.
Proteus 1820
Thorax 1025 Exequror Navy Isuue 1038 Deimos 1313 Vigilant 1313 Talos 1375 Astarte 1688
A lot of the issues around T3C come from this massive powergrid problem, its a big part of how they can get such huge EHP numbers while still sporting the firepower and utility.
Base HP is another issue that helps them get so much better EHP results than other cruisers. Again looking at the bog standard proteus fleet fit (augmented plating).
Proteus:
Shield 6100 Armour 13700 Hull 3460
Deimos:
Shield 2930 Armour 5560 Hull 4760
Vigilant
Shield 3750 Armour 4630 Hull 4900
Talos
Shield 3020 Armour 3500 Hull 4030
Astarte
Shield 8290 Armour 13000 Hull 9330
Again it cannot be right that the proteus is getting more than twice the base armour of cruisers and is even edging the command ships. It should be brought into line with the rest of the cruisers.
Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Getting through a blockade should involve some skill on the pilots behalf.
Fourth, SP loss should go. Its just going to be used to justify the ships being overpowered compared to other cruisers, it disproportionately impacts younger players as older players such as myself don't have much to train for so can afford a few days training the skill again or can afford to simply throw isk at getting those skills back again. Its fairly rare to lose one.
Lastly I would look at reducing the size of the sub systems from 40 m3 down to 10 m3 and bumping up the cargo hold to 450 m3. That should give you the room needed for refits, ammo, charges and such so that they can be the highly adaptable cruisers you can adapt on the fly. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18946
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 12:12:27 -
[2] - Quote
zbaaca wrote:baltec1 wrote:Few things in my book that need addressing.. so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field
If you want battleship EHP bring a battleship. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18948
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 21:31:40 -
[3] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp. In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons. As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site. I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in. Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category. Can you explain why subsystem that helps with traveling isn't require for exploration(nullified one)? Activity strongly connected with traveling at it's very core? By your logic covert cloak is not required either, I'm not using it when exploring hisec combat sites. I fit my explo vessels accordingly to the threats. No cloak - hisec, cloak - lowsec, cloak+nullifing - null. Mobile bubbles are still a thing, just switched to T2 ones. On the other hand someone using covert cloak is not necessary an explorer. Yet they will end with bullshit tank because covert+nullified combo will be nerfed to the unusable level. So better to use Stratios over overpriced, SP loss, "versatile" T3C.
Cov ops cloaks are very powerful on their own. Nullification is not required for exploration as can be seen with all of the other cov ops ships out there. The problem with nullification and cov ops being on the same ship is that it effectively means you can ignore any defence in your way. This not only means explorers can opt out of pvp but also means that people can and do use them to transport high value goods, offensive cyno's, hunt ratters, run escalations safe in the knowledge that they will not be caught while travelling unlike every other ship out there (including the other cov ops).
It is simply too powerful a combo. The pilgrim is never going to be much of an option so long as the legion has the power to ignore defences. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18956
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 09:09:45 -
[4] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp.
Sig increase isn't going to do much for catching them. You can cloak a titan before you can lock it due to the way sever ticks work so a bigger sig isn't going to do much. Question remains on the align time, in my experience you will be looking at something like battlescruiser to battleship speed, say 8 to 9 seconds to make catching it a realistic option.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18956
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 12:18:34 -
[5] - Quote
Bromum Atom wrote: Why gate campers should be boosted? Ususally they dont want to pvp, they can only camp the gate and run when you start pew-pew with them.
Why should you be able to ignore them? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18956
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 13:37:56 -
[6] - Quote
Bromum Atom wrote: Why they should get free killmail?
Its only free if you let them win.
Bromum Atom wrote: Or why I should logoff at camped system?
You don't, you have a cov ops cloak, use it.
Bromum Atom wrote: Why carriers ratting aligned and ignore pvp when I going to catch them? What is easy: catch carrier when it warp to new rat-site (there is no othe way to catch it if carrier pilot doesn't sleep) or catch covert-nullifier t3 when it pass through gate?
So you should be able to just ignore someones defences? Sounds like you wan't an I win button. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18956
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 14:54:02 -
[7] - Quote
Bromum Atom wrote:baltec1 wrote: So you should be able to just ignore someones defences? Sounds like you wan't an I win button.
I told that. Dont know what you hear. You want camp gate killing t3 with you "win" button, but carriels still should be uncatchable? Quote:You don't, you have a cov ops cloak, use it. I have cov ops cloak + nullifier. Why t3 should be nerfed, but carriers not? Null+covert is just small nice bonus for such expensive t3 ship. Quote:Its only free if you let them win. I dont let them, I will refit and search for pvp at other places. Easy.
You seem to have an obsession with AFK carriers, if you want them nerfed then ask for it somewhere else. This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18956
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 14:54:50 -
[8] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote: T3C are and will be special (like overpriced, and SP loss) that's why they get special abilities. They aren't that expensive if you consider what you get out of them.
See this is why I want SP loss to go, people just use it as an excuse to make them overpowered. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18963
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 09:50:05 -
[9] - Quote
zbaaca wrote: jump freights .
Probably a fair argument, citadels have made getting them around virtually risk free.
zbaaca wrote: ceptors to ignore 95% of camps .
To do so they have to be incredibly fragile which balances it out.
zbaaca wrote: bombers to choose when and where they want do die .
As a bomber pilot this isn't true. Getting through a gatecamp is not risk free.
zbaaca wrote: blops that jumps , curse and friends to choose engagements . etc .
Way more vulnerable when using a gate though, T3C can also be bridged.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18963
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 10:39:46 -
[10] - Quote
Bromum Atom wrote: Carriers ans supercarriers war greatly boosted during last year. This update with increased sig and mass of t3 and next increasement cost of pirate BS will boost carriers to. And now you told about t3 should be nerfed greatly.
Fighter nerf incoming. Super and carriers just got nerfed.
Bromum Atom wrote: I pay 1bil ISK every time I lost t3. Its not enough addition price for t3 cruser? Players should feel real pain when lost it?
Depending on where T3C end up in terms of balance with the other cruisers a sound argument can be made to reduce the isk cost. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18972
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 22:10:51 -
[11] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Dior Ambraelle wrote:Among the Caldari cruisers, only the Navy Caracal, Eagle and Onyx have no drone bays. The Zealot (Amarr), Phobos (Gallente) and Broadsword (Minmatar) also lacks drones. Interestingly, literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs.
I think all cruisers should have room and be able to use at least 2 small utility drones, and this includes all possible variations of the T3Cs too. No ship should automatically just get a drone bay because of its size or cost. The drone bay should also fit with the ship's role. I would try to agree with this, but every single battleship in the game has a drone bay, regardless of it's faction, cost or role, so the game itself also seem to disagree with you.
These are cruisers not battleships.
Caldari cruisers all have poor to no drone bays because of the way missiles work. Tengu should operate in the same way. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18976
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 08:50:13 -
[12] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote: With the state of medium missile weaponry bieng poor at best over the last five years, this really shouldn't even be an argument.
They are reworking all mods this summer. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18982
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 18:33:06 -
[13] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:Dior Ambraelle wrote:The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed. T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role. Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot. In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship... Still reading comments in here, but there isn't enough info on new stats to really let us theory craft. I think a lot will depend on resist profiles, powergrid, and cpu. There are some potentially worrying ewar and tank slot combo's with the revisions. Again, I would say that until you can put some numbers behind them using the 'old' t3c stats isn't going to give you a good idea of their power.
Bumping it up to 450m3 should do the trick if they also reuce the subsystem size from 40m3 down to 10m3. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18982
|
Posted - 2017.06.14 01:42:19 -
[14] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:
Would also need a reduction in depot space cost and something added for about half a fit worth of modules, plus ammo
450m3 with the current depot should be enough room assuming the subsystems are 10m3. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18989
|
Posted - 2017.06.19 10:48:43 -
[15] - Quote
I'm worried recons are going to be obsolete. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18990
|
Posted - 2017.06.19 11:35:34 -
[16] - Quote
Chan'aar wrote:Loki Core systems seem to have a missmatch.
The PG one (Augmented Nuclear Reactor) has a 20% role bonus to PG output.
The CPU one (Dissolution Sequencer) has NO bonus to cpu output ?
This does not seem right to me and makes fits very very tight.
Probably intentional. T3C have had a really big problem with being far too generous with fitting. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18992
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 10:33:53 -
[17] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:Uriam Khanid wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs . a small correction seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash
No that's good balancing, bad balancing is buffing everything else to match the 4 problem ships. We call that power creep and it's very damaging to the wider game. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18992
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 10:35:59 -
[18] - Quote
BESTER bm wrote:In short, this will kill the Tengu for use in Superior Sleeper caches. It will not be able to tank those anymore. It will not allow you to tank the damage in either solar or Sentries room from what I see and two back2back Massive Shockwaves in Archive room will kill lthe ship as it evaporates the shield with no time to regen. RIP explo Tengu The reason why covert was in offensive is because in most case when used it will be used instead of weapons. Now, being in defensive it basically kills the ability to create a viable and well tanked explorer. When I come into a system cloacked and nullified, I am still seen (briefly) when coming in.. It's justa matter of combat probing to find me while refitting.. Basically negates the purpose of both Cloak and Nullification.. But then, that seems to be the whole idea.. Give the PVP crowd their pewpew.
If no other cruiser can run these sites then why should t3c? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18992
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 18:40:07 -
[19] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:baltec1 wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:Uriam Khanid wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs . a small correction seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash No that's good balancing, bad balancing is buffing everything else to match the 4 problem ships. We call that power creep and it's very damaging to the wider game. so by nerfing t3cs to hac levels hacs wont be in the trash anymore cant say im convinced also i think cses are fine tbh theyre in a nice place and have a good role
HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18992
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 18:43:26 -
[20] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:
there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null.
So yea, if a recon cannot run these sites then why should a T3C? The whole point of these high end sites is to offer great reward for high risk. T3C have made it rather low risk so its a good thing them not being able to run them anymore. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18993
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 20:40:45 -
[21] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:baltec1 wrote:HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers. which other cruisers the ones all in the trash only (non t3) cruisers i see are gila cyna stratios all pirates maybe a vaga dies or a cerb dies meaningless garbage theres only one good cruiser and that is the cruiser you dont see pilgrim stratios <- this one is garbage
Thats because you are used to T3C. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18993
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 20:51:04 -
[22] - Quote
Moth Eisig wrote:baltec1 wrote:Mhari Dson wrote:
there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null.
So yea, if a recon cannot run these sites then why should a T3C? The whole point of these high end sites is to offer great reward for high risk. T3C have made it rather low risk so its a good thing them not being able to run them anymore. Sleeper caches were basically made to give exploration t3s a reason for existing after rats were removed from exloration sites. If t3s can't do those sites any better than an Astero, what's the point of ever using a t3 for exploration? On top of that tou'd have game content that never gets used. Doing exploration sites in a billion isk ship not fitted for pvp was already pretty good risk for the benefit.
Why should the T3C which is supposed to be a generalist be as good or better than a specialised ship? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18994
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 22:44:09 -
[23] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Again: what does "generalist" mean?
Jack of all trades, master of none.
Dior Ambraelle wrote: Also, why would you make a ship that's more expensive than the T2 ships, and has penalty for losing it if it should be weaker than every T2 and pirate cruiser? If T3Cs were an upgrade on T2 ships that can combine their abilities and would require all T2 cruiser skills then we wouldn't have this mess. You can't blame the ships for being broken if the rule makes no sense.
Kronos is less useful than a normal mega despite being more expensive and longer to train into.
T3C are supposed to be the highly adaptable generalists, T2 are the specialists, T1 are the base model, faction are the posh base model and pirate are the high quality supermodel.
Having the generalists out preforming the specialists makes no sense. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18994
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 22:44:56 -
[24] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote: how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake
Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18994
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 07:36:16 -
[25] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:baltec1 wrote:T3C are supposed to be the highly adaptable generalists, T2 are the specialists, T1 are the base model, faction are the posh base model and pirate are the high quality supermodel. This whole lineup is based on a rule that T3Cs always failed to follow, a rule which was made by the devs years ago. Yet during all of these years people were only complaining about T3Cs being stronger than the T2 cruisers. Am I really the first one who questions: what if the rule itself is the problem? Wouldn't it make more sense if you learn all T2 specialized cruisers to level 4 or 5, and only then would you unlock the T3Cs which can combine their roles? Tech 3 ships seem to play by their own rules anyways, why shouldn't we turn the strategic cruisers the endgame subcapital? Increase the skill requirements to need all of the skills of all roles the subsystems could provide, and at that point you have a legit reason to be better than the T2 versions.
That just makes the T2 ships obsolete. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 11:03:35 -
[26] - Quote
Blazemonger wrote:Alderson Point wrote:If CCP wish, as I believe T3s to have the opportunity to continue as a Viable exploration ship, in the manner we can currently utilize them,even though refitting may now be needed, the solution in this case would be to move the Virus strength and scan bonus to a ship bonus rather than the defensive subsystem bonus.this then allows an appropriate defensive fit, that can still hack challenging sites.. It would appear from previously mentioned documents that resists/tank will virtually be cut in half which will make these ship no longer viable to run high end exploration sites and the cost of getting unlucky is now losing a 1B ship and a skill level which in no way will validate running the sites which at best will yield 25-30% of the ship's value in loot. And another thing.. If the numbers in the docs pan out, it will not be possible to safely run Ghost sites anymore either. The tank will drop below that of a half decent Astero tank and I will want/need cloak to warp in to a Ghost site Which means no possibility to fit tank subsystems. And don't get me started on being forced to refit in space, being vulnerable for well over a minute. What I predict will happen though is CCP will ignore all this and just nerf down the sites, making them more accessible which in turn makes them less valuable and explorers such as myself with 2-3 alts all trained and skilled to fly these T3C fits to lose any benefit from this. In fact unless this changes I will probably scrap these alts alltogether as I won't be able to use them anymore.. Not that I think CCP cares, as they cater to PVP and group/fleet based activity first and foremost, but it will mean a loss of real world income for them. On early reports from the focus group I had hopes of this working out OK, currently I am pessimistic about the viability and continuation of a good bit of my income in game. If that happens all I can do is reconsider whether this game is still worth the investment.
Good, this is supposed to be hard content. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 12:41:46 -
[27] - Quote
Sterling Blades wrote:
There is a difference between 'very likely to die,' and 'gauranteed to die.'
T3C are as likely to die doing these sites as a battleship in a level 4 mission in highsec.
Sterling Blades wrote: You want it to be hard content? Good. It should be, but at the same time you're also saying that explorers shouldn't be able to survive the efforts if a cruiser can be outtanked by an Astero, which the individual before you mentioned it seems to be squaring up to become. I will wait to make a hard judgement until we see actual proposed number changes to actual raw health alongside the new resist profiles, but if it does become that a FRIGATE is the better option for endgame explo sites rather than a larger supposedly beefier vessel, then there is a problem.
Again, a dedicated exploration ship should be better then a generalist cruiser at its specialised task. That frigate is better at explo sites than a titan. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 14:30:53 -
[28] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote: Well, we don't have T2 exploration cruisers, so why shouldn't we let the T3Cs to be? This is most likely the only role that doesn't overlap with any T2 cruisers.
Because they are not specialist cruisers.
Dior Ambraelle wrote: Also, while the T2 explorer frigates are more fragile than the Astero, with level 4 cov-ops skill they actually have better probe bonuses. So there is no reason why we shouldn't make a T2 or in this case T3 cruiser that at some point becomes a better explorer than the Stratios.
They have better probe bonuses because they are specialised, T3C are not specialised, they are generalists. If you want a specialised exploration cruiser with powerful probe bonuses then ask for a new T2 exploration cruiser. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 15:49:56 -
[29] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote: It's not fun to argue with you if all you're doing is keep repeating the same thing over and over again, while ignoring all options and possibilities that would change these ships.
I have to keep on repeating myself because you are ignoring fundamental parts of ship balance. Namely a generalist ship cannot be the best at any given task. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 17:04:00 -
[30] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote: T3Ds can switch between modes to have better damage, better defense or better speed than the other destroyers. Do they count as generalist too?
Supposed to, but they suffer from the exact same problems that have dogged the T3C. Namely that they were horrendously overpowered and still are compared to the other destroyers.
Dior Ambraelle wrote: And if not being specialized makes you weaker, then Loki should actually need to dual tank to have a defense that you can call decent at least. Because having bonus to both armor and shield doesn't look specialized to me.
If the loki is better than a recon at being a recon then it needs to be nerfed.
Dior Ambraelle wrote: Why not simply remove the whole "generalist" term from the rule book and simply say that the T3 ships are playing by their own rules? So T3Cs could become explorer ships with the ability to mimic the functions of other ships even if not so efficiently. Alternatively, Arazu, Falcon, Pilgrim and Rapier should lose their e-war abilities to become explorer cruisers instead.
Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 17:41:52 -
[31] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:baltec1 wrote: Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years.
maybe they used to years ago but not anymore meta changed a lot since those days
Yea, its dominated by a handful of overpowered ships, this change goes a long way to fixing that. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 17:49:01 -
[32] - Quote
BESTER bm wrote:
You are twsting the argument to suit your needs here. You are trying to blanket the argument with basic and frankly non applicable comments. There currently is no high end exploration ship capabale of running the high end exploration sites with acceptable risk. The only ship able to do this is a T3C right now and post nerf that option seems to be gone. Many people have spends serious time and effort getting skilled in to these ships and the required fits which also carry a 1B pricetag. CCP is about to wipe out all that work and investment and apparently will not care one bit about this.
They nerfed ships worth 120 billion out of anomaly ratting (tacking titan nerfs).
Your easy ride is over, this content is going back to being difficult and hopefully that also means the supply of the high end gear out of these sites become more rare. You are going to have to adapt, just like everyone else that has had their golden goose nerfed. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 20:34:36 -
[33] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:
If you have to keep repeating yourself then one side or the other is wrong, since you're having everyone else in the thread come against you perhaps you should take a different look at your line of discussion. (That's as far down as I can tone this, would rather use much stronger language/points but don't want a forum ban.)
Its more like a bunch of people don't want their overpowered toy nerfed.
Mhari Dson wrote: I also challenge you to find a fully bonused T1 or T2 exploration cruiser (or larger!), faction and T3 will not count for you. The fact that there isn't one has been a glaring hole in the ship lineup for at least a decade. Therefore generalist does not apply to exploration.
They very much do apply as these ships have more uses outside of exploration. If you want a dedicated t2 cruiser for exploration then ask for one.
Mhari Dson wrote: I would be fine with requiring HAC/Recon/Logi/Command ships as prereqs for training the strategic cruiser skills, makes no difference really. No matter the training bar people will do it anyway.
The point though:
Unchain exploration from cloak or buff the tank on the cloak subs to be on par for doing exploration regardless of cloak consideration.
This is not a generalist ship class, it's a swiss army knife.
Swiss army knife is a generalist, it does everything but not as well as something dedicated. You cant have more tank on the cloaky T3C because that renders the recons obsolete. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 22:05:58 -
[34] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:baltec1 wrote:They very much do apply as these ships have more uses outside of exploration. If you want a dedicated t2 cruiser for exploration then ask for one. we already have dedicated faction cruiser that won't do superior sleeper site. You don't get one thing. It's reverse case carriers+anomalys. Carriers were buffed so players started to farm anomalies with them. CCP didn't predict that. Now they nerfed hulls via pve (sic!). Now it will be reverse. T3C will be nerfed and there is no hull that can replace them in content they are currently usable. If you think they will suddenly magically conjure T2 exploration hulls then you are wrong. Explorers asking for changing data sites content for years. ZERO response from CCP. Stale, unecessary sites, you may delete it, nobody will notice.
Actually I imagine we will go back to people not running these things in a solo cruiser. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 22:06:57 -
[35] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:baltec1 wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:baltec1 wrote: Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years.
maybe they used to years ago but not anymore meta changed a lot since those days Yea, its dominated by a handful of overpowered ships, this change goes a long way to fixing that. by removing even more ships from the meta and making the handful of ships worth flying even smaller id prefer to see things go the other way with more ships being viable rather than less that isnt power creep its equalization
Buffing some 60+ ships to deal with 4 overpowered ships is very much power creep on a massive scale. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 22:16:00 -
[36] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:baltec1 wrote:You cant have more tank on the cloaky T3C because that renders the recons obsolete. This is an interesting point. Recons are e-war ships (for some reason) so making the cloak subsystem more tanky won't necessarily affect recons if the e-war subsystem is weaker. Unless you only use your recon ship to "recon" this is unlikely to happen. To be honest I never understood why do we have two almost redundant ships in a group called recon ships, while they barely have any bonuses that makes them worth of the name.
If the T3C can fit a bigger tank while sporting cov ops and nullification then the recon lineup is rendered obsolete. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 22:22:24 -
[37] - Quote
BESTER bm wrote:
Dude, you do not even know what you are talking about and quite clearly have never seen nor run any of these sites. At this point you are merely a cracked record spouting the same nonsense as you really have no argument here. CCP is about to kill off high en exploration as the only ship they have that will be able to run these sites will be nerfed to he point where it can't.
You mean the only ship than can run these sites virtually risk and effort free. Plenty of other ships can run them, it just requires more effort and means you cant nullify you way past anyone in the way as easily.
BESTER bm wrote: Whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, whether it was intended or not, the T3C and especially the Tengu has become the Specialist Explo Cruiser. In part due to the salt and tears from gankers and campers unable to counter the ship (and not because it can't be done, just because they are not smart enough) and seeing the potential of picking up freebees off of other peoples work slip thorough their fingers time and time again.
Fortunately there's alternatives on the horizon in the form of different MMO options.
We did high end exploration before overpowered uncatchable nullified cov ops cruisers, people will continue to do them after the T3C gets nerfed into place. |
|
|
|