Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
131
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 16:22:40 -
[301] - Quote
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 |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
128
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 16:29:38 -
[302] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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?
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. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
242
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 17:06:30 -
[303] - Quote
zbaaca wrote:... Nasar Vyron wrote:They really should consider changing these to require BC 5 and just label them as BCs. Increase the build cost a little further and call it good. I'd still call for a nerf to speed with this regardless but at least doing this everything will begin to actually line up with their power. and old players benefit again , like ones that got free sp when destr and bc skill splitted into racial . what would you do if you are able to fly t3 one day and never-ever bothered to learn bc and anything beyond because they have no place in your game style , and now you have to get bc to 5 and you cant play your shiny ship untill you get skill , and sp inj will give you only 150k both of options will impact fresh players only . and both are bad
Newbro - I'd be glad that injectors exist. Vet - I'd be wondering to myself how in the hell I got so many SP that I only got 150m an injector and never thought to train BC or BB at all along the way. I'd also realize that I have time between now and patch day to train the old fashion way. Both - I'd realize that nothing is ever set in stone in EVE and we will always have to adapt to our changing environment. This includes training to be able to fly a wide variety of ships should a chance be implemented making my current ship obsolete.
While I can understand BC 5 is a relatively long train if you only were willing to ever train cruiser 5. It's not a huge step in regards to attempting to balance a ship without having to completely overhaul a hull type that many have dedicated their playstyle around. I'm surprised more WH goers weren't originally pushing for a reclassification rather than a rework from the very beginning.
Even if they were to announce these changes today, you would still have the time to train BC 5 long before the patch hits for at least 1 of the hulls. Possibly all 4 if CCP decided to push the date further in order to give people that much more time to train so when the patch did hit nobody would be caught off guard. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18992
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 18:40:07 -
[304] - 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 -
[305] - 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. |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
131
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 19:37:31 -
[306] - Quote
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 |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18993
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 20:40:45 -
[307] - 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. |
Moth Eisig
113
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 20:44:56 -
[308] - Quote
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18993
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 20:51:04 -
[309] - 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? |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
78
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 21:00:51 -
[310] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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? Again: what does "generalist" mean? 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.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
|
BESTER bm
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
23
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 21:07:06 -
[311] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:If no other cruiser can run these sites then why should t3c?
Because these are not any other Cruisers, they are T3/higher end/more flexible/more powerful cruisers. T3C come with a hefty skill requiremant, will generally cost a good bit more and carry a significant penalty for losing it beyond just losing the ship. Seems to me that would call for some balance..
Instead it seems CCP and the pewew crowd in the game seem to prefer it to be 'just another cruiser' as they are unable to deal with it otherwise.
baltec1 wrote:Why should the T3C which is supposed to be a generalist be as good or better than a specialised ship?
First off, it appears you have never run these sites so you would not know what you are talking about. Second, there really is no alternative to the T3C to run these sites. There is nothing beyond an explo fit T3C that wil lgive me the bonusses on scanning/hacking and even the T3C is relatively slow for this purpose. Frankly, the rewards from these sites barely justify the investment of SP and ship/fit required
Fozzie said they wanted to preserve the exploration role, it is quite clear from the latest information he either lied or has no clue about what is required to run these sites. |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
131
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 21:08:42 -
[312] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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. how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake
|
Matthias Ancaladron
Wrath of Angels Solitaire.
372
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 21:39:09 -
[313] - Quote
So are we all agreed?
Delete t3s entirely from game yet? Yes? Great!
Good job everyone, last one out of thread turn off lights. |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
78
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 22:09:51 -
[314] - Quote
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:So are we all agreed?
Delete t3s entirely from game yet? Yes? Great!
Good job everyone, last one out of thread turn off lights. I never said we should delete them. The concept of mixing functions to build truly personal and unique ships is amazing! But this should be "endgame" content, not faster to learn than 3 of the 4 T2 cruisers. The idea is good, it's just put to a horrible place.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18994
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 22:44:09 -
[315] - 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 -
[316] - 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? |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
132
|
Posted - 2017.06.20 23:33:33 -
[317] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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? i dont think its unfair to set some meta boudaries somewhere
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
78
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 00:57:33 -
[318] - Quote
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.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3963
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 06:27:40 -
[319] - Quote
Because power creep is bad.
A ship to end all ships just means everyone flies one ship. No meaningful choices is boring for a game and means noobs are less relevant until they can fly such ships.
Doesn't matter how expensive you make it, or how much sp you need to unlock it it will eventually be flown en mass by richer older players who will curb stomp everyone all day except other groups using the same doctrine. Look at titans, which had to be given space aids to stop them stomping all over anyone who doesn't have fleets of them.
Isk+sp does not and, never will, justify making something over powered.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3963
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 06:28:37 -
[320] - Quote
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:So are we all agreed?
Delete t3s entirely from game yet? Yes? Great!
Good job everyone, last one out of thread turn off lights. If only we could.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18994
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 07:36:16 -
[321] - 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. |
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
104
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 08:20:27 -
[322] - Quote
BESTER bm wrote:baltec1 wrote:If no other cruiser can run these sites then why should t3c? Because these are not any other Cruisers, they are T3/higher end/more flexible/more powerful cruisers. T3C come with a hefty skill requiremant, will generally cost a good bit more and carry a significant penalty for losing it beyond just losing the ship. Seems to me that would call for some balance.. Instead it seems CCP and the pewew crowd in the game seem to prefer it to be 'just another cruiser' as they are unable to deal with it otherwise. baltec1 wrote:Why should the T3C which is supposed to be a generalist be as good or better than a specialised ship? First off, it appears you have never run these sites so you would not know what you are talking about. Second, there really is no alternative to the T3C to run these sites. There is nothing beyond an explo fit T3C that wil lgive me the bonusses on scanning/hacking and even the T3C is relatively slow for this purpose. Frankly, the rewards from these sites barely justify the investment of SP and ship/fit required Fozzie said they wanted to preserve the exploration role, it is quite clear from the latest information he either lied or has no clue about what is required to run these sites.
Putting aside the "T3c vs HAC" discussion for the moment.
If CCP wish, as I believe T3s to have the opportunity to continue as a Viable exploration ship, in the manner we can currently utilise them, 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.
The covert ops defensive subsystem, would still be valuable due to the significant value of the covert ops cloak, and this doesn't add too much to fits that do not use a covert ops cloak, and this will enable true exploration fits to still exist.
Discuss. |
Blazemonger
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 10:14:34 -
[323] - Quote
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.
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 form this. In fact unless this changes I will probably scrap these alts all together 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. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 11:03:35 -
[324] - 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. |
Sterling Blades
Windstalker Security Corp United Neopian Federation
34
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 11:35:49 -
[325] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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.
There is a difference between 'very likely to die,' and 'gauranteed to die.' 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.
The gods are out there. They watch us. They guide, they manipulate. We rally behind the ones we adore, and rain fire against those who rally behind the ones we hate. The question now is, to whom does your allegiance fall behind, dear Empyreans?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 12:41:46 -
[326] - 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. |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
132
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 13:10:34 -
[327] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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? im just asking how many hacs it takes to kill a rattlesnake also is there a reason they shouldnt be compared they are both ships
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
78
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 13:17:06 -
[328] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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. 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. 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.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3621
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 13:42:27 -
[329] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:baltec1 wrote: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? im just asking how many hacs it takes to kill a rattlesnake also is there a reason they shouldnt be compared they are both ships If the ships are balanced correctly and intuitively it should take less HACs than T3. This though is not an issues with HACs because in the scope of cruisers they are fine, T3C are what are out of alignment with other cruisers.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18995
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 14:30:53 -
[330] - 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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |