faction talos please :D

some how get 9 guns on it, thanks

I'd rather have something like a sansha battlecrusier. One that doesn't suck like the succ and phantasm.

dual ASB fan boi detected

I've expected a strategic cruiser nerf for a while and have refused to train for them for that reason. I didn't expect it to take 3+ years though...

Since Command Ships and Drake haven't been changed in the slightest for all these years, I guess we should treat your confession as a sign of sudden increase in PvP compherension within CCP?

I don't really agree, T3's is balanced very well around risk / reward. They're not overly powerful except when combined with offgrid boosting. The only thing that isn't balanced properly is training time, which is made up by SP loss upon death.

Compare a Proteus to a Deimos. Just do it.

And if the current mindset is to buff Tier 1 BCs to tier 2 levels, and not somewhat the other way around as I suggest, how will cruisers gain in utility?

I don't get it: the falloff is insane cause of Mach or cause TE is so ridiculously good?

For instance, both Locus coordinator and ambit extension rigs buff optimal and falloff by 15%, while TE impacts fallof twice as much. How is it balanced and how long does it actually take to tune this a bit, given your own words of smaller iterations?

Yeah, because if there is anything we want its homogenization. And there is totally no other weapon system that relies on optimal rather than falloff already...oh wait.

Nevermind me, i misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying autocannons should rely on optimal and ships should get an optimal bonus rather than falloff because optimal is the better mechanic.
Im bad and i should feel bad.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point.

If CCP nerf it then they can suck my **** TBH.

It is. So what? It's like saying opportunity cost of lows in armour ships are lower than those of shield ones and thus should provide reduced bonuses from damage mods. No way! If admitted that optimal is twice as valuable as falloff (which is debatable on itself, btw), corresponding rigs should keep this ratio just as modues.

I think this is going to be down to whoever draws the short straw, kinda like what they do when they need work that involves tackling POS code,

What a demagogy. In that case locus coordinator rigs provide way too strong bonus compared to TE/TC - since their opportunity cost is so much lower.

It's right the reverse - bittervets pop up when CCP is unwilling to admit its own faults - like with Drakes, tech3, Titans, cynoes and so on and so forth.

T3 ships are the most expensive ships to fly in the game.
You ever lost training time in another ship when you are exploding nicely? I spent weeks retraining those subsystems.

I see no reason to rebalance them at all. In that case, if EVER, I will ask for T3 battleships at the same time as a compensation to the annihilation to the T3 builders that will become unemployed and their children will starve.

Also to the fact that even marauders (most) are quite useless and needs a boost.

Do not get me started on Black Ops. I will just start to cry.

There is another point to consider here. I always thought one of the purposes of Tech 3 ships was to allow new players to quickly train up to an fairly effective ship. Nerfing them too hard will remove this path from newer players, nerfing new players is never in EvE's best interest. And before anyone gets any ideas, I despise the thought of retraining skills, so none of my characters will ever sit in a Tech 3 ship. Besides a well setup Tech 2 ship can usually perform whatever job you need, but the increase in training time will hurt newer players far more than vets. Going from being effective in a Loki, to much worse than a huginn/rapier won't bother those players who already have recon 5 trained. CCP needs to remember this when re-balancing ships, I don't disagree that better balance is needed (as my hanger full of fleet command ships will attest), but we need to remember just who will be most impacted by this.

You mean they're OP when coupled with deadspace modules and fullsets of HG pirate implants? Most successful t3 fits I see tend to cost more then a carrier / dreadnaught does.

...Just like Ishtar is significantly better than Vexor and Vindicator is much better than Mega.
...
That's an exaggeration.
I agree that all T3s are in need of *some* balancing ( it's more about giving a very specific roles, which are distinct from T2s and there is no overlap ) but saying that ALL T3s are OP is just too much.

Today I visited about 36 systems ( 12 hisec and the rest was in lowsec ).
Proteus and Legion are a very rare sight. I saw only 3 Protei and 2 Legions.
Loki is slightly more common. 6 or 7 Lokis spotted today.
Tengu is way too common. I saw around 30 of those aberrations today. Wouldn't mind some nerfing being applied to that bugger.

I have seen many, many more other combat ships today.
If T3s are all so OP then why don't I see more of them ( excluding the One ) ?

Actually they have everything to do with it because it was them, who devised the Tech3 production chain and resources.
Even with current prices, T3 production is not really worth the trouble when compared to simple T1 + some T2 production.
If the prices would need to drop even further than they already are then it would simply make this branch of industry dead, practically overnight. Of course the price would be irrelevant because after nerfage, which would make T3s worse or even equal to T2s, no one would really fly those ships any more. What would be the point?
The only thing that could really influence their prices would be a rework of wormholes and T3 production chain. I can't see that happening ever ( at least not in a foreseeable future ).

Though Liang, that doesn't apply when we compare ships that use the same base components. T3 sticks out a bit since even their production is wildly different and tied to a specific part of the game. Whereas a CS for example will always be more expensive than a HAC, to produce, or a BS more expensive than a frigate.

I am really not fond of Ytterbium's comments, since it feels like he is venting industry-terms without rooting them in this game. Slipping a "balance shouldn't be about cost" out there without getting to the bottom of what he means or intend for it to play out within EVE seem somewhat unresponsible.

Read Mittens Smedley article. He likes the Rifter and Drake because it doesn't matter if he lose them. Have Ytterbium even gotten around to ponder the implications of that?

I'm extra weary of these topics (and i'm not trying to sound effectfully fatal here), but i have literally seen games die because the interaction lost meaning. It didn't stop first. I have seen admirable attempts to cater to players to go out there and shoot - but when it lost all meaning it had the opposite effect. It's not a eulogy over EVE or anything, i'm just saying it's a perspective to consider. EVE is struggling with those topics on a community-level, at the very least.

It's the ship-version of discussing Moons (or better yet, space) as conflict-drivers.

Have you ever seen a T3 Hictor

or a T3 Logistic?

T2 field command ships typical are superior to T3 cruiser in firepower. (Except the Nighthawk which is a lulzy and problematic ship.) The Astarte, Absolution, and Sleipnir kicks T3 ass the dps department.

T2 HACs typically have better mobility, smaller sig radius, and longer range capabilities than T3. HAC's are mobile, tanky RR gang cruisers with good firepower.

I ask of CCP to be reasonable and not listen to rabid blabbering people who say things without any real backup.

When was the last time you say anyone flying a Cerberus or Eagle? How often do you see people flying Sacrileges? The problem you ignore is that many of these HAC's are simply poor. Are you saying that it is the fault of Tech 3 ships that many of the HAC's are not flown very much?

Why should I fly a deimos when I can fly a brutix for more power and only a quarter of the price? The deimos tank makes little difference as it is still a fairly glass cannon.

Your argument is the same saying that Marauders should be weak while at the same time you pvp in a pwnmobile Pirate BS.

-You spoke of T2 HAC's in general, are you saying that the Cerb, Eagle, or Sac are not HAC's?

Oh tell me enlightened one, are the description and skill requirements that I read on those ships wrong?

- Simple fitting shows that you are wrong, T3 cannot reach the dps of CS(other than the nighthawk) show me a proteus that outdpses an Astarte, or a Legion with a Abso, or even better a loki with a Sleipnir.

-Oh that's right with the Talos no one who flies a Brutix or a deimos either lulz.

Come on back up your statements with facts and statistic. The Burden of proof is upon you to show what you say is true.

Indeed, an amusing Proteus fit. Really, a shield Prot that has no advantages over the armor fit, that is commonly flown... with almost 3x EHP?

Just from seeing this I can clearly see that you have no idea what you're talking about. Such a laughably terrible fit. There are reasons why Shield Proteuses do not exist.

You can fit the same mods on the astarte and get better damage and tank, at a cheaper price as well.

I was asking for a practical fit, not some ridiculous EFT warrior fit that will obviously die in a fire. Your argument that proteus can match or exceed the astarte dps is invalid.

Heck a shield gank Talo would be superior and cheaper.

Go back and play EFT warrior

Ok I derped the speed numbers, true :D

Are they overpowered in null (a serious question)?

Liang argues that the Proteus is op claiming that it outdpses the CS counterparts. I counter saying that a proteus can't outdps a astarte without using more mods.

Liang counters using a fail fit, that when pointed out how fail it was, he tries to cover up the fact by saying that I was demanding as "fail EFT warrior fit", when I have never claimed so.


Conclusion: Liang is trolling or being dumb.

All this crying about T3 is what I see as "No fair my 100 million ship can't easily solo a 500+ million ship! I demand a nerf!"

If I were to apply this argument, T2 HAC's shouldn't "obsolete" T1 counterparts, but they do.

Proteus vs. Ishtar = Ishtar wins
Proteus vs. Astarte = Astarte wins
Eos vs. anything = Eos loses

Price tag rivalling capitals, and losing SP seem to work on Tranquility as real limitations. T3 is not the best tool for every situation, and losing a T3 is in fact a big deal to most.

Also - I believe that retraining level5 of rank1 skill takes a little bit more than 12hours.

Same goes with Astarte, it's a better field command ship than Proteus.

Surely Proteus is the gankiest, tankiest and even cloakiest cruiser, and will murder many/most/all other ships in a point blank brawl. Is a point blank 1vs1 brawl the intended role of Ishtar? Or Astarte? Arazu? Are you saying that Proteus shouldn't have a niche like that?

Why would anyone fly a T3, if they were mediocre at everything?

A subsys level V takes over 3 days. You probably aren't seriously suggesting that people feel the same about losing billion isk T3s and Drakes, so I I'm not going to pick it out.

Please stop being thick.

Everybody knows what a 150K EHP cruiser doing 1000dps means in a brawl, and it would be cool if everybody acknowledged how pointless imaginary 1vs1 duels are in ship balance discussions.

again this just gose to show that the problems with t3 are infact all to do with pvp so why should pve fits get nerfed due to pvp again i yet see anyone here complaining about the 14k alpha of a tornado or anything else eccept those that are defending the tengu.

simple thing is it dosent matter the hull if i spend in the region of 2 billion isk on a mission fit ship i expect it to not only do lvl 4's fairly easily but to do in an acceptable time or i may as well just go and blitz lvl 3's

the tengu pve fit is actualy extreamly tight my current top dps hml tengu at only 760 dps might i point out pales in comparison to other even the just over 960 dps of hams still pales in comparison. but to get these figures you not only have to spend in the region of 1.8 bill on the ship then a further 1 - 1.3 bill on implants and another 1bill or so if you want crystal implants its still capable of actualy dieing if you bugger up a couple of triggers.

i mean really considering you can spend 3 billion pluss on the ship,fit and implants to get out of the tengu what mission runners do witch aint a lot lets face it you would expect the kind of performance a tengu gives you and atm caldari dose not have anything that come close to the tengu not even the cnr.

When it comes to turret-sniping they are definately easily as good, but not necessarily completely overshadowing. Consider each Tech III equivalent to Eagles, Zealots, Ishtars and Muninns in LR setups.

When it comes to the EW subsystems they're not even on par. When it comes to special traits they're not on par either, ie., the Tengu do not lob missiles like the Cerb (as noted, the problem is rather that said speciality have no larger appeal in the environment). The Loki is not faster than the fast Vagabond. It's more a hybrid issue of it being 75% of a Vaga and Huginn at once (those setups were amply named).

When they begin to obscure is when you factor in tank, since the way the class is designed things like tank or link-ups come ontop, the broad sort of pile on. It's a bit of a stretch claiming the any Tech II ship was made with "tank" in mind though, so that's not a role. This means the obscurity begin to manifest itself when you compare a Legion to an AHAC pulselot because the tank is conceptually tied to SR setups (ie., a similar weapon system with the role reinforced by a better tank). Think about it.

In most instances what make the ship feel better is not a better specialisation, but a better stacking of the hybridization (ie., you get something akin the Tech II trait plus an additional feature: tank, link, ew etc.).

...

so essentialy a ded sb is required also i have also noticed that each of your fits use an ab something i dont due to cap issues i also notice your useing a cpu sub system not the sensor stregnth one witch is highly adviced against gurista rats and im beating that even these setups you have put here all have very little room for change. also you have to factor in the 150 mill or so for each rigs so unfortunately all you really proven is a mission fit tengu dose need ded and or faction mods and that you need a minimal of 1 bill to build em.

i said rougly 150 mill a rig and yes when im next in game i will post my fit

A tech 3 ship is not some solopwnmobile. Of course a more expensive ship should beat its cheaper counterpart in a 1 vs 1 situation with equal pilots.

Tech 3 ship will fare against one and possible maybe, just maybe 2 cheaper ships. But anymore than that and the tech 3 will die like any other ship. There are simple ways to counter t3 ships such as neuting, ewar, etc. It may take longer for it to die, but it will die nonetheless.

you got a good point and i missed this post tier 3 bc's balanced on what bassis ? 14k volley from one and something like the naga barely hiting 9k not to mention all the other advantages the minmitar tier3 has. tell yah what take any tornado and fire a volley or 2 into even an active tengu bet it gose pop

you simply get a point on them any tackling merlin should be capable of this

...

Even that is mostly rhetorical, since i know you do - as you enjoy play-fights in Amamake.

it's not an assumption, it's mostly fact from our part of warfare where we are always going against the blob and due to us living in wormholes we are kinda forced to use tech 3 ships because doing it in bs's just won't cut it for logistic reasons so don't try to turn an argument over tech 3 use when we do it everyday against "le blob". If the bigger blob users used tech 3 then this arguement wouldn't come up.
Drakes take low sp on mass to use while tech 3's need alot more. Tech 3 for subs and t2 fitting it like 500mil but doesn't really do any better than hacs......a tech 3 fitted 1.5bil does better than a hac but a 1.5bil hac will also do better than a scrub fit tech 3.

If you read what I said then I said from our part of warfare. We have not come up against a 200man tengu blob and if we did we wouldn't fight it anyway as 200 is just too much even for us :)

Having shiny fleets doesn't seem to keep people like -A- from loosing tons of them to drakes and maelstroms though. Having them, and using them properly however is what seems to make peoples butthurt-o-meter go up.

You talk crap about how ISK should not be a balancing factor, yet you fly around with Crystal Implants: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12135625

What if tomorrow we nerfed Crystals from 50% -> only 10% bonus to shield boosting, what say you about that?

Oh nice Proteus fit: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12001766

You got your ass kicked in a T3 ship, yet you say they are OP.

I question your ideas about PVP: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11877831

Do we as EVE players really want someone like you to be the source of balancing?

You claim that we are biased, yet have you looked in the mirror? Your bias sticks out like a sore thumb.

Oh look 500 man Maelstrom Blobs. Nerf Maelstroms.

http://themittani.com/news/battle-es-q0w-tengus-vs-napocs

Oh look Liang Navy Apocalypse Blobs. Nerf NAPOCS.

Nerf hurricanes, Abaddons, Tempests, bombers.

If a dev made a post telling us that Crystals were getting nerfed, I'd simply shrug and say it was good while it lasted. Yeah I'd basically be out a few billion but it's not that big of a deal. I've got lots of ISK.

All I can see from your posts is that you have some strong hate against Tech 3 ships, but don't clearly show why they are unbalanced and how they should be balanced.

All I hear from you is that you say Tech 3 are OP, because its OP and throw words like ez mode solopwnmobile. You blame Tech 3 ships for the fault of gameplay design of other ships.

That's like me rolling my eyes whenever someone steals my car, because I have billions of cars. Perhaps I wouldn't care if we were all missing one car, but there are people would be hurt much more and be unhappy about it.

so faction battlecruisers

Wait a second here, your comparing only one command ship to legion, what aboutt he damnation which fits better tank, than the legion ever will and also can fit the same amount of missle dps as the legion if not using ganglink style?
The zealot far out dps's the legion and has way better gtfo ability than a legion if you using it correctly. if you fit a legion for gank/tank then your are gimping it as it doesn't do both very good, it does one or the other great butt hats it. Also the legion SHOULD be faster and smaller in sig than the abso/damnation and saying it should be is wrong as it is still cruiser sized not battlecruiser!

The absolution gets 900 dps with t2 conflag and 3 faction heat sink. It has enough lows for a 1600mm, 2 enams, and a damage control.

The legion only have room for 1600mm and 2 enams when fitting 3 heat sinks. The legion also has powergrid issues, even with max skills and power core multiplier. You cannot fit a 10mn mwd with putting on pg mods.

The absolution no only has more dps at this point, but it has more tank. Its tank is superior as well, the legion has a hitpoint tank, the absolution has a resist tank. Which makes it superior for RR gangs.

I am an avid fan of the absolution. People dismiss the abso believing it to be only slightly better than the harbinger, but it is much superior, you only need to EFT to see so. Flying is even better.

If you're trying to make a 6 gun configuration you only have 6 lowslots. Meaning you will only be able to fit 2 heat sinks.

The extra range is alright, but most engagements that I'm in are within disruptor range.

Not everyone flies around with RF points mate. Lots of fights happen pretty close within 15km of gates. A plated armored Ship doesn't exactly control range very well. Those are what shield nano ships are good at.

Fights in wormholes occur within blaster range, so that extra range isn't all that useful.

T2 warp disruptor range is 24km mate. I don't know what you're talking about.

I don't fly with skirmish ganglinks in my gang most of the time. Why do you assume I do so? Just because I have a nice ship doesn't mean I have OGB.

How many players fly with skirmish links compared to how many that don't?

You assume everyone and their grandma has links, but I believe most people do not. I am not saying nobody flies with links, but to assume that everyone flies with links is ignorant.

Please answer on how tech 3 is so OP when you have been shot down by my count atleast 9 different people in your argument so far?

You have got to be kidding ......

I fly Caldari
I trained Missiles

and even i recognise that the Tengu, when configured for 6x HML's, needs a serious beating with the nerf bat, it has completely and utterly destroyed any usefulness in the Cerberus and this is wrong.

I asked you first to tell me how Tech 3 is OP and you asked me for my fit of a ship......if You can't tell me how there op then why should i give you one of my fits? you could always theory craft on EFT just to find it.....