Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
758
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 17:59:00 -
[91] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.
Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point. I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot. 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. 14 |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2083
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:01:00 -
[92] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.
Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point. I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot. 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.
What a silly assertion. Opportunity cost should and does play a massive role in how powerful something should be.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers Intrepid Crossing
132
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:13:00 -
[93] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps!
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,
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2084
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:16:00 -
[94] - Quote
ITTigerClawIK wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps! 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,
I'm really sad that removing forcefields is going to ruin a hobby of mine - guessing POS passwords to steal stuff.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
stoicfaux
1550
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:16:00 -
[95] - Quote
CCP Devs wrote:blah blah blah
I can has cheese... pirate faction Tengu?
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
758
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:24:00 -
[96] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.
Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point. I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot. 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. What a silly assertion. Opportunity cost should and does play a massive role in how powerful something should be. 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. 14 |
Historical Research Advocate
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:36:00 -
[97] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Also, we are aware of the number of used tech3 ships in general, and how far the repercussions could go for tweaking them. We know this would be a hot discussion from our playerbase as nobody wants to see their assets changed. That is normal human reaction. We can guarantee you that no matter what happens here, we will definitely do our very best to be as diplomatic, open minded and communicative as we have been in the past to ensure we hear all ends of the arguments and annoy the less amount of people.
However, we are not here to win a popularity contest, we, as ship balancing designers are here to make sure the state of the game is healthy in the long run, and if we have to be universally hated for doing what's needed for EVE Online to last 10 more years in the long run, so be it.
I'm not thinking of the next 10 years, I'm thinking of the last 4. The 4 in which I made long term decisions with results that wouldn't be seen for as long as a year or two. EVE has always stressed the importance of long term planning. When you guys say stuff like this, you're putting everyone who has been or will be making decisions about T3 training, acquisition, building, selling, etc into a very bad spot. You're making our old decisions, the ones whose repercussions we're still working through because thats how you designed the game, into potentially irrelevant or stupid choices. You're making decisions on future actions difficult as well, because no one knows how this will turn out. The issue here isn't so much the T3 itself. I'd care a whole lot less about redesigns if they didn't mean that 14 months of training was wasted or that the last 12 months I spent building up a production unit inside a WH was wasted because the produced ship's value drops.
You may not be here to win a popularity contest, but your company is. In fact, that's its purpose-- designing popular games that people want to play. Designing games that keep changing their fundamental elements and rendering old decisions irrelevant but requiring that decisions be made years in advance does not make your game popular, it makes it tedious and frustrating. There is a reason EVE has so many bittervets--you keep kicking us in the nuts.
postscript: Every CCP employee who communicates with the public should be sent to a Communications 101 class. Saying things like "we're not here to win a popularity contest" and "if we have to be universally hated... so be it" is provocative and puts the reader/listener into an adverserial mindset. Half of the crap CCP mods have to deal with from the playerbase is a direct result of poor communication by CCP employees. |
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:37:00 -
[98] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:John Ratcliffe wrote:Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:
Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. The Drake is in need of some balancing, as are a bunch of other hulls. I'm looking forward to what their tiercide does for the cruiser and BC line.
If CCP nerf it then they can suck my **** TBH. Hard to give up your ez mode win button? Awww, it'll be ok. :) -Liang
I don't PVP with it, but it's perfect in PVE and I want it left alone if it's not going to get a buff.
The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
Metal Icarus
Endless Destruction Against ALL Anomalies
271
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:39:00 -
[99] - Quote
Who cares about faction BC's anyways, faction tech 3's are where its at! |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
758
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:40:00 -
[100] - Quote
Historical Research Advocate wrote:There is a reason EVE has so many bittervets--you keep kicking us in the nuts. 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. 14 |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2085
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:46:00 -
[101] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote: 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.
I'm not sure that this is actually true. It feels false, but I can't really put my finger on why. My gut says that I rarely feel compelled to fit optimal rigs to optimal based ships that I fly, but I frequently feel compelled to fit falloff rigs to the falloff based ships that I fly. I feel compelled to fit a TE or two on every turret ship I fly - though for different reasons depending on the ship. Most of the time, it's for the tracking bonus (TCs require a mid, capacitor, and have massive fitting costs) - though for falloff ships it's for the falloff bonus.
However, increasing the falloff bonus on Ambits would make feel utterly compelled to fit them. I think the big thing here is that falloff based weapons (blasters, projectiles) have fairly good tracking and I'm just trying to extend their damage projection out. Lasers have fantastic damage projection already and I need to shore up the weakness up close. I guess that's why I prefer metastasis rigs for lasers.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2085
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:47:00 -
[102] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Historical Research Advocate wrote:There is a reason EVE has so many bittervets--you keep kicking us in the nuts. 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.
Dammit why you gotta go saying reasonable things.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
759
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 19:10:00 -
[103] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote: 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.
I'm not sure that this is actually true. It feels false, but I can't really put my finger on why. My gut says that I rarely feel compelled to fit optimal rigs to optimal based ships that I fly, but I frequently feel compelled to fit falloff rigs to the falloff based ships that I fly. That's cause in small-scale PvP there's a certain, so to speak, level of optimal you can fully utilize and buffing it beyond that point (mostly point range, btw) is not that beneficial. At the same time increased falloff always has an impact of increased DPS.
That's pretty clear, but it doesn't justify the disparity in rig bonuses. I could even somewhat agree with reduced bonuses on ambits (25/30%), but leaving them as-is simply makes no sense if you really long for an established game balance. 14 |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 19:20:00 -
[104] - Quote
It would be interesting if you did in fact make navy BCs, but instead of making them uber versions of the non-navy hulls, you could make them "Stolen intel" or something, ships designed in rapid departure from racial philosophy to confuse enemies, while still utilizing the same weapons systems of each race. For example, Navy Drake would have missiles still, but have 6 low slots and 4 mids, meant to fit an armor tank. Navy Harb would have the drake's layout with lasers, navy cane would be an active armor tank, while navy myrm would be an active shield tank boat (Ancillaries on a myrm! Hell yeah!)
Navy harb and navy drake wouldn't get crazy resist bonuses as the ships have enough tank as it is if they are similar to Tier 2 BC tank, but navy myrm and cane would get active bonuses so they are tankier. This switches it up a bit more even because amarr and caldari generally have the heavier tanks. |
Blurtmaster
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 22:03:00 -
[105] - Quote
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. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
759
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 22:08:00 -
[106] - Quote
Skill loss may easily get removed, should tech3 become balanced stats-wise. It's really that simple. 14 |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2085
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 22:11:00 -
[107] - Quote
Blurtmaster wrote: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.
Yes, I have lost SP to T3s. Nerf them.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
674
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 22:21:00 -
[108] - Quote
faction battlecruisers would work pretty well i think, it would be a matter of cost vs use. if a faction cane is better then a slep thenit would be bad if the faction cane is cheaper as well. |
Lili Lu
400
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 23:43:00 -
[109] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Dear Ytterbium, *snip!* Sincerely,
LiLu Hello there, . . . Ooops, made a wall of text , well, hope that helps a bit.
Thanks for this response. It takes a lot to admit that you had a part in some of the former in-game derps, like angel ships of yore.
I guess though I am still somewhat confused. Not being a programmer I'm not aware of how difficult it would or wouldn't be to change the values in tables for the stats on ships. My question is that it would appear to be rather easier to change static values in a table, i.e. "shield hp = 1000 and regen 500 sec" changes to shield "hp = 900 regen 600 sec" v. ship bonus "per level 5% increase on widget resistance" removed and replaced with "doohicky +5% per level in damage" since the latter bonus changes would need connectors to some other factor stats on the ship or the mods that are fit to the ship. I perceive the former to be simple to input and change rather often, while the latter would present problems of making sure the linking equations start to or continue to function as they should. That changing these static values up and down should be rather easy. So if they are reduced, and then when the comprehensive ship-class effort comes they could be increased back up if deemed worthy.
However, I am happy to learn that it is not just ships that are being rethought, that mods are being considered for change. One of the dev posts a while back now (over a year and it could have been you) mentioned that there was concern for the lack of fitting tradeoff decisions on a drake. That the drake is a simple matter of tank in the mids with maybe one ewar or tackle module and damage in the lows and away you go with a ship that does it's max damage at any range. Whereas with gun ships you have to make choices about range or damage or a mix in the lows if you shield tank or range or tackle or ewar in the mids and damage or tank in the lows if you armor tank.
Since the nerf to sniping brought about by probing mechanics mid range became the best place to be in 0.0 and even had advantages in lowsec where no bubbles would be there for tackle. In this environment the drakes 400dps while not equal to another BCs theoretical 600 or more dps had an advantage. That advantage being 0-70 km range application and non-interference with a very (overly) robust tank, while the other BCs were very close range and had far less tank in order to gain that less often situationally useful dps advantage. So if you did reduce base missile range and introduce low slot or mid slot mods to restore missile range that would compete with damage and/or tanking mods that would be one way to nerf the drake hegemony without even touching the ship. Is there any timetable on module changes?
I'm glad you have read my concerns over the pve BC shield regen phenomenon as well. The pve advantage to new player development and imbalance accross the races is not trivial. I have multiple accounts and for pve a passive shield Cane > and active armor Cane, even with only 4 mids but 6 lows. Likewise the ability to fit a better shield tank either active or passive rather than an active armor tank on Myrm (for which it has a bonus) is trully out of whack.
I guess I have been somewhat perplexed over the years with how ship balancing has occurred in eve. The Myrm was nerfed at warp speed in comparison to the long overdue nerf to the drake. Damps and damp boats were hit hard after one AT with heavy damp use, meanwhile ecm nerfs were attempted twice but compensatory re-buffs were handed out and how many ATs have gone by with heavy ecm use? Web boats lose power though web nerf and new mechanics are introduced to reduce the power of neut boats (cap battery reflectivity and ASBs that could care less about a neut), when neither of these ships types are omnipresent and ruining good fights, meanwhile ecm hums along as powerful as ever. In isolation all of these changes can be viewed to make some sense but colectively they created the current imbalances reflected in the eve-kill top 20.
Anyway, stay strong in giving TDs effects on missiles and please consider doing to all the ewar what you did to ecm and ecm boats (i.e. nerf, but not massively, the module and simultaneously buff the ship bonus for the ship that uses it). Make the other ewar boats desirable additions to a gang, and not leave it where a few random guys can fit a painter and then who really needs a specialized painter boat anyway, etc.
Similarly stay strong in trimming tech III cruiser power, especially as it pertains to the boosting. Actually you could leave the command ship bonuses as they are presently if you just either reduced the tech III bonus to something less or restricted the number of command processors and links they could run. Some have suggested removing command processors alltogether. And please introduce on-grid or range based only boosting. I say this as a character that has trained every last leadership sp available in the game. If there is any compensatory buff-back for tech IIIs command subsytems make the ship defensive capabilities of those subsystems more robust for the ship itself.
And do stay strong in trully re-balancing the ships that people use in extremely high numbers over others. The player base is not stupid. People figured out and know the advantages of Drakes over Harbys and that is why they are used in such disparate numbers. Some just don't want their candy supply reduced or made more expensive. Let them throw a childish tantrum, since they can't step away from their personal loss and look at the game from a wholistic health perspective.
Again, thanks for your post. |
Veryez
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 01:50:00 -
[110] - Quote
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. |
|
Alexa Coates
Predominate It's Not Fair
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 02:25:00 -
[111] - Quote
Just because it's faction, doesn't make it automatically good, look at the navy exequeror. Just slap an extra launcher/turret slot on the faction battlecruisers, maybe a bit more HP, and that's it. Love my Gallente Federation Navy ships! |
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
277
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 03:11:00 -
[112] - Quote
Veryez wrote: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.
Requires Cruiser V, which takes a month to train. Costs a billion ISK. Is... for new players?
Is the Nightmare also for new players? I could get into that sooner than I could get into a Legion. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2086
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 04:22:00 -
[113] - Quote
Veryez wrote: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.
The new T1 ships are pretty amazing. Don't count them out as viable platforms for general use.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Arbiter Reformed
Analog Folk SRS.
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 05:06:00 -
[114] - Quote
Veryez wrote: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.
really?
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
280
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 05:19:00 -
[115] - Quote
Veryez wrote:There is another point to consider here.... Problem with T3's is that they they are better than anything else, T1/T2/Faction, in a given configuration which goes against the *New* paradigm of T1 and T3 being generalized and T2 being specialized. Once they are brought to heel, you will be better off in the Rapier/Huginn than a Loki provided getting extended range webbing is the objective just as you will be better off in a Vulture if you want to maximize shield links effectiveness.
The forte of T3's should be, as was originally intended if you remember the pre-launch Dev blogs, that you have one one hull which can be configured to fill any role within a given race (RR/Links/eWar/Dps). Instead of requiring 10 different ships you have one + extra subs .. kind of a big deal considering their natural habitat of Worms where logistics can be as big a threat to an operation as enemy fleets.
Since it is almost guaranteed that they will be brought to heel, it is a wasting energy trying to save them 'as is', focus instead on what bones CCP could throw T3 users to "compensate" them for their perceived loss of power.
@Ytterbium: Provided links are moved on-grid, are you perchance considering looking at that aspect in regards to T1 BC revisions? Could be link bonus or even a 'natural' ability to field twins instead of just the one .. Field Commands would still be hauling the triplets .. just some "cheap" way to pick up the slack were a principal command popped right off the bat in an engagement. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
760
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 06:20:00 -
[116] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Field Commands would still be hauling the triplets .. just some "cheap" way to pick up the slack were a principal command popped right off the bat in an engagement.
In most cases it's utterly unreasonable to fit even one single link in a field CS, much less 3 - that's what fleet versions are for. Also, the idea of tech1 BC being better at gang-boosting than tech2 counterpart is somewhat weird, to put it mildly.
I'd say it's right the Field Command Ships which need to have the best link bonus out of all - tech3, BC, CS. Trade-offs are lower resists and 1 link instead of 3. 14 |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
280
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 06:33:00 -
[117] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:Field Commands would still be hauling the triplets .. just some "cheap" way to pick up the slack were a principal command popped right off the bat in an engagement. In most cases it's utterly unreasonable to fit even one single link in a field CS, much less 3 - that's what fleet versions are for. Also, the idea of tech1 BC being better at gang-boosting than tech2 counterpart is somewhat weird, to put it mildly. I'd say it's right the Field Command Ships which need to have the best link bonus out of all - tech3, BC, CS. Trade-offs are lower resists and 1 link instead of 3. Edited my post. Always get the Field/Fleet mixed up .. no need to get your panties all bunched up
Actually a good idea to differentiate them by giving fields a larger bonus than fleets to encourage their use as link platforms.
As for T1 being better than T2 at boosting, it was a question based on the assumption that they are on-grid and T1 tanks are not exactly stellar .. in addition, if we introduce differentiated bonuses as above you'd have a choice of slapping multiple "vanilla" links on a T1 tank or fewer but bonused on a T2 tank.
|
Veryez
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 07:11:00 -
[118] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
The new T1 ships are pretty amazing. Don't count them out as viable platforms for general use.
-Liang
Oh I don't at all, I still love t1 ships and have quite a few setup at all times. It's just that I know quite a few players who have been playing EvE less than one year, who trained for and are flying t3's effectively with vets. When CCP rebalances them (which they do need), they just need to understand the impact this will have on our younger players. Hopefully they will have alternatives in the cruiser class to turn to. |
chris elliot
EG CORP Talocan United
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 08:24:00 -
[119] - Quote
Apart from the loki and legion off grid boosting shenanigans I am failing to see how t3's need a nerf in the way people are clamoring for it.
What is the most basic role of a battlecruiser? To tank and deal dps for a certain cost. What is the most basic role of a command ship? To tank better than a battlecruiser and deal a little bit better dps for the added cost What is the most basic role of a t3? To have a really good tank, and to deal out pain at very close ranges.(Excluding tengus). For a cost much greater than that of a command ship and a battlecruiser combined.
Currently that is essentially what is happening. So why all the fuss?
Edit: The argument that they are too flexible I find largely invalidated by the fact that once you set off in one you can not go changing things on them to suddenly make them ''adapt''. Every tactic and fit has a hard counter. |
Gabrielle Lamb
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 08:27:00 -
[120] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Veryez wrote:There is another point to consider here.... Problem with T3's is that they they are better than anything else, T1/T2/Faction, in a given configuration which goes against the *New* paradigm of T1 and T3 being generalized and T2 being specialized. Once they are brought to heel, you will be better off in the Rapier/Huginn than a Loki provided getting extended range webbing is the objective just as you will be better off in a Vulture if you want to maximize shield links effectiveness. The forte of T3's should be, as was originally intended if you remember the pre-launch Dev blogs, that you have one one hull which can be configured to fill any role within a given race (RR/Links/eWar/Dps). Instead of requiring 10 different ships you have one + extra subs .. kind of a big deal considering their natural habitat of Worms where logistics can be as big a threat to an operation as enemy fleets. Since it is almost guaranteed that they will be brought to heel, it is a wasting energy trying to save them 'as is', focus instead on what bones CCP could throw T3 users to "compensate" them for their perceived loss of power. @Ytterbium: Provided links are moved on-grid, are you perchance considering looking at that aspect in regards to T1 BC revisions? Could be link bonus or even a 'natural' ability to field twins instead of just the one .. Field Fleet Commands would still be hauling the triplets .. just some "cheap" way to pick up the slack were a principal command popped right off the bat in an engagement.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |