| 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) |
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
8
   |
Posted - 2012.09.10 09:22:00 -
[241] - Quote
How has the conversation morphed from me declaring my love for the Drake to 7 pages of Tengu crap? Seriously?
I suggest you all start chanting "Save the Drake!" and get with the program, or I shall have to visit each of you personally to administer some anal discipline with hot crumpets! 
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? |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
Transmission Lost
77
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:14:00 -
[242] - Quote
Before we jump the gun on re-balancing Tech 3 ships, we have a very very very very long list of ships that require immediate fixing before hand.
Before you reach the top you have to start from the very bottom.
I see many people having knee-jerk whiny reactions of nerfing this ship or buffing that certain ship.
CCP is in the process of rebalancing the ENTIRE SHIP LINE, not just tech 2 ship or tech 3.
Before we fix problems in other places, we should fix the problems in our own.
Most T1 cruisers are crap, only 25% of cruisers are worth flying.
Tier 1 BC are overshadowed by Tier 2 Counter parts.
Battleships mostly fallen out of favor to BCs.
Before we look at Tech 3 ships we gotta take a look at Tech 2 ships, many Tech 2 ships are broken and many not worth using.
Electronic Attack Frigates - Only time I really see them much is in tournaments. Not point in these when you have more durable and powerful recon ships.
Interdictors- there is only one ship you should care about and that's the sabre.
HACs - is in a powercreep struggle with Faction ships and Battlecruisers.
Commandship - EOS lulz, less slots and hitpoints than Tier 2 BC counterparts. Active tanking is fail for FLEETs.
Black Ops- More Titans than black ops flown, nuff said.
Marauders - Faction/Pirate Battleships are mostly better in every aspect, salvage while shooting is a multitasking nightmare.
Once this goes through the standards will change. There will be greater diversity and equality. (assuming CCP does not facepalm fail) |
Haargoth Civire
V0LTA
Verge of Collapse
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:16:00 -
[243] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:This come once in a while. As some people mentioned before:
- Tier 2 Battlecruisers already are extremely versatile and popular. Introducing yet improved hulls based on them without looking at tech1 battlecruisers first is in direct contradiction with the tiericide initiative.
- We already have troubles having diverse, interesting hulls roles on this particular level. HACs, tech3 cruisers, battlecruisers and command ships currently are very close of each other on that field. Introducing a Navy Battlecruiser would aggravate the issue even further.
What needs to be done before having Navy Battlecruisers, in no particular order:
- Have a look at tech1 cruisers and bring tiericide to their sorry little sad faces.
- Fix tech1 battlecruisers as a whole. Most tier1 BCs are not good enough, some tier2 are just too good. You know we know you know which ones we are talking about
 - Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example). Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos.
- HACs, they need love too.
- Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.
When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.
Theres nothing wrong with tech 3 ships u idiot.. so dont be a moron.. t3 is what gives the smaller pvpers a chance against the 2,3 x gangs.. so please if u nerf it ill put u down like a rabbid dog(ingame) !! cause your slabbering everywhere. |
Maksim Sergeevich
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:06:00 -
[244] - Quote
Thank you CCP. U try to do all eve for goons. You are bad company.
Bye |
Noisrevbus
228
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:14:00 -
[245] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
Please let me be clear here: I'm not saying that I believe the 100 people's time should be the determining factor. I'm saying that it shouldn't be ignored as this argument does.
Ultimately what I'm getting at here is that ISK should play a role, but something being expensive shouldn't grant a license to kill for invulnerability. The problem is exacerbated because anything that's seen as being overpowered will naturally rise in price.
Don't misunderstand me, i'm not saying that ISK should always be levelled either. I said that there are two perspectives on balance and that there's an interplay there. Much like you have an interplay between "mechanics" and "license to kill". The difference is that ISK is rooted in something real, regardless if the market fluctuate. Whereas "license to kill" is an abstract concept and mainly just an expression of imbalance in general. The ISK-perspective is rooted in something. An equal (mechanical) ship that cost (out of tolerable difference; balance) more won't get used.
We can discuss production chains all day, but at the end of it - malbalanced ISK do not get used same as malbalanced ships. There may be trend in ISK, but there's also trend in balance (which is why i often try to separate that in balance discussions, when people want to buff around impopularity). This means i often look past trends wether it's ISK or ship.
You may not see ISK-imbalances within class, but you definately see it between class. Once again, my argument remain that is why you don't really see HAC. Either you consider it a problem that HAC and Tier 2 BC were too similar performance-wise, or you consider they are too different ISK-wise.
I don't subscribe to the idea that HACs were obsolete by other ships (prior to Crucible) as per Marshmallow's list. I don't quite agree with him there. HAC may not be good enough to warrant their price-difference, but the other ships on that list are not better. That's what lead us over to the HAC-discussion.
Quote:But at any rate, I don't think I agree that HAC vs Tier 2 BC balance is fine even if we ignore price. While you say that you can kill Tier 2 BCs in anything you like, I don't believe that's a particularly valid balance point. After all, I solo kill BCs in T1 frigates. Consider the case of a shield gank Myrmidon vs a Deimos. The Deimos most certainly isn't going to close up with the Myrm and it's not going to have much of a chance at range either. Its best bet is going to be Null kiting with a long point and hoping to whittle the drones down before it gets eaten alive. Even that can be kinda risky, depending on the Myrm fit in question.
The problem here is that you are comparing the HAC to a BC in a very isolated situation. This is why i keep talking about scalability. When i make balance remarks i consider it's impact on all scales of the game. The scales i tend to use are (solo), (small), (medium) and (large). To define them i usually root them in the game, but don't deal with exacts (no fleet), (squad), (wing), (fleet).
The interesting bit of the Deimos to Myrm, or with HAC in general, is that once you grab a couple of them and start building a concept around them, with a well-rounded composition: then the HAC will begin to appeal. That goes for any ship, you need to find it's direct bonuses (or it's more implicit traits) and build around them to make them work.
This is where we stumble onto Lili Lu's favourite part of the discussion. Ships in EVE overall don't seem balanced to all scales at once. Doing that is a massive and extremely difficult undertaking. I think it's asking too much of our devs. As a result of that the discussion here fall into perspective again: what i do is look at full scale balance, and assume each scale may not be perfect, but averages stay similar. What other people do is look at the once particular scale that pertain to them.
This is why we have a polarization, because the leading perspectives are people in the "solo-camp" only looking at (solo), and people in the "fleet-camp" only looking at fleet.
It's also why i'm getting long-toothed as you put it, because if we assume some balance i am personally definately more of a (small-medium) guy. I interact with all scales, and sometimes i do end up both solo or in larger fleet, but that's per circumstance and not really by choice. So if anyone want to call bias, they should poke at my small-medium concerns. In my posts though, i try to vye for everyone - even Amamake duellists - i consider their contribution rewarding. It's just one narrow scope of the game though.
Quote:
Tier 3 + fit currently runs ~180M ISK in Dodixie.
Today the Tier 3 BC hulls are 80m in Jita. The insurance input is roughly 20m and the return is 65m. The cost of the hull thus land at 15+20m = 35m. This is in days of mineral instability and BC popularity.
Today the HAC hulls are 180m and insuring them is pointless, hence 5x as much.
Today the Tier 2 BC hulls are 40m. Last i looked (cluster just went down) their input was about 10m and their return about 30m. Landing them at 20m + fitting.
The Tier 3 BC have the (by CCP well-calculated) upside that the BS-weaponry provide another layer of cost-differentiation. They cost more minerals to build, so they will provide a balancing ISK-factor.
Still though, the Tier 3 BC, the way they were designed as glass-cannons, many of their other features are peripheral while their specialty is overblown. That means you can easily Tech I fit them for a in-comparatively much more appealing result, that also translate to a between-comparative disparity. In clear terms: a Tech I fit Tier 3 BC still rivals as Tech II fit HAC. If we assume a no-ISK perspective and factor in ISK afterwards.
It means you can run a 40m cost-effect Tier 3 BC that blaster at point-range and snipe at warp-to.
I Tech II fit mine just like you of course. |
Alara IonStorm
3125
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:14:00 -
[246] - Quote
Maksim Sergeevich wrote:Thank you CCP. U try to do all eve for goons. You are bad company.
Bye
The EVE community will surely miss your sharp mind.
|
Noisrevbus
228
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 12:05:00 -
[247] - Quote
With the theory done above, let's exemplify with the tired old Drake-discussion.
It's interesting because it involves all these theories:
1. scale
2. no-isk
Compare the Drake to another BC and it's "imbalance" is mainly just scale-perspective:
Anyone who argue the case that a Drake is imbalanced shun the perspectives of (solo), (small) and (medium).
Even in a (medium) gang [a wing] it's difficult raising enough damage to break a supported BC buffer. Hence those fights involve control more than your typical fleet-target scenario.
If you have 20 Drakes and 20 support (=medium) those Drakes will volley roughly 40k. Myrms can easily have more, so the projection-trait of the Drakes are not as pronounced. The Myrms won't have better projection-buffer but they can play to their strength as Myrms.
Enter large scale and that gang-gang balance will twist in favour of Drakes as the sheer damage-to-buffer pronounce.
Compare the Drake within it's favourable scale and it's imbalance is mainly just an ISK-perspective:
If you look only at large scale from a no-ISK perspective: all other popular concepts in that scale beat Drakes: Maels, Baddons, Rokhs, AHAC, Tengus (Lol-kis), Tier 3 BC, Carriers, Dreads and Supers. Almost all of those concepts also root in the same appeal the Drake have when it comes to scale: they are all projection-buffer.
Black Legion's second-generation Zealots: the Bad-HACs (AHACs with Beams) is an amusing yet telling example.
If you factor in ISK however, you will see why Drakes still appeal since all other concepts there cost more - more than the double. That's why the Drakes remain immensely popular, you can throw them around without afterthought.
Large scale and ISK have a very powerful interplay. Cheap ships enable more ships, as more losses matter less.
We've finally reached the end of the theory loop with the Tier 3 BC cost remarks. Essentially free ships and the meaning of losses or the wheels that turn the economy, as Liang dubbed it.
We've reached the Smedley example. It's not a question of his coalition providing SRP for the things he like. He like them (ego-centered) because the loss of them is meaningless. It's an "irresponsible" perspective though, but of course the Smed noted it in private character, not as a professional. I'm not making a case against the guy. It says alot about our desgn trends though, the state of the game and it's balance.
Full circle, achieved? |
Jerick Ludhowe
Toxic Waste Industries
150
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 12:33:00 -
[248] - Quote
Haargoth Civire wrote:
Theres nothing wrong with tech 3 ships u idiot.. so dont be a moron.. t3 is what gives the smaller pvpers a chance against the 2,3 x gangs.. so please if u nerf it ill put u down like a rabbid dog(ingame) !! cause your slabbering everywhere.
Uhh ohh... Someone's bad their ez mode mobile is going to get nerfed. The fact you addmitt that t3s are what give you a chance in a situation where the other fleet brings 3x more people means that you have acknowledged that there is a problem with out even knowing it.
Continue to threaten and flame staff members, I'm rather excited to see what happens.
|
Asssassin X
V0LTA
Verge of Collapse
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:40:00 -
[249] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Haargoth Civire wrote:
Theres nothing wrong with tech 3 ships u idiot.. so dont be a moron.. t3 is what gives the smaller pvpers a chance against the 2,3 x gangs.. so please if u nerf it ill put u down like a rabbid dog(ingame) !! cause your slabbering everywhere.
Uhh ohh... Someone's bad their ez mode mobile is going to get nerfed. The fact you addmitt that t3s are what give you a chance in a situation where the other fleet brings 3x more people means that you have acknowledged that there is a problem with out even knowing it. Continue to threaten and flame staff members, I'm rather excited to see what happens.
Uhh ohh ... Someone hasn't used tech 3 against 3 times the size and dps on there fleet. Tech 3 isn't easy. To compete on the same level as a fleet using 3 times the size and dps means we shell out like 1.5bil on fitting and ship against scrubs with tier 3 bcs that have spent 160mil per ship. Then have to manipulate a fight to try and get on an even footing or half a chance so do use poor comments that you clearly have no idea about.
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:15:00 -
[250] - Quote
Perhaps we could get back on topic about faction/navy bc's the Angel one would be fascinating to see how that would end up |
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Hephaestus LLC
Get Off My Lawn
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:17:00 -
[251] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:How has the conversation morphed from me declaring my love for the Drake to 7 pages of Tengu crap? Seriously? I suggest you all start chanting "Save the Drake!" and get with the program, or I shall have to visit each of you personally to administer some anal discipline with hot crumpets!
I have flown a lot of different BCs - while not the only one needing looked at, it is far from fine as is. Thankfully, CCP also recognizes this, which is why the whole tiercide program is happening in the first place.
Maksim Sergeevich wrote:Thank you CCP. U try to do all eve for goons. You are bad company.
Bye
Tinfoil hat much? Also, can I have your stuff?
Haargoth Civire wrote:Theres nothing wrong with tech 3 ships u idiot.. so dont be a moron.. t3 is what gives the smaller pvpers a chance against the 2,3 x gangs.. so please if u nerf it ill put u down like a rabbid dog(ingame) !! cause your slabbering everywhere.
If your tactics are as "smert" as your choice to insult a CCP Dev, that would probably explain your PvP difficulties more than anything.
Noisrevbus: as part of your large-scale discussion, something you didn't mention that the Drake is a ship you can get relatively low-SP pilots into and still be effective en masse. |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy
In Umbra Mortis
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:15:00 -
[252] - Quote
Asssassin X wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Haargoth Civire wrote:
Theres nothing wrong with tech 3 ships u idiot.. so dont be a moron.. t3 is what gives the smaller pvpers a chance against the 2,3 x gangs.. so please if u nerf it ill put u down like a rabbid dog(ingame) !! cause your slabbering everywhere.
Uhh ohh... Someone's bad their ez mode mobile is going to get nerfed. The fact you addmitt that t3s are what give you a chance in a situation where the other fleet brings 3x more people means that you have acknowledged that there is a problem with out even knowing it. Continue to threaten and flame staff members, I'm rather excited to see what happens. Uhh ohh ... Someone hasn't used tech 3 against 3 times the size and dps on there fleet. Tech 3 isn't easy. To compete on the same level as a fleet using 3 times the size and dps means we shell out like 1.5bil on fitting and ship against scrubs with tier 3 bcs that have spent 160mil per ship. Then have to manipulate a fight to try and get on an even footing or half a chance so do use poor comments that you clearly have no idea about.
You seem to be making the odd assumption that the larger fleet wont have T3's as well, simply because they are a larger fleet.  |
Asssassin X
V0LTA
Verge of Collapse
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:46:00 -
[253] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:Asssassin X wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Haargoth Civire wrote:
Theres nothing wrong with tech 3 ships u idiot.. so dont be a moron.. t3 is what gives the smaller pvpers a chance against the 2,3 x gangs.. so please if u nerf it ill put u down like a rabbid dog(ingame) !! cause your slabbering everywhere.
Uhh ohh... Someone's bad their ez mode mobile is going to get nerfed. The fact you addmitt that t3s are what give you a chance in a situation where the other fleet brings 3x more people means that you have acknowledged that there is a problem with out even knowing it. Continue to threaten and flame staff members, I'm rather excited to see what happens. Uhh ohh ... Someone hasn't used tech 3 against 3 times the size and dps on there fleet. Tech 3 isn't easy. To compete on the same level as a fleet using 3 times the size and dps means we shell out like 1.5bil on fitting and ship against scrubs with tier 3 bcs that have spent 160mil per ship. Then have to manipulate a fight to try and get on an even footing or half a chance so do use poor comments that you clearly have no idea about. You seem to be making the odd assumption that the larger fleet wont have T3's as well, simply because they are a larger fleet.
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.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
2097
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:21:00 -
[254] - Quote
Asssassin X wrote:
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.
So how do you explain the 200+ man Tengu blobs in null sec lately?
-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
|
Noisrevbus
228
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:27:00 -
[255] - Quote
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:
Noisrevbus: as part of your large-scale discussion, something you didn't mention that the Drake is a ship you can get relatively low-SP pilots into and still be effective en masse.
Yo Ceph!
Most ships are available on relatively low skillpoints. Unless you want to Tech II fit your Tier 3 BC or BS their skilltime is quite similar. There are also other weapon systems that are "disjointed" like Missiles: Drones for example. Similarily to how most people train only HML, you can train only Sentries and have them functional on several hulls (Vexor, Myrm, Ishtar, Domi, Carriers). HML of course is similar to those disjointed systems and not as dependent upon Tech II ammo as medium Turrets, so i guess it could be argued either way. No matter how you approach it though, none of the ships take a considerable different amount of time to train though (we're looking at a couple of days of differentiation).
I don't disagree with you - what you say is definately a factor.
I'm just saying it applies to things like Sentry-Domies and Tech I BS turrets too. You could easily churn out Nagas, Oracles and Maelstroms similarily. Consider how a BS4 + L-Proj 4 Mael compare to an HML II + BC 4 or 5 Drake  .
Cost is definately the dominant factor, along with roles (since Drakes are always quite useful together with Maels, as fire-support to take out small tackle [dictors] and the like). I guess most groups would be inclined to stick BS4/LT4 pilots in fire-support roles as long as those slots need to be filled in a fleet, even if they don't have BC5 either. Premier concepts tend to be treated that way anyway, as premier (even by beginner- and mass-friendly entities like the CFC). I guess you would know, and be more familiar with it than i am. |
Asssassin X
V0LTA
Verge of Collapse
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:33:00 -
[256] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Asssassin X wrote:
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.
So how do you explain the 200+ man Tengu blobs in null sec lately? -Liang
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 :) |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
2097
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:37:00 -
[257] - Quote
Asssassin X wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Asssassin X wrote:
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.
So how do you explain the 200+ man Tengu blobs in null sec lately? -Liang 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 :)
I'm mostly pointing out that it's a fallacy to assume that only you have access to Shiny Fleet and the blob is always in T1 fit **** fits. If the effectiveness is there, it won't be terribly long before they're flying it too.
-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
|
chris elliot
EG CORP
Talocan United
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:15:00 -
[258] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Asssassin X wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Asssassin X wrote:
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.
So how do you explain the 200+ man Tengu blobs in null sec lately? -Liang 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 :) I'm mostly pointing out that it's a fallacy to assume that only you have access to Shiny Fleet and the blob is always in T1 fit **** fits. If the effectiveness is there, it won't be terribly long before they're flying it too. -Liang
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. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
2098
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:17:00 -
[259] - Quote
chris elliot wrote: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.
It's pretty universally true that someone with a clue is going to kill someone without a clue. This kind of phenomenon makes people say that T1 frigates are untouchable and unkillable. 
-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
|
Asssassin X
V0LTA
Verge of Collapse
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:40:00 -
[260] - Quote
When all is said and done it comes to the ones who want Tech 3 nerfed are the idiots that die to them all the time. Some things do need changed on Tech 3 but only things needing changed are pretty useless subs tbh. tech 3 should remain a little better than Tech 2 the way it is now but people who use the tech 3 wisely and who put isk into them to make them better than there Tech 2 counterparts should not be punished. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
2098
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:46:00 -
[261] - Quote
I think that accusing *everyone* that's in favor of a T3 nerf of being idiots/noobs that die to them all the time is utterly incorrect. I'd counter by saying that *everyone* who can't recognize how incredibly OP they are either has a financial motive (eg, they live in a Wormhole like Verge does) or they can't bear giving up their Win Button.
But we'd both be wrong, now wouldn't we?
-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
|
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
Transmission Lost
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:19:00 -
[262] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:I think that accusing *everyone* that's in favor of a T3 nerf of being idiots/noobs that die to them all the time is utterly incorrect. I'd counter by saying that *everyone* who can't recognize how incredibly OP they are either has a financial motive (eg, they live in a Wormhole like Verge does) or they can't bear giving up their Win Button.
But we'd both be wrong, now wouldn't we?
-Liang
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. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
2098
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:41:00 -
[263] - Quote
Pink Marshmellow wrote: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=12135625What if tomorrow we nerfed Crystals from 50% -> only 10% bonus to shield boosting, what say you about that?
I'm sure you're expecting me to ~rage~ or something. The truth of the matter is that Crystals are very expensive and very powerful. I've been able to do some patently ridiculous things by combining them with some intelligent piloting. I'd say that their cost is relatively well balanced by how useful they are and that the market has largely set the price for them. You don't have to look any further than Talismans to know that.
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.
That's actually a fairly standard cloaky gank Proteus fit. It was definitely the wrong Proteus to bring to the fight but the right one was 10 jumps out. It was literally the best ship I had for the fight at the time. There are innumerable ships that would have been better off, but really that was the best ship for that fight I had at the time.
The most you can accuse me of is failing to bring the right ship for the job, not having a **** fit. :)
Quote:I question your ideas about PVP: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11877831Do 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.
Haha, that fit is epic. I had so many good fights with it. I would have have consistently argued that it's straight up better than the Scimitar for solo low sec Logi work. The biggest weakness it has is cap, but ultimately it's not that big of a deal. That ship was able to simultaneously hold a Sacrilege up against a kite Vindicator and tank sentry guns, a Hype, a Domi, a Cane, a Cyclone, and some other random ****.
That fit is ******* epic.
Also: your petty directed attack is precious. Keeping bringing up my old loss mails - those are some good memories. Might want to dig through all the absurd number of killmails too though. :)
I'm curious why you think anyone should listen to someone 19 PVP kills in the last year (eg, you)?
-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
|
Lili Lu
411
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 22:03:00 -
[264] - Quote
You sound mad, are you mad?
I think you are so mad you don't even realize that your attempted ad personem attack actually just lent legitimacy to Liang's positions.
Liang is saying ASBs and shield tanking (paritially due to synergy of ASBs with crystals and ship bonuses) are op atm. Coming from someone that used and lost crystals actually lends validity to the argument.
As for the proteus fit, I'll let Liang speak to it. However, it looks to me like someone attempting to use active armor bonuses. A wasted effort imo because CCP has left it so deficient compared to armor buffer or active shield now, but admirable for trying. And what is this, someone that lost an expensive tech III ship actually saying that they have op aspects instead of crying about the loss and asking for an unneeded buff or reimbursement? What a terrible person.
As for the Basilisk, again it is active tanking and before the introduction of ASBs. It was probably the only logi in his gang otherwise it woulf have been cap transfering and fitting buffer. From your examples I see someone that attempted to make active tanking viable in small gang engagements. Not what I would do, as I see nothing wrong with buffer and gtfo as a solo logistics, but in certain circumstances giving the active a try can make sense.
I note that you ignored my reply to the post you are so proud about earlier itt, and re-posted in the wormhole subforum as an op. Maybe I'll re-post my response there in your thread. Because you simplify the entire issue and ignore the complexities. Regardless, I think you should be careful in trying to trash Liang with citations to the killboard. http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=26399 That is you. Not bad, but not really extensive. Here is Liang's http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=45884 It seems you have had a rather quiet year.
Now you could be like me and doing your recent pvp on another character. But certainly from the early derp fits, or half fit ships in a mass loss and quick re-ship type fleet battles, one can find embarrassing fits on anyone's killboard. Looking at what you linked from Liang's I think you failed to find some that couldn't be explained by circumstances. In fact your last sentence on your post seems best to explain your own problem in this debate. You appear to frothing mad speaking as someone who uses tech III all the time and doesn't want any reduction in current abilities of your own ships "Your bias sticks out like a sore thumb." |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy
In Umbra Mortis
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:26:00 -
[265] - Quote
*chuckle*
I just want all of the subsystems to actually be viable, and for my Legion to get some love. ;) |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
Transmission Lost
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:34:00 -
[266] - Quote
Liang justifies Crystals as valid because of how expensive they are.
Then turns around and says that Tech 3 ships are invalid and that costs are not a valid balancing factor.
He then dismisses that ISK should not be a balancing factor, but says that Crystals are fine for the massive bonus they give because they are expensive.
You tell me that's not being hypocritical.
Liang is a person who only likes reason when it suits his interests, but ignores it when it doesn't.
I have shown several times over that Tech 3 ships do not obsolete Tech 2 ships. Tech 2 ships do their specialized job better than Tech 3 ships, and the only thing that Tech 3 overshadows are HAC's which are mostly bad and are superceded by even Tech 1 ships.
Tech 3 vs Tech 2
Ewar - Tech 2 - Much Superior
Logistics - Tech 2 - Tech 3 logi has no range and no cap reduction that Logi has.
Interdiction - Tech 2 no contest - Tech 3 doesn't exist.
Heavy Assault - Tech 3 beats Tech 2, because Tech 2 are inferior to to even Battlecruisers and Faction Cruisers.
Liang ignores this reason completely and states that Tech 3 ships should be nerfed because they have some tank, dps and are "quasi recons" and make Tech 2 ships pointless.
Recon capabilities of Tech 3 are weak in comparison to Tech 2.
The Falcon has 30% bonus to jammer strength, Tengu is only 10%?
The Legion only has 10% bonus to Neut amount, the Curse has 20% Neut Strength and 40% range AND bonus to Tracking Disruptor.
The Loki has 30% web range bonus. The Rapier has 60% range bonus AND target painting bonus.
The Proteus has 10% scram range. The Arazu has 20% point range AND sensor dampening bonus.
Tech 2 at large are superior in their specialties than Tech 3 as they are supposed to.
Conclusion: Liang does not show proper proof and reasoning. And makes weak blanket statements. He contradicts himself. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
2098
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:36:00 -
[267] - Quote
You... don't read very well.
-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
|
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
Transmission Lost
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:43:00 -
[268] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
So how do you explain the 200+ man Tengu blobs in null sec lately?
-Liang
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. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
2098
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 00:04:00 -
[269] - Quote
Pink Marshmellow wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
So how do you explain the 200+ man Tengu blobs in null sec lately?
-Liang
Oh look 500 man Maelstrom Blobs. Nerf Maelstroms. http://themittani.com/news/battle-es-q0w-tengus-vs-napocsOh look Liang Navy Apocalypse Blobs. Nerf NAPOCS. Nerf hurricanes, Abaddons, Tempests, bombers.
That's not actually what I was getting at. I was showing the basic fallacy behind the argument that any particular expensive ship is needed to engage the blob when outnumbered. If the power differential is there, eventually the blob will be flying exactly the same ship - and now where does that leave everyone? In a much worse state than before.
-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
2098
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 00:05:00 -
[270] - Quote
By the way, since you're so keen on quoting my posts out of context, I figured I'd throw this part back in your face:
Liang Nuren wrote:
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.
-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
|
| |
|
| 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 |