| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kitsune Agalder
0
   |
Posted - 2013.05.28 18:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Now days it seems too many T3 fielded like an entity similar to 1-S is over powered its becoming where other alliances or people should follow suit use these ships in order to compete.
I believe they should be nerfed or bigger penalty loss so instead of 1 skill subsystem but all of them lost by a level.
The moment we lose 1 T3 it dont matter because are rich and waiting 3 days to use again for better effectiveness is not of a big deal . |
Cameron Cahill
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
231
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 18:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
They need a bit of balancing, and HACs need a buff to bring them closer, but they don't need that much of a nerf. What happened in 1-S was defeat in detail and some hero class bombing. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
164
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
I suddenly feel a little bit more out of the loop than usual. Time to check with all my news sources for details about this mysterious battle in far-off 1-S.
Anyway, T3s will be looked at sometime. Don't forget there are still T2s to rebalance first. |
Syreniac
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
10
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
Cameron Cahill wrote:They need a bit of balancing, and HACs need a buff to bring them closer, but they don't need that much of a nerf. What happened in 1-S was defeat in detail and some hero class bombing.
As much as I hate to agree with a goon, this is true. I think that what should be done is making HACs at least their equals in the AB cruiser niche, and some general tweaks to bring them all into line because I think the Tengu is a little better than the others at the moment. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
562
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
interdiction nullifier needs a nerf, for a long time already |
Cameron Cahill
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
231
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:interdiction nullifier needs a nerf, for a long time already
How would you nerf it without removing it entirely? |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
102
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Cameron Cahill wrote:They need a bit of balancing, and HACs need a buff to bring them closer, but they don't need that much of a nerf. What happened in 1-S was defeat in detail and some hero class bombing.
Absolutely this. HACs need a balance pass, and then honestly T3s might not need to be changed significantly at all. |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
214
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Cameron Cahill wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:interdiction nullifier needs a nerf, for a long time already How would you nerf it without removing it entirely?
Let you warp out bubbles but stopping you if you pass one.
"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! *pops more corn*" ---Evernub-- |
Cameron Cahill
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
231
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
Drake Doe wrote:
Let you warp out bubbles but stopping you if you pass one.
Doesn't really make sense logically and might be a ***** to code. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
167
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 03:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cameron Cahill wrote:Drake Doe wrote:
Let you warp out bubbles but stopping you if you pass one.
Doesn't really make sense logically and might be a ***** to code.
and a waste of time if coded. Nullify known to be covert fit as well. I have seen some winning campers throw up bubbles with no decloak can or ship in them. Intto the bubble my cloaked bomber was dragged. And flew out of it to hit the gate and on my merry way. Nothing to break cloak (best they did was put a ship on a gate to gate path to bubble but too far out to break cloak....I bounced off celestials to basically sneak in behind them).
of course this pick on nullify t3 raises a point I have with most nerf t3 threads, which t3 setup needs to be nerfed? All t3's have the "op" setups. they also have the what can be rather meh setups. How do you fix the op setups not making the crap setups even crappier?
Are blengu's blotting out the sun to stir up terror across new eden. Nope....So how do you "fix" ham/hml tengu not breaking the hybrid version which is not apparently op (as it be run more if so). Answer isn't the offensive subsystem, A few other subsystems carefully chosen make 100mn hml tengu the fun ride it can be. |
|
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
264
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 03:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
The fact that HACs mostly, especially with the cruiser rebalancing, severely underperform I think is more of an issue than T3s being in need of a nerf.
Right off the bat most of the armor ones need around 20% increase in base armor HP and the diemos for instance needs a per level heavy assault ship bonus similiar to the armor honey combing bonus to properly make it a capable specalised blaster platform. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
139
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 05:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
This should have been tabled for oddessey and frankly is much more important than tiericide or navy BC's.
T3s need a gigantic HP nerf. They are supposed to be a versitile combination of HAC and recon, not better than both as they are currently, even though the recon bonuses aren't as strong, the available tank more than makes up for it.
T3's should have LESS tank than a HAC, HAC's are specialised T2 heavy tanked medium dps cruisers, T3s are versatile ships for people with low skill points.
They are so overpowered it's stupid. HACS need a slight buff and T3's need a giant HP nerf, like 50%.
Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Agustice Arterius
Couch Athletics
25
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 05:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
"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." - CCP Ytterbium
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1889852#post1889852
"We would also like to reply on the comments about tech3 ships being balanced for their cost and skill requirements. This should not be a factor for balancing most EVE vessels," - CCP Ytterbium
I lost the link for that second one.
I think they kinda both apply now, even more so considering Navy BCs are coming out, which is what he was talking about. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
759
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 06:30:00 -
[14] - Quote
Kitsune Agalder wrote:Now days it seems too many T3 fielded like an entity similar to 1-S is over powered its becoming where other alliances or people should follow suit use these ships in order to compete.
I believe they should be nerfed or bigger penalty loss so instead of 1 skill subsystem but all of them lost by a level.
The moment we lose 1 T3 it dont matter because are rich and waiting 3 days to use again for better effectiveness is not of a big deal .
First it's not 3 days, don't even know where you got that crap out but certainly not by experience.
Too many T3 fielded? -and what is your serious method or what tangible arguments do you have to state this?
No T3 don't need nerfs, if something after frigates/cruisers and BC's rebalance, after T2 ships rebalance, T3's will need buffs and some of them more than others.
If something it's the Command Sub that needs a huge nerf stick or changed for another role sub.
If you can't fly those because of skills, train for them.
If your alliance want to field T3's when they can't already decently reimburse you a full loss of a simple BC or T2 ship just change before they ask you to fly T3's.
Whatever space they're chest beating in they will loose it sooner than later and T3's have nothing to do with it.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
179
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 06:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
First it's not 3 days, don't even know where you got that crap out but certainly not by experience.
Took me 3 days and 12 hours to get level 5 caldari offensive. And I only have +3's. Of course, I am also on a Perception/Willpower remap...
But even so, the Int/Mem remap subs are only at 4 days 21 hours to retrain to 5 for me. Between 3 and 5 days for a perfect T3 again? Not too debilitating. Assuming there's at least a partial SRP it's not really an issue to lose a few T3's, as long as you're not losing one a day.
Oh, but I do agree that they're probably fine for the most part, simply HAC's need to be less ******. Some subs are a little overpowered, maybe, but some are absolute trash and need to get fixed. I mean, the Tengu's Power Core Multiplier? Gives less PG at level 5 than the Cap Regen Matrix and is worse in literally every other way... |
PavlikX
You are in da lock
61
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 08:08:00 -
[16] - Quote
Well, personaly i guess that penalty (lowering skill level after defeat) must removed in future. As ccp allready exposed, they plans to rebalance entire t3 stuff. According to the plans of comand ships and t3 comand system rebalance t2 ship will be more powerfull, but only in thier limited role. Is this can be named as nerf of t3s? I don't think so. This is their place according to their skill training time. To counterbalance that changes penalty removal needed.
After rebalance of existing t2 ships is over and developers will create more t2 ships (i looking forward for at least two new pvp t2 battleships for each race) new t3 frigates and batleships must be created, without penalty offcorse |
Mark Androcius
109
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 08:12:00 -
[17] - Quote
Agreed, the Loki needs to be looked at.
It requires at least a power grid buff.
If a man speaks his mind in the forest and no woman hears him, is he still wrong? |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
265
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 16:27:00 -
[18] - Quote
Akturous wrote:This should have been tabled for oddessey and frankly is much more important than tiericide or navy BC's.
T3s need a gigantic HP nerf. They are supposed to be a versitile combination of HAC and recon, not better than both as they are currently, even though the recon bonuses aren't as strong, the available tank more than makes up for it.
T3's should have LESS tank than a HAC, HAC's are specialised T2 heavy tanked medium dps cruisers, T3s are versatile ships for people with low skill points.
They are so overpowered it's stupid. HACS need a slight buff and T3's need a giant HP nerf, like 50%.
And no one will bother using them after that... so its not really a great result for the game.
There are some changes and while I'm not a big fan of proposing them they are things that probably should happen i.e. deimos and prot damage needs switching around a full gun, 2x T2 mag stab + 5x medium drone deimos does 811dps and the prot in similiar configuration does 910. Won't be a popular change but its a good example of where the T3/HAC imbalance lies without indiscriminately putting them down like a rabid dog in some kind of senseless nerfing frenzy.
Swinging a giant nerf bat at T3s does no one any favors in the long run.
|
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate
Sailors of the Sacred Spice
1127
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 16:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
Quote:I'm way too risk averse to ever fly t3 with the 1 bil isk plus SP losses, therefore it should be nerfed, since it'll only nerf others and not me. 
Hint: They'll be pwning you with cheapboats afterwards. Nothing will change. Risk averse losers will always be losers... for being risk averse.
Standings Improvement Service
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
209
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 17:01:00 -
[20] - Quote
Akturous wrote:This should have been tabled for oddessey and frankly is much more important than tiericide or navy BC's.
T3s need a gigantic HP nerf. They are supposed to be a versitile combination of HAC and recon, not better than both as they are currently, even though the recon bonuses aren't as strong, the available tank more than makes up for it.
T3's should have LESS tank than a HAC, HAC's are specialised T2 heavy tanked medium dps cruisers, T3s are versatile ships for people with low skill points.
They are so overpowered it's stupid. HACS need a slight buff and T3's need a giant HP nerf, like 50%.
I agree that Tech3 tank is OP the problem comes in the base resistance they have is better than T2 which is plain wrong but since they want them to be on the same line as navy than their resists should end up as basic T1 resists.
And of course rigs and the subs bonuses don't help. all those HP bonuses.. aswell as more resits like they need them.
They need to make subs cheap so they can swap them easily (remove rigs to allow for armour and shield swapping) without having to pay 20mil per sub and 80mil on some.. and the cost of rigs.
if they keep the cost down to 150mil ish than they should be viable with navy tank and more versatility.
HACS aren't meant to be tanky they have HICs for that and battlecruisers for tanky brawling.
HACS should and probably will become T2 attack cruisers with a suitable mwd bonus to keep their sig down lower than a battleship i would expect something like a 75% bonus much like interceptors along with reduced sig radius on the ships themselves.
'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium
Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor.
ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
|
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
93
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 17:04:00 -
[21] - Quote
Mark Androcius wrote:Agreed, the Loki needs to be looked at.
It requires at least a power grid buff.
Holy ****, no. Loki is a rather wonderful example of 'many things done right', the resolving midslot-issues (in my opinion) levels other strengths, and it becomes the single most versatile T3-hull. Right now, you can easily build 220s/100mn/plate-fittings, or even plate+720s, so it definetely does not need an adjustment in that department.
It rather needs stronger Muninns to be rivaled by in large fleet situations, or stronger vagas to not be the supervaga with perma-mwd and ***-falcon-sensors.
Split-weapon-sub (hardpoint eff.) and sigreductionsub (amplification node) are the only two I don't see freequently.
It's strongly different for legions and proteus, and extreme for the tengu, which either shoots missiles and is shieldtanked, or the least brittle ecm you can field. Not saying it excels at actual jamming.
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
95
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 18:38:00 -
[22] - Quote
Half read the thread.... but as others have said, T3s need some fine tuning but not an overall nerf. HACs need a huge boost. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
2155
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 19:21:00 -
[23] - Quote
Drake Doe wrote:Cameron Cahill wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:interdiction nullifier needs a nerf, for a long time already How would you nerf it without removing it entirely? Let you warp out bubbles but stopping you if you pass one.
When they launched Dominion, or sometime around there... They accidentally did this!!! (why they "fixed" it makes no sense, cause it was well balanced like that!).
+1 for making it so you get pulled out of warp into bubbles, but they can still warp out of bubbles!
|
Laura Dexx
Fractional Warfare
28
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 23:14:00 -
[24] - Quote
T3's were supposed to be the jack of all trades, but instead they've been made the master of all trades.
- They boost better than Command ships;
- They probe as well as Covert Ops;
- In one configuration, they can have the tank of a battleship, the damage of a battlecruiser with the signature radius and speed of a cruiser, alongside a watered down (but still mostly useful) racial EWar bonus;
- They are also the only ship to be virtually immune to bubbles and camps through a mixture of the interdiction nullifier and the covert subsystem, providing a nearly riskfree alternative to freely moving around 0.0;
- They are the only ship class that can combine covert cloaks, strong probing, more than adequate racial EWar and a battleship-sized tank alongside decent damage output to prove itself a strong opponent while basically imitating three or four ship classes simultaneously.
It doesn't make a lot of sense. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
266
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 00:29:00 -
[25] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:They are the only ship class that can combine covert cloaks, strong probing, more than adequate racial EWar and a battleship-sized tank alongside decent damage output to prove itself a strong opponent while basically imitating three or four ship classes simultaneously.
It doesn't make a lot of sense.
While also costing about the same as those 3-4 ships in total (and I know someones gonna bleat on about how cost doesn't count as a balancing factor yada yada).
|
Destoya
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
94
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 04:43:00 -
[26] - Quote
Honestly a lot of the T3 imbalance comes from some OP subsystems and combinations of subsystems that give crazy bonuses, and subsequently become the "standard" fit for certain roles. This goes against the idea that strat cruisers are supposed to be these general purpose, versatile ships that are not terribly specialized towards any given role.
Tengu for example has that quintessential Acceleration Ejection Bay offensive sub. At 10% velocity, 5% kin damage AND 7.5% ROF per level a single subsystem gives the Tengu a better set of missile bonuses than pretty much every other ship in the game, even those supposedly specialized entirely towards missile combat (see Cerb/Nighthawk/etc). There is simply no other offensive subsystem that remotely makes sense on a Tengu, except the occasional armor ECM tengus that you see in WH space.
Tank levels (specifically resists, but also raw HP as well) are another problem. Most simply have obscene amounts of tank because of the way 10% HP bonuses on top of T2 resists, OGB, Trimarks (+LG slaves)/CDFE, and LSE/1600mm plates stack with each other. Simply put, I dont think any T3 cruiser should be able to outtank even their respective resist bonused battleships easily while maintaining their massive mobility/signature advantage and all the other utility that comes with the smaller ship.
Basically my problem is with specific subsystems being either over or underpowerd, which I think should be fixed. Much like tiercide in other areas of the game, the concept should be applied here as well. Make it viable to fit all the other weird subsystems that already exist in the game (rail tengu and missile loki pls) by a combination of applying relatively moderate nerfs to the overpowered subs while giving bigger buffs to the forgotten ones.
Loki is in my opinion the closest to what the T3 cruiser should ideally be. It is really the only one that is able to have both viable shield and armor fits, filling every role from the cloaky hunter to the shield tanked sniper to the AHAC style webbing ship to the fast shield boosting brawler. Tank is not massively strong like the other cruisers (due to it only having 5% bonuses as opposed to 10% like the rest); its web capability is not as good as the Recons but still serves as a more durable platform for bonused webs. Not without problems but it is the best example of the original promise of T3 being implemented at the moment. |
Quinn Corvez
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD
Polarized.
6
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 05:42:00 -
[27] - Quote
No they do not need a nerf, HAC's and command ships need a buff.
Some of the subsystems need changing to make them more useful but that's it. |
Vince Snetterton
279
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 05:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
Let' see...how many cruiser hulls cost minimum 300 M, more likely 400M.
How many have a SP loss associated with them?
T3's need a BUFF, if anything.
Only people clamoring for a nerf are pilots who only have a hive mentality and fly no-brain blob tactics...who could exemplify those traits the most?
|
Akturous
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
139
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 07:11:00 -
[29] - Quote
Vince Snetterton wrote:Let' see...how many cruiser hulls cost minimum 300 M, more likely 400M.
How many have a SP loss associated with them?
T3's need a BUFF, if anything.
Only people clamoring for a nerf are pilots who only have a hive mentality and fly no-brain blob tactics...who could exemplify those traits the most?
Yes because that's exactly what I/my alliance does.
People saying they don't need a nerf need to get a brain.
Even if they had the same hp as a HAC, people (including me) would still pay 500mill for one because it combines so many things. I can have a 900dps proteus with a super long scram or point, who cares if it costs more, it does the job better.
T3 resists being knocked back to somewhere between t1 and t2 would be a start, they're too specialised.
Some particular subs need moving around, the scanning sub needs nerfing, Cap regen on the Tengu needs it's power grid hit with a giant nerf bat, proteus needs it's propulsion subs looked at, only one is useful for it's bonuses and one because it gives you a mid.
This is in addition to the HP nerfs. EHP needs to be somewhere around a HAC with worse resists. If that stops people flyign them, then the price will come down and they'll get demand again.
HACS don't need a huge buff. Nerfing the outlier is how you balance, not buffing everything else.
Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
PavlikX
You are in da lock
61
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 08:35:00 -
[30] - Quote
Main CCP mistake with t3 cruisers that they are so easy and quick to train, meantime according to their effectiveness they must have training time comparisonable with comand ships.
CCP will have a hard choise - how exactly put ships on their places.
Imo they have two possible ways
1. Remain t3 characteristics the same, making it's harder to train and much more expensive
2. To rework their stats with reworking of t2 cruisers and battlecruisers. Someone call it nerf of t3, meantime it is correcting of mistakes. Even after this "nerf" T3 will be very usefull, but not overpowered, thanks to their flexibility.
I prefer second position. Gladly CCP allready exposed their plans according comands and comand subs of t3. I like it. If they will continue with such philosophy, game will survive. Allmost all my friends abandoned EVE, and one of the reasons was t3 ships. So acessable, meantime very powerfull and flexible. If you have it, in some cases you lose your game fun and interest. "Look, i kill a Maller with my Legion today!! I am a true PvP player!!!!11oneone"
Those who against "nerf" of t3 must observe their killboards. In case there are only t3 victims, without weaker t1and t2 ships, then yeah, you have a moral right to demand to stop "nerf" of t3 
In two aspects t3 needs a buff. If they will be in correct place then:
1. No more skill loss in case of defeat
2. New t3 rigs, for t3 ships only, you can remove it from your ship without loss in case of subsystem changing.
I hope that respective t3 owners will not start mindless whine
On the other hand entire t2 generation needs a buff, not only cruiser sized vessels. I'd like to see 3 rig slots ( limitation with two slots is senceless), stronger t2 bonuses (in two times for example), introduction or improving existing role bonuses (for example marauders allready have 100% damage role bonus, for what reason they have 5% damage bonus per skill level? Probably it would be much better to give 125-150% role bonus, bringing new skill bonus?)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |