Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1460
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
First off I have to say I am extremely disappointed with our WH CSM members on this topic. There is already lots of public outcry over the "OP T3" situation and that they have to be nerfed into the ground. Some may be justified, much of it is not. Part of this problem is that many who are screaming nerf often do not even fly T3's. And many who do seem to understand that for HAC's as an example, the bigger issue is the T2 HAC's and not just the T3's
By having our CSM members basically agreeing publicly on this subject so early on, it lends more weight than it should to the nerf idea. It's one thing to have the uneducated masses crying out, but another when our "elected officials" agreeing with them.
At the very least I think the appropriate answer should be "yes there are balance issues, but we should all hold judgement until the T2 balance pass and go from there"
As to the actual issue, it is a tough call. As a cloaky HAC, the T3 has nothing to compare it to, as there is no T2 HAC variant.
As to the cloaky T3 "recon" vs T2 recons, I honestly haven't played around to feel comfortable comparing. I will say as an example at all 5, a cloaky tengu "falcon" gets a longer jam range, but the jam strength is half that of a falcon. So while there may be an imbalance, I'm sure in time those can be adjusted appropriately. |

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1460
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote: As to the cloaky T3 "recon" vs T2 recons, I honestly haven't played around to feel comfortable comparing. I will say as an example at all 5, a cloaky tengu "falcon" gets a longer jam range, but the jam strength is half that of a falcon. So while there may be an imbalance, I'm sure in time those can be adjusted appropriately.
You can't even make a proper T3 version of the falcon as the jam strength sub-system is the same slot as the cloaky one. The prot doesn't have as long point range bonus as an arazu and neither does the loki get the web range of a rapier, can't remember the legion v pilgrim off the top of my head. Unless the price of the ships drops hugely (and I don't think thats a good thing at all) then any significant nerf to their survivability will reduce their useage a lot also which isn't a good thing either.
Legion can have a much bigger tank, but cannot field any drones, so while it can neut well it cannot apply any DPS. |

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1460
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:First off I have to say I am extremely disappointed with our WH CSM members on this topic... ...At the very least I think the appropriate answer should be "yes there are balance issues, but we should all hold judgement until the T2 balance pass and go from there" "James said that he thought the T2 cruiser balancing should come before any serious T3 rebalance" Have you unplugged your Reading hardwiring or what just happened there?
Quote:Chitsa agreed that cloaky T3s are overpowered in their present configuration,
So sorry. I forgot the word "some". |

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1460
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
stup idity wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:
Legion can have a much bigger tank, but cannot field any drones, so while it can neut well it cannot apply any DPS.
Of course it can. Neuting-sub is electronic and can be combined with the drone offensive sub or the cloaky one.
OMG REALLY!
Quote:Chitsa agreed that cloaky T3s are overpowered in their present configuration
Rroff wrote:You can't even make a proper T3 version of the falcon as the jam strength sub-system is the same slot as the cloaky one.
The prot doesn't have as long point range bonus as an arazu and neither does the loki get the web range of a rapier, can't remember the legion v pilgrim off the top of my head.
We are talking about cloaky here. Rroff wasn't talking about Legion vs Curse. |

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1469
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 17:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Casirio wrote:Yea our wh csm were elected to help keep us wspace ppl represnted. surpised this is the first discussion brought up in the wh forum about the changes. I would like to see chitsa and james start these discussions themselves and discuss them with tour community.
Pushing close to Page 3 and not a peep yet from our elected representatives.
|

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1512
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 14:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Chitsa Jason wrote:I have probably expressed myself in wrong manner on CSM Townhall. I think the cloaky T3s are OP due to the nullification subsystem.
Other than that I am against the T3 nerf in other areas. I think aHACs should never have more tank or DPS compared to properly fit T3.
Would you care to elaborate. What is it about the cloak + nullifier that is OP?
In a combat role, a cloaky already has reduced effectiveness. The nullifier sub hurts that even more without an extra low slot.
As a "safe transport" a cloaky nullified T3 is a VERY expensive blockade runner with a tiny cargohold.
Specifically in WH space, you are still vulnerable moving through wormholes. On a regular enough basis you will land too close to the WH to cloak. the slower speed and align of a cruiser vs covert ops frig still makes you vulnerable to being pointed.
Personally I find a nullified cloaky T3 useful in niche instances (scouting a bubbled POS for example) But given all of the other potential drawbacks, I don't find it over the top. I still prefer scouting in a Covert ops frigate due to their speed, align time and cost. |

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1513
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 22:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Elepherious wrote:... Also I have a cloaky Prot with 276 EHP tank... It happens. I'll bet you the contents of my wallet I could solo it in a T1 battlecruiser.
Brick meet kite |

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1514
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 11:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kira Hhallas wrote:We discussed with my member the possibility of an nerf of Tech 3 Ships. So most of them said, if Tech 3 ships get a signifcat nerf, it would be good also to nerf the SkillPoint loss. 4 Days lost only for a lost if a ship, what is nerfed. Sorry.
And for the posted fit.... if i put enought ISK in a T2 Command ship i could also have a realy pervers tank. So if you want to compare ships than use relativ equal ships. This should be a idea or ? Exemple T2 Field Command Ship HAM Nighthawk with a T3 HAM TENGU both passive Tank. Both with AB + Tech 2 Fit.
My resume is you get what ah nice PVP Nighthawk for about 260 mil without skills loss and a nice performance. 80k EHP and 590 DPS without drones with Faction HAMs
So Why should i use a 500 Millions ship for the fact i loss a lvl 5 Skills. Only to have 100k EHP and 600+ DPS
In the fact.. if someone see you in a T3 you never get a fair fight ......
So that my point of the hole thing.
greatings
Kira Hhllas
Google translate?
And yes I have always said T3's should be able to have a larger tank given they are the only ships that impose an SP loss on death.
|

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1514
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 11:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kira Hhallas wrote:Nope,i am natural german speaking player. And not really time for overreading this stuff.... And it is not so easy to write in english, if you have no practice.
There is no german speaking CSM, so i have to write down my thoughts here.
And sorry for my english i try to do my best.
It's fine. English isn't so easy for native speakers either. |

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1514
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 16:17:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:I really wish using T3s as logi ships was more viable but the limited range prevent that. Cloaky logi FTW!
Think of the Etana man! You would totally ruin VoC's lottery business. |

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1514
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 16:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
Onomerous wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Onomerous wrote:Rek Seven wrote:I really wish using T3s as logi ships was more viable but the limited range prevent that. Cloaky logi FTW! That would make T3 OP actually. The T3 shouldn't be better than T2 logi at being a logi ship. Why do you assume that the T3 would be better than T2 logi? I'm thinking the T3 logi sub should have slightly less rep power as it does now but it should get a bonus to range to enable it to rep at around 20-25km (i.e. point range). Cloaky T3 with Logi range? You don't see a problem with that? No, it doesn't need a range boost. It is fine as it is right now.
Pretty sure 20-25km isn't "logi range" I agree it would be nice if it were slightly longer range than currently. Even just 15km allows for a small gang to move around a little while staying in range. |

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1527
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 11:20:00 -
[12] - Quote
Onomerous wrote:Quote:Or it will force you to break your blobs into smaller units, since if you bring a blob of straight dps through I can sit back and alpha you back to highsec. Seen quite a few try that and it don't work quite like that. Quote: The reason nullsec is seeing so many shifts is twofold.
Comparing null sex to WH doesn't really work well. See below: Quote: One is the power of the microjump drive on battleships. Since only a scram will prevent a warpout you either have to grab everybody at once or be forced to play ping pong games trying to grab one ship at a time while being shelled from range the entire time.
Second is the tierecide has buffed neut ranges on the geddons , ewar on the celestis which allows you to play two different types of alpha that will wreck a t3 fleet. The first is alpha cap/ewar. Enough range boosted geddons will zap the cap on anything nearby. And the celestises will ensure that unless your logistics stays in the danger zone they will never be able to lock further than the paint on their hulls. The second is a combination of the tracking bonus to the mega and the sentry bonus to the domis. The latter which allows for perfect alpha, since once the drones are assigned they follow the will of the FC at the speed of the FC, not individual knuckleheads trying to find targets on their poorly set up overviews. As for the tracking on the mega, since it is now prohibitively dangerous to stay in close with the exception of suicide goku fleets or doom portals, the buff to the tracking of the longest ranged weapon in the game makes it an obvious choice. There is still a very rock paper scissors meta here, until you start doing silly things with cap swarms and supers.
The availability of cynos and variable points of entry makes this work in nullsec so it seems all well and good. In wormholes however we only have the wormhole. Which makes every fight boring, since either you have to jump into me or me into you. Bringing all ranges to zero and concentrating everything into this little bitty sphere, where the do it all nature of the t3 makes it absurdly overpowered. Most of this is due to the nature of the terribleness of command ships and hacs in their current configurations, and the squishyness and inflexibility of recons. SInce the dangers to t3 fleets are removed by way of the limited mass of the wormhole they become overpowered because the only things that can beat them can't be used. Rendering them the one and only option out there. And that is both OP and boring at the same time.
Any discussion of battleships in WH is bascially mute. WH mass limitations can really create issues. Is it possible that since BS mass doesn't work well with WH that T3 reigns for that reason? (that is a rhetorical question btw) Seems pretty obvious your basic issue is blobs. Most often used definition for blob in EVE is "any fleet which is larger than ours".
Geez, none of this was a comparison of 0.0 to WH space. It was simply trying to make the statment that if T3's were the OP "IWIN" button of EVE, why don't 0.0 alliances just fly T3 fleets exclusively.
|
|
|