EVE Search - CSM townhall and T3's

All Channels

Wormholes

CSM townhall and T3's

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Meytal School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 244	Posted - 2013.06.24 14:30:00 - [31] - Quote Rroff wrote: From looking at more general posts on the subject of cloaky T3s it seems a lot of the reason people are asking for a wholesale nerf to cloaky T3s is due to small areas of the game where they are overpowered, just that small area of the game makes up a large part of those people's day to day life in Eve. i.e. people who like to camp null entry gates see dozens of cloaky nullified t3s escape them daily and are bitter about it. If they can't catch cloaky nullified T3s, they need to set up a better camp. While you can't guarantee a kill, if done right, it can be difficult for even a CovOps (to say nothing for a cloaky T3) to get away. "Wahh, I'm not good enough to do something. Make it so that I don't have to do that!" "Okay!" Icarus Able wrote: Only T3 that needs a bit of balancing is the Tengu imo. Its DPS output and its potential to tank seems to outweigh the other T3s. One thing I will agree about a Tengu that needs nerfing is that there is little reason to use any sub other than the Dissolution Sequencer unless you are flying jams. That's basically a free Sensor Strength boost to Tengu pilots. The Tengu, like the others, is capable of good (not earth-shattering) DPS or admittedly amazing tank, but not both at the same time. With most other ships, you either get tank or you get DPS; Tengu, like other T3s, you can choose your poison. The rest of sub-BS Caldari just sucks so badly that the Tengu seems grossly out of place. Fix that problem, and then re-compare the Tengu. The cost and drawback difference between the T3 and T2 basically means that T2 is disposable and T3 is not. When this changes, then T3 can be more inline with T2. TurboX3 wrote: Chitsa & James, maybe speak with your community before you go and purpose T3 nerf's as you shouldn't encourage CCP dev team for any excuse to downgrade us WH-dwellers... They are all 0.0 carebears in the Reykjavik office from my personal experience! ;-) Very true. Nullsec is CCP's baby, and without stiff opposition from CSM and a sizeable portion of the playerbase, CCP will more than happily stomp all over WH, High, and Low to benefit Null.
Casirio DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized. 476	Posted - 2013.06.24 16:51:00 - [32] - Quote 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. And to be a broken record for god sakes ***** fix t2 before you nerf t3 to **. hence why they started with the t1 ships and have moved up. its just fuckin stupid to do this out of order.
Derath Ellecon Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal 1469	Posted - 2013.06.24 17:27:00 - [33] - 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.
Onomerous Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 153	Posted - 2013.06.24 17:29:00 - [34] - Quote A cloaky loki with 200k+ buffer tank? I need to see this fit please. It's funny reading the different 'nerf T3' threads on the forums. According to posts, every T3 is OP and every T3 is underpowered. I'm really getting the feeling most of the people don't know much about T3 but hate them because they have to go against them. THIS JUST IN You can fly a T3 without a cloak!!! Try it and see how well it works!!
Elepherious Dracos Dozen Trifectas Syndicate 12	Posted - 2013.06.24 17:34:00 - [35] - Quote The TIII Ships should be like a utility tool, While it can accomplish many goals in a single tool it does none of them particularly well. Wherein, you can use a multitool to unscrew something, but the better designed screw driver gets the job done quicker and more efficiently. or you can use a multitool to open a can, but the can opener does it better. Same premiss, it should fit multiple roles, but not do them as well as the actual TII variants designed for the role. You should be able to fit a HAC like fitting, but it shouldn't be as powerful as an actual HAC. Or can fit a booster fitting, but not as effectively as a booster. ... Also I have a cloaky Prot with 276 EHP tank... It happens.
stup idity 23	Posted - 2013.06.24 17:36:00 - [36] - Quote Onomerous wrote: A cloaky loki with 200k+ buffer tank? I need to see this fit please. 195k ehp with all 5 and passive boost; implants not included. [Proteus, cov] Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating Proteus Electronics - Friction Extension Processor Proteus Engineering - Power Core Multiplier Proteus Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Proteus Propulsion - Wake Limiter 5x Heavy Neutron Blaster II (Void M) Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Scrambler II Warp Disruptor II 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II 2x Centum C-Type Energized Explosive Membrane Centum C-Type Energized EM Membrane Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Medium Trimark Armor Pump I 2x Medium Trimark Armor Pump II I reign supreme.
Onomerous Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 153	Posted - 2013.06.24 17:40:00 - [37] - Quote Elepherious wrote: The TIII Ships should be like a utility tool, While it can accomplish many goals in a single tool it does none of them particularly well. Wherein, you can use a multitool to unscrew something, but the better designed screw driver gets the job done quicker and more efficiently. or you can use a multitool to open a can, but the can opener does it better. Same premiss, it should fit multiple roles, but not do them as well as the actual TII variants designed for the role. You should be able to fit a HAC like fitting, but it shouldn't be as powerful as an actual HAC. Or can fit a booster fitting, but not as effectively as a booster. ... Also I have a cloaky Prot with 276 EHP tank... It happens. A cloaky loki with 200k+ buffer tank? I need to see this fit please.
stup idity 23	Posted - 2013.06.24 17:54:00 - [38] - Quote Onomerous wrote: Elepherious wrote: The TIII Ships should be like a utility tool, While it can accomplish many goals in a single tool it does none of them particularly well. Wherein, you can use a multitool to unscrew something, but the better designed screw driver gets the job done quicker and more efficiently. or you can use a multitool to open a can, but the can opener does it better. Same premiss, it should fit multiple roles, but not do them as well as the actual TII variants designed for the role. You should be able to fit a HAC like fitting, but it shouldn't be as powerful as an actual HAC. Or can fit a booster fitting, but not as effectively as a booster. ... Also I have a cloaky Prot with 276 EHP tank... It happens. A cloaky loki with 200k+ buffer tank? I need to see this fit please. this one has >200k ehp with passive boost, no implants, all 5: [Loki, covops] Loki Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Loki Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Loki Electronics - Immobility Drivers Loki Engineering - Power Core Multiplier Loki Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst Covert Ops Cloaking Device II 5x Dual 180mm AutoCannon II (Hail M) 2x Stasis Webifier II Faint Warp Disruptor I Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I 2x 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II 2x Centum C-Type Energized Explosive Membrane Centum C-Type Energized Kinetic Membrane Centum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 2x Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump I I reign supreme.
Onomerous Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 153	Posted - 2013.06.24 18:17:00 - [39] - Quote stup idity wrote: Onomerous wrote: Elepherious wrote: The TIII Ships should be like a utility tool, While it can accomplish many goals in a single tool it does none of them particularly well. Wherein, you can use a multitool to unscrew something, but the better designed screw driver gets the job done quicker and more efficiently. or you can use a multitool to open a can, but the can opener does it better. Same premiss, it should fit multiple roles, but not do them as well as the actual TII variants designed for the role. You should be able to fit a HAC like fitting, but it shouldn't be as powerful as an actual HAC. Or can fit a booster fitting, but not as effectively as a booster. ... Also I have a cloaky Prot with 276 EHP tank... It happens. A cloaky loki with 200k+ buffer tank? I need to see this fit please. this one has >200k ehp with passive boost, no implants, all 5: [Loki, covops] Loki Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Loki Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Loki Electronics - Immobility Drivers Loki Engineering - Power Core Multiplier Loki Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst Covert Ops Cloaking Device II 5x Dual 180mm AutoCannon II (Hail M) 2x Stasis Webifier II Faint Warp Disruptor I Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I 2x 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II 2x Centum C-Type Energized Explosive Membrane Centum C-Type Energized Kinetic Membrane Centum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 2x Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump I nice fit... weak on DPS but I guess if this is your scouting guy. Wouldn't fly that as a normal line member though. Very interesting. If that is your standard fleet fit... well I would say odd for a standard fit.
Mr Kidd Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 1215	Posted - 2013.06.24 18:42:00 - [40] - Quote Nix Anteris wrote: The goal with T3 was versatility - the ability to change subsystems depending on the situation encountered. They were introduced at the same time as wormholes. CCP never expected people to live in wormholes permanently. T3s are not versatile for many wormholers because subsystems cannot be changed at a POS. Before any nerfs can occur (and I agree there should be some), refitting at a POS must be implemented first. Otherwise they will be sub-par to T2 and not versatile. This is complete BS that came out 3 years after w-space was introduced and it's impact on null was being felt. Tell me, how are you going to live a nomadic existence in deep w-space? Look at the assets you have to commit to do so. Carriers, dreads, sub-caps, POS's and multiples of them all with specific fits. And were you expecting that you would have to spend days probing out a route to w-space or from it with your caravan of freighters carriers and dreads in tow waiting in w-space, lowsec or nullsec tying up half a dozen accounts or moredoing nothing for days? How were you ever expected to get your assets in and out intact with even the slimest of chance when that wh is crit massed in the middle of your exodus? And how about all the ore/gas sites? Are you expected to haul all this stuff out daily as well at full volume? CCP "nomadic" doctrine is riddled with so many hole that is doesn't serve to indicate what w-space should have been but what they want it to be. The nails for w-space are starting to add up. The T3 nerf, to "remove overlap" and to balance them off their "overpowered" pedestal will crash the w-space economy since everything but ore depends upon the T3's current demand to support current price levels. But, CCP also put the nail in the coffin for ore sites in w-space as well when they made them anoms. The T3 nerf is the final nail if they're rebalanced to reflect CCP's current diagrams and dev-blogs. HTFU!...for the children!
Meytal School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 244	Posted - 2013.06.24 18:54:00 - [41] - Quote Onomerous wrote: stup idity wrote: Onomerous wrote: A cloaky loki with 200k+ buffer tank? I need to see this fit please. [fit posted] nice fit... weak on DPS but I guess if this is your scouting guy. Wouldn't fly that as a normal line member though. Very interesting. So, you have to sacrifice DPS/etc to achieve a crazy tank. That sounds like it is working as intended to me.
Onomerous Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 153	Posted - 2013.06.24 19:05:00 - [42] - Quote Meytal wrote: Onomerous wrote: stup idity wrote: Onomerous wrote: A cloaky loki with 200k+ buffer tank? I need to see this fit please. [fit posted] nice fit... weak on DPS but I guess if this is your scouting guy. Wouldn't fly that as a normal line member though. Very interesting. So, you have to sacrifice DPS/etc to achieve a crazy tank. That sounds like it is working as intended to me. Well, yes. I agree 100%. That's the thing with just about any ship (T3 especially)... you can do lots of things with them but there is a trade-off. The fit is not something I would fly but I guess it is possible to get >200k tank on a cloaky loki. No offensive intended to anyone but that seems like an EFT warrior fit to me. Just my opinion.
stup idity 24	Posted - 2013.06.24 19:30:00 - [43] - Quote Onomerous wrote: Meytal wrote: Onomerous wrote: stup idity wrote: Onomerous wrote: A cloaky loki with 200k+ buffer tank? I need to see this fit please. [fit posted] nice fit... weak on DPS but I guess if this is your scouting guy. Wouldn't fly that as a normal line member though. Very interesting. So, you have to sacrifice DPS/etc to achieve a crazy tank. That sounds like it is working as intended to me. Well, yes. I agree 100%. That's the thing with just about any ship (T3 especially)... you can do lots of things with them but there is a trade-off. The fit is not something I would fly but I guess it is possible to get >200k tank on a cloaky loki. No offensive intended to anyone but that seems like an EFT warrior fit to me. Just my opinion. just thrown together in a couple of minutes to see if it's possible. I doubt anybody would actually fly something like this. Either: cloaky + damage for the whole fleet (should still have 100k+ ehp) or: heavy tank + probes + tackle, no real need for dps and rest of fleet on standby. I reign supreme.
M1k3y Koontz Thorn Project Surely You're Joking 128	Posted - 2013.07.10 02:15:00 - [44] - Quote stup idity wrote: Onomerous wrote: Elepherious wrote: The TIII Ships should be like a utility tool, While it can accomplish many goals in a single tool it does none of them particularly well. Wherein, you can use a multitool to unscrew something, but the better designed screw driver gets the job done quicker and more efficiently. or you can use a multitool to open a can, but the can opener does it better. Same premiss, it should fit multiple roles, but not do them as well as the actual TII variants designed for the role. You should be able to fit a HAC like fitting, but it shouldn't be as powerful as an actual HAC. Or can fit a booster fitting, but not as effectively as a booster. ... Also I have a cloaky Prot with 276 EHP tank... It happens. A cloaky loki with 200k+ buffer tank? I need to see this fit please. this one has >200k ehp with passive boost, no implants, all 5: [Loki, covops] Loki Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Loki Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Loki Electronics - Immobility Drivers Loki Engineering - Power Core Multiplier Loki Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst Covert Ops Cloaking Device II 5x Dual 180mm AutoCannon II (Hail M) 2x Stasis Webifier II Faint Warp Disruptor I Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I 2x 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II 2x Centum C-Type Energized Explosive Membrane Centum C-Type Energized Kinetic Membrane Centum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 2x Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Any good Cloaky Loki is shield tanked. There are some good armor fits, but for solo PVP in a Cloki a good pilot shield tanks. Also, to achieve that 200k EHP, you had to sacrifice almost all of your DPS. Working as intended. Elepherious wrote: The TIII Ships should be like a utility tool, While it can accomplish many goals in a single tool it does none of them particularly well. Wherein, you can use a multitool to unscrew something, but the better designed screw driver gets the job done quicker and more efficiently. or you can use a multitool to open a can, but the can opener does it better. Same premiss, it should fit multiple roles, but not do them as well as the actual TII variants designed for the role. You should be able to fit a HAC like fitting, but it shouldn't be as powerful as an actual HAC. Or can fit a booster fitting, but not as effectively as a booster. ... Also I have a cloaky Prot with 276 EHP tank... It happens. Proteus has a ridiculous tank, Loki has (compared to other T3s) a terrible tank. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Joan Greywind Temnava Legion No Holes Barred 46	Posted - 2013.07.10 07:08:00 - [45] - Quote From a developer's perspective, when a ship, or class of ships become the go to choice for any real fight, they are considered overpowered. (I am here talking about t3's in general and not just clockies). T3's aren't horribly unbalanced but they are by far the most used ships in any serious capacity in WH space, hence the call for "nerfing". This is actually a valid point and a good reason to "rebalance t3". For me personally this change will hurt a lot (as I use t3 almost exclusively, other than logi of course), but t3 needs to stop being the all dominating force in WH's so we can get diversification in serious fleet comps and maybe some more useful doctrines, other than bring 2 bhaalgorns, 2 ecm tengues and the rest proteus and legions (not exactly but fleet doctrines are all centered around t3's in WH). I understand that their mass is the crucial factor here, nevertheless in EVE there shouldn't be a ship class or type that is that dominant in any kind of space. Hopefully they won't make the ships ****** enough that we won't be able to use them anymore (Fozzie is actually good at "rebalancing"). Just one last thing, please note the word "serious fights", please don't link the kill mails where you killed retrievers with your vexor.
Chitsa Jason Infinity Explorers Exhale. 596	Posted - 2013.07.10 10:42:00 - [46] - Quote 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. CSM8 Member Twitter:-á@ChitsaJason Skype: Casparas
Nathan Jameson Grumpy Bastards Mass Overload 1400	Posted - 2013.07.10 11:08:00 - [47] - 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. I disagree. It's not actually that hard to decloak and point a cloaky nulli t3 if you have ceptor pilots who know what they're doing. The intercalated subsystem on the other hand...that one is bank. http://www.wormholes.info
Winthorp Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition. 149	Posted - 2013.07.10 11:17:00 - [48] - Quote I hope i don't one day regret training every race T3 subs to V.
Rek Seven Probe Patrol 774	Posted - 2013.07.10 11:24:00 - [49] - Quote Nathan Jameson wrote: 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. I disagree. It's not actually that hard to decloak and point a cloaky nulli t3 if you have ceptor pilots who know what they're doing. The intercalated subsystem on the other hand...that one is bank. It's more of a problem in Nul sec i think, because you spawn 15km away from a gate making it harder for an interceptor to catch you. What now?
Jack Miton Semper Ubi Sub Ubi 2129	Posted - 2013.07.10 14:01:00 - [50] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Nathan Jameson wrote: 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. I disagree. It's not actually that hard to decloak and point a cloaky nulli t3 if you have ceptor pilots who know what they're doing. A simple fix would be to increase the align time. nah, the fix is to make the nullifier the same type of sub as the covops one. can have one or other, not both
Rek Seven Probe Patrol 774	Posted - 2013.07.10 14:10:00 - [51] - Quote Why? It's very valuable to get cloaky eyes on a POS or enemy fleet without being dragged into a bubble. I'm open minded though... If CCP made it like you suggested then they would have to give some additional benefit to using the nullifyer or it would end up being unused like 70% of the existing subsystem. What do you think the current problem is? What now?
M1k3y Koontz Thorn Project Surely You're Joking 128	Posted - 2013.07.10 14:25:00 - [52] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: Rek Seven wrote: Nathan Jameson wrote: 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. I disagree. It's not actually that hard to decloak and point a cloaky nulli t3 if you have ceptor pilots who know what they're doing. A simple fix would be to increase the align time. nah, the fix is to make the nullifier the same type of sub as the covops one. can have one or other, not both Then nobody would use the Nullifier, since what good is being able to escape bubbles if you end up getting pointed by the interceptor instead? I disagree about the Nullifer being OP, the only people complaining are the people who gatecamp systems like M-O where they see Cloaky/Nulli T3s escape their ridiculous swath of bubbles. They aren't breaking the game in any way, and a reasonably well balanced. Some minor rebalancing may be acceptable, but that depends on what the changes are. The Nullifer costs the pilot a low slot, which hurts the tank (or DPS) on a Proteus, and hurts the DPS of a Loki (lets face it, nobody flies cloaky Tengus/Legions. Honestly I think making the Cloaky Legion/Tengu is more relevant that nerfing the Nullifier subsystem). How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Derath Ellecon Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal 1512	Posted - 2013.07.10 14:33:00 - [53] - 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.
Meytal School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 250	Posted - 2013.07.10 19:56:00 - [54] - Quote The nullified subsystem also isn't considered essential for a cloaky ship. Many people I know choose a non-nullified sub specifically because of that extra low slot; that's quite a bit of extra tank for your heavy tackle. I could see a tiny adjustment to align time for the nullified sub being made, slightly more for Tengu than others, but beyond that it's not overpowered. Two or three people should not be able to successfully blockade a system. THAT is overpowered.
Silas Shaw Coffee Hub 42	Posted - 2013.07.10 22:12:00 - [55] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: cloaky T3s might be OP because they can be cloaky and have both higher dps and tank than a HAC... Hopefully T3s will get rebalanced only after HACs and CSs are done. Until then it seems pointless and silly to me. Anyone remember the old Phantasm? It was trash because it got "fixed" and then the other ships that it got compared to got rebuilt. If they "fix" t3s and then rebuild t2, we're going to have a whole class of phantasms on our hands. no one wants that.
Jack Miton Semper Ubi Sub Ubi 2134	Posted - 2013.07.10 22:32:00 - [56] - Quote 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.
Derath Ellecon Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal 1513	Posted - 2013.07.10 22:53:00 - [57] - 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
Jack Miton Semper Ubi Sub Ubi 2134	Posted - 2013.07.10 22:57:00 - [58] - Quote Derath Ellecon wrote: 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 well sure you could do that i guess. hell, I'll up it to a brawling T1 BC.
Kira Hhallas Very Drunken Eve Flying Instructors Brotherhood Of Silent Space 165	Posted - 2013.07.11 11:29:00 - [59] - Quote 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 Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare - Irren ist menschlich, doch im Irrtum zu verharren ist ein Zeichen von Dummheit.
Derath Ellecon Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal 1514	Posted - 2013.07.11 11:36:00 - [60] - 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.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.