| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Maurice deSaxe
Nightmare Logistics
Novus Dominatum
1
   |
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
Run people out of wh space and buff 0.0? If ccp nerfs the T3 what reason would there be to inhabit wh's and do any production there? Not raging here but if ccp nerfs T3's I will most likely quit eve all of my characters sp are focused around wh's and I am not looking to retrain for other roles because I am forced into it.
I want to cross train when I feel like it. I don't care how much in the future it is I do not feel these changes are needed.
One because it just gives more power to the 0.0 power blocks
Two it effectively ruins a whole group of people's play style.
The sp and isk investment and the specialized role these ships fit justify the current state of the ships.
If you want to buff t2 then fine do so but don't nerf T3 based on trying to fix t2s. It is after all a T3 by this logic I want to see t2 nerfed to be more in line with t1 this goes for everything from the hull to ammo and guns and tank.
|
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
542
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Even if everything that drops in a wormhole and must be sold to players would become worthless tomorrow, we'd still have the blue books. Income would still be very good in c5-6 and decent in c3-4. c2s are worthless even now, so the newbies ratting in c1s for the ribbons would be the only ones who would get a really hard nerf.
I'm not in favor of a hard nerf to T3s either, but anyone who would leave w-space because their income gets nerfed, is in w-space for the wrong reason.
And if they do nerf T3s so hard that other ships will be better than them... we could just fly those ships instead! 
. |
Bamsey Amraa
Unseen Nomads
Exiled Ones
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
Its simply.
If CCP broke my game and fun in WH i just go to play another game.
End story. |
Winthorp
Van Diemen's Demise
Northern Coalition.
168
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
Try to keep the six T3 nerf threads to one, bad enough they wont read one let alone the six going. |
Nix Anteris
Bite Me inc
Bitten.
105
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 11:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
Maurice deSaxe wrote:what reason would there be to inhabit wh's and do any production there?
Does not compute. Smart people do not do any kind of production in w-space.
All that will happen with a T3 nerf, is that PvP will become more varied and interesting. You do PvP right? Since you're w-space focused.... |
Archdaimon
NorCorp Enterprise
No Holes Barred
209
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 11:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war.
Even though there is no war.
Nor are we sure there is going to be one.
Actually we're not sure there any hostiles.
At all.
But lets rant about it any way!
Wormholes have the best accoustics. It's known.
- Sing it for me - |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years
Shinjiketo
3181
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 11:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Nix Anteris wrote:
All that will happen with a T3 nerf, is that PvP will become more varied and interesting.
Someone who gets it <3
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Warlord Shat
Bite Me inc
Bitten.
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
I find it odd that people complain that the Armour T3 Blob is unbeatable, but freak out when they talk about nerfing t3s |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
Warlord Shat wrote:I find it odd that people complain that the Armour T3 Blob is unbeatable, but freak out when they talk about nerfing t3s
You can readily blame the use of 1600mm battleship plates on cruisers, but that affects all cruisers (standard equipment)
|
Warlord Shat
Bite Me inc
Bitten.
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Warlord Shat wrote:I find it odd that people complain that the Armour T3 Blob is unbeatable, but freak out when they talk about nerfing t3s You can readily blame the use of 1600mm battleship plates on cruisers, but that affects all cruisers (standard equipment)
The plates are a none issue, They have a very high fitting requirement which means if you want to fit more than 1 you have no DPS
If they make t3 worse than t2s ( which is where they are supposed to be ) but better than t1 and make them able to do everything that a t2 can do just a little less well, There will be a lot more variant in WH PVP While still seeing T3s (if they make it so you can refit subsystems, if they don't do that it will kill all t3 use in WH's) because they have a lot of utility in one ship
Of course we will find the new meta that works for WH space, but it will likely be alot easier to counter than the current meta |
Kuning
Obstergo
Bitten.
54
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Nix Anteris wrote:Maurice deSaxe wrote:what reason would there be to inhabit wh's and do any production there? Does not compute. Smart people do not do any kind of production in w-space. All that will happen with a T3 nerf, is that PvP will become more varied and interesting. You do PvP right? Since you're w-space focused....
http://eve-kill.net/?a=corp_detail&crp_id=111222 |
Godfrey Silvarna
Frozen Dawn Inc
Arctic Light
83
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
I don't think it is likely that a t3 nerf would be catastrophically dramatic.
Probably won't change my life one bit. |
Ronix Aideron
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
102
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 14:33:00 -
[13] - Quote
Change is constant.
I am new to w-space and even if the T3's make life there unlivable (a huge assumption based on current re-balancing to date). I am would just change my game play to find the fun areas. I find it interesting the amount of non-fact raging that goes on in w-space forums from the supposed group of EvE players that are 'l33t'.
Start the day off slow and taper off from there.
http://eveboard.com/pilot/Ronix_Aideron |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
249
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 14:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
Warlord Shat wrote:I find it odd that people complain that the Armour T3 Blob is unbeatable, but freak out when they talk about nerfing t3s
You will find there are 2 different groups there: Some people (and corp/alliances) spend all day QQ about blobs but they are not the people complaining about T3 nerfs.
Some people see a wider effect to WH than just nerfing T3 so they are concerned about the TOTAL effect of a T3 nerf, not just the PvP aspect. Hell, I much prefer BC and cruisers so a change which ONLY affects T3 to get people to use those would be awesome... unfortunately, NO change in EVE is a simple change which doesn't have far reaching effects. |
chris elliot
EG CORP
Mass Overload
217
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Or just farm incursions to death and keep your base in WH space for roaming and wrecking things in low or nullsec. |
Maurice deSaxe
Nightmare Logistics
Novus Dominatum
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:38:00 -
[16] - Quote
Winthorp wrote:Try to keep the six T3 nerf threads to one, bad enough they wont read one let alone the six going.
This is true, But my question still stands. Is CCP trying to push WH players out of WH space with this T3 nerf?
Are they also trying to buff 0.0 space by doing this?
I think the nerf to T3 is a lot less about fair pvp ship balancing and a lot more about trying to get more people into 0.0 space.
And in what world would a Tier 2 be better then Tier 3?
tier from the medieval French tire meaning rank by definition
A row or level of a structure
a row, rank, or layer of articles; especially : one of two or more rows, levels, or ranks arranged one above another
So how or why would a more expensive ship that you lose 4-5 days of training time in be less powerful then a cheaper Tier 2 with no risk to fly?
If this nerf happens and it will due to all the low sec 0.0 whiners, it will have to be a major revamp.
Somethings I think would have to go hand in hand
One lower sp requirement for subsystems and an sp reimbursement to compensate for the new lower requirements.
Also a HUGE Indy / Manufacturing change for T3 production, going from EVE-mon on a character with zero skills it will take 12 days training total to be able to manufacture every HAC in the game from a BPC.
It would take 208 days of training to be able to manufacture every T3 with there respected sub systems.
So again you would have to see a lower requirements on this end as well, along with an SP reimbursement to the indy players who produce T3's. Or a higher requirement to manufacture T2 hulls, as well as make people train for it,
The whole if you could use it before you can use it now would have to go out the window for this change as well.
Everything is in line IMO with the current state of 3 being higher then 2. It takes more requirements to build and fly and is more risky.
You lose 4-5 days of training everytime you lose a T3 so this needs to be removed from game or a similar penalty added to the T2 hulls when you lose one 4-5 days of retraining of a skill.
Everything from manufacturing to the risk of flying to T3 with SP loss
To the price of the ship (hull + subsystems) says that these should be better then a Tier 2
This is bigger then just bringing them into balance as people like to say they would have to make the changes listed above also. |
Nix Anteris
Bite Me inc
Bitten.
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:01:00 -
[17] - Quote
Onomerous wrote:they are concerned about the TOTAL effect of a T3 nerf, not just the PvP aspect.
Rapiers are totally viable in escalations. |
Ryuce
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:23:00 -
[18] - Quote
While the OP appears to have no clue about the goals for tech 3 when the concept was introduced,* he might also be refering to the general marked and income implications by a tech 3 nerf, which might decrease demand to an amount where WH income is below 0.0.
*they were infact designed to be exactly what the dev's now seem to plan to "nerf" them to: Jack of all trades, master of non, as opposed to tech 2. |
Maurice deSaxe
Nightmare Logistics
Novus Dominatum
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 23:41:00 -
[19] - Quote
Ryuce wrote:While the OP appears to have no clue about the goals for tech 3 when the concept was introduced,* he might also be refering to the general marked and income implications by a tech 3 nerf, which might decrease demand to an amount where WH income is below 0.0.
*they were infact designed to be exactly what the dev's now seem to plan to "nerf" them to: Jack of all trades, master of non, as opposed to tech 2.
It's a little late for that isn't it. They should have implemented it correctly the first time around.
When you look at the requirements to manufacture and fly these ships there is a lot more required here then almost anything else.
I can have the skills to manufacture every titan in the game in 100 days this also includes just about if not all caps as well.
Time to train to manufacture all T3 hulls with Subsystems ? over 200 days of training.
Any nerf to T3's will most certainly decrease demand of these ships. Not only will this lower WH income to below that of 0.0 it will in fact buff the income of 0.0 with increased demand for T2 hulls.
You say I have no clue about the goals for tech 3, you seem to have no clue on how big of an impact nerfing T3's to be less then a HAC has on everyone. It's not only a PVP nerf its also a nerf to Incursions , Hisec Mission runners, Wh life, Indy characters who have spend well over a year training to manufacture these ships with sub systems.
Alliances and corps who have set up pos in WH and brought caps in for C6 sites.
While some people will stay In C6 whs you will see droves of people leaving WH's. The result won't be an increase to people out in 0.0 It will be a loss of player base. Not everyone will unsub but I feel a fair amount will.
This isn't a post on nerf rage quitting I have stated many times how and why this is such a huge nerf.
Stop picking at parts of my argument and address it as a whole or do not bother responding.
If the WH players do not speak up then this nerf will hit hard It is only by pointing out the glaring issues with such a nerf that there might be some hope in Salvaging this train wreck of an Idea. Most of these DEVs have tunnel vision and tend to look at what ever part of the game appeals to them the most.
That is why after over 8 years of EVE we are dealing with Balance issues month after month.
Instead of adding tons of new content every "expansion" we get changes and rebalancing to current **** alreasy in the game.
It will be a never ending Cycle until they learn how to even things out properly.
|
Winthorp
Van Diemen's Demise
Northern Coalition.
171
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 00:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Maurice deSaxe wrote:Winthorp wrote:Try to keep the six T3 nerf threads to one, bad enough they wont read one let alone the six going. This is true, But my question still stands. Is CCP trying to push WH players out of WH space with this T3 nerf? Are they also trying to buff 0.0 space by doing this? I think the nerf to T3 is a lot less about fair pvp ship balancing and a lot more about trying to get more people into 0.0 space.
I think you are a touched unhinged to think that they will do a whole set of ship challenges to kill off one element of their game in the hope it would push other people to play another part of their game. It is more likely they don't know the full impact of changes they will make until they actually dedicate the dev time to even sit down and look at the issue, even then they won't realise the WH implications until the CSM tells them that's how little they think of Wh's.
T3 rebalancing will happen, the amount of no don't nerf them threads you guys want to make won't stop that. They have gone through all the lower tier classes of ships and T3's is on the to do list, maybe you all should be putting out actual ideas you would like to see happen with the new T3's instead of what you don't want to happen. Come up with roles, strengths that you would like T3's to have, what subsytsems you would like.
Or you could just make another don't nerf T3 thread that they won't bother to read...  |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2188
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 02:52:00 -
[21] - Quote
the issue with T3s is that T2s, especially HACs, are junk almost across the board.
T2 hulls have been around for so long that the current state of T1 ships just trumps them in almost all situations and T3s look OP as a comparison result.
unfortunately no one at CCP seems to get this and they have decided to not fix HACs so good bye T3s i guess... |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project
Surely You're Joking
183
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 13:23:00 -
[22] - Quote
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:I don't think it is likely that a t3 nerf would be catastrophically dramatic.
Probably won't change my life one bit.
Then you don't PVP in C5/C6 WHs.
And if you do, you're doing it wrong.
Ryuce wrote:While the OP appears to have no clue about the goals for tech 3 when the concept was introduced,* he might also be refering to the general marked and income implications by a tech 3 nerf, which might decrease demand to an amount where WH income is below 0.0.
*they were infact designed to be exactly what the dev's now seem to plan to "nerf" them to: Jack of all trades, master of non, as opposed to tech 2.
So what exactly do T3s do better than T2s?
Recons? Nope.
Logistics? Nope.
Boosting? Yes, but that can be fixed by a single nerf to the boosting subsystem, and a buff to Command Ships.
HACs don't have a role, and they suck so bad at whatever it is they are supposed to do that they are worse than T1 cruisers. If they nerf T3s to the point of HACs T3s will be the single worst ship class in the game. Worse than Electronic Attack Frigates, and that is a whole new level of bad.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Polarized.
909
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 14:21:00 -
[23] - Quote
Ryuce wrote:While the OP appears to have no clue about the goals for tech 3 when the concept was introduced,* he might also be refering to the general marked and income implications by a tech 3 nerf, which might decrease demand to an amount where WH income is below 0.0.
*they were infact designed to be exactly what the dev's now seem to plan to "nerf" them to: Jack of all trades, master of non, as opposed to tech 2.
Could you please provide some links that explain exactly how T3's were "supposed to be"?
Unless someone hacked the games and changed T3 without CCPs knowledge, The current performance of T3 is exactly how they were supposed to be.
Putting work in since 2010. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
81
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 15:34:00 -
[24] - Quote
Maurice deSaxe wrote:Run people out of wh space and buff 0.0? If ccp nerfs the T3 what reason would there be to inhabit wh's and do any production there? Not raging here but if ccp nerfs T3's I will most likely quit eve all of my characters sp are focused around wh's and I am not looking to retrain for other roles because I am forced into it.
I want to cross train when I feel like it. I don't care how much in the future it is I do not feel these changes are needed.
One because it just gives more power to the 0.0 power blocks
Two it effectively ruins a whole group of people's play style.
The sp and isk investment and the specialized role these ships fit justify the current state of the ships.
If you want to buff t2 then fine do so but don't nerf T3 based on trying to fix t2s. It is after all a T3 by this logic I want to see t2 nerfed to be more in line with t1 this goes for everything from the hull to ammo and guns and tank.
Yes. The nullsec blocs want the wormholers gone. Our t3's do not use nullsec moongoop. We cut into their profits, and you can't setup wormhole rental system like they have in low and null. You get rid of the wormholers and move them into null, they'll have to pay to rent a system (8 to 20 billion isk a month, more if you have more people) to hold for themselves.....
That's pretty much the sole reason.
In the end, its all about money. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
256
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 16:51:00 -
[25] - Quote
Nix Anteris wrote:Onomerous wrote:they are concerned about the TOTAL effect of a T3 nerf, not just the PvP aspect. Rapiers are totally viable in escalations.
Point being? I can't take my caracal in their either. Should it get a huge buff? What about ________? Escalations are not ALL of WH living. |
Deshrial Sculpin
Masters of Sorrow
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
Could someone point me to the "nerf t3" thread ? I found the hac upgrade, the medium weapon upgrade but I have not found the nerf post ?
I am just curious exactly what they are nerfing... |
James Arget
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
150
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 20:53:00 -
[27] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1889852#post1889852
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.
CSM 8 Representative
http://csm8.org |
Sorany
Hard Knocks Inc.
Kill It With Fire
72
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 21:09:00 -
[28] - Quote
James Arget wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1889852#post1889852 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.
I always like starting with "KILL THEM, KILL THEM ALL, HUNT THEM DOWN AND JUST SHOOT THEM IN THE FACE!!!!!!!!", but then follow up with "well, maybe not in the face. perhaps just shoot them in the shoulder." |
Maurice deSaxe
Nightmare Logistics
Novus Dominatum
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 06:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
James Arget wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1889852#post1889852 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.
Thank you for that was having troubles finding it.
But yeah Like I said I feel T3's are perfectly in line atm.
They take more SP to manufacture then a titan, they are more pricey then other T2 hulls and the risk of losing almosts a weeks training everytime you leave your pos bubbles.
They will have to put all 3 of those areas in line before any nerf could be justified.
You can buff hacs and command ships without nerfing T3s it's pretty ******* simple CCP.
The problem is and always will be is that EVE devs are to closely tied to null sec alliances, and if they said there has never been a nerf based on their personal issue with the game because it effects their play style I would simply call them all liars.
Try to solo a C3-C4 In a tengu that's not worth like 2 bil and see how effective it is.
You do not see hacs running around with those pricey ass fits, and if you did maybe they wouldn't suck so bad.
Yeah Learn to fit hacs people. |
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
Anomalous Existence
127
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 01:04:00 -
[30] - Quote
The thing with T3s is everyone compares DPS T3s to HACs, where the DPS T3 gives you oh, 2x the tank and 1.25-1.5x the DPS for a 2x-4x price increase. Can we all agree that HACs are bad and need help? (Which the tiericide effort has started on, but we'll have to see on SiSi....)
HIC? No T3 equivalent whatsoever. HICtors are the one truly unique T2 ship class, even, but I digress.
Force Recon? Cloaky T3s are kind of orthogonal to this, save for cloaky neuting Legions overlapping with the Pilgrim. (in general, most cloaky T3s are either pure-tank brick tacklers or gank-and-tank hunter-killer scouts without EW, instead of the EW/tacklewar bearing scouts that characterize Force Recons)
Combat Recon? 3x the tank but *less* capability (less range/strength) otherwise for roughly 1.5-2x the price save for neut Legions, which make the armor Curse look like a joke in comparison some of the time due to the sheer GJ/s advantage of the neut Legion.
Logi? T3 RR subsystem is only good for spider tanking Tengus and the occasional shield Loki, or if you need the high slot for other reasons.
So: buff HACs to where they ought to be (I'd give them something of a 'baked in' speed/agility edge over T3s, and probably shave a bit of sig off too) and T3s will be fine, more or less. Also: can someone find a better reactor core for the Curse? Trying to get a plate of any flavor + 5 medium neuts on it is not happening, and that renders it unable to compete with other neuting cruisers on a GJ/s basis, which is what counts when you've got a capital to drain dry or a spider-tanking Tengu-ball to bust up. (Unless you're in a shield fleet. ;) |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |