EVE Search - Tier 3 BCs Nerfed to **** pre-release

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tier 3 BCs Nerfed to **** pre-release

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DarkAegix Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 216	Posted - 2011.11.04 01:05:00 - [31] - Quote Naga? Split weapon bonus trolololo. Ranking: 2/10 Oracle? Crappy cap bonus which is already a role bonus. HAH. However, S C O R C H. 5/10 Talos? LOL NO WEB BONUS. LOL NO DRONEBAY. Expect 5% more DPS than the Tornado with 10% of the range. 4/10 Tornado? Hey, look it's Minmatar. MAKE IT THE GREAT OF ALL THE SHIPS. MINMATAR IS WINMATAR. RABBLE RABBLE. 9/10 Yes, I'm mad.
Calapine Xeno Tech Corp Flatline. 80	Posted - 2011.11.04 01:13:00 - [32] - Quote Poor Talos! grumbles The tank nerf doesn't suprise me at all, but dropping the web bonus is harsh. Here is an idea for CCP: Drop the MWD bonus on the Thorax and give it the 90% webs... oh well, one can wish...
dream3874 Hard Knocks Inc. 1	Posted - 2011.11.04 01:48:00 - [33] - Quote Folks its still to early to say for SURE what the stats on these ships are. I hope to God thise is not true though. I was really looking forward to the Talos and Oracle. Instead of nerfing these why not just make the requirements to fly them longer.
Skarned Inroads 10	Posted - 2011.11.04 02:04:00 - [34] - Quote Dark Pangolin wrote: DrDan21 wrote: Dark Pangolin wrote: "Still, nerfing these ships was the right thing to do. As I've said already, they were too scary in their initial form. " Forgot to include that part in the quote. We'll see when they actually get released. I do agree though that all the renderings and models indicate that 3rd Tier BCs are intended to only field 4 guns...and it looks like 4 of the "smaller" Large guns... Dark, The quote was meant to be informative without opinions included As for the four guns...I feel that if actually implemented will just ruin these ships. Dan I did not mean my reply as a jab though now that I re-read it it comes off that way...sorry :) I tend to agree with you on the 4 guns thing...but look at the renderings...look at the hard points http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2791/3035/amarrbattlecruiser_wip.jpg http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2768/3014/Gallente_ship02.jpg http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2765/3001/Minmatar_01.jpg Just visually it looks like the Amarr one has 4 guns...the Gal 5 guns...and the Tornado 8?...I just don't see the hard-points on that last one. This could all change I'm sure in 2-3 months...but the renderings for sure on the Oracle look like it has 4 darn Dual Mega Pulses... :) If they are 4 gun platforms lets hope they get a nice bonus... I could be wrong here but I think my other ships have more than 1 side to them. Wait.. hold on.. let me check my Mega. Still not sure. Kind of looks like it has two sides to it though. Can anyone clarify pls. Halp.
Templar Dane Amarrian Retribution 3	Posted - 2011.11.04 03:27:00 - [35] - Quote God damn you ******* post eating forum. Ugh, the short of it........ Make them all gunboats, with huge damage bonuses and the tracking of sieged-dreads, or worse. 2000 dps or so. Real squishy, vulnerable to frigates and battleships with longrange guns. They'd need help hitting subcaps, lots of help. It would encourage mixed fleets, unless it's arty maels..... Meh, orignally it was a long post describing the awesomesauce that could be.
Chronasis The Elysian Horde Elysian Empire 0	Posted - 2011.11.04 03:35:00 - [36] - Quote Dark Pangolin wrote: DrDan21 wrote: Dark Pangolin wrote: "Still, nerfing these ships was the right thing to do. As I've said already, they were too scary in their initial form. " Forgot to include that part in the quote. We'll see when they actually get released. I do agree though that all the renderings and models indicate that 3rd Tier BCs are intended to only field 4 guns...and it looks like 4 of the "smaller" Large guns... Dark, The quote was meant to be informative without opinions included As for the four guns...I feel that if actually implemented will just ruin these ships. Dan I did not mean my reply as a jab though now that I re-read it it comes off that way...sorry :) I tend to agree with you on the 4 guns thing...but look at the renderings...look at the hard points http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2791/3035/amarrbattlecruiser_wip.jpg http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2768/3014/Gallente_ship02.jpg http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2765/3001/Minmatar_01.jpg Just visually it looks like the Amarr one has 4 guns...the Gal 5 guns...and the Tornado 8?...I just don't see the hard-points on that last one. This could all change I'm sure in 2-3 months...but the renderings for sure on the Oracle look like it has 4 darn Dual Mega Pulses... :) If they are 4 gun platforms lets hope they get a nice bonus... I can see all 8 hardpoints on both the Talos and the Tornado. But the oracle for sure only has 4. The ONLY way it could get but 4 turret slots and keep up DPS wise with the others is with a 100% damage increase per turret (makign 4 hit like 8), maybe even up to 105-110% per turret. Also in the render for the Naga, it as well has very visible 8 slots.
TrollFace TrololMcFluf Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 16	Posted - 2011.11.04 04:56:00 - [37] - Quote yay this is what the eve community has become over the years a **** ton of whiny little teatbabys that cry so much to ccp before something is even released that they nerf it everything these days is nerf nerf nerf because these incompetent wastes of flesh and bone are too fing stupid to adapt WELL DONE
Desudes Federal Defence Union Gallente Federation 10	Posted - 2011.11.04 05:11:00 - [38] - Quote Chronasis wrote: Dark Pangolin wrote: DrDan21 wrote: Dark Pangolin wrote: "Still, nerfing these ships was the right thing to do. As I've said already, they were too scary in their initial form. " Forgot to include that part in the quote. We'll see when they actually get released. I do agree though that all the renderings and models indicate that 3rd Tier BCs are intended to only field 4 guns...and it looks like 4 of the "smaller" Large guns... Dark, The quote was meant to be informative without opinions included As for the four guns...I feel that if actually implemented will just ruin these ships. Dan I did not mean my reply as a jab though now that I re-read it it comes off that way...sorry :) I tend to agree with you on the 4 guns thing...but look at the renderings...look at the hard points http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2791/3035/amarrbattlecruiser_wip.jpg http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2768/3014/Gallente_ship02.jpg http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2765/3001/Minmatar_01.jpg Just visually it looks like the Amarr one has 4 guns...the Gal 5 guns...and the Tornado 8?...I just don't see the hard-points on that last one. This could all change I'm sure in 2-3 months...but the renderings for sure on the Oracle look like it has 4 darn Dual Mega Pulses... :) If they are 4 gun platforms lets hope they get a nice bonus... I can see all 8 hardpoints on both the Talos (2 forward on either side of the hull in the circular area's, 2 mid way back down hull before the wings, 2 round areas on outer edge upper part of each wing, and 1 in top rear), and the Tornado (the tornado pic from the contest even shows where the 8 turrets are located). But the oracle for sure only has 4 in the renders. The ONLY way it could get but 4 turret slots and keep up DPS wise with the others is with a 100% damage increase per turret (makign 4 hit like 8), maybe even up to 105-110% per turret. Also in the render for the Naga, it has 8 very visible turret hardpoints on each side. 4 upper, 4 lower. Who gives a ***? copy/pasta some more hardpoints on the bloody models. Excuse me, but what the fck are you desu?
Dark Pangolin Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse 16	Posted - 2011.11.04 14:06:00 - [39] - Quote http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2816/3059/Caldari_Tier3_Battlecruiser.jpg The Naga Clearly shows 8 Guns on the rendering so there goes all that theory crafting. I'm going to say it one more time...We'll see it when it hits Tranquility. -DP P.S. I actually like the look of the Naga.
Dark Pangolin Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse 16	Posted - 2011.11.04 14:15:00 - [40] - Quote Desudes wrote: Chronasis wrote: Dark Pangolin wrote: DrDan21 wrote: Dark Pangolin wrote: "Still, nerfing these ships was the right thing to do. As I've said already, they were too scary in their initial form. " Forgot to include that part in the quote. We'll see when they actually get released. I do agree though that all the renderings and models indicate that 3rd Tier BCs are intended to only field 4 guns...and it looks like 4 of the "smaller" Large guns... Dark, The quote was meant to be informative without opinions included As for the four guns...I feel that if actually implemented will just ruin these ships. Dan I did not mean my reply as a jab though now that I re-read it it comes off that way...sorry :) I tend to agree with you on the 4 guns thing...but look at the renderings...look at the hard points http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2791/3035/amarrbattlecruiser_wip.jpg http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2768/3014/Gallente_ship02.jpg http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/2765/3001/Minmatar_01.jpg Just visually it looks like the Amarr one has 4 guns...the Gal 5 guns...and the Tornado 8?...I just don't see the hard-points on that last one. This could all change I'm sure in 2-3 months...but the renderings for sure on the Oracle look like it has 4 darn Dual Mega Pulses... :) If they are 4 gun platforms lets hope they get a nice bonus... I can see all 8 hardpoints on both the Talos (2 forward on either side of the hull in the circular area's, 2 mid way back down hull before the wings, 2 round areas on outer edge upper part of each wing, and 1 in top rear), and the Tornado (the tornado pic from the contest even shows where the 8 turrets are located). But the oracle for sure only has 4 in the renders. The ONLY way it could get but 4 turret slots and keep up DPS wise with the others is with a 100% damage increase per turret (makign 4 hit like 8), maybe even up to 105-110% per turret. Also in the render for the Naga, it has 8 very visible turret hardpoints on each side. 4 upper, 4 lower. Who gives a ****? copy/pasta some more hardpoints on the bloody models. PSS Ugly ships are terrible ships. Have you seen the hard points on the Ferox?!? How do you get 2 guns on that antenna under the bow?! Also the Harby... asymmetrical hard point under the nose on the left...wtf... :) I like me my symmetry/occasional asymmetry...but not on hard points :) PSSS Look at the abadons engine fire when you get a chance...one of the flames is way longer than all the others...BOTHERS THE HELL OUT OF ME!
Cyniac Twilight Star Rangers Black Thorne Alliance 31	Posted - 2011.11.04 14:23:00 - [41] - Quote Problem with these tier 3 cruisers is that their implementation does not really seem to fit their design goals. I understood that the intent in designing these BCs was to provide subcaptial fleets with a punch which could at least give pause to supercaps, so that capital fleets would at least be more vulnerable with a subcap support fleet. As a concept that sounds good. However, implementation is a bit iffy - we are getting some cheap DPS platforms yes, but which fit more the bill of "supergankers" than anything else. Why not give the Tier 3 BCs XL guns - that would make them useless against just about anything that's moving and is smaller than a moon but they would at least have an opportunity to become a thorn on the side of supercaps. But then, I probably missed something in a devblog or one of the myriad of discussions going on around here
Naomi Knight Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 19	Posted - 2011.11.04 16:26:00 - [42] - Quote if they will be useless ill start flow the forums with **** until my accounts expire,join me
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1	Posted - 2011.11.04 17:02:00 - [43] - Quote Cyniac wrote: Problem with these tier 3 cruisers is that their implementation does not really seem to fit their design goals. I understood that the intent in designing these BCs was to provide subcaptial fleets with a punch which could at least give pause to supercaps, so that capital fleets would at least be more vulnerable with a subcap support fleet. As a concept that sounds good. However, implementation is a bit iffy - we are getting some cheap DPS platforms yes, but which fit more the bill of "supergankers" than anything else. Why not give the Tier 3 BCs XL guns - that would make them useless against just about anything that's moving and is smaller than a moon but they would at least have an opportunity to become a thorn on the side of supercaps. But then, I probably missed something in a devblog or one of the myriad of discussions going on around here if indeed the primary design goal was to fight caps then i have a very hard time understanding why any of them had tracking bonuses in the first place.
cyka776 7	Posted - 2011.11.04 17:19:00 - [44] - Quote im raging about these possible changes that completely ruin a playstyle that i had briefly considered adopting in some vague future scenario
Gecko O'Bac Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 2	Posted - 2011.11.04 17:27:00 - [45] - Quote Dark Pangolin wrote: "Still, nerfing these ships was the right thing to do. As I've said already, they were too scary in their initial form. " Forgot to include that part in the quote. We'll see when they actually get released. I do agree though that all the renderings and models indicate that 3rd Tier BCs are intended to only field 4 guns...and it looks like 4 of the "smaller" Large guns... Sisi models say you're wrong.
Cunane Jeran 29	Posted - 2011.11.04 17:27:00 - [46] - Quote I was just flying the Talos on Sisi. Its pretty darn strong in both PvE and PvP, and as it stands I'd say its pretty darn close to being balanced. PvP In all honesty added a web bonus to it would make it OP as hell, the tracking is godly and using neutrons the range is pretty darn good, its pretty much impossible to kite and a normal web was more than enough to shred whatever I was fighting in it. PvE wise, the lack of dronebay is what is keeping it in line, 8x 350mm and you can kill elite frigs at 30km but its a struggle and you have to watch your speed.
Omnium Domitor Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2011.11.04 19:22:00 - [47] - Quote Naga: I know it's still WIP, but the removal of explosion velocity/radius bonus on torps is a big letdown. Why do we even want large hybrid optimal ranged bonus on Naga, when Rokh already has that and nobody uses it? Either focus on being a complete missile boat or hybrid turret boat, not a poor mixture of both.
Zachis TBC 0	Posted - 2011.11.04 20:25:00 - [48] - Quote The split bonuses are silly. So is the fact that both Gallente and Caldari share hybrid weapons as a primary weapon system. Make the Gallente the Hybrid race (blasters and rails) and Caldari the Missile race. Bonus the ships accordingly.
Dark Pangolin Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse 16	Posted - 2011.11.04 20:36:00 - [49] - Quote Gecko O'Bac wrote: Dark Pangolin wrote: "Still, nerfing these ships was the right thing to do. As I've said already, they were too scary in their initial form. " Forgot to include that part in the quote. We'll see when they actually get released. I do agree though that all the renderings and models indicate that 3rd Tier BCs are intended to only field 4 guns...and it looks like 4 of the "smaller" Large guns... Sisi models say you're wrong. SiSi models were not out when i wrote that post and if you keep reading you'll see I already called shenanigans when the Naga model was released :)...Read the whole thread people ALL OF IT! I DEMAND IT! :) Can't wait to get home and play on SiSi...Laz0r Naga here I come!
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home 3	Posted - 2011.11.04 21:21:00 - [50] - Quote Zachis wrote: The split bonuses are silly. So is the fact that both Gallente and Caldari share hybrid weapons as a primary weapon system. Make the Gallente the Hybrid race (blasters and rails) and Caldari the Missile race. Bonus the ships accordingly. ..that should have been done long ago.
Naomi Knight Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 21	Posted - 2011.11.05 22:49:00 - [51] - Quote Knoppaz wrote: Zachis wrote: The split bonuses are silly. So is the fact that both Gallente and Caldari share hybrid weapons as a primary weapon system. Make the Gallente the Hybrid race (blasters and rails) and Caldari the Missile race. Bonus the ships accordingly. ..that should have been done long ago. no
Nimrod Nemesis Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 41	Posted - 2011.11.05 22:57:00 - [52] - Quote DOLFEEEN! RAAAAIL!
Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 126	Posted - 2011.11.06 00:43:00 - [53] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Duchess Starbuckington wrote: Awesome, so the Naga is going from "potentially useful but overshadowed" to "******* worthless". Seems Caldari aren't supposed to fly anything but the Falcon and Drake. Tengu. Those can be killed by Tornado. 100% granted and easy has cake.
Lairne Tekitsu Ordo Mercuia 0	Posted - 2011.11.06 01:33:00 - [54] - Quote Zachis wrote: The split bonuses are silly. So is the fact that both Gallente and Caldari share hybrid weapons as a primary weapon system. Make the Gallente the Hybrid race (blasters and rails) and Caldari the Missile race. Bonus the ships accordingly. I've always thought that the point was that Caldari get missiles and railguns and Gallente get blasters and drones. Anyway, guys, you should stop bawling about them until the ships are actually finalized. Just because something has been changed in development doesn't mean it's permanent. In Half-Life 2, the Borealis/Hyperborea went from being a ship you stopped off on in the middle of the ocean to a ship stuck in ice that you need to retrieve something from. That change wasn't kept; the ship never even made it into the final game. Similarly, these BCs can still change before they're released. After all, they're been put on the testing server; the entire point of which is to test them and see if they need to be changed. Of course, you should still point out, after flying them, if they're underpowered or not. Just don't do it by raging hard and screaming at CCP about how badly they suck before you've ever even flown them.
Noisrevbus 4	Posted - 2011.11.06 03:53:00 - [55] - Quote DarkAegix wrote: Naga? Split weapon bonus trolololo. Ranking: 2/10 Oracle? Crappy cap bonus which is already a role bonus. HAH. However, S C O R C H. 5/10 Talos? LOL NO WEB BONUS. LOL NO DRONEBAY. Expect 5% more DPS than the Tornado with 10% of the range. 4/10 Tornado? Hey look, it's Minmatar. MAKE IT THE GREATEST OF ALL THE SHIPS. MINMATAR IS WINMATAR. RABBLE RABBLE. 9/10 Yes, I'm mad. Hehe, while pretty funny, DarkAegix comment also touches something important. I ran the "leaked" data just like every other person and quickly saw that the stats were completely outrageous. Perhaps not at first look when you only take certain streamlined ships in their ideal roles and compare how they would fare against each other (insert Drake and Abaddon references). There is also an initial appeal in breathing some life into mobile-kiting tactics (roaming PvP, kiting snipers etc.) that alot of people declare alot of love for. Me included. Once you looked past the obvious and shallow though, you could see that long-term these ships, as they were, would create a stream of problems. I ran initial drafts on the Oracle which would hit with scorched pulse up to 92+X in a typical sniping fit based around old beam Zealots. The leaks put the new tier three BC very close to navy-faction cruisers in terms of base hp, resistance spread and slot allocation. So, in their element (in regard to the Oracle and Naga) they would be quite similar to old school sniping HAC in terms of a 20k ehp tank ontop of a 1700m/s speed, while hitting similar ranges. The problem appear when you realize they are doing twice the damage with double the tracking ontop of that (600dps with 0.5r in comparison to 300dps ontop of 0.2r, or thereabout). You ended up with a ship that is essentially free (or around one tenth of the price) being twice as good in that role. If you start looking at the HACs you'd completely obsolete both (the already quite underwhelming) Caldari HACs, you'd take from the Muninn the only thing it does well, you'd strip the Zealot of half it's role and so on. The same goes for the short-range oriented new ships in regard to the Sacriledge, Deimos and to some degree the Vagabond. Then you will have the ripple effects of that in ships that are not quite as good, but which some people may use as budget alternatives, as these new ships are budget alternatives in themselves; the entire Caldari line once again, as it's based around range and (range is limited), from Harpy to Ferox to Rokh, through Caracal and Raven. Similarily the Thorax, Brutix, Cane, the recently improved kiting minmatar BS and further on. Tier two BC are already a nuisance, establishing some kind of baseline and pushing other ships towards nische (yet somehow never managing to excel and dominate a true role of their own). These new ships as they were, had that specialized touch and would jab at all those ships in their specific ideals. Doing what they do, not only almost as well or even slightly better - but several times as good. The last bit how this ties in is DarkAegix comment, because when they decided to neuter this class of ships - their internal balance started shining through. Several of these ships were too strong in specific nische, but they were also very limited to that role and when you yank that entire role from them the ones who are not as strong among them quickly become meager while the one in it's element is left to dominate the entire class. That too, has also been mentioned earlier in this thread. Out of the ashes, into the fire - it ain't easy being a dev .
Richard Bong GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 10	Posted - 2011.11.06 04:21:00 - [56] - Quote A lot of fleets nowadays are based around alpha, I feel like this is a pretty awesome way to expand on that. Also supercap hunting just got a lot more fun. These ships are meant to have a certain role and play that role, not be super OMG RAEP BOATS. They aren't supposed to go toe to toe with HAC's and BS's. "... They were similar in size and cost to a battleship, but while they typically used the same large-calibre main armament as a battleship, battlecruisers sacrificed armour protection in exchange for speed..." [ASK] Me about drive by thread shitting!
ner00n Capital Ships Inc. Important Internet Spaceship League 0	Posted - 2011.11.06 11:53:00 - [57] - Quote Posted: 2011.11.06 00:43 Vimsy Vortis wrote: Duchess Starbuckington wrote: Awesome, so the Naga is going from "potentially useful but overshadowed" to "******* worthless". Seems Caldari aren't supposed to fly anything but the Falcon and Drake. Tengu. Those can be killed by Tornado. 100% granted and easy has cake. if your losing a tengu to a tornado your fitting sucks and you should quit pvp and go back to mining
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 981	Posted - 2011.11.06 14:17:00 - [58] - Quote Omnium Domitor wrote: Naga: I know it's still WIP, but the removal of explosion velocity/radius bonus on torps is a big letdown. Why do we even want large hybrid optimal ranged bonus on Naga, when Rokh already has that and nobody uses it? Either focus on being a complete missile boat or hybrid turret boat, not a poor mixture of both. A straight 10% DPS boost, a 12% PG requirement reduction and -30% cap use are changes that address some of the biggest problems with the Rokh. I think we'll probably be seeing more of them in the future. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 134	Posted - 2011.11.06 14:19:00 - [59] - Quote ner00n wrote: Posted: 2011.11.06 00:43 Vimsy Vortis wrote: Duchess Starbuckington wrote: Awesome, so the Naga is going from "potentially useful but overshadowed" to "******* worthless". Seems Caldari aren't supposed to fly anything but the Falcon and Drake. Tengu. Those can be killed by Tornado. 100% granted and easy has cake. if your losing a tengu to a tornado your fitting sucks and you should quit pvp and go back to mining Didn't said I lost it, but since you can't understand my poor level of English let me try to make it simple for you: Me: orbits Tornado at +/- 80km Me: hits F1 Me: uses 100AB MN fit and orbits the Tornado for 1450m/s Tornado: puts perfect and wrecking shots at this distance with no TP's on a 180m radius ship flying with transversal for 1450m/s Hope you can read it now (can't hope you understand thou)
Roosterton Eternal Frontier 131	Posted - 2011.11.06 14:32:00 - [60] - Quote The tornado isn't too bad, in all honesty. Can't speak for the other three, though.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,42s, ref 20250915/0804
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.