EVE Search - Balancing strategic cruisers is easy: set them to tech 1 values

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Balancing strategic cruisers is easy: set them to tech 1 values

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1879	Posted - 2014.11.05 22:09:24 - [1] - Quote Strategic cruisers can gain 5 or more skill bonuses, and can be designed to fit the specific role that their pilot wants to fit. Even if all of their base stats and slots were at tech 1 values, they would still be greater than tech 2 at some jobs merely due to their flexibility. They would also be a one-ship-for-all-jobs sort of thing, making ship management easier for long range deployment or living in W-space. The reason T3s are utterly overpowered is because they have ridiculous stat values. It has little to do with their flexibility, in fact most subsystems rarely get used if at all by people who know what they're doing. Those subsystems may be overpowered but not AS overpowered as some of the others. A strategic cruiser can have small end of cruiser signature radius, agility, and max velocity while having battlecruiser slot and weapons layout, capacitor, and hit points. This alone is way too much, but then on top of that they get higher than tech 2 resistances and weapon damage bonuses that allow their overall DPS to beat even battlecruisers. Their effective hit points go up to the upper end of battleship hit points, often beating Abaddons and Rokhs in overall EHP. If a subsystem setup will give a Tengu the slot layout and hit points of a Ferox, then it should give it the speed, agility, and sig radius of a Ferox, and the resists and weapon bonuses should not put its DPS or EHP any higher than a Ferox will get. Now don't try to tell me that this will make Tengus worthless. One is cheaper (the Ferox) and the other (the Tengu) can do everything a Ferox does but with interdiction nullification, more capacitor, and an ECM jammer bonus all in one fit. The value of the strategic cruiser is supposed to lie in its flexibility and multi-role capability. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Zmikund Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 33	Posted - 2014.11.05 23:13:34 - [2] - Quote ... and here we have another great idea of how to make even bigger gap between loki and other 3 tech3 cruisers ...
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1879	Posted - 2014.11.05 23:14:40 - [3] - Quote Please explain. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Zmikund Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 33	Posted - 2014.11.05 23:20:31 - [4] - Quote since loki has no buffer deffensive subsystem he can tank only by resistance subs unlike other 3 who use buffer sub ... so since reducing resists per level from 5% to 4%, loki was basically only one who got actually hit by this change ... also, loki has worse slot layout tha other 3, he cant have 7 low/mid slots, so he would be in even bigger disadvantage compared to other 3 since he wont be able to fit mods to balance tank loss from removing t2 resists as other 3 could thanks to their slot layout ...
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1880	Posted - 2014.11.06 03:14:31 - [5] - Quote Actually, if what you say is true, then my proposal would diminish the gap between the Loki and the others. I think they should all have similar slot layouts relative to the hit points and sig radius they have. If the Loki has fewer slots and fewer hit points but about the same sig radius, then it won't get nerfed as hard as the others. Also, the buffer bonuses they get are too high. Those would get nerfed to be more in-line with the resist bonus. So then if you can only select resist bonus, you'll do fine with it and the buffer-bonus ships will no longer be superior because of it. It's all about balance. If one ship massively outperforms another because of a subsystem it has, that subsystem is out of balance and needs a nerf. There is no reason to think that bringing these ships in-line with other ships will bring them out of line with each other, that's absurd. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 283	Posted - 2014.11.06 04:21:03 - [6] - Quote Pretty much the only reason the loki is ever undocked is because it can fit an armour tank and Huginns cannot. That's the only reason. Otherwise it's a slow vagabond or an expensive muninn. What makes the other tech3s overpowered is the 50% HP bonus that makes plates and extenders scale way better than on other hulls, allowing them to get battleship tanks without the massive downsides BS suffer. If they took the bonus down to 25%, or made it so it only applies on hull HP and not plates/extenders, it'd be balanced. Quote: One is cheaper (the Ferox) and the other (the Tengu) can do everything a Ferox does but with interdiction nullification, more capacitor, and an ECM jammer bonus all in one fit. okay try fitting a rail tengu with the ECM bonus and see how that goes lmao if you're trying to make a case for T3s being OP it helps to know what the subsystems actually do first. You know, so you don't sound like an idiot watch me be a scurb and get owned
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1652	Posted - 2014.11.06 05:25:37 - [7] - Quote Make them like the new destroyers, and you stop having all these terrible mixes of subs that are either totally underpowered or overpowered. Of course, they aren't as flexible on paper, but since everyone uses only 2 or 3 set ups of subs anyway that doesn't really matter.
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers 102	Posted - 2014.11.07 12:41:28 - [8] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Actually, if what you say is true, then my proposal would diminish the gap between the Loki and the others. I think they should all have similar slot layouts relative to the hit points and sig radius they have. If the Loki has fewer slots and fewer hit points but about the same sig radius, then it won't get nerfed as hard as the others. Also, the buffer bonuses they get are too high. Those would get nerfed to be more in-line with the resist bonus. So then if you can only select resist bonus, you'll do fine with it and the buffer-bonus ships will no longer be superior because of it. It's all about balance. If one ship massively outperforms another because of a subsystem it has, that subsystem is out of balance and needs a nerf. There is no reason to think that bringing these ships in-line with other ships will bring them out of line with each other, that's absurd. So you decide to open discussion on T3 but you don't know stats of T3 ships... stop doing that Guys. It really is counterproductive if u propose something not out of experience, but EFT stats or in this case not even this... The idea is terrible. You clearly didn't do a research on the current use of T3. Your idea would make them useless in many aspects of the game (ie. sleeper PvE) where they are the only viable choice. You claim that they have bonuses form five subs. Yes. But except bonus form offensive and defensive subs, other bonuses are really marginal - 5% to sensor strength or lock time? Really? This justifies dropping resists to T1? ItGÇÖs like nestor - it also has a lot of bonuses but they don't give him any distinct advantage vs. other pirate BS.
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 890	Posted - 2014.11.07 12:43:27 - [9] - Quote Why would I use a T3 over a Hac or BC/CS if it does not provide any advantage over neither?
Lugh Crow-Slave 192	Posted - 2014.11.07 13:00:43 - [10] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Why would I use a T3 over a Hac or BC/CS if it does not provide any advantage over neither, costs more and makes me lose skill points when lost? because i got killed by a T3 gang and it wasn't fair

Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 890	Posted - 2014.11.07 13:12:06 - [11] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Why would I use a T3 over a Hac or BC/CS if it does not provide any advantage over neither, costs more and makes me lose skill points when lost? because i got killed by a T3 gang and it wasn't fair By the old T3. With this or similar changes, cheaper and more available ships can do the same, so why should I use the more expensive, less advantaged ship?
DaeHan Minhyok Multiplex Gaming The Bastion 28	Posted - 2014.11.07 13:51:11 - [12] - Quote T3 rebalance needs to be more than just adjusting subsystems to T1 levels, find me a T1 combat boosting ship? Or explain why a T3 fit to do logi should be so much more expensive than T1 logi cruisers and be adjusted down to their capabilities. So, obligatory, "this is a bad idea, -1 " etc. etc
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 532	Posted - 2014.11.07 16:24:23 - [13] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Why would I use a T3 over a Hac or BC/CS if it does not provide any advantage over neither, costs more and makes me lose skill points when lost? because i got killed by a T3 gang and it wasn't fair By the old T3. With this or similar changes, cheaper and more available ships can do the same, so why should I use the more expensive, less advantaged ship? because some players cba to pay for t3 to get the performance. So if you like to shell out the isk and have the means...you must suffer lol. Personally, my main quick and easy for now fix for the "hac version" of t3 (the one I will admit has some issues) is one that is not to contentious,imo, and is quite simple. Hard code no 100mn AB. This alone fixes a few issues. Coding wise it should not be hard. It be just like the magical code ccp put in place long ago to kill cruise kestrel. Play wise.....only the (ab)users of 100mn would whine. And ccp can just tune them out. they did this too....when they put nano-nerf into effect lol. Is this a bandaid fix? Yes. But one that seems to easily put in for now till ccp can give this a good look over. I like it. It kills at least half of the high speed lower sig issues "hac" t3 has. Yet keeps "hac" t3 viable. I keep saying "hac" t3 since op like others before them say nerf t3...but mean the ones used like hac's. His fix would make ecm-tengu a better jammer. BB has better falloff and strongert jams. However....I still would not buy it. I have flown jam boats before. if RNG gods hate you, if the enemy counters your jams in some way well and if your boys aren't killing dps fast enough you will die and die fast. even in a scorpion you cared enough to armour tank with say 2 X 1660 plates + DCU and an armour rig. Scorpions however do not ding my wallet as hard and do not offer the fun of training a skill for 4 days.....again (barring an out of date clone anyway) when they go boom.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 827	Posted - 2014.11.07 19:10:49 - [14] - Quote Well if you are looking to set t3's correct, you probably need to look at them in total as a ship class. Their tank, dps, resists are on par with battlecruisers. Reclassify them as a battlecruisers variant, adjust speed, change the strategic cruiser skill to reduce mass per level so a level 5 skill drops the mass to the current cruiser level (level 1 is equal to battlecruisers mass, level 5, cruiser mass). After that, rebalance the subsystems one by one so the alternative subsystems are viable. Realistically, you can do this by removing a subsystem variation from each subsystem and merge them into the final 3. For instance, the legion: Remove adaptive augmentor and roll it into the nanobot injector, buffing it. You now have 3 options for defensive subsystems, buffer, resistance and rep, or boosting. For the Loki, I would remove the amplification node and roll it into both the shielding and augmentor subsystems. I would remove the remote shield transporter and put in a self repping shield option. So you can armor tank with small sig (depending on your ship, you could mitigate a lot with that, or you can roll a shield one that can rep itself. The tengu's, would remove the amplification mode and move it to adaptive shielding. So it's either buffer or resists and repair Proteus is the same as the legion. I would look to do the same with the rest of the subsystems. Simplify and condense from 4 subsystems with 1 or two useless options per system to 3 with viable choices for all. That and bump up the t3's to a battlecruiser class ship. Yaay!!!!
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 857	Posted - 2014.11.07 20:39:45 - [15] - Quote ^^ I definitely think the whole tech3 nature of them should maybe be disassociated and become just strategic cruisers with the ability to do fits like now but with the options of either going for cruiser like resist sub-system fits that have low sig, high resists, etc. and not monster EHP or closer to battlecruiser/commandship like with the augmented plating sub-systems where the extra EHP comes with a bigger penalty to sig and mobility and produces something more like a fastish BC than a super tanked HAC.
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1337	Posted - 2014.11.07 21:28:00 - [16] - Quote The whole T3 discussion varies from the ridiculous to the absurd. They are ships with a role, they do that role reasonably well in wormhole space. They have significant downsides, but we use them because they work. Now someone pulls an idea out of thin air, with no idea how they work, how they are used, and screams "nerf them they are overpowered!!!" Sorry to disillusion you they are not. Just because they have cruiser in their name does not mean they need nerfing back to a vexor, or a stabber. They ain't T1 they ain't base cruisers, and they ain't goint to be made T1 because a random someone said they should be. They should have been named spec-ops or something so the foolish were not encouraged to compare them with base T1 cruisers. There again CCP probably under estimated human stupidity. [u]_There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE _[/u]
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1888	Posted - 2014.11.07 21:47:39 - [17] - Quote Cassius Invictus wrote: The idea is terrible. You clearly didn't do a research on the current use of T3. Your idea would make them useless in many aspects of the game (ie. sleeper PvE) where they are the only viable choice. epicurus ataraxia wrote: The whole T3 discussion varies from the ridiculous to the absurd. They are ships with a role, they do that role reasonably well in wormhole space. They have significant downsides, but we use them because they work. Now someone pulls an idea out of thin air, with no idea how they work, how they are used, and screams "nerf them they are overpowered!!!" Sorry to disillusion you they are not. Translation: Strategic Cruisers are the only ships overpowered enough to run sleepers, therefore if you nerf them in-line with other ships.....(reasoning fades out at this point) Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 288	Posted - 2014.11.07 22:15:49 - [18] - Quote n1 ignoring every other post giving reasons for your idea being garbage I've never seen someone so completely miss the mark on how T3s are overpowered and how they aren't watch me be a scurb and get owned
Blodhgarm Dethahal Transcendent Sedition Protean Concept 183	Posted - 2014.11.07 23:45:57 - [19] - Quote How bout this... remove a rig slot from T3s or add one to all T2s Considering the majority of people tend to focus on the ridiculous tanks that T3s get, this either 1) nerfs the tanks or 2) makes T2s more competitive in their tanks. Of course this assumes that T3s are actually broken in the first place. -Bl+¦d http://bloodytravels.blogspot.com/ -á-- My travels through space.
Gunrunner1775 Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC 36	Posted - 2014.11.08 01:51:39 - [20] - Quote im a high sec mission runner/miner/explorer, and ive hardly touched my T3 strategic cruisers in the past year and half, not since marauders with bastion mode, have converted one tengu into a stabbed/nullified/cloaked probe hacker ship for hacking data sites, scouting wormholes, ect not quite as fast as some of the more specilized scouting frigates, but it definatly works, yea T3 need some fixing for certain, dont forsee it in the near future, i want to wait and see how the new destroyers work out, if works cool, then probobly should scrap the entire T3 strat cruiser line and redo it with new set up, but that would mean extensive reworks of various industry and skills on top of complete redo of the ships,

Zmikund Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 33	Posted - 2014.11.08 02:21:40 - [21] - Quote So generally ... ppl cry about T3 because they are so "OP", but are they? Only thing that could be called OP on T3 is their buffer tank, if you dont count damnation you cant pretty much build more tanked subcap than T3 ... thats pretty much only think that should be nerfed there and the way to do that would be replacing buffer subsystem bonus for another deff bonus (maybe some kind of partial ewar immunity), all other deff subs are fine by me (active is same as any other active bonus on any other hull and so is resistance sub) To their DPS ... better than assault cruisers, worse than command ships and battle ships ... i see no OPness there To their Ewar ... worse bonuses than recons but better tank ... again, what is OP there? Their last role is cloaked tackler but can you call someone who has 300 DPS OP? no, you can just ignore it if it comes to fight ... All in all ... if T3 would get removed buffer bonus it would be step forward, but nerfing anything else would devaluate T3 since they are Tech3 they shouldnt be same as T1 ... in that case you could start crying for nerfing vargur to maelstorm stats, kronos to hyperion etc ... ability to fly better shis is bought by skilling time and price and i think its perfectly fair ... T3 compared to their fixed role counterparts are generally better tanked but worse in role itself (if you want best dps you get BS/command, if you want best ewar you get recon ... etc) ... Only one who would actually lose by removing buffer sub is passive pve tengu, but that could be solved by giving them more cap regen to encourage those players to build active ... As for brick fitted PVP T3 i think resist sub is more than enough for this role ... Also i would remove skill loss on T3 loss ... i see no point of this whole idea and it only discourages ppl to not fly T3 Btw ... if you think this is written by someone who never sat in T3 you wrong ... i flew tengu for long time but i changed it for marauder (because t3 is so OP, right?) and im still flying my loki for over 2 years ...
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 437	Posted - 2014.11.08 02:23:58 - [22] - Quote Thinking about tech 3 ships gave me a totally new "strategic" approach: Instead of having one boat in a mulit-player world, why not bring more people in different ships for all the tasks you need? - We could a new ship class that would work as a heavy assault cruiser with stronger tank than "normal" cruisers that could use an mwd for a decent amount of time to cover fast distances if needed - Ewar ships? - Recon ships? - High-speed ships for intercepting someone - maybe some kind of of heavy interdictor cruiser with tons of ehp that could even bubble things - Heavy tanked frigates for additional fast dps - some sort of a "hacking and probing" ship that could warp around without ever being seen - a special frigate that could carry some sort of an area of effect weapon that does tons of damage and could also warp cloaked Oh okay, no that's too much. That would mean you cannot do that all in one ship with 50 billion hp anymore and need to talk to people you don't even know My bad, I'm so sorry.. Maybe that online-connection thingy isn't for everyone.. signature
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1888	Posted - 2014.11.08 02:48:19 - [23] - Quote Zmikund wrote: So generally ... ppl cry about T3 because they are so "OP", but are they? Only thing that could be called OP on T3 is their buffer tank, if you dont count damnation you cant pretty much build more tanked subcap than T3 ... No the problem is how small their sig radius is with all that buffer. And it's not the buffer subsystems so much as the ability to fit 1600mm armor plates easily on such a tiny sig radius, with extremely high resistances. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Zmikund Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 33	Posted - 2014.11.08 03:13:49 - [24] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Zmikund wrote: So generally ... ppl cry about T3 because they are so "OP", but are they? Only thing that could be called OP on T3 is their buffer tank, if you dont count damnation you cant pretty much build more tanked subcap than T3 ... No the problem is how small their sig radius is with all that buffer. And it's not the buffer subsystems so much as the ability to fit 1600mm armor plates easily on such a tiny sig radius, with extremely high resistances. ever heard of target painters and webs?
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1889	Posted - 2014.11.08 03:19:20 - [25] - Quote Tell me more about how a percentage bonus to a small signature radius available in a module you have to equip fixes the problem that is partially based on high base resistances. Come on, if you guys are going to shoot my idea down, at least try to sound like you have an argument. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 858	Posted - 2014.11.08 03:29:07 - [26] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Tell me more about how a percentage bonus to a small signature radius available in a module you have to equip fixes the problem that is partially based on high base resistances. Come on, if you guys are going to shoot my idea down, at least try to sound like you have an argument. Triple web and a couple of bonused faction tp w/ infowar bonus will make very bad day for t3 (and that is probably overkill but hey bring a gun to a gun fight, I see way too many people complaining about t3s due to trying to bring a knife to a gun fight). EDIT: That isn't to say I think sig and tank, etc are balanced as is.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1889	Posted - 2014.11.08 03:30:07 - [27] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Personally, my main quick and easy for now fix for the "hac version" of t3 (the one I will admit has some issues) is one that is not to contentious,imo, and is quite simple. Hard code no 100mn AB. This alone fixes a few issues. The ease they have in fitting the 100MN AB is directly related to other aspects that set these out of balance: the ease of fitting 1600mm armor plates, and other things they can do with vast amounts of excess powergrid. A better bandaid fix would be to reduce the powergrid of the fits that clearly don't need nearly that much. Rroff wrote: Triple web and a couple of bonused faction tp w/ infowar bonus will make very bad day for t3 (and that is probably overkill but hey bring a gun to a gun fight, I see way too many people complaining about t3s due to trying to bring a knife to a gun fight). That'll make a pretty bad day for anyone. Even then it still has battleship EHP, but the battleship can be hit without putting triple webs on it. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 31	Posted - 2014.11.08 04:30:20 - [28] - Quote I agree that T3 cruisers are OP. Then again, there's so much power disparity between T1 and T2 anyway, with T1 being locked out of special types of ammo for certain jobs and not getting all that extra damage on top from specializing skills. [quote] So 50 retreivers and 1 ganker walk into a bar, and the ganker turns to all the retreivers and says "I know how to play this game, you're wrong, now give me your money and then let me blow you up". That's the joke. [/quote]
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 858	Posted - 2014.11.08 19:07:59 - [29] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Zan Shiro wrote: Personally, my main quick and easy for now fix for the "hac version" of t3 (the one I will admit has some issues) is one that is not to contentious,imo, and is quite simple. Hard code no 100mn AB. This alone fixes a few issues. The ease they have in fitting the 100MN AB is directly related to other aspects that set these out of balance: the ease of fitting 1600mm armor plates, and other things they can do with vast amounts of excess powergrid. A better bandaid fix would be to reduce the powergrid of the fits that clearly don't need nearly that much. I dunno about other areas of eve but I've never seen endemic oversized prop mod use of T3s in the areas I've experience of - sure you get the odd 100MN AB Loki (DON'T chase it) but they handle like a brick and a rapier or another loki depending on circumstances deals with it handily the other is the odd 100MN AB Tengu - usually accompanied with 2.5+BN ISK worth of implants another 2.5-4+BN ISK of fittings and a links alt and its a lot harder to fly well than it sounds.
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers 103	Posted - 2014.11.10 07:18:11 - [30] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Cassius Invictus wrote: The idea is terrible. You clearly didn't do a research on the current use of T3. Your idea would make them useless in many aspects of the game (ie. sleeper PvE) where they are the only viable choice. epicurus ataraxia wrote: The whole T3 discussion varies from the ridiculous to the absurd. They are ships with a role, they do that role reasonably well in wormhole space. They have significant downsides, but we use them because they work. Now someone pulls an idea out of thin air, with no idea how they work, how they are used, and screams "nerf them they are overpowered!!!" Sorry to disillusion you they are not. Translation: Strategic Cruisers are the only ships overpowered enough to run sleepers, therefore if you nerf them in-line with other ships.....(reasoning fades out at this point) Define overpowered. They are very powerful in relation to their size. Its countered by massive price and sp loss. "Reasoning fades out at this point" - well this is the reasoning. So you propose to essentially kill WH space and propose nothing in return? I told you I support nerf to T3 resilience at the same time I told you why your idea is not the best way to do it. So your point is?



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.