EVE Search - Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12245	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:13:51 - [1] - Quote Hello everyone. We are updating Singularity as we speak with the first testing versions of our Scylla release coming immediately after Fanfest. If you've been watching CCP Rise's tweets, you already know that we have some important balance changes in the works and that more info will be coming this week. I'm making threads right now for two of the sets of changes coming in Scylla, and for details of the rest you should watch the o7 show tonight at 20:00 EVE Time and keep your eyes peeled for a Dev Blog that will drop in the coming days. I'm making threads for this subset of the planned changes today because these are the ones that are already running in today's SISI update. As many of you know, Strategic Cruisers are extremely powerful ships that see common use across EVE. We have said for a long time that we want to do a comprehensive balance pass on them, buffing some aspects of these ships and nerfing some other aspects. That larger set of changes is still in the works, but in the meantime we are making a targeted set of changes to the Defensive Subsystems on the four T3 Cruisers. The biggest changes here are to the hitpoint bonuses subsystems, Supplemental Screening and Augmented Plating. These subsystems are by far the most powerful defensive subsystems for PVP use, and their strength is a significant part of why T3 cruisers often eclipse other competing ships (such as HACs and Command Ships) and why the Loki struggles in comparison to the other three. We're reducing the strength of the bonuses on these specific subsystems, to +7.5% Armor HP per level for Augmented Plating and a combo of +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Rate for the Supplemental Screening. The other changes in this pass are all more minor tweaks to HP and signature values to help balance out the viability of the different subsystems relative to each other. Legion Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Signature Radius: 140 (-14) Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating +7.5% Armor HP per level (previously +10%) Signature Radius: 154 (+7) Legion Defensive - Nanobot Injector Armor HP: 3750 (+150) Legion Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 147 (+7) Loki Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Signature Radius: 125 (-5) Loki Defensive - Adaptive Shielding Signature Radius: 130 (-13) Loki Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 143 (+13) Proteus Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Signature Radius: 160 (-16) Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating +7.5% Armor HP per level (previously +10%) Signature Radius: 176 (+8) Proteus Defensive - Nanobot Injector Armor HP: 3650 (+150) Proteus Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 168 (+8) Tengu Defensive - Adaptive Shielding Signature Radius: 150 (-15) Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Shield Capacity: 3550 (-200) Signature Radius: 165 (+7) Tengu Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 157 (+7) Like I said, these are not the final changes we want to make to T3 Cruisers, they are one specific set of changes we are making to help improve the balance surrounding this class until we can finish the comprehensive pass down the road. These are also not the only balance changes coming in Scylla. All the details on those changes will be released in an upcoming dev blog. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2012	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:17:55 - [2] - Quote First Why do the armor subs get less nerf than the tengus shield sub? Imo the armor subs are extremely powerful considering you can out tank every single subcap using them. Especially considering the tengu is losing base hp in addition to losing 25% of its bonus
Wander Prian Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 59	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:24:46 - [3] - Quote Rowells wrote: First Why do the armor subs get less nerf than the tengus shield sub? Imo the armor subs are extremely powerful considering you can out tank every single subcap using them. Because they don't have nifty value like shield regen in armor that they could dump the remaining bonus into without screwing up other stuff besides tanking
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1330	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:24:58 - [4] - Quote Interesting tweaks to the Warfare Processors -- this makes them a little easier to probe out. It'll be interesting to see booster fits shift as they try to get back into Hard To Probe status. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Agrakari Saraki Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore 5	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:26:18 - [5] - Quote Can you explain the signature radius nerfs? Is this to combat the phenomenon of "unprobeable" off-grid boosters (space wizards).
dexter xio TURN LEFT 73	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:26:20 - [6] - Quote Hmm, interesting. NOFUN Diplomat xd
Wrik Hoover Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion 103	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:26:54 - [7] - Quote ok
Dave Stark 7392	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:27:06 - [8] - Quote i honestly can't help feel that the irrelevant 3% regen bonus and the extra 2.5% shaved off the tengu defensive sub is bullshit. just nerf them all to 7.5%.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2013	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:30:11 - [9] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Rowells wrote: First Why do the armor subs get less nerf than the tengus shield sub? Imo the armor subs are extremely powerful considering you can out tank every single subcap using them. Because they don't have nifty value like shield regen in armor that they could dump the remaining bonus into without screwing up other stuff besides tanking I honestly don't see passive regen being anywhere near as powerful as an extra 100k+ ehp though.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2694	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:32:27 - [10] - Quote Rowells wrote: Wander Prian wrote: Rowells wrote: First Why do the armor subs get less nerf than the tengus shield sub? Imo the armor subs are extremely powerful considering you can out tank every single subcap using them. Because they don't have nifty value like shield regen in armor that they could dump the remaining bonus into without screwing up other stuff besides tanking I honestly don't see passive regen being anywhere near as powerful as an extra 100k+ ehp though. Nice number you pulled out of your butt there, anything else hiding up there with it? Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Haiyooo Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 1	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:33:58 - [11] - Quote Id still like someone from CCP to explain the logic to nerfing ships that are 3 times the cost of the others, it is their point to be better than HAC because of cost... Just nerf everything to T1 values so the hordes can win already.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1330	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:35:50 - [12] - Quote Haiyooo wrote: Id still like someone from CCP to explain the logic to nerfing ships that are 3 times the cost of the others, it is their point to be better than HAC because of cost... Just nerf everything to T1 values so the hordes can win already. Unfortunately, cost is not intended to be commensurate with power (despite all the evidence to the contrary.) This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1620	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:36:21 - [13] - Quote Nerfing HP bonuses why not. Nerfing Shield more than Armor, knowing that they will also get higher sig radius and no possibilities for a shield HP implant set... That's not cool. Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Corey Lean GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 66	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:39:30 - [14] - Quote Haiyooo wrote: Id still like someone from CCP to explain the logic to nerfing ships that are 3 times the cost of the others, it is their point to be better than HAC because of cost... Just nerf everything to T1 values so the hordes can win already. The hordes are flying these ships right now
Araneatrox Sanctuary of Shadows 50	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:39:39 - [15] - Quote Reducing the raw HP while increasing the sig by 4-5%. I like these changes, will encourage a change in the already stale PVP metagame of eve.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2014	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:40:33 - [16] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Rowells wrote: Wander Prian wrote: Rowells wrote: First Why do the armor subs get less nerf than the tengus shield sub? Imo the armor subs are extremely powerful considering you can out tank every single subcap using them. Because they don't have nifty value like shield regen in armor that they could dump the remaining bonus into without screwing up other stuff besides tanking I honestly don't see passive regen being anywhere near as powerful as an extra 100k+ ehp though. Nice number you pulled out of your butt there, anything else hiding up there with it? Iirc proteus can pull 320k and legion can do 270k with only T2 mods. I believe the highest non-belonged set up I've seen on tengu reached 170 maybe.
Godfrey Silvarna Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 315	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:41:07 - [17] - Quote I like these changes. Note that as a wormhole dweller I fly a lot in t3 fleets, and I still agree with this rather than crying in a corner or making a hissy fit. The ridiculous HP has to go. Not sure if these measures are sufficient, but they do look good.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1005	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:43:50 - [18] - Quote the proper full nerf had better be soon and it had better be actually proper, unlike this.
Arkon Olacar Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 491	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:44:18 - [19] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Rowells wrote: Wander Prian wrote: Rowells wrote: First Why do the armor subs get less nerf than the tengus shield sub? Imo the armor subs are extremely powerful considering you can out tank every single subcap using them. Because they don't have nifty value like shield regen in armor that they could dump the remaining bonus into without screwing up other stuff besides tanking I honestly don't see passive regen being anywhere near as powerful as an extra 100k+ ehp though. Nice number you pulled out of your butt there, anything else hiding up there with it? Came here to say this Warping to zero
TheMercenaryKing StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome. 354	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:44:21 - [20] - Quote now if only the prop mod bonus affected only 10mn classes.
Mimiko Severovski Zero Fun Allowed 6	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:45:14 - [21] - Quote All the more reasons to fly ishtars. A step in the right direction indeed.
Arkon Olacar Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 491	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:46:43 - [22] - Quote Altrue wrote: Also, general nerfing of T3s when they still retain their sp losses is super super not cool. Don't kid yourself, even with these changes T3s are still head and shoulders above the equivalent HAC (eagle/tengu, zealot/legion etc). Warping to zero
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1330	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:47:55 - [23] - Quote Mimiko Severovski wrote: All the more reasons to fly ishtars. A step in the right direction indeed. You may want to begin to prepare yourself for a pleasant surprise. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Blue Ice Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 8	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:49:28 - [24] - Quote cool
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1005	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:49:57 - [25] - Quote TheMercenaryKing wrote: now if only the prop mod bonus affected only 10mn classes. a more sensible way to fix this would be to just completely prevent people from fitting oversized or undersized prop mods
Hagika Doughboys Snuffed Out 281	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:50:16 - [26] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Rowells wrote: Wander Prian wrote: Rowells wrote: First Why do the armor subs get less nerf than the tengus shield sub? Imo the armor subs are extremely powerful considering you can out tank every single subcap using them. Because they don't have nifty value like shield regen in armor that they could dump the remaining bonus into without screwing up other stuff besides tanking I honestly don't see passive regen being anywhere near as powerful as an extra 100k+ ehp though. Nice number you pulled out of your butt there, anything else hiding up there with it? Psssst... slave implants...
Skyleth Bergen Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises 8	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:51:33 - [27] - Quote I'm confused about the need for these changes. The training time loss is a pretty significant penalty for flying a tech iii as well as the price of a properly fit one. Not only that but they are a pain to build, requiring quite the pipeline and skill set versus tech ii. I have never flown in null sec tech iii fleets though; is that where the problem with these ships exists? Also, despite their often large pools of hp, disabling one with some recon ships is pretty darn easy.
Klyith GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 163	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:51:56 - [28] - Quote Haiyooo wrote: Id still like someone from CCP to explain the logic to nerfing ships that are 3 times the cost of the others, it is their point to be better than HAC because of cost... Just nerf everything to T1 values so the hordes can win already. Because it should be like training a skill to V, you invest 5 times the skillpoints for another 5-10% boost. (Also the hordes are flying tengus just like everyone else.)
Haiyooo Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 2	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:55:44 - [29] - Quote Corey Lean wrote: Haiyooo wrote: Id still like someone from CCP to explain the logic to nerfing ships that are 3 times the cost of the others, it is their point to be better than HAC because of cost... Just nerf everything to T1 values so the hordes can win already. The hordes are flying these ships right now Bah brave is the new horde and they muster some t3's but still 150 other trash ships in with it...
Chesterfield Fancypantz Radical Astronauts Plundering Eve WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation 30	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:56:02 - [30] - Quote I personally think that this is a fine first step to see how the adjustments are made. The issue with the discussion regards to the 5 vs 7.5% bonus is the fact that tengus can be completely and utterly brick fit, and still have max dps as a result of the dps modules being in the lowslot, and tank being in the mids. A dps t3 going armor needs to have resists mods and damage mods taking up his lowslots, meaning the extra 2.5% is there for balance. I personally think that t3s as a whole have too much EHP, and it should be a 5% flat for all of the races, but I do understand why it is 7.5%. I support either. an armor t3 may be able to push serious EHP, but not while pushing out dps at the same time. Tengu can do both.
Hagika Doughboys Snuffed Out 282	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:56:53 - [31] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hello everyone. We are updating Singularity as we speak with the first testing versions of our Scylla release coming immediately after Fanfest. If you've been watching CCP Rise's tweets, you already know that we have some important balance changes in the works and that more info will be coming this week. I'm making threads right now for two of the sets of changes coming in Scylla, and for details of the rest you should watch the o7 show tonight at 20:00 EVE Time and keep your eyes peeled for a Dev Blog that will drop in the coming days. I'm making threads for this subset of the planned changes today because these are the ones that are already running in today's SISI update. As many of you know, Strategic Cruisers are extremely powerful ships that see common use across EVE. We have said for a long time that we want to do a comprehensive balance pass on them, buffing some aspects of these ships and nerfing some other aspects. That larger set of changes is still in the works, but in the meantime we are making a targeted set of changes to the Defensive Subsystems on the four T3 Cruisers. The biggest changes here are to the hitpoint bonuses subsystems, Supplemental Screening and Augmented Plating. These subsystems are by far the most powerful defensive subsystems for PVP use, and their strength is a significant part of why T3 cruisers often eclipse other competing ships (such as HACs and Command Ships) and why the Loki struggles in comparison to the other three. We're reducing the strength of the bonuses on these specific subsystems, to +7.5% Armor HP per level for Augmented Plating and a combo of +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Rate for the Supplemental Screening. The other changes in this pass are all more minor tweaks to HP and signature values to help balance out the viability of the different subsystems relative to each other. Legion Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Signature Radius: 140 (-14) Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating +7.5% Armor HP per level (previously +10%) Signature Radius: 154 (+7) Legion Defensive - Nanobot Injector Armor HP: 3750 (+150) Legion Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 147 (+7) Loki Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Signature Radius: 125 (-5) Loki Defensive - Adaptive Shielding Signature Radius: 130 (-13) Loki Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 143 (+13) Proteus Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Signature Radius: 160 (-16) Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating +7.5% Armor HP per level (previously +10%) Signature Radius: 176 (+8) Proteus Defensive - Nanobot Injector Armor HP: 3650 (+150) Proteus Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 168 (+8) Tengu Defensive - Adaptive Shielding Signature Radius: 150 (-15) Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Shield Capacity: 3550 (-200) Signature Radius: 165 (+7) Tengu Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 157 (+7) Like I said, these are not the final changes we want to make to T3 Cruisers, they are one specific set of changes we are making to help improve the balance surrounding this class until we can finish the comprehensive pass down the road. These are also not the only balance changes coming in Scylla. All the details on those changes will be released in an upcoming dev blog. Fozzie your hate for caldari is showing again.....
devolutionary Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2015.02.26 17:59:51 - [32] - Quote Haiyooo wrote: Corey Lean wrote: Haiyooo wrote: Id still like someone from CCP to explain the logic to nerfing ships that are 3 times the cost of the others, it is their point to be better than HAC because of cost... Just nerf everything to T1 values so the hordes can win already. The hordes are flying these ships right now Bah brave is the new horde and they muster some t3's but still 150 other trash ships in with it... Crucifiers. Crucifiers as far as the eye can see. All in all I approve of the direction of these balances, though the insistence on shield regen is a little out of touch given we are talking about a ship that needs nerfing because of its fleet applications. Shield regen when you will have logi is a touch daft, but I also get that you can't serve only null fleets all the time. A very small change to sigs on the Warfares is fascinating as well, if only to shake up the laziest of boosters.
Aliventi Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 826	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:04:36 - [33] - Quote CCP Fozzie would you please present the numbers showing the current HP stats of a Tengu with supplemental screening fit, a Legion with adaptive plating fit, and Proteus with adaptive plating fit; then compare them to the soon to be nerfed versions? Essentially please give us numerical proof that the Tengu deserves a 5% nerf AND a 200 base HP nerf while the Legion and Proteus only deserve a 2.5% nerf. I have a feeling it does, but I am not 100% sure on how to calculate the numbers.
Chesterfield Fancypantz Radical Astronauts Plundering Eve WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation 30	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:05:54 - [34] - Quote devolutionary wrote: Haiyooo wrote: Corey Lean wrote: Haiyooo wrote: Id still like someone from CCP to explain the logic to nerfing ships that are 3 times the cost of the others, it is their point to be better than HAC because of cost... Just nerf everything to T1 values so the hordes can win already. The hordes are flying these ships right now Bah brave is the new horde and they muster some t3's but still 150 other trash ships in with it... Crucifiers. Crucifiers as far as the eye can see. All in all I approve of the direction of these balances, though the insistence on shield regen is a little out of touch given we are talking about a ship that needs nerfing because of its fleet applications. Shield regen when you will have logi is a touch daft, but I also get that you can't serve only null fleets all the time. A very small change to sigs on the Warfares is fascinating as well, if only to shake up the laziest of boosters. the shield regen is, and isnt good in fleets. If you get hit with a bomb(hypothetical) and it takes you to 80% shields, it really really helps logistics to not have to come and rep you up to get you back to full shields. 80% shield vs 100% shield could be the difference between catching reps and blowing up.
Hoshi Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 52	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:06:09 - [35] - Quote Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote: an armor t3 may be able to push serious EHP, but not while pushing out dps at the same time. Tengu can do both. Except the dps of a tengu aren't really that great. The normal fleet Tengu fit does less raw dps than the Moa (because it doesn't a drone bay). It has great damage projection but raw damage where never really a problem. "Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
killerlman BURN EDEN Northern Coalition. 12	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:06:32 - [36] - Quote Significant change for tech 3 will be NOT 8km reps range in logistics mode. Also as i said before,allow for proteus to use five heavy drones, and increase drone bay in drone synthesis subsystem!
Chesterfield Fancypantz Radical Astronauts Plundering Eve WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation 30	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:07:35 - [37] - Quote Aliventi wrote: CCP Fozzie would you please present the numbers showing the current HP stats of a Tengu with supplemental screening fit, a Legion with adaptive plating fit, and Proteus with adaptive plating fit; then compare them to the soon to be nerfed versions? Essentially please give us numerical proof that the Tengu deserves a 5% nerf AND a 200 base HP nerf while the Legion and Proteus only deserve a 2.5% nerf. I have a feeling it does, but I am not 100% sure on how to calculate the numbers. Id be happy to see the adjusted statistics, but we would have to insist upon seeing dps and range included as well. As I said in my posting part of the problem is the frank differences between shield and armor damage because of the isolation of tank modules onto low/mid slots.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 757	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:08:55 - [38] - Quote Haiyooo wrote: Id still like someone from CCP to explain the logic to nerfing ships that are 3 times the cost of the others, it is their point to be better than HAC because of cost... Just nerf everything to T1 values so the hordes can win already. Because there are a handful of people still not using ishtars.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1098	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:09:06 - [39] - Quote i was hoping for a more hull integrated approach.. i.ee. build the sig radius, HP fittings etc into the base hull like all other ships have, and make subs just bonus based, it would certainly help with multiple issues Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
BadAssMcKill ElitistOps 959	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:12:03 - [40] - Quote Wrik Hoover wrote: ok
Glasgow Dunlop The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 254	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:17:12 - [41] - Quote Tengu use in WH space - Armour @glasgowdunlop #tweetfleet TDSIN Recruitment Director : Join 'TDSIN pub' Glasgow Meet Organiser
Longdrinks Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 169	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:19:48 - [42] - Quote Aliventi wrote: CCP Fozzie would you please present the numbers showing the current HP stats of a Tengu with supplemental screening fit, a Legion with adaptive plating fit, and Proteus with adaptive plating fit; then compare them to the soon to be nerfed versions? Essentially please give us numerical proof that the Tengu deserves a 5% nerf AND a 200 base HP nerf while the Legion and Proteus only deserve a 2.5% nerf. I have a feeling it does, but I am not 100% sure on how to calculate the numbers. open up eft, load up a tengu fit and switch the tengu defensive skill up and down. Since this is a 50% nerf to the bonus just imagine a tank with the skill between level 2 and 3. http://puu.sh/gdI2g/a4b4bd0906.png this is the regular nullsec fleet tengu under links. It goes down to 200k~~ ehp after this change.
Smelly PirateWhore Reikoku Pandemic Legion 23	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:22:52 - [43] - Quote No idea what changes will be in store but if there's one thing I really, really would like to see is the Interdiction Nullifier sub and Covert Ops sub moved to the same category, i.e. offensive or whatever. That way someone has to choose either to A) be nullified OR B) be cloaky. Both at the same time are just ridiculous, especially coupled with the reasonably high agility of a tech 3 cruiser. The only way to catch a cloaky-nullified cruiser currently is for the pilot to seriously, SERIOUSLY balls up. All is required is the most basic level of competence and you are nigh-on invulnerable. Cloaky-nullified t3 jumps in, aligns and cloaks. Re-sebo'd interceptor immediately burns at t3 and scores a decloak. Unfortunately the time it takes the interceptor to close the distance plus the added time of having to then select and lock the t3 is far more than is required for that t3 to have aligned and be entering warp. The only way that t3 is getting caught is either A) he is unlucky and spawns too close to an object to be able to cloak up (incredibly unlikely unless you have the gate surrounded by a decent-sized fleet, or have deposited cans/drones around the gate, which is of course an exploit), or B) if he has mistimed his cloak and it is not ready to be activated again since the last activation. Point B is now far less likely than in the past due to a helpful countdown indicator depicting exactly when that cooldown has finished. I'm not even gonna get started on cloaky-nullified t3s flying around with fittings and a mobile depot in cargohold to fly to and from systems in which they will plex/run missions etc... so yeah sorry for rant but to reiterate: I think the cloaky and nullify subs should both be on the same slot
chaosgrimm Universal Production and Networking Services 188	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:26:20 - [44] - Quote Can't spot any major issues with this change. On a side note, any timeframe or tentative timeframe available on the full t3 rebalance? Are we likely to see it in 2015?
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 47	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:39:11 - [45] - Quote Mimiko Severovski wrote: All the more reasons to fly ishtars. A step in the right direction indeed. Ugh, really? Ishtars should be the ones getting the nerf bat. They are the most OP ship in the game. Kill the massive drone bay, forbid sentries on anything smaller than battleships. Ishtars online fixed. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Valid Point The Desolate Order Brave Collective 38	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:45:41 - [46] - Quote Please buff the cargo bays of all t3s
Ryu Chaos Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 11	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:53:17 - [47] - Quote Hoshi wrote: Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote: an armor t3 may be able to push serious EHP, but not while pushing out dps at the same time. Tengu can do both. Except the dps of a tengu aren't really that great. The normal fleet Tengu fit does less raw dps than the Moa (because it doesn't a drone bay). It has great damage projection but raw damage where never really a problem. because you choose to have a bad tengu fit with 5 guns and 2 mag stabs, doesnt mean that the tengu has less dps than the moa... @RyuChaos_
Zanquis The Northerners Northern Coalition. 1	Posted - 2015.02.26 18:56:22 - [48] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Shield Capacity: 3550 (-200) Signature Radius: 165 (+7) Too far too fast Fozzie. Your hitting the tank bonus, AND the base value of the tank. Your adding a shield regeneration bonus directed at smaller engagements where a buffer passive regeneration tank might hold some water. I can see why you need to make some adjustments to the subsystem. I only ask you take baby steps and scale it up gradually if required. Shields come with some big inherit disadvantages that need to be considered too such as sig radius. I fear changing multiple attributes at the same time will over nerf the ship hull, and make it take longer to find its balance. Please start with the 7.5% buffer reduction, and scrap the regeneration bonus. See how that works out, then continue if necessary. I feel the regeneration bonus is a black hole. Regeneration takes are doomed because they can only be overly powerful, or sub standard. This is because the nature of that tank requires a high buffer extend the period of peek recharge. This dual strength makes it overpowered when its useful, and terrible when its not. Any attempt to re-design this ship to be focused on this tank method would require a change to the mechanics of shield regeneration, and shield tanking as a whole. Committing the Tengu down this path will relegate it to obsolescence unless you commit to making passive regeneration a viable and balanced tank option. Overall, T3 hulls need to be seriously reviewed anyways because they literally outclass most T1 and T2 ships defeating the design guidelines that T2 should be specialized and better at their assigned specialization, while T3 focus mainly on versatility. Therefore you just need a change to temporary put these ships in a less dominant position while you re-evaluate your T3 design.
Space Captain Austrene Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:00:47 - [49] - Quote I don't know why you're nerfing off grid boosting before buffing on grid boosting. The bonuses from command ships and the t3 sub system needs to apply the bonus directly, only work on grid, and then you can fit a warfare module to improve the bonus. To clarify, a claymore in wing command should give all three skirmish boosts through the hull alone. If you want to give better skirmish boosts, then you have to fit the modules.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1097	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:04:51 - [50] - Quote You do realize that you still have like.. 2/3 of those subsystems being pretty useless right?. You might as well come out with the t3 revamp, because this is a bandaid... A weak one at that. Edit: reread it, ok targeted changes till the entire revamp goes in. Ok. Not terrible. Yaay!!!!
Saavik Ambraelle Lazerhawks 37	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:07:39 - [51] - Quote Glasgow Dunlop wrote: Tengu use in WH space - Armour Not true, Lazerhawks signature heavy shield fleet is just as effective as and heavy armour fleet. Zanquis wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Shield Capacity: 3550 (-200) Signature Radius: 165 (+7) Too far too fast Fozzie. Your hitting the tank bonus, AND the base value of the tank. Your adding a shield regeneration bonus directed at smaller engagements where a buffer passive regeneration tank might hold some water. I can see why you need to make some adjustments to the subsystem. I only ask you take baby steps and scale it up gradually if required. Shields come with some big inherit disadvantages that need to be considered too such as sig radius. I fear changing multiple attributes at the same time will over nerf the ship hull, and make it take longer to find its balance. Please start with the 7.5% buffer reduction, and scrap the regeneration bonus. See how that works out, then continue if necessary. I feel the regeneration bonus is a black hole. Regeneration tank's are doomed because they can only be overly powerful, or sub standard. This is because the nature of that tank requires a high buffer extend the period of peek recharge. This dual strength makes it overpowered when its useful, and terrible when its not. Any attempt to re-design this ship to be focused on this tank method would require a change to the mechanics of shield regeneration, and shield tanking as a whole. Committing the Tengu down this path will relegate it to obsolescence unless you commit to making passive regeneration a viable and balanced tank option that is not so black and white in effectiveness. Overall, T3 hulls need to be seriously reviewed anyways because they literally outclass most T1 and T2 ships defeating the design guidelines that T2 should be specialized and better at their assigned specialization, while T3 focus mainly on versatility. Therefore you just need a change to temporary put these ships in a less dominant position while you re-evaluate your T3 design. I agree with this dude. Get rid of that ridiculous passive regen bonus on the Tengu and give back a little extra hp. A small nerf is not so bad, but a big one is nerfing wspace playstyle. You're already making it easier for dreads to hit us with the sig radius penalty. Intoxication is the most effective of warp scramblers.
Faltzs Thundercats The Initiative. 18	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:31:35 - [52] - Quote Overall not bad changes, but I hope ccp also fixes tengus engineering subsystems, (one with the %power bonus has 2nd lowest power out put? and the one with cap recharge has the best so is clear the best to use.)
Anthar Thebess 891	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:36:26 - [53] - Quote Reduce armor bonus to 5% per level not 7.5% per level. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Inslander Wessette Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance 11	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:37:47 - [54] - Quote Fozzie pls dont discriminate the tengu over the other t3's . Either make em all 7.5% or 5% . Just bcos the tengu is used more dont mean ppl cant switch to another t3 . Make em all even pls . Nice nerfs . + 1 to u
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 47	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:43:23 - [55] - Quote Saavik Ambraelle wrote: Glasgow Dunlop wrote: Tengu use in WH space - Armour Not true, Lazerhawks signature heavy shield fleet is just as effective as and heavy armour fleet. Zanquis wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Shield Capacity: 3550 (-200) Signature Radius: 165 (+7) Too far too fast Fozzie. Your hitting the tank bonus, AND the base value of the tank. Your adding a shield regeneration bonus directed at smaller engagements where a buffer passive regeneration tank might hold some water. I can see why you need to make some adjustments to the subsystem. I only ask you take baby steps and scale it up gradually if required. Shields come with some big inherit disadvantages that need to be considered too such as sig radius. I fear changing multiple attributes at the same time will over nerf the ship hull, and make it take longer to find its balance. Please start with the 7.5% buffer reduction, and scrap the regeneration bonus. See how that works out, then continue if necessary. I feel the regeneration bonus is a black hole. Regeneration tank's are doomed because they can only be overly powerful, or sub standard. This is because the nature of that tank requires a high buffer extend the period of peek recharge. This dual strength makes it overpowered when its useful, and terrible when its not. Any attempt to re-design this ship to be focused on this tank method would require a change to the mechanics of shield regeneration, and shield tanking as a whole. Committing the Tengu down this path will relegate it to obsolescence unless you commit to making passive regeneration a viable and balanced tank option that is not so black and white in effectiveness. Overall, T3 hulls need to be seriously reviewed anyways because they literally outclass most T1 and T2 ships defeating the design guidelines that T2 should be specialized and better at their assigned specialization, while T3 focus mainly on versatility. Therefore you just need a change to temporary put these ships in a less dominant position while you re-evaluate your T3 design. I agree with this dude. Get rid of that ridiculous passive regen bonus on the Tengu and give back a little extra hp. A small nerf is not so bad, but a big one is nerfing wspace playstyle. You're already making it easier for dreads to hit us with the sig radius penalty. Fozzie is Conan the Barbarian with the NerfBat. He never does any in babysteps. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Jordan Alfrir Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:48:17 - [56] - Quote Haiyooo wrote: Id still like someone from CCP to explain the logic to nerfing ships that are 3 times the cost of the others, it is their point to be better than HAC because of cost... Just nerf everything to T1 values so the hordes can win already. If you know what you're doing, it's not difficult to make back you ship's cost in a relatively small window of time. For example, using a tengu to solo a C3 wormhole is a very good way to make back your isk.
Zomgnomnom Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 57	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:51:53 - [57] - Quote Panther X wrote: Fozzie is Conan the Barbarian with the NerfBat. He never does any in babysteps. Except Ishtars. Honestly though, this change is for the best. I ran it in EFT with our fit and while its not the same as what the Pizza guy posted earlier the net result is about the same. ~~200k ehp with links. Still more than sufficient. So long as Ishtars and Bombers are also taking a shovel to the face, I have NO issues with this. The Tengu is boring to fly anyway, tons of tank....... Anemic damage. Nerf T3's Check Nerf Ishtars..... Waiting Nerf Bombers..... WAITING...... Make Battleships WORTH flying....... Waiting since.... what 2012?
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1005	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:52:57 - [58] - Quote lol @ fixing t3s = 'nerfing wspace playstyle' why are you guys are actually happy only ever flying the same 5 ships all the time
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 1431	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:55:24 - [59] - Quote Haiyooo wrote: Id still like someone from CCP to explain the logic to nerfing ships that are 3 times the cost of the others, it is their point to be better than HAC because of cost... Just nerf everything to T1 values so the hordes can win already. T3s are supposed to be more versatile than T2, not necessarily better than. Flexibility ain't cheap. My Many Misadventures Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I seek to create content, not become content.
Feodor Romanov Caldari Special Forces OLD MAN GANG 11	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:55:51 - [60] - Quote I do not remember when I saw PVP Tengu in lowsecs last time. Tengu mostly used in PVE and nullsec PVP. This changes can remove it from those niches to be replaced by droneboats.
Charlie Jacobson 306	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:56:04 - [61] - Quote Maybe remove the skill point loss on death while we're nerfing T3s to the ground. :) I support James 315 and the New Order of Highsec
Katrina Oniseki Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 3421	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:57:46 - [62] - Quote I am disappointed to see CCP making band-aid changes at seemingly random moments when a full balance pass could have been made on T3's already by now. There have been plenty opportunities to work out and finalize a balance pass, but they have not been made yet. Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki ~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer ~ [I-RED] Director of Internal Affairs
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1604	Posted - 2015.02.26 19:58:11 - [63] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: lol @ fixing t3s = 'nerfing wspace playstyle' why are you guys are actually happy only ever flying the same 5 ships all the time Wasn't that the end goal of T3, making it so you could live in a WH becuase your ship was supposed to be at least "OK" at most roles so you didn't have to bring many different one?
Zomgnomnom Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 57	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:01:34 - [64] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: lol @ fixing t3s = 'nerfing wspace playstyle' why are you guys are actually happy only ever flying the same 5 ships all the time Wasn't that the end goal of T3, making it so you could live in a WH becuase your ship was supposed to be at least "OK" at most roles so you didn't have to bring many different one? Yes. He isn't really considering the logistical and storage issues with wormholes. The problem is that the thing that makes a passive fit Tengu able to be useful in a C3/4 makes them stupid Tanky in Nullsec fleet fights. This is likely why while nerfing the buffer they increased the passive recharge, to keep them useful to you WH folks :)
Chris Winter Winters Are Coming 627	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:05:59 - [65] - Quote Wait...the armor T3s can already get (significantly) more EHP than the Tengu, and yet you're nerfing the Tengu's tank more than the armor ones? How on earth is that reasonable?
Catherine Laartii Imperium Technologies Evictus. 482	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:14:22 - [66] - Quote Fozzie, I'm gonna say it now, so you can get it early in the balance phase: IT'S THE RESISTS. 7.5% bonus is all well and good, but you NEED to bring the resists, at least on everything but the adaptive sub, down to Interdictor level. Lower resists is what reduces the absurd million-plus ehp you can pull on ships like the Proteus. Keeping high resists on subs like the Adaptive augmenter encourages cooperative gameplay like spider-tanking, while ensuring that local active and passive tanks don't become too powerful.
LUMINOUS SPIRIT The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 690	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:14:58 - [67] - Quote Passive regen is interesting. Not sure if +15% is that much though, I would hope for a bigger boost.
Grookshank Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 45	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:16:22 - [68] - Quote Ok, T3 hp and - at least for the hp subs - signature nerf. Can you please accompany this with a nerf to bombers please, since you make the last subcap, that was not already dying to bombers like flies, weaker to bomb damage?
Deacon Abox Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 467	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:23:46 - [69] - Quote The Twitch player is quite bad, freezes and drops. Don't know what you said CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4083	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:36:01 - [70] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: 7.5% bonus is all well and good, but you NEED to bring the resists, at least on everything but the adaptive sub, down to Interdictor level. Lower resists is what reduces the absurd million-plus ehp you can pull on ships like the Proteus. Keeping high resists on subs like the Adaptive augmenter encourages cooperative gameplay like spider-tanking, while ensuring that local active and passive tanks don't become too powerful. This is actually not a bad idea, but I'd be more inclined to adjust the non-adaptive subs to Recon Cruiser levels. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Komodo Askold No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad 304	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:36:55 - [71] - Quote Looks like a promising first approach to Strategic Cruiser rebalance. Time will say if further tweaking is needed in Defensive Subsystems. Looking forward to more, as a wormholer :)
Lyron-Baktos Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 472	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:39:28 - [72] - Quote Give T3's bonuses if flown in WH space but none in kspace. That will keep them great in the small gang pvp of wh space but not the blobby fights off null
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2735	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:42:40 - [73] - Quote These changes seem soft handed, why should a cruiser start with 3650, then get 25% buff from skills then another 37.5% from subsystem skills? Proteus is looking at 6273 HP with level 5 skills, and that is before modules and resists. That needs to be toned down IMO
japoke105 Olacar House of the Dead Monkey SpaceMonkey's Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:51:55 - [74] - Quote For the Love of god nerf the freaking Ishtar, like last patch
Derath Ellecon Blue Sun Exploration Situation: Normal 2389	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:53:19 - [75] - Quote Charlie Jacobson wrote: Maybe remove the skill point loss on death while we're nerfing T3s to the ground. :) Yes, please make the only ship that makes me retrain a skill over again easier to kill.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2019	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:53:22 - [76] - Quote Could we possibly consider giving the Loki a shield boosting bonus for one of its subs? One of the lesser used subs getting a halfway decent bonus or replacing the bonus for a very good boosts to shield boosters. Seems odd that the cal dark have active bonus considering the pattern of most Calderon ships is in resists or shield amount.
The Ironfist Nordbot Capitals Northern Associates. 93	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:10:29 - [77] - Quote Hello CCP Fozzie, Finally something on the T3 front which is great. Now I'd like to ask if you can find it within you to finally do something about the Legion and Loki PowerGrid issues on pretty much all their ENGINEERING subsystems. You might be wondering why I'm bringing this up well. Tengu and Proteus can fit the biggest medium longrange guns in the game 425MM RAILS and still fit for all tank and fit a MWD without the need of any fitting mods/riggs/implants yet the Loki and Legion can not they are forced to go with either fitting Rig/mod or implant which seems kind of strange to me. As you have to sacrifice either DPS or TANK on these two yet the other two can have the best of both worlds. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks for your time.
Typo Interobang Astral Inferno 19	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:26:05 - [78] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: the proper full nerf had better be soon and it had better be actually proper, unlike this. Or what? Perhaps a strongly worded forum post? Fozzie said more changes were in the pipeline. CCP Fozzie wrote: As many of you know, Strategic Cruisers are extremely powerful ships that see common use across EVE. We have said for a long time that we want to do a comprehensive balance pass on them, buffing some aspects of these ships and nerfing some other aspects. That larger set of changes is still in the works, but in the meantime we are making a targeted set of changes to the Defensive Subsystems on the four T3 Cruisers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15227	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:44:04 - [79] - Quote Theses ships will still be walking away with battleship like buffers. You need to hit them harder. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2735	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:08:33 - [80] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Theses ships will still be walking away with battleship like buffers. You need to hit them harder. I agree, the buffer subs need to be reduced to 5% per level and IMO the base HP needs to be brought down to cruiser levels not "somewhere in between cruisers and battlecruiser" areas
Alundil Isogen 5 870	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:21:56 - [81] - Quote Rowells wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Rowells wrote: Wander Prian wrote: Rowells wrote: First Why do the armor subs get less nerf than the tengus shield sub? Imo the armor subs are extremely powerful considering you can out tank every single subcap using them. Because they don't have nifty value like shield regen in armor that they could dump the remaining bonus into without screwing up other stuff besides tanking I honestly don't see passive regen being anywhere near as powerful as an extra 100k+ ehp though. Nice number you pulled out of your butt there, anything else hiding up there with it? Iirc proteus can pull 320k and legion can do 270k with only T2 mods. I believe the highest non-belonged set up I've seen on tengu reached 170 maybe. BL flies a RailGu setup that easily (and cheaply) hits over 200k EHP before links, etc etc. Legions in a fleet.....those don't happen unless in wspace and they are definitely notn pushing 270k EHP in typical configurations. Same thing with Proteus. No one uses them as a fleet doctrine outside of wspace and those typical configurations are, again, far less tanky than the RailGu seen in 00 (usually on the order of 120k-130k EHP). I'm right behind you
Anthar Thebess 891	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:25:14 - [82] - Quote 5% per level or increase more base signature. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 157	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:34:26 - [83] - Quote Rowells wrote: Iirc proteus can pull 320k and legion can do 270k with only T2 mods. I believe the highest non-belonged set up I've seen on tengu reached 170 maybe. No way you can get above 100kehp on just t2 mods without implants and being able to fit modules in mids and high slots. With this nerf we get ships that aren't versatile(t3 cruisers can't change modes like the t3 destroyers), have less dps then a hac , less ehp like a hac . So basicly a useless ship. They even ecm/damp/tracking disrupt/neut/long point/paint worse then a T2. Next meta will be command ships with t2 recons.... .
Alundil Isogen 5 870	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:49:17 - [84] - Quote Aliventi wrote: CCP Fozzie would you please present the numbers showing the current HP stats of a Tengu with supplemental screening fit, a Legion with adaptive plating fit, and Proteus with adaptive plating fit; then compare them to the soon to be nerfed versions? Essentially please give us numerical proof that the Tengu deserves a 5% nerf AND a 200 base HP nerf while the Legion and Proteus only deserve a 2.5% nerf. I have a feeling it does, but I am not 100% sure on how to calculate the numbers. As I mentioned in another comment same number of damage mods in the lows Typical 00 fleet Tengu (think BL. RailGu for example) will bring >450 dps @ 40km or ~260ish @ 130km (un bonused lock range is 86km). All the while pushing ~206k EHP pure T2 fit. Before links Typical wspace RailProt (because that's the only place you'll generally see a proteus doctrine) will bring >600 dps @ 18km or ~360 dps @ 65km. All the while pushing ~128k EHP and that's with some faction tank mods for fitting. Before links. Typical wspace Ham Legion (because that's the only place you'll generally see a legion doctrine and lol at beam legion in land of neuts) will bring >500 dps @ 16km or ~390 dps @ 30km. All the while pushing ~165k EHP and that's with some faction tank mods for fitting. Before links. So, basically Tengu with the Supplemental Screening sub far outshines what the proteus and legion are capable of in terms of tank without sacrificing much at all in terms dps, while remaining far more mobile and with far more range. It's really not that hard to figure out why Tengu Supplemental Screening is seeing a 10% to 5% reduction and the other two are only going from 10% to 7.5% I'm right behind you
Alundil Isogen 5 870	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:03:32 - [85] - Quote Smelly PirateWhore wrote: No idea what changes will be in store but if there's one thing I really, really would like to see is the Interdiction Nullifier sub and Covert Ops sub moved to the same category, i.e. offensive or whatever. That way someone has to choose either to A) be nullified OR B) be cloaky. Both at the same time are just ridiculous, especially coupled with the reasonably high agility of a tech 3 cruiser. The only way to catch a cloaky-nullified cruiser currently is for the pilot to seriously, SERIOUSLY balls up. All is required is the most basic level of competence and you are nigh-on invulnerable. Cloaky-nullified t3 jumps in, aligns and cloaks. Re-sebo'd interceptor immediately burns at t3 and scores a decloak. Unfortunately the time it takes the interceptor to close the distance plus the added time of having to then select and lock the t3 is far more than is required for that t3 to have aligned and be entering warp. The only way that t3 is getting caught is either A) he is unlucky and spawns too close to an object to be able to cloak up (incredibly unlikely unless you have the gate surrounded by a decent-sized fleet, or have deposited cans/drones around the gate, which is of course an exploit), or B) if he has mistimed his cloak and it is not ready to be activated again since the last activation. Point B is now far less likely than in the past due to a helpful countdown indicator depicting exactly when that cooldown has finished. I'm not even gonna get started on cloaky-nullified t3s flying around with fittings and a mobile depot in cargohold to fly to and from systems in which they will plex/run missions etc... so yeah sorry for rant but to reiterate: I think the cloaky and nullify subs should both be on the same slot I don't fly a nullified T3 setup because, honestly, if I need to be nigh uncatchable and cloaky I'll use a covops for far less risk and I don't do dumb things like try and use a T3 cruiser as a hauler. That said, making the cloak and nulli subs both into the same sub class (offensive) would completely kill the use of the nullification sub. T3 are fat. And unless tricked out for agility don't align very well at all. The time to warp is ~6s or more on all of them. What you have an issue with is the cloak+MWD trick but that is in play with a great number of hulls and not just nulli T3 setups. This is because of server tick. Want a better chance of catching them? Move to London (and no I"m not joking). Other than that - your suggestion/wish would see a massive drop in the usage of nulli subsystems (if that's even possible) because no one in their right mind would choose nulli over cloak when cloak+MWD is still a "thing". I'm right behind you
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 11934	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:09:29 - [86] - Quote While these are fine and dandy... Do not neglect to fix the Legion's cloak subsystem. It is completely borked. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Alexis Nightwish 89	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:18:01 - [87] - Quote Sad. You used 'nudge' when you needed to use 'cludge'. The base HP is still unchanged from their ridiculous level (about twice the amount of their navy/faction/T2 counterparts for those wondering) The per level bonus is still full re-tard, especially on the armor tankers. These ships continue to have full T2 resists and THREE rig slots. And this is just their defensive attributes. I didn't even get into links, nullification and cloaking concurrently, neither nullification nor covert reconfig penalizing their defense, nullification not harming their offense, etc. etc. etc. which results in these ships outclassing every other cruiser, battle cruiser, and battleship in the game (other than the Ishtar and VNI which apparently are not really getting nerfed either). There's just no way you can be so blind to their level of broken-ness, so I wonder why you don't actually fix them for the good of the game. You know, with Phoebe I thought CCP was starting down the path of nerfing **** that's glaringly broken with a righteous fury. Seems old habits die hard even if you fire everyone. Fear not strategic cruiser apologists! Your ships are unharmed and your tears are unfarmed! CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
Owen Levanth Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration 370	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:32:50 - [88] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: While these are fine and dandy... Do not neglect to fix the Legion's cloak subsystem. It is completely borked. The Legion does not have a cloak subsystem. It's actually a mislabeled suicide subsystem.
Lloyd Roses 865	Posted - 2015.02.26 23:36:05 - [89] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: And this is just their defensive attributes. I didn't even get into links, nullification and cloaking concurrently, neither nullification nor covert reconfig penalizing their defense, nullification not harming their offense, etc. etc. etc. which results in these ships outclassing every other cruiser, battle cruiser, and battleship in the game (other than the Ishtar and VNI which apparently are not really getting nerfed either). If you can choose between 1 damage mod and nullification or 2 damage mods and no nullification, that's not no downsides. Neglecting a better offensive option to go with a worse offensive option but added utility is not 'losing out on nothing*. I GÖÑ Sleipnir
Predator BOA Bastards Of Anarchy System Inc. Northern Associates. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 00:43:58 - [90] - Quote Gday Guys It seem like an interesting Buff and Nerf with this Subsystem. But question is there going to be and Nerf or Buff with the Armor or Shield Resistance with the changes?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15231	Posted - 2015.02.27 00:52:33 - [91] - Quote Predator BOA wrote: Gday Guys It seem like an interesting Buff and Nerf with this Subsystem. But question is there going to be and Nerf or Buff with the Armor or Shield Resistance with the changes? They need a nerf, along with their base HP otherwise we still have battleship tanks on a cruiser. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 485	Posted - 2015.02.27 01:14:32 - [92] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: i honestly can't help feel that the irrelevant 3% regen bonus and the extra 2.5% shaved off the tengu defensive sub is bullshit. just nerf them all to 7.5%. I just ran some numbers on it, roughly you will gain an extra 1.5 - 2 hp/s raw regen. In other words very hard to quantify. Doesn't this actually make tengu fleets with logi better since they're slightly less reliant on reps now? Now you can fit your tengu with halo implants to drop the bloom a little? 15% regen extra on some setups is like an extra 60 ehp/s? Yeah not quite rattlesnake levels of passive regen but for something with a sig of maybe 230 that's pretty respectable. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
LAlpha BLACK STUMP AU INC Conquerors of Coffee 12	Posted - 2015.02.27 01:31:33 - [93] - Quote T3s have a Skill loss upon the loss of ship which is extremely painful to a player. Approximately 4 Days worth of training at LV5 with +4 implants. No other ship in this game has this penalty. As such T3s should have stats like no other ship. If CCP intends to balance T3s by comparing its stats against all other ships then this Skill Loss must be removed. If not then the comparison is not a fair analysis.
4Rum Alt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 01:38:37 - [94] - Quote Dear CCP, I do not know why you let some of the players whom have no understanding of what a tech 3 ship is made you nerf them. Tech 3 ships are not overpowered and never have been. T3 ships were just before their time and all the other ships were underpowered. You have buffed all the other ships so t3's don't seem overpowered anymore. Then some many many players fail to see what a t3's ships is, so I will in the simplest why I can think of try to once again explain it. A t3's ship is basically a hybrid cruiser devised from the top T2 cruisers of the 4 empires and from sleeper technology which is far more advanced then the 4 empires technology. Now if you take the strengths of the 4 empires t2 ships and you add the strengths of sleeper ships, which are their tanks and dps, would they not be far superior to T2 ships? so why then do many of you expect t2 ships to be better than t3 ships? CCP has already made it to where no T3 can our perform the specific roles of the various t2 ships, as in a Loki can not be fit to have longer web range than a Rapier, a Proteus can not be fit to have longer point range than a Arazu, ect..... Ok going a little further, I'm sure all of you remember the movie Independence Day. Do you remember the alien ship that the Americans had, now take the top Fighter jet the Americans have and add just the shield technology(tank), the anti-gravity(speed) and weapons(dps) from the alien ship to the fighter jet. Now wouldn't that fighter jet be far superior? That my fellow Eve players is what a tech 3 ship is. I beg you CCP not to nerf the tech 3's tanks as it is what makes a t3 ship a tech 3 ship.............
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2021	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:13:07 - [95] - Quote unimatrix0030 wrote: Rowells wrote: Iirc proteus can pull 320k and legion can do 270k with only T2 mods. I believe the highest non-belonged set up I've seen on tengu reached 170 maybe. No way you can get above 100kehp on just t2 mods without implants and being able to fit modules in mids and high slots. With this nerf we get ships that aren't versatile(t3 cruisers can't change modes like the t3 destroyers), have less dps then a hac , less ehp like a hac . So basicly a useless ship. They even ecm/damp/tracking disrupt/neut/long point/paint worse then a T2. Next meta will be command ships with t2 recons.... . it is laughably easy to get over 100k with with any T3 and still fit for weapons. Tengus are already in use above 100 with full racks of rails, proteus doesnt even need a plate to breach 100 and legion can do it with 3 modules. Rigs + Augment/screening subs are very powerful.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2021	Posted - 2015.02.27 02:21:48 - [96] - Quote Alundil wrote: BL flies a RailGu setup that easily (and cheaply) hits over 200k EHP before links, etc etc. Legions in a fleet.....those don't happen unless in wspace and they are definitely notn pushing 270k EHP in typical configurations. Same thing with Proteus. No one uses them as a fleet doctrine outside of wspace and those typical configurations are, again, far less tanky than the RailGu seen in 00 (usually on the order of 120k-130k EHP). ok ive made it home and opened pyfa and i can now see my memory was wrong. I have a tengu at 299k ehp here. So my number of 100k was definitely wrong.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 837	Posted - 2015.02.27 03:00:35 - [97] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: TheMercenaryKing wrote: now if only the prop mod bonus affected only 10mn classes. a more sensible way to fix this would be to just completely prevent people from fitting oversized or undersized prop mods Agreed. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 837	Posted - 2015.02.27 03:19:12 - [98] - Quote Rowells wrote: Could we possibly consider giving the Loki a shield boosting bonus for one of its subs? One of the lesser used subs getting a halfway decent bonus or replacing the bonus for a very good boosts to shield boosters. Seems odd that the cal dark have active bonus considering the pattern of most Calderon ships is in resists or shield amount. I'd totally support this change. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 837	Posted - 2015.02.27 03:22:20 - [99] - Quote I don't think the EHP has been brought down quite enough yet. I would leave the resistances alone, but bring down the raw HP bonuses to 5% per level. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Saavik Ambraelle Lazerhawks 38	Posted - 2015.02.27 05:11:45 - [100] - Quote Zomgnomnom wrote: Make Battleships WORTH flying....... Waiting since.... what 2012? They'll never be much use in wormholes because of mass and the every present threat of being dread blapped. Intoxication is the most effective of warp scramblers.
Gurny Atreides Hounds of War. Hashashin Cartel 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 05:24:05 - [101] - Quote So we're still not giving the loki augmented plating sub?
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 267	Posted - 2015.02.27 05:49:50 - [102] - Quote Would really like to have seen all the defensive subsystems reduced to a 5% bonus. In terms of ehp, the proteus was the most egregious offender.
Eon Xero Disconnect. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 05:55:00 - [103] - Quote Seems to me that a ship that risks skill points to fly should be pretty powerful. I also don't get the logic of making a more advanced ship (combination of advanced tech 2 ships + tech from a far more advanced civilization) less powerful than less advanced ships. Not gonna get involved in the stat comparisons people have going on here, but I think the most obvious deciding factor to how these ships are balanced should be directly based on whether they continue to have Skill Point penalties when lost. If they do, they need to stay powerful, if they don't, then nerf them into the ground, whatever. Who cares if it's logical in regards to the game lore. I refuse to do anything out of PVE with one anyway because I prefer to minimize the SP risk. Time is much more valuable than isk.
Alundil Isogen 5 871	Posted - 2015.02.27 05:58:54 - [104] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: Would really like to have seen all the defensive subsystems reduced to a 5% bonus. In terms of ehp, the proteus was the most egregious offender. Clearly you haven't seen what's typically flown in fleets where the most egregious issues are most 'abused'. There are no big proteus fleets. It's not something that has ever caught on, ever. Can't be that egregious. I'm right behind you
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 485	Posted - 2015.02.27 06:43:02 - [105] - Quote Faltzs wrote: Overall not bad changes, but I hope ccp also fixes tengus engineering subsystems, (one with the %power bonus has 2nd lowest power out put? and the one with cap recharge has the best so is clear the best to use.) Things like this really make you wonder what the designers were smoking at the time they made these ships. It's like they got someone who can't read the localisation language and copy-pasted data in to the totally wrong subs. And somehow this complete departure from logic made it through internal testing all the way to live... where like drones it has been neglected and ignored for like 6 years now. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
NESTOR TRAVIS The reality disfunction 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 07:44:47 - [106] - Quote Weak buff to Loki IMO and even though I use the tengu the nerf should be more shield wise
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 404	Posted - 2015.02.27 07:45:50 - [107] - Quote This is not a bad change ( I would have just removed rig slots instead), but why is the Proteus sig in these subs massively bigger than anything else?
Lowhyres Remember The Fallen. BLUE Alliance 14	Posted - 2015.02.27 08:19:36 - [108] - Quote im calling it now, Meta will change from Tengus back to Proteus/Legion fleets everywere. Why, because bombs still are in the game thats why.
Glathull Warlock Assassins 955	Posted - 2015.02.27 08:40:53 - [109] - Quote Frankly, I'm okay with this. I do love my tengu, and this has been expected for a while. I'm surprised it's not a lot worse. I was figuring CCP was going to dress the tengu up in a gimp suit and let all the other ships have their way with it. But this isn't that bad. I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon Shut up, Anslo. --everyone
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 267	Posted - 2015.02.27 08:41:10 - [110] - Quote Alundil wrote: Bullet Therapist wrote: Would really like to have seen all the defensive subsystems reduced to a 5% bonus. In terms of ehp, the proteus was the most egregious offender. Clearly you haven't seen what's typically flown in fleets where the most egregious issues are most 'abused'. There are no big proteus fleets. It's not something that has ever caught on, ever. Can't be that egregious. You do realize that a ship doesn't have to be suitable for current nullsec blob warfare to be overpowered, right? In any event, proteus/legion docs are definately a thing in null, and will only become the new tengus if they're changed as this current balance iteration indicates. Also, I'd suggest re-reading (and comprehending) the 'Shield Capacity: 3550 (-200)' part of the proposed adjustment. This is the tuning factor that CCP has at their disposal to address the disparity between shield and armor defensive systems, if that's what you're gnashing your teeth over. I don't know where you're pulling your numbers from in your earlier posts, but every proteus doc I've ever engaged or flown, edges over 165k ehp with t2, on a 168m sig rad (vs 233 for a tengu), before boosts. Throw in bling, or throw an extra module to tank, or both, and they edge over 180 and start topping out at 215 very rapidly and very cheaply. Bottom line is the prot is just as overpowered as the tengu, and has the distinction among the t3s as having the potential for being one of the tankiest subcaps, on no more than a cruiser hull. Even the potential for half million EHP should scream to any reasonable person that something is terribly broken on the hull.
Janeway84 Def Squadron Pride Before Fall 139	Posted - 2015.02.27 09:09:54 - [111] - Quote This is a hard nerf in a way but I guess if it makes the game better. Can't we make t3's hp 50% less when they in sov space?
Inggroth Aurora Ominae. The Gorgon Empire 40	Posted - 2015.02.27 10:04:43 - [112] - Quote Yo Fozzie, i know this is super old, but any chance of t3-offgrid-link nerf while you're doing t3 balance pass? Not talking anything major (like making Warfare Processor an offensive sub), just Warfare Processor tweak, so CS links are noticeably more powerful?
Necroborg Cytoserocin Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 10:07:41 - [113] - Quote I believe mentioned nerfings are missing some point. In highsec there are player who still are able to take solo wardeccer role. Since they often fight seriously outnumbered, T3 in their superiority are enablers of this nieche. To keep this nieche ("subprofession" would fit here too) I would suggest to make armor / shield bonuses dynamicaly correlating to fleet size to some small extent. That way solo wdeccers will still able to retain their playstyle while larger T3 fleets will be rebalanced.
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers 127	Posted - 2015.02.27 10:35:17 - [114] - Quote As WH resident I support those changes but if u are giving us the bat please also give us the cookie. Nerfing this to 7,5 is not such a big deal tanks will still be huge. Like I wrote earlier I think you can easily bring them down to the level of loki but: 1) If buffer sub is gone we need +4% resists subs with full slots (6/7) but without rr. 2) Ls loss gone. 3) Rebalance of subsystems 4) 3/7 legion, 4/6 proteuss 5) work on signature T3 vs HAC vs Commands (maybe not increase much on T3 but lower on others) 6) anyone saying T3 need T1 resists is to be shot.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15245	Posted - 2015.02.27 10:36:45 - [115] - Quote Alundil wrote: Clearly you haven't seen what's typically flown in fleets where the most egregious issues are most 'abused'. There are no big proteus fleets. It's not something that has ever caught on, ever. Can't be that egregious. Nerf the tengu and you will see them. Me and bullet don't see eye to eye on many things but on this he is spot on. The proteus is seriously out of whack in terms of tank compared to any cruiser and puts just about every batttleship to shame. Currently the bare hull gets: 125 shield EHP 125 armour EHP 2.32k hull EHP That's nothing I hear you cry, well yea buts that's before we slap on a subsystem. With the Augmented plating we get: 6.1K Shield EHP 14.9k EHP 2.32k EHP That's a little more than twice as much armour as a phobos, the supposedly superheavy cruiser for tackling titans. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 545	Posted - 2015.02.27 10:53:33 - [116] - Quote Nerfing tank/DPS on T3s is cool. I just hope you are gonna add some new neat things and roles as well (like a bubbling engineer or electronics sub \o/). W-Space Realtor
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 906	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:28:38 - [117] - Quote Step in the right direction but would like to see some mobility penalties and a little bigger sig penalty on the supplemental type subs and less of an EHP nerf unless there are specific cases where its game breaking rather than a token tweak to hp to keep people complaining happy. Increasing sig on the warfare sub is a nice idea to make off grid links less safe.
Corben Arctus Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 26	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:34:42 - [118] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: TheMercenaryKing wrote: now if only the prop mod bonus affected only 10mn classes. a more sensible way to fix this would be to just completely prevent people from fitting oversized or undersized prop mods I actually wouldn't mind if they did that.
Corben Arctus Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 26	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:35:28 - [119] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: Nerfing tank/DPS on T3s is cool. I just hope you are gonna add some new neat things and roles as well (like a bubbling engineer or electronics sub \o/). That's crazy talk.
Prospector Monk Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:56:34 - [120] - Quote Signature Radius: 150 (-15) Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Well I guess the lvl 5 mission runner are pleased?
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3530	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:57:43 - [121] - Quote As one who owns all four T3s, this set of changes looks good to me.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 674	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:44:23 - [122] - Quote TheMercenaryKing wrote: now if only the prop mod bonus affected only 10mn classes. No, 100mn meta is good and completely balanced. It doesn't scale well and small gang/solo pvp has never been an issue. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 906	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:56:50 - [123] - Quote Prospector Monk wrote: Signature Radius: 150 (-15) Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Well I guess the lvl 5 mission runner are pleased? AFAIK (haven't run the numbers) its just to offset the loss of passive regen from the loss of overall HP as its quite a big hit to PVE passive shield tanked setups - don't think you get anything extra out of it.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2736	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:10:02 - [124] - Quote My question is, is this slight nerf to the tanking capacities really so critical that these changes can't wait for the full balance pass of T3 cruisers?
Lugh Crow-Slave 808	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:12:13 - [125] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: i honestly can't help feel that the irrelevant 3% regen bonus and the extra 2.5% shaved off the tengu defensive sub is bullshit. just nerf them all to 7.5%. why because you don't know how to fit around regen? Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Lugh Crow-Slave 808	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:13:03 - [126] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: My question is, is this slight nerf to the tanking capacities really so critical that these changes can't wait for the full balance pass of T3 cruisers? I would rather they slowly tweak the subs one at a time rather than do a blanket pass where they miss something this is a much more controlled way to do it Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Mr Floydy Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 269	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:25:23 - [127] - Quote Looks a good start. Fixes the main issue with T3s as a whole, combined with some other tweaks they should still be strong ships to use without dwarfing what HACs/Command ships can do in 99% of scenarios.
Talrath Shifting Sands Trader Cartel Bleak Horizon Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:25:47 - [128] - Quote So you want to nerf T3s...sure, then you need to start lowering their price and removing the risk of losing skillpoints -_- or else no one will fly them, cause the risk (Price and skillpoints) just arent worth it... We are spending a lot of isk on these ships and taking the risk of losing skillpoints cause they are "extremely powerful ships" if you take that away without giving something in return (like removing skill loss) why would anyone fly them?? I fly all T3s and dont see the logic in nerfing the tengu more than the others and adding some useless shield regen bonus...like thats gonna help...not everyone uses passive tanked tengus....!
Lugh Crow-Slave 809	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:44:40 - [129] - Quote Talrath wrote: So you want to nerf T3s...sure, then you need to start lowering their price and removing the risk of losing skillpoints -_- or else no one will fly them, cause the risk (Price and skillpoints) just arent worth it... We are spending a lot of isk on these ships and taking the risk of losing skillpoints cause they are "extremely powerful ships" if you take that away without giving something in return (like removing skill loss) why would anyone fly them?? I fly all T3s and dont see the logic in nerfing the tengu more than the others and adding some useless shield regen bonus...like thats gonna help...not everyone uses passive tanked tengus....! then don't use that sub that is the buffer sub getting that not the active one also active tank shield fits do benefit for shield recharge rate Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 906	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:48:15 - [130] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: My question is, is this slight nerf to the tanking capacities really so critical that these changes can't wait for the full balance pass of T3 cruisers? It is an interesting question.
Dave Stark 7401	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:50:34 - [131] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Dave Stark wrote: i honestly can't help feel that the irrelevant 3% regen bonus and the extra 2.5% shaved off the tengu defensive sub is bullshit. just nerf them all to 7.5%. why because you don't know how to fit around regen? no.
Tineoidea Asanari Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion 37	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:10:01 - [132] - Quote Talrath wrote: So you want to nerf T3s...sure, then you need to start lowering their price and removing the risk of losing skillpoints -_- or else no one will fly them, cause the risk (Price and skillpoints) just arent worth it... Compare the T3s with other ships with that pricetag: Those are mainly pirate or navy battleships. T3s dont only fit a far superior tank (in addition to a signature that is ridiculous), they also hit far better, align and warp faster, etc. pp. - long story short, they are preferred in every thinkable way and the only downside are the 4 days of additional trainingtime if you lose one. You dont lose T3 that often (unless you dont know what you do), so I'd call that pretty balanced. With railguns getting nerfed (hitting both the aweful railgu and railprot doctrines) and T3s rebalanced, it might allow a new meta consisting of mainly battleship fleets crushing each others head instead of slippery petes and Ishtars cowarding everywhere.
TheMercenaryKing StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome. 355	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:26:11 - [133] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: TheMercenaryKing wrote: now if only the prop mod bonus affected only 10mn classes. a more sensible way to fix this would be to just completely prevent people from fitting oversized or undersized prop mods I dont have a problem with oversized mods, I just think the bonus and oversized combined is too powerful.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 907	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:43:52 - [134] - Quote Tineoidea Asanari wrote: Talrath wrote: So you want to nerf T3s...sure, then you need to start lowering their price and removing the risk of losing skillpoints -_- or else no one will fly them, cause the risk (Price and skillpoints) just arent worth it... Compare the T3s with other ships with that pricetag: Those are mainly pirate or navy battleships. T3s dont only fit a far superior tank (in addition to a signature that is ridiculous), they also hit far better, align and warp faster, etc. pp. - long story short, they are preferred in every thinkable way and the only downside are the 4 days of additional trainingtime if you lose one. You dont lose T3 that often (unless you dont know what you do), so I'd call that pretty balanced. With railguns getting nerfed (hitting both the aweful railgu and railprot doctrines) and T3s rebalanced, it might allow a new meta consisting of mainly battleship fleets crushing each others head instead of slippery petes and Ishtars cowarding everywhere. Battleships still need a touch before people would really want to use them like that mind - after awhile the warp speed, etc. becomes mind numbing. The "problem" with T3s IMO has always been that and, and, and, and factor rather than any one specific attribute being a problem (even EHP) I don't personally mind a T3 having a faction BS style tank or better but in no way should that be combined with HAC like mobility and signature. Strategic cruisers should be powerful but there should always be a choice and compromise.
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1140	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:47:36 - [135] - Quote Rowells wrote: I believe the highest non-belonged set up I've seen on tengu reached 170 maybe. Currently a Tengu can easily reach 340k EHP using a T2 fit. To repost: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5526808#post5526808 And to summarize the above linked post for the lazy: The Tengu nerf is completely insufficient without a total rebalance on the slot layout and engineering subsystems. btw, HMLs still suck. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Unamed Vyvorant Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:24:44 - [136] - Quote T3s Vs FracBS -less tank -1.5X less dps -skill loss -less cap -less slots (vindi have 5 mid-slots proteus only 3) -less anti-jam -less optimal -MJD? -target count -lock range -fitting problems -learning subsis skills in 5 takes over 20 days +agility +warp speed +scan res +mwd speed (20% more then Bs) +weapon sig rate +sig size +mass and why?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15273	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:32:13 - [137] - Quote Unamed Vyvorant wrote: T3s Vs FracBS -less tank -1.5X less dps -skill loss -less cap -less slots (vindi have 5 mid-slots proteus only 3) -less anti-jam -less optimal -MJD? -target count -lock range -fitting problems -learning subsis skills in 5 takes over 20 days +agility +warp speed +scan res +mwd speed (20% more then Bs) +weapon sig rate +sig size +mass and why? The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn Querschlaeger 11	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:33:34 - [138] - Quote No bonus on shield transfer and remote rep range on the adaptive shielding / augmentor? I hoped for 20% or 30% per skill level. I'm sad now. :( eHP nerf looks fine to me.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1098	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:33:55 - [139] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: My question is, is this slight nerf to the tanking capacities really so critical that these changes can't wait for the full balance pass of T3 cruisers? I would rather they slowly tweak the subs one at a time rather than do a blanket pass where they miss something this is a much more controlled way to do it they always miss something might aswell get as much bang for your buck as you can Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1098	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:35:03 - [140] - Quote Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn wrote: No bonus on shield transfer and remote rep range on the adaptive shielding / augmentor? I hoped for 20% or 30% per skill level. I'm sad now. :( eHP nerf looks fine to me. assuming they remove rigs then the HP is fine otherwise they will still be better than bc tanks, would be nice too see the T2 resists removed aswell its a must Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
Alundil Isogen 5 871	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:39:13 - [141] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Alundil wrote: Clearly you haven't seen what's typically flown in fleets where the most egregious issues are most 'abused'. There are no big proteus fleets. It's not something that has ever caught on, ever. Can't be that egregious. Nerf the tengu and you will see them. Me and bullet don't see eye to eye on many things but on this he is spot on. The proteus is seriously out of whack in terms of tank compared to any cruiser and puts just about every batttleship to shame. Currently the bare hull gets: 125 shield EHP 125 armour EHP 2.32k hull EHP That's nothing I hear you cry, well yea buts that's before we slap on a subsystem. With the Augmented plating we get: 6.1K Shield EHP 14.9k EHP 2.32k EHP That's a little more than twice as much armour as a phobos, the supposedly superheavy cruiser for tackling titans. I agree that with a Tengu nerf others will possibly see some more use. But in the current use cases for T3, comparing them to any other cruiser is destined for disappointment because the have overshadowed all of them in one way or another(s). Comparing them to a Phobos, for example, tackling a titan (while I know what point you're trying to make) isn't terribly relevant since they are different tools for different purposes even though they share the same hull size. I don't mean to imply that T3 ships weren't, or aren't, in need of tweaking/balancing/iteration/whatever verb you choose. Simply pointing out that in the most typical PVP configuration and usage of the hull type (Tengu in 00 being rails and heavy buffer tank / Proteus and Legion in wspace being blasters/HAM and heavy buffer tank / Loki in wspace being webs and heavy buffer tank) show the Tengu typically far tankier than the Prot or the Legion and definitely the Loki. This is based on 3 damage mods and T2 setup. One needs to faction tank the Prot and Legion to get near the same EHP as a Tengu while still keeping the damage mod count the same and neither have the even close to similar mobility or projection. To those saying "...proteus with >160k ehp...."; Yes it's very easy to do. Trivial once faction mods are thrown into the mix. But if the comparison is with a T2 RailGu with 3 damage mods (and that's the comparison I was working from) then you won't see a Prot or a Legion that meets it pound for pound. As for the >500k ehp proteus comment - sure it's doable but that setup won't be doing much dps at all and is something rarely, if ever, seen in the wild and therefore pointless to consider in the discussion. It's possible to get a proteus up over 1 million ehp (wh effects, slaves, boosts officer mods) and but no one in their right mind will do it so it really doesn't matter. That aside, CCP has stated that they will rebalance T3 hulls/subs and this is the first step and we're all along for the ride. It'll be interesting to see where they end up. Hopefully the changes still to be announced don't place them below T2 cruiser hulls in typical use cases as then there's less reason to use them over the T2 hulls making the cost and sp/time investment less useful but that remains to be seen. I'm right behind you
Unamed Vyvorant Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:47:37 - [142] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Unamed Vyvorant wrote: T3s Vs FracBS The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?!
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2736	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:48:24 - [143] - Quote Unamed Vyvorant wrote: baltec1 wrote: Unamed Vyvorant wrote: T3s Vs FracBS The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?! Cost is not a balancing factor.
Unamed Vyvorant Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:58:54 - [144] - Quote z wrote: Unamed Vyvorant wrote: The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?![/quote] Cost is not a balancing factor.[/quote] Backline is balancing factor?, Then why is the opinion nullcitizens is balancing factor?!
Blodhgarm Dethahal Absolutely Certain 188	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:26:09 - [145] - Quote Unamed Vyvorant wrote: z wrote: Unamed Vyvorant wrote: The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?! Cost is not a balancing factor.[/quote] Backline is balancing factor?, Then why is the opinion nullcitizens is balancing factor?![/quote] Cost is not considered in balance because ultimately price is set by the player base and the free market. As such prices change over time due to popularity, ship practicality, and the logistics in building it. What IS considered in balancing is the fact that this is the only ship in the game that causes you to loose skillpoints on the ship's destruction. -Bl+¦d http://bloodytravels.blogspot.com/ -á-- My travels through space.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15286	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:19:38 - [146] - Quote Unamed Vyvorant wrote: baltec1 wrote: Unamed Vyvorant wrote: T3s Vs FracBS The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?! Cost means nothing in terms of balance. Its a cruiser, so thats where it needs to be in terms of its stats. Not overshadowing battleships. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Talrath Shifting Sands Trader Cartel Bleak Horizon Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:52:34 - [147] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Unamed Vyvorant wrote: baltec1 wrote: Unamed Vyvorant wrote: T3s Vs FracBS The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?! Cost means nothing in terms of balance. Its a cruiser, so thats where it needs to be in terms of its stats. Not overshadowing battleships. So you are saying that a 500 mil cruiser shud be weaker than a 50 mil battlecruiser?
Kynric Sky Fighters 268	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:06:37 - [148] - Quote The loki subsystem which lowers sig radius could use some love. It is seldom used and this balance change offers nothing to help it. Also, if battleship EHP were increased it would help a lot with balancing strategic cruisers relative to other fleet concepts. Currently the strategic cruisers are more mobile, apply damage better and are more survivable relative to their heavier cousins. If battleships were to have much higher raw hp totals the strategic cruisers would be in a more interesting place.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15290	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:26:00 - [149] - Quote Talrath wrote: So you are saying that a 500 mil cruiser shud be weaker than a 50 mil battlecruiser? The 5-10 traillion isk federate megathron is weaker than a vindicator. So yea, a cruiser should never be better at being a battlecruiser than a battlecruiser. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1100	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:31:29 - [150] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Talrath wrote: So you are saying that a 500 mil cruiser shud be weaker than a 50 mil battlecruiser? The 5-10 traillion isk federate megathron is weaker than a vindicator. So yea, a cruiser should never be better at being a battlecruiser than a battlecruiser. excellent point , T3's are too expensive though atm, removing rigs would help cut off a good chunk, but making the subs cheap is where the cost needs too be reduced vastly and the nice side effect would be the increased versatility of being able too carry and change subs easier, and cheaper. building the fittings and HP,pg etc into the hull would also help speed up the changing of configs. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
Sbrodor Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation 39	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:32:01 - [151] - Quote i really hope the signature increase of the classic: booster, cloacky, nulli t3 allow to be probed easy. as the nerf of projection of skynet-carrier to balance risk\reward the use of t3 cloacky, nulli, booster is absolutly too high aganist the use of command ship, without almost any risk u can boost offgrid and scout and avoid bubble in one single ship. except use of vulture as dps the use of command ship is only used in big fleet and never in smaller gang where the double\triple booster of t3 allow multi boxing and changing the flow of battle with a single ship. more signature to booster, let them be probed !
4Rum Alt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:33:11 - [152] - Quote Well I will say this I have spent over $6000 in real life money on Eve. CCP you are listening to all these players that play for free and thus complain about ships like the t3's because they can't afford to buy one or afford to lose one. You need to keep the pay to play players happy, because if the pay to play players stop paying and leave Eve how long will you be able to run Eve? When there is no advantage to pay to play then why will anyone pay?
Talrath Shifting Sands Trader Cartel Bleak Horizon Alliance. 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:39:08 - [153] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Talrath wrote: So you are saying that a 500 mil cruiser shud be weaker than a 50 mil battlecruiser? The 5-10 traillion isk federate megathron is weaker than a vindicator. So yea, a cruiser should never be better at being a battlecruiser than a battlecruiser. So your logic is that a more skill intensive ship and more expensive ship (not due to rarity or AT rewards) shud be weaker just cause its smaller....lol
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15294	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:22:32 - [154] - Quote Talrath wrote: baltec1 wrote: Talrath wrote: So you are saying that a 500 mil cruiser shud be weaker than a 50 mil battlecruiser? The 5-10 traillion isk federate megathron is weaker than a vindicator. So yea, a cruiser should never be better at being a battlecruiser than a battlecruiser. So your logic is that a more skill intensive ship and more expensive ship (not due to rarity or AT rewards) shud be weaker just cause its smaller....lol Yes, I believe in stuff being balanced and not overpowered. I dont care how much SP you need for a ship, I have over 100 million, SP is meaningless to me and anyone else who has the skills trained. Isk cost is also meaningless, no matter the cost we can afford it. CCP learned this the hard way when they gave us the titans. These things are cruisers not battlecruisers but most importantly, CCPs own goal is to have them land between T1 and T2 cruisers, right now they are way way more powerful than any cruiser. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
4Rum Alt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:30:04 - [155] - Quote Talrath wrote: baltec1 wrote: Talrath wrote: So you are saying that a 500 mil cruiser shud be weaker than a 50 mil battlecruiser? The 5-10 traillion isk federate megathron is weaker than a vindicator. So yea, a cruiser should never be better at being a battlecruiser than a battlecruiser. So your logic is that a more skill intensive ship and more expensive ship (not due to rarity or AT rewards) shud be weaker just cause its smaller....lol They just can't seem to comprehend that a t3 is an hybrid cruiser that employs the best T2 cruiser technology the 4 empires have and an advanced alien technology that makes the ship much more powerful than its size would suggest. You could take a ship the size of a bathtub and if it possessed advanced anti-gravity, shield and plasma weapons technology there would be not one aircraft from our planets big 4 nations that could do anything with it. Why is it so hard to understand that ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY, no matter the size wins hands down?
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:30:45 - [156] - Quote 4Rum Alt wrote: Well I will say this I have spent over $6000 in real life money on Eve. CCP you are listening to all these players that play for free and thus complain about ships like the t3's because they can't afford to buy one or afford to lose one. You need to keep the pay to play players happy, because if the pay to play players stop paying and leave Eve how long will you be able to run Eve? When there is no advantage to pay to play then why will anyone pay? Everybody pays subscription to play EVE. Just sayin'.
4Rum Alt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:33:03 - [157] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: 4Rum Alt wrote: Well I will say this I have spent over $6000 in real life money on Eve. CCP you are listening to all these players that play for free and thus complain about ships like the t3's because they can't afford to buy one or afford to lose one. You need to keep the pay to play players happy, because if the pay to play players stop paying and leave Eve how long will you be able to run Eve? When there is no advantage to pay to play then why will anyone pay? Everybody pays subscription to play EVE. Just sayin'. No they don't. I know players that have been playing longer than I have that have never spent not one red cent on this game.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:33:13 - [158] - Quote 4Rum Alt wrote: Talrath wrote: baltec1 wrote: Talrath wrote: So you are saying that a 500 mil cruiser shud be weaker than a 50 mil battlecruiser? The 5-10 traillion isk federate megathron is weaker than a vindicator. So yea, a cruiser should never be better at being a battlecruiser than a battlecruiser. So your logic is that a more skill intensive ship and more expensive ship (not due to rarity or AT rewards) shud be weaker just cause its smaller....lol They just can't seem to comprehend that a t3 is an hybrid cruiser that employs the best T2 cruiser technology the 4 empires have and an advanced alien technology that makes the ship much more powerful than its size would suggest. You could take a ship the size of a bathtub and if it possessed advanced anti-gravity, shield and plasma weapons technology there would be not one aircraft from our planets big 4 nations that could do anything with it. Why is it so hard to understand that ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY, no matter the size wins hands down? No you don't understand that they are designed to be an amalgamation of all T2 cruiser types in a jack of all trades master of none way. The same hull is supposed to be able to do the job of any other cruiser hull but just at a lesser level.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:34:01 - [159] - Quote 4Rum Alt wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: 4Rum Alt wrote: Well I will say this I have spent over $6000 in real life money on Eve. CCP you are listening to all these players that play for free and thus complain about ships like the t3's because they can't afford to buy one or afford to lose one. You need to keep the pay to play players happy, because if the pay to play players stop paying and leave Eve how long will you be able to run Eve? When there is no advantage to pay to play then why will anyone pay? Everybody pays subscription to play EVE. Just sayin'. No they don't. I know players that have been playing longer than I have that have never spent not one red cent on this game. So you think the PLEX they used was made out of thin air?
4Rum Alt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:35:55 - [160] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: 4Rum Alt wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: 4Rum Alt wrote: Well I will say this I have spent over $6000 in real life money on Eve. CCP you are listening to all these players that play for free and thus complain about ships like the t3's because they can't afford to buy one or afford to lose one. You need to keep the pay to play players happy, because if the pay to play players stop paying and leave Eve how long will you be able to run Eve? When there is no advantage to pay to play then why will anyone pay? Everybody pays subscription to play EVE. Just sayin'. No they don't. I know players that have been playing longer than I have that have never spent not one red cent on this game. So you think the PLEX they used was made out of thin air? They grind ingame making isk to buy the plex with ingame made isk. They don't spend their real life money at all. Where do you come from?
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:38:49 - [161] - Quote 4Rum Alt wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: 4Rum Alt wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: 4Rum Alt wrote: Well I will say this I have spent over $6000 in real life money on Eve. CCP you are listening to all these players that play for free and thus complain about ships like the t3's because they can't afford to buy one or afford to lose one. You need to keep the pay to play players happy, because if the pay to play players stop paying and leave Eve how long will you be able to run Eve? When there is no advantage to pay to play then why will anyone pay? Everybody pays subscription to play EVE. Just sayin'. No they don't. I know players that have been playing longer than I have that have never spent not one red cent on this game. So you think the PLEX they used was made out of thin air? They grind ingame making isk to buy the plex with ingame made isk. They don't spend their real life money at all. Where do you come from? You didn't answer my question. Was the PLEX they used made out of thin air? Hint : It involve money.
4Rum Alt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:44:35 - [162] - Quote Actually yes it was made out of thin air, CCP created it. A plex can be bought with real life money or with fake ingame money ISK. One does not have to use any real life money to acquire a plex. They just have to make enough ingame money(ISK)
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:49:36 - [163] - Quote 4Rum Alt wrote: Actually yes it was made out of thin air, CCP created it. A plex can be bought with real life money or with fake ingame money ISK. One does not have to use any real life money to acquire a plex. They just have to make enough ingame money(ISK) The PLEX was created after CCP recieved some RL money. The account is only active because CCP is paid for it. It might be a different way but they still get paid for it. The PLEX using guys are paying customer just like the ones who pay by CC. Paying directly to CCP instead of by using a 3rd party makes no difference. Your account gettign closed does nto hurt CCP more than a PLEXer account gettign closed. Hell it probably hurt less since you more than likely pay less than the $$$ cost of a PLEX.
Tineoidea Asanari Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion 37	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:19:05 - [164] - Quote 4Rum Alt wrote: Actually yes it was made out of thin air, CCP created it. A plex can be bought with real life money or with fake ingame money ISK. One does not have to use any real life money to acquire a plex. They just have to make enough ingame money(ISK) No, it's not made of thin air. PLEX are created by other players for real money so they can sell them and transform them into ISK (or some of the new services). So, for every PLEX there was someone that paid CCP a month worth of money. Unamed Vyvorant wrote: T3s Vs FracBS -less tank Can you point me again please, where T3 have less tank than Faction or even Pirate battleships? In the regular fits that are used in actual combat by people capable of fitting their ships? And dont forget signature and speed. Talrath wrote: So you are saying that a 500 mil cruiser shud be weaker than a 50 mil battlecruiser? No, but T3s are overpowered. Even for their cost. Look at the plain facts: It's cheaper to fly Tengus than Megathrons because Tengus dont die as fast and dont need as much replacement. Same goes for Napocs and all the other beautiful battleships. The current meta is as it is, because people try to find the most effective way to **** with other people. Whenever the meta focuses on only 1 or 2 ships, those are (not guaranteed, but a good bet) overpowered.
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1149	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:35:37 - [165] - Quote unimatrix0030 wrote: Rowells wrote: Iirc proteus can pull 320k and legion can do 270k with only T2 mods. I believe the highest non-belonged set up I've seen on tengu reached 170 maybe. No way you can get above 100kehp on just t2 mods without implants and being able to fit modules in mids and high slots. Challenge accepted. [Tengu, Current Railgu] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Large Shield Extender II Explosive Deflection Field II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 10MN Afterburner II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Tengu Offensive - Magnetic Infusion Basin Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst 334kEHP with links and heated. No implants. Cap stable. ~500dps. lrn2EFT http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 914	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:45:33 - [166] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Challenge accepted. [Tengu, Current Railgu] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Large Shield Extender II Explosive Deflection Field II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 10MN Afterburner II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Tengu Offensive - Magnetic Infusion Basin Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst 334kEHP with links and heated. No implants. Cap stable. ~500dps. lrn2EFT One of the more convincing arguments for a EHP nerf - my main problem with that fit though isn't the 200+K EHP but the fact it can do that while able to potentially 1km/s heated AB w/ links, align in under 6 seconds and 150ish sig (when linked) and still a very respectable 230 ish sig when not linked... in that configuration it should be more like half that kind of mobility and 300 odd sig.
Kochab Itinen Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:55:54 - [167] - Quote If EHP are nerfed, it's time to remove the skill loss at the ship loss ! Thank you
Derath Ellecon Blue Sun Exploration Situation: Normal 2391	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:43:56 - [168] - Quote Tineoidea Asanari wrote: No, but T3s are overpowered. Even for their cost. Look at the plain facts: It's cheaper to fly Tengus than Megathrons because Tengus dont die as fast and dont need as much replacement. Which is good, because I can lose as many Mega's as I can afford (or buy plex for). But if I lose more than one T3 every 4 days on average I would pretty much spend the rest of my EVE time retraining my subsystem skills.
James Zimmer Furtherance. 14	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:50:58 - [169] - Quote First, I'm glad Strategic Cruisers are getting nerfed. When the standard response to a Proteus being in the fight is "just dock up", because there is no good counter other than a blob or more T3s, the ship class is OP. That being said, I don't think this quite addresses the issue with T3 cruisers, and I'll be excited to see what else CCP has in store. In my opinion, T3 cruisers are supposed to be highly appealing because they are more flexible than anything, not because they are flat out better than everything. However, in the current state of affairs, T3s can out-tank, out-DPS, out-run and out-range T2 cruisers, ALL AT THE SAME TIME. They are flat out better combat ships than every sub-cap with the exception of marauders. Frigates, destroyers, a handful of cruisers and marauders still have function because of niche roles, but if it wasn't for a high amount of SP required to fly them well, T3s obsolete everything else. I would personally like to see the SP loss go away, ship cost to go down, and even stronger subsystems, but subsystems that came with substantial drawbacks as well. Sure you can tank your T3 to insane EHP, but kiss your DPS goodbye, or you can project at great distances, but you're a slow, clumsy glass cannon. In general, I think that a T3, fit for general PvP, should be a bit weaker than a HAC, because we already have HACs and we don't need duplicate ship classes. Right now, T3s are just super-bonused HACs.
James Zimmer Furtherance. 14	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:09:04 - [170] - Quote 4Rum Alt wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: 4Rum Alt wrote: Well I will say this I have spent over $6000 in real life money on Eve. CCP you are listening to all these players that play for free and thus complain about ships like the t3's because they can't afford to buy one or afford to lose one. You need to keep the pay to play players happy, because if the pay to play players stop paying and leave Eve how long will you be able to run Eve? When there is no advantage to pay to play then why will anyone pay? Everybody pays subscription to play EVE. Just sayin'. No they don't. I know players that have been playing longer than I have that have never spent not one red cent on this game. You sir, are very rare. I pay $15 a month to play, and I PLEXed once to get myself started with a decent chunk of cash. I'm probably very average in that sense. They could try to appeal to you and get a small number of rich players, but that is probably less economically sound than trying to appeal to thousands of players like me. It's the same reason Ford is a vastly more profitable company than Lamborghini. In addition, if they consistently made decisions to make life better for people who pay large amounts of money at the cost of the average player, people like me will leave, which will leave only rich players to go fight, or in other words, you will have to pay $6000 just to be average in the game, and that won't appeal to anyone.
Spencer Owl Black Swan Corp Mercury Seven 22	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:40:42 - [171] - Quote Saw this from a mile away. While I love my T3s, this is necessary to make battleships viable. The gap between T2 cruiser and T3 cruiser is way to big. I shouldn't be able to fly a cruiser around with the tank of a BS, sig of a cruiser, and the DPS of a T2 AC. It undermines the BS class. While BSs are still too easily blapped by dreads this is a start in the right direction. That said, I'd like to see some minor changes to grid/cpu and the removal of skill loss. Just about everything else works out. Keep up the good work CCP. PS - who do I have to pleasure around here to get some help with the Rev?
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 488	Posted - 2015.02.28 03:09:13 - [172] - Quote LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote: Passive regen is interesting. Not sure if +15% is that much though, I would hope for a bigger boost. The passive regen I found gave me the same amount of ehp/s as before meaning this is just a straight loss of ehp and not a boost to regen at all. Don't be fooled. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 488	Posted - 2015.02.28 03:13:04 - [173] - Quote Spencer Owl wrote: Saw this from a mile away. While I love my T3s, this is necessary to make battleships viable. The gap between T2 cruiser and T3 cruiser is way to big. I shouldn't be able to fly a cruiser around with the tank of a BS, sig of a cruiser, and the DPS of a T2 AC. It undermines the BS class. While BSs are still too easily blapped by dreads this is a start in the right direction. That said, I'd like to see some minor changes to grid/cpu and the removal of skill loss. Just about everything else works out. Keep up the good work CCP. PS - who do I have to pleasure around here to get some help with the Rev? None of this makes the battleship class more viable. This change only achieves dragging T3's down a bit which while a bit sad to see is necessary. I tested out my tengu on SISI and I tanked a thanatos and Orthrus quite easily pre-change. SISI has already been updated to the new format and I wouldn't be as game to try it out now I think. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 488	Posted - 2015.02.28 03:16:12 - [174] - Quote Rroff wrote: Soldarius wrote: Challenge accepted. [Tengu, Current Railgu] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II ---snip-- Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Tengu Offensive - Magnetic Infusion Basin Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst 334kEHP with links and heated. No implants. Cap stable. ~500dps. lrn2EFT One of the more convincing arguments for a EHP nerf - my main problem with that fit though isn't the 200+K EHP but the fact it can do that while able to potentially 1km/s heated AB w/ links, align in under 6 seconds and 150ish sig (when linked) and still a very respectable 230 ish sig when not linked... in that configuration it should be more like half that kind of mobility and 300 odd sig. WOW because links aren't the common denominator with most of the games imbalances, no Sir not at all. To balance links I propose that getting killed in a links ship (any ship fitted with links) resets one of your links skills to level 4 randomly. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Good Apollo BS4 Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:13:28 - [175] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Unamed Vyvorant wrote: baltec1 wrote: Unamed Vyvorant wrote: T3s Vs FracBS The fact that you had to show T3 vs faction battleships and not other cruisers is telling of how overpowered these things are You think, I have to compare 500KK hull ships with under 200KK hull costs?! Cost means nothing in terms of balance. Its a cruiser, so thats where it needs to be in terms of its stats. Not overshadowing battleships. then make the battleships more viable, or make a line T2 battleship. I think this is more a case of other ships need to be more viable then saying "oh look what null is using, that needs a nerf"." Except for the ishtar, right, that needs nerf. Or does it... ishtars are used bcs they are more viable than battleship equivalent, to a degree. why not buff the domi to where we have another option that is viable, projects force, tanks, etc. Give us more options, not less. Make the drake the new drake! Idk, im not game designer but I do prefer options to less options.
Alundil Isogen 5 871	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:16:57 - [176] - Quote James Zimmer wrote: First, I'm glad Strategic Cruisers are getting nerfed. When the standard response to a Proteus being in the fight is "just dock up", because there is no good counter other than a blob or more T3s, the ship class is OP. Lol what? Neuts and damps = dead proteus, the end. Wow I'm right behind you
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 269	Posted - 2015.02.28 07:18:54 - [177] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Alundil wrote: Clearly you haven't seen what's typically flown in fleets where the most egregious issues are most 'abused'. There are no big proteus fleets. It's not something that has ever caught on, ever. Can't be that egregious. Nerf the tengu and you will see them. Me and bullet don't see eye to eye on many things but on this he is spot on. The proteus is seriously out of whack in terms of tank compared to any cruiser and puts just about every batttleship to shame. Currently the bare hull gets: 125 shield EHP 125 armour EHP 2.32k hull EHP That's nothing I hear you cry, well yea buts that's before we slap on a subsystem. With the Augmented plating we get: 6.1K Shield EHP 14.9k EHP 2.32k EHP That's a little more than twice as much armour as a phobos, the supposedly superheavy cruiser for tackling titans. I agree with you on most of what you post, actually, though I'm usually not compelled to post in regards to something I agree with and it's past due that I do. When I see something I do disagree with, though, you're one of the only people that ever tries to take an argument to it's conclusion, which is irresistible to me, particularly when I've imbibed before reading this forum. Not to be too much of an apologist, but I've had a chance to read other people posts here and I'm loving your posts riddling their 'arguments.' Nice work.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 920	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:09:58 - [178] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: WOW because links aren't the common denominator with most of the games imbalances, no Sir not at all. To balance links I propose that getting killed in a links ship (any ship fitted with links) resets one of your links skills to level 4 randomly. Probably not the best way to illustrate it, but t3s do tend to be used in conjunction with links more than other ships. Point still stands though - even unlinked it has ridiculous mobility and sig for the tank, that kind of ability should be reserved for the resist sub-system along with having to make the choice of less ehp.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2035	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:02:57 - [179] - Quote Why are T3s in need of an emergency defensive subsystem nerf after all these years of being unchanged? Surely just waiting to do an actual balance pass would be the sensible thing to do.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 492	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:54:39 - [180] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Why are T3s in need of an emergency defensive subsystem nerf after all these years of being unchanged? Surely just waiting to do an actual balance pass would be the sensible thing to do. It's because they didn't want to compel every man and his dog to switch from ishtar to tengu overnight in a knee-jerk reaction to the ishtars balance pass. A straight loss in EHP for the tengu makes it easier to volley off the field, meaning enemy fleets which do switch over to heavy tengu compositions can at least be potentially countered through alpha doctrines. FWIW my tengu I mentioned earlier lost about 22k ehp, which is not inconsiderable seeing the setup I have. Pro tip: you won't find that tengu on my killboard because I don't use it that way. It does more... specialised work. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Dean Dewitt Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 16	Posted - 2015.02.28 14:29:54 - [181] - Quote Why is always the tengu which is the most nerf? ok the tengu is more used than before especially in PVP by big alliances but is it the reason they should be nerf? Big alliances use tengu with railgun and that's exactly what is going to be rebalanced? When was the last time the tengu was changed? Stop changing things that doesn't need to be changed. The tengu is most used in fleet the others T3 are usable in solo, the only thing the tengu can do in solo is PVE. Don't nerf the tengu because 0.0 alliance use them.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 492	Posted - 2015.02.28 14:56:22 - [182] - Quote The Tengu can solo pvp, it just costs a lot lot more than other solo pvp vessels and isn't especially good at it. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 922	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:24:47 - [183] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: The Tengu can solo pvp, it just costs a lot lot more than other solo pvp vessels and isn't especially good at it. The 100mn/active tanked fit does pretty well - though you need deep pockets and more skill and nerve than I have to produce results with it.
O2 jayjay Tit-EE Sprinkles Stratagem. 19	Posted - 2015.02.28 23:06:22 - [184] - Quote +1 For the armor tanked ships they need a bigger sig increase. Great start towards the t3 nerf.
Sniper Smith Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 305	Posted - 2015.02.28 23:38:21 - [185] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Why are T3s in need of an emergency defensive subsystem nerf after all these years of being unchanged? Surely just waiting to do an actual balance pass would be the sensible thing to do. Because the last set of re-balances left them being Substantially OP AND in use. No one cares about OP ships that no one uses As for why not balence them.. Well we all know it's on CCP's Agenda.. but remember, rebalacing T3's is a LOT more complex than it sounds.. 5subs per ship, 5 variations of each sub. So that's what? 25 Potential combo's per ship.. so a T3 Rebalance is like rebalancing 100 ships in one go. That's not something you do quickly or easily. We all know they need it, CCP says so too, but I think they want to finish the rest of the balances and then deal with T3's once everything else it done.. Honestly it will likely be a complete overhaul of the T3 Cruisers.. I for one can't wait till they get to them.. but for now, this is a start.. and with the new 6week cycle, they can address issues more quickly should they come up.
Bogdo Lama Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 06:26:03 - [186] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Spencer Owl wrote: Saw this from a mile away. While I love my T3s, this is necessary to make battleships viable. The gap between T2 cruiser and T3 cruiser is way to big. I shouldn't be able to fly a cruiser around with the tank of a BS, sig of a cruiser, and the DPS of a T2 AC. It undermines the BS class. While BSs are still too easily blapped by dreads this is a start in the right direction. That said, I'd like to see some minor changes to grid/cpu and the removal of skill loss. Just about everything else works out. Keep up the good work CCP. PS - who do I have to pleasure around here to get some help with the Rev? None of this makes the battleship class more viable. This change only achieves dragging T3's down a bit which while a bit sad to see is necessary. I tested out my tengu on SISI and I tanked a thanatos and Orthrus quite easily pre-change. SISI has already been updated to the new format and I wouldn't be as game to try it out now I think. I have also tanked thanny on sisi with triple rep hyper. Just saying..
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 408	Posted - 2015.03.01 10:26:04 - [187] - Quote The rail Tengu is used at far ranges and disengages when things get close enough to start shooting it with good DPS. I don't think a nerf to tank is going to change much at all. ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
Bogdo Lama Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 10:35:22 - [188] - Quote James Zimmer wrote: First, I'm glad Strategic Cruisers are getting nerfed. When the standard response to a Proteus being in the fight is "just dock up", because there is no good counter other than a blob or more T3s, the ship class is OP. That being said, I don't think this quite addresses the issue with T3 cruisers, and I'll be excited to see what else CCP has in store. In my opinion, T3 cruisers are supposed to be highly appealing because they are more flexible than anything, not because they are flat out better than everything. However, in the current state of affairs, T3s can out-tank, out-DPS, out-run and out-range T2 cruisers, ALL AT THE SAME TIME. They are flat out better combat ships than every sub-cap with the exception of marauders. Frigates, destroyers, a handful of cruisers and marauders still have function because of niche roles, but if it wasn't for a high amount of SP required to fly T3s well, T3s would obsolete everything else. I would personally like to see the SP loss go away, ship cost to go down, and even stronger subsystems, but subsystems that came with substantial drawbacks as well. Sure you can tank your T3 to insane EHP, but kiss your DPS goodbye, or you can project at great distances, but you're a slow, clumsy glass cannon. In general, I think that a T3, fit for general PvP, should be a bit weaker than a HAC, because we already have HACs and we don't need duplicate ship classes. Right now, T3s are just super-bonused HACs. You keep talking about T3's as if they were just "some stupid super T2 cruisers that arent needed in this game". I cant understand this kinda mentality. I read your post but i cant still understand why you dont like them. T3's arent flat out better in everything than all other sub caps. Example why are ishtars used so much if T3 is better? However they do cost more than other subcaps. Imho T3 is supposed to be better than hacs in all classes they do cost more than twice as much. And after all they are T3 not T1,5 as in T3 even sounds like it should be better than T2. Besides whats the whole point of this ship class. Hull that you can customize to suit for your needs. Would it be BS tank, 100mn ab, cloaky nulified or exploring or whatever. And there is nothing wrong with this. I like T3's as they are and like to them stay as they are. I like to fly them and i like to kill them theyre aweosome fun on both sides. Besides they are rather easy to kill.. Yes ive also used alot T3's. I did check my kb stats for most used ships (different char). And my top 5 looks like this. 1. Tengu 2. Loki 3. Cynanbal 4. Drake 5. Tornado What actually makes me bit sad is that theres no BS's on this list. Not even on top 10 list. And why this is? I think mostly because BS's are so big and slow. As in if theres a fight 35jumps away. And i have to choose between BS, T3 or HAC. One thing is sure i wont be flying that 70jumps in BS.
Tineoidea Asanari Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion 37	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:25:14 - [189] - Quote Bogdo Lama wrote: You keep talking about T3's as if they were just "some stupid super T2 cruisers that arent needed in this game". I cant understand this kinda mentality. I read your post but i cant still understand why you dont like them. As it is right now, T3s are super HACs. Recon fitted T3s arent op (or at least dont feel that op) like HAC fitted T3s. They feel much better than normal recons but dont get that silly borderline opness, that they get when you switch them to do both damage and tank well. One part of the problem is the power of medium rails, as Lokis arent that much used, blaster ships are easy to kite, laser legions easily neuted out and HAM/HM legions either dont have the required range or DPS. A ship that shoots up to 120km with ok-ish DPS, good alpha, forgetable cap consumption, very good speed and super fast align time on the other hand is not so cool. The only way to flat out counter T3s is to bring even more of them and maybe sensor damp/tracking disrupt them. But EWAR only has a limited range and Tengus can easily shoot from afar. Quote: T3's arent flat out better in everything than all other sub caps. Example why are ishtars used so much if T3 is better? Because of Sentrys are the one weapon system that is even more broken than railguns :) Quote: Imho T3 is supposed to be better than hacs in all classes they do cost more than twice as much. And after all they are T3 not T1,5 as in T3 even sounds like it should be better than T2. Besides whats the whole point of this ship class. Hull that you can customize to suit for your needs. Would it be BS tank, 100mn ab, cloaky nulified or exploring or whatever. And there is nothing wrong with this. I like T3's as they are and like to them stay as they are. I like to fly them and i like to kill them theyre aweosome fun on both sides. Besides they are rather easy to kill.. Easy to kill? They are the hardest ships to kill in all of EVE! Maybe the T3 destroyers are a bit harder if they are able to maintain a long distance to the enemy, but T3s are very very strong ships and outclass other ships in their price tag with ease. The main part about T3 cruisers isnt their flexbility, as this is not getting much use. There are only a few different really strong fits for each of them, which is pretty sad. They are not versatile. They are just stronger HACs.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 498	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:27:17 - [190] - Quote Bogdo Lama wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: [--- None of this makes the battleship class more viable. This change only achieves dragging T3's down a bit which while a bit sad to see is necessary. I tested out my tengu on SISI and I tanked a thanatos and Orthrus quite easily pre-change. SISI has already been updated to the new format and I wouldn't be as game to try it out now I think. I have also tanked thanny on sisi with triple rep hyper. Just saying.. I bet you weren't cap stable. I was. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Bogdo Lama Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 15:58:23 - [191] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: [--- None of this makes the battleship class more viable. This change only achieves dragging T3's down a bit which while a bit sad to see is necessary. I tested out my tengu on SISI and I tanked a thanatos and Orthrus quite easily pre-change. SISI has already been updated to the new format and I wouldn't be as game to try it out now I think. I have also tanked thanny on sisi with triple rep hyper. Just saying.. I bet you weren't cap stable. I was. Well i did tanked it for half hour until we got bored at it and docked up. And no not cap stable but instead using cap booster and had enough cargo space to run reps half hour and still had boosters left in cargo when docked up..
Jake Chely Star Nation Elemental Tide 5	Posted - 2015.03.01 16:05:46 - [192] - Quote I started playing Eve a few months ago. Although I'm still a noob when it comes to ships and main differences between them, I found T3 cruisers to be really (too?) powerful. They Certainly need rebalance. That being said, they are still Tech 3. We all expect Tech 2 ships to be better than their Tech 1 versions. I see Tech 3 ships like cruisers capable of playing differents roles but not as efficiently as a specific Tech 2 cruiser would. I know for example that the drone DPS of an Ishtar will always be better than the Proteus one because of the extra 25Mbits bandwidth. 5 heavy/sentry for the Ishtar, 4 maximum for the Proteus. I didn't check every other possible configuration but I assumed it was always the case. I assumed that any tech 2 is better in it's own specific field. If it's not that way then rebalancing Tech 3 is definitely needed. Careful though, let's not make them too weak either. Like I said, they are still Tech 3, they are supposed to be high end ships. Moreover, if you happen to die in one of those, you have to train one of your subsystems skills again. With +4 implants and no remap that means more than 4 days training. I bet you won't risk flying another brand new Tech 3 during these days. And that's 4 days while you can't train another skill.
Bogdo Lama Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 16:52:00 - [193] - Quote Tineoidea Asanari wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: You keep talking about T3's as if they were just "some stupid super T2 cruisers that arent needed in this game". I cant understand this kinda mentality. I read your post but i cant still understand why you dont like them. As it is right now, T3s are super HACs. Recon fitted T3s arent op (or at least dont feel that op) like HAC fitted T3s. They feel much better than normal recons but dont get that silly borderline opness, that they get when you switch them to do both damage and tank well. One part of the problem is the power of medium rails, as Lokis arent that much used, blaster ships are easy to kite, laser legions easily neuted out and HAM/HM legions either dont have the required range or DPS. A ship that shoots up to 120km with ok-ish DPS, good alpha, forgetable cap consumption, very good speed and super fast align time on the other hand is not so cool. The only way to flat out counter T3s is to bring even more of them and maybe sensor damp/tracking disrupt them. But EWAR only has a limited range and Tengus can easily shoot from afar. Quote: T3's arent flat out better in everything than all other sub caps. Example why are ishtars used so much if T3 is better? Because of Sentrys are the one weapon system that is even more broken than railguns :) Quote: Imho T3 is supposed to be better than hacs in all classes they do cost more than twice as much. And after all they are T3 not T1,5 as in T3 even sounds like it should be better than T2. Besides whats the whole point of this ship class. Hull that you can customize to suit for your needs. Would it be BS tank, 100mn ab, cloaky nulified or exploring or whatever. And there is nothing wrong with this. I like T3's as they are and like to them stay as they are. I like to fly them and i like to kill them theyre aweosome fun on both sides. Besides they are rather easy to kill.. Easy to kill? They are the hardest ships to kill in all of EVE! Maybe the T3 destroyers are a bit harder if they are able to maintain a long distance to the enemy, but T3s are very very strong ships and outclass other ships in their price tag with ease. The main part about T3 cruisers isnt their flexbility, as this is not getting much use. There are only a few different really strong fits for each of them, which is pretty sad. They are not versatile. They are just stronger HACs. You say they outclass every other ships with their price tag. These ships are pirate BS's like mach or rattle. Arty mach will outrange and out dps loki for example. Even arty TFI can outrange and out dps loki. Rattle will outrange and out dps tengu. Vindi will out dps any T3. You see where this is going? Killing T3's in different surroundigs like solo/small gang/null blob isnt hard. Which means that if null blob has 50 scimis and you cant kill tengu it just might be cause of scimis. T3's are very easy to alpha off field with lets say for example 150 arty machs at +100k. In this scenario they become bigger problem when you let them land too close so you cant track em anymore. T3's in small gangs are very easy to kill by shooting it its matter of reps again. If theres too much reps then you need damps and neuts on logis. Solo T3's are also easy to kill lets say 100mn tengu. Multiple webs and neuts work well here instead feeding said tengu frigate by frigate..
August Johann Bader SECURITY SQUAD N.O.B.O.D.Y. 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 17:54:44 - [194] - Quote I tell You what I think: the most stupidiest and the most easiest way for You as game developers is to make some stupid rebalance things thst kill the spirit of EVE-online and do it like: "Hi guys! Look we make a super change in game! We haven't done anything at all GOOD and SMART but we what You to think about us like we've done this!". What Do You want to do with Ishtars nerf it once again? Why? Because new players won't be able to fly on it for a several months and they would get out from EVE and You loose Your profits? And You afraid of losing Your money! That's true You lose Your profits and people who rules CCP lose their bonuses. That's why You do everything in the past 2 years to make the EVE fast-entering game, the game for stupid instead of the game for smart! If You really want to nerf Ishtar make it slower not cut one of his main efforts. I use Ishtar as support ship for tengu to farm lvl5 agents. It is critical for me that it has 10% bonus to damage and drone BSs die of 3 shots. What should I do when You nerf both Ishtar and tengus?! I can farm now several missions without rewarp because of tank with dps from ishtars and tank by shiled from Tengu. After Your "super" rebalance I will need to change the whole tactics of the mission runing or pass them with rewarps and the time will rise to 6 - 15 minutes for 1 mission from 2-4 minutes. I need Tengu's extreme shield amount and resists to fight throug matars missions and even now it is very hard to do that with 10% bonus to shileds! How should I earn ISK if I won't be able to farm missions on tengu any more?! There are a lot of people who think the same way as I do. If You really really have nothing to do and nothing to think about and the only business You've got is to cry: "Give me something to rebalance right now!!!! I need this!!! My children need a wine!! My wife doesn't gives me sex until I rebalance something!!!! So please...." then play with the speed and the signature of the ship. Don't play with the main features of the ship. Ishtars could be strong but slow and that would break some stupid tactics of stupid over blob. I know what I am talking about cause I fly Ishtars in both PVP and PVE. PVP is not the ony use of Ishtars. To the nubes who plays eve: I was nube too and I also was kicked-assed by the more experienced players. LEARN!!!! DON'T YOU CRY!!!! THAT's EVE!!!
Tineoidea Asanari Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion 37	Posted - 2015.03.01 17:54:48 - [195] - Quote Bogdo Lama wrote: You say they outclass every other ships with their price tag. These ships are pirate BS's like mach or rattle. Arty mach will outrange and out dps loki for example. Even arty TFI can outrange and out dps loki. Rattle will outrange and out dps tengu. Vindi will out dps any T3. You see where this is going? Killing T3's in different surroundigs like solo/small gang/null blob isnt hard. Which means that if null blob has 50 scimis and you cant kill tengu it just might be cause of scimis. T3's are very easy to alpha off field with lets say for example 150 arty machs at +100k. In this scenario they become bigger problem when you let them land too close so you cant track em anymore. T3's in small gangs are very easy to kill by shooting it its matter of reps again. If theres too much reps then you need damps and neuts on logis. Solo T3's are also easy to kill lets say 100mn tengu. Multiple webs and neuts work well here instead feeding said tengu frigate by frigate.. Well done, sir. You picked the one T3 who is not capable of keeping up with the others to justify the power of the 2 that are really the problem: the Railgun Tengu and Proteus. And ofc. the Vindicator outdps any T3. But also the T3 kite the Vindicator to hell and will volley them from the field. Machas and Rattlesnakes dont tank nearly as much as a Tengu and therefor will die, even when they slightly outgun the Tengu (wouldnt be sure about that one, as paper dmg vs. projected damage) Killing Tengus in nullsec blobs is hard. What do you think, why everybody uses them and why everybody uses them effectivily? Because it is not that easy to kill them. Neuting ships have only a very short range and are - besides the Curse - quite purely armortanked ships, so they get kited again because of shieldships dont care about your super buffertank and lowsignature as long as they are shooting with the awesome tracking of medium railguns and sentrys.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 791	Posted - 2015.03.01 18:16:31 - [196] - Quote Bogdo Lama wrote: T3's are very easy to alpha off field with lets say for example 150 arty machs at +100k. Bogdo Lama wrote: very easy to alpha off field Bogdo Lama wrote: 150 arty machs I feel you might want to get your idea of "easy" sorted out there, chief.
Bogdo Lama Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 18:25:12 - [197] - Quote afkalt wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: T3's are very easy to alpha off field with lets say for example 150 arty machs at +100k. Bogdo Lama wrote: very easy to alpha off field Bogdo Lama wrote: 150 arty machs I feel you might want to get your idea of "easy" sorted out there, chief. Whats the problem here? I see this in null all the time and even in low with smaller numbers. 150 machs/tfi's vs 150 tengus nothing new in null blobs. For example this is fleet doctrine for stain russians and they are not only ones using arty mach doctrine with these numbers.
Bogdo Lama Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 18:50:39 - [198] - Quote Tineoidea Asanari wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: You say they outclass every other ships with their price tag. These ships are pirate BS's like mach or rattle. Arty mach will outrange and out dps loki for example. Even arty TFI can outrange and out dps loki. Rattle will outrange and out dps tengu. Vindi will out dps any T3. You see where this is going? Killing T3's in different surroundigs like solo/small gang/null blob isnt hard. Which means that if null blob has 50 scimis and you cant kill tengu it just might be cause of scimis. T3's are very easy to alpha off field with lets say for example 150 arty machs at +100k. In this scenario they become bigger problem when you let them land too close so you cant track em anymore. T3's in small gangs are very easy to kill by shooting it its matter of reps again. If theres too much reps then you need damps and neuts on logis. Solo T3's are also easy to kill lets say 100mn tengu. Multiple webs and neuts work well here instead feeding said tengu frigate by frigate.. Well done, sir. You picked the one T3 who is not capable of keeping up with the others to justify the power of the 2 that are really the problem: the Railgun Tengu and Proteus. And ofc. the Vindicator outdps any T3. But also the T3 kite the Vindicator to hell and will volley them from the field. Machas and Rattlesnakes dont tank nearly as much as a Tengu and therefor will die, even when they slightly outgun the Tengu (wouldnt be sure about that one, as paper dmg vs. projected damage) Killing Tengus in nullsec blobs is hard. What do you think, why everybody uses them and why everybody uses them effectivily? Because it is not that easy to kill them. Neuting ships have only a very short range and are - besides the Curse - quite purely armortanked ships, so they get kited again because of shieldships dont care about your super buffertank and lowsignature as long as they are shooting with the awesome tracking of medium railguns and sentrys. Are you talking about solo, small gang or blob fight? If solo vindi will hit you on your point range. If you kite out of point range vindi can warp off. So T3 doesnt win this solo fight. If small gang try to kite that vindi while hes loki/huginn friends have 5 webs on you so kiting might not work so good. This fight depends of many things like number of logi, ewar and stuff, but T3 wont still win this small gang fight straight. If null blob this will be depending on many things again for example as i said earlier 150 mach vs 150 T3's. Machs will win at range while T3's will slaughter machs if let too close. Again T3 doesnt win this fight straight it depends stuff like FC'ing, warpins or range managment, numbers and stuff.. etc.. etc..
Sniper Smith Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 308	Posted - 2015.03.01 20:59:41 - [199] - Quote The fact that you need to compare a T3 to Pirate BS's tells you just how broken they are. Might want to remember, T3's are not supposed to be better than their T2 Counterparts, they are supposed to be more versatile. Currently, they are, except where drones are involved, crushing most of their T2 Counterparts. They out-rep a T2 Logi, but are very ranged limited. They boost 3 links, but not as much as a Commandship boosts 2, etc. So why should they be doing as much or more DPS, AND faster, AND better tank, AND often times smaller sig, than a HAC? Why should they be fitting tanks that most BS's struggle to fit and remain functional. It's silly. And don't give me cost. CCP has said dozens of times, Cost isn't a balancing factor. If you make a fleet that rarely dies, then the cost is negated anyway. SP Loss, again, isn't there to make it better, it's the price you pay for having a hull that can be fit to do anything well. WELL being the key word. T3's shouldn't be the best at anything, but able to do everything well when fit right. They shouldn't be outfighting a HAC, out boosting a CS, out repping a Logi, etc. Oh and as for the Vindi deal.. say at Disruptor range, which is out of it's webrange, and kill kill kill. Medium Rails will easily track it, and it'll never catch you, and can't warp off. It's gonna be a painful day when CCP actually does their full rebalance of T3's.. I expect a lot of tears and rage.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15331	Posted - 2015.03.02 07:47:37 - [200] - Quote Bogdo Lama wrote: afkalt wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: T3's are very easy to alpha off field with lets say for example 150 arty machs at +100k. Bogdo Lama wrote: very easy to alpha off field Bogdo Lama wrote: 150 arty machs I feel you might want to get your idea of "easy" sorted out there, chief. Whats the problem here? I see this in null all the time and even in low with smaller numbers. 150 machs/tfi's vs 150 tengus nothing new in null blobs. For example this is fleet doctrine for stain russians and they are not only ones using arty mach doctrine with these numbers. I have never seen a 150 man mach fleet. You do not alpha a tengu fleet in anything short of a full sentry carrier fleet due to the tiny sig, speed and massive tank on the tengu all while being cap stable. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Bogdo Lama Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 09:35:49 - [201] - Quote Sniper Smith wrote: The fact that you need to compare a T3 to Pirate BS's tells you just how broken they are. Might want to remember, T3's are not supposed to be better than their T2 Counterparts, they are supposed to be more versatile. Currently, they are, except where drones are involved, crushing most of their T2 Counterparts. They out-rep a T2 Logi, but are very ranged limited. They boost 3 links, but not as much as a Commandship boosts 2, etc. So why should they be doing as much or more DPS, AND faster, AND better tank, AND often times smaller sig, than a HAC? Why should they be fitting tanks that most BS's struggle to fit and remain functional. It's silly. And don't give me cost. CCP has said dozens of times, Cost isn't a balancing factor. If you make a fleet that rarely dies, then the cost is negated anyway. SP Loss, again, isn't there to make it better, it's the price you pay for having a hull that can be fit to do anything well. WELL being the key word. T3's shouldn't be the best at anything, but able to do everything well when fit right. They shouldn't be outfighting a HAC, out boosting a CS, out repping a Logi, etc. Oh and as for the Vindi deal.. say at Disruptor range, which is out of it's webrange, and kill kill kill. Medium Rails will easily track it, and it'll never catch you, and can't warp off. It's gonna be a painful day when CCP actually does their full rebalance of T3's.. I expect a lot of tears and rage. Your comment so wrong in many ways. Only reason i compared it to pirate bs's was because i answered to post that claimed T3's will "outclass anything with similar price tag" so i did make example with ships that has similar price tag. And again about vindi was answer to an post that claimed "T3 will kite and win vindi" and i did ask him if he meant solo/small gang/null blob cause all of these situations are very different. And i did also make few examples what could happen there. Tbh solo BS vs solo T3 i wouldnt pick vindi for he job anyway. Tempest would do much better with its 2 heavy neuts. T3's cap dont work with 2 heavy neuts on it. End of story
Bogdo Lama Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 09:42:00 - [202] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I have never seen a 150 man mach fleet. You do not alpha a tengu fleet in anything short of a full sentry carrier fleet due to the tiny sig, speed and massive tank on the tengu all while being cap stable. Well i have seen 150 mach fleets. But i guess you havent been in stain. Alltho im pretty sure they use these elsewhere too. And yes you can alpha tengus from enough range when you have enough alpha. Your speed and sig doesnt work so well from range. With enough numbers T3's will pop. I have seen this happen.
Tineoidea Asanari Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion 38	Posted - 2015.03.02 10:28:29 - [203] - Quote Bogdo Lama wrote: Your comment so wrong in many ways. Only reason i compared it to pirate bs's was because i answered to post that claimed T3's will "outclass anything with similar price tag" so i did make example with ships that has similar price tag. And again about vindi was answer to an post that claimed "T3 will kite and win vindi" and i did ask him if he meant solo/small gang/null blob cause all of these situations are very different. And i did also make few examples what could happen there. Tbh solo BS vs solo T3 i wouldnt pick vindi for he job anyway. Tempest would do much better with its 2 heavy neuts. T3's cap dont work with 2 heavy neuts on it. End of story Once again, the part where T3s start to be broken is from medium scale (15 pilots up) to largescale coalition fleets. Yes, you can counter T3s in small engagements, or you can avoid them at all. These are options you dont have when you fight for objectives, you can either fight or gtfo. And here the combination of medium railguns with battleship tanks on cruiser hulls are getting op. Dont tell me a low signature wouldnt make a thing at long distances. Signature is relevant on whatever distance you shoot. Speed not as much (as the important speed ist the transversal, at least for turrets), but the Signature Resolution of a weapon like the 1400m Howitzer Artillery II is 400m, whilst the 250mm Railgun II that Tengus and Protei use only have 125m, making them better at hitting both Tengus and Ishtars. The pure paper DPS of both (comparing Spike to Tremor) is nearly the same (268 vs. 273), but, as anyone would suspect, the Machariel with Artys has a 5,6k alpha whilst Tengus only have around 800. The optimal range is largely the same, tho the artillery has 100km more falloff, but a FC that cant shoot back will simply rewarp so that isnt that much of a problem. Now how damage projection works: if the Tengus are flying in a 90-¦ to the Machariels, they receive powerful 0 DPS for the distance between 0 and 100km and climbing up to 20 DPS at 225km. Even only a little bit of "not burning straight into that alpha from hell" will reduce the massive damage of a Machariel to a quarter at optimal range. The standard Tengu has 172k EHP without links and overloading vs Tremor L would require 123 Machariels shooting before logis are able to land reps (as we both know fleet reality most fleets would need considerably more damage to achieve that, as not many people are max skilled, some are not shooting due to brainlag or still cycling and other stuff). If you have a standard 4 link booster Tengu as support, you boost the Tengu EHP vs. Tremor to 189k. But suddenly, the DPS of the Machariel goes down to a 10th of what it should be. So, now you need 335 Machariels to "alpha easily" a Tengu from the field. All V Machariels have 21 second cycle time without implants. Even the worst logi would have had enough time to lock and cycle reps in this time. So please dont tell me, that Machariels easily volley Tengus off the field unless you are able to run the numbers to prove that.
Torgeir Hekard I MYSELF AND ME 130	Posted - 2015.03.02 13:05:37 - [204] - Quote Why are you shooting tremor? Mach has enough falloff to hit jove space from delve. Use DU and get 130DPS @ 120km and 100DPS @ 200km. Or 170DPS @ 100km with tracking scripts. That's against a moving tengu with links.
Tineoidea Asanari Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion 38	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:12:21 - [205] - Quote Because of the killmail I extracted the fit from had Tremor loaded ;) And because comparing different type of ammunitions is... difficult, when you try to also compare the whole system behind that. Yes, DU outclasses Spike on nearly every range. But then you can also switch to Lead and suddenly the Tengus are better again. If we talk about a standard combat range of ~ 120km and your proposed 130 DPS, around 44% of your damage is applied. So from your 6,5k volley only 2,9k hit the Tengus. Against RF DU Tengus have a resistance of 208k. So only 73 Machas needed, that fire their volleys within a timeframe of ~ 3 seconds. Tengus have a high enough cycle time to bring 2 full volley within that, Machas do not. Hell, Tengus can do 7 volleys while Machas are still cycling!
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 231	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:10:47 - [206] - Quote I'm disappointed. I brought buckets for all those tears but there are none. Rise, not enough nerfed... "...genre is a definition, the definition in itself must have boundaries, the boundaries act as barriers, and the barriers are like walls, like the walls of a prisonn++..." The Good, The Bad and The Bantam
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1610	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:11:38 - [207] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: I'm disappointed. I brought buckets for all those tears but there are none. Rise, not enough nerfed... Get on the fighter assist thread and your bucket will be well used.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15339	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:23:13 - [208] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: I'm disappointed. I brought buckets for all those tears but there are none. Rise, not enough nerfed... Get on the fighter assist thread and your bucket will be well used. Or wait for the bigger nerf to come. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15339	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:26:24 - [209] - Quote Bogdo Lama wrote: baltec1 wrote: I have never seen a 150 man mach fleet. You do not alpha a tengu fleet in anything short of a full sentry carrier fleet due to the tiny sig, speed and massive tank on the tengu all while being cap stable. Well i have seen 150 mach fleets. But i guess you havent been in stain. Alltho im pretty sure they use these elsewhere too. And yes you can alpha tengus from enough range when you have enough alpha. Your speed and sig doesnt work so well from range. With enough numbers T3's will pop. I have seen this happen. And I have seen carriers blapped. Currently nobody uses a doctrine that can alpha our railgu fleet as they have a bigger tank than near any battleship with one of the smallest sigs in the cruiser lineup and enough speed to throw off the tracking on med artillery let alone large. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1151	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:15:38 - [210] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: WOW because links aren't the common denominator with most of the games imbalances, no Sir not at all. To balance links I propose that getting killed in a links ship (any ship fitted with links) resets one of your links skills to level 4 randomly. No, they're not. Because they apply equally to everything. For comparison, a Rohk with those same links will have a sigRad >500m without an MWD and around 170k EHP, heated. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 931	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:24:52 - [211] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: WOW because links aren't the common denominator with most of the games imbalances, no Sir not at all. To balance links I propose that getting killed in a links ship (any ship fitted with links) resets one of your links skills to level 4 randomly. No, they're not. Because they apply equally to everything. For comparison, a Rohk with those same links will have a sigRad >500m without an MWD and around 170k EHP, heated. Point of my earlier comparison was that your far more likely to see links used in conjunction with a T3 than a lot of other ships, even without the links though the overall mobility and sig is out of whack with the EHP by a considerable margin - that isn't to say the answer is to nerf EHP. Changes to T3s should be about making the player make a little more choice/trade off not about taking a chainsaw to any one attribute.
Zekora Rally Negative Density 11	Posted - 2015.03.03 11:38:34 - [212] - Quote Sniper Smith wrote: The fact that you need to compare a T3 to Pirate BS's tells you just how broken they are. Might want to remember, T3's are not supposed to be better than their T2 Counterparts, they are supposed to be more versatile. Currently, they are, except where drones are involved, crushing most of their T2 Counterparts. They out-rep a T2 Logi, but are very ranged limited. They boost 3 links, but not as much as a Commandship boosts 2, etc. So why should they be doing as much or more DPS, AND faster, AND better tank, AND often times smaller sig, than a HAC? Why should they be fitting tanks that most BS's struggle to fit and remain functional. It's silly. And don't give me cost. CCP has said dozens of times, Cost isn't a balancing factor. If you make a fleet that rarely dies, then the cost is negated anyway. SP Loss, again, isn't there to make it better, it's the price you pay for having a hull that can be fit to do anything well. WELL being the key word. T3's shouldn't be the best at anything, but able to do everything well when fit right. They shouldn't be outfighting a HAC, out boosting a CS, out repping a Logi, etc. Oh and as for the Vindi deal.. say at Disruptor range, which is out of it's webrange, and kill kill kill. Medium Rails will easily track it, and it'll never catch you, and can't warp off. It's gonna be a painful day when CCP actually does their full rebalance of T3's.. I expect a lot of tears and rage. T3s really only needed a hp reduction in other not to outphase battleships while dealing similar dps and retaining the perks of a cruiser hull. There's a tradeoff of effective bonuses for more hp and resists. This is generally how T3s work and apart from the battleship like ehp, they've been pretty well balanced thus far. There might still need to be some hp reduction but I don't think that'll come until CCP figures out how to make the "other subs" worthwhile. HACs could be better generally but it isn't T3s that are holding them back. It's just the current meta (Ishtar).
John Jockson Clockwork Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:37:50 - [213] - Quote Thats utterly ****** up -.- it will just decrease their buffer tank while sustaining their hp/s AND decrease the overall signature. All hail the tengu?
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 4	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:30:12 - [214] - Quote CCP Rise, please look into the Legion's sub-systems and the number of Lowslots they provide. As it stands currently, the Amarr T3 Cruiser in ANY configuration can not go over 6 Low slots, while the Proteus can. Proteus' 3 Navigational sub-systems have (-1 Mid, +1 Low) configurations, while the Legion's don't. Please
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15367	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:40:33 - [215] - Quote Rroff wrote: Point of my earlier comparison was that your far more likely to see links used in conjunction with a T3 than a lot of other ships, even without the links though the overall mobility and sig is out of whack with the EHP by a considerable margin - that isn't to say the answer is to nerf EHP. Changes to T3s should be about making the player make a little more choice/trade off not about taking a chainsaw to any one attribute. T3 cruisers need to be balanced with the other cruisers not battleships. These thing need a chainsaw applied to to them to drag them down to the point where they don't invalidate T2 cruisers. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers 130	Posted - 2015.03.04 08:01:49 - [216] - Quote Well if anyone is interested I've discussed the horrors of defensive subsystem in this topic: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=320783 To summarize: the +10% defensive sub could be scrapped entirely (but...)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 945	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:11:56 - [217] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Rroff wrote: Point of my earlier comparison was that your far more likely to see links used in conjunction with a T3 than a lot of other ships, even without the links though the overall mobility and sig is out of whack with the EHP by a considerable margin - that isn't to say the answer is to nerf EHP. Changes to T3s should be about making the player make a little more choice/trade off not about taking a chainsaw to any one attribute. T3 cruisers need to be balanced with the other cruisers not battleships. These thing need a chainsaw applied to to them to drag them down to the point where they don't invalidate T2 cruisers. No reason why you can't have the options for both, having the supplemental type sub-systems allow for huge tank but not great mobility/sig doesn't tread on the other T2 cruiser's toes and you have the option of using the adaptive type sub-system if you want the mobility and sig to compare to T2 cruisers at a loss to potential EHP. The fact is a lot of T2 cruisers are somewhere between bland and uninteresting and downright ineffective cutting T3s back to compare to and using that as your base to work off would do nothing good for the game. Possibly enhancing the specialisation of T2 cruisers into some interesting capabilities would be of more benefit than nerfing T3s into mediocrity - I don't even know why I would fly a vagabond or muninn these days T3 or no - though rise hasn't done too bad a job with recons - I can see myself using 1-2 of them now that I wouldn't have touched before.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15369	Posted - 2015.03.04 13:06:18 - [218] - Quote Rroff wrote: baltec1 wrote: Rroff wrote: Point of my earlier comparison was that your far more likely to see links used in conjunction with a T3 than a lot of other ships, even without the links though the overall mobility and sig is out of whack with the EHP by a considerable margin - that isn't to say the answer is to nerf EHP. Changes to T3s should be about making the player make a little more choice/trade off not about taking a chainsaw to any one attribute. T3 cruisers need to be balanced with the other cruisers not battleships. These thing need a chainsaw applied to to them to drag them down to the point where they don't invalidate T2 cruisers. No reason why you can't have the options for both, having the supplemental type sub-systems allow for huge tank but not great mobility/sig doesn't tread on the other T2 cruiser's toes and you have the option of using the adaptive type sub-system if you want the mobility and sig to compare to T2 cruisers at a loss to potential EHP. The fact is a lot of T2 cruisers are somewhere between bland and uninteresting and downright ineffective cutting T3s back to compare to and using that as your base to work off would do nothing good for the game. Possibly enhancing the specialisation of T2 cruisers into some interesting capabilities would be of more benefit than nerfing T3s into mediocrity - I don't even know why I would fly a vagabond or muninn these days T3 or no - though rise hasn't done too bad a job with recons - I can see myself using 1-2 of them now that I wouldn't have touched before. What is so bad about reducing T3 HP to below that of the HIC? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 945	Posted - 2015.03.04 13:21:27 - [219] - Quote baltec1 wrote: What is so bad about reducing T3 HP to below that of the HIC? Problem is doing that so that the top end configurations fall in line without the lower end configurations (i.e. where your actually having to use module slots for other functionality) being pushed so low they aren't feasibly useful any more - for various reasons whether thats actually because they are too low or because they are too low for the costs of using a T3. I actually don't disagree with the specific scenario involving the tengu above - though I'm against knee jerk slashing of EHP as an answer - partly because in abstract a lot of changes in Eve seem to revolve around X is OP no one is happy until X is bashed into the ground, then Y which was in a good place before becomes OP so no one is happy until Y is bashed into the ground, then Z which was previously obscured in mediocrity becomes the new focus and the circle continues.
Owen Levanth Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration 376	Posted - 2015.03.04 13:31:05 - [220] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Rroff wrote: baltec1 wrote: Rroff wrote: Point of my earlier comparison was that your far more likely to see links used in conjunction with a T3 than a lot of other ships, even without the links though the overall mobility and sig is out of whack with the EHP by a considerable margin - that isn't to say the answer is to nerf EHP. Changes to T3s should be about making the player make a little more choice/trade off not about taking a chainsaw to any one attribute. T3 cruisers need to be balanced with the other cruisers not battleships. These thing need a chainsaw applied to to them to drag them down to the point where they don't invalidate T2 cruisers. No reason why you can't have the options for both, having the supplemental type sub-systems allow for huge tank but not great mobility/sig doesn't tread on the other T2 cruiser's toes and you have the option of using the adaptive type sub-system if you want the mobility and sig to compare to T2 cruisers at a loss to potential EHP. The fact is a lot of T2 cruisers are somewhere between bland and uninteresting and downright ineffective cutting T3s back to compare to and using that as your base to work off would do nothing good for the game. Possibly enhancing the specialisation of T2 cruisers into some interesting capabilities would be of more benefit than nerfing T3s into mediocrity - I don't even know why I would fly a vagabond or muninn these days T3 or no - though rise hasn't done too bad a job with recons - I can see myself using 1-2 of them now that I wouldn't have touched before. What is so bad about reducing T3 HP to below that of the HIC? Obviously it's bad because I like T3s and would like to have insanely strong T3s until no-one dares flying another type of ship anymore. But seriously, every time I contemplate using my Sacrilege, a voice is whispering in my ears: "Your Assault-Legion is vastly superior". It's indeed a bit weird how a Legion has more firepower, enough tank to negate battleship-DPS, is faster and more cap stable than the ship actually designed to be an armor assault missile specialist. With stealth cruisers it gets even more strange, considering 3 out of 4 T3s can have an still enormous tank + more DPS then recons + scanning bonus. Sure, the recons have other bonuses to make them stand out, but a balance of T3s really has at least to cut down on the absurdly high tanking ability. If I had a say in this, I would not only nerf the defensive subsystems a little bit more, I'd also rebalance the covert subsystems of all four T3s to something more sensible. Let's say 5% more damage per level and a 2,5% per level racial extra. This way the Legion could still have this stupid Amarr-laser-cap-reduction thing and still do decent damage. And the other covert subsystems could get something like 2,5% hybrid tracking for Gallente, 2,5% missile speed for Caldari and 2,5% projectile falloff for Minmatar. Also since recons are still made of folded paper instead of metal, they should get some small additional buff so they won't immediately desintegrate when someone thinks of shooting them. A bit more cap, a bit more EHP. It would also be a good idea to add some mild 5%/level bonus on scan strength and deviation to make recon-work a bit easier and close the gap to the really large scanning bonuses of the T3s. In essence: -Nerf defensive subsystems more. -Nerf offensive subsystems just a bit so a dedicated HAC can actually outgun them. (This isn't necessary for the drone subsystems, since the Ishtar already outguns all of EVE combined, nerf the Ishtar a bit more instead.) -Rebalance the covert-subsystems so I don't have to train Gallente just because the Legion is **** at stealthy shootings. -Buff recons a bit more so they're consistently better at their specialized role then a stealthy T3. Right now if it weren't for the cyno-bonus, T3s would just replace recons in their own role, like they've done with most HACs.
Vincintius Agrippa The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology 77	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:12:32 - [221] - Quote Wander Prian wrote: Rowells wrote: First Why do the armor subs get less nerf than the tengus shield sub? Imo the armor subs are extremely powerful considering you can out tank every single subcap using them. Because they don't have nifty value like shield regen in armor that they could dump the remaining bonus into without screwing up other stuff besides tanking Added mass from hp increase? Slave implants that directly add up to 55% to armor on top of 20 different other rigs and low slot modules that add extra armor hp to that? vs. reducing the tanking ability of shield based ships and increasing the ability of ships and weapons to lock and track them. Failz. `Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!`
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1998	Posted - 2015.03.05 14:56:10 - [222] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Rroff wrote: Point of my earlier comparison was that your far more likely to see links used in conjunction with a T3 than a lot of other ships, even without the links though the overall mobility and sig is out of whack with the EHP by a considerable margin - that isn't to say the answer is to nerf EHP. Changes to T3s should be about making the player make a little more choice/trade off not about taking a chainsaw to any one attribute. T3 cruisers need to be balanced with the other cruisers not battleships. These thing need a chainsaw applied to to them to drag them down to the point where they don't invalidate T2 cruisers. the exact point on MY view is. They should be SLIGHTLY weaker than the recon competign ons ame role or the hac competing on the same role. BUT with the added benefit of the overheating capability they have. SO Overheated they might outdo these ships. But SLIGHTLY!!!!! "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1998	Posted - 2015.03.05 14:57:23 - [223] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The rail Tengu is used at far ranges and disengages when things get close enough to start shooting it with good DPS. I don't think a nerf to tank is going to change much at all. If the nerf to the tank also nerf signature radius. THen it can at least be alpha struck. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.05 15:00:42 - [224] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The rail Tengu is used at far ranges and disengages when things get close enough to start shooting it with good DPS. I don't think a nerf to tank is going to change much at all. If the nerf to the tank also nerf signature radius. THen it can at least be alpha struck. At which point people will just stop using them due to not having enough tank and something else will become the new focus of cries to nerf it into the ground because its OP!!!.
James Zimmer Furtherance. 15	Posted - 2015.03.06 08:38:04 - [225] - Quote Rroff wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The rail Tengu is used at far ranges and disengages when things get close enough to start shooting it with good DPS. I don't think a nerf to tank is going to change much at all. If the nerf to the tank also nerf signature radius. THen it can at least be alpha struck. At which point people will just stop using them due to not having enough tank and something else will become the new focus of cries to nerf it into the ground because its OP!!!. If we're talking about the Tengu, even if it gets a nerf to sig as well as tank, it will still outtank and outrange an Eagle, and will still be the best sniping cruiser in the game. Sure, if a nerfed Tengu fleet fights a Tempest Fleet Issue fleet at the edge of the Tempest Fleet Issue's optimal range, it's going to get torn up, fast. Frankly, it SHOULD get torn up. Cruiser fleets shouldn't do well at playing battleship against battleships at battleship ranges. In the same way that battleships don't do well against speed tanking cruisers at cruiser ranges. T3 cruisers have a function, but that function should be that of a specialized, very strong cruiser, not a smaller, faster battleship.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.06 12:19:49 - [226] - Quote James Zimmer wrote: Rroff wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The rail Tengu is used at far ranges and disengages when things get close enough to start shooting it with good DPS. I don't think a nerf to tank is going to change much at all. If the nerf to the tank also nerf signature radius. THen it can at least be alpha struck. At which point people will just stop using them due to not having enough tank and something else will become the new focus of cries to nerf it into the ground because its OP!!!. If we're talking about the Tengu, even if it gets a nerf to sig as well as tank, it will still outtank and outrange an Eagle, and will still be the best sniping cruiser in the game. Sure, if a nerfed Tengu fleet fights a Tempest Fleet Issue fleet at the edge of the Tempest Fleet Issue's optimal range, it's going to get torn up, fast. Frankly, it SHOULD get torn up. Cruiser fleets shouldn't do well at playing battleship against battleships at battleship ranges. In the same way that battleships don't do well against speed tanking cruisers at cruiser ranges. T3 cruisers have a function, but that function should be that of a specialized, very strong cruiser, not a smaller, faster battleship. Wouldn't want people to all intents and purposes be safe sitting out of range while engaging an enemy I say remove railguns from the game that will solve the problem.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1103	Posted - 2015.03.06 15:25:37 - [227] - Quote perhaps you could also nerf the resists here too, its not just buffer that makes them OP, give T1 resists or at the very most the same partial T2 resists you gave the T3 dessies (which makes them a little OP btw). Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
PowerFromHouwer Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.06 15:26:26 - [228] - Quote Rroff wrote: Prospector Monk wrote: Signature Radius: 150 (-15) Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Well I guess the lvl 5 mission runner are pleased? AFAIK (haven't run the numbers) its just to offset the loss of passive regen from the loss of overall HP as its quite a big hit to PVE passive shield tanked setups - don't think you get anything extra out of it. Didn't do the numbers but less hp for more regen seems favorable
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2750	Posted - 2015.03.06 22:51:32 - [229] - Quote Harvey James wrote: perhaps you could also nerf the resists here too, its not just buffer that makes them OP, give T1 resists or at the very most the same partial T2 resists you gave the T3 dessies (which makes them a little OP btw). Just no, the problem stems from the massive amount of power-grid the ships can achieve and the large buffer bonuses that some subsystems give, the t2 resists are necessary for them to be competitive. They are advanced ships and should not be treated like T1 ships by any means.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.06 23:53:36 - [230] - Quote PowerFromHouwer wrote: Rroff wrote: Prospector Monk wrote: Signature Radius: 150 (-15) Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Well I guess the lvl 5 mission runner are pleased? AFAIK (haven't run the numbers) its just to offset the loss of passive regen from the loss of overall HP as its quite a big hit to PVE passive shield tanked setups - don't think you get anything extra out of it. Didn't do the numbers but less hp for more regen seems favorable AFAIK its just to put regen back where it was - the loss of buffer in itself isn't huge but the knock on effect on passive regen would mean that many common PVE passive tanked fits would have become useless for the kind of places you'd use a tengu.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1104	Posted - 2015.03.07 04:23:51 - [231] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Harvey James wrote: perhaps you could also nerf the resists here too, its not just buffer that makes them OP, give T1 resists or at the very most the same partial T2 resists you gave the T3 dessies (which makes them a little OP btw). Just no, the problem stems from the massive amount of power-grid the ships can achieve and the large buffer bonuses that some subsystems give, the t2 resists are necessary for them to be competitive. They are advanced ships and should not be treated like T1 ships by any means. just because they are advanced doesn't mean plain better or a massive upgrade, and in this case it just means greater options, jack of all trades, which it can't be be if its just plain better than the specialised ships does it? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
Jezza McWaffle No Vacancies 179	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:11:37 - [232] - Quote And jack of all trades would mean no one would use it. C6 Wormhole blog http://holelotofwaffle.wordpress.com/
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 948	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:07:01 - [233] - Quote Jezza McWaffle wrote: And jack of all trades would mean no one would use it. I don't think twisting T3s back into what they "should" have been will have a net good effect for the game - the game needs something like T3s - from hanging out on a couple of forums that have long running eve online threads that run into the 10s of thousands of posts and 100s of thousands of views one common aspect I see is that the ability to put their own creativity or personal touch on something and showing that off (look at the success of minecraft) interests a good number of players and T3s have some aspect of that (albeit not to the level of something like minecraft) it might seem silly from the perspective of long time players but the customisation options, being a viable platform to "bling" out, the "prestige" aspect (yeah it might seem silly to long time players) and so on draws quite a few players and shouldn't be underestimated - you don't see discussions of things like T2 ships or drakes, etc. in the same way - the other ships that have the same kind of interest are to a much lesser extent marauders and capitals - which tend to be less accessible to newer players anyway. I'm quite interested in what could be done with the "jack of all trades" original intention for T3s but IMO that would be better done with a new line of ships.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2378	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:45:48 - [234] - Quote They still have way too much HP. They get a ton from 1600mm armor plates, considering all the powergrid room they have to fit those, and the high resists which dramatically increase their effectiveness. As long as strategic cruisers keep such high resists, they need to either have much less excess powergrid or a reduction in hit points received from those modules. If their powergrid is cut down a lot and they are given role bonuses to fit weapons more cheaply, then it will fix the hit point issue as well as the 100MN AB problem. It also just plain makes sense, it's a cruiser so it shouldn't have battlecruiser powergrid. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Xander Phoena, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera, Marlona Sky, Tora Bushido Highsec reform thread
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1104	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:54:14 - [235] - Quote Jezza McWaffle wrote: And jack of all trades would mean no one would use it. well thats complete bull, thats like saying no one uses a swiss army knife cos its not as good as having a proper knife, versatility and adaptability are powerful tools in themselves. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
Jezza McWaffle No Vacancies 179	Posted - 2015.03.11 09:30:21 - [236] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Jezza McWaffle wrote: And jack of all trades would mean no one would use it. well thats complete bull, thats like saying no one uses a swiss army knife cos its not as good as having a proper knife, versatility and adaptability are powerful tools in themselves. Because EVE is the same as knifes? If it had less tank than a HAC and less DPS than a HAC along with EWAR which is less than a Recon then it would not be used as a fleet ship, period. C6 Wormhole blog http://holelotofwaffle.wordpress.com/
Mr Floydy Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 269	Posted - 2015.03.11 13:18:48 - [237] - Quote The only way flexibility would allow it to be worse than other classes, but still useful in a fleet would be if it could refit subs/mods on the fly without a depot. If something like this isn't done and base stats are dropped so that a T3 is worse than a HAC/Recon they'll be utterly pointless ships.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1105	Posted - 2015.03.11 14:10:06 - [238] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: The only way flexibility would allow it to be worse than other classes, but still useful in a fleet would be if it could refit subs/mods on the fly without a depot. If something like this isn't done and base stats are dropped so that a T3 is worse than a HAC/Recon they'll be utterly pointless ships. well the refitting part on the fly would be stepping on tactical T3 role really, maybe they will give that too bc's, so it would be a case of it being prefitted with adaptability and versatility before undocking, or using the depot if you have the time and foreknowledge too do so. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 231	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:13:33 - [239] - Quote Stop repeating those "jack of all trades" or "swiss army knife" nonsenses. T3 hulls are premade for one role not performing all of them. Who would fly a ship that is worse than HAC and cost far more? They will be usefull in PvE but what the point of balancing ship from this side? For now we can fit modules that are "oversized" (LSE on cruiser hull for example) maybe this is the problem? Fitting 3xMSEII not 3xLSEII makes a difference. "...genre is a definition, the definition in itself must have boundaries, the boundaries act as barriers, and the barriers are like walls, like the walls of a prisonn++..." The Good, The Bad and The Bantam
James Zimmer Furtherance. 15	Posted - 2015.03.12 06:36:37 - [240] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: The only way flexibility would allow it to be worse than other classes, but still useful in a fleet would be if it could refit subs/mods on the fly without a depot. If something like this isn't done and base stats are dropped so that a T3 is worse than a HAC/Recon they'll be utterly pointless ships. On the contrary, not only are they the MOST useful ships, they are the ONLY valid combat ships for certain situations, like null PvE. This is not because of their great stats (though it helps), but simply because they can be fit to be interdiction nullified and fit a covert ops cloak at the same time. Marauders are undoubtedly better PvE combat ships in almost every regard, but how many dozens of Tengus do you see in sites in null for every Golem you see? CCP could nerf T3s down to the level of T1 cruisers and they would still find use, even in fleet battles, because bubble mechanics are extremely powerful. If they haven't prepared with tacticals all over the place, you can force an enemy to act in extremely predictable and precise ways, like landing at a precise spot of your choosing and being unable to warp immediately after they land (Rooks and Kings anyone?). In null, the ability to disregard this effect is much more powerful than a fat tank or good damage projection. That being said, I think T3 cruisers should be able to switch out between 3 or 4 player-designed, pre-made fits without a mobile depot by parking their ship in space, hitting the button, and doing nothing for 2 minutes or so. It has nothing to do with balance, but simply quality of life, cause it sucks to have to fool around with a mobile depot.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2381	Posted - 2015.03.12 09:31:09 - [241] - Quote Jezza McWaffle wrote: Because EVE is the same as knifes? If it had less tank than a HAC and less DPS than a HAC along with EWAR which is less than a Recon then it would not be used as a fleet ship, period. If it had less tank than a HAC and less DPS than a HAC, and more EWAR than a HAC, it would have some use over a HAC. But at current, it has the same DPS as a HAC and a lot more EWAR than a HAC while having a lot more tank than a HAC. A large nerf to its tank will still leave it generally more powerful than a HAC in almost every situation. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Xander Phoena, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera, Marlona Sky, Tora Bushido Highsec reform thread
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 232	Posted - 2015.03.12 10:47:26 - [242] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: If it had less tank than a HAC and less DPS than a HAC, and more EWAR than a HAC, it would have some use over a HAC. But at current, it has the same DPS as a HAC and a lot more EWAR than a HAC while having a lot more tank than a HAC. A large nerf to its tank will still leave it generally more powerful than a HAC in almost every situation. T3 with both combat subsystem and ecm subsystem? They exclude each other, either you build hull like HAC or like ECM boat. You can't compare like that. "...genre is a definition, the definition in itself must have boundaries, the boundaries act as barriers, and the barriers are like walls, like the walls of a prisonn++..." The Good, The Bad and The Bantam
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2382	Posted - 2015.03.12 18:10:05 - [243] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: T3 with both combat subsystem and ecm subsystem? They exclude each other, either you build hull like HAC or like ECM boat. You can't compare like that. EWAR* to be inclusive of all 4 types Oh, and make me bring out the stats, because you're too lazy to do your own research... The EWAR-based offensive subsystem offers about the same offensive output as any other while also offering a bonus to racial EWAR strength. But you can alternatively fit the EWAR electronics subsystem and gain a bonus to EWAR without it affecting your offensive subsystem choice. Example comparison: Cerberus vs. Tengu with Rifling Launcher Pattern, Obfuscation Manifold, Augmented Capacitor Reservoir, Amplification Node, and Intercalated Nanofibers No mods except 6x HAM launcher IIs, max skills: Cerberus with 3x Hobgoblin II and T1 missiles - Missile DPS (with Scourge): 312 - Missile DPS (without Scourge): 250 - Missile range: 45km - Drone DPS: 59 - Total DPS (with Scourge): 371 - Total DPS (without Scourge): 309 Tengu with 5x Hobgoblin II and T1 missiles - Missile DPS (with Scourge): 250 - Missile DPS (without Scourge): 250 - Missile range: 20km - Drone DPS: 99 - Total DPS (with Scourge): 349 - Total DPS (without Scourge): 349 Sure, the Cerberus can reach higher DPS numbers than the Tengu, but only with kinetic damage. With other types, it actually gets less. The only real advantage the Cerberus has over this Tengu in offense is the missile range, which I guess makes up for it not sharing the Tengu's one extra total slot, dual ECM bonus, nearly twice the hit points with the same resists, and bonus to shield boosting? In a direct one-on-one match between the two, the Cerberus could kite the Tengu safely while plinking away less DPS at it than the Tengu could soak up indefinitely without harm. But in terms of overall usefulness to a fleet: Damage output: Cerberus is a bit better EWAR output: Tengu is WAY better Tank strength: Tengu is WAAAAAAAAAAAY better CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Xander Phoena, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera, Marlona Sky, Tora Bushido Highsec reform thread
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 234	Posted - 2015.03.12 18:48:51 - [244] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: EWAR* to be inclusive of all 4 types Oh, and make me bring out the stats, because you're too lazy to do your own research... Evil The EWAR-based offensive subsystem offers about the same offensive output as any other while also offering a bonus to racial EWAR strength. But you can alternatively fit the EWAR electronics subsystem and gain a bonus to EWAR without it affecting your offensive subsystem choice. Example comparison: Cerberus vs. Tengu with Rifling Launcher Pattern, Obfuscation Manifold, Augmented Capacitor Reservoir, Amplification Node, and Intercalated Nanofibers No mods except 6x HAM launcher IIs, max skills: Cerberus with 3x Hobgoblin II and T1 missiles - Missile DPS (with Scourge): 312 - Missile DPS (without Scourge): 250 - Missile range: 45km - Drone DPS: 59 - Total DPS (with Scourge): 371 - Total DPS (without Scourge): 309 Tengu with 5x Hobgoblin II and T1 missiles - Missile DPS (with Scourge): 250 - Missile DPS (without Scourge): 250 - Missile range: 20km - Drone DPS: 99 - Total DPS (with Scourge): 349 - Total DPS (without Scourge): 349 Sure, the Cerberus can reach higher DPS numbers than the Tengu, but only with kinetic damage. With other types, it actually gets less. The only real advantage the Cerberus has over this Tengu in offense is the missile range, which I guess makes up for it not sharing the Tengu's one extra total slot, dual ECM bonus, nearly twice the hit points with the same resists, and bonus to shield boosting? In a direct one-on-one match between the two, the Cerberus could kite the Tengu safely while plinking away less DPS at it than the Tengu could soak up indefinitely without harm. But in terms of overall usefulness to a fleet: Damage output: Cerberus is a bit better EWAR output: Tengu is WAY better Tank strength: Tengu is WAAAAAAAAAAAY better Long post but you have no idea what you talking about. ECM take mid slots, so either you tank above or make it ecm style. In this case you did ecm so either ecm mods on mids and ecm support mods on low will gave very weak tank, if not what's the point of make such ship? Sure dmg looks great on paper but with missiles it's not dps it's how you applied it. Still you comparing HAC to Ewar hull. Why? Hey lets compare T3 and Titans with doomsday weapons. T3 can't doomsday, such a shame...titans wins. EWAR output will always be better on tengu. Ewar that still can do dmg? Recons were buffed lately. Cerberus role is DPS not ecm, better or the same dps as fitted tengu above (without dmg mods ofc, i have no idea how you get worse result). Can we get T3 that will do damage and will be able to ewar? We can. Can we build superior damage dealer and ewar ship? i don't think so. It will either dps or do damage good. "...genre is a definition, the definition in itself must have boundaries, the boundaries act as barriers, and the barriers are like walls, like the walls of a prisonn++..." The Good, The Bad and The Bantam
August Johann Bader SECURITY SQUAD N.O.B.O.D.Y. 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 18:53:18 - [245] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hello everyone. We are updating Singularity as we speak with the first testing versions of our Scylla release coming immediately after Fanfest. If you've been watching CCP Rise's tweets, you already know that we have some important balance changes in the works and that more info will be coming this week. I'm making threads right now for two of the sets of changes coming in Scylla, and for details of the rest you should watch the o7 show tonight at 20:00 EVE Time and keep your eyes peeled for a Dev Blog that will drop in the coming days. I'm making threads for this subset of the planned changes today because these are the ones that are already running in today's SISI update. As many of you know, Strategic Cruisers are extremely powerful ships that see common use across EVE. We have said for a long time that we want to do a comprehensive balance pass on them, buffing some aspects of these ships and nerfing some other aspects. That larger set of changes is still in the works, but in the meantime we are making a targeted set of changes to the Defensive Subsystems on the four T3 Cruisers. The biggest changes here are to the hitpoint bonuses subsystems, Supplemental Screening and Augmented Plating. These subsystems are by far the most powerful defensive subsystems for PVP use, and their strength is a significant part of why T3 cruisers often eclipse other competing ships (such as HACs and Command Ships) and why the Loki struggles in comparison to the other three. We're reducing the strength of the bonuses on these specific subsystems, to +7.5% Armor HP per level for Augmented Plating and a combo of +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Rate for the Supplemental Screening. The other changes in this pass are all more minor tweaks to HP and signature values to help balance out the viability of the different subsystems relative to each other. Legion Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Signature Radius: 140 (-14) Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating +7.5% Armor HP per level (previously +10%) Signature Radius: 154 (+7) Legion Defensive - Nanobot Injector Armor HP: 3750 (+150) Legion Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 147 (+7) Loki Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Signature Radius: 125 (-5) Loki Defensive - Adaptive Shielding Signature Radius: 130 (-13) Loki Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 143 (+13) Proteus Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Signature Radius: 160 (-16) Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating +7.5% Armor HP per level (previously +10%) Signature Radius: 176 (+8) Proteus Defensive - Nanobot Injector Armor HP: 3650 (+150) Proteus Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 168 (+8) Tengu Defensive - Adaptive Shielding Signature Radius: 150 (-15) Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Shield Capacity: 3550 (-200) Signature Radius: 165 (+7) Tengu Defensive - Warfare Processor Signature Radius: 157 (+7) Like I said, these are not the final changes we want to make to T3 Cruisers, they are one specific set of changes we are making to help improve the balance surrounding this class until we can finish the comprehensive pass down the road. These are also not the only balance changes coming in Scylla. All the details on those changes will be released in an upcoming dev blog. Tengu has the smallest buffer of all T3 cruisers. You wanna nerf it even more! How could it fight against another T3 gang in PVP? For PvE purpose +3% is about nothing! Larger buffer is much more better. You need large buffer during the lvl 5 mission running even if You do it with the gang of Your friends. It would much more better if You'd give tengu +3% bonus to signature radius size instead. All the shield extenders add signature to the ship. Tengu tanks with shield and uses shield extenders hence. That's why it has the largest signature of all T3 cruisers. The large signature is now compesated with the Tengu's 10% per level bonus to buffer size. If You cut the Tengu's shiled buffer and leave the same size for the signature and give it no bonuses for the signature size then it would blow out the Tengu from the game and many of the people who builds it right now in EVE could leave the game. I would spend my time for learning something else instead, carrier for example, If I'd new about such a Tengu's nerf . It seems to me like You wanna stole my time and hence money. I've spend about 4 month to get Tengu known well enough. How You wanna compense that time for me? Would You like to gime me 4 plexes or the amount of the skill points that I've spent on Tengu, it's subsystems, shield skills and heavy missiles? I was training my twink for 4 months for the Tengu and I see now use for it after You do all Your changes. How You will return for me 4 plexes that I've spend on the second character training?
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3568	Posted - 2015.03.12 19:07:21 - [246] - Quote August Johann Bader wrote: How You wanna compense that time for me? Would You like to gime me 4 plexes or the amount of the skill points that I've spent on Tengu, it's subsystems, shield skills and heavy missiles? I was training my twink for 4 months for the Tengu and I see now use for it after You do all Your changes. How You will return for me 4 plexes that I've spend on the second character training? They won't. You're not entitled to compensation. Are you going to cry about it? Should we call your mother? Maybe we should call your mother. CCP has the right to make balance changes to their game for whatever reason they see fit, including no reason at all. This balancing does not entitle you to anything nor were you given any guarantee that ships, modules or ammunition would not change in any way after you began to train for them.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2382	Posted - 2015.03.12 20:21:22 - [247] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Long post but you have no idea what you talking about. Clearly I don't. I thought I mentioned that the Tengu has an extra slot over the Cerberus, meanwhile the Cerberus has so much less HP that it needs a LSE to balance with the Tengu, taking away another precious mid. That gives the Tengu two mids to use for ECM jammers without bringing its tank under still being stronger than the Cerberus, and without nerfing its damage output either. Did you even read the stats I posted? Oh and if it's so long, why quote the whole thing? CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Xander Phoena, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera, Marlona Sky, Tora Bushido Highsec reform thread
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 234	Posted - 2015.03.13 06:41:37 - [248] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Clearly I don't. I thought I mentioned that the Tengu has an extra slot over the Cerberus, meanwhile the Cerberus has so much less HP that it needs a LSE to balance with the Tengu, taking away another precious mid. That gives the Tengu two mids to use for ECM jammers while still leaving its tank stronger than the Cerberus, and without nerfing its damage output either. Oh, and the LSE means the Cerberus loses its sig radius advantage over the Tengu, too. you comparing T3 that can do ecm with hull that can't ecm. What you want to prove? yep cerberus is bad for ecm. If you want a balance compare your T3 fit with recons, because of the same role they provide. "...genre is a definition, the definition in itself must have boundaries, the boundaries act as barriers, and the barriers are like walls, like the walls of a prisonn++..." The Good, The Bad and The Bantam
Spencer Owl Black Swan Corp Mercury Seven 22	Posted - 2015.03.14 03:12:48 - [249] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Spencer Owl wrote: Saw this from a mile away. While I love my T3s, this is necessary to make battleships viable. The gap between T2 cruiser and T3 cruiser is way to big. I shouldn't be able to fly a cruiser around with the tank of a BS, sig of a cruiser, and the DPS of a T2 AC. It undermines the BS class. While BSs are still too easily blapped by dreads this is a start in the right direction. That said, I'd like to see some minor changes to grid/cpu and the removal of skill loss. Just about everything else works out. Keep up the good work CCP. PS - who do I have to pleasure around here to get some help with the Rev? None of this makes the battleship class more viable. This change only achieves dragging T3's down a bit which while a bit sad to see is necessary. I tested out my tengu on SISI and I tanked a thanatos and Orthrus quite easily pre-change. SISI has already been updated to the new format and I wouldn't be as game to try it out now I think. Sure it will. Just look at the placement of T3 destroyers in relation to cruisers. A T1 cruiser can handle a T3 destroyer in the right situation. A T2 cruiser will most likely blow a T3 destroyer out of the water. Should the BS and T3 cruiser relationship be any different? At the moment the tank is way out of proportion with the ship class. That all depends on the Thany fit. If it's built to murder sub-caps (i.e. - paints, webs, scramb) those fighters are going to tare you a new one if you're within range. That would mean blaster or ham fit with around 1600 dps from the Thany. If it's a ratting carrier it's probably fitted terribly.
Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 41	Posted - 2015.03.14 20:23:43 - [250] - Quote Spencer Owl wrote: Sure it will. Just look at the placement of T3 destroyers in relation to cruisers. A T1 cruiser can handle a T3 destroyer in the right situation. A T2 cruiser will most likely blow a T3 destroyer out of the water. Should the BS and T3 cruiser relationship be any different? At the moment the tank is way out of proportion with the ship class. Problem with that is that the D3s completely invalidate any combat-ship from D2s down. It's not simply that a D3 can kill an AF/D2, it's that they do what those things do (particularly AFs) better. You could do a lot to alleviate the Tech 3 Cruiser issue by simply removing their rig slots, or at least reducing them to a single rig. It would reinforce the idea that they're supposed to be *adaptable* ships, rather than just the same skill(s) covering several separate ships, which is what they functionally are now, and it would fall in line with the T1 and T2 rig progression.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1106	Posted - 2015.03.14 21:50:55 - [251] - Quote as above, i think rigs shouldn't be allowed on T3 cruisers, they are just costly stumbling blocks towards making T3's easy too switch subs around and promote the versatility that is the point of them. i hope that this is the case as leaving almost bc like HP on subs whilst keeping the 3 rig setup would be a big mistake. i hoped the T2 resists would have been removed aswell or at least reduced somewhat, as this kinda links into a greater problem that makes bc's/battleships obsolete by an large is the ease of repping low sig high resist ships like HAC's and T3 cruisers. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2024	Posted - 2015.03.18 14:42:08 - [252] - Quote Jezza McWaffle wrote: And jack of all trades would mean no one would use it. Like the tempest :P "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Rek Seven The Scope Gallente Federation 1968	Posted - 2015.03.18 16:37:25 - [253] - Quote When redesigning T3 i thought the idea was going to be to try and make other subsystems viable. Simply messing with hit point and sig radius stats does not accomplish this, it simply lessens the variety of viable fits... And what's the idea behind increasing the hit points for active tanked subsystems instead of increasing the efficiency of the active tank? It's stupid to balance t3 one sub at a time instead doing a full ballance pass all at once. +1
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4132	Posted - 2015.03.18 22:10:04 - [254] - Quote Gee, why does it not surprise me that T3 Destroyers has managed to find its way into this thread too... I think the proposed T3 Defensive Subsystem changes are fairly well-balanced, and it will be interesting to see what ideas CCP has for the other subsystems. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1180	Posted - 2015.03.19 21:20:44 - [255] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Clearly I don't. I thought I mentioned that the Tengu has an extra slot over the Cerberus, meanwhile the Cerberus has so much less HP that it needs a LSE to balance with the Tengu, taking away another precious mid. That gives the Tengu two mids to use for ECM jammers while still leaving its tank stronger than the Cerberus, and without nerfing its damage output either. Oh, and the LSE means the Cerberus loses its sig radius advantage over the Tengu, too. you comparing T3 that can do ecm with hull that can't ecm. What you want to prove? yep cerberus is bad for ecm. If you want a balance compare your T3 fit with recons, because of the same role they provide. There is nothing to compare. Tengu > Cerberus at everything except missile range. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
August Johann Bader SECURITY SQUAD N.O.B.O.D.Y. 0	Posted - 2015.03.19 22:09:40 - [256] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: August Johann Bader wrote: How You wanna compense that time for me? Would You like to gime me 4 plexes or the amount of the skill points that I've spent on Tengu, it's subsystems, shield skills and heavy missiles? I was training my twink for 4 months for the Tengu and I see now use for it after You do all Your changes. How You will return for me 4 plexes that I've spend on the second character training? They won't. You're not entitled to compensation. Are you going to cry about it? Should we call your mother? Maybe we should call your mother. CCP has the right to make balance changes to their game for whatever reason they see fit, including no reason at all. This balancing does not entitle you to anything nor were you given any guarantee that ships, modules or ammunition would not change in any way after you began to train for them. They just nerf one ship that takes long time to train and boost another ship that could be trianed faster. Why? Because the new gamers cannot fly on the T2 and T3 or carriers. Instead of learnig many of the nubes quit from the game or start to cry. And the nubes are the main source of the income because they can not buy PLEXes for ISK but they are able to buy them for $$. It is much more easy to nerf/boost the old ships then to create something really new. Actually, CCP creates something really new and good but it happens very rarely like T3 destroyers creating or new broken worlds that are also a good thing. And those things that CCP is calling "rebalance" is nothing more then lowering entrance level for new pilots. Why should You spend Your time to learn some ships and learn to fly on them when You can buy factional ship that would be better then T2 and fly on it after just 6 days in the game! I guess they would create some deadspace ships in the future that would require the same amount of skills as T1 or factional ships but would be the best ships in the game :) If You are the nube in the expensive ship You wouldn't kill experienced players but You could more easily kill other nubs in the cheap ships. All You need is to buy some PLEXes for the real money sell them for ISK and then buy the ship/declare war! What does it mean? It means that the whole auditory of the game may change slowly and it becomes nothing more but the second "World Of Tanks in space" after some time. But it could easily kill EVE because no one needs the second WOT but we need the 1st and only EVE. Now EVE is the very special game and its main feature is the comunity of gamers that differs from the othe games' comunities. It seems to me that the way that CCP is following for the last 1-2 years has one main target - increase of the income of $$. And You wanna tell me that this is the correct way of the game management just because "CCP has the right to make balance changes to their game for whatever reason they see fit, including no reason at all."?! Such an approach could wash out slowly the old players from the game and break the main EVE's feature - its community. CCP think that it would help them to survive (because old players are paying for the game with PLEXEs not buy the real money). That's why CCP nerfs the best ships that are hard to train (like carries, dreads and most poular T2 and T3 ships) and boosts or leaves without any nerf factional ships and modules. I just think that its a bad idea and very dangerous for the game way. I think that CCP should stop to just nerf/boost old ships but to create some new balance ways like special skills or really new ships (like T3 destroyers or SOE ships) or modules that could boost one thing and nerf other (like bastion module), or really new situations that woud require new skills/ships (like broken worlds, sleepers stash or burners missions). Actually I can fly on many different ships that are just instruments for me. If Tengu dies I can use many other farming tacktics and ships. I just tried to explain my point of veiw with the Tengu's example.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 234	Posted - 2015.03.20 07:23:46 - [257] - Quote Soldarius wrote: There is nothing to compare. Tengu > Cerberus at everything except missile range. Link me this glorious better tank/dps/ecm fit (which is obvious for ecm because cerberus don't have any bonuses for it). I want to see hull that will win EvE. We are comparing ecm tengu with cerberus ofc. Sample of the subsystem composition in above posts. "...genre is a definition, the definition in itself must have boundaries, the boundaries act as barriers, and the barriers are like walls, like the walls of a prisonn++..." The Good, The Bad and The Bantam
0 RLY snowghost 1	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:08:26 - [258] - Quote If you are going to nerf T3s, you should also remove the skill loss as well. It isn't fair that the ship costs 3x-4x as much as the ships you mentioned being out-shadowed, but can still be taken out by those mentioned ships. Think about it; you nerf T3s, without giving something back, T3 prices drop and sleeper salvage value drops, you have effectively crashed the best part of space to live in. You're not going to have many happy wormholers when they cannot effectively grind money like they used to. Just saying.
Wulfy Johnson NorCorp Security 69	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:33:49 - [259] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Clearly I don't. I thought I mentioned that the Tengu has an extra slot over the Cerberus, meanwhile the Cerberus has so much less HP that it needs a LSE to balance with the Tengu, taking away another precious mid. That gives the Tengu two mids to use for ECM jammers while still leaving its tank stronger than the Cerberus, and without nerfing its damage output either. Oh, and the LSE means the Cerberus loses its sig radius advantage over the Tengu, too. you comparing T3 that can do ecm with hull that can't ecm. What you want to prove? yep cerberus is bad for ecm. If you want a balance compare your T3 fit with recons, because of the same role they provide. There is nothing to compare. Tengu > Cerberus at everything except missile range. I belive you missed speed and sig in that equation, which makes the cerb a fair opponent.. Not everything evolves around pve and hams..
Spencer Owl Black Swan Corp Mercury Seven 22	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:45:06 - [260] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: Spencer Owl wrote: Sure it will. Just look at the placement of T3 destroyers in relation to cruisers. A T1 cruiser can handle a T3 destroyer in the right situation. A T2 cruiser will most likely blow a T3 destroyer out of the water. Should the BS and T3 cruiser relationship be any different? At the moment the tank is way out of proportion with the ship class. Problem with that is that the D3s completely invalidate any combat-ship from D2s down. It's not simply that a D3 can kill an AF/D2, it's that they do what those things do (particularly AFs) better. You could do a lot to alleviate the Tech 3 Cruiser issue by simply removing their rig slots, or at least reducing them to a single rig. It would reinforce the idea that they're supposed to be *adaptable* ships, rather than just the same skill(s) covering several separate ships, which is what they functionally are now, and it would fall in line with the T1 and T2 rig progression. I would have agreed with this 6 months ago before the re-balance of re-cons. Each re-con now effectively outperforms their perspective racial T3 in ewar (with not nearly as much tank). I get more range from webs out of a Huginn than a Loki. This is across the board. Unfortunately, I am still in the opinion that re-cons still need a little more help. They're still paper thin and some (like the curse) have serious cap issues. They've been designed to tank like a T1 but use some serious ewar power. A T3 can't neut, web, paint, jam, or point like a re-con but will have a significant tank and cap advantage. I can easily make a neuting legion cap stable with 120k plus ehp. This is important. Tank rules in a lot of situations which will make T3s very viable as a jack of all trades. Removing rigs in addition to the base defensive subsystem hit would render most of them useless. CCP has essentially built most every ship to fit around the T3 which is why they're last in line next to capitals. In any case I hope CCP continues to keep the balance even after each ship has found it's place and we're well into new structures and star gates.
kidkoma KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 24	Posted - 2015.03.24 22:57:11 - [261] - Quote With out the rep range bonus, the Legion/Prot Adaptive Augmenter remote rep bonus is useless. Just thought I'd say.
Aeryn Maricadie Periphery Bound 13	Posted - 2015.03.26 03:49:55 - [262] - Quote As a loki pilot I'm a little happy about all this, then back to sad

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one 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.