EVE Search - T3 destroyers should be more expensive

All Channels

Ships and Modules

T3 destroyers should be more expensive

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Anny Jackson Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2015.03.15 20:10:29 - [1] - Quote Well, they are way too OP for 40kk. But for 100-120 kk they would be just the next tier ships comparing to assault frigates and destroyers. I think CCP should look into the problem.
Tsukino Stareine Sock Robbers Inc. Low-Class 1085	Posted - 2015.03.15 20:12:55 - [2] - Quote pricing has nothing to do with CCP, if the ship itself is too overpowered (sentry ishtars) then they will rebalance.
Odethia Rondass 1	Posted - 2015.03.15 20:18:36 - [3] - Quote Tsukino Stareine wrote: pricing has nothing to do with CCP, if the ship itself is too overpowered (sentry ishtars) then they will rebalance. In a couple years.
Liam Inkuras AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 1482	Posted - 2015.03.15 20:39:25 - [4] - Quote Pricing is not a valid balance method I wear my goggles at night. Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 18	Posted - 2015.03.15 21:09:54 - [5] - Quote Tsukino Stareine wrote: pricing has nothing to do with CCP, if the ship itself is too overpowered (sentry ishtars) then they will rebalance. Why yu want to nerf Ishtar - it's under-used already. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç Anny Jackson wrote: Well, they are way too OP for 40kk. But for 100-120 kk they would be just the next tier ships comparing to assault frigates and destroyers. I think CCP should look into the problem. Confessor was 50 mil at one point, but then the Svipul diluted the supply. if you go by this metric, all CCP can do is increase the materials needed for their production. I SUSPECT THIS THREAD IS USED TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE ----ISHTAR--- PROBLEM. ( -í~ -£-û -í-¦)
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1294	Posted - 2015.03.15 21:12:18 - [6] - Quote Liam Inkuras wrote: Pricing is not a valid balance method A nice meme people keep spouting but its a lie.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 18	Posted - 2015.03.15 21:24:02 - [7] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Liam Inkuras wrote: Pricing is not a valid balance method A nice meme people keep spouting but its a lie. The rise in the prices of battleships is not connected to their demand, nor the balance of powers currently in Eve. An Armageddon now costs 180 mil ISK. Welcome to Cruisers/Ishtars Online. ßòª( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦)ßòñ
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1295	Posted - 2015.03.15 21:39:37 - [8] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Liam Inkuras wrote: Pricing is not a valid balance method A nice meme people keep spouting but its a lie. The rise in the prices of battleships is not connected to their demand, nor the balance of powers currently in Eve. An Armageddon now costs 180 mil ISK. Welcome to Cruisers/Ishtars Online. ßòª( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦)ßòñ Missing the point, people choose their ships based on performance and cost. Given how powerful T3D are they are too cheap to use and lose. So either nerf them (this would be the preferred action) or change production cost so they're way more expensive.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 18	Posted - 2015.03.15 21:52:57 - [9] - Quote Fix sentry Ishtars first, ok. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç
Anny Jackson Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2015.03.15 22:26:20 - [10] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Liam Inkuras wrote: Pricing is not a valid balance method A nice meme people keep spouting but its a lie. The rise in the prices of battleships is not connected to their demand, nor the balance of powers currently in Eve. An Armageddon now costs 180 mil ISK. Welcome to Cruisers/Ishtars Online. ßòª( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦)ßòñ Missing the point, people choose their ships based on performance and cost. Given how powerful T3D are they are too cheap to use and lose. So either nerf them (this would be the preferred action) or change production cost so they're way more expensive. Exactly. And I don't wanna them being nerfed, so they will have to become more expensive.
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 4068	Posted - 2015.03.15 22:40:46 - [11] - Quote I have removed some rule breaking posts. The Rules: 5. Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Orlacc 841	Posted - 2015.03.16 00:02:38 - [12] - Quote Anny Jackson wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Liam Inkuras wrote: Pricing is not a valid balance method A nice meme people keep spouting but its a lie. The rise in the prices of battleships is not connected to their demand, nor the balance of powers currently in Eve. An Armageddon now costs 180 mil ISK. Welcome to Cruisers/Ishtars Online. ßòª( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦)ßòñ Missing the point, people choose their ships based on performance and cost. Given how powerful T3D are they are too cheap to use and lose. So either nerf them (this would be the preferred action) or change production cost so they're way more expensive. Exactly. And I don't wanna them being nerfed, so they will have to become more expensive. Meh I give up. "Measure Twice, Cut Once."
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4131	Posted - 2015.03.16 00:29:59 - [13] - Quote Anny Jackson wrote: Well, they are way too OP for 40kk. But for 100-120 kk they would be just the next tier ships comparing to assault frigates and destroyers. I think CCP should look into the problem. Would it necessarily make any difference? No. The simplest (and quickest) solution would be to limit them to medium FW complexes. In any event, it's unlikely we'd see any rebalance until the Caldari and Gallante T3 Destroyers are released and they finish rebalancing the T3 Cruisers. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Valkin Mordirc 774	Posted - 2015.03.16 01:05:15 - [14] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Liam Inkuras wrote: Pricing is not a valid balance method A nice meme people keep spouting but its a lie. I've said this before, but If I sell an Ibis for 500bil that Ibis does not become better than a titan. Maybe the new T3 dessies are OP However saying that price is an indication of balance, is not true. If price WAS an indication of balance and the new T3 Dessies are OP. You would the price of them skyrocketing as demand increases for newest OP ship. I'm open to a counter statement but that's how I see it. May be wrong. shrugs Also listing brand new ships that are getting a **** ton of kills also can not be used as evidence to the new ships being OP is because, well, they are new, people will want to use them even though they may not be as good as they are be perceived to be Edit: But T3D's should NOT be let into small plexes. `#DeleteTheWeak`
SmilingVagrant GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2671	Posted - 2015.03.16 16:12:15 - [15] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Liam Inkuras wrote: Pricing is not a valid balance method A nice meme people keep spouting but its a lie. I have enough money to crap out faction/deadspace fit T3 destroyers for the rest of my life. I'm not even remotely unusual in this regard.
God's Apples Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 576	Posted - 2015.03.17 02:27:15 - [16] - Quote Clearly ships are balanced based on price. A deimos is better than a thorax in every way except that the deimos has higher material requirements, thus making it cost more. It was intentional that the t3 dessies cost roughly as much as dictors. CCP knew what sleeper loot went for, and made the material requirements such that they cost that much. I think they are much too strong given their price. It would be simple to double material requirements and make them cost twice as much, where they should cost. "Hydra Reloaded are just jealous / butthurt on me / us because we can get tons of PVP action in empire while they aren't good enough to get that." - NightmareX
Liam Inkuras AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 1487	Posted - 2015.03.17 03:08:40 - [17] - Quote God's Apples wrote: Clearly ships are balanced based on price. A deimos is better than a thorax in every way except that the deimos has higher material requirements, thus making it cost more. It was intentional that the t3 dessies cost roughly as much as dictors. CCP knew what sleeper loot went for, and made the material requirements such that they cost that much. I think they are much too strong given their price. It would be simple to double material requirements and make them cost twice as much, where they should cost. Please biomass and stop trying to make me poor I wear my goggles at night. Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
God's Apples Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 576	Posted - 2015.03.17 03:26:23 - [18] - Quote Liam Inkuras wrote: God's Apples wrote: Clearly ships are balanced based on price. A deimos is better than a thorax in every way except that the deimos has higher material requirements, thus making it cost more. It was intentional that the t3 dessies cost roughly as much as dictors. CCP knew what sleeper loot went for, and made the material requirements such that they cost that much. I think they are much too strong given their price. It would be simple to double material requirements and make them cost twice as much, where they should cost. Please biomass and stop trying to make me poor No now we make the jihad against the t3 dessy "Hydra Reloaded are just jealous / butthurt on me / us because we can get tons of PVP action in empire while they aren't good enough to get that." - NightmareX
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1295	Posted - 2015.03.17 07:56:38 - [19] - Quote SmilingVagrant wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Liam Inkuras wrote: Pricing is not a valid balance method A nice meme people keep spouting but its a lie. I have enough money to crap out faction/deadspace fit T3 destroyers for the rest of my life. I'm not even remotely unusual in this regard. Your anecdotal "evidence" does not invalidate the basic logic that price is a factor.
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1295	Posted - 2015.03.17 08:02:19 - [20] - Quote God's Apples wrote: No now we make the jihad against the t3 dessy I'm starting to question's Fozzie's capability and/or willingness to create a balanced playing field. The Mordu's shipline, bubble immunity for Inties, super soft nerf for the Ishtar (clearly not enough), and now the T3D. How could any sane person create these T3D and go "yup, looks balanced to me, that's not at all going to completely ruin the landscape". It makes no sense. These T3D need to be made AND more expensive AND need to be nerfed.
Valkin Mordirc 789	Posted - 2015.03.17 08:16:12 - [21] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: God's Apples wrote: No now we make the jihad against the t3 dessy I'm starting to question's Fozzie's capability and/or willingness to create a balanced playing field. The Mordu's shipline, bubble immunity for Inties, super soft nerf for the Ishtar (clearly not enough), and now the T3D. How could any sane person create these T3D and go "yup, looks balanced to me, that's not at all going to completely ruin the landscape". It makes no sense. These T3D need to be made AND more expensive AND need to be nerfed. Job Security? =P `#DeleteTheWeak`
Dave Stark 7453	Posted - 2015.03.17 09:54:53 - [22] - Quote price should only be a factor in balancing if you want to turn eve in to pay to win, which is the very reason why price isn't nor ever should be a factor in ship balance.
Tung Yoggi SnaiLs aNd FroGs 71	Posted - 2015.03.17 11:31:15 - [23] - Quote Material cost should rise by a bit, the gap between AF and D3s is a bit too narrow. Pricing is an issue, not really because it's quite cheap, but because AFs seem to suffer from it. Powergrid should probably be shrunk a little, I don't see many reasons why oversized prop should almost be the default loadout. Price is clearly a deciding factor when buying and flying a ship, as God's pointed out. No one cares if you are spacerich or poor, it's a matter of where your ship stands on the price scale, compared to other. And no, it doesn't make Eve pay to win, unless they implement a kiting autopilot that kills you while keeping range and then post automated #rekt messages in local (100 AURUM for 24h). Expensive ships die everyday against much cheaper opponents.
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1296	Posted - 2015.03.17 11:35:52 - [24] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: price should only be a factor in balancing if you want to turn eve in to pay to win, which is the very reason why price isn't nor ever should be a factor in ship balance. There's a difference between the utopian "more expensive shouldn't necessarily be overall better" and the reality that people are willing to pay for performance. No one would fly a DD if it were as good as a normal T1 frig while retaining its cost, and not many people would fly it if it would cost 400 mil. So yes: cost (through production cost or scarcity) IS a factor, it always has been, and stating otherwise is just meme spouting nonsense.
Tarko Auduin Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic 8	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:09:28 - [25] - Quote You actually want a ship to cost more? Gtfo. Now. Reading between the lines, I'm seeing "I can't fly a t3 dessie, please make it so I don't have to fight them as often"
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1298	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:33:44 - [26] - Quote Tarko Auduin wrote: You actually want a ship to cost more? Gtfo. Now. Reading between the lines, I'm seeing "I can't fly a t3 dessie, please make it so I don't have to fight them as often" Given your.... logic I doubt you have the IQ to read in the first place.
Tarko Auduin Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic 8	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:41:24 - [27] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Tarko Auduin wrote: You actually want a ship to cost more? Gtfo. Now. Reading between the lines, I'm seeing "I can't fly a t3 dessie, please make it so I don't have to fight them as often" Given your.... logic I doubt you have the IQ to read in the first place. How so? I don't think I've EVER seen someone complain a ship is too cheap, mostly because the immediate response is "then why the **** aren't you in one?" So please, enlighten me as to where my comment went wrong
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1298	Posted - 2015.03.17 18:02:12 - [28] - Quote QED
Tarko Auduin Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic 8	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:48:25 - [29] - Quote oh boy, you sure showed me I was wrong...
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4131	Posted - 2015.03.17 22:19:18 - [30] - Quote The price of T3 Destroyers is fine; it's the price of anything larger that needs to start coming down. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Lloyd Roses 913	Posted - 2015.03.17 22:33:23 - [31] - Quote T3 Destroyers only point out how completely crappy AFs are atm. Else, they're great at being a glorified destroyer that shreds any other small hull (what'd you expect, seriously) and becomes useless once you put a cruiser with a competent pilot on the field. Their sig/speed is just not good. The confessor is a sheet of paper. The svipul got either a tank and fights in spitting range, or it's got artillery and not much of a tank. Fact that people use them to kill cruisers 1v1 left and right would rather be incompetent pilots on one side rather than T3 dessis OP. In case: A thrasher can kill a ratting tengu, you don't need a svipul for that. I GÖÑ Sleipnir
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4132	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:22:05 - [32] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: T3 Destroyers only point out how completely crappy AFs are atm. Else, they're great at being a glorified destroyer that shreds any other small hull (what'd you expect, seriously) and becomes useless once you put a cruiser with a competent pilot on the field. Their sig/speed is just not good. The confessor is a sheet of paper. The svipul got either a tank and fights in spitting range, or it's got artillery and not much of a tank. Fact that people use them to kill cruisers 1v1 left and right would rather be incompetent pilots on one side rather than T3 dessis OP. In case: A thrasher can kill a ratting tengu, you don't need a svipul for that. Is it that Assault Frigates are crappy - or is it that players have switched to T3 Destroyers and/or T3 Destroyers are dominating small FW complexes? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Prometheus Exenthal mnemonic. 730	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:46:00 - [33] - Quote I don't think AFs are crappy at all, I think T3D just replace them and everything else below them. The price isn't the issue, it's their capabilities. Nerf their grid into the ground -> problem solved. You retain the capable ship class, though it will no longer be able to curbstomp everything smaller than a BC (that isn't an Ishtar). https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage
Shelom Severasse Burning Alder 50	Posted - 2015.03.18 11:47:51 - [34] - Quote Anny Jackson wrote: Well, they are way too OP for 40kk. But for 100-120 kk they would be just the next tier ships comparing to assault frigates and destroyers. I think CCP should look into the problem. lemme break it down for ya theres this thing called supply and demand when demand fluctuates positively, prices rise, when it falls, prices fall the fact that the confessor has hovered around 40m for a while a now means that we, as a player base, have decided how much this ship is worth. besides, saying something is op without evidence is really just an opinion and unfounded. however, if the ship was to be found as op, changing the materials to make 1 of these ships is not the correct action. why? you ask? because if the ship is truly op, people will keep buying it regardless of the price (looks at the price disparity between the worm and cruor) in short, the t3 dessies are fine as is atm
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1307	Posted - 2015.03.18 12:30:48 - [35] - Quote Shelom Severasse wrote: Anny Jackson wrote: Well, they are way too OP for 40kk. But for 100-120 kk they would be just the next tier ships comparing to assault frigates and destroyers. I think CCP should look into the problem. lemme break it down for ya theres this thing called supply and demand when demand fluctuates positively, prices rise, when it falls, prices fall the fact that the confessor has hovered around 40m for a while a now means that we, as a player base, have decided how much this ship is worth. besides, saying something is op without evidence is really just an opinion and unfounded. however, if the ship was to be found as op, changing the materials to make 1 of these ships is not the correct action. why? you ask? because if the ship is truly op, people will keep buying it regardless of the price (looks at the price disparity between the worm and cruor) in short, the t3 dessies are fine as is atm The first part is nonsense because now that scarcity is no longer an issue (supply has caught up with demand) the cost of the ship is largely determined by its production cost. Faction/pirate ships are inherently different as their cost comes from the BPC so using that as an explanation for your "logic" makes no sense. Your last sentence is of course the (not so) hidden agenda, which is what your post is about: trying to validate that statement.
March rabbit Federal Defense Union 1567	Posted - 2015.03.18 16:14:26 - [36] - Quote Valkin Mordirc wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Liam Inkuras wrote: Pricing is not a valid balance method A nice meme people keep spouting but its a lie. I've said this before, but If I sell an Ibis for 500bil that Ibis does not become better than a titan. look at this from other side: why in FW you see lots of cheap T1/faction frigates and not all dramiels/daredevils/garmurs? I guess should price be not balancing factor here you would not see anything subpar to pirate ships around. The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Oscae Kitchen Sink Kapitals 29	Posted - 2015.03.18 18:43:09 - [37] - Quote Price has never been a balancing factor, it is a detering factor. The difference is CCP doesn't decide the price, for this see pirate ships; they have the material cost of T1 ships, it is the demand/effectivness of the ship, as Shelom mentioned with the Worm and the Cruror. As for the detering factor, the reason you don't see everyone in deadspace fit pirate frigs in FW is because they are expensive to replace, and after a while of losing fights you will run out of money, hence the cheaper alternatives. The key is finding a balance between cost and effectiveness, that doesn't end up with something being cheap and effective simultaneuosly, there should be something that gives. D3s just so happen to be cheap enough whilst retaining effectiveness that they've hit a personal sweet spot where I don't feel to bad about losing one and they are good enough not to be lost too often, providing you know how to fly. TL;DR Cost is irrelevant, look to actual ship balance if you have an issue and provide real feedback/suggestions
Reina Xyaer Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 68	Posted - 2015.03.18 18:57:49 - [38] - Quote NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Price is not a legitimate balance factor. D3s are OP... nerf them.
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1309	Posted - 2015.03.18 19:18:03 - [39] - Quote Oscae wrote: TL;DR Cost is irrelevant, look to actual ship balance if you have an issue and provide real feedback/suggestions In that case you won't mind if CCP changed the materials/effort so that production cost goes up to 250m.
Anny Jackson Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2015.03.18 22:11:03 - [40] - Quote I think there is another way to fix T3 destroyers - to prohibit using oversized modules. Like 10 MN AB on ships smaller than cruisers. Or 100 MN ABs on ships smaller than BSs.
Oscae Kitchen Sink Kapitals 29	Posted - 2015.03.18 22:11:30 - [41] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Oscae wrote: TL;DR Cost is irrelevant, look to actual ship balance if you have an issue and provide real feedback/suggestions In that case you won't mind if CCP changed the materials/effort so that production cost goes up to 250m. That doesn't make any logical sense, not even Ishtars cost that much, and we all know how OP they are right? Also you appear to have misread my point, when I say cost is irrelevant, I dion't mean you can go and screw with it as much as you want, I mean it's not even something that should be considered. Why not look at why the ship is OP: over sized prop mod as standard? Lower PG. too much damage? lower the damage bonus to 7.5 or 5%/level. Stop trying to use cost as a balancing factor when it is simply a non-factor regarding ship balance. yes it affects how much those ships are used, but look at why they're being used and so effectively and fix that.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4132	Posted - 2015.03.18 22:26:25 - [42] - Quote Anny Jackson wrote: I think there is another way to fix T3 destroyers - to prohibit using oversized modules. Like 10 MN AB on ships smaller than cruisers. Or 100 MN ABs on ships smaller than BSs. This is an issue that affects more than just T3 Destroyers and is worth a separate discussion. But yes, if modules (which includes plates, shield extenders, shield boosters and armour repairers) were limited by class - a lot of these ships may not longer be OP. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1311	Posted - 2015.03.18 23:43:47 - [43] - Quote Oscae wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Oscae wrote: TL;DR Cost is irrelevant, look to actual ship balance if you have an issue and provide real feedback/suggestions In that case you won't mind if CCP changed the materials/effort so that production cost goes up to 250m. That doesn't make any logical sense, not even Ishtars cost that much, and we all know how OP they are right? Also you appear to have misread my point, when I say cost is irrelevant, I dion't mean you can go and screw with it as much as you want, I mean it's not even something that should be considered. Why not look at why the ship is OP: over sized prop mod as standard? Lower PG. too much damage? lower the damage bonus to 7.5 or 5%/level. Stop trying to use cost as a balancing factor when it is simply a non-factor regarding ship balance. yes it affects how much those ships are used, but look at why they're being used and so effectively and fix that. Nono, you stated that cost is not a factor and isn't relevant at all so in that case you should not care about them becoming more expensive. You spout the stupid meme, you get the to deal with the responses. Yes, the T3D need to be nerfed but they also need to be made more expensive. Not 250 mil expensive but about double of what they are now.
Tsukino Stareine Sock Robbers Inc. Low-Class 1093	Posted - 2015.03.18 23:46:24 - [44] - Quote small hull sections need to give less runs per BPC they engineer into and drop more frequently. Overall the effect should be less t3 destroyer hulls produced and price will go up.
Aeryn Atropos State War Academy Caldari State 2	Posted - 2015.03.19 16:30:05 - [45] - Quote Cost is of course one of the factors of balance, bigger more expensive ships are meant to take on more ships of a lesser class. T3 destroyers are meant to be able to take on multiple frigates just like a Hurricane BC is meant to take on more than one omen. Now the price for a T3 destroyer is I think not that bad either, for a full fit the price tag is somewhere around 75 million. For that price you can fit either 2 t2 frigates and some t1's or 3 t2's, that ought to give you about a 50/50 chance of winning the engagement, if it doesn't that speaks more about your fleet comp and skills than it does about the dessy. If you are one of the people whinging about how the t3 dessy can take on AF frigates you deserve to lose just like anyone that tries to out brawl a Deimos with Thorax's. to kill a t3 dessy ought to be fairly simple 1 EWAR frigate (any of the non minmatar t2's) plus one tackle frigate (the minmatar T2 EWAR ship is good here though) will leave them helpless and trapped. add dps as necessary.
Claud Tiberius Fidelas Constans 102	Posted - 2015.03.19 23:33:49 - [46] - Quote Tsukino Stareine wrote: pricing has nothing to do with CCP, if the ship itself is too overpowered (sentry ishtars) then they will rebalance. Price is significant. Otherwise everyone would just use the best ships in the game, all the time. Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2754	Posted - 2015.03.20 00:58:01 - [47] - Quote Claud Tiberius wrote: Tsukino Stareine wrote: pricing has nothing to do with CCP, if the ship itself is too overpowered (sentry ishtars) then they will rebalance. Price is significant. Otherwise everyone would just use the best ships in the game, all the time. Which is what ship? Please do tell what one ship is the best in the game. Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
Arsine Mayhem Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 386	Posted - 2015.03.20 02:12:04 - [48] - Quote Tsukino Stareine wrote: pricing has nothing to do with CCP, if the ship itself is too overpowered (sentry ishtars) then they will rebalance. Pricing has everything to do with CCP. They set the materials need to build. aka Domi to cheap, raised the mineral requirements.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 942	Posted - 2015.03.20 19:40:41 - [49] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Claud Tiberius wrote: Tsukino Stareine wrote: pricing has nothing to do with CCP, if the ship itself is too overpowered (sentry ishtars) then they will rebalance. Price is significant. Otherwise everyone would just use the best ships in the game, all the time. Which is what ship? Please do tell what one ship is the best in the game. Why would I fly a T1 cruiser EVER when I can HAC/Mordus? Why would I fly a T1 frig, ever when I can Inty/AF as required? Why would I fly a T1 BS ever when I can use faction ones? Why would I use a T1 mining hull when I can use the T2? Because COST. To ignore its role in broad levels of balance is folly. You cannot RELY on it as a balancing factor but nor can one completely ignore it. Case in point - the reason people fly things other than orthrus at the cruiser tier is because at 280m a pop, that's going to start to hurt before long. tl;dr "cost" is not an excuse for a ship being blatantly overpowered, but it CAN be valid to say a given hull provides too much power for too LITTLE cost.
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1320	Posted - 2015.03.20 21:56:18 - [50] - Quote Btw, the other 2 T3D are coming and as feared: the Caldari one is lml/rocket. The Gallente one is just silly.
Atomeon The Scope Gallente Federation 25	Posted - 2015.03.20 22:39:15 - [51] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Btw, the other 2 T3D are coming and as feared: the Caldari one is lml/rocket. The Gallente one is just silly. Silly? on which point of view?
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1320	Posted - 2015.03.20 23:02:50 - [52] - Quote Atomeon wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Btw, the other 2 T3D are coming and as feared: the Caldari one is lml/rocket. The Gallente one is just silly. Silly? on which point of view? The balance one, the only one that counts. high dps and a moronic tank, from what I understood it's already getting prenerfed.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 943	Posted - 2015.03.20 23:39:04 - [53] - Quote The caldari one is going to be stupid. Beyond stupid. A lot of people are excited about mad hull tanks, however I'm thinking: oversized prop mod, propulsion mode and tracking independent weapons. i.e. independent of your OWN movement....it's going to be ridiculous. It'll make the garmur look like a rocket rifter.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4148	Posted - 2015.03.21 00:01:26 - [54] - Quote afkalt wrote: The caldari one is going to be stupid. Beyond stupid. Yes. It is... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Pages: 1 2 :: [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.