| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
42
   |
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:23:08 -
[1] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.
You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS? Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.
What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3? Just admit it, You want T3Cs obliterated from the game. Your opinions about T3 are just bias based on your personal dislike of them. CCP would be wise to never listen to your nonsense about T3s, or else they'll regret it. |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:28:55 -
[2] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Malcanis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.
You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS? Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles. What do you see the reason for T3s being if not the tank? it is a swiss army knife it can do all T2 roles decent, but a T2 specific hull would kick it`s A S S that is how it should be maybe a somewhat advantage on resists or tank but not a OP ship that pretty much defeats everything right off the bat
Sure, as long as they reduce their cost below that of a T2 cruiser and remove the SP loss on death and MAYBE someone will find a use for it, maybe.
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:45:32 -
[3] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:it is a swiss army knife it can do all T2 roles decent, but a T2 specific hull would kick it`s A S S that is how it should be maybe a somewhat advantage on resists or tank but not a OP ship that pretty much defeats everything right off the bat I agree with the notion that specialized ships should be better, but saying that T3s should just perform T2 roles, but worse, is IMO wrong approach. If laser Legion is worse than Zealot, HAM Legion is worse than Sacrilege and Covops neut Legion is worse than Pilgrim, then there's no point in Legion at all - IF it keeps using existing mech. There are two options, one being making sure they are decent in hybrid configuration (for example, neut+HAM Legion), another is making sure T3s are something unique (for example, build them around existing concept of refitting and reconfiguring in space completely changing capabilities, but never exceeding ones of existing specialized ships; they may be still comparable, but people won't use T3 just because if they will pay premium to do same job T2 can do for its T2 price).
I believe your concept on what a T3 should be is the most acute idea I've heard in the forums. A specialize ship that can perform many roles the same (NOT LESS) as their T2 Counters and have a sorta built in mobile depot like ability that can refit in space on the fly like a carrier. Have a 700 m3 cargo hold to be able to hold multiple subs & mods and having slightly less dps, but more tank than a HAC with no drone bays. |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:51:40 -
[4] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Murkar Omaristos wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote:baltec1 wrote:Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf. Kestral Anneto wrote:equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though. Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances. ^^ this. Why in the hell would anyone nerf T3s further? The tengu just got nerfed, and so did the proteus. Battleships need a buff. T3s are fine. It would be a huge mistake to break a whole line of ships in order to try and fix another. BTW, battleship fleets are already a thing - both PL and NC. use TFIs. T3s are fine OMG plz clarify how you imagine that a cruiser with BS tanks and BC DPS is fine and on top of that they have huge fitting options and are versatile and have huge cap too they are clearly OP if you REALY think they are fine you are high.
I guess you don't know a thing about neuts. All it takes is ONE heavy neut to cap out a T3C. No cap, no tank, = dead T3C.
What? Cap Boosters you say, please. Just how long can a T3 hold up on heavy neut pressure with only a 280 m3 cargo bay, hmm?
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:39:41 -
[5] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:
What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3?
Whats the point in t2 cruisers if T3 overpower them at their specialty? Reducing them down to below t2 cruisers would not make them useless, they can still retain their adaptability and with the mobile depot they can swap to be something different on the fly like no other ship can. Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships.
With the SP loss on death and the double price tag, I can see plenty of reasons to fly my Deimos over a Proteus or My Zealot over a Legion. My Legion has yet to leave Hi-Sec because of these risks while I've use both my Zealot and Deimos many times in WHs and null sec.
Now If CCP removes the SP loss on death and reduce the T3Cs price to the same level as HACs, then I'll have no argument about SOME of your proposed changes baltec1.
Why don't you make a thread with some figures on how you believe the T3Cs should be properly balanced (not reduced to redundancy) and let's see how the mass view these changes that you propose. |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 02:42:27 -
[6] - Quote
Harrison Tato wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I may seem extremely angry all of the time, but it's really just that I am very passionate.
So was Adolph.
lol
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 05:06:30 -
[7] - Quote
Caiman Graystock wrote:Much sadness was had nüî
I was definitely hoping the increased drifter threat would lead to the development of new Tech II battleships based on the Abaddon/Rokh/Hyperion/Maelstrom and that this was the kick off for that. I guess not. One day maybe?
Such innovative creative thinking would be a first from CCP in a long while.
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 05:17:48 -
[8] - Quote
[quote=Stitch Kaneland]
What BS offer is more than an EHP sponge. They offer utility and range combined with higher EHP. You cannot get heavy neuts on any other ship (except maybe a bastardized curse). Heavy neuts are the bane of most cruisers.
Tee hehe, I'm actually playing around with heavy neut fitted Curses, but can't quite figure out how to make them useful for solo roams since they can't hold point at 80km.
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 06:16:19 -
[9] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murkar Omaristos wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:
T3s are fine OMG plz clarify how you imagine that a cruiser with BS tanks and BC DPS is fine and on top of that they have huge fitting options and are versatile and have huge cap too they are clearly OP if you REALY think they are fine you are high.
Because a cheaply fit T3 costs more than the battleship and the battlecruiser combined, and requires way more training and support skills. Who is high here exactly? SP and isk mean nothing to people like me. Incidentally, tengu SP is on par with battleship as is its cost. Yes they are horribly overpowered.
Meh, CCP has got their hands full trying to rebalance the Ishtar (go, go Ishtar), so I doubt your dreams of a T3C nerf will happen anytime soon baltec1.
They need some adjustments yes, but not a crippling nerf as you desire.
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 06:07:02 -
[10] - Quote
Wacktopia wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Andreus Ixiris]
Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles. True... I got back into an old Proteus fit the other day, looked at half-a-million EHP and though "yeah, this ain't right".
Quit exaggerating. The highest EHP you can get with a Proteus with HG Slave set + links is 275k. Now if you're talking about bait fits, then yes a Proteus with triple 1600 steel plate II buffer with HG Slave Set + Links can reach around 500k EHP. But why the hell would anyone want to fit a Proteus this way?? |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 06:17:41 -
[11] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:T3Cs with T2 power and more utility would be a better implementation, I feel.
I can agree with this as long as CCP get rid of the SP loss on death.
With the current SP loss on death and the 450-500 mill price tag, I feel that T3Cs are actually a little underpowered compared to the HACs. Then again I don't use the buffer subs or logi, so that could be the reason for my thinking.
|
| |
|