Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3089
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 18:32:28 -
[271] - Quote
Kelsey Auditore wrote:I made a post about wanting to shorten the train of t2 bc's already, but I do have a more complex idea.
What if we separated the role of t2 bc's into their own category and skill train
Certain T2 BC's aren't used as actual boosters at all, like the sleipnir or absolution now a days. Wouldn't it make sense to make one section of t2 bc's be combat only and not have such a long train as the actual booster t2 bc's? Make the combat bc's like the sleipnir just be minmatar battlecruiser 5 only so you don't have to train all the boosting skills. Then if you really want a t2 bc booster like the astarte, then make people do the 90 day train to run them. It's the reason why you don't see t2 bc's being used that much other than lowsec boosting or large on grid fleet fights, like the damnation.
They used to be that way, it was terrible.
Also the 3% to links is a 3rd t2 skill bonus, they all have decent combat bonuses not, and if you only want to use them for combat, all you need to do is not train the warfare specialization skills.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Kelsey Auditore
Shadow State The Bastion
143
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 18:36:30 -
[272] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Kelsey Auditore wrote:I made a post about wanting to shorten the train of t2 bc's already, but I do have a more complex idea.
What if we separated the role of t2 bc's into their own category and skill train
Certain T2 BC's aren't used as actual boosters at all, like the sleipnir or absolution now a days. Wouldn't it make sense to make one section of t2 bc's be combat only and not have such a long train as the actual booster t2 bc's? Make the combat bc's like the sleipnir just be minmatar battlecruiser 5 only so you don't have to train all the boosting skills. Then if you really want a t2 bc booster like the astarte, then make people do the 90 day train to run them. It's the reason why you don't see t2 bc's being used that much other than lowsec boosting or large on grid fleet fights, like the damnation.
They used to be that way, it was terrible. Also the 3% to links is a 3rd t2 skill bonus, they all have decent combat bonuses not, and if you only want to use them for combat, all you need to do is not train the warfare specialization skills.
You still need to train the warfare skills to even fly a t2 bc. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3089
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 18:39:03 -
[273] - Quote
Kelsey Auditore wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Kelsey Auditore wrote:I made a post about wanting to shorten the train of t2 bc's already, but I do have a more complex idea.
What if we separated the role of t2 bc's into their own category and skill train
Certain T2 BC's aren't used as actual boosters at all, like the sleipnir or absolution now a days. Wouldn't it make sense to make one section of t2 bc's be combat only and not have such a long train as the actual booster t2 bc's? Make the combat bc's like the sleipnir just be minmatar battlecruiser 5 only so you don't have to train all the boosting skills. Then if you really want a t2 bc booster like the astarte, then make people do the 90 day train to run them. It's the reason why you don't see t2 bc's being used that much other than lowsec boosting or large on grid fleet fights, like the damnation.
They used to be that way, it was terrible. Also the 3% to links is a 3rd t2 skill bonus, they all have decent combat bonuses not, and if you only want to use them for combat, all you need to do is not train the warfare specialization skills. You still need to train the warfare skills to even fly a t2 bc. Which are useful in any fleet with or without links.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
344
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 19:04:48 -
[274] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote:No it wasnt. All of them had some super niche traplord fits for solo pvp (2x ASB Ferox, Kite shield or Armor brawl Harbinger for frig blapping comes to mind for example) just like the Cyclone does now. If the Cyclone is good they are aswell. If they are bad then the Cyclone is aswell.
Execpt those were trap fits, like a light neutron talos or similar. The cyclone and the myrm were/are legit good pvp ships due to their active tank + slots + decent dps. Triple rep myrm and either single or dual rep cyclone are still good ships.
They however arent good in gangs nor are they good at pve, which is why you dont really see them very much. |
DR BiCarbonate
Doomriders.
98
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 19:11:11 -
[275] - Quote
Yo fozzie, great changes so far. Loving the Fleet cane.
Myrm is great for tanking and all but dat drone bay is atrocious. Any semi competent gang with just kill your drones and then you are just sitting there tanking all the things and dying a slow death. PLEASE double the drone bay to 400m3. Why does the stratios A CRUISER get 400 and a Myrm gets **** on with 200? really? Even the prophecy gets 25m3 more?
As for the cyclone, sure its can be strong in the right hands but you need all the bells and whistles to make it worth it. maxed skilled pilot who knows wtf they're doing with HG crystals (MG can work) Blue pill and maxed tengu/loki booster alt. Please take another look at it. It needs a tad more CPU. there are few viable fits for the cyclone and they all require fitting mods/rigs. Either swap it back to a turret boat (YES PLEASE, HAMs are pretty garbage) or give it more damage and some more cpu.
Also they all need a good chunk extra cargo space. Especially the active tanked ships.
As some have mentioned they also need that lock range to 100km. You know you ****** up when you have to introduce a mod that lets larger ships get away from the risk averse kite ships. As of right now MJD is probably 90% used to only get away from kite ships.
Just throwing this out there but how about a special rig/subsystem slot for CBC for only fitting MJD? Add another role bonus for MJD use either reduced fittings requirements or like 50% reduced reactivation time or even 50% reduced spool up time?
This pass is a step in the right direction to making BC relevant again but they could use a bit more love. |
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
346
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 20:19:19 -
[276] - Quote
DR BiCarbonate wrote:Myrm is great for tanking and all but dat drone bay is atrocious. Any semi competent gang with just kill your drones and then you are just sitting there tanking all the things and dying a slow death. PLEASE double the drone bay to 400m3. Why does the stratios A CRUISER get 400 and a Myrm gets **** on with 200? really? Even the prophecy gets 25m3 more?
This is actually a good point - the Myrmidon could use more drone bay space. It won't be OP since the bandwidth still limits it to 4 Heavies/Sentries. Right now you can't fit any spares if you want a flight of heavies to take advantage of the new drone speed bonus if you carry a full complement: 4 Heavies, 5 Mediums, 5 Smalls, 5 Utility/ECM. Even if you drop the utility, that would only give you room for one more Medium. Having a bit more drone space to be able to pull in damaged drones and swap out is good gameplay since you have to do a lot of micromanaging, which is already tough on an active tanked ship.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
923
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 21:00:13 -
[277] - Quote
sooo...Does this mean we're stuck with missiles the way they are??? |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
72
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 23:37:19 -
[278] - Quote
Lets not drag the missile crap into this thread. While I personally didn't approve of the way the missile rebalance was handled the BC changes so far have been handled infinitely better with good information transfer and feedback. They are well thought out and define the roll far better than previously.
Post Vanguard BCs will be one of the defacto defense doctrine ships. Enough EHP to slug with the agility to zip around. Invading cruiser gangs will actually have to fight well or bugger off.
|
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
82
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 00:09:25 -
[279] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:Rename Missiles skills to kinetic damage skills. FFS non missiles races are better in missiles than Caldari. If you want to keep kinetic lock on Caldari, make Minmatars missiles boats - explosions lock, an Amarr EM lock. That would be interesting distinction, don't you think? You are denying your own missiles philosphy - selectable damage. I do not understand the ruckus about the Kinetic damage bonus. The difference on a Cerb with 3 BCU between CN Scourge and CN Mjolnir is 90 DPS. Considering that some races have extremely high Kinetic resistances, they can reduce your applied kinetic DPS and if you chose another damage type, you can apply more DPS. 90 DPS difference on a Cerb is an entire launcher's worth of effective DPS. Add in that the base resists for Kin on both shields and armor, T1 and T2 hulls alike, starts out rather high, pigeon-holing that damage boost into a single damage type restricts the uses. With those kinetic being innately high (comparatively to other without resist mods) it effectively removes a great deal of what the damage boost provides, not just on specific ships or races either.
What if the Zealot only got it's damage bonus while shooting Minmatar?
Comparing the missile weapon system to turret based systems is problematic because of the application differences. |
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
82
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 00:24:20 -
[280] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote: The whole kinetic being the less desirable damage type is bullsh**. Its less desirable now because gallente is master race and has arguably recieved way too many buffs. So everyone and their mother flies them. If you take a step back and look at other ships, then kinetic is still quite useful. In my arty ships i still prefer sabot over depleted uranium.
Save Minmatar, shield tankers generally have a high kin resist. Armor tankers, kin is usually #2 or #3 for highest innate resists.
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Kinetic is lowest resist for any t2 minmatar ship, most t1 ships have kinetic holes, the svipul and loki have kinetic holes. Yes you cant engage a deimos or ishtar in a t1 drake. Sure but Minmatar is also very flat in their resist profiles so while Kin may be the weakest, it's very close to the other damage resists. Also, every race has another that shoots damage designed for the target's resist hole.
Stitch Kaneland wrote:But guess what, the navy drake certainly has the potential to. Admitting defeat by saying, lol use another ship.
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Its no different if you compare amarr vs t2 minmatar, or gal vs t2 caldari (which have shield resist bonus on top of t2 resists). A deimos would struggle vs a nighthawk for example. Kinetic certainly has its uses, but is not the swiss army knife everyone wants it to be. A drake is not going to counter everyship in the game, accept it. Amarr, Gallente and Minmitar primary weapon systems have the ability to, through ammo selection, shift their damage profile from one damage type to another....not by 100% but that is supposedly a benefit to using a missile system. |
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
923
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 00:31:37 -
[281] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Lets not drag the missile crap into this thread. While I personally didn't approve of the way the missile rebalance was handled the BC changes so far have been handled infinitely better with good information transfer and feedback. They are well thought out and define the roll far better than previously.
Post Vanguard BCs will be one of the defacto defense doctrine ships. Enough EHP to slug with the agility to zip around. Invading cruiser gangs will actually have to fight well or bugger off.
I realize that, but I'm worried that this will make the issue of heavies go ignored. Drake and drake Navy have been popular for reasons other than Heavy missile systems. I'm afraid CCP doesn't see this only because the ships get used. How many of them are HAM fit vs HML? How many are flown solo vs fleets? How many are used in fleets due to their innate nature to fit well into shield comps vs their raw dps?
I realize they're used more than others, but I rarely see one out on their own running solo compared to some of the better hulls such as brutix.. I'm just wondering if their usage is hindering the fact that heavy missiles are kinda bad. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
137
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 01:06:15 -
[282] - Quote
I don't think there is anything wrong with damage locks as long as that specific ship is extremely good at dealing that specific damage type.
In the case of Amarr ships for instance this works because they generally have good raw DPS which makes up for their lack of damage selection. Also stealth bombers again are similar as they can punch through targets which may resisted against their specific damage type due to the fact that they deliver very good damage for their size and price.
I think the problem with the Drakes kinetic lock is that it is only just up to par with the other battlecruisers when dealing its preferred kinetic damage type, and is far behind when dealing any other type of damage.
I'm pretty confident the main reason your not seeing the Drake in PvP is entirely due to the kinetic lock as that really limits your target options without giving any tangible benefit. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
526
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 03:17:52 -
[283] - Quote
Quesa wrote: Save Minmatar, shield tankers generally have a high kin resist. Armor tankers, kin is usually 2nd or 3rd but I can't find any T1 or T2 ship where kin is lowest, again, save Minmatar.
Its only high if they fit an invuln, which is rare, which can be neuted off fairly easily. Its rare a shield ship is going to put kinetic rigs over EM/thermal, except certain T2 minmatar ships/fits. Against things like an armor cruiser, the drake has more than enough tank to kill them before they kill it. Not to mention being able to fit a medium neut. Setup for tank and scram/web, it still has plenty of tank and dps to handle other larger ships when properly fit for it.
The drake i fly with can do 720dps cold with rage, and 800+ heated. Using faction is over 600dps cold. Comparing that to other BC's, it out dps' the hurricane, is about on par with the harbinger, and is just under the brutix. Before these nerf's, a drake could scram kite a brutix and MAYBE win the dps race. It is still on par with other BC's, and does decent dps even with the kinetic lock. Even with unbonused missiles, it was not hard to kill smaller, tankier ships since you were shooting directly into their resist hole anyway.
Quesa wrote: Sure but Minmatar is also very flat in their resist profiles so while Kin may be the weakest, it's very close to the other damage resists. Also, every race has another that shoots damage designed for the target's resist hole and at the same time, there is always one race that is very efficient in absorbing the primary damage type of another race.
Minmatar t2 profile is not flat, its 75/60/40/50 before mods. Unless you are specifically brawling, the kinetic hole is left open. The svipul is 60% in tank mode, but are still easy to kill with a drake. Neuts and consistently applied dps brings t3d's down. T1 shield ships also follow this same logic, they fill therm/EM holes over kinetic ones.
Quesa wrote:Admitting defeat by saying, lol use another ship.
Or adapting and accepting that one ship cannot fight every ship, and every type of fit in the game. Seriously.. cry more.
Quesa wrote:Amarr, Gallente and Minmitar primary weapon systems have the ability to, through ammo selection, shift their damage profile from one damage type to another....not by 100% but that is supposedly a benefit to using a missile system.
Put it this way, list any T1 ship that is traditionally a shield tanker/buffer and you'll be listing off ships that are prime targets for Lasers and decent targets for Hybrids (shields generally have a relatively low therm resist). Now, take that same list and look at the kin resists.
You are still able to shift your damage profile, just at the reduction of damage. No one is forcing you into using only kinetic. I have killed multiple ships with unbonused missiles on a drake. As i could shoot directly into their resist hole, and apply neut pressure. Combined with good application, I could bring them down. Now in a situation like drake vs ishtar, deimos, then i would accept i could not realistically tank and outdamage them with unbonused missiles. That is a fight I would try to avoid.
Laser/hybrids use cap, missiles do not. I have far more resistance against neuting, don't need to worry about transversal or range. I get within web range, apply neuts, drones and missiles and go to town. Trying to compare missiles to turrets outright, and focusing only on resists is foolish.
Think you should step away from EFT and just fly the ship. You'll realize the kinetic lock is not as restrictive as you think.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Mario Putzo
1509
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 04:55:43 -
[284] - Quote
FINALLY ITS ABOUT TIME!
Exactly what the meta has needed for 2 years...BCs that are capable of projecting their damage onto Cruisers. Thanks for finally listening to us Fozzie.
Now 2 things I do not like.
1) Drake damage lock is still dumb. One of the biggest advantages of missiles is ability to select type. This Kinetic lock **** really needs to go.....which leads to #2
2) Please for the love of god fix heavy missiles. Its super duper simple. Revert the changes made to their explosion radius...and redact the 5% damage increase given to them a couple months back.
Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010. |
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
1123
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 05:05:29 -
[285] - Quote
I understand that buffs need to be done in baby steps. Power creep and all that. And, I think these improvements are good on soooo many levels. I seriously believe that nerfing Hurricanes/Drakes/Heavies/Invulns had a huge negative impact on EVE. I truly hope these changes will have the desired results I think they might have. Eve lost a lot of pilots in the past year. I hope this isn't "too little, too late".
I think BC's have always been the *gateway* ship for sub-cap fights to escalate. BC should be able to run off the cruisers, or kill them, and they should draw attention from BS pilots. In My Opinion: This is just the right approach for bringing back BS camps and more hi-sec PvP. Which will keep more pilots entertained, and be better for subscription rates, player activity, bottom line, and general fun for all gaming.
I have harped about the Drake many times, but I like the fact that ALL BC have been addressed. I really don't care about any particular ship, (they're all fun if they do their job) but I do care about the *big picture* and I think this is a huge step in the right direction. |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
99
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 05:25:25 -
[286] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:
Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010.
As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs.
Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%.
|
Mario Putzo
1510
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 05:31:13 -
[287] - Quote
RavenPaine wrote: Edit for Marios comment: I think if you see BC's doing what they should do, T3's will start dying like they should. And yes, I'd like heavies to be a bit better myself, but I think these changes are still 100% moving in the right direction.
Nah as is T3s will still dust BC's by virtue of 2 things.
1) T3s will apply more DPS to BC's than BC's do to T3s. Most (not all) BC's take 100% damage from medium sized weaponry, all T3's mitigate about 30% damage from medium weapons simply by using an AB, and 10-15% (depending on the hull) simply moving at max speed.
2) T3's can achieve nearly double the tank of BC's while maintaining similar DPS peaks. This is probably the biggest issue in comparison, while damage differences make sense (bigger ships should take more "full" hits from smaller guns) the tank difference is huge.
If you put an equal sized T3 group against an equal sized BC group, even post changes the T3 group will always win out due to their ability to out-tank and apply more DPS. They are basically battleships with cruiser sized sigs and BC like damage peaks. Keep the damage, keep the "size" lose the tank.
HACs are capable of taking on BS fleets with their ~60K EHP tanks, T3s could do the same with 70-80K EHP tanks id wager. |
Mario Putzo
1510
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 05:37:13 -
[288] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010.
As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs. Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%.
I doubt it. T3s are so universal their value will always remain high, even if you nerfed their tankability down to a spot between C and BC (which is probably the only change really need to be made). They would still be the dominant cruiser option for most things, but they would be opposed by well piloted BC's. The relationship would function much like how T3Ds kind of bridge between Dessies and Cruisers. A good T3D group can kill a decent cruiser group, but a good cruiser group can kill a good T3D group.
T3's absolutely should not have BC DPS and BS Tanks. Its dumb. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
923
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 05:43:53 -
[289] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:RavenPaine wrote: Edit for Marios comment: I think if you see BC's doing what they should do, T3's will start dying like they should. And yes, I'd like heavies to be a bit better myself, but I think these changes are still 100% moving in the right direction.
Nah as is T3s will still dust BC's by virtue of 2 things. 1) T3s will apply more DPS to BC's than BC's do to T3s. Most (not all) BC's take 100% damage from medium sized weaponry, all T3's mitigate about 30% damage from medium weapons simply by using an AB, and 10-15% (depending on the hull) simply moving at max speed. 2) T3's can achieve nearly double the tank of BC's while maintaining similar DPS peaks. This is probably the biggest issue in comparison, while damage differences make sense (bigger ships should take more "full" hits from smaller guns) the tank difference is huge. If you put an equal sized T3 group against an equal sized BC group, even post changes the T3 group will always win out due to their ability to out-tank and apply more DPS. They are basically battleships with cruiser sized sigs and BC like damage peaks. Keep the damage, keep the "size" lose the tank. HACs are capable of taking on BS fleets with their ~60K EHP tanks, T3s could do the same with 70-80K EHP tanks id wager.
I think t3 cruisers need to be rebalanced as t3 BCs. This means all their capabilities fall better in line, and their ship stats - IE agility, velocity, sig radius, and Scan Res can be rebalanced to fall in line with BCs. It makes T3s less powerful by way of size classification while retaining everything else. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3387
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 05:47:06 -
[290] - Quote
some seem to misunderstand how ship mass in this game works.
if agility and speed is kept the same but mass is increased it essentially means that plates and prop mods will affect your align time less. Think: your ship is already heavy but still agile due to space magic, adding more mass through plates is now like adding a feather to the load on your pickup truck.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
|
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
1123
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 05:49:20 -
[291] - Quote
I still want my cloaky/nullified Tengu for null sec exploration though. I need that tank for solo sites, and the nullified fit has crap DPS. So that ship for that role, seams ok to me.
Perhaps the 'combat' subsystems could use some tweeking? DPS/Tank offsets, or something.
I'll say this. You get caught and hard tackled in a T3 by a couple guys, and you generally going to die. Mobility is everything for them. |
Maraner
The Executioners Shadow Cartel
319
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 06:13:48 -
[292] - Quote
Make the MJD an ability on the ship.
All BC's should be able to MJD without a requirement to fit the module. At the moment, the shield ships have to sacrifice a great deal more to fit MJD than the Armor ships.
Please. If we can make T3 destroyers have the ability to switch modes, then CCP could add a MJD button with a cool down for BC's
thanks |
Mario Putzo
1512
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 06:41:37 -
[293] - Quote
Maraner wrote:Make the MJD an ability on the ship.
All BC's should be able to MJD without a requirement to fit the module. At the moment, the shield ships have to sacrifice a great deal more to fit MJD than the Armor ships.
Please. If we can make T3 destroyers have the ability to switch modes, then CCP could add a MJD button with a cool down for BC's
thanks
I dunno about a great deal more...a bit more maybe...About the only drawback i see shield ships having is being slightly quicker to lock thanks to sig bloom. Armor ships have to first sacrifice DPS to even fit tank, second need to sacrifice application or utility to fit MJD. Shield ships sacrifice some tank or utility, but can add DPS or application in the lows.
Id say for the most part it is a wash.
That being said I think all BC's should have ability to use MJD Including the Teir 3 BCs....
Also unrelated to the above
Make the Naga shoot Rapid Heavies please something like -reload time % as it bonus...Ferox is king sniper now. |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
99
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 07:02:50 -
[294] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010.
As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs. Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%. I doubt it. T3s are so universal their value will always remain high, even if you nerfed their tankability down to a spot between C and BC (which is probably the only change really need to be made). They would still be the dominant cruiser option for most things, but they would be opposed by well piloted BC's. The relationship would function much like how T3Ds kind of bridge between Dessies and Cruisers. A good T3D group can kill a decent cruiser group, but a good cruiser group can kill a good T3D group. T3's absolutely should not have BC DPS and BS Tanks. Its dumb.
They have an offsetting penalty if they die (SP LOSS) so T3Cs needs their current tanks. The only time their 150 EHP is OP is when receiving logi from outside support. So I propose that CCP add a penalty to the buffer sub systems that disallows them from receiving logi from external sources.
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
550
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 07:57:32 -
[295] - Quote
Not sure if this has been discussed already, but a logical reason for Myrm's popularity in the stats could well be solely it's slot layout, allowing it to fit MMJD with another prop and everything else. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
923
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 07:58:22 -
[296] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010.
As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs. Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%. I doubt it. T3s are so universal their value will always remain high, even if you nerfed their tankability down to a spot between C and BC (which is probably the only change really need to be made). They would still be the dominant cruiser option for most things, but they would be opposed by well piloted BC's. The relationship would function much like how T3Ds kind of bridge between Dessies and Cruisers. A good T3D group can kill a decent cruiser group, but a good cruiser group can kill a good T3D group. T3's absolutely should not have BC DPS and BS Tanks. Its dumb. They have an offsetting penalty if they die (SP LOSS) so T3Cs needs their current tanks. The only time their 150 EHP is OP is when receiving logi from outside support. So I propose that CCP add a penalty to the buffer sub systems that disallows them from receiving logi from external sources.
Seems counter intuitive to say that t3c's need their tank then turn around and suggest an idea that neuts their tank....
Back to my suggestion though. If t3Cs were made into t3BCs, they would fit really well. Reduce velocity, scan res, and agility, then increase mass. (And maybe some other changes here and there.) Now, their tank, DPS, projection, and other aspects fall in line with that of the balance changes to BCs.
It also calls in line with that of T3Ds, in that they're more powerful and versatile. Even with the change from C to BC, they are still more powerful and versatile than BCs, but at least they become a bit easier to counter while still retaining all their power. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
335
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 09:04:58 -
[297] - Quote
CCP games if you really serious about bringing BC's into the fight with enhanced mobility and projection,
then please take a look at T1 / navy BC warp speed and enhance them also from 2.7 to 3.0 AU/sec
Or at the least re-balance hyperspatial velocity optimizer rigs so they won't interfere with a(ny) meta game fitting requirements.
Regards, a Freelancer
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
|
Vibiana
Frontier Trading Company
28
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 09:47:17 -
[298] - Quote
More fitting to squeeze that mjd in pls |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
1995
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 10:18:48 -
[299] - Quote
Does increased optimal/falloff really make BCs any better at killing cruisers? I would have thought optimal and tracking speed would have been better...
+ 1 mid and -1 low on the hurricane would have been nice.
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
Planeten Schreck
Bittersweet Corp
4
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 10:51:44 -
[300] - Quote
Hi,
is there also something planned for the gnosis to keep this ship usefull compared to the others bc ? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |