EVE Search - BS and T3 crusiers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

BS and T3 crusiers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 34	Posted - 2015.10.22 23:38:19 - [1] - Quote Doing alittle thinking today and found a simple solution that will balance the game and not destroy everything. As it sits everyone complains about T3 with battleship tank and damage per second. When you compare a battleship to captials, there is a hige gap between them. My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. This is a simple fix that will fix the gap between battleships and capital. Buffing battleships to this level will not only make it worth wild bringing a BS gang against a T3 gamg. It will also balance out the SP required to fly a proper BS compare to a proper T3. Keep it simple.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3932	Posted - 2015.10.23 00:34:44 - [2] - Quote Do we really want two thousand DPS out of T1 ships though? I mean, really? And would you buff BCs as well? I'd like two thousand deeps out of my talos too please.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2619	Posted - 2015.10.23 00:38:13 - [3] - Quote Don't need the DPS increase on BS. They project pretty well for their DPS. Instead give them a larger EHP increase. My suggestion would be doubling their base EHP, while adjusting shield recharge rates appropriately to keep the same passive tank. This obviously doesn't work out to a straight doubling of EHP or anywhere near since 1600 plates add massive amounts, but does do a significant improvement.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3223	Posted - 2015.10.23 02:18:32 - [4] - Quote Don't buff battleships to try to nerf T3s. If battleships need a buff then they should bet a buff. T3 cruisers should be balanced as a cruiser. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 683	Posted - 2015.10.23 02:38:22 - [5] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Don't buff battleships to try to nerf T3s. If battleships need a buff then they should bet a buff. T3 cruisers should be balanced as a cruiser. I thinj t3c should be treated like BC. Slow them down and sig bloom them a bit. Then at least their tank will reflect the kind of ship they are rather than just being a straight cruiser+2. Also at Nevyn: Maybe making battleships have a role bonus where they receive double hp bonuses from shield extenders/plates? And not for every vessel mind you. Suitable ships could include Raven. Megathron Abaddon Tempest. Role bonus: shield extenders and armour plates grant double the HP value listed on the module. Think about it. Just take 5 minutes to think about it. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 385	Posted - 2015.10.23 02:43:53 - [6] - Quote t3s are fine and if anything need a buff
Leto Aramaus Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop 327	Posted - 2015.10.23 03:25:23 - [7] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Do we really want two thousand DPS out of T1 ships though? I mean, really? And would you buff BCs as well? I'd like two thousand deeps out of my talos too please. Yes I do. +1 The UI update we deserve
Leto Aramaus Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop 327	Posted - 2015.10.23 03:26:25 - [8] - Quote W0lf Crendraven wrote: t3s are fine and if anything need a buff Funniest thing I've read in a while. The UI update we deserve
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2620	Posted - 2015.10.23 04:21:13 - [9] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: I thinj t3c should be treated like BC. Slow them down and sig bloom them a bit. Then at least their tank will reflect the kind of ship they are rather than just being a straight cruiser+2. Also at Nevyn: Maybe making battleships have a role bonus where they receive double hp bonuses from shield extenders/plates? And not for every vessel mind you. Suitable ships could include Raven. Megathron Abaddon Tempest. Role bonus: shield extenders and armour plates grant double the HP value listed on the module. Think about it. Just take 5 minutes to think about it. Doesn't promote the more active style of fits on the BS. So I'm not a fan. Also you are trying to pick very specific ships out, when it should be a class wide buff. Base EHP changes are by far the simplest to do than trying to be too fancy and ending up missing half the BS playstyles.
FireFrenzy SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart. 614	Posted - 2015.10.23 06:51:19 - [10] - Quote if you want to see a sensible version of this thread search for Baboli's "making battleships worth the warp" thread...

Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 683	Posted - 2015.10.23 07:12:31 - [11] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: I thinj t3c should be treated like BC. Slow them down and sig bloom them a bit. Then at least their tank will reflect the kind of ship they are rather than just being a straight cruiser+2. Also at Nevyn: Maybe making battleships have a role bonus where they receive double hp bonuses from shield extenders/plates? And not for every vessel mind you. Suitable ships could include Raven. Megathron Abaddon Tempest. Role bonus: shield extenders and armour plates grant double the HP value listed on the module. Think about it. Just take 5 minutes to think about it. Doesn't promote the more active style of fits on the BS. So I'm not a fan. Also you are trying to pick very specific ships out, when it should be a class wide buff. Base EHP changes are by far the simplest to do than trying to be too fancy and ending up missing half the BS playstyles. That depends on the reasons why you feel ewar ships and already dominant boats like dominix and navy apoc/vindi etc deserve the help. No I was specific with my examples because these are ships that need something to distinguish them from other ships and are otherwise not pulling their weight. If you feel role specific bonuses are inappropriate why does say the drake have one? I also made sure to deliberately avoid ships that had pre existing resist bonuses (bar the abaddon which is desperately grasping at straws to live) and also kept in mind the unique playstyles already afforded to other ships in the t1 bracket like mael being active tanked or the domis drones and spare highs. This isn't convoluted - a role bonus for these ships like doubled effect from buffer modules is a good idea because it comes at the expense of speed or signature and these things have measurable effects when large buffer counters come in to play. A single nag could still easily dispatch an equal value or better in buffer abaddons. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2065	Posted - 2015.10.23 08:10:54 - [12] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: Doing alittle thinking today and found a simple solution that will balance the game and not destroy everything. As it sits everyone complains about T3 with battleship tank and damage per second. When you compare a battleship to captials, there is a hige gap between them. My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. This is a simple fix that will fix the gap between battleships and capital. Buffing battleships to this level will not only make it worth wild bringing a BS gang against a T3 gamg. It will also balance out the SP required to fly a proper BS compare to a proper T3. Keep it simple. I completely agree that battleships are underpowered. I don't think they need any more tank or capacitor buffs but I think the DPS needs a big buff... Someone asked "do we need 2000 dps battleships" but you have to remember that it is harder for large weapons to apply their damage to smaller targets. Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 35	Posted - 2015.10.23 20:53:00 - [13] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: Doing alittle thinking today and found a simple solution that will balance the game and not destroy everything. As it sits everyone complains about T3 with battleship tank and damage per second. When you compare a battleship to captials, there is a hige gap between them. My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. This is a simple fix that will fix the gap between battleships and capital. Buffing battleships to this level will not only make it worth wild bringing a BS gang against a T3 gamg. It will also balance out the SP required to fly a proper BS compare to a proper T3. Keep it simple. I completely agree that battleships are underpowered. I don't think they need any more tank or capacitor buffs but I think the DPS needs a big buff... Someone asked "do we need 2000 dps battleships" but you have to remember that it is harder for large weapons to apply their damage to smaller targets. PS. t3 cruisers are fine. They are supposed to be the pinnacle of ship technology ffs! Of course they should be able to beat a T1 BC. Exactly! Not only do you get 2 au warp speed and snail align times. They use larger gun (don't understand how med gun match them in dps) with worse tracking. They require alot more skills to properly fly one. So why not have 2000 dps battleships. They are BATTLEships! (not directed at replied user). BC are fine where they are.
Leto Aramaus Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop 328	Posted - 2015.10.23 22:08:16 - [14] - Quote A problem with flat HP buffs across the board for all Battleships is that it further extends the idea that 1600mm plates and Large Shield Extenders are not "BS sized" modules. If the Megathron's armor is increased by 50% or 100%, then a 1600mm is that much less of an actual bonus, and the meta will probably shift to resist mods and (!) maybe even Layered Plating will become useful (layered plate mods give a flat % bonus to armor HP instead of resists, and you never see them used currently). This would mean 1600mm plates, which were originally intended to be fit by Battleships and probably NOT cruisers... would exclusively be fit on cruisers. And then we'll have people calling for "BS sized" mods to be introduced. I say BS don't need an HP buff, just a DPS and maybe range/tracking buffs. i.e. Megathron = cant expect 2000 dps i.e. Vindicator = " 3000 dps Why not? The UI update we deserve
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 38	Posted - 2015.10.23 23:05:11 - [15] - Quote Leto Aramaus wrote: A problem with flat HP buffs across the board for all Battleships is that it further extends the idea that 1600mm plates and Large Shield Extenders are not "BS sized" modules. If the Megathron's armor is increased by 50% or 100%, then a 1600mm is that much less of an actual bonus, and the meta will probably shift to resist mods and (!) maybe even Layered Plating will become useful (layered plate mods give a flat % bonus to armor HP instead of resists, and you never see them used currently). This would mean 1600mm plates, which were originally intended to be fit by Battleships and probably NOT cruisers... would exclusively be fit on cruisers. And then we'll have people calling for "BS sized" mods to be introduced. I say BS don't need an HP buff, just a DPS and maybe range/tracking buffs. i.e. Megathron = cant expect 2000 dps i.e. Vindicator = " 3000 dps Why not? 1600 T2 mm plate gives 4,800 additional armor hp. T2 Energized Armor Layering Membrane (EALM) give 15% more armor hp. Which means you would need 32,000 raw armor hp for the EALM to match the 1600mm plate (.15x32000=4800). A mega only has 6,500, then you have to include your 25% skill for more armor HP=8,1250. If they received my 22% buff plus the 25% from skills the new number would be 9912.5 which is alot under the 32,000 for the EALM to replace the 1600 T2 armor plates. So not by a long shot would my suggestion make the ship more powerful to where 1600MM plates will not be considered BS armor plating. using resistance over hp amount is the difference between being buffer fit and logi fit. When you have outside reps more resist is better. When you don't have logi DPS and Buffer is better. Different meta for different game play. My suggestions Keeps both metas and separates cruisers being closer to battleships and moving its power shifts slightly to the capital side without going anywhere near their territory. That is why I made this post for a simple non destructive way to fix the T3 and BS problem. (above comment was a armor comparison for a mega and was picked due to the 1600 mm plate discussion)
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 206	Posted - 2015.10.23 23:37:09 - [16] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: Doing alittle thinking today and found a simple solution that will balance the game and not destroy everything. As it sits everyone complains about T3 with battleship tank and damage per second. When you compare a battleship to captials, there is a hige gap between them. My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. This is a simple fix that will fix the gap between battleships and capital. Buffing battleships to this level will not only make it worth wild bringing a BS gang against a T3 gamg. It will also balance out the SP required to fly a proper BS compare to a proper T3. Keep it simple. the gap between BS and capitals is WAY bigger then the gap between cruisers and BS and on this note only your solution is NOT a solution. T3 cruisers need a nerf it is as simple as that. [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1233	Posted - 2015.10.23 23:43:14 - [17] - Quote Leto Aramaus wrote: W0lf Crendraven wrote: t3s are fine and if anything need a buff Funniest thing I've read in a while. indeed, sadly some people buy into the it costs more and its T3 so it should be better line, when even the devs have said cost shouldn't be a defining balancing point and that T3's are meant too be generalists rather than the pinnacle of brawlers, but do people listen??... T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 206	Posted - 2015.10.23 23:45:48 - [18] - Quote W0lf Crendraven wrote: t3s are fine and if anything need a buff please pee in this cup i would like to test it for drugs [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2682	Posted - 2015.10.24 00:02:46 - [19] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Do we really want two thousand DPS out of T1 ships though? I mean, really? And would you buff BCs as well? I'd like two thousand deeps out of my talos too please. Moros is a T1 ship and it can break a lot more than 2k DPS. I say this not to be facetious but to make an important point: tech level has little to do with damage, and even ship size doesn't mean that much. The most important factor is projection, which is a composite of range and tracking mostly. Your Talos can dish out well over 1K DPS, and it's okay because it does so with weak tracking (as far as cruisers are concerned) and mediocre range. It isn't particularly effective against anything smaller than a battleship until you already have the target webbed and have closed into optimal range. A Naga can reach nearly 1K DPS with railguns, with plenty of range to spare. But it tracks like cold honey, so it's not all that impressive. It can hit cruisers pretty well at range when it sacrifices a lot of DPS to use longer range T1 ammo, but there's no way for the Naga to web them at that range so unless you have another partner to tackle them there's not a lot you can do. It's all balanced out this way but it is becoming increasingly obvious that Battleships lack an edge to really put their power up there where their price and maneuverability lie. They have the projection, they sort of have the DPS but that's strained by attack battlecruisers, and they don't really have the hit points. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 38	Posted - 2015.10.24 00:07:00 - [20] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: Doing alittle thinking today and found a simple solution that will balance the game and not destroy everything. As it sits everyone complains about T3 with battleship tank and damage per second. When you compare a battleship to captials, there is a hige gap between them. My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. This is a simple fix that will fix the gap between battleships and capital. Buffing battleships to this level will not only make it worth wild bringing a BS gang against a T3 gamg. It will also balance out the SP required to fly a proper BS compare to a proper T3. Keep it simple. the gap between BS and capitals is WAY bigger then the gap between cruisers and BS and on this note only your solution is NOT a solution. T3 cruisers need a nerf it is as simple as that. Its a start to a solution and that start is better then nothing. Key note here is to have a filler between the T3 and caps. No need to make another ship when you have Battleships that are semi worthless against T3 and Caps. Yes i understand the gap between BS and caps is a HUGE gap and that's why I am recommending a slight shift towards caps.A shift so small and minute. The best way to compare the gap between the two (BS and Caps) would be the distance from the US and Europe. my recommended power shift is equal to the tectonics plates shifting between the two countries (change is distance from year to year). Its not a Big buff by any means.

Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 206	Posted - 2015.10.24 00:46:25 - [21] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: Doing alittle thinking today and found a simple solution that will balance the game and not destroy everything. As it sits everyone complains about T3 with battleship tank and damage per second. When you compare a battleship to captials, there is a hige gap between them. My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. This is a simple fix that will fix the gap between battleships and capital. Buffing battleships to this level will not only make it worth wild bringing a BS gang against a T3 gamg. It will also balance out the SP required to fly a proper BS compare to a proper T3. Keep it simple. the gap between BS and capitals is WAY bigger then the gap between cruisers and BS and on this note only your solution is NOT a solution. T3 cruisers need a nerf it is as simple as that. Its a start to a solution and that start is better then nothing. Key note here is to have a filler between the T3 and caps. No need to make another ship when you have Battleships that are semi worthless against T3 and Caps. Yes i understand the gap between BS and caps is a HUGE gap and that's why I am recommending a slight power shift for Battleships towards caps. A shift so small and minute. The best way to compare the gap between the two (BS and Caps) would be the distance from the US and Europe. my recommended power shift is equal to the tectonics plates shifting between the two countries (change is distance from year to year). Its not a Big buff by any means. so let me get this straight you know that T3s are OP and you want to fix it by nerfing capitals (which is what you are doing if you boost BS and keep T3 cruisers OP) and make BS also OP and you dare to call this a start of a solution?????? are you freaking kidding me????? the only thing that is needed is a nerf of the T3 cruisers and believe me i can fly all of them near perfect, in fact i fly T3 cruisers better then BS`s but it has to be done period. in case you don't believe me http://eveboard.com/pilot/Ellendras_Silver edit: Quote: suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. you call this a small power shift!!!!!!!!!!!????????????? you are insane [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 40	Posted - 2015.10.24 01:28:38 - [22] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: Doing alittle thinking today and found a simple solution that will balance the game and not destroy everything. As it sits everyone complains about T3 with battleship tank and damage per second. When you compare a battleship to captials, there is a hige gap between them. My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. This is a simple fix that will fix the gap between battleships and capital. Buffing battleships to this level will not only make it worth wild bringing a BS gang against a T3 gamg. It will also balance out the SP required to fly a proper BS compare to a proper T3. Keep it simple. the gap between BS and capitals is WAY bigger then the gap between cruisers and BS and on this note only your solution is NOT a solution. T3 cruisers need a nerf it is as simple as that. Its a start to a solution and that start is better then nothing. Key note here is to have a filler between the T3 and caps. No need to make another ship when you have Battleships that are semi worthless against T3 and Caps. Yes i understand the gap between BS and caps is a HUGE gap and that's why I am recommending a slight power shift for Battleships towards caps. A shift so small and minute. The best way to compare the gap between the two (BS and Caps) would be the distance from the US and Europe. my recommended power shift is equal to the tectonics plates shifting between the two countries (change is distance from year to year). Its not a Big buff by any means. so let me get this straight you know that T3s are OP and you want to fix it by nerfing capitals (which is what you are doing if you boost BS and keep T3 cruisers OP) and make BS also OP and you dare to call this a start of a solution?????? are you freaking kidding me????? the only thing that is needed is a nerf of the T3 cruisers and believe me i can fly all of them near perfect, but it has to be done period. in case you don't believe me http://eveboard.com/pilot/Ellendras_Silver For the cost and skill points that you lose when dying in a T3, Yes they are perfectly balanced when compared to other ships that are below a BS. But when using battleships which are more of a skill grind then T3 cruisers, T3 crusiers fleet will always win against Battleships Fleet. There should be more of a fear for T3 Cruisers and at this moment their isn't. With my change they would have to worry about going up against 2000+ BS that tank more and can easily punch thru a T3 tank with logi. Quote: suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. you call this a small power shift!!!!!!!!!!!????????????? you are insane[/quote] Its not insane. It makes a balanced game. Its making a counter to T3 and put battleships where they properly belong in this game.
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 206	Posted - 2015.10.24 02:38:06 - [23] - Quote i don't have a issue with a small boost to BS`s in general but what you propose is a HUGE buff that is not out of proportion it is off the scale. starting about the SP loss of a T3 cruiser that should be removed with the nerf. but lets face it the whole problem is that T3 cruisers are OP and that can not be fixed by tearing the WHOLE balancing out of scale by boosting BS`s with the numbers you are proposing. and calling it a small power shift is the cherry on the cake my god what have you been smoking. [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 40	Posted - 2015.10.24 03:46:21 - [24] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: i don't have a issue with a small boost to BS`s in general but what you propose is a HUGE buff that is not out of proportion it is off the scale. starting about the SP loss of a T3 cruiser that should be removed with the nerf. but lets face it the whole problem is that T3 cruisers are OP and that can not be fixed by tearing the WHOLE balancing out of scale by boosting BS`s with the numbers you are proposing. and calling it a small power shift is the cherry on the cake my god what have you been smoking. well i listed the armor increase and it was not anywhere near what a t3 can get. two 1600 mm plates on a Proteus with subsystems that give 10% armor hp, with high grades gives the Proteus 53k raw armor hp. with T2 resist and 1000dps can you please explain how my buff is asking too much? Last i checked 53k raw armor hp with T2 resist is way more then my 30k raw armor hp T1 resist Mega. So what was that about me smoking some stuff? I don't post without taking into consideration other variables in the game. with that being said. Capitals have over 100k shield, armor, hull hp in each category. Some BS have less then 10k while some have a little more the 10k. so capitals have 10x or more shield, armor, hull hp then BS but BS only have 3 time more raw hp then cruisers. Cruiser are in line with frigs with 5 time or more raw hp then a frig. but my small buff which will still leave BS having 10 times less raw hp but become 4 times more then cruisers is unreasonable? I do not see any logic in your debate.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 880	Posted - 2015.10.24 11:34:37 - [25] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Don't buff battleships to try to nerf T3s. If battleships need a buff then they should bet a buff. T3 cruisers should be balanced as a cruiser. I thinj t3c should be treated like BC. Slow them down and sig bloom them a bit. Then at least their tank will reflect the kind of ship they are rather than just being a straight cruiser+2. Also at Nevyn: Maybe making battleships have a role bonus where they receive double hp bonuses from shield extenders/plates? And not for every vessel mind you. Suitable ships could include Raven. Megathron Abaddon Tempest. Role bonus: shield extenders and armour plates grant double the HP value listed on the module. Think about it. Just take 5 minutes to think about it. Hmm.. I don't know if that is the answer. Being a slow ship doesn't have to be a bad thing. When I am on SiSi I get to fly a lot of battleships that I usually wouldn't but being slow didn't really have a bitter taste. But on one thing I hope everyone will agree with you, I do, the Abaddon - the worst laserboat in New Eden, even worse than the Punisher. Was trying to make this ship work last night but for the life of me there was no way to make it viable. The damage bonus is misplaced and should be replaced with something useful even if it's just the capacitor use bonus some Amarr ships share. Just for my curiousity, what do you think is wrong with the Navy Apocalypse? I always liked the Apocalypse since I can fly her and the Navy Apocalypse is just a little easier to fit, so I am curious. Why do you think that having more buffer would be a good thing on the four ships? I really think that current trend to hull-buffer everything is terrible to say the least. It used to be an artform to active tank. Now it is racing challenge to put as much bulkhead on every boat as you can. Btw. we need a pirate faction implant set that increases hull hp by 7 million % and 3 trillion as set bonus /sarcasm. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 207	Posted - 2015.10.24 11:40:39 - [26] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: i don't have a issue with a small boost to BS`s in general but what you propose is a HUGE buff that is not out of proportion it is off the scale. starting about the SP loss of a T3 cruiser that should be removed with the nerf. but lets face it the whole problem is that T3 cruisers are OP and that can not be fixed by tearing the WHOLE balancing out of scale by boosting BS`s with the numbers you are proposing. and calling it a small power shift is the cherry on the cake my god what have you been smoking. well i listed the armor increase and it was not anywhere near what a t3 can get. two 1600 mm plates on a Proteus with subsystems that give 10% armor hp, with high grades gives the Proteus 53k raw armor hp. with T2 resist and 1000dps can you please explain how my buff is asking too much? Last i checked 53k raw armor hp with T2 resist is way more then my 30k raw armor hp T1 resist Mega. So what was that about me smoking some stuff? I don't post without taking into consideration other variables in the game. with that being said. Capitals have over 100k shield, armor, hull hp in each category. Some BS have less then 10k while some have a little more the 10k. so capitals have 10x or more shield, armor, hull hp then BS but BS only have 3 time more raw hp then cruisers. Cruiser are in line with frigs with 5 time or more raw hp then a frig. but my small buff which will still leave BS having 10 times less raw hp but become 4 times more then cruisers is unreasonable? I do not see any logic in your debate. when will you get it??? the problem is not that the BS cant match the tank of a T3 cruiser, but that a T3 cruiser can exceed a BS tank. the problem has always been with the T3 cruiser so they need a nerf again it is that simple and again you can not compare the tank of capitals with that of a BS as there is a HUGE gap between them. It is as if you compare the tank of a frigate to a battle cruiser [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1233	Posted - 2015.10.24 11:48:15 - [27] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: i don't have a issue with a small boost to BS`s in general but what you propose is a HUGE buff that is not out of proportion it is off the scale. starting about the SP loss of a T3 cruiser that should be removed with the nerf. but lets face it the whole problem is that T3 cruisers are OP and that can not be fixed by tearing the WHOLE balancing out of scale by boosting BS`s with the numbers you are proposing. and calling it a small power shift is the cherry on the cake my god what have you been smoking. well i listed the armor increase and it was not anywhere near what a t3 can get. two 1600 mm plates on a Proteus with subsystems that give 10% armor hp, with high grades gives the Proteus 53k raw armor hp. with T2 resist and 1000dps can you please explain how my buff is asking too much? Last i checked 53k raw armor hp with T2 resist is way more then my 30k raw armor hp T1 resist Mega. So what was that about me smoking some stuff? I don't post without taking into consideration other variables in the game. with that being said. Capitals have over 100k shield, armor, hull hp in each category. Some BS have less then 10k while some have a little more the 10k. so capitals have 10x or more shield, armor, hull hp then BS but BS only have 3 time more raw hp then cruisers. Cruiser are in line with frigs with 5 time or more raw hp then a frig. but my small buff which will still leave BS having 10 times less raw hp but become 4 times more then cruisers is unreasonable? I do not see any logic in your debate. when will you get it??? the problem is not that the BS cant match the tank of a T3 cruiser, but that a T3 cruiser can exceed a BS tank. the problem has always been with the T3 cruiser so they need a nerf again it is that simple and again you can not compare the tank of capitals with that of a BS as there is a HUGE gap between them. It is as if you compare the tank of a frigate to a battle cruiser you also seem too be leaving out the part where the T3 cruiser hull will reduce BS dps by 1/4, which means not only are T3's far more reppable (insane resists+sig+higher speed) but they are also much more mobile on top of the raw HP comparison. T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 207	Posted - 2015.10.24 11:54:22 - [28] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: i don't have a issue with a small boost to BS`s in general but what you propose is a HUGE buff that is not out of proportion it is off the scale. starting about the SP loss of a T3 cruiser that should be removed with the nerf. but lets face it the whole problem is that T3 cruisers are OP and that can not be fixed by tearing the WHOLE balancing out of scale by boosting BS`s with the numbers you are proposing. and calling it a small power shift is the cherry on the cake my god what have you been smoking. well i listed the armor increase and it was not anywhere near what a t3 can get. two 1600 mm plates on a Proteus with subsystems that give 10% armor hp, with high grades gives the Proteus 53k raw armor hp. with T2 resist and 1000dps can you please explain how my buff is asking too much? Last i checked 53k raw armor hp with T2 resist is way more then my 30k raw armor hp T1 resist Mega. So what was that about me smoking some stuff? I don't post without taking into consideration other variables in the game. with that being said. Capitals have over 100k shield, armor, hull hp in each category. Some BS have less then 10k while some have a little more the 10k. so capitals have 10x or more shield, armor, hull hp then BS but BS only have 3 time more raw hp then cruisers. Cruiser are in line with frigs with 5 time or more raw hp then a frig. but my small buff which will still leave BS having 10 times less raw hp but become 4 times more then cruisers is unreasonable? I do not see any logic in your debate. when will you get it??? the problem is not that the BS cant match the tank of a T3 cruiser, but that a T3 cruiser can exceed a BS tank. the problem has always been with the T3 cruiser so they need a nerf again it is that simple and again you can not compare the tank of capitals with that of a BS as there is a HUGE gap between them. It is as if you compare the tank of a frigate to a battle cruiser you also seem too be leaving out the part where the T3 cruiser hull will reduce BS dps by 1/4, which means not only are T3's far more reppable (insane resists+sig+higher speed) but they are also much more mobile on top of the raw HP comparison. i thought that was logical and it only support my point T3 cruisers are OP and need a nerf. but the TS wants to give BS a HUGE buff because Tr cruisers are OP and that makes as much sense as a cat with swimming fins [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2071	Posted - 2015.10.25 02:28:22 - [29] - Quote I hate these arguments about T3s being op with people throwing about there opinion like it's fact. I'll tell you a fact - if T3s were overpowered, CCP would have needI hate these arguments about T3s being op with people throwing about there opinion like it's fact. I'll tell you a fact - if T3s were overpowered, CCP would have nerfed them ages ago like they did with the op Ishtar! They may need slight tweaks but they are by no means OP... Generally, PVP T3s have just over 100k ehp and around 800 dps. Buffer tanked battleships have roughly 100k EHP, 1000 dps, can fit a large utility high (neut, smartbomb), can use a MJD, have a drone bay and have better damage application range. You can post some stupid bling fit that you made of eft but the fact is, those ships are hardly ever used... And like it or not, cost is a balancing factor. Given their inherent weaknesses, battleships should get around 20% more dps and some more battleship only modules to make them a viable alternative to HACs, command ships and T3s. Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 40	Posted - 2015.10.25 03:30:30 - [30] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: i don't have a issue with a small boost to BS`s in general but what you propose is a HUGE buff that is not out of proportion it is off the scale. starting about the SP loss of a T3 cruiser that should be removed with the nerf. but lets face it the whole problem is that T3 cruisers are OP and that can not be fixed by tearing the WHOLE balancing out of scale by boosting BS`s with the numbers you are proposing. and calling it a small power shift is the cherry on the cake my god what have you been smoking. well i listed the armor increase and it was not anywhere near what a t3 can get. two 1600 mm plates on a Proteus with subsystems that give 10% armor hp, with high grades gives the Proteus 53k raw armor hp. with T2 resist and 1000dps can you please explain how my buff is asking too much? Last i checked 53k raw armor hp with T2 resist is way more then my 30k raw armor hp T1 resist Mega. So what was that about me smoking some stuff? I don't post without taking into consideration other variables in the game. with that being said. Capitals have over 100k shield, armor, hull hp in each category. Some BS have less then 10k while some have a little more the 10k. so capitals have 10x or more shield, armor, hull hp then BS but BS only have 3 time more raw hp then cruisers. Cruiser are in line with frigs with 5 time or more raw hp then a frig. but my small buff which will still leave BS having 10 times less raw hp but become 4 times more then cruisers is unreasonable? I do not see any logic in your debate. when will you get it??? the problem is not that the BS cant match the tank of a T3 cruiser, but that a T3 cruiser can exceed a BS tank. the problem has always been with the T3 cruiser so they need a nerf again it is that simple and again you can not compare the tank of capitals with that of a BS as there is a HUGE gap between them. It is as if you compare the tank of a frigate to a battle cruiser I get it. You want to neft T3. Nerfing them will not solve anything. Putting ships in their proper place is what will balance eve and BS are the only thing that is under power and in a awkward posistion.

O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 40	Posted - 2015.10.25 03:39:06 - [31] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: Harvey James wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: i don't have a issue with a small boost to BS`s in general but what you propose is a HUGE buff that is not out of proportion it is off the scale. starting about the SP loss of a T3 cruiser that should be removed with the nerf. but lets face it the whole problem is that T3 cruisers are OP and that can not be fixed by tearing the WHOLE balancing out of scale by boosting BS`s with the numbers you are proposing. and calling it a small power shift is the cherry on the cake my god what have you been smoking. well i listed the armor increase and it was not anywhere near what a t3 can get. two 1600 mm plates on a Proteus with subsystems that give 10% armor hp, with high grades gives the Proteus 53k raw armor hp. with T2 resist and 1000dps can you please explain how my buff is asking too much? Last i checked 53k raw armor hp with T2 resist is way more then my 30k raw armor hp T1 resist Mega. So what was that about me smoking some stuff? I don't post without taking into consideration other variables in the game. with that being said. Capitals have over 100k shield, armor, hull hp in each category. Some BS have less then 10k while some have a little more the 10k. so capitals have 10x or more shield, armor, hull hp then BS but BS only have 3 time more raw hp then cruisers. Cruiser are in line with frigs with 5 time or more raw hp then a frig. but my small buff which will still leave BS having 10 times less raw hp but become 4 times more then cruisers is unreasonable? I do not see any logic in your debate. when will you get it??? the problem is not that the BS cant match the tank of a T3 cruiser, but that a T3 cruiser can exceed a BS tank. the problem has always been with the T3 cruiser so they need a nerf again it is that simple and again you can not compare the tank of capitals with that of a BS as there is a HUGE gap between them. It is as if you compare the tank of a frigate to a battle cruiser you also seem too be leaving out the part where the T3 cruiser hull will reduce BS dps by 1/4, which means not only are T3's far more reppable (insane resists+sig+higher speed) but they are also much more mobile on top of the raw HP comparison. i thought that was logical and it only support my point T3 cruisers are OP and need a nerf. but the TS wants to give BS a HUGE buff because Tr cruisers are OP and that makes as much sense as a cat with swimming fins You're being emotional and irrational. Your hate for t3 clouds your judgement to where you only see T3 as a problem. Battleship are in need of a decent buff and everything is fine where its at. Battleships should dominate all subcap in sheer DPS and EHP. Because they are the biggest ship hull that utilize the largest guns/missile launchers that can be fitted on a subcap.
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 40	Posted - 2015.10.25 03:44:29 - [32] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Don't buff battleships to try to nerf T3s. If battleships need a buff then they should bet a buff. T3 cruisers should be balanced as a cruiser. I thinj t3c should be treated like BC. Slow them down and sig bloom them a bit. Then at least their tank will reflect the kind of ship they are rather than just being a straight cruiser+2. Also at Nevyn: Maybe making battleships have a role bonus where they receive double hp bonuses from shield extenders/plates? And not for every vessel mind you. Suitable ships could include Raven. Megathron Abaddon Tempest. Role bonus: shield extenders and armour plates grant double the HP value listed on the module. Think about it. Just take 5 minutes to think about it. Hmm.. I don't know if that is the answer. Being a slow ship doesn't have to be a bad thing. When I am on SiSi I get to fly a lot of battleships that I usually wouldn't but being slow didn't really have a bitter taste. But on one thing I hope everyone will agree with you, I do, the Abaddon - the worst laserboat in New Eden, even worse than the Punisher. Was trying to make this ship work last night but for the life of me there was no way to make it viable. The damage bonus is misplaced and should be replaced with something useful even if it's just the capacitor use bonus some Amarr ships share. Just for my curiousity, what do you think is wrong with the Navy Apocalypse? I always liked the Apocalypse since I can fly her and the Navy Apocalypse is just a little easier to fit, so I am curious. Rooks and Kings would be a better person to ask a fitting from for Navy Apocs elitatwo wrote: Why do you think that having more buffer would be a good thing on the four ships? More EHP makes it more of a grind to kill the Battleship. Makes it harder to take them off field which gives more time for logi to cycle reps on. elitatwo wrote: I really think that current trend to hull-buffer everything is terrible to say the least. It used to be an artform to active tank. Now it is racing challenge to put as much bulkhead on every boat as you can. Btw. we need a pirate faction implant set that increases hull hp by 7 million % and 3 trillion as set bonus /sarcasm.
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 388	Posted - 2015.10.25 06:43:48 - [33] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: W0lf Crendraven wrote: t3s are fine and if anything need a buff please pee in this cup i would like to test it for drugs Its so funny, everyone always jabber about how extremely op t3s are. When was the last time saw a t3 soloing succesfully and in a role that a hac/pirate cruiser wasnt much better at? When was the last time you saw a fleet t3 that wasnt a pseudorecon where a cs wouldnt have been flat out better (bar petes)? When was the last time you used a t3 for pve where a priate cruiser or priate battleship wouldnt have been flat out better? The fact is that t3s are extremely expensive still, cost sp and in actual pvp or pve ability fall massively short of their better and often cheaper alternatives.
Oskolda Eriker Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.10.25 09:09:28 - [34] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: [quote=Ellendras Silver][quote=O2 jayjay]Doing alittle thinking today and found a simple solution that will balance the game and not destroy everything. Keep it simple. in case you don't believe me http://eveboard.com/pilot/Ellendras_Silver edit: [quote] https://beta.eve-kill.net/character/90383231/topalltime/ I do not see any flight on T3, but so many words. any bs can have over 1k dps, T3 have problem with it, no utility high slots, no MJD, no sensors strength.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 884	Posted - 2015.10.25 10:22:55 - [35] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: elitatwo wrote: Rooks and Kings would be a better person to ask a fitting from for Navy Apocs I guess they like them as much as I do. O2 jayjay wrote: Why do you think that having more buffer would be a good thing on the four ships? [quote=O2 jayjay]More EHP makes it more of a grind to kill the Battleship. Makes it harder to take them off field which gives more time for logi to cycle reps on. If I may borrow James Baboli and Stich Kaneland's approach, what do you think of a projection bonus instead? If battleships could project their damage a bit better the problem wouldn't be so grimm anymore. Remember dps doesn't equal dps and 1000 medium turret dps is very different from 1000 battleship dps. Take a Proteus for example. With a dps fit and we round the numbers a bit for arguments sake we can have a 1000dps Proteus which does ~ 3000 hp damage every ~3 seconds resulting in ~1000dps. Now if we take a beam-Apocalypse (mega-beams) which does ~6000hp damage every ~6 seconds also resulting in ~1000dps. Can you see the difference? Problem is that our hypothetical Apocalypse doesn't hit anything below another battleship or a planet, dps or not. Even if you would increase the laser damage by 2x that hypothectial ~12000hp damage every ~6 seconds still doesn't hit anything. But I agree that a battleship should have a lot more resources than a tiny cruiser and not get sunk in 20 seconds. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Oskolda Eriker Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.10.25 10:59:53 - [36] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Can you see the difference? Problem is that our hypothetical Apocalypse doesn't hit anything below another battleship or a planet, dps or not. Even if you would increase the laser damage by 2x that hypothectial ~12000hp damage every ~6 seconds still doesn't hit anything. But I agree that a battleship should have a lot more resources than a tiny cruiser and not get sunk in 20 seconds. I see the difference, proteus have 1000dps at 4km. and lose any damage at 20km Apoc at 22km nice difference isnt it?
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 247	Posted - 2015.10.25 15:34:48 - [37] - Quote Oskolda Eriker wrote: elitatwo wrote: Can you see the difference? Problem is that our hypothetical Apocalypse doesn't hit anything below another battleship or a planet, dps or not. Even if you would increase the laser damage by 2x that hypothectial ~12000hp damage every ~6 seconds still doesn't hit anything. But I agree that a battleship should have a lot more resources than a tiny cruiser and not get sunk in 20 seconds. I see the difference, proteus have 1000dps at 4km. and lose any damage at 20km Apoc at 22km nice difference isnt it? And the Proteus will have all the mobility it wants to dictate range, transversal, and whether or not the engagement continues. Nice difference, isn't it? Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2810	Posted - 2015.10.25 16:18:39 - [38] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: if T3s were overpowered, CCP would have nerfed them ages ago like they did with the op Ishtar! They may need slight tweaks but they are by no means OP... They did, and then said there's more to come. Rek Seven wrote: I hate these arguments about T3s being op with people throwing about there opinion like it's fact. ... And like it or not, cost is a balancing factor. Nice fail EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Oskolda Eriker Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance 2	Posted - 2015.10.25 16:52:18 - [39] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Oskolda Eriker wrote: elitatwo wrote: Can you see the difference? Problem is that our hypothetical Apocalypse doesn't hit anything below another battleship or a planet, dps or not. Even if you would increase the laser damage by 2x that hypothectial ~12000hp damage every ~6 seconds still doesn't hit anything. But I agree that a battleship should have a lot more resources than a tiny cruiser and not get sunk in 20 seconds. I see the difference, proteus have 1000dps at 4km. and lose any damage at 20km Apoc at 22km nice difference isnt it? And the Proteus will have all the mobility it wants to dictate range, transversal, and whether or not the engagement continues. Nice difference, isn't it? normal tanked proteus have same speed at mwd, as bs for example mach. Proteus cant dictate anything, he doesnt have utiliti high slots. enough med slots(3 may be 4 at best)
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2073	Posted - 2015.10.25 17:06:10 - [40] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Rek Seven wrote: if T3s were overpowered, CCP would have nerfed them ages ago like they did with the op Ishtar! They may need slight tweaks but they are by no means OP... They did, and then said there's more to come. Rek Seven wrote: I hate these arguments about T3s being op with people throwing about there opinion like it's fact. ... And like it or not, cost is a balancing factor. Nice fail That blog is referring to T3 balance in terms of their subsystems being unbalanced, as there are certain configurations that are almost never used... It also clearly says that the're tank was nerfed to "bring them in line" which proves that what i said was right and CCP don't see then as "OP". So instead of making yourself look like an idiot, try reading what you post first before you attempt t2 argue your point. Oh and if price was't a balancing factor, all ships would be the same price and every ship would be using officer mods... but yeah "fail" was another brilliant argument. Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks

Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2684	Posted - 2015.10.25 18:12:43 - [41] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: Is their a way to restore your post? I jacked it up and deleted it. ISD are the only ones who might be able to help with that. To reach them, tell them what's going on in a post, then flag the post and explain succinctly why you need them to read it. Or something like that. The issue seems old so I won't bother flagging your post. Sorry I'm late. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 40	Posted - 2015.10.25 20:11:09 - [42] - Quote Oskolda Eriker wrote: Khan Wrenth wrote: Oskolda Eriker wrote: elitatwo wrote: Can you see the difference? Problem is that our hypothetical Apocalypse doesn't hit anything below another battleship or a planet, dps or not. Even if you would increase the laser damage by 2x that hypothectial ~12000hp damage every ~6 seconds still doesn't hit anything. But I agree that a battleship should have a lot more resources than a tiny cruiser and not get sunk in 20 seconds. I see the difference, proteus have 1000dps at 4km. and lose any damage at 20km Apoc at 22km nice difference isnt it? And the Proteus will have all the mobility it wants to dictate range, transversal, and whether or not the engagement continues. Nice difference, isn't it? normal tanked proteus have same speed at mwd, as bs for example mach. Proteus cant dictate anything, he doesnt have utiliti high slots. enough med slots(3 may be 4 at best) I don't think you have been playing the game long enough to understand what we are talking about.
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 208	Posted - 2015.10.25 20:15:35 - [43] - Quote @O2 jayjay i don't hate T3 cruisers or else i would not have trained them, and i already stated that i am not against a small buff for BS in general, what the TS suggests in his OP is like stated before not out of proportion, but it is off the scale. The reason i want T3 cruisers to be nerfed is because they are so OP it is not funny, and nerfing them will solve a lot ofc it isnt easy as a lot of people depend on its income (WH industry) and they need to be able to do WH sites properly @W0lf Crendraven i really cant take you seriously i am sorry but T3 cruisers crush every T2 cruiser and even battle-cruiser in the game only exception is the commandship (only since they changed it) and logi @Oskolda Eriker funny but why do you say flights?????? you mean i never lost a T3 cruiser well not on this toon no but on 2 other toons i did, i can assure you i used them on multiple characters [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 40	Posted - 2015.10.25 20:46:48 - [44] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: @O2 jayjay i don't hate T3 cruisers or else i would not have trained them, and i already stated that i am not against a small buff for BS in general, what the TS suggests in his OP is like stated before not out of proportion, but it is off the scale. The reason i want T3 cruisers to be nerfed is because they are so OP it is not funny, and nerfing them will solve a lot ofc it isnt easy as a lot of people depend on its income (WH industry) and they need to be able to do WH sites properly I never had a problem applying dps to T3. I go to my opt, scram and web it then shoot my main batteries at it. As long as my ship isn't moving and they are at rang i have no problems hitting them. In a decent fleet fight BS don't have enough dps to shoot them off field before logi can get reps on them. BS also die too fast against a T3 gang. I still think the cost and SP lost is a huge risk when flying T3 that they are fine where they are at and BS don't posses the proper strength for fleet warfare. Ellendras Silver wrote: @W0lf Crendraven i really cant take you seriously i am sorry but T3 cruisers crush every T2 cruiser and even battle-cruiser in the game only exception is the commandship (only since they changed it) and logi @Oskolda Eriker funny but why do you say flights?????? you mean i never lost a T3 cruiser well not on this toon no but on 2 other toons i did, i can assure you i used them on multiple characters
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2810	Posted - 2015.10.25 21:08:10 - [45] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Daichi Yamato wrote: Rek Seven wrote: if T3s were overpowered, CCP would have nerfed them ages ago like they did with the op Ishtar! They may need slight tweaks but they are by no means OP... They did, and then said there's more to come. Rek Seven wrote: I hate these arguments about T3s being op with people throwing about there opinion like it's fact. ... And like it or not, cost is a balancing factor. Nice fail That blog is referring to T3 balance in terms of their subsystems being unbalanced, as there are certain configurations that are almost never used. It also clearly says that their tank was nerfed to "bring them in line", which i would say, indicates that ccp don't conciser then "overpowered". So get your facts straight if you are going to disagree... Oh and if price wasn't a balancing factor, all comparable ship hulls would be the same price and every ship would be using officer mods... but yeah "fail" was another brilliant argument. Lol. You lied and contradicted yourself all in one post. Just like the ishtar, orthrus and d3's, the balances for t3's will come in multiple increments. Im not saying that ccp will definitely nerf tank again, but the fact they've had one balance change so far doesnt mean they are now considered balanced. Deterrent =/= balance. Making ships more expensive doesnt justify obsoleting several ship classes at once. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 209	Posted - 2015.10.25 21:12:29 - [46] - Quote Quote: I never had a problem applying dps to T3. I go to my opt, scram and web it then shoot my main batteries at it. As long as my ship isn't moving and they are at rang i have no problems hitting them. In a decent fleet fight BS don't have enough dps to shoot them off field before logi can get reps on them. BS also die too fast against a T3 gang. I still think the cost and SP lost is a huge risk when flying T3 that they are fine where they are at and BS don't posses the proper strength for fleet warfare. I don't either but that's beside the point T3 cruisers have HUGE cap and fitting options can use 3 rigs where T2 ships only have 2 and fly around with BS tanks and cruiser maneuverability, speed and signature. to top it off they match battle cruiser DPS and if you say they are OP they say no because they are expensive and have skill loss when you die in it price is NEVER and has NEVER been a way to balance things and the skill loss is a joke compared to the power they bring not to mention that you don't need that much training to fly them. They need a nerf more then anything in EVE and the skill loss is the first thing that has to go i get the idea that you agree with me as you don't dispute my post but ramble about applying damage i never said that was an issue, so your response baffles me. and NOTHING has enough DPS to shoot them off the field before they can be repped that is EXACTLY my point [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 388	Posted - 2015.10.25 21:44:50 - [47] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: @W0lf Crendraven i really cant take you seriously i am sorry but T3 cruisers crush every T2 cruiser and even battle-cruiser in the game only exception is the commandship (only since they changed it) and logi They dont, bcs have mjds which alone makes them different enough and they are T1 ships, which makes them insurable, cheap and easy to fit. Yes they arent in a great spot right now but that has nothing to do with t3s, if you remember back around 2011 t3s were stronger then now and bcs were about the same (slightly better) and it was all bcs, t3s really dont enroach onto bc at all. Then you have t2 cruiser, logi are straight up better as you said, for anything bar reaaaly big fleets recons are straight up better, hics are hics so no contest there. Then you have Hacs, which you probably mean by t2 cruisers. And there you can buy 2.3 hacs per t3, they are somewhat insurable and you dont lose sp if you die in them, which by itself makes them on par. But they arent even actually worse then t3s as such, cerb>tengu due to rlml bonus', vaga is about equal to a loki in most cases and the deimos is a valid proteus substitue, the prot reps more and does more dps but its much worse in most other stats, and speed is fairly important. And the sac is an amazing fleet ship as shown by balex countless times, legion is good too but they are similar enough for the extra price on the legion to be worth it. Face it, for solo, small scale and mid scale hacs are almost equal to their t3 counterparts, some more some less. And that a proteus is a better fleet dps ship then the deimos is totally irrelevant cause the abso still is cheaper and better. t3s do pseudo recons in big fleets where recons would instapop, they do the fleet ships for the unskilled who cant fly command ships and thats about it. If you roam around and see a t3 you dont worry at all, they arent good ships, they are easy to beat and offer nothing special in the current meta. A orthrus or gila is much more scary.
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 209	Posted - 2015.10.25 22:05:13 - [48] - Quote W0lf Crendraven wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: @W0lf Crendraven i really cant take you seriously i am sorry but T3 cruisers crush every T2 cruiser and even battle-cruiser in the game only exception is the commandship (only since they changed it) and logi 1. They dont, bcs have mjds which alone makes them different enough and they are T1 ships, which makes them insurable, cheap and easy to fit. Yes they arent in a great spot right now but that has nothing to do with t3s, if you remember back around 2011 t3s were stronger then now and bcs were about the same (slightly better) and it was all bcs, t3s really dont enroach onto bc at all. 2. Then you have t2 cruiser, logi are straight up better as you said, for anything bar reaaaly big fleets recons are straight up better, hics are hics so no contest there. Then you have Hacs, which you probably mean by t2 cruisers. And there you can buy 2.3 hacs per t3, they are somewhat insurable and you dont lose sp if you die in them, which by itself makes them on par. But they arent even actually worse then t3s as such, cerb>tengu due to rlml bonus', vaga is about equal to a loki in most cases and the deimos is a valid proteus substitue, the prot reps more and does more dps but its much worse in most other stats, and speed is fairly important. 3. And the sac is an amazing fleet ship as shown by balex countless times, legion is good too but they are similar enough for the extra price on the legion to be worth it. 4. Face it, for solo, small scale and mid scale hacs are almost equal to their t3 counterparts, some more some less. And that a proteus is a better fleet dps ship then the deimos is totally irrelevant cause the abso still is cheaper and better. 5. t3s do pseudo recons in big fleets where recons would instapop, they do the fleet ships for the unskilled who cant fly command ships and thats about it. 6. If you roam around and see a t3 you don't worry at all, they arent good ships, they are easy to beat and offer nothing special in the current meta. A orthrus or gila is much more scary. 1. ISK is irrelevant when it comes to balancing, and yes they are they do too much DPS with too much tank and way too fast and agile too pack that much tank and DPS it simply outclasses everything. 2. logi are better yes and since CCP fixed commandships they provide better boosts as well, all other ships perish in comparison. sure recons have better range but with paper tank T3s are always preferred over the T2 cruisers because of that we both know it, you try to spin it another way sorry no go. your ISK "balancing" is irrelevant because price is not a factor in balancing it never was and never will be, it can be a reason too choose a T2 cruiser over a T3 cruiser but that has nothing to do with balance 3. so you agree that the legion beats the sac awesome 4. ehhh no they are NOT and it is relevant and again costs don't matter 5. hilarious if not so sad again you try to spin it like T3s are not OP where they clearly are 6. right [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2074	Posted - 2015.10.25 22:08:11 - [49] - Quote I'll fight a T3 in a non-t3 if anyone wants to prove to me how OP they are. Just let me know. Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2074	Posted - 2015.10.25 22:32:13 - [50] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Rek Seven wrote: Daichi Yamato wrote: Rek Seven wrote: if T3s were overpowered, CCP would have nerfed them ages ago like they did with the op Ishtar! They may need slight tweaks but they are by no means OP... They did, and then said there's more to come. Rek Seven wrote: I hate these arguments about T3s being op with people throwing about there opinion like it's fact. ... And like it or not, cost is a balancing factor. Nice fail That blog is referring to T3 balance in terms of their subsystems being unbalanced, as there are certain configurations that are almost never used. It also clearly says that their tank was nerfed to "bring them in line", which i would say, indicates that ccp don't conciser then "overpowered". So get your facts straight if you are going to disagree... Oh and if price wasn't a balancing factor, all comparable ship hulls would be the same price and every ship would be using officer mods... but yeah "fail" was another brilliant argument. Lol. You lied and contradicted yourself all in one post. Just like the ishtar, orthrus and d3's, the balances for t3's will come in multiple increments. Im not saying that ccp will definitely nerf tank again, but the fact they've had one balance change so far doesnt mean they are now considered balanced. Deterrent =/= balance. Making ships more expensive doesnt justify obsoleting several ship classes at once. This is especially true when T3's are intended to be jacks of all trades and master of none. It sounds like a contradiction and admittedly hypocritical when you quote snipets of my post but not if you consider and understand the entire thing in context... But I fail to see how I lied. I never said T3s are perfectly balanced I said t3 cruisers are not "overpowered". I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power. I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost. Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks

Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 209	Posted - 2015.10.25 22:38:04 - [51] - Quote Quote: It sounds like a contradiction and admittedly hypocritical when you quote snipets of my post but not if you consider and understand the entire thing in context... But I fail to see how I lied. I never said T3s are perfectly balanced I said t3 cruisers are not "overpowered". I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power. I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost. it is a contradiction if you say: Quote: I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power. so pricing is no justification for power, is what you say then in the next sentence you say: Quote: I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost. i don't care how you try to justify this, but what you say is price is a justification for its power [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 209	Posted - 2015.10.25 22:39:49 - [52] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: I'll fight a T3 in a non-t3 if anyone wants to prove to me how OP they are. Just let me know. this i find noble, i would have taken you up on it if i wasnt a poor solo PVPing char and i havent been active for quit a while, i do hope someone does this, i know where i put my money (no not you) +1 for being noble (or stupid) oh well +1 none the less [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2075	Posted - 2015.10.25 22:59:47 - [53] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: Quote: It sounds like a contradiction and admittedly hypocritical when you quote snipets of my post but not if you consider and understand the entire thing in context... But I fail to see how I lied. I never said T3s are perfectly balanced I said t3 cruisers are not "overpowered". I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power. I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost. it is a contradiction if you say: Quote: I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power. so pricing is no justification for power, is what you say then in the next sentence you say: Quote: I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost. i don't care how you try to justify this, but what you say is price is a justification for its power I don't know what you are having an issue with. Is English not your first language? Justification does not mean balance. If price is not a factor of balance, why are you letting your being a "poor PVPer" stop you from fighting me? Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 209	Posted - 2015.10.25 23:04:31 - [54] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: i don't care how you try to justify this, but what you say is price is a justification for its power I don't know what you are having an issue with. Is English not your first language? Justification does not mean balance. If price is not a factor of balance, why are you letting your being a "poor PVPer" stop you from fighting me? [/quote] english is not my first language no, but it is good enough... i know justification is not the same as balance, the question is do you because your post implies that it does [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2075	Posted - 2015.10.25 23:10:40 - [55] - Quote Then answer my question... Why is being poor stopping you from fighting me if you are so sure you will win? Then go back and fix that quote. Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 209	Posted - 2015.10.25 23:12:42 - [56] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Then answer my question... Why is being poor stopping you from fighting me if you are so sure you will win? i am not sure i will win, because i am not good at solo PVP and been out of the game for over 2 years (PVP wise) and over 1 year PVE wise. [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2076	Posted - 2015.10.25 23:29:51 - [57] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: Rek Seven wrote: Then answer my question... Why is being poor stopping you from fighting me if you are so sure you will win? i am not sure i will win, because i am not good at solo PVP and been out of the game for over 2 years (PVP wise) and over 1 year PVE wise. Well overpowered indicates one thing has a superior advantage. So unless it is a certainty that a ship will beat a "weaker" ship, I don't think you should be claiming it is OP. My point with the offer to fight a T3, was to show that price does get considered in ballance. Not on paper but in game. If it didn't, you wouldn't care if you lost to me no matter how bad at pvp you consider yourself to be. Anyway, we are massively off topic. Can we just agree battleships need a buff in damage? Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 209	Posted - 2015.10.25 23:35:44 - [58] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: Rek Seven wrote: Then answer my question... Why is being poor stopping you from fighting me if you are so sure you will win? i am not sure i will win, because i am not good at solo PVP and been out of the game for over 2 years (PVP wise) and over 1 year PVE wise. Well overpowered indicates one thing has a superior advantage. So unless it is a certainty that a ship will beat a "weaker" ship, I don't think you should be claiming it is OP. My point with the offer to fight a T3, was to show that price does get considered in ballance. Not on paper but in game. If it didn't, you wouldn't care if you lost to me no matter how bad at pvp you consider yourself to be. Anyway, we are massively off topic. Can we just agree battleships need a buff in damage? we sure can agree on BS needing a buff as long as it is not what the TS wants because that is ridiculous i never was against that. I am against the change the OP wants: quote from OP as reminder Quote: My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. that is far and i mean far too much can we agree on this aswell? [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 388	Posted - 2015.10.26 02:03:38 - [59] - Quote Ellendras Silver wrote: 1. ISK is irrelevant when it comes to balancing, and yes they are they do too much DPS with too much tank and way too fast and agile too pack that much tank and DPS it simply outclasses everything. No its not, everything is balanced by isk. A worm is a way way way better tristan, and its balanced by cost (and postnerf it will still be way better). A t2 bc costs more then a t1 bc and its balanced by cost. Everything is balanced by isk, ships that cost pirate battleship isk need to hold their own vs them in some ways to be good.
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 40	Posted - 2015.10.26 05:43:13 - [60] - Quote we sure can agree on BS needing a buff as long as it is not what the TS wants because that is ridiculous i never was against that. I am against the change the OP wants: quote from OP as reminder Quote: My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. Ellendras Silver wrote: that is far and i mean far too much can we agree on this aswell? What is too much about it? Its a battleship. Battleships were the end all be all in WW1 and early WWII until carriers cam into play. In eve i think its safe to say that a carrier can kill a battleship 1v1 dont you? But it isnt safe to say a battleship can kill a crusier 1v1. I honestly think my request isnt enough by a long shot and its a good starting point for BS. My 2-ó

W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 388	Posted - 2015.10.26 06:41:49 - [61] - Quote Battleships need a buff, but not a damage, more ehp, or cap. Those are all useless to a bs nowadays, what a bs needs is scan ress, a tiny bit of lock range so it can lock past 100km and warp speed. And ideally someway to avoid camps.
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 40	Posted - 2015.10.26 08:15:34 - [62] - Quote W0lf Crendraven wrote: Battleships need a buff, but not a damage, more ehp, or cap. Those are all useless to a bs nowadays, what a bs needs is scan ress, a tiny bit of lock range so it can lock past 100km and warp speed. And ideally someway to avoid camps. I dont see how this will help BS at all. But youre more then welcome to explain yourself.
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 388	Posted - 2015.10.26 09:41:06 - [63] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: W0lf Crendraven wrote: Battleships need a buff, but not a damage, more ehp, or cap. Those are all useless to a bs nowadays, what a bs needs is scan ress, a tiny bit of lock range so it can lock past 100km and warp speed. And ideally someway to avoid camps. I dont see how this will help BS at all. But youre more then welcome to explain yourself. Ok, so at least in small scale pvp bs are incredibly powerfull (for example http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=30418634), they offer super strong neuts, mjds which flat out counter the meta, top dps and all around great stats. The hyperion has an amazing tank, the fleet phoon offers amazing dps with application and so on, nearly all bs are incredibly strong. The kiting ones need more sensor strenght as you cant lock a frig before it has you locked down (i.e scrammed and webbed). Locking range to utilize mjd dunks and warp speed to roam. Nearly al bs are super good IF they can get on grid on a fair fight. Which they cant, which is the problem. nerfing t3s wouldnt do anything about that. Bs counter logis, they do awesome alpha and so on. Take snuff and shadow, 2 of the best alliances if it comes to actual pvp, they all mainly utilize mainly non t3 doctines. Bs issues arent t3s, never were.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 16857	Posted - 2015.10.26 10:39:08 - [64] - Quote W0lf Crendraven wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: 1. ISK is irrelevant when it comes to balancing, and yes they are they do too much DPS with too much tank and way too fast and agile too pack that much tank and DPS it simply outclasses everything. No its not, everything is balanced by isk. A worm is a way way way better tristan, and its balanced by cost (and postnerf it will still be way better). A t2 bc costs more then a t1 bc and its balanced by cost. Everything is balanced by isk, ships that cost pirate battleship isk need to hold their own vs them in some ways to be good. When CCP added titans they ere balanced by cost with CCP stating only one or two could be afforded. We have hundreds of them. You cannot justify an overpowered ship by cost. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2077	Posted - 2015.10.26 10:57:14 - [65] - Quote baltec1 wrote: When CCP added titans they ere balanced by cost with CCP stating only one or two could be afforded. We have hundreds of them. You cannot justify an overpowered ship by cost. So you know better than CCP? Cost is one of the primary factors when making the decision to field a ship in PVP. Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
Aivlis Eldelbar Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Curatores Veritatis Alliance 131	Posted - 2015.10.26 11:25:11 - [66] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: baltec1 wrote: When CCP added titans they ere balanced by cost with CCP stating only one or two could be afforded. We have hundreds of them. You cannot justify an overpowered ship by cost. So you know better than CCP? Cost is one of the primary factors when making the decision to field a ship in PVP. CCP have themselves admitted that cost balancing doesn't work for supercaps.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 16858	Posted - 2015.10.26 11:32:30 - [67] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: baltec1 wrote: When CCP added titans they ere balanced by cost with CCP stating only one or two could be afforded. We have hundreds of them. You cannot justify an overpowered ship by cost. So you know better than CCP? Cost is one of the primary factors when making the decision to field a ship in PVP. Turns out we did, they expected one or two and we wound up with hundreds of them, this is why CCP had to nerf titans massively. Balancing based upon cost never works. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2077	Posted - 2015.10.26 11:36:27 - [68] - Quote I said it was a factor of balance, not the sole method of balancing. To say cost doesn't factor in to the ship meta balance in eve, is ignorant. Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2307	Posted - 2015.10.26 11:36:52 - [69] - Quote Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Rek Seven wrote: baltec1 wrote: When CCP added titans they ere balanced by cost with CCP stating only one or two could be afforded. We have hundreds of them. You cannot justify an overpowered ship by cost. So you know better than CCP? Cost is one of the primary factors when making the decision to field a ship in PVP. CCP have themselves admitted that cost balancing doesn't work for supercaps. It would if people actually fielded them without a few hundred in support. But the trouble is cost only works if the ships are ever lost. Stockpiling until you have the apex force breaks that completely. If cost really were no barrier at all, people wouldn't be so shy about lobbing these ships around.
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 388	Posted - 2015.10.26 12:02:45 - [70] - Quote baltec1 wrote: W0lf Crendraven wrote: Ellendras Silver wrote: 1. ISK is irrelevant when it comes to balancing, and yes they are they do too much DPS with too much tank and way too fast and agile too pack that much tank and DPS it simply outclasses everything. No its not, everything is balanced by isk. A worm is a way way way better tristan, and its balanced by cost (and postnerf it will still be way better). A t2 bc costs more then a t1 bc and its balanced by cost. Everything is balanced by isk, ships that cost pirate battleship isk need to hold their own vs them in some ways to be good. When CCP added titans they ere balanced by cost with CCP stating only one or two could be afforded. We have hundreds of them. You cannot justify an overpowered ship by cost. This is only true if a ship breaks a meta, i.e it being so amazingly good that cost no longer is a factor. For t3s it isnt true, cost (sp and isk) matters for them, it may not be for doctrines (but t3s arent the best ships there anyways), but for the shipclass overall it does. A deimos is a better thorax, if cost didnt matter the thorax would be totally pointless, but it isnt.

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2636	Posted - 2015.10.26 12:35:54 - [71] - Quote W0lf Crendraven wrote: This is only true if a ship breaks a meta, i.e it being so amazingly good that cost no longer is a factor. For t3s it isnt true, cost (sp and isk) matters for them, it may not be for doctrines (but t3s arent the best ships there anyways), but for the shipclass overall it does. A deimos is a better thorax, if cost didnt matter the thorax would be totally pointless, but it isnt. Your argument breaks down in that a Deimos is MEANT TO BE a better Thorax. Bolded to really make the point. Though it's not quite accurate as it's more specialised, but T2 is meant to be over T1. BS however are not meant to be over all other sub caps. Lock range I wouldn't complain about, however warp speed negates the whole point of Battleships taking a while to get places, and scan res negates the point of them being weak against frigates. EHP however is an area they are certainly weak, with HAC's and T3's even if they don't equal BS, pushing in moderately close to the BS on EHP's. Which the Battleship should be the king of as a slow moving ship (Relative to other subcaps.) Personally I think the active tank of a T1 BS is also far too weak, but if you touch that the Marauder tank gets even more OP, so the only place you could probably deal with active tank is in giving them increased capacitor. Now that CCP are also on board with giving ship classes increased warp strength you could also use that as a tool to set BS apart and give them 2 or 3 warp strength to make them a bit harder to hold as well. I'd go for 3, so you need a faction scram to hold them with just one module. Otherwise you need multiple. But no to things that simply make BS a larger model cruiser like scan res and warp speed.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 886	Posted - 2015.10.26 12:53:16 - [72] - Quote W0lf Crendraven wrote: ... This is only true if a ship breaks a meta, i.e it being so amazingly good that cost no longer is a factor. For t3s it isnt true, cost (sp and isk) matters for them, it may not be for doctrines (but t3s arent the best ships there anyways), but for the shipclass overall it does. A deimos is a better thorax, if cost didnt matter the thorax would be totally pointless, but it isnt. You comparing apples with oranges. The Thorax is a totally different boat than the Deimos bespite looking alike they only have small things in common and very different roles. Yes cost is a factor in balance and battleships are not completly terrible - in their own shipclass. But since nobody really want to take ages to get from point a to b our beloved battleships became more of liability then a joy. We still fly battleships, I know I do but when you want to a handful of buddies on a roam and ask them if they would like a battleship with them they are more than likely to say nay, even battlecruisers are kinda pushing it. Now discussing sleeper cruisers and battleships is not an easy topic. Some say they are overpowered, I say they aren't but with the twist that low- and nullsec are not the only places in New Eden. It is fine if you ignore w-space but it is a thing and some effects may really mess your tech 3 boat up. Like a Tengu in a Wolf-Rayet effect wormhole or a Legion in a Pulsar. Maybe in the time between roam you want to make some isk in one of those and here they are the Sleepless Guardians of the blue loot - using your freshly nerfed tech 3 cruiser, you will be made aware of the error of your ways really quickly. So take a battleship you say? My response, have you even met an unfriendly fleet of Sleepless Guardians?? They are known to come in fleets and shoot you a new one in a few seconds - no, you will not be able to warp, this is the end for your ship - if only you have a tankier smaller vessel to use here.. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2810	Posted - 2015.10.26 13:08:57 - [73] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: It sounds like a contradiction and admittedly hypocritical when you quote snipets of my post but not if you consider and understand the entire thing in context... But I fail to see how I lied. I never said T3s are perfectly balanced I said t3 cruisers are not "overpowered". I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power. I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost. My quotes didnt take anything out of context. You expressed a disdain for people spouting opinion as fact then did the same a few lines later. And I said you lied because it seemed more likely than being oblivious. You said if CCP thought the T3's were op they'd have nerfed them like the ishtar, implying they'd never been nerfed. And yet they have been nerfed, funnily enough at the same time as the ishtar. Saying that costs is a balancing factor is the same as saying cost balances power. And that means you believe cost is a justification for power. Same way you're saying the sp loss is a justification for power. Turns out that balancing things this way doesnt really work well. No matter how expensive a ship is, someone is eventually going to be fielding them in large numbers. Id rather see their cost come down, the sp loss mechanic removed and their combat subsystems nerfed such that they arent just bigger tougher hacs than using their restrictions as an excuse for their current state. Its only a few subsystems that are making the t3 overpowered and T3's can afford to be nerfed without losing the Jack of all trades master of none role. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 16859	Posted - 2015.10.26 13:30:58 - [74] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: I said it was a factor of balance, not the sole method of balancing. To say cost doesn't factor in to the ship meta balance in eve, is ignorant. It isn't a factor to people like me. T3c have always been far too powerful for their class and contrary to what some here would have you believe they make up a good bulk of the powerblocks fleets pushing out everything from T1 cruisers to hacs to recons to command ships to battleships. They simply have too much tank and fitting room along with options that render entire lineups useless such as command ships. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 389	Posted - 2015.10.27 00:54:23 - [75] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: W0lf Crendraven wrote: This is only true if a ship breaks a meta, i.e it being so amazingly good that cost no longer is a factor. For t3s it isnt true, cost (sp and isk) matters for them, it may not be for doctrines (but t3s arent the best ships there anyways), but for the shipclass overall it does. A deimos is a better thorax, if cost didnt matter the thorax would be totally pointless, but it isnt. Your argument breaks down in that a Deimos is MEANT TO BE a better Thorax. Bolded to really make the point. Though it's not quite accurate as it's more specialised, but T2 is meant to be over T1. BS however are not meant to be over all other sub caps. Lock range I wouldn't complain about, however warp speed negates the whole point of Battleships taking a while to get places, and scan res negates the point of them being weak against frigates. EHP however is an area they are certainly weak, with HAC's and T3's even if they don't equal BS, pushing in moderately close to the BS on EHP's. Which the Battleship should be the king of as a slow moving ship (Relative to other subcaps.) Personally I think the active tank of a T1 BS is also far too weak, but if you touch that the Marauder tank gets even more OP, so the only place you could probably deal with active tank is in giving them increased capacitor. Now that CCP are also on board with giving ship classes increased warp strength you could also use that as a tool to set BS apart and give them 2 or 3 warp strength to make them a bit harder to hold as well. I'd go for 3, so you need a faction scram to hold them with just one module. Otherwise you need multiple. But no to things that simply make BS a larger model cruiser like scan res and warp speed. Are you high or something, bs active tanks being to weak? You get over 2.5k out of a hyperion with heat without any faction or ded mod or links or implants (with everything 9k) , 2.1k or so for a mael with a 60mil booster and so on (with implants and links 5.7k) + marauders. Sure you arent going to get great reps out of a pest or phoon but they have other qualities instead.
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 48	Posted - 2015.10.30 17:57:00 - [76] - Quote Can we get this BS love soon?
Valacus Shattered Silver 3	Posted - 2015.10.30 20:24:13 - [77] - Quote While battleships certainly need a role bonus, just leaving T3s as is doesn't fix any problems. T3Cs need a nerf. Buffing battleships to 2k DPS is not going to fix T3Cs. Don't revolve your battleship buff around the T3C, and don't nerf the T3C around battleships.
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 48	Posted - 2015.10.30 20:43:52 - [78] - Quote Valacus wrote: While battleships certainly need a role bonus, just leaving T3s as is doesn't fix any problems. T3Cs need a nerf. Buffing battleships to 2k DPS is not going to fix T3Cs. Don't revolve your battleship buff around the T3C, and don't nerf the T3C around battleships. Can you explain how this would not fix T3? It would be 2k-3k BS btw. I dont think a T3 fleet can go toe to toe with a BS fleet with my buffs. The SP loss is nessary for T3 as its a perfect balance in risk vs reward. I dont see how you can say it wont fix T3. Wven if they did nerf T3 how does this help BS? They are still undee rated. What roles will T3 have? Dumb them down to rating boats? What good does that do? Im looking at the big picture and they are fine where they sit atm. Making BS more superior then T3 fixes everything. I understand HAC are suppose to be stronger but depending on fitting The same faction T3 will more then likely lose to a HAC of the same faction. Fitting can easily change the outcome in a solo fight. I dont see the need to nerf T3 and i also dont see why BS don't deserve my buff. Please break it down barney sytle for me.
Matthew Dust Valklear Legionnaires 42	Posted - 2015.11.18 11:13:40 - [79] - Quote OP is right, Battleships need a complete rework. Not only a buff in DPS, and HP, but let's not forget, caldari amarr ships have dedicated ewar battleships. Also, the Nestor only reps armor, there are no Shield Repping Battleships. BUFF THE BATTLESHIPS!
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 16976	Posted - 2015.11.18 11:36:44 - [80] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: Valacus wrote: While battleships certainly need a role bonus, just leaving T3s as is doesn't fix any problems. T3Cs need a nerf. Buffing battleships to 2k DPS is not going to fix T3Cs. Don't revolve your battleship buff around the T3C, and don't nerf the T3C around battleships. Can you explain how this would not fix T3? It would be 2k-3k BS btw. I dont think a T3 fleet can go toe to toe with a BS fleet with my buffs. The SP loss is nessary for T3 as its a perfect balance in risk vs reward. when and if they did nerf T3 how does this help BS? What roles will T3 have? Nerf them down to ratting boats? What good does that do? Im looking at the big picture and they are fine where they sit atm. Making BS more superior then T3 fixes everything. I understand HAC are suppose to be stronger but depending on fitting, The same faction T3 will more then likely lose to a HAC of the same faction. Fitting can easily change the outcome in a solo fight. Again I dont see the need to nerf T3 and I also dont see why BS don't deserve my buff. If you dont agree please explain in detail why. The very fact you are comparing tech three cruisers with battleships should show why t3c need a mighty nerf. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

big miker Rifterlings Zero.Four Ops 380	Posted - 2015.11.18 11:48:41 - [81] - Quote Oh, i'll gladly fly 2k+ dps battleships Edit: and kill 35km scram hics quick enough Latest video: Ferocious 6.0 Nano battleships / marauders
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 16983	Posted - 2015.11.19 05:40:26 - [82] - Quote big miker wrote: Oh, i'll gladly fly 2k+ dps battleships Edit: and kill 35km scram hics quick enough 4-5k dps vindicators Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 909	Posted - 2015.11.19 12:47:18 - [83] - Quote baltec1 wrote: big miker wrote: Oh, i'll gladly fly 2k+ dps battleships Edit: and kill 35km scram hics quick enough 4-5k dps vindicators Yikes! Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
O2 jayjay DERP'S R US 51	Posted - 2015.11.19 13:48:06 - [84] - Quote baltec1 wrote: big miker wrote: Oh, i'll gladly fly 2k+ dps battleships Edit: and kill 35km scram hics quick enough 4-5k dps vindicators T3 will have a hard time tanking that. Battleship will truely become a slow moving feared powerhouse. Like they should be. They can also fight caps in large numbers. need a few frigs to take down a crusier. Need a few crusiers to take down a BS. Why cant a few BS take down a captial?
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 909	Posted - 2015.11.19 19:40:31 - [85] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: baltec1 wrote: big miker wrote: Oh, i'll gladly fly 2k+ dps battleships Edit: and kill 35km scram hics quick enough 4-5k dps vindicators T3 will have a hard time tanking that. Battleship will truely become a slow moving feared powerhouse. Like they should be. They can also fight caps in large numbers. need a few frigs to take down a crusier. Need a few crusiers to take down a BS. Why cant a few BS take down a captial? All you need to do is ask and since you did, Mafia Redux did exactly that with 8 Taloses a while back and even had that on a podcast of theirs where they talked about taking down said carrier. A few years ago I made the same experiment on SiSi asking for a few battleship pilots to help bring down my Chimera. 11 came, warped and killed it. So in response, they already can and battleships do not need more firepower. It is always very astounding that you always choose to not read what I say about ships or weapons and the very clear differences in damage per second - every time. Let me repeat myself. Battleship guns and cruiser gun may do the very same paper damage per second but it is a very huge difference in how. Being shot every 3 seconds with 3000hp damage is very different than begin hit by 6000hp damage every 6 seconds and the difference is not the timer tick of the hamsters. Let's make an example. You shoot a tach-mare with a 1000dps vigilant. For arguments sake let's say you shoot 3000hp thermal and kinetic in a 50:50 slit using Void M one time. The resulting damage in a properly fit tach-mare will be somewhere between 700 - 900hp damage. The tach-mare has you scramed and counter webbed and shoots you with Gleam L and you hypothetical plate-rep vigilant gets hit with 4000hp damage - low EM and some thermal resist make sure of that and you are at 80% armor because the shields didn't "buffer" any damge. Now the tach-mare turns on the shield booster and swipes away your tiny boat damage and shoots again - you are in structure and the tach-mare pilot is asking herself if your vigilant really was a thread or not. That 1000dps vigilant goes boom and the 920dps tach-mare wins. Do you understand now that 1000dps are not equal to 1000dps?? Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
O2 jayjay DERP'S R US 51	Posted - 2015.11.19 20:22:01 - [86] - Quote elitatwo wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: baltec1 wrote: big miker wrote: Oh, i'll gladly fly 2k+ dps battleships Edit: and kill 35km scram hics quick enough 4-5k dps vindicators T3 will have a hard time tanking that. Battleship will truely become a slow moving feared powerhouse. Like they should be. They can also fight caps in large numbers. need a few frigs to take down a crusier. Need a few crusiers to take down a BS. Why cant a few BS take down a captial? All you need to do is ask and since you did, Mafia Redux did exactly that with 8 Taloses a while back and even had that on a podcast of theirs where they talked about taking down said carrier. A few years ago I made the same experiment on SiSi asking for a few battleship pilots to help bring down my Chimera. 11 came, warped and killed it. So in response, they already can and battleships do not need more firepower. It is always very astounding that you always choose to not read what I say about ships or weapons and the very clear differences in damage per second - every time. Let me repeat myself. Battleship guns and cruiser gun may do the very same paper damage per second but it is a very huge difference in how. Being shot every 3 seconds with 3000hp damage is very different than begin hit by 6000hp damage every 6 seconds and the difference is not the timer tick of the hamsters. Let's make an example. You shoot a tach-mare with a 1000dps vigilant. For arguments sake let's say you shoot 3000hp thermal and kinetic in a 50:50 slit using Void M one time. The resulting damage in a properly fit tach-mare will be somewhere between 700 - 900hp damage. The tach-mare has you scramed and counter webbed and shoots you with Gleam L and you hypothetical plate-rep vigilant gets hit with 4000hp damage - low EM and some thermal resist make sure of that and you are at 80% armor because the shields didn't "buffer" any damge. Now the tach-mare turns on the shield booster and swipes away your tiny boat damage and shoots again - you are in structure and the tach-mare pilot is asking herself if your vigilant really was a thread or not. That 1000dps vigilant goes boom and the 920dps tach-mare wins. Do you understand now that 1000dps are not equal to 1000dps?? Sorry but it shoulnt take 11 BS to kill 1 carrier. 1000 DPS = 1000 DPS. I think youre trying to say alpha? Either way 3 BS should be sucessful in killing a carrier using only BS damage.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 16990	Posted - 2015.11.19 21:57:57 - [87] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: Sorry but it shoulnt take 11 BS to kill 1 carrier. 1000 DPS = 1000 DPS. I think youre trying to say alpha? Either way 3 BS should be sucessful in killing a carrier using only BS damage. They can be. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 909	Posted - 2015.11.19 23:28:03 - [88] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: Sorry but it shoulnt take 11 BS to kill 1 carrier. 1000 DPS = 1000 DPS. I think youre trying to say alpha? Either way 3 BS should be sucessful in killing a carrier using only BS damage. No, they should not. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
O2 jayjay DERP'S R US 52	Posted - 2015.11.20 00:42:30 - [89] - Quote elitatwo wrote: O2 jayjay wrote: Sorry but it shoulnt take 11 BS to kill 1 carrier. 1000 DPS = 1000 DPS. I think youre trying to say alpha? Either way 3 BS should be sucessful in killing a carrier using only BS damage. No, they should not. Why not? What is your reasoning why 3 t1 tier 2 and up battleships shouldnt be able to kill 1 carrier?


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.