EVE Search - Strategic Cruisers - specifically what fixes they need

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Strategic Cruisers - specifically what fixes they need

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2833	Posted - 2016.01.02 01:56:51 - [1] - Quote ...and by "fixes", what I really mean is, of course, nerfs. ...and a few buffs In this thread I will point out specifically what makes Strategic Cruisers too strong. To begin, I must get all of you on the same page. There are two dominate opposing viewpoints out there: 1.) Strategic Cruisers are too strong because they can reach battleship damage or defense with cruiser attributes 2.) Strategic Cruisers are not too strong because they are expensive and cost skillpoints when you lose one I must first explain a few things here: The cost of the strategic cruisers (in materials) is fairly high, the total labor required to build one is up in the heavy assault cruiser range, or higher. But a lot of the cost associated with these is also tied to their popularity. As people wish more and more to fly strategic cruisers, the value of their components goes up and more people go to wormhole space to farm these, but you experience both a thinning of players willing to go, and a thinning of sites in which the materials are available. So really, part of the price is tied to the value already. The skillpoint loss is also not a good gauge for how strong these should be, in this case because a really strong ship with a huge skillpoint loss penalty on loss of ship has no penalty to a pilot who does not lose the ship, and the stronger the ship is, the less likely it's going to be lost. I'm going to say skillpoint loss should probably be removed from these, but more importantly we shall disregard it in determining the cost to value ratio of these ships. Finally, strategic cruisers have a lot of strategic potential in matching various combinations of subsystems together to get the exact ship you want for a given situation. That alone is a powerful tool in the right hands, and it should be considered one of the ship's major selling points. It is trivial to suggest the ship is too weak merely because someone who does not know how to strategize with it is unable to make it match its cost value in field effectiveness. For the above reasons, I am concluding that the Strategic Cruiser's five skill bonuses and currently existing cost in player time/energy to build are in line with a ship that has slightly above tech 1 base attributes, which will put it well above an actual tech 1 cruiser in raw effectiveness yet well below a tech 2 cruiser in raw effectiveness to a given role. The purpose of the strategic cruiser will then be to mix roles and fit for specifically what is needed in a given situation. The best strategic cruiser pilots will be those who carry extra subsystems and can swap them out quickly while docked in a nearby station or at another fitting service. TL;DR Read on, the actual changes are below: First change: remove the tech 2 resistances. Let me explain my reasoning for this: 1.) when combined with the strategic cruiser's very substantial powergrid, it becomes quite possible to give the ship a full weapon setup and still have enough powergrid left over for the top-end defensive modules. This combined with such heavy resistances allows the ship to match HIC defense or higher. 2.) it already has a lot of base hit points. If strategic cruisers all had above standard hit points and below T2 resists, it would make them have high enough EHP to last in a fight, but they would not respond as well to reps and sustained fire. I could see fit to increase strategic cruiser hit points a bit because of their cost, perhaps up to pirate cruiser amounts. As for their ability to hit battleship EHP, well so can HICs, command ships, and even some HACS or battlecruisers. The problem is that battleship EHP is too low, so don't use that as a metric. Second change: Make all subsystems offer only one effective skill bonus. Those subsystems offering 2-3 bonuses with no drawbacks to balance them out are what's making strategic cruisers beat HACs at their own roles. Example: Liquid Crystal Magnifiers - Legion. This subsystem offers an oversized damage bonus plus a full capacitor reduction and optimal range bonus, making its offensive potential FAR above that of a Maller, all the way up to about as powerful as a Zealot which has four skill bonuses all dedicated to its lasers. The Legion gets slightly less DPS but significantly better laser capacitor efficiency. This is a problem because the Legion gets this power from just one subsystem and it can fit four more, making it a LOT more effective than a Zealot. I am going to list some subsystems that are unbalanced, and tell what changes to make to them to put them in balance. I will also list some that are deceptive and explain how I see them. To save forum space I am not listing all of their attributes. You can view them here. Disclaimer: some of these attributes may be out of date and I am not going to check them outside of EVE University's info. I am not going to go over the nitty gritty of the specific attributes, but rather I am going to assume they are about right and save tweaking them for either a later rant or for someone else to work on. Legion Defensive - Adaptive Augmentor: OK This adds two effective skill bonuses but the act of using one (the remote rep bonuses) directly infringes on the bonuses you get from the offensive subsystem. The net total is still one bonus. Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating: OK 10% bonus to armor per level is fine. The standard resist bonus gives the equivalent of 5% per level bonus to hit points as well as 5% bonus to both onboard and incoming remote repair strength, so 10% to only hit points is pretty fair. Same goes for the nanobot injector and, I might add, all ships with the 7.5% rep bonus should have it increased to 10%. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2833	Posted - 2016.01.02 01:57:03 - [2] - Quote -reserved- FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3891	Posted - 2016.01.02 03:41:56 - [3] - Quote I'm not sure on what planet strategic cruisers get battleship DPS. My battleships get between 900 and 2800 DPS. My Strategic cruisers all do about 700-800.
unidenify Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium 168	Posted - 2016.01.02 03:54:13 - [4] - Quote remove hardpoint from engineering is sufficient in my opinion for nerf their DPS capability
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2833	Posted - 2016.01.02 03:57:39 - [5] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: I'm not sure on what planet strategic cruisers get battleship DPS. My battleships get between 900 and 2800 DPS. My Strategic cruisers all do about 700-800. Sure, your on-paper DPS is a lot higher for a battleship. But when you take into account the increased application of the strategic cruiser, they are often hitting targets for a lot more damage than battleships are. But I'm not one of the people saying they get battleship DPS, so what does that have to do with this post? unidenify wrote: remove hardpoint from engineering is sufficient in my opinion for nerf their DPS capability No, it's not enough. The optimal range and capacitor cost reduction bonus of the Liquid Crystal Magnifiers do not increase its on-paper DPS, but they increase its ability to get damage onto the target, and that's just one example. You have to take these factors into account as well. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
unidenify Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium 168	Posted - 2016.01.02 04:10:00 - [6] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: I'm not sure on what planet strategic cruisers get battleship DPS. My battleships get between 900 and 2800 DPS. My Strategic cruisers all do about 700-800. Sure, your on-paper DPS is a lot higher for a battleship. But when you take into account the increased application of the strategic cruiser, they are often hitting targets for a lot more damage than battleships are. But I'm not one of the people saying they get battleship DPS, so what does that have to do with this post? unidenify wrote: remove hardpoint from engineering is sufficient in my opinion for nerf their DPS capability No, it's not enough. The optimal range and capacitor cost reduction bonus of the Liquid Crystal Magnifiers do not increase its on-paper DPS, but they increase its ability to get damage onto the target, and that's just one example. You have to take these factors into account as well. this is point I do should consider as well. I suppose real issue here is whatever T3 cruiser outperform HAC in DPS application or not. if your goal here is have HAC outperform with T3, I won't agree with this because that is whole point of HAC.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2879	Posted - 2016.01.02 04:12:40 - [7] - Quote I'd rather see them get the tactical treatment, and gain more smaller skill bonuses on 'sub systems' or modes. So they can actually do their versatile role. The current problem is that they are too good at their focuses, but they don't have a second focus at the same time. That's what makes them stomp so heavily on the specialists toes.
Rawketsled Generic Corp Name 351	Posted - 2016.01.02 04:44:20 - [8] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: I'd rather see them get the tactical treatment, and gain more smaller skill bonuses on 'sub systems' or modes. So they can actually do their versatile role. The current problem is that they are too good at their focuses, but they don't have a second focus at the same time. That's what makes them stomp so heavily on the specialists toes. I like this idea. But the problem I foresee is that subsystems like Covert Reconfig and Power Core Multiplier don't have relevant per-level bonuses. How do you enable/disable these subsystems' bonuses without having modules unpowered (and burning cap to turn them back on)?
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2833	Posted - 2016.01.02 04:46:17 - [9] - Quote unidenify wrote: if your goal here is have HAC outperform with T3, I won't agree with this because that is whole point of HAC. Maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but the HAC is specialized for high damage output. Of course the strategic cruiser should have weaker damage output than the HAC, that doesn't even seem to be up for debate, however what is also not up for debate is that strategic cruisers generally can at the very least match HAC damage application but with consistently better overall other attributes. Consider a comparison between the Zealot, Devoter, and Legion in which all have skills 5, no fleet bonuses, no implants, no boosters, all modules are tech 2, and the Legion has Adaptive Augmentor, Energy Parasitic Complex, Power Core Multiplier, Liquid Crystal Magnifier, and Chassis Optimization. Right off the bat, we can see that the Legion beats the Zealot at just about everything. With pulse lasers, the Zealot has 346 DPS while the Legion has 374, and the Legion has the same range and a lower capacitor cost . The Zealot has a bit smaller sig radius but the Legion is a bit faster. The Legion has way higher hit points and the same resistances. The Legion has more CPU and a whole 400MW more powergrid, a lot more than it needs for that 6th turret. Sure, the Zealot has two more low slots, but the Legion has them as high slots and it can fit bonused neutralizers up there which it can power with all that extra capacitor it's not using, in order to obliterate the Zealot's capacitor. The Zealot does have a bit stronger capacitor but it really needs it for the weapons. Also don't forget that the Legion has higher armor resists on top of having higher armor hit points and higher powergrid for armor plates. Now let's compare the Devoter. The Devoter with Acolyte drones has the same net DPS as the Zealot, less than the Legion however the Devoter is spending the least capacitor to run the weapons. The Devoter also has the same resists as the Legion, but only slightly more hit points than the Zealot and still much less than the Legion. The Devoter has the larger sig radius of the Legion yet is barely faster than the Zealot and still significantly slower than the Legion. Now the Devoter also has the extra two low slots that the Zealot has, but its powergrid and CPU aren't that much higher than the Zealot. All in all, this Legion would roflstomp either the Zealot or the Devoter in a 1v1 match, and can easily perform the Zealot's own role better than a Zealot can, plus all the extra bonuses the Legion gets on top of all that. Also HICs are OP but apparently that's because nobody will fly them otherwise. Nevyn Auscent wrote: I'd rather see them get the tactical treatment, and gain more smaller skill bonuses on 'sub systems' or modes. So they can actually do their versatile role. The current problem is that they are too good at their focuses, but they don't have a second focus at the same time. That's what makes them stomp so heavily on the specialists toes. That is an excellent point. I always felt their EWAR bonuses should be on the disruptive side, as that would make an excellent combo with their offensive potential. But the engineering, navigation, and electronic subsystems don't feel all that strategic. I was thinking there could also be some strategy in choosing different levels of attributes, for instance some subsystems could give you more hit points at the cost of signature radius, more powergrid at the cost of mass, or more targeting range at the cost of scan resolution. Other subsystems could push attributes in other directions. In the end, you could build a strategic cruiser that's bigger and more sluggish than a battlecruiser, one that's sleek and smaller/faster than a Stabber, or anywhere in between with a lot of potential to mix and match, to choose your poison. It would be nice, though, if more of the electronics subsystems could put the skill bonus into the mid slots, to take the pressure off of the high slots. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Valacus Streets of Fire 111	Posted - 2016.01.02 04:53:09 - [10] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: I'm not sure on what planet strategic cruisers get battleship DPS. My battleships get between 900 and 2800 DPS. My Strategic cruisers all do about 700-800. And if battleships were capable of hurting anything, that would mean something. Battleships have the worst damage application in existence. You can count on a seiged Phoenix with a few target painters to apply damage to subcaps more than you can count on a battleship. T3Ds have cruiser sized guns with cruiser sized signature resolution, meaning they can hit just about anything. Battleships can't hit anything smaller than a POCO for full DPS.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2833	Posted - 2016.01.02 04:58:08 - [11] - Quote Valacus wrote: Battleships can't hit anything smaller than a POCO for full DPS. Exaggeration, but yes. Valacus wrote: You can count on a seiged Phoenix with a few target painters to apply damage to subcaps more than you can count on a battleship. That is patently false. edit: after visiting EFT, all I have to say is this.....what FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Valacus Streets of Fire 112	Posted - 2016.01.02 05:08:43 - [12] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: That is patently false. Phoenix's are used to reliably kill sub-caps as small as cruisers on ninja-hot drops extremely often, and they are very successful at it. Much more than any battleship hot drop.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2833	Posted - 2016.01.02 05:09:54 - [13] - Quote Valacus wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: That is patently false. Phoenix's are used to reliably kill sub-caps as small as cruisers on ninja-hot drops extremely often, and they are very successful at it. Much more than any battleship hot drop. Yeah I just checked on EFT. The Phoenix beats the Raven on DPS against a frigate every time. I am blown away. And people whine that it can't hit supercaps or something like that. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 1016	Posted - 2016.01.02 05:23:26 - [14] - Quote Legion op didn't say anyone - proteus maybe. I tried out the Curse subsystem on SiSi once and while I don't see much overpowerded things there, I am curious how you think it is? You can have 6 high slots with the drone subsystem and 3 or 4 neuts and 2 noses, then a 1600mm plate and you are looking at maybe ~ 40k ehp - for 12km neut range (before the december patch). My Curse got a nice increase in nos range - by the way, can we increase the powergrid demands on noses to 5 billion powergrid, so it is easier to fit? Didn't figure out the laser subs yet but I'm more of a shield girl and fly my Phantasm instead, don't strangle me. Also tried to make the Sacrilege subsystems work but no dice. Can't really tell if it's too strong, so carry on and elaborate a little on that. 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 42665	Posted - 2016.01.02 06:05:53 - [15] - Quote I'm going to go against the grain here and say they don't need any nerfs at all. Some greater versatility perhaps, as some additional reasons to use some sub systems, but not nerfs. If every ship in the game is perfectly balanced, then the challenge in the game would be reduced to just knowing what the established strategies are for each ship. Imbalance creates challenges that make the game more interesting in my view. By having some ships that are really strong (above what you'd expect), facing them becomes more engaging in terms of ttying to counter them and different tactics need to be developed to face those ships. Once those tactics are developed, then that makes particular doctrines strong, which leads to more theory crafting to counter that. For me, T3 Cruisers (and to a degree Destroyers) should be where the imbalance is. T1 is the base in a class, T2 is improved and almost good enough to match T1 in the class above and T3 is on a higher plane again. T3 Cruisers should be strong against anything smaller and should be at least as strong as any T1 BC, with an OK chance against BS. They are T3 after all. Why would anyone engineer something that is supposed to be improved and only make it as good as everything else in class? So for me, the balance comes exactly for the reason that in gaining the benefit, you are risking skillpoints. Maybe once skill packets come into the game, that risk will be eliminated since skillpoints won't be worth much. But currently, risking SP is a nice balancing mechanism. Just my 0.02c. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2833	Posted - 2016.01.02 06:07:36 - [16] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Legion op didn't say anyone - proteus maybe. I tried out the Curse subsystem on SiSi once and while I don't see much overpowerded things there, I am curious how you think it is? You can have 6 high slots with the drone subsystem and 3 or 4 neuts and 2 noses, then a 1600mm plate and you are looking at maybe ~ 40k ehp - for 12km neut range (before the december patch). My Curse got a nice increase in nos range - by the way, can we increase the powergrid demands on noses to 5 billion powergrid, so it is easier to fit? Didn't figure out the laser subs yet but I'm more of a shield girl and fly my Phantasm instead, don't strangle me. Also tried to make the Sacrilege subsystems work but no dice. Can't really tell if it's too strong, so carry on and elaborate a little on that. I'd say the Legion is most definitely overpowered, unless someone is going to tell me that the Zealot I compared it to is way underpowered, and having flown Zealots before, I have to feel that the Zealot is most certainly NOT underpowered. My feelings on the Zealot: 9/10 would fly again. People aren't complaining about the Curse being overpowered but I wouldn't be surprised if it is. People seem to have difficulty understanding anything in the game other than DPS and tank, that's why they won't fly a HIC if it isn't basically a HAC plus extra. Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if people look at the DPS of the Curse and think it sucks. So maybe the subsystem on the Legion is fine, I don't know because I haven't used energy warfare much in PVP. You can get a lot more than 40k EHP with a 1600mm plate. 40k is the low end of T3Cs. With the t2 resists, high base HP, lots of powergrid, and plentiful CPU, the ship can easily get past 100k EHP with a T2 fit and still have room left over for weapon mods. One last point: without checking the hit points I had mentioned earlier in this thread that I think the hit points could be increased along with removing the T2 resists, and I suggested putting them as high as a navy ship. But after looking at them, I can see the T3C's base HP is already in pirate cruiser range. Legion: . . . . 2300 // 3400 // 1954 Ashimmu: . . 2290 // 2950 // 2325 FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2833	Posted - 2016.01.02 06:15:47 - [17] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: If every ship in the game is perfectly balanced, then the challenge in the game would be reduced to just knowing what the established strategies are for each ship. Imbalance creates challenges that make the game more interesting in my view. By having some ships that are really strong (above what you'd expect), facing them becomes more engaging in terms of ttying to counter them and different tactics need to be developed to face those ships. Once those tactics are developed, then that makes particular doctrines strong, which leads to more theory crafting to counter that. Many brilliant minds would agree with you here but I have to wholeheartedly disagree. There is some fun in finding the loopholes and exploiting them, but it is always polarizing. Everyone figures out what is best and gravitates toward it, and some things get left behind and unused. But in a truly balanced system, the ships are not by any means even, they simply are balanced to have effective counters while also being an effective counter to something else. It makes it so everything is good when applied properly, and the skill is in figuring out what you're likely to go up against. In a balanced system, people will always believe they are finding loopholes. People will always believe certain ships are underpowered, because in their experience it has been an underperformer. People will always believe certain ships are overpowered, because in their experience those ships have performed well. You can see this in EVE Online quite a bit, even though it is somewhat rare in other games, because EVE is one of the few games out there that's actually really well balanced. For example: I feel like the Tristan is overpowered, but I don't see anybody dominating with Tristans. Other people think the Arbitrator is underpowered, but I know from experience it is quite effective in many circumstances. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 42667	Posted - 2016.01.02 06:21:48 - [18] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: But in a truly balanced system, the ships are not by any means even, they simply are balanced to have effective counters while also being an effective counter to something else. It makes it so everything is good when applied properly, and the skill is in figuring out what you're likely to go up against. Yeah, I guess it comes down to what you accept as an 'effective counter'. Effective counter is an alternative to "disadvantage" (ie. some ships have advantages over others in particular situations and are counters, putting the other ship as a disadvantage). If you go to the more general "disadvantage" as opposed to counter, then skillpoint loss is a significant disadvantage to many players. Each to their own and not saying you are wrong, just putting an alternative view out their that the balance comes not only through direct ship counters, but also from other disadvantages. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2833	Posted - 2016.01.02 07:10:38 - [19] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Each to their own and not saying you are wrong, just putting an alternative view out their that the balance comes not only through direct ship counters, but also from other disadvantages. Those disadvantages can be factored into what is an effective counter, such as price. Any expensive ship can be countered with a bunch of cheap ships, and the cheap ships will win in ISK efficiency. But as I explained near the top of the OP, skillpoint loss on death of ship is not a good system to use as a disadvantage, because how much of a disadvantage it is to you varies directly by how good you are at keeping your ship intact and for some people it is not a disadvantage. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Tiddle Jr Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 669	Posted - 2016.01.02 08:27:58 - [20] - Quote first few thoughts of mine... - Make them fragile a little bit vs what they are atm. - Each offensive subsystem should be limited to one weapon of choice (amarr - lazors etc.) - Subsystem skill book - increase training time multiplier and make it eaqual to Strategic Cruiser with Rank 5
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 593	Posted - 2016.01.02 12:20:26 - [21] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: My battleships get between 900 and 2800 DPS. Battleship with 2800 dps? fit please?
Rawketsled Generic Corp Name 353	Posted - 2016.01.02 12:48:59 - [22] - Quote Celthric Kanerian wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: My battleships get between 900 and 2800 DPS. Battleship with 2800 dps? fit please? http://o.smium.org/new/1432463475451363328 Silly, but technically meets the requirements. I'd never be able to afford one.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 1016	Posted - 2016.01.02 13:38:25 - [23] - Quote Rawketsled wrote: Celthric Kanerian wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: My battleships get between 900 and 2800 DPS. Battleship with 2800 dps? fit please? http://o.smium.org/new/1432463475451363328 Silly, but technically meets the requirements. I'd never be able to afford one. You can still obtain the damage you want your fitting screen to show with green magstabs and a drone damage amplifier and an armor tank that deserves the name. Use Geckos, augmented orge, fed navy magstabs and there you go ~ 2500 or whatever dps. By the way I always find it funny when I tell vindicator pilots I will sink their uber-dps boat in a regular tech one boat and I do. Ask around. Reaver, I will have to come back to you on that. Just finished the last Legion subsystem book last week or so and haven't have the time to fiddle with fits. A few days ago when my proteus died, it kinda didn't feel any kind of owerpowered or I would have killed that phoon, the drake, the rattlesnake, the broadsword and the curse. People say a lot of things and I haven't flown a proteus much but the one billion boat died really quickly - even if the fitting screen told a different story. I may only recall my experiences but overpowered does look very different to me. 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.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2129	Posted - 2016.01.02 16:48:31 - [24] - Quote Proposes nerfs to a very popular ship class. Then picks one of the weakest ships in this class as his example of a ship that needs nerfs. Then proposes nerfs to the least offensive subsystem. All hail our scanning Legion overlords! Ladies and Gentlemen, Reaver Glitterstim! CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Rovinia Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 426	Posted - 2016.01.02 16:57:00 - [25] - Quote Perhaps T3 Cruisers should get "promoted" to Battlecruisers? Larger Sig Radius for better damage application on them, a bit slower align times, etc. I think the overlap between HAC's and T3 cruisers is the main problem because they fill more or less the same role in a fleet. One small niche the HAC has is it's high sensor strengh that makes it less vulnerable to jamming. Why not build up on that and give them some of the Electronic Warfare Resistances the Caps will get with the upcoming tiericide. E-War is a very powerful aspect in eve and it would give the HAC a more specialized role compared to the more versatile T3's.
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3908	Posted - 2016.01.02 16:58:58 - [26] - Quote Since when have HAcs had roles? Oh god.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3287	Posted - 2016.01.02 17:13:28 - [27] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Since when have HAcs had roles? They don't, but they have both good DPS and tank, T3s should have less tank and DPS than HACs. Ultimately T3s should be balanced as a cruiser, sorry this means they might no longer be viable for C5 and C6 WHs. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2833	Posted - 2016.01.02 17:25:16 - [28] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Proposes nerfs to a very popular ship class. Then picks one of the weakest ships in this class as his example of a ship that needs nerfs. Then proposes nerfs to the least offensive subsystem. All hail our scanning Legion overlords! Ladies and Gentlemen, Reaver Glitterstim! It's not my fault the Legion is the weakest, but if I'd picked the strongest you could have said that's actually the only one needing nerfs--but picking the weakest is the best because it really helps to drive my point home. But I didn't pick the Legion for its strengths or weaknesses, I picked it because it's the first in the list. I think I was pretty clear that all the strategic cruisers need this treatment. I proposed a nerf to a subsystem you don't see as a problem. Maybe part of the problem is that there are overpowered subsystems not getting used due to the presence of subsystems that are even further overpowered. I don't just let them slide by because nobody "feels" like they are overpowered. When I see overpowered I point it out. FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1254	Posted - 2016.01.02 18:08:00 - [29] - Quote there are easily a dozen things that need changing for T3's too be anywhere near balanced. - remove rigs - remove T2 resists - subs being bonus based only (possibly less bonuses than they have now) - build stats/hardpoints etc into the hull - remove SP penalty - subs need too be cheap 2mil ish each - reduce dps and EHP - reduce cpu and pg - reduce slots perhaps? - maybe split cargohold in half and add subsystem and module bays too make cargobays less hectic for ease of sub/module switching - e-war subs need some balancing -perhaps inbuilt maintenance bay for sub/mod switching (instead of using mobile depots) so point being at the end they could cost similar too T2 cruisers and have navy level tank and abilities (stats/bonuses) but with enhanced versatility with easily interchangeable subs (without rig restrictions and hefty priced subs and slots moving around with every sub change). 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
zbaaca Republic Military Tax Avoiders 84	Posted - 2016.01.02 23:16:39 - [30] - Quote tengu so op so it can do 1570 dps. p.s. another "nerf t3"... and nothing new past 3 years Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn GÖíGÖíGÖí

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.