EVE Search - Strategic Cruisers - specifically what fixes they need

Check My IP Information

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)
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 993	Posted - 2016.01.07 10:13:32 - [121] - Quote The problem with cerbfleets is at a moderate number, they become capable of volleying logi. It's terribly irksome.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2844	Posted - 2016.01.07 10:19:02 - [122] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: The problem with cerbfleets is at a moderate number, they become capable of volleying logi. It's terribly irksome. There's a lot of things that can do that.....like Muninn fleet. Just saying. 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."
RcTamiya SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart. 55	Posted - 2016.01.07 10:19:59 - [123] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: The problem with cerbfleets is at a moderate number, they become capable of volleying logi. It's terribly irksome. Yea but you need a lot of them, however you only need either 50 Proteuses/Cerbs or 15 Lokis to 1 shot a Guardian @ 35k Missiles have traveltime and you're not 100% synced, because of this you can'T get vollyed by missiles that easy, also never ever fight Cerbs without Firewall :)
Mr Floydy Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 295	Posted - 2016.01.07 13:29:52 - [124] - Quote Rawketsled wrote: My understanding is that T3Cs are meant to be flexible, not strictly generalist. Yes, this. I wish the whole "T3 = generalist" idea would die in a fire. I think it all stems back to that single slide that one of the Devs posted years back as an idea they were discussing when they started balancing ships. It's been taken completely out of scope since then. If T3s are made worse than T1 like some seem to want, they will not get used at all. This would suck both from the loss of fun ships and likely contribute towards a bigger decline of WH activity. If T3 Cruisers were as OP as some people in this thread out there would be a nice screenshot showing all 4 T3s right at the top of a "most kills by ship" chart. T3s may have flaws, they're too good at some things but they're no worse than a lot of other ships in the game.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 1020	Posted - 2016.01.07 18:14:08 - [125] - Quote Hold on, while I had more time to think about the topic, this is more of a complaint that deadspace and faction modules are making the ships what they do. Would the same be true if they were all tech 2 fit? No it would not. I think all of this discussion about the magic "tech 3" is moot because you will have one or more deadspace mods on them to do what they do. I did try the same approach to get to the bazillions of ehp you folks always talk about and even with high-grade slaves it just wasn't possible - well my Damnation could. It stance to reason all the magic is coming from modules you put on. I am very sorry to have debunked your claims. 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.
Mr Floydy Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 299	Posted - 2016.01.07 18:52:57 - [126] - Quote ^^ Exactly one of my earlier points. It's a 500m hull, spending another 1b on faction/deadspace mods is a non issue for 99% of people flying them. Found the Damage Profiles chart.... http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/68894/1/DamageProfiles_2015_shipsweapons.pdf Look at how overwhelming the T3 dps is there.... Clearly there is no reason to fly HACs, Cruisers or Battleships because of how powerful T3s are... Oh wait, other classes have their advantages too, maybe that's why people fly them.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 631	Posted - 2016.01.07 19:22:27 - [127] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: I honestly feel like T3 cruisers are in a pretty decent spot right now. They are viable as a high end fleet composition, but have counters. And they have some uses in nearly every part of space. I just do not see them as cancerous or so obviously superior to every other possible ship at every possible role. Frankly, if they are a better choice than the Zealot or the Eagle, I am okay with that, because those ships are fairly weak. Unlike some, I am unwilling to gut what is left of WH space in order to put T3 cruisers in a neat spot between T1 and T2 just because that is where someone thought they should be. For the next iteration of T3 cruiser adjustments, I am all in favor of making them closer to Battlecruisers in sig radius and speed, but also making the weaker subsystems more viable options. that's kind of what i was basing my earlier post on
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found 2128	Posted - 2016.01.07 20:53:32 - [128] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: ^^ Exactly one of my earlier points. It's a 500m hull, spending another 1b on faction/deadspace mods is a non issue for 99% of people flying them. Found the Damage Profiles chart.... http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/68894/1/DamageProfiles_2015_shipsweapons.pdf Look at how overwhelming the T3 dps is there.... Clearly there is no reason to fly HACs, Cruisers or Battleships because of how powerful T3s are... Oh wait, other classes have their advantages too, maybe that's why people fly them. I can't work out if you are being sarcastic or genuine... That data clearly shows that cruisers are doing the most damage followed by HACs... Tech 3 cruisers only come into the picture when you look at the damage done by hybrid weapon systems. This is due to the fact that 2 out of the 4 T3 cruisers can you hybrids and both rails and blasters are used in many doctrines today. Also, please show we an example of a typical fleet doctrine T3 that costs 1.5 billion. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Phoenix Jones Small-Arms Fire 1599	Posted - 2016.01.07 21:40:49 - [129] - Quote Well there are three things that need to be considered with t3's. First is the role, second their abilities, third their stats. Regarding role.... To be honest they never should have been a cruiser in the first place. Their stats and specs and cost scream battle cruiser. Assuming they are rebranded as battle cruisers, mass, speed, inertia, etc, all need to be reconfigured. Regarding ability, assuming they turn into battle cruisers, they could keep their ability to be buffers/links, but the ability to be interdiction nullified needs to be questioned. In addition, their subsystems are too varied to be viable. You could throw out 1/4 of the subsystems and merge their abilities with the left over and have both a stronger subsystem lineup, and less useless subsystems in total. Regarding stats. The t3's need to be more inline ehp wise with its similar ship brothers (inline with the t1 ships in base ehp not the pirate ships in base ehp. They can be tweaked a bit but if they are in the battle cruiser realm, their speed and application will be more towards how the BC's work. I think half of the issue with t3's is solely labeling. They are not cruisers. They are battle cruisers. Yaay!!!!
Mr Floydy Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 304	Posted - 2016.01.08 09:49:21 - [130] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: I can't work out if you are being sarcastic or genuine... That data clearly shows that cruisers are doing the most damage followed by HACs... Tech 3 cruisers only come into the picture when you look at the damage done by hybrid weapon systems. This is due to the fact that 2 out of the 4 T3 cruisers can you hybrids and both rails and blasters are used in many doctrines today. Also, please show we an example of a typical fleet doctrine T3 that costs 1.5 billion. Definitely sarcastic! As I've been saying, T3s are not half as broken as some people are saying :) Imagine your average WH space T3 doctrine costs that sort of isk - certainly for the bigger high class WH groups, doubt it's the same out in null however.

Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio The OSS 1003	Posted - 2016.01.08 10:19:14 - [131] - Quote The fit I linked for a prot was one we have used at a fleet level. Value varies depending on market, but always over a billion on average. To be fair, there's not a lot left to add to it. One could faction the magstabs and deadspace the hardeners, I suppose.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3302	Posted - 2016.01.08 21:56:56 - [132] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Snip They are not cruisers. They are battle cruisers. I disagree, they were made during a time when tiers were and were probably thought T3 should be the absolute best because T2 < T1 so T3 < T2 Just as many ships have had there roles changed and there stats tweaked and adjusted so should T3 Cruisers. And they should be pushed back into the realm of cruisers not arbitrarily pushed into Battlecruisers because. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Valacus Streets of Fire 121	Posted - 2016.01.08 23:07:51 - [133] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Hold on, while I had more time to think about the topic, this is more of a complaint that deadspace and faction modules are making the ships what they do. Would the same be true if they were all tech 2 fit? No it would not. I think all of this discussion about the magic "tech 3" is moot because you will have one or more deadspace mods on them to do what they do. I did try the same approach to get to the bazillions of ehp you folks always talk about and even with high-grade slaves it just wasn't possible - well my Damnation could. It stance to reason all the magic is coming from modules you put on. I am very sorry to have debunked your claims. You haven't debunked anything. The Proteus goes up to a 210k tank without slaves with a mere 750mil, and that's fully fitted. That's half of the 1.5bil everyone keeps claiming they do cost, but those claims are plain wrong. With a starting T2 resist profile coupled with an automatic buffer bonus, T3Cs have no problem reaching outrageous tanks while still falling at a moderate price point. Clearly, ISK cost is not much of a barrier to the T3C gang because alliances still field fleets of hundreds of them at a time on a daily basis, and those alliances even SRP their members losses! You can't possibly tell me, "Oh yea, well ISK balances it!" ISK has never balanced anything. When nano-HACs were a thing, they cost in the upwards of the 1-1.5bil price mark too, but they were still cancer and they still had to be nerfed. Throwing money at ship's to make them uncatchable and unkillable is not a good thing for this game and it never has been. When Angel ships were all the rage, 500mil Dramiel's were pretty much invincible. "Oh, but it's a 500 mil frigate!" Yea, that didn't seem to stop oceans of people from fitting them out, undocking, and wreaking havoc with them, now did it? Uncatchable Cynabals were just as OP, but nothing was worse than a Mach that could top 6K a second while still pumping out world ending DPS and aligning like a cruiser. And that was back when just the hull was over 1bil. It was still stupid and it still had to be nerfed because it was simply bad for the game. "Oh, but it's only good if you dead space fit it!" has never been a good argument for why a ship should remain in the OP realm, especially given the falling prices of faction and dead space modules. Throwing ISK at a ship until it becomes OP should never be a thing, and you really don't have to throw that much at a T3C to make it stupidly powerful.
Phoenix Jones Small-Arms Fire 1602	Posted - 2016.01.08 23:55:04 - [134] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: Snip They are not cruisers. They are battle cruisers. I disagree, they were made during a time when tiers were and were probably thought T3 should be the absolute best because T2 < T1 so T3 < T2 Just as many ships have had there roles changed and there stats tweaked and adjusted so should T3 Cruisers. And they should be pushed back into the realm of cruisers not arbitrarily pushed into Battlecruisers because. There are a few reasons why I say they lean on the realm of being a battle cruiser vs a cruiser... There stats, mainly dps and tank, are all on the higher end of most cruiser configurations... There line, fits more in with the progression t3d's now that they exist (the jump from destroyer to battle cruiser, going above its predecessor frigates and cruiser. There is a massive flood of cruiser ships in eve, while battle cruisers are at half the amount of cruisers that exist. Value. The cost of t3's are more inline with battle cruisers than with cruisers. Now if the only real fear is that they'll have issues regarding mass because.. Well battle cruisers have more mass than cruisers/t3's. Merely bump up the mass of t3's and add a reduction bonus to the basic main t3 skill book (currently it adds heat reduction, add mass reduction to it. The rest of the stats can be based around the functionality of battle cruisers, and it would also buff up the battle cruiser rank). There are a lot that can be done with t3's, I just believe part of it can be handled by a mere rebrand. Yaay!!!!
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2847	Posted - 2016.01.09 08:10:41 - [135] - Quote I can agree that strategic cruisers aren't hugely overpowered after considering their price. Now there are those who would say that price is a non-factor, some folks are so rich they would buy titans with ISK just to stick em in a hangar somewhere, if titans were actually on the market for ISK. Perhaps that is partly why I disagree with having a ship so powerful and expensive that is so small. I wouldn't mind if that price tag were on a tech 3 battlecruiser, but I'd really like to see the cost and power of the strategic cruiser brought down a whole lot. It's too much for a cruiser. The reason there aren't more people abusing it is because people that spacerich aren't as common as some will have you believe. 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."
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 294	Posted - 2016.01.09 14:42:52 - [136] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: Snip They are not cruisers. They are battle cruisers. I disagree, they were made during a time when tiers were and were probably thought T3 should be the absolute best because T2 < T1 so T3 < T2 Just as many ships have had there roles changed and there stats tweaked and adjusted so should T3 Cruisers. And they should be pushed back into the realm of cruisers not arbitrarily pushed into Battlecruisers because. There are a few reasons why I say they lean on the realm of being a battle cruiser vs a cruiser... There stats, mainly dps and tank, are all on the higher end of most cruiser configurations... There line, fits more in with the progression t3d's now that they exist (the jump from destroyer to battle cruiser, going above its predecessor frigates and cruiser. There is a massive flood of cruiser ships in eve, while battle cruisers are at half the amount of cruisers that exist. Value. The cost of t3's are more inline with battle cruisers than with cruisers. Now if the only real fear is that they'll have issues regarding mass because.. Well battle cruisers have more mass than cruisers/t3's. Merely bump up the mass of t3's and add a reduction bonus to the basic main t3 skill book (currently it adds heat reduction, add mass reduction to it. The rest of the stats can be based around the functionality of battle cruisers, and it would also buff up the battle cruiser rank). There are a lot that can be done with t3's, I just believe part of it can be handled by a mere rebrand. Very good post and I agree that T3Cs should be upgraded to BC class because personally I'm getting nauseated about how everyone is always comparing T3Cs to the cruiser lineup. Since CSs are getting molded more and more into fleet supporting roles instead of combatant, it's the perfect opportunity for T3s to be re-establish in a class that desperately needs a T2 or T3 ship class purely intended for combat. Edit: It would also silence the baltec1 fanatics chat "T3Cs are cruisers and should have cruiser ehp, not BS ehp" yada yada.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3302	Posted - 2016.01.09 17:51:09 - [137] - Quote Daniela Doran wrote: Very good post and I agree that T3Cs should be upgraded to BC class because personally I'm getting nauseated about how everyone is always comparing T3Cs to the cruiser lineup. Well that would be because they are cruisers, so it makes sense to compare them to other cruisers. Daniela Doran wrote: Since CSs are getting molded more and more into fleet supporting roles instead of combatant. That's always where they have been, but on the contrary they have had there combat competency increased after there balance pass. Daniela Doran wrote: Edit: It would also silence the baltec1 fanatics chat "T3Cs are cruisers and should have cruiser ehp, not BS ehp" yada yada. He is correct though, they should have cruiser HP, because you know, they are cruisers. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3302	Posted - 2016.01.09 17:53:39 - [138] - Quote In regards to those who question where the idea of T3 Cruisers being Generalists ships. CCP Nozh wrote: In the grand scheme of things we want Tech 3 ships to take a much broader role than any other ship class. Whereas Tech 2 ships are highly focused, Tech 3 ships will fulfill multiple roles through customization and versatility. Taken from the Dev Blog when T3 Cruisers were first introduced. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Alexis Nightwish 379	Posted - 2016.01.10 05:13:47 - [139] - Quote Haven't read the whole thread, but since this is a "nerf T3s" thread that actually has some traction here's my 0.2 ISK: CCP should have never called them Tech 3. It is impossible to get people, including CCPs own development team, to remember that *they are supposed to be less powerful* but more adaptable than Tech 2*. "3 > 2, thus T3 has to be more powerful than T2" <-- is how everyone thinks, even subconsciously, which is why they've been a broken OP plague for 7 damn years! What CCP should have done is called them Adaptive Tech. Yes there'd be a little confusion with the shorthand of "AT" given that there's "Alliance Tourney" ships, but since you only see Tourney ships in the rare ALOD, I don't see it as a big deal. Anyone seeing an Adaptive Tech Cruiser would know that it's a wildcard. Is it tank fit? DPS fit? EWAR fit? Kite fit? Brawler? WTF will I be fighting!? That's the power of an ATC, not the bullshit of high cruiser/BC DPS and application, cruiser sig, BC speed, BS tank(!), all because it has a '3' in the description. If I had my way these are just a few of the changes I'd make: No more SP loss on destruction. This removes the gun from CCPs head that's preventing them from nerfing the entire class into the ground where it belongs. Base resists would become equal to T1. There would be subsystems for interdiction nullification, cloaking, resists, local repair, and buffer HP. These would ALL be defensive subsystems. So you get to choose ONE of them to use at any one time. Strategic Cruisers would have a special bay called a Subsystem Hold which can only store subsystems. Base size is 100m3 + 20%/level of racial Strategic Cruiser. All Strategic Cruisers would have the following role bonus: Modules and subsystems may be fitted and unfitted without the need for a fitting service. This bonus does not take effect if you have a weapons timer. All Strategic Cruisers would have the following role bonus: Rigs may be removed without destroying them. All Strategic Cruisers would have the following role bonus: 95% reduction in capacitor cost for onlining modules. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge* EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 295	Posted - 2016.01.10 06:58:27 - [140] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Very good post and I agree that T3Cs should be upgraded to BC class because personally I'm getting nauseated about how everyone is always comparing T3Cs to the cruiser lineup."Well that would be because they are cruisers, so it makes sense to compare them to other cruisers". Which is why I agree that their current cruiser class status should be upgraded to the BC class. Omnathious Deninard wrote: Since CSs are getting molded more and more into fleet supporting roles instead of combatant."That's always where they have been, but on the contrary they have had there combat competency increased after there balance pass". When CCP molded the 2 different types of CSs into one class and reduced their turrets from 7 to 5, they were altered, not rebalanced. The CSs hasn't gotten a proper rebalance in 5 years. Back in 2012 A combat fitted Sleipnir using 220 ACs was a 950-1k dps brawling beast. Now you're lucky if you can get 850dps out of the Sleipnir using 425 ACs. Omnathious Deninard wrote: Edit: It would also silence the baltec1 fanatics chat "T3Cs are cruisers and should have cruiser ehp, not BS ehp" yada yada. "He is correct though, they should have cruiser HP, because you know, they are cruisers". And if CCP upgrades their status to the BC class, what would be the argument then?

oohthey ioh Republic University Minmatar Republic 33	Posted - 2016.01.10 09:35:38 - [141] - Quote Keep the t2 resistance, but only on some supsystem, and the supsystem that has high resistance have an disadvantage to retrieving remote reps, mak8 ng them forcing different stats for fleet pvp and solo. And keep it so they have more then one bouse, but add some disadvantages to the subsystem.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1363	Posted - 2016.01.10 13:26:06 - [142] - Quote I would also add altering the Ewar subs to be stronger than the recon variants but with no range bonuse similar to the rr subsystems Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1363	Posted - 2016.01.10 13:28:41 - [143] - Quote oohthey ioh wrote: Keep the t2 resistance, but only on some supsystem, and the supsystem that has high resistance have an disadvantage to retrieving remote reps, mak8 ng them forcing different stats for fleet pvp and solo. And keep it so they have more then one bouse, but add some disadvantages to the subsystem. You would be better off giving one sub the higher resists but lower potential ehp making reps more effective on them but weakening them to alpha Citadel worm hole tax
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3308	Posted - 2016.01.10 14:26:20 - [144] - Quote I really should update my T3 Curiser revision to a more updates thought process and post it (or link it). If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2858	Posted - 2016.01.11 03:50:55 - [145] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: oohthey ioh wrote: Keep the t2 resistance, but only on some supsystem, and the supsystem that has high resistance have an disadvantage to retrieving remote reps, mak8 ng them forcing different stats for fleet pvp and solo. And keep it so they have more then one bouse, but add some disadvantages to the subsystem. You would be better off giving one sub the higher resists but lower potential ehp making reps more effective on them but weakening them to alpha That's what I was going to say. Give some subs T2 resists, but lower their base HP far enough that when omni-tanked they will have lower EHP than with the T1 resist subs. The T2 resist subs could get higher EHP when focusing tank toward 1-2 damage types that they have the resist bonus for, esp. in PVE where you can know what kind of damage is coming in. 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."
Lugh Crow-Slave 1371	Posted - 2016.01.12 05:27:14 - [146] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: oohthey ioh wrote: Keep the t2 resistance, but only on some supsystem, and the supsystem that has high resistance have an disadvantage to retrieving remote reps, mak8 ng them forcing different stats for fleet pvp and solo. And keep it so they have more then one bouse, but add some disadvantages to the subsystem. You would be better off giving one sub the higher resists but lower potential ehp making reps more effective on them but weakening them to alpha That's what I was going to say. Give some subs T2 resists, but lower their base HP far enough that when omni-tanked they will have lower EHP than with the T1 resist subs. The T2 resist subs could get higher EHP when focusing tank toward 1-2 damage types that they have the resist bonus for, esp. in PVE where you can know what kind of damage is coming in. Problem I see worth t2 resists is it detracts from the adaptive nature of the T3 I think there should be a resist sib worth lower ehp than the buffer sub period abs not pidgin hole them into one resist profile Citadel worm hole tax
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17099	Posted - 2016.01.13 09:13:45 - [147] - Quote Daniela Doran wrote: And if CCP upgrades their status to the BC class, what would be the argument then? Nerf them to be BC. No matter how you class them they need a hefty nerf in several areas, most noticeably in tank. If they stay as cruisers (and they will)then they need to lose the massive buffer coupled with t2 resists, lose some fitting room so you have to make hard choices like every other cruiser, lose a chunk of the capacitor capability so they cant be easily made to be cap stable and remove the ability to have both the cov ops cloak and nullification ability at the same time. The issues with their boosting thankfully is getting dealt with via the OGB removal. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1255	Posted - 2016.01.13 21:30:15 - [148] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Daniela Doran wrote: And if CCP upgrades their status to the BC class, what would be the argument then? Nerf them to be BC. No matter how you class them they need a hefty nerf in several areas, most noticeably in tank. If they stay as cruisers (and they will)then they need to lose the massive buffer coupled with t2 resists, lose some fitting room so you have to make hard choices like every other cruiser, lose a chunk of the capacitor capability so they cant be easily made to be cap stable and remove the ability to have both the cov ops cloak and nullification ability at the same time. The issues with their boosting thankfully is getting dealt with via the OGB removal. not that you're on the csm anymore but any idea when they will rebalance them? and if they will remove rigs altogether 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
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 1022	Posted - 2016.01.14 00:10:10 - [149] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ...Problem I see worth t2 resists is it detracts from the adaptive nature of the T3 I think there should be a resist sub with lower ehp than the buffer sub period as not to pidgin hole them into one resist profile That might be a better approach. I am however concerned that by all the outcries for nerfs, not everything there is is being considered. And again I have to remind everyone but you that there are unknown areas of space that do mess with your unstoppable tech 3 boat- - A Legion and A Proteus will have a really bad day in a class 4 and up Pulsar and the almighty tengu will have the worst day of her life in a class 3-6 Magnetar system. What maybe good for one boat is the fate of another. But please everyone keep ignoring the fineprint of effect wormholes until they effect you and be painfully reminded that it was you that called for the nerf you wanted. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17101	Posted - 2016.01.14 10:51:24 - [150] - Quote Harvey James wrote: baltec1 wrote: Daniela Doran wrote: And if CCP upgrades their status to the BC class, what would be the argument then? Nerf them to be BC. No matter how you class them they need a hefty nerf in several areas, most noticeably in tank. If they stay as cruisers (and they will)then they need to lose the massive buffer coupled with t2 resists, lose some fitting room so you have to make hard choices like every other cruiser, lose a chunk of the capacitor capability so they cant be easily made to be cap stable and remove the ability to have both the cov ops cloak and nullification ability at the same time. The issues with their boosting thankfully is getting dealt with via the OGB removal. not that you're on the csm anymore but any idea when they will rebalance them? and if they will remove rigs altogether Never been on the CSM I wouldn't expect any t3 changes until after the capital changes, likely not before vegas. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship



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.