| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Salvos Rhoska
2808
   |
Posted - 2017.04.24 16:45:35 -
[391] - Quote
Baltec1:
Your isk/SP wealth is not an excuse or a premise for balance.
You want T3Cs nerfed so hard, and specifically, that you will no longer field them in your PvP fleets.
That is a contradiction.
Why shouldnt T3Cs have cause to be fielded in PvP fleets?
A 100%+ increase in cost of replacing a T3C is a HUGE nerf.
Increase cost of T3Cs, and double the SP loss to two subsystems per destruction.
Equal in magnitude to your own proposal, but without the drawbacks of destroying the T3C/subsystem market, nor of makibg non-pvp fleet players and their content obsolete.
Do you not see that?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8347
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 16:55:13 -
[392] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) 40-50mil. Jesus...
That will wreck the T3C market.
Is that for just the hull, or including subsystems?
Including. It's a fair price to pay. Quote:
2) There isnt much space between T1s and specialised cruisers.
Many are asymmetrically aligned with pros/cons for that specialisation.
Doyldoesnt leave much space for a swiss-army knife.
There is a 300 power grid difference between the thorax and the demos as well as several differences in bonuses. There is plenty of wiggle room to play with. Quote:
3) What kind of PvE content could a T3C in your proposal comfortably run?
What DEDs, escalations, WH content?
Roughly the same as can be done with a navy cruiser. Quote:
4) What about training time into a T3C?
Not much change needed. Quote:
5) Why should such a gimped cruiser not be able to cloak/null simultaneously?
Because it makes it impossible to catch. 1) Is it even possible to reduce the cost of a T3C and subsystems to a 40-50mil cost? Wont that utterly wreck the market? Why punish manufacturers/material sourcers? Who would even buy the POS ships your changes make of T3Cs? Would you buy one? For what purpose? 2) PG is only one aspect of the existing differential between T1 and specialized cruisers. There are resist profiles, speeds, sigs, slots, etc that offer far more diversity across all cruiser classes, than the T3C in your proposal. 3) VNI can run a 5/10 with extreme difficulty (probably several warp outs and drone losses) and looong completion time, forget about it with other navy cruisers. If the T3C in your proposal cant match even that, that relegates them to HS 4/10s which other cruisers can already run even better. WH activity would be limited to C2 at most, and even that is a stretch. 4) Atleast, all T3C skills should be refunded (especially to stop extractor prices going through the roof) Only an idiot would skill into a T3C therafter, with no fleet use, and all other cruisers having better tank/dps to compete. EVE has never seen a class nerf as severe as the one you propose. You want to kill a class, just so you wont use them in fleet PvP. Its insane. 5) After your change, T3Cs are a T1-Navy cruiser that cant even run any content in NS. Wtf are you afraid of? What are they going to do? Attack a miner in NS and gets hotdropped by your ton of potatoes?
After your change, not even an idiot will run these ships in NS. Worse than that, nobody will use them AT ALL. Your change will not only kill the class, it will kill all the content it provides as well as the market that supplies it. All this, just so YOU WILL NO LONGER FIELD T3Cs IN YOUR NS FLEETS :D
If the changes you propose go through, I propose that all T3Cs should thereafter be referred to as "Baltecs"Ie: Completely useless pieces of space trash that only an idiot would consider valid. PvP fleets wont want you. You can run HS 4/10s worse than a Pirate cruiser. Navy cruisers will kick your teeth in PvP. May that be your legacy.
Won't this also kill reasons to go into wormholes and get the resources needed to build them? How many players whose "thing" is T3C production in WH now going the way of the blacksmith? Another era of abandoned WH structures...
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 17:04:04 -
[393] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Your isk/SP wealth is not an excuse or a premise for balance.
Again I point to titans to demonstrate that SP and ISK do not stop us from getting them in large numbers.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
You want T3Cs nerfed so hard, and specifically, that you will no longer field them in your PvP fleets.
That is a contradiction.
No thats what must happen. We will start using HACs in our HAC fleet again.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Why shouldnt T3Cs have cause to be fielded in PvP fleets?
They can be after the nerf, people use T1 hulls in fleets all the time, just not us.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A 100%+ increase in cost of replacing a T3C is a HUGE nerf.
Increase cost of T3Cs, and double the SP loss to two subsystems per destruction.
It nerfs nothing, T3C will still be a better HAC than a HAC.
|
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
96
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 17:16:30 -
[394] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Baltec1:
Your isk/SP wealth is not an excuse or a premise for balance.
You want T3Cs nerfed so hard, and specifically, that you will no longer field them in your PvP fleets.
That is a contradiction.
Why shouldnt T3Cs have cause to be fielded in PvP fleets?
A 100%+ increase in cost of replacing a T3C is a HUGE nerf.
Increase cost of T3Cs, and double the SP loss to two subsystems per destruction.
Equal in magnitude to your own proposal, but without the drawbacks of destroying the T3C/subsystem market, nor of makibg non-pvp fleet players and their content obsolete.
Do you not see that?
The issue for me isn't fielding T3's in a fleet. It's that often it's a fleet of just T3 filling all fleet roles.
But.... if the goal of T3 is to be able to be customized so it can fulfill almost any role or be a "jack of all trades" if configured that way... at no point should it be the BEST at any role. The specialized ships should be better.
And if they end up that way.... then you wouldn't want them in fleets... because with the fleet concept you want the specialized ships filling their roles, not a generalist ship... right?
To me... T3C's should be the ultimate solo roaming ship (which they already are). They should be able to do almost anything. But they should be able to do none of it as well as the specialized class of ships (particularly specialized cruisers) for the same role. If they're better than the specialized ships... why would any fleet ever bother with those when you can have 200 proteuses and nobody will know which ones are filling which roles without careful observation?
|
Salvos Rhoska
2818
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 17:30:40 -
[395] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Your isk/SP wealth is not an excuse or a premise for balance.
Again I point to titans to demonstrate that SP and ISK do not stop us from getting them in large numbers. Salvos Rhoska wrote:
You want T3Cs nerfed so hard, and specifically, that you will no longer field them in your PvP fleets.
That is a contradiction.
No thats what must happen. We will start using HACs in our HAC fleet again. Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Why shouldnt T3Cs have cause to be fielded in PvP fleets?
They can be after the nerf, people use T1 hulls in fleets all the time, just not us. Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A 100%+ increase in cost of replacing a T3C is a HUGE nerf.
Increase cost of T3Cs, and double the SP loss to two subsystems per destruction.
It nerfs nothing, T3C will still be a better HAC than a HAC.
1) You point to TITANS?
Are you joking?
Have you completely lost the plot?
Your isk/SP wealth is not material to balance.
2) Nothing is preventing you from using HACs right now.
You dont need T3Cs wiped out to the point YOU will no longer field them, inorder to use HACs.
3) So other people do use T1 cruisers in fleets, but just not you.
Hmmm.
4) Doubling the cost of of replacing a ship nerfs nothing?
Im pretty sure a +100% nerf to cost and SP loss combined will make many think twice about choosing another hull instead.
5) There is a hypocrisy and self-interested bias, in that you want to nerf T3Cs so hard, that your alliance even wont use them in PvP fleets. Stinks of "we dont want to use them, so neither should you!".
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 17:39:59 -
[396] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) You point to TITANS?
Are you joking?
Have you completely lost the plot?
Your isk/SP wealth is not material to balance.
Titans, the single most expensive and SP heavy ship in the game. If cost doesn't stop us from forming entire fleets of them then what makes you think isk and SP will stop us from getting anything else?
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
2) Nothing is preventing you from using HACs right now.
Why would we fly a HAC over a T3C?
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
3) So other people do use T1 cruisers in fleets, but just not you.
Hmmm.
Correct. You would know this if you paid any attention to what goes on in this game.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
4) Doubling the cost of of replacing a ship nerfs nothing?
Im pretty sure a +100% nerf to cost and SP loss combined will make many think twice about choosing another hull instead.
We dump fleets of ships worth 5 billion isk each in suicide runs. All you did is push T3C away from the smaller guys and give us an even greater advantage. |
Salvos Rhoska
2818
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 17:45:34 -
[397] - Quote
Scialt wrote:The issue for me isn't fielding T3's in a fleet.
But is for baltec1.
His proposal nerfs T3Cs to the state that he himself said his alliance would no longer field any of them.
He wants them wiped put of fleet PvP, entirely.
That is his primary impetus.
Secondary to that, he doesnt want cloak/null T3Cs interloping their space.
Third, he wants to wreck the T3C production/resource market.
Fourth, he wants T3C nomads to instead join NS alliances.
Fifth, he wants WHs nerfed, as no longer being able to field T3Cs to complete content there, and to reduce WH proceeds linked to T3C and subsystem manufacture.
This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 17:52:27 -
[398] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.
Again, how does nerfing most of the ships we use in our fleets and in our super hunting help me? |
Salvos Rhoska
2818
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:02:52 -
[399] - Quote
baltec1:
Lol at trying to skew this into a Malcanis Law issue by citing how many Titans you can field, how rich you are, and how little SP loss matters.
I see what you are trying.
Doubling the SP loss, and increasing build cost is sustainable by PvE pilots.
Can you say the same for your PvP fleets?
Aside from that, the tank on some specific T3C builds is the only extraneous issue that needs addressing.
I, and everyone else, agrees its too high.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2818
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:05:10 -
[400] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.
Again, how does nerfing most of the ships we use in our fleets and in our super hunting help me?
I answered this already.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
782
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:13:08 -
[401] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:People will adapt.
PvE content will adapt too? I brought Rattle and Domi for some DEDs in sansha lowsec once. It was hard to do DED 6 with them. Not to mention the risk in first place to take BS into lowsec. Low sig, speed tank, good dps - T3C. PvErs will not have alternatives to do content. Other cruiser won't work in lowsec and beyond. It's already super easy to catch explorers with non-dscan recons. Full clear Superior Sleeper Site can be done in T3C or Nestor...Who will bring Nestor? This is way beyond "I want to fly something else in fleets".
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction
Test Alliance Please Ignore
15675
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:19:36 -
[402] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:baltec1 wrote:People will adapt. PvE content will adapt too? I brought Rattle and Domi for some DEDs in sansha lowsec once. It was hard to do DED 6 with them. Not to mention the risk in first place to take BS into lowsec. Low sig, speed tank, good dps - T3C. PvErs will not have alternatives to do content. Other cruiser won't work in lowsec and beyond. It's already super easy to catch explorers with non-dscan recons. Full clear Superior Sleeper Site can be done in T3C or Nestor...Who will bring Nestor? This is way beyond "I want to fly something else in fleets".
Oh man this is not true at all. My low sec Machariel does 6/10s just fine and I have never lost one (MWD+Cloak+reffit to warp core stabs after doing a site). My low sec Rattlesnake can do any DED, and all but the most neut heavy lvl 5 missions, and if it gets caught on a gate, well they better bring enough DPS lol.
This is why it's good that T3Cs are getting the nerf bat. People have become so damn dependent on the things that they don't know how to do anything else. |
Cade Windstalker
1434
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:25:26 -
[403] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:1) You point to TITANS?
Are you joking?
Have you completely lost the plot?
Your isk/SP wealth is not material to balance.
2) Nothing is preventing you from using HACs right now.
You dont need T3Cs wiped out to the point YOU will no longer field them, inorder to use HACs.
3) So other people do use T1 cruisers in fleets, but just not you.
Hmmm.
4) Doubling the cost of of replacing a ship nerfs nothing?
Im pretty sure a +100% nerf to cost and SP loss combined will make many think twice about choosing another hull instead.
5) There is a hypocrisy and self-interested bias, in that you want to nerf T3Cs so hard, that your alliance even wont use them in PvP fleets. Stinks of "we dont want to use them, so neither should you!".
- Titans are the example CCP point to when discussing cost as a balance parameter. If a ship has no other restrictions on its use then cost is not a prohibiting factor in use of a ship. Massively increasing cost would make some people stop using T3Cs but not all that many and it wouldn't solve the core problem with the ships which is that if you bring a T3C vs a cheaper alternative the T3C just flat out wins, and it wins hard enough that a 2x increase in cost wouldn't make them lose the ISK war let alone the actual war.
T3Cs were still stupidly OP back when they cost more than twice what they do now just for the hull, and they were still getting used in fleet doctrines by a bunch of entities.
- Yeah we kinda do, because HACs don't get used because they're flat worse. Claiming that it's fine if no one wants to use something just because they *can* use it is ridiculous.
- I don't particularly care for his argument here, but I still think T3Cs will get used in fleets. Given what we know about the changes so far T3Cs will still be able to bring interesting combinations of abilities just at a lower level, so they'll still see use where ship slots are at a premium or where some niche needs to be filled. Plus if the SP loss is removed then they become an attractive option for newer players where they can access a large chunk of Cruiser gameplay without having to train a bunch of specialist T2 hulls.
- It really really won't. Maybe some smaller gang and solo pilots, but the major entities won't care as will the majority of older PvPers who make more than enough ISK to always PvP in the FOTM. Claiming that some certain ISK threshold will somehow make a ship not used without data to back it up is ridiculous.
- I'm pretty sure PL have proven already that they'll happily use whatever the FOTM is, often defining what it is by finding new ways to exploit existing ships to counter the current meta. That doesn't mean they're hypocritical for pointing out *why* they're only using this one sort of ship for basically all sizes of fleet and even solo play.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2818
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:28:26 -
[404] - Quote
T3Cs post baltecs nerf will barely be able to run a 4/10 in HS.
Your anecdotal testimony of running 6/10s in a Mach is hardly relevant.
If you are so secure, happy and successful running 6/10s in Mach, that is the opposite of a reason to nerf T3Cs to be unable to do so too.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
1666
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:30:13 -
[405] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:T3Cs post baltecs nerf will barely be able to run a 4/10 in HS. Your anecdotal testimony of running 6/10s in a Mach is hardly relevant. If you are so secure, happy and successful running 6/10s in Mach, that isnthe opposite of a reason to nerf T3Cs to be unable to do so too.
Earlier you said 5/10s.
Make up your mind. It's possible even through tears, to be consistent.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
182
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:30:49 -
[406] - Quote
The way I look at it is this. T3C should have never been released with the power and tank they have currently. They are hardly anything I'd have classified as a cruiser given their stats. They are a shining example of powercreep and must be brought into line so we can move forward. Hell, a T3BC would make more sense since the cost of a hull would likely rival that of a marauder for the hull alone. At least then you could explain a tank stronger than that of BB and higher/equal damage with much better damage application.
You complain about not being able to do high(er) end content because you don't want to risk a battleship because the T3C can currently do them safer. Your complaint stems from a lack of a safe alternatives, not lack of an alternative completely. So simply put, shut up and adapt like we all will have to. Gone will likely be the days where i can bridge my alts around in T3Cs to run null sites and I may have to upgrade to using Marauders the world is ending omg!!! HALP!!! FFS man, most people already just probe normal scan sites in an Astero or Stratios rather than T3Cs simply due to their cost/safety.
Seriously, if it becomes a problem CCP will reevaluate. This may even be their shining opportunity to start releasing the larger T3 hulls (BC/BB) which may fill your "safer alternative" gap. Look at what good can come from this rather than focusing on the damage it will do to your current playstyle you have adapted around a broken hull. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
782
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:34:45 -
[407] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Oh man this is not true at all. My low sec Machariel does 6/10s just fine and I have never lost one (MWD+Cloak+reffit to warp core stabs after doing a site). My low sec Rattlesnake can do any DED, and all but the most neut heavy lvl 5 missions, and if it gets caught on a gate, well they better bring enough DPS lol. That snake is an older fit btw, the one I tested on Sisi last year, been using it on the live server since then.
This is why it's good that T3Cs are getting the nerf bat. People have become so damn dependent on the overpowered things that they don't know how to do anything else.
Absurd. X-types? So you telling me that I need nullsec DED modules to do lowsec DED site? What is this? Show off?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:37:24 -
[408] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1:
Lol at trying to skew this into a Malcanis Law issue by citing how many Titans you can field, how rich you are, and how little SP loss matters.
I see what you are trying.
Doubling the SP loss, and increasing build cost is sustainable by PvE pilots.
Can you say the same for your PvP fleets?
Aside from that, the tank on some specific T3C builds is the only extraneous issue that needs addressing.
I, and everyone else, agrees its too high.
You make it more expensive taking it away from smaller groups and leave it to be entirely abused by the rich. Congrats, you just ****** the little guy. |
Cade Windstalker
1435
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:37:53 -
[409] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:T3Cs post baltecs nerf will barely be able to run a 4/10 in HS. Your anecdotal testimony of running 6/10s in a Mach is hardly relevant. If you are so secure, happy and successful running 6/10s in Mach, that is the opposite of a reason to nerf T3Cs to be unable to do so too.
Given that a VNI at the very least punches well above this *and* the fact that we haven't seen any actual numbers (from CCP or baltec1) I think you're stretching a bit making this claim. |
Salvos Rhoska
2818
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:40:32 -
[410] - Quote
Seems like it will happen anyways.
Sell your T3Cs and subsystems while you can.
Buy Extractors to get rid of useless SP before the price goes through the roof.
Sorry WH, you got shafted again.
Sorry nomads, you got wrecked.
NS entities wins again.
Just so they dont have to deal with T3Cs.
GJ EVE.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Legion
18889
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:43:41 -
[411] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.
Again, how does nerfing most of the ships we use in our fleets and in our super hunting help me? I answered this already.
You ignored it. |
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction
Test Alliance Please Ignore
15678
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:45:26 -
[412] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:T3Cs post baltecs nerf will barely be able to run a 4/10 in HS. Your anecdotal testimony of running 6/10s in a Mach is hardly relevant. If you are so secure, happy and successful running 6/10s in Mach, that is the opposite of a reason to nerf T3Cs to be unable to do so too.
Here we go into bizzaro world again.
I don't care whether Tech3s can do anything. But I am saying that nerfing the things are good, because you can see how terribly dependent people are on them. You can do content in any manner of other ship, but it's always just "Tech3 Tech3 Tech3".
CCp changing tech 3s will give people incentive to learn how to use other ships to do the things they want, which is not only good for them (variety is the cure for boredom), but good for the game.
|
Salvos Rhoska
2818
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:46:19 -
[413] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.
Again, how does nerfing most of the ships we use in our fleets and in our super hunting help me? I answered this already. You ignored it.
I ignored my own answer?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2818
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:47:53 -
[414] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: But I am saying that nerfing the things are good, because you can see how terribly dependent people are on them.
And yet that wasnt the case in the threads regarding removing cynos/caps from LS.
Hmmm!
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction
Test Alliance Please Ignore
15678
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:52:31 -
[415] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Oh man this is not true at all. My low sec Machariel does 6/10s just fine and I have never lost one (MWD+Cloak+reffit to warp core stabs after doing a site). My low sec Rattlesnake can do any DED, and all but the most neut heavy lvl 5 missions, and if it gets caught on a gate, well they better bring enough DPS lol. That snake is an older fit btw, the one I tested on Sisi last year, been using it on the live server since then.
This is why it's good that T3Cs are getting the nerf bat. People have become so damn dependent on the overpowered things that they don't know how to do anything else. Absurd. X-types? So you telling me that I need nullsec DED modules to do lowsec DED site? What is this? Show off?
the link contained my LEVEL 5 MISSION fit, you don't have to bling it near as much for a 6/10. The key to all DED sites is a micro Jump Drive btw.
The point is that your over-reliance on Tech3 ships is a good example of why they need nerfing. From your post, you dabbled with using other ships, but rather than sticking with it, learning how to use those ships, learning how to keep them alive in low sec, learning how to get better at EVE, you defaulted to Tech3 Cruiser like so many other people do.
This is bad for the game, this stifles the joy of learning, of overcoming adversity. Those things are what keep people playing, whereas making things too easy to do (which Tech3 cruisers have done to PVE content for years) is the path to boredom and loss of interest in the game.
The question for the crying Tengu pilots in this thread is simple, can you put aside your personal preference for a needed change that is good for the game? I've spent years reading the posts of most people in this thread, and this is exactly what you ask of the rest of us, so, can YOU do what you ask others to do?
because if you can you will admit that Tech3s are overpowered (especially the tengu in PVE) and welcome their rebalancing. |
Cade Windstalker
1435
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:56:06 -
[416] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Seems like it will happen anyways.
Sell your T3Cs and subsystems while you can.
Buy Extractors to get rid of useless SP before the price goes through the roof.
Sorry WH, you got shafted again.
Sorry nomads, you got wrecked.
Sorry T3C builders, new price is 40-50mil including subsystems.
NS entities wins again.
Just so they dont have to deal with T3Cs.
GJ EVE.
The sky is falling the sky is falling...
Gods you sound like Dinsdale right now.
In no particular order:
- baltec1 is not the one dictating the final stats of these ships.
- CCP are not going to nerf them into being unusable.
- Running around screaming that the sky is falling just brings to mind chicken little, it's not a very effective debate strategy.
- T3Cs being OP hurts pretty much everyone, not just large null groups. Anyone who wants to use a hull other than a T3C solo will get wrecked. Anyone who wants to use a small gang or fleet hull other than a T3C or a few Faction Battleships will likely get wrecked as well.
- There are plenty of examples of people playing the nomad without using a T3C, and T3Cs aren't even that good at it right now because of rigs. Being able to swap rigs around is a buff to this playstyle, not a nerf.
Now FFS please try to put together a reasonable argument instead of just chaining together vague insinuations, unverifiable claims, and ad hominem attacks... |
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction
Test Alliance Please Ignore
15679
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 18:57:56 -
[417] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: But I am saying that nerfing the things are good, because you can see how terribly dependent people are on them.
And yet that wasnt the case in the threads regarding removing cynos/caps from LS. Hmmm!
lol, so you think your crazy idea to screw over low sec is the same as this? It was explained to you that you would not see the results you are looking for in lwo sec by doing that, in fact you'd make it worse for actual low sec people (the same way Dominion Sov was meant to help small alliances but instead created the circumstances that turns small alliance sinto renter alliances that were less free than they had been).
Because it was your idea, you could not be sufficiently critical of it, and kept coming to the wrong conclusions despite the hordes of posters trying to explain the flaw to you.
Just like in this thread an honest look at T3s demonstrates what's wrong with them, and why CCP is changing them. Sure, i'll miss my Guristas MAZE runner Tengu and my Sansha 10/10 Loki, but I'm honest enough to say that I know those things should have never existed in the 1st place.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
782
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 19:05:27 -
[418] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Seems like it will happen anyways.
Sell your T3Cs and subsystems while you can.
Buy Extractors to get rid of useless SP before the price goes through the roof.
Sorry WH, you got shafted again.
Sorry nomads, you got wrecked.
Sorry T3C builders, new price is 40-50mil including subsystems.
NS entities wins again.
Just so they dont have to deal with T3Cs.
GJ EVE.
Who broke Salvos? baltec1 is that you?
Nobody actually knows what will the changes be Salvos, so get your s*** together man. From what I already saw on fanfest changes are reasonable. SP loss suggest the nerf may not be so severe as we all thinking.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction
Test Alliance Please Ignore
15680
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 19:09:34 -
[419] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Now FFS please try to put together a reasonable argument instead of just chaining together vague insinuations, unverifiable claims, and ad hominem attacks...
I doubt this is possible. Most of the people on the "don't touch my T3C" side are responding to to an impending "loss" ie CCP has told them that their long ride on the good ship SS Overpower is ending. They are reacting normally if irrationally.
There are so many examples of this in EVE's history. I think my favorite was the end of the "high sec lvl 5 missions".
When CCP introduced lvl5 missions, the inadvertantly created a bug that let people spawn them in high sec systems 1 jump from low sec. CCP immediately identified it as a bug and stated clearly that lvl 5 missions were meant and designed for low security space, but they classified it as low priority, so for three years they left it in the game before finally fixing it.
One day around 2009 they announced they were getting around to fixing it. OMG it was crazy how people rushed tothe forums and proclaimed the end of EVE was nigh. They rationalized all kinds of excuses:
-high sec Lvl 5 missions let "the little guy" compete with the big null sec blocs in terms of income.
-high sec lvl 5s sometimes kill the passive tanked rattlesnakes and ishtar's that people do them with, so if you remove them you are hurting the builders of ishtar's and rattlesnakes!!!
-There are people who invade high sec lvl 5 missions and steal the loot from the mission runners, removing high sec lvl 5s hurts can flippers/loot stealers!!!
-some people are just in the game for high sec lvl 5s, remove them and they will unsub and CCP will lose money!!!!!
-"I fund my solo pvp with hs lvl 5s, taking them away won't make me move to low sec, it will just mean I can't pvp as much, CCP you are killing solo pvp with this"!!!!
On and on and on the BS went. They'd become so used to the easy and safe isk of high sec lvl 5s that it didn't matter one bit how it was abusing a known bug that was never intended. They literally did not care.
Well, it's the same here with Tech3 cruisers, is it not?
|
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction
Test Alliance Please Ignore
15680
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 19:12:22 -
[420] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Seems like it will happen anyways.
Sell your T3Cs and subsystems while you can.
Buy Extractors to get rid of useless SP before the price goes through the roof.
Sorry WH, you got shafted again.
Sorry nomads, you got wrecked.
Sorry T3C builders, new price is 40-50mil including subsystems.
NS entities wins again.
Just so they dont have to deal with T3Cs.
GJ EVE.
ok, everyone, read the above, then read what I wrote about high Sec lvl 5 missions. Now look me in the virtual eye and tell me I didn't just nail it !  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |