These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Talos needs to be nerfed. Long live the Vagabond!

First post
Author
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#121 - 2012-12-16 02:31:00 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
Do you get what my sulky rants were all about now Liang?


I always knew what your complaints were about - I just disagreed. I don't think that the Tier 3s are horrible design. I like the fact that there's a giant glass cannon out there that lets you whack and be whacked with abandon. I like the fact that it's just good enough that people are encouraged to fly it, without being so good that people feel that they must fly it.

The biggest down side that I can see from these ships is that they're using BS sized weapons - with all the good and all the bad that brings. They come with battleship sized EFT DPS, and that attracts people despite the fact it's quite difficult to bring the full brunt to bear. They also come with battleship sized engagement ranges - and that's where I think the Tier 3s are most problematic.

I feel like that's one of the reasons I've been shifting so hard towards things like 100mn tracking fits. A small gang PVPer like me must find a way to even the odds a bit when people are bringing more than we have and upshipping us. I think I've found some ships which are better at it than the Talos, so we probably won't be seeing me flying the Talos anymore. Which is a shame, because it's such a dead sexy looking ship.

Quote:

CCP are reproducing everything that was wrong with the Drake (while nerfing the perfectly acceptable sides of the Drake and not dealing with the true problem that hull and class was facing). I know it sounds very doom-prophetic, but essentially: They're turning everything into the "Drake" (not the Drake, but the "Drake", the roots of all issues and complaints regarding it's popularity). Take a score of Thorax with Execs and you will contend with any Deimos-Oneiros gang out there (they don't wanna fight you, because the risk-reward of doing so is completely up-ended). You will scare the risk-encouragement out of the smaller-ganged Proteus pilots out there creating content and so forth - but you will not contend with the proverbial "Drake" or "bottom". Wether that bottom is a sizable fleet of Drakes, Talos or Baddon/Rokh/Mael, or blap Dreads/Carriers. You do nothing to shake up the hegemony of buffer-projection, in fact, you obscure the few options that had potential to interact with it out-of-box - same as the tier 3 BC did.


This was always true though. It's never been a good idea to take your T2 and pirate ships up against people that were T1 blobbing. I think it'll be interesting to see where they go with the T2/Faction mixup. I'm mildly encouraged by the results from the T1 rebalancing, and I certainly appreciate that we have actual reasons to fly around in Ruptures - despite the fact that they're outright worse than the Vaga and Muninn.

It almost feels like what you're really complaining about is a Gallente centric complaint. That's why you complain about the Talos but not the Oracle or Tornado. I don't feel that the Rupture and Stabber obsolete the Vaga and Cynabal... but I kinda do feel that way about the Atron/Taranis and Thorax/Deimos. The answer is trivial as to why - the level of commit is equal for both and the level of survival and result is about the same. I look forward to seeing what the balancing team does to the HAC lineup.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#122 - 2012-12-16 05:45:25 UTC
As i cba to argue anymore (seriously liang you are terrible at this game), in essence yes the talos (and tier3s in general) are to good at what they do now, and they atm completly obsolete the vagabond/cynabal but there is no point in making threads about this as ccp has already acknoledged this fact and they are going to nerf them, and they also are going to change the vagabond and possibly the cynabal!


Also if you like to fly a talos fly a 10mn one, the 100mn can be great fun and in the right situation it can pull off some pretty crazy stuff but all in all its not worth it and they suck pretty bad if used in a solo environement!
Valea Silpha
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2012-12-16 09:34:40 UTC
I'm continually impressed by how much rage Liang can generate even after all these years. Seriously; kudos dude.

Personally I don't have hugely strong feelings on this issue. The vaga is still fine at what its always been good at (ie running and gunning and running away) and it takes skills and a little luck (in terms of where you drop from warp) to use them well either solo or in a gang.

The tier 3 BCs are getting a bit of a kick to their mobility, which I think is well deserved. No matter what people will still use them because they do lots of DPS and are pretty cheap. They are in all respects here to stay.

Now... if you want to talk about ships that need some relative balancing, the vaga and the cynable perhaps need some looking at...
Klown Walk
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
#124 - 2012-12-16 10:31:38 UTC
What's wrong with the cynabal?
Maelle LuzArdiden
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2012-12-16 13:15:56 UTC
Noisrevbus,

Are you aware that this situation where T1 is practically as viable as T2 is just temporary, and a direct result of dev resource scarcity, not their intention?

Quote:
The problem with the Talos is that it is too offensively allround competent for it's "position" in the game. It breaks a fundamental part of overall ship balance and game design in EVE centered around rock-paper-scissor-lizard-spock.


What do you think is the "position" of a tier 3 BC?

It is an expensive battlecruiser, with higher SP requirements than the others. Battlecruisers in general are indeed the most offensively allround competent ships in EVE, this we all know. Why tier 3s would be more of an issue?

Quote:
The Talos itself is part of that "bottom" and it creates a situation where more Talos is overblown better than fewer Talos. More Talos is overblown better than fewer Vagas.


Wut, more is always better, has been and will be. You can create a new ship and give it totally random attributes ranging from 1 to millions, and more of that ship is still always overblown better.

This is your hegemony of buffer-projection, and as sad as it is, it's the fundamental mechanic of any system based on reducing X from Y. When X>Y, killmail happens. Also, I find it contradictory when at the same time you despise having the numbers, and only consider upengaging as goodfights. And think that a Thorax+Exeq gang somehow creates less content than a Proteus gang.

I think the exact opposite is true. More people having access to viable ships means more engagements all around, and giving players cheap, low-SP role ships makes the engagements better, longer and more fun to everybody, while at the same time improving the individual and team skills.

In short, tiericide is the single best thing CCP ever did to promote goodfights. Fly out to low and see for yourself :)

Sven Hammerstorm
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#126 - 2012-12-16 16:15:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Hammerstorm
Until this thread I actually thought Liang knew something about this game Oops
I've been proven terribly wrong, it just sounds like he has never actually flown the ship in the fit other people here discuss
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#127 - 2012-12-16 17:47:27 UTC
Sven Hammerstorm wrote:
Until this thread I actually thought Liang knew something about this game Oops
I've been proven terribly wrong, it just sounds like he has never actually flown the ship in the fit other people here discuss


Until this thread I thought you knew... oh wait, I have no idea who you are. Yes, I've flown both variants and I have a really strong dislike for the Talos as discussed because of a lack of damage mitigation, lack of range control, vulnerability to being tackled, and a distinct lack of options for reducing transversal. I think it's fine for what it does, but calling it "nano" or "obsoleting the Vagabond" is just outright silly.

This isn't a case of a ship obsoleting the Vagabond... it's a case of someone not valuing what the Vagabond does.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#128 - 2012-12-16 17:49:08 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
As i cba to argue anymore (seriously liang you are terrible at this game), in essence yes the talos (and tier3s in general) are to good at what they do now, and they atm completly obsolete the vagabond/cynabal but there is no point in making threads about this as ccp has already acknoledged this fact and they are going to nerf them, and they also are going to change the vagabond and possibly the cynabal!


Also if you like to fly a talos fly a 10mn one, the 100mn can be great fun and in the right situation it can pull off some pretty crazy stuff but all in all its not worth it and they suck pretty bad if used in a solo environement!


They do not obsolete the Vagabond any more than battleships obsolete the Vagabond. Yes, CCP has acknowledged an issue but they're talking about a "they're fine, maybe slight nerf to mobility", not the crushing blow you're looking for.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Noisrevbus
#129 - 2012-12-16 19:34:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Maelle LuzArdiden wrote:

Are you aware that this situation where T1 is practically as viable as T2 is just temporary, and a direct result of dev resource scarcity, not their intention?

How far would you presume that temporary situation extend?

It's not an isolated issue, it's not the exact relation between the tech levels today that is important, but rather the direction the game is headed. It's not like we suddenly woke up the day after Retribution and realized that there's an issue with BC. It's been going on for years and will go on for years to come.

That tie into your next question.

Quote:
It is an expensive battlecruiser, with higher SP requirements than the others. Battlecruisers in general are indeed the most offensively allround competent ships in EVE, this we all know. Why tier 3s would be more of an issue?

It's new, and it isn't expensive. If we identify an issue with a certain class of ships: Do we go about solving that issue by introducing more ships that reproduce said issue? It has nothing to do with being offensively allround, it has everything to do with bang for the buck. That's the bottom all current rebalance is being done around. The main attraction of BC have been cost-effect, overblown cost-effect is ultimately bad for the game.

Quote:

Wut, more is always better, has been and will be. You can create a new ship and give it totally random attributes ranging from 1 to millions, and more of that ship is still always overblown better.

This is your hegemony of buffer-projection...

That is a very strange quotation. How you can strip one portion out of a longer segment and then ask a question the very segment you stripped it from went on to answer?

I'm not talking about the fact more will always be better.

I'm talking about the fact that more is comparatively better on Tier 3 BC than it is on HAC or Tech III.

That goes for both expenses and gameplay-related balance. It's easier fighting more Vagabonds in less Vagabonds than fighting more Talos in less Talos. The same goes for the Proteus. It's easier fighting more Proteus in less Proteus. It also have a much higher impact on numbers and upkeep if you fight Vagabonds with Vagabonds and so on. The damage you inflict on your opponent limit the value of their numbers.

If there is actual loss involved with taking losses then a more varied approach to killing hostile ships will enable ships that do not lend themselves to tanking and projecting, which primarily excels at holding grids. When killing ships matter less, holding grids will matter more.

Quote:
In short, tiericide is the single best thing CCP ever did to promote goodfights.

Tiercide and promotion of cheap ships are two completely different things.

If they want to make the Ferox just as good as the Drake by equalizing tiers of slots be my guest.

The problem is the underlying discussion of realizing that there was an ISK-balance in place already, underneath the ship-balance (tier 2 BC were 50% more expensive than tier 1 BC, and said bottom was the only reason most people never paid any attention to that). Introducing ships on the principle of "more explosions with less importance" will feed the value of numbers. Having more ships is naturally balanced by risking more assets; bottoming out the game screws with nature.

I am in lowsec almost every day, but i fail to see how killing your Rupture, Thorax or Merlin will impact either you or me. I do not stand to gain ISK from doing it, and you do not stand to lose ISK from being subject to it. The outcome is pointless beyond "honour". That is, same as the first question, nothing new - it's a trend that has been going on for quite a while now where it's just increasingly pointless to take certain risks so we congregate with peers (lowsec for lowsec etc.). That i am in lowsec every day does not make me consider myself a "lowsec only player". The sandbox is about broad interaction - our behaviour, encouraged by the game direction, is headed elsewhere. Have been for quite some time.

I am in lowsec every day, when was the last time you were out of it?
Maelle LuzArdiden
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2012-12-16 21:22:04 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:

How far would you presume that temporary situation extend?


You also know the answer, like all EVE players who follow development- until Fozzie & co get to those ships. I'd guess next winter.

Quote:
It's not an isolated issue, it's not the exact relation between the tech levels today that is important, but rather the direction the game is headed. It's not like we suddenly woke up the day after Retribution and realized that there's an issue with BC. It's been going on for years and will go on for years to come.


Is it an issue, really? No, it isn't, unless your stance is that there should be no bottom- which is impossible. No matter how you design a system like this, there will always be a class/price point/style that players gravitate towards, it's an inherent property of human-guided systems. People will find the sweet spot, or the middle class.


Quote:
It's new, and it isn't expensive. If we identify an issue with a certain class of ships: Do we go about solving that issue by introducing more ships that reproduce said issue? It has nothing to do with being offensively allround, it has everything to do with bang for the buck. That's the bottom all current rebalance is being done around. The main attraction of BC have been cost-effect, overblown cost-effect is ultimately bad for the game.


Yes, it is as expensive as battleship, and almost as expensive as T2 cruisers. The actual ISK you pay after insurance does not set the price, it's completely irrelevant in a game with infinite amounts of isk easily available- prices are valued by loss- and killmails. 20-30K EHP ship that puts you a solid 150mil on red is expensive. It dies like a fly from the smallest mistake.

Quote:

I'm not talking about the fact more will always be better.

I'm talking about the fact that more is comparatively better on Tier 3 BC than it is on HAC or Tech III.

That goes for both expenses and gameplay-related balance. It's easier fighting more Vagabonds in less Vagabonds than fighting more Talos in less Talos. The same goes for the Proteus. It's easier fighting more Proteus in less Proteus. It also have a much higher impact on numbers and upkeep if you fight Vagabonds with Vagabonds and so on. The damage you inflict on your opponent limit the value of their numbers.


Can you give some more insight on this? Is it the range of weapons, tank/gank ratio, speed or some combination that creates the difference? Because I don't see the properties in any ships that would change the outcome of ship X vs many ships X.

About tierice: correct, my bad, I mean this rebalancing as a whole. Viable T1 logis is not strictly removing tiers.

Quote:
The problem is the underlying discussion of realizing that there was an ISK-balance in place already, underneath the ship-balance (tier 2 BC were 50% more expensive than tier 1 BC, and said bottom was the only reason most people never paid any attention to that). Introducing ships on the principle of "more explosions with less importance" will feed the value of numbers. Having more ships is naturally balanced by risking more assets; bottoming out the game screws with nature.

I am in lowsec almost every day, but i fail to see how killing your Rupture, Thorax or Merlin will impact either you or me. I do not stand to gain ISK from doing it, and you do not stand to lose ISK from being subject to it. The outcome is pointless beyond "honour". That is, same as the first question, nothing new - it's a trend that has been going on for quite a while now where it's just increasingly pointless to take certain risks so we congregate with peers (lowsec for lowsec etc.). That i am in lowsec every day does not make me consider myself a "lowsec only player". The sandbox is about broad interaction - our behaviour, encouraged by the game direction, is headed elsewhere. Have been for quite some time.


It never was strictly just ISK-balance, any decent organisation has the ability to supply the required ships, for example Guardians- the bottleneck is SP, finding the required number of Logi V pilots. Now almost anyone can hop into a logi cruiser. A major change.

But yes, I'm with you on this one, if you mean that cheaper ships only promotes fighting for fighting's sake- EVE is lacking meaningful objectives for small-medium organisations. While I personally enjoy just finding fights and the fact that there is plenty of them in lowsec, either for "honour" or reputation, kicks or just trying out different ships and tactics, ultimately it is a shallow experience.

That's why I don't live in lowsec, but in wormhole space. There a small entity can still hold a system, or take a system, and defend their home and it's resources. We can interact with others, we create content for each others. Receiving the notification "Customs Office at planet IV is under attack" or seeing a hostile tower on dscan after logging in result in emotions.



Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
Feign Disorder
#131 - 2012-12-16 21:50:08 UTC
whaa whaa my mini ships are no longer op whaaa
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#132 - 2012-12-16 22:25:52 UTC
Sven Hammerstorm wrote:
Until this thread I actually thought Liang knew something about this game Oops
I've been proven terribly wrong, it just sounds like he has never actually flown the ship in the fit other people here discuss

:-(

just let you know she hardly flies those ships she is writing about , she only theorycrafs everything here

btw i cant see why the talos is good when a frig which can kill 5 drones soloes it easily
Noisrevbus
#133 - 2012-12-16 23:21:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Maelle LuzArdiden wrote:
No matter how you design a system like this, there will always be a class/price point/style that players gravitate towards, it's an inherent property of human-guided systems. People will find the sweet spot, or the middle class.

Definately so, but now the entire game gravitate toward said sweet spot instead of trying to limit it's impact.

Quote:
Yes, it is as expensive as battleship, and almost as expensive as T2 cruisers. The actual ISK you pay after insurance does not set the price, it's completely irrelevant in a game with infinite amounts of isk easily available- prices are valued by loss- and killmails. 20-30K EHP ship that puts you a solid 150mil on red is expensive.

This is where we disagree. We can begin with the common issue for all BC: rigs, the difference in rigs alone match the hull cost of the BC (~40m disparity). The second is loss of insurance: any ship with a higher purchase value (and higher insurance) also stand more to lose when insurance tick out. The third thing we can use as an example is a bit more tricky to understand: while many people (me included) at least Tech II fit our Tier 3 BC, they have less slots to fill and their general attributes make expensive fitting less important.

It comes back to relatives again. It goes without question that fitting your ship with superior options is better than not, but if you flip over to the opposite perspective you will learn that Tier 3 BC (much like the Drake) outperform other ships in budget fitting and maintain their role better (the lack of mobility on a BS, for example, make it more dependent upon specific ammunition types - the same goes for a smaller class of turrets - mediums without Scorch or Barrage is far more restricted than L-ammo on Cruiser mobility). The list obviously goes on, but there are some tidbits that make these ships extremely affordable and appealing to scale up, since you can bottom them out toward essentially no cost at all (70m purchase, 76m return, 22m insurance; budget fitting). People did the same with Drakes, budget fitting, extreme volume and you could throw away entire 100-man fleets without much strain on SPR. That's why the Drake remained so popular against the bottom (BS, Carriers, all the most common ships in large fights), since it bottomed out. They were not "good" at fighting BS or Capitals, they did projection-buffer like the BS though, without cost.

If you do something similar on a BS you will see quite remarkable performance drops relative your own class of ships that will gain allround performance equivalent of the ISK you save, and other classes of ships that will better be able to exploit your weaknesses (eg., being slower make you rely more on adapting your ammunition per situation).

Quote:

Can you give some more insight on this? Is it the range of weapons, tank/gank ratio, speed or some combination that creates the difference? Because I don't see the properties in any ships that would change the outcome of ship X vs many ships X.

Well, it is the things we talked about when you came into the thread. It's the balance of offense to defense to expense. They are not only glass-cannons, they are inexpensive (if you can sympathize with my logic above) glass-cannons which result in an amassment of resources. They create a situation where they can kill essentially everything and be killed by essentially everything, which may lead one to belive they are balanced through that - but my point is that they are not. If they cost something to lose, then they might be. Since you can bottom out their cost and pile on with numbers though, you create a situation where a large group of these ships counter most undermanned approaches. That's a funny thing when we discuss accessability - because you make undermanned action very exclusive. It's not impossible, but by trying to appeal to the broad masses you alienate the broad masses from up-engagement, since you have made that so inaccessible. Do you get where i'm comming from? I understand that this is logic wrapped around itself in several twists, it's difficult to follow - but it's very important to be able to discern it.

If that is inaccessible, most people will choose to amass numbers and align in powerblocks, or isolate ourselves in areas of the game where you can control scaling or dictate meta-sandbox rules (all of it lead to less frequent conflicts and less interaction). Up-engagement is positive because it means you extend your target pool to take more fights.

I can use your next quote to illustrate it further...

Quote:
Viable T1 logis is not strictly removing tiers.

I've used the anecdote about typical "Drake gangs" before. For quite a long time when their popularity was hizzed and snarled at, several groups still engaged them with success and risked interaction with them. It wasn't the Drakes you killed though, because killing the Drakes themselves was pointless and the Drakes weren't really the ships that killed you - the support did, and the support was worth killing. That was what triggered the demise of the old post-nano Vaga gangs and gave birth to most other HAC-concepts and similar that remained for a good while (SHAC, AHAC etc.). The way the game has progressed however it's become increasingly more difficult to engage the support of a larger gang.

Mobile snipers that extend beyond the Drakes and move beyond the capability Battleships are way way more powerful at knocking out your support, or your more expensive options in the same role; and they enable the support of a larger gang to control a smaller gang more easily. Cheap logis is another step in that direction because you remove yet another ship from the rewarding target pool. Sure, they are easier to kill but you have essentially outsourced a powerful element to a free class of ships that can just replace performance with more players and still have a decreased associated risk/cost.
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
Feign Disorder
#134 - 2012-12-17 00:18:13 UTC
there is believing and then there are facts. you sir are a believer. you believe your OP vaga isn't OP enough and should be able to fight every ship in the game and win. sorry to say the old days of winmatar are over...you have to now contend with new types of ships capable of pooping you. and if you care to cry some more....because i do enjoy your tears. I herd nothing about web drones in this thread about nerfing your vaga. yes i **** nano gangs and i love farming supposed elite pvp tears. mmm those are the best.
Noisrevbus
#135 - 2012-12-17 00:21:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Is that directed at me?

I don't own a Vaga.

Did you have something to contribute to the thread?
Noisrevbus
#136 - 2012-12-17 01:10:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Maelle, i realize i answered your second-to-last question very vaguely - but yes, what you brought up in the question is also correct, it's examples of offense-defense-expense.

Consider two extreme examples:

Rail Talos - Rail Talos.


They can engage each other essentially over all ranges, have no trouble hitting each other and can't tank each other.

Now consider there being twice as many Rail Talos on one side.

Now consider both sides of Rail Talos having support, while one side has more ships total (and maybe more support too).

Finally, consider the larger side switching to budget-fits. Do that give you some tactical options? It does, but very few. Possibly enough to inspire some very competent groups to at least attempt it at first, but hardly to appeal any more to a broad audience than more expensive ships with higher SP-requirements did in the past. Fitting Tech II is also associated with both higher cost and SP-count, while your target-pool is less appealing to engage with a lower reward (from your higher risk). Dwindling appeal in target pool and risk disparities is what marked the demise of the SHAC too (Zealots, Muninns, Machariels etc.).

SHAC were never bad at killing BC. They were good at it. They were faster and did as much damage from further away. It was just not appealing for most to risk 3-4b in assets to gank some support and leave the free ships floating; and it was not worth the risk travelling gate camps or facing other environmental concerns where you couldn't utilize your advantage. That made the tactic unappealing to most - but it's not like it didn't work, or not like there weren't groups who still successfully used it when Crucible launched. It's just that CCP decided we needed a new class of ships to do it, that did it better to appeal to more players - and did it cheaply.

How many groups would you estimate there are out there that still utilize Tech II fitting to combat gangs twice their size or more with trends of budget fitting? It's not like people don't Tech II fit their Talos anymore, but they do so while also limiting their target-pools to gangs more equal their own size. That means they take less fights.


Next, consider 100mn Tengu - 100mn Tengu.

They can engage each other over most ranges as well, but have trouble applying damage and can permatank each other.

Even if there are twice as many 100mn Tengu on one side the other side still can have presence on field and look to find other ways to score kills on the hostile gang. Even if the larger 100mn Tengu gang have good support the smaller gang still have potential staying-power, since they are not as susceptible to secondary tackle or pure projected damage. The support fielded by the larger gang also provide the smaller gang with potential targets, turning it into a "good fight". All the likely support and the mainline ships are also appealing targets, they cost a pretty penny and drop nice loot.

This profileration is why i, much like Liang, tend to up-MN or DP almost any sub-BS i fly these days.

It gives me the chance to take more fights, turn more fights or disengage from more fights.

That's also why it amazes me that people don't understand the concept of blap better. We can complain about Titans hitting BC, but we seem to belive cruiser-fast BS hitting frigates to be a fairy-tale. I DP my frigates because i know what a BS turret connecting can do to me.
Noisrevbus
#137 - 2012-12-17 01:50:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
One more thing.

Don't mistake my complaints here for me not flying the ships. Same as with the Talos: I fly Thorax, Vexor, Execs, Ruppies, Celestis and Blackbirds and so forth as much as the next guy at the moment. It's more or less all i have been flying the past few days. I even enjoy the shallow appeal of having free ships to throw away at the performance levels of HAC, because i like flying HAC. I know it's a short-lived joy though. I know it favours numbers, so gangs will just scale up as time go by and it will reproduce the exact same effects that changes to BC have had on the game. It will make engaging the larger gangs feel more pointless over time and even in lowsec people will just more and more crawl into their pockets of percieved safety, assuming the there will be a continued presence of roaming there. Free ships don't make people take more risks, not long-term.

That's the problem with egoism and hardcore-death, you enjoy not losing anything yourself - but when you realize you can't hurt your opponent, things quickly turn rather dull. If only everybody else wasn't allowed to fly the new Cruisers Roll.

edit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0X3TtK4E9A /thread?
M1k3y Koontz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2012-12-17 03:07:22 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Romvex wrote:
tier 3 mobility is being nerfed

Please remember to censor all swearing. - CCP Eterne


About time! They put battleship guns on cruiser (effectively) hulls and expected it to end well... heh Roll

Denuo Secus wrote:
Vaga eats frigs, Talos dies to frigs. So, what was the issue again? ^^


Because of Warrior II?

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Smabs
Karkand Kampa
#139 - 2012-12-17 08:45:31 UTC
So the only thing I learned here is that Liang is either trolling or doesn't do much roaming.

The vaga was always poor at killing anything other than frigs because of limited DPS and a terrible capacitor. Even before the talos came about a lot of people were favoring nano battlecruisers over vagabonds. Not to mention that the cynabal is straight up better anyway.

The talos is popular because it lets people kill things very fast up to about a 50km engagement range and can disengage easily due to its speed and agility, whilst having a big enough capacitor to hang around on field for ages. I feel like they're a touch too strong but nowhere close to being as overpowered as some people claim.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#140 - 2012-12-17 11:15:17 UTC
Noisverbus, I feel like what you are saying is true for most BS : you can put nanofiber on a BS, and budget fit them, and then you will have BC mobility, BS firepower and cruisers ehp (light BC ehp if you take a DCU).

Basicaly, you can turn almost any BS into a slower but mighter tier3 BC and keep the cost rather low (only insurance will differ for budget fit, which won't be a lot).

And even more : you can budget fit any T1 ship to deny the cost victory to your oponent, but that was already true before Retribution. Only difference now is that the number difference required to score a kill is lower, which mean T2 obsolete less T1 than before ? That was the objective of the tiericide.

Now, most of the time, ships are not budget fitted, because their performances are really bad in this case unless you largely outnumber your oponent to compensate. And for tier3 BC, they are not really cheap : even after insurance, you only have 2 tier3 BC for 1 HAC. And T2 ships still have clear advantages against T1, like resistance, to point only at the obvious, which can really be the difference between a clear victory and defeat.

As Maelle said, the problem is more about reasons to fight with "cheap" or expensive ships rather than the cost difference between T1 and T2 not being an incentive to fight against the odds.

Finaly, to come back to the Talos vs Vagabond topic, I agree with Liang : sure, you *can* kill a frigate with the Talos, but the Vagabond is infinitely better at this than the Talos. The Vagabond is also *a lot* faster (50% more) and easily have a way better tank, and it still sport a cruiser dps. As Liang said, that may not be characteristics you value, but that's definitely something.

As I already said,if all ship need a role, then the role of some old ships will be reduced a lot, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Every ship need a place.