These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM townhall and T3's

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Chitsa Jason
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#41 - 2013-07-10 10:42:22 UTC
I have probably expressed myself in wrong manner on CSM Townhall. I think the cloaky T3s are OP due to the nullification subsystem.

Other than that I am against the T3 nerf in other areas. I think aHACs should never have more tank or DPS compared to properly fit T3.

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#42 - 2013-07-10 11:08:06 UTC
Chitsa Jason wrote:
I have probably expressed myself in wrong manner on CSM Townhall. I think the cloaky T3s are OP due to the nullification subsystem.


I disagree. It's not actually that hard to decloak and point a cloaky nulli t3 if you have ceptor pilots who know what they're doing.

The intercalated subsystem on the other hand...that one is bank.

http://www.wormholes.info
Winthorp
#43 - 2013-07-10 11:17:26 UTC
I hope i don't one day regret training every race T3 subs to V.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2013-07-10 11:24:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Chitsa Jason wrote:
I have probably expressed myself in wrong manner on CSM Townhall. I think the cloaky T3s are OP due to the nullification subsystem.


I disagree. It's not actually that hard to decloak and point a cloaky nulli t3 if you have ceptor pilots who know what they're doing.

The intercalated subsystem on the other hand...that one is bank.


It's more of a problem in Nul sec because you spawn 15km away from a gate making it harder for an interceptor to catch you. In the case of the tengu, you only have 4 seconds to decloak and point it before it warps.

A simple fix would be to increase the align time.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#45 - 2013-07-10 14:01:12 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Chitsa Jason wrote:
I have probably expressed myself in wrong manner on CSM Townhall. I think the cloaky T3s are OP due to the nullification subsystem.

I disagree. It's not actually that hard to decloak and point a cloaky nulli t3 if you have ceptor pilots who know what they're doing.

A simple fix would be to increase the align time.

nah, the fix is to make the nullifier the same type of sub as the covops one.
can have one or other, not both

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2013-07-10 14:10:11 UTC
Why? It's very valuable to get cloaky eyes on a POS or enemy fleet without being dragged into a bubble.

I'm open minded though... If CCP made it like you suggested then they would have to give some additional benefit to using the nullifyer or it would end up being unused like 70% of the existing subsystem.

What do you think the current problem is?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Stay Feral
#47 - 2013-07-10 14:25:22 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Chitsa Jason wrote:
I have probably expressed myself in wrong manner on CSM Townhall. I think the cloaky T3s are OP due to the nullification subsystem.

I disagree. It's not actually that hard to decloak and point a cloaky nulli t3 if you have ceptor pilots who know what they're doing.

A simple fix would be to increase the align time.

nah, the fix is to make the nullifier the same type of sub as the covops one.
can have one or other, not both



Then nobody would use the Nullifier, since what good is being able to escape bubbles if you end up getting pointed by the interceptor instead?

I disagree about the Nullifer being OP, the only people complaining are the people who gatecamp systems like M-O where they see Cloaky/Nulli T3s escape their ridiculous swath of bubbles. They aren't breaking the game in any way, and a reasonably well balanced. Some minor rebalancing *may* be acceptable, but that depends on what the changes are. The Nullifer costs the pilot a low slot, which hurts the tank (or DPS) on a Proteus, and hurts the DPS of a Loki (lets face it, nobody flies cloaky Tengus/Legions. Honestly I think making the Cloaky Legion/Tengu is more relevant that nerfing the Nullifier subsystem).

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Derath Ellecon
ATRAX.
Shadow Cartel
#48 - 2013-07-10 14:33:34 UTC
Chitsa Jason wrote:
I have probably expressed myself in wrong manner on CSM Townhall. I think the cloaky T3s are OP due to the nullification subsystem.

Other than that I am against the T3 nerf in other areas. I think aHACs should never have more tank or DPS compared to properly fit T3.



Would you care to elaborate. What is it about the cloak + nullifier that is OP?

In a combat role, a cloaky already has reduced effectiveness. The nullifier sub hurts that even more without an extra low slot.

As a "safe transport" a cloaky nullified T3 is a VERY expensive blockade runner with a tiny cargohold.

Specifically in WH space, you are still vulnerable moving through wormholes. On a regular enough basis you will land too close to the WH to cloak. the slower speed and align of a cruiser vs covert ops frig still makes you vulnerable to being pointed.

Personally I find a nullified cloaky T3 useful in niche instances (scouting a bubbled POS for example) But given all of the other potential drawbacks, I don't find it over the top. I still prefer scouting in a Covert ops frigate due to their speed, align time and cost.
Meytal
Doomheim
#49 - 2013-07-10 19:56:29 UTC
The nullified subsystem also isn't considered essential for a cloaky ship. Many people I know choose a non-nullified sub specifically because of that extra low slot; that's quite a bit of extra tank for your heavy tackle.

I could see a tiny adjustment to align time for the nullified sub being made, slightly more for Tengu than others, but beyond that it's not overpowered. Two or three people should not be able to successfully blockade a system. THAT is overpowered.
Silas Shaw
Coffee Hub
#50 - 2013-07-10 22:12:48 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
cloaky T3s might be OP because they can be cloaky and have both higher dps and tank than a HAC...

Hopefully T3s will get rebalanced only after HACs and CSs are done. Until then it seems pointless and silly to me.


Anyone remember the old Phantasm? It was trash because it got "fixed" and then the other ships that it got compared to got rebuilt.

If they "fix" t3s and then rebuild t2, we're going to have a whole class of phantasms on our hands. no one wants that.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#51 - 2013-07-10 22:32:53 UTC
Elepherious wrote:
... Also I have a cloaky Prot with 276 EHP tank... It happens.

I'll bet you the contents of my wallet I could solo it in a T1 battlecruiser.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Derath Ellecon
ATRAX.
Shadow Cartel
#52 - 2013-07-10 22:53:11 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Elepherious wrote:
... Also I have a cloaky Prot with 276 EHP tank... It happens.

I'll bet you the contents of my wallet I could solo it in a T1 battlecruiser.



Brick meet kite
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#53 - 2013-07-10 22:57:00 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Elepherious wrote:
... Also I have a cloaky Prot with 276 EHP tank... It happens.

I'll bet you the contents of my wallet I could solo it in a T1 battlecruiser.

Brick meet kite

well sure you could do that i guess.
hell, I'll up it to a brawling T1 BC.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Kira Hhallas
Very Drunken Eve Flying Instructors
Brotherhood Of Silent Space
#54 - 2013-07-11 11:29:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Kira Hhallas
We discussed with my member the possibility of an nerf of Tech 3 Ships.
So most of them said, if Tech 3 ships get a signifcat nerf, it would be good also to nerf the SkillPoint loss.
4 Days lost only for a lost if a ship, what is nerfed.
Sorry.

And for the posted fit.... if i put enought ISK in a T2 Command ship i could also have a realy pervers tank.
So if you want to compare ships than use relativ equal ships. This should be a idea or ?
Exemple T2 Field Command Ship HAM Nighthawk with a T3 HAM TENGU both passive Tank.
Both with AB + Tech 2 Fit.

My resume is you get what a nice PVP Nighthawk for about 260 mil without skills loss and a nice performance.
80k EHP and 590 DPS without drones with Faction HAMs

So why should i use a 500 Millions ship for the fact i loss a lvl 5 Skills.
Only to have 100k EHP and 600+ DPS

In the fact.. if someone see you in a T3 you never get a fair fight ......

So that is my point of the hole thing.

greatings

Kira Hhallas

Kira Hhallas - Austrian EvE Community - ingame =Österreich= - StoryPage - https://oneshotstorys.wordpress.com/ -

Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare
Derath Ellecon
ATRAX.
Shadow Cartel
#55 - 2013-07-11 11:36:52 UTC
Kira Hhallas wrote:
We discussed with my member the possibility of an nerf of Tech 3 Ships.
So most of them said, if Tech 3 ships get a signifcat nerf, it would be good also to nerf the SkillPoint loss.
4 Days lost only for a lost if a ship, what is nerfed.
Sorry.

And for the posted fit.... if i put enought ISK in a T2 Command ship i could also have a realy pervers tank.
So if you want to compare ships than use relativ equal ships. This should be a idea or ?
Exemple T2 Field Command Ship HAM Nighthawk with a T3 HAM TENGU both passive Tank.
Both with AB + Tech 2 Fit.

My resume is you get what ah nice PVP Nighthawk for about 260 mil without skills loss and a nice performance.
80k EHP and 590 DPS without drones with Faction HAMs

So Why should i use a 500 Millions ship for the fact i loss a lvl 5 Skills.
Only to have 100k EHP and 600+ DPS

In the fact.. if someone see you in a T3 you never get a fair fight ......

So that my point of the hole thing.

greatings

Kira Hhllas


Google translate?

And yes I have always said T3's should be able to have a larger tank given they are the only ships that impose an SP loss on death.
Kira Hhallas
Very Drunken Eve Flying Instructors
Brotherhood Of Silent Space
#56 - 2013-07-11 11:38:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kira Hhallas
Nope,i am natural german speaking player. And not really time for overreading this stuff....
And it is not so easy to write in english, if you have no practice.

There is no german speaking CSM, so i have to write down my thoughts here.

And sorry for my english i try to do my best.

Kira Hhallas - Austrian EvE Community - ingame =Österreich= - StoryPage - https://oneshotstorys.wordpress.com/ -

Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare
Derath Ellecon
ATRAX.
Shadow Cartel
#57 - 2013-07-11 11:54:18 UTC
Kira Hhallas wrote:
Nope,i am natural german speaking player. And not really time for overreading this stuff....
And it is not so easy to write in english, if you have no practice.

There is no german speaking CSM, so i have to write down my thoughts here.

And sorry for my english i try to do my best.


It's fine. English isn't so easy for native speakers either.
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#58 - 2013-07-11 12:35:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Onomerous
Hopefully I don't mangle the original post. English is a weird language compared to most. Some people on these forums aren't real friendly when a post is difficult to understand. :(

Quote:
My corpmates and I discussed the possibility of a nerf of Tech 3 Ships. Most of them said, if Tech 3 ships get a significant nerf then they should also nerf the SkillPoint loss. Losing 4 days of training for losing a ship is what should be nerfed.
Sorry.

And for the posted fit.... if I put enough ISK in a T2 Command ship I could also have a really perverse (over powered?) tank.
So if you want to compare ships than use relatively equal ships. Correct?
Example T2 Field Command Ship HAM Nighthawk with a T3 HAM TENGU both passive Tank.
Both with AB + Tech 2 Fit.

My point is you get a nice PVP Nighthawk for about 260 mil without skills loss and a nice performance.
80k EHP and 590 DPS without drones with Faction HAMs

So why should I use a 500 Million isk ship with the chance I could lose a lvl 5 Skill?
I only get 100k EHP and 600+ DPS

In the fact.. if someone sees you in a T3 you never get a fair fight ......

So that is my whole point.

greatings

Kira Hhallas


I agree completely with the Kira. Why use a more expensive ship when a cheaper ship can do the same thing and I won't lose skill points??
Kira Hhallas
Very Drunken Eve Flying Instructors
Brotherhood Of Silent Space
#59 - 2013-07-11 12:43:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Kira Hhallas
thank you for overworking it.
Its the same thing in the german forum.
And well german and english speaking people have also different ways to explain things.
But i hope, the others can understand my point of view.

Kira

edit.

We all now, that Tech3 were designed for the role to be a flexible ship.
But it think, this role was missed. Because only a few pilots change there fit.
I lived long enought in W-Space and i can say no one changed the fit.
Before you change it, the ship would die in an fireball.
And its easyer to put multible ships in an Hangar, than change the fitting self.
(And much faster to reship in PVP situations)

Kira Hhallas - Austrian EvE Community - ingame =Österreich= - StoryPage - https://oneshotstorys.wordpress.com/ -

Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2013-07-11 13:02:10 UTC
I really wish using T3s as logi ships was more viable but the limited range prevent that. Cloaky logi FTW!

The wishlist is pretty much complete...