Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You didn't answer my question. Was the PLEX they used made out of thin air?

Hint : It involve money.

The PLEX was created after CCP recieved some RL money. The account is only active because CCP is paid for it. It might be a different way but they still get paid for it. The PLEX using guys are paying customer just like the ones who pay by CC. Paying directly to CCP instead of by using a 3rd party makes no difference. Your account gettign closed does nto hurt CCP more than a PLEXer account gettign closed. Hell it probably hurt less since you more than likely pay less than the $$$ cost of a PLEX.

Challenge accepted.

[Tengu, Current Railgu]
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Large Shield Extender II
Explosive Deflection Field II
EM Ward Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
10MN Afterburner II
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II

Tengu Offensive - Magnetic Infusion Basin
Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening
Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst

334kEHP with links and heated. No implants. Cap stable. ~500dps. lrn2EFT

If EHP are nerfed, it's time to remove the skill loss at the ship loss !

Thank you

First, I'm glad Strategic Cruisers are getting nerfed. When the standard response to a Proteus being in the fight is "just dock up", because there is no good counter other than a blob or more T3s, the ship class is OP.

That being said, I don't think this quite addresses the issue with T3 cruisers, and I'll be excited to see what else CCP has in store. In my opinion, T3 cruisers are supposed to be highly appealing because they are more flexible than anything, not because they are flat out better than everything. However, in the current state of affairs, T3s can out-tank, out-DPS, out-run and out-range T2 cruisers, ALL AT THE SAME TIME. They are flat out better combat ships than every sub-cap with the exception of marauders. Frigates, destroyers, a handful of cruisers and marauders still have function because of niche roles, but if it wasn't for a high amount of SP required to fly T3s well, T3s would obsolete everything else.

I would personally like to see the SP loss go away, ship cost to go down, and even stronger subsystems, but subsystems that came with substantial drawbacks as well. Sure you can tank your T3 to insane EHP, but kiss your DPS goodbye, or you can project at great distances, but you're a slow, clumsy glass cannon. In general, I think that a T3, fit for general PvP, should be a bit weaker than a HAC, because we already have HACs and we don't need duplicate ship classes. Right now, T3s are just super-bonused HACs.

Saw this from a mile away. While I love my T3s, this is necessary to make battleships viable. The gap between T2 cruiser and T3 cruiser is way to big. I shouldn't be able to fly a cruiser around with the tank of a BS, sig of a cruiser, and the DPS of a T2 AC. It undermines the BS class. While BSs are still too easily blapped by dreads this is a start in the right direction.

That said, I'd like to see some minor changes to grid/cpu and the removal of skill loss.

Just about everything else works out.

Keep up the good work CCP.

PS - who do I have to pleasure around here to get some help with the Rev?

None of this makes the battleship class more viable. This change only achieves dragging T3's down a bit which while a bit sad to see is necessary.

I tested out my tengu on SISI and I tanked a thanatos and Orthrus quite easily pre-change. SISI has already been updated to the new format and I wouldn't be as game to try it out now I think.

then make the battleships more viable, or make a line T2 battleship. I think this is more a case of other ships need to be more viable then saying "oh look what null is using, that needs a nerf"." Except for the ishtar, right, that needs nerf.

Or does it... ishtars are used bcs they are more viable than battleship equivalent, to a degree. why not buff the domi to where we have another option that is viable, projects force, tanks, etc.

Give us more options, not less. Make the drake the new drake! Idk, im not game designer but I do prefer options to less options.

-- edit - leaving what I said above, but I do realize that by nerfing tengus you make other things the more / most viable, therefore meta changes. i get that, would just prefer to have more ships able to counter what makes the tengu OP as opposed to nerfing stuff. More ships that do what Tengus / Ishtars are capable of and can counter would make more options, instead of all of us switching into Lokis or whatever is most broken, next.

I agree with you on most of what you post, actually, though I'm usually not compelled to post in regards to something I agree with and it's past due that I do. When I see something I do disagree with, though, you're one of the only people that ever tries to take an argument to it's conclusion, which is irresistible to me, particularly when I've imbibed before reading this forum.

Not to be too much of an apologist, but I've had a chance to read other people posts here and I'm loving your posts riddling their 'arguments.' Nice work.

Why are T3s in need of an emergency defensive subsystem nerf after all these years of being unchanged? Surely just waiting to do an actual balance pass would be the sensible thing to do.