These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
 

Strategic cruiser balance pass

Author
ChaosTheory.
#101 - 2017-04-19 16:27:47 UTC
Some people never learn from history. In this case, in game history.

For years some of us have been explaining that high sec income is too good, because of things like incursions but also sisters of EVE missions , mission blitzing and now burner mission blitzing. The high sec partisans REFUSE to acknowledge this, and in their zeal to protect their imaginary space incomes they would say things like "if you aren't making enough in null, JUST BUFF NULL.

They would ignore the fact that null income was fine (and if anything, was too "afkable"). Nooooo, don't touch my high sec, buff null.

Then CCP undertook a series of measures that indirectly buffed null. They turned carriers and super carries into super duper rat killing machines (inadvertently replicating the old Titan ratting nonsense where titans supported by tracking link scimitars could make 500 mil per hour in forsaken hubs) and then made Rorquals the super duper mineral vaccums that almost killed mining everywhere else.

It damn near killed the EVE economy, and it's still bad with the ratting capitals. CCP buffed null rather than taking care of the actual problem that is that high sec is too lucrative PVE-wise, and the whole game got screwed. We tried to explain to high sec posters that buffing null would benefit us but screw everyone, they would not listen.


It's the same with overpowered ships. The people who don't want to see their ingame advantages go away always say "don't nerf my ship, BUFF EVERYTHING ELSE". The are too short sighted to see that buffing everything else also screws over them, while a proper rebalancing would give them more gameplay options like it would every one else.

All moot, CCP IS changing T3Cs, and most of us support their efforts.
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2017-04-19 16:28:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Coralas
baltec1 wrote:
Coralas wrote:


Not only is that wrong, its not a rebuttal of the point. I do actually fly vexors.


And people who didn't want the nano nerf flew battleships. You are one of those people that follow the FOTM and don't want to see it go even if you don't think you are one of them. Other arguments we will see are "but its been in game forever like this", "but it costs a X amount" and "but nobody will fly it if its balanced with cruisers".



This is a false accusation combined with putting words out that i've never typed to cast the allusion that I'll make those flawed arguments.

The actual point is simple. Is there not something like 24 t1 cruisers in the game already. Why do we need another 4 t1 cruisers.

Quote:

Coralas wrote:


The drones gotta go somewhere where you don't have the dronebay sub on it.


Why would you want to alter a droneboat into a railboat? Realistically its going to be more of a case of adapting Railboats to longer range, more tanky, ECM abilities, cloaking fits to combat fits, slapping on nullification or taking it off depending on bubbles and so on.



because I like flying drone ships, but some of the puzzles in the game are extensively anti drone and not only that, sometimes the deds roll a 30 second aggro timer that yes, means I need to pull my drones every 30 seconds to keep them alive. That **** that sleepers do, its a random roll on other encounters as well.

So if we are talking about nerfing the droneboat power to be more like a vexor, and thus taking a bloody minute+ to kill a single 500k bounty npc battleship - which will promptly regen a third of what I just shot off it, and for which there are 4 pockets of 5-10 ahead of me, then **** that, I'd like to switch to rails please and I'd prefer to not have to 10 jumps back and through a camp to do it.

Quote:


Why? You are far more likely to stay in this game if you play with others than going solo.


I do play with others. Escalations come from ratting which is an inherently solo activity, as quite frankly is going hunting for signatures and is doing the signatures before you have competition, and escalations pop when they want to which could be near the end of a play session, and when you can't count on being able to get to it before the timer runs out.
#103 - 2017-04-19 16:39:26 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

All moot, CCP IS changing T3Cs, and most of us support their efforts.


Personally outside of these forums I've never heard anyone particularly unhappy with T3 cruisers - and a lot of my game time was spent in a coalition of 100s of players and alts in 1-2 large corps/alliances. Heard plenty of complaints about ECM alts and multiboxing, etc. most of what I've heard in regard to T3s has been about the underused sub-systems.
Pandemic Legion
#104 - 2017-04-19 16:40:23 UTC
Coralas wrote:


This is a false accusation combined with putting words out that i've never typed to cast the allusion that I'll make those flawed arguments.

The actual point is simple. Is there not something like 24 t1 cruisers in the game already. Why do we need another 4 t1 cruisers.


How many of those cruisers can swap out rigs without destroying them and change the very bonuses of the ship on the fly?



Coralas wrote:

because I like flying drone ships, but some of the puzzles in the game are extensively anti drone and not only that, sometimes the deds roll a 30 second aggro timer that yes, means I need to pull my drones every 30 seconds to keep them alive. That **** that sleepers do, its a random roll on other encounters as well.

So if we are talking about nerfing the droneboat power to be more like a vexor, and thus taking a bloody minute+ to kill a single 500k bounty npc battleship - which will promptly regen a third of what I just shot off it, and for which there are 4 pockets of 5-10 ahead of me, then **** that, I'd like to switch to rails please and I'd prefer to not have to 10 jumps back and through a camp to do it.


If doneboats are no good for the task you want to do why bring one in the first place?


Coralas wrote:

I do play with others. Escalations come from ratting which is an inherently solo activity, as quite frankly is going hunting for signatures and is doing the signatures before you have competition, and escalations pop when they want to which could be near the end of a play session, and when you can't count on being able to get to it before the timer runs out.


This is the incursion argument. What you mean to say is you don't want your isk generating power reduced.
Pandemic Legion
#105 - 2017-04-19 16:42:31 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

All moot, CCP IS changing T3Cs, and most of us support their efforts.


Personally outside of these forums I've never heard anyone particularly unhappy with T3 cruisers - and a lot of my game time was spent in a coalition of 100s of players and alts in 1-2 large corps/alliances. Heard plenty of complaints about ECM alts and multiboxing, etc. most of what I've heard in regard to T3s has been about the underused sub-systems.


Same argument was used against the nano nerfs. People don't like having a FOTM nerfed and a lot abuse it.
#106 - 2017-04-19 16:46:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
baltec1 wrote:

Same argument was used against the nano nerfs. People don't like having a FOTM nerfed and a lot abuse it.


I've heard a fair bit of grumbling about nano in my time.

EDIT: Infact in that context if anything I've been the person complaining about T3s as some aspects like sig clearly aren't in the best interests of game balance.
#107 - 2017-04-19 17:25:37 UTC
Rroff wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Same argument was used against the nano nerfs. People don't like having a FOTM nerfed and a lot abuse it.


I've heard a fair bit of grumbling about nano in my time.

EDIT: Infact in that context if anything I've been the person complaining about T3s as some aspects like sig clearly aren't in the best interests of game balance.


Hold that thought.

Overpowered T3 argument shave been a thing for years now. If you haven't noticed it's because you haven't had your ear to the ground. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, except in the case you end up in a discussion about said subject. A quick search of Reddit produces many threads on the subject going back a long time, so your postulation that nobody complains doesn't really hold water.

Whatever you think about the subject, people fly T3's for pretty much everything.

A lot of us think that's a bad thing, and understandably some don't for various reasons. The main point being that CCP agrees with the "T3's are unbalanced and need a nerf" crowd Pirate
#108 - 2017-04-19 17:32:57 UTC
Keno Skir wrote:


Hold that thought.

Overpowered T3 argument shave been a thing for years now. If you haven't noticed it's because you haven't had your ear to the ground. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, except in the case you end up in a discussion about said subject. A quick search of Reddit produces many threads on the subject going back a long time, so your postulation that nobody complains doesn't really hold water.

Whatever you think about the subject, people fly T3's for pretty much everything.

A lot of us think that's a bad thing, and understandably some don't for various reasons. The main point being that CCP agrees with the "T3's are unbalanced and need a nerf" crowd Pirate


Eh I listen plenty - granted I mostly existed in wormhole circles where T3s are bread and butter but I've also had characters in most other areas of Eve as well.

Not really surprised about Reddit ;) you'll see the same people there moaning about X being OP and saying why don't people use Y and the moment X gets nerf batted they are moaning about Y...
#109 - 2017-04-19 19:53:22 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Personally if the Prot was taken off the table I'd just bring a tricked out Astarte - cheaper, has same tank as all but the silly blinged out T3s, 20% more DPS, utility highs, etc. - sig is a bit of an issue but I've enough experience to mitigate that somewhat. I don't really care in that regard personally if the 100s of K EHP, 1000 dps prot gets nerf batted (not that I even play any more anyhow).


And in the span of ~3 pages we've apparently gone from "there is no replacement for this ship" to "oh I'll just go and fly this other thing..."

Straight

I'll be honest, a lot of my earlier assumptions avoided this type of fit because they're so blatantly OP I was assuming you couldn't possibly be referring to them. That much DPS and EHP in the same package is literally the reason these ships are so OP. The fact that they can do that and bring some utility is why they stomp all over so many other ships.

Rroff wrote:
Personally outside of these forums I've never heard anyone particularly unhappy with T3 cruisers - and a lot of my game time was spent in a coalition of 100s of players and alts in 1-2 large corps/alliances. Heard plenty of complaints about ECM alts and multiboxing, etc. most of what I've heard in regard to T3s has been about the underused sub-systems.


Most of the people I fly with don't complain about T3Cs either, they just know a nerf is coming, in the same way that everyone sort of knows in a low-grade way that anything that blatantly OP is either going to get nerfed or never be touched. The actual complaining burned out years ago, a symptom of how long these things have sat around being stupidly powerful.

If you want to find out what people really think of T3Cs then ask them about HACs. Anyone with an ounce of affection for even one ship in the class will say something like "I'd love to fly X again, but I can't because of T3Cs".

Rroff wrote:
Eh I listen plenty - granted I mostly existed in wormhole circles where T3s are bread and butter but I've also had characters in most other areas of Eve as well.

Not really surprised about Reddit ;) you'll see the same people there moaning about X being OP and saying why don't people use Y and the moment X gets nerf batted they are moaning about Y...


I'm not sure what you've heard but most of what I've heard out of Wormholes for T3Cs is along the lines of the above, knowing they're going to be nerfed eventually, with the added hope that whatever CCP does won't completely screw Wormhole PvE and PvP at the same time.

That's it.

At best the closest I've seen anyone who knew what they were talking about get to defending the things was that everyone uses them because they're the best DPS and EHP for the mass, and that it'll have serious balance implications for W-space if they're nerfed. No claims that they're not OP, no claims that they're not the best at a ton of stuff, just acknowledgement.

Also you can find the same threads on the forums, they're just harder to search through than Reddit is at the moment. These threads have existed more or less since T3Cs came out and there's never been a strong argument that they're not OP.
#110 - 2017-04-19 20:09:08 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
If you want to find out what people really think of T3Cs then ask them about HACs. Anyone with an ounce of affection for even one ship in the class will say something like "I'd love to fly X again, but I can't because of T3Cs".

Recons

I hate that I'm constantly asked to bring a T3 instead of a dedicated recon cruiser because a T3 does it almost as well, while having multiples more ehp.

In fact I think the EHP is the big sticking point behind every discussion. Everything revolves around "T3 bring [x] or [y], but with more EHP than a dedicated ship". And of course because they're cruisers, they have more mobility and smaller sig than some of those "dedicated ships", further compounding the problem

Bump up the native sig (advanced tech uses high amounts of energy? Makes perfect sense to me), lower some of the resists and raw EHP, down the powergrid a slight tad to reduce the amount of plates/extenders they can equip, and then worry about how to balance whatever subsystems CCP want. Of course I wouldn't do this equally across all four - some T3 are worse off than others, so some would get nerfed harder than others.
#111 - 2017-04-19 20:21:11 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
If you want to find out what people really think of T3Cs then ask them about HACs. Anyone with an ounce of affection for even one ship in the class will say something like "I'd love to fly X again, but I can't because of T3Cs".

Recons

I hate that I'm constantly asked to bring a T3 instead of a dedicated recon cruiser because a T3 does it almost as well, while having multiples more ehp.

In fact I think the EHP is the big sticking point behind every discussion. Everything revolves around "T3 bring [x] or [y], but with more EHP than a dedicated ship". And of course because they're cruisers, they have more mobility and smaller sig than some of those "dedicated ships", further compounding the problem

Bump up the native sig (advanced tech uses high amounts of energy? Makes perfect sense to me), lower some of the resists and raw EHP, down the powergrid a slight tad to reduce the amount of plates/extenders they can equip, and then worry about how to balance whatever subsystems CCP want. Of course I wouldn't do this equally across all four - some T3 are worse off than others, so some would get nerfed harder than others.


I generally agree, but there are a few cases where a Recon is actually preferable these days, so I prefer not to use them as the poster boy example because someone inevitably brings up one of those cases and then we're down in the weeds and away from anything like a meaningful point.

But yeah, generally I agree with everything you're saying here to some extent.
Goonswarm Federation
#112 - 2017-04-19 20:41:15 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
If you want to find out what people really think of T3Cs then ask them about HACs. Anyone with an ounce of affection for even one ship in the class will say something like "I'd love to fly X again, but I can't because of T3Cs".

Recons

I hate that I'm constantly asked to bring a T3 instead of a dedicated recon cruiser because a T3 does it almost as well, while having multiples more ehp.

In fact I think the EHP is the big sticking point behind every discussion. Everything revolves around "T3 bring [x] or [y], but with more EHP than a dedicated ship". And of course because they're cruisers, they have more mobility and smaller sig than some of those "dedicated ships", further compounding the problem

Bump up the native sig (advanced tech uses high amounts of energy? Makes perfect sense to me), lower some of the resists and raw EHP, down the powergrid a slight tad to reduce the amount of plates/extenders they can equip, and then worry about how to balance whatever subsystems CCP want. Of course I wouldn't do this equally across all four - some T3 are worse off than others, so some would get nerfed harder than others.


I generally agree, but there are a few cases where a Recon is actually preferable these days, so I prefer not to use them as the poster boy example because someone inevitably brings up one of those cases and then we're down in the weeds and away from anything like a meaningful point.

But yeah, generally I agree with everything you're saying here to some extent.


The only roles they can't really do effectively do is shield recon because the Pro is not a shield tanker and logi because no range.
#113 - 2017-04-19 21:20:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Cade Windstalker wrote:

And in the span of ~3 pages we've apparently gone from "there is no replacement for this ship" to "oh I'll just go and fly this other thing..."


There is no replacement within the realms of "normal" stuff - you seem to be missing the fact that there is a huge skill requirement (somewhat mitigated by skill injectors but that isn't really a great way to play the game) and large ISK outlay (I'm talking flying the ship with halos or slave set, etc.) to get the same performance out of that ship - which is OK for me as I've several characters with like 6 years of training and enough ISK I can fly those ships in a disposable manner - but a bit of a barrier for general fleet use.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

I'll be honest, a lot of my earlier assumptions avoided this type of fit because they're so blatantly OP I was assuming you couldn't possibly be referring to them. That much DPS and EHP in the same package is literally the reason these ships are so OP. The fact that they can do that and bring some utility is why they stomp all over so many other ships.


I never said they ain't OP - but if you take an objective look at the alternatives it is not a pretty picture.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

If you want to find out what people really think of T3Cs then ask them about HACs. Anyone with an ounce of affection for even one ship in the class will say something like "I'd love to fly X again, but I can't because of T3Cs".


Still plenty of places people can still use HACs, etc. largely the reason they don't get flown so much is due to the changing landscape of Eve in general making them more obsolete not just because T3Cs are powerful - same with the loki versus the min recons - if you want long range webbing in a situation requiring something half durable you have the loki and then a big gap and then some ships that aren't really suited to the task in today's Eve at all. Though keeping the old shield huginn alive against the alpha and dps of 14+ sleepless guardians was kind of fun even if it had like a 4bn ISK fit to do it. Even taking T3s out of the picture as ships you might encounter doesn't change that as the fleet compositions, tactics and meta, etc. in general has moved on a long way.
#114 - 2017-04-19 23:29:43 UTC
Rroff wrote:
There is no replacement within the realms of "normal" stuff - you seem to be missing the fact that there is a huge skill requirement (somewhat mitigated by skill injectors but that isn't really a great way to play the game) and large ISK outlay (I'm talking flying the ship with halos or slave set, etc.) to get the same performance out of that ship - which is OK for me as I've several characters with like 6 years of training and enough ISK I can fly those ships in a disposable manner - but a bit of a barrier for general fleet use.


You're not really helping your case that the T3Cs aren't amazingly OP here. You've just flat out stated that you understand that it takes way more ISK and SP to get the same performance out of a comparably priced hull as a T3C provides.

I could literally filter through your comments in this thread and find probably half a dozen good arguments for why T3Cs are OP.

Rroff wrote:
I never said they ain't OP - but if you take an objective look at the alternatives it is not a pretty picture.


Again, *that is why they are OP*. There should not be any alternatives in this "niche" in the same way that there should not be any tapeworms in your body. If any ship is occupying this space that exists at the cross section of amazing DPS, EHP, and Utility then there is a problem. Literally by definition.

Rroff wrote:
Still plenty of places people can still use HACs, etc. largely the reason they don't get flown so much is due to the changing landscape of Eve in general making them more obsolete not just because T3Cs are powerful - same with the loki versus the min recons - if you want long range webbing in a situation requiring something half durable you have the loki and then a big gap and then some ships that aren't really suited to the task in today's Eve at all. Though keeping the old shield huginn alive against the alpha and dps of 14+ sleepless guardians was kind of fun even if it had like a 4bn ISK fit to do it. Even taking T3s out of the picture as ships you might encounter doesn't change that as the fleet compositions, tactics and meta, etc. in general has moved on a long way.


No, it's literally pretty much just because T3Cs are way better than them at everything they do. There's plenty of room for a fast, tanky fleet DPS ship in a Cruiser or BC hull size with decent damage projection, DPS, and Tank. The problem is that why would anyone ever want a ship like that when they can have *GREAT* DPS and Tank, equivalent or better damage projection, and Utility throw in on top.

You can get Recons up to some pretty respectable EHP values, but you have to make more tradeoffs than with T3Cs, which seems to be what you're objecting to here. I regret to inform you that having your cake and eating it too is not in the Eve balance philosophy and if that's what it takes for you or anyone else to be happy in this game you are destined to be disappointed.

If other ships require buffs to make the roles the T3 used to fill viable that's fine in my book, but that will never require buffing *any of them* near the level T3Cs are currently at and any buffs would be marginal at best.
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2017-04-19 23:52:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


How many of those cruisers can swap out rigs without destroying them and change the very bonuses of the ship on the fly?



The price difference between t1 hulls and t3 allows you to own several t1 hulls with different rigs for the same price and locate them at points of instant travel. t1 rigs are also now at fundamentally disposable prices anyway especially at cruiser sizes.

Quote:

If doneboats are no good for the task you want to do why bring one in the first place?



because right now, with the current firepower of a proteus its fine. In the worst case scenario, my drones get in sync with the drone aggro, so that I'm killing 1 battleship between each outbreak, and the targets are not left to regen whilst my drones are bayed, meaning that drone aggro is mostly an afk check (which is largely its purpose). If we reduce the power of the ship further (its already been indirectly nerfed as a drone fit by nerfs to drones), then it takes disproportionately longer to kill individual battleships, which regen more hitpoints during that process, making it take even longer, and then the worst case scenario of drone aggro becomes a different and much larger penalty because a damaged battleship sits there and regens most of its hitpoints.

Quote:

This is the incursion argument. What you mean to say is you don't want your isk generating power reduced.


what you keep doing is typing things that I have not typed and assigning them to me as if I had.

My income would likely increase if I forced to not solo them with a t3, because I'd be using my alt, and I'd be bringing more firepower. That is what happens when you attempt to debate my motivation when you plainly cannot know what it is unless I tell you what it is. I do not think optimising exploration content for duo play is a good idea.
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2017-04-20 00:27:42 UTC
Why are you guys arguing with Rroff when he's said at least a few times that he doesn't even play anymore. When he says 'I've never heard people complaining about. T3s', well how would he when he doesn't even play.

Rroff, T3s are OP, everyone here is telling you so and CCP are literally about to nerf them. With them less powerful, some of the other hundreds of ships in game will start seeing more use again.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Solitaire.
#117 - 2017-04-20 01:20:13 UTC
T3s are op.
Theyre often cloaky and hard to kill
Size of a cruiser with bc-bs damage
Frigates do small damage and are fast
Battleships do lots of boom boom damage and are slow
A cruiser comes in in the middle.
A jack of all trades t3 cruiser should underperform any cruiser roll comparatively to the applicable cruiser for that roll. Not posses all the strengths of the other ships and over perform.
T3s have no purpose so they should just be removed.
Take the coolest configuration for each one and make it into a new t1 and t2 that does something useful.
#118 - 2017-04-20 02:34:41 UTC
Coralas wrote:
The price difference between t1 hulls and t3 allows you to own several t1 hulls with different rigs for the same price and locate them at points of instant travel. t1 rigs are also now at fundamentally disposable prices anyway especially at cruiser sizes.


Yes, and if you took each of those hulls up against a T3 you would have no more T1 hulls and some guy with a T3 would have a fat killboard for the month.

Price is not a balance parameter. It can create a niche for a ship but T3 *fits* would have to cost about 10-times what they do now to even come close to having that be an argument and even then they'd still need a nerf.

Coralas wrote:
because right now, with the current firepower of a proteus its fine. In the worst case scenario, my drones get in sync with the drone aggro, so that I'm killing 1 battleship between each outbreak, and the targets are not left to regen whilst my drones are bayed, meaning that drone aggro is mostly an afk check (which is largely its purpose). If we reduce the power of the ship further (its already been indirectly nerfed as a drone fit by nerfs to drones), then it takes disproportionately longer to kill individual battleships, which regen more hitpoints during that process, making it take even longer, and then the worst case scenario of drone aggro becomes a different and much larger penalty because a damaged battleship sits there and regens most of its hitpoints.


This is just bad logic.

"Oh, I'm using the hull with a fit that isn't good for what I'm trying to do, but this one hull does alright so that hull must be fine because it enables my play-style."

You are trying to use a hammer like a power drill and then complaining when it doesn't work well. You should not expect one particular restricted style of play to work well in every part of the game.

Like, for example, I really like Railguns. I think they look cool, I love them as a concept, and I wish I could use them for everything in Eve. But they're not good at everything in Eve nor should they be, and I've accepted that sometimes I have the option of either using Railguns or doing this cool thing I want to do, and I've learned to put the railguns away in their box and go play with something else if I want to go do all of these fun non-railgun friendly activities.

The only reason the Proteus is working for you when you try to use it as a drone boat at something drone boats are bad at is because it's really really OP when used correctly. It's like removing screws with a hammer that just blows away the entire block of wood. Yeah it works, but...

Coralas wrote:
what you keep doing is typing things that I have not typed and assigning them to me as if I had.

My income would likely increase if I forced to not solo them with a t3, because I'd be using my alt, and I'd be bringing more firepower. That is what happens when you attempt to debate my motivation when you plainly cannot know what it is unless I tell you what it is. I do not think optimising exploration content for duo play is a good idea.


He's not putting words in your mouth, he's analogizing your argument to another more common one you might be familiar with and drawing parallels. If that's not what you're saying then you've probably been unclear...

It's not optimized for dual-boxing, it's meant to be done with a ship that's actually good at the sites you're running.

You're using a ship and a fit that you flat out admit isn't particularly good at what you're trying to do. That's not CCP's fault, they should not have to make every piece of content in the game equally accessible to every player's arbitrary decision about what sort of fits they "just like".
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2017-04-20 02:55:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Antichrist of Revelations
Rroff wrote:

Personally outside of these forums I've never heard anyone particularly unhappy with T3 cruisers - and a lot of my game time was spent in a coalition of 100s of players and alts in 1-2 large corps/alliances.

Right, you'll never hear people who benefit from them and like them and fly them say they are unhappy with them. I'm benefiting from this monstrously OP thing but I'm gonna complain?

What you will hear sometimes though, if you ask, and if the person is in an honest speaking mood in a private conversation, is an admission to how ridiculously OP they are.

Like I said, I have a friend who's played for like 8 years - the entire time in nullsec. Has bazillions of ISK out the wazoo. Can fly anything including Titans. Yet flies nothing but his trusty Tengu for everything, including fleet ops. If you ask him whether it's OP or not he'll say "OMG JESUS CHRIST GOD YES!" If you ask him whether he loves it or not he'll say "OMG JESUS CHRIST GOD YES!" If you ask him whether he wants it nerfed or not he'll say "HELL NO!"
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2017-04-20 03:11:09 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Coralas wrote:
The price difference between t1 hulls and t3 allows you to own several t1 hulls with different rigs for the same price and locate them at points of instant travel. t1 rigs are also now at fundamentally disposable prices anyway especially at cruiser sizes.


Yes, and if you took each of those hulls up against a T3 you would have no more T1 hulls and some guy with a T3 would have a fat killboard for the month.



This was a debate about nerfing t3s to having the same power as a t1 ship. Which would by definition cause that scenario to not occur. you might need to read the whole context before jumping in.
Forum Jump