These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Strategic cruiser balance pass

Author
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#241 - 2017-04-23 05:09:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
If you're going out to null to just explore, there's already the wormhole express.

Escalation chasing is another story. That one says "go to X system within 24 hours." I've never chased a null escalation because the only realistic way to pass those null gatecamps with enough firepower to run the escalation is usually... cloaky nullified T3C, or maybe dotlan to find a wormhole within 10 jumps of the target system and hope you don't hit one on the way there.
Or take an interceptor out and try to sell the escalation to someone just passing through. The last time I tried to sell an escalation, the locals thought I was trying to set them up to get hotdropped. Hmm...


Its a false argument anyway, escalations are generally run by the people that own the space, the very same people who generally have the gatecamps and bubbled gates too.



I have seen escalations go as far as 17 jumps. That's still safely behind your intel channels and choke points?

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#242 - 2017-04-23 05:11:05 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:


Sorry, but this is nonsense. You might have time to replace the SP loss between battles, but it means you're spending your time keeping your ability to fly a T3 ship instead of training new skills. Over time the player who doesn't touch a T3 ship will have a significant SP advantage. And god help you if you decide to fly a T3 for more than the occasional once-per-week major fleet battle.


I trained up large blaster specialisation to V because I have nothing better to train for. I also pull a lot of work hours so one big fight is all I get. Its not nonsense, its a reality for a lot of us.

Merin Ryskin wrote:

Of the covops ships available only the Stratios has the ability to be nomadic in any meaningful way, none of the others have the ability to even attempt anything like endgame content. It still has zero chance of doing the true high-end stuff, especially if you want to finish it in anything close to a reasonable amount of time. And its ability to be nomadic is severely hindered by how easy it is to instantly lose one with little or no chance of survival if you happen to jump into a bubble camp.


As I said, this is all about you not wanting to lose your effort free isk making machines.

Merin Ryskin wrote:

The simple fact here is that T3s, using cloak + nullifier for travel, are the only viable option for high-end PvE content if you aren't a member of an alliance that owns space to PvE in. The only option that even comes close to being an alternative is a black ops with a cheap covops frigate alt, and paying a billion ISK per month for an alt means having to invest a lot of effort carebearing just to break even over staying docked for a month.


Or making friends. This is yet another argument made by someone who feels they are entitled to putting in no effort into penetrating hostile space just because they want to make isk.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#243 - 2017-04-23 05:12:10 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
If you're going out to null to just explore, there's already the wormhole express.

Escalation chasing is another story. That one says "go to X system within 24 hours." I've never chased a null escalation because the only realistic way to pass those null gatecamps with enough firepower to run the escalation is usually... cloaky nullified T3C, or maybe dotlan to find a wormhole within 10 jumps of the target system and hope you don't hit one on the way there.
Or take an interceptor out and try to sell the escalation to someone just passing through. The last time I tried to sell an escalation, the locals thought I was trying to set them up to get hotdropped. Hmm...


Its a false argument anyway, escalations are generally run by the people that own the space, the very same people who generally have the gatecamps and bubbled gates too.



I have seen escalations go as far as 17 jumps. That's still safely behind your intel channels and choke points?


You can go 40 jumps and still be in friendly space.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#244 - 2017-04-23 05:22:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
I trained up large blaster specialisation to V because I have nothing better to train for. I also pull a lot of work hours so one big fight is all I get. Its not nonsense, its a reality for a lot of us.


Ok, great. I've been training for at least 7 of the past 10 years and I still have various relevant Vs to finish up. I suspect more people are in my situation than in yours, and you can't balance around the tiny minority of 2003 players who have nothing left to do.

Quote:
As I said, this is all about you not wanting to lose your effort free isk making machines.


"Effort free" is a lie. Covops + nullifier T3s can still be caught on a gate with bad luck, so you still have to pay attention to where you're going and avoid high-risk locations. And they're just as easy as any ship to catch while actually running a PvE site. The only advantage you get is that you're less likely to get insta-popped attempting to travel to your next PvE site.

But really, if you want to see people demanding effort-free play, just look at the people who feel entitled to kill everything that jumps into "their" system just because they set up enough bubbles on the gate and brought enough DPS to insta-pop anything short of a carrier.

Quote:
Or making friends. This is yet another argument made by someone who feels they are entitled to putting in no effort into penetrating hostile space just because they want to make isk.


Group play is not supposed to be mandatory. If solo PvE is not viable then something is badly wrong.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#245 - 2017-04-23 05:33:55 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:


Of the covops ships available only the Stratios has the ability to be nomadic in any meaningful way, none of the others have the ability to even attempt anything like endgame content. It still has zero chance of doing the true high-end stuff, especially if you want to finish it in anything close to a reasonable amount of time. And its ability to be nomadic is severely hindered by how easy it is to instantly lose one with little or no chance of survival if you happen to jump into a bubble camp.

The simple fact here is that T3s, using cloak + nullifier for travel, are the only viable option for high-end PvE content if you aren't a member of an alliance that owns space to PvE in. The only option that even comes close to being an alternative is a black ops with a cheap covops frigate alt, and paying a billion ISK per month for an alt means having to invest a lot of effort carebearing just to break even over staying docked for a month.

This is not true at all.

I spent 3 months out in null sec in a cloaky Ishtar. I didn't die once and I made around 20 billion isk running combat sites. It was in the old northern Goodswarm space mostly. Using wormholes and giant secure containers I set up a supply base for it and just used my smarts to stay alive. I wrote a guide on how to do it (Infinity Ziona's Guide to Solo Combat Site Running) or something similiar.

With a T3C like the Proteus its much much easier, don't need a interdiction nullified one either, you just need to set up bookmarks first using a cov ops frig or intie. With the current state of the Tengu you could pretty much blast through any camp without bookmarks because its so tanky they will never kill you before you hit the gate if you decloak (sans heavy nueting and major camps).

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#246 - 2017-04-23 05:43:37 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I spent 3 months out in null sec in a cloaky Ishtar. I didn't die once and I made around 20 billion isk running combat sites. It was in the old northern Goodswarm space mostly. Using wormholes and giant secure containers I set up a supply base for it and just used my smarts to stay alive. I wrote a guide on how to do it (Infinity Ziona's Guide to Solo Combat Site Running) or something similiar.


This is possible, but the dependence on wormholes prevents it from being a viable option for all but the most dedicated players. You need out-of-game tools to map the wormholes, and a significant degree of luck in getting the right wormhole chains if you ever want to leave your initial system without going through gates. And you're going to be spending precious playing time on the logistics of setting up all that stuff instead of doing the fun things.

Of course if you are that dedicated player then it's a much better option than T3s. By taking a conventional combat ship, especially one with 5x sentry drones and a damage bonus, you're going to out-perform the T3 at actually farming ISK. And I suspect the degree of risk involved is no worse than the cloak + nullifier T3, and probably lower. So really, the whines about cloak + nullifier carebear T3s are targeting the second-best ship instead of the best option.
Cade Windstalker
#247 - 2017-04-23 05:53:56 UTC
Coralas wrote:
nah, I said "multipurpose exploration". just flat out no.

Even the stratios is not a dedicated exploration ship, as anything with a reasonable tank, and the ability to fit 3 neuts, a cloak and an expanded probe launcher and deal nearly 500 dps with covert cloak fitted plainly has hunter applications.


"Multipurpose exploration ship" has "exploration" as the primary adjective affecting "ship" which indicates that you consider the ship an exploration ship first and multipurpose second, hence my interpretation of your original comment.

Glad we can agree that these ships aren't to be pigeon holed though.

Coralas wrote:
If it cannot do the same content that the ishtar can do, then it is flat out lesser ship, there is no point me bringing a swiss army knife if I can't unscrew something on the encounter to avoid me needing a machete. Put another way, the ships were designed to exploit the existing content, not the other way around.


Only in whatever specific role you're referring to. If the Ishtar is better at everything then yes, the Proteus would be a flat out lesser ship, but that seems unlikely considering at the very least the Isthar doesn't have a bonus to Data or Relic sites, and the T3Cs do, which seems unlikely to change.

The T3Cs weren't particularly designed with anything other than Wormhole PvE in mind, which was designed at around the same time. CCP never look at every possible thing a ship might interact with when putting it into the game, it's impractical. They rely on the players to point out potential major problem spots but some inevitably sneak through the cracks.

It could be argued that the original Tengu was one of these, since it became one of the most popular Level 4 mission runners more or less over night.

Coralas wrote:
So we have a minor difference on opinion about how effective the deimos is and an agreement that the rail buffer fit proteus overshadows it.

there are turret slots on the ishtar.


I know the Deimos can be effective, it was downright hilarious for a while before they nerfed Medium Rails.

The Ishtar generally has trouble fitting full sized guns while the Proteus gets a 25% bonus to its guns with the drone subsystem and gets around 400 more PG and more CPU along with an extra low slot and rig slot.

Coralas wrote:
No, only you've stated that, and I've repeatedly pointed out why I don't believe that is so.

also that was not what was being discussed. ie baltec and I were having a discussion about the proteus being barely better than the thorax that you've jumped into. I think the whole idea that the progression goes t1->t3->navy->t2->pirate makes no sense whatsoever, no how flexible the t3 is when totally under powered. There is no doubt that t3 moniker implies progression.


I'm really not seeing any statements with much in the way of explanation behind them, certainly not about why T3Cs in general aren't OP. You've said a lot of stuff about your own experiences, albeit in vague terms, and about why you personally don't want the ships to be nerfed, but none of that amounts to much of an explanation.

You also seem to have missed something somewhere about relative ship power levels. If you'd care to refer to the original ship tiericide devblog post that I've linked previously, specifically this graphic which is what is being referenced here you'll note that they're putting T3s on about the power level of navy ships but with more generalization.

Based on what's been done with the T3 Destroyers this means you can have the power level of a Navy ship, but in a couple of areas. For example a Drone Proteus might end up looking a bit like a VNI in terms of drone power but probably tank a little better and either have a cloak, better base stats, nullification, or some additional specialization but not quite at the level of a T2 ship.

Coralas wrote:
You do make me laugh, I've just pointed out all the trade offs that make the droneboat proteus good at its task after you've asserted it was bad. welcome to eve yourself.

yet again, I'll refer you to the point that the swiss army knife is useless if the content doesn't allow alternatives to bringing a brick swinging a machete. That is not a trade off, that is useless.


Again, I never asserted the Drone Boat Proteus was bad, just generally not eclipsing the Isthar as a pure drone boat.

You're the one who said several times that using a drone boat was disadvantaging you at whatever sites you're running, and as I said I can't really comment on your specific setup or issues without more detail than you've provided so far, and I assume are willing to provide.

If you don't find the Proteus a compelling alternative to the Isthar post-nerfs then I don't think there's anything stopping you from bringing one.

If the Proteus provides more safety from players but doesn't run the sites as well then that's a meaningful trade off and good game balance.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#248 - 2017-04-23 06:05:15 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:


Ok, great. I've been training for at least 7 of the past 10 years and I still have various relevant Vs to finish up. I suspect more people are in my situation than in yours, and you can't balance around the tiny minority of 2003 players who have nothing left to do.


You have to because you wind up with alliances like mine that can and will take advantage.

Merin Ryskin wrote:


"Effort free" is a lie. Covops + nullifier T3s can still be caught on a gate with bad luck


Bollocks.

Why do you think everyone used to send their booster t3's through the gate before the rest of the fleet? Its because no matter how many are on the other side they will not catch a cruiser that has a cov ops cloak and nullification. You have to be incredibly incompetent to be caught with one of these ships.

Merin Ryskin wrote:

But really, if you want to see people demanding effort-free play, just look at the people who feel entitled to kill everything that jumps into "their" system just because they set up enough bubbles on the gate and brought enough DPS to insta-pop anything short of a carrier.


Once again I point out we are the ones effortlessly bypassing these camps and dropping your rorquals.


Merin Ryskin wrote:


Group play is not supposed to be mandatory. If solo PvE is not viable then something is badly wrong.


It is viable, what makes you think the very high end should be easy and soloable in a cruiser?
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#249 - 2017-04-23 06:26:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
baltec1 wrote:
You have to because you wind up with alliances like mine that can and will take advantage.


The real answer here is that SP loss is a bad balancing mechanic and needs to be removed. The oldest players don't care, but everyone else is potentially crippled by it if they want to use T3s. That's not a good situation.

Quote:
Bollocks.

Why do you think everyone used to send their booster t3's through the gate before the rest of the fleet? Its because no matter how many are on the other side they will not catch a cruiser that has a cov ops cloak and nullification. You have to be incredibly incompetent to be caught with one of these ships.


People sent their booster T3s through because it required bad luck to be caught, as opposed to near-certain death for everything else. It was never 100% automatic safety. For example, what happens if your T3 jumps in within 2000m of an object and can't cloak? No amount of skill will prevent you from dying. If you jump in too close to a skilled interceptor pilot you get caught and die. The risk is acceptably low in a PvP context where you expect to lose a certain percentage of your fleet every time you engage, but in a PvE context that camp resistance is a supplement to map awareness and avoiding camps, not an excuse for jumping mindlessly into a 50-man bubble camp.

Quote:
Once again I point out we are the ones effortlessly bypassing these camps and dropping your rorquals.


I assume you mean "your" in a general sense, because I have neither alliance bubble camps nor Rorquals. And if by "dropping" you mean "hot dropping with black ops/capitals" then that has more to do with jump-capable ships being powerful than the cloak + nullifier combo.

Quote:
It is viable, what makes you think the very high end should be easy and soloable in a cruiser?


T3s are not normal cruisers. They cost more than most PvE battleships, and the idea that hull size should be the primary factor in determining what content you can access is obsolete game design. Don't present this like people are going out in 10 million ISK T1 cruisers and soloing high-end content.
Cade Windstalker
#250 - 2017-04-23 06:42:48 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Sorry, but this is nonsense. You might have time to replace the SP loss between battles, but it means you're spending your time keeping your ability to fly a T3 ship instead of training new skills. Over time the player who doesn't touch a T3 ship will have a significant SP advantage. And god help you if you decide to fly a T3 for more than the occasional once-per-week major fleet battle.


Also don't forget Skill Injectors, which mean that the SP loss on T3s is essentially just an ISK penalty with weird determining factors on its value.

baltec1 wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:


"Effort free" is a lie. Covops + nullifier T3s can still be caught on a gate with bad luck


Bollocks.

Why do you think everyone used to send their booster t3's through the gate before the rest of the fleet? Its because no matter how many are on the other side they will not catch a cruiser that has a cov ops cloak and nullification. You have to be incredibly incompetent to be caught with one of these ships.


Bad luck is not something you balance around, and the type of bad luck you're talking about is basically "you lag somehow and the other side of the gate is *amazingly* on the ball with their points and doesn't while you somehow do...

That is not something a ship can be balanced around.

baltec1 wrote:


It is viable, what makes you think the very high end should be easy and soloable in a cruiser?


Really have to agree with this. In terms of PvE a T3C gives you more punch and more benefit for less cost and SP training time than basically any other ship in the game and you're less likely to lose it to a hunter on top of that.

You can certainly make other ships equally hard to lose, but it takes a lot more effort, planning, and skill to pull off. All things Eve should be encouraging the use of rather than just saying "go use the easy option, it's better in basically every way".
Salvos Rhoska
#251 - 2017-04-23 07:07:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I spent 3 months out in null sec in a cloaky Ishtar. I didn't die once and I made around 20 billion isk running combat sites. It was in the old northern Goodswarm space mostly. Using wormholes and giant secure containers I set up a supply base for it and just used my smarts to stay alive. I wrote a guide on how to do it (Infinity Ziona's Guide to Solo Combat Site Running) or something similiar.


This is possible, but the dependence on wormholes prevents it from being a viable option for all but the most dedicated players. You need out-of-game tools to map the wormholes, and a significant degree of luck in getting the right wormhole chains if you ever want to leave your initial system without going through gates. And you're going to be spending precious playing time on the logistics of setting up all that stuff instead of doing the fun things.

Of course if you are that dedicated player then it's a much better option than T3s. By taking a conventional combat ship, especially one with 5x sentry drones and a damage bonus, you're going to out-perform the T3 at actually farming ISK. And I suspect the degree of risk involved is no worse than the cloak + nullifier T3, and probably lower. So really, the whines about cloak + nullifier carebear T3s are targeting the second-best ship instead of the best option.



This.

Furthermore, if the Ishtar does it better, why not nerf that instead.

The real issue here is people dont like the occassional T3C running past their gatecamps.

They also want T3Cs changed so that they are more useful for their own PvP fleets.

They want them cheaper to build, to drop the SP loss, and be able to fit simultaneous subsystems useful only for their purposes, and the bonuses dropped to where there are only enough for the purposes of their fleets (they dont need the versatility for their purposes).

Essentially they want to change T3Cs from a versatile, expensive swiss-army knife with SP loss;
into a cheap, non-SP loss combat vessel which "loses" versatility in favor of the narrow range of bonuses useful to their fleets.

It doesnt "nerf" T3Cs for their purposes, at all.
Infact it makes them MORE useful for their purposes, at the expense of nomads.


These changes actually BUFF T3Cs for their PvP fleet purposes.
They have everything to gain from this change.

Plus, if T3Cs can no longer effectively operate as nomads, that means less interlopers in their space (or easier to catch), and incentives joining null corps instead.



PvP fleets dont need the versatility. They also dont need cloak/nulli.
They dont need the full range of bonuses, they only need those for PvP.
The cost is more an issue for them, as they are more likely to lose the ships.
The SP loss is more an issue for them, as they are more likely to lose the ships.

They want the T3Cs changed to fit their own narrow needs, at the expense of everyone else.
They want T3C changed from a multi-tool, into one that caters only to their own purposes.

They paint it as a "re-balance" or a nerf, whereas they infact stand only to benefit from it.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#252 - 2017-04-23 07:28:12 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
You should have to hunt them when they run stuff rather than easy certain death gate camps in choke points, is hunting too hard for you? I guess it is...

Why should any pilot only be vulnerable when running sites, and if and only if they don't pay attention to local and d-scan?

It's not that I'm unsympathetic to your point, Drac. I feel that both sides have legitimate cause for grievance here. But in most other cases, CCP has very deliberately kept cloaking ability and nullification separate. And that seems like good game balance. The only time they intersect other than T3C, that I can recall, is a one-time issued yacht.

Think about it - every time people ask for both advantages on one hull (namely things like Blockade Runners), the idea get swiftly smacked down as being overpowered. And that's just moving a small amount of freight around. Being able to freely move combat capable vessels seems way over the line, comparatively speaking. The only ship that can imitate (but not replicate) this level of movement safety is the interceptor - and only because it can get align times down to a point where the lack of cloak doesn't matter. But they were already nerfed in that such a fitting severely gimps their combat potential, and alone they don't have that much to start with. Plus you can still smartbomb them.

Nomadic life will adjust, I have no doubt. They will either make more use of other tools at their disposal to avoid gatecamps like most others have to, or they will use the cloak and play the tense game of trying to evade the ships at the gatecamp. I feel this game is way too complex, and the options available are way too vast, to have such a lifestyle completely and utterly contingent upon this specific set of ships having these very specific set of otherwise game-breaking abilities. The rest of EvE shouldn't have to suffer for nomads to be able to keep their toys. Needs of the many, and all that.


Because Eve is supposed to be a hard game and there should be ships that are hard to catch, if every ship can be caught at a choke point gate camp then it will be pretty boring. I am happy that CCP kept them separate and I give them credit for it, I must admit to being nervous that they would have them on the same sub-system.

I would like to have the blockade runner nullified too or have a T3 version of it, because here is the rub, I used to operate in Stain and used my carrier for logistics, I lost that making me rely on WH's, so I went from having a pretty safe way of getting even Battleships in to not having that ability at all unless I seed Citadels all over the place, that is in effective very safe and a nomad player just cannot do that. Ship balance affects game balance and can destroy certain game play.

I am sure it will adjust, but if things become too hard people get to the point where they say, no, too much hassle and not enough time doing, for example the proliferation of BLOP capable players meant that there was much more time waiting out campers, increasing boredom levels, again a game balance issue.

There are many choke points in this game and it does get a bit wearing having to endlessly search for ways to get around them, which is why in the end I changed and went to hisec and then joined a very good sov alliance.

I am a patient guy, but I found myself having too wait around far too much and that killed it for me, make people have to wait around for reinforced gate camps because they can now have a good chance of catching T3C's and what then.

At one point I ran around with a T3C as scout and my other ship which was not nullified behind in to sov systems which were not used at all by people who held space through the use of massive blobs, at times I saw no one at all. I don't mind change itself, however one has to look at overall impacts and don't break something because another aspect is broken, which is BS being worthless for fleet fights...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Salvos Rhoska
#253 - 2017-04-23 07:33:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
The cloak/nulli issue is hilarious when compared to the discussions on removing cynos from LS.

There many of them same posters felt it was fair and sensible that JFs can lol-cyno past LS.
Apparently that they arent interceptable at gates there was not an issue, but magically it now is an issue with T3Cs.

The hypocrisy and self-serving bias is palpable and pervasive.

These changes would not reduce the numbers or efficacy of T3Cs in fleet combat.
It would INCREASE their numbers and efficacy, as cheaper, no SP loss, and still able to fit the bonuses sufficient to that purpose.
It BUFFS T3Cs for their purposes, at the expense of everyone else.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#254 - 2017-04-23 07:34:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Yet here you are supporting a system that allows you to pass by the defenses of anyone simply by clicking warp to next gate.


You should have to hunt them when they run stuff rather than easy certain death gate camps in choke points, is hunting too hard for you? I guess it is...


I don't know why people who have declared that they "live the nomadic lifestyle" should have special protections and special toys that allow them to avoid what the rest of us have to deal with on a daily basis. I don't know what makes you and others think "nomads" are privileged.

Why shouldn't your "hunting" argument work for everyone else? "You should have to hunt freighters, not easy certain death at gate camps" etc.

Look, I despise gate camps as much if not more than anyone else. I find them extremely lazy, uncreative, obnoxious, asinine, annoying, etc. But I have to deal with them, and so does everyone else. Why shouldn't you?


Well nomads have already had massive impacts to their game play, I used to use carriers to move stuff quickly to areas to get into where I wanted to operate, but that was removed from me, at one point I could plonk a toon to be able to D-scan key points like stations and gates to give me intel on ship types, removed by certain ships not showing on D-scan, I could go on, but it will be a bit pointless.

I am now in a sov alliance, I don't have to deal with gate camps, I just jump my JF to Citadels where I have cyno alts, gate camps have no impact on me at all. Nomads can't do that for pretty obvious reasons, so they need an alternative which is not like playing Russian roulette.

Since interceptors were nullified the number of gate camps decreased a lot, for me that was a good thing, so I do not want to see anything that increases the number of gate camps. My bias again I guess.

On the freighter question, that is a bit different to this, we are talking about hunters having to hunt, and I don't intend to derial this thread with hisec freighter bumping and all that stupidity.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#255 - 2017-04-23 07:40:31 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The cloak/nulli issue is hilarious when compared to the discussions on removing cynos from LS.

There many of them same posters felt it was fair and sensible that JFs can lol-cyno past LS.
Apparently that they arent interceptable at gates there was not an issue, but magically it now is an issue with T3Cs.

The hypocrisy and self-serving bias is palpable and pervasive.

These changes would not reduce the numbers or efficacy of T3Cs in fleet combat.
It would INCREASE their numbers and efficacy, as cheaper, no SP loss, and still able to fit the bonuses sufficient to that purpose.
It BUFFS T3Cs for their purposes, at the expense of everyone else.


This and your previous post hits the nail on the head, my alliance does have a T3C doctrine, but we mainly use other doctrines, it has long been pretty evident that the 0.0 blocks hate the ability for people to move freely with significantly reduced risk.

Also many of them assume that the cloaky T3C is nullified, not all are...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#256 - 2017-04-23 07:47:24 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:


The real answer here is that SP loss is a bad balancing mechanic and needs to be removed. The oldest players don't care, but everyone else is potentially crippled by it if they want to use T3s. That's not a good situation.


Already said SP loss doesn't work and should be binned.


Merin Ryskin wrote:

People sent their booster T3s through because it required bad luck to be caught, as opposed to near-certain death for everything else. It was never 100% automatic safety. For example, what happens if your T3 jumps in within 2000m of an object and can't cloak? No amount of skill will prevent you from dying. If you jump in too close to a skilled interceptor pilot you get caught and die.


Blind luck is the best you can hope for in catching one of these things. This is why it is horribly overpowered and needs to go. If you want to get through the gatecamp then your should have to do what every other cov ops ship does. Beating a gatecamp should be based upon the piloting skill of the cov ops pilot and not be a simply selecting warp to next gate and hitting cloak.


Merin Ryskin wrote:

I assume you mean "your" in a general sense, because I have neither alliance bubble camps nor Rorquals. And if by "dropping" you mean "hot dropping with black ops/capitals" then that has more to do with jump-capable ships being powerful than the cloak + nullifier combo.


Cant drop anything without a cyno ship and getting a cyno ship into the heart of an enemies ratting grounds is super easy with t3c as nothing can stop them.


Merin Ryskin wrote:

T3s are not normal cruisers. They cost more than most PvE battleships, and the idea that hull size should be the primary factor in determining what content you can access is obsolete game design. Don't present this like people are going out in 10 million ISK T1 cruisers and soloing high-end content.


Cost means nothing in terms of balance, titans showed everyone that. It does also stand to reason that cruisers should not be soloing high end content. Again, this is all about you wanting to keep an overpowered money maker.
Salvos Rhoska
#257 - 2017-04-23 07:51:09 UTC
baltec1 claims cost and SP have nothing to do with balance.

Yet he wants T3C cost to build reduced, and SP loss removed.

Hmmm!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#258 - 2017-04-23 07:51:17 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


They also want T3Cs changed so that they are more useful for their own PvP fleets.


How exactly does nerfing T3C down to cruiser/navy cruiser levels of power make them more useful to our PvP fleets?

Less EHP, Less firepower, cant ignore bubble camps, harder to fit, cant be made cap stable as easily..

It makes all of our fleets less powerful.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#259 - 2017-04-23 07:53:09 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1 claims cost and SP have nothing to do with balance.

Yet he wants T3C cost to build reduced, and SP loss removed.

Hmmm!


We toss around dreads like subcaps while the number of supers balloons by tens of thousands. Feel free to keep on saying cost and SP matter.
Salvos Rhoska
#260 - 2017-04-23 08:04:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1 claims cost and SP have nothing to do with balance.

Yet he wants T3C cost to build reduced, and SP loss removed.

Hmmm!


We toss around dreads like subcaps while the number of supers balloons by tens of thousands. Feel free to keep on saying cost and SP matter.


You do, but many dont.

That T3C you seek to "nerf" (cough, buff for your purposes) is for many their single most expensive asset, and the key to their livelihood and playstyle.

If cost and SP are not a balance issue, why adjust them in your proposal.