These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Salvos Rhoska
#281 - 2017-04-23 10:10:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.

Good. All you want to do is hide dead end pipes behind anchored bubbles and rat with your carriers. If T3C are the only one that can pass your defences then I'm okay with them. Your ISK printing sand castles should be vulnerable to attack. You are untrustworthy about removing covop cloak + nullifing. You are wirting that it is so easy for your alliance to pass the defences with those T3C but is goes both sides. It would be easy to pass yours as well.


Because PL is well known for its vast tracts of space and ratters behind bubble camps...


Because what PL does is somehow the be-all, end-all of EVE or something to balance around...

I detest sarcasm. Its weak, and a thinly veiled lie/misrepresentation.
But its a fitting slap back against someone that actually thinks it constitutes an argument.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#282 - 2017-04-23 10:19:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Because PL is well known for its vast tracts of space and ratters behind bubble camps...

PL hold sov in two regions according to Dotlan. Your argumentation behind nerfing covop+nullified travel actually buff sov holding alliances. Everytime I hear that nullsec dweller wants to improve gameplay for all red light is starting to blink under my skull.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#283 - 2017-04-23 10:21:58 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

2) You have so much SP, that you want SP loss REMOVED from T3Cs.


I'm not trying to speak for the guy, he can do that himself. But I read his comments on this much differently than you and others do.

I get the impression that personally-speaking, he could care less about the SP loss from T3Cs or for removing the skill loss. HE'S TRYING TO COMPENSATE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEBATE FOR THE PROPOSED NERFS.

That's how I read it anyway. So it seems weird to me that you guys are shooting yourselves in the foot by trying to get him to back off the "remove SP loss from T3Cs." He's trying to throw YOU a bone, not help himself out.
Salvos Rhoska
#284 - 2017-04-23 10:25:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Because PL is well known for its vast tracts of space and ratters behind bubble camps...

PL hold sov in two regions according to Dotlan. Your argumentation behind nerfing covop+nullified travel actually buff sov holding alliances. Everytime I hear that nullsec dweller wants to improve gameplay for all red light is starting to blink under my skull.


His whole proposal is a buff to NS.

Thats the hilarious underlying hypocrisy and bias here.

He wants cheaper, no SP loss T3Cs with just enough fittings and bonuses to still work in PvP fleets.
He wants cloak/null removed, so they can rely entirely on gatecamps and intel.
He wants T3Cs as multitools nerfed, so that players are forced to join NS corps to run content there.
He wants T3Cs to work for his interests, but no-one elses.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#285 - 2017-04-23 10:25:45 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1

So let me get this straight:

1) You have so much isk, that you want T3Cs to cost LESS.

2) You have so much SP, that you want SP loss REMOVED from T3Cs.

3) Currently EVERYONE can fly a cloak/null T3C, but you want NOBODY to be able to do so.

4) You want T3Cs turned from a multi-tool for all, into a single use tool ideal for fleet PvP.

5) You want T3C cap/pg/cpu and fittings reduced, so that using it as a multitool becomes impractical, but use as a dedicated fleet PvP ship remains convenient.

6) Though you claim cost and SP are not relevant to balance, you use them as counterweights as equity for the "nerfs" you propose.

7) You refuse to acknowledge that the changes you propose will infact increase and incentivize use of T3Cs in fleet PvP, which is contrary of your own premise of there already being too many.

Do you really not recognize your own hypocrisy and blatant self-serving bias?



1. If you greatly reduce the capability of a ship from pulling battleship stats down to pulling between navy faction cruiser and T1 cruiser stats then you also alter the build costs to match. Almost every single ship that has been through balancing changes has seen its build cost altered to match.

2. SP loss does not work. The argument is the ships are so OP because of SP loss so get rid of it. You can buy SP now so not only does it not make much of a difference if you lose one at the weekend as come next weekend you have that skill back but you can also just buy SP to cover the loss. SP loss make no sense at all on a ship that is around the level of a cruiser/navy cruiser unless you want that to apply to all ships of that range and up?

3. Because its horribly overpowered and effectively make that pilot impossible to catch. If you want to go through a gatecamp you should have to rely upon your own skill as a pilot, not a get out of jail free card.

4. I want a multi tool cruiser that can change on the fly. What we have is a pocket battleship that invalidates or matches some 60+ other ships that cannot currently change on the fly.

5. Currently t3c get far more powergrid than t2 battlecruisers. Its a cruiser, it needs cruiser CPU and Powergrid

6. SP means nothing in ship balance and cost should reflect its position. If the ship is between cruisers and navy cruisers then its cost should be between a cruiser and a navy cruiser.

7. Explain to me why we would use T3 more than we currently do after the nerfs.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#286 - 2017-04-23 10:36:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
baltec1 wrote:


5. Currently t3c get far more powergrid than t2 battlecruisers. Its a cruiser, it needs cruiser CPU and Powergrid




Nerf that and the problem gets solved.

That was the only problem all along.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#287 - 2017-04-23 10:45:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1

So let me get this straight:

1) You have so much isk, that you want T3Cs to cost LESS.

2) You have so much SP, that you want SP loss REMOVED from T3Cs.

3) Currently EVERYONE can fly a cloak/null T3C, but you want NOBODY to be able to do so.

4) You want T3Cs turned from a multi-tool for all, into a single use tool ideal for fleet PvP.

5) You want T3C cap/pg/cpu and fittings reduced, so that using it as a multitool becomes impractical, but use as a dedicated fleet PvP ship remains convenient.

6) Though you claim cost and SP are not relevant to balance, you use them as counterweights as equity for the "nerfs" you propose.

7) You refuse to acknowledge that the changes you propose will infact increase and incentivize use of T3Cs in fleet PvP, which is contrary of your own premise of there already being too many.

Do you really not recognize your own hypocrisy and blatant self-serving bias?



1. If you greatly reduce the capability of a ship from pulling battleship stats down to pulling between navy faction cruiser and T1 cruiser stats then you also alter the build costs to match. Almost every single ship that has been through balancing changes has seen its build cost altered to match.

2. SP loss does not work. The argument is the ships are so OP because of SP loss so get rid of it. You can buy SP now so not only does it not make much of a difference if you lose one at the weekend as come next weekend you have that skill back but you can also just buy SP to cover the loss. SP loss make no sense at all on a ship that is around the level of a cruiser/navy cruiser unless you want that to apply to all ships of that range and up?

3. Because its horribly overpowered and effectively make that pilot impossible to catch. If you want to go through a gatecamp you should have to rely upon your own skill as a pilot, not a get out of jail free card.

4. I want a multi tool cruiser that can change on the fly. What we have is a pocket battleship that invalidates or matches some 60+ other ships that cannot currently change on the fly.

5. Currently t3c get far more powergrid than t2 battlecruisers. Its a cruiser, it needs cruiser CPU and Powergrid

6. SP means nothing in ship balance and cost should reflect its position. If the ship is between cruisers and navy cruisers then its cost should be between a cruiser and a navy cruiser.

7. Explain to me why we would use T3 more than we currently do after the nerfs.

1) You stated cost doesnt matter in balance, Now you claim it does and has been seen in almost every change.
Cheaper T3Cs means more T3Cs.
You are a backpedalling hypocrite.

2) SP loss works just fine. Lose ship, lose SP. If you want to replace it with an injector, go ahead. If not, reskill with time.
Its a unique core mechanic of T3Cs and there is no rationale to remove it.

3) Anyone can skill into a cloak/null, if they wish. How is bypassing gatecamps OP? Happens all the time by other means. JFs lol-cyno past LS gatecamps without even bubbles as an impediment.

4) T3Cs have nowhere near the dps of BS, they are not pocket battleships.
The tank can be discussed, that we can agree on (and most do).
The other problem here, is BCs being subpar.
I trained into Sleipnir as a "pocket battleship", but it really isnt.

5) That is a problem with BCs, not T3Cs. Its a strategic cruiser which needs the cpu/pg to refit as a multitool. If there was a T3BC, it would no doubt have the same. Notably a Loki is very restricted in fitting a full 750mm rack. CPU/PG are largely passive, they only matter interms of fittings, and fittings are what T3Cs need to perform tasks on demand. T3Cs cant really fit oversized modules without significant sacrifice.

6) Then why remove SP loss as somekind of equitable counterweight to this "nerf". No SP loss makes T3Cs even more attractive for fleet PvP where ship destruction is expected, rather than avoided. T3Cs are not between cruisers and navy cruisers, they are the pinnacle of the cruiser line, and hence more expensive and carry the SP loss (which was patched to avoid ejecting), inorder to have that versatility.

7) I already have.
You propose a cheaper, non-SP loss T3C which can still manage enough bonuses/cap/fit to fultill a PvP fleet role, but loses its versatility elsewhere. You want the cloak/null removed because its an inconvenience for you, and you dont need it as you have other ships capable of infiltrating and delivering a cyno at far less cost, and provide fleet boosts.

Your changes would nerf T3Cs for everyone elses purposes, except yours.
For you, its a buff.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#288 - 2017-04-23 11:07:33 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) You stated cost doesnt matter in balance, Now you claim it does and has been seen in almost every change.
Cheaper T3Cs means more T3Cs.
You are a backpedalling hypocrite.

2) SP loss works just fine. Lose ship, lose SP. If you want to replace it with an injector, go ahead. If not, reskill with time.
Its a unique core mechanic of T3Cs and there is no rationale to remove it.

3) Anyone can skill into a cloak/null, if they wish. How is bypassing gatecamps OP? Happens all the time by other means. JFs lol-cyno past LS gatecamps without even bubbles as an impediment.

4) T3Cs have nowhere near the dps of BS, they are not pocket battleships.

5) That is a problem with BCs, not T3Cs. Its a strategic cruiser which needs the cpu/pg to refit as a multitool. If there was a T3BC, it would no doubt have the same. Notably a Loki is very restricted in fitting a full 750mm rack.

6) Then why remove SP loss as somekind of equitable counterweight to this "nerf". No SP loss makes T3Cs even more attractive for fleet PvP where ship destruction is expected, rather than avoided. T3Cs are not between cruisers and navy cruisers, they are the pinnacle of the cruiser line, and hence more expensive and carry the SP loss (which was patched to avoid ejecting), inorder to have that versatility.

7) I already have.
You propose a cheaper, non-SP loss T3C which can still manage enough bonuses/cap/fit to fultill a PvP fleet role, but loses its versatility elsewhere. You want the cloak/null removed because its an inconvenience for you, and you dont need it as you have other ships capable of inflitrating and delivering a cyno at far less cost.


1. I have been calling for this since the start, no back peddling and no hipocricy. But hey, if you want to pay out current T3C prices on a ship with stats a bit bettwe than T1 but worse than navy faction be my guest. You are the one that will lose out to your own blind stupidity because we will go back to using HAC's in HAC fleet.

2. Its entirely pointless and entirely avoided by the rich. But hey again, if you want a cruiser slightly better than t1 but not as good as navy faction to have SP loss then be my guest, we wont be using the loki in pace of a hugin anyway. Once again in your own stupidity you ****** yourself.

3. How do you get they cyno ship past the game camp? Again, a cov ops cloak is already a powerful tool and getting past a gatecamp should require the pilot to be good at flying their ship, same as how a gatecamp is only as good as the pilots doing the camping.

4. They out tank battleships.

5. No its a glaring fact that shows just how overpowered T3C are. No cruiser or battlecruiser can get close to the powergrid of a T3C.

6. T3C are slated to land between T1 cruisers and Navy cruisers, this has been stated several times by CCP so that is where I am balancing them.

7. I am reducing T3C capabilities to the level they should be according to CCP. In the process I am rendering a few dosen of PL's front line ship setups into the bin and reducing our ability both to infiltrate and fight. In order for T3C to be balance they must not step on the toes of the T2 specialist cruisers. To match where they are supposed to be they must also be slightly worse than navy faction too at what the navy faction ship do otherwise the navy faction ships would be invalidated.

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#289 - 2017-04-23 11:33:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

1. ... But hey, if you want to pay out current T3C prices on a ship with stats a bit bettwe than T1 but worse than navy faction be my guest. You are the one that will lose out to your own blind stupidity because we will go back to using HAC's in HAC fleet.

2. Its entirely pointless and entirely avoided by the rich. But hey again, if you want a cruiser slightly better than t1 but not as good as navy faction to have SP loss then be my guest, we wont be using the loki in pace of a hugin anyway. Once again in your own stupidity you ****** yourself.


I was just about to suggest you take away the compensation you are giving them for nerfs since the other side seems to hate the compensation so much, but you beat me to it.
Salvos Rhoska
#290 - 2017-04-23 11:37:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) You stated cost doesnt matter in balance, Now you claim it does and has been seen in almost every change.
Cheaper T3Cs means more T3Cs.
You are a backpedalling hypocrite.

2) SP loss works just fine. Lose ship, lose SP. If you want to replace it with an injector, go ahead. If not, reskill with time.
Its a unique core mechanic of T3Cs and there is no rationale to remove it.

3) Anyone can skill into a cloak/null, if they wish. How is bypassing gatecamps OP? Happens all the time by other means. JFs lol-cyno past LS gatecamps without even bubbles as an impediment.

4) T3Cs have nowhere near the dps of BS, they are not pocket battleships.

5) That is a problem with BCs, not T3Cs. Its a strategic cruiser which needs the cpu/pg to refit as a multitool. If there was a T3BC, it would no doubt have the same. Notably a Loki is very restricted in fitting a full 750mm rack.

6) Then why remove SP loss as somekind of equitable counterweight to this "nerf". No SP loss makes T3Cs even more attractive for fleet PvP where ship destruction is expected, rather than avoided. T3Cs are not between cruisers and navy cruisers, they are the pinnacle of the cruiser line, and hence more expensive and carry the SP loss (which was patched to avoid ejecting), inorder to have that versatility.

7) I already have.
You propose a cheaper, non-SP loss T3C which can still manage enough bonuses/cap/fit to fultill a PvP fleet role, but loses its versatility elsewhere. You want the cloak/null removed because its an inconvenience for you, and you dont need it as you have other ships capable of inflitrating and delivering a cyno at far less cost.


1. I have been calling for this since the start, no back peddling and no hipocricy. But hey, if you want to pay out current T3C prices on a ship with stats a bit bettwe than T1 but worse than navy faction be my guest. You are the one that will lose out to your own blind stupidity because we will go back to using HAC's in HAC fleet.

2. Its entirely pointless and entirely avoided by the rich. But hey again, if you want a cruiser slightly better than t1 but not as good as navy faction to have SP loss then be my guest, we wont be using the loki in pace of a hugin anyway. Once again in your own stupidity you ****** yourself.

3. How do you get they cyno ship past the game camp? Again, a cov ops cloak is already a powerful tool and getting past a gatecamp should require the pilot to be good at flying their ship, same as how a gatecamp is only as good as the pilots doing the camping.

4. They out tank battleships.

5. No its a glaring fact that shows just how overpowered T3C are. No cruiser or battlecruiser can get close to the powergrid of a T3C.

6. T3C are slated to land between T1 cruisers and Navy cruisers, this has been stated several times by CCP so that is where I am balancing them.

7. I am reducing T3C capabilities to the level they should be according to CCP. In the process I am rendering a few dosen of PL's front line ship setups into the bin and reducing our ability both to infiltrate and fight. In order for T3C to be balance they must not step on the toes of the T2 specialist cruisers. To match where they are supposed to be they must also be slightly worse than navy faction too at what the navy faction ship do otherwise the navy faction ships would be invalidated.

1) You want cheaper T3Cs. That isnt going to make HACs more attractive. Quite the opposite.
Furthermore you claimed cost was irrelevant in balance, yet here you are, suddenly using it as a balance tool.
That is hypocrisy and backpedalling.

2) SP loss is as much a cost to everyone. That the rich can replace it with injectors is immaterial. Go ahead and spend your isk on that then, rather than injecting other skills or on other characters. That is your choice. None of which is a reason to remove SP loss and make it even cheaper for high SP players.

3) Yes, you already have cheaper ships to deliver cynos past gatecamps. Glad you agree.
So we can ascertain there is no need to nerf T3C cloak/null, since you can do it with cheaper hulls anyways.
Use your "pilot skills" on those instead to deliver your cynos :)

4) Out-tank (in some cases) yes, but not out dps. BS do easily twice the dps of T3Cs (and BCs, for that matter).

5) The PG on T3Cs is to enable versatility. Its still not sufficient for oversized modules except with sacrifice,
BS all have enough PG to fit what they need. If not, faction/deadspace modules can be used and implants.
As I said, Lokis even now dont have enough PG to fit a rack of 750s.

6) That obviously was not, nor ever was the case, despite what they said. Frankly, and you must see this, it is ridiculous to conceive that T3Cs with their cost and SP needs, would perform less than a navy cruiser. Thats like a Vargur underperforming a Maelstrom. Its like turning the ship trees upside down and inside out. T3Cs where included after existing PvE content was here, thus rationally they should be aligned largely accordingly.

If you are claiming CCP made a mistake in that, then it can also be said that the statement on which your whole argument is predicated, that T3Cs should perform worse than navy cruisers, was a mistake.

7) No, you are throwing 4 ships (T3Cs) into the dumpster for many players, just so you can have a cheaper, non-SP loss T3C that fits your needs.

I proposed diversification of the 4 hulls. You obviously dont want that, because you have your own selfish interests in mind.

8) What exactly do you think T3Cs will be good for after your proposed "nerfs"?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#291 - 2017-04-23 11:50:58 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) You want cheaper T3Cs. That isnt going to make HACs more attractive. Quite the opposite.
Furthermore you claimed cost was irrelevant in balance, yet here you are, suddenly using it as a balance tool.
That is hypocrisy and backpedalling.

2) SP loss is as much a cost to everyone. That the rich can replace it with injectors is immaterial. Go ahead and spend your isk on that then, rather than injecting other skills or on other characters. That is your choice. None of which is a reason to remove SP loss and make it even cheaper for high SP players.

3) Yes, you already have cheaper ships to deliver cynos past gatecamps. Glad you agree.
So we can ascertain there is no need to nerf T3C cloak/null, since you can do it with cheaper hulls anyways.
Use your "pilot skills" on those instead to deliver your cynos :)

4) Out-tank (in some cases) yes, but not out dps. BS do easily twice the dps of T3Cs (and BCs, for that matter).

5) The PG on T3Cs is to enable versatility. Its still not sufficient for oversized modules except with sacrifice,
BS all have enough PG to fit what they need. If not, faction/deadspace modules can be used and implants.
As I said, Lokis even now dont have enough PG to fit a rack of 750s.

6) That obviously was not, nor ever was the case, despite what they said. Frankly, and you must see this, it is ridiculous to conceive that T3Cs with their cost and SP needs, would perform less than a navy cruiser. Thats like a Vargur underperforming a Maelstrom. Its like turning the ship trees upside down and inside out. T3Cs where included after existing PvE content was here, thus rationally they should be aligned largely accordingly.

If you are claiming CCP made a mistake in that, then it can also be said that the statement on which your whole argument is predicated, that T3Cs should perform worse than navy cruisers, was a mistake.

7) No, you are throwing 4 ships (T3Cs) into the dumpster for many players, just so you can have a cheaper, non-SP loss T3C that fits your needs.

I proposed diversification of the 4 hulls. You obviously dont want that, because you have your own selfish interests in mind.

8) What exactly do you think T3Cs will be good for after your proposed "nerfs"?


Excellent post and pretty much nailed it, the buffer tank is the only thing that is a bit OP with T3C and CCP are going to deal with that as per fanfest. Pity as I rather liked my doctrine Tengu with rails, but such is life...

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
#292 - 2017-04-23 11:53:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Beast of Revelations wrote:
I was just about to suggest you take away the compensation you are giving them for nerfs since the other side seems to hate the compensation so much, but you beat me to it.


If anything, T3Cs should cost more to build, and incur even more SP loss.

Not less.

The PvE oriented can sustain that, as they avoid risk, and the rich NS PvP fleet players can sustain that, since they have the isk to cover the loss and inject the SP.

This is a much better solution, and uses/extends existing mechanics/cost systems, as well as shares the "nerf" equally across the entire playerbase.

Im totally ok with paying more for a T3C and losing 2 single subsystem levels on destruction.

If PvP fleet players are prepared to pay/risk that too, so be it.

Simple and sweet.

The notion of T3Cs underperforming Navy Cruisers is unworkable, no matter what CCP has said.
No amount of cost reduction or lack of SP loss will reconcile that.
Not only will T3C enabled content die overnight, so will the T3C market.



My solution above makes replacement of a lost T3C cost +1xx% more than now.
As an intermix of SP equity lost, and cost of repurchasing the ship.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#293 - 2017-04-23 12:17:13 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) You want cheaper T3Cs. That isnt going to make HACs more attractive. Quite the opposite.
Furthermore you claimed cost was irrelevant in balance, yet here you are, suddenly using it as a balance tool.
That is hypocrisy and backpedalling.

2) SP loss is as much a cost to everyone. That the rich can replace it with injectors is immaterial. Go ahead and spend your isk on that then, rather than injecting other skills or on other characters. That is your choice. None of which is a reason to remove SP loss and make it even cheaper for high SP players.

3) Yes, you already have cheaper ships to deliver cynos past gatecamps. Glad you agree.
So we can ascertain there is no need to nerf T3C cloak/null, since you can do it with cheaper hulls anyways.
Use your "pilot skills" on those instead to deliver your cynos :)

4) Out-tank (in some cases) yes, but not out dps. BS do easily twice the dps of T3Cs (and BCs, for that matter).

5) The PG on T3Cs is to enable versatility. Its still not sufficient for oversized modules except with sacrifice,
BS all have enough PG to fit what they need. If not, faction/deadspace modules can be used and implants.
As I said, Lokis even now dont have enough PG to fit a rack of 750s.

6) That obviously was not, nor ever was the case, despite what they said. Frankly, and you must see this, it is ridiculous to conceive that T3Cs with their cost and SP needs, would perform less than a navy cruiser. Thats like a Vargur underperforming a Maelstrom. Its like turning the ship trees upside down and inside out. T3Cs where included after existing PvE content was here, thus rationally they should be aligned largely accordingly.

If you are claiming CCP made a mistake in that, then it can also be said that the statement on which your whole argument is predicated, that T3Cs should perform worse than navy cruisers, was a mistake.

7) No, you are throwing 4 ships (T3Cs) into the dumpster for many players, just so you can have a cheaper, non-SP loss T3C that fits your needs.

I proposed diversification of the 4 hulls. You obviously dont want that, because you have your own selfish interests in mind.

8) What exactly do you think T3Cs will be good for after your proposed "nerfs"?


1. Why would we use a rebalanced t3c over a HAC for HAC fleet? The HAC would be a better ship. The lower cost was to reflect the new position the T3C would be in (aka they are between a t1 cruiser and a navy cruiser) but hey if you want to pay todays T3C prices for something a little better than a T1 cruiser go ahead.

2. So why would you be happy with SP loss on a cruiser a little better than a T1 cruiser?

3. Those other cov ops ships cannot ignore gate camps. Again I point out getting past the defenses of a rival should take piloting skill, not a simple click of the button.

4. In your EFT they do but in reality BS do a fraction of their DPS to a T3C while the T3C has more EHP.

5. The powergrid on T3C is crazy, lets look at it.

Thorax 1025
Navy Exequror 1038
Deimos 1313
Proteus 1820

Eos 1500
Astarte 1688

So we have a cruiser pulling better powergrid than the command ships and dwarfs the other cruisers. This is nuts.

6. T3C were not added to be better than everything else, they were added to be highly adaptable cruisers. CCP have stated in the tiercide plan that T3C will land between T1 cruisers and navy cruisers. T3C are the last ships to be looked at in this plan.

7. Let me be clear in this. After this change we will have absolutely no use for these ships in our fleets. We will go back to using the T2 specialists. We gain nothing from this change a lose a lot of ships from our current fleets.

8. They would be highly adaptable mid range cruisers, able to change both their fitting (including rigs) and the very bonuses on the hull on the fly.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#294 - 2017-04-23 12:28:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) You want cheaper T3Cs. That isnt going to make HACs more attractive. Quite the opposite.
Furthermore you claimed cost was irrelevant in balance, yet here you are, suddenly using it as a balance tool.
That is hypocrisy and backpedalling.

2) SP loss is as much a cost to everyone. That the rich can replace it with injectors is immaterial. Go ahead and spend your isk on that then, rather than injecting other skills or on other characters. That is your choice. None of which is a reason to remove SP loss and make it even cheaper for high SP players.

3) Yes, you already have cheaper ships to deliver cynos past gatecamps. Glad you agree.
So we can ascertain there is no need to nerf T3C cloak/null, since you can do it with cheaper hulls anyways.
Use your "pilot skills" on those instead to deliver your cynos :)

4) Out-tank (in some cases) yes, but not out dps. BS do easily twice the dps of T3Cs (and BCs, for that matter).

5) The PG on T3Cs is to enable versatility. Its still not sufficient for oversized modules except with sacrifice,
BS all have enough PG to fit what they need. If not, faction/deadspace modules can be used and implants.
As I said, Lokis even now dont have enough PG to fit a rack of 750s.

6) That obviously was not, nor ever was the case, despite what they said. Frankly, and you must see this, it is ridiculous to conceive that T3Cs with their cost and SP needs, would perform less than a navy cruiser. Thats like a Vargur underperforming a Maelstrom. Its like turning the ship trees upside down and inside out. T3Cs where included after existing PvE content was here, thus rationally they should be aligned largely accordingly.

If you are claiming CCP made a mistake in that, then it can also be said that the statement on which your whole argument is predicated, that T3Cs should perform worse than navy cruisers, was a mistake.

7) No, you are throwing 4 ships (T3Cs) into the dumpster for many players, just so you can have a cheaper, non-SP loss T3C that fits your needs.

I proposed diversification of the 4 hulls. You obviously dont want that, because you have your own selfish interests in mind.

8) What exactly do you think T3Cs will be good for after your proposed "nerfs"?


1. Why would we use a rebalanced t3c over a HAC for HAC fleet? The HAC would be a better ship. The lower cost was to reflect the new position the T3C would be in (aka they are between a t1 cruiser and a navy cruiser) but hey if you want to pay todays T3C prices for something a little better than a T1 cruiser go ahead.

2. So why would you be happy with SP loss on a cruiser a little better than a T1 cruiser?

3. Those other cov ops ships cannot ignore gate camps. Again I point out getting past the defenses of a rival should take piloting skill, not a simple click of the button.

4. In your EFT they do but in reality BS do a fraction of their DPS to a T3C while the T3C has more EHP.

5. The powergrid on T3C is crazy, lets look at it.

Thorax 1025
Navy Exequror 1038
Deimos 1313
Proteus 1820

Eos 1500
Astarte 1688

So we have a cruiser pulling better powergrid than the command ships and dwarfs the other cruisers. This is nuts.

6. T3C were not added to be better than everything else, they were added to be highly adaptable cruisers. CCP have stated in the tiercide plan that T3C will land between T1 cruisers and navy cruisers. T3C are the last ships to be looked at in this plan.

7. Let me be clear in this. After this change we will have absolutely no use for these ships in our fleets. We will go back to using the T2 specialists. We gain nothing from this change a lose a lot of ships from our current fleets.

8. They would be highly adaptable mid range cruisers, able to change both their fitting (including rigs) and the very bonuses on the hull on the fly.

They would be useless in EVE. Its not a strategic enough game for this to work other than for PvE purposes. Use your brain.

Either that or refittable like a supercap during combat. Noones going to drop a mobile depot to refit a ship in the middle of combat, combat is too quick, especially if the ship is a cruiser and its a little bit better than a t1.

Edit: Oh and Baltec, I've flown more T3's then you've undocked megas I'd wager and your inflated stats are hilarious. T3's are not overly powerful in comparison to many other high level ships. The Tengu is overpowered because of the battery buff. While you can get stupid hp on a Proteus its gives up most of its other bonuses to do so. A brick tank Prot is just a brick that can barely tackle anything not sitting still, has no web, no drones and can be capped out by a single medium nuet before it kills anything.

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..... :)

Salvos Rhoska
#295 - 2017-04-23 12:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) You want cheaper T3Cs. That isnt going to make HACs more attractive. Quite the opposite.
Furthermore you claimed cost was irrelevant in balance, yet here you are, suddenly using it as a balance tool.
That is hypocrisy and backpedalling.

2) SP loss is as much a cost to everyone. That the rich can replace it with injectors is immaterial. Go ahead and spend your isk on that then, rather than injecting other skills or on other characters. That is your choice. None of which is a reason to remove SP loss and make it even cheaper for high SP players.

3) Yes, you already have cheaper ships to deliver cynos past gatecamps. Glad you agree.
So we can ascertain there is no need to nerf T3C cloak/null, since you can do it with cheaper hulls anyways.
Use your "pilot skills" on those instead to deliver your cynos :)

4) Out-tank (in some cases) yes, but not out dps. BS do easily twice the dps of T3Cs (and BCs, for that matter).

5) The PG on T3Cs is to enable versatility. Its still not sufficient for oversized modules except with sacrifice,
BS all have enough PG to fit what they need. If not, faction/deadspace modules can be used and implants.
As I said, Lokis even now dont have enough PG to fit a rack of 750s.

6) That obviously was not, nor ever was the case, despite what they said. Frankly, and you must see this, it is ridiculous to conceive that T3Cs with their cost and SP needs, would perform less than a navy cruiser. Thats like a Vargur underperforming a Maelstrom. Its like turning the ship trees upside down and inside out. T3Cs where included after existing PvE content was here, thus rationally they should be aligned largely accordingly.

If you are claiming CCP made a mistake in that, then it can also be said that the statement on which your whole argument is predicated, that T3Cs should perform worse than navy cruisers, was a mistake.

7) No, you are throwing 4 ships (T3Cs) into the dumpster for many players, just so you can have a cheaper, non-SP loss T3C that fits your needs.

I proposed diversification of the 4 hulls. You obviously dont want that, because you have your own selfish interests in mind.

8) What exactly do you think T3Cs will be good for after your proposed "nerfs"?


1. Why would we use a rebalanced t3c over a HAC for HAC fleet? The HAC would be a better ship. The lower cost was to reflect the new position the T3C would be in (aka they are between a t1 cruiser and a navy cruiser) but hey if you want to pay todays T3C prices for something a little better than a T1 cruiser go ahead.

2. So why would you be happy with SP loss on a cruiser a little better than a T1 cruiser?

3. Those other cov ops ships cannot ignore gate camps. Again I point out getting past the defenses of a rival should take piloting skill, not a simple click of the button.

4. In your EFT they do but in reality BS do a fraction of their DPS to a T3C while the T3C has more EHP.

5. The powergrid on T3C is crazy, lets look at it.

Thorax 1025
Navy Exequror 1038
Deimos 1313
Proteus 1820

Eos 1500
Astarte 1688

So we have a cruiser pulling better powergrid than the command ships and dwarfs the other cruisers. This is nuts.

6. T3C were not added to be better than everything else, they were added to be highly adaptable cruisers. CCP have stated in the tiercide plan that T3C will land between T1 cruisers and navy cruisers. T3C are the last ships to be looked at in this plan.

7. Let me be clear in this. After this change we will have absolutely no use for these ships in our fleets. We will go back to using the T2 specialists. We gain nothing from this change a lose a lot of ships from our current fleets.

8. They would be highly adaptable mid range cruisers, able to change both their fitting (including rigs) and the very bonuses on the hull on the fly.

1) Nobody will fly a T3C that underperforms a Navy Cruiser.
GJ, you just wiped T3Cs out of the meta, and pissed off thousands of players.

2) Why would I fly a T3C instead of a Navy cruiser?

3) They can bypass gatecamps by being smart, using piloting skills, good fits/opportunity, and at much less cost.

4) No, in reality BS do roughly twice the dps of T3Cs. Tank is another issue.

5) PG is only relevant for fits. Even so, the PG is not enough to fit oversized modules. A ship only needs as much PG as it needs. Lokis cant even fit a full rack of 750s. The rest is manageable with faction/deadspace/implants, as is universal in EVE.

6) The notion that T3Cs should perform worse than Navy Cruisers is no longer workable and was a mistake.

7) So you will have no use for T3Cs, nor will anyone else.
Gj for wiping out a complete ship class!

8) Why bother, if a Navy cruiser does better at a fraction of SP invested.
Without cloak/null, they wont even be good for interloping in enemy space.
Lol this idea of refitting rigs.
Are T3Cs not enough a stuffed pinata with subsystems, that they should also carry rigs for puny bonuses?
Why the hell would I refit if I cant even run a 5/10?
Might as well stay in HS. Oh wait, I cant even enter 4/10s there.

Jesus, man.
Do you not realize the implications of what you are proposing?

T3Cs, the market on them and mats needed, and content enabled by them, will be wiped out overnight.

All of this, just so you dont have to deal with an occassional T3C running content in your space, or not fielding T3Cs to match your opponent in fleet battles.

You have completely lost the plot.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#296 - 2017-04-23 12:36:53 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

They would be useless in EVE. Its not a strategic enough game for this to work other than for PvE purposes. Use your brain.

Either that or refittable like a supercap during combat. Noones going to drop a mobile depot to refit a ship in the middle of combat, combat is too quick, especially if the ship is a cruiser and its a little bit better than a t1.


You don't drop it in a fight, you refit for your wants and needs and then go fight.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#297 - 2017-04-23 12:39:12 UTC
CCP limited combat refitting quite heavily. It's no longer something you do on a whim. You need to plan for it.

Wormholer for life.

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#298 - 2017-04-23 12:41:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

They would be useless in EVE. Its not a strategic enough game for this to work other than for PvE purposes. Use your brain.

Either that or refittable like a supercap during combat. Noones going to drop a mobile depot to refit a ship in the middle of combat, combat is too quick, especially if the ship is a cruiser and its a little bit better than a t1.


You don't drop it in a fight, you refit for your wants and needs and then go fight.

That's idiotic. NO ONE WILL FLY IT.

They will fly the faction cruiser or the T1.

Newb: Whats better to train, T1 Faction cruisers or T3's.
Vet: T1 Faction Cruisers.
Newb: Why?
Vet: Because they're better than T3 and you only need to train the T1 skills to fly them.
Newb: WTF? Why is a T1 faction cruiser better than a T3?
Vet: ...

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..... :)

Salvos Rhoska
#299 - 2017-04-23 12:55:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
This topic is hilarious.

But what makes it even funnier, is that I doubt baltec1 would have the stones to argue this crap unless he already knew what he is saying is already impending.

That concerns me, and is suddenly no longer funny, for numerous reasons.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#300 - 2017-04-23 13:04:29 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) Nobody will fly a T3C that underperforms a Navy Cruiser.
GJ, you just wiped T3Cs out of the meta, and pissed off thousands of players.

2) Why would I fly a T3C instead of a Navy cruiser?

3) They can bypass gatecamps by being smart, using piloting skills, good fits/opportunity, and at much less cost.

4) No, in reality BS do roughly twice the dps of T3Cs. Tank is another issue.

5) PG is only relevant for fits. Even so, the PG is not enough to fit oversized modules. A ship only needs as much PG as it needs. Lokis cant even fit a full rack of 750s. The rest is manageable with faction/deadspace/implants, as is universal in EVE.

6) The notion that T3Cs should perform worse than Navy Cruisers is no longer workable and was a mistake.

7) So you will have no use for T3Cs, nor will anyone else.
Gj for wiping out a complete ship class!

8) Why bother, if a Navy cruiser does better at a fraction of SP invested.
Without cloak/null, they wont even be good for interloping in enemy space.

Jesus, man.
Do you not realize the implications of what you are proposing?

T3Cs, the market on them and mats needed, and content enabled by them, will be wiped out overnight.

All of this, just so you dont have to deal with an occassional T3C running content in your space, or not fielding T3Cs to match your opponent in fleet battles.


1. You mean you won't fly it anymore because it doesn't overpower everything else. Welcome FOTM nerfs, enjoy your reward for chasing it. The exact same thing has been said about every other FOTM that has ever been nerfed into balance.

2. If you want to do what the navy cruiser does then you would't. If you want a highly adapatable cruiser then you would fly the T3.

3. Or spend the isk on a ship that simply ignores defenses with no effort required. As I said cost means nothing.

4. See this is where we spot someone who has no knowledge of fleet combat. Battleships do not do full damage to a T3C, the damage is mitigated both by the size of the sig, the speed of the T3C and the battleships own guns. The effect is T3C will tank up to 3x more than a battleship can.

5. You have to be kidding me. You honestly think adding an extra 500 powergrid onto a cruiser is not going to drastically improve its fitting options?

6. Its no mistake, thats the plan.

7. They will still have a good role to play, as you said before the T1 cruisers still get used.

8. Cov ops cloak is all you need for that.