EVE General Discussion

The words said before every single FOTM nerf ever made.

Would these be the same people who left when the rorqual got nerfed?

Or the ones that said the cynable nerf was the death of the ship and they too were going to quit?

What about the ones that insisted the ishtar nerfs were the end of that ship and they were going to quit?

Or the ones that said the T3D were perfectly fine and were going to quit if they got nerfed.

Or the dram nerf, the interceptor nerf, the supercarrier nerf, the tracking titan nerf, the remote doomsday nerf, the carrier nerf, the cane nerf and so on. FOTM chasers never change and neither do your arguments for keeping blatantly overpowered ships.

Drama queen all you want, nobody is quitting over this.

You are aware that wormholers fly tech 3's as well? We are hit by the changes as well, but you don't see us crying yet as there is very little concrete information on CCP's plans and they are going to set up a focus group to get better feedback on their plans. If you are so worried about this, you should apply to give them your point of view.

If changes go through as baltec1 proposes, your T3Cs will be useless in WHs.

You will be unable to clear content, and will lose to a Navy Cruiser in PVP.

baltec1 wouldnt make these claims, unless he has reliable info this is what will happen.
(which is concerning if he has insider info that he shouldnt have)

Prepare for the worst.

I certainly would agree with this if no nerfs were forthcoming. Heck, under those circumstances I'd say they should cost WAY more to build, and incur WAY more SP loss.

But assuming nerfs put them where they should be and you still want increased cost and increased SP loss... who am I to argue?

I do disagree that these things don't out-DPS battleships (as well out-tank them). I currently own 3 pirate battleships (a Rattlesnake, a Nightmare, and Machariel). If a T3C ever shows up on d-scan I run like holy hell in any of the 3. And if one catches me before I can GTFO there's really no point in even fighting - might as well just self destruct.

Hell, I had a Jackdaw tackle one of my BSs, and I was perma-jammed and perma-scrammed the entire time until I was dead (never even got a shot off). Do you think I should be more afraid, or less afraid, of a Jackdaw than a T3C?

T1 cruisers are perfectly able to take on and kill navy cruisers, what makes you think a new t3c could not?

I don't think baltec has a bias and can't be called selfish. Does have a different view on how the cruiser role overlaps other roles.

I do think CCP is going to have to make game design level decisions about what (and who) is supposed to do exploration content in this process. Like it or not, its a factor in the balancing.

Yeah when they get their CSM/dev buddies to yield they start the forum brigading ahead of times for the usual gaslight/red herring tactics. It's all part of the game to them. This is why a combination of getting rid of the CSM and forbidding players to become devs and devs to become players (even after leaving the job) would have helped back when it mattered.

Once something seems rigged, it all appears pointless. It does not even have to be actually rigged. Just the appearance is enough.

There is a lot of leeway in how the view of these could be balanced and how specialisation and power level are defined.

Generally these things come down to raw stats but even now if you look at the navy live up in certain ways that power level is almost there.

Is the navy exeq a better blaster boat than a proteus? In some ways yes it is, it is much faster and technically has more blaster DPS. Is the navy Vexor a better drone boat? Again in some ways as a pure drone boat it is but can either get the simultaneous tank and gank numbers or flexibility. No.

Now things do need adjusting, fittings down a bit, sigs up, but to suggest they need nerfing into the ground will harm the game more than help.