These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tung Yoggi
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
#381 - 2017-04-24 15:13:44 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Strawmanning. The tactic of someone losing an argument.

I never proposed any particular purpose (Fleet or otherwise) and I posted both gun and missile fits. PLs doctrines are not Tue be all end all and judging by your whining you guys are having trouble fighting T3Cs. Perhaps get better, not the alliance name that wins fights.


I just came here to help and confirm that indeed, the fits you posted earlier are tragic abominations and are bound to experience a midlife crisis and lots of shrink expenses when they realize they're useless and have no purpose.

One good thing about this balance pass is that we are going to see cruiser-sized command ships again, for the first time after the recent link revamp. On the othe hand, I wonder how they will find their place among CDs, BCs and CSs.

The double logi-CS role seems kind of wonky .

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#382 - 2017-04-24 15:41:14 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) Is it even possible to reduce the cost of a T3C and subsystems to a 40-50mil cost?
Wont that utterly wreck the market?
Why punish manufacturers/material sourcers?
Who would even buy the POS ships your changes make of T3Cs?
Would you buy one? For what purpose?


Again, the T1 cruisers get a lot of use, highly flexible cruisers at the 40 mil mark will be popular and yes I would likely get one for cov ops blaster uses.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

2) PG is only one aspect of the existing differential between T1 and specialized cruisers.
There are resist profiles, speeds, sigs, slots, etc that offer far more diversity across all cruiser classes, than the T3C in your proposal.


All of it gets looked at under my plan.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

3) VNI can run a 5/10 with extreme difficulty (probably several warp outs and drone losses) and looong completion time, forget about it with other navy cruisers. If the T3C in your proposal cant match even that, that relegates them to HS 4/10s which other cruisers can already run even better.

WH activity would be limited to C2 at most, and even that is a stretch.


People will adapt.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

4) Atleast, all T3C skills should be refunded (especially to stop extractor prices going through the roof)
Only an idiot would skill into a T3C therafter, with no fleet use, and all other cruisers having better tank/dps to compete.
EVE has never seen a class nerf as severe as the one you propose.
You want to kill a class, just so you wont use them in fleet PvP.
Its insane.


Only to you. Nobody gets SP back for when the FOTM they chased gets nerfed.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

5) Its a T1-Navy cruiser that cant even run any content in NS.
Wtf are you afraid of?
What are they going to do?
That a T3C attacks a miner in NS and gets hotdropped by your ton of potatoes?


So, the exact same risk every other cruiser faces then.

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#383 - 2017-04-24 15:52:51 UTC
Tung Yoggi wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Strawmanning. The tactic of someone losing an argument.

I never proposed any particular purpose (Fleet or otherwise) and I posted both gun and missile fits. PLs doctrines are not Tue be all end all and judging by your whining you guys are having trouble fighting T3Cs. Perhaps get better, not the alliance name that wins fights.


I just came here to help and confirm that indeed, the fits you posted earlier are tragic abominations and are bound to experience a midlife crisis and lots of shrink expenses when they realize they're useless and have no purpose.

One good thing about this balance pass is that we are going to see cruiser-sized command ships again, for the first time after the recent link revamp. On the othe hand, I wonder how they will find their place among CDs, BCs and CSs.

The double logi-CS role seems kind of wonky .


If you and I were the Universe I would be all the bright special stuff and all the lovely dark matter and you'd be vacuum. One good thing about the balance pass is laughing at PL's... I mean, the developers, special mistakes. This will certainly be one of them if it goes though. I look forward to it. Its like the Trump administration in a development team.

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..... :)

Tung Yoggi
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
#384 - 2017-04-24 15:59:28 UTC
You are indeed special

Sorry for the free flaming; just to be a little more clear: your fits are overly expensive, they do indeed have a lot of "hard to source" mods (you have to take this into consideration when you build a doctrine, a doctrine has to be easily replaceable), and their weapon systems are not competitive in a fleet environment.
Salvos Rhoska
#385 - 2017-04-24 16:13:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Baltec1:

Nothing is stopping you from using T3Cs.
Or from using HACs, or T1, or Navy cruisers.

Yet you want to nerf T3Cs so hard, that even your own alliance will no longer use them in fleet PvP.
Why make a ship class so useless in PvP, that even you wont use it in PvP?

That doesnt make sense.

Im perfectly happy flying around in Pirate/HACs/BCs for most of my gametime.
Occasionally, I run some more risk in T3Cs for greater profits in hostile space.

I have to get in, refit, run the content, and get out.

The cost differential and the SP loss, already balance the T3C.

Having said that, since T3Cs seem to be such a problem for you in fleet PvP;
Im ok with doubling the SP loss, and increasing the build cost.

Thats a 100+% increase in cost of loss of a T3C, as a factor of price and SP.

This doubles the cost of replacing a T3C.

If players in PvP fleet actions have enough isk/SP to deal with that, so be it.
They will pay double of now.

Its hard to argue against doubling the cost as not being a significant nerf to PvP T3Cs.
Twice the cost + build price as compared to now for replacing the same ship.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#386 - 2017-04-24 16:20:39 UTC
Tung Yoggi wrote:
You are indeed special

Sorry for the free flaming; just to be a little more clear: your fits are overly expensive, they do indeed have a lot of "hard to source" mods (you have to take this into consideration when you build a doctrine, a doctrine has to be easily replaceable), and their weapon systems are not competitive in a fleet environment.

No worries. The fits were not presented as fleet fits or any sort of fit for purpose. They were in response to previously posted fits with a lot of bling taking T3C up to 150k ehp or more and my fits were designed to show that any of the resist bonused hulls can achieve similiar levels of tank and dps. Its not an ability unique to the T3C.

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..... :)

Cade Windstalker
#387 - 2017-04-24 16:31:53 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
T1 Faction Cruiser - 140k ehp (more than Legion), 400 dps (bit less than Legion), 666m/s (Faster than Legion), Stable 87% (Better than Legion) - can hit anything from interceptor to titan (Better than Legion)

[Gila, New Setup 1]
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Thukker Large Shield Extender
Thukker Large Shield Extender
Thukker Large Shield Extender
Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
10MN Afterburner II

Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile
Medium Knave Scoped Energy Nosferatu

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

Hobgoblin II x4


I can only assume there are some Hammerheads missing off this because the fit as linked deals 200 DPS.

Ah, I stand corrected, you've used the wrong drones here, overheated the RLMLs, and forgot to turn on "factor in reload time" on the DPS calculation.

It also costs twice what either of those T3 fits does and since it gets most of its damage from Drones it's more vulnerable to being declawed over a protracted fight due to Smartbombs or smaller ships focusing the drones. While you can pull drones in a small fight larger ones tend to rely on simply having enough drones in reserve to replace losses.

Also while it's faster than a Legion it's only 50m/s faster and has a 60m larger sig which more than negates the tanking benefits of the speed. On top of that it has an EM hole that the Legion doesn't have, meaning it's going to take it in the teeth from a Legion or an EMP slinging Mach fleet.

Overall if anyone were to bring these to anything more than a small skirmish they'd likely lose the fight and the ISK war in spectacular fashion.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
T2 Heavy Assault Cruiser - 155k EHP (Much more than Legion, Slightly Less than Proteus), 450 DPS (50 Less than Legion) but can hit everything from interceptor to Titan (Better than Prot and Legion), Cap Stable 87%, 487 (Less than Prot and Legion).

[Sacrilege, New Setup 1]
Damage Control II
Syndicate 1600mm Steel Plates
Syndicate 1600mm Steel Plates
Corelum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Corelum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane

Small Cap Battery II
Stasis Webifier II
Warp Scrambler II
10MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner

Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile
Small Energy Neutralizer II

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II

Hammerhead II x5



You forgot to turn on "Factor in Reload Time" on the DPS again, and you're comparing overheated DPS to base DPS. The actual DPS on this fit is a staggeringly bad 319, making it good for nothing more than swatting Cruisers with no Logi around and Frigates. Anything it has to do sustained DPS to is going to laugh. The rest of the DPS comes from those Hammerheads which are likely to die to smartbombs before the halfway mark in any decent sized fight.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
Lol. Shitfits my arse, hard to source mods my arse :). They're more capable than your 160k EHP Proteus brick with the speed of a snail.

Heres another one:

More EHP than a Proteus, more dps than a Proteus, better range than a Proteus, cap stable unlike a Proteus. You're obsessed with how overpowered the Proteus is yet I've posted 5 different hulls that are equal or better than your Proteus. You should give up.

180k ehp, 600 dps at 50k, 1k m/s, cap stable. According to you this is like better than a Battleship since Prot can get 160k ehp and 600 dps and you consider that a battleship :)

[Nighthawk, New Setup 1]
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II

Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
50MN Microwarpdrive II

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Energy Nosferatu II
Medium Energy Nosferatu II

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

Warrior II x5


Lets see here...

First off, it's 50% more expensive than a T3C. Before it lights the MWD it has a 367m sig which is huge, and afterwords it's going to speed tank like a cinderblock, so even though the paper EHP is higher the applied damage it takes is going to make it lower, by a lot. On top of that you've once again overheated the guns and failed to factor in reload to inflate your DPS numbers.

Oh and yes Pithum C-Type Invulns are much harder to get in any significant numbers than the relatively common armor mods on those Proteus and Legion fits.

Oh and all of these fits are vulnerable to neuting since no Cap Booster and poor cap regen, NOS only does so much to keep things running and assumes you're in range of someone you can safely steal cap off of.

Oh and on top of that those EHP numbers were without factoring in Slave implants or anything like that, so that would push the T3Cs even further above these fits you're spitting out.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#388 - 2017-04-24 16:35:36 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Nothing is stopping you from using T3Cs.
Or from using HACs, or T1, or Navy cruisers.

Yet you want to nerf T3Cs so hard, that even your own alliance will no longer use them in fleet PvP.
Why make a ship class so useless in PvP, that even you wont use it in PvP?

That doesnt make sense.


That's because you only think of yourself. You can't grasp that an alliance would back something that would hurt it, I see it as a necessary thing for overall game balance.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Im perfectly happy flying around in Pirate/HACs/BCs for most of my gametime.
Occasionally, I run some more risk in T3Cs for greater profits in hostile space.

I have to get in, refit, run the content, and get out.

The cost differential and the SP loss, already balance the T3C.


No they don't. T3C competely invalidate almost ever cruiser in the game, overpower almost all battleship fleets and invalidate the battlecruisers. SP and cost mean **** all to us.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Having said that, since T3Cs seem to be such a problem for you in fleet PvP;
Im ok with doubling the SP loss, and increasing the build cost.

Thats a 100+% increase in cost of loss of a T3C, as a factor of price and SP.

This doubles the cost of replacing a T3C.

If players in PvP fleet actions have enough isk/SP to deal with that, so be it.
They will pay double of now.

Its hard to argue against doubling the cost as not being a significant nerf to PvP T3Cs.
Twice the cost + build price as compared to now for replacing the same ship.


Its very easy because not only does it not work but you don't ficx the problem that is T3C invalidating things like the HACs and combat recons.
Cade Windstalker
#389 - 2017-04-24 16:35:58 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
OK then we look at a certain faction BS which is used by certain people for fleet fights, 266,244 EHP and 1110 DPS, that is what the BS class should be at so that carriers don't become the new BS, the BS need love, it is not so much that the T3C's are over powered but that BS are under tanked in the main with the exception of the one I just detailed. FC's prefer to use the mobility of the T3C's which is a simple enough thing to understand with command destroyers able to jump ships way to be killed piece meal.

So just doing a simplistic this is the ship it is over powered because of raw stats, means what?

The thing is that certain alliances are investing heavily in Carriers as their new doctrine and they would like to have T3C's to have a weaker tank so they can kill them easier with their swarms of fighters.

Anyway, yes, as always baltec1 is pushing what favours him and his alliances setup, who would have thought that...


I'm really wondering what magical BS fit you're basing this off of, because trawling through zKill for fleet Nightmare and Mach fits yields a couple of different fits, none of which gets close to 266k EHP before boosts. The Machs deal about 400 DPS and tank 196k EHP, the Nightmare deals about 900 DPS with Navy Multi but only tanks 147k EHP.

Also that Faction BS takes damage worse than a T3C making the actual tank favor the T3C in practice.

Also if you haven't noticed there have been people complaining about the current cost to power ratio of Pirate Battleships as well.

So no, the problem here is not that Battleships are under powered. They're good at being a ball of hitpoints and at projecting damage at ranges even the T3Cs can't match. The problem here is 100% that T3Cs are OP.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
Tung Yoggi wrote:
You are indeed special

Sorry for the free flaming; just to be a little more clear: your fits are overly expensive, they do indeed have a lot of "hard to source" mods (you have to take this into consideration when you build a doctrine, a doctrine has to be easily replaceable), and their weapon systems are not competitive in a fleet environment.

No worries. The fits were not presented as fleet fits or any sort of fit for purpose. They were in response to previously posted fits with a lot of bling taking T3C up to 150k ehp or more and my fits were designed to show that any of the resist bonused hulls can achieve similiar levels of tank and dps. Its not an ability unique to the T3C.


Except that your fits don't actually work. Those T3C fits are taken out of an actual fleet engagement, not EFT BS pulled out of someone's rectal cavity as a thought experiment. If you want to actually start bling-tanking T3Cs as a thought experiment then you can get stuff that smokes your fits completely, and they're not doing that well in the first place.

Oh and on top of that you seem to have missed that those T3C fits can actually do important PvP things like point and scram enemies. Also they're armor tanked, while all of your fits were active shield tanked, which is always going to give better EHP but is very vulnerable to cap warfare.

These fits are just laughably bad.

Try and fit up something actually practical that competes with the T3Cs and you might have an argument. Right now you're just throwing around chaff and hoping someone has a brain aneurysm and believes what you're selling.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#390 - 2017-04-24 16:39:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
OK then we look at a certain faction BS which is used by certain people for fleet fights, 266,244 EHP and 1110 DPS, that is what the BS class should be at so that carriers don't become the new BS, the BS need love, it is not so much that the T3C's are over powered but that BS are under tanked in the main with the exception of the one I just detailed. FC's prefer to use the mobility of the T3C's which is a simple enough thing to understand with command destroyers able to jump ships way to be killed piece meal.

So just doing a simplistic this is the ship it is over powered because of raw stats, means what?

The thing is that certain alliances are investing heavily in Carriers as their new doctrine and they would like to have T3C's to have a weaker tank so they can kill them easier with their swarms of fighters.

Anyway, yes, as always baltec1 is pushing what favours him and his alliances setup, who would have thought that...


I'm really wondering what magical BS fit you're basing this off of, because trawling through zKill for fleet Nightmare and Mach fits yields a couple of different fits, none of which gets close to 266k EHP before boosts. The Machs deal about 400 DPS and tank 196k EHP, the Nightmare deals about 900 DPS with Navy Multi but only tanks 147k EHP.


My guess is he's talking Rattlesnake.

From Fanfest, i think CCP is about to nerf Pirate Battleship blueprint drops really hard. Can't say I disagree, i hate selling nightmare BPCs for under 200 mil...
Salvos Rhoska
#391 - 2017-04-24 16:45:35 UTC
Baltec1:

Your isk/SP wealth is not an excuse or a premise for balance.

You want T3Cs nerfed so hard, and specifically, that you will no longer field them in your PvP fleets.

That is a contradiction.

Why shouldnt T3Cs have cause to be fielded in PvP fleets?

A 100%+ increase in cost of replacing a T3C is a HUGE nerf.
Increase cost of T3Cs, and double the SP loss to two subsystems per destruction.

Equal in magnitude to your own proposal, but without the drawbacks of destroying the T3C/subsystem market, nor of makibg non-pvp fleet players and their content obsolete.

Do you not see that?
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#392 - 2017-04-24 16:55:13 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) 40-50mil. Jesus...
That will wreck the T3C market.
Is that for just the hull, or including subsystems?


Including. It's a fair price to pay.
Quote:

2) There isnt much space between T1s and specialised cruisers.
Many are asymmetrically aligned with pros/cons for that specialisation.
Doyldoesnt leave much space for a swiss-army knife.


There is a 300 power grid difference between the thorax and the demos as well as several differences in bonuses. There is plenty of wiggle room to play with.
Quote:

3) What kind of PvE content could a T3C in your proposal comfortably run?
What DEDs, escalations, WH content?


Roughly the same as can be done with a navy cruiser.
Quote:

4) What about training time into a T3C?

Not much change needed.
Quote:

5) Why should such a gimped cruiser not be able to cloak/null simultaneously?

Because it makes it impossible to catch.

1) Is it even possible to reduce the cost of a T3C and subsystems to a 40-50mil cost?
Wont that utterly wreck the market?
Why punish manufacturers/material sourcers?
Who would even buy the POS ships your changes make of T3Cs?
Would you buy one? For what purpose?

2) PG is only one aspect of the existing differential between T1 and specialized cruisers.
There are resist profiles, speeds, sigs, slots, etc that offer far more diversity across all cruiser classes, than the T3C in your proposal.

3) VNI can run a 5/10 with extreme difficulty (probably several warp outs and drone losses) and looong completion time, forget about it with other navy cruisers. If the T3C in your proposal cant match even that, that relegates them to HS 4/10s which other cruisers can already run even better.

WH activity would be limited to C2 at most, and even that is a stretch.

4) Atleast, all T3C skills should be refunded (especially to stop extractor prices going through the roof)
Only an idiot would skill into a T3C therafter, with no fleet use, and all other cruisers having better tank/dps to compete.
EVE has never seen a class nerf as severe as the one you propose.
You want to kill a class, just so you wont use them in fleet PvP.
Its insane.

5) After your change, T3Cs are a T1-Navy cruiser that cant even run any content in NS.
Wtf are you afraid of?
What are they going to do?
Attack a miner in NS and gets hotdropped by your ton of potatoes?



After your change, not even an idiot will run these ships in NS.

Worse than that, nobody will use them AT ALL.

Your change will not only kill the class, it will kill all the content it provides as well as the market that supplies it.

All this, just so YOU WILL NO LONGER FIELD T3Cs IN YOUR NS FLEETS :D



If the changes you propose go through, I propose that all T3Cs should thereafter be referred to as "Baltecs"
Ie: Completely useless pieces of space trash that only an idiot would consider valid.
PvP fleets wont want you.
You can run HS 4/10s worse than a Pirate cruiser.
Navy cruisers will kick your teeth in PvP.

May that be your legacy.





Won't this also kill reasons to go into wormholes and get the resources needed to build them? How many players whose "thing" is T3C production in WH now going the way of the blacksmith? Another era of abandoned WH structures...

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#393 - 2017-04-24 17:04:04 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Your isk/SP wealth is not an excuse or a premise for balance.


Again I point to titans to demonstrate that SP and ISK do not stop us from getting them in large numbers.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

You want T3Cs nerfed so hard, and specifically, that you will no longer field them in your PvP fleets.

That is a contradiction.


No thats what must happen. We will start using HACs in our HAC fleet again.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Why shouldnt T3Cs have cause to be fielded in PvP fleets?


They can be after the nerf, people use T1 hulls in fleets all the time, just not us.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

A 100%+ increase in cost of replacing a T3C is a HUGE nerf.
Increase cost of T3Cs, and double the SP loss to two subsystems per destruction.


It nerfs nothing, T3C will still be a better HAC than a HAC.

Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#394 - 2017-04-24 17:16:30 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Baltec1:

Your isk/SP wealth is not an excuse or a premise for balance.

You want T3Cs nerfed so hard, and specifically, that you will no longer field them in your PvP fleets.

That is a contradiction.

Why shouldnt T3Cs have cause to be fielded in PvP fleets?

A 100%+ increase in cost of replacing a T3C is a HUGE nerf.
Increase cost of T3Cs, and double the SP loss to two subsystems per destruction.

Equal in magnitude to your own proposal, but without the drawbacks of destroying the T3C/subsystem market, nor of makibg non-pvp fleet players and their content obsolete.

Do you not see that?


The issue for me isn't fielding T3's in a fleet. It's that often it's a fleet of just T3 filling all fleet roles.

But.... if the goal of T3 is to be able to be customized so it can fulfill almost any role or be a "jack of all trades" if configured that way... at no point should it be the BEST at any role. The specialized ships should be better.

And if they end up that way.... then you wouldn't want them in fleets... because with the fleet concept you want the specialized ships filling their roles, not a generalist ship... right?

To me... T3C's should be the ultimate solo roaming ship (which they already are). They should be able to do almost anything. But they should be able to do none of it as well as the specialized class of ships (particularly specialized cruisers) for the same role. If they're better than the specialized ships... why would any fleet ever bother with those when you can have 200 proteuses and nobody will know which ones are filling which roles without careful observation?
Salvos Rhoska
#395 - 2017-04-24 17:30:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Your isk/SP wealth is not an excuse or a premise for balance.


Again I point to titans to demonstrate that SP and ISK do not stop us from getting them in large numbers.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

You want T3Cs nerfed so hard, and specifically, that you will no longer field them in your PvP fleets.

That is a contradiction.


No thats what must happen. We will start using HACs in our HAC fleet again.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Why shouldnt T3Cs have cause to be fielded in PvP fleets?


They can be after the nerf, people use T1 hulls in fleets all the time, just not us.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

A 100%+ increase in cost of replacing a T3C is a HUGE nerf.
Increase cost of T3Cs, and double the SP loss to two subsystems per destruction.


It nerfs nothing, T3C will still be a better HAC than a HAC.


1) You point to TITANS?
Are you joking?
Have you completely lost the plot?
Your isk/SP wealth is not material to balance.

2) Nothing is preventing you from using HACs right now.
You dont need T3Cs wiped out to the point YOU will no longer field them, inorder to use HACs.

3) So other people do use T1 cruisers in fleets, but just not you.
Hmmm.

4) Doubling the cost of of replacing a ship nerfs nothing?
Im pretty sure a +100% nerf to cost and SP loss combined will make many think twice about choosing another hull instead.

5) There is a hypocrisy and self-interested bias, in that you want to nerf T3Cs so hard, that your alliance even wont use them in PvP fleets. Stinks of "we dont want to use them, so neither should you!".
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#396 - 2017-04-24 17:39:59 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) You point to TITANS?
Are you joking?
Have you completely lost the plot?
Your isk/SP wealth is not material to balance.


Titans, the single most expensive and SP heavy ship in the game. If cost doesn't stop us from forming entire fleets of them then what makes you think isk and SP will stop us from getting anything else?

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

2) Nothing is preventing you from using HACs right now.


Why would we fly a HAC over a T3C?

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

3) So other people do use T1 cruisers in fleets, but just not you.
Hmmm.


Correct. You would know this if you paid any attention to what goes on in this game.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

4) Doubling the cost of of replacing a ship nerfs nothing?
Im pretty sure a +100% nerf to cost and SP loss combined will make many think twice about choosing another hull instead.


We dump fleets of ships worth 5 billion isk each in suicide runs. All you did is push T3C away from the smaller guys and give us an even greater advantage.
Salvos Rhoska
#397 - 2017-04-24 17:45:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scialt wrote:
The issue for me isn't fielding T3's in a fleet.


But it is for baltec1.

His proposal nerfs T3Cs to the state that he himself said his alliance would no longer field any of them.

He wants them wiped out of fleet PvP, entirely.

That is his primary impetus.
Secondary to that, he doesnt want cloak/null T3Cs interloping their space.
Third, he wants to wreck the T3C production/resource market.
Fourth, he wants T3C nomads to instead join NS alliances.
Fifth, he wants WHs nerfed, as no longer being able to field T3Cs to complete content there, and to reduce WH proceeds linked to T3C and subsystem manufacture.

This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.

Just so they wont field, or have to deal with, T3Cs in fleet combat with all their trillions in isk, titans, and dozens of millions of SP.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#398 - 2017-04-24 17:52:27 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.


Again, how does nerfing most of the ships we use in our fleets and in our super hunting help me?
Salvos Rhoska
#399 - 2017-04-24 18:02:52 UTC
baltec1:

Lol at trying to skew this into a Malcanis Law issue by citing how many Titans you can field, how rich you are, and how little SP loss matters.

I see what you are trying.

Doubling the SP loss, and increasing build cost is sustainable by PvE pilots.
Can you say the same for your PvP fleets?

Aside from that, the tank on some specific T3C builds is the only extraneous issue that needs addressing.
I, and everyone else, agrees its too high.
Salvos Rhoska
#400 - 2017-04-24 18:05:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.


Again, how does nerfing most of the ships we use in our fleets and in our super hunting help me?


I answered this already.