These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP: Leave T3 Strategic Cruisers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#101 - 2013-07-23 10:59:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

I'd prefer to have a reason to fly them that isn't "T3 are **** now so we might as well just fly these instead".

They don't have to be as good as T3s, but at least make them interesting.


I'm quite excited over the diemost changes although that sheild boost bonus for the vaga has me scratching my head.


Deimos changes are underwhelming, all hacs need another rig slot, deimos needs another med -1high +1low, scrap that crap mwd cap bonus for tracking or 1point disruption immunity (all hacs) so they have a chance to get in range before their mwd is shut down and web to death

Now Deimos with rails getting removed the previous 15% tracking buff? - lol, everyone knows how bad those already track.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#102 - 2013-07-23 11:01:49 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Aren't you one of those asking for T3 frigates?

What? Don't make up weird stories about me.

Oh god.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#103 - 2013-07-23 11:04:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Riot Girl wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Aren't you one of those asking for T3 frigates?

What? Don't make up weird stories about me.



That was a question, just say'in Blink

Also: agree on Sacrilege underwhelming buff, needs bonus to light/ham/HM +1low slot and get rid of some mass+win some speed, right now is just a bait brick.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#104 - 2013-07-23 11:43:06 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Chock Nurris wrote:
I think non T3 people are just jealous

The only people I have seen supporting T3 rebalancing are people who also fly T3s.



Aren't you one of those asking for T3 frigates?
You already had it, was named Dramiel and look how game breaking it was before the well deserved nerf bat.

Limiting modules size to ships size is the most logical way to go. No more triple 1600 proteus or legion, no more double large shield extenders Tengus, 2.5-3km/s T3's with oversized ABs and so on, then once people start fitting dedicated size mods on their ships there will be less to balance across the board.
Capital pilots not being able to fit 100mn MWD's to make their ship warp faster? -I'm all for it

You want balance? -then balance the right things like oversize modules, the ship it self is rather balanced when fit it with same size modules.

But: no more XL-ASB sleipnirs, Vagabonds, Cyclones, Lokis or medium ASB frigates etc and oversize prop modules, pretty sure this is what you people don't want balanced and those are exactly why some ships get out of whack when you add links and implants.

If you really want to clean the can of worms do it right and stop trolling with "creative" oversize modules fits, there's nothing creative with that except for trolls and alts.


you can fit 6 launchers on a tengu
or 5 and a 100mn ab
or 5 and an xl booster

to fit those oversized modules, you also have to sacrifice a rig slot and a low slot for the extra pg and/or cpu
choices are good, choices make the game more interesting

with a 100mn ab running a tengu aligns like a dead cow, 1400m/s is good for speed tanking but bad for when you need to gtfo
Lucretia DeWinter
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#105 - 2013-07-23 11:49:43 UTC
T3s shouldn't be rebalanced because they're skill intensive?

Just for skills to fly the hull (assuming you'd have support/fitting skills and weapon systems etc - and many of these would apply to all)
To fly a T3 with skills at IV = 70 days (27m ISK)
To fly a Marauder with skills at IV = 125 days (70m ISK)
To fly a Black Ops with skills at IV = 130 days (113m ISK)
To fly Command Ships with skills at IV = 113 days (68m ISK)
To fly HACs at IV = 69 days (33m ISK)

So, in 3 months for an amount of ISK you can get of 1 level 4 mission, you can be flying a ship that is untouchable by anything else. Its faster, does greater DPS and tanks like a beast. Oh and you can't target it, find it or point it (depending on config) In the same time, you couldn't even sit in the hull of other T2 ships. They compare quite well with HACs, but a T3 is superior in performance to a (current) HAC. We know HACs are struggling. Logistics and Recons train similar times too, but they're too specialised to compare to T3s.

Sure, it's not all bad and plenty of T3s get asploded all the time, but to argue that T3s are worthy of being as OP as they are because they cost a lot of time and ISK, is demonstrably false.

I don't think T3s should be nerfed into the ground, far from it. I think they should be adjusted to focus more on their flexibility (swap subsystems in space etc) rather than having 1 or 2 highly optimised builds that simply trounces other stuff. They should have similar DPS, speed and tank abilities to other cruisers with their strength coming from how they can be refitted very flexibly and on the fly. Not that they can have frigate speed, battleship tank and battlecruiser DPS.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#106 - 2013-07-23 11:49:55 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:


Deimos changes are underwhelming, all hacs need another rig slot, deimos needs another med -1high +1low, scrap that crap mwd cap bonus for tracking or 1point disruption immunity (all hacs) so they have a chance to get in range before their mwd is shut down and web to death

Now Deimos with rails getting removed the previous 15% tracking buff? - lol, everyone knows how bad those already track.



Diemost got an extra mid and rails are being buffed.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#107 - 2013-07-23 12:19:27 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:


Deimos changes are underwhelming, all hacs need another rig slot, deimos needs another med -1high +1low, scrap that crap mwd cap bonus for tracking or 1point disruption immunity (all hacs) so they have a chance to get in range before their mwd is shut down and web to death

Now Deimos with rails getting removed the previous 15% tracking buff? - lol, everyone knows how bad those already track.



Diemost got an extra mid and rails are being buffed.


yeah saw the sticky in f&i ..

will it be enough to turn the failgu into a railgu though ?
would be nice if it did. adds another choice

and choices are good
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#108 - 2013-07-23 12:28:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:


Deimos changes are underwhelming, all hacs need another rig slot, deimos needs another med -1high +1low, scrap that crap mwd cap bonus for tracking or 1point disruption immunity (all hacs) so they have a chance to get in range before their mwd is shut down and web to death

Now Deimos with rails getting removed the previous 15% tracking buff? - lol, everyone knows how bad those already track.



Diemost got an extra mid and rails tracking is being nerf.



I know this. Still doesn't fix the dam thing. let's wait next proposal to see how feedback is taken.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#109 - 2013-07-23 12:35:11 UTC
Lucretia DeWinter wrote:
T3s shouldn't be rebalanced because they're skill intensive?

Just for skills to fly the hull (assuming you'd have support/fitting skills and weapon systems etc - and many of these would apply to all)
To fly a T3 with skills at IV = 70 days (27m ISK)
To fly a Marauder with skills at IV = 125 days (70m ISK)
To fly a Black Ops with skills at IV = 130 days (113m ISK)
To fly Command Ships with skills at IV = 113 days (68m ISK)
To fly HACs at IV = 69 days (33m ISK)

So, in 3 months for an amount of ISK you can get of 1 level 4 mission, you can be flying a ship that is untouchable by anything else. Its faster, does greater DPS and tanks like a beast. Oh and you can't target it, find it or point it (depending on config) In the same time, you couldn't even sit in the hull of other T2 ships. They compare quite well with HACs, but a T3 is superior in performance to a (current) HAC. We know HACs are struggling. Logistics and Recons train similar times too, but they're too specialised to compare to T3s.

Sure, it's not all bad and plenty of T3s get asploded all the time, but to argue that T3s are worthy of being as OP as they are because they cost a lot of time and ISK, is demonstrably false.

I don't think T3s should be nerfed into the ground, far from it. I think they should be adjusted to focus more on their flexibility (swap subsystems in space etc) rather than having 1 or 2 highly optimised builds that simply trounces other stuff. They should have similar DPS, speed and tank abilities to other cruisers with their strength coming from how they can be refitted very flexibly and on the fly. Not that they can have frigate speed, battleship tank and battlecruiser DPS.


If training 70 days for a T3 gives you T1 cruiser dps, battlecruiser tank, T2 cruiser mobility and the special snowflake ability to swap subs on the flight:

There's no point having one or flying them for other purpose than expensive nullified cloaky hauler for boosters plex and pirate implants.
At this point their building cost is better to be a lot cheaper and by cheaper I mean around 70M at best, even then I'd take my crane over that T3 all the time, even a bomber aligns faster and to get caught you need to seriously mess up, and also cost about 25x less the pop without pimp.


removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#110 - 2013-07-23 12:43:48 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:



I know this. Still doesn't fix the dam thing. let's wait next proposal to see how feedback is taken.


I think a rail fit might be nice for small gang work but yea, second round will better for most of them.
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#111 - 2013-07-23 14:31:33 UTC
CCP please come and end the argument nad just give us an idea of what you want to do? Are all T3s getting nerfed? Or just a couple, you gonna nerf the **** out of them or just slightly? Goddamnit we need details before we can have a reasonable discussion at the moment all these threads are kinda ppointless.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#112 - 2013-07-23 14:35:31 UTC
Icarus Able wrote:
you gonna nerf the **** out of them

It would seem so. Check the F&I thread for AHAC rebalance figures. The combat capabilities of T3s will be inferior to those ships.

Oh god.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#113 - 2013-07-23 14:51:32 UTC
Icarus Able wrote:
CCP please come and end the argument nad just give us an idea of what you want to do? Are all T3s getting nerfed? Or just a couple, you gonna nerf the **** out of them or just slightly? Goddamnit we need details before we can have a reasonable discussion at the moment all these threads are kinda ppointless.


They will be rebalanced with the other cruisers so yea, nerfs on the way.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#114 - 2013-07-23 14:51:37 UTC
T3

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
This is Jita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#115 - 2013-07-23 15:04:11 UTC
How many teams used T3 at Alliance Tournament?
None?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#116 - 2013-07-23 15:06:39 UTC
This is Jita wrote:
How many teams used T3 at Alliance Tournament?
None?



Nothing but potatos.
This is Jita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#117 - 2013-07-23 15:26:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
This is Jita wrote:
How many teams used T3 at Alliance Tournament?
None?



Nothing but potatos.


Maybe that's why you guys lose both matches.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#118 - 2013-07-23 15:32:14 UTC
This is Jita wrote:
How many teams used T3 at Alliance Tournament?
None?



Non sequitur. The AT is about point efficiency and the suitability of a ship for that particular situation. Your argument would make sense if all PvP on TQ had time, number and point limits and restrictions on fittings, implants and tactics.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Onomerous
KARNAGE
Ghostbirds
#119 - 2013-07-23 15:50:46 UTC
The hyperbole is strong in many of you. May the hyperbole be with you!!

And loving the people who take a phrase and make it into something which isn't even remotely close to truth but present it as absolute, undeniable fact.

Yep, loving GD threads!!



(being flexible means you have to be able to change fits in space? Really?? That is the only way to be flexible?? And that is what CCP intended? Then why haven't they already done it??)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#120 - 2013-07-23 15:55:54 UTC
This is Jita wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
This is Jita wrote:
How many teams used T3 at Alliance Tournament?
None?



Nothing but potatos.


Maybe that's why you guys lose both matches.


Nah we lost because we are terrible.