These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#121 - 2013-07-23 16:26:13 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
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.


Great - then no need for nerf'ing T3s.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2013-07-23 16:29:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
baltec1 wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

No they aren't. HACs are barely good enough to justify their cost as they stand currently, and the rebalancing doesn't do a whole lot to change that dynamic. They're still terrible on the mobility front, fairly weak on defense, hard to fit, etc.


Still stands that they are being balanced with the other cruisers and not T3.



Yes they should be, as it stands HACs are the only line of T2 cruisers that are inferior to T3s at the same roll.


Fix that and they are fine, but we are back to waiting to see what CCP does with the HACs, we already know that boosting is getting fixed.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#123 - 2013-07-23 16:31:53 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
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.


Great - then no need for nerf'ing T3s.

Hm, I think you're a little confused.

Oh god.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#124 - 2013-07-23 17:25:15 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
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.


Great - then no need for nerf'ing T3s.


yeah they're inevitably going to rebalance T3s when they get to them no matter how many forum alts you roll to make unsub threats with

the balls aren't quite on the bandsaw yet but they're getting there

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
YuuKnow
The Scope
#125 - 2013-07-23 19:33:08 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
baltec1 wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:


A point yes, but the reason is that Falcons are a pure support ship and there aren't as enough Titans/Supercaps to compete with the the pure number of subcaps.




Before the tracking nerf they were able to hit cruisers with dreadnought guns. There wasn't a single subcap fleet that could do anything to stop a titan blob with super support.


No duh.

Quote:
YuuKnow wrote:


Of course isk cost (and in the sake of T3 SP cost) IS a valid balancing so perhaps an Index that takes isk cost into account would be even more useful. Call it the "Kill Cost Index".


CCP tried to balance titans with isk cost and it didn't work. When alliances can afford to blob ships worth over 100 billion a ship worth 400 mil isn't exactly going to be hard to afford.


With that logic than Faction battleships should also be nerfed to the ground since they are also "hideously OP" compared to every other subcap, cruiser, and BShips as well. Doesn't matter their cost compared to other ships.

yk
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#126 - 2013-07-23 19:40:57 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
[quote=Andski]
Marauders were designed to operate solo behind enemy lines killing stuff. I have never seen or heard of a Marauder do that. Marauders are pretty much in need of a rebalance.


Totaly agree! a simple start to nerfing T3's and buffing mauraders would be taking bubble immunity off the t3 and putting it onto the marauder hull.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#127 - 2013-07-23 19:42:21 UTC
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
Aliventi wrote:
[quote=Andski]
Marauders were designed to operate solo behind enemy lines killing stuff. I have never seen or heard of a Marauder do that. Marauders are pretty much in need of a rebalance.


Totaly agree! a simple start to nerfing T3's and buffing mauraders would be taking bubble immunity off the t3 and putting it onto the marauder hull.



About that getting perma jammed by ECM drones.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#128 - 2013-07-23 19:51:56 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:


With that logic than Faction battleships should also be nerfed to the ground since they are also "hideously OP" compared to every other subcap, cruiser, and BShips as well. Doesn't matter their cost compared to other ships.

yk


Faction battleships are balanced with the other battleships. They don't for example, have a tank 2 classes above it.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#129 - 2013-07-23 20:16:02 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
With that logic than Faction battleships should also be nerfed to the ground since they are also "hideously OP" compared to every other subcap, cruiser, and BShips as well. Doesn't matter their cost compared to other ships.


They're actually quite balanced if you don't just **** over DPS numbers

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
YuuKnow
The Scope
#130 - 2013-07-23 20:25:12 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
baltec1 wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:


With that logic than Faction battleships should also be nerfed to the ground since they are also "hideously OP" compared to every other subcap, cruiser, and BShips as well. Doesn't matter their cost compared to other ships.

yk


Faction battleships are balanced with the other battleships. They don't for example, have a tank 2 classes above it.



Faction battleships are *not* 'balanced', for example, they have ships that simulataneously combine supeior DPS and superior -tackle, or DPS and superior cap warfare, or cap warfare and tank. That's 'hideously OP" as well, but no one seems to complain.

Cruiser guns and good tank is what makes it a "Tech 3" a "Tech 3". And also why it has a SP loss penalty. Deal with it. Leave T3s alone.

yk
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#131 - 2013-07-23 20:32:11 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
Deal with it. Leave T3s alone.

lol Roll

Oh god.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#132 - 2013-07-23 20:48:32 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:


Faction battleships are *not* 'balanced', for example, they have ships that simulataneously combine supeior DPS and superior -tackle, or DPS and superior cap warfare, or cap warfare and tank. That's 'hideously OP" as well, but no one seems to complain.

Cruiser guns and good tank is what makes it a "Tech 3" a "Tech 3". And also why it has a SP loss penalty. Deal with it. Leave T3s alone.

yk


If faction battleships were to battleship like t3s are to cruisers then they would have the tank half way to a nyx with the firepower of a vindicator and the speed and agility of a nano mega and would probably be cap stable.
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#133 - 2013-07-23 20:53:38 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

Reccons: T1 versions are good enough in numbers and are as tankier/faster than T2's+have +1rig slot =+tank or +ability
Only interesting stuff with T2 reccons is the cover ops cloaking device, a single module makes the ship worth, once you're uncloak T1 does the same thing for 1/5th of the price. Train another character instead
.

don't forget the halved cycle time on cyno's and ridiculous bonus to fuel usage

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#134 - 2013-07-23 20:56:16 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:


With that logic than Faction battleships should also be nerfed to the ground since they are also "hideously OP" compared to every other subcap, cruiser, and BShips as well. Doesn't matter their cost compared to other ships.

yk


Faction battleships are balanced with the other battleships. They don't for example, have a tank 2 classes above it.



Faction battleships are *not* 'balanced', for example, they have ships that simulataneously combine supeior DPS and superior -tackle, or DPS and superior cap warfare, or cap warfare and tank. That's 'hideously OP" as well, but no one seems to complain.

Cruiser guns and good tank is what makes it a "Tech 3" a "Tech 3". And also why it has a SP loss penalty. Deal with it. Leave T3s alone.

yk

People aren't complaining because they aren't nearly as ridiculous as T3s and they are designed to be clear improvements over others in their class. Navy ships are supposed to be improvements over T1 ships and pirate ships are supposed to be best ships in a class in the new rebalance, while T3s are supposed to be below pirate ships and just below T2 ships. Their planned advantage over T2 and faction ships is going to be generalization, meaning combination of abilities at below specialized T2 levels.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#135 - 2013-07-23 21:04:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:


Faction battleships are *not* 'balanced', for example, they have ships that simulataneously combine supeior DPS and superior -tackle, or DPS and superior cap warfare, or cap warfare and tank. That's 'hideously OP" as well, but no one seems to complain.

Cruiser guns and good tank is what makes it a "Tech 3" a "Tech 3". And also why it has a SP loss penalty. Deal with it. Leave T3s alone.

yk


If faction battleships were to battleship like t3s are to cruisers then they would have the tank half way to a nyx with the firepower of a vindicator and the speed and agility of a nano mega and would probably be cap stable.


Hyperbolic. Also, the skewed stats of Caps and Supercaps is an separate issue in and of itself.

If it makes you feel better, perhaps CCP should change the name of 'T3 cruisers' to 'T3 battlecruisers' and change the skill requirements to battlecruiser 5 rather than cruiser 5. Feel better?

yk
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#136 - 2013-07-23 21:10:15 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
YuuKnow wrote:


Hyperbolic. Also, the skewed stats of Caps and Supercaps is an separate issue in and of itself.

If it makes you feel better, perhaps CCP should change the name of 'T3 cruisers' to 'T3 battlecruisers' and change the skill requirements to battlecruiser 5 rather than cruiser 5. Feel better?

yk


Then the speed, agility and sig will need to be nerfed to BC level and the construction costs raised. They will also have to rebalance the sub systems and make it so you cant fit interdiction nullifier and cov ops cloak.

They would likely still end up with a nerf to its tank in order to balance them against the t1 BC.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#137 - 2013-07-23 21:15:55 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
People aren't complaining because they aren't nearly as ridiculous as T3s and they are designed to be clear improvements over others in their class. Navy ships are supposed to be improvements over T1 ships and pirate ships are supposed to be best ships in a class in the new rebalance, while T3s are supposed to be below pirate ships and just below T2 ships. Their planned advantage over T2 and faction ships is going to be generalization, meaning combination of abilities at below specialized T2 levels.


The ship master plan making a ship that is not very good at anything, aka "generalized", which also kills SPs every loss, and is a pain in the rear to manufacture, is what is 'ridiculous".

yk
YuuKnow
The Scope
#138 - 2013-07-23 21:18:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:


Hyperbolic. Also, the skewed stats of Caps and Supercaps is an separate issue in and of itself.

If it makes you feel better, perhaps CCP should change the name of 'T3 cruisers' to 'T3 battlecruisers' and change the skill requirements to battlecruiser 5 rather than cruiser 5. Feel better?

yk


Then the speed, agility and sig will need to be nerfed to BC level and the construction costs raised. They will also have to rebalance the sub systems and make it so you cant fit interdiction nullifier and cov ops cloak.

They would likely still end up with a nerf to its tank in order to balance them against the t1 BC.


Speed, agility, and sig yes.
Construction cost, No. Its already a convoluted process to make these subsystems.
Nulli and Cloak stays. Deal with it and stop crying.

yk
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#139 - 2013-07-23 21:22:03 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:



Nulli and Cloak stays. Deal with it and stop crying.

yk


Poor scrub, I can feel your squirming over the idea of losing the ability to move around any area of space with no risk.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#140 - 2013-07-23 21:37:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Poor scrub, I can feel your squirming over the idea of losing the ability to move around any area of space with no risk.

Poor scrub, I can feel your squirming over the idea of your butthurt from a cloaky gank and want to decrease the risk. Twisted

yk