These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

get rid of the tier 3 bc !!!!!!!!!!!

Author
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#61 - 2013-10-22 14:59:59 UTC
couple years ago i bought my first tempest at around 70mil i think. and if its relevant, they were the tier2 BS, not the tier1.

my first domi (tier1) cost 54mil lol.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Kane Fenris
NWP
#62 - 2013-10-22 16:23:15 UTC
Velicitia wrote:

I looked again, and when 'nadoes came out (30 Nov 2011 is the first day there is data), they were selling at a bit over 70m ISK. At the same time, 'pests were selling at 87,5 million. Not exactly "twice the price" -- and insurance (well. prior to Nov 28th/29th when Inferno launched) would have been about 90m (IIRC - still looking for devblogs from the last insurance tweaks before Inferno) for a tier1 battleship.


you compared single datapoints i used estimated longtime averages from about a year ago.

-both ships have to be exsitent else youd have to factor in inflation.
-furthermore you shouldnt take the first avalible prices those arent the reality cause there had been no tim to reaserch the bpos and thus the prices are always to high (aditionally demand is higher ause everyone wants shiny new things).
SpacePriest3000
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2013-10-22 20:16:31 UTC
I disagreed with you right up to the 10th exclamation point, but then you threw in the 11th one and I was sold.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#64 - 2013-10-23 01:13:20 UTC
Please post your freighter or incursion boat lossmail.

I really, really want to see it now.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Scarlet Firefly
Three Radioactive Assault Fish Frigates Inc.
#65 - 2013-10-23 01:25:19 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Krios42 wrote:


Ganking adds to the game (sometimes) imo. Freighters would deny it, but I think it makes their eve experience a whole lot more interesting and exciting.

Miner ganking on the other hand is something I don't support. I don't even want to think about how many ppl quit eve after repeated miner ganks. And its not even profitable for the gankers, its just greafing, plain and simple.



Ganking does not just make my freighter-ing more interesting, it also attacks my competition. God love the gankers.

this goes doubly for mining ganks. turns out it doesnt cost very much to hire a ganker to hit other miners, leaving more rocks and ice for my team (plus some amusing raging in local).

if ur gonna quit after getting ganked, then maybe u wouldn't enjoy this game anyways. after the ganks, all there is to look forward to is repeated war decs, thefts and can flipping and so on. Being a non-combat pilot, or playing eve even, requires a patient and rugged individual and/or group.

more on topic, the ABC's add a lot more to the game than take away. they are great ships. i can see the argument for making them T2 tho, they are very specialized and it would allow for a more typical ABC with medium weapons (the brutix would have a lot to gain from this).

Making them T2 would not really do much other than add to their cost. They dnt have to be given extra tank, simply use the same resist boost that bombers get, and ganking would move onto other hulls easily enough. It wont, however, give more roles back to BS's as they would perform much like they do now, if not better, under a T2 role and bonuses.

and i dnt understand Kane's argument. why does ganking in 1.0 or 0.9 have to be expensive?
Personally i'm of the opinion that ganking in higher secs is not game breaking, even when its cheap. ur not safe anywhere in this game, act accordingly.

Some people will gank for free, but they might gank you after. Best not to be around.
Tilly Delnero
Doomheim
#66 - 2013-10-23 04:25:34 UTC
Not everyone suicide ganks in tier 3s y'know. Heck I loved my Oracle and Talos when I used to play on TQ and have never considered suicide ganking so I have to say no to removing them.
Shivanthar
#67 - 2013-10-23 08:15:50 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Where is my Destroyer that can mount eight Cruiser-sized guns?

Let's add those too.


notsureifserious...


but +1 anyway Cool


Where is my BS that can mount 8x QUAD 3500mm Gallium Cannons?
Time to modify Tempest? Blink

_Half _the lies they tell about me **aren't **true.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#68 - 2013-10-25 00:13:09 UTC
Scarlet Firefly wrote:

Some people will gank for free, but they might gank you after. Best not to be around.


more than welcome to try. some have and no one has succeeded in three years

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2013-10-25 00:30:57 UTC
General Jack Cosmo wrote:
It takes away from bs roles and it makes it too easy to gank for less in high sec space !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I don't get it

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#70 - 2013-10-25 00:47:28 UTC
Missile Naga!!

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Wapu Kashuken
Serenity Rising LLC
Controlled Chaos
#71 - 2013-10-25 02:34:22 UTC
-1... if necessary I will sponsor several alliances to come online w/ all toons and -1 this.

Fit your ship better, fly in fleets, learn situational awareness, get better intel. DON'T REQUEST A NERF!
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#72 - 2013-10-25 03:35:24 UTC
Wapu Kashuken wrote:
Fit your ship better, fly in fleets, learn situational awareness, get better intel. DON'T REQUEST A NERF!

Can we kill local?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#73 - 2013-10-25 07:18:34 UTC
tier 3 ships are my favorite ship to come across when I roam :) so easy to tackle and hold, even solo with my frig, but in large gangs they are evil for their price vs other gangs

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934

Velicitia
XS Tech
#74 - 2013-10-25 10:47:38 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
Velicitia wrote:

I looked again, and when 'nadoes came out (30 Nov 2011 is the first day there is data), they were selling at a bit over 70m ISK. At the same time, 'pests were selling at 87,5 million. Not exactly "twice the price" -- and insurance (well. prior to Nov 28th/29th when Inferno launched) would have been about 90m (IIRC - still looking for devblogs from the last insurance tweaks before Inferno) for a tier1 battleship.


you compared single datapoints i used estimated longtime averages from about a year ago.

-both ships have to be exsitent else youd have to factor in inflation.
-furthermore you shouldnt take the first avalible prices those arent the reality cause there had been no tim to reaserch the bpos and thus the prices are always to high (aditionally demand is higher ause everyone wants shiny new things).


Looking back only a year will have you miss out on the initial mineral rebalance in Inferno (give or take) which did shove everything upwards, to give you this "Tempest is twice the price" thing.

Trends have the 'nado dropping to around mid-50m (55-57 or so) within ~2 weeks and staying there (or thereabouts) until right before fanfest, where they spike to a bit above 62. Fanfest drops them back for the weekend, and then they take a pretty sharp tick upwards immediately after (Inferno speculation), and then stabilizing in mid-70m (73-75) between July 2012 until mid july 2013.

Tempest on the other hand climbs over the same two week period, but only to about 90m (95 be beginning of Jan), and doesn't break 100m til about mid-February 2012 ('nado is sitting on a spike then, at roughly 58m). Initial price hike after the mineral changes is 146m ('nado is 72m ... so you get your "twice the price" claim here Blink), and then it settles down to the lower-mid 140s (142-144) until the "normal" (Pre-)expansion speculation hikes.


Sure, it's always been closer to "twice the price" on the market -- but this isn't accounting for the insurance (rate + payout). so, using a (fully insurable, even after concordokken)Tempest probably had the ganker losing less than 20m/gank (and that is probably a "high" number).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Kate stark
#75 - 2013-10-25 21:57:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kate stark
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Except ABC's still overshadow BS.
Yes, BS have tank. But in a lot of applications you aren't caring about tank, which has removed a large number of roles from a BS. ABC's have the advantage of significant mobility over a BS, gaining even more in Rubicon, and that is typically what matters rather than tank.
So the balance of ABC's is still a relevant point.
6 turrets may be too much of a drop, but 7? Sure you might be able to find a normal BC that out DPS's them, but not at the same ranges the ABC's can project to with Large instead of Medium turrets.
Which then puts them in a much better game slot, and keeps BS more relevant underneath the huge blob level.
While still leaving ABC's fine for use like they are now. Just need 8 instead of 7 (if you even needed 7 before)


just because tank isn't a requirement for your activities doesn't mean ABCs overshadow BSes.

of course ABCs have more mobility; they're paper thin and that's what keeps the balance. they trade a huge tank for the mobility.

"what matters" is entirely dependent upon the situation. just because ABCs are a better choice for ganking doesn't mean they aren't balanced or need nerfing.
reduce concord damage and stop them jamming to the point where a BS will do more damage than an ABC due to it not getting instablapped and you'll see gankers using more expensive hulls because it's more cost effective to use expensive ships.

you change the situation, and you change which ship is "best". as such "ship x sucks (or is the best choice for) at task y" does not imply imbalance or the need to change anything.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.

SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#76 - 2013-10-25 22:11:46 UTC
Just rage-quit and go back to WoW already.
General Jack Cosmo
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2013-11-11 20:19:08 UTC
i always thought the tier 3 bc and destroyers were trouble maybe reduce their turrets to 6 for both or make them rockets for the destroyer and torps for the tier 3 bc's at least you would have a few extra secs to flee before they hit you and you can watch them get ganked by concord at least!

With lord Xanex by my side I can do anything (Atleast with a smile) !!!!

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#78 - 2013-11-11 22:23:04 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
General Jack Cosmo wrote:
exclamation marks are the only weapon i have in forums :)

seriously, I think it was a bad idea is ccp willing to **** off a big part of their revenue stream (miners and missioners)
by making it too easy too gank and collect the mods ect w/o a greater penalty like using battle ships instead ! bam ! bam ! bam



Ganking is more expensive now than it was before the introduction of tier 3 BCs. It in fact became more expensive the moment the patch hit.

Why are you insisting that a patch that made ganking more expensive upsets you?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#79 - 2013-11-11 22:45:06 UTC
Kate stark wrote:
you've expressed that you think it is an issue. yet you've failed to express why it's an issue, and why it needs fixing.

b-, can do better.

are you blind?

its pretty clear he explained why its an issue.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

Radelix Cisko
JUMP DRIVE ACTIVE
#80 - 2013-11-12 00:16:48 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
I think the solution is to get into the business of manufacturing and selling Tornadoes near mission hubs. Maybe even sell fully gank fit ones on contracts. Not that I would ever do that myself. No, not at all.


Tis a shame that you were not doing this in Osmon

Despite my posting prowess I really am terrible at this game