These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Future of T3 Cruisers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2013-12-12 17:09:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

1) A HAC gets no EWAR or logi bonuses, they're pure dps ships. This was covered several times including during the HAC rebalance thread.
2) 825 dps applied from a cerb is certainly preferable which is exactly why I said it. The problem that went over your head is how the jump from cruiser to battleship is such a small increase in DPS, even for T2 battleships. The marauder package got extra tank and projection much like a mini dread --- but critically misses the damage bonus. 3 out of 4 ships got 125% damage at all 5, golem drew the short straw and got better application, on weapon systems that can't cause wrecking hits.

The issue is pretty complex we agree but I'm not the simpleton here.


Your the idiot who can't put forward a good argument as to why Tech 3 ships should be nerfed below the abilities of T2, so instead you take to rambling on about battleships Roll

IDK why you are blabbering on about E-war and logi bonuses either... who suggested HAC have them in the first place?

At the end of the day, you clearly have no clue how this game and the ships within it work. I've given you enough chances to explain why you think a HAC should have more dps/tank that a t3 and your answer has repeatedly been "because it's called a HAC". So i'm done with you.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#242 - 2013-12-12 17:12:20 UTC
combat fit t3's don't get ewar or logi bonuses either.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#243 - 2013-12-12 17:23:03 UTC
Batelle wrote:
combat fit t3's don't get ewar or logi bonuses either.



beat me to it.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#244 - 2013-12-12 17:26:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Onictus wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Well if nothing else you'll be one of the people caught out when the nerfs come.

You would fly a t3 because HACs can't warp through bubbles w/ covops cloak, then deploy scan probes and still deal a solid 400-500 dps while tanking an entire room.

Assuming the nerfs aren't too extreme of course.



I would love to see this fit.


I was interested in this too. Now with the mobile depot, you can refit the nullifier sub and strip the probe launcher for another HAM launcher and get over 500 dps with any type of rage ham with 3 faction damage mods (4 if you refit scanning sub too) and 5 launchers.

I think you can do pretty similar with a proteus but with a worse tank and much worse range.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#245 - 2013-12-12 18:15:24 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Well if nothing else you'll be one of the people caught out when the nerfs come.

You would fly a t3 because HACs can't warp through bubbles w/ covops cloak, then deploy scan probes and still deal a solid 400-500 dps while tanking an entire room.

Assuming the nerfs aren't too extreme of course.



I would love to see this fit.


I was interested in this too. Now with the mobile depot, you can refit the nullifier sub and strip the probe launcher for another HAM launcher and get over 500 dps with any type of rage ham with 3 faction damage mods (4 if you refit scanning sub too) and 5 launchers.

I think you can do pretty similar with a proteus but with a worse tank and much worse range.


You can actually get a locus Proteus over the 200k eHP mark with a T2 fit.....but good luck fitting guns on it, maybe 200DPS (being giving there) with 1 plate and three hardeners, that is cloaky and nullified, but you only have 5 highs and two are cloak and probe launcher.

....and you aren't winning any races with it, trust me.
Meytal
Doomheim
#246 - 2013-12-12 18:37:01 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Well if nothing else you'll be one of the people caught out when the nerfs come.

You would fly a t3 because HACs can't warp through bubbles w/ covops cloak, then deploy scan probes and still deal a solid 400-500 dps while tanking an entire room.

Assuming the nerfs aren't too extreme of course.



I would love to see this fit.


I was interested in this too. Now with the mobile depot, you can refit the nullifier sub and strip the probe launcher for another HAM launcher and get over 500 dps with any type of rage ham with 3 faction damage mods (4 if you refit scanning sub too) and 5 launchers.

I think you can do pretty similar with a proteus but with a worse tank and much worse range.


You can actually get a locus Proteus over the 200k eHP mark with a T2 fit.....but good luck fitting guns on it, maybe 200DPS (being giving there) with 1 plate and three hardeners, that is cloaky and nullified, but you only have 5 highs and two are cloak and probe launcher.

....and you aren't winning any races with it, trust me.

It's very interesting how detractors aren't posting these 1000 DPS, 750k EHP, 100MN, Cloaky, Scanny fitted T3s with Ewar and Logi that they're crying about.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#247 - 2013-12-12 18:41:02 UTC
Meytal wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Well if nothing else you'll be one of the people caught out when the nerfs come.

You would fly a t3 because HACs can't warp through bubbles w/ covops cloak, then deploy scan probes and still deal a solid 400-500 dps while tanking an entire room.

Assuming the nerfs aren't too extreme of course.



I would love to see this fit.


I was interested in this too. Now with the mobile depot, you can refit the nullifier sub and strip the probe launcher for another HAM launcher and get over 500 dps with any type of rage ham with 3 faction damage mods (4 if you refit scanning sub too) and 5 launchers.

I think you can do pretty similar with a proteus but with a worse tank and much worse range.


You can actually get a locus Proteus over the 200k eHP mark with a T2 fit.....but good luck fitting guns on it, maybe 200DPS (being giving there) with 1 plate and three hardeners, that is cloaky and nullified, but you only have 5 highs and two are cloak and probe launcher.

....and you aren't winning any races with it, trust me.

It's very interesting how detractors aren't posting these 1000 DPS, 750k EHP, 100MN, Cloaky, Scanny fitted T3s with Ewar and Logi that they're crying about.



Occasionally one does, then you notice that they need HG slaves/crystals and a 2.5 billion isk fit to hit their numbers. Its a recurring theme.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#248 - 2013-12-12 19:03:22 UTC
Quinn Corvez wrote:
This conversation is about T3 ships not wormhole space. Do you really need me to explain to you why the mechanics of wormhole space cause people to use t3 ships almost exclusively?


No I don't need any explanations thank you. The defining features of wormhole space are:

* your combat will initiate at range 0 rather than range 30. You will be scrammed and webbed.

* once combat starts, you're committed for at the very least, the next 4 minutes because of wormhole timers.

* I am ignoring wormhole mass limits because it's unusual to get a fleet engagement on a small wormhole - one side of the connection will not be rich enough to feed enough pilots for there to be two opposing fleets.

The first two features argue for using the best close-range brawler available, which i n my view (and I am a player with perfect proteus skills) ought to be a HAC, but unfortunately it's a T3.

Quinn Corvez wrote:

None of those groups are unbeatable...


I think I said exactly that in my post.

Quinn Corvez wrote:

... so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.


The point I am making has been re-iterated above - the best ship at heavy assault ought to be a Heavy Assault Ship. The best ship for deploying an advanced strategy ought to be a Strategic Cruiser.

That's all.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#249 - 2013-12-12 19:10:57 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

The point I am making has been re-iterated above - the best ship at heavy assault ought to be a Heavy Assault Ship. The best ship for deploying an advanced strategy ought to be a Strategic Cruiser.

That's all.


And Marauders should maraud, logistics ships should actually have the role industrials have now. Industrials should be mobile factories. Recon ships should simply have the covert scout role, where did all this ewar come from?
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2013-12-12 19:26:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Sal Landry wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

The point I am making has been re-iterated above - the best ship at heavy assault ought to be a Heavy Assault Ship. The best ship for deploying an advanced strategy ought to be a Strategic Cruiser.

That's all.


And Marauders should maraud, logistics ships should actually have the role industrials have now. Industrials should be mobile factories. Recon ships should simply have the covert scout role, where did all this ewar come from?


lol I know right?! These justifications are priceless. Big smile

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#251 - 2013-12-12 19:32:50 UTC
Meytal wrote:
It's very interesting how detractors aren't posting these 1000 DPS, 750k EHP, 100MN, Cloaky, Scanny fitted T3s with Ewar and Logi that they're crying about.


That is not the claim. The claim is that for every HAC there is a better, stronger equivalent T3 which delivers more damage and has much a stronger tank.

here's an example:

Tengu w/6 HAMs, 3BCUs and a T2 bay loading accelerator:
906 dps (unheated), with 55900 (unheated) ehp with MWD, scram, web

cerberus w/HAMs, 3 BCUs, T2 loading bay accelerator + MWD + scram (NO WEB):
619dps (unheated), 38777 ehp (unheated)

In this example, the tengu outperforms the cerberus by 46% on damage output and 44% on ehp.

The tengu has the option to swap 1 BCU for a damage control for extra tank at the expense of a small amount to dps. The cerberus already has a DC so does not have this option. In the new safer configuration, the tengu is pushing out 832 dps (beating the cerb by 34%) and has 66932 ehp (72% more than the cerberus).

Granted, the cerberus can project that HAMs further, but the tengu's will hit harder again by virtue of the web.

It's a no-brainer. sell cerberus, buy tengu. You'll lose less ISK in ship replacement and score more kills in a tengu.

Shame eh?

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#252 - 2013-12-12 19:36:10 UTC
T3s have all already been nerfed pretty good. They are fine as is, don't really needed messed with anymore.
Notorious Fellon
#253 - 2013-12-12 19:37:50 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Meytal wrote:
It's very interesting how detractors aren't posting these 1000 DPS, 750k EHP, 100MN, Cloaky, Scanny fitted T3s with Ewar and Logi that they're crying about.


That is not the claim. The claim is that for every HAC there is a better, stronger equivalent T3 which delivers more damage and has much a stronger tank.

here's an example:

Tengu w/6 HAMs, 3BCUs and a T2 bay loading accelerator:
906 dps (unheated), with 55900 (unheated) ehp with MWD, scram, web

cerberus w/HAMs, 3 BCUs, T2 loading bay accelerator + MWD + scram (NO WEB):
619dps (unheated), 38777 ehp (unheated)

In this example, the tengu outperforms the cerberus by 46% on damage output and 44% on ehp.

The tengu has the option to swap 1 BCU for a damage control for extra tank at the expense of a small amount to dps. The cerberus already has a DC so does not have this option. In the new safer configuration, the tengu is pushing out 832 dps (beating the cerb by 34%) and has 66932 ehp (72% more than the cerberus).

Granted, the cerberus can project that HAMs further, but the tengu's will hit harder again by virtue of the web.

It's a no-brainer. sell cerberus, buy tengu. You'll lose less ISK in ship replacement and score more kills in a tengu.

Shame eh?


Why is this bad? A T2 setup that costs 1/4th the cost of a T3 has less dps and less tank.

OK? And?

Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#254 - 2013-12-12 19:39:04 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

The point I am making has been re-iterated above - the best ship at heavy assault ought to be a Heavy Assault Ship. The best ship for deploying an advanced strategy ought to be a Strategic Cruiser.

That's all.


And Marauders should maraud, logistics ships should actually have the role industrials have now. Industrials should be mobile factories. Recon ships should simply have the covert scout role, where did all this ewar come from?


Not entirely fair. Marauders, logistics et. al. do currently have a role in eve.

My concern is that T3s currently make HACs obsolete in anything other than 1v1

I think T3 should be good ships, but not better at heavy assault than HACs, which have no other role.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#255 - 2013-12-12 19:39:22 UTC
Notorious Fellon wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Meytal wrote:
It's very interesting how detractors aren't posting these 1000 DPS, 750k EHP, 100MN, Cloaky, Scanny fitted T3s with Ewar and Logi that they're crying about.


That is not the claim. The claim is that for every HAC there is a better, stronger equivalent T3 which delivers more damage and has much a stronger tank.

here's an example:

Tengu w/6 HAMs, 3BCUs and a T2 bay loading accelerator:
906 dps (unheated), with 55900 (unheated) ehp with MWD, scram, web

cerberus w/HAMs, 3 BCUs, T2 loading bay accelerator + MWD + scram (NO WEB):
619dps (unheated), 38777 ehp (unheated)

In this example, the tengu outperforms the cerberus by 46% on damage output and 44% on ehp.

The tengu has the option to swap 1 BCU for a damage control for extra tank at the expense of a small amount to dps. The cerberus already has a DC so does not have this option. In the new safer configuration, the tengu is pushing out 832 dps (beating the cerb by 34%) and has 66932 ehp (72% more than the cerberus).

Granted, the cerberus can project that HAMs further, but the tengu's will hit harder again by virtue of the web.

It's a no-brainer. sell cerberus, buy tengu. You'll lose less ISK in ship replacement and score more kills in a tengu.

Shame eh?


Why is this bad? A T2 setup that costs 1/4th the cost of a T3 has less dps and less tank.

OK? And?


Exactly problem is?
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#256 - 2013-12-12 19:42:01 UTC
Notorious Fellon wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Meytal wrote:
It's very interesting how detractors aren't posting these 1000 DPS, 750k EHP, 100MN, Cloaky, Scanny fitted T3s with Ewar and Logi that they're crying about.


That is not the claim. The claim is that for every HAC there is a better, stronger equivalent T3 which delivers more damage and has much a stronger tank.

here's an example:

Tengu w/6 HAMs, 3BCUs and a T2 bay loading accelerator:
906 dps (unheated), with 55900 (unheated) ehp with MWD, scram, web

cerberus w/HAMs, 3 BCUs, T2 loading bay accelerator + MWD + scram (NO WEB):
619dps (unheated), 38777 ehp (unheated)

In this example, the tengu outperforms the cerberus by 46% on damage output and 44% on ehp.

The tengu has the option to swap 1 BCU for a damage control for extra tank at the expense of a small amount to dps. The cerberus already has a DC so does not have this option. In the new safer configuration, the tengu is pushing out 832 dps (beating the cerb by 34%) and has 66932 ehp (72% more than the cerberus).

Granted, the cerberus can project that HAMs further, but the tengu's will hit harder again by virtue of the web.

It's a no-brainer. sell cerberus, buy tengu. You'll lose less ISK in ship replacement and score more kills in a tengu.

Shame eh?


Why is this bad? A T2 setup that costs 1/4th the cost of a T3 has less dps and less tank.

OK? And?


At current prices, the tengu mentioned above costs 430m isk. The cerberus costs 224m isk. The tengu is easily twice as good as the cerberus. For this level of power you're right, it would be more consistent if the tengu had a price tag of 900m isk.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Notorious Fellon
#257 - 2013-12-12 19:43:58 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Sal Landry wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

The point I am making has been re-iterated above - the best ship at heavy assault ought to be a Heavy Assault Ship. The best ship for deploying an advanced strategy ought to be a Strategic Cruiser.

That's all.


And Marauders should maraud, logistics ships should actually have the role industrials have now. Industrials should be mobile factories. Recon ships should simply have the covert scout role, where did all this ewar come from?


Not entirely fair. Marauders, logistics et. al. do currently have a role in eve.

My concern is that T3s currently make HACs obsolete in anything other than 1v1

I think T3 should be good ships, but not better at heavy assault than HACs, which have no other role.




You are assuming infinite funding. Not everyone sits in a big blue donut with free T3 cruiser replacements. Nor do we all use daddy's credit card.

Cost to performance ratio matters. So does skill to performance.

If we are ignoring cost, then I want ALL pirate faction ships to be reduced in function to the hulls they are based on. Lets bring the Rattle down to be as useful as a Raven. Drop that Mach down too; it can't be doing more dps than the 250 million isk BS category.

Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#258 - 2013-12-12 19:46:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
well can we keep it relatively on topic...
its about the future of T3's .. so price in the future may be the same as HAC's or lower/higher...

so how about we talk about what we think T3's should become as opposed too how they are now

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#259 - 2013-12-12 19:46:30 UTC
Notorious Fellon wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Sal Landry wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

The point I am making has been re-iterated above - the best ship at heavy assault ought to be a Heavy Assault Ship. The best ship for deploying an advanced strategy ought to be a Strategic Cruiser.

That's all.


And Marauders should maraud, logistics ships should actually have the role industrials have now. Industrials should be mobile factories. Recon ships should simply have the covert scout role, where did all this ewar come from?


Not entirely fair. Marauders, logistics et. al. do currently have a role in eve.

My concern is that T3s currently make HACs obsolete in anything other than 1v1

I think T3 should be good ships, but not better at heavy assault than HACs, which have no other role.




You are assuming infinite funding. Not everyone sits in a big blue donut with free T3 cruiser replacements. Nor do we all use daddy's credit card.

Cost to performance ratio matters. So does skill to performance.

If we are ignoring cost, then I want ALL pirate faction ships to be reduced in function to the hulls they are based on. Lets bring the Rattle down to be as useful as a Raven. Drop that Mach down too; it can't be doing more dps than the 250 million isk BS category.


In the end, eve does provide infinite funding. PVE converts time to ISK. If you invest in the tengu, you will lose less than half the number of ships than if you invest in the cerberus. Your pvp will actually be cheaper.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#260 - 2013-12-12 19:56:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

Not entirely fair. Marauders, logistics et. al. do currently have a role in eve.

My concern is that T3s currently make HACs obsolete in anything other than 1v1

I think T3 should be good ships, but not better at heavy assault than HACs, which have no other role.



No, it is fair. You are getting stuck on the name. If HACs were called Rapid Assault Cruisers, would you still have a problem?

HACs are generally faster and have better damage projection while combat T3s are slower and better at brawling. Two completely different roles and fighting styles for two completely different classes of ship.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...