These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why do people fly BS?

First post First post
Author
Cpt Tirel
Institute For Continuous Glory
#501 - 2014-01-11 00:24:33 UTC
T3 cruisers are based on sleeper tech so of course they should be equal to ordianary battleships, or even better. The sleeper tech is thousands or at least hundreds of years more advanced. **** game balance, lore driven gameplay ftw.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#502 - 2014-01-11 00:31:30 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Why should they be balanced against either?

They don't have to be balanced against either. Perhaps entirely new roles could be found for them but why are you being so slippery about it?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#503 - 2014-01-11 00:41:49 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Why should they be balanced against either?

They don't have to be balanced against either. Perhaps entirely new roles could be found for them but why are you being so slippery about it?


Because you're being pretty slippery yourself.

Bold assertions are made like "T3s obsolete all T2 cruisers", but then no one can say which. Then it's "T3s replace battleships" but no one can explain why battleships are still more widely used. Then comparitive arguments are made like "T3s should be balanced against battleships" - presumably this doesn't mean that T3s should have 5x as much cap or be able to fit 8 large turrets, but again, no actual explaination or comparitive metrics are forthcoming. The whole argument seems to be based on treacherous and unreliable foundations like "everyone knows..." and "it's obvious that..." and bold unsupported assertions that are phrased like accusations. OMG fleets of tengus!!! that must be a problem because I said 'OMG' and used exclaimation points.

In terms of what you actually seem to think is wrong with T3s, so far as I have been actually able to read in words posted, there are 2 things

1) T3s can be fitted to have quite a lot of EHP if you pimp them out
2) People are flying them

If you want to "balance" T3s against battleships, sure, OK, let's take a look at what that means. T3s have BS class EHP, do they? Well, if they're fitted and configured the right way, yeah. But then they sure don't have battleship class damage projection as well, or BS class fittings allowing eg: heavy neuts? Or BS class drone bays. And so on.

So I guess what I'm asking you to explain clearly and precisely, ideally using actual facts and even numbers, is what your problem with T3s is other than the 2 points I've already inferred.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#504 - 2014-01-11 00:44:51 UTC
And entirely new roles have been found for them btw.

BL's "slippery pete" doctrine, for example (look at the EHP on those things!). Heavy armor fleet tackle Lokis and Proteus operating in roles for which. Hugs and Lachs would simply be impractival

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#505 - 2014-01-11 01:24:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
Malcanis wrote:
"T3s obsolete all T2 cruisers"

Never heard this one.

Quote:
"T3s replace battleships"

Haven't heard that one either.

Quote:
"T3s should be balanced against battleships"

Yeah, this is one I just made up myself. Basically, it's just, why should T3s be allowed to breach the thresholds of three separate classes? Why should they be allowed to diminish the usefulness of three separate classes simply by existing?

I suppose at this juncture, the question I have to ask myself is, would the game be better if T3s never existed? Unfortunately, my imagination lacks the scope to comprehend how the meta would look if T3s didn't exist. I'd be interested to hear some thoughts about that.
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#506 - 2014-01-11 01:25:11 UTC
I think this fits

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.

Deunan Tenephais
#507 - 2014-01-11 01:40:19 UTC
I do not know if people fly more battleships or T3 but I want to say that:
-T1 BS do not require some support skills at V to be piloted, so people tend to hop into them sooner than T3 with skills at IV;
-T1 BS do not have added racial systems skills beyond the ship-class racial skill, so they are perceived as requiring less skill time to be effective.
In both cases, T3 are much like T2 toward T1 but in a more and also less adaptable way.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#508 - 2014-01-11 02:54:47 UTC
T3 Battleships for the win!

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#509 - 2014-01-11 06:12:52 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


It's almost as if there can be situational reasons to use both ships.

Really most of the GrrrrT3s threads where because HACs were terrible or because certain demographics really hated off grid boosting. What's left now? GrrrrT3s are flown as fleetships! But so are battleships still! This is a problem because GrrrT3!


Mostly its an issue with the massive EHP numbers these ships get that pushes them into mid BS range coupled with HAC level damage, small sig and fast speeds. The big reason why not a lot of T3 fleets are kicking abou is due to the fact that just about everyone has moved onto drone fleets, which T3 do poorly.
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#510 - 2014-01-11 06:35:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Wrayeth
TBH, I like the fact that T3's can get battleship-level tanks. That's really the primary draw for me: the ability to have that type of tank on a more mobile (read: viable) platform, albeit with a lot less (though still decent) DPS. It's the factor that make them viable for use in PvP instead of an over-expensive toy that only spins in the hangar. Personally, I'm fine with the EHP you can get out of a T3.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#511 - 2014-01-11 08:40:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


It's almost as if there can be situational reasons to use both ships.

Really most of the GrrrrT3s threads where because HACs were terrible or because certain demographics really hated off grid boosting. What's left now? GrrrrT3s are flown as fleetships! But so are battleships still! This is a problem because GrrrT3!


Mostly its an issue with the massive EHP numbers these ships get that pushes them into mid BS range coupled with HAC level damage, small sig and fast speeds. The big reason why not a lot of T3 fleets are kicking abou is due to the fact that just about everyone has moved onto drone fleets, which T3 do poorly.


T3s are fast by battleship standards, but slow compared to HACs and t1 cruisers.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#512 - 2014-01-11 08:42:28 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
"T3s obsolete all T2 cruisers"

Never heard this one.

Quote:
"T3s replace battleships"

Haven't heard that one either.

Quote:
"T3s should be balanced against battleships"

Yeah, this is one I just made up myself. Basically, it's just, why should T3s be allowed to breach the thresholds of three separate classes? Why should they be allowed to diminish the usefulness of three separate classes simply by existing?

I suppose at this juncture, the question I have to ask myself is, would the game be better if T3s never existed? Unfortunately, my imagination lacks the scope to comprehend how the meta would look if T3s didn't exist. I'd be interested to hear some thoughts about that.


There are a lot of ship classes in eve. Encroachment, as you call it, is inevitable and its also a good thing.

Consider battlecruisers.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#513 - 2014-01-11 08:43:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


T3s are fast by battleship standards, but slow compared to HACs and t1 cruisers.


Not much slower.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#514 - 2014-01-11 10:14:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
Malcanis wrote:
Encroachment, as you call it, is inevitable and its also a good thing.

Why?

Malcanis wrote:
Consider battlecruisers.

What's the point? They suck.

Well okay, maybe only 2/3 of them suck. A couple of the ABCs are decent and the drone boats are good, but again, that's just drones being drones.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#515 - 2014-01-11 11:28:24 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Encroachment, as you call it, is inevitable and its also a good thing.

Why?

Malcanis wrote:
Consider battlecruisers.

What's the point? They suck.

Well okay, maybe only 2/3 of them suck. A couple of the ABCs are decent and the drone boats are good, but again, that's just drones being drones.


Actually my observation has been that in general it is the Battlecruisers with resist bonuses per BC level like the Drake and Prophecy that are good.

Then there is the 'nado ....
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#516 - 2014-01-11 12:53:16 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
What's the point? They suck.

Well okay, maybe only 2/3 of them suck. A couple of the ABCs are decent and the drone boats are good, but again, that's just drones being drones.

So you admit rebalancing has made most battlecruisers suck but you won't admit that CCP's supposed vision for T3 rebalancing doesn't fall into the "anyone that uses these after tiericide has to be ******* ********" category.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#517 - 2014-01-11 12:58:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
So you admit rebalancing has made most battlecruisers suck but you won't admit that CCP's supposed vision for T3 rebalancing doesn't fall into the "anyone that uses these after tiericide has to be ******* ********" category.

No, I actually think most of them are better since rebalancing. They still suck though. I'm not sure how much of that is due to T3s being the way they are. I'd like to think that after T3s are rebalanced, BCs could find a role where they can be useful again. I'm not sure if they will though.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#518 - 2014-01-11 13:08:50 UTC
So now you're saying T3s marginalize BCs?
Is there any ship you think isn't made useless by T3s?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#519 - 2014-01-11 13:51:11 UTC
I've never stated that T3s make other ships useless and I'm not sure why you and Malcanis keep trying to trick me into saying it. I do feel many ships are greatly overshadowed by T3s in their current form and I feel that is detrimental to tiericide efforts.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#520 - 2014-01-11 13:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Then please clarify what you mean when you say that T3s overshadow other ships.

Because the way I see it, T2 cruisers have their roles, battleships have their roles, and T3s have their roles. There's not as much overlap as you seem to be claiming.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)