These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#521 - 2014-01-11 15:24:49 UTC
T3s overshadow other ships in basic combat. Tank, gank and mobility, simply. They are more powerful than HACs. They are more powerful than navy and pirate cruisers. They are more powerful than BCs. They overshadow all these ships because they have BS tank, BC damage, and cruiser mobility and scan res. What do they sacrifice for all these benefits? Nothing, except the risk of falling victim to a meaningless SP loss mechanic which makes no sense.

Do you feel that because they don't obsolete recon and logi, that they don't need to be touched? Somehow recon and logi being in a decent place means T3s are also in a decent place? I don't understand this argument and I'm not sure how you can justifiably defend the preservation of T3 cruisers in their current state, simply because they don't rep as good as dedicated logi boats.

Oh god.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#522 - 2014-01-11 15:28:49 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.



Yeah see this is the problem with your arguments, if they can be called that. Sweeping statements so poorly supported by the facts that you've started retracting them even before anyone calls you on them.

Look, there are literally hundreds of different ships. Any ship that is only used by even 1% of pilots is doing pretty well. You use vague terms like "overshadowing" but what does that even mean? What do you imagine would be better if T3s were nerfed to be just like T1 cruisers or whatever? They'd be useless for the roles they're used for now, reducing diversity, but the other ships wouldn't be any better. People wouldn't start using armour huginns in big fleets, for instance.

Even after being asked directly what the actual problem is with T3s, all you can come up with is the fact that people are using them therefore they must be OP.

"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.
#523 - 2014-01-11 15:31:34 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
T3s overshadow other ships in basic combat. Tank, gank and mobility, simply. They are more powerful than HACs. They are more powerful than navy and pirate cruisers. They are more powerful than BCs. They overshadow all these ships because they have BS tank, BC damage, and cruiser mobility and scan res.


T3s are pretty slow and have poor agility compared to HACs and T1 cruisers.

Seriously, try and make a Loki that does a Vagabond's job. Yeah it'll have more ehp, but it'll be useless for hit and run kiting.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#524 - 2014-01-11 15:42:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
T3s overshadow other ships in basic combat. Tank, gank and mobility, simply. They are more powerful than HACs. They are more powerful than navy and pirate cruisers. They are more powerful than BCs. They overshadow all these ships because they have BS tank, BC damage, and cruiser mobility and scan res.


T3s are pretty slow and have poor agility compared to HACs and T1 cruisers.

Seriously, try and make a Loki that does a Vagabond's job. Yeah it'll have more ehp, but it'll be useless for hit and run kiting.



I used to like the Legion a lot.

Then I went back to the Maller.

All in all, between those and the Sacrilege, I know which I like best and it isnt the Legion.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#525 - 2014-01-11 15:43:52 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Do you feel that because they don't obsolete recon and logi, that they don't need to be touched?

I don't think they obsolete HACs either.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#526 - 2014-01-11 15:45:24 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
T3s overshadow other ships in basic combat. Tank, gank and mobility, simply. They are more powerful than HACs. They are more powerful than navy and pirate cruisers. They are more powerful than BCs. They overshadow all these ships because they have BS tank, BC damage, and cruiser mobility and scan res.


T3s are pretty slow and have poor agility compared to HACs and T1 cruisers.

Seriously, try and make a Loki that does a Vagabond's job. Yeah it'll have more ehp, but it'll be useless for hit and run kiting.


Better than most.

T3 are getting nerfed, CCP have said as much and just about everyone has expected one for years now. The very fact that they are getting compared with BS and BC is enough to show how out of whack they are.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#527 - 2014-01-11 15:46:51 UTC
Also you can't seriously tell me T3s have better mobility than HACs, especially considering HACs now have the 50% MWD sig bloom reduction. Only two T3s have a bonus to that, and it's half the strength.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#528 - 2014-01-11 15:57:59 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Yeah see this is the problem with your arguments, if they can be called that.

I've yet to see a single argument from you on this subject. All you've done so far is try to put words into my mouth while remaining conveniently uncommitted to any stance.

Quote:
Look, there are literally hundreds of different ships. Any ship that is only used by even 1% of pilots is doing pretty well. You use vague terms like "overshadowing" but what does that even mean?

1. To cast a shadow over; darken or obscure.
2. To make insignificant by comparison; dominate.

Quote:
The other ships wouldn't be any better.

That's because they're already reasonably well balanced. They shouldn't be any better.

Quote:
Even after being asked directly what the actual problem is with T3s, all you can come up with is the fact that people are using them therefore they must be OP.

It would be easier to identify specific problems if I could tell what they are actually supposed to be. Seeing as they are classed as cruisers, I will assume they are supposed to be cruisers, which means they are breaking the dynamic of the tiericide because they have too much tank and probably too much DPS when compared with other cruisers.

Oh god.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#529 - 2014-01-11 15:59:12 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Also you can't seriously tell me T3s have better mobility than HACs, especially considering HACs now have the 50% MWD sig bloom reduction. Only two T3s have a bonus to that, and it's half the strength.

I didn't claim they had better mobility than HACs, though I'm glad you acknowledged the MWD bonuses available to two of the T3 cruisers.

Oh god.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#530 - 2014-01-11 16:00:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
T3s overshadow other ships in basic combat. Tank, gank and mobility, simply. They are more powerful than HACs. They are more powerful than navy and pirate cruisers. They are more powerful than BCs. They overshadow all these ships because they have BS tank, BC damage, and cruiser mobility and scan res.


T3s are pretty slow and have poor agility compared to HACs and T1 cruisers.

Seriously, try and make a Loki that does a Vagabond's job. Yeah it'll have more ehp, but it'll be useless for hit and run kiting.


Better than most.

T3 are getting nerfed, CCP have said as much and just about everyone has expected one for years now. The very fact that they are getting compared with BS and BC is enough to show how out of whack they are.


I see you know all about it. What happens might not be what you expect though.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#531 - 2014-01-11 16:00:29 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Quote:
Even after being asked directly what the actual problem is with T3s, all you can come up with is the fact that people are using them therefore they must be OP.

It would be easier to identify specific problems if I could tell what they are actually supposed to be. Seeing as they are classed as cruisers, I will assume they are supposed to be cruisers, which means they are breaking the dynamic of the tiericide because they have too much tank and probably too much DPS when compared with other cruisers.

Do HICs have too much tank?
Do HACs have too much DPS?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#532 - 2014-01-11 16:01:24 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Yeah see this is the problem with your arguments, if they can be called that.

I've yet to see a single argument from you on this subject.


See page 23 for my argument.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#533 - 2014-01-11 16:03:22 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Also you can't seriously tell me T3s have better mobility than HACs, especially considering HACs now have the 50% MWD sig bloom reduction. Only two T3s have a bonus to that, and it's half the strength.

I didn't claim they had better mobility than HACs, though I'm glad you acknowledged the MWD bonuses available to two of the T3 cruisers.

The point being that MWDs are, in general, not worth fitting on combat T3s. As a result they have to suffer the reduced speed of 10MN ABs, or the significantly reduced agility, fitting, and capacitor of 100MN ABs.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#534 - 2014-01-11 16:12:46 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Do HICs have too much tank?

Maybe.

Quote:
Do HACs have too much DPS?

Nah.

Oh god.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#535 - 2014-01-11 16:14:51 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Yeah see this is the problem with your arguments, if they can be called that.

I've yet to see a single argument from you on this subject.


See page 23 for my argument.

I read it already but you didn't offer any suggestions for what should be done with T3s. I can only assume you feel they are fine as they are.

Oh god.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#536 - 2014-01-11 16:15:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
T3 are getting nerfed, CCP have said as much and just about everyone has expected one for years now.

See, I know you don't take CCP's word as gospel, so the fact that you're using that as support for your argument baffles me somewhat.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#537 - 2014-01-11 16:16:33 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


I see you know all about it. What happens might not be what you expect though.


What I expect is for them to land betwen t1 and t2 cruisers and be more adaptable. At the very least it means no more battleship EHP.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#538 - 2014-01-11 16:18:30 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
T3 are getting nerfed, CCP have said as much and just about everyone has expected one for years now.

See, I know you don't take CCP's word as gospel, so the fact that you're using that as support for your argument baffles me somewhat.


Well I haven't been shocked so far. Plans seem to be going to plan which is slightly odd I must admit.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#539 - 2014-01-11 16:19:18 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Yeah see this is the problem with your arguments, if they can be called that.

I've yet to see a single argument from you on this subject.


See page 23 for my argument.

I read it already but you didn't offer any suggestions for what should be done with T3s. I can only assume you feel they are fine as they are.

No, I would wager he wants a few subsystems buffed, e.g. the logi subsystems.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#540 - 2014-01-11 16:20:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


I see you know all about it. What happens might not be what you expect though.


What I expect is for them to land betwen t1 and t2 cruisers and be more adaptable. At the very least it means no more battleship EHP.

You're basing this on a graphic in a devblog that was put out over a year ago.
It was CCP Ytterbium who wrote that devblog, mind you.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)