These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

So... how would you nerf T3's ?

Author
Doctor Knuckles
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#161 - 2015-10-16 13:19:20 UTC
LordInvisible wrote:


Your response is the mirror of your KB stats, so I'll refrain from dealing with you from now on.

Toodaloo.. o/



Yeah, 82.7 efficiency for a guy that spent most of his time soloing unlinked in Black Rise is clearly terrible and showing overall incompetence, sorry for wasting your time =(

WILL YOU EVER FORGIVE ME OH MIGHTY GUY THAT PUTS RANDOM SUBSYSTEMS ON A PROTEUS
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#162 - 2015-10-16 16:18:33 UTC
LordInvisible wrote:
Doctor Knuckles wrote:
LordInvisible wrote:
OK, then disregard all my fits posted above, because you know, a fleet of proteuses is gonna wait for you to get in close range of them with navy megas..



wtf does that even mean.

Either you are in range or you don't fight, it's that simple. If they're in point range, they can be hit.

Same as with a prot fleet vs say a cerb fleet eh, either you get the drop on them or you gtfo, or a sac fleet vs gilas, whatever.


But, well, if you wanna go rails on navy megas, you can (i just personally think you have better options, just as you have better options than a prot to snipe in cruisers / t3s) , the point (t3 tank uber alles = false) still stands.


Your response is the mirror of your KB stats, so I'll refrain from dealing with you from now on.

Toodaloo.. o/


Funny thing is that his killboard is a thousand times better then yours. (at least going by the top 5 pages)
Magnus Gryps
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#163 - 2015-10-16 18:55:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Magnus Gryps
Valacus wrote:
What are you on about? Most, if not all, Proteus doctrine fits involve 2 1600 plates and still do plenty of damage, only they have better tanks than battleships, smaller sig radius, and they're faster. Those "point range bonused bricks" are one of the most used gangs in the game right now.


Most common fleet Proteus fit consists of 1 plate and a mix of EANM(s), hardeners and mag stabs in the lows, 250mm rail guns and a AB. With long range ammo your damage (and range) is mediocre and clearly inferior to the most common fleet HACs or probably any battleship.

And how did you get the impression that I wouldn't be aware of the Proteus popularity. I definitely am. It's a great ship that can be fit differently to fullfil various roles, which is the point of T3 cruisers. But it also has it's limitations. I have no problems discussing slight tweakings, but this ship is in no way absolutely imbalanced as you say it is.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#164 - 2015-10-16 19:24:18 UTC
Magnus Gryps wrote:
I have no problems discussing slight tweakings, but this ship is in no way absolutely imbalanced as you say it is.


Its a cruiser with a battleship tank, of course its imbalanced.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#165 - 2015-10-16 22:26:31 UTC  |  Edited by: W0lf Crendraven
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Gryps wrote:
I have no problems discussing slight tweakings, but this ship is in no way absolutely imbalanced as you say it is.


Its a cruiser with a battleship tank, of course its imbalanced.


You can fit a bs tank on a maller if you cared to. Actual t3s are kinda ****, super expensive and you lose sp and not even that good.


A rattler is like 320 at the moment. compared to still 400ish for a t3 + subs.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#166 - 2015-10-17 06:05:38 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Gryps wrote:
I have no problems discussing slight tweakings, but this ship is in no way absolutely imbalanced as you say it is.


Its a cruiser with a battleship tank, of course its imbalanced.


You can fit a bs tank on a maller if you cared to. Actual t3s are kinda ****, super expensive and you lose sp and not even that good.


A rattler is like 320 at the moment. compared to still 400ish for a t3 + subs.


Cost means nothing.

The issue is that ships like the tengu can fit a battleship tank, sig of a cruser, have the speed of a cruiser, firepower around the level of a hac and do all of that while cap stable. The very fact you are using battleships to justify their power rather than a cruiser shows just how overpowered they are.
Magnus Gryps
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#167 - 2015-10-17 09:38:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
The very fact you are using battleships to justify their power rather than a cruiser shows just how overpowered they are.


You've got a point there, I give you that.

On the other hand, if cost and skill requirements are non-factors in that equation, why do we still see HAC, BC, BS fleets that freqently used if they are inferior in any aspect to T3Cs? The Conclusion seems pretty obvious to me. Either there have to be scenarios where those ships are just a more appropriate tool than T3Cs or cost/ skill requirements seem to be a factor for a lot of pilots.
Sleepaz Den
Artificial Memories
#168 - 2015-10-17 10:45:57 UTC
Magnus Gryps wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The very fact you are using battleships to justify their power rather than a cruiser shows just how overpowered they are.


You've got a point there, I give you that.

On the other hand, if cost and skill requirements are non-factors in that equation, why do we still see HAC, BC, BS fleets that freqently used if they are inferior in any aspect to T3Cs? The Conclusion seems pretty obvious to me. Either there have to be scenarios where those ships are just a more appropriate tool than T3Cs or cost/ skill requirements seem to be a factor for a lot of pilots.


T3C doctrines really boiled down to just a handful of fits, plated railprots/beam legions, slippery petes and the occasional ubertank railgus with some web lokis here and there. (Didn't see a 720 lokifleet in a long time). They're awesome if you want to deploy via wormhole connection, but else, machariels/rattles offer a lot more and for extended war efforts, they're more on the sustainable side of things.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#169 - 2015-10-17 14:09:50 UTC
Magnus Gryps wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The very fact you are using battleships to justify their power rather than a cruiser shows just how overpowered they are.


You've got a point there, I give you that.

On the other hand, if cost and skill requirements are non-factors in that equation, why do we still see HAC, BC, BS fleets that freqently used if they are inferior in any aspect to T3Cs? The Conclusion seems pretty obvious to me. Either there have to be scenarios where those ships are just a more appropriate tool than T3Cs or cost/ skill requirements seem to be a factor for a lot of pilots.


t3 cant do drones as well as a domi or an ishtar although they fill all the other roles in those fleets aside from logi. Railgu, slippery petes and HMLgu cant be equalled by cruisers, bc or BS. In small gang/solo situations t3 cruisers out shine all but a handful of cruisers and that's only down to said cruisers being overpowered themselves in a lot of the cases.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#170 - 2015-10-17 15:57:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Magnus Gryps wrote:
I have no problems discussing slight tweakings, but this ship is in no way absolutely imbalanced as you say it is.


Its a cruiser with a battleship tank, of course its imbalanced.


You can fit a bs tank on a maller if you cared to. Actual t3s are kinda ****, super expensive and you lose sp and not even that good.


A rattler is like 320 at the moment. compared to still 400ish for a t3 + subs.


Cost means nothing.

The issue is that ships like the tengu can fit a battleship tank, sig of a cruser, have the speed of a cruiser, firepower around the level of a hac and do all of that while cap stable. The very fact you are using battleships to justify their power rather than a cruiser shows just how overpowered they are.


Cost literally means everything in this game. A deimos is a vastly better cruiser then a thorax, due to cost. A worm is a better frigate then the tristan, due to cost. Everything in this game is balanced by cost.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#171 - 2015-10-17 16:35:54 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:


Cost literally means everything in this game. A deimos is a vastly better cruiser then a thorax, due to cost. A worm is a better frigate then the tristan, due to cost. Everything in this game is balanced by cost.


Cost means nothing

No matter now expensive you make it we can afford to fly it, lose it and fly it again.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#172 - 2015-10-17 17:13:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:


Cost literally means everything in this game. A deimos is a vastly better cruiser then a thorax, due to cost. A worm is a better frigate then the tristan, due to cost. Everything in this game is balanced by cost.


Cost means nothing

No matter now expensive you make it we can afford to fly it, lose it and fly it again.




As long as it doesnt break the game balancing by cost is fine.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2015-10-17 17:19:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:


Cost literally means everything in this game. A deimos is a vastly better cruiser then a thorax, due to cost. A worm is a better frigate then the tristan, due to cost. Everything in this game is balanced by cost.


Cost means nothing

No matter now expensive you make it we can afford to fly it, lose it and fly it again.


Not sure you can balance the game on the assumption that everyone is in an uber rich coalition with full SRP.

At that point you might as well just remove T1 ships altogether.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#174 - 2015-10-17 17:33:42 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:


Not sure you can balance the game on the assumption that everyone is in an uber rich coalition with full SRP.

At that point you might as well just remove T1 ships altogether.


No, you balance the game so they are not rendered useless.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#175 - 2015-10-17 19:09:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:


Not sure you can balance the game on the assumption that everyone is in an uber rich coalition with full SRP.

At that point you might as well just remove T1 ships altogether.


No, you balance the game so they are not rendered useless.


If cost is meaningless then they are rendered useless already. But thankfully cost isnt meaningless at all, hence t3s not being op at all.

(always talking about cruisers, not t3ds - who interstingly are broken mostly cost wise, if they they were 90mil a pop they would be perfectly balanced)


baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#176 - 2015-10-17 19:21:56 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:


Not sure you can balance the game on the assumption that everyone is in an uber rich coalition with full SRP.

At that point you might as well just remove T1 ships altogether.


No, you balance the game so they are not rendered useless.


If cost is meaningless then they are rendered useless already. But thankfully cost isnt meaningless at all, hence t3s not being op at all.

(always talking about cruisers, not t3ds - who interstingly are broken mostly cost wise, if they they were 90mil a pop they would be perfectly balanced)




t3d are just as broken as t3c in that they invalidate everything around them. There is nothing balanced with having hac damage, battleship tank, cruiser sig, agility and speed while being cap stable. You don't fix things by buffing the dozens of ships around the 4 broken ones.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#177 - 2015-10-17 20:07:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:


Not sure you can balance the game on the assumption that everyone is in an uber rich coalition with full SRP.

At that point you might as well just remove T1 ships altogether.


No, you balance the game so they are not rendered useless.


If cost is meaningless then they are rendered useless already. But thankfully cost isnt meaningless at all, hence t3s not being op at all.

(always talking about cruisers, not t3ds - who interstingly are broken mostly cost wise, if they they were 90mil a pop they would be perfectly balanced)




t3d are just as broken as t3c in that they invalidate everything around them. There is nothing balanced with having hac damage, battleship tank, cruiser sig, agility and speed while being cap stable. You don't fix things by buffing the dozens of ships around the 4 broken ones.


The thing is tech 3 cruisers are straight up bad, a hac is better in most cases. If afs were better and a lot cheaper then t3ds then you would see more afs, however they are just worse.

Even without cost to consider hacs are better or equally as good in most cases, recons are straight up better then t3s for small scale stuff. Logis obviously are better and so on.



The only place t3s take hac spots are biggish fleets, and for the high sp folks cs are better anyways.


baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#178 - 2015-10-17 21:32:19 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:



The thing is tech 3 cruisers are straight up bad, a hac is better in most cases. If afs were better and a lot cheaper then t3ds then you would see more afs, however they are just worse.

Even without cost to consider hacs are better or equally as good in most cases, recons are straight up better then t3s for small scale stuff. Logis obviously are better and so on.



The only place t3s take hac spots are biggish fleets, and for the high sp folks cs are better anyways.




T3 will do a hac or recons job only with upwards of three times more tank, more cap (most fits can be cap stable) and often more firepower.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#179 - 2015-10-17 23:33:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:



The thing is tech 3 cruisers are straight up bad, a hac is better in most cases. If afs were better and a lot cheaper then t3ds then you would see more afs, however they are just worse.

Even without cost to consider hacs are better or equally as good in most cases, recons are straight up better then t3s for small scale stuff. Logis obviously are better and so on.



The only place t3s take hac spots are biggish fleets, and for the high sp folks cs are better anyways.




T3 will do a hac or recons job only with upwards of three times more tank, more cap (most fits can be cap stable) and often more firepower.


Yes, but just in worse and in more expensive. A neut legion is a way worse curse in most small scale scenarios, loki is a worse rapier/huginn and so on. And a proteus is basicely a deimos for actual pvp and a tengu isnt bonused to rlmls so its sht in the current meta (discounting massive ffeet railfits), loki just straight up blows.

And all of them have to compete with pirate cruisers due to their price level, and the pirate cruisers atm wipe the floor with them all (by pirate cruiser i mean orthrus and gila).




If the good hacs were gone, if pirate cruisers were gone, if pirate bs were up to their old prices, if cs didnt exsit, if recons were **** again and didnt have broken role bonuses then maybe t3s would be op. But they are not.




The bottom line is that a 100k ehp ship with 1k dps that is capstable is garbage at the moment because it also is slow as hell and has no range.
Atomeon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2015-10-18 00:03:50 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:



The thing is tech 3 cruisers are straight up bad, a hac is better in most cases. If afs were better and a lot cheaper then t3ds then you would see more afs, however they are just worse.

Even without cost to consider hacs are better or equally as good in most cases, recons are straight up better then t3s for small scale stuff. Logis obviously are better and so on.



The only place t3s take hac spots are biggish fleets, and for the high sp folks cs are better anyways.




T3 will do a hac or recons job only with upwards of three times more tank, more cap (most fits can be cap stable) and often more firepower.


Yes, but just in worse and in more expensive. A neut legion is a way worse curse in most small scale scenarios, loki is a worse rapier/huginn and so on. And a proteus is basicely a deimos for actual pvp and a tengu isnt bonused to rlmls so its sht in the current meta (discounting massive ffeet railfits), loki just straight up blows.

And all of them have to compete with pirate cruisers due to their price level, and the pirate cruisers atm wipe the floor with them all (by pirate cruiser i mean orthrus and gila).




If the good hacs were gone, if pirate cruisers were gone, if pirate bs were up to their old prices, if cs didnt exsit, if recons were **** again and didnt have broken role bonuses then maybe t3s would be op. But they are not.




The bottom line is that a 100k ehp ship with 1k dps that is capstable is garbage at the moment because it also is slow as hell and has no range.


2 Fits shows that T3s are way overpower, Take a proteus rail Fit them with 250mm rails and use 4 magstabs. Also take a navy brutix (BattleCruiser) and do the same fit.
The result? they have exactly the same DPS and Proteus has better tank with 2 slots left (N Brutix has 3 slots left), N Brutix has a bit more buffer.
And i m not comparing oranges and apples, take both to blitz L3s. Proteus will be the winner all the time.