EVE General Discussion

PL hold sov in two regions according to Dotlan. Your argumentation behind nerfing covop+nullified travel actually buff sov holding alliances. Everytime I hear that nullsec dweller wants to improve gameplay for all red light is starting to blink under my skull.

His whole proposal is a buff to NS.

Thats the hilarious underlying hypocrisy and bias here.

He wants cheaper, no SP loss T3Cs with just enough fittings and bonuses to still work in PvP fleets.
He wants cloak/null removed, so they can rely entirely on gatecamps and intel.
He wants T3Cs as multitools nerfed, so that players are forced to join NS corps to run content there.
He wants T3Cs to work for his interests, but no-one elses.

Nerf that and the problem gets solved.

That was the only problem all along.

1. I have been calling for this since the start, no back peddling and no hipocricy. But hey, if you want to pay out current T3C prices on a ship with stats a bit bettwe than T1 but worse than navy faction be my guest. You are the one that will lose out to your own blind stupidity because we will go back to using HAC's in HAC fleet.

2. Its entirely pointless and entirely avoided by the rich. But hey again, if you want a cruiser slightly better than t1 but not as good as navy faction to have SP loss then be my guest, we wont be using the loki in pace of a hugin anyway. Once again in your own stupidity you ****** yourself.

3. How do you get they cyno ship past the game camp? Again, a cov ops cloak is already a powerful tool and getting past a gatecamp should require the pilot to be good at flying their ship, same as how a gatecamp is only as good as the pilots doing the camping.

4. They out tank battleships.

5. No its a glaring fact that shows just how overpowered T3C are. No cruiser or battlecruiser can get close to the powergrid of a T3C.

6. T3C are slated to land between T1 cruisers and Navy cruisers, this has been stated several times by CCP so that is where I am balancing them.

7. I am reducing T3C capabilities to the level they should be according to CCP. In the process I am rendering a few dosen of PL's front line ship setups into the bin and reducing our ability both to infiltrate and fight. In order for T3C to be balance they must not step on the toes of the T2 specialist cruisers. To match where they are supposed to be they must also be slightly worse than navy faction too at what the navy faction ship do otherwise the navy faction ships would be invalidated.

1) You want cheaper T3Cs. That isnt going to make HACs more attractive. Quite the opposite.
Furthermore you claimed cost was irrelevant in balance, yet here you are, suddenly using it as a balance tool.
That is hypocrisy and backpedalling.

2) SP loss is as much a cost to everyone. That the rich can replace it with injectors is immaterial. Go ahead and spend your isk on that then, rather than injecting other skills or on other characters. That is your choice. None of which is a reason to remove SP loss and make it even cheaper for high SP players.

3) Yes, you already have cheaper ships to deliver cynos past gatecamps. Glad you agree.
So we can ascertain there is no need to nerf T3C cloak/null, since you can do it with cheaper hulls anyways.
Use your "pilot skills" on those instead to deliver your cynos :)

4) Out-tank (in some cases) yes, but not out dps. BS do easily twice the dps of T3Cs (and BCs, for that matter).

5) The PG on T3Cs is to enable versatility. Its still not sufficient for oversized modules except with sacrifice,
BS all have enough PG to fit what they need. If not, faction/deadspace modules can be used and implants.
As I said, Lokis even now dont have enough PG to fit a rack of 750s.

6) That obviously was not, nor ever was the case, despite what they said. Frankly, and you must see this, it is ridiculous to conceive that T3Cs with their cost and SP needs, would perform less than a navy cruiser. Thats like a Vargur underperforming a Maelstrom. Its like turning the ship trees upside down and inside out. T3Cs where included after existing PvE content was here, thus rationally they should be aligned largely accordingly.

If you are claiming CCP made a mistake in that, then it can also be said that the statement on which your whole argument is predicated, that T3Cs should perform worse than navy cruisers, was a mistake.

7) No, you are throwing 4 ships (T3Cs) into the dumpster for many players, just so you can have a cheaper, non-SP loss T3C that fits your needs.

I proposed diversification of the 4 hulls. You obviously dont want that, because you have your own selfish interests in mind.

8) What exactly do you think T3Cs will be good for after your proposed "nerfs"?

If anything, T3Cs should cost more to build, and incur even more SP loss.

Not less.

The PvE oriented can sustain that, as they avoid risk, and the rich NS PvP fleet players can sustain that, since they have the isk to cover the loss and inject the SP.

This is a much better solution, and uses/extends existing mechanics/cost systems, as well as shares the "nerf" equally across the entire playerbase.

Im totally ok with paying more for a T3C and losing 2 single subsystem levels on destruction.

If PvP fleet players are prepared to pay/risk that too, so be it.

Simple and sweet.

The notion of T3Cs underperforming Navy Cruisers is unworkable, no matter what CCP has said.
No amount of cost reduction or lack of SP loss will reconcile that.
Not only will T3C enabled content die overnight, so will the T3C market.

---

My solution above makes replacement of a lost T3C cost +1xx% more than now.
As an intermix of SP equity lost, and cost of repurchasing the ship.

They would be useless in EVE. Its not a strategic enough game for this to work other than for PvE purposes. Use your brain.

Either that or refittable like a supercap during combat. Noones going to drop a mobile depot to refit a ship in the middle of combat, combat is too quick, especially if the ship is a cruiser and its a little bit better than a t1.

Edit: Oh and Baltec, I've flown more T3's then you've undocked megas I'd wager and your inflated stats are hilarious. T3's are not overly powerful in comparison to many other high level ships. The Tengu is overpowered because of the battery buff. While you can get stupid hp on a Proteus its gives up most of its other bonuses to do so. A brick tank Prot is just a brick that can barely tackle anything not sitting still, has no web, no drones and can be capped out by a single medium nuet before it kills anything.

You don't drop it in a fight, you refit for your wants and needs and then go fight.

That's idiotic. NO ONE WILL FLY IT.

They will fly the faction cruiser or the T1.

Newb: Whats better to train, T1 Faction cruisers or T3's.
Vet: T1 Faction Cruisers.
Newb: Why?
Vet: Because they're better than T3 and you only need to train the T1 skills to fly them.
Newb: WTF? Why is a T1 faction cruiser better than a T3?
Vet: ...

1. You mean you won't fly it anymore because it doesn't overpower everything else. Welcome FOTM nerfs, enjoy your reward for chasing it. The exact same thing has been said about every other FOTM that has ever been nerfed into balance.

2. If you want to do what the navy cruiser does then you would't. If you want a highly adapatable cruiser then you would fly the T3.

3. Or spend the isk on a ship that simply ignores defenses with no effort required. As I said cost means nothing.

4. See this is where we spot someone who has no knowledge of fleet combat. Battleships do not do full damage to a T3C, the damage is mitigated both by the size of the sig, the speed of the T3C and the battleships own guns. The effect is T3C will tank up to 3x more than a battleship can.

5. You have to be kidding me. You honestly think adding an extra 500 powergrid onto a cruiser is not going to drastically improve its fitting options?

6. Its no mistake, thats the plan.

7. They will still have a good role to play, as you said before the T1 cruisers still get used.

8. Cov ops cloak is all you need for that.