Ships & Modules

You talk crap about how ISK should not be a balancing factor, yet you fly around with Crystal Implants: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12135625

What if tomorrow we nerfed Crystals from 50% -> only 10% bonus to shield boosting, what say you about that?



Oh nice Proteus fit: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12001766

You got your ass kicked in a T3 ship, yet you say they are OP.


I question your ideas about PVP: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11877831

Do we as EVE players really want someone like you to be the source of balancing?

You claim that we are biased, yet have you looked in the mirror? Your bias sticks out like a sore thumb.

You sound mad, are you mad?

I think you are so mad you don't even realize that your attempted ad personem attack actually just lent legitimacy to Liang's positions.

Liang is saying ASBs and shield tanking (paritially due to synergy of ASBs with crystals and ship bonuses) are op atm. Coming from someone that used and lost crystals actually lends validity to the argument.

As for the proteus fit, I'll let Liang speak to it. However, it looks to me like someone attempting to use active armor bonuses. A wasted effort imo because CCP has left it so deficient compared to armor buffer or active shield now, but admirable for trying. And what is this, someone that lost an expensive tech III ship actually saying that they have op aspects instead of crying about the loss and asking for an unneeded buff or reimbursement? What a terrible person.

As for the Basilisk, again it is active tanking and before the introduction of ASBs. It was probably the only logi in his gang otherwise it woulf have been cap transfering and fitting buffer. From your examples I see someone that attempted to make active tanking viable in small gang engagements. Not what I would do, as I see nothing wrong with buffer and gtfo as a solo logistics, but in certain circumstances giving the active a try can make sense.

I note that you ignored my reply to the post you are so proud about earlier itt, and re-posted in the wormhole subforum as an op. Maybe I'll re-post my response there in your thread. Because you simplify the entire issue and ignore the complexities. Regardless, I think you should be careful in trying to trash Liang with citations to the killboard. http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=26399 That is you. Not bad, but not really extensive. Here is Liang's http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=45884 It seems you have had a rather quiet year.

Now you could be like me and doing your recent pvp on another character. But certainly from the early derp fits, or half fit ships in a mass loss and quick re-ship type fleet battles, one can find embarrassing fits on anyone's killboard. Looking at what you linked from Liang's I think you failed to find some that couldn't be explained by circumstances. In fact your last sentence on your post seems best to explain your own problem in this debate. You appear to frothing mad speaking as someone who uses tech III all the time and doesn't want any reduction in current abilities of your own ships "Your bias sticks out like a sore thumb."

Liang justifies Crystals as valid because of how expensive they are.

Then turns around and says that Tech 3 ships are invalid and that costs are not a valid balancing factor.



He then dismisses that ISK should not be a balancing factor, but says that Crystals are fine for the massive bonus they give because they are expensive.

You tell me that's not being hypocritical.

Liang is a person who only likes reason when it suits his interests, but ignores it when it doesn't.

I have shown several times over that Tech 3 ships do not obsolete Tech 2 ships. Tech 2 ships do their specialized job better than Tech 3 ships, and the only thing that Tech 3 overshadows are HAC's which are mostly bad and are superceded by even Tech 1 ships.

Tech 3 vs Tech 2

Ewar - Tech 2 - Much Superior
Logistics - Tech 2 - Tech 3 logi has no range and no cap reduction that Logi has.
Interdiction - Tech 2 no contest - Tech 3 doesn't exist.
Heavy Assault - Tech 3 beats Tech 2, because Tech 2 are inferior to to even Battlecruisers and Faction Cruisers.

Liang ignores this reason completely and states that Tech 3 ships should be nerfed because they have some tank, dps and are "quasi recons" and make Tech 2 ships pointless.

Recon capabilities of Tech 3 are weak in comparison to Tech 2.

The Falcon has 30% bonus to jammer strength, Tengu is only 10%?
The Legion only has 10% bonus to Neut amount, the Curse has 20% Neut Strength and 40% range AND bonus to Tracking Disruptor.

The Loki has 30% web range bonus. The Rapier has 60% range bonus AND target painting bonus.
The Proteus has 10% scram range. The Arazu has 20% point range AND sensor dampening bonus.

Tech 2 at large are superior in their specialties than Tech 3 as they are supposed to.

Conclusion: Liang does not show proper proof and reasoning. And makes weak blanket statements. He contradicts himself.

Oh look 500 man Maelstrom Blobs. Nerf Maelstroms.

http://themittani.com/news/battle-es-q0w-tengus-vs-napocs

Oh look Liang Navy Apocalypse Blobs. Nerf NAPOCS.

Nerf hurricanes, Abaddons, Tempests, bombers.

By the way, since you're so keen on quoting my posts out of context, I figured I'd throw this part back in your face:



-Liang

That's not at all what's happening. T3s are OP because they are too good at too many things. I've gone into why this is true repeatedly, and I'm not going to belabor the point for someone who won't read it anyway.



Amusingly, that's exactly the opposite of what you attributed to me a few posts back. Care to backpedal more?

-Liang

It really depends on how you define "love" towards the legions. It is already far superior to the absolution in a tank gank situation as it has far Higher EHP combined with very similar dps + a significant range advantage. The legion is also faster and smaller than the absolution further pushing it's survivability beyond the larger, slower and more skill intensive abso. The simple fact that I'm comparing it's gank tank to an absolution instead of a zealot shows that there is something wrong here.

While I do agree that the legion is "lack luster" compared to other t3s especially in regards towards pvp I still think the ship is OP specifically in regards towards it's gank tank. This relative difference could be mitigated by the inevitable buffs the abso and zealot will soon be seeing however based on the current implementation of these ships it most certainly has a significant edge which based on ccp's current design/balance philosophy is not warranted.

I want a Sansha BC with the following:
6 Highs (4 turrets)
6 Mids
6 Lows

Special Ability: 100% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Energy Turret capacitor usage per level
Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret tracking per level
Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage per level

:)

-Liang

Ed: I waffled between 20% cap usage and 20% optimal per level. Optimal seems like such a Caldari trait that it it'd be alright. Awww, hell, why not both! All the other BCs get 2 bonuses from the BC skill!

Wait a second here, your comparing only one command ship to legion, what aboutt he damnation which fits better tank, than the legion ever will and also can fit the same amount of missle dps as the legion if not using ganglink style?
The zealot far out dps's the legion and has way better gtfo ability than a legion if you using it correctly. if you fit a legion for gank/tank then your are gimping it as it doesn't do both very good, it does one or the other great butt hats it. Also the legion SHOULD be faster and smaller in sig than the abso/damnation and saying it should be is wrong as it is still cruiser sized not battlecruiser!

Please post this missile damnation fit.

-Liang