These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

You guys ready to sell your T3's yet?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
chris elliot
Treasury Department
Plug N Play
#1 - 2013-07-20 10:52:34 UTC
So not gonna lie, I like the medium weapon rebalance. Cool stuff can come from that.

The hac changes however, seem like complete garbage to me on the face of it. Its like they acknowledged that they were bad... and largely did nothing about it, which is, not really all that surprising. They did however, pave the way to nerf the everliving sht out of T3's since they keep saying T3's should not be better than T2.. But they left most of the T2 ones hilariously terrible..

I'm rather surprised no one has brought it up here yet TBH.










Terrible troll is terrible but I am bored.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#2 - 2013-07-20 11:14:38 UTC
Had been pondering the same. Based on the current HAC plan being barely any better than they are now. T3s will end up being brought down to a similar overall level. Which will just make them utterly useless.
Who's going to fly a ship worth 500m which has skill loss if you die if they aren't really any better than a T1 cruiser :/
chris elliot
Treasury Department
Plug N Play
#3 - 2013-07-20 11:19:03 UTC
Given how amazing the Navy cruisers are and how much tank/gank you can get out of a Navy Brutix I know I won't.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4 - 2013-07-20 12:00:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
Ok, call me lazy but finding anything not in a dev blog on these forums is horrible.
Got a link to these HAC and med gun changes?

EDIT: NVM, found it.

Yeah, those HAC changes are fking p*ss poor.
Basically what I'm reading from it is that not only will T3s get nuked, there won't even be any good alternatives.

Well, only 1 thing left to say:
help me command ships, youre my only hope...

PS: i'm gonna miss the hell out of my proteus :(

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2013-07-20 12:02:55 UTC
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2013-07-20 12:25:31 UTC
I like how they say the Zealot is "functional" and gets basically no buffs despite being pretty much strictly worse than the Navy Omen, a ship that costs a tenth of the price after insurance.
Kuning
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2013-07-20 12:58:09 UTC
ALL SLEIPNIR ALL OF THE TIME
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#8 - 2013-07-20 13:11:13 UTC
Im hoping they mean they just wont be able to outperform the specs for example tengu not being able to outrange the cerberus as thast the long range missile ship...Im hoping.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#9 - 2013-07-20 13:16:28 UTC
Only one thing to do when T3 Changes are announced.

Unsub ALL of the accounts!!!

WHs make up like 10% of eve accounts? I think its closer to 15% now, so that's not a threat they can overlook.
Or just b*tch and moan on the forums until they roll back the changes.

The HACs suck now and will continue to suck, and anyone advocating for nerfing T3s without providing a valid substitute is an idiot. (I'm looking at you nullsec)

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#10 - 2013-07-20 13:44:36 UTC
^ This. Hell i'd be fine with T3s getting nerfed but getting a bonus to damage and resists against sleepers which would make
sense they are made from sleeper tech.
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2013-07-20 15:25:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Icarus Able wrote:
^ This. Hell i'd be fine with T3s getting nerfed but getting a bonus to damage and resists against sleepers which would make
sense they are made from sleeper tech.


Who is going to farm sleeper tech when T2's or T1's will do it better? T3's aren't going to cost 500mil for a hull any longer. Infact, they'll settle down to somewhere less than T2's if they get nerfed to have less capability than T2's. W-space is going to become a desert instead of the frontier it is now.

It's not hard to understand why CCP hates w-space. Every graph they provide puts us dead last in isk lost to ship death. Oh sure, per capita we're probably doing more than some other areas of space. But CCP never releases those figures. CCP doesn't care about per capita. They're most likely looking at it from a income perspective and therefore would never release a per capita kill report.

Now, they're going to nerf it through our T3's which means our economy. That also means, people will be moving out.

Don't ban me, bro!
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#12 - 2013-07-20 16:14:51 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Icarus Able wrote:
^ This. Hell i'd be fine with T3s getting nerfed but getting a bonus to damage and resists against sleepers which would make
sense they are made from sleeper tech.


Who is going to farm sleeper tech when T2's or T1's will do it better? T3's aren't going to cost 500mil for a hull any longer. Infact, they'll settle down to somewhere less than T2's if they get nerfed to have less capability than T2's. W-space is going to become a desert instead of the frontier it is now.

It's not hard to understand why CCP hates w-space. Every graph they provide puts us dead last in isk lost to ship death. Oh sure, per capita we're probably doing more than some other areas of space. But CCP never releases those figures. CCP doesn't care about per capita. They're most likely looking at it from a income perspective and therefore would never release a per capita kill report.

Now, they're going to nerf it through our T3's which means our economy. That also means, people will be moving out.



Noone will farm sleeper tech appart from wormhole dwellers for T3s. As for the income nerf, yeh it would be a nerf without T3 production but the blue loot is still there. I for one dont live in wormholes for the cash( although it is nice) but because of no local the ability of a small corp/alliance to actually hold some territory etc.

So while this would still be a nerf its better than taking away the T3s completely.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#13 - 2013-07-20 18:37:01 UTC
Well if CCP does commit what we think they might, yea they'll get there original intention of wormhole space not being livable...

I'm still confident in our CSM guys to not fk 1/3 of the space in eve and make wormholes function just like null... Being both devoid and empty of all life.

Yaay!!!!
Xiamar
Encapsulated.
#14 - 2013-07-20 20:13:36 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I'm still confident in our CSM guys to not fk 1/3 of the space in eve and make wormholes function just like null... Being both devoid and empty of all life.


Got to assume that's a troll...

Have you seen any action on things like SMA's, or instaspawning sigs to indicate that they are representing our interests well?

Confirming in six months we'll probably all be flying Vexors or some ****...
Yoshmoto
BLOPSEC
#15 - 2013-07-20 22:40:33 UTC
T3's should stay as they are.

They are powerful but you risk loosing a lot of ISK and skill points if you use them.

I think they are fine just how they are.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#16 - 2013-07-20 22:52:50 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
It's not hard to understand why CCP hates w-space. Every graph they provide puts us dead last in isk lost to ship death.

I've always been given the impression that we destroy a huge amount of ships in terms of isk which is a good thing :/
We generally lose much more expensive ships than those roaming around in null/low sec. I thought CCP would like that!

Still hope we can get some sense into CCP with the HAC changes. They're not worth using at the moment over T1 or Faction cruisers, let alone the Talos and the other tier3 BCs...
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#17 - 2013-07-21 00:22:16 UTC
I thought the overall changes were a good step in the right direction with the HACs but the matter of the details were somewhat lacking in some cases - diemos getting a reduction in armor HP?!?!? I can't see any of the other changes to it changing that it needs more HP from what it is now let alone less.

If future T3 changes are inline with the proposed T2 changes then this game is going to be dead to me.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#18 - 2013-07-21 03:22:08 UTC
Xiamar wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I'm still confident in our CSM guys to not fk 1/3 of the space in eve and make wormholes function just like null... Being both devoid and empty of all life.


Got to assume that's a troll...

Have you seen any action on things like SMA's, or instaspawning sigs to indicate that they are representing our interests well?

Confirming in six months we'll probably all be flying Vexors or some ****...


No not a troll, but I won't threaten to do bullish-t I won't do. If you are that completely freaked out about what they may or maynot do, you can do one of three things to make a statement.

1) believe in your csm's to have your interest in wormholes in mind

If you don't trust them, hate them, or want to raise hell because of something that hasn't happened, do the following

2) quit. Tell everybody in your corp to leave eve immediately. And actually have them do that (fat chance but some might).

3) have everybody, every wormhole alliance and corporation leave wormhole space, those who don't, evict them, then those who try to day trip or setup a pos or do anything wormhole related, kill them. In other words, interdict all wormhole loot indefinitely. Remove 1/3 of the game from eve (fat chance of this happening also)

So barring raising hell over something that has not happened (speculating), its idiotic to preach doom and gloom, unless a bunch of you are trying to do some stupid meta gaming, driving the price of sleeper loot down to such a low degree you scoop up and resell at twice its value to (get isk). I'm sure there is a few trying to do that.

Yaay!!!!
chris elliot
Treasury Department
Plug N Play
#19 - 2013-07-21 07:25:07 UTC
I wonder if we can get James or Chitsa in here to see if they even like the proposed changes to the hacs. I know Jester thinks they are really bad but I am curious what the people who represent us think. Because we can say the hacs are and will remain terrible, but of those two up there aren't speaking the same language then, well, hacs will remain terrible. Plain and simple.
Chitsa Jason
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#20 - 2013-07-21 09:26:29 UTC
chris elliot wrote:
I wonder if we can get James or Chitsa in here to see if they even like the proposed changes to the hacs. I know Jester thinks they are really bad but I am curious what the people who represent us think. Because we can say the hacs are and will remain terrible, but of those two up there aren't speaking the same language then, well, hacs will remain terrible. Plain and simple.



Hello. First of all I am no expert on HACs. I am expert on T3s. I am allowing other CSM members who are more familiar with HACs fiddle with them and argue with CCP. What I am doing right now is just watching the process and making sure that HACs are not OP compared to T3s.

When it will come to T3 re-balance you will have two members on CSM who will do everything in their power to prevent nerfs to T3s.

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me
123Next pageLast page