These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP: Leave T3 Strategic Cruisers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#41 - 2013-07-22 19:30:20 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:

Nano nerfs?!


Its this "generations" nano nerf.

It has been a long time since we have had a rageout as big as what is coming and I for one cannot wait
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#42 - 2013-07-22 19:40:07 UTC
I just discovered a new Eve rule:

Whenever preemptive "CCP, don't nerf X" threads come up, it's a reliable indicator that the X in question is severely overpowered and needs to be nerfed into the ground.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Obunagawe
#43 - 2013-07-22 19:43:23 UTC
Sure, they can nerf T3. But they need to nerf the cost of the T3 along with it if they do. If a T3 with all subs cost 100-120M, it could then be in the place they envisage it on their little chart. But paying more to get less is a bitter pill.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#44 - 2013-07-22 19:45:23 UTC
Loosing a weeks worth of training time every time your blown up is enough of a penalty as is to justify leaving them alone. If they are nerfed to mediocrity then at least remove the SP loss on destruction.

yk
Obunagawe
#45 - 2013-07-22 19:49:23 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
Loosing a weeks worth of training time every time your blown up is enough of a penalty as is to justify leaving them alone. If they are nerfed to mediocrity then at least remove the SP loss on destruction.

yk


Actually at a very competetive 500 isk/SP even a loss of a level 5 skill (200K SP, roughly) only sets you back an equivalent 100M ISK. So really the SP loss is negligible compared to the cost of the ship itself.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#46 - 2013-07-22 20:13:39 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
Obunagawe wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:
Loosing a weeks worth of training time every time your blown up is enough of a penalty as is to justify leaving them alone. If they are nerfed to mediocrity then at least remove the SP loss on destruction.

yk


Actually at a very competetive 500 isk/SP even a loss of a level 5 skill (200K SP, roughly) only sets you back an equivalent 100M ISK. So really the SP loss is negligible compared to the cost of the ship itself.


Nah, SP loss isn't translatable to isk loss as SP can't be bought (aside from character sales), only earned with RL time. Its loss is a pure opportunity cost. The analogy would be equating missing your brothers wedding to the cost of the plane trip and hotel (albeit that's an overdramatic analogy).

yk
bloodknight2
Revenu.Quebec
#47 - 2013-07-22 20:18:25 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
Loosing a weeks worth of training time every time your blown up is enough of a penalty as is to justify leaving them alone. If they are nerfed to mediocrity then at least remove the SP loss on destruction.

yk


Stop using dying then Roll or use another ship.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#48 - 2013-07-22 20:19:41 UTC
bloodknight2 wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:
Loosing a weeks worth of training time every time your blown up is enough of a penalty as is to justify leaving them alone. If they are nerfed to mediocrity then at least remove the SP loss on destruction.

yk


Stop using dying then Roll or use another ship.


Which is what everyone will do when they nerf it to uselessness.

yk
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#49 - 2013-07-22 20:21:25 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:


Which is what everyone will do when they nerf it to uselessness.

yk


Given the results so far that will not happen. They just wont be as hideously overpowered as they are now.
bloodknight2
Revenu.Quebec
#50 - 2013-07-22 20:27:24 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
bloodknight2 wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:
Loosing a weeks worth of training time every time your blown up is enough of a penalty as is to justify leaving them alone. If they are nerfed to mediocrity then at least remove the SP loss on destruction.

yk


Stop using dying then Roll or use another ship.


Which is what everyone will do when they nerf it to uselessness.

yk



Even if T3 are nerfed, people will still use them over hac or bc.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2013-07-22 20:28:21 UTC
Andski wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
This is a request to respectfully leave T3 Strategic Cruisers as is. They're expensive, require a specific (non-transferable) skill set and are already penalized with the loss of skill points when one is lost. With the removal from 3/4 complexes they're now relegated to mission-running and wormhole operations. Yes, they're op - they're supposed to be. There are worthier projects: Marauders, Black Ops and Pirate Factions, to name a few.


1) T3s aren't expensive, you can fully fit a T3 for much less than a billion.
2) T3s had no business in your 3/10s and 4/10s, their use for those sites were completely edging out newer players by leaps and bounds.
3) T3s have far more uses than mission running and wormholes and you'd know this if you bothered to peek outside of your hisec bubble.
4) Blops BSes have been heavily rebalanced, pirate faction ships are not currently in a bad state save for Sansha hulls and perhaps Blood Raiders, and marauders fill their intended roles just fine.



This. I replaced my Apocalypse with another Legion with minimal cost to myself.

T3s aren't that expensive at all.

Sadly, my Cruor and Ashimmu are collecting dust currently as my Zealot is by far more fun to fly (not to mention the pilgrim).

T3 are a fun novelty, and have it's uses, but meh... T2 cruisers are way more fun.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2013-07-22 20:31:35 UTC
bloodknight2 wrote:
Oh look, that thread again.

T3 should and must be nerfed hard. -25 to 33% in their EHP would be a good start. Every one seems to agree that the legion is the "worst" T3 of all and it is OP. A T3 should be versatile and not be able to have the same EHP than a command ship or battleship with the agility and speed of a cruiser.



Why not?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#53 - 2013-07-22 20:33:14 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



Why not?


Because its a cruiser not a battleship.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2013-07-22 20:35:16 UTC
Obunagawe wrote:
Sure, they can nerf T3. But they need to nerf the cost of the T3 along with it if they do. If a T3 with all subs cost 100-120M, it could then be in the place they envisage it on their little chart. But paying more to get less is a bitter pill.



Half of my subsystems cost 75m, the others cost around 30mil.

FOTM market orders are owning you.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2013-07-22 20:38:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Why not?


Because its a cruiser not a battleship.



I think you're missing my point.

EHP is not a stat that fits hulls the same way across the board.

Raw hp versus resistances play a factor.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#56 - 2013-07-22 20:39:53 UTC
Obunagawe wrote:
Sure, they can nerf T3. But they need to nerf the cost of the T3 along with it if they do. If a T3 with all subs cost 100-120M, it could then be in the place they envisage it on their little chart. But paying more to get less is a bitter pill.


They won't have to nerf the cost; the market will do so with any loss in performance.

I can fully imagine that with the rebalance is going to come a redistribution of module slots across the various subsystems. You're not going to have the mix-and-match of lows/mids that allows such ridiculous levels of tank on these ships. In fact, I would not be surprised to see them reallocate most (if not all) module slots directly onto the hull like other ships, and rework the subsystems to affect only stats, bonuses, turrets/launcher hardpoints, drone bay/bandwidth, etc. There's probably also going to be a nerf to the base resists built into the subsystems to T2 level or so.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#57 - 2013-07-22 20:44:53 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
baltec1 wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:


Which is what everyone will do when they nerf it to uselessness.

yk


Given the results so far that will not happen. They just wont be as hideously overpowered as they are now.


'Hideously overpowered' is grossly hyperbolic at best. Not one T3 cruiser in the top 20 Eve ship killers: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/3235 (iirc there is a similar, but more updated, version of these stats as well but can't find it atm).

They are performing as a 'Tech3' cruiser should perform.

yk
Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc
#58 - 2013-07-22 20:49:20 UTC
Nerf them.

Nerf them hard CCP.

Make it hurt.

Hnnnnnggghh!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#59 - 2013-07-22 20:50:11 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:


Which is what everyone will do when they nerf it to uselessness.

yk


Given the results so far that will not happen. They just wont be as hideously overpowered as they are now.


'Hideously overpowered' is grossly hyperbolic at best. Not one T3 cruiser in the top 20 Eve ship killers: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/3235 (iirc there is a similar, but more updated, version of these stats as well but can't find it atm).

They are performing as a 'Tech3' cruiser should perform.

yk


The falcon is also not on that list yet was nerfed as were supercaps and titans which were nerfed several times.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#60 - 2013-07-22 20:54:39 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:


Which is what everyone will do when they nerf it to uselessness.

yk


Given the results so far that will not happen. They just wont be as hideously overpowered as they are now.


'Hideously overpowered' is grossly hyperbolic at best. Not one T3 cruiser in the top 20 Eve ship killers: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/3235 (iirc there is a similar, but more updated, version of these stats as well but can't find it atm).

They are performing as a 'Tech3' cruiser should perform.

yk



According to the two year old stats provided, I simply see that people like using pre-nerf Hurricanes to do their killing; likely because it was pre-nerf, and you can fit multiples for the cost of a single T3.

Of course, the ships truly only become 'over powered' when you slap a lot of faction/deadspace crap on them, but that's the case with anything. But what's more likely to have all that? An expensive T3 with a HP loss penalty, or a cheap T1 battlecruiser that still won't see the same level of tank and performance with the same fit?