Ships & Modules

Rapiers cost bux and some degree of SP, BCs don't cost **** or require that much SP.

Edit: in addition to having your speed completely raped like Amarr said.'
Edit2: How is "motherfuckers" not word-filtered but a 4 letter word for boo-boo is?



I think CCP is fully aware of what they are doing. They just don't care if it expands on Battlecruisers Online because BC Online means a lot of subscribers.

Sniffing coffee seems to have it's side effect, too. The most popular ship class. <- like err, battlecruisers ?

Point stands. There was a reason to reduce webstrength. Replace 75% with 60% for faction webs if you feel better now.

lolwhat? I'm yet to see decent setups for Sleipnir, Astarte, Absolution and Nighthawk which would allow a smooth ganglink utilization. Whoever think they're designed for ganglinks is just as clueless as CCP.

Poor Brutix doesn't 'cut it' in 90% of todays PvP situations. I know it's common forum wisdom and not the most original thought, but the Tier system really fails on the sub-BS level and needs to go.

Judging on how quick CCP reacted to projectil and hybrid issues I am sure we can expect them to look into it not later than Winter 2013. *sighs*

I like it. It allows cheaper gangs and thus, higher engagement rate.

I personally am sick of the chicken **** attitude people take because they are in an expensive ship.

But before that they were the - by far - strongest race in game for years. Nos/drone platforms, 90% webs, no bandwidth on ships, etc. Same time Amarr was jack **** (bar their recons) for same years. Minmatar and Caldari on the other hand, has been fairly well balanced through the years. Not perfect, but functional overall.

I think the conclusion from that is simply that CCP repeatedly fail to iterate on Amarr/Gallente, so the issues will continue exist until there's a major overhaul - and frequest revisit - to put them in line with the other races.

But that's not what this topic is about, so I'll just quote a previous poster:

I don't think so. If anything, it causes boredom and results in sub losses at the long run.

im thinking this ship may use the webs to get rails to track if they even use this bonus we are a few months off from them putting this patch out so anything could change

actualy this could be what they may do to all gallente ships to fix tracking who knows slow all ships to a crawl so we can hit them XD

Be nice to see mechanics like being paid to kill war targets in FW, bounties similar to NPC rats.

With ships like the Talos they are making it cheaper to PvP at least. I just wish they'd more reasons to fly battleships.

I think you're missing the point entirely. It's not a question of begrudging a race or a weapon system, it's a question of it's larger application. In fact, the issue most people have with it (as did i when people on these forums first started suggesting 90% webs to deal with Blaster's issues of hitting in their optimal) is that they void the "tactics and brains" you speak of. Such a powerful gimmick on such a cheap hull have larger implications that are directly negative to the game and the strategy and smarts part about it.

You can couple the larger discussion with Miriam Sasko's post on FHC. There are two issues adressed, one is that a powerful feature on a cheap ship priorly tied only to expensive ships will void their use. That goes for all these new tier three BC, as they all excel in, assume or mimic roles previously held by other, more expensive, ships (faction ships in terms of the Tornado and Talos, and tech II ships in terms of the Naga and Oracle). By extension it also serves as a plug in the ISK-sink (and i belive most people consider "moar drakes" an issue in this game, when it comes to the health of a nuanced tactical landscape in EVE). These are quite powerful concepts given to a new class of cheap and accessible hulls, and what are the existing ships intended to do? The Vindicator and Mach will probably remain popular on merit of their size, but Pirate Cruisers and Frigates as well as sniping HACs will take a hit with these changes in the same sense that Tech III more or less made CS (and to some extent certain HACs and Recons) obsolete and redundant. You end up with a more narrow landscape in regard to tactics and smarts.

The second bit is what was brought up here and what Miriam bring up in the link and continued discussion in that thread. Powerful concepts on cheap and accessible platforms lead to throw-away design. An implication of that is shifting the curve between tactics and numbers. A ship that throw a dent in your wallet become a risk to use, and will require "tactics and brains", whereas a throw-away ship is simply there to pile on the effect (in numbers). Ultimately you give more tools to the larger side to supress the smaller, the gang to deter the solo pilot or the blob to further extinct the small gang. Gate camps is one aspect of that (lift the example from pirates catching bears in lowsec, to blobs catching roamers in nullsec - they don't need more tools to do that, and the emergent nature of roaming is already hampered in post-nano EVE). There have also been voices raised in regard to what it will do to various speed, kiting or ranged concepts - similar to the effect of recons in existing cheap BC gangs (with the exception that you can break the back of those gangs by removing undertanked and relatively expensive recons).

Wether the Talos become a good blaster platform or not, is really just a tiny speck of relevance in this larger picture.

The 90% web is much more likely to empower camps, traps with bubbles and anti-mobility tactics that will make this game less rather than more over time.

Edit: im adding the link to Miriam's post here because the new forums are crap and won't include their own bbtags:
http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?4235-More-possible-stat-changes.-Hybrid-changes-included/page11