These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Future of T3 Cruisers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#261 - 2013-12-12 20:05:14 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

At current prices, the tengu mentioned above costs 430m isk. The cerberus costs 224m isk. The tengu is easily twice as good as the cerberus. For this level of power you're right, it would be more consistent if the tengu had a price tag of 900m isk.


Ok so how exactly would a Tengu be "twice as good" with equivalent builds?

Tengu will carry a fair bit more buffer, but it loses that advantage as soon as you add a MWD and it has three times the sig?
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#262 - 2013-12-12 20:17:16 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

Not entirely fair. Marauders, logistics et. al. do currently have a role in eve.

My concern is that T3s currently make HACs obsolete in anything other than 1v1

I think T3 should be good ships, but not better at heavy assault than HACs, which have no other role.



No, it is fair. You are getting stuck on the name. If HACs were called Rapid Assault Cruisers, would you still have a problem?

HACs are generally faster and have better damage projection while combat T3s are slower and better at brawling. Two completely different roles and fighting styles for T2 completely different classes of ship.


What I'm stuck on is not the name, it's the utility. A HAC fleet has no way of making any headway against an equivalent T3 fleet. The moment they're in close enough range to lock the T3s down, they're dead.

A rational pilot would not choose a HAC over a T3 for anything other than solo fun.

Having said that, I'm not rational, and I have fun in HACs because I feel that dps T3s are too boringly powerful for words, and I enjoy seeing what I can get away with in Eve.

But anyway... I guess we'll see what CCP have in store for us in due course. I just hope it's a little more inspired than the Nestor..

Blink

My suggestions for T3 (flame away - they're nothing you can call me that my ex-wife didn't already mention):

* reduce power of offensive and buffer modules

* reduce armour and shield amounts - they're cruisers, not T2 battleships.

* separate "slot layout" modules from bonus-enhancing modules.

* modules that give a bonus in one area should give a nerf in another area. For example, fitting 6 turrets could be possible but it should cost a slot or some armour - like the anti-interdiction module does currently.

* allow reconfiguration of rigs

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#263 - 2013-12-12 21:29:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


What I'm stuck on is not the name, it's the utility. A HAC fleet has no way of making any headway against an equivalent T3 fleet. The moment they're in close enough range to lock the T3s down, they're dead.
Then maybe this is a bad comparison for judging balance?

Quote:

A rational pilot would not choose a HAC over a T3 for anything other than solo fun.
training time, SP loss, isk value, a rational pilot considers these when risk is involved. It is in the combat/HAC role that t3's are at the most risk. Making them worse than HACs in the situation where they are most likely to die is a problem. I'm concerned they would be permanently relegated to the role of nullified covops probing cruiser for all PVP applications.

Cost is a balancing factor, but of course cost shouldn't justify blatant OP-ness. One reason for this is the above: the more you can mitigate risk, the less cost is a factor (see supercaps for evidence of this). But all the same, W-space depends on a healthy demand for t3's and significantly reducing their abilities in the HAC role would drastically reduce that demand, unless the cost of them (SP and ISK wise) was appropriately reduced as well.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#264 - 2013-12-12 22:32:17 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
I'd have no problems at all with CCP adjusting the drop rates for T3 materials to raise the price up to a more appropriate level. In my opinion, this should be in the 3-4x T2 cruiser price and 2-3x CS price.

When we look at T3's, we cannot just compare them with cruisers. We also have to look at them in comparison to BC/CS. Any comparison that does not fails, on many levels. We already adjusted the T3 command variants and fleet-boosting to get CS back into play. That was a great change. A CS is now a capable ship, with a decent mix of command bonuses with combat ability. Because it has the links, the CS is not as combat capable as a T3. This is fine.

On Tranquility as a whole, I think T3's are generally fine. If changes were really necessary, I could get behind moderate nerfs to EHP, with corresponding buffs to active tanks. The Tengu in an active tanking configuration would be the model. A T3 could still be alphaed through, but would have a strong local tank for high-end solo/small gang PVP and PVE. A gang with neuts could wreck them. They would still have more EHP in a "brick" configuration than a HAC, but not as much as a CS such as the Damnation.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#265 - 2013-12-12 22:54:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
FT Diomedes wrote:
I'd have no problems at all with CCP adjusting the drop rates for T3 materials to raise the price up to a more appropriate level. In my opinion, this should be in the 3-4x T2 cruiser price and 2-3x CS price.

lol wut?

You want them to cost around 800~900 million?

Price is not under any circumstances a balancing factor, isk is an infinite commodity.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#266 - 2013-12-12 23:12:53 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Okay, so you have no official source for your claim. That is what i though, thanks.

Feel free to answer my earlier question as to why you would fly a t3 that was worse than a HAC...

Edit: i don't know if you can call someone a baby if you're the one typing in caps and unable to come up with a ligitamate argument to a reasonable question.

I don't think you have really though this through and because of that, your opinion hold little weight with me. So forgive me if i am unwilling to take your opinion on the nature of Tech 3 ships as fact.

The fact is, many T2 ship can out perform T3 in a similar configuration. The only one people get stuck on is the HAC and the fleet T3 (dps, buffer tank).

Just because it's called a heavy assault cruiser doesn't mean it needs to do the most dps and have the biggest tank of all cruisers. HACs are faster, have a sig reduction bonus, better damage projection and are cheaper. That is what makes the HAC good imo.

I've presented my argument, now please let us all hear yours or top talking to me.




I dont care on your opinion of me. Your made nothign to make your opinion relevant. I can act alittle rough on forums, but peopel that check this forum on last 7 years know how much I contributed in almost ALL the balance topics in past.

Youa re the ones that use arguments not aligned within the game main cocenpts.

If your ships is more versatile is MUST BE WEAKER On its specialzied role. That has been CCP stance for like 5 years already.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#267 - 2013-12-12 23:22:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Thanks once again for your fact-less, baseless and nonconstructive personal opinion. I'm sure the balancing team appreciates all the hard work and thinking you put in to your posts. Roll

Ps. did you think of an answer to my earlier question yet or do you need more time?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#268 - 2013-12-12 23:24:02 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

Price is not under any circumstances a balancing factor, isk is an infinite commodity.


Very much this, although pilots who have only experienced hisec will have difficulty in visualizing the truth of this statement.

Batelle wrote:

W-space depends on a healthy demand for t3's


This is not actually true of high end WH space. Nanoribbons make up a minority of the ISK earned from an escalated c5 or c6. The vast majority of money comes from the blue 'books' that drop from the elite battleships. These are sold in university stations to the fixed NPC market.

If no-one bought a T3 again, I'd still live in a c5 or c6 because the isk return for time is vastly superior here than anywhere else (amongst other reasons).

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#269 - 2013-12-13 00:00:00 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
I'd have no problems at all with CCP adjusting the drop rates for T3 materials to raise the price up to a more appropriate level. In my opinion, this should be in the 3-4x T2 cruiser price and 2-3x CS price.

lol wut?

You want them to cost around 800~900 million?

Price is not under any circumstances a balancing factor, isk is an infinite commodity.


Only to people who do not value their time. I bet you think the minerals you mine for yourself are free.

Yes, I think T3's should cost 800-900m for the hull and subsystems.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#270 - 2013-12-13 00:02:56 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

Price is not under any circumstances a balancing factor, isk is an infinite commodity.


Very much this, although pilots who have only experienced hisec will have difficulty in visualizing the truth of this statement.

Batelle wrote:

W-space depends on a healthy demand for t3's


This is not actually true of high end WH space. Nanoribbons make up a minority of the ISK earned from an escalated c5 or c6. The vast majority of money comes from the blue 'books' that drop from the elite battleships. These are sold in university stations to the fixed NPC market.

If no-one bought a T3 again, I'd still live in a c5 or c6 because the isk return for time is vastly superior here than anywhere else (amongst other reasons).



Not to get completely off-topic, but now I know how CCP needs to rebalance WH space income.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#271 - 2013-12-13 00:22:12 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
I'd have no problems at all with CCP adjusting the drop rates for T3 materials to raise the price up to a more appropriate level. In my opinion, this should be in the 3-4x T2 cruiser price and 2-3x CS price.

lol wut?

You want them to cost around 800~900 million?

Price is not under any circumstances a balancing factor, isk is an infinite commodity.


Only to people who do not value their time.

Time is worth about 835000 Isk per hour
FT Diomedes wrote:

I bet you think the minerals you mine for yourself are free.

This is an iodic notion.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#272 - 2013-12-13 00:25:31 UTC
These are my personal thoughts on what could be a fairly balanced system gaining a utility high slot on all setups making this versatile while IMO balanced.

Proteus
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 6L Hardpoints: Adjusted by Subsystems
Fittings: 1000 PWG, 380 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 1100 / 2100 / 2500
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400 / 415 / 3.37
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): Adjusted by Subsystems.
Drones (bandwidth / bay): Adjusted by subsystem / 225
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets):
Sensor strength: Adjusted by Subsystems.
Signature radius: Adjusted by Subsystems.
Cargo Capacity: 320

Offensive Subsystems

  • Dissonic Encoding Platform (Resembles Roden Shipyards style bonuses)
    • +10% Medium Hybrid Turret Optimal Range per level
    +7.5% Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking per level
    +5% Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per level
    +4 Turret Hardpoints

  • Drone Synthesis Projector (Resembles CreoDron style bonuses)
    • +10% Drone Damage per level
    +7.5% Drone HP per level
    +5% Drone Tracking per level (changed from +5% Medium Hybrid Turret Damage)
    -1 High Slot
    +3 Turret Hardpoints
    +75 Mbps bandwidth

  • Hybrid Propulsion Armature (Resembles Duvolle Labs style bonuses)
    • +10% Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per level
    +10% Medium Hybrid Turret Falloff per level
    +4 Turret Hardpoints
    +50 Mbps bandwidth

  • Warfare Processor (This would be a controversial change)
    • +2% bonus to the effectiveness of Armored, Skirmish and Information warfare links.
    +7.5% Medium Hybrid Turret Rate of Fire
    Can fit Warfare Links
    Can use 2 Warfare Links Simultaneously
    +3 Turret Hardpoints


Engineering Subsystems

  • Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
    • +5% Drone MWD speed per level
    +7.5% Drone HP per level
    +1 Turret Hardpoint (this change makes this subsystem useful to more than just D.S.P
    +25 Mbps bandwidth

  • Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
    • 5% Reduction to capacitor recharge time per level.

  • Power Core Multiplier
    • +5% power output per level
    +1 Turret Hardpoint

  • Supplemental Coolant Injector
    • 5% reduction in heat damage per level


Electronics Subsystems

  • CPU Efficiency Gate
    • +5% CPU output per level
    65KM targeting range
    17 Magnetometric Sensor Strength
    225mm Scan Resolution

  • Dissolution Sequencer
    • +15% Sensor Strength per level
    +5% Targeting Range per level
    70KM targeting Range
    19 Magnetometric Sensor Strength
    245mm Scan Resolution

  • Emergent Locus Analyzer
    • +10% Increase to Scanner Probe Strength per level
    +20% Velocity and Range of Tractor Beams per level
    -99% CPU needs for Probe Launchers
    +10 to Virus Strength
    60KM Targeting Range
    19 Magnetometric Sensor Strength
    270mm Scan Resolution

  • Friction Extension Processor
    • +10% to the Range of Warp Scramblers and Warp Disruptors per level
    60KM Targeting Range
    15 Magnetometric
    270mm Scan Resolution


Propulsion Subsystems

  • Gravitational Capacitor
    • +12.5% to Warp Speed per level
    15% reduction to capacitor need when initiating warp per level
    Max Velocity 160m/s
    Agility 0.53

  • Interdiction Nullifier
    • +5% Agility per level
    -1 Low Slot
    Max Velocity 140m/s
    Agility 0.76

  • Localized Injectors
    • 15% reduction to the Capacitor Consumption of Afterburners and Microwarpdrives per level
    Max Velocity 180m/s
    Agility 0.59

  • Wake Limiter
    • 5% Reduction in Microwarpdrive Signature Radius Penalty per level
    Max Velocity 140m/s
    Agility 0.59


Defensive Subsystems

  • Adaptive Augmenter
    • +4% Armor Resistances per level
    +10% Remote Armor Repair effectiveness per level
    500% Remote Armor Optimal Range (this and the effectiveness bonus, while lower than both T1 and T2 support cruisers is compensated by the ability to fit more reps than the others)
    Signature Radius 176m

  • Augmented Plating
    • +10% Armor HP per level (with the reduced base armor HP this falls into an acceptable range)
    Signature Radius 168m

  • Nanobot Injector
    • +7.5% Armor Repair per level (this is reduced to match all other rep bonuses)
    Signature Radius 160m

  • Covert Reconfiguration (This would be a controversial change)
    • -100% Cloaking Device CPU needs
    Can fit Covert Ops Cloaking Device
    Signature Radius 194 (this is a 20% increase from the warfare processor)


If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#273 - 2013-12-13 00:32:11 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:


If your ships is more versatile is MUST BE WEAKER On its specialzied role. That has been CCP stance for like 5 years already.


Actually, that WAS CCP's stance on it. One of the things that CCP has consistently gotten right over the past couple of years is that they now recognize that "versatile" is a polite word for "flaming pile of metal scraps, broken dreams, and wasted SP." Versatility is not a strength. The old Minmatar split weapons ships were versatile. The Eris was versatile. The new, focused, well-designed ships are CCP's model. A versatile ship tries to do too much.

Stop thinking of a T3 as one ship. It isn't a multi-tool. It can be a logistics. It can be a recon. It can be a CS. It can be a sneaky hauler. It can be a solo roamer. It can be a PLEX runner. But it CANNOT be all those things at the same time. Any configuration that can do more than one role as effectively as another specialized hull should be adjusted. If my Tengu could run a 10/10 while being cloaky-nullified, that would be totally broken. If I could outbrawl a HAC in a cloaky-nully configuration, that would be broken.

Honestly, I am really worried about the mobile depot, because it puts a T3 in the realm of doing all those things with only a narrow risk window. The only thing keeping it balanced right now is that the rigs cannot be unfitted, it takes up 50 or 100m3, a subsystem takes 40m3, and a covops cloak takes 100m3. On my Tengu, that leaves about 160m3 for missiles, mods, and loot, if I carry two subsystems, a regular depot, and a cloak. While I like the possibilities raised by the mobile depot, I think perhaps T3's need smaller cargo bays. That or the cloaky nullified configuration needs to be put down like a rabid dog.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#274 - 2013-12-13 00:57:21 UTC
Quinn Corvez wrote:
And they aren't "outright better" as T2 ships can do things that T3 can't just like T1 vs T2.

If you just look a stats and pretend that the two classes of ship are going to be brawling at point blank range, then of course T3 will look better but this is not what happens in game.

If someone can point me to a corp or alliance that only uses T3 and are unbeatable, I'll admitt that T3 needs a nerf but until then I'll consider myself right in this argument.


Something needs to be unbeatable to be overpowered?
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#275 - 2013-12-13 01:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Quinn Corvez
Isn't that what the phrase overpowered implies? That all other ships are inferior in comparison. Google the definition for yourself.

Change my statement to "virtually unbeatable" if it helps. My comments still stand.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#276 - 2013-12-13 01:53:46 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Quinn Corvez wrote:
And they aren't "outright better" as T2 ships can do things that T3 can't just like T1 vs T2.

If you just look a stats and pretend that the two classes of ship are going to be brawling at point blank range, then of course T3 will look better but this is not what happens in game.

If someone can point me to a corp or alliance that only uses T3 and are unbeatable, I'll admitt that T3 needs a nerf but until then I'll consider myself right in this argument.


Something needs to be unbeatable to be overpowered?


No, it can be overpowered without being unbeatable. If T3's actually obsoleted HAC's, Recons, Logistics, etc. they would be overpowered. T3's don't. If T3's cost the same thing as T2's and did not have SP loss, they would be overpowered. If T3's were the clear choice in every situation, they would be overpowered. As it is, they are very powerful in certain situations. So are plenty of other ships.

Eve is very tough to balance because it is a very crowded field. Why don't people usually use the Logistics Subsytem on a T3? Because it sucks compared to a Logistics ship. Does that mean that Logistics ships are overpowered? No. What it means is that further balancing is required to make the T3 logistics subsystem a viable choice in SOME situations.

Same goes for the ECM subsystems. The ones on the Proteus and Loki are fairly common in large fleets where Recon ships may be vollied off the field, but they are not commonly seen in smaller-scale combat. In that situation, without lots of dedicated Logistics ships and careful watchlisting, the extra EHP isn't worth the risk of higher cost and SP loss. There is a reason these ships are reimbursable in any capable nullsec alliance - to get people to fly the damn things.

If I really want to tackle someone at long range - such as a 100mn Tengu who is trying his best to get quick ganks and run - I'll grab my Huginn or Lachesis, tackle him, and let my friends kill him. The brick-tanked Loki or Proteus won't catch him. Different ships are best in different situations. That is the definition of balance.

This why I get so irritated at people who act like ISK has no value: Every ship in Eve should represent some amount of time and energy invested in it. To more experienced players with established income streams, losing ships hurts less than it does for noobies. But it still represents a cost of time and effort. Apparently none of this is true in C5/C6 WH space where ISK just falls into your lap without any effort or time investment. If making ISK in Eve is truly effortless and/or risk free, that form of ISK-making should be removed.

Cost is not the only balancing factor. You cannot have God-mode ships, no matter what the cost. The Devs underestimated how easy it would be to get Titans and Supercarriers when they introduced the damn things. Now we have hundreds of them instead of 5-6.

But T3's are not like Supercarriers & Titans. They are powerful ships that can perform well in a variety of situations, depending on the configuration. Do some of the EHP amounts need adjusting? Maybe... Maybe not. But they certainly don't need a heavy-handed nerfbat or a sweeping redesign. They don't need to become worthless T1-resistance ships on par with Navy cruisers. They don't need to be worse than T2 cruisers and BCs at every role. If they are, you've effectively killed them as a ship class.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#277 - 2013-12-13 04:49:57 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

1) A HAC gets no EWAR or logi bonuses, they're pure dps ships. This was covered several times including during the HAC rebalance thread.
2) 825 dps applied from a cerb is certainly preferable which is exactly why I said it. The problem that went over your head is how the jump from cruiser to battleship is such a small increase in DPS, even for T2 battleships. The marauder package got extra tank and projection much like a mini dread --- but critically misses the damage bonus. 3 out of 4 ships got 125% damage at all 5, golem drew the short straw and got better application, on weapon systems that can't cause wrecking hits.

The issue is pretty complex we agree but I'm not the simpleton here.


Your the idiot who can't put forward a good argument as to why Tech 3 ships should be nerfed below the abilities of T2, so instead you take to rambling on about battleships Roll

IDK why you are blabbering on about E-war and logi bonuses either... who suggested HAC have them in the first place?

At the end of the day, you clearly have no clue how this game and the ships within it work. I've given you enough chances to explain why you think a HAC should have more dps/tank that a t3 and your answer has repeatedly been "because it's called a HAC". So i'm done with you.


http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=20816643
There's your killboard. You love T3's don't you? Either cheap ganks or T3 fleets so it's no surprise you've adopted this stance.

IDK why you are blabbering on about E-war and logi bonuses either... who suggested HAC have them in the first place?
T3's get them. HAC's don't. That's the point. HACs are specialist DPS ships.


At the end of the day, you clearly have no clue how this game and the ships within it work.
Speak for yourself.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#278 - 2013-12-13 05:42:49 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:

Something needs to be unbeatable to be overpowered?


No, it can be overpowered without being unbeatable.


I was being facetious. Blink
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#279 - 2013-12-13 08:44:46 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
... rebalance WH income ...


Being on the supply side of T3s we know a lot about T3 demand. The components for inventing the blueprints for T3s are found in Relic and Data sites in WH space. Once the sleepers are killed (which requires a capital fleet to do efficiently, so don't think the ISK is riskless), we then have to hack the structures...

...now here's the thing. Before we do that, we ship-scan them to see what's inside. There are 4 flavours of datacores in the relic sites, one for each race. Guess what happens if we find a Gallente, Amarr or Minmatar one?

We leave it there, undisturbed, to evaporate when the site despawns.

This is because there is actually close to zero demand for Proteus, Legions and Lokis. The datacores have such a low value that it's not worth our time to hack them.

The Tengu is always in demand, and as a result the caldari datacores have a high value (something like 5m each).

The reasons should be fairly obvious - the Tengu has been very successful because there are a number of roles it performs very well. Just a lucky coincidence of tank systems, versatile weapons system, fortunate bonuses (coinciding max dps with max capacitor size and therefore peak recharge rate being one).

Tengus lend themselves well to scouting, brawling, sniping and PVE whereas the others don't. The tengu is the only T3 you'd rationally use solo. The others are just too specialised to do that.

The rebalance should probably start here (prepare for uproar from Caldari pilots who already feel wronged by recent changes to drakes and missiles).

I am not saying we should heavily nerf the tengu, except perhaps the unhealthily high cap-stable self tank and outrageous ranged dps.

If the other T3s are going to be as versatile, they need some means of repairing themselves without burning cap boosters (i.e. better cap characteristics) and applying damage at multiple ranges.

They also need their brick tanks taken away.

In my view, the only bricks on the battlefield should be battleships, and at a push battlecruisers. Cruisers should be mobile, hard-hitting etc, but not a stone wall of ehp.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2013-12-13 10:09:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

Tengus lend themselves well to scouting, brawling, sniping and PVE whereas the others don't. The tengu is the only T3 you'd rationally use solo. The others are just too specialised to do that.

The rebalance should probably start here (prepare for uproar from Caldari pilots who already feel wronged by recent changes to drakes and missiles).

They also need their brick tanks taken away.

In my view, the only bricks on the battlefield should be battleships, and at a push battlecruisers. Cruisers should be mobile, hard-hitting etc, but not a stone wall of ehp.



I understand where you are coming from and why you might hold such views but it sounds like your experiences are not the norm.

Armour Tech 3 ships are by far the most used ships in wormhole when it comes to PVP. We even fly armour tanked Tengus. The only reason Tengus are in such high demand is due to their effectiveness in K-space.

My standard fleet proteus has a 100K EHP tank and around 1000 dps. Now maybe the tank could do with a slight nerf but if it was nerfed below 80k EHP, everyone would simply fly a command or faction BC that can achieve the 100K tank and we would be right back to square one. The only real change would be that the wormhole space economy would take a massive hit and dread blapping would become a major problem.

1000 dps seems high for a cruiser but when you are talking about blasters, you have to consider that you need to be at point blank range to your target, who also needs to be sitting still, for you to do anywhere near that damage. Given the fact that the vigilant, Deimos and Brutix can also achieve that level of damage, there is not much cause to nerf the dps much either.

On the subject of isk and balance, we can agree to disagree on this but just because isk is an infinite commodity does not make it an irrelevance talking about balance. It takes time and effort to earn isk and as no one has infinite time, no one has infinite isk.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...