These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

BS and T3 crusiers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2015-10-25 18:12:43 UTC
O2 jayjay wrote:
Is their a way to restore your post? I jacked it up and deleted it.

ISD are the only ones who might be able to help with that. To reach them, tell them what's going on in a post, then flag the post and explain succinctly why you need them to read it. Or something like that.

The issue seems old so I won't bother flagging your post. Sorry I'm late.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2015-10-25 20:11:09 UTC
Oskolda Eriker wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Oskolda Eriker wrote:
elitatwo wrote:

Can you see the difference?

Problem is that our hypothetical Apocalypse doesn't hit anything below another battleship or a planet, dps or not. Even if you would increase the laser damage by 2x that hypothectial ~12000hp damage every ~6 seconds still doesn't hit anything.

But I agree that a battleship should have a lot more resources than a tiny cruiser and not get sunk in 20 seconds.

I see the difference, proteus have 1000dps at 4km. and lose any damage at 20km
Apoc at 22km
nice difference isnt it?


And the Proteus will have all the mobility it wants to dictate range, transversal, and whether or not the engagement continues. Nice difference, isn't it?


normal tanked proteus have same speed at mwd, as bs for example mach. Proteus cant dictate anything, he doesnt have utiliti high slots. enough med slots(3 may be 4 at best)


I don't think you have been playing the game long enough to understand what we are talking about.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#43 - 2015-10-25 20:15:35 UTC
@O2 jayjay
i don't hate T3 cruisers or else i would not have trained them, and i already stated that i am not against a small buff for BS in general, what the TS suggests in his OP is like stated before not out of proportion, but it is off the scale. The reason i want T3 cruisers to be nerfed is because they are so OP it is not funny, and nerfing them will solve a lot ofc it isnt easy as a lot of people depend on its income (WH industry) and they need to be able to do WH sites properly

@W0lf Crendraven
i really cant take you seriously i am sorry but T3 cruisers crush every T2 cruiser and even battle-cruiser in the game only exception is the commandship (only since they changed it) and logi

@Oskolda Eriker
funny but why do you say flights?????? you mean i never lost a T3 cruiser well not on this toon no but on 2 other toons i did, i can assure you i used them on multiple characters

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2015-10-25 20:46:48 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
@O2 jayjay
i don't hate T3 cruisers or else i would not have trained them, and i already stated that i am not against a small buff for BS in general, what the TS suggests in his OP is like stated before not out of proportion, but it is off the scale. The reason i want T3 cruisers to be nerfed is because they are so OP it is not funny, and nerfing them will solve a lot ofc it isnt easy as a lot of people depend on its income (WH industry) and they need to be able to do WH sites properly


I never had a problem applying dps to T3. I go to my opt, scram and web it then shoot my main batteries at it. As long as my ship isn't moving and they are at rang i have no problems hitting them. In a decent fleet fight BS don't have enough dps to shoot them off field before logi can get reps on them. BS also die too fast against a T3 gang. I still think the cost and SP lost is a huge risk when flying T3 that they are fine where they are at and BS don't posses the proper strength for fleet warfare.

Ellendras Silver wrote:
@W0lf Crendraven
i really cant take you seriously i am sorry but T3 cruisers crush every T2 cruiser and even battle-cruiser in the game only exception is the commandship (only since they changed it) and logi

@Oskolda Eriker
funny but why do you say flights?????? you mean i never lost a T3 cruiser well not on this toon no but on 2 other toons i did, i can assure you i used them on multiple characters
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#45 - 2015-10-25 21:08:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Rek Seven wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
if T3s were overpowered, CCP would have nerfed them ages ago like they did with the op Ishtar! They may need slight tweaks but they are by no means OP...


They did, and then said there's more to come.

Rek Seven wrote:
I hate these arguments about T3s being op with people throwing about there opinion like it's fact.
...
And like it or not, cost is a balancing factor.


Nice fail Roll




That blog is referring to T3 balance in terms of their subsystems being unbalanced, as there are certain configurations that are almost never used. It also clearly says that their tank was nerfed to "bring them in line", which i would say, indicates that ccp don't conciser then "overpowered".

So get your facts straight if you are going to disagree... Oh and if price wasn't a balancing factor, all comparable ship hulls would be the same price and every ship would be using officer mods... but yeah "fail" was another brilliant argument.


Lol. You lied and contradicted yourself all in one post. Big smile

Just like the ishtar, orthrus and d3's, the balances for t3's will come in multiple increments. Im not saying that ccp will definitely nerf tank again, but the fact they've had one balance change so far doesnt mean they are now considered balanced.

Deterrent =/= balance.

Making ships more expensive doesnt justify obsoleting several ship classes at once. This is especially true when T3's are intended to be jacks of all trades and master of none.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#46 - 2015-10-25 21:12:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellendras Silver
Quote:

I never had a problem applying dps to T3. I go to my opt, scram and web it then shoot my main batteries at it. As long as my ship isn't moving and they are at rang i have no problems hitting them. In a decent fleet fight BS don't have enough dps to shoot them off field before logi can get reps on them. BS also die too fast against a T3 gang. I still think the cost and SP lost is a huge risk when flying T3 that they are fine where they are at and BS don't posses the proper strength for fleet warfare.


I don't either but that's beside the point T3 cruisers have HUGE cap and fitting options can use 3 rigs where T2 ships only have 2 and fly around with BS tanks and cruiser maneuverability, speed and signature. to top it off they match battle cruiser DPS and if you say they are OP they say no because they are expensive and have skill loss when you die in it

price is NEVER and has NEVER been a way to balance things and the skill loss is a joke compared to the power they bring not to mention that you don't need that much training to fly them. They need a nerf more then anything in EVE and the skill loss is the first thing that has to go

i get the idea that you agree with me as you don't dispute my post but ramble about applying damage i never said that was an issue, so your response baffles me.

and NOTHING has enough DPS to shoot them off the field before they can be repped that is EXACTLY my point

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#47 - 2015-10-25 21:44:50 UTC  |  Edited by: W0lf Crendraven
Ellendras Silver wrote:


@W0lf Crendraven
i really cant take you seriously i am sorry but T3 cruisers crush every T2 cruiser and even battle-cruiser in the game only exception is the commandship (only since they changed it) and logi



They dont, bcs have mjds which alone makes them different enough and they are T1 ships, which makes them insurable, cheap and easy to fit. Yes they arent in a great spot right now but that has nothing to do with t3s, if you remember back around 2011 t3s were stronger then now and bcs were about the same (slightly better) and it was all bcs, t3s really dont enroach onto bc at all.


Then you have t2 cruiser, logi are straight up better as you said, for anything bar reaaaly big fleets recons are straight up better, hics are hics so no contest there. Then you have Hacs, which you probably mean by t2 cruisers. And there you can buy 2.3 hacs per t3, they are somewhat insurable and you dont lose sp if you die in them, which by itself makes them on par. But they arent even actually worse then t3s as such, cerb>tengu due to rlml bonus', vaga is about equal to a loki in most cases and the deimos is a valid proteus substitue, the prot reps more and does more dps but its much worse in most other stats, and speed is fairly important.

And the sac is an amazing fleet ship as shown by balex countless times, legion is good too but they are similar enough for the extra price on the legion to be worth it.


Face it, for solo, small scale and mid scale hacs are almost equal to their t3 counterparts, some more some less. And that a proteus is a better fleet dps ship then the deimos is totally irrelevant cause the abso still is cheaper and better.




t3s do pseudo recons in big fleets where recons would instapop, they do the fleet ships for the unskilled who cant fly command ships and thats about it.




If you roam around and see a t3 you dont worry at all, they arent good ships, they are easy to beat and offer nothing special in the current meta. A orthrus or gila is much more scary.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#48 - 2015-10-25 22:05:13 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:


@W0lf Crendraven
i really cant take you seriously i am sorry but T3 cruisers crush every T2 cruiser and even battle-cruiser in the game only exception is the commandship (only since they changed it) and logi



1. They dont, bcs have mjds which alone makes them different enough and they are T1 ships, which makes them insurable, cheap and easy to fit. Yes they arent in a great spot right now but that has nothing to do with t3s, if you remember back around 2011 t3s were stronger then now and bcs were about the same (slightly better) and it was all bcs, t3s really dont enroach onto bc at all.


2. Then you have t2 cruiser, logi are straight up better as you said, for anything bar reaaaly big fleets recons are straight up better, hics are hics so no contest there. Then you have Hacs, which you probably mean by t2 cruisers. And there you can buy 2.3 hacs per t3, they are somewhat insurable and you dont lose sp if you die in them, which by itself makes them on par. But they arent even actually worse then t3s as such, cerb>tengu due to rlml bonus', vaga is about equal to a loki in most cases and the deimos is a valid proteus substitue, the prot reps more and does more dps but its much worse in most other stats, and speed is fairly important.

3. And the sac is an amazing fleet ship as shown by balex countless times, legion is good too but they are similar enough for the extra price on the legion to be worth it.

4. Face it, for solo, small scale and mid scale hacs are almost equal to their t3 counterparts, some more some less. And that a proteus is a better fleet dps ship then the deimos is totally irrelevant cause the abso still is cheaper and better.

5. t3s do pseudo recons in big fleets where recons would instapop, they do the fleet ships for the unskilled who cant fly command ships and thats about it.

6. If you roam around and see a t3 you don't worry at all, they arent good ships, they are easy to beat and offer nothing special in the current meta. A orthrus or gila is much more scary.


1. ISK is irrelevant when it comes to balancing, and yes they are they do too much DPS with too much tank and way too fast and agile too pack that much tank and DPS it simply outclasses everything.

2. logi are better yes and since CCP fixed commandships they provide better boosts as well, all other ships perish in comparison. sure recons have better range but with paper tank T3s are always preferred over the T2 cruisers because of that we both know it, you try to spin it another way sorry no go. your ISK "balancing" is irrelevant because price is not a factor in balancing it never was and never will be, it can be a reason too choose a T2 cruiser over a T3 cruiser but that has nothing to do with balance

3. so you agree that the legion beats the sac awesome

4. ehhh no they are NOT and it is relevant and again costs don't matter

5. hilarious if not so sad again you try to spin it like T3s are not OP where they clearly are

6. right

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2015-10-25 22:08:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
I'll fight a T3 in a non-t3 if anyone wants to prove to me how OP they are. Just let me know.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2015-10-25 22:32:13 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
if T3s were overpowered, CCP would have nerfed them ages ago like they did with the op Ishtar! They may need slight tweaks but they are by no means OP...


They did, and then said there's more to come.

Rek Seven wrote:
I hate these arguments about T3s being op with people throwing about there opinion like it's fact.
...
And like it or not, cost is a balancing factor.


Nice fail Roll




That blog is referring to T3 balance in terms of their subsystems being unbalanced, as there are certain configurations that are almost never used. It also clearly says that their tank was nerfed to "bring them in line", which i would say, indicates that ccp don't conciser then "overpowered".

So get your facts straight if you are going to disagree... Oh and if price wasn't a balancing factor, all comparable ship hulls would be the same price and every ship would be using officer mods... but yeah "fail" was another brilliant argument.


Lol. You lied and contradicted yourself all in one post. Big smile

Just like the ishtar, orthrus and d3's, the balances for t3's will come in multiple increments. Im not saying that ccp will definitely nerf tank again, but the fact they've had one balance change so far doesnt mean they are now considered balanced.

Deterrent =/= balance.

Making ships more expensive doesnt justify obsoleting several ship classes at once. This is especially true when T3's are intended to be jacks of all trades and master of none.


It sounds like a contradiction and admittedly hypocritical when you quote snipets of my post but not if you consider and understand the entire thing in context... But I fail to see how I lied.

I never said T3s are perfectly balanced I said t3 cruisers are not "overpowered".

I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power. I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost.


The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#51 - 2015-10-25 22:38:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellendras Silver
Quote:

It sounds like a contradiction and admittedly hypocritical when you quote snipets of my post but not if you consider and understand the entire thing in context... But I fail to see how I lied.

I never said T3s are perfectly balanced I said t3 cruisers are not "overpowered".

I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power. I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost.


it is a contradiction if you say:
Quote:

I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power.

so pricing is no justification for power, is what you say then in the next sentence you say:
Quote:

I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost.

i don't care how you try to justify this, but what you say is price is a justification for its power

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#52 - 2015-10-25 22:39:49 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
I'll fight a T3 in a non-t3 if anyone wants to prove to me how OP they are. Just let me know.


this i find noble, i would have taken you up on it if i wasnt a poor solo PVPing char and i havent been active for quit a while, i do hope someone does this, i know where i put my money (no not you)

+1 for being noble (or stupid) oh well +1 none the less

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2015-10-25 22:59:47 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Quote:

It sounds like a contradiction and admittedly hypocritical when you quote snipets of my post but not if you consider and understand the entire thing in context... But I fail to see how I lied.

I never said T3s are perfectly balanced I said t3 cruisers are not "overpowered".

I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power. I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost.


it is a contradiction if you say:
Quote:

I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power.

so pricing is no justification for power, is what you say then in the next sentence you say:
Quote:

I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost.

i don't care how you try to justify this, but what you say is price is a justification for its power


I don't know what you are having an issue with. Is English not your first language? Justification does not mean balance.

If price is not a factor of balance, why are you letting your being a "poor PVPer" stop you from fighting me?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#54 - 2015-10-25 23:04:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellendras Silver
Rek Seven wrote:

I don't know what you are having an issue with. Is English not your first language? Justification does not mean balance.

If price is not a factor of balance, why are you letting your being a "poor PVPer" stop you from fighting me?


english is not my first language no, but it is good enough... i know justification is not the same as balance, the question is do you because your post implies that it does

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2015-10-25 23:10:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Then answer my question...

Why is being poor stopping you from fighting me if you are so sure you will win?

Then go back and fix that quote.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#56 - 2015-10-25 23:12:42 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Then answer my question...

Why is being poor stopping you from fighting me if you are so sure you will win?


i am not sure i will win, because i am not good at solo PVP and been out of the game for over 2 years (PVP wise) and over 1 year PVE wise.

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2015-10-25 23:29:51 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Then answer my question...

Why is being poor stopping you from fighting me if you are so sure you will win?


i am not sure i will win, because i am not good at solo PVP and been out of the game for over 2 years (PVP wise) and over 1 year PVE wise.


Well overpowered indicates one thing has a superior advantage. So unless it is a certainty that a ship will beat a "weaker" ship, I don't think you should be claiming it is OP.

My point with the offer to fight a T3, was to show that price does get considered in ballance. Not on paper but in game. If it didn't, you wouldn't care if you lost to me no matter how bad at pvp you consider yourself to be.

Anyway, we are massively off topic. Can we just agree battleships need a buff in damage? Big smile

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#58 - 2015-10-25 23:35:44 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Then answer my question...

Why is being poor stopping you from fighting me if you are so sure you will win?


i am not sure i will win, because i am not good at solo PVP and been out of the game for over 2 years (PVP wise) and over 1 year PVE wise.


Well overpowered indicates one thing has a superior advantage. So unless it is a certainty that a ship will beat a "weaker" ship, I don't think you should be claiming it is OP.

My point with the offer to fight a T3, was to show that price does get considered in ballance. Not on paper but in game. If it didn't, you wouldn't care if you lost to me no matter how bad at pvp you consider yourself to be.

Anyway, we are massively off topic. Can we just agree battleships need a buff in damage? Big smile


we sure can agree on BS needing a buff as long as it is not what the TS wants because that is ridiculous i never was against that. I am against the change the OP wants:
quote from OP as reminder
Quote:

My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge.

that is far and i mean far too much can we agree on this aswell?

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#59 - 2015-10-26 02:03:38 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:


1. ISK is irrelevant when it comes to balancing, and yes they are they do too much DPS with too much tank and way too fast and agile too pack that much tank and DPS it simply outclasses everything.





No its not, everything is balanced by isk. A worm is a way way way better tristan, and its balanced by cost (and postnerf it will still be way better).


A t2 bc costs more then a t1 bc and its balanced by cost. Everything is balanced by isk, ships that cost pirate battleship isk need to hold their own vs them in some ways to be good.
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2015-10-26 05:43:13 UTC  |  Edited by: O2 jayjay
we sure can agree on BS needing a buff as long as it is not what the TS wants because that is ridiculous i never was against that. I am against the change the OP wants:
quote from OP as reminder
Quote:

My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge.

Ellendras Silver wrote:
that is far and i mean far too much can we agree on this aswell?


What is too much about it? Its a battleship. Battleships were the end all be all in WW1 and early WWII until carriers came into play. In eve I think its safe to say that a carrier can kill a battleship 1v1. But it isnt safe to say a battleship can kill a crusier 1v1. I honestly think my request isnt enough by a long shot and its a good starting point for BS. My 2ยข