These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Strategic Cruisers - specifically what fixes they need
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2016-01-15 02:42:47 UTC
Abby Silverwind wrote:
Neuts = T3 death = awesome I don't see a problem.... Bringing that Geddon I no you have stashed in that hanger ;)

Good luck trying to beat my Loki with that Armageddon. In fact lets save time, why don't you just bring a Bhaalgorn so we can get this over with and me and my Loki can go home with a kill mark.

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."
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#162 - 2016-01-15 02:53:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:

And if CCP upgrades their status to the BC class, what would be the argument then?


Nerf them to be BC. No matter how you class them they need a hefty nerf in several areas, most noticeably in tank. If they stay as cruisers (and they will)then they need to lose the massive buffer coupled with t2 resists, lose some fitting room so you have to make hard choices like every other cruiser, lose a chunk of the capacitor capability so they cant be easily made to be cap stable and remove the ability to have both the cov ops cloak and nullification ability at the same time. The issues with their boosting thankfully is getting dealt with via the OGB removal.


And just whom do you think would bother to fly these ships if they're reduced to such an unuseful state??



my eft warrior skills allowed me to assemble Brutix Navy (hull tanked, 114k of EHP with combined plain DPS 762 points (neutrons+hammers II) no links no imps. And i still not sure that a gank of such Brutix's will outperform a similar gang of armor tanked Proteus's. But downgrading T3C to BC level won't help both classes much.


Well if they continue to stay in the Cruiser family then I wager their inevitable nerf would come by CCP within the next 6 months. When that nerf hits they're abilities would most likely be reduced to align somewhere between HACs and faction Cruisers which would mark the most dreadful nerf in the history of Eve rivaling the Capital jump fatigue changes.

Before these flagships of Eve are destroyed, I'd rather see their class change entirely to align with their tanking abilities. To be fair the changes I'd like to see to diminish their OP tags are:

*Subsystem penalty like the "cannot receive external remote assistance" on the defensive buffer/resist sub systems
*Boosted sig radius up to BC class.
*CPU fitting reduction removed from the CovOps subsytems
*Can only fit the number of subsytems based on your Strategic Skill level (people are flying these ships with this skill at level 3 with near max benefits which isn't right.)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#163 - 2016-01-15 04:57:38 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Daniela Doran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:

And if CCP upgrades their status to the BC class, what would be the argument then?


Nerf them to be BC. No matter how you class them they need a hefty nerf in several areas, most noticeably in tank. If they stay as cruisers (and they will)then they need to lose the massive buffer coupled with t2 resists, lose some fitting room so you have to make hard choices like every other cruiser, lose a chunk of the capacitor capability so they cant be easily made to be cap stable and remove the ability to have both the cov ops cloak and nullification ability at the same time. The issues with their boosting thankfully is getting dealt with via the OGB removal.


And just whom do you think would bother to fly these ships if they're reduced to such an unuseful state??


Clearly not the people who campaign to keep every overpowered fotm ship.

A t3 nerf would be on par rage wise with the nano nerf or the dram nerf.
Seraph Essael
Air
The Initiative.
#164 - 2016-01-15 05:35:25 UTC
You leave my Tengu the **** alone!!! Had enough of greasy mitts touching it innapropriately.

Quoted from Doc Fury: "Concerned citizens: Doc seldom plays EVE on the weekends during spring and summer, so you will always be on your own for a couple days a week. Doc spends that time collecting kittens for the on-going sacrifices, engaging in reckless outdoor activities, and speaking in the 3rd person."
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2016-01-15 07:59:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:

And if CCP upgrades their status to the BC class, what would be the argument then?


Nerf them to be BC. No matter how you class them they need a hefty nerf in several areas, most noticeably in tank. If they stay as cruisers (and they will)then they need to lose the massive buffer coupled with t2 resists, lose some fitting room so you have to make hard choices like every other cruiser, lose a chunk of the capacitor capability so they cant be easily made to be cap stable and remove the ability to have both the cov ops cloak and nullification ability at the same time. The issues with their boosting thankfully is getting dealt with via the OGB removal.


And just whom do you think would bother to fly these ships if they're reduced to such an unuseful state??


Clearly not the people who campaign to keep every overpowered fotm ship.

A t3 nerf would be on par rage wise with the nano nerf or the dram nerf.


The answer you were looking for was "no one". Nobody would fly these useless ships if they were needed in the way you suggest.

Nerfing t3s into the ground would have a far reaching effect throughout eve. It would mostlikey cause people to quit the game all together, especially in wormhole space. The answer is a rebalance/redesign not a nerf because you can only nerd what is OP, which t3s are not.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#166 - 2016-01-15 09:26:44 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Rek Seven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:

And if CCP upgrades their status to the BC class, what would be the argument then?


Nerf them to be BC. No matter how you class them they need a hefty nerf in several areas, most noticeably in tank. If they stay as cruisers (and they will)then they need to lose the massive buffer coupled with t2 resists, lose some fitting room so you have to make hard choices like every other cruiser, lose a chunk of the capacitor capability so they cant be easily made to be cap stable and remove the ability to have both the cov ops cloak and nullification ability at the same time. The issues with their boosting thankfully is getting dealt with via the OGB removal.


And just whom do you think would bother to fly these ships if they're reduced to such an unuseful state??


Clearly not the people who campaign to keep every overpowered fotm ship.

A t3 nerf would be on par rage wise with the nano nerf or the dram nerf.


The answer you were looking for was "no one". Nobody would fly these useless ships if they were needed in the way you suggest.

Nerfing t3s into the ground would have a far reaching effect throughout eve. It would mostlikey cause people to quit the game all together, especially in wormhole space. The answer is a rebalance/redesign not a nerf because you can only nerd what is OP, which t3s are not.



Same exact arguments as used for the nano and dram nerfs. The ships will still get used in the same way drams, titans and ravens still get used after they were nerfed into line.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#167 - 2016-01-15 11:06:47 UTC
That wasn't really the same devastating economic effect to entire areas of space though, was it? Low class WH need that income stream.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#168 - 2016-01-15 11:58:47 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
That wasn't really the same devastating economic effect to entire areas of space though, was it? Low class WH need that income stream.


Same way CFC needed that tech moon income and the same way alliances that had the angel bpcs needed that income. People will still but t3s just like people still buy drams. WH income is no excuse to keep 4 ships blatantly overpowered.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#169 - 2016-01-15 12:20:26 UTC
It's far from the same and well you know it Smile

Perhaps if they deleted the moons and took away the pirate detection array, then you'd be in the ballpark.

It'll make people abandon the space, which is already fairly spartan as it is. PI isn't enough to carry people.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#170 - 2016-01-15 12:40:09 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
It's far from the same and well you know it Smile

Perhaps if they deleted the moons and took away the pirate detection array, then you'd be in the ballpark.

It'll make people abandon the space, which is already fairly spartan as it is. PI isn't enough to carry people.


Compared to the tech moon nerf and the tracking titan nerf yes, the income loss WH will lose when t3 cruisers are nerfed to cruiser level will be far smaller. People are not going to stop buying them, even with the nerfs I speak of they will still be powerful cruisers.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#171 - 2016-01-15 13:03:08 UTC
No-one smart will fly them, SP loss? Ships available today with equal to better combat effectiveness?

Maybe for the extra ewar stuff but that's about it.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#172 - 2016-01-15 14:36:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
It's far from the same and well you know it Smile

Perhaps if they deleted the moons and took away the pirate detection array, then you'd be in the ballpark.

It'll make people abandon the space, which is already fairly spartan as it is. PI isn't enough to carry people.


Compared to the tech moon nerf and the tracking titan nerf yes, the income loss WH will lose when t3 cruisers are nerfed to cruiser level will be far smaller. People are not going to stop buying them, even with the nerfs I speak of they will still be powerful cruisers.



OK - here's the deal. WH income isn't even remotely based on T3 production. To harvest and then build T3 you need to live in c5 or c6 (because high end gas). I live and build T3 in a c5. I have no idea how many low end sites you would have to run to maintain enough salvage for a production line but it's a crazy large number.

Low end T3 production - you're already importing materials just to keep the line running.
High end T3 production - The blue loot from the escallations you run to get enough salvage to keep a line running far out pace the value of the salvage AND any eventual production outputs that come from it.

WH income is based on blue loot. T3 production is a secondary income in high end wh and requires import of high end mats in the lower class wh.

The upcoming and changes to caps and the PVE nerfs requested by wh corps (they understand not what they ask for) will have a lot more to do with putting the final nails in the wh space coffin than bringing T3 cruiser tanks and T3 dessies back in line.

Basing a "wh space will become vacant" argument on lower T3 production is pure folly.
Basing a "wh space will become vacant" argument on losing the current T3 overtanked metas is also folly. (The 'classic' T3 brawls of the past are few and far between - Rattler, Gilla, Ishtar, command ships, T3 dessies are what I'm currently seeing)

Baltec has been right for a long time. T3 cruiser tanks need wonked - for fun's sake. The few folks making isk on T3 production will survive just fine.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#173 - 2016-01-15 15:07:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

A t3 nerf would be on par rage wise with the nano nerf or the dram nerf.


The answer you were looking for was "no one". Nobody would fly these useless ships if they were needed in the way you suggest.

Nerfing t3s into the ground would have a far reaching effect throughout eve. It would mostlikey cause people to quit the game all together, especially in wormhole space. The answer is a rebalance/redesign not a nerf because you can only nerd what is OP, which t3s are not.

Same exact arguments as used for the nano and dram nerfs. The ships will still get used in the same way drams, titans and ravens still get used after they were nerfed into line.

Every single nerf that CCP incorporates into Eve is different and every backlash thereafter will also be different. You cannot predict the outcome of the rage that will incur if CCP ever decides to nerf these T3Cs into the ground based on data you collected from the past on the response/aftermath of previous nerfs on totally different areas, subjects or ships in the game.

This is a very bad habit you have baltec and will be the undoing of Eve if CCP ever develops such a habit. If your propose T3C nerf ever comes to fruition, it will mark the most dreadful nerf CCP has ever made to Eve in it's history. And the outrage would be far worst than your past data referencing predictions.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#174 - 2016-01-15 15:20:21 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

A t3 nerf would be on par rage wise with the nano nerf or the dram nerf.


The answer you were looking for was "no one". Nobody would fly these useless ships if they were needed in the way you suggest.

Nerfing t3s into the ground would have a far reaching effect throughout eve. It would mostlikey cause people to quit the game all together, especially in wormhole space. The answer is a rebalance/redesign not a nerf because you can only nerd what is OP, which t3s are not.

Same exact arguments as used for the nano and dram nerfs. The ships will still get used in the same way drams, titans and ravens still get used after they were nerfed into line.

Every single nerf that CCP incorporates into Eve is different and every backlash thereafter will also be different. You cannot predict the outcome of the rage that will incur if CCP ever decides to nerf these T3Cs into the ground based on data you collected from the past on the response/aftermath of previous nerfs on totally different areas, subjects or ships in the game.

This is a very bad habit you have baltec and will be the undoing of Eve if CCP ever develops such a habit. If your propose T3C nerf ever comes to fruition, it will mark the most dreadful nerf CCP has ever made to Eve in it's history. And the outrage would be far worst than your past data referencing predictions.


It's 4 ships, compared to the nano nerf it's a tiny change.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#175 - 2016-01-15 15:39:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

A t3 nerf would be on par rage wise with the nano nerf or the dram nerf.


The answer you were looking for was "no one". Nobody would fly these useless ships if they were needed in the way you suggest.

Nerfing t3s into the ground would have a far reaching effect throughout eve. It would mostlikey cause people to quit the game all together, especially in wormhole space. The answer is a rebalance/redesign not a nerf because you can only nerd what is OP, which t3s are not.

Same exact arguments as used for the nano and dram nerfs. The ships will still get used in the same way drams, titans and ravens still get used after they were nerfed into line.

Every single nerf that CCP incorporates into Eve is different and every backlash thereafter will also be different. You cannot predict the outcome of the rage that will incur if CCP ever decides to nerf these T3Cs into the ground based on data you collected from the past on the response/aftermath of previous nerfs on totally different areas, subjects or ships in the game.

This is a very bad habit you have baltec and will be the undoing of Eve if CCP ever develops such a habit. If your propose T3C nerf ever comes to fruition, it will mark the most dreadful nerf CCP has ever made to Eve in it's history. And the outrage would be far worst than your past data referencing predictions.


It's 4 ships, compared to the nano nerf it's a tiny change.

Sure, just 4 ships. It's just that those 4 ships just so happens to be the most popular ships in the history of eve.......
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2016-01-15 16:01:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Daniela Doran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


It's 4 ships, compared to the nano nerf it's a tiny change.

Sure, just 4 ships. It's just that those 4 ships just so happens to be the most popular ships in the history of eve.......

More popular than the Ishtar or the Drake, or the Macharel, or the Catalyst, or the Raven Navy Issue, ect...

Edit: Technically it would be 4096 ships due to how the different combinations change the ship.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#177 - 2016-01-15 17:39:12 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:

Sure, just 4 ships. It's just that those 4 ships just so happens to be the most popular ships in the history of eve.......


Hence the need to nerf them.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#178 - 2016-01-19 20:43:23 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
*Snip* They are not cruisers. They are battle cruisers.

I disagree, they were made during a time when tiers were and were probably thought T3 should be the absolute best because
T2 < T1 so T3 < T2

Just as many ships have had there roles changed and there stats tweaked and adjusted so should T3 Cruisers. And they should be pushed back into the realm of cruisers not arbitrarily pushed into Battlecruisers because.


There are a few reasons why I say they lean on the realm of being a battle cruiser vs a cruiser...

There stats, mainly dps and tank, are all on the higher end of most cruiser configurations...

There line, fits more in with the progression t3d's now that they exist (the jump from destroyer to battle cruiser, going above its predecessor frigates and cruiser.

There is a massive flood of cruiser ships in eve, while battle cruisers are at half the amount of cruisers that exist.

Value. The cost of t3's are more inline with battle cruisers than with cruisers.

Now if the only real fear is that they'll have issues regarding mass because.. Well battle cruisers have more mass than cruisers/t3's. Merely bump up the mass of t3's and add a reduction bonus to the basic main t3 skill book (currently it adds heat reduction, add mass reduction to it. The rest of the stats can be based around the functionality of battle cruisers, and it would also buff up the battle cruiser rank).

There are a lot that can be done with t3's, I just believe part of it can be handled by a mere rebrand.

If you compare their mass WITH subsystems, it's actually about the same as other bc's like the hurricane.