Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Louis Robichaud
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 13:48:00 -
[61] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Louis Robichaud wrote:I think a major problem here is how closely t3 performance and the economic value of WH space are tied together. To me it seems a bit silly that a t3 outperforms a HAC by such a large margin... But it is difficult to nerf the t3 without disrupting the economy.
I believe that this situation is unique, and well it is a problem. That would be because generally HACs suck.
HACs sucking is a problem... But is part of the suckage due to T3 being so much better?
Aaaanyway, that is getting away from my main point, which is the linkage between T3 performance and the wormhole economy. It really shouldn't be like that, because of the added complexity it brings to the problem. |
Justin Cody
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
131
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 13:53:00 -
[62] - Quote
The Tech 3 ships are not over powered. They are fairly expensive, costly to lose beyond mere ISK and serve a purpose in wormhole space especially due to their ability to adapt to so many situations. Honestly we only use heavy armor tech 3's in certain situations in Verge. One of which is a defensive fleet (when being invaded or blobbed) and the other is when we invade people as part of a coalition like the recent 'cromwelling' of the remnants of SYJ left in w-space and or vs giant null-sec blobs.
Most of the time we prefer ishtar, scythe fleet issue, cynabal or other ships that help us to engage and disengage quickly. The one thing that few T3's let you do is disengage quickly. They are slow, cumbersome and hardly 'nano'. The 100mn Tengu being the remarkable exception...though it is still cumbersome you don't have to worry about transversal/tracking. |
Phoenix Jones
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
415
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 14:40:00 -
[63] - Quote
Justin Cody wrote:The Tech 3 ships are not over powered. They are fairly expensive, costly to lose beyond mere ISK and serve a purpose in wormhole space especially due to their ability to adapt to so many situations. Honestly we only use heavy armor tech 3's in certain situations in Verge. One of which is a defensive fleet (when being invaded or blobbed) and the other is when we invade people as part of a coalition like the recent 'cromwelling' of the remnants of SYJ left in w-space and or vs giant null-sec blobs.
Most of the time we prefer ishtar, scythe fleet issue, cynabal or other ships that help us to engage and disengage quickly. The one thing that few T3's let you do is disengage quickly. They are slow, cumbersome and hardly 'nano'. The 100mn Tengu being the remarkable exception...though it is still cumbersome you don't have to worry about transversal/tracking.
Inclined to agree. They need an overhaul but not because of the fits, but because of the uselessness of much of the subsystems and the issues of being a "modular ship" but getting stuck with not being able to change the rigs on these "modular ships".
There are others issues, but I see those as probably the most pressing. Stabbers are totally broken
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15116553
|
Jackal Willow
Nomadic Whores
7
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 14:41:00 -
[64] - Quote
Bane Nucleus wrote:After reading the article, I do have a concern. You say they need to have more versatility. I would argue that would make it even worse for the wh meta. It would essentially make MORE ships obsolete. Using the example you've provided, having a T3 with a bubble would make sure that no one ever flies a HIC again. It would be like Jamgus over Falcons, but worse. Personally, I think if we start making T3s the jack of all trades type ship (bubbles, logi, etc), it should require a far greater sp investment
I would have to agree with Bane on this one. You can't make the T3 the jack-of-all-trades since it would render all specialized T2 ships useless (referencing the HIC bubble portion). Leave specialties to the T2 ships that provide them. The T3 should be versatile, but not to the extend of taking away from everything else in the game. Might as well add a module for PI and ore cargo capacity, and add a module to allow for covert jump portal generation. My Panther already seems useless enough already.
Additionally I would much rather see the rigs removed than some sort of "rig inventory" where you can swap them out.
I would just vote that the modules get balanced so that all of them are actually useful in one way or another. I know I only use 2-3 combinations. Most of the players in EVE typically only swap out the offensive and propulsion anyways. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
214
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 17:19:00 -
[65] - Quote
I don't think T3 need to much of a nerf at all.
Some of my thoughts
Nerfing T3's will have some effect on wormhole income especially C1 to C4.
Any comparison of performance should be with similar modules, comparing a T2 fit Demios to a 5B prot is just stupid. As Arkon Olacar said, some people just haven't a clue what T3 can do.
Arkon Olacar wrote: Although in fairness 97% of Eve do think you get 400k EHP 800 DPS cloaky nullified pwnmachines using T3s, so
T2 recons with the exception of Caldari get two types of ewar, T3 only get one and in the case of a Tengu you need 2 subsystems to get range and strength on ewar.
T3 logi while it can rep more is literally never used (possible exception being alliance tournament and black ops) due to its range.
T3 do seem to do alot better than T2 Hacs.
In all cases the T3 has more tank, costs alot more (normally double) and comes with a skill point loss if you die.
I really don't want to see the tank nerfed to much at all, as this allows smaller groups with cap support to fight off larger groups with less caps. Triage reps are fast but you still need some buffer to get them to land in time. Maybe the dps lowered a small amount to lower the gap between T2 hac's and T3.
What I would really like to see is subsystems that are never used be changed in some way to be more useful. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Karen Galeo
Sin Factory Infinite Anarchy
11
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 17:33:00 -
[66] - Quote
I've been following the thread too, and a lot of good points have come up. I've got a few subsystems in my hangar that just collect dust, and that's a problem. I do not have a problem with T3's being the best ships for wormholes - it's where they come from, after all, and some ship has to be at the top. I also don't have problems with T3's having optimal/best fits - again, something has to be at the top. However, there shouldn't be 'newbie trap' useless subsystems. Even if the rebalanced subsystems are still short of being perfectly optimal, they should be justifiably useful.
I don't think that ships should be balanced purely on cost - but I do think T3's should keep an edge over T2 HACs. Author of the Karen 162 blog. Karen Galeo is running for CSM9! |
Incindir Mauser
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
411
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 17:57:00 -
[67] - Quote
A consistent and persistent problem that surrounds T3 ships is the fact that several subsystems have little to no use.
Do they need a nerf? No.
T3's should be able to perform on par with specialised T2 cruiser hulls. The idea should be that the subsystems can be configured to fill those roles on the fly. Now that we can actually change subsystems at a PoS, it makes sense to adjust T3's to live up to those standards.
Right now W-space meta dictates armor tanked brawlers that are only further enhanced by pirate implants leading to a great disparity between armor tanking and shield tanking. The "useless" T3 subystems need to be brought up into line with the "useful" ones. Every subsystem should have a viable PvP and PvE application. Rigs should be utterly removed from T3's and bonuses "baked in" to the hulls and subsystems. Rigs totally break the utility of swapping subsystems currently.
I would like to paraphrase Two step, "Don't throw the Legion out with the Tengu bathwater".
On a side note: W-space needs another "product" to market to the rest of New Eden besides T3's and T3 subs. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
330
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 18:14:00 -
[68] - Quote
IMHO strength of T3s should be their ability mix roles - you can cloak AND do dps, you can tackle AND scan, you can do ewar AND tank, etc. But in each of these roles, they should be inferior to their specialized T2 counterpart. So for example they dont jam as good as T2 cruiser, but they can also take some damage, etc.
This "hybrid" function should be expanded. Bubbling was mentioned - I can imagine T3 bubble-cloaky - but for example with a significantly smaller bubble range than T2 HIC and less HP too (but still usable, not like the current logi subs).
The problem is currently their pure dps/tank form, which is in all ways superior to everything else. Id happily trade some of their tank for multiple hybridized roles they could fill. W-Space Realtor |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
554
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 20:23:00 -
[69] - Quote
Louis Robichaud wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Louis Robichaud wrote:I think a major problem here is how closely t3 performance and the economic value of WH space are tied together. To me it seems a bit silly that a t3 outperforms a HAC by such a large margin... But it is difficult to nerf the t3 without disrupting the economy.
I believe that this situation is unique, and well it is a problem. That would be because generally HACs suck. HACs sucking is a problem... But is part of the suckage due to T3 being so much better? I wouldn't use a Muninn or a Loki pretending to be a Muninn. Tornados are better snipers than both of those.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1019
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 00:42:00 -
[70] - Quote
I have removed an accidental double post and edited out some unnecessary profanity.
ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Awakened.
1444
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 00:53:00 -
[71] - Quote
I've been thinking about, the opinion, that HACs should have a better buffer tank than a T3 and i asked myself : What if the active rep subsystems were buffed some much, that an active rep T3 became the standard/meta?
The buffer Tech 3 ships, that most of us currently fly, would see their ehp reduced from around 120k to around 60k ehp in line with HACs. The HAC would become the best in its role due to the microwarp drive sig bonus.
However, active tanked Tech three ships could be buffed to have the self reping power (without needing any capacitor mods) equivalent to two Guardians.
The way i think about it, the only way you can break the tank of a buffer ship is with damage but active tanked ships need their cap and their tank to survive.
I think fleet doctrines, ship choice and the actual fights could become so much more interesting and diverse if things where like this. +1 |
Proclus Diadochu
Obstergo Red Coat Conspiracy
1268
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 02:02:00 -
[72] - Quote
Jackal Willow wrote: I would just vote that the modules get balanced so that all of them are actually useful in one way or another. I know I only use 2-3 combinations. Most of the players in EVE typically only swap out the offensive and propulsion anyways.
Alright, so you guys are making an interesting point. You'd like the specialized ships to remain special and that is agreeable, however the idea I was proposing was more inline with wormhole life in general, and based around the design of our communities building our variants based around the materials from our space. Hopefully that is clearer than mud :P
With that, it is not the "absolute" idea for T3 rebalancing, and there is certainly other ideas that I feel work. The question I may ask to you would be: "What type of subs/bonuses/configurations/changes would you like to see if I were asked about changing the useless subsystems?"
Axloth Okiah wrote:IMHO strength of T3s should be their ability mix roles - you can cloak AND do dps, you can tackle AND scan, you can do ewar AND tank, etc. But in each of these roles, they should be inferior to their specialized T2 counterpart. So for example they dont jam as good as T2 cruiser, but they can also take some damage, etc.
This "hybrid" function should be expanded. Bubbling was mentioned - I can imagine T3 bubble-cloaky - but for example with a significantly smaller bubble range than T2 HIC and less HP too (but still usable, not like the current logi subs).
The problem is currently their pure dps/tank form, which is in all ways superior to everything else. Id happily trade some of their tank for multiple hybridized roles they could fill.
I really like this idea personally. Expect to see this come up in "Part 2" along with other greatness from this thread, Reddit, and No-Local's comments.
"These are simply ideas, but versatility should be the strength, not making every form of T3 better than a T2. Another bonus would be that the tank for the T3 could be better than the T2, however as I said during my interviews, I due think that the overall tank of T3GǦs are on the high side and could be addressed, perhaps even lowered somewhat." - From the Article
corbexx wrote:I really don't want to see the tank nerfed too much at all, as this allows smaller groups with cap support to fight off larger groups with less caps. Triage reps are fast but you still need some buffer to get them to land in time. Maybe the dps lowered a small amount to lower the gap between T2 hac's and T3.
What I would really like to see is subsystems that are never used be changed in some way to be more useful.
Seems like we are fairly in the same direction on this topic. CSM9 Candidate | Twitter: @autoritare | Gmail: [email protected] Campaign Thread: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=325889 My Blog: http://casualcapsuleer.wordpress.com | No-Local News Writer/Editor |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Awakened.
1446
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:58:00 -
[73] - Quote
Only 2 likes for my previous post guys?
I honestly thought i had cracked the case with this one! Am i missing something? Would an active tank T3 meta be bad for some reason? +1 |
Winthorp
1371
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 10:01:00 -
[74] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Only 2 likes for my previous post guys? I honestly thought i had cracked the case with this one! Am i missing something? Would an active tank T3 meta be bad for some reason?
I honestly liked that active reps could become a thing but unsure how that would work if you made them the equal to two Guardians? And would they only become a thing due to the nerf of buffer? (Insert witty signature here) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Awakened.
1446
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:22:00 -
[75] - Quote
The rep power could be equivalent to more or less than two guardians really. Two would just be the minimum requirement for this to work IMO. The addition of warfare links could boost the rep power to 3 or 4 and some system effects and drugs boost these setups even further.
So the active rep setups would become popular partly due the this massive buff to the active subsystem, and partly due to the high hitpoint subsystem nerf. A combination of buffer HACs and T3s would still be used for the big fleet fights but for the day to day skirmished, active tanks would rule. +1 |
Winthorp
1372
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:30:00 -
[76] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:The rep power could be equivalent to more or less than two guardians really. Two would just be the minimum requirement for this to work IMO. The addition of warfare links could boost the rep power to 3 or 4 and some system effects and drugs boost these setups even further.
So the active rep setups would become popular partly due the this massive buff to the active subsystem, and partly due to the high hitpoint subsystem nerf. A combination of buffer HACs and T3s would still be used for the big fleet fights but for the day to day skirmished, active tanks would rule.
The rep amount just sounds excessive to me and only goes to ensure the T3 blob meta continues.
(Not that i think the T3 meta is an issue at all) (Insert witty signature here) |
BayneNothos
United Electro-Magnetic Federation Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
43
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:32:00 -
[77] - Quote
As someone who runs active armour reps quite a lot and has ran an Active Prot the whole one time, yah it'd be cool to see them more. I've dropped mine in once and it completely threw off the legion loki and prot I was fighting. No one died out of it as I had to bail as I ran out of boosters.
The thing with all active reps, regardless of how they are created is that they're binary, they work all the time till they don't and then you die. There's no grey area where you're burning buffer while hoping for your logi to land reps on you. You're perfectly fine and completely safe then the dps tips just a bit too much and you fold into yourself. As such they're a bit limited in larger fleet engagements due to the higher dps that's around from having more people.
The prot is also a bit harder to make work compared to the new OMGFUN-mobile that is the Deimos. Due to the six gun config on the prot you burn cap quite a bit more and as such can't hold up for long periods under a single cap booster and that's before battlefield shenanigans like MWD'ing, overheating and neuts. Dual cap booster, it sits quite a lot nicer but that means dropping part of the holy trinity, web/scram/mwd which the prot REALLY needs all of to do it's thing. Having said that, it does to a ton more damage, can OH for longer, can rep harder and in general freaks people out as who the f**k local reps a prot... |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Awakened.
1446
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:36:00 -
[78] - Quote
I don't think it's excessive when you consider that most t3 fleets roam with a minimum of 3 guardians. The big difference is that a self reping t3 is way more susceptible to neuts than a guardian and alpha strike would play a bigger role. +1 |
Winthorp
1372
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:44:00 -
[79] - Quote
Yes most roam with 3 guardians when they have around 7-10 other T3's and when a fleet of close to 20 random T3's the magic numbers we seem to face of late is 10... yes 10.
So how is in not OP if you then have those 10 guardians replaced with other T3's (So now at 30) that can all rep like 2 guardians EACH?
I must be bad at math or am missing something to how that would at all be balanced. (Insert witty signature here) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Awakened.
1446
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:55:00 -
[80] - Quote
I'm not too sure what you are saying. If you chose to leave the guardians at home, you would have the self repping ability of 2 guardians. If you chose to add guardians on top of your local reps, yeah your fleet would have great rep potential but you would have to deal with the disadvantages i listed in my last post. Local rep T3 only have around 20-30k ehp if i remember correctly. +1 |
|
BayneNothos
United Electro-Magnetic Federation Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
43
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 12:00:00 -
[81] - Quote
For some vague numbers for you two to fight over, my dual rep prot is about the same as a single triple rep guardian in raw hp/s repped. around the 230hp/s mark give or take random things. That's around a 900 dps tank as is. Doubling that would put the Prot up there above all the other local armour reppers bar the Kronos in Bastion.
|
Jackal Willow
Nomadic Whores
7
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:37:00 -
[82] - Quote
Proclus Diadochu wrote:Jackal Willow wrote: I would just vote that the modules get balanced so that all of them are actually useful in one way or another. I know I only use 2-3 combinations. Most of the players in EVE typically only swap out the offensive and propulsion anyways. Alright, so you guys are making an interesting point. You'd like the specialized ships to remain special and that is agreeable, however the idea I was proposing was more inline with wormhole life in general, and based around the design of our communities building our variants based around the materials from our space. Hopefully that is clearer than mud :P With that, it is not the "absolute" idea for T3 rebalancing, and there is certainly other ideas that I feel work. The question I may ask to you would be: "What type of subs/bonuses/configurations/changes would you like to see if I were asked about changing the useless subsystems?" ......other stuff I didn't want to comment on.
Personally, and this could be ridiculous, but I would see that rigs could be removed if specific additions to individual subsystems were added to compensate the different setup. I can't elaborate in specific numbers or details since I'm at work right now (always reading the forums at work). As in some subsystems go more towards armor, some to shield, some to other "rig" comparable bonuses, depending on what you setup for determines your tank.
Having 3 (not set in stone) specific roles, or specializations, per T3 platform would give the overall customization that you talked about in your article Proclus. I think it could work as long as the T3 variants didn't out perform (even at half effectiveness) the T2 specialized ships in regards to their single abilities. And more details would have to be worked out per module/race of T3's to ensure that a "super" T3 doesn't come out on top of all the others (since that wouldn't help anything in regards to versatility overall).
I am not particularly an expert at theory crafting the specific roles each T3 would be capable on, but I would love to hear others' ideas on some combinations that could be possible. But this could also lead into players coming up with some overpowering combinations, and that's not what we all need either. Everything needs to have a counter in EVE, it's the PVP way. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
244
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:45:00 -
[83] - Quote
I think removing rigs and redoing the subsystems well help T3s. Comparing them to HACs which need their own separate rebalance (obviously my opinion) is a little unfair.
Would be nice if HACs either tanked like a brick or had incredible short range damage application to give them a reason to be used over a T3. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Awakened.
1446
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 14:44:00 -
[84] - Quote
BayneNothos wrote:For some vague numbers for you two to fight over, my dual rep prot is about the same as a single triple rep guardian in raw hp/s repped. around the 230hp/s mark give or take random things. That's around a 900 dps tank as is. Doubling that would put the Prot up there above all the other local armour reppers bar the Kronos in Bastion.
Yeah, about the rep ability of a kronos would be what it needs to be to survive a half decent gang. +1 |
BayneNothos
United Electro-Magnetic Federation Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
44
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:29:00 -
[85] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Yeah, about the rep ability of a kronos would be what it needs to be to survive a half decent gang.
If you're planning on going to to toe with a full T3 gang, yah for sure, though tbh I don't think that's the way to solve things. Active will always loose to numbers, it's just a matter of where that line is. A corpmate was playing around in Pyfa for a PvP kronos fit a while ago and I was pointing out to him that if he ever fought a gang that could put down as much dps as his fit could theoretically tank, they'd actually power through his buffer and hull before the local reps cycle. Such is life for the active tanker.
Active's main issue, to me at any rate isn't one of the sub bonus, it's more of W Space in general and how fights tend to form primarily on WH's and thus straight off within scram range. Going up against bigger numbers or running active vs RR groups requires a lot more movement around to break gangs apart and pick off weaker elements and when you more or less start at knife fight ranges and scram webbed, you loose that important tool. You don't get a chance to break apart the gang through better flying.
If you're willing to experiment, one of the newish K space meta's is to run a plate fit with an AAR kinda just attached on, no rigs for it or anything. The raw AAR pulls in more EHP over it's charged cycles than an extra plate would and lets you rep up afterwards. Doing the same out here should be pretty badass and should allow you to go up against bigger logi supported gangs when you have your own logi support.
A change to really break apart the meta would be a prop sub that ignores a scram's ability to shut off a MWD. Give people a chance to power a kiter out of the knife fight. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire
546
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:32:00 -
[86] - Quote
To the active tanked debate: Local rep doesn't scale, and it breaks when touching the - in wormholes - very popular neutlegions/ashimmus/bhaalgorns. The basic advantage of remote repping is the ability to fit more gank, more ewar, more tackle, usually also a better dps/resists ratio. The big issue afterall being that local rep doesn't scale. From my experience, examples:
100mn tengu, barely actual tank, but works as T3s are goddamn slow and the little sustained rep does things. When solo, you need over 3 minutes though to even get through a moving loki, and It once took me so long to work down a proteus (my tengufit got about 710dps using rage for orientation) that that guy could log in alts in geddons, RR-prots and phoons. Also, moves at up to 2.4km/s cold and tanks 300/450dps depending on wether dualweb or /w invuln.
2rep/3rep-hyperion, barely moving, extremely vulnerable to blobbing. Yet again my experiences mostly boil down to flying a linked hype against usual minigangs, like 2 guards, ecmgu + bunch of T3s and damnations, or against 10ish neuting droneboats. Needless to say both simply don't work out as your time on field is severely limited, while theirs is not. Even assuming I would've had backup, it wouldn't have changed a bit, as the remotetanks for the hostile gang just been way to big to overcome anywhere soon. Also, tanks 2.8k burst with LAR+LAAR or 3.9 with 2LAR+LAAR with standard exile. Cap Boosters are a hard limit though.
Triplerep-Eos, doesn't move, provides links and 500dps to your gang. Is a very fine ship with a (atleast mine are around) ~3.5k dps tank. Miss a repcycle cause one of your CBs just goes into reload and you're dead, to one volley of each 2x legion, 2x proteus, 2x drake and a navy phoon. Tanks 3.6k burst with MAAR+2MAR and standard exile.
Double-XL-ASB-sleip, had great success with that one, but again mostly cause people don't know what to do. Smart people logged in alts with falcons and just jammed the **** out of me to not die, else the acceptable velocity and absurd dps-output make it *viable*, not only because you do not lose SP - unlike a ASB-Tengu for example. And don't try to go into a wh-brawl with actual shieldboosters, ASB is pretty much the only working thing here <.< Booster reps for ~7k ehp each cycle (ghettocrystals + standard blue pill), or around 1.5k sustained on each. Could be wrong though, I fly the same sleipfit for over a year and only added a third gyro with the last rebalance. EFT'ing this one I can barely recall anymore.
And so on. In any case, your paltry selfrep just isn't going to last in a wormholebrawl, no chance this concept will ever work with current mechanics. On the other hand, you simply can't change it so it works within those limits without totally screwing solo/smallgang. Even now, T3s go beyond 2k-tanks very easily, their active tanks are actually the strongest in the game bested only by marauders and sometimes claymores, there is no room to enhance that even further.
Yet alone suggesting local repped brawlers in wormholes is a terribly uninformed joke. It works when you're better than the opposition by a significant margin, or if they are braindead (though apparently a lot of zombies around). Else they'll melt you like butter in a pan which happens when you meet decent groups like navy lobsters, desert pirates or protean concept.
Please don't compare HACs to T3s and start using CS for that instead. Know why? Buffer, effective turrets, mobility, capacitor capacity, the Warfare Processor, it all just cries *Command Ship* to me atleast. But don't know. Maybe people believe that a loki is rather similiar to a vagabond then a sleipnir, even though loki+sleip got same tank, mobility differing by some 15%, near identical hardpoints etc., whereas the loki vs. vaga is more like a 40% difference in mobility, 30% dps-advantage for the loki, and two times the buffertank - if not more <.< "I honestly thought I was in lowsec"
Moving pictures |
BayneNothos
United Electro-Magnetic Federation Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
44
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 17:03:00 -
[87] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:To the active tanked debate: Stuff
A lot to like in this. It's one of the reason I love living in the lower WH's. Fights tend to not escalate past the point where well flown active reps aren't viable anymore, excluding domi swarms...
Another 50 to 75m3 cargospace on the active subs would probably put them at perfect so they can stuff a couple more cap charges into the hold and thus survive out just that little bit longer to get the kills.
Space high five to a fellow Hyp pilot. That ship is soo much fun.
And T3's are certainly baby CS/BS, not big boy HAC's. |
Borlag Crendraven
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
470
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 17:44:00 -
[88] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Winthorp wrote: The rep amount just sounds excessive to me and only goes to ensure the T3 blob meta continues.
(Not that i think the T3 meta is an issue at all)
I don't think it's excessive when you consider that most t3 fleets roam with a minimum of 3 guardians. The big difference is that a self reping t3 is way more susceptible to neuts than a guardian and alpha strike would play a bigger role.
I don't even see a problem here. People are more than fine with countering dreads by taking out their support in the form of webs, why are people opposed to countering buffer t3's by taking their support which is the logi? None of these three are boats that work on their own in fleet fights, and for each of them there's perfectly viable tactics ranging from sheer dps to ecm to neuts to damps and so on and so on.
The logi picks up range to avoid close range dps and still repair their boats from that distance? Kill their targeting, targeting range or volley them off with the dreads or a combination of all three. The dps gets up close and personal with your logi, break their chain and melt them with your own dps. Their dreads blap your subcaps one by one, kill their webbers or break their locks.... Literally every single tactic has a counter, all you have to do is be aware of what the opponent is doing and react to it. You brought just the logi and dps brawlers without any neuts or ewar? Enjoy the loss, for it's your own damn fault at that point.
Only thing wrong is the useless subs. Outside that the only thing worth considering about changing is the rig issue. Anything else and you'd kill the t3's by making them useless. If they're not any better than ship x, then people will use that ship. Versatile or not, makes no difference. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Awakened.
1446
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 19:36:00 -
[89] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote: In any case, your paltry selfrep just isn't going to last in a wormholebrawl, no chance this concept will ever work with current mechanics. On the other hand, you simply can't change it so it works within those limits without totally screwing solo/smallgang. Even now, T3s go beyond 2k-tanks very easily, their active tanks are actually the strongest in the game bested only by marauders and sometimes claymores, there is no room to enhance that even further.
Yet alone suggesting local repped brawlers in wormholes is a terribly uninformed joke. It works when you're better than the opposition by a significant margin, or if they are braindead (though apparently a lot of zombies around). Else they'll melt you like butter in a pan which happens when you meet decent groups like navy lobsters, desert pirates or protean concept.
The thing is, if you run in to a gang that has enough dps to break the tank of a self repper, that same gang would kill a buffer tanked ships (without logi) just as fast. If you know you are going into a big fight you could just switch to buffer and bring all the logi you need.
Anyway like i said at the start, i think T3s are fine the way they are for the most part but if CCP nerf their thank down to that of a HAC, a change to active reps is the only thing i can think of to make T3 ships still viable. +1 |
Bane Nucleus
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
1249
|
Posted - 2014.03.23 12:20:00 -
[90] - Quote
I don't think they can make active tanking viable for large scale encounters without completely screwing the pooch on smaller gang fights. And as someone who loves to local tank, it saddens me No trolling please |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |