EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2014-01-03 19:12
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-01-04 13:47
  • Number of Posts: 4,025
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Salvos Rhoska

Security Status 5.0

Last 20 Posts

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    But I am saying that nerfing the things are good, because you can see how terribly dependent people are on them.

    And yet that wasnt the case in the threads regarding removing cynos/caps from LS.

    Hmmm!

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:

    This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.


    Again, how does nerfing most of the ships we use in our fleets and in our super hunting help me?


    I answered this already.


    You ignored it.


    I ignored my own answer?

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Seems like it will happen anyways.

    Sell your T3Cs and subsystems while you can.
    Buy Extractors to get rid of useless SP before the price goes through the roof.
    Sorry WH, you got shafted again.
    Sorry nomads, you got wrecked.
    Sorry T3C builders, new price is 40-50mil including subsystems.

    NS entities wins again.
    Just so they dont have to deal with T3Cs.

    GJ EVE.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Snip.


    T3Cs post baltecs nerf will barely be able to run a 4/10 in HS.

    Your anecdotal testimony of running 6/10s in a Mach is hardly relevant.

    If you are so secure, happy and successful running 6/10s in Mach, that is the opposite of a reason to nerf T3Cs to be unable to do so too.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:

    This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.


    Again, how does nerfing most of the ships we use in our fleets and in our super hunting help me?


    I answered this already.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    baltec1:

    Lol at trying to skew this into a Malcanis Law issue by citing how many Titans you can field, how rich you are, and how little SP loss matters.

    I see what you are trying.

    Doubling the SP loss, and increasing build cost is sustainable by PvE pilots.
    Can you say the same for your PvP fleets?

    Aside from that, the tank on some specific T3C builds is the only extraneous issue that needs addressing.
    I, and everyone else, agrees its too high.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Scialt wrote:
    The issue for me isn't fielding T3's in a fleet.


    But it is for baltec1.

    His proposal nerfs T3Cs to the state that he himself said his alliance would no longer field any of them.

    He wants them wiped out of fleet PvP, entirely.

    That is his primary impetus.
    Secondary to that, he doesnt want cloak/null T3Cs interloping their space.
    Third, he wants to wreck the T3C production/resource market.
    Fourth, he wants T3C nomads to instead join NS alliances.
    Fifth, he wants WHs nerfed, as no longer being able to field T3Cs to complete content there, and to reduce WH proceeds linked to T3C and subsystem manufacture.

    This is a bad idea, with too many hedged interests involved, with no benefit to anyone except baltac1s interest.

    Just so they wont field, or have to deal with, T3Cs in fleet combat with all their trillions in isk, titans, and dozens of millions of SP.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:


    Your isk/SP wealth is not an excuse or a premise for balance.


    Again I point to titans to demonstrate that SP and ISK do not stop us from getting them in large numbers.
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:

    You want T3Cs nerfed so hard, and specifically, that you will no longer field them in your PvP fleets.

    That is a contradiction.


    No thats what must happen. We will start using HACs in our HAC fleet again.
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:

    Why shouldnt T3Cs have cause to be fielded in PvP fleets?


    They can be after the nerf, people use T1 hulls in fleets all the time, just not us.
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:

    A 100%+ increase in cost of replacing a T3C is a HUGE nerf.
    Increase cost of T3Cs, and double the SP loss to two subsystems per destruction.


    It nerfs nothing, T3C will still be a better HAC than a HAC.


    1) You point to TITANS?
    Are you joking?
    Have you completely lost the plot?
    Your isk/SP wealth is not material to balance.

    2) Nothing is preventing you from using HACs right now.
    You dont need T3Cs wiped out to the point YOU will no longer field them, inorder to use HACs.

    3) So other people do use T1 cruisers in fleets, but just not you.
    Hmmm.

    4) Doubling the cost of of replacing a ship nerfs nothing?
    Im pretty sure a +100% nerf to cost and SP loss combined will make many think twice about choosing another hull instead.

    5) There is a hypocrisy and self-interested bias, in that you want to nerf T3Cs so hard, that your alliance even wont use them in PvP fleets. Stinks of "we dont want to use them, so neither should you!".

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Baltec1:

    Your isk/SP wealth is not an excuse or a premise for balance.

    You want T3Cs nerfed so hard, and specifically, that you will no longer field them in your PvP fleets.

    That is a contradiction.

    Why shouldnt T3Cs have cause to be fielded in PvP fleets?

    A 100%+ increase in cost of replacing a T3C is a HUGE nerf.
    Increase cost of T3Cs, and double the SP loss to two subsystems per destruction.

    Equal in magnitude to your own proposal, but without the drawbacks of destroying the T3C/subsystem market, nor of makibg non-pvp fleet players and their content obsolete.

    Do you not see that?

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Baltec1:

    Nothing is stopping you from using T3Cs.
    Or from using HACs, or T1, or Navy cruisers.

    Yet you want to nerf T3Cs so hard, that even your own alliance will no longer use them in fleet PvP.
    Why make a ship class so useless in PvP, that even you wont use it in PvP?

    That doesnt make sense.

    Im perfectly happy flying around in Pirate/HACs/BCs for most of my gametime.
    Occasionally, I run some more risk in T3Cs for greater profits in hostile space.

    I have to get in, refit, run the content, and get out.

    The cost differential and the SP loss, already balance the T3C.

    Having said that, since T3Cs seem to be such a problem for you in fleet PvP;
    Im ok with doubling the SP loss, and increasing the build cost.

    Thats a 100+% increase in cost of loss of a T3C, as a factor of price and SP.

    This doubles the cost of replacing a T3C.

    If players in PvP fleet actions have enough isk/SP to deal with that, so be it.
    They will pay double of now.

    Its hard to argue against doubling the cost as not being a significant nerf to PvP T3Cs.
    Twice the cost + build price as compared to now for replacing the same ship.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:


    1) 40-50mil. Jesus...
    That will wreck the T3C market.
    Is that for just the hull, or including subsystems?


    Including. It's a fair price to pay.
    Quote:

    2) There isnt much space between T1s and specialised cruisers.
    Many are asymmetrically aligned with pros/cons for that specialisation.
    Doyldoesnt leave much space for a swiss-army knife.


    There is a 300 power grid difference between the thorax and the demos as well as several differences in bonuses. There is plenty of wiggle room to play with.
    Quote:

    3) What kind of PvE content could a T3C in your proposal comfortably run?
    What DEDs, escalations, WH content?


    Roughly the same as can be done with a navy cruiser.
    Quote:

    4) What about training time into a T3C?

    Not much change needed.
    Quote:

    5) Why should such a gimped cruiser not be able to cloak/null simultaneously?

    Because it makes it impossible to catch.

    1) Is it even possible to reduce the cost of a T3C and subsystems to a 40-50mil cost?
    Wont that utterly wreck the market?
    Why punish manufacturers/material sourcers?
    Who would even buy the POS ships your changes make of T3Cs?
    Would you buy one? For what purpose?

    2) PG is only one aspect of the existing differential between T1 and specialized cruisers.
    There are resist profiles, speeds, sigs, slots, etc that offer far more diversity across all cruiser classes, than the T3C in your proposal.

    3) VNI can run a 5/10 with extreme difficulty (probably several warp outs and drone losses) and looong completion time, forget about it with other navy cruisers. If the T3C in your proposal cant match even that, that relegates them to HS 4/10s which other cruisers can already run even better.

    WH activity would be limited to C2 at most, and even that is a stretch.

    4) Atleast, all T3C skills should be refunded (especially to stop extractor prices going through the roof)
    Only an idiot would skill into a T3C therafter, with no fleet use, and all other cruisers having better tank/dps to compete.
    EVE has never seen a class nerf as severe as the one you propose.
    You want to kill a class, just so you wont use them in fleet PvP.
    Its insane.

    5) After your change, T3Cs are a T1-Navy cruiser that cant even run any content in NS.
    Wtf are you afraid of?
    What are they going to do?
    Attack a miner in NS and gets hotdropped by your ton of potatoes?



    After your change, not even an idiot will run these ships in NS.

    Worse than that, nobody will use them AT ALL.

    Your change will not only kill the class, it will kill all the content it provides as well as the market that supplies it.

    All this, just so YOU WILL NO LONGER FIELD T3Cs IN YOUR NS FLEETS :D



    If the changes you propose go through, I propose that all T3Cs should thereafter be referred to as "Baltecs"
    Ie: Completely useless pieces of space trash that only an idiot would consider valid.
    PvP fleets wont want you.
    You can run HS 4/10s worse than a Pirate cruiser.
    Navy cruisers will kick your teeth in PvP.

    May that be your legacy.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:

    1) What kind of cost would a T3C with subsystems have after your change?


    The 40-50 mil mark sounds about right if it lands between T1 and navy cruisers.
    Quote:

    2) What exactly do you mean by "mid range" cruiser work?


    Middle of the pack. Better than t1 but worse than the specialised cruisers.
    Quote:

    3) To what purposes would these post change T3Cs be adaptable?


    Fit cov ops to get to an area then refit for dedicated brawler. Fit for brawler and refit for dealing with frigates. Fit for exploration then refit for combat. Fit for speed then refit for tank. And so on. Key thing would be the unique ability to refit the rigs without destroying them.


    1) 40-50mil. Jesus...
    That will wreck the T3C market.
    Is that for just the hull, or including subsystems?

    2) There isnt much space between T1s and specialised cruisers.
    Many are asymmetrically aligned with pros/cons for that specialisation.
    Doesnt leave much space for a swiss-army knife.

    3) What kind of PvE content could a T3C in your proposal comfortably run?
    What DEDs, escalations, WH content?

    4) What about training time into a T3C?

    5) Why should such a gimped cruiser not be able to cloak/null simultaneously?

    6) So a post-change T3C, with tank/dps between T1 and specialised cruisers, would have to carry a mobile depot, subsystems AND rigs inorder to be less effective than a specialised cruiser? Is that correct?

  • NPC Hi Sec Blue Community in EVE Communication Center

    Aaron wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Aaron wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
    Keep doing what your doing and screw the lazy haters.


    Shae is trying to fan the flames between you.

    She also has a vested interest in being the first to sabotage your project.


    It's actually you I have my eyes on Salvos. I'm still happy to give you a fair chance.


    Good.
    However, I'm not the one you need to be worried about.


    I have read lots of your posts on many forums Salvos I have noted the content of what you type and how people respond to you. My advice to you if you are to be involved in this is really just keep it cool and relaxed. Take the time to listen carefully and go easy on the people who will be involved. This is not a corp or alliance it is a relaxed venture that can help people.


    Hmm..

    Thanks for the advice, and I will follow it for this project.
    But as I said, Im not the one(s) you need to be worried about.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:

    Not even baltec1s alliance will have use for T3Cs after the nerf he proposes.


    Maybe I'm wrong (correct me if so) - I'm not some big alliance military strategist charged with coming up with fleet doctrines - but I don't see why big alliance fleets would in general want generalist ships (good at lots of things, not the best at any one thing) in their fleet compositions. Seems like they would craft their fleets out of non-generalist ships.


    Which is the paradox here.

    After his own proposed change, he says his alliance wont use any T3Cs in fleet combat.

    So what will they be used for /good for then?

    Very specialist roles apparantly, that require a ship mid way between a T1 Cruiser and a Pirate Cruiser. The best thing about them though will be the ability to carry all your subs around with you + a depot + mods + ammo and cap charges so you can refit it to something equally average that does nothing as good as a easily more trainable, cheaper and better pirate cruiser.

    Just don't get blown up with all that loot in your hold :)


    Fug :DDD

    Sounds EBIN!

    SPRÖLLÖÖÖLÖ SPÄRDEPÄRDE!

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:

    Not even baltec1s alliance will have use for T3Cs after the nerf he proposes.


    Maybe I'm wrong (correct me if so) - I'm not some big alliance military strategist charged with coming up with fleet doctrines - but I don't see why big alliance fleets would in general want generalist ships (good at lots of things, not the best at any one thing) in their fleet compositions. Seems like they would craft their fleets out of non-generalist ships.


    Which is the paradox here.

    After his own proposed change, he says his alliance wont use any T3Cs in fleet combat.

    So what will they be used for /good for then?


    Mid range cruiser work. T1 cruisers are massively popular, slightly better adaptable cruisers will be just as popular.

    We meanwhile will use the specialist cruisers for their intended jobs.


    You and others have suggested that the tank/dps would be somewhere between T1s and Navy issues.

    1) What kind of cost would a T3C with subsystems have after your change?

    2) What exactly do you mean by "mid range" cruiser work?

    3) To what purposes would these post change T3Cs be adaptable?

  • Super Battleships ? in EVE Communication Center

    BCs should be next for more hulls.

    Especially considering there are no faction BCs except Gnosis.

    Also: Maurauders.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:

    Not even baltec1s alliance will have use for T3Cs after the nerf he proposes.


    Maybe I'm wrong (correct me if so) - I'm not some big alliance military strategist charged with coming up with fleet doctrines - but I don't see why big alliance fleets would in general want generalist ships (good at lots of things, not the best at any one thing) in their fleet compositions. Seems like they would craft their fleets out of non-generalist ships.


    Which is the paradox here.

    After his own proposed change, he says his alliance wont use any T3Cs in fleet combat.

    So what will they be used for /good for then?

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    baltec1 wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    baltec1:

    I dont see much use or interest for T3Cs after your proposed changes.

    You yourself said you would not field any of them in your alliances fleets post-change.

    With your proposed removal of cloak/null and drops in bonuses, I doubt they will be able to run deespace PvE content either.

    For pure data/relics, Covops/SoE/Interceptors do it better already.

    Some T3Cs might still have some use as a cloaky hunter, but thats quite a marginal activity.

    From where Im standing, looks like a largely dead class thereafter.

    People arent going to start running HACs and Pirate cruisers past NS gates/bubbles in hostile space to run content there that these ships can only barely handle, if at all.

    In still encourage the specialisation of the 4 T3Cs, rather than a blanket nerf.


    If you require an overpowered ship to do something then you shouldn't be doing that thing.


    But what will they be good for after your proposed change?

    You wont want them in your alliance fleets, and looks to me like they will barely be able to run 5/10s.

    What use do you see for them, post-change, to validate the SP investment?

    PS: This is the LS cyno issue all over again, in parallel.
    JFs, cynos and caps are overpowered for bypassing LS gates, or running LS content, yet they still exist.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    baltec1:

    I dont see much use or interest for T3Cs after your proposed changes.

    You yourself said you would not field any of them in your alliances fleets post-change.

    With your proposed removal of cloak/null and drops in bonuses, I doubt they will be able to run deespace PvE content either.

    For pure data/relics, Covops/SoE/Interceptors do it better already.

    Some T3Cs might still have some use as a cloaky hunter, but thats quite a marginal activity.

    From where Im standing, looks like a largely dead class thereafter.

    People arent going to start running HACs and Pirate cruisers past NS gates/bubbles in hostile space to run content there that these ships can only barely handle, if at all.

    In still encourage the specialisation of the 4 T3Cs, rather than a blanket nerf.

  • Strategic cruiser balance pass in EVE Communication Center

    Link the Loki fit please.

    Also, Medium ACs application....

Forum Signature