Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1413
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:00:00 -
[31] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:But it is better .. at generalisation meaning flexible. It is like a swiss army knife and very useful if there are constraints on how much you can take with you. But you are almost always better off bringing a real pair of scissors if you plan to do some serious tailoring.
But there is no such flexibility. The point of flexibility is to be pragmatic and allow for on-the-fly changes; with the current state of T3s and the way the fitting system works, all refitting comes from a static point - the hangar where the subsystems and modules are kept. The idea of a "swiss army knife" is lovely, but as I've said a couple of times before if you're going to dock up to refit you may as well dock up and get another ship. It's the same price to buy one of every T2 cruiser as to buy a single T3, and a hangar full of ships is about as mobile as a hangar full of subsystems and modules when it comes down to it. The point I want to make is that to make the T3s "swiss army knives" CCP will either have to completely revamp the subsystems system, or accept the fact that T3s have become gunboats. Hell, even the rigging system forces specialisation on T3s that are supposed to be liquid and ever-changing. While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1159
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:01:00 -
[32] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:ElQuirko wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Why does it matter? If you can fly a T3, you can fly a HAC. Eerm no, check the requirements next time you log in? The Proteus requires neither Weapon Upgrades V nor Energy Grid Upgrades V, for example. As for the OP: Tom Gerard may usually be a shiptoasting loon, but this is a topic very dear to me and he has my complete support. The idea of "flexibility" in a ship is ludicrous; for the cost of a T3 you can buy a fleet of every T2 cruiser. Nor does a T2 require the skill investment to reach the same level of performance. The subsystems we swap out with have to remain in a station anyway and we cannot remove rigs. The only feasible role of a T3, therefore, is to be top of the food chain for that cost. They're fine as they are, besides usurping command ships. In a game of role-based combat, having a ship that can fill multiple roles is a huge boon. Right now, T3s are OP. If they brought them back in line to, say, be able to fill two roles at once, and did just as well as some dedicated ships, and then brought their cost a bit more in line, it'd give an advantage to T3, promote customization and varying fits, and prevent it from being over-the-top any longer.
The flexibility of a ship dependent upon refit is absolutely useless when it's in the field. It's not even a cool feature since I'll have to spend a few minutes dik-ing around with modules when I could hop into a T1/2 ship already fit specific for the task.
From the flowchart it appears a T3 is going to tank and shoot like a T1. Frankly, I want my SP back when it's nerfed.
Oh, and with the way CCP screwed with data/relic sites, you can expect the intermediate time range cost of T3's to go up due to severe shortages of materials because it requires a sizable fleet to clear data/relic sites of sleepers with those pilots making about 500mil/hr/pilot in C5/6 territory and then an hour and a half for them to stick around to make 350mil for the entire fleet once they open the cans. Expensive + mediocre = fail. And even when demand drops because T3 is functionally equivalent to flying a couple of specific fit T1's, the income based off sleeper data/relics is going to drop meaning still, noone is going to farm the materials required to produce them. So, T3's will still be overly expensive but post nerf undesirable ships.
Frankly, I'm not flying a +1bil isk ship that doesn't tank and shoot like a +1bil isk ship. HTFU!...for the children! |
baltec1
Bat Country
6880
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:17:00 -
[33] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function.
No it makes perfect sense to lower T3 cruisers so that they are balanced with the other cruisers. |
Lexmana
974
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:19:00 -
[34] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Lexmana wrote:But it is better .. at generalisation meaning flexible. It is like a swiss army knife and very useful if there are constraints on how much you can take with you. But you are almost always better off bringing a real pair of scissors if you plan to do some serious tailoring. But there is no such flexibility. The point of flexibility is to be pragmatic and allow for on-the-fly changes; with the current state of T3s and the way the fitting system works, all refitting comes from a static point - the hangar where the subsystems and modules are kept. The idea of a "swiss army knife" is lovely, but as I've said a couple of times before if you're going to dock up to refit you may as well dock up and get another ship. It's the same price to buy one of every T2 cruiser as to buy a single T3, and a hangar full of ships is about as mobile as a hangar full of subsystems and modules when it comes down to it. The point I want to make is that to make the T3s "swiss army knives" CCP will either have to completely revamp the subsystems system, or accept the fact that T3s have become gunboats. Hell, even the rigging system forces specialisation on T3s that are supposed to be liquid and ever-changing. While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function.
I think you have some good points there. T3 should be about flexibility but certain mechanics puts too much constraints to this. Addressing these constraints seems to be a better way to rebalance T3s than making them outshine every other T2 cruiser and BC .
For example, T3s could gain the ability to re-ship in space (subs and even modules) maybe even be able to remove rigs without them being destryed (or have rigs tied to subs). |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:21:00 -
[35] - Quote
Tech 3s give flexibility, so they aren't meant to be as powerful as a specialised tech 2 ship. I'm not sure why the OP is so surprised as CCP has specifically pointed out this is there intention. For example Tech 3s are going to be able to fit 3 types of warfare link simultaneously instead of the standard 2 on a command ship. I expect more changes in this vein in the next rebalance. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:27:00 -
[36] - Quote
Kaahles wrote:Oh and FYI cost plays a factor in balance. Just look at the Hurricane/Fleet Hurricane.
no it's not. cost only comes into play if you consider the availability of the ship, and that's where cost does count.
increased availability --+ decreased costs. be it a battleship, a T3, a frigate, an interceptor.
IF cost was a factor, then catalysts wouldn't be able to kill exhumers, a handfull of interceptors wouldn't be able to kill a battleship.
[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
iskflakes
497
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:29:00 -
[37] - Quote
You see, having one ship be better than other ships is clearly unbalanced because it would allow one person to make themselves better than another person. This is clearly bad as we should all be completely equal, and the winner should be the side that brings the most numbers.
For this reason the T3s must be nerfed, just like every other ship that makes you better than another player. You can't balance by skillpoints, price or risk you know!
[/CCP] - |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14693
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:30:00 -
[38] - Quote
Yes, T3s are meant to be weaker in any given area than the T2 ships specialising in that area. Ever heard of the term GÇ£jack of all trades, master of noneGÇ¥? That's T3. T2 are their complete opposite and should therefore qualify for that GÇ£masterGÇ¥ status in whatever field they specialise in.
And for those trying to claim that T3 should remain better because of cost, please do a price-check for me: What is the cost of buying a HAC, a Logi, both types of Recon, a HIC, and a Field Command Ship? What is the cost of buying a Strategic Cruiser with the standard assortment of subsystems?
Moreover, could you please calculate the total (assembled and unassembled) hangar space required to move those T2 ships around? How much is needed to move the T3 + subs around?
Grimpak wrote:no it's not. cost only comes into play if you consider the availability of the ship, and that's where cost does count. GǪand even then, cost is not actually a factor, but the product as your causal model illustrates. The factors are supply and demand, and cost just comes out as a function of that. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1413
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:43:00 -
[39] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:ElQuirko wrote:While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function. No it makes perfect sense to lower T3 cruisers so that they are balanced with the other cruisers.
No, it really doesn't. Care to explain your point? Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:01:00 -
[40] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:baltec1 wrote:ElQuirko wrote:While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function. No it makes perfect sense to lower T3 cruisers so that they are balanced with the other cruisers. No, it really doesn't. Care to explain your point?
Because at the heart of it, T3 cruisers are just that: Cruisers. They should be in line with the hulls that share their class. But here's the thing that needs to be addressed with the balance passes to ensure that they actually remain a viable ship:
Tech 3 Cruisers don't necessarily need to be better than Tech 2 ships, but they do need to bring something unique. Something that Tech 2 cruisers can't do. As the chart suggests, that should be filling multiple roles at the same time, while Tech 2 ships would be specialized to fit a single role.
This obviously means changes are going to happen, and they might even be big. But the long and short of it is, Tech 3 needs to be unique among cruisers, or their gameplay is dull and not compelling, and you run into the issue of "why not just bring the Tech 2?". "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
|
Kor'el Izia
63
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:21:00 -
[41] - Quote
You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:21:00 -
[42] - Quote
So maybe T3s will come down in price. 100m isk disposable hulls sounds fun. Oh god. |
iskflakes
499
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:28:00 -
[43] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:So maybe T3s will come down in price. Cheap disposable hulls sounds fun.
You still lose skillpoints when they die - |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1160
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:31:00 -
[44] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:
Tech 3 Cruisers don't necessarily need to be better than Tech 2 ships, but they do need to bring something unique. Something that Tech 2 cruisers can't do. As the chart suggests, that should be filling multiple roles at the same time, while Tech 2 ships would be specialized to fit a single role.
Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. Makes perfect sense. HTFU!...for the children! |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:31:00 -
[45] - Quote
Yeah, they need to get rid of that. It's a stupid mechanic. Oh god. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:33:00 -
[46] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario. Oh god. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1160
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:37:00 -
[47] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario.
It does. But, I hope you can understand the fury that some of us have at this upcoming change when we've invested the time to skill for multiple racial T3's plus the billions we've invested in various fitted ships. HTFU!...for the children! |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
322
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:44:00 -
[48] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario. It does. But, I hope you can understand the fury that some of us have at this upcoming change when we've invested the time to skill for multiple racial T3's plus the billions we've invested in various fitted ships.
Nano Hac's, implant changes, the learning skill revamp, the original drone changes ...
It's not like this kind of massive overhaul of a favorite and arguably OP mechanic hasn't happened before, no matter the personal cost to the individual player. In fact, CCP has kinda made a name for themselves doing it.
As a legion pilot, you can see why I'm not terribly at issue with this change. All the other T3's will probably be balanced with the legion.
But we can rest assured, if they start revamping the t3's, Jita monument will get warmed up again. Protesting seems to be something the EvE playerbase has become good at. If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14694
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:48:00 -
[49] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario. No, it makes not overspending on modules and fitting sensibly the more practical option. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Lexmana
975
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:57:00 -
[50] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario. It does. But, I hope you can understand the fury that some of us have at this upcoming change when we've invested the time to skill for multiple racial T3's plus the billions we've invested in various fitted ships.
Misdirected fury imo. Everybody should welcome the tiercide initiative trying to make all ships viable at least in some role in EVE. When they nerfed the Dramiel and rebalanced all the frigates it put new life into a whole ship class. I expect the same to happen with T2 cruisers when Tengu et al no longer is the answer to most questions in EVE. |
|
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1414
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:58:00 -
[51] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario. No, it makes not overspending on modules and fitting sensibly the more practical option.
Bravo, more insightful and useful commentary from GD's most prevalent snark. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14694
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:01:00 -
[52] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Bravo, more insightful and useful commentary from GD's most prevalent snark. I'm merely pointing out that, no, T 3s do not cost 1bn+ to fit, nor do they cost four times as much as a T2 ship, and that no matter what you fly, bad fits makes the ship bad GÇö it has nothing to do with T2 vs. T3. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
cheese monkey
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
156
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:14:00 -
[53] - Quote
LOL,
I am happy for someone to show me a faction frigate that can kill my AF |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Tribal Band
688
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:21:00 -
[54] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote:http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg This chart seems to have a huge error on it. If you look at it, from a certain perspective it looks like Tech 2 ships will deal more damage than Tech 3 ships, which is ludicrous and is clearly a misrepresentation. If we were to believe (for a moment) this isn't obvious glaring mistake on CCP's part. It would suggest that Tech 3 hulls would share the tank/gank of a Navy Cruiser but with more flexibility. Assuming this farce would be the case, Tech 3 Cruisers would drop from Battleship levels of Gank and Tank down to cruiser level? That seems like too large of a nerf.So my conclusion is that either people are misreading this chart, or CCP made a huge mistake when creating it. The only defense that needs to be made is "lore" millions of years ago the Sleepers made the T3 technology and since then no advances have been made so they should be the best at everything, any nerf however slight to the strategic cruisers would destroy all of EVE's lore forever. I have taken the liberty of correcting the visual error: http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3682/corrected.jpgIf we could just upload this new image before anyone else gets confused and thinks CCP is willing to destroy ALL THE LORE IN EVE, by nerfing strategics. Many Thanks
T3 is fine where it is.
When you put their roles into perspective it makes sense. A T3 can fulfil the following roles depending on the subsystems fitted.
Logistic Recon HAC Command Ship Cov Ops
When you look at that role resume, it makes sense that specialised single role ships will out perform a T3 in the same role.
The T3's strength is in it's versatility, not it's DPS.
|
OldWolf69
IR0N. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:26:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP was ok with t3's as long they did put plex in the right pocket. Balance wise, Fozzy wise, prolly even the fact someone did meet the sleepers is a heresy and complete untrue story. Bah. *** Bring da*uque EvE's awesomeness back. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1414
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:38:00 -
[56] - Quote
Tippia wrote: I'm merely pointing out that, no, T3s do not cost 1bn+ to fit (or, if they do then so do T2s so it makes no difference either way), nor do they cost four times as much as a T2 ship, and that no matter what you fly, bad fits makes the ship bad GÇö it has nothing to do with T2 vs. T3.
The hull and subs on your average T3 is going to set you back around 500-700mil. Granted that's not one bil, but many people like to stick faction mods on 'em to boost that performance past the levels seen in other ship classes. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
1995
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:50:00 -
[57] - Quote
Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.
The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.
In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.
Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas. |
|
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:51:00 -
[58] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:you're still paying 4-5x the cost of the T2 hull. My Zealot costs 232m isk, my Legion costs 467m isk. That's only twice as much. Oh god. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14694
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:52:00 -
[59] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:The hull and subs on your average T3 is going to set you back around 500-700mil. GǪand a HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi and Fleet Command ship is going to set you back just over one billion. If you want to add the 500M worth of vanity fittings that people put onto their T3s, then we'll have to do the same to the T2 cruisers to maintain a reliable point of comparison, at which point they will close in on 1.5GÇô2bn.
That's the number you need to compare against. And we haven't even gotten to the ridiculously short training path and the vastly simplified logistics the much cheaper price of a T3 buys you. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Ager Agemo
Kiith Paktu Curatores Veritatis Alliance
322
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 15:04:00 -
[60] - Quote
Got to agree with Tippia on this one, T3s already offer stuff that is just way too broken powerfull compared to T2 due to that flexibility its just fair their performance drops a bit in exchange for that flexibility.
think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter.
price is NEVER a performance measurement, if it was, marauders would be destroying capital ships like they were frigates and would be impervious to any sub capital ship. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |