Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
670
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:02:00 -
[151] - Quote
supernova ranger wrote:Onictus wrote:supernova ranger wrote:Not a fan of T3's because though they can not beat their T2 counterparts directly in their fields, they can beat them indirectly. This is because, between subsystems bonuses and the stats of the ship along with a greater variety of ways to fly them in head to head combat that they have enough bonuses to make up for it.
For example Legion vs HAC - favor hac 2x legion vs 2x HAC - favor legion 5x HAC vs 5x legion + guardians for both - favor legion
Granted this just looks at the legion and the isk-risk ratios are way skewed but the HAC should be outperforming the legion here regardless as is its role Which is exactly what we said during the HAC rebalance the issue isn't the T3s, its the HACs. Not really, legions can spider tank and that lets them compete with the HACS. Coupled with cloaking, command bonuses, interdiction nullification... Giving HACs the same bonuses so they can compete would be a disaster. Thinking of HACs ignoring bubbles just seems way way OP for one.
The HACs shouldn't match the T3s in versatility, there were already two hulls per race, there should have been a skirmisher, fast big damage and a fleet version slow big ass tank for each.
Instead we got an MWD bonus and sensor and cap boosts, so while they were buffed across the board it didn't go far enough |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1009
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:07:00 -
[152] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I have already pointed out that the only way to kill this ship in a 1:1 is with a neut ship. To anything else, it's essentially immune to the other ship's presence. And here we find the failing in the OP's logic. Nothing in EVE is, or should be, balanced around 1 vs 1 "honourable" combat. EVE is balanced around my group fighting your group.
That's not what I wrote/meant. I'll break down the intent of my OP into small bite sized easy to understand mini-sentences.
T3's are going to be nerfed (Fozzie has stated as much) Individual subsystems are not balanced against other alternate subsystems. They should be versatile generalists. Specialist ships (aka Tech 2) should outperform them.
pretty much sums up my original intent, apologies if it wasn't particularly clear in the first instance
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
389
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:10:00 -
[153] - Quote
Onictus wrote:supernova ranger wrote:Onictus wrote:supernova ranger wrote:Not a fan of T3's because though they can not beat their T2 counterparts directly in their fields, they can beat them indirectly. This is because, between subsystems bonuses and the stats of the ship along with a greater variety of ways to fly them in head to head combat that they have enough bonuses to make up for it.
For example Legion vs HAC - favor hac 2x legion vs 2x HAC - favor legion 5x HAC vs 5x legion + guardians for both - favor legion
Granted this just looks at the legion and the isk-risk ratios are way skewed but the HAC should be outperforming the legion here regardless as is its role Which is exactly what we said during the HAC rebalance the issue isn't the T3s, its the HACs. Not really, legions can spider tank and that lets them compete with the HACS. Coupled with cloaking, command bonuses, interdiction nullification... Giving HACs the same bonuses so they can compete would be a disaster. Thinking of HACs ignoring bubbles just seems way way OP for one. The HACs shouldn't match the T3s in versatility, there were already two hulls per race, there should have been a skirmisher, fast big damage and a fleet version slow big ass tank for each. Instead we got an MWD bonus and sensor and cap boosts, so while they were buffed across the board it didn't go far enough
Most HACs already outperform battleships in a straight fight and are therefore not underpowered.
I agree that T3s should be able to compete successfully with HACs on tha battlefield, but it should be through versatility brought about by their multi-role bonuses rather than raw firepower and strength.
To use an old D&D analogy, your HACs are your dwarven fighters while your T3s are the difficult-to-master-but-oh-so-powerful elven fighter/magic-user/clerics.
... am I showing my age?
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
670
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:14:00 -
[154] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote:supernova ranger wrote:Onictus wrote:supernova ranger wrote:Not a fan of T3's because though they can not beat their T2 counterparts directly in their fields, they can beat them indirectly. This is because, between subsystems bonuses and the stats of the ship along with a greater variety of ways to fly them in head to head combat that they have enough bonuses to make up for it.
For example Legion vs HAC - favor hac 2x legion vs 2x HAC - favor legion 5x HAC vs 5x legion + guardians for both - favor legion
Granted this just looks at the legion and the isk-risk ratios are way skewed but the HAC should be outperforming the legion here regardless as is its role Which is exactly what we said during the HAC rebalance the issue isn't the T3s, its the HACs. Not really, legions can spider tank and that lets them compete with the HACS. Coupled with cloaking, command bonuses, interdiction nullification... Giving HACs the same bonuses so they can compete would be a disaster. Thinking of HACs ignoring bubbles just seems way way OP for one. The HACs shouldn't match the T3s in versatility, there were already two hulls per race, there should have been a skirmisher, fast big damage and a fleet version slow big ass tank for each. Instead we got an MWD bonus and sensor and cap boosts, so while they were buffed across the board it didn't go far enough Most HACs already outperform battleships in a straight fight and are therefore not underpowered. I agree that T3s should be able to compete successfully with HACs on tha battlefield, but it should be through versatility brought about by their multi-role bonuses rather than raw firepower and strength. To use an old D&D analogy, your HACs are your dwarven fighters while your T3s are the difficult-to-master-but-oh-so-powerful elven fighter/magic-user/clerics. ... am I showing my age?
No I played D&D as well.
...as it stands HACs "might" beat a battleships in an even fight. Fleet for fleet though they have counters, that is fine. That can go either way depending on comps. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
389
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:20:00 -
[155] - Quote
Onictus wrote:No I played D&D as well.
The daddy of them all...
Onictus wrote: ...as it stands HACs "might" beat a battleships in an even fight. Fleet for fleet though they have counters, that is fine. That can go either way depending on comps.
I thought this too until I started flying a dual prop, dual rep ishtar (no damage mods) with 3 small neutrons and a nosferatu.
1v1 it kills every battleship except a vindicator. (it actually also breaks the HAC/T3 mould by being able to kill a proteus)
1v2 it kills most (dual cruise ravens will kill it).
The most dangerous ships for it are actually the navy battlecruisers (except the rubbish navy drake).
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
670
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:28:00 -
[156] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote:No I played D&D as well.
The daddy of them all... Onictus wrote: ...as it stands HACs "might" beat a battleships in an even fight. Fleet for fleet though they have counters, that is fine. That can go either way depending on comps.
I thought this too until I started flying a dual prop, dual rep ishtar (no damage mods) with 3 small neutrons and a nosferatu. 1v1 it kills every battleship except a vindicator. (it actually also breaks the HAC/T3 mould by being able to kill a proteus) 1v2 it kills most (dual cruise ravens will kill it). The most dangerous ships for it are actually the navy battlecruisers (except the rubbish navy drake).
Not what I worry about, honestly. You are going to be hard pressed to catch me alone in a battleship, and if you do you likely have me, because battleships are **** alone.
Now put a 10-15 man BS gangs against HAC gangs and you have a different story, specially with active reppers....the HACs go away or get smashed. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
389
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:32:00 -
[157] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote:No I played D&D as well.
The daddy of them all... Onictus wrote: ...as it stands HACs "might" beat a battleships in an even fight. Fleet for fleet though they have counters, that is fine. That can go either way depending on comps.
I thought this too until I started flying a dual prop, dual rep ishtar (no damage mods) with 3 small neutrons and a nosferatu. 1v1 it kills every battleship except a vindicator. (it actually also breaks the HAC/T3 mould by being able to kill a proteus) 1v2 it kills most (dual cruise ravens will kill it). The most dangerous ships for it are actually the navy battlecruisers (except the rubbish navy drake). Not what I worry about, honestly. You are going to be hard pressed to catch me alone in a battleship, and if you do you likely have me, because battleships are **** alone. Now put a 10-15 man BS gangs against HAC gangs and you have a different story, specially with active reppers....the HACs go away or get smashed.
Yup, that's fair. And of course it's telling that the equivalent T3 gang does not have to go away. And here is pretty much the nub of the T3 problem.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:51:00 -
[158] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:Without rigs a proteus does 600dps with T1 ammo and runs 101k tank. Rigs are just nice things to have on T3s, they aren't where the force is coming from. So what's the solution for the bricks then? It is ONLY rigs. that proteus is still strong but no where nearly a monster as a proteus with rigs. It will die to a well used and well fit battleship if it simply uses it old tactic of sit and fire everything without bothering about the incomming damage.! And that is a HUGE improvment It also promotes a ship that wil b exchanged into other cofnigurations much more often It has more to do with the insane amounts of starting HP the subsystems have. Proteus Augmented Plating : 3650 Armor HP Most Gallente T2 ships have about 2000 HP With all skills at level 5 the Augmented Plating subsystem gives the Proteus 7031.2 HP with no rigs. if you reduce the base HP to 2100 like normal advanced cruisers, it will reduce the Brick aspect of them. Using 3 T2 armor pump rigs and all skills at level 5 with 2100 HP, the armor HP ends up being 6804. The rigs are not the problem, it is how the subsystems were initially designed.
This is a good post. Much better than empty complaints about things being OP. I would support some change to this subsystem. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
670
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 17:53:00 -
[159] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote:No I played D&D as well.
The daddy of them all... Onictus wrote: ...as it stands HACs "might" beat a battleships in an even fight. Fleet for fleet though they have counters, that is fine. That can go either way depending on comps.
I thought this too until I started flying a dual prop, dual rep ishtar (no damage mods) with 3 small neutrons and a nosferatu. 1v1 it kills every battleship except a vindicator. (it actually also breaks the HAC/T3 mould by being able to kill a proteus) 1v2 it kills most (dual cruise ravens will kill it). The most dangerous ships for it are actually the navy battlecruisers (except the rubbish navy drake). Not what I worry about, honestly. You are going to be hard pressed to catch me alone in a battleship, and if you do you likely have me, because battleships are **** alone. Now put a 10-15 man BS gangs against HAC gangs and you have a different story, specially with active reppers....the HACs go away or get smashed. Yup, that's fair. And of course it's telling that the equivalent T3 gang does not have to go away. And here is pretty much the nub of the T3 problem.
Sure it does.
Outiside of wormholes T3 fleets get a fair bit of attention
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 18:00:00 -
[160] - Quote
supernova ranger wrote:
Not really, legions can spider tank and that lets them compete with the HACS. Coupled with cloaking, command bonuses, interdiction nullification... Giving HACs the same bonuses so they can compete would be a disaster. Thinking of HACs ignoring bubbles just seems way way OP for one.
The T3 cannot fill all those roles at once. Please show me the cloaky, interdiction nullified, spider-tanking, DPS monster of doom T3. It doesn't exist. HACs don't need to fill every role a T3 can perform in a specialized configuration.
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 18:34:00 -
[161] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Most HACs already outperform battleships in a straight fight and are therefore not underpowered. I agree that T3s should be able to compete successfully with HACs on tha battlefield, but it should be through versatility brought about by their multi-role bonuses rather than raw firepower and strength.
How are T3's supposed to compete successfully through versatility? That makes no sense. Versatility is good when it lets the player focus his setup. T3's are good when they pick the right combination of subsystems that lets them perform a specific role well. They are versatile before they undock, not in the middle of the fight.
At the current price point T3's, in a focused pimped configuration, should be better at tank and gank than a HAC is at the current price point. Otherwise they are not worth the ISK and SP loss. In this focused configuration, they cannot do any of the cool T3 things (no cloaky-nully, no links, no e-war, and no drones). If they could, that would be OP.
Being able to refit the same ship to do five roles poorly is not worth the ISK or SP loss. I'd rather fly five ships fit specifically for the job and avoid the SP loss risk. Then again, I have HAC V, Recon V, Logistics V, CS V, and etc.
If the Cerberus was as good at tank/gank/damage projection as a Tengu, I would be happy., but they would be OP without increased price. The SP loss also really helps keep T3's in check because people hate losing SP. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
133
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 18:51:00 -
[162] - Quote
Onictus wrote: Yeah 450 @ 75km and that was heavy missiles
More than a Baltec mega, more than most fleet dominix builds, more than an pulse baddon all while MWDing around.
...and like hell they had to sacrifice tank
You are wrong.
Hml drakes were modified to have 10% less raw missile dps and gained from 8.75 to 9 effective launchers with kinetic ammo. Simple math gives us 354.9 dps for a pre-nerf hml drake with 2 BCS and navy scourge ammo. Your light drone dps is irrelevant at 70km. A perfect skill pilot could reach ~70km hml range but in fleet engagements the fc would have to more realistically stay at 60 or under to apply full dps (lol drake pilots having all 5 skills). Similarly in a fleet engagement CFC drakes sacrificed a large amount of tank and only had around 55k EHP prelinks in order to fit cap mods so they could MWD around.
Right now today a CFC megathron gets 385 railgun dps at 72+39 with CN thorium and an optimal script, beating the old drake at its best range with only a single damage mod. The megathron can also continue engaging all the way out to 150km and its dps is going to get far higher than the old drake's if it's any closer than 70km since it can use better ammo and its superior drone bandwidth.
It also has almost triple the EHP of the old kiting drake fit that 'totally made no sacrifices by fitting CCC rigs and a cap power relay'.
In conclusion, you are completely full of ****. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
670
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 19:18:00 -
[163] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Onictus wrote: Yeah 450 @ 75km and that was heavy missiles
More than a Baltec mega, more than most fleet dominix builds, more than an pulse baddon all while MWDing around.
...and like hell they had to sacrifice tank
You are wrong. Hml drakes were modified to have 10% less raw missile dps and gained from 8.75 to 9 effective launchers with kinetic ammo. Simple math gives us 355 dps for a pre-nerf hml drake with 2 BCS and navy scourge ammo. Your light drone dps is irrelevant at 70km. A perfect skill pilot could reach ~70km hml range but in fleet engagements the fc would have to more realistically stay at 60 or under to apply full dps (lol drake pilots having all 5 skills). Similarly in a fleet engagement CFC drakes sacrificed a large amount of tank and only had around 55k EHP prelinks in order to fit cap mods so they could MWD around. Right now today a CFC megathron gets 385 railgun dps at 72+39 with CN thorium and an optimal script, beating the old drake at its best range with only a single damage mod. The megathron can also continue engaging all the way out to 150km and its dps is going to get far higher than the old drake's if it's any closer than 70km since it can use better ammo and its superior drone bandwidth. It also has almost triple the EHP of the old kiting drake fit that 'totally made no sacrifices by fitting CCC rigs and a cap power relay'. In conclusion, you are completely full of ****.
Not NOW back before the HML AND Drake nerfs
3BCS was the norm and 450 at 75km was middle of the road skills, trust me Drake (as much as I hate it) is still one of the hulls that I spent the most time in.
Now yeah, drake and HMLs are both trash with very few redeeming qualities, that wasn't what I was commenting on. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 21:26:00 -
[164] - Quote
One change I would support is to make it so that T3's could not be cloaky-nully. Nullification is bad enough, but combined with cloaky warpy is just silly. |
M1k3y Koontz
thorn project Surely You're Joking
437
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 21:53:00 -
[165] - Quote
supernova ranger wrote: Not really, legions can spider tank
Let me stop you there. What have you been smoking? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, spider tanks T3s in PVP. Their RR sub is **** poor limiting its usefulness to PVE Tengu-balls.
Seranova Farreach wrote:ps, they are doing t2 and pirate first. and then mostlikly capitals befor they touch t3s.
^ This. Which is why I'm tiring of these threads, it's been beaten to death and there isn't going to be anything new to talk about until after everything else is balanced.
Edit: I still post in them because A) I feel the need to defend the T3s that aren't OP and B) I love a good argument How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
391
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 00:22:00 -
[166] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Most HACs already outperform battleships in a straight fight and are therefore not underpowered. I agree that T3s should be able to compete successfully with HACs on tha battlefield, but it should be through versatility brought about by their multi-role bonuses rather than raw firepower and strength. How are T3's supposed to compete successfully through versatility? That makes no sense. Versatility is good when it lets the player focus his setup. T3's are good when they pick the right combination of subsystems that lets them perform a specific role well. They are versatile before they undock, not in the middle of the fight. At the current price point T3's, in a focused pimped configuration, should be better at tank and gank than a HAC is at the current price point. Otherwise they are not worth the ISK and SP loss. In this focused configuration, they cannot do any of the cool T3 things (no cloaky-nully, no links, no e-war, and no drones). If they could, that would be OP. Being able to refit the same ship to do five roles poorly is not worth the ISK or SP loss. I'd rather fly five ships fit specifically for the job and avoid the SP loss risk. Then again, I have HAC V, Recon V, Logistics V, CS V, and etc. If the Cerberus was as good at tank/gank/damage projection as a Tengu, I would be happy., but they would be OP without increased price. The SP loss also really helps keep T3's in check because people hate losing SP.
I imagine there are many ways that versatility can compensate for not being the absolute best in class. Only having to buy one hull rather than 5 is a start.
5 days skill point loss is not really a big deal if you're a committed T3 pilot. After all, it's not as if you're ever going to need to train anything else, right?
The price of T3s is determined purely by demand and supply of components. If T3s become less demanded (they won't), they'll become cheaper (they won't).
They won't become less in demand because even with half the EHP they currently have, they're still better than anything else available.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Gigan Amilupar
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
103
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 00:50:00 -
[167] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:ps, they are doing t2 and pirate first. and then mostlikly capitals befor they touch t3s. ^ This. Which is why I'm tiring of these threads, it's been beaten to death and there isn't going to be anything new to talk about until after everything else is balanced.
Pretty sure CCP stated somewhere that the current plan is T2->Pirate->T3->Cap ships, but I can't remember where. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
213
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 01:21:00 -
[168] - Quote
Gigan Amilupar wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:ps, they are doing t2 and pirate first. and then mostlikly capitals befor they touch t3s. ^ This. Which is why I'm tiring of these threads, it's been beaten to death and there isn't going to be anything new to talk about until after everything else is balanced. Pretty sure CCP stated somewhere that the current plan is T2->Pirate->T3->Cap ships, but I can't remember where.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was the order as well. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1394
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 01:31:00 -
[169] - Quote
Would it be a terrible idea if CCP found a way to decouple slot layouts from the subsystems and make them a separate thing?
The way I see it is this: Subsystems would still determine the resists and the missile/turret hardpoints and the drone bay/bandwidth and all of that, but making slot layout a separately customizable thing (within the maximum limit of slots for the ship class, of course) would in my opinion go a long way toward making them kings of versatility and removing part of what makes certain subsystems less popular. Let's be honest, certain subsystems exist that might be very interesting if they didn't do silly and/or completely counterproductive things to the slot layout. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1011
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 02:28:00 -
[170] - Quote
I don't think so Alvatore, no.
Currently having the slot layout determined by the subsystems fitted means you have consequences to your choices You have to make trade offs to get 1 aspect over another, and that to me makes a lot of sense.
if all T3's had 6/6/4 slots irrespective of the subsystems fitted it would be bad imho.
|
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1900
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 03:13:00 -
[171] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:I don't think so Alvatore, no.
Currently having the slot layout determined by the subsystems fitted means you have consequences to your choices You have to make trade offs to get 1 aspect over another, and that to me makes a lot of sense.
if all T3's had 6/6/4 slots irrespective of the subsystems fitted it would be bad imho.
Having a varabile slot layout will make it all but impossible to balance the ships properly. While you nerf a subsystem because of a specific configuration you could ruin that subsystem for all other configurations.
If they were to get static features, which I believe is the best way to balance them, it would think slot layout could be something like this: Legion 6/3/7 Loki 6/5/5 Proteus 6/4/6 Tengu 6/7/3 Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
859
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 03:17:00 -
[172] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:If they were to get static features, which I believe is the best way to balance them, it would think slot layout could be something like this: Legion 6/3/7 Loki 6/5/5 Proteus 6/4/6 Tengu 6/7/3 I think if we're going to fix slots, it should be more along the lines of this: Legion ... 6/4/6 Loki ... 6/5/5 Proteus ... 6/4/6 Tengu ... 6/6/4 I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
213
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 03:35:00 -
[173] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:One change I would support is to make it so that T3's could not be cloaky-nully. Nullification is bad enough, but combined with cloaky warpy is just silly.
Considering the downsides of flying such a gimped T3? I don't really see the issue. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
213
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 03:38:00 -
[174] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:If they were to get static features, which I believe is the best way to balance them, it would think slot layout could be something like this: Legion 6/3/7 Loki 6/5/5 Proteus 6/4/6 Tengu 6/7/3 I think if we're going to fix slots, it should be more along the lines of this: Legion ... 6/4/6 Loki ... 6/5/5 Proteus ... 6/4/6 Tengu ... 6/6/4
If you fix the slots they definitely become easier to balance. Unfortunately they also become much less interesting to fit and lose some of their flexibility (which is supposed to be what they are all about according to CCP). So I tend to think it's not a great idea. I do support the removal of rigs and the addition of subsystem bonuses that would at least somewhat replace them. Rigs run completely counter to the whole flexibility theme. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
859
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 04:28:00 -
[175] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:If you fix the slots they definitely become easier to balance. Unfortunately they also become much less interesting to fit and lose some of their flexibility (which is supposed to be what they are all about according to CCP). So I tend to think it's not a great idea. I do support the removal of rigs and the addition of subsystem bonuses that would at least somewhat replace them. Rigs run completely counter to the whole flexibility theme. Much less interesting. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
289
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 15:11:00 -
[176] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I imagine there are many ways that versatility can compensate for not being the absolute best in class. Only having to buy one hull rather than 5 is a start. Okay, so you buy a single hull. If you're a committed T3 pilot as you suggest, you will need multiple fits for that one hull, which includes non-recoverable rigs (to avoid being a waste of a ship in fleet). To achieve the fits that you are crying about, you most definitely need to use T2 rigs. How many T2 rigs can you rip out and replace over and over again as you swap roles before cost negates the "versatility" advantage you receive by buying a single hull?
Hint: T2 rig prices have dropped following the scanning changes, but it can still be cheaper to buy a second hull than a second set of T2 rigs.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:5 days skill point loss is not really a big deal if you're a committed T3 pilot. After all, it's not as if you're ever going to need to train anything else, right? If you've trained everything in the game that you want to train, then maybe, sure. Otherwise, like almost everyone else that I know, you still have a list of things you want to work toward. Finishing the odd level 5 skills in Gunnery, Missiles, etc. to eek out a bit more effectiveness is still a benefit compared to re-training Gallente Offensive Subs 5 repeatedly, and that's for a pure T3 pilot. You also still need all the same support skills as the HAC or Recon or Logi pilots except for the specific hulls.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The price of T3s is determined purely by demand and supply of components. If T3s become less demanded (they won't), they'll become cheaper (they won't).
They won't become less in demand because even with half the EHP they currently have, they're still better than anything else available. It sounds like you live in C5/C6 and run capital escalations for income (or sell PLEX), and the salvage goes to the corp. For the rest of us not blessed with capital escalations, we can directly feel the effect of the changing prices in the T3 commodities market. Here's a secret: it's flooded and prices continue to fall. The Venture caused the bottom to fall out of the fullerene/polymer market, which was already declining, and the price of nanoribbons continues to drop like a lead weight; a year and a half ago, buy orders were over 6mil each and now sell orders are just 4.2mil each, likely dropping to below 4mil each before too much longer.
With the same CPU/PG from a POS tower, it's more profitable to run T2 industry than it is T3 industry, by a very wide margin. T3 prices have dropped so much that our corp has suspended its reduced-price T3 program for corp members; it's just as cheap, or cheaper, to buy directly from Jita. A "cheap" Tengu kill used to be over 500mil. Now they are in the low 400s.
If CCP removes the skill point loss, demand (and deaths) for T3 cruisers will rise (rapidly). If CCP swings the nerf bat without adjusting the cost, you can guarantee fewer people will be flying them, thus reducing the demand and the price even more. It was very noticeable when Nullsec scaled back their T3 doctrines. It was also noticeable when CCP "fixed" the "bug" of avoiding skill point loss by ejecting before the ship exploded.
This only discusses the "cost" in the balancing factor for T3 cruisers, and just barely does that. It does show that you're out of touch with much in the way of the T3 product line, as do your other posts. Step back and consider other regions of space and other uses of the T3 besides what you see in your own little world, and you'll see a much different picture. The "problem" isn't quite as bad as you make it out to be.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
618
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 15:15:00 -
[177] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:If they were to get static features, which I believe is the best way to balance them, it would think slot layout could be something like this: Legion 6/3/7 Loki 6/5/5 Proteus 6/4/6 Tengu 6/7/3 I think if we're going to fix slots, it should be more along the lines of this: Legion ... 6/4/6 Loki ... 6/5/5 Proteus ... 6/4/6 Tengu ... 6/6/4 If you fix the slots they definitely become easier to balance. Unfortunately they also become much less interesting to fit and lose some of their flexibility (which is supposed to be what they are all about according to CCP). So I tend to think it's not a great idea. I do support the removal of rigs and the addition of subsystem bonuses that would at least somewhat replace them. Rigs run completely counter to the whole flexibility theme.
i suspect they would give them 15 slots like all faction/T2 cruisers get Legion ... 5/4/6 Loki ... 5/5/5 Proteus ... 5/4/6 Tengu ... 5/6/4 Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
618
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 15:33:00 -
[178] - Quote
perhaps add a 6th subsystem .. support systems just used for - logi - command links - cloak - interdiction nullifier - cyno Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
235
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 16:09:00 -
[179] - Quote
Zvaarian the Red wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:One change I would support is to make it so that T3's could not be cloaky-nully. Nullification is bad enough, but combined with cloaky warpy is just silly. Considering the downsides of flying such a gimped T3? I don't really see the issue.
My primary PVP character flies almost nothing but Interdictors. I hate nullification and think it is a terrible mechanic. When combined with warpy cloaky, it's just absurd.
Besides now that we can use mobile depots, anyone can travel with impunity and then refit for combat/PVE. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1900
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 16:32:00 -
[180] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:If they were to get static features, which I believe is the best way to balance them, it would think slot layout could be something like this: Legion 6/3/7 Loki 6/5/5 Proteus 6/4/6 Tengu 6/7/3 I think if we're going to fix slots, it should be more along the lines of this: Legion ... 6/4/6 Loki ... 6/5/5 Proteus ... 6/4/6 Tengu ... 6/6/4 i suspect they would give them 15 slots like all faction/T2 cruisers get Legion ... 5/4/6 Loki ... 5/5/5 Proteus ... 5/4/6 Tengu ... 5/6/4 They do have skill point loss which t2 cruisers don't have, I would think that that would be worth an extra slot.
as far as 4 mids and 6 lows on the Legion, Amarr has more lows than Gallente which has less mids than Minmatar. Minmatar being both armor or shield tanked would favor a */5/5 slot layour, which pushes Gallente into a */4/6 and leaves Amarr with a */3/7. The Tengu would be better suited with a */7/3 because it is has the ECM setup which would burn a lot of mid slots.
On a related note, the interdiction nullifier should still remove a low slot and possibly change the Drone Synthesis Projector to remove a high slot. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |