Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
T3's are currently the closest thing to a subcapital pwnmobile. They excel in many areas and have too few weaknesses to stay true to eve's rock, paper, scissors concept. And although with their modularity they are supposed to be jacks of all trades and thus master of none, they overshadow various (specialized) T2 ship classes.
What I propose to fix this is not a dramatic nerf, but a mild adjustment which is far from killing the usefulness of the ship class.
- Reduce the number of rig slots to 2. In keeping with the T1/T2 tradition it should even be only 1, but lets leave it at 2 for now. Dropping a rig slot has basically two effects: One is losing a bit of flexibility, of which the T3's still have plenty through the subsystems, the second is reducing a bit of whichever characteristic people were maxing before: buffer, cap, dps, etc. - Reduce the bonus to effectiveness of gang links of the Warfare Processor subsystem from 5% to 3%, to bring it in line with fleet command ships. A maxed and mindlinked T3 can give some pretty insane bonuses, more so than field CS, which are supposed to be top dog here. - Increase subsystem skill rank from 1 to 2 at least. Even considering the possibility of skill loss upon death, the training time for such a powerful ship class is a joke. I'm not a fan of the skill loss mechanic, but if it is to be kept, I'm in favor if increasing the risk inherent in flying T3's.
I'd like to include other things like a maybe a 10% reduction of EHP across the board, but unlike CCP I'm in favor smaller tweaks at a time. One would have to see how these changes play out in the wild. There's probably other small tweaks that could be included in this list now, please comment.
I'm aware this proposal is controversial because obviously no one wants their shiny toys nerfed. But let's do it for balance. I am also aware that some T3's are under-performing, especially the Legion. Although this is a nerf proposal to the ship class, I am not opposed to giving some love to specific T3 ships or aspects. |
Berendas
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
96
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Except for their boosting abilities, Tech 3's are fine with the exception of the Tengu. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
380
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm not sure how the Legion can be classed as "under performing" unless you compare it to the Tengu.
The Tengu is overpowered. Want proof? Simply head out to any mission hub. Where are the CNRs, Golems, Machariels, Paladins? It feels like half of the populace are flying Tengus these days. I say feels like because I'm making the claim without sitting down and performing a survey.
The nerf the Tengu needs is not HP or rig slots, it's simply a nerf to the combined bonuses of extra kinetic damage, extra rate of fire, and extra range: no other missile boat in the game gets all three bonuses together. A Tengu pilot should have choices to make: perhaps the fifth offensive subsystem can be a long range/damage bonus subsystem, while the current one gets diminished to the rate of fire/kin damage bonuses.
As for warfare link processors: the contest between command ships and strategic cruisers could easily be evened out if fleet boosting had to be done on-grid. No need to nerf the 5% T3 bonus, since you won't be able to fit more than two warfare links if you want to have any kind of tank. More warfare links means more command processors and more CPU mods, which means fewer mid or low slots for tank.
All this is only my opinion of course, but I actively abuse a 6-link off-grid booster Tengu while flying a HML mission tengu. I would fly a CNR if the Tengu wasn't just so damned good. |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The Tengu is overpowered. Want proof? Simply head out to any mission hub. Where are the CNRs, Golems, Machariels, Paladins? It feels like half of the populace are flying Tengus these days. I say feels like because I'm making the claim without sitting down and performing a survey. I feel the same. The Tengu is displacing many of the dedicated mission ships.
Quote:The nerf the Tengu needs is not HP or rig slots, it's simply a nerf to the combined bonuses of extra kinetic damage, extra rate of fire, and extra range: no other missile boat in the game gets all three bonuses together. A Tengu pilot should have choices to make: perhaps the fifth offensive subsystem can be a long range/damage bonus subsystem, while the current one gets diminished to the rate of fire/kin damage bonuses. I am not opposed to this Tengu nerf.
Quote:As for warfare link processors: the contest between command ships and strategic cruisers could easily be evened out if fleet boosting had to be done on-grid. That is another proposal I already supported.
Quote:No need to nerf the 5% T3 bonus, since you won't be able to fit more than two warfare links if you want to have any kind of tank. More warfare links means more command processors and more CPU mods, which means fewer mid or low slots for tank. People work around that limitation by using the fleet hierarchy and more than one T3. And I definitely think the actual T3 bonus amount needs a nerf, not to mention a lot of people question the whole concept of a single/few ships giving 250 ships bonuses...
Quote:All this is only my opinion of course, but I actively abuse a 6-link off-grid booster Tengu while flying a HML mission tengu. I would fly a CNR if the Tengu wasn't just so damned good. Well thank you for still agreeing it needs a nerf |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1491
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 22:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Who gives a **** about "PvE balance"? That's like saying that cruise missiles are overpowered because CNRs are the most common faction BS in mission hubs. That's not a comment on how balanced the ships are, it's a comment on how bad EVE's PvE is.
Trying to balance ships around the brain-dead NPCs we have instead of trying to balance the NPCs against the way ships actually work in PvP is the fundamental error here. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 22:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Who gives a **** about "PvE balance"? Mara brought up PvE, my initial post was focused on PvP. |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
169
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 22:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:Malcanis wrote:Who gives a **** about "PvE balance"? Mara brought up PvE, my initial post was focused on PvP.
And that's full of #### as well.
Malcanis is right...and even then...this proposal is full of ####.
You really dont strike me as someone who knows pvp when it comes to tech 3 ships... I am getting a vibe your butt hurt in getting owned by one.
Try burning through several tech 3 ships in PVP engagements and then come back here and tell me otherwise.
Not supporting. |
Zrygthn Azurlm Zharous
Pink Sockers
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 05:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
fiddle constans telling people to pvpp wololol |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
380
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 06:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Trying to balance ships around the brain-dead NPCs we have instead of trying to balance the NPCs against the way ships actually work in PvP is the fundamental error here.
So the fact that the Tengu receives range, damage and rate of fire bonuses when no other missile-based ship in the game gets those bonuses, is no cause for concern? That T3 cruisers get two bites of the overheating bonuses cherry is no cause for concern?
The fundamental error here is you running off on a tangent simply because I brought up an example of how T3s are unbalancing the mission-running aspect of the game. Do you dispute that a missile-based Tengu performs better in PvP than a Cerberus? Do you dispute that off-grid boosting allows T3 ships to perform fleet boosting better than a command ship? Is overheating irrelevant to PvP combat?
|
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 06:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
T3s are pretty balanced with how expensive they are. For most people it's like buying half a carrier.
The only thing I'd be in favor of is upping the training time on it's skills. |
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 06:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:So the fact that the Tengu receives range, damage and rate of fire bonuses when no other missile-based ship in the game gets those bonuses, is no cause for concern? That T3 cruisers get two bites of the overheating bonuses cherry is no cause for concern?
The fundamental error here is you running off on a tangent simply because I brought up an example of how T3s are unbalancing the mission-running aspect of the game. Do you dispute that a missile-based Tengu performs better in PvP than a Cerberus? Do you dispute that off-grid boosting allows T3 ships to perform fleet boosting better than a command ship? Is overheating irrelevant to PvP combat?
Cerberus, really?
I think the main "balance" issue here is that you are comparing a 500m-2b ISK ship to a cerberus. T3 ships are, for all intents and purposes, the most expensive sub-capital ships that people regularly field in PvP.
Also, part of the reason those mission hubs are filled with Tengu pilots is probably due to the fact that Tengu training time is minuscule compared to that of a golem, or faction battleship. Although the Tengu is probably a little imbalanced in that respect, it's hardly game breaking.
Wolodymyr wrote:T3s are pretty balanced with how expensive they are. For most people it's like buying half a carrier.
The only thing I'd be in favor of is upping the training time on it's skills. Only half a carrier? xD My T3 is about the same price as my Chimera :P |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 07:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Malcanis is right...and even then...this proposal is full of ####.
You really dont strike me as someone who knows pvp when it comes to tech 3 ships... I am getting a vibe your butt hurt in getting owned by one. I've had my share of T3 engagements on either side of the gun. From you on the other hand, I'm getting the "don't nerf my toy" vibe.
Wolodymyr wrote:T3s are pretty balanced with how expensive they are. For most people it's like buying half a carrier. With a nerf their price would also come down through reduced demand.
Quote:I think the main "balance" issue here is that you are comparing a 500m-2b ISK ship to a cerberus. T3 ships are, for all intents and purposes, the most expensive sub-capital ships that people regularly field in PvP. ... Only half a carrier? xD My T3 is about the same price as my Chimera :P Without sticking on complex mods on the ship T3's don't get to 2 bil. In fact, the cookie cutter alliance Tengu/Loki fit is 600-700 mil. That is less than a Mach or a Carrier and still Tengus have way less weaknesses than those (yeah I know, different ship classes, but when people bring arguments like "it costs so much, it should pwn" it has to be mentioned). |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 08:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
I wouldn't call that a mild nerf. About my only point of agreement is that spread of missile bonuses on the one subsystem that has them. Really though, its DPS is tied to the bonuses offered by stationary targets and fleet boosting. I've dusted one in a Merlin and took almost 0 DPS flying in a straight line away from it. Autocannon Cane and I wouldn't have been so lucky.
That's a missile issue of course. Weakness of the weapon.
If the T3s get nerfed and the market drops, you'll also find a corresponding drop in supply as the wormholers find something more profitable and worth the effort to do. Spend some time in a hole and tell me how much fun it is without a crew to bash sleepers. You need some serious incentive to make guys wanna do that.
It's a special ship; leave it at that. Height of technology, advanced beyond anything the Empires have known before.
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 08:54:00 -
[14] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote: Without sticking on complex mods on the ship T3's don't get to 2 bil. In fact, the cookie cutter alliance Tengu/Loki fit is 600-700 mil. That is less than a Mach or a Carrier and still Tengus have way less weaknesses than those (yeah I know, different ship classes, but when people bring arguments like "it costs so much, it should pwn" it has to be mentioned).
I did say 500m-2b :P Most solo T3 pilots will stick on some seriously expensive mods, T2 rigs etc. and those are the T3s that really pwn. As for "it costs so much, it should pwn", a carrier plays a different role, and in most fights is considerably more useful than another T3.
Funny you should bring up pirate faction battleships though, would you fight a Bhaalgorn in a Tengu? Or a Machariel for that matter? Proteus vs. Vindicator?
Anyway, I'll admit a fleet of 600-700m ISK T3s are pretty awesome, especially with logistics support. But then again, if you kill one or two of them even sacrificing a scorpion and a fleet of whelp canes would still leave you ISK positive at the end. And if you can't kill them, because you don't have any ewar, logistics or webbers, then you probably wouldn't have won even if they weren't flying T3s. |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 08:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mars Theran wrote:If the T3s get nerfed and the market drops, you'll also find a corresponding drop in supply as the wormholers find something more profitable and worth the effort to do. Spend some time in a hole and tell me how much fun it is without a crew to bash sleepers. You need some serious incentive to make guys wanna do that. I don't think that a drop of say 20% in the value of sleeper drop would severely reduce the numbers of WH dwellers.
Quote:It's a special ship; leave it at that. Height of technology, advanced beyond anything the Empires have known before. That's a RP argument to keep the imbalance. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 09:01:00 -
[16] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote: I don't think that a drop of say 20% in the value of sleeper drop would severely reduce the numbers of WH dwellers.
As it is for a solo pilot raiding C3s I make only slightly more than I would running incursions, and finding a decent C3 that's empty takes considerably longer than finding a fleet for incursions. That's dual boxing with a pimped T3 and a T3 salvager.
Take 20% off that and I may as well go back to running incursions, which I don't particularly want to do because they're boring as hell. Either that or endlessly scouring forge low sec for the 5/10 and 6/10, which gets equally dull after a while. |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 09:03:00 -
[17] - Quote
Your income benchmark shouldn't be Incursions as they are in dire need of a nerf. Their risk/reward ratio is completely out of whack now that running them has been perfected. But that is getting off topic. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 09:09:00 -
[18] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:Your income benchmark shouldn't be Incursions as they are in dire need of a nerf. Their risk/reward ratio is completely out of whack now that running them has been perfected. But that is getting off topic. Aye, that's true, but unfortunately they won't be nerfed. Which unfortunately means things like WHs need to be balanced around them.
As it is it's pretty close, if you dropped the isk/hour of raiding C3s below that of running incursions, a lot of players would instantly swap professions. Especially since to run C3s that fast you need to risk a pretty pimped ship+clone. |
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
44
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 09:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Aineko Macx wrote: I don't think that a drop of say 20% in the value of sleeper drop would severely reduce the numbers of WH dwellers.
As it is for a solo pilot raiding C3s I make only slightly more than I would running incursions, and finding a decent C3 that's empty takes considerably longer than finding a fleet for incursions. That's dual boxing with a pimped T3 and a T3 salvager. Take 20% off that and I may as well go back to running incursions, which I don't particularly want to do because they're boring as hell. Either that or endlessly scouring forge low sec for the 5/10 and 6/10, which gets equally dull after a while.
+1 for having balls.
As for this idea, I dunno, I'm a wh dweller so I'm inclined to scream "get off my lawn" mainly because I feel that W-space is already suffering badly from highsec incursion iskfountains, w-space has gotten alot more quiet compared to previous years.
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 10:13:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:w-space has gotten alot more quiet compared to previous years.
Aye, it seems a lot safer too :(
Just out of interest, and not to derail the thread, but what class wh do you live in? And what's the PvP like? I was considering swapping to living in WHs from raiding them, but the lack of people put me off. Only time I've ever found a C3 that was "populated" absolutely all of them warped to POS and logged off at the first sign of trouble. Eventually they put combats out, but never actually warped in and engaged my bait ship :D |
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
465
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 11:50:00 -
[21] - Quote
This idea is so bad, I don't even know where to start.
Don't mess with T3s, except to nerf their gang links. Alternately, buff the command ship's links so that they return to their proper role in the fleet. |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 13:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:This idea is so bad, I don't even know where to start. You should at least try to use like arguments, because right now you only you sound like every other whiny carebear that is afraid their shiny is getting nerfed.
Quote:Don't mess with T3s, except to nerf their gang links. Alternately, buff the command ship's links so that they return to their proper role in the fleet. Fleet CS with T1 ganglinks already gave badass bonuses. T3's with T2 ganglinks are over the top. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 14:08:00 -
[23] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:This idea is so bad, I don't even know where to start. You should at least try to use like arguments, because right now you only you sound like every other whiny carebear that is afraid their shiny is getting nerfed. Quote:Don't mess with T3s, except to nerf their gang links. Alternately, buff the command ship's links so that they return to their proper role in the fleet. Fleet CS with T1 ganglinks already gave badass bonuses. T3's with T2 ganglinks are over the top. Calling floppie a carebear priceless. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
282
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 14:23:00 -
[24] - Quote
Good god...
Let me get this right. You want to nerf T3 ships because they give more bonuses than other ships out there that are a third or even a quarter of the cost?
A properly fitted T3 costs 600 mil or more last time I checked. They give the bonuses they do because they cost a lot. They cost a lot because of what it takes to manufacture them. Now if there is a balancing issue between the T3 ships I am all for fixing that...but these are "T3" ships. They are the best of the best right now. They should be slightly better than a T2 BC but not better than a T2 BS. They should not be worse than T2 BC's and lower. Simple as that. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX!
Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1498
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 14:28:00 -
[25] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Malcanis wrote:Trying to balance ships around the brain-dead NPCs we have instead of trying to balance the NPCs against the way ships actually work in PvP is the fundamental error here. So the fact that the Tengu receives range, damage and rate of fire bonuses when no other missile-based ship in the game gets those bonuses, is no cause for concern?
Not especially, when turret ships also have range, damage and RoF bonuses. If it's OK for a Zealot to have those 3 bonuses, then you need to really go into more detail as to why this is a bad thing.
And... Doesn't the Cerberus get a range, RoF and damage bonus? The EVE Wiki thinks it does:
Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage and 10% bonus to Missile velocity per levelHeavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile flight time and 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire per level
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Cerberus
(Depending on exactly what you want to count as a "bonus", the CNR gets a damage bonus in the form of an extra launcher slot, on top of its listed range bonus and RoF bonus.)
In short your objection is not only factually incorrect, it's also nonsensical. Bonuses on their own are meaningless; you have to look at the context of the ships stats as well.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 15:04:00 -
[26] - Quote
Leave my Tengu alone and bring other T3's up to the same level.
Instead of crying and moaning for nerfs you guys should spend your useless time posting stuff to improve other T3's and "mission boats".
... |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 15:19:00 -
[27] - Quote
Lol seems like I really struck a nerve there. Everyone knows the Tengu is OP. ******* hipocrits. |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
86
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 15:33:00 -
[28] - Quote
The tengu needs a good hard nerf. It has high dps, long range and heavy tank. The other t3's (barring the legion) get to pick 2 of 3. The legion cannot have high dps but gets the other two just fine. I for one rarely use t3's in pvp (not counting off grid boosting). The more specialized recons, BC's and pirate faction cruisers are more effective at a lower cost. About the only role they do better than anything else is the probing cruiser class marauder for exploration. But it has no t2 equivalent in that role to compete with. The only thing on them that needs an across the board nerf is the ganglink subsystem. Either CS's need to be buffed to 5% per lvl or t3's need to be nerfed to 3% per lvl. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference to me which is done. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1501
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 16:19:00 -
[29] - Quote
Agreed that CS should get the +5% for warfare links while T3s should only get +3%. T3 boosters get plenty of other compensating advantages. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
802
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 17:44:00 -
[30] - Quote
T3s will be nerfed by the introduction of T4s.
We need more T3s available... from frigates on up to Battleships.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |