|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 11:46:44 -
[1] - Quote
You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 13:02:56 -
[2] - Quote
Beast of Revelations wrote:Rroff wrote:You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass. Good. How the things remained as OP as they are for so long is beyond me.
T3 cruisers are fine (well there are some minor tweaks they could do with). |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 14:34:13 -
[3] - Quote
Matthias Ancaladron wrote: I've been told they do equal damage compared to battleships. That needs to go too.
For the most part only if you compare a fully blinged T3 against a T2 fit battleship - even then the battleships have higher range projection of that damage |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 15:04:45 -
[4] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:I bolded and underlined the relevant part for you there. Also, as i mentioned my Prot is 700Mil all included so it's not mega blingy though yes it has faction magstabs. Sorry for triggering the BS defence in you there, but what i'm saying is not max fit theorycrafting to try to beat "your" bs theory. I already admitted i have BS that have better stats, but the difference in sig makes the prot tank harder than a BS with double the HP in almost every situation. I still fly BS too, but T3 are a little OP quite evidently
Don't disagree that T3s are a little OP but most of the comparisons have their own flaws and as much as anything I think BS are a little underwhelming.
Largely though if I had my way the only changes I'd make to a potential 200K EHP, 1000DPS prot would be that as fit it would have 7% slower base speed, 7% slower align time and 40% increased sig. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 21:56:43 -
[5] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Rroff wrote:Beast of Revelations wrote:Rroff wrote:You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass. Good. How the things remained as OP as they are for so long is beyond me. T3 cruisers are fine (well there are some minor tweaks they could do with). The only changes that need to be made is increasing the usefulness of 1-2 sub-systems and slightly tweaking the balance of tank so that higher resist/lower sig combinations have slightly less EHP (more towards HACs in a general sense) and higher EHP configurations have slightly bigger sigs/slightly less mobility (more towards commandships in a general sense). This is a pretty massive oversimplification of the issues here. T3s have, for their size, more EHP, mobility, DPS, tank resists, fitting space, and utility than any other ship. Almost all of that is going to give in some way or other. Also there was a little detail in The Ship and Module Balance presentation from Fanfest that goes into stuff like increasing sig radius and some high level details on the subsystems.
There are better parts of the forum to go into more detail really, none of what you say is really an issue if the appropriate penalties are in place which updating the compromises/penalties to reflect the Eve of today atleast seems to be something Fozzie has in mind - sig radius is definitely one that needs to be carefully addressed. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1095
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 11:20:30 -
[6] - Quote
Mina Sebiestar wrote: C Close to BC/BS dmg
One aspect here - I think it would be silly to make T3 variants of every class of ship - makes much more sense to have small, medium and large T3s that overlap the classes either side of them. If a strategic cruiser T3 has BS dmg though it should come at a penalty elsewhere - T3s should always be about versatility/flexibility but with a compromise or penalty as a balance.
A lot of what people think about T3s and their flexibility or generalisation might sound good on paper but the reality is it often doesn't work out as actual good gameplay mechanics ingame whether that is because it ends up being clunky or just a lot less interesting, especially when dealing with it day to day rather than as a gimmick, than it sounds like it would be. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1096
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 13:52:37 -
[7] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:T3 cruisers are the "high sec lvl 5 missions" of spaceships in EVE. Meaning that CCP know about the bug that allowed people to force generate high sec lvl 5 missions for YEARS, and they knew that this was a bad/unbaslanced thing, but they didn't get around to fixing it until people had been using that bug for years. The wailing when they fixed that bug was epic and still goes on in some pve circles. This is about to happen with T3Cs. Some people have spent years using them and know nothing else (and frankly didn't care about how they were way too good). CCP has known for years that T3Cs make soooo many other ships obsolete no matter how much they try to buff them. The wailing and gnashing of teeth and threats to quit will go on for years after this. TBH it will be really fun to watch
Depending on the changes I think you underestimate the reaction - if the impact was as you say I think a lot will simply quit rather than complain on the forums - people don't flock to them just because they are powerful - they also represent an interesting and satisfying experience that the alternatives simply lack. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1096
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 15:05:16 -
[8] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
You can't see it , but I'm laughing right now. That's because what you said was similar to something I heard incursion people say.
Incursions used to be way more unbalanced than even they are now, so CCP announced a nerf was incoming. Incursion runners flocked to the forum claiming that incursions weren't about the isk, it was about the community, the camaraderie , the shared experience. Everything but isk.
CCP nerfed their income potential and like 80% of incursion runners stopped running them overnight. Whole incursion communities went extinct like they were hit by that Yucatan Asteroid lol. So much for community and camaraderie lol. I guess it WAS the ISK.
EVE survived before outrageously overpowered T3Cs, CCP getting rid of a bunch of subsystems no one uses and rebalancing the rest isn't going to kill the ship, but it should give us reasons to fly other ships. People who didn't want a nerf said the same with Ishtar's ("I don't fly them because they are way overpowered, I fly them because my play style is drone boats, please ignore the fact that I never fly other drone boats"). CCP nerfed Ishtars and EVE is better for it.
The key there is before - when the game was in a very different shape - sometimes you can't just go back to things. I see the same thing happening though as you talk about with Incursions ;)
I liked the Ishtar back in the day before it was pushed to the top of the pile :( hated it when everyone and their dog was flying them because it was a relatively low commitment way to PVP. Difference with the Ishtar though is that horde of people suddenly flying them were mostly flavour of the month types who'd just move onto the next thing and the changes had minimal impact (though I suspect there were maybe some upset) on those who were utilising them in other ways unrelated to their rampant use in PVP. T3Cs have a huge following that goes beyond the one dimensional fact they are powerful or overpowered. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1096
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 15:25:04 -
[9] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Rroff wrote: T3Cs have a huge following that goes beyond the one dimensional fact they are powerful or overpowered. No they don't. That's the point of the incursion story. They are telling themselves that what they are doing is about some 'higher' thing, but it's really about how overpowered the things are.
You are missing the point of what I'm saying a bit - I'm not excluding their power from that equation but unlike say the ISK in your Incursion story that power is only one part of the why people flock to T3s and the impact of changes that significantly disrupt that isn't just going to see them moving en mass to the next most overpowered alternative (some will) or the next ISK facet, etc. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1096
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 15:34:03 -
[10] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
even when they should clearly be able to see how that advantage is unfair to other people".
I find it cute how many people in Eve call for things to be pulled down to their level because they got killed a few times bringing a knife to a gun fight - instead of investing in a gun they want CCP to force everyone else to bring knives :D
(Not a comment directed at anyone specifically)
Jenn aSide wrote: Would like to bet?
My previous take on the impact of changes has largely worked out as I said it would (check my older posts :( ) so wouldn't be much of a bet :| |
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1096
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 16:01:25 -
[11] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:THIs proves the point. A standard response by someone who doesn't want to see their unbalanced thing go away is "it's balanced by the fact that you can have one too, so you should just get one and leave mine alone". They always ignore you when you tell them that you DO have or do the thing in question, which is how you know how unbalanced they are. I own Tengus to run DED 6/10s, Proteus' for fleet doctrine things, a Loki that can tank the worst COSMOS complexes and run the Epic arc missions and so on. I KNOW how overpowered they are, I own several. No cruiser sized ship can match my FoF missile tengu support ships.I heard the same from incursion runners, high sec lvl 5 runners who were mad when CCP fixed the bug (hell, I STILL have my high sec lvl 5 Rattlesnake somewhere), ishtar pilots and so on. EVERY time CCp fixes an obvious problem (like the outrageous 'nano ships" prior to 2009), people make the claims you do. Bookmark this thread.
While I'm sure there are plenty of people that applies to - your talking to the wrong person really - most of my T3 use was either Tengus running wormhole sites, T3s in wormhole combat where the mass restrictions, etc. made them the logical choice or pottering around in highsec doing silly things like double/triple boxing prots and stuff for basic PVE because I found it interesting and more satisfying than other approaches:
http://imgur.com/uKC1G8I
Most of my attraction to T3s was the ability to do esoteric things with them and the power is part of that but the blunt nerf hammer would also trample over many interesting uses for them that nothing else in the game comes close to. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1096
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 17:08:25 -
[12] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:How many people do you think do that, as opposed to how many people fly those ships because they are overpowered? You're going to have to get used to losing things in this game that you think are cool because others abuse those things. It happens to me more times than I can count. The worst time it happened to me was with the fighter assign function. For years I used the assign fighters function the thwart "claoky campers" in null sec. I would fit up a cheap tech1 cruisers or even a tanky tech1 hauler and assign 5 fighters to it from my carrier at the edge of a pos shield. If the cloaky was actually a hot dropper and attacked the carrier I'd just scoot it into the pos shield, if they hotdropped the t1 cruiser (usually a Maller for the tank), at BEST they'd kill a T1 cruiser that that cost less than the fuel they used to drop me, and occasionally and with the help of the fighters I'd kill one or 2 of them 1st. So rather than do what many do and complain about hotdroppers/cloaky campers, I used the tools the game already had and did something about them.. Then CCP made some changes that made assigned fighters super over powered (it was called "Skynet"). CCP eventually killed fighter assign, in part to kill skynet and in part to prepare for the coming changes to fighter/carrier gameplay. I was miffed. Here I had come up with something I thought was cool and cleaver. and CCP killed it. I realized very shortly that I was being selfish. I'd have rather had my cool way to deal with cloaky campers/hotdroppers rather than see the game balanced to the point where people weren't camping gates with T1 frigates with super powerful assigned fighters. I grew out of that selfishness, CCP{ does what they need for the overall game, regardless of what I like or want. I'd suggest you do the same. T3Cs are changing, nothing you post is going to change that, and at the end of the day it will be good for EVE as a whole, even if you don't like it and feel you lost something. As most players fly T3Cs because they are op, they will adapt.
No actually I stopped playing because of it - what interested me in the game was long term goals and it got to the point where I was like - "well I'm not going to work towards that because there is a high chance stuff will get changed by the devs before or just as I get there" and I lost interest in the game.
I got burnt by the fighter changes and was pretty much the last straw for me - and I was one of the people that campaigned to put an end to the ability to do the whole skynet thing - my own use being totally unrelated and I'd been working towards it long before the introduction of the drone mods that made it possible - your whole argument over that being selfish is a load of BS though - if you go back read the threads I came up with a number of approaches that would have killed skynet deader than dead with minimal impact on people using them in other ways but CCP just rode roughshod over it - there was no need for anyone to be selfless for the better good.
(Skynet was hilarious mind - could blap just about anything sub-capital in the game when setup right no matter speed or tank or low sig or whatever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUZsKXSEU8M ).
I'm not going to lose anything - I stopped playing 2 years ago other than coming back and burning my remaining PLEX with the alpha thing - I still have a lot of love for the core concept of the game but changes like this aren't going to do the good people think in the long run. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1096
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 17:52:07 -
[13] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Yeah, getting something nerfed sucks, but it's not generally what makes people quit a game. People swap games, quit and come back, and generally change their play patterns all the time. Games grow until the influx of new players drops below the attrition of the old, and these old players will continue to drop out through normal attrition whether things are nerfed or not. Blaming this kind of attrition on nerfing things, especially things that clearly deserve the nerf, is ridiculous.
The logic here is that - you look at say the horde of people that jumped on the Ishtar - few had any love for the ship it was just pure and simple one of if not the best tools for the job and relatively low investment, etc. you look at T3Cs though and yeah a lot of people jump on them because of their power but you'll find a lot of people also have some level of affection for their strategic cruisers - don't underestimate that. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1097
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 20:46:12 -
[14] - Quote
I suspect he is including fleet boosts in that EHP calculation. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1097
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 21:10:33 -
[15] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: Those players will either go off looking for something else to abuse or they'll quit because they were looking for a reason and this is the one they picked. They'll probably go off to some other game with worse balance where they can lord over someone else with something that probably needs to be nerfed.
I see what your problem is.
As an aside games that are balanced to perfection tend to be incredibly bland and short lived a game needs character and texture and that comes from things not being too finely tuned in balance - that isn't necessarily an argument that T3s don't need changing but the changes people often call for won't do what they think they will do.
Regarding loss of players - the number of people complaining about the balance of T3s is minimal while these people themselves are saying what an outcry the kind of nerfs they want will cause - you can guess where the balance of player loss lies.
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1106
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 14:54:15 -
[16] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Need a fleet combat ship with lots of EHP? Screw a battleship (those just get bombed, even if you have defender missile dessies with you), get a Proteus or a Tengu.
This is the thing though - we looked at it a lot because outside of casual roams, etc. quite often there are situations where you want those durable fleet ships that can brawl (i.e. Gallente blasters) with atleast a decent chance against the full spectrum of threats in today's Eve.
-Thorax - lol. -Brutix - Not a totally bad choice but not a great one either - t1 resists with its ehp/sig ratio doesn't do it favours and hard to fit without some significant compromises. Works well in situations where you have weight of numbers on your side (but then so do most ships at some point). -Brutix Navy - A little better than the plain Brutix but still lacking. -Deimos - Has the sig and resists but unless you go mad with like a slave set lacking in EHP for that kind of role, dps is adequate but only just - not really a great option. -Vigilant - As Deimos but worse due to T1 resists. -Astarte - A reasonable option but sig leaves it a bit vulnerable and has way too high bar for entry, mobility is so-so also. -Megathron - Sadly signature and mobility leave it highly vulnerable i.e. to bombing runs as you mentioned otherwise it would have been a decent choice. Also mass is a consideration if you are transiting wormholes at all or combat in wormholes. -Vindicator - Similar story to the Megathron slightly offset by the fact that its worth sticking some bling on it to bring up its resists/EHP but then you have something potentially overall a bit too expensive making cost a bar for entry. -Proteus - Now we are talking - generic fit it has the EHP to make it survivable, waaay too small sig, reasonable mobility, good damage, not cheap but not so costly its a significant barrier - but then being the top pick it makes it viable to bling out a bit which further turns it from a great choice into a monster.
Nerfing the Proteus does nothing really to shift the balance of power unless you savage it and that doesn't change the fact that the other options are lacking. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1106
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 20:44:46 -
[17] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: Nerfing the Proteus in that case mean you have to make a choice instead of selecting the obvious best answer in your proposed list.
Cade Windstalker wrote: That's ridiculous and an absolutely blind way of approaching the game and the meta. If a ship is amazing in a way that almost every other ship struggles with, and it's not an amazingly specialized roll that requires a special bonus, that ship is almost certainly OP.
Best of luck with that approach - the reality is you'd be ******* in the wind trying to use any other ship the days when say the Brutix, etc. would have been a viable choice for that fairly fundamental game and race role have long gone as the game has developed - yeah you go chose that Megathron* and see what happens ;) typically in those fleet the t1 BCs and BS, etc. get primaried and blapped off the field in short order - the end result of taking the Prot out of that equation is just going to push gameplay even more towards high mobility ranged fleets.
* That isn't to say Mega fleets, etc. aren't viable but that is in a different context where the Prot wouldn't really be an option. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1106
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 21:43:27 -
[18] - Quote
Asmodai Xodai wrote: That's exactly what jumped out and 'got' me too. I was like 'geez, the guy just listed the next 15 best options available, then threw the proteus in there for comparison, then concluded the proteus was by and large the only thing you'd want to fly when compared to those ships... and then concluded that the proteus isn't OP and shouldn't be nerfed?'
If you actually paid attention I outlined why none of those are a particularly good alternative let alone the next best option for that specific role.
Take away the prot and you are left with a bunch of very poor choices for a fairly fundamental role - some of them might have suited the Eve of yesterday in that role but things have moved on. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1106
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 05:02:47 -
[19] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: That's called a trade-off. If you want tons of EHP you sacrifice other things for it. If you want tons of speed, you sacrifice other things for it.
If you can get all of the things at once the ship is OP.
You also seem to have missed that a good chunk of the ships out there being kitey and playing the high-mobility ranged game are, in fact, T3Cs, and you're overly focused on the Proteus and what you can get away with in a fleet setting with Medium Blasters. That's a bit of a square peg you're trying to jam into that round hole.
Basically you seem to be salty that the meta currently favors kitey ships, and your 10km range Medium Blasters aren't measuring up. Welcome to the meta, don't let it hit you anywhere sensitive. It'll swing around eventually to something friendly to your preferred style of play, in the meantime I suggest adapting or stepping away from it.
Trade off lol no matter the trade off you don't get something suited to the role which is the point of what I'm saying. The rest is just wrong and an assumption on your part - as anyone who has actually played with me could verify. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1106
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 12:14:28 -
[20] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:or team up business.
A lot of it should purely be in the realm of team up business - that is half of what is wrong with this game :s |
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1108
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 14:55:10 -
[21] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
The reason nobody even consider the trade offs is because we all know there is a WTFPWNMOBILE that does it all in one package. Once your remove that "do it all" option, all the trade offs become interesting. The whole list of ship you made is essentially invalidated by a single one in the same way a bunch of frig and destroyer were completely invalidated by T3Ds. It's funny how the T3 stuff always seem to break stuff.
For a serious fleet role (rather than casual roams or throw away PVP, etc.) take that WTFPWNMOBILE off the table though and you are still left with options that are either hamstrung by the high bar for entry i.e. commandships or wholly inadequate to perform the role in today's Eve regardless of compromises you make.
Cade Windstalker wrote: Your "role" in this case seems to be "OP super-tanked solo pwn mobile". That's not a role, it's blatantly over-powered.
If you actually have a better description of it besides "the role" then please elaborate, but so far you've been extremely vague and looking for meaning behind your language seems to just point to "The Proteus is the only thing that can do these things because it's OP" which is, um, not a counter argument against the ship being nerfed.
At all.
The role I'm talking about is the variant of prot often talked about, which is why I'm talking about it rather than the other scenarios where T3s are used - the 100s of K EHP with 1000dps commonly used with for instance guardians for serious fleet use - especially when you have low numbers and want to maximise the damage output. I'm not even touching on the solo use of the Prot.
Albeit my perspective is somewhat based off extensive wormhole use of that kind of composition. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1108
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 15:07:04 -
[22] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: The only reason those ships are hamstrung is because T3C do the job so much better.
Nope.
Spent many many hours in those kind of engagements - most of the other "options" in the line for that role are too laughable in today's Eve to even entertain, the others that are adequate are hamstrung by the bar for entry - personally I had my alt in a halo'd Eos or Astarte in a fair few cases but that isn't an option for many mainstream players. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1108
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 15:28:22 -
[23] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Any why is that not an option given the fact that we are tossing around suicide dreadnoughts and carriers in fleets of hundreds?
Last number I saw on supers was we had 20,000 of them and that was several years ago. Everyone is spitting out supers and titans at an unbelievable rate but you seem to think people can't afford to fly a command ship or zealot.
There is nothing wrong with the likes of the zealot, the problem is the legion is a far better zealot.
Where did I say can't afford in context of a commandship? its a fairly long skill train relatively speak - though I guess with the ability to inject SP these days its less of an issue. Thing is though not everyone is part of or even wants to be part of that aspect of Eve you are talking about.
Personally if the Prot was taken off the table I'd just bring a tricked out Astarte - cheaper, has same tank as all but the silly blinged out T3s, 20% more DPS, utility highs, etc. - sig is a bit of an issue but I've enough experience to mitigate that somewhat. I don't really care in that regard personally if the 100s of K EHP, 1000 dps prot gets nerf batted (not that I even play any more anyhow). |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1108
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 15:34:19 -
[24] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Why? You are far more likely to stay in this game if you play with others than going solo.
Game is so much better when playing with others - hated it that so many people were refining C5/6 wormhole sites into low risk solo efforts - some of the best PVE experiences when doing it as a fleet and the dangers involved both from other players and NPCs that had the power to bring down even capitals.
Plus for those hating on T3s there is nothing in the game like sticking a 10-15 man T3 fleet out of a wormhole with a triage carrier in tow and engaging 100+ man BC/BS home defence type fleets, etc. especially if they escalate to capitals :D |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1108
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 15:38:47 -
[25] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
The very fact you are having to compare a cruiser with a command ship (T2 battlecruiser) shows again how out of balance T3C are.
Personally I think it faulty to look at them as a cruiser - T3s should be looked at in the light of small, medium and the currently non-existent large varieties - would get a bit silly having T3 variants of every ship class in Eve - as interesting as the original concept of T3s might sound it really wouldn't work well in actual ingame gameplay anything like as good as it sounds - games like Brink are a testament to ignoring that one :s |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1108
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 16:01:29 -
[26] - Quote
Pedantically - Strategic cruiser and based off of sleeper tech where the sleeper drones also have somewhat out of class capabilities in terms of EHP, sig and mobility, etc. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1108
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 16:12:48 -
[27] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rroff wrote:Pedantically - Strategic cruiser and based off of sleeper tech where the sleeper drones also have somewhat out of class capabilities in terms of EHP, sig and mobility, etc. AKA overpowered.
Not arguing they aren't - I'm arguing that the changes that would bring the best overall result to the game aren't necessarily the ones that some, generally the most vocal, people think. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1109
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 16:39:26 -
[28] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: All moot, CCP IS changing T3Cs, and most of us support their efforts.
Personally outside of these forums I've never heard anyone particularly unhappy with T3 cruisers - and a lot of my game time was spent in a coalition of 100s of players and alts in 1-2 large corps/alliances. Heard plenty of complaints about ECM alts and multiboxing, etc. most of what I've heard in regard to T3s has been about the underused sub-systems. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1109
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 16:46:10 -
[29] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Same argument was used against the nano nerfs. People don't like having a FOTM nerfed and a lot abuse it.
I've heard a fair bit of grumbling about nano in my time. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1109
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 17:32:57 -
[30] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:Hold that thought. Overpowered T3 argument shave been a thing for years now. If you haven't noticed it's because you haven't had your ear to the ground. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, except in the case you end up in a discussion about said subject. A quick search of Reddit produces many threads on the subject going back a long time, so your postulation that nobody complains doesn't really hold water. Whatever you think about the subject, people fly T3's for pretty much everything. A lot of us think that's a bad thing, and understandably some don't for various reasons. The main point being that CCP agrees with the "T3's are unbalanced and need a nerf" crowd
Eh I listen plenty - granted I mostly existed in wormhole circles where T3s are bread and butter but I've also had characters in most other areas of Eve as well.
Not really surprised about Reddit ;) you'll see the same people there moaning about X being OP and saying why don't people use Y and the moment X gets nerf batted they are moaning about Y... |
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1109
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 21:20:53 -
[31] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: And in the span of ~3 pages we've apparently gone from "there is no replacement for this ship" to "oh I'll just go and fly this other thing..."
There is no replacement within the realms of "normal" stuff - you seem to be missing the fact that there is a huge skill requirement (somewhat mitigated by skill injectors but that isn't really a great way to play the game) and large ISK outlay to get the same performance out of that ship - which is OK for me as I've several characters with like 6 years of training and enough ISK I can fly those ships in a disposable manner - but a bit of a barrier for general fleet use.
Cade Windstalker wrote: I'll be honest, a lot of my earlier assumptions avoided this type of fit because they're so blatantly OP I was assuming you couldn't possibly be referring to them. That much DPS and EHP in the same package is literally the reason these ships are so OP. The fact that they can do that and bring some utility is why they stomp all over so many other ships.
I never said they ain't OP - but if you take an objective look at the alternatives it is not a pretty picture.
Cade Windstalker wrote: If you want to find out what people really think of T3Cs then ask them about HACs. Anyone with an ounce of affection for even one ship in the class will say something like "I'd love to fly X again, but I can't because of T3Cs".
Still plenty of places people can still use HACs, etc. largely the reason they don't get flown so much is due to the changing landscape of Eve in general making them more obsolete not just because T3Cs are powerful - same with the loki versus the min recons - if you want long range webbing in a situation requiring something half durable you have the Loki and then a big gap and then some ships that aren't really suited to the task in today's Eve at all. Though keeping the old shield huginn alive against the alpha and dps of 14+ sleepless guardians was kind of fun even if it had like a 4bn ISK fit to do it. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1111
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 10:29:26 -
[32] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: No, it's literally pretty much just because T3Cs are way better than them at everything they do. There's plenty of room for a fast, tanky fleet DPS ship in a Cruiser or BC hull size with decent damage projection, DPS, and Tank. The problem is that why would anyone ever want a ship like that when they can have *GREAT* DPS and Tank, equivalent or better damage projection, and Utility throw in on top.
Only the prot has that significant combination of dps and tank - there are some trick legion and tengu fits that can have around 1000dps but they take a big hit to tank to get there and the prot largely sacrifices utility high and mid slots to get there - it also doesn't have the greatest projection in blaster form and while not bad with rails you take a fair damage and tracking drop doing that. Legion has some ok options there but outclassed by the Absolution in many cases which is less penalised than some of the other commandships by its sig and mobility due to having the resist bonus and naturally large armor hitpoints.
If you want a ship for say a defensive op - that can maximise the damage output and stand its ground on the field then ostensibly you'd be looking at Gallente - back in the day maybe a Brutix or Megathron - these days where you are likely to encounter tier3s warping in at range, bombing runs, carrier fighters, etc. you might as well run around with your pants on your head as use those and while OP the Proteus is the only ship that has the tank to work in that environment while retaining useful levels of damage you can take that away and wax lyrical about the meta but that doesn't really do anything good for the game - this isn't necessarily a defence of the Prot but see below.
Cade Windstalker wrote: If other ships require buffs to make the roles the T3 used to fill viable that's fine in my book, but that will never require buffing *any of them* near the level T3Cs are currently at and any buffs would be marginal at best.
Problem with that is keeping things balanced within the tiers below - just changing say the Deimos or Brutix significantly to fill in the gap left if you remove the Prot as talked about above is going to have further knock on effects as while maybe they "should" be able to fulfil that role on paper the way things have changed doesn't make it that simple and could require rebalancing of entire tiers of ships.
Looking over some of what people are saying in this thread though a few things strike me:
-Consolidating sub-systems isn't necessarily a bad thing but if the goal is to make it easier to do things like skin the ships and promote micro-transactions, etc. then you need to retain that connection people have with the ships or you aren't far off a zero sum game.
-The concept of one ship that can be refit depending on scenario on the fly might sound great on paper but in reality after someone has lost a couple they are going to become resistant to filling it up with modules (never mind the logistics) that are just going to be lost and either go back to having multiple ships with different static fits as T3Cs are now or become far more reluctant to engage unless they have a significant;y high chance of winning. You also have the problem that you basically need EFT implanted in your skull to do anything useful with refitting and dealing with the PG and CPU limits, etc.
-Knocking T3Cs back to that tiericide entry making them a jack of all trades would run into the issue of making them not powerful enough and hence no one uses them or too powerful and making too many other ships completely redundant - as you'd also have to reduce the cost and investment to put them into that spot meaning even less reason to choose anything else. Also don't underestimate how many people just play the game to purple up their T3C as its a viable platform for blinging out. You also pretty much have to savage the current T3Cs completely or you are handicapping any chance of actually making that gameplay work ingame anything remotely close to how it sounds on paper and that also won't have a net good result.
To me it sounds like they should rebadge the current strategic cruisers as some kind of modular battlecruiser, give it an initial balance pass as its new reality as a battlecruiser and start implementing new strategic cruisers that have a static slot layout, no rigs and can be adjusted on the fly via a bunch of sliders in a window i,e. granular changes between offensive ewar and defensive ewar resilience i.e. on a Gallente ship you'd have say point range bonuses of 100, 50, 25% on one side versus sensor strength of 25, 50, 100%, trading damage output for ehp, between signature and capacitor, etc. and turning covert capabilities on or off (with some appropriate mechanism so it can't just be instantly switched) - which would probably mean they'd have to have 7-8 high slots though i.e. a covert cloak fitted wouldn't always be enableable depending on settings. Problem is the risk of rendering other cruisers obsolete entirely though would leave space for the T2 variants. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1112
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 14:27:32 -
[33] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:
You talk about "today's Eve". What do you mean by this?
For instance when I started playing the game things like tier 3s (battlecruisers), stealth bombers, the current shape of carrier fighters, dreads (even low angle weapons or whatever though I don't imagine they are used that much) either didn't exist or were under utilised and there were a lot less people skilled up into or able to afford those things and things like drake fleets were much more common (not just because of the meta changes) and quite a lot of the "alternatives" to T3Cs for fundamental racial roles are still balanced against or have one foot in the era of Eve before those things.
This is more focused on the viability of the Gallente blaster boats as an alternative to the example buffer/1000dps Proteus banded about at the start of the thread - I'd have to widen it a bit to cover other scenarios. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1112
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 16:32:06 -
[34] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: The primary things about these ships that are OP are the tank and the DPS. Those are the same things that are allowing your fit to work.
Mind you while the DPS numbers are very high - the fit that has been talked about has to get right on top of its target to apply it - it has almost zero projection of that damage and at further ranges its applied damage output drops more inline with other ships.
The issue with tank will also to some degree apply to any ship that is sufficiently top of the line to be worth putting bling on and isn't specifically an issue with T3Cs - take that away and you massively take away the incentives for people to work towards the shinier stuff. Those buffer blaster prots with T2 modules have slightly high tanks but nothing that incredibly amazing until you start putting T2 rigs, deadspace hardeners, etc. those 400+K setups you are talking slave sets and ganglinks and possibly taking a dps trade off if you want an ultra brick tanked tackle ship in the upper 100s of K. If you shove that kind of stuff on almost any ship in Eve it becomes something of a monster - dunno if anyone remembers the bait rupture that used to troll outside Jita 4-4 but people don't tend to put that stuff so much on a run of the mill ship that isn't king of the hill. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1112
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 17:00:38 -
[35] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: Rails are absolutely a viable option here, you just don't seem to like the trade-offs they require in DPS and tracking. That doesn't mean that they're not usable though, it means that you either don't like them for arbitrary reasons or you haven't found a setup for them that works. Neither of those is a justification for keeping the Proteus in its current state.
We used rail prots quite a bit after the introduction of tier 3 battlecruisers, etc. separate to that personally I used to fly around wormhole space quite a bit with this ship:
http://imgur.com/oo8tXD6
(If you check one of the POS bashes in the killboard record for Rroff where I used a Prot you can see the faction railguns on there - this was before the changes to railguns where the faction variety had a slight advantage in actual damage application at range).
You assume a ton about me that couldn't be further from the truth - as I mentioned before I spent long enough in the game I had the skills and ISK to turn to other options if the strat cruiser wasn't there (even if that meant putting slaves on a ship that you really shouldn't) so personally I'm not really that bothered what happens to them in that regard despite you thinking I'm being protective of them out of self interest. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1112
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 17:11:22 -
[36] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
You are putting up an awful lot of fight for someone not bothered if CCP nerf T3C down to cruiser/navy cruiser levels.
I don't even play the game any more and unlikely to again - but I still have an interest in the game and a semi-professional (done some video game development, modding and private beta testing) passion for game balance/design. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1112
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 17:43:40 -
[37] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote: Personally, I would leave their damage intact as I really actually don't see a problem here considering they are T3 and in order to get some of these BB damage numbers you're sacrificing tank or agility (as you should). I would however hit their sig and buffer with a nerf truck filled with crates of nerf bats. The tank we get out of a BC should be these things upper limit while sharing a slightly bloated sig to that of a normal cruiser. Anything more or less is out of balance with other hulls.
This is something a lot of people seem to gloss over - there is a lot of nuance to the tank aspect - ultra high resist combined with big EHP, small sig and high mobility has to go but that doesn't mean just savaging EHP blindly to balance them - higher resists should be a trade off with EHP and produce something more inline with HACs while bigger EHP should result in something that is more like commandships with bigger sig, etc. etc. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1112
|
Posted - 2017.04.20 21:02:10 -
[38] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:and so far yours are repetitive and lacking.
Largely that is because the arguments they are in response to are also repetitive lacking - not aimed at anyone specifically but most people don't progress beyond one dimensionally complaining about their tank and DPS and that somehow just straight up nerfing them will make everything right.
Cade Windstalker wrote: I don't think anyone with an actual clue wants T3Cs to be nerfed out of use completely. There's plenty of interesting potential there, but they *desperately* need a nerf and have for years now. That doesn't mean blindly changing *anything* but the current combination of EHP, DPS, tank, projections, and utility is ridiculous and over the top.
The primary benchmark for DPS and Tank should be HACs. They're the class that T3Cs have basically sat on for the last six or eight years, and the easiest ruler to measure the rebalance by. If they're beating the HACs too significantly in any of DPS, Tank, or Mobility or beating them at all in all three at once then they're probably OP, especially considering that a T3C will have some additional Utility a HAC won't even if it's just in something like the Nullifier subsystem.
HACs aren't really a good benchmark of where T3s should be overall IMO - HACs are generally designed around fast paced, usually ranged, engagements - but it does serve as a template as to where high resist, small sig, high mobility variants of the T3C should be (adaptive augmenter). There isn't really a T2 cruiser (combat cruiser) that sits in the spot that the augmented plating type sub-system occupies which I think is part of the problem with T3Cs - the closest really is HICs but they are a specialisation all of their own and can't really be used as a template. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1136
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 10:04:26 -
[39] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: So, first off, I disagree with your assessment of HACs. There are HACs that are good fleet boats and HACs that are good active-tanked solo and small gang ships. In both cases the T3C is the flat out better option. The HIC is a specialist and has high EHP as a result of its role, it is not in any meaningful way comparable to a T3C as a combat ship. The HACs are the ship that had the largest section of usage taken from them by T3Cs and for them to have any future as a ship class they need to get that back, which means the T3Cs need to perform worse than the HACs at the things the HACs do. Since they're mostly fast tanky DPS boats that kinda puts the HAC as the closest point of comparison for the T3Cs' combat performance.
There's some room here for them to have more raw EHP but to take damage worse than HACs, and CCP have already said they're planning on increasing the sig radius, but that only goes so far, and doesn't do anything about the DPS which is going to be equal to or better than a similarly fit and skilled HAC.
The Proteus for example can get the same Damage and Falloff bonuses the Deimos gets, a 2.5% per level better active rep bonus, one extra turret, an extra low slot, about 50% more *base* EHP, a slightly better drone bay, an extra rig slot, its choice of about 75% of a longer Point and Scram, more CPU, or longer targeting range and better sensor strength, AND a choice of either half the MWD bonus the HACs get or way better MWD or AB cap use. Total tradeoffs vs Deimos: 25-50% MWD sig radius and one mid slot.
Be that as it may at the end of the day HACs are assault ships and their specialisation is (or should be) straight line speed, low sig, damage projection and application (hence the Ishtar having drone range, drone speed and tracking bonuses) and these are the only attributes that should be directly compared - T3Cs are a strategic ship with theater wide application not a HAC variant. Likewise with recons where their tactical bonuses are directly compared - recons should also really warp faster and scan faster than a T3C.
The lack of a proper T2 combat cruiser does skew things a bit. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1136
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 11:36:56 -
[40] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote: The reason for the rebalance is pvp not pve.
You can do a 5/10 in Cerberus if that's your major worry.
One way or another it will still affect PVE though - ignoring the PVE element when making any changes to T3Cs would be silly.
On another note I'd been pondering interdiction nullification - it shouldn't really change against passive non-targetted interdiction but there should always be a back and forth mechanic in active interdiction - a rough idea but maybe a "remote interdiction augmentor" module that could be fitted to command ships and HICs that when pointed at another HIC made it slower in some way for a nullfied ship to warp out of their bubble giving a chance to burn down and decloak them. |
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1136
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 12:12:06 -
[41] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote: Maybe I'm wrong but haven't seen anyone doing pve in a proteus (200k ehp, cough, cough).
http://imgur.com/uKC1G8I
You have now :p
We occasionally used them (PVP fit) in wormholes with guardians for PVE but not very often - I've used them for my own tinkering as per the link a bit but that was more just because I could. Still I'm sure there are people out there. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1136
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 13:48:45 -
[42] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I just need to point out that the nomadic life is made possible by nullification and covert ops cloaks.
They are actually quite slow to align at 8.5 seconds without any nano's or inertias so those people calling for nerfs to align time to make it easy to catch them obviously don't want Eve to be a hard game, at least for them.
I have seen some caught and had one guy manage to decloak me but I warped just before his point hit home, it is doable, but back to the people who want easy definite kills to put forth their hopelessness, so far I have not yet caught one either, but I make the odd effort every now and again.
My old nullified link loki warped in 4.1 seconds normal fit or just over 3 seconds with nomads (didn't usually bother with that - especially after I accidentally erased a nomad clone jumping to the wrong clone :( ).
There is definitely a place for that in the game - especially how often I encountered gates bubble spammed to 100 odd km when transversing remote parts of null - usually because they had or once had a rorqual out at the end of the dead end pipe or whatever :( |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1136
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 15:01:44 -
[43] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: Saying "well the specialty of HACs should be..." with no reasoning or evidence behind the assertion is a ridiculous statement to make. Regardless of what you think the specialty of HACs should be we can clearly see what HACs are (or at least were) used for and the ways in which T3Cs eclipse them completely.
That is the original CCP vision for them not something I've made up - some of them seem to have lost their way somewhat with more recent changes/balances - maybe for good reason at the time I dunno - some of them like the Deimos are probably hard to balance the bonuses between blaster and rail application.
Cade Windstalker wrote: Oh and for good measure the T3Cs actually beat the HACs in appliction as well as raw damage the vast majority of the time. If you dump the drone-bay on the Proteus it gets the Deimos' falloff bonus as well as a tracking bonus. That the Drone configurations of the Proteus don't get a drone tracking bonus is the exception, not the rule, compared to the HACs.
The only HACs that have a range or appliction bonus that the T3 Cruisers don't get are the Missile Velocity on the Amarr Sacrilege, the Missile Flight Time on the Caldari Cerberus (it does get the missile velocity though), and the drone tracking on the Gallente Isthar. Of those only the Ishtar sees much use and of those only it gets more DPS than its T3 counterpart on the weapon-system in question.
Not something I necessarily disagree with but the scope of where comparisons should be made is another story and would be clearer if HACs were tweaked back towards their original incarnation i.e. the Deimos should have optimal range and tracking bonuses that the Prot should be atleast 15+% less effective at.
Cade Windstalker wrote: The HACs *are* the proper T2 combat cruiser, they just don't measure up to where you want a ship like that to perform, which is apparently at the current level of the T3Cs which CCP and a large number of people in the community agree is OP.
HACs are more of the attack versus combat variety - something CCP seems to apply somewhat patchily but there it is - this is a fairly succinct summary of it:
Vaarsuvius13 wrote: The distinction is in base stats. Generally the attack have a weaker base tank with more speed, agility and damage application. They can come with higher damage than the combat, but the DPS/tank is better on the combat generally.
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1136
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 15:22:59 -
[44] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Rroff wrote: HACs are more of the attack versus combat variety - something CCP seems to apply somewhat patchily but there it is - this is a fairly succinct summary of it:
There are 2 HACs per faction. There is nothing preventing them from splitting a bit so they cover both combat and attack.
Sure - but assault ships by definition are more of the attack variety (though CCP tends to blur the lines on most things) - and hence only in terms of specialisation should they be a benchmark for a ship that has a theater wide application and isn't limited to an attack or combat role explicitly. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1136
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 16:48:12 -
[45] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:
I read that in another thread on this subject and assumed it was correct, just checked on one of my characters and it is 6.31 seconds, and for my Loki it is 6.36 seconds, that is still doable.
The base stats for the nullification sub-system are relatively high but easy to bring down to reasonable numbers on most fits. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1136
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 17:24:10 -
[46] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:[quote=Rroff] Not playing the game puts your opinions on it's current state in question.
I'm sure there will be no shortage of people queuing up to tell me when and where I'm wrong ;) |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1137
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 19:51:26 -
[47] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:snip....
You misunderstood a bit what I meant with the Deimos - it "should" have that tracking advantage over a T3 - all of those ships "should" have that damage application advantage over their respective T3 counterparts.
You are also basing a lot of that on what CCP Rise said (who didn't work for CCP when they were originally developed) - in the original days HACs were conceived a bit differently to where he went with them on the rebalance - the old vision - which he kind of glosses over in those threads - was for dominant solo ships that could close quickly with their target and efficiently take them down. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1137
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 21:27:37 -
[48] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: And you seem to have missed my point entirely, you say "those ships should" but there's no *reason* they "should" have that application advantage. As I showed, with sourced evidence, they never had it, they've never needed or wanted it, and there's no significant benefit to it beyond it relegating the HACs to the garbage bin so T3Cs can keep being over-tanked little monsters.
What HACs are supposed to be is tanky. The MWD bonus is entirely a tank bonus, the base hulls aren't even *that* fast to begin with. The Deimos, for example, loses in base speed to a Vigilant and the only HAC hull that isn't beaten by at least one pirate Cruiser is the Vagabond.
As to what you're saying about HAC hulls, considering they were originally introduced in 2003, there was no forum thread for them, and the web pages where such information might have lived are long gone there is no source for this. That was also so many changes and itterations of the game and its mechanics ago that it's a moot point and any argument based on that is ridiculous. Personally I'm going to go with CCP Rise on this one, considering that he was hardly the only one working on that design and he has access to whatever notes and people are left from the early days of Eve when considering how the ships should be reworked.
We're 14 years on, the game has changed massively, and how HACs have actually been used is as tanky high DPS Cruisers. That's also what they've been tiericided to be. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous, and it's almost certain that they're the ship that CCP is going to be using as a baseline for the combat stats of the T3 Cruisers.
What are you talking about - the Ishtar is a perfect example of those bonuses and most of the others have some shape or form of it though some have been changed around, etc. a lot of the old forums is archived on eve-search, etc. where there was a lot of discussions on the ships including dev input - anyhow I'm sure a dev can chime in on that aspect.
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1137
|
Posted - 2017.04.21 21:39:00 -
[49] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: LOL just noted him in a fleet of T3's flying a Megathron, that is classy...
Megathron is awesome - I would have taken the Kronos in its old form over a Prot every time if it wasn't for the vulnerability to capitals and bombs, etc. |
|
|
|