Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Beast of Revelations
Hedion University Amarr Empire
174
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 11:35:35 -
[1] - Quote
Are there plans for nerfs (I haven't seen them) or are they simply going to consolidate subsystems? |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47608
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 11:40:05 -
[2] - Quote
Yes there are plans for rebalance, not only consolidation of subsystems.
No one has seen any details yet. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 11:46:44 -
[3] - Quote
You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass. |
Beast of Revelations
Hedion University Amarr Empire
174
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 12:43:26 -
[4] - Quote
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. |
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 13:02:56 -
[5] - 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). |
Matthias Ancaladron
Wrath of Angels Solitaire.
274
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 14:17:51 -
[6] - Quote
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).
I've been told they do equal damage compared to battleships. That needs to go too. |
Keno Skir
1519
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 14:31:59 -
[7] - Quote
Matthias Ancaladron 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). I've been told they do equal damage compared to battleships. That needs to go too.
Correct. I have a proteus that has 200,000hp and does 1000DPS.
I have BS that do more in both areas obviously, but to make up for the increase in sig over the Prot they really have to do a lot more than that, which limits the options.
I think a small nerf to T3 tank and DPS, along with a boost to Battleship tank (but not DPS) would do much to alleviate the issue without having to then balance a bunch of other classes either side too much.
Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-
250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 14:34:13 -
[8] - 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 |
Keno Skir
1519
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 14:53:54 -
[9] - Quote
Rroff wrote: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 Keno Skir wrote:Correct. I have a proteus that has 200,000hp and does 1000DPS. I have BS that do more in both areas obviously, but to make up for the increase in sig over the Prot they really have to do a lot more than that, which limits the options. The Proteus is approx 700M fully fit which is another bonus over most decent BS. I think a small nerf to T3 tank and DPS, along with a boost to Battleship tank (but not DPS) would do much to alleviate the issue without having to then balance a bunch of other classes either side too much. Your prot likely has faction mag stabs, etc. while a mega or hype will sit at over 1000dps with 2x T2 magstabs and if you put even half the bling on them of a 1000+dps prot they'll easily exceed 1300dps.
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
Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-
250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 15:04:45 -
[10] - 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. |
|
Vortexo VonBrenner
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
2798
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 15:11:53 -
[11] - Quote
Beast of Revelations wrote:Are there plans for nerfs (I haven't seen them) or are they simply going to consolidate subsystems? To quote Gandalf; "What does your heart tell you?"
EvE security zones in pictures
EvE quick reference pdf
EvE links
|
Beast of Revelations
Hedion University Amarr Empire
174
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 18:44:56 -
[12] - Quote
Vortexo VonBrenner wrote: To quote Gandalf; "What does your heart tell you?"
My heart tends to be pessimistic on most things. I would have guessed no nerfs, or hell, even buffs. |
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
158
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 19:32:56 -
[13] - Quote
Yeah, Strategic Cruisers could have been done better, but they have waited far too long to balance them.
I think CCP should clearly map out expected EHP and DPS ranges for the various classes and stick to it, even if it means expanding T1 BS to over 1200 dps to make room for future advancements in Med turret ships in the future.
No med turret hull should have dps close to a lg turret regardless of tech level.
Of course that would mean a re-vist of nearly all ships DPS output.
Ideas:(with full short-range turret loadout with 1-3 dmg mods + std drones for hull)
Sm turret hulls: up to 400 dps, t1 baseline 250 dps.
Med turret hulls: up to 900 dps, t1 baseline 550 dps.
Lg turret hulls: up to 2000 dps, t1 baseline 1250 dps.
Of course that damage range could be expanded even more to give more room between med hull max dps and the t1 Lg turret baseline.
|
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
1175
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 20:02:53 -
[14] - Quote
They are on a chopping block so il wait for a official thread on that and to see who's on their strat cruiser focus team(really that worked last time?ok).
At this point when nothing is known balance side i am more interested in which sub systems are going bye bye forever(visually) and which remain will they be updated to new tech and will they get some more animation for example any combination that provide ship with drone bay should have a drone bay on a model stuff like that.
Is complete sub redesign in plan or just chopping off some to be able to implement skins... stuff like that.
You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear
Because >>I is too hard
|
Tuttomenui II
Aliastra Gallente Federation
563
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 21:10:26 -
[15] - Quote
The ability to remove riggs from them is interesting. Although I think it would be cool to have the riggs get turned into special riggs that can only be re-installed into t3 cruisers. |
Cade Windstalker
1333
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 21:18:02 -
[16] - Quote
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. |
Alaric Faelen
Sabotage Incorporated Executive Outcomes
467
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 21:20:23 -
[17] - Quote
They just need to be a little less effective in any given role than the T2 specialist ship for that role. They can do all the fleet roles- just not as well as the dedicated hulls. Let em boost, but not as well as a Command Ship. Let them remote rep, but not as well as a Logi. Let them DPS but not as well as a HAC.
Right now I'd put the T3 on par with the battleship line. They should be slightly weaker than T2 cruisers.
I think the critical factor for T3 cruisers should be on-the-fly refits. Make it cheap enough to carry half a hangar worth of refit modules and rigs so losing the ship isn't crushing. Then you have a choice- take standard T2 specialist ships but are limited in their engagement envelope, or take T3's with slightly softer ships but the ability to adapt to changing conditions.
Same for PvE uses. Maybe give T3's a dedicated cargo hold for fitting modules/rigs so you still have room for loot. T3's should be able to operate away from POS/stations, and should be able to refit without a mobile depot.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
2814
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 21:24:23 -
[18] - Quote
this is the main idea of what they want to do with t3c http://i.imgur.com/GKOCa3H.png
Also there was an art guy saying the reduction in complexity would result in the ability to add skins and whatever other graphical updates to t3cs.
selling officer BCUs! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6872141
@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1087
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 21:56:43 -
[19] - 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. |
Teros Hakomairos
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 01:00:43 -
[20] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Yes there are plans for rebalance, not only consolidation of subsystems.
No one has seen any details yet.
Calling a nerf "rebalalnce" is sweet.....nonsense but sweet....
A rebalance would be a new skin....
A nerf creates more problems than it solves than it creates another uber ship somerwhere else.....an another,and another...you see the problem?
Nerfs are bullshit....adapt to the new situation and find tactics to solve the "uber status".....
Whine post ingame and in the forum are childish..... |
|
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
2818
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 01:30:31 -
[21] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Yes there are plans for rebalance, not only consolidation of subsystems.
No one has seen any details yet. Calling a nerf "rebalalnce" is sweet.....nonsense but sweet.... A rebalance would be a new skin.... A nerf creates more problems than it solves than it creates another uber ship somerwhere else.....an another,and another...you see the problem? Nerfs are bullshit....adapt to the new situation and find tactics to solve the "uber status"..... Whine post ingame and in the forum are childish..... Nerfing is part of balancing, and it is typically far easier than boosting everything else.
and as I said balancing is a never ending process as metas shift and players adapt to the new meta. if you have a method to perfectly balance everything well go apply for a game design job.
selling officer BCUs! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6872141
@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
|
Cade Windstalker
1333
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 03:07:58 -
[22] - Quote
Teros Hakomairos wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Yes there are plans for rebalance, not only consolidation of subsystems.
No one has seen any details yet. Calling a nerf "rebalalnce" is sweet.....nonsense but sweet.... A rebalance would be a new skin.... A nerf creates more problems than it solves than it creates another uber ship somerwhere else.....an another,and another...you see the problem? Nerfs are bullshit....adapt to the new situation and find tactics to solve the "uber status"..... Whine post ingame and in the forum are childish.....
So says the guy whining on the forums about people talking on the forums...
Skins have nothing to do with ship balance.
Nerfing does not necessarily "create another uber ship somewhere else" or anything of the sort. If one ship is over-performing in a number of areas, especially specialist areas, like the T3s are then nerfing that one ship will see its role taken up by a number of other ships. It's also unlikely that the ship will completely fall out of use either.
There will always be some things that are used more than others, but variations in usage are a different thing from one ship or ship class being an obvious and severe outlier in terms of use and effectiveness.
Games can't just use buffs for balance, there have to be nerfs as well. Otherwise you end up having to buff everything rather than nerf one thing, and that's just not viable and ends up being *way* more work for no added benefit.
Your OP toy is getting nerfed. Get over it. |
Celise Katelo
State War Academy Caldari State
204
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 05:42:17 -
[23] - Quote
Matthias Ancaladron 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). I've been told they do equal damage compared to battleships. That needs to go too.
The training time for getting Tech3 Cruiser isn't a walk in the park, you can't just jump into one like you can a battleship. If Tech3 Cruiser got a damage nerf, so many of us would be super pissed off. I spent well over a year training to use a Tengu.
I don't think Tech3 cruiser is OP at all, even Pirate cruisers do similar damage.
EVEBoard ...Just over 50million skill points, each skill was chosen for a reason. I closed my eyes & clicked another skill to train... "BINGO...!!!" ... "This time i got something usefull"
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
61742
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 07:18:53 -
[24] - Quote
Celise Katelo wrote: The training time for getting Tech3 Cruiser isn't a walk in the park, you can't just jump into one like you can a battleship. If Tech3 Cruiser got a damage nerf, so many of us would be super pissed off. I spent well over a year training to use a Tengu.
I don't think Tech3 cruiser is OP at all, even Pirate cruisers do similar damage.
Exactly. Training up to be proficient at flying Tech 3 Strategic Cruisers is no easy task.
Check the meaning of the word 'Strategic' - Something that's carefully designed or planned to serve a particular purpose or advantage. Related to the gaining of overall or long-term military advantage.
If anything Tech 3 Strategic Cruisers are suppose to be OP due to their versatility. And because of that versatility they aren't meant to be pigeon holed or shoehorned into a specific cookie-cutter fleet role. They're suppose to be dangerous with unknown fitting options due to being reversed engineered from Sleeper Technology whereas all other Empire ships were created by K-space Technology.
Trying to compare and make Tech 3 Strategic Cruisers balanced with all the other regular Empire ships is nothing more than complete and utter nonsense. Reducing the amount of available sub-systems and slot options by using the excuse that it's required in order to make 'Skins' for them is just plain stupid and total BS.
Now I do admit that Tech 3 Strategic Cruisers need to be looked at but only in the aspect of making them equally balanced between themselves. That's it and nothing more.
Just because some cry baby players complained they don't know what type of fit up to expect when they encounter a Tech 3 Strategic Cruiser is no reason to nerf them. I swear, CCP has their heads stuck so far up their nether regions they seriously don't even know what they're doing anymore.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
1176
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 08:29:52 -
[25] - Quote
Versatility is their advantage and with allowing rig swaps CCP is on a good track and well see what sub systems changes will bring as long as they don't have ....
A mobility B battleship tank C Close to BC/BS dmg D Signature tank
....at the same time thru sub systems redistribution they gonna still be awesome boats
Tengu pushing 1k dps but not much else is not a problem Tengu pushing 1k dps to 60km and sig tanking half a fleet with perma 800+ dps active tank is a problem.
My take on T3 would be limited amount of hard points 4 max then nerf pg on them all so they cant fit buffer fits of 250k HP on them then resist sub give same t3 resist but limit med / low slots so pilot can do crazy stuff with it....
...brick tank yes but 3 hard points 15mb drones...have fun.
You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear
Because >>I is too hard
|
Beast of Revelations
Hedion University Amarr Empire
178
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 09:18:18 -
[26] - Quote
I know a guy who can literally fly anything in the game. Supercarriers, titans, battleships, etc. He just flies Tengus. He gets more tank, more dps, more mobility, and more resists than a battleship. He does all his null-sec ratting in his Tengu, always tells me to get rid of my battleships and get into a Tengu.
The anoms and wormhole sites he can solo in a Tengu without ever warping out a single time are outrageous. I haven't found a battleship yet that can stay in with him any length of time. He says strategic cruisers are way OP, and that's why he flies them. |
Wanda Fayne
553
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 10:07:22 -
[27] - Quote
Beast of Revelations wrote:I know a guy who can literally fly anything in the game. Supercarriers, titans, battleships, etc. He just flies Tengus. He gets more tank, more dps, more mobility, and more resists than a battleship. He does all his null-sec ratting in his Tengu, always tells me to get rid of my battleships and get into a Tengu.
The anoms and wormhole sites he can solo in a Tengu without ever warping out a single time are outrageous. I haven't found a battleship yet that can stay in with him any length of time. He says strategic cruisers are way OP, and that's why he flies them.
Not true. Battleships, particularly Pirate ships will out DPS them considerably. T3 DPS isn't overwhelming by any cruiser, battlecruiser or battleship standard.
The greatest things about T3s are the tanks and low sig radius. On a platform with ample PG and CPU it is inevitable to see people use them to their greatest strengths.
your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic
-Lan Wang-
-
Locator Agents cease to function on Offline Players:
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1095
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 11:20:30 -
[28] - 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. |
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
160
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 12:17:00 -
[29] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:Beast of Revelations wrote:I know a guy who can literally fly anything in the game. Supercarriers, titans, battleships, etc. He just flies Tengus. He gets more tank, more dps, more mobility, and more resists than a battleship. He does all his null-sec ratting in his Tengu, always tells me to get rid of my battleships and get into a Tengu.
The anoms and wormhole sites he can solo in a Tengu without ever warping out a single time are outrageous. I haven't found a battleship yet that can stay in with him any length of time. He says strategic cruisers are way OP, and that's why he flies them. Not true. Battleships, particularly Pirate ships will out DPS them considerably. T3 DPS isn't overwhelming by any cruiser, battlecruiser or battleship standard. The greatest things about T3s are the tanks and low sig radius. On a platform with ample PG and CPU it is inevitable to see people use them to their greatest strengths.
I think mobility might be the biggest reason to use T3 instead of a BS in Null Sec for rattin.
Nothing like cloaky nullified traveling to where you need to go, change out your subs/mods, rat a bit, change back and go home. Why risk a BS when you can do that?
|
Jenn aSide
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
15584
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 13:15:34 -
[30] - Quote
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 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |