Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
Seriously an insult not just to Command Ships but the entire balance and design philosophy of this game in general.
T3 cruisers are supposed to be "generalized" ships, doing everything pretty well but not as excellent as a T2 ship in its specialized role. |
Bill Serkoff2
Tachyon Technology
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 21:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
Because T3 ships are OP. End of. |
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 22:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bill Serkoff2 wrote:Because T3 ships are OP. End of. Are you agreeing that it's a problem or are you ok with the way it is? |
TomyLobo
Posthuman Society Elysian Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 22:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:Seriously an insult not just to Command Ships but the entire balance and design philosophy of this game in general.
T3 cruisers are supposed to be "generalized" ships, doing everything pretty well but not as excellent as a T2 ship in its specialized role. Tier system. Does that mean anything to you? CCP doesn't need to split t3s into different ships with specific roles for anyone to understand why T3s should perform better. |
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 22:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
TomyLobo wrote:Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:Seriously an insult not just to Command Ships but the entire balance and design philosophy of this game in general.
T3 cruisers are supposed to be "generalized" ships, doing everything pretty well but not as excellent as a T2 ship in its specialized role. Tier system. Does that mean anything to you?
CCP's stance on generalization T3's vs T2 Specializations, does that mean anything to you?
|
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
473
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 23:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:Are you agreeing that it's a problem or are you ok with the way it is?
Well, any nerf to T3s is going to hurt the (pve) reward of WHs, which are pretty much the riskiest space. I'm personally fine with T3s as they exist currently since it makes WH space the most lucrative in the game. |
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 23:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mfume Apocal wrote:Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:Are you agreeing that it's a problem or are you ok with the way it is? Well, any nerf to T3s is going to hurt the (pve) reward of WHs, which are pretty much the riskiest space. I'm personally fine with T3s as they exist currently since it makes WH space the most lucrative in the game. It's only risky if you're afk botting in WHs because I find WH's to be safer than null and low. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
205
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 23:32:00 -
[8] - Quote
The only area I see an issue would be command bonuses. At the very least the bonuses should be the same.
Otherwise I think overall the T3 ships are fine. Given their cost, and the fact that I lose potentially a week of training (depending on my attribute mapping) when I die, I think their power matches their risk. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
601
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.
The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it. |
|
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:19:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.
The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.
I love you |
|
Lili Lu
238
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
And we can expect these changes in 2023 judging by the past and current rate of balancing changes. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:22:00 -
[12] - Quote
As a Leadership pilot i would love you long time if you made the command ships work instead of as it is now. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:And we can expect these changes in 2023 judging by the past and current rate of balancing changes. edit- Seriously, please get faster at this. It's ok if you make some mistakes, as long as you keep revisiting quickly those mistakes. Look at something like technetium. It's taken you guys years now to even get close to fixing it. And please review the threads on the forums. People were warning you about tech even before you put it on tranqulity. Look at how long the Drake has been far and away the most used ship for pve and pvp. Similarly the Tengu. If you made smaller changes more often then these mistakes would not fester in the game they would just be brief hiccups that would reced from memory.
ccp tallest should be back from his parental leave soon(tm) iirc his only task was balancing for some time, while ccp ytterbium has some other tasks
im pretty certain we can expect some more stuff in the not to distant future |
Lili Lu
238
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote: ccp tallest should be back from his parental leave soon(tm) iirc his only task was balancing for some time, while ccp ytterbium has some other tasks
im pretty certain we can expect some more stuff in the not to distant future Yes, in six months with the next expansion we will get 5 more frigs rebalanced. |
Jack Miton
Bite Me inc Exhale.
272
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 01:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
There's no issue with T3s atm. the only possible exception is off grid boosting to which the fix is making boosting on grid only, not nerfing T3s.
command ships are also fine for the most part. only one that is bad is the Eos.
ive never heard a good argument for why T3s should get nerfed. they cost at least 2x that of a CS, you risk losing skill points and they really do not do more than one thing at a time well. and given you cant refit them in a WH (a MUCH more pressing issue....) you need a different hull for each role you wish to do with it. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
727
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
btw one big step to make a T3 more flexible is to alow to remove subsystems without destroying the rigs.
Why? rigs define the purpose of the ship. Once you have them in your fitting is basically defined. Swaping subsystems is of limited use and works only in corner cases. What would be nice is to have multiple hulls fitted with rigs and just plug in the subsystems like normal items. Currently you have to maintain at least N+1 sybsystems from each types where N is the number of hulls to be able to swap them.
thats the hardcore version of towers of hanoi a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Rroff
The Xenodus Initiative.
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 02:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:There's no issue with T3s atm. the only possible exception is off grid boosting to which the fix is making boosting on grid only, not nerfing T3s.
command ships are also fine for the most part. only one that is bad is the Eos.
ive never heard a good argument for why T3s should get nerfed. they cost at least 2x that of a CS, you risk losing skill points and they really do not do more than one thing at a time well. and given you cant refit them in a WH (a MUCH more pressing issue....) you need a different hull for each role you wish to do with it.
Agreed that T3s should NOT get nerfed it makes them less special, less of something to work towards and makes the price of them a lot less worthwhile.
At the moment I'm against any changes regarding off/on grid boosting, while some ships like the damnation can feasibly fulfil this role as a whole command ships including t3s aren't really suited to it. I do think there should be a bonus to on grid boosting tho to (rather than lose off grid boosting entirely) to try and encourage it but it needs to come with a lot of changes to the current command ships and boosting t3s. |
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Inglorious Waffles Apocalyptic Legion.
89
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:23:00 -
[18] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:btw one big step to make a T3 more flexible is to alow to remove subsystems without destroying the rigs.
You know you can already do that, right? Just drag them on to the fitting window like modules. Triple rep Myrms are like what you'd get if you strapped a beehive to Robocop. |
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
All I can think of is if the T is higher, it must be a better ship. So if a T2 cruiser can run an L4 mission, then a T3 cruiser should be able to out preform a T2 BC. Makes sense I suppose.
Lili Lu wrote:Gilbaron wrote: ccp tallest should be back from his parental leave soon(tm) iirc his only task was balancing for some time, while ccp ytterbium has some other tasks
im pretty certain we can expect some more stuff in the not to distant future Yes, in six months with the next expansion we will get 5 more frigs rebalanced.
My question is which 5? I posted thoughts on this earlier but it didn't get any traction yet. For example they could re-purpose all the EW frigates. I <3 Vexors. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:19:00 -
[20] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:
command ships are also fine for the most part. only one that is bad is the Eos..
other then the damnation the fleet command ships are a tad to flimsy to actually be in a fleet and on grid where they belong. making an offgrid t3 much better. Up the others tank and i would agree with you
|
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
206
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote:Bienator II wrote:btw one big step to make a T3 more flexible is to alow to remove subsystems without destroying the rigs.
You know you can already do that, right? Just drag them on to the fitting window like modules.
You are misunderstanding his meaning.
You cannot have an unpackaged T3 Hull without any subsystems. In order to assemble a T3 hull it MUST always have 5 subsystems in it.
So you cannot for example have 3 T3 hulls with rigs but no subsystems. And then say one complete set of subsytems and then mix and match for the particular ship.
If it would be too hard to do this, one workaround would maybe be to have "placeholder" subs. They would impart no benefits, but be inexpensive so you essentially could have rigged hulls without having to buy duplicate subsystems for each one. |
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
473
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.
If you're going to look at dialing back some of their advantages over T2, could you give some attention to the viability of tech 2 cruisers in large scale (50-200+ on each side) PvP? As it stands right now, much of the reason for the popularity of T3 cruisers is because they are essentially T2 cruisers with enough survivability to stand on-grid during fleet fights and even act as counters to the "bigger is better" fleet comps of Maelstroms and Abaddons. Simply nerfing T3 would be a net loss for the game's ecology and wouldn't make HACs any better at actually influencing the "epic fights" EVE is known for. |
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
473
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:37:00 -
[23] - Quote
Yeah, a dude from Black Legion just straight up asked a dev to boost Muninns.
Sunglasses, gravity, "deal with it" |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
738
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 05:37:00 -
[24] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.
The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.
why not leave them alnce and balance the commandships, and other tech 2 cruisers around them? Since balancing them must be hard with so many sub systems. just buff command ships bonuses, while keeping tech 3 as better ships overall.
Think Tech 2 is better than 1. Tech 3 is better than 2.
BUT, tech 2 cruisers and BC or future classes, are better bonus wise than tech 3. So you might do as much damage but tech 2 should give better web range, better ECM,better healing, better utility. Well, at least this is one direction you could go. Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 salesXbox 360: 2.2 millionPlayStation 3: 1.5 millionPC: 500,000 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3965
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 07:34:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.
The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.
Given the (K-space) ease of keeping plenty of ships in one's hangar, plus the factor of rigs only being removable with destruction, and not to mention the skillpoint loss risk, people aren't going to use T3s unless they exceed at something. Certainly not at anything remotely like the current prices. A ship with a 500M ISK hull price and skillpoint loss had damb well better do something better than anything else, and that something had better be a good, useful niche.
Given the relative ease of skilling for them, and the width of the supply chain (compared to the technetium/BPO bottleneck, for instance) I'm not sure that it's all that terrible for Tech 3 cruisers to be significantly better than Tech 2s
tbh the only things I would suggest to rebalance T3s are
(1) Reduce the T3 ganglink bonus to +2%/level. Don't swap T3 and CS bonuses as is often suggested - T2 gang links are already extremely strong and gang bonuses as a whole could do with toning down a smidgen.
(2) Have a look at Cruise Missiles, because it's a poor situation when HMLs are better than Cruise even for killing BS. This would allieviate the Tengu's dominance over all other missile ships for PvE
(3) Fix the "orphan" HACs. The Eagle is utterly obseleted in every way by the Naga in it's rail sniper and blaster brawler roles - the only role I can think of for it is as a sort of blaster Vaga: give it speed and small sig so it can do something the Naga can't. Likewise, the Cerb is dominated by the Drake (close/med range) and the Tengu (close-long ranges), leaving only the near-useless extreme range niche. And the Sacrilege is just sad, partly because HAMs need a little love, partly because "brawler" is a bad role for a cruiser with only 5 slots for tank and damage mods, partly because that niche is amply filled by other ships.
(4) For the love of sweet bleeding jesus on the cross fix the moongoo bottleneck so that T2 ships can be more competitive in price. This can't be that hard; Akita T produced an excellent, racially balanced plan for you guys almost two years ago, with each race's T2 ships depending primarily on a different flavour of goo. Or it that's too hard, R32 alchemy. Whichever. 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/ |
Barbie D0ll
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 07:43:00 -
[26] - Quote
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:Seriously an insult not just to Command Ships but the entire balance and design philosophy of this game in general.
T3 cruisers are supposed to be "generalized" ships, doing everything pretty well but not as excellent as a T2 ship in its specialized role.
Hi there, apparently you have not seen the legion in PVP, or flown one. the legion ( in my opinion) is the worse of the T3s, where the zealot outperforms it and often has the worse fate of dying in a fire (loki and tengu can run faster, and proteus can remove someone's arm or leg from DPS) I think T3s should be a quilt of t2 cruiser special abilities (because they are expensive and carry a very hefty loss cost) but should not carry a big bonus to links, 75 to 50% of their command ability should be fine. |
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 10:13:00 -
[27] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:why not leave them alone and balance the commandships, and other tech 2 cruisers around them instead? Since balancing them must be hard with so many sub systems. just buff..errr change, command ships bonuses, while keeping tech 3 as better ships overall.
Think Tech 2 is better than 1. Tech 3 is better than 2. overall.
BUT, tech 2 cruisers and T2BC or future classes, are better bonus wise than tech 3. So you might do as much damage but tech 2 should give better web range, better ECM,better healing, better utility. Well, at least this is one direction you could go.
Another way to think of this is. the main strenght of a tech 3 ship is it feels like you're flying 2-3 ships. You get a massive number of bonuses. To kill this 10-12 bonuses on tech 3 would ruin them. However as long as tech 2 ships always have better bonuses, it won't be a big deal that tech 3 is so much better when they can't match tech 2 ships at the roles they fill.
So if the tech 3 is out performing in one area. buff the ships they are overlapping or change them. The loki web bonus is a great example. Great bonus, but weaker than a web boat.
Thing is, T3 are not meant to be better than T2.
I'd post CCP's diagram from Fanfest if I can be bothered to find it to show you their official view, but T2 are meant to be the best in the area they specialise in, T3 are meant to be mearly good but across multiple areas.
A good example in terms of bonuses only is that when using the exploration sub, T3's can probe just as well as a Cov Ops can as they get the exact same probe strength boost. This is wrong, irrelevent of the differences in cost, as it puts them on par as a dedicated prober, while also allowing them to obsolete said dedicated ships by being able to do more stuff on top (ie, also do combat exploration sites with relative ease).
T3's are meant to embody the "jack of all trades, master of none" philosophy, instead for the most part they're currently "jack of all trades, master of all".
If you leave T3 alone and balance the other ships around them, you have a bigger problem: Power Creep. Power Creep is a massive problem as it affects so many other things. |
TomyLobo
Posthuman Society Elysian Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 11:50:00 -
[28] - Quote
A lot of people are really making sense in this thread. How can you say 'boost T2s because they are being outclassed by T1s' then go ahead and also say 'T3s should be nerfed because they perform better than T2s'? What will be the opportunity cost of flying T3s, if command ships totally eliminate them from the boosting role? Boosting T3 configs can barely fit any viable tank or dps unlike command ships and both will still end up chilling in the pos or at some safe spot for the most part. There's a reason you opt for a neut legion or loki over their T2 counterparts. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Wraiths of Abaddon Byzantine Empire
81
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 12:56:00 -
[29] - Quote
Full t2 resists, similar slot numbers to bcs, 6 bonuses that are more powerful than bonuses found on t2s, and 3 rigs slots...
It's rather obvious why they are generally the best sub caps at practically everything outside of max gank potential... However they all do substantially more dps than their respective hacs and are very comparable to dpls lvls of gank Field command ships while retaining the list of advantages posted above...
t3 do not obsolete just hacs... They obsolete Fleet Commands, Field Commands, and many other ships as well while having a relatively short training time. CCP has allot of work on their hands... |
Jack Miton
Bite Me inc Exhale.
272
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:21:00 -
[30] - Quote
they dont 'obsolete' anything. that's like saying pirate BSs obsolete T1-2 battleships cos they are much better. well yeah, theyre better, but they also cost a hell of a lot more. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |