Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
NoLimit Soldier
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 17:58:00 -
[1]
Will CCP ever get rid of the tier system?
Instead of coming out with newer, BIGGER, ships why not just level out the tier system so that 80% of the ships you already designed are made viable???
Things I would love to see:
Condor - Mini Crow - More speed and another Midslot
Kestrel - MINI bomber - MORE DPS. Push over 200. Exchange PG for CPU so no possible tank but tons of DEEEEPS.
|
fuxinos
Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 18:02:00 -
[2]
Crow needs somethingelse then a 4th mid, something any other ICP has. Damage...
On topic, I agree totaly.
|
Nuniki
Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 18:31:00 -
[3]
I have to strongly agree. I wouldn't go so far as to say ships of a lower tier are complete trash, but the idea that "oh this new / higher tier ship is just slightly better at everything" pretty much sucks.
|
TheZealot O0O0O
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 18:40:00 -
[4]
+1
|
Suitonia
Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 19:05:00 -
[5]
It would be nice to see the worthless t1 frigates (Atron, Breacher, Slasher, Condor, Inquisitor, Executioner) buffed up a little so they aren't just used as shuttles with MWDs or bigger cargo.
I don't think the Kestrel is bad though, and it certainly shouldn't be a t1 stealth bomber.
Tier 1 Battle-cruisers definitely need some lovin' too. ---
|
Zhim'Fufu
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 19:07:00 -
[6]
Yeah the entire cruiser and frigate line needs a complete overhaul to balance them against all the new ships they have introduced over the years. As it stands entire racial lines of ships are simply worthless even when you max all possible skills for them. Imo things like the rifter should only be as good as they are now after nearly maxing out your frigate skills and each race should get a frigate that is comparable in usefullness. Then the lower tier frigates should tweaked to fill in that gap during your training on the way to your rifter and even after getting in your rifter still be a viable choice. This could come from some unique aspect getting tweeked and refined like the ew bonused ships or some other special role bonus such as reduced cap use for points on the t1 tackle ships like the executioner and slasher. Cruisers too as there are only really 5 out of the entire four races that are worth a damn in any situation.
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 19:36:00 -
[7]
Originally by: fuxinos Crow needs somethingelse then a 4th mid, something any other ICP has. Damage...
On topic, I agree totaly.
i agree give the crow 200dps but also reduce range of that dps to 2-3km like the taranis-claw
|
NoLimit Soldier
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 19:56:00 -
[8]
Quote: I don't think the Kestrel is bad though, and it certainly shouldn't be a t1 stealth bomber.
Because raw dps is what a stealth bomber does. Except the whole bombing part...and cloaking.
|
Salpad
Caldari Carebears with Attitude
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 20:18:00 -
[9]
Originally by: NoLimit Soldier Kestrel - MINI bomber - MORE DPS. Push over 200. Exchange PG for CPU so no possible tank but tons of DEEEEPS.
I've always found the KEstrel difficult to fit. I can't remember whether it was grid or CPU issues I had, but if you say more grid and less CPU, that's probably what it needs.
I really like the idea of a ganky tiny ship.
-- Salpad |
Altaica Amur
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 21:16:00 -
[10]
With the exception of BS I think the tier system has resulted in a large portions of the ships available just not being used because other marginally more expensive but higher tiered and much more effective ships are more desirable.
|
|
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 21:28:00 -
[11]
In favour of making almost all ships worthwhile. ------------------------------------- I like to fly around and shoot stuff.
|
Salpad
Caldari Carebears with Attitude
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 21:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Altaica Amur With the exception of BS I think the tier system has resulted in a large portions of the ships available just not being used because other marginally more expensive but higher tiered and much more effective ships are more desirable.
The CSM should really demand that CCP begin gathering solid ship usage statistics, as in keeping track of hours flown while shooting stuff, for each single ship variant in the game, totalled for all players.
That's the only way to objectively prove that some ship hulls are unpopular.
(The "while shooting stuff" is important, because it excludes ships used as couriers, or used for salvaging. Shooting mining lasers at asteoids should probably also be excluded, or maybe not. I'm not convinced mining frigates and cruiers were ever intended for legitimate uses other than mining.)
-- Salpad |
Hitman107
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 21:51:00 -
[13]
I think the idea of Tiers makes sense. The ships in the different tiers definitely have different roles and "flavors". It's just that they aren't balanced very well vs each other and ships in other tiers because of outside game mechanics. I'd love to see a ferox with additional turret slots with grid to use it and a tank that's close to a drake. Similarly the moa should be a pure gunboat and the caracal a missile ship. The tier 1 cruiser is almost always an indy ship.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 21:52:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Altaica Amur With the exception of BS I think the tier system has resulted in a large portions of the ships available just not being used because other marginally more expensive but higher tiered and much more effective ships are more desirable.
t1 BCs and frigs I think need to be the main priority however t1 cruisers have some rather blatant issues as well.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 22:10:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Ulstan on 10/12/2010 22:15:32
Originally by: Hitman107 I think the idea of Tiers makes sense. The ships in the different tiers definitely have different roles and "flavors". It's just that they aren't balanced very well vs each other and ships in other tiers because of outside game mechanics.
I'm not sure you understand what the tier system is.
The tier system refers to what level of spaceship command skill you need to be able to fly the ship, and how in many cases, a ship requiring Level II of the skill is in all ways worse than the ship requiring level III. So, for example, Auguror requires Amarr Cruiser I, so is a tier I cruiser. Omen requires Amarr Cruise II, so is a tier II cruiser. Maller requires Amarr Cruiser III, so is a tier III cruiser.
Way back in the day, there were no implants, no neural remaps, no archura, and people hadn't trained the learning skills and no one had any idea wtf to do.
So you might learn at a mighty 800sp per hour at stuff you were GOOD at. Back then, actually training up a new level of cruiser or battleship (there were no battelships yet then either) took longer than it did today, and the 'tier' system was mildly defensible.
But now that training is so much faster, there's no longer any reason to have whole classes of ships to tide people over for the couple hours it takes to train their spaceship command skills up another level. Instead we have all kinds of potentially awesome ships that are redundant.
Ships having different roles is good. However, when a tier 1 ships role is 'tank/dps' and a tier 3 shps role is 'tank/dps', the tier 3 ship is going to be better at it, because he has mores lots, PG/cpu. Referring to our previous example, the Maller, tier 3, has 15 slots and 900 grid. The Omen, tier 2, only has 13 slots and 730 grid.
That's what should be fixed, and I think it would be wonderful if it was fixed. Then, as you say, ships like the prophecy or omen which are considered terrible, might actually see some use.
The ships could still maintain all their unique roles, to the extent that they have them. They'd just get the slots and fittings to be competitive with their peers.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 22:15:00 -
[16]
If everyone can get cruiser 4 in a couple days then the difference between a tier 2 and 3 should be restricted to ship type and play style. Ships grid, cpu, slots, and hard points should be balanced by what the ship is suppose to do/act, not what lvl of space ship command you need to fly it... Tier system is AWFUL for balance, you've gotten rid of the relic learning skills ccp, lets start getting rid of other relics.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 23:30:00 -
[17]
I think a lot of it has to do with the ships being replaced in short order with far more capable ships and/or with the role they're meant to fill being rather daft to begin with. If we look at what the various hulls are used for, we get a sense of what the problems are (and note that I don't talk about "tier" as in "skill level required" but as in "from worst to best" here):
Mining frigate → <nothing> Ewar frigate → EAF Astrometrics frigate → CovOps Tier 1 combat frigate → 2+ Interceptor Tier 2 combat frigate → Stealth Bomber Tier 3 combat frigate → 2+ Assault Frigate
Destroyer → Interdictor
Cargo/repair cruiser → Logistics EWar cruiser → 2+ Recon Tier 1 combat cruiser → HAC Tier 2 combat cruiser → HAC, HIC
Tier 1 battlecruiser → 2+ Command Ship Tier 2 battlecruiser → <nothing>
Tier 1 battleship → BlackOps Tier 2 battleship → Marauder Tier 3 battleship → <nothing>
The mining frigates are used initially, because that's what you have at your disposal and they fill a very clear and distinct niche. However, they are quickly superseded by the mining cruiser and/or soon thereafter by bargesà They have no T2 use for the hull, though, so that's something to think about: what could we put there?
The EWar and Astrometric frigates are very quickly superseded by their T2 counterparts, and in the case of the ewar frigates, we can only look at how popular the EAFs are (viz. the least used ship in the game) to figure out that this is not a good role for a frigate to have.
The combat frigates are a mixed bag. For the tier 2/3 ones, it's usually a matter of picking your preferred weapon system or fitting style, and both workà reasonably well, but this category suffers from racial imbalances instead (go Rifter!). They are, however, completely superseded by their T2 counterparts.
The tier-1 combat frigates, however, are just fast, and with the kind of fitting options available for T1 frigates (i.e. very narrow), this is not enough of a differentiator to make them useful other than as glorified shuttlesà only they are much more rare and expensive than those shuttles so why bother? Their only purpose is to be turned into interceptors.
Destroyers have no tiers, but are superseded by 'dictors anyway, and again, there are racial imbalances (Thrasher/Sabre > all).
The cargo/repair cruisers fair reasonably well. They tend to work well enough as unskilled mining ships and for impromptu repair jobs where you just can't be bothered to get a full-on logistics ship (highsec POS repairs or cleaning up left-over damaged anchored modules comes to mind).
The EWar cruisers are a mixed bag, mainly due to ewar itself being a mixed bag. The Blackbird is the cheap jamming platform; the restà not so much, but they still have their uses.
The combat cruisers follow the combat frigates in mainly being a choice of weapon systems, and they work well, as far as I can tell. Cheap. Things go boom. Nothing complicated.
The tier-1 battlecruisers are completely superseded by the tier-2 ones, even though there are (in some cases) meant to echo the weapon system choices we see in cruisers and frigates. Unfortunately, they just perform too poorly and only really serve the function of being turned into CSes.
The one place where the tier system works is with the battleships. Their T2 counterparts serve rather specific functions and thus don't supersede the T1 hulls. The tiers themselves offer distinct differences in setups, roles, and uses (and cost). Granted, in some cases, these roles aren't working too well, but that has more to do with the equipment that is required than on the tier system (the Hype and Rokh usually come up as examples of this). ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Diesel47
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 00:41:00 -
[18]
Remove all tier systems from ships.
|
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:14:00 -
[19]
I don't disagree that tech one frigates and cruisers have a crappy tier system. I do disagree that the issue should be some kind of priority for CCP. Does anyone feel super left out that they can't bring their breacher on a fleet ops?!? Look at all the variety of tech 2 frigates as well as cruisers. Look at how much isk is in the economy now. I'd much rather CCP fix assault frigates, electronic attack frigates, destroyers, and hybrids. I'd much rather CCP expand faction warfare, planetary interaction, dominion, ect....
It would be nice if tier one battlecruisers were addressed but even then the Cyclone with a blue pill and implants is quite the experience. The ferox and the drake are extremely different. If rails got improved the ferox might be attractive to me.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 03:59:00 -
[20]
The Tier system was obsolete the day tech 2 ships debuted.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 04:47:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf Also - in before Liang
I had thought about making a post in this thread (specifically in response to Tippia), but decided it wasn't really worth my time. I'm just glad to see there's growing support for the removal of the tier system.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died - |
Terephen
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 05:16:00 -
[22]
If you look at the usage of T1 ships, you see that they're generally used where either the T2 versions aren't worth it (assault ships), or their role is completely different (Battleships, destroyers - which are used in FW and low-level missions). The trouble with the lower tiered frigs and cruisers (even the BCs to an extent) is that they're specialised like T2s, but nowhere near as good.
Plus, it's not just that the training time for Cruiser I to IV is so small that you don't need lower-tiered ships to "tide you over", it's that, if you do wish to fill the role of logistics or recon etc. by the time you've figured out what skills to train and all the other stuff that's part of the massive learning curve of EVE, you've already trained cruiser V, cause who isn't going to train the skill that gets them in a Vagabond, versus something called "Energy Emissions Systems", or "Frequency Modulation"?
So the question is whether it's viable to have specialised T1 ships at all, in situations where the T2 version fills the same role. And it's already established that roles are really the only way to make all these ships worthwhile, as if they DON'T have roles then it's just a matter of picking the highest tier, cause it will be better.
I think part of it is education, and the general "new player experience" thing. Get people learning as soon as possible about the different roles they could fulfil within a fleet, and point them in the direction they need to progress through that path. I actually think that the certificates system is a good concept in this regard, but it needs a lot more work.
|
fuxinos
Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 13:57:00 -
[23]
Originally by: 1600 RT
Originally by: fuxinos Crow needs somethingelse then a 4th mid, something any other ICP has. Damage...
On topic, I agree totaly.
i agree give the crow 200dps but also reduce range of that dps to 2-3km like the taranis-claw
Uuuhhh, I can spam 100dps, or less, at ~15km, scary.
|
Alhambra Rainwalker
Caldari Rosa Alba Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 21:07:00 -
[24]
There is already "tech level" tiering in the game so this artificial tiering should go away already. It only serves to diminish pool of ships that are actually used. Each ship should also be looked at critically to make them worth using.
|
hjgjgfgfgsj
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 22:26:00 -
[25]
It's a good idea except the kestrel.
The kestrel is such a sweet frigate and is likely to become really popular since the rocket buff and is not hard to fit. And also has huge cargo capacity.
That said leave the kessie alone, but fix the garbage.
|
Hiroshima Jita
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 23:11:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Zilberfrid In favour of making almost all ships worthwhile.
+1
|
Panch0Villa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 23:25:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Zilberfrid In favour of making almost all ships worthwhile.
+1
Seems to me the navies would have mothballed all the obsolete ship classes ages ago, which is exactly what they are. There's no real reason to fly the majority of the lower tier ships over the higher tier ships, which is a waste of a lot of perfectly fine looking ship models, never mind the tactical diversity...
I'm looking at you, Prophecy :(
|
Merdaneth
Amarr Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.12.12 00:34:00 -
[28]
Ships are differentiated by two major properties:
1. Role 2. Cost-effectiveness
Required skill level or tier designation is really a non-factor in deciding what ship to fly. Only the bang-for-buck or the ability to fullfill specific roles are factors.
On the frigate and cruiser level, the differences in cost have become irrelevant considering the current level of income of most players. Even though a Punisher hull is twice the price of a Inquisitor hull, the absolute difference in cost of the frig hull is irrelevant. The Inquisitor's only saving grace is that is uses missiles instead of guns, and therefore can be utilized in a slightly different role than the Punisher. Sadly, it is somewhat underpowered in relation to the Punisher, making the Punisher favored in the frigate combat role.
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.12.12 02:57:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Merdaneth Ships are differentiated by two major properties:
1. Role 2. Cost-effectiveness
Required skill level or tier designation is really a non-factor in deciding what ship to fly. Only the bang-for-buck or the ability to fullfill specific roles are factors.
On the frigate and cruiser level, the differences in cost have become irrelevant considering the current level of income of most players. Even though a Punisher hull is twice the price of a Inquisitor hull, the absolute difference in cost of the frig hull is irrelevant. The Inquisitor's only saving grace is that is uses missiles instead of guns, and therefore can be utilized in a slightly different role than the Punisher. Sadly, it is somewhat underpowered in relation to the Punisher, making the Punisher favored in the frigate combat role.
cost effectiveness only real comes into play when looking at bs sized t1 ships (not talking about anything beyond t1 here folks). The difference in cost between tier 2 and tier3 cruisers or tier1 and tier2 is insignificant when the modules to fit said ship are more or close to the value of the hull...
Tiers are a bad game design, period... We already have faction t2 and t3 ships to differentiate performance to isk ratio. The tier system adds nothing to this game other than forced imbalances.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |