Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Blurtmaster
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 09:02:00 -
[121] - Quote
Ships that can warp cloaked:
Stealth bomber - yes Covert ops - yes Force recon - yes Combat recon - no Black ops - no
Can someone tell me why the Black Ops (and Combat Recon) can not warp cloaked? And in that case why they are called Black Ops (and Combat Recon). |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1150
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 09:36:00 -
[122] - Quote
Strategic cruiser - yes
Anyway, what exactly is OP about other T3s than Tengu?
And is there something else OP about Tengu besides damage projection of Heavy Missiles and fitting resources?
Fixing Heavy Missiles would also fix the Drake, and fixing fitting on the Cane would also balance that.
Same goes to ASBs, just fixing the fitting so that you can't slap XLASBs on cruisers, and frigates can only fit small ones would suffice. Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4552
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 10:25:00 -
[123] - Quote
Blurtmaster wrote:Ships that can warp cloaked:
Stealth bomber - yes Covert ops - yes Force recon - yes Combat recon - no Black ops - no
Can someone tell me why the Black Ops (and Combat Recon) can not warp cloaked? And in that case why they are called Black Ops (and Combat Recon).
Combat Recons are considerably more powerful than force recons. Who'd use any of the Force Recons if the Combats would warp cloaked? Do you really think a covops Curse would be balanced? Or a covops Rook?
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/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4552
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 10:27:00 -
[124] - Quote
Wait I withdraw my objection - I want a Covops Rook 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/ |
Sitreba Oonchevkii
CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 13:17:00 -
[125] - Quote
Equus wrote:I would prefer to see HACs looked at rather than introducing another ship. this. the only truly good HACs in my eyes are the vaga, ishtar and zealot. I've never even seen any of the others, and don't even get me started on how terrible the eagle is. Blod-red skies, strange beings, and the number 514, often written in blood. |
Sitreba Oonchevkii
CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 13:19:00 -
[126] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Blurtmaster wrote:Ships that can warp cloaked:
Stealth bomber - yes Covert ops - yes Force recon - yes Combat recon - no Black ops - no
Can someone tell me why the Black Ops (and Combat Recon) can not warp cloaked? And in that case why they are called Black Ops (and Combat Recon). Combat Recons are considerably more powerful than force recons. Who'd use any of the Force Recons if the Combats would warp cloaked? Do you really think a covops Curse would be balanced? Or a covops Rook?
a covops curse would **** anything in its path Blod-red skies, strange beings, and the number 514, often written in blood. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:04:00 -
[127] - Quote
Sitreba Oonchevkii wrote:Equus wrote:I would prefer to see HACs looked at rather than introducing another ship. this. the only truly good HACs in my eyes are the vaga, ishtar and zealot. I've never even seen any of the others, and don't even get me started on how terrible the eagle is.
Well i've seen the good old deimos too and the eagle can work with null at 20k odd but lacks the right bonus's and dps and ofc speed although that is an issue for anything that isnt a vaga. The problem is half of them are meant to be sniper's but that role is better served by tier3 bc's now basically the way forward for them is to be all modelled on the vaga, i.e. 2500m/s as a benchmark with a mwd sig rad bonus as its role bonus and all designed for mid range combat so 20-40km with good dps. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2086
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:42:00 -
[128] - Quote
Gabrielle Lamb wrote: You mean they're OP when coupled with deadspace modules and fullsets of HG pirate implants? Most successful t3 fits I see tend to cost more then a carrier / dreadnaught does.
They're OP without deadspace mods and HG pirate implants too. Furthermore, cost is generally not a balancing issue. See RDDD Titans.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Hephaestus LLC Get Off My Lawn
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:42:00 -
[129] - Quote
I'll restate again that I don't think we need Navy BCs; think of the various command ships as those. Pirate faction BCs would definitely add more flavor and variety.
It should also be a no-brainer that they should only be considered and introduced after the BC tiercide is complete - or perhaps as part of it. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Toxic Waste Industries
150
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:48:00 -
[130] - Quote
are people in this thread seriously stating that t3s are not overpowered?
I'd suggest investing in even the most modest amount of objectivity if this happens to be your point of view. Take a look at the individual bonuses they get, the number of bonuses they get, the full t2 resistance they get, the 3 rigs they get... They are literaly a field command ship with more better bonuses, much smaller sig, higher resistances AND higher speed for LESS SP. They are fundamentally broken and have been since their introduction.
That fact that CCP is aware of this deplorable balance and intends to set things strait in the near future is quite amazing to say the least. This is a huge victory for all of those who have been championing the idea of general game balance for years. |
|
Noisrevbus
221
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:49:00 -
[131] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: Well i've seen the good old deimos too and the eagle can work with null at 20k odd but lacks the right bonus's and dps and ofc speed although that is an issue for anything that isnt a vaga. The problem is half of them are meant to be sniper's but that role is better served by tier3 bc's now basically the way forward for them is to be all modelled on the vaga, i.e. 2500m/s as a benchmark with a mwd sig rad bonus as its role bonus and all designed for mid range combat so 20-40km with good dps.
The problem with that, as for the Vaga, is that it's so easily countered as a whole by just a few Recons while the pricetags remain as is. It's the "Darkside Drakes" argument all over again. I'm not saying that speed couldn't be something to model them after, but they need more than that to be appealing over a broader level.
It's been years since the good groups began adapting away from oldschool nano HAC tactics and began exploring other use of the HAC. Look at why Ishtars and Deimos profiled in small and medium respectively, two-three years ago. When you understand that, you understand the predicament, and even those adaptions are outdated today. The Vaga itself has turned into a niche ship (for solo-ish, support or very small gang action only) while select Tier 3 BC even step into that field a fair bit (primarily through the Talos). |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:55:00 -
[132] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:Harvey James wrote: Well i've seen the good old deimos too and the eagle can work with null at 20k odd but lacks the right bonus's and dps and ofc speed although that is an issue for anything that isnt a vaga. The problem is half of them are meant to be sniper's but that role is better served by tier3 bc's now basically the way forward for them is to be all modelled on the vaga, i.e. 2500m/s as a benchmark with a mwd sig rad bonus as its role bonus and all designed for mid range combat so 20-40km with good dps.
The problem with that, as for the Vaga, is that it's so easily countered as a whole by just a few Recons while the pricetags remain as is. It's the "Darkside Drakes" argument all over again. I'm not saying that speed couldn't be something to model them after, but they need more than that to be appealing over a broader level. It's been years since the good groups began adapting away from oldschool nano HAC tactics and began exploring other use of the HAC. Look at why Ishtars and Deimos profiled in small and medium respectively, two-three years ago. When you understand that, you understand the predicament, and even those adaptions are outdated today. The Vaga itself has turned into a niche ship (for solo-ish, support or very small gang action only) while select Tier 3 BC even step into that field a fair bit (primarily through the Talos).
I get where you're coming from but with bc's being the combat line tech3's will get nerfed its hard to see how else the HAC's could be developed and a niche is the point of t2 specialization anyway And maybe its a case of recons are too powerful against HAC's but everything can be countered in some way |
Jerick Ludhowe
Toxic Waste Industries
150
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:03:00 -
[133] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
I get where you're coming from but with bc's being the combat line tech3's will get nerfed its hard to see how else the HAC's could be developed and a niche is the point of t2 specialization anyway And maybe its a case of recons are too powerful against HAC's but everything can be countered in some way
What people forget when comparing hacs to bcs is that hacs are several times more effective than a bc when logi is on the field. Smaller sig + huge resistances + higher speeds will lead to significantly more survivability. The problem is that so many people look at the potential of a ship based on it's ability to function w/o logi support which is rather short sighted.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1151
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:19:00 -
[134] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:are people in this thread seriously stating that t3s are not overpowered? I'd suggest investing in even the most modest amount of objectivity if this happens to be your point of view. Take a look at the individual bonuses they get, the number of bonuses they get, the full t2 resistance they get, the 3 rigs they get... They are literaly a field command ship with more better bonuses, much smaller sig, higher resistances AND higher speed for LESS SP. They are fundamentally broken and have been since their introduction. That fact that CCP is aware of this deplorable balance and intends to set things strait in the near future is quite amazing to say the least. This is a huge victory for all of those who have been championing the idea of general game balance for years.
"All those bonuses" make Proteus the only viable armor blaster boat in game
Tengu would be just like any other expensive ship if it couldn't fit a BS AB without gimping rest of the fit
Loki is squishy
Legion is no way overpowered and blatantly terrible in many applications.
Really the general game balance issues are still related to bigger things: tanks and weapon systems, not individual ships or ship types. Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Jerick Ludhowe
Toxic Waste Industries
150
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:36:00 -
[135] - Quote
Roime wrote:
"All those bonuses" make Proteus the only viable armor blaster boat in game
Tengu would be just like any other expensive ship if it couldn't fit a BS AB without gimping rest of the fit
Loki is squishy
Legion is no way overpowered and blatantly terrible in many applications.
Really the general game balance issues are still related to bigger things: tanks and weapon systems, not individual ships or ship types.
Saying that legions are not overpowered? Try and compare them to absolutions and zealots... You will quickly find (if you care to look) that the only advantage worth mentioning that either of these ships have is raw damage output which is specific to the absolution... and btw the damage output difference is rather minimal.
Just because the legion is not nearly as relatively broken as the tengu does not make it balanced.
We are at a place in the game where huge numbers of players have high sp, and huge swathes of isk. This means that the game cannot be simply balanced around SP value and cost of ship, you have to make every ship viable at some level. The problem with t3s is that they eclipse HUGE numbers of ships from many different classes essentially reducing relative content. CCP has already acknowledged this and are moving forward in the right direction. |
Noisrevbus
221
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:14:00 -
[136] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: What people forget when comparing hacs to bcs is that hacs are several times more effective than a bc when logi is on the field. Smaller sig + huge resistances + higher speeds will lead to significantly more survivability. The problem is that so many people look at the potential of a ship based on it's ability to function w/o logi support which is rather short sighted.
The thing is Jerrick, we are already ahead of you in the thread.
I asked you to consider why Deimos and Ishtar profiled.
They did so because even with bonuses and the "mitigation logic" of Logi-support on Tech II resists, Vagas are actually quite squishy. They generally ran at 30-40km (bonused point-range) with 30-40k ehp buffers (on dual LSE, without Invul) and relied on the collective of resist-speed-sig-distance-disengagement. They are within recon point-web range and since those Recons remove the "collective" the Vagas get volleyed as soon as the "Drakes" begin to number over 20.
The AHACs profiled because they had larger tanks (often near the double), better resist-profiles, undervalued speed, free midslots for electronic support, utility slots in highs, ability to sig-tank (doubling the effective tank again) and would thus blitz those lynchpin Recons that killed the Vagas (similar to how Vagas blitzed old nano-era Frigate lynchpins, leaving hostiles wingclipped and ready for more daring engagement), while they could control the Logis that kept hostile Recons alive against Vaga blitz-attempts.
The AHACs disappeared from large scale because even 100-150k tanks get volleyed by enough ships. Trends there quickly went back over toward similar tanks on cheaper hulls (ie., Hellcats) and then pulling up from there (Slowcats and Foxcats rely entirely on hostile blobs not volleying their figures, thus being worth the isk-risk). You are unlikely to see HBC field their 300k shinies against something like CFC, while they are confident enough that A-Team will struggle against those base figures. A-Team lack the numbers and resources to run Maels or Dreads at the level of CFC. Plus HBC will just "super that".
I italized that because the large-scale perspective is a bit of a different topic. Anyway, among small-medium the AHACs mainly struggle with Tier 3 BC supported gangs.
In this era of "Blap" (ie., understanding how oversized weapon systems can still hit 1-2 classes down, and utilizing that) even the AHACs are strained. Most AHACs went dual-prop (DP) when Alpha profiled. With Crucible even DP got strained since once you turn off your MWD to tank with your AB the Tier 3 Snipers will build range on you. So you are faced with the issue of risking expensive ships to catch insurable buckets.
Hence the natural counter is the combination of sig and reach (100mn + HML, DP with sentries etc., which you see in all forms of "Cats" with rising public popularity right now, wether it's "Thunder", "Slow", "Fox" or "Tar"). The good small-medium groups have of course used that since (before-) Crucible, and PL have had them in reserve for as long .
I know i have given this little chronology before, but i'm sure a second time won't hurt.
That's where we are today, not at 2008 Vagas and not at old 2009 AHACs, not newer 2010 DP-AHACs or 100mn either.
Make HACs over the swath become 2008 Vagas and they will be 4 years outdated even at release.
You should keep some of these things in mind when you bleat about "overpowered Legions". |
chris elliot
EG CORP Talocan United
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:01:00 -
[137] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Gabrielle Lamb wrote: You mean they're OP when coupled with deadspace modules and fullsets of HG pirate implants? Most successful t3 fits I see tend to cost more then a carrier / dreadnaught does.
They're OP without deadspace mods and HG pirate implants too. Furthermore, cost is generally not a balancing issue. See RDDD Titans. -Liang
By that logic then why don't people run around in nighthawks all the time? If cost isn't really an issue then we should be rolling in them.
Opportunity cost IS an issue, but one that can be amended by making the opportunity balance out. |
Cornette
Solar Revenue Service TAXU
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:10:00 -
[138] - Quote
Since it seems that the Devs follow this thread and there is a lot of balancing discusion thrown out about Battlecruisers I add my two cent:
- Nerf the Cane!
I fly it a lot, it's cheap, it's fast and relative agile enough with a fibre. If I need a ship with decent firepower with good mobility the cane is what I take, most of the times.
So how should it best be nurfed you ask? Move a low to mid. Or cut it's pg so it can't fit 2 dual neuts.
Another thing Devs could do is to nerf Tracking Enhancer module: Cut the falloff bonus from 30% to 15%. They benefit AC's the most. That would force canes and other AC fitted ships to get closer in fighting.
OF course pls don't do anything to the ship before the fugly Drake been nerfed first
/Corn |
Medarr
ZeroSec Dragon Swarm Dynasty
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:19:00 -
[139] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
- Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.
Wait.. what?!?
How are they out of line? they are retardedly expensive, they arent unkillable and we loose a subsystem skill level when killed... Out of curiosity can you explaining what they do to well and what they dont do good enough before you start messing with our beloved T3s??.... |
Angsty Teenager
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:01:00 -
[140] - Quote
CCP, I have a question. Have you actually tried to fly a T2 fit T3? Either in pvp or pve. Because let me clue you in on a little secret--they're not that great at all.
The tengu is moderately better than the cerb in terms of dps w/ a T2 fit The proteus is moderately better than the brutix in terms of dps w/ a T2 fit The legion is the same as the zealot with a T2 fit in terms of dps The loki does less damage in certain configs than a hurricane, and tanks far less than a cyclone in a T2 fit.
T3's are GOOD becuase people are WILLING to spend money to deadspace fit them because the hull already costs a lot. They work so well with high expense fittings because they are ships that are somewhat generalized, so by dumping money on them, you can make the ship act as a specialized ship in more than one area--as opposed to for example a cyclone which can really only excel in active shield tanking, whereas something like a tengu can be pimped so that it goes fast and tanks a lot.
That's not the fault of the ships, that is the fault of people having isk. That's how the game should work. They take increased risks in terms of isk loss.
If you do end up nerfing T3's, you better remove the SP loss and make them cheaper (especially the Legion since it's a piece of garbage right now), because it won't be worth it.
And even if you want to nerf T3's, can you please rebalance HAC's PROPERLY so that the T3's can actually be compared to ships that aren't utter trash (eagle/cerb/sacrilege/muninn), and give the game time to normalize to the new ability levels of the rebalanced ships? Otherwise I forsee terrible T3's and good T2's, and the T3's will never ever get used and you won't get around to rebalancing them until years later at which point you'll nerf T2 ships at the same time etc...
Also, since I'm sure one of your concerns is the prevelance of T3 ships for level 4 mission running/anom running etc..., maybe you should consider actually making torps and cruise missiles good instead of nerfing T3's. The only reason the tengu is used is because it provides the same tank and more dps as opposed to the ****** caldari battleships which can't hit the broad side of a barn without some serious help (also, lol pheonix). |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2087
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:07:00 -
[141] - Quote
A few comments: - Your name seems appropriate - I'm not sure how you can claim the Tengu is only as good as a Cerb with a straight face. - DPS is not the only metric by which we measure ships. The Proteus is arbitrarily better than the Brutix just as the Legion is significantly better than the Zealot. - People are willing to spend the ISK on T3 ships because they are OP. - Prices are set by the market itself, CCP has nothing to do with it.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
190
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 22:09:00 -
[142] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: The Proteus is arbitrarily better than the Brutix just as the Legion is significantly better than the Zealot
...Just like Ishtar is significantly better than Vexor and Vindicator is much better than Mega.
Liang Nuren wrote: - People are willing to spend the ISK on T3 ships because they are OP.
That's an exaggeration. I agree that all T3s are in need of *some* balancing ( it's more about giving a very specific roles, which are distinct from T2s and there is no overlap ) but saying that ALL T3s are OP is just too much.
Today I visited about 36 systems ( 12 hisec and the rest was in lowsec ). Proteus and Legion are a very rare sight. I saw only 3 Protei and 2 Legions. Loki is slightly more common. 6 or 7 Lokis spotted today. Tengu is way too common. I saw around 30 of those aberrations today. Wouldn't mind some nerfing being applied to that bugger.
I have seen many, many more other combat ships today. If T3s are all so OP then why don't I see more of them ( excluding the One ) ?
Liang Nuren wrote: - Prices are set by the market itself, CCP has nothing to do with it.
Actually they have everything to do with it because it was them, who devised the Tech3 production chain and resources. Even with current prices, T3 production is not really worth the trouble when compared to simple T1 + some T2 production. If the prices would need to drop even further than they already are then it would simply make this branch of industry dead, practically overnight. Of course the price would be irrelevant because after nerfage, which would make T3s worse or even equal to T2s, no one would really fly those ships any more. What would be the point? The only thing that could really influence their prices would be a rework of wormholes and T3 production chain. I can't see that happening ever ( at least not in a foreseeable future ). |
Goldensaver
Vorbild Industries Inc. State Section 9
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 00:31:00 -
[143] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: The Proteus is arbitrarily better than the Brutix just as the Legion is significantly better than the Zealot
...Just like Ishtar is significantly better than Vexor and Vindicator is much better than Mega. Liang Nuren wrote: - People are willing to spend the ISK on T3 ships because they are OP.
That's an exaggeration. I agree that all T3s are in need of *some* balancing ( it's more about giving a very specific roles, which are distinct from T2s and there is no overlap ) but saying that ALL T3s are OP is just too much. Today I visited about 36 systems ( 12 hisec and the rest was in lowsec ). Proteus and Legion are a very rare sight. I saw only 3 Protei and 2 Legions. Loki is slightly more common. 6 or 7 Lokis spotted today. Tengu is way too common. I saw around 30 of those aberrations today. Wouldn't mind some nerfing being applied to that bugger. I have seen many, many more other combat ships today. If T3s are all so OP then why don't I see more of them ( excluding the One ) ?
And for each Legion, how many Zealots did you see? For each Proteus, how many Deimos' did you see? Loki's to Vagabonds? Tengu's to Cerber...i(?)?
They take less time to train for than HAC's, they're more powerful than HAC's in most situations, and yes. People do spend the ISK on the ships because they are OP. And about losing SP each time you die? It's a rank 1 skill. On the right remap it takes about 3 days to retrain that. On even on a random one it only takes around 5 or so days for the skill. Sure, that's a long 3 days waiting to get back in your ship, but it's only 3 days.
Why would anyone pay for a damn Legion/Loki/Proteus/Tengu if they weren't SIGNIFICANTLY better than the T2 variants? I don't know, it seems pretty apparent to me that they must be quite a bit better... |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2087
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 00:46:00 -
[144] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:...Just like Ishtar is significantly better than Vexor and Vindicator is much better than Mega. ... That's an exaggeration. I agree that all T3s are in need of *some* balancing ( it's more about giving a very specific roles, which are distinct from T2s and there is no overlap ) but saying that ALL T3s are OP is just too much.
Today I visited about 36 systems ( 12 hisec and the rest was in lowsec ). Proteus and Legion are a very rare sight. I saw only 3 Protei and 2 Legions. Loki is slightly more common. 6 or 7 Lokis spotted today. Tengu is way too common. I saw around 30 of those aberrations today. Wouldn't mind some nerfing being applied to that bugger.
I have seen many, many more other combat ships today. If T3s are all so OP then why don't I see more of them ( excluding the One ) ?
The problem here is that they're not meant to be better at the T2's role than the T2 ship is. The Loki that you complained about, for example, occupies some weird place between Vagabond/Huginn/Sleipnir that sometimes obsoletes all three. But nope, it's not OP at all!
Quote: Actually they have everything to do with it because it was them, who devised the Tech3 production chain and resources. Even with current prices, T3 production is not really worth the trouble when compared to simple T1 + some T2 production. If the prices would need to drop even further than they already are then it would simply make this branch of industry dead, practically overnight. Of course the price would be irrelevant because after nerfage, which would make T3s worse or even equal to T2s, no one would really fly those ships any more. What would be the point? The only thing that could really influence their prices would be a rework of wormholes and T3 production chain. I can't see that happening ever ( at least not in a foreseeable future ).
The problem with your assertion is that the current prices would fall because the demand for the final products would fall. Learn 2 Economy.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 01:16:00 -
[145] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Dear Ytterbium, *snip!* Sincerely,
LiLu Hello there, we've read your post a while back - again, it's not because we are not replying that we aren't interested in various hot topics. What's making (some) tier2 BCs partially so good is due to the modules they use and less to the hull itself. That's the case for the Drake for example. The combination of long range heavy missiles plus shield tanking is amplifying the potential of the ship far too much than intended. That's an issue that cannot be fixed by just quickly changing some numbers up and down as part of a temporary fix. Sure, a temporary fix may help in the meantime, but it can actually complicate things when we actually get to fully rebalance the battlecruisers. We're not saying it cannot be done, but, for being an old Dev chap within CCP, I have seen first hand what happens when ship balance is prematurely rushed: things tend to get over-nerfed or buffed one way or another and then left to rot for ages. And don't let me fool anyone here by trying to put the blame on other Devs, for this isn't the case: I know this for a fact for doing this very mistake myself several times. I was the one overbuffing the Dramiel to insane speeds in the first place (and to an extend all Angel Cartel Pirate ships). That's why I tend to be cautious and recommend the balancing guys to do the same when dealing with such problems. Balancing ship hulls on their own is already difficult, but add module balancing into the fray and the complexity blows out of proportion. Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers. We're not trying to specifically wallow in self-pity here but to explain it is important to learn from previous mistakes. We are not excluding the possibility of giving temporary fixes to ships that need them, we are just suggestion caution. We would also like to reply on the comments about tech3 ships being balanced for their cost and skill requirements. This should not be a factor for balancing most EVE vessels, because it breaks the purpose of a sandbox game which offers differently shaped tools for you to use as you see fit. And that's without even saying that, with time, as your playerbase gets older and accumulate resources, entry requirements are more and more easily reached, thus resulting in everyone getting their hands on the ship that was initially restricted to a few. And before you ask, some ships, like the Navy/PIrate hulls were designed to be plain better than tech1, others, like tech2/tech3 were not. Tech2 are supposed to be specialized, and tech3 more generalized - performance gap should not be so great that you can forget about tech1 entirely. Also, we are aware of the number of used tech3 ships in general, and how far the repercussions could go for tweaking them. We know this would be a hot discussion from our playerbase as nobody wants to see their assets changed. That is normal human reaction. We can guarantee you that no matter what happens here, we will definitely do our very best to be as diplomatic, open minded and communicative as we have been in the past to ensure we hear all ends of the arguments and annoy the less amount of people. However, we are not here to win a popularity contest, we, as ship balancing designers are here to make sure the state of the game is healthy in the long run, and if we have to be universally hated for doing what's needed for EVE Online to last 10 more years in the long run, so be it. Ooops, made a wall of text , well, hope that helps a bit.
it would be apreciated if you wouldnt nerf the t3's and the most advanced ship available to pilots especialy that of a tengu so far that they become usless for mission running especialy seing that most of its issue seem to lie in the pvp front. As we know pvp fits and mission fits generally have hugh differances in them. also if it is so deamed that these ships do will we be getting a refund in isk for said ships. another point i do have to make is as far as mission running gose there is a sever lack of ships at least on the caldari side for running lvl 4's without spending in the region of 2 bill that can currently do lvl 4's effectively and even those would struggle on the field in something like Worlds Collide or Dreed Pirate scarlet ( especialy on the last) due to respawning ship every time you reenter and that of different faction requireing the ship to be setup to deal with all dmg types. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 01:21:00 -
[146] - Quote
Angsty Teenager wrote:CCP, I have a question. Have you actually tried to fly a T2 fit T3? Either in pvp or pve. Because let me clue you in on a little secret--they're not that great at all.
The tengu is moderately better than the cerb in terms of dps w/ a T2 fit The proteus is moderately better than the brutix in terms of dps w/ a T2 fit The legion is the same as the zealot with a T2 fit in terms of dps The loki does less damage in certain configs than a hurricane, and tanks far less than a cyclone in a T2 fit.
T3's are GOOD becuase people are WILLING to spend money to deadspace fit them because the hull already costs a lot. They work so well with high expense fittings because they are ships that are somewhat generalized, so by dumping money on them, you can make the ship act as a specialized ship in more than one area--as opposed to for example a cyclone which can really only excel in active shield tanking, whereas something like a tengu can be pimped so that it goes fast and tanks a lot.
That's not the fault of the ships, that is the fault of people having isk. That's how the game should work. They take increased risks in terms of isk loss.
If you do end up nerfing T3's, you better remove the SP loss and make them cheaper (especially the Legion since it's a piece of garbage right now), because it won't be worth it.
And even if you want to nerf T3's, can you please rebalance HAC's PROPERLY so that the T3's can actually be compared to ships that aren't utter trash (eagle/cerb/sacrilege/muninn), and give the game time to normalize to the new ability levels of the rebalanced ships? Otherwise I forsee terrible T3's and good T2's, and the T3's will never ever get used and you won't get around to rebalancing them until years later at which point you'll nerf T2 ships at the same time etc...
Also, since I'm sure one of your concerns is the prevelance of T3 ships for level 4 mission running/anom running etc..., maybe you should consider actually making torps and cruise missiles good instead of nerfing T3's. The only reason the tengu is used is because it provides the same tank and more dps as opposed to the ****** caldari battleships which can't hit the broad side of a barn without some serious help (also, lol pheonix).
if you spend 2 bill on a CNR you can get about the same dps from it as the tengu and a comparable but mission specific tank |
Noisrevbus
222
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 02:13:00 -
[147] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: I agree that all T3s are in need of *some* balancing ( it's more about giving a very specific roles, which are distinct from T2s and there is no overlap ) but saying that ALL T3s are OP is just too much.
That's assuming the Tech II have roles. The thing i've always found quite interesting about Tech III is that their popularity is not only rooted in their internal balance but also in relation to the ships they "obscure".
I've made several notes of how the subsystems relate to various ships and how Loki and Proteus lean more toward Recons while Tengu and Legion lean more toward HAC. When you later compare them to the available ships it's much easier for the Tengu to shine as a "Cerb" than it is for a Legion to shine as a "Zealot". The interesting bit is that it's relative and both sides could be argued correct. The Legion may not have as allround appealing bonuses but it also have stronger competition within itself. It could be said that the Legion is "only" a bit better than a Zealot at being a Zealot, while the Tengu is much better at what the Cerb is supposed to be good at.
I don't know, weighing them against each other like that just tickles me somehow, i find it very interesting and fullfilling. There's so many angles to work.
Quote:The problem with your assertion is that the current prices would fall because the demand for the final products would fall. Learn 2 Economy.
Though Liang, that doesn't apply when we compare ships that use the same base components. T3 sticks out a bit since even their production is wildly different and tied to a specific part of the game. Whereas a CS for example will always be more expensive than a HAC, to produce, or a BS more expensive than a frigate.
I am really not fond of Ytterbium's comments, since it feels like he is venting industry-terms without rooting them in this game. Slipping a "balance shouldn't be about cost" out there without getting to the bottom of what he means or intend for it to play out within EVE seem somewhat unresponsible. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2089
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 03:40:00 -
[148] - Quote
I didn't say the first thing. I'll respond to the rest in a minute. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2089
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 03:51:00 -
[149] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:Quote:The problem with your assertion is that the current prices would fall because the demand for the final products would fall. Learn 2 Economy. Though Liang, that doesn't apply when we compare ships that use the same base components. T3 sticks out a bit since even their production is wildly different and tied to a specific part of the game. Whereas a CS for example will always be more expensive than a HAC, to produce, or a BS more expensive than a frigate.
I knew exactly what I was saying and why it would work that way. :) The real question I have is what they're going to do to fix WH space when the demand for its product largely dries up.
Quote: I am really not fond of Ytterbium's comments, since it feels like he is venting industry-terms without rooting them in this game. Slipping a "balance shouldn't be about cost" out there without getting to the bottom of what he means or intend for it to play out within EVE seem somewhat unresponsible.
This is the same tag line that was used when nerfing the Titan RDDD and several other expensive ships. Just because it's "expensive" doesn't mean that it should be a license to WTFPWN everything in sight - which is the current state of affairs.
Quote: Read Mittens Smedley article. He likes the Rifter and Drake because it doesn't matter if he lose them. Have Ytterbium even gotten around to ponder the implications of that?
I can't speak for him, but I suspect that he has thought about it and that it isn't part of his job. That said, Rifters are basically free and have always been thought of as throw away PVP ships. AFAIK, Drakes are on reimbursement policy for his coalition. Why would he care if he loses one of those?
Quote: I'm extra weary of these topics (and i'm not trying to sound effectfully fatal here), but i have literally seen games die because the interaction lost meaning. It didn't stop first. I have seen admirable attempts to cater to players to go out there and shoot - but when it lost all meaning it had the opposite effect. It's not a eulogy over EVE or anything, i'm just saying it's a perspective to consider. EVE is struggling with those topics on a community-level, at the very least.
It's the ship-version of discussing Moons (or better yet, space) as conflict-drivers.
Meh, I personally think the health of Eve is doing better than ever. You're getting extremely long in the tooth and I feel that you're losing perspective on the game itself.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 04:40:00 -
[150] - Quote
This whine about T3 obsolete T2 Ships is simply groundless. One only needs to look at the ships to see it is so.
Have you ever seen a
T3 Hictor or a T3 Logistic?
Hictor option does not exist and the Logistic is mostly bad that its not worth using(except for maybe pve - which is not a balance factor for pvp)
Do T3 recons obsolete T2 recon ships? Look at the bonuses and you can clearly see that it does not.
T2 recon ships have superior ewar capability over T3. e.g. Falcon vs Tengu jams, Pilgrim vs Legion Neut, Rapier vs Loki Web, and Arazu vs Proteus scram.
T2 field command ships typical are superior to T3 cruiser in firepower. (Except the Nighthawk which is a lulzy and problematic ship.) The Astarte, Absolution, and Sleipnir kicks T3 ass the dps department.
T2 HACs typically have better mobility, smaller sig radius, and longer range capabilities than T3. HAC's are mobile, tanky RR gang cruisers with good firepower.
I believe the main argument and complaint is that T3 beat HAC's overall, but if you really think about it, most HAC's see little use even without T3 ships around.
The Fact is that most HAC's are pretty awful. The Eagle out of all is the worst ship and the Cerberus is a joke. The sacrilege is a slow armor ships with short range missiles. The ishtar is a decent drone boat, but suffers from fitting issues and drones are a bit lame. The deimos is well diemost. The Muninn is pointless with the Tornado and Hurricane around.
Out of all 8 HAC's, 2 HAC's see regular use. The zealot and the vagabond, the only decent and worthy of the bunch. The Vagabond is the bread and butter nano ship. The Zealot is the ARMOR HAC.
I ask of CCP to be reasonable and not listen to rabid blabbering people who say things without any real backup. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |