| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ines Tegator
Project ELT
27
   |
Posted - 2011.12.01 23:12:00 -
[61] - Quote
Bumping this thread for renewed discussion now that Crucible is out and some of the balanced problems have been addressed.
I still think the tiering system needs looked at. One of the great advantages would be making t1 ships viable choices in fleet warfare, removing some of the barrier to entry (primarily cost, but also skill time) that keeps people out of low/null. |
Doddy
Excidium.
Executive Outcomes
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 23:23:00 -
[62] - Quote
Dorian Wylde wrote:Oxeu wrote:Ehe I don't know about you, but I use tier 1 BC/BS a lot for allt he right reasons because each ship is good at doing something. (granted ferox is meh)
So I see no sense in your reasoning. You see no sense in making the dozens of frigates that have zero use because of terrible slot layouts, a direct result of the tier system, actually useful?
So whats your plan, nerf higher tier frigates to the level of the cheap ones so they are useless for anyone but noobs or make the lower tier ones so expensive new players have to stay in their noob ships for days and quit the game in frustration?
Or with cruisers you going to buff the obviously weak because its low tier blackbird so its tier three or nerf the obviously powerful cos its high tier omen (lol) so its tier one?
Or with BS, i suppose you think geddons, dominixes and scorpions need buffed or do you want to nerf those terribly op rokhs and hyperions.
The tier system is great, it allows for more freedom of choice. Ships that are fail or op are that way because of lol ccp, nothing to do with tiering.
Tier 2 bcs are op and always have been, but that is the only place (don't even try to say mining/hauling cruisers) where tier one is properly outclassed and even there brutix and prophecy both own in their roles. |
Doddy
Excidium.
Executive Outcomes
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 23:25:00 -
[63] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:Bumping this thread for renewed discussion now that Crucible is out and some of the balanced problems have been addressed.
I still think the tiering system needs looked at. One of the great advantages would be making t1 ships viable choices in fleet warfare, removing some of the barrier to entry (primarily cost, but also skill time) that keeps people out of low/null.
If by t1 you mean tech one you seriously haven't been paying attention. If you mean tier 1 then how is 2 million and a couple days training time at a very early time in your eve career (when you should be learning the game) a serious barrier to entry?
|
HybridOnslaught
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 23:30:00 -
[64] - Quote
tier 1 bc are as much fun to fly as s tier 2 with good skills it can be just as deadly,
one thing that pissed me off abouyt the new bx is teh skills needed are too low they should bring them up a bit bc 4 at min |
Ines Tegator
Project ELT
27
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 23:35:00 -
[65] - Quote
I mean making more of the t1 hulls viable for general combat, as a cheaper alternative to BC's or t2 hulls. As a barrier to entry, I mean that by reducing the cost of pvp ships (by making t1 cruisers and frigates a better option) more people would be willing to participate in pvp. I suppose it's not so much a barrier as it is that losses persuade people that it's not worth participating in. This is part (and only part, I understand t hat) of what makes low/null undesirable. This is the benefit to EVE as a whole of removing tiers; the immediate goal is variety and improved gameplay.
Go back and read the first few pages for a discussion on how to make these cheap hulls more attractive, and what they currently lack. |
Liang Nuren
Perkone
Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 23:38:00 -
[66] - Quote
Doddy wrote:
The tier system is great, it allows for more freedom of choice.
I remember talking to someone at CCP about this exact sentiment. I disagreed with it then, and I disagree with it now. The simple fact of the matter is that the ship tier system means that certain ships will have less HP, less slots, less fittings, less everything. This means that races which have multiple paths to work through are in fact gimped at specific points in the tree.
Basically what people are actually asking for is the freedom of choice - the power to choose a Stabber over a Rupture or a Cyclone over a Hurricane. The ships have roles that they're supposed to fill, and those roles are unnecessarily gimped because the ship happens to be a particular tier.
So no, the freedom of choice comes with the removal of the tier system not its maintenance.
-Liang
Looking for WH PVP corp.-á Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)
Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Recruit me: http://wp.me/p1WQ0O-R |
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
67
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 23:46:00 -
[67] - Quote
Doddy wrote:
The tier system is great, it allows for more freedom of choice. Ships that are fail or op are that way because of lol ccp, nothing to do with tiering.
More freedom of choice? The tier system has resulted in several useless ships that can't fill their intended role because of some decision CCP made when they made eve. Those ships being useless give us less viable options and thus less choices. The idea is not to make all ships the same. Bur rather, make them able to do their intended role.
I'm gonna bring up my favorite example, the T1 tackle frigates, slasher, atron, condor and executioner. All four of these could be perfectly viable tackle frigates for player low on SP or isk. But due to a lack of slots these ships are worse at their intended roles than the combat frigates. A rifter makes a better tackle than a slasher due to it's third mid and two extra lows.
give these frigates a few extra slots, some pg and cpu to fill those slots and that should be enough. Just so they can fit mwd, scram, web and some speed or tanking modules. then leave their weapons as they are, making sure that the combat frigates still have their roles as damage dealers while these have theirs as tacklers.
|
Ines Tegator
Project ELT
27
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 23:51:00 -
[68] - Quote
Giving more freedom of choice is exactly the point. Whens the last time you saw a Prophecy brought to a roam with serious intentions? Or an Omen? Or a Moa?
To be fair, there are balance problems IN ADDITION (not in place of) the issues with tiering- the Maller for example, or the Thorax. A few of these were addressed with Cruicible (like making the thorax more agile) so I thought I'd reopen the discussion. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
BricK sQuAD.
29
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 00:18:00 -
[69] - Quote
This time, the tier denotes more of a role than whether or not the ship is 'better'. Which is how it should be, in my opinion.
Take for example the Naga. Can put blasters on it and it'll wreck things. Can put rails on it and it'll actually make this weapon system not suck horribly. How does it compare to a Drake, though? It doesn't, because the Drake won't die a fiery death if you lob pinecones at it. |
xxxak
Intergalactic Syndicate
Nulli Secunda
103
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 01:28:00 -
[70] - Quote
The tier system is possibly the worst thing about EVE. Get rid of it.
The nerfs to supercaps will cause more super pilots to join the largest alliances who can properly "support" their deployment, further concentrating firepower/wealth in EVE. The end result will be fewer "fun" fights, and will hurt EVE in the long run. |
|
|
mkjkgkvk Melkan
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 02:06:00 -
[71] - Quote
Getting rid of the teir system to add an extra 15+ ships that are currently not flown to the eve universe is probably the best thing CCP could spend their time on...
More variety more tactics more fun dont even need to spend the time designing new ships. Balancing might not go off perfect first time but who cares really. Worthy worthy thread |
Alara IonStorm
RvB - BLUE Republic
508
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 02:15:00 -
[72] - Quote
mkjkgkvk Melkan wrote:Getting rid of the teir system to add an extra 15+ ships that are currently not flown to the eve universe is probably the best thing CCP could spend their time on...
More variety more tactics more fun dont even need to spend the time designing new ships. Balancing might not go off perfect first time but who cares really. Worthy worthy thread
This. So much this. |
Shivus Tao
Broski Enterprises
Elite Space Guild
89
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 03:52:00 -
[73] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:Giving more freedom of choice is exactly the point. Whens the last time you saw a Prophecy brought to a roam with serious intentions? Or an Omen? Or a Moa?
To be fair, there are balance problems IN ADDITION (not in place of) the issues with tiering- the Maller for example, or the Thorax. A few of these were addressed with Cruicible (like making the thorax more agile) so I thought I'd reopen the discussion.
In fairness the Omen can be a very cheap glass cannon. But yes, the majority of ships have been tier restricted and are still stuck with antiquated bonuses that no longer work in today's game environment. The prophecy is my favorite poster child of this. Without a damage bonus on lasers, autocannons become the best option for it at every turn. Rather than forcing a choice between damage and capacitor, it only forces a non choice between some capacitor or more capacitor. |
Oylmpia
Oylmpia Holdings Ltd
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 08:58:00 -
[74] - Quote
You can have nice fits in Cyclone too... and as an extra bonus since no one expects anything of it you can surprise some people :) |
Salvia Olima
FREE GATES
HUN Reloaded
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 10:13:00 -
[75] - Quote
Tier3 battlecruisers could be called Gunships, or Corvette class could be introduced. |
Takeshi Yamato
ALA Biomedical
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 10:20:00 -
[76] - Quote
The Maller needs a damage bonus. 5% dmg, 5% armor res per level -1 high +1 med. Or 5% assault missile dmg 5% armor res per level. AND some light drones in either case. The ship is incredibly bad with cruiser sized lasers in its current form.
Prophecy needs similar treatment. |
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
67
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 11:04:00 -
[77] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:The Maller needs a damage bonus. 5% dmg, 5% armor res per level -1 high +1 med. Or 5% assault missile dmg 5% armor res per level. AND some light drones in either case. The ship is incredibly bad with cruiser sized lasers in its current form.
Prophecy needs similar treatment.
I would love to see a 5% RoF bonus for HML/HAM on the maller and prophecy instead of the laser cap bonus, but let them keep their turret hardpoints so that AC fits are still possible. Would be interesting to do a similar thing with the punisher, but with rockets and light missiles. |
Reaperxvii
Unleashed' Fury
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 16:58:00 -
[78] - Quote
I agree the tier system is flawed, Every ship should be able to fill a nich, If saying specializing a frigate will hurt new players, I think your wrong, In the end most new players will end up Specializing in some role, after all they have to to effectively do anything in there first couple months, So by specializing frigates, then cruisers for an individual role will allow new players to follow an exact path and not be confused as to what exactly they should be trying to achieve for what they want, as for the BC's the only ones I can speak of are for the Brutix and Myr, Both of which I found fit certain roles, the brutix mainly being a blaster platform at heart and a myr being a more sturdy but slower ship, Alot of people over look the Command module Bonuses a BC gives in a large fleet, but I think specializing Frigates and then a cruiser to the add on to the skill would be the best thing to do for lower players.
I can also speak for Miners, The procur is a USELESS ship, I completely skipped it and went to the retriever until I got a covetor, and for new player a hulk is just to much money so a covetor does serve A nice role as being a cheap but highly effective mining barge. |
Esan Vartesa
Samarkand Financial
58
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 16:59:00 -
[79] - Quote
Max Von Sydow wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:The Maller needs a damage bonus. 5% dmg, 5% armor res per level -1 high +1 med. Or 5% assault missile dmg 5% armor res per level. AND some light drones in either case. The ship is incredibly bad with cruiser sized lasers in its current form.
Prophecy needs similar treatment. I would love to see a 5% RoF bonus for HML/HAM on the maller and prophecy instead of the laser cap bonus, but let them keep their turret hardpoints so that AC fits are still possible. Would be interesting to do a similar thing with the punisher, but with rockets and light missiles.
So, Khanid ships. |
Reaperxvii
Unleashed' Fury
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 17:00:00 -
[80] - Quote
I do also think though that they should balance out the BC's so There are only 2 or 3 being used instead of the 12 that are available now. |
|
|
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
67
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 18:34:00 -
[81] - Quote
Esan Vartesa wrote:
So, Khanid ships.
Kinda, though calling them T1 khanid ships would be like calling the gallente T1 droneboats "CreoDron ships".
And it would be nice with amarr having a more clear secondary weapon.
|
Lucas Schuyler
Mortis Noir.
Unforgiving.
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 20:46:00 -
[82] - Quote
Erim Solfara wrote:Jack Carrigan wrote:Tiers don't really mean **** when you know how to effectively employ them in a fleet, or solo:
Examples:
The Brutix-class Battlecruiser with a dual-web configuration makes an excellent point-defense against smaller craft that would normally be a pain in the *** during a fleet engagement. Also, they can deal significant DPS with or without drones (I've known people to fit Target Painter drones on their Brutix to aid missile boats in fleet, or ECM drones to assist with creating chaos among the enemy ranks).
The Dominix-class Battleship can effectively run an active tank, and remote reps while retaining cap stability, and being able to utilize drones to effectively engage incoming tacklers (utilizing lights), DPS ships (countering cruisers with mediums, or BC and up with Heavies), and aid in DPS by letting out a flight of Sentries.
So just before you think about doing away with tiers, just remember, everything has a role to fill if fit properly, and flown by a competent, skilled pilot. Congratulations on picking two ships that suffer least under the tier system in the categories discussed. What incredibly role does the Prophecy play compared to the Harbinger that we have missed? Or the Inquisitor to the Punisher? Or any number of other examples. I'm not going to argue example vs example. As a system, it's fundamentally flawed, nevermind individual balance issues. It's not necessarily flawed because of an imbalance of power either, moreso that it's making ships that already exist redundant for no sensible reason.
What is the alternative? We have a generic Frigate, Cruiser, BC, and BS? Because everyone wants the "best" right? So we just have one and be done with it.
Who cares if Rifter is "best" T1 Frigate? Someone has to be "best." Delete it from the database and tomorrow a new "best" T1 Frigate would be crowned.
Not every ship can be made equally desirable/useful/whatever. |
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
67
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 21:12:00 -
[83] - Quote
Lucas Schuyler wrote:
Who cares if Rifter is "best" T1 Frigate? Someone has to be "best." Delete it from the database and tomorrow a new "best" T1 Frigate would be crowned.
Not every ship can be made equally desirable/useful/whatever.
Once again someone does not grasp the idea of balance.
The idea is simply to give each T1 ship a role, and make them as good at their roles as the other ships are at theirs.
Kind of like a HAC vs a recon, they are not similar in any way but size, and they have extremely different roles, but both can still be equally useful in their own ways. That's what we want with but T1 ships. Unfortunately a lot of ships cannot perform their intended roles because they are lower tier ships and thus got lower pg/cpu and slots than the higher tier ships. |
Masatoshi Hamada
The Unknown Bar and Pub
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 00:03:00 -
[84] - Quote
I agree. Especially at battle cruisers, where it is a progression line. The Ferox it has no chance when faced with Drake, and the same with Cyclone and Hurricane. Latter is just better. What should be done is either to making tiers smaller or just throw them out. Like using frigate for an example:
Atron, Navitas and Imicus are not really as combat oriented as Incurses, Tristan, Maulus. In this way I could see a tier work, such as pre-logistic cruisers (how Exequor is to Onieros) not be as good as Celestis, Vexor or Thorax. There are only three battle cruisers though, so some it would be a good idea to throw tiers out of. Each battle cruiser can have a specific role rather than latter being a direct upgrade. |
Ines Tegator
Project ELT
36
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 19:30:00 -
[85] - Quote
mkjkgkvk Melkan wrote:Getting rid of the teir system to add an extra 15+ ships that are currently not flown to the eve universe is probably the best thing CCP could spend their time on...
Bumping to front page with the best quote of the thread. Really, what else has this kind of reward/time ratio for dev resources? |
Arr0wyx
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 20:35:00 -
[86] - Quote
mkjkgkvk Melkan wrote:Getting rid of the teir system to add an extra 15+ ships that are currently not flown to the eve universe is probably the best thing CCP could spend their time on...
More variety more tactics more fun dont even need to spend the time designing new ships. Balancing might not go off perfect first time but who cares really. Worthy worthy thread
Not empty quoting. |
Max Von Sydow
Droneboat Diplomacy
69
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 18:32:00 -
[87] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:mkjkgkvk Melkan wrote:Getting rid of the teir system to add an extra 15+ ships that are currently not flown to the eve universe is probably the best thing CCP could spend their time on...
Bumping to front page with the best quote of the thread. Really, what else has this kind of reward/time ratio for dev resources?
|
Takeshi Yamato
ALA Biomedical
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 18:55:00 -
[88] - Quote
The tier system has NEVER worked properly. It was supposed to give us the choice between good, expensive hulls and cheaper hulls with less performance. T2 modules and drones as well as rigs made it so that the more expensive ship has nearly always the better performance versus cost ratio.
In other words, the tier system is completely obsolete and responsible for lack of variation in ships being used. Instead of giving us choices, it takes them away. |
Bap1811
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 20:45:00 -
[89] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:Logical Chaos wrote:And the Amarr T1 BC is only viable as massive brick. But because everybody knows its a Brick no one (or few) will fall for it being used as bait.
So I would strongly recommend to rework some T1 BCs before making T3 BCs. Take the Proph and Harby into EFT and fit both for the biggest tank you can. The Harby will win, because of more slots and more PG. Don't let common wisdom fool you, the Harby outclasses the tier 1 in every way simply due to the increased space. Strongly support bolded comment BTW.
Just thought I'd point this out:
[Prophecy, Tank]
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
152K EHP.
[Harbinger, Tank]
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
123K EHP.
Theres a reason people use the prop for the job you know. Even if you add 2 LSE's and 2 invuls to the harby the proph still wins without shield mods. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures
BLACK-MARK
29
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 22:06:00 -
[90] - Quote
I agree, the tiers should not be a scaling better in stats and mineral cost but different weapon systems and bonuses.
Example ferox compared with drake, one has more hp then the other and slots, in both the tanking and primary weapon slots. Primary weapon slots and number of other slots define the power of the ship for the two keys, ganking and tanking. The only case of a lower teir gunship being more favored then a higher teir is because of poor slot layout (hyperthron to mega).
Yes, some differences exist between ships already exist, but the lower teirs are gimped with the higher ones, so its not a choice between two, most anyone opting for the higher teir with only a few exceptions.
A way to fix it for amar battleships is to keep the total number of slots the same along with the hp, and mineral cost the same but mix up the bonuses and weapon systems. Have one be a range and cap bonus ship, tanking and damage, off racial weapon system (missiles or drones) and tanking.
The new teir 3 bcs are a good example of balancing between ships. The teir 2s are much better at tanking in both bonuses, base ship stats and slots, so it compensates for the ability of teir 3s to fit a full set of battle ship sized guns. No person in right mind would use tier 1 but at least its two choices vs 1.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |