Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
1079
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 06:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg
This chart seems to have a huge error on it. If you look at it, from a certain perspective it looks like Tech 2 ships will deal more damage than Tech 3 ships, which is ludicrous and is clearly a misrepresentation.
If we were to believe (for a moment) this isn't obvious glaring mistake on CCP's part. It would suggest that Tech 3 hulls would share the tank/gank of a Navy Cruiser but with more flexibility.
Assuming this farce would be the case, Tech 3 Cruisers would drop from Battleship levels of Gank and Tank down to cruiser level? That seems like too large of a nerf.
So my conclusion is that either people are misreading this chart, or CCP made a huge mistake when creating it.
The only defense that needs to be made is "lore" millions of years ago the Sleepers made the T3 technology and since then no advances have been made so they should be the best at everything, any nerf however slight to the strategic cruisers would destroy all of EVE's lore forever.
I have taken the liberty of correcting the visual error: http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3682/corrected.jpg
If we could just upload this new image before anyone else gets confused and thinks CCP is willing to destroy ALL THE LORE IN EVE, by nerfing strategics.
Many Thanks One of the oldest mission players in EVE designed a chart that explains stat priority in regards to mission running, compared Alpha, DPS, Ship Speed and Sig Radius and scores them. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m24dbrfuWn1r86ax8o1_1280.jpg |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1500
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 07:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
The T3 stuff we use isn't the sleeper tech.
It's a bastardised version, integrating the current tech of the Empires, as well as bits of the sleeper's tech.
The T3s aren't supposed to beat everything, at anything. Just be able to do pretty much anything with a refit. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!-á I'm starting early :) Handy tools and an SDE conversion Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
GreenSeed
418
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 07:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
ITT we pretend T3 doesn't cost 5x as much as a HAC and doesnt cost you 5 days of training if it pops. |
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
1079
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 07:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
GreenSeed wrote:ITT we pretend T3 doesn't cost 5x as much as a HAC and doesnt cost you 5 days of training if it pops.
^^ This, Why would a ship that costs you millions of skill-points when it is destroyed be any less capable than a Battleship that doesn't have any costs associated with it? One of the oldest mission players in EVE designed a chart that explains stat priority in regards to mission running, compared Alpha, DPS, Ship Speed and Sig Radius and scores them. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m24dbrfuWn1r86ax8o1_1280.jpg |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 08:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Why does it matter? If you can fly a T3, you can fly a HAC. Oh god. |
Lexmana
974
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 08:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
You got it backwards. Your "corrected" chart describes the current situation of one ship to rule them all. That is not good game design so they are fixing it. One day you will understand. |
Himnos Altar
An Errant Venture
197
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 08:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
I'm just glad I'm not in charge of balancing T3s.
You have to consider every module in the game, EVE players tendencies to abuse any OP fitting they can think up in their brilliant little minds, AND the combination of subsystems.
eesh. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1409
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:25:00 -
[8] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Why does it matter? If you can fly a T3, you can fly a HAC.
Eerm no, check the requirements next time you log in? The Proteus requires neither Weapon Upgrades V nor Energy Grid Upgrades V, for example.
As for the OP: Tom Gerard may usually be a shiptoasting loon, but this is a topic very dear to me and he has my complete support. The idea of "flexibility" in a ship is ludicrous; for the cost of a T3 you can buy a fleet of every T2 cruiser. Nor does a T2 require the skill investment to reach the same level of performance. The subsystems we swap out with have to remain in a station anyway and we cannot remove rigs. The only feasible role of a T3, therefore, is to be top of the food chain for that cost. They're fine as they are, besides usurping command ships. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Well I'll be happy to see the change. PvP will be much better when there are 12 great combat cruisers to choose from instead of just one. Oh god. |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Why does it matter? If you can fly a T3, you can fly a HAC. Eerm no, check the requirements next time you log in? The Proteus requires neither Weapon Upgrades V nor Energy Grid Upgrades V, for example. As for the OP: Tom Gerard may usually be a shiptoasting loon, but this is a topic very dear to me and he has my complete support. The idea of "flexibility" in a ship is ludicrous; for the cost of a T3 you can buy a fleet of every T2 cruiser. Nor does a T2 require the skill investment to reach the same level of performance. The subsystems we swap out with have to remain in a station anyway and we cannot remove rigs. The only feasible role of a T3, therefore, is to be top of the food chain for that cost. They're fine as they are, besides usurping command ships.
In a game of role-based combat, having a ship that can fill multiple roles is a huge boon. Right now, T3s are OP. If they brought them back in line to, say, be able to fill two roles at once, and did just as well as some dedicated ships, and then brought their cost a bit more in line, it'd give an advantage to T3, promote customization and varying fits, and prevent it from being over-the-top any longer. "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
|
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1409
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Well I'll be happy to see the change. PvP will be much better when there are 12 great combat cruisers to choose from instead of just one. ElQuirko wrote:Eerm no, check the requirements next time you log in? The Proteus requires neither Weapon Upgrades V nor Energy Grid Upgrades V, for example. So train them? To be honest Energy Grid Upgrades V is a weird requirement to have for HACs. I thought the whole point of changing skill requirements was so that players wouldn't have to train irrelevant skills to fly the ships they want.
There are 12 great combat cruisers to choose from already. T3s are balanced by the fact that they cost an arm and a leg in both ISK and skillpoints and areas vulnerable as their T2 counterparts if not more. Difference is you've gotta hammer on them a bit longer. Every ship has its counter - if you so chose you could kill a Proteus with a Stabber, and that's not even T2. And let's not even talk about the Legion, that thing's needed work from day one.
And "just train them" ain't the point. I happen to have 'em trained, but you said "If you can fly a HAC you can fly a T3". It's not true. Simple as. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Dave Stark
3126
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:44:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote:http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg
This chart seems to have a huge error on it. If you look at it, from a certain perspective it looks like Tech 2 ships will deal more damage than Tech 3 ships, which is ludicrous and is clearly a misrepresentation.
no it doesn't. none of those axis are labeled "damage". |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1413
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:In a game of role-based combat, having a ship that can fill multiple roles is a huge boon. Right now, T3s are OP. If they brought them back in line to, say, be able to fill two roles at once, and did just as well as some dedicated ships, and then brought their cost a bit more in line, it'd give an advantage to T3, promote customization and varying fits, and prevent it from being over-the-top any longer.
This is a perfectly valid point. IF they were as good as dedicated ships but could be a swiss-army knife it'd be lovely. But they're not and they can't. Ever tried EFT-warrioring a logistics T3? They're terrible. The ECM Tengu is nowhere near as powerful as the Falcon. The laser-Legion is totally outclassed by the Zealot and ONI. The Loki... well, the Loki is a bit OP even by T3 standards. But it cannot tank. Point being, where the T3s cannot excel against their cheaper counterparts they are completely ignored. T3s today are only used as gunboats because that is the only thing they do well. If they had the pricetag they currently had and couldn't beat T2s, I doubt you'd see them used as anything more than cloaky haulers that ignore bubbles in nullsec.
And let's talk about switching subsystems. Unless you could do this in-space without carrying an entire set of subsystems and fits in your cargo it's still a tiny bit useless since you may as well just dock and fetch another ship. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:49:00 -
[14] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:T3s are balanced by the fact that they cost an arm and a leg in both ISK and skillpoints Cost is irrelevant to balance.
Quote:areas vulnerable as their T2 counterparts if not more. Which areas? Oh god. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6879
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
T3 are going to be getting nerfed. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1413
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:51:00 -
[16] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote: Cost is irrelevant to balance. Is it not? Feel free to go out into lowsec in your supposedly OP T3. You should easily be able to kill everything right? Risk-free PVP, totally.
Proteus moves slow like walrus. Loki cannot tank. Tengu has the sig radius of god. Legion is just legion. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
Quote:The laser-Legion is totally outclassed by the Zealot Not at all.
Quote:T3s today are only used as gunboats because that is the only thing they do well. If they had the pricetag they currently had and couldn't beat T2s, I doubt you'd see them used as anything more than cloaky haulers that ignore bubbles in nullsec. T3s are yet to be rebalanced. I doubt CCP are going to let them become useless.
Oh god. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
Quote:Is it not? Feel free to go out into lowsec in your supposedly OP T3. You should easily be able to kill everything right? Risk-free PVP, totally. What does that have to do with ship balance?
Quote: Proteus moves slow like walrus. Loki cannot tank. Tengu has the sig radius of god. Legion is just legion.
So they're not universally immortal, that doesn't mean they're balanced. Oh god. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1413
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Quote:The laser-Legion is totally outclassed by the Zealot Not at all.
Eerm, yes, it is. Go on out and find me a legion fit with lasers that is as pragmatic and powerful as the Zealot or ONI.
Quote:T3s are yet to be rebalanced. I doubt CCP are going to let them become useless. Point is that making them weaker than T2 without making them on-the-go shapeshifters is going to relegate them to almost-useless status. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1413
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 10:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote: What does that have to do with ship balance? Doesn't. But the point is they're not nearly as expendable as T2, thus they're not nearly as commonplace in combat unless the combatants using the T3s are guaranteed a victory, hence the image of "OP".
Quote: So they're not universally immortal, that doesn't mean they're balanced. Generally it does. When you say "balanced", do you mean "dies to my ships because I can't afford it"? It's a T3. It costs at least 6x as much as a T2 ship. It costs skillpoints. It should be better than T2. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
|
Xercodo
Xovoni Astronautical Manufacturing and Engineering
2400
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 11:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
And I'm sitting here wondering when anyone ever implied that the vertical axis meant more damage.....
The vertical axis is inconsequential to me and thus non-confusing. It only shows a progression from T1 to navy to pirate.
Since T2 and T3 have no such progression they can sit w/e they damn well please on that vertical axis. The Drake is a Lie |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 11:09:00 -
[22] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Go on out and find me a legion fit with lasers that is as pragmatic and powerful as the Zealot or ONI. I just spent 5 minutes in EFT and came up with a fit that outperforms Zealot in every way. I'm not sure what you're doing wrong. Oh god. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 11:10:00 -
[23] - Quote
wait, people are still thinking that cost is a balancing factor?
I see EVE hasn't changed in 10 years. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Lexmana
974
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 11:16:00 -
[24] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote: It costs at least 6x as much as a T2 ship. It costs skillpoints. It should be better than T2. But it is better .. at generalisation meaning flexible. It is like a swiss army knife and very useful if there are constraints on how much you can take with you. But you are almost always better off bringing a real pair of scissors if you plan to do some serious tailoring. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6879
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 11:17:00 -
[25] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:ElQuirko wrote:Go on out and find me a legion fit with lasers that is as pragmatic and powerful as the Zealot or ONI. I just spent 5 minutes in EFT and came up with a fit that outperforms Zealot in every way. I'm not sure what you're doing wrong.
I have also done this.
BS buffer, BC firepower, cruiser speed and sig and to top it all off, its cap stable and only 440 mil.
I may get one. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 11:18:00 -
[26] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:the point is they're not nearly as expendable as T2, thus they're not nearly as commonplace in combat So you're telling me people use T2 cruisers in PvP a lot more than they use T3 cruisers? I don't have any figures but I find that hard to believe.
Quote:When you say "balanced", do you mean "dies to my ships because I can't afford it"? No, I mean its performance should be in line with other ships of its class and nature.
Quote:It's a T3. It costs at least 6x as much as a T2 ship. It costs skillpoints. It should be better than T2. Why? I'm not saying it should be worse, but I'd like a reason why it should be better. The way I see it, the extra cost is the price of versatility. In terms of performance, maybe they should be a little stronger than HACs, but they should still be kept in line with HACs. Oh god. |
Kaahles
Retarded Extemely Dangerous The Predictables
25
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 11:20:00 -
[27] - Quote
So let me get this straight: you're whining about a chart that displays the general idea where T3's should go once it is their turn to be rebalanced without us having any kind of information about how that actually will work out in detail?
That is stupid beyond any description really.
Maybe when doing so they decide to adjust their plan somewhat based on feedback from actual playtesting.
Maybe they do exactly what the chart says but adjust manufacturing costs of the ships somewhat (which they have done with other ships that got rebalanced already)
Maybe, just maybe those T3's become some sort of the on-the-fly shapeshifter you mentioned.
The end result is: we don't know anything about what is to happen with T3's so this entire whining of yours (and yes it is whining not feedback) is totally pointless at this point in time. Yeah I know maybe I put way too much faith in the team doing the actual rebalancing but so far they have not slipped up an any major way that screwed entire ships/ship classes just think about that for a moment.
And don't you bring up arguments like "oh but they made several versions of the iteron useless" or "but they ****** up capitals" yeah guess what... they haven't rebalanced them yet (cap changes you see in the patchnotes are quick'n'dirty fixes until they get to fully rebalance the entire ship line they said that on multiple occasions).
Oh and FYI cost plays a factor in balance. Just look at the Hurricane/Fleet Hurricane. |
Dave Stark
3128
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 11:33:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kaahles wrote:Oh and FYI cost plays a factor in balance. Just look at the Hurricane/Fleet Hurricane.
no it doesn't, look at exhumers and catalysts. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6879
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 11:39:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kaahles wrote:
Oh and FYI cost plays a factor in balance. Just look at the Hurricane/Fleet Hurricane.
Disposable dreads, Nyx losses replaced the next day, welp a tengu fleet? Buy another, endless talwars.
Cost means nothing when it comes to balance, whatever it is, we can pay for it. |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 11:48:00 -
[30] - Quote
The only thing that confuses me about that chart is why is pirate tech better than tech 2 from a lore perspective. Imagine when pirates finally get hold of tech II technology. *evil grin* |
|
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1413
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:00:00 -
[31] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:But it is better .. at generalisation meaning flexible. It is like a swiss army knife and very useful if there are constraints on how much you can take with you. But you are almost always better off bringing a real pair of scissors if you plan to do some serious tailoring.
But there is no such flexibility. The point of flexibility is to be pragmatic and allow for on-the-fly changes; with the current state of T3s and the way the fitting system works, all refitting comes from a static point - the hangar where the subsystems and modules are kept. The idea of a "swiss army knife" is lovely, but as I've said a couple of times before if you're going to dock up to refit you may as well dock up and get another ship. It's the same price to buy one of every T2 cruiser as to buy a single T3, and a hangar full of ships is about as mobile as a hangar full of subsystems and modules when it comes down to it. The point I want to make is that to make the T3s "swiss army knives" CCP will either have to completely revamp the subsystems system, or accept the fact that T3s have become gunboats. Hell, even the rigging system forces specialisation on T3s that are supposed to be liquid and ever-changing. While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1159
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:01:00 -
[32] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:ElQuirko wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Why does it matter? If you can fly a T3, you can fly a HAC. Eerm no, check the requirements next time you log in? The Proteus requires neither Weapon Upgrades V nor Energy Grid Upgrades V, for example. As for the OP: Tom Gerard may usually be a shiptoasting loon, but this is a topic very dear to me and he has my complete support. The idea of "flexibility" in a ship is ludicrous; for the cost of a T3 you can buy a fleet of every T2 cruiser. Nor does a T2 require the skill investment to reach the same level of performance. The subsystems we swap out with have to remain in a station anyway and we cannot remove rigs. The only feasible role of a T3, therefore, is to be top of the food chain for that cost. They're fine as they are, besides usurping command ships. In a game of role-based combat, having a ship that can fill multiple roles is a huge boon. Right now, T3s are OP. If they brought them back in line to, say, be able to fill two roles at once, and did just as well as some dedicated ships, and then brought their cost a bit more in line, it'd give an advantage to T3, promote customization and varying fits, and prevent it from being over-the-top any longer.
The flexibility of a ship dependent upon refit is absolutely useless when it's in the field. It's not even a cool feature since I'll have to spend a few minutes dik-ing around with modules when I could hop into a T1/2 ship already fit specific for the task.
From the flowchart it appears a T3 is going to tank and shoot like a T1. Frankly, I want my SP back when it's nerfed.
Oh, and with the way CCP screwed with data/relic sites, you can expect the intermediate time range cost of T3's to go up due to severe shortages of materials because it requires a sizable fleet to clear data/relic sites of sleepers with those pilots making about 500mil/hr/pilot in C5/6 territory and then an hour and a half for them to stick around to make 350mil for the entire fleet once they open the cans. Expensive + mediocre = fail. And even when demand drops because T3 is functionally equivalent to flying a couple of specific fit T1's, the income based off sleeper data/relics is going to drop meaning still, noone is going to farm the materials required to produce them. So, T3's will still be overly expensive but post nerf undesirable ships.
Frankly, I'm not flying a +1bil isk ship that doesn't tank and shoot like a +1bil isk ship. HTFU!...for the children! |
baltec1
Bat Country
6880
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:17:00 -
[33] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function.
No it makes perfect sense to lower T3 cruisers so that they are balanced with the other cruisers. |
Lexmana
974
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:19:00 -
[34] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Lexmana wrote:But it is better .. at generalisation meaning flexible. It is like a swiss army knife and very useful if there are constraints on how much you can take with you. But you are almost always better off bringing a real pair of scissors if you plan to do some serious tailoring. But there is no such flexibility. The point of flexibility is to be pragmatic and allow for on-the-fly changes; with the current state of T3s and the way the fitting system works, all refitting comes from a static point - the hangar where the subsystems and modules are kept. The idea of a "swiss army knife" is lovely, but as I've said a couple of times before if you're going to dock up to refit you may as well dock up and get another ship. It's the same price to buy one of every T2 cruiser as to buy a single T3, and a hangar full of ships is about as mobile as a hangar full of subsystems and modules when it comes down to it. The point I want to make is that to make the T3s "swiss army knives" CCP will either have to completely revamp the subsystems system, or accept the fact that T3s have become gunboats. Hell, even the rigging system forces specialisation on T3s that are supposed to be liquid and ever-changing. While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function.
I think you have some good points there. T3 should be about flexibility but certain mechanics puts too much constraints to this. Addressing these constraints seems to be a better way to rebalance T3s than making them outshine every other T2 cruiser and BC .
For example, T3s could gain the ability to re-ship in space (subs and even modules) maybe even be able to remove rigs without them being destryed (or have rigs tied to subs). |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:21:00 -
[35] - Quote
Tech 3s give flexibility, so they aren't meant to be as powerful as a specialised tech 2 ship. I'm not sure why the OP is so surprised as CCP has specifically pointed out this is there intention. For example Tech 3s are going to be able to fit 3 types of warfare link simultaneously instead of the standard 2 on a command ship. I expect more changes in this vein in the next rebalance. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:27:00 -
[36] - Quote
Kaahles wrote:Oh and FYI cost plays a factor in balance. Just look at the Hurricane/Fleet Hurricane.
no it's not. cost only comes into play if you consider the availability of the ship, and that's where cost does count.
increased availability --+ decreased costs. be it a battleship, a T3, a frigate, an interceptor.
IF cost was a factor, then catalysts wouldn't be able to kill exhumers, a handfull of interceptors wouldn't be able to kill a battleship.
[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
iskflakes
497
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:29:00 -
[37] - Quote
You see, having one ship be better than other ships is clearly unbalanced because it would allow one person to make themselves better than another person. This is clearly bad as we should all be completely equal, and the winner should be the side that brings the most numbers.
For this reason the T3s must be nerfed, just like every other ship that makes you better than another player. You can't balance by skillpoints, price or risk you know!
[/CCP] - |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14693
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:30:00 -
[38] - Quote
Yes, T3s are meant to be weaker in any given area than the T2 ships specialising in that area. Ever heard of the term GÇ£jack of all trades, master of noneGÇ¥? That's T3. T2 are their complete opposite and should therefore qualify for that GÇ£masterGÇ¥ status in whatever field they specialise in.
And for those trying to claim that T3 should remain better because of cost, please do a price-check for me: What is the cost of buying a HAC, a Logi, both types of Recon, a HIC, and a Field Command Ship? What is the cost of buying a Strategic Cruiser with the standard assortment of subsystems?
Moreover, could you please calculate the total (assembled and unassembled) hangar space required to move those T2 ships around? How much is needed to move the T3 + subs around?
Grimpak wrote:no it's not. cost only comes into play if you consider the availability of the ship, and that's where cost does count. GǪand even then, cost is not actually a factor, but the product as your causal model illustrates. The factors are supply and demand, and cost just comes out as a function of that. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1413
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 12:43:00 -
[39] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:ElQuirko wrote:While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function. No it makes perfect sense to lower T3 cruisers so that they are balanced with the other cruisers.
No, it really doesn't. Care to explain your point? Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:01:00 -
[40] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:baltec1 wrote:ElQuirko wrote:While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function. No it makes perfect sense to lower T3 cruisers so that they are balanced with the other cruisers. No, it really doesn't. Care to explain your point?
Because at the heart of it, T3 cruisers are just that: Cruisers. They should be in line with the hulls that share their class. But here's the thing that needs to be addressed with the balance passes to ensure that they actually remain a viable ship:
Tech 3 Cruisers don't necessarily need to be better than Tech 2 ships, but they do need to bring something unique. Something that Tech 2 cruisers can't do. As the chart suggests, that should be filling multiple roles at the same time, while Tech 2 ships would be specialized to fit a single role.
This obviously means changes are going to happen, and they might even be big. But the long and short of it is, Tech 3 needs to be unique among cruisers, or their gameplay is dull and not compelling, and you run into the issue of "why not just bring the Tech 2?". "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
|
Kor'el Izia
63
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:21:00 -
[41] - Quote
You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:21:00 -
[42] - Quote
So maybe T3s will come down in price. 100m isk disposable hulls sounds fun. Oh god. |
iskflakes
499
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:28:00 -
[43] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:So maybe T3s will come down in price. Cheap disposable hulls sounds fun.
You still lose skillpoints when they die - |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1160
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:31:00 -
[44] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:
Tech 3 Cruisers don't necessarily need to be better than Tech 2 ships, but they do need to bring something unique. Something that Tech 2 cruisers can't do. As the chart suggests, that should be filling multiple roles at the same time, while Tech 2 ships would be specialized to fit a single role.
Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. Makes perfect sense. HTFU!...for the children! |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:31:00 -
[45] - Quote
Yeah, they need to get rid of that. It's a stupid mechanic. Oh god. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:33:00 -
[46] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario. Oh god. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1160
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:37:00 -
[47] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario.
It does. But, I hope you can understand the fury that some of us have at this upcoming change when we've invested the time to skill for multiple racial T3's plus the billions we've invested in various fitted ships. HTFU!...for the children! |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
322
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:44:00 -
[48] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario. It does. But, I hope you can understand the fury that some of us have at this upcoming change when we've invested the time to skill for multiple racial T3's plus the billions we've invested in various fitted ships.
Nano Hac's, implant changes, the learning skill revamp, the original drone changes ...
It's not like this kind of massive overhaul of a favorite and arguably OP mechanic hasn't happened before, no matter the personal cost to the individual player. In fact, CCP has kinda made a name for themselves doing it.
As a legion pilot, you can see why I'm not terribly at issue with this change. All the other T3's will probably be balanced with the legion.
But we can rest assured, if they start revamping the t3's, Jita monument will get warmed up again. Protesting seems to be something the EvE playerbase has become good at. If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14694
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:48:00 -
[49] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario. No, it makes not overspending on modules and fitting sensibly the more practical option. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Lexmana
975
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:57:00 -
[50] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario. It does. But, I hope you can understand the fury that some of us have at this upcoming change when we've invested the time to skill for multiple racial T3's plus the billions we've invested in various fitted ships.
Misdirected fury imo. Everybody should welcome the tiercide initiative trying to make all ships viable at least in some role in EVE. When they nerfed the Dramiel and rebalanced all the frigates it put new life into a whole ship class. I expect the same to happen with T2 cruisers when Tengu et al no longer is the answer to most questions in EVE. |
|
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1414
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 13:58:00 -
[51] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense. I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario. No, it makes not overspending on modules and fitting sensibly the more practical option.
Bravo, more insightful and useful commentary from GD's most prevalent snark. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14694
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:01:00 -
[52] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Bravo, more insightful and useful commentary from GD's most prevalent snark. I'm merely pointing out that, no, T 3s do not cost 1bn+ to fit, nor do they cost four times as much as a T2 ship, and that no matter what you fly, bad fits makes the ship bad GÇö it has nothing to do with T2 vs. T3. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
cheese monkey
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
156
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:14:00 -
[53] - Quote
LOL,
I am happy for someone to show me a faction frigate that can kill my AF |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Tribal Band
688
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:21:00 -
[54] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote:http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg This chart seems to have a huge error on it. If you look at it, from a certain perspective it looks like Tech 2 ships will deal more damage than Tech 3 ships, which is ludicrous and is clearly a misrepresentation. If we were to believe (for a moment) this isn't obvious glaring mistake on CCP's part. It would suggest that Tech 3 hulls would share the tank/gank of a Navy Cruiser but with more flexibility. Assuming this farce would be the case, Tech 3 Cruisers would drop from Battleship levels of Gank and Tank down to cruiser level? That seems like too large of a nerf.So my conclusion is that either people are misreading this chart, or CCP made a huge mistake when creating it. The only defense that needs to be made is "lore" millions of years ago the Sleepers made the T3 technology and since then no advances have been made so they should be the best at everything, any nerf however slight to the strategic cruisers would destroy all of EVE's lore forever. I have taken the liberty of correcting the visual error: http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3682/corrected.jpgIf we could just upload this new image before anyone else gets confused and thinks CCP is willing to destroy ALL THE LORE IN EVE, by nerfing strategics. Many Thanks
T3 is fine where it is.
When you put their roles into perspective it makes sense. A T3 can fulfil the following roles depending on the subsystems fitted.
Logistic Recon HAC Command Ship Cov Ops
When you look at that role resume, it makes sense that specialised single role ships will out perform a T3 in the same role.
The T3's strength is in it's versatility, not it's DPS.
|
OldWolf69
IR0N. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:26:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP was ok with t3's as long they did put plex in the right pocket. Balance wise, Fozzy wise, prolly even the fact someone did meet the sleepers is a heresy and complete untrue story. Bah. *** Bring da*uque EvE's awesomeness back. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1414
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:38:00 -
[56] - Quote
Tippia wrote: I'm merely pointing out that, no, T3s do not cost 1bn+ to fit (or, if they do then so do T2s so it makes no difference either way), nor do they cost four times as much as a T2 ship, and that no matter what you fly, bad fits makes the ship bad GÇö it has nothing to do with T2 vs. T3.
The hull and subs on your average T3 is going to set you back around 500-700mil. Granted that's not one bil, but many people like to stick faction mods on 'em to boost that performance past the levels seen in other ship classes. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
1995
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:50:00 -
[57] - Quote
Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.
The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.
In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.
Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas. |
|
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:51:00 -
[58] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:you're still paying 4-5x the cost of the T2 hull. My Zealot costs 232m isk, my Legion costs 467m isk. That's only twice as much. Oh god. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14694
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:52:00 -
[59] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:The hull and subs on your average T3 is going to set you back around 500-700mil. GǪand a HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi and Fleet Command ship is going to set you back just over one billion. If you want to add the 500M worth of vanity fittings that people put onto their T3s, then we'll have to do the same to the T2 cruisers to maintain a reliable point of comparison, at which point they will close in on 1.5GÇô2bn.
That's the number you need to compare against. And we haven't even gotten to the ridiculously short training path and the vastly simplified logistics the much cheaper price of a T3 buys you. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Ager Agemo
Kiith Paktu Curatores Veritatis Alliance
322
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 15:04:00 -
[60] - Quote
Got to agree with Tippia on this one, T3s already offer stuff that is just way too broken powerfull compared to T2 due to that flexibility its just fair their performance drops a bit in exchange for that flexibility.
think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter.
price is NEVER a performance measurement, if it was, marauders would be destroying capital ships like they were frigates and would be impervious to any sub capital ship. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
6880
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 15:43:00 -
[61] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:baltec1 wrote:ElQuirko wrote:While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function. No it makes perfect sense to lower T3 cruisers so that they are balanced with the other cruisers. No, it really doesn't. Care to explain your point?
T3 cruisers are not only better than cruisers, they are better than battlecruisers and get into battleship areas.
Give me one reason why a cruiser should have the firepower, sig and speed of a zealot while sporting a buffer an apoc would be happy with and still have room for tackle gear.
Then there is the issue of t3s ability to warp cloaked AND ignore bubbles. Those two things should never have been allowed to be put on one ship. |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
2303
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 15:50:00 -
[62] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Give me one reason why a cruiser should have the firepower, sig and speed of a zealot while sporting a buffer an apoc would be happy with and still have room for tackle gear.
I'm not saying it was aliens.. but it was aliens. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 15:53:00 -
[63] - Quote
Kor'el Izia wrote:You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market.
if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Lexmana
977
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:12:00 -
[64] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Kor'el Izia wrote:You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market. if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.
Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
225
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:20:00 -
[65] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
Thats sad to hear considering T3's are the class most in need of a rebalance alongside command ships especially with the links i would have thought you would do them together.... At least consider a partial rebalance of T3's mainly their extremely high resists. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
601
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:35:00 -
[66] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter.
price is NEVER a performance measurement, if it was, marauders would be destroying capital ships like they were frigates and would be impervious to any sub capital ship.
How many T3 can fly cloaked, with 100MN ABs, doing 500 DPS on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances ? None.
Can a Tengu be a Recon, a Hac, a minitransport and an interceptor at the same time ? No.
100MN AB Tengus have pretty poor DPS (and good range). Cloaky Tengus have very poor DPS too. Recon Tengu, like, a Falcon ? Nah. No one uses Recon Tengus except a couple WH groups. Minitransport ? Well, every ship is a transport except for pods. An interceptor ? Nah, you don't know what you're talking about.
Seriously tho.
Yes, some subsystems need rebalancing. Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable. |
Lexmana
977
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:39:00 -
[67] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable. You might have solved most of the rebalancing right there. Simple and effective. Time to call Fozzie ... |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3616
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 16:43:00 -
[68] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Ager Agemo wrote:think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter. How many T3 can fly cloaked, with 100MN ABs, doing 500 DPS on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances ? None. Can a Tengu be a Recon, a Hac, a minitransport and an interceptor at the same time ? No. "Owned." Seriously. Like someone who accidentally into a gatecamp, but on the forums. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Moonlit Raid
State War Academy Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 17:41:00 -
[69] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:You got it backwards. Your "corrected" chart describes the current situation of one ship to rule them all. That is not good game design so they are fixing it. One day you will understand. The sad truth being his correction is fairly accurate. I'd expect any T3 to kill any pirate cruiser. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14699
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 17:45:00 -
[70] - Quote
Moonlit Raid wrote:Lexmana wrote:You got it backwards. Your "corrected" chart describes the current situation of one ship to rule them all. That is not good game design so they are fixing it. One day you will understand. The sad truth being his correction is fairly accurate. I'd expect any T3 to kill any pirate cruiser. Then it's probably time to start adjusting your expectationsGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 18:11:00 -
[71] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Grimpak wrote:Kor'el Izia wrote:You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market. if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1. Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more. by a very small margin, because T1 would drop even further in price to be able to compete vs the X-type.
offer and demand. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1075
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 18:25:00 -
[72] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:ElQuirko wrote:you're still paying 4-5x the cost of the T2 hull. My Zealot costs 232m isk, my Legion costs 480m isk. That's roughly twice as much.
so i heard the cost of stuff is a great way to balance... see sc and titans as an excellent example of price based balancing... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 18:26:00 -
[73] - Quote
What are you talking about? Oh god. |
Lexmana
979
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 18:44:00 -
[74] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Lexmana wrote:Grimpak wrote:[quote=Kor'el Izia] if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1. Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more. by a very small margin, because T1 would drop even further in price to be able to compete vs the X-type. offer and demand. It is almost impossible for T1 and x-types to have the same price on the market and for it to happen x-type need to have much higher availability than T1. Interestingly though I think there also need to be quite restricted supply of both for anyone to even consider buying a T1 in such scenario.
My point is that availability does not set the price of a product not even after demand has been taken into account.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1075
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 18:50:00 -
[75] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:What are you talking about?
you would like to know wouldn't you... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 18:52:00 -
[76] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Grimpak wrote:Lexmana wrote:Grimpak wrote: if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.
Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more. by a very small margin, because T1 would drop even further in price to be able to compete vs the X-type. offer and demand. It is almost impossible for T1 and x-types to have the same price on the market and for it to happen x-type need to have much higher availability than T1. Interestingly though I think there also need to be quite restricted supply of both for anyone to even consider buying a T1 in such scenario. My point is that availability does not set the price of a product, not even after demand has been taken into account. it does. if any item that has a limited supply had more availability for the same demand, price would drop accordingly. increased supply means more people able to supply the market, price wars would drop the price further.
unless, of course, you include cartelization. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Lexmana
979
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 18:59:00 -
[77] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Lexmana wrote:Grimpak wrote:Lexmana wrote:Grimpak wrote: if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.
Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more. by a very small margin, because T1 would drop even further in price to be able to compete vs the X-type. offer and demand. It is almost impossible for T1 and x-types to have the same price on the market and for it to happen x-type need to have much higher availability than T1. Interestingly though I think there also need to be quite restricted supply of both for anyone to even consider buying a T1 in such scenario. My point is that availability does not set the price of a product, not even after demand has been taken into account. it does. if any item that has a limited supply had more availability for the same demand, price would drop accordingly. increased supply means more people able to supply the market, price wars would drop the price further. unless, of course, you include cartelization. So you are saying that if there were the same number of T1 available on the market as x-types they would have the same price? |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
988
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 19:00:00 -
[78] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Riot Girl wrote:What are you talking about? you would like to know wouldn't you... Sure, if it adds something to the discussion.
Oh god. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1161
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 19:07:00 -
[79] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Moonlit Raid wrote:Lexmana wrote:You got it backwards. Your "corrected" chart describes the current situation of one ship to rule them all. That is not good game design so they are fixing it. One day you will understand. The sad truth being his correction is fairly accurate. I'd expect any T3 to kill any pirate cruiser. Then it's probably time to start adjusting your expectationsGǪ
The popularity of a T3 comes from exactly what is saying needs to be fixed: adaptability & flexibility. These are exactly the reasons they're popular and yet CCP wants to fix that. I can only assume the fix will require some modification that encumbers them to all but specialty roles.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
They are extremely flexible and adaptable. Overlapping roles is to be expected in a ship that is 1) flexible and 2) adaptable. Yet the implication of that quote is that CCP intends to remove overlap. Well, if it doesn't overlap, then what role will it fill? Paperweight?
CCP is in the habit of re-writing their own history. T3's are no different. They are meant to be what they are. Last I checked, one has to know exactly what they're coding to code. It's not like the devs that developed T3's took a bunch of lines of code, tossed it in a pile picking pieces here and there arranging them in random order only to be surprised of the outcome.
T3's need tweaked in the areas that they're truly overpowered. Tank and DPS is not it. To achieve overpowering tank and dps people are paying for that through faction/deadspace mods and specialized implant sets pushing the overall cost to fly for ship and pilot well over 2bil isk.
Current T3 flexibility is what makes the ships fun to fly. You're not stuck in a hull that has a very specific role as we see with T2 waiting for the opportunity to apply its role. If a pilot wants to pimp it out to give it capabilities considered overpowered then that's their choice as it is for all other hulls.
HTFU!...for the children! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14701
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 19:16:00 -
[80] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:The popularity of a T3 comes from exactly what is saying needs to be fixed: adaptability & flexibility. These are exactly the reasons they're popular and yet CCP wants to fix that. No. The reason they're popular is because they outperform T2 ships for a fraction of the cost (and training time), and that is what CCP wants to fix since the intended design is that they should be adaptable and flexible, but not as good at any one thing as T2 ships are.
Quote:CCP is in the habit of re-writing their own history. T3's are no different. They are meant to be what they are. Not really, no. They were always intended to be flexible; they were also always intended to not be quite as good as T2 at any given task. That last thing unfortunately never happened, in spite of the many warnings that the design was headed down the wrong path, and now is as good a time as ever to go back to that original design idea.
Quote:T3's need tweaked in the areas that they're truly overpowered. Tank and DPS is not it. Tank and DPS are most certainly it, since the T3 ships have absolutely no problems outperforming their equivalent T2 damage dealing cruisers (HACs). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1161
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 19:21:00 -
[81] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:T3's need tweaked in the areas that they're truly overpowered. Tank and DPS is not it. Tank and DPS are most certainly it, since the T3 ships have absolutely no problems outperforming their equivalent T2 damage dealing cruisers (HACs).
Right, because having a ship that performs worse than another makes it flexible and adaptable. Seriously, lets call it what it is. It's definitely a nerf and not going to make T3's flexible and adaptable because they already are which is exactly why CCP wants to nerf them.
Sure, they might be able to perform a number of roles but we can all be sure it will be subpar....can't exactly say it will fill those roles.
My pleasure derived at flying a T3 is in the fact that I'm not flying a hull that I consider subpar and limited as I do with T2. Some hull has to be on top. It has to be top dog. That CCP is nerfing the current top dog irks me because of the investment I've made in skilling for those hulls. Once T2's become the top dog CCP will then again want to nerf those hulls devaluing any investment in time and isk I've made there and so on and so on. This is a case where CCP needs to leave well enough alone beyond a few tweaks. HTFU!...for the children! |
Lexmana
980
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 19:25:00 -
[82] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:The popularity of a T3 comes from exactly what is saying needs to be fixed: adaptability & flexibility. These are exactly the reasons they're popular and yet CCP wants to fix that. I can only assume the fix will require some modification that encumbers them to all but specialty roles. I think you missed the point but if what you say is true you need not to worry. All you need is to learn to read and quote better. I will help you (see below). However, if they are popular because they are a better answer than any other cruiser to almost any question in EVE then you need to prepare for a change.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14701
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 19:30:00 -
[83] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Right, because having a ship that performs worse than another makes it flexible and adaptable. Having a ship that can decide what area it wants to perform in makes it flexible and adaptable.
The HAC has no choice; the T3 does. The HAC can only bring DPS and (depending on the ship) a bit of tank to the table. The T3 can counter this by not playing the HAC's game and instead bring ewar to the table, rendering that superior DPS and tank meaningless. So the enemy responds by bringing a Recon the next time, to which the T3 can counter by not playing the Recon's game and instead melt that silly paper ship with superior DPS and tank.
Quote:Seriously, lets call it what it is. It's definitely a nerf Of course it's a nerf. No-one has ever said anything else. That doesn't make it any less needed to correct the imbalance between the ships and put T3s where they belong in the larger ecology of ship choices. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 19:52:00 -
[84] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:So you are saying that if there were the same number of T1 available on the market as x-types they would have the same price? under the laws of demand and offer, if said supply was constantly restocked, X-type would probably go down to the same values of T1.
as an interesting by-product however, T1 would either drop in price further or stop being produced because of mineral values, unless there was a further mineral devaluation.
this is, however, theory. most probably the X-type, if supply managed to maintain the market volume, would replace pretty much everything below it in due time, any mods that had worse stats would either be sold below mineral value or shoved directly into the reprocessor.
all this to say that, no, price is not a balancing factor. availability is. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Aura of Ice
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 19:56:00 -
[85] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Right, because having a ship that performs worse than another makes it flexible and adaptable. Having a ship that can decide what area it wants to perform in makes it flexible and adaptable.
You say "decide"... but it's hardly ever a decision much different than the decision to bring another ship.
Everyone keeps touting this "jack of all trades, master of none" line while myopically ignoring such things as the inability to swap rigs (yes, I enjoy extra armor rep when I'm in my buffer fit. It is so useful) or having to switch subs in hangar...
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8211
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 20:49:00 -
[86] - Quote
"my ship costs the princely sum of 450 million, how dare you nerf it" Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
baltec1
Bat Country
6883
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 21:30:00 -
[87] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:T3's need tweaked in the areas that they're truly overpowered. Tank and DPS is not it. Tank and DPS are most certainly it, since the T3 ships have absolutely no problems outperforming their equivalent T2 damage dealing cruisers (HACs). Right, because having a ship that performs worse than another makes it flexible and adaptable. Seriously, lets call it what it is. It's definitely a nerf and not going to make T3's flexible and adaptable because they already are which is exactly why CCP wants to nerf them. Sure, they might be able to perform a number of roles but we can all be sure it will be subpar....can't exactly say it will fill those roles. My pleasure derived at flying a T3 is in the fact that I'm not flying a hull that I consider subpar and limited as I do with T2. Some hull has to be on top. It has to be top dog. That CCP is nerfing the current top dog irks me because of the investment I've made in skilling for those hulls. Once T2's become the top dog CCP will then again want to nerf those hulls devaluing any investment in time and isk I've made there and so on and so on. This is a case where CCP needs to leave well enough alone beyond a few tweaks.
Why exactly do you think a cruiser should have more buffer than a navy megathron? |
Copper Rei
Copper Corp
40
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 21:59:00 -
[88] - Quote
My original hope was that CCP would realize the importance of the t3 and the flexibility of the ship.
In order to correct (aka fix) the situation with T3 overrunning people in sites and such.....simply make known space effect the t3 ships just as some worm space spatial effects do to known space ships.
Example...in worm space the t3 would benefit from it's intended purpose....omni-omni-omni to deal with sleepers....but in known space they would suffer from 75% reduction in bonuses or no bonuses at all.
Perhaps this would even the field for those who cry so hard about the T3 being OP and whatnot.
Blocking them from places that other cruiser class ships are allowed simply sucks since the adaptability and fitting options are why people fly the damn things to begin with.
Surely there are more creative solutions than just admin override 'click' and banned from h-sec sites.
The T3 came from outside the box...where did all the people go who created the T3 in the first place...break out their notes and review why they were created. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3618
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 23:31:00 -
[89] - Quote
Copper Rei wrote:Surely there are more creative solutions than just admin override 'click' and banned from h-sec sites. But are they easier or not?
I'd love a new jumping animation, it's more creative than a loading bar. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1162
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 01:34:00 -
[90] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Why exactly do you think a cruiser should have more buffer than a navy megathron?
Maybe you're not putting the investment in mods and implants that people in T3's are?
A Navy Mega with similar faction/deadspace mods will out dps and tank a T3 with faction/deadspace mods. This is a case of comparing T2 fit ships and bling ships and wondering why the two don't perform similarly.
I've got a T2 fit Dominix (non-faction) that out tanks and out dps's my faction fit Proteus. In fact, that Dominix will tear that Proteus to shreds in a one on one fight. Perhaps, you're doing something wrong. HTFU!...for the children! |
|
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
581
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 01:48:00 -
[91] - Quote
I'm too depressed to respond./argue. I''ve already prepared an open spot in my space paperweight collection, (for my Tengu) right next to my Dominix and unneeded Arazu. |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 02:02:00 -
[92] - Quote
Copper Rei wrote:Surely there are more creative solutions than just admin override 'click' and banned from h-sec sites.
And I'd be willing to bet that as soon as the T3 balance changes actually go into effect, that banned-from-high-sec-sites issue will be removed.
Mr Kidd wrote:So, excuse me if I feel a continuing rebalance is not in mine or anyone else's self interest. No, the only interests being served with the T3 rebalance is the inept's and CCP's which are often times one and the same.
You're just an angry little person, aren't you. Of course a nerf to your favorite ship isn't in your best interest, because it nerfs the ship you want to stay OP.
You're really just talking in circles at this point; your argument has devolved into "but other ships can beat it, so it's not OP!" Let's just be grateful you're not actually in charge of the balancing at CCP, or this game would be broken beyond belief. "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1164
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 02:18:00 -
[93] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:Copper Rei wrote:Surely there are more creative solutions than just admin override 'click' and banned from h-sec sites. And I'd be willing to bet that as soon as the T3 balance changes actually go into effect, that banned-from-high-sec-sites issue will be removed. Mr Kidd wrote:So, excuse me if I feel a continuing rebalance is not in mine or anyone else's self interest. No, the only interests being served with the T3 rebalance is the inept's and CCP's which are often times one and the same. You're just an angry little person, aren't you. Of course a nerf to your favorite ship isn't in your best interest, because it nerfs the ship you want to stay OP. You're really just talking in circles at this point; your argument has devolved into "but other ships can beat it, so it's not OP!" Let's just be grateful you're not actually in charge of the balancing at CCP, or this game would be broken beyond belief.
Actually, my favorite ship is my Mega, followed by my Dominix and my triple rep Myrm. My Proteus is the realization of certain realities of w-space life.
Wait, you're going to completely ignore that non-T3's can beat T3's and then go on to tell me my argument has no merit? Do you even PVP.......and win? Or is this a case where you lost to a T3, have no clue why and therefore support nerfing them because obviously you're a PVP God and if you lost it's surely because they're overpowered? HTFU!...for the children! |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative Trans-Stellar Industries
322
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 02:30:00 -
[94] - Quote
Anybody remember Insta's?
I spent hundreds of millions of iskies on insta's for whole regions. Damn warp to 0. If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that? |
Remiel Pollard
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
1513
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 02:50:00 -
[95] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:
price is NEVER a performance measurement, if it was, marauders would be destroying capital ships like they were frigates and would be impervious to any sub capital ship.
Pirate noob ships.
'nuff said You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 03:22:00 -
[96] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:[Actually, my favorite ship is my Mega, followed by my Dominix and my triple rep Myrm. My Proteus is the realization of certain realities of w-space life.
Wait, you're going to completely ignore that non-T3's can beat T3's and then go on to tell me my argument has no merit? Do you even PVP.......and win? Or is this a case where you lost to a T3, have no clue why and therefore support nerfing them because obviously you're a PVP God and if you lost it's surely because they're overpowered?
I actually haven't yet gotten in to PvP, barring my short stint in Null. I've been spending a good deal of time getting a steady stream of ISK set up before I get into PvP, knowing full well it's going to end in my ship exploding many, many times before I ever get a grasp on how to play effectively.
However, I've been studying game design for some time, have been reading relevant blog posts by the developers, feedback from other players, watching T3s myself, and seeing your own posts. It doesn't take a PvP expert to understand that T3's aren't working as intended. You know how I know? Because the developers of the game themselves have said that T3's aren't working as intended.
Because I understand my inexperience with the ships themselves, I've made no attempt to crunch numbers and provide specifics, but instead suggest interesting ways to make T3s fit into a particular design that CCP has said they want: cruiser-level ability to do several roles. Adaptability and generalization. And in good game design, "adaptability and generalization" means that something should be able to do multiple things, oft-times all at once, but will never be the best in that particular field. Instead, specializing (i.e., T2 ships) should allow the ships to perform exceptionally at their intended purpose, but very very poorly in any other role.
I agree 100% that T3's need work, and I agree that it's going to take some serious work on CCP's part to ensure that they're not only viable, but also unique in their performance and fun to fly. I also understand that as a Cruiser-class hull, T3's can do certain things far better than they should be able to (hence OP), while also understanding that in certain areas, the T3's are severely lacking. "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3624
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 03:33:00 -
[97] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:I actually haven't yet gotten in to PvP, barring my short stint in Null.
Sanadras Riahn wrote:It doesn't take a PvP expert to understand that T3's aren't working as intended.
Sanadras Riahn wrote:Because I understand my inexperience with the ships themselves, I've made no attempt to crunch numbers and provide specifics, Great credentials. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 03:39:00 -
[98] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Great credentials.
Because ship-to-ship PvP is the single solitary facet to EVE Online, right? "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3625
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 03:40:00 -
[99] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Great credentials. Because ship-to-ship PvP is the single solitary facet to EVE Online, right? Being a great miner has bonuses when considering the capabilities of a T3 cruiser. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
583
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 03:44:00 -
[100] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sanadras Riahn wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Great credentials. Because ship-to-ship PvP is the single solitary facet to EVE Online, right? Being a great miner has bonuses when considering the capabilities of a T3 cruiser.
Because a scientist working on a virus through a microscope will readily admit (and has done so) that working in the real world with patients is martian science. In other words, experience is important. |
|
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 04:10:00 -
[101] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Being a great miner has bonuses when considering the capabilities of a T3 cruiser.
Not a miner.
Regardless, I brought up those particular points to help explain why I wasn't pointing to specifics as to why the T3 is OP or why the T3 is lacking in certain fields. Instead, using what experience I have had with ships, seeing roles in use, listening to player feedback, video demonstrations, personal experience with game balance and design, and a myriad of other research, I'm able to provide suggestions as to what might make a Tier 3 cruiser fit into the cruiser paradigm while still being an interesting, unique ship that is both viable and fun for the pilots to fly. "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
584
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 04:27:00 -
[102] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Being a great miner has bonuses when considering the capabilities of a T3 cruiser. Not a miner. Regardless, I brought up those particular points to help explain why I wasn't pointing to specifics as to why the T3 is OP or why the T3 is lacking in certain fields. Instead, using what experience I have had with ships, seeing roles in use, listening to player feedback, video demonstrations, personal experience with game balance and design, and a myriad of other research, I'm able to provide suggestions as to what might make a Tier 3 cruiser fit into the cruiser paradigm while still being an interesting, unique ship that is both viable and fun for the pilots to fly.
Yes, but as far I can see you didn't suggest anything and just summarized (debatable) points that have been made. If you have suggestions for making the T3 "interesting" and "fun" in its pending re-balance, I, for one, am all ears. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1164
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 04:30:00 -
[103] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Being a great miner has bonuses when considering the capabilities of a T3 cruiser. Not a miner. Regardless, I brought up those particular points to help explain why I wasn't pointing to specifics as to why the T3 is OP or why the T3 is lacking in certain fields. Instead, using what experience I have had with ships, seeing roles in use, listening to player feedback, video demonstrations, personal experience with game balance and design, and a myriad of other research, I'm able to provide suggestions as to what might make a Tier 3 cruiser fit into the cruiser paradigm while still being an interesting, unique ship that is both viable and fun for the pilots to fly.
Well padawan, changes on paper are one thing, in game its another. All I can say is there are over powered ships in every class in the game when fit and implanted (read that larger than normal isk investments) to achieve such stats. And still, even the massive tank that a T3 >can< have when fit with deadspace modules and specific implant sets means its DPS is very poor. Likewise, serious DPS can be achieved in a T3 while sacrificing tank. The two can not be achieved in the same fit. I call that balance.
But your average run of the mill T3 pilot is running a bit more conservatively with more useful DPS and less tank making that ship more flexible. Every fielded T3 fit has a counter available to lower tech hulls. HTFU!...for the children! |
Nariya Kentaya
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
620
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 04:33:00 -
[104] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The T3 stuff we use isn't the sleeper tech.
It's a bastardised version, integrating the current tech of the Empires, as well as bits of the sleeper's tech.
The T3s aren't supposed to beat everything, at anything. Just be able to do pretty much anything with a refit. In other words, incredibly expensive sub-par ships, if you have to refit to be sorta OK at something but not as good as T2, you may as well just buy several T2 ships and be done with it. |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
584
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 04:41:00 -
[105] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:The T3 stuff we use isn't the sleeper tech.
It's a bastardised version, integrating the current tech of the Empires, as well as bits of the sleeper's tech.
The T3s aren't supposed to beat everything, at anything. Just be able to do pretty much anything with a refit. In other words, incredibly expensive sub-par ships, if you have to refit to be sorta OK at something but not as good as T2, you may as well just buy several T2 ships and be done with it.
Piloting 5 ships works quite well when you're in gypsy/exploration/merc-on-call mode. |
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
1084
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 04:58:00 -
[106] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:[ In other words, incredibly expensive sub-par ships, if you have to refit to be sorta OK at something but not as good as T2, you may as well just buy several T2 ships and be done with it.
This is the point of the Tier 3 Exactly, it is 10 ships or the price of 2, My Tengu is the last ship I will ever need to train for. It is the best hull available, do I still have millions and millions of SP to train specialty roles? I sure do, but I can reliably know that I am flying the best hull in the game for all circumstances while doing so.
At it's core Tech 3s offer us a Battleship tank, battleship DPS and the ability to move expensive mods in/out that let us perform any single role at a time. The Tengu I am currently building is 9.7 billion ISK, thats the price of a capital so shouldn't it deliver performance on par with a capital?
The Tech 3s offer EVE players a shortcut on their skill traning plan, rather than spending years to train for a bunch of specialized hulls you can get them all at once, if you ignore the "specialization T2 garbage" you can easily cut 7 or maybe 8 years off your total skill training.
EVE is about skillpoints, and Tech 3s offer us a Doorway to getting SP capped within 2 or 3 years. One of the oldest mission players in EVE designed a chart that explains stat priority in regards to mission running, compared Alpha, DPS, Ship Speed and Sig Radius and scores them. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m24dbrfuWn1r86ax8o1_1280.jpg |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1603
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 05:10:00 -
[107] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Sanadras Riahn wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Being a great miner has bonuses when considering the capabilities of a T3 cruiser. Not a miner. Regardless, I brought up those particular points to help explain why I wasn't pointing to specifics as to why the T3 is OP or why the T3 is lacking in certain fields. Instead, using what experience I have had with ships, seeing roles in use, listening to player feedback, video demonstrations, personal experience with game balance and design, and a myriad of other research, I'm able to provide suggestions as to what might make a Tier 3 cruiser fit into the cruiser paradigm while still being an interesting, unique ship that is both viable and fun for the pilots to fly. Well padawan, changes on paper are one thing, in game its another. All I can say is there are over powered ships in every class in the game when fit and implanted (read that larger than normal isk investments) to achieve such stats. And still, even the massive tank that a T3 >can< have when fit with deadspace modules and specific implant sets means its DPS is very poor. Likewise, serious DPS can be achieved in a T3 while sacrificing tank. The two can not be achieved in the same fit. I call that balance. But your average run of the mill T3 pilot is running a bit more conservatively with more useful DPS and less tank making that ship more flexible. Every fielded T3 fit has a counter available to lower tech hulls.
Look, we get it, you're buttmad that CCP is finally going to make the ships what they were originally inteded (jack of all trades master of none) but nothing you say or do is going to stop it from happening so instead of crying about it perhaps you could try living in reality for a while.
They were announced as what they're saying the intend to change them as, they screwed that up, you got used to their screw up, now they're finally getting around to fixing it and you're mad because you like it in the screwed up way.
Oh well.
They've made several classes of ship completely obsolete in their current form and theres 2 ways to fix that, bring t3's back to where they're supposed to be or jack the obsoleted ships up to broken levels.
Guess which one is going to happen.
|
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 05:21:00 -
[108] - Quote
Amarra Mandalin wrote:Yes, but as far I can see you didn't suggest anything and just summarized (mostly debatable) points that have been made. If you have suggestions for making the T3 "interesting" and "fun" in its pending re-balance, I, for one, am all ears.
All right, then here's my take on this.
As suggested by the chart, cruisers need to be looked at on 3 separate progression paths: T1 is baseline, while Navy is a straight up improvement on T1, and Pirate being an improvement on Navy. This makes sense as a progression, because their roles remain generally the same. What's improved is numbers (and with it, cost goes up).
The T2 path (which is due for rebalances all on their own) should give a pilot a ship that does one thing very very well. Better, in fact, than the T1 equivalent, and better than any other T2 ship outside of that role. They're already broken up into specific roles in the first place, so they need to be certain that they're really the absolute best in that role, while performing extremely poorly in any other role.
The T3 path should be, in my mind, a whiteboard. That if you were to take a look at the ship's stats without subsystems, it'd be the perfect balance of everything. The true jack-of-all-trade ship, master of none. Of course, you can't really fly it without subsystems. What I want to see happen is that the subsystems themselves become vastly overhauled so that you can customize it to really be what you want it to be.
T3 should be a multi-role ship, able to effectively substitute for a particular role in a fleet, while not being good enough to completely overshadow the T2 (since the T2's dedicated, after all). I imagine it like a stat diagram (offense, defense, propulsion, electronics, and engineering), where improving on one aspect necessarily detracts from another aspect. As an example, investing into tank might increase the mass of the ship, slowing it down; increasing the ship's electronics capability (ECM, ECCM, targeting, etc) might reduce it's ability to active tank. Etc, etc. (Just examples, don't look into those too seriously). And there'd be varying degrees to this, as well.
To facilitate fitting a ship to meet the capsuleer's needs, fitting should be made easier by the subsystems actually replacing rigs all together for those particular ships, something that would also make T3's unique. Maybe even have a sort of calibration score for subsystems, just like rigs, so as to put an emphasis on making trade-offs on your ship's fitting. Make them easy to cart around, as well; give the T3s a built in bonus that reduces the volume of subsystems that match the Hull by 99%, so that a T3 pilot can carry around a full array of subsystems for easy on-the-go changes.
Hell, if you wanted to get REALLY crazy, change the hardpoints for Rigs into saved configurations that a T3 could swap to while in space, allowing up to 3 configs of modules and subsystems. Make it take a good 30 seconds or so to change along with a steep capacitor cost, so that it isn't something they can do in combat. But if they're flying with a fleet and a sudden need opens up, bamf, different config. Even while exploring, go from probing cloaky mode to a more combat-ready mode. The risk being that you're vulnerable while you're ship is changing, and that you need to be carrying the equipment with you (not too bad if the biggest difference between your configs is 4-5 modules at most). That might be going a little far, but we're discussing ideas.
Bringing the T3s we have now back in line with other Cruiser hulls as far as numbers goes will also lead to more interesting gameplay in the future. Why? Because it opens the door for CCP to make T3 Frigates and Battleships, as well, which would go by the exact same philosophy: Jack-of-all-trades, master of none, able to be fit to meet a pilot's image of what they want for their ship, but making T2s as the go-to if they want to fill a single, specific role really really well.
That was long-winded, I apologize. But I'm kind of liking the idea of subsystem calibration points, and may expand on that later. Again, the subsystems would need to be overhauled to fit a system like that, but it presents an interesting idea on how to balance a jack-of-all-trades ship.
EDIT: Oh, and remove the whole losing a level of subsystem training thing. That seems like a screwed up thing, both gameplay or lore-wise. "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
Gordon Esil
Grumpy Bastards Mass Overload
31
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 06:02:00 -
[109] - Quote
Just a td;dr for me, are we going to see a re-balance for T3s in away that will make T2s more common than they are now?
I just came to the thread and I'm in no mood to read 6 pages |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 06:11:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. ... Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
There's the TL;DR for you! Essentially, "yes". "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
|
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
584
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 06:23:00 -
[111] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:Amarra Mandalin wrote:Yes, but as far I can see you didn't suggest anything and just summarized (mostly debatable) points that have been made. If you have suggestions for making the T3 "interesting" and "fun" in its pending re-balance, I, for one, am all ears. All right, then here's my take on this.
That sounds pretty good actually at first blush. I haven't had time to consider the cons/sacrifices but thanks for taking the time to input some apparently well thought out suggestions...even if you are a miner. (kidding). *sleeping on it* |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
42
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 06:36:00 -
[112] - Quote
Amarra Mandalin wrote:That sounds pretty good actually at first blush. I haven't had time to consider the cons/sacrifices but thanks for taking the time to input some apparently well thought out suggestions...even if you are a miner. (kidding). *sleeping on it* It's far better than the OMG T3 is OP, kill it with fire (rebalance) mantra.
My pleasure. I actually have a blast thinking about this kind of stuff, so I enjoyed putting it to paper.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go get myself blown up so as to gain some real world experience and offer better input. "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6884
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 06:53:00 -
[113] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Why exactly do you think a cruiser should have more buffer than a navy megathron?
Maybe you're not putting the investment in mods and implants that people in T3's are? A Navy Mega with similar faction/deadspace mods will out dps and tank a T3 with faction/deadspace mods. This is a case of comparing T2 fit ships and bling ships and wondering why the two don't perform similarly. I've got a T2 fit Dominix (non-faction) that out tanks and out dps's my faction fit Proteus. In fact, that Dominix will tear that Proteus to shreds in a one on one fight. So, if you can't fit a faction BS properly, what makes you think you're informed enough to know what is balanced and what is not? Up until the BC rebalance, I had a Myrm that could hold its own against Proteus's and Tengu's. It's noone's fault but CCP's that they took a perfectly fine BC and "rebalanced" it with subpar capabilities. If my Proteus goes against a Pilgrim, guess who is going to win that fight? There's a pretty high chance I'm going to be capped out. No cap, no boom boom. Those are 3 examples of a T1 BS, BC & T2 Cruiser able to defeat the overpowered T3. So, excuse me if I feel a continuing rebalance is not in mine or anyone else's self interest. No, the only interests being served with the T3 rebalance is the inept's and CCP's which are often times one and the same.
I have t2 legion and tengu fits that match my faction fit navy mega in buffer of 130k+ EHP. If there is one thing I can hold to my name its the ability to fit a megathron well.
T3s are simply far too powerful for cruisers and have needed the nerf hammer for a very long time to bring them in line with the other cruisers.
|
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
547
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 08:17:00 -
[114] - Quote
Need Mining sub systems - Nulla Curas |
Voyager Arran
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 08:48:00 -
[115] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:The popularity of a T3 comes from exactly what is saying needs to be fixed: adaptability & flexibility. These are exactly the reasons they're popular and yet CCP wants to fix that. No. The reason they're popular is because they outperform T2 ships for a fraction of the cost (and training time), and that is what CCP wants to fix since the intended design is that they should be adaptable and flexible, but not as good at any one thing as T2 ships are.
I know this is a bit far back, but you are doing something hilariously dumb if your T2 ships cost more than a T3. Are you flying Deadspace Zealots or what? I'm not even making an argument on T3 balance myself, but if you compare the basic combat fits between the various T2 Hulls and a T3 set up for the same purpose (which is to say, with T2 equipment and the occasional bit of faction gear if it will make the ship dramatically more effective in its role or is a relatively cheap way of squeezing in a fit), the T3s are far, far more expensive on top of costing you skillpoints if you die.
I'm seriously wondering what you put on your HACs at this point. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14717
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 08:54:00 -
[116] - Quote
Voyager Arran wrote:I know this is a bit far back, but you are doing something hilariously dumb if your T2 ships cost more than a T3. Not really, no. I'm simply doing a correct price comparison.
Do a price check on buying a HAC, one of each Recon, a Logi, a HIC, and a Field Command Ship. When I did, it came out as roughly a billion ISK. At half a billion, a T3 with the corresponding subs is only a fraction of that cost, not to mention far easier to carry around and hellalot easier (and less costly) to train for.
Quote:I'm seriously wondering what you put on your HACs at this point. The same thing I put on a T3, which is why the fittings are not a factor in the price. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Lexmana
990
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 08:58:00 -
[117] - Quote
Voyager Arran wrote:Tippia wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:The popularity of a T3 comes from exactly what is saying needs to be fixed: adaptability & flexibility. These are exactly the reasons they're popular and yet CCP wants to fix that. No. The reason they're popular is because they outperform T2 ships for a fraction of the cost (and training time), and that is what CCP wants to fix since the intended design is that they should be adaptable and flexible, but not as good at any one thing as T2 ships are. I know this is a bit far back, but you are doing something hilariously dumb if your T2 ships cost more than a T3. Are you flying Deadspace Zealots or what? I'm not even making an argument on T3 balance myself, but if you compare the basic combat fits between the various T2 Hulls and a T3 set up for the same purpose (which is to say, with T2 equipment and the occasional bit of faction gear if it will make the ship dramatically more effective in its role or is a relatively cheap way of squeezing in a fit), the T3s are far, far more expensive on top of costing you skillpoints if you die. I'm seriously wondering what you put on your HACs at this point. A T3 is more than one HAC you know. It is cheaper to buy one T3 + a few subs with fittings than buying multiple T2s. And you don't need a carrier to move them all with you either. |
Sushi Nardieu
Bite Me inc Bitten.
129
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 09:12:00 -
[118] - Quote
Nobody wants Tech IIIs to be crap CCP. Nor do they want to consider buying a 500 mil hull when the Tech II variant is about the same. The Guns of Knowledge-á |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
991
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 09:21:00 -
[119] - Quote
Sushi Nardieu wrote:Nor do they want to consider buying a 500 mil hull when the Tech II variant is about the same. Who says they're going to cost 500m? Oh god. |
Lexmana
990
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 09:26:00 -
[120] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Sushi Nardieu wrote:Nor do they want to consider buying a 500 mil hull when the Tech II variant is about the same. Who says they're going to cost 500m? I like that thinking. Make them cheaper and weaker and more flexible (perhaps even shapeshifters). They are relatively easy to train for and would be top priority for a new player but if you want to maximize your tank and dps you should train for and bring a specialised ship. And remove the SP loss on death it is not a very good mechanic to begin with. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
6884
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 09:28:00 -
[121] - Quote
Sushi Nardieu wrote:Nobody wants Tech IIIs to be crap CCP. Nor do they want to consider buying a 500 mil hull when the Tech II variant is about the same.
They dont cost 500 mil even when fitted.
Also Look at how much more you pay for a vindi over a normal megathron. Thats what T3s should be like over t1s. |
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
1084
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 10:03:00 -
[122] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sushi Nardieu wrote:Nobody wants Tech IIIs to be crap CCP. Nor do they want to consider buying a 500 mil hull when the Tech II variant is about the same. They dont cost 500 mil even when fitted. Also Look at how much more you pay for a vindi over a normal megathron. Thats what T3s should be like over t1s.
T3s should be the ultimate in subcapital DPS and Tank. Period.
they use advanced sleeper AI interlocking mechanisms with melted capacitors and LORE. One of the oldest mission players in EVE designed a chart that explains stat priority in regards to mission running, compared Alpha, DPS, Ship Speed and Sig Radius and scores them. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m24dbrfuWn1r86ax8o1_1280.jpg |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14717
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 10:13:00 -
[123] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote:T3s should be the ultimate in subcapital DPS and Tank. Period. Your standard trolling aside (and seeing as how there are plenty of genuine fools who actually belive this nonsense)GǪ
No, they shouldn't for the simple reason that nothing should. The fact that they're close to it is perhaps the best argument for their eventual and inevitable nerfing. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
43
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 10:13:00 -
[124] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote:T3s should be the ultimate in subcapital DPS and Tank. Period.
they use advanced sleeper AI interlocking mechanisms with melted capacitors and LORE.
I'm a fan of lore and backstory as much as the next guy, and doubly so for EVE Online. But even I know that gameplay will always trump lore. "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
181
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 10:41:00 -
[125] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote:baltec1 wrote:Sushi Nardieu wrote:Nobody wants Tech IIIs to be crap CCP. Nor do they want to consider buying a 500 mil hull when the Tech II variant is about the same. They dont cost 500 mil even when fitted. Also Look at how much more you pay for a vindi over a normal megathron. Thats what T3s should be like over t1s. T3s should be the ultimate in subcapital DPS and Tank. Period. they use advanced sleeper AI interlocking mechanisms with melted capacitors and LORE.
pfahahah oh god get a load of this guy |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 10:44:00 -
[126] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tom Gerard wrote:T3s should be the ultimate in subcapital DPS and Tank. Period. Your standard trolling aside (and seeing as how there are plenty of genuine fools who actually belive this nonsense)GǪ No, they shouldn't for the simple reason that nothing should. The fact that they're close to it is perhaps the best argument for their eventual and inevitable nerfing.
Yeah, lets have T3 with the same tank/dps than T1. Actually, please CCP remove all combat ships from the game except noob ships, its the only way EVE can be balanced.
How any subcap hull shouldnt have the best tank/dps of subcaps? THAT, is non sense. |
Lexmana
991
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 10:54:00 -
[127] - Quote
Donedy wrote:Tippia wrote:Tom Gerard wrote:T3s should be the ultimate in subcapital DPS and Tank. Period. Your standard trolling aside (and seeing as how there are plenty of genuine fools who actually belive this nonsense)GǪ No, they shouldn't for the simple reason that nothing should. The fact that they're close to it is perhaps the best argument for their eventual and inevitable nerfing. "Yeah, lets have T3 with the same tank/dps than T1. Actually, please CCP remove all combat ships from the game except noob ships, its the only way EVE can be balanced." How any subcap hull shouldnt have the best tank/dps of subcaps? THAT, is non sense. I am glad you are not a game designer. Your world is a little too black and white for that. And I can asure you that even after they rebalance T3s there will still be a subcap that has the best tank/dps. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 10:56:00 -
[128] - Quote
Oh really?
I know my english is bad, but make an effort mate, reread my last post i think you can understand.
Random guy 1 : "This is blue!" Random guy 2 : "NO, and im glad you're not a color professional, this is blue!" |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
991
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:00:00 -
[129] - Quote
Donedy wrote:How any subcap hull shouldnt have the best tank/dps of subcaps? THAT, is non sense. Because there should be many hulls with competitive stats and capabilities. This creates a richer PvP experience with far more variety in tactics and strategies. It also opens up a lot more options for a lot more pilots and makes PvP more accessible to players no matter which races they have invested in. Oh god. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:05:00 -
[130] - Quote
Donedy wrote:Oh really?
I know my english is bad, but make an effort mate, reread my last post i think you can understand.
Random guy 1 : "This is blue!" Random guy 2 : "NO, and im glad you're not a color professional, this is blue!" good man, if we all went with your ideas, there should be only 1 ship with 1 gun in the entire game. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
|
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
181
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:05:00 -
[131] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Donedy wrote:How any subcap hull shouldnt have the best tank/dps of subcaps? THAT, is non sense. Because there should be many hulls with competitive stats and capabilities. This creates a richer PvP experience with far more variety in tactics and strategies. It also opens up a lot more options for a lot more pilots and makes PvP more accessible to players no matter which races they have invested in.
That's his point exactly, he's just a french gimp so he can't really express it. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
181
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:06:00 -
[132] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Donedy wrote:Oh really?
I know my english is bad, but make an effort mate, reread my last post i think you can understand.
Random guy 1 : "This is blue!" Random guy 2 : "NO, and im glad you're not a color professional, this is blue!" good man, if we all went with your ideas, there should be only 1 ship with 1 gun in the entire game.
http://i.imgur.com/aEhOy.jpg?1
Sweet lets do fallacy bingo! |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:09:00 -
[133] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Donedy wrote:How any subcap hull shouldnt have the best tank/dps of subcaps? THAT, is non sense. Because there should be many hulls with competitive stats and capabilities. This creates a richer PvP experience with far more variety in tactics and strategies. It also opens up a lot more options for a lot more pilots and makes PvP more accessible to players no matter which races they have invested in. Yeah guys, please same stats for all ship classes. Thats what i read here. I dont think a big T3 nerf will bring diversity but everyone flying in T1 scrub ships. As its nearly already the case since retribution (in low sec at least).
|
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:11:00 -
[134] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Grimpak wrote:Donedy wrote:Oh really?
I know my english is bad, but make an effort mate, reread my last post i think you can understand.
Random guy 1 : "This is blue!" Random guy 2 : "NO, and im glad you're not a color professional, this is blue!" good man, if we all went with your ideas, there should be only 1 ship with 1 gun in the entire game. http://i.imgur.com/aEhOy.jpg?1Sweet lets do fallacy bingo! how is it a logical falacy? if a ship is better than all the others than it's normal for the entire population strive for that ship instead diversifying it.
so, instead of going all the work on rebalancing all the other ships, just remove them. makes everything much simpler. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:11:00 -
[135] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Donedy wrote:Oh really?
I know my english is bad, but make an effort mate, reread my last post i think you can understand.
Random guy 1 : "This is blue!" Random guy 2 : "NO, and im glad you're not a color professional, this is blue!" good man, if we all went with your ideas, there should be only 1 ship with 1 gun in the entire game. For god sake, im gonna make it easier for you, i am saying the contrary. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:12:00 -
[136] - Quote
Donedy wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Donedy wrote:How any subcap hull shouldnt have the best tank/dps of subcaps? THAT, is non sense. Because there should be many hulls with competitive stats and capabilities. This creates a richer PvP experience with far more variety in tactics and strategies. It also opens up a lot more options for a lot more pilots and makes PvP more accessible to players no matter which races they have invested in. Yeah guys, please same stats for all ship classes. Thats what i read here. I dont think a big T3 nerf will bring diversity but everyone flying in T1 scrub ships. As its nearly already the case since retribution (in low sec at least). surely you haven't read the devblogs where they said that they haven't used Tiericide on T2's and T3's.
do us a favour, instead using the Magical Crystal Ball and extrapolating from it, wait till they finish it up.
Donedy wrote:Grimpak wrote: good man, if we all went with your ideas, there should be only 1 ship with 1 gun in the entire game.
For god sake, im gonna make it easier for you, i am saying the contrary. so making the ship the most powerful subcap isn't dumbing it down? [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
181
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:16:00 -
[137] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:Grimpak wrote:Donedy wrote:Oh really?
I know my english is bad, but make an effort mate, reread my last post i think you can understand.
Random guy 1 : "This is blue!" Random guy 2 : "NO, and im glad you're not a color professional, this is blue!" good man, if we all went with your ideas, there should be only 1 ship with 1 gun in the entire game. http://i.imgur.com/aEhOy.jpg?1Sweet lets do fallacy bingo! how is it a logical falacy? if a ship is better than all the others than it's normal for the entire population strive for that ship instead diversifying it. so, instead of going all the work on rebalancing all the other ships, just remove them. makes everything much simpler.
Stop posting, you're no good at it. And you know it's **** when I have to tell you that. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6884
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:18:00 -
[138] - Quote
Donedy wrote:Grimpak wrote:Donedy wrote:Oh really?
I know my english is bad, but make an effort mate, reread my last post i think you can understand.
Random guy 1 : "This is blue!" Random guy 2 : "NO, and im glad you're not a color professional, this is blue!" good man, if we all went with your ideas, there should be only 1 ship with 1 gun in the entire game. For god sake, im gonna make it easier for you, i am saying the contrary.
So in that case you agree to the t3 nerfs. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:18:00 -
[139] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Stop posting, you're no good at it. And you know it's **** when I have to tell you that. oh please, now you hit me with a strawman? come on you can do better. post facts! bash me with reason and coherence and prove me wrong! [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:20:00 -
[140] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:surely you haven't read the devblogs where they said that they haven't used Tiericide on T2's and T3's.
do us a favour, instead using the Magical Crystal Ball and extrapolating from it, wait till they finish it up. Stop posting, you're so wrong. And im lazy to take care of you.
Grimpak wrote:so making the ship the most powerful subcap isn't dumbing it down? You know that best tank/dps doesnt mean most powerfull and that anyway i never said that T3 should be the most dpsy/tanky ships, right? |
|
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
690
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:21:00 -
[141] - Quote
I guess no one cares that a t3 nerf will destroy WH industry? wumbo |
baltec1
Bat Country
6884
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:22:00 -
[142] - Quote
Eli Green wrote:I guess no one cares that a t3 nerf will destroy WH industry?
No it wont, you will just use other ships. |
Grace Ishukone
Ishukone Advanced Research
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:23:00 -
[143] - Quote
Simple lesson from the Gnosis.
If you make something super-versatile, you risk making it the master of absolutely nothing, so much so that it is never used in pvp.
Buy all means nerf t3's, and make the useless modules valuable. But unless you intend to refund 100% all t3 skills to pilots, and permit NPC buyback of ships and subsystems at pre-patch prices, do NOT make them like the gnosis - so versatile that they fail equally at doing anything particularly well.
Sure, there are currently a tiny number of super powerful builds. Yes they cost far more than T2, and take buckets of skills to fly that have a unique skill loss system as well. But fair's fair - having introduced them as the pvp elite ship. if they get nerfed back to being nothing more than an expensive ratting ship there better be a "refund my skill points and buy my useless t3' option added.
Re balance as needed. But don't go too far - these massively expensive ships must remain viable in their roles in pvp. Do I care if a t3 is better in pvp at say perhaps ECM than my t1 scorpion? No way, the t3 is worth x4 the cost of my bird. Same but cf a t2 ecm cruiser? Again, no problem - they paid double what I chose to risk. If I could *never* jam them, and they *always* jam my t2 (etc), then there would be a problem.
Re balancing is needed, No-one should have an instant win button. But if you nerd t3 too much, you will betray the pilots who spent a huge amount of time investing skills and isk into those ships. Either give them the option to reallocate to t2 skills, and buy their ships, or keep the changes proportionate to the skills and isk costs invested. These should be scary opponents in pvp, as they are now - which make for delicious kills. And just so we're clear, I am old school, and always thought t3 were too good to be true. I can't fly any of them, because I expected CCP to nerf them to hell and back. Give me a reason to train them CCP. |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
367
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:25:00 -
[144] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Voyager Arran wrote:I know this is a bit far back, but you are doing something hilariously dumb if your T2 ships cost more than a T3. Not really, no. I'm simply doing a correct price comparison. Do a price check on buying a HAC, one of each Recon, a Logi, a HIC, and a Field Command Ship. When I did, it came out as roughly a billion ISK. At half a billion, a T3 with the corresponding subs is only a fraction of that cost, not to mention far easier to carry around and hellalot easier (and less costly) to train for. Quote:I'm seriously wondering what you put on your HACs at this point. The same thing I put on a T3, which is why the fittings are not a factor in the price.
Price as well as other included risk quite simply must play a factor in this. By flying a T3 instead of that recon or hac, you risk the loss of each of those ships in a single loss, instead of just the specific boat you're using at any given time. Additionally no t3 that is fitted for recon duty, will be able to outperform a recon in the said role, as in the proteus will still have weaker ewar than the arazu, ditto with loki vs rapier, legion vs curse and the tengu vs the falcon. What they do is a role of their own in the said configuration; their ewar capability is weaker and their ability to cloak up is also taken from them, while the benefit you have with them is stronger tank and damage.
With the upcoming command ship changes, the strongest boosters will be the command ships, thus again the t3's would be weaker counterparts in that specific role. HAC's have yet to seen any kind of rebalances, and looking at them now I find it hard to even consider the diemost above the t1 hull Thorax. Why bother with the diemost when it just barely outperforms a thorax? Why bother with the zealot when for the same price you could get a simple harbinger that tanks better while having higher dps to top it off? Different hull class sure, but what difference does that make in the end. The important part is how well the boat does its role, not what the boat itself is. If you can fulfill the same role with a cheaper t1 boat, there's quite simply no reason to use the t2 hull. The argument about logistics is quite simply laughable as t3 logistics are laughably bad in that role, with the sole exception of the curiosity that is the cloaky t3 logi that some people use in black ops hot drops. Downside there? The range of the remote repairs is ridiculously low. That itself balances it more than fine.
I also find it quite hilarious that you ignore it entirely that in order to properly change say a legion from the dps role to its recon role of neuting, you'd have to not only swap all the subsystems and the vast majority of modules, but you'd also have to completely rerig it. Take a wild guess how many people are actually doing that instead of buying a t3 for each role. There's a reason why at best I've owned 11 tech 3 ships of various factions at the same time. Because they can not do all those jobs simultaneously, and I'm fine with that. |
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
690
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:25:00 -
[145] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Green wrote:I guess no one cares that a t3 nerf will destroy WH industry? No it wont, you will just use other ships.
You missunderstand, WH's produce t3s as a chief export. If the demand drops, profit drops and thevalue of sleeper salvage will too. wumbo |
baltec1
Bat Country
6884
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:31:00 -
[146] - Quote
Grace Ishukone wrote:But unless you intend to refund 100% all t3 skills to pilots, and permit NPC buyback of ships and subsystems at pre-patch prices.
Not a chance. The nerf bat has swung many times and nobody has ever had a refund. This is the risk you take when you aim for the FOTM. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:32:00 -
[147] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Donedy wrote:Grimpak wrote:Donedy wrote:Oh really?
I know my english is bad, but make an effort mate, reread my last post i think you can understand.
Random guy 1 : "This is blue!" Random guy 2 : "NO, and im glad you're not a color professional, this is blue!" good man, if we all went with your ideas, there should be only 1 ship with 1 gun in the entire game. For god sake, im gonna make it easier for you, i am saying the contrary. So in that case you agree to the t3 nerfs. They need a little rebalance, not strong nerf. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
991
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:32:00 -
[148] - Quote
Donedy wrote:Yeah because having ships with the same stats would be better (if there is not "better" ships). :p Giving ships competitive stats and capabilities is not the same as giving ships equal stats. Perhaps you have forgotten that in EvE there are many different weapon systems, tanking styles, EWAR and role bonuses. These can create strengths and weaknesses which can be exploited and countered. That's part of what makes the game interesting.
Oh god. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6884
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:33:00 -
[149] - Quote
Eli Green wrote:baltec1 wrote:Eli Green wrote:I guess no one cares that a t3 nerf will destroy WH industry? No it wont, you will just use other ships. You missunderstand, WH's produce t3s as a chief export. If the demand drops, profit drops and thevalue of sleeper salvage will too.
I wouldnt worry, t3s will still be viable ships, just not the horribly unbalanced monsters they are now. Plus more balanced t3s can now be added for frigates ect. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14717
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:34:00 -
[150] - Quote
Donedy wrote:"Yeah, lets have T3 with the same tank/dps than T1.GÇ¥ The only one making any such suggestion is you.
Quote:How any subcap hull shouldnt have the best tank/dps of subcaps? THAT, is non sense. No, it is balance. Will some hull have the best DPS? Sure. Will some hull have the best tank? Of course. Should they be the same hull? Under no circumstances, and T3 are the least deserving candidate of either of those distinctions, much less any combination of hem.
Quote: I dont think a big T3 nerf will bring diversity but everyone flying in T1 scrub ships. GǪand that's why people are calling out yourGǪ ehmGǪ less than stellar balancing suggestions. If T1 are Gǣscrub shipsGǥ, then the balancing has failed. If there is a Gǣbest shipGǥ, then the balancing has failed. T1 should be a viable option for everyone.
Quote:Stop posting, you're so wrong. And im lazy to take care of you. Translation: GÇ£damn, you're right, and I can't think of any argument to prove otherwise, so I'll just dismiss you out of hand and hope someone falls for it.GÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
6884
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:35:00 -
[151] - Quote
Donedy wrote: They need a little rebalance, not strong nerf.
Honestly atm,all what i see is a bunch of T1 pilots winning about more expensive ships kicking their asses, what is NORMAL.
The need a stong nerf to be rebalanced. Also yes, t1 cruiser should be able to win fights vs more expensive ships, thats called balance. |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
367
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:37:00 -
[152] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Donedy wrote: They need a little rebalance, not strong nerf.
Honestly atm,all what i see is a bunch of T1 pilots winning about more expensive ships kicking their asses, what is NORMAL.
They need a stong nerf to be rebalanced. Also yes, t1 cruiser should be able to win fights vs more expensive ships, thats called balance.
Taking a knife into a firefight and expecting to win with the said knife isn't expecting balance, it's expecting stupidity to work. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6884
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:39:00 -
[153] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Taking a knife into a firefight and expecting to win with the said knife isn't expecting balance, it's expecting stupidity to work.
Good thing then that t1 cruisers have been very well balanced then isnt it? |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:40:00 -
[154] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Donedy wrote:Yeah because having ships with the same stats would be better (if there is not "better" ships). :p Giving ships competitive stats and capabilities is not the same as giving ships equal stats. Perhaps you have forgotten that in EvE there are many different weapon systems, tanking styles, EWAR and role bonuses. These can create strengths and weaknesses which can be exploited and countered. That's part of what makes the game interesting. Yup, thats why my rifter should be competitive with a Nyx.
I see your point, but i disagree about your "same competitive stats and capabilities for every ship" chich would encourage people to fly only T1 while T1 should be a step to T2/T3, not an impass because its cheaper and nearly as effective as the rest.
And yes if i pay more, i want better stats, not a sticker or a skin. As a lot of people i guess. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
991
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:40:00 -
[155] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:Taking a knife into a firefight and expecting to win with the said knife isn't expecting balance, it's expecting stupidity to work. Or being smart and not running in head first with a knife. Oh god. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6884
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:44:00 -
[156] - Quote
Donedy wrote:
And yes if i pay more, i want better stats, not a sticker or a skin. As a lot of people i guess.
EVE isn't like all of those other scrub MMOs where purple gear or gtfo rules. Just because you spend more doesn't mean you should win here. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14717
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:45:00 -
[157] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:Price as well as other included risk quite simply must play a factor in this. No, it simply must not. Price doesn't balance anything because if something is suitably awesome, people will get it at all cost. This is a lesson this particular game has learned the hard way twice with Titans and Moms.
Price is a result of a number of factor GÇö it is not a factor in and of itself, and it is in every way useless for balancing.
Quote:Additionally no t3 that is fitted for recon duty, will be able to outperform a recon in the said role, as in the proteus will still have weaker ewar than the arazu, ditto with loki vs rapier, legion vs curse and the tengu vs the falcon. GǪand that is as it should be. The recon subsystems are properly balanced against the recon ships, but that leaves the rest of the bonuses the T3 will have as a pretty significant unbalancing factor.
Quote:HAC's have yet to seen any kind of rebalances, and looking at them now I find it hard to even consider the diemost above the t1 hull Thorax. Why bother with the diemost when it just barely outperforms a thorax? Why bother with the zealot when for the same price you could get a simple harbinger that tanks better while having higher dps to top it off? GǪand all of those are the reasons why HACs need to be buffed to perform certain tasks better than their lumbering half-cousins. They used to have the edge in speed and sheer shock value as a tool to go up against larger ships (most notably BS). With the speed nerf and the slow decline of BS doctrines, they were left without a purpose. Like all ships in tiercide, they need a new one, and they need to do it better than T3s.
Quote:I also find it quite hilarious that you ignore it entirely that in order to properly change say a legion from the dps role to its recon role of neuting, you'd have to not only swap all the subsystems and the vast majority of modules, but you'd also have to completely rerig it. GǪexcept that I don't ignore it. You'll notice that I've only ever talked about the logistical ease of bringing all those roles with you GÇö not of deploying them on the field. The simple fact remains: a Legion can change between roles; a HAC or Recon cannot. The advantage of the T3 GÇö adaptability and flexibility GÇö means you only ever have to bring one ship instead of 6GÇô7. Since people love to bring up the ISK-balance fallacy, I merely mentioned that the equivalent T2 ships actually cost a hell of a lot more, so even if it were a balancing factor, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. And no, you don't have to completely re-rig it. Just pick generally useful rigs to begin with. That said, the idea suggested earlier that T3s should not have any rig slots was somewhat interestingGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14717
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:46:00 -
[158] - Quote
Gah! Mobile network lag pwns. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:55:00 -
[159] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Donedy wrote:"Yeah, lets have T3 with the same tank/dps than T1.Gǥ The only one making any such suggestion is you. Quote:How any subcap hull shouldnt have the best tank/dps of subcaps? THAT, is non sense. No, it is balance. Will some hull have the best DPS? Sure. Will some hull have the best tank? Of course. Should they be the same hull? Under no circumstances, and T3 are the least deserving candidate of either of those distinctions, much less any combination of hem. Quote: I dont think a big T3 nerf will bring diversity but everyone flying in T1 scrub ships. GǪand that's why people are calling out yourGǪ ehmGǪ less than stellar balancing suggestions. If T1 are Gǣscrub shipsGǥ, then the balancing has failed. If there is a Gǣbest shipGǥ, then the balancing has failed. T1 should be a viable option for everyone. Quote:Stop posting, you're so wrong. And im lazy to take care of you. Translation: Gǣdamn, you're right, and I can't think of any argument to prove otherwise, so I'll just dismiss you out of hand and hope someone falls for it.Gǥ
T1 should be a step to T2/T3. Never a 100% viable option against T2/T3 (with same numbers). Why would we fly T2/T3 other way?
You say that 2 things costing a price with a 10 factor should have the same capabilities. And thats why i say you're wrong. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
225
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:59:00 -
[160] - Quote
CCP
is there any way we can convince you to do T3's sooner rather than later .. say with the Command ship rebalance/links? I can't think that doing all the T2 ships first is what people want or need...
perhaps if people could +1 this in support .. like a petition.. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
6884
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 11:59:00 -
[161] - Quote
Donedy wrote:
T1 should be a step to T2/T3. Never a 100% viable option against T2/T3 (with same numbers). Why would we fly T2/T3 other way?
You say that 2 things costing a price with a 10 factor should have the same capabilities. And thats why i say you're wrong.
T1 should definatly be viable vs t2/t3. This isnt WoW. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
991
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:00:00 -
[162] - Quote
Donedy wrote:T1 should be a step to T2/T3. Never a 100% viable option against T2/T3 (with same numbers). No one is saying T1 should be as good as T2 or T3. Look at the chart.
Oh god. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
991
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:01:00 -
[163] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:CCP
is there any way we can convince you to do T3's sooner rather than later .. say with the Command ship rebalance/links? I can't think that doing all the T2 ships first is what people want or need...
perhaps if people could +1 this in support .. like a petition.. The T2 cruisers need to be rebalanced first so they have all the points to work from when rebalancing T3s.
Oh god. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:02:00 -
[164] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Donedy wrote:
And yes if i pay more, i want better stats, not a sticker or a skin. As a lot of people i guess.
EVE isn't like all of those other scrub MMOs where purple gear or gtfo rules. Just because you spend more doesn't mean you should win here. Honestly m8, i prefer to kill T3 with T1 than T1 with T3. And its till possible, because of piloting, fits and stuff. I dont want a win button, in the case you didnt understood. I just want that when i take my T3 out, its for a reason, not just to say "look guys, im in a shiny ship"
And anyway, if what you say was true, and T3 was so OP we would see more T3 out than T1. I would love to see moar T3 arouns, it would mean moar shiny kills, sadly, its not the case. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14718
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:02:00 -
[165] - Quote
Donedy wrote:T1 should be a step to T2/T3. Never a 100% viable option against T2/T3 (with same numbers). Why would we fly T2/T3 other way? T1 should have no problems defeating T2/T3 if the latter are the wrong thing to bring. Why would we ever fly T1 otherwise?
T2 offer specialisation. They are a corkscrew. If you bring one to a party where everyone drinks beer from a can, then the good old T1 finger will beat the snot out of the fancy T2 corkscrew. T3 is a Victorinox. However, in the time it takes for you to fold down the relatively weak and wobbly corkscrew prong on it (because it's still the wrong thing to bring), I may have had the time to pry the can open GÇö once more with my trusty old T1 finger.
Quote:You say that 2 things costing a price with a 10 factor should have the same capabilities. No. And that's one of the many reasons you're wrong. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:03:00 -
[166] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Donedy wrote:
T1 should be a step to T2/T3. Never a 100% viable option against T2/T3 (with same numbers). Why would we fly T2/T3 other way?
You say that 2 things costing a price with a 10 factor should have the same capabilities. And thats why i say you're wrong.
T1 should definatly be viable vs t2/t3. This isnt WoW. Stop trolling *****. You cant be so stupid. |
Vincent VanDamme
VVD Charitable Foundation
49
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:04:00 -
[167] - Quote
If this is going to be the change, might it be an idea to remove the SP loss on the loss of a T3 then, since that risk was part of the reasoning for the high power level of the T3 hull?
Just as a thought, lowering reward means lowering risk, no?
|
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
367
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:05:00 -
[168] - Quote
I'm not actually disagreeing that t3's need some nerfs, just about the sentiment that a t3 shouldn't be more powerful overall than a t1 or a t2 boat. The special role t2 boat should be superior in that specific purpose sure, but there are other means to accomplish this ranging from that removal of rigs to stuff like including drawbacks to the subsystems. Much like we already see with rigs.
For example if you wish to use the Power Core Multiplier subsystem so that you can fit a double plate or something else that normally could not be reasonably fitted to a cruiser size, your base speed would slow down considerably; much like it is with battleships that pack a tank of similar size. This quickly thought up change to this subsystem alone would make HACs again the top choice for the fast heavy hitting style of combat, while leaving the proteuses and the legions as the hard hitting heavy tanking cruisers and thus not taking away their role.
Similarily if you fit your boat in such way that it's possible to run the 100MN fit, it should have a drawback of reducing your tank to bare minimum, possibly by excluding some subsystem configurations from working with each others. All kinds of different methods that could be used to prevent the overpowered fits that are currently possible. And yes, I do admit that there are some.
The single biggest OP role that does obsolete a t2 boat entirely is the cov ops subsystem together with the Emergent Locus Analyzer. Couple that with the possibility of Interdiction Nullifier sub and you have the perfect scout, one that can pack damage as well as a pretty hefty tank to go with it. While the proteus with this exact setting is one of the favorite boats I fly and I'd hate to lose that option, it's still something that I just can't help but admit that it does way too many things well simultaneously. 400dps with 140k ehp on interdicted cloaky that can pack 100m3 of drones (possibly adding another 100dps) and scanning strength being very close to the cov opses (typical fit uses 1 scanning rig and 2 trimarks, while the cov ops generally has 2 scanning rigs). |
Invisusira
The Rising Stars The Initiative.
171
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:05:00 -
[169] - Quote
why is this topic nine pages long Core Skills - train em up train em up! |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:06:00 -
[170] - Quote
Pretty surprising this thread is still going. As mentioned previously, and as CCP has stated multiple times even in this thread, tech II offers specialisation, tech III offers flexibility. People suggesting the flexible ship should be better in every area than a specialised ship really need to stay away from game balance. |
|
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
991
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:08:00 -
[171] - Quote
Invisusira wrote:why is this topic nine pages long Because tears are addictive. Oh god. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14718
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:08:00 -
[172] - Quote
Donedy wrote:Stop trolling *****. You cant be so stupid. He's not trolling, nor is he stupid. He's just pointing out to you that EVE has paper-scissors-rock-style balancing, not the banal and braindead Gǣbigger is betterGǥ (not-actually-)balance of level-based games such as WoW. Now, your misapprehension that EVE does or should fall back on that obsolete design principle on the other handGǪ
T2 and T3 are not higher-level gear. They're just gear with a different purpose. Therefore, T1 should most definitely be viable against both of them. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6884
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:09:00 -
[173] - Quote
Donedy wrote: Honestly m8, i prefer to kill T3 with T1 than T1 with T3. And its till possible, because of piloting, fits and stuff. I dont want a win button, in the case you didnt understood. I just want that when i take my T3 out, its for a reason, not just to say "look guys, im in a shiny ship"
And anyway, if what you say was true, and T3 was so OP we would see more T3 out than T1. I would love to see moar T3 arouns, it would mean moar shiny kills, sadly, its not the case.
Let me just point out that we use fleets (250) of tengu because they are better than drakes.
Frigates have already had the teircide and people still use the t2 varients on a massive scale. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:10:00 -
[174] - Quote
Donedy wrote:Grimpak wrote:surely you haven't read the devblogs where they said that they haven't used Tiericide on T2's and T3's.
do us a favour, instead using the Magical Crystal Ball and extrapolating from it, wait till they finish it up. Stop posting, you're so wrong. And im lazy to take care of you. Grimpak wrote:so making the ship the most powerful subcap isn't dumbing it down? Yeah because having ships with the same stats would be better (if there is not "better" ships). :p come on, do I really need to do it this way for you?
ok here it goes.
you can't have T3's outperform everything when they are made to be able to do everything at the cost of specialization. T2's are the specialized hulls. they better be doing what they are tailor-made to. This means that they (T3) can't perform as well as a T2 in said T2's field, but at the same time they can do more than said T2 by adding up something that it doesn't have.
Incidentally, you can't, however, make them perform worse, or equal. Now that is dumbing down. Same as having a ship better than the rest. That is also dumbing down. True balance is achieved in a way that X is useful, but doesn't step on toes of Y, while still being effective on Z.
So, you neithet can't have the whole cake and eat it, nor have everyone eat the same cake, and that's why balance stuff in a game like EVE is ******* hard. And that's why CCP is doing Tiericide by stages and not changing the whole damn thing in one swoop. And that's why we can't have a one thing beats anything in this game.
OH and then you say "pfah! I paid elevently-five billion for a ship I expect it to be a instant-I-PWZ0R-YOU button!" Cost is not a goddamn balance factor, as Tippia painstakingly said more than once in this very thread, and with proof of fact in it. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:12:00 -
[175] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Donedy wrote:T1 should be a step to T2/T3. Never a 100% viable option against T2/T3 (with same numbers). Why would we fly T2/T3 other way? T1 should have no problems defeating T2/T3 if the latter are the wrong thing to bring. Why would we ever fly T1 otherwise? T2 offer specialisation. They are a corkscrew. If you bring one to a party where everyone drinks beer from a can, then the good old T1 finger will beat the snot out of the fancy T2 corkscrew. T3 is a Victorinox. However, in the time it takes for you to fold down the relatively weak and wobbly corkscrew prong on it (because it's still the wrong thing to bring), I may have had the time to pry the can open GÇö once more with my trusty old T1 finger. Quote:You say that 2 things costing a price with a 10 factor should have the same capabilities. No. And that's one of the many reasons you're wrong.
In my eyes, (and not only in mines) T1 should be : - A good platform to learn PvP - A cheap ship, but till kinda viable for pikeys (like the other WoW guy who i dont remember his name)
Which is already the case.
If T3 is OP, its not at all for this.
So you're saying T3 should be better than T1 right?
Your posts are not logic m8, you're telling something in a post, the contrary in the following.
Explain yourself better, cause atm, i dont get your point except that you wanna tell me im wrong. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:16:00 -
[176] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Donedy wrote:Grimpak wrote:surely you haven't read the devblogs where they said that they haven't used Tiericide on T2's and T3's.
do us a favour, instead using the Magical Crystal Ball and extrapolating from it, wait till they finish it up. Stop posting, you're so wrong. And im lazy to take care of you. Grimpak wrote:so making the ship the most powerful subcap isn't dumbing it down? Yeah because having ships with the same stats would be better (if there is not "better" ships). :p come on, do I really need to do it this way for you? ok here it goes. you can't have T3's outperform everything when they are made to be able to do everything at the cost of specialization. T2's are the specialized hulls. they better be doing what they are tailor-made to. This means that they (T3) can't perform as well as a T2 in said T2's field, but at the same time they can do more than said T2 by adding up something that it doesn't have. Incidentally, you can't, however, make them perform worse, or equal. Now that is dumbing down. Same as having a ship better than the rest. That is also dumbing down. True balance is achieved in a way that X is useful, but doesn't step on toes of Y, while still being effective on Z. So, you neithet can't have the whole cake and eat it, nor have everyone eat the same cake, and that's why balance stuff in a game like EVE is ******* hard. And that's why CCP is doing Tiericide by stages and not changing the whole damn thing in one swoop. And that's why we can't have a one thing beats anything in this game. OH and then you say "pfah! I paid elevently-five billion for a ship I expect it to be a instant-I-PWZ0R-YOU button!" Cost is not a goddamn balance factor, as Tippia painstakingly said more than once in this very thread, and with proof of fact in it. Cmon, thats the ccp statement. And you see my point dont try to procrastinate. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:18:00 -
[177] - Quote
Soon people will ask to ccp to nerf blobs... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14718
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:18:00 -
[178] - Quote
Donedy wrote:So you're saying T3 should be better than T1 right? Not necessarily, no. T3 should offer something different that T1, and whether it's better or not will depend on the context GÇö not the ship.
Quote:Your posts are not logic m8, you're telling something in a post, the contrary in the following. Nope. It's a single consistent line. The problem is perhaps that you're being lifted out of the simple world of line-land and into the (still fairly simply) flatlandGǪ
GǪfor our next trick, we'll pull you of that and into 3D space GÇö hope you're not prone to vertigo. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:19:00 -
[179] - Quote
Donedy wrote:Cmon, thats the ccp statement. And you see my point dont try to procrastinate. your point being "I have a ship that cost 100000billion and performs better than everything so I should win 100% of time so you better get the same ship as me"?
yes, let's get back to the same thing I said above. let's remove all the ships in game and introduce a single ship with a single gun. Let's call it Smurgecarrier since it carries a smurgeblaster...
Donedy wrote:Soon people will ask to ccp to nerf blobs... they tried. It's called Titans armed with Doomsday Devices and they had AoE that was aimable at a cyno grids away.
didn't worked that well, from what I recall... [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Pacifyn
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:22:00 -
[180] - Quote
Rather than overly nerf T3s, why not just give t2's a decent boost so they are slightly better then t3s, and get rid of that ******** off grid boosting.
If they do decide to nerf T3s hard, then remove the Skill loss on loss. Overly nerfing with no compensation will alienate a lot of players who rather like their t3s. Its easily one of the most fun ships in the game, that won't take you 4 years to skill into *cough caps cough* |
|
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
991
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:23:00 -
[181] - Quote
Removing skill point loss is something I can definitely agree with. I'd hope CCP have plans for that already. Oh god. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6885
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:23:00 -
[182] - Quote
Pacifyn wrote:Rather than overly nerf T3s, why not just give t2's a decent boost so they are slightly better then t3s, and get rid of that ******** off grid boosting.
You just invalidated all t1 cruisers and BCs along with a few battleships. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:24:00 -
[183] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Donedy wrote:So you're saying T3 should be better than T1 right? Not necessarily, no. T3 should offer something different that T1, and whether it's better or not will depend on the context GÇö not the ship. Quote:Your posts are not logic m8, you're telling something in a post, the contrary in the following. Nope. It's a single consistent line. The problem is perhaps that you're being lifted out of the simple world of line-land and into the (still fairly simply) flatlandGǪ GǪfor our next trick, we'll pull you of that and into 3D space GÇö hope you're not prone to vertigo. So why fly T3? |
baltec1
Bat Country
6885
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:26:00 -
[184] - Quote
Donedy wrote: So why fly T3?
Same reason I fly an Enyo over another t1 frigate. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:27:00 -
[185] - Quote
Donedy wrote:So why fly T3? I could say "why not fly T3?", but that's too silly of me to ask.
instead I ask, "why not wait for CCP to come up with whatever ideas they have?"
granted however, that CCP likes to apply the "nuke to kill fly" approach on nerfs, but lately I can see that thay have it done right-ish on the Tiericide 'till now. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:33:00 -
[186] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Donedy wrote:Cmon, thats the ccp statement. And you see my point dont try to procrastinate. your point being "I have a ship that cost 100000billion and performs better than everything so I should win 100% of time so you better get the same ship as me"? yes, let's get back to the same thing I said above. let's remove all the ships in game and introduce a single ship with a single gun. Let's call it Smurgecarrier since it carries a smurgeblaster... Donedy wrote:Soon people will ask to ccp to nerf blobs... they tried. It's called Titans armed with Doomsday Devices and they had AoE that was aimable at a cyno grids away. didn't worked that well, from what I recall... You know you're wrong.
You can have the best ship in eve, and pay it thousands of billions, you always can be blobbed, so you cant win 100% of the time.
If you were right, the guys with AT ships would be winning 100% of the time.
And yes, i like to kill/fly shiny stuff so i would like "shiny" to still means something. |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
44
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:35:00 -
[187] - Quote
Grace Ishukone wrote:Simple lesson from the Gnosis.
Dammit, I want to address this, but it's so far back...
The Gnosis is a prime example of, in my opinion, the jack of all trades, master of none. The reason why the T3 will be better able to perform than a Gnosis (in context) is the fact that pilots will be able to customize it to be better in certain areas, worse in others. So we won't suffer from a Gnosis problem. "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:35:00 -
[188] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Donedy wrote:So why fly T3? I could say "why not fly T3?", but that's too silly of me to ask. instead I ask, "why not wait for CCP to come up with whatever ideas they have?" granted however, that CCP likes to apply the "nuke to kill fly" approach on nerfs, but lately I can see that thay have it done right-ish on the Tiericide 'till now. You're not asking because its obvious : because its 10x more expensive than T1 |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:38:00 -
[189] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Donedy wrote: So why fly T3?
Same reason I fly an Enyo over another t1 frigate. Yup, because T2 frigs > T1 frigs |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
992
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:38:00 -
[190] - Quote
Donedy wrote:You're not asking because its obvious : because its 10x more expensive than T1 What if they are made a lot cheaper?
Oh god. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
6885
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:39:00 -
[191] - Quote
Donedy wrote: Yup, because T2 frigs > T1 frigs
But t1 frigs will now kill t2 frigs. They are balanced, just as t3 cruisers will be. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:40:00 -
[192] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Donedy wrote:You're not asking because its obvious : because its 10x more expensive than T1 What if they are made a lot cheaper? What if we suppress the skill training for T2? Why do we have a T2 actually? Where i am? Why am I here? uh? what? |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:40:00 -
[193] - Quote
Donedy wrote:You know you're wrong.
You can have the best ship in eve, and pay it thousands of billions, you always can be blobbed, so you cant win 100% of the time.
If you were right, the guys with AT ships would be winning 100% of the time.
And yes, i like to kill/fly shiny stuff so i would like "shiny" to still means something.
blobs kill anything irregardless. even if said blobs are made of the best ships.
also, I can agree with the part of killing shiny stuff, but in this game that's supposed to be rare, like the ships in Entity's collection.
other kind of "shiny" exists out of this game, but that's either theme-park games, or P2W.
also, if by me being "wrong" means that you're "wrong" too, then mission accomplished. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:41:00 -
[194] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Donedy wrote: Yup, because T2 frigs > T1 frigs
But t1 frigs will now kill t2 frigs. They are balanced, just as t3 cruisers will be. You can already kill T3s with T1, so its already balanced? |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
905
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:43:00 -
[195] - Quote
Donedy wrote:baltec1 wrote:Donedy wrote: Yup, because T2 frigs > T1 frigs
But t1 frigs will now kill t2 frigs. They are balanced, just as t3 cruisers will be. You can already kill T3s with T1, so its already balanced? depends on what T1 you're talking to.
I can kill a T3 cruiser with a T1 carrier. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
baltec1
Bat Country
6885
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:46:00 -
[196] - Quote
Donedy wrote: You can already kill T3s with T1, so its already balanced?
because a t3 having over 6 times as much tank as a t1 cruiser is balanced. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:48:00 -
[197] - Quote
Im talking about cruisers, BCs, BS, even frigs, who know. Its just a matter of brain, fits, situation and stuff.
Okay, its hard with a T1 cruiser, but its till doable. and not so hard if you adapt your fit to the situation. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:48:00 -
[198] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Donedy wrote: You can already kill T3s with T1, so its already balanced?
because a t3 having over 6 times as much tank as a t1 cruiser is balanced. YES YES YES YES |
baltec1
Bat Country
6885
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:51:00 -
[199] - Quote
Donedy wrote:Im talking about cruisers, BCs, BS, even frigs, who know. Its just a matter of brain, fits, situation and stuff.
Okay, its hard with a T1 cruiser, but its till doable. and not so hard if you adapt your fit to the situation.
On staurday a single legion wiped out a whole test gang of talwars solo before the rest of the fleet could warp to a gate. We use tengu because they are better at being a drake than the drake is.
There is no getting around the fact that t3 cruisers are horribly overpowered. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:55:00 -
[200] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Donedy wrote:Im talking about cruisers, BCs, BS, even frigs, who know. Its just a matter of brain, fits, situation and stuff.
Okay, its hard with a T1 cruiser, but its till doable. and not so hard if you adapt your fit to the situation. On staurday a single legion wiped out a whole test gang of talwars solo before the rest of the fleet could warp to a gate. We use tengu because they are better at being a drake than the drake is. There is no getting around the fact that t3 cruisers are horribly overpowered. Its not my fault if TEST are terrible. Also, i agree that the tengu is OP, but for completely different reasons than yourth, that im not gonna explain now cause i dont have the time. |
|
Lexmana
993
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:56:00 -
[201] - Quote
This rebalance will bring more tears than nerfing the Dramiel did but for the same reasons. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6885
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 12:58:00 -
[202] - Quote
Donedy wrote: Its not my fault if TEST are terrible. Also, i agree that the tengu is OP, but for completely different reasons than yourth, that im not gonna explain now cause i dont have the time.
My point is T3 are not as OP as everyone is yelling here.
its filling the role of a battlecruiser, as are the other t3s and they are doing a better job. Other ships have been nerfed for a lot less. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
149
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:15:00 -
[203] - Quote
Grace Ishukone wrote:Simple lesson from the Gnosis.
If you make something super-versatile, you risk making it the master of absolutely nothing, so much so that it is never used in pvp. Isn't the Gnosis irreplaceable? Why would I ever use such a thing in PVP? It's a mere collectors item, something to put on my virtual shelves nothing more...
There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
265
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:21:00 -
[204] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
Your order for rebalancing things makes sense until you look at the relative brokenness of each class. T3s need gigantic nerfs as soon as possible. Giving HACs a sig bonus, or whatever strange idea you guys have to fix them, will still leave them massively overshadowed by T3s. You should be doing your changes in order of how much they are needed - how out of line the ships are. |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
44
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:23:00 -
[205] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Your order for rebalancing things makes sense until you look at the relative brokenness of each class. T3s need gigantic nerfs as soon as possible. Giving HACs a sig bonus, or whatever strange idea you guys have to fix them, will still leave them massively overshadowed by T3s. You should be doing your changes in order of how much they are needed - how out of line the ships are.
While I can understand where you're coming from, it's important to understand that if they want to balance the T3 against T2 Cruisers, T2 Cruisers first need to be balanced, or they have no context against which to balance. "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
149
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:24:00 -
[206] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Borlag Crendraven wrote:Taking a knife into a firefight and expecting to win with the said knife isn't expecting balance, it's expecting stupidity to work. Or being smart and not running in head first with a knife.
No, that's exactly what You do, You have to get past his gun before he can even get a chance to aim it a you, then You stab him multiple times until he stops moving.
you're dead as soon as he can point the gun at you, don't let him do that. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
Lithorn
The Dark Tribe
24
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:28:00 -
[207] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:Got to agree with Tippia on this one, T3s already offer stuff that is just way too broken powerfull compared to T2 due to that flexibility its just fair their performance drops a bit in exchange for that flexibility.
think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter.
price is NEVER a performance measurement, if it was, marauders would be destroying capital ships like they were frigates and would be impervious to any sub capital ship. You have NO clue whatsoever about these ships just stop right there and go no further. People like this make me very pissed off.
|
Chandra Solestra
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:30:00 -
[208] - Quote
My expectations for a Tech 3 cruiser (Fleet perspective):
T3's should fill a T2 role + 1
For instance, a Legion should get to be a zealot + 1 other function. So heavy armor, small sig, decent dmg projection, decent speed, and something else. For instance it could fit racial EWAR (tracking disruptors) like a ghetto recon. Or some sort of ghetto logi or ghetto (on-grid) boosting or w/e.
There needs to be various setups that give a t3 a *wildcard* over t2 equivalents. Essentially a pure T3 fleet should show a homogeneous front which an opposing fleet cannot immediately tell what ship performs what role, and therefore target calling is a total guessing game (giving another advantage to a T3 fleet).
So essentially, given the proper subs, a T3 (legion example) should have sub setups which can make them into full on logi-Or-HAC-Or-Recon + a ghetto version of almost anything else imaginable in the game. Imagine a logi with a ghetto interceptor's MWD bonus, or a recon with actual tank.
TL:DR - T3's should be any T2 cruiser role + a bonus (but weak) role. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
225
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:35:00 -
[209] - Quote
Sanadras Riahn wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Your order for rebalancing things makes sense until you look at the relative brokenness of each class. T3s need gigantic nerfs as soon as possible. Giving HACs a sig bonus, or whatever strange idea you guys have to fix them, will still leave them massively overshadowed by T3s. You should be doing your changes in order of how much they are needed - how out of line the ships are. While I can understand where you're coming from, it's important to understand that if they want to balance the T3 against T2 Cruisers, T2 Cruisers first need to be balanced, or they have no context against which to balance.
not really it can be done the other way around really besides they must know by now what they want to do with all the T2 ships not that they need any real dramatic changes... but the T3's do .... priorities ... T3 will need much more work than any T2 ships. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
Lithorn
The Dark Tribe
24
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:41:00 -
[210] - Quote
T3 have their place in combat, they are only specifically good in each race at a very small number of things and terrible at a lot of other things. The scheming of nerfing or removing t3 only serves the interest of the alliance blobs that own tech moons, which is a very self serving non-balancing interest to say the least. |
|
Antoine Jordan
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:46:00 -
[211] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:Got to agree with Tippia on this one, T3s already offer stuff that is just way too broken powerfull compared to T2 due to that flexibility its just fair their performance drops a bit in exchange for that flexibility.
think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter.
price is NEVER a performance measurement, if it was, marauders would be destroying capital ships like they were frigates and would be impervious to any sub capital ship.
This is one of the least informed posts I've ever seen, and I'd wager that you've never flown a t3 in your life. Many of the t3s can do one or two of those things you mentioned at the same time, but other than that, you have to refit (or really, since you need to swap rigs, you'd need a 2nd t3 except for short-term travel fits etc). A tengu can not be a recon, a hac, an interceptor, and a mini transport at the same time. It can be one of those at a time, or another one of those if you choose a different fit. |
Marie Liis
The Rising Stars Academy
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:47:00 -
[212] - Quote
I don't really understand what is this arguement about.
My tengu costed me about 1.5b and I'm not even done fitting, why shouldn't it be better than all the cheap t1 cruisers and a bit more expensive t2's?
ewar, links, covert ops, interdiction nullifiers <--- stuff like this might need rebalancing because some subsystems are indeed useless. tank, dps <--- this doesn't need any rebalancing, I paid for it with tons of ISK and SP. Not to mention the SP loss is a horrible thing already.
In a T3 that costs the best part of 2 billion ISK there aren't really any single kills out there that are going to be worth losing it.
You may want to check killboards for solo t3 kills, here's the one for the tengu, don't forget to check prices of destroyed ships. http://zkillboard.com/ship/29984/solo/ |
Antoine Jordan
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:51:00 -
[213] - Quote
Lithorn wrote:T3 have their place in combat, they are only specifically good in each race at a very small number of things and terrible at a lot of other things. The scheming of nerfing or removing t3 only serves the interest of the alliance blobs that own tech moons, which is a very self serving non-balancing interest to say the least. I don't know where you get these ideas. "Alliance blobs", as you like to call them, are pretty much the largest consumers and destroyers of t3s in the game. While initially they may have been primarily used by wormhole dwellers, nullsec movers and shakers have been fielding fleets centered around them for years now. There is no way you could remove or nerf t3 without hurting the military capabilities of the "alliance blobs" that own (now practically worthless) tech moons. That doesn't mean they might not need a nerf - we have a record of taking advantage of overpowered things while providing CCP feedback with how overpowered they are, and the need for adjustment (see, the very same tech moons you mentioned). |
Lenier Chenal
Offensive Upholder Upholders
61
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:53:00 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
You've got to be really careful with this rebalance. If you nerf the T3s too much, people won't use them. Consider the training time, loss of SP, and average cost people put into them. You're right, many subsystems and configurations are useless, and many are overpowered. The only thing I'm afraid of is the nerf bat you might deal to the cloaky sub of the Proteus. I know so many people who would flat out quit if the cloaky Proteus is nerfed. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
993
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 13:59:00 -
[215] - Quote
Marie Liis wrote:My tengu costed me about 1.5b and I'm not even done fitting, why shouldn't it be better than all the cheap t1 cruisers and a bit more expensive t2's? Here's my Rifter;
[Rifter, Uber Rifter] Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer
Estamel's Modified Adaptive Invulnerability Field Estamel's Modified Adaptive Invulnerability Field Estamel's Modified Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Republic Fleet 200mm Autocannon, EMP S Republic Fleet 200mm Autocannon, EMP S [empty high slot] Republic Fleet 200mm Autocannon, EMP S
Small Processor Overclocking Unit I Small Processor Overclocking Unit I Small Core Defense Field Extender II
It costs 87bn ISK.
Oh god. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
225
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:04:00 -
[216] - Quote
Lenier Chenal wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas. You've got to be really careful with this rebalance. If you nerf the T3s too much, people won't use them. Consider the training time, loss of SP, and average cost people put into them. You're right, many subsystems and configurations are useless, and many are overpowered. The only thing I'm afraid of is the nerf bat you might deal to the cloaky sub of the Proteus. I know so many people who would flat out quit if the cloaky Proteus is nerfed.
Well they need to consider reducing the costs of T3's across the board so the Hull is 200 mil ish and 5 subs are about the same assuming you don't buy multiple subs to play around with..
They need the whole package to be more around the price of a navy bc so 150mil -170mil and they need to address the issue of switching subs around so subs need to be cheap in order to make it viable price wise to buy say the 20 subs each race has without it costing about 500mil to do so. ... before hull price is even put into it. Removing rigs would help with switching fits easily and cheaply so a lot of thought needs to go into the fittings and EHP that you lose from going without rigs to be put into the subs instead.
'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
Lenier Chenal
Offensive Upholder Upholders
61
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:09:00 -
[217] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:Lenier Chenal wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas. You've got to be really careful with this rebalance. If you nerf the T3s too much, people won't use them. Consider the training time, loss of SP, and average cost people put into them. You're right, many subsystems and configurations are useless, and many are overpowered. The only thing I'm afraid of is the nerf bat you might deal to the cloaky sub of the Proteus. I know so many people who would flat out quit if the cloaky Proteus is nerfed. Well they need to consider reducing the costs of T3's across the board so the Hull is 200 mil ish and 5 subs are about the same assuming you don't buy multiple subs to play around with.. They need the whole package to be more around the price of a navy bc so 150mil -170mil and they need to address the issue of switching subs around so subs need to be cheap in order to make it viable price wise to buy say the 20 subs each race has without it costing about 500mil to do so. ... before hull price is even put into it. Removing rigs would help with switching fits easily and cheaply so a lot of thought needs to go into the fittings and EHP that you lose from going without rigs to be put into the subs instead.
The hulls minus subs have been under 200 mil for a long time. Sure, you can Tech 2 fit them, but in many cases it's not that amazing. It's when you faction fit that people get mega butthurt at them, because their good stats really balloon in value. |
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
467
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:12:00 -
[218] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
-T2's some need nerfs like combat recons e-war is too strong the range of webs and warp disruptors are too high..
That will probably work sort itself after offgrid booster and mindlink balancing. German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
90
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:14:00 -
[219] - Quote
There's so much **** that could go down if this is done wrong, and I am concerned because I am not sure Fozzie and Rise get wormholes.
Everyone agrees about command ship but messing with dps and tank can change completely the viability of WH life. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
908
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:15:00 -
[220] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Marie Liis wrote:My tengu costed me about 1.5b and I'm not even done fitting, why shouldn't it be better than all the cheap t1 cruisers and a bit more expensive t2's? Here's my Rifter; [Rifter, Uber Rifter] Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer Tobias' Modified Tracking Enhancer Estamel's Modified Adaptive Invulnerability Field Estamel's Modified Adaptive Invulnerability Field Estamel's Modified Adaptive Invulnerability Field Republic Fleet 200mm Autocannon, EMP S Republic Fleet 200mm Autocannon, EMP S [empty high slot] Republic Fleet 200mm Autocannon, EMP S Small Processor Overclocking Unit I Small Processor Overclocking Unit I Small Core Defense Field Extender II It costs 87bn ISK. from that price, I really hope that rifter can kill a titan. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
|
Sailo Ormand
Rogue Blades
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:16:00 -
[221] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:ElQuirko wrote:baltec1 wrote:ElQuirko wrote:While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function. No it makes perfect sense to lower T3 cruisers so that they are balanced with the other cruisers. No, it really doesn't. Care to explain your point? T3 cruisers are not only better than cruisers, they are better than battlecruisers and get into battleship areas. Give me one reason why a cruiser should have the firepower, sig and speed of a zealot while sporting a buffer an apoc would be happy with and still have room for tackle gear. Then there is the issue of t3s ability to warp cloaked AND ignore bubbles. Those two things should never have been allowed to be put on one ship.
I don't mind that the IN and CR systems can be on at the same time I just think there should be a stronger nerf to the setups wich use both. -90% cargo -50% speed or something drastic. I dunno, obviously something more properly thought out, but the option of having a nearly uncatchable scout is okay with me if it costs several hundred million. |
Nycterix
The Dark Tribe
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:17:00 -
[222] - Quote
Antoine Jordan wrote:I don't know where you get these ideas. "Alliance blobs", as you like to call them, are pretty much the largest consumers and destroyers of t3s in the game. While initially they may have been primarily used by wormhole dwellers, nullsec movers and shakers have been fielding fleets centered around them for years now. There is no way you could remove or nerf t3 without hurting the military capabilities of the "alliance blobs" that own (now practically worthless) tech moons. That doesn't mean they might not need a nerf - we have a record of taking advantage of overpowered things while providing CCP feedback with how overpowered they are, and the need for adjustment (see, the very same tech moons you mentioned).
I think his point was not that nullsec alliances do not use T3 fleets, this is common knowledge and has been done for years. I myself have flown in them. Instead, if T3s are put down like the rabid dogs many say they are, and T2 ships become largely better than them, as CCP's chart suggests, it will favor nullsec production at the expense of WH production, in a simplistic sense.
Also, I seriously doubt the nullsec movers and shakers and their minions about whom you are talking would be seriously hurt militarily if T3s were nerfed. There will always be new fleet concepts, and, I mean, you've got supers after all. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
908
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:20:00 -
[223] - Quote
Sailo Ormand wrote:I don't mind that the IN and CR systems can be on at the same time I just think there should be a stronger nerf to the setups wich use both. -90% cargo -50% speed or something drastic. I dunno, obviously something more properly thought out, but the option of having a nearly uncatchable scout is okay with me if it costs several hundred million. I'm more on the field where it can't do anything else remotely well, but scout.
IN subs are a wee bit too strong, even considering the maulus they all have (worst agility stats, no low-slot added) [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
993
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:21:00 -
[224] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:from that price, I really hope that rifter can kill a titan. Of course it can. Balance. Oh god. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
908
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:22:00 -
[225] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Grimpak wrote:from that price, I really hope that rifter can kill a titan. Of course it can. Balance.
[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
baltec1
Bat Country
6886
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:23:00 -
[226] - Quote
Grimpak wrote: from that price, I really hope that rifter can kill a titan.
Heh thats cheap.
[Megathron Federate Issue, Megathron Federate Issue fit]
Cormack's Modified Magnetic Field Stabilizer Cormack's Modified Magnetic Field Stabilizer Cormack's Modified Magnetic Field Stabilizer Imperial Navy 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates Damage Control II Shaqil's Modified Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Shaqil's Modified Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Federation Navy Co-Processor
Tobias' Modified 100MN Microwarpdrive Cormack's Modified Sensor Booster, Scan Resolution Script Cormack's Modified Sensor Booster, Scan Resolution Script Tobias' Modified Warp Disruptor True Sansha Stasis Webifier
425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 425mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Large Anti-Explosive Pump II Large Trimark Armor Pump II Large Trimark Armor Pump II
Garde II x5
1.044 Trillion pricetag. |
Ylariana
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:24:00 -
[227] - Quote
Kaahles wrote:
Maybe when doing so they decide to adjust their plan somewhat based on feedback from actual playtesting.
There's a First Time for everything I guess...... recent experience suggests not restricting your access to oxygen in anticipation of this though ....... |
1c3crysta1
Unknown in the unknown
11
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:31:00 -
[228] - Quote
Tiber Ibis wrote:The only thing that confuses me about that chart is why is pirate tech better than tech 2 from a lore perspective. Imagine when pirates finally get hold of tech II technology. *evil grin*
This rocked my world a little! Never really thought about it, but it really seems weird that pirate versions are better... I mean, a weapon research or even research in general tend to get better when backed up with more resources. In that case, shouldn't the 4 regular navies be able to push more money than the pirate factions? |
Copper Rei
Copper Corp
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:33:00 -
[229] - Quote
I guess after allthe posts and various blogs.......
It is obvious that the decision to kick the t3 from 3/10 and 4/10 was one of haste and lack of better ideas on how to make people happy.
This toipic is way too hot to ignore ....
I am looking forward to them coming back into play in h-sec, even if they lose some bonuses. (change of subsystems) etc. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
225
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 14:35:00 -
[230] - Quote
Copper Rei wrote:I guess after allthe posts and various blogs.......
It is obvious that the decision to kick the t3 from 3/10 and 4/10 was one of haste and lack of better ideas on how to make people happy.
This toipic is way too hot to ignore ....
I am looking forward to them coming back into play in h-sec, even if they lose some bonuses. (change of subsystems) etc.
another reason for T3's to get the nerf sooner rather than later.. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4248
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 15:13:00 -
[231] - Quote
1c3crysta1 wrote:Tiber Ibis wrote:The only thing that confuses me about that chart is why is pirate tech better than tech 2 from a lore perspective. Imagine when pirates finally get hold of tech II technology. *evil grin* This rocked my world a little! Never really thought about it, but it really seems weird that pirate versions are better... I mean, a weapon research or even research in general tend to get better when backed up with more resources. In that case, shouldn't the 4 regular navies be able to push more money than the pirate factions? Pirate variants have been considered best of class for quite some time now.
If you want a lore justification, consider that pirates would have no issues with stealing the plans for the most advanced ships available and then modifying them to suit their purposes. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Sailo Ormand
Rogue Blades
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 15:20:00 -
[232] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:1c3crysta1 wrote:Tiber Ibis wrote:The only thing that confuses me about that chart is why is pirate tech better than tech 2 from a lore perspective. Imagine when pirates finally get hold of tech II technology. *evil grin* This rocked my world a little! Never really thought about it, but it really seems weird that pirate versions are better... I mean, a weapon research or even research in general tend to get better when backed up with more resources. In that case, shouldn't the 4 regular navies be able to push more money than the pirate factions? Pirate variants have been considered best of class for quite some time now. If you want a lore justification, consider that pirates would have no issues with stealing the plans for the most advanced ships available and then modifying them to suit their purposes.
Yyyeah but why wouldn't the original designers of said hi-tech ships hove something comparable?
From a lore standpoint it would make sense if pirate ships were comparable to Navy ships in power but adapted for some unusual role / more versatile. Seeing a pirate ship as the unusual, creative and bizarre lovechild of pirate ingenuity and stolen empire ship designs would make me happier than them being just REALLY GOOD.
But then again... the Daredevil does make me drool. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
993
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 15:22:00 -
[233] - Quote
Because pirates live in nullsec so they get better rewards. Also Angel ships are copied from Jove blueprints they found in space and Guristas are a mixture of Caldari and Gallente designs. I think Sansha design their own ships from scratch, not sure about the others. Oh god. |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
588
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 15:24:00 -
[234] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Donedy wrote:Im talking about cruisers, BCs, BS, even frigs, who know. Its just a matter of brain, fits, situation and stuff.
Okay, its hard with a T1 cruiser, but its till doable. and not so hard if you adapt your fit to the situation. On staurday a single legion wiped out a whole test gang of talwars solo before the rest of the fleet could warp to a gate. We use tengu because they are better at being a drake than the drake is. There is no getting around the fact that t3 cruisers are horribly overpowered.
That's what neuts are for. So, no, a tengu is not a better drake -- not to mention isk efficiency. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1167
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 15:29:00 -
[235] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: I have t2 legion and tengu fits that match my faction fit navy mega in buffer of 130k+ EHP. If there is one thing I can hold to my name its the ability to fit a megathron well.
T3s are simply far too powerful for cruisers and have needed the nerf hammer for a very long time to bring them in line with the other cruisers. Give me a reason why I would fly a deimos over a proteus or a zealot over a legion. There isnt any, the T3s utterly wipe the floor with any other cruiser.
One reason: They're cheaper.
Second reason: They're faster.
Third reason: They align quicker.
And depending on your fit there are examples of T2 cruisers that can one on one a T3 and win. Should all T2's be able to win over a T3 before they're not considered overpowered?
I'm going to give you some examples here.Granted this will be limited to the Proteus because that's what I fly.
A SB fit with tracking disruptors can kill a Proteus. 20km disruptor range + tracking disruptors means that Proteus is never going to hit that SB. Nor can it speed away from it. I don't care how much dps or tank that Proteus has.
A Pilgrim will neut a Proteus to submission.
A Falcon will jam a Proteus to silence
In fact ANY T2 will kill a Proteus if FIT FOR THE FIGHT.
And any fight is about the FIT. If you're bring 1) the wrong ship or 2) the right ship with the wrong fit, you're going to lose. That's the chance you take. That T3 will wipe the floor with you. And so will a frigate if you're not prepared for it. Are frigates overpowered because they can kill battleships?
As for your Navy Mega, maybe you should fit ECM drones to quiet those T3 guns or Web drones so your big guns can be brought to bear. Maybe sacrifice a highslot for a neut or two. Maybe stop quad stacking mag stabs put on some tracking enhancers. Maybe use a booster to enhance tracking.
Given the current state of T2's, the only way to bring T3's sub T2 performance and (as CCP stated) to remove overlap is to make it a wet cold turd.
HTFU!...for the children! |
baltec1
Bat Country
6886
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 15:42:00 -
[236] - Quote
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
That's what neuts are for. So, no, a tengu is not a better drake, it's a better ship -- for some roles, -- not to mention isk efficiency.
Its faster, much smaller sig, bigger tank and the same or better firepower. |
Xhieron
Sanctum Mercatoris
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 15:43:00 -
[237] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote: My pleasure derived at flying a T3 is in the fact that I'm not flying a hull that I consider subpar and limited as I do with T2. Some hull has to be on top. It has to be top dog. That CCP is nerfing the current top dog irks me because of the investment I've made in skilling for those hulls. Once T2's become the top dog CCP will then again want to nerf those hulls devaluing any investment in time and isk I've made there and so on and so on. This is a case where CCP needs to leave well enough alone beyond a few tweaks.
This is the most compelling argument I've read here, and I think it should inform the responsible parties as the nerfing commences--and nevermind whether it should or not. When the dust settles there will be a top dog again, and whether it's T3's, ECM-town, or VampDomis, there's going to be something that excels--maybe not in all engagements in all space, but something that excels enough in enough places to attract the ire of those who find themselves on the wrong end of it.
Right now it's T3's, and unlike some of the previous contenders, T3's have a uniformly high price tag and an investment cost not seen anywhere else in that losing one necessarily costs you your time, the most precious and irreplaceable commodity in space. Sure, the price is elevated because people pour money into these things, and indeed, T3's shouldn't be all things to all people, but adopting a general policy that T2 should always out-perform T3 in T2's role is a recipe for a new set of problems.
You'll see a meta shift, sure, as the age of T3's closes, but in its aftermath something else will rise, and it'll be targeted next. That's the cycle. Balance work is never going to end, and I'd even concede that T3's need work--in some cases and for some subsystems, a lot of work--but that work should not be a blanket nerf--and if there has to be something on top of the heap (hint: there does), a T3 is a better option than the alternatives.
A T3 fit to do the work of a T2, all else being equal (i.e., officer v. officer), should be a competitive engagement with the outcome to be dependent on pilot skill rather than hull strength. A tall order, but a better balance paradigm than "T2 is better because this is all this T2 can do." |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
226
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 15:45:00 -
[238] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Amarra Mandalin wrote:
That's what neuts are for. So, no, a tengu is not a better drake, it's a better ship -- for some roles, -- not to mention isk efficiency.
Its faster, much smaller sig, bigger tank and the same or better firepower. If the drake was better then we would be still flying them.
better range better resists combined with reps makes them super bricks more speed and can somehow fit battleship AB's ... other than that there pretty much the same :P 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
993
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 15:53:00 -
[239] - Quote
Xhieron wrote:This is the most compelling argument I've read here, and I think it should inform the responsible parties as the nerfing commences--and nevermind whether it should or not. When the dust settles there will be a top dog again, and whether it's T3's, ECM-town, or VampDomis, there's going to be something that excels Is that so? So which T1 frigate is top dog amongst all T1 frigates right now? How about T1 cruisers, which one of those is the top dog?
Oh god. |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
588
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 15:54:00 -
[240] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Amarra Mandalin wrote:
That's what neuts are for. So, no, a tengu is not a better drake, it's a better ship -- for some roles, -- not to mention isk efficiency.
Its faster, much smaller sig, bigger tank and the same or better firepower. If the drake was better then we would be still flying them.
You can't (shouldn't) passive tank a Tengu. Why is it a problem that the Tengu is a better ship?
Seriously, did people not get the purple gear in (insert mindless MMO here), and decided paybacks were in order.
I guess we don't need the drake then...oh wait, yes we do. It's easier to skill for and cheaper.
|
|
Angsty Teenager
Derpotle
163
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 15:59:00 -
[241] - Quote
Heh.
"Nerfing T3's"
Look CCP, I sincerely hope that you realize that T3's do not need a nerf, particularly with the BS rebalance. There are virtually no situations outside of gang boosting (which I concede should be rebalanced so CS ships are better than T3's), where T3's are the best ship for the job.
Tengu used to be great for missioning, but that was due to heavy missiles being overpowered. Furthermore, it was also due to large missile weapon systems being hilariously terrible (and technically still are, though the cruise change is a step in the right direction).
The Legion, Loki, and Proteus have never been good ships outside of very niche roles (i.e. heavy tackle proteus, or armor web loki) in fleets, where they simply fill a role that their counterparts (huginn/lach) cannot fill because the huginn and lach do not have the low slots available to field a suitable armor tank.
In any sort of small gang pvp, T3's are in most cases outclassed by other ships in terms of price/effectiveness as well as how "scary" they are considered. 100mn AB tengus used to be the exception, but again, this was because, one, heavy missiles were very good, and two, nobody knew how to deal with them. Nowadays, nobody flies the setup because it's impossible without getting instantly countered by a rapier/huginn. People have adapted.
I feel that a general nerf towards T3's would simply make them even less used than they are now, and that an appropriate balance pass on T3's would actually involve buffing the subsystems that are trash on the ships right now to make them more viable in roles outside of the extremely niche ones the have right now. Ultimately the design of T3's to be a "jack of all trades" and thus cost more will never be one that players will buy into simply because it is more convienent to buy a number of hacs/BC's and have them in your hangar rather than buy a bunch of new subsystems and mods to refit the T3 multiple times (not to mention you can't change the rigs).
T3's shouldn't be balanced around the fact that they can do multiple things, because they cannot swap these things on the fly. T3's offer barely any advantage at the moment and essentially fill the heavy recon role in most cases. Nerfing this aspect will simply cause them to never be used. I would never choose to use a ship that was not ideal for the scenario. I would simply buy the best ship for each job I needed and then swap as required. IF I needed multiple T3 setups, I would not buy one T3 and bring subsystem changes, I would simply buy two T3's.
Despite the fact that I've said this multiple times in many other posts, I suspect CCP won't agree, and I can only hope that HACs are buffed enough to be usuable and I can just forget T3's altogether. Becuase frankly it's a stupid ship class. I mean, SP loss? What a joke, they're not even worth the risk at the moment and the only reason I use them is because they fill a role no other ship can. Remove that, nobody will fly them. |
Sir HappyPants
Aperture Harmonics K162
60
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:02:00 -
[242] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
Member of the #TweetFleet@thisurlnotfound |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
226
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:08:00 -
[243] - Quote
Angsty Teenager wrote:Heh.
"Nerfing T3's"
Look CCP, I sincerely hope that you realize that T3's do not need a nerf, particularly with the BS rebalance. There are virtually no situations outside of gang boosting (which I concede should be rebalanced so CS ships are better than T3's), where T3's are the best ship for the job.
Tengu used to be great for missioning, but that was due to heavy missiles being overpowered. Furthermore, it was also due to large missile weapon systems being hilariously terrible (and technically still are, though the cruise change is a step in the right direction).
The Legion, Loki, and Proteus have never been good ships outside of very niche roles (i.e. heavy tackle proteus, or armor web loki) in fleets, where they simply fill a role that their counterparts (huginn/lach) cannot fill because the huginn and lach do not have the low slots available to field a suitable armor tank.
In any sort of small gang pvp, T3's are in most cases outclassed by other ships in terms of price/effectiveness as well as how "scary" they are considered. 100mn AB tengus used to be the exception, but again, this was because, one, heavy missiles were very good, and two, nobody knew how to deal with them. Nowadays, nobody flies the setup because it's impossible without getting instantly countered by a rapier/huginn. People have adapted.
I feel that a general nerf towards T3's would simply make them even less used than they are now, and that an appropriate balance pass on T3's would actually involve buffing the subsystems that are trash on the ships right now to make them more viable in roles outside of the extremely niche ones the have right now. Ultimately the design of T3's to be a "jack of all trades" and thus cost more will never be one that players will buy into simply because it is more convienent to buy a number of hacs/BC's and have them in your hangar rather than buy a bunch of new subsystems and mods to refit the T3 multiple times (not to mention you can't change the rigs).
T3's shouldn't be balanced around the fact that they can do multiple things, because they cannot swap these things on the fly. T3's offer barely any advantage at the moment and essentially fill the heavy recon role in most cases. Nerfing this aspect will simply cause them to never be used. I would never choose to use a ship that was not ideal for the scenario. I would simply buy the best ship for each job I needed and then swap as required. IF I needed multiple T3 setups, I would not buy one T3 and bring subsystem changes, I would simply buy two T3's.
Despite the fact that I've said this multiple times in many other posts, I suspect CCP won't agree, and I can only hope that HACs are buffed enough to be usuable and I can just forget T3's altogether. Becuase frankly it's a stupid ship class. I mean, SP loss? What a joke, they're not even worth the risk at the moment and the only reason I use them is because they fill a role no other ship can. Remove that, nobody will fly them.
Well you have some useful points . no they shouldn't be able to swap on the fly... Prices will have to be reduced down to 200mil at most including subs .. and subs need to be cheap to allow switching to be viable .. also remove rigs from T3's entirely they should be about subs only also reduces price and makes switching subs easier going from armour to shields for example. i think 120mil should be the price really all-in-including hull and subs and mods. Also you are wrong in terms of multiple roles at the same time can be useful and viable ... think a T3 cruiser with e-war and logi bonuses ... sounds like a nice combo to me ... or links and e-war. and logi perhaps depending how versatile they make them. Oh and yes remove the SP loss but they will have to increase training time multipliers to compensate i would expect/hope. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
Chaoticc
Aperture Harmonics K162
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:12:00 -
[244] - Quote
from a numerical stance. 3 is larger than 2. and therefore should be better by that fact alone. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
226
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:15:00 -
[245] - Quote
Chaoticc wrote:from a numerical stance. 3 is larger than 2. and therefore should be better by that fact alone.
bigger isn't always better.. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
baltec1
Bat Country
6886
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:16:00 -
[246] - Quote
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
You can't (shouldn't) passive tank a Tengu.
And at a stroke you instantly lose all credibility.
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
I guess we don't need the drake then...oh wait, yes we do. It's easier to skill for and cheaper and drake blobs are (were) win.
Drakefleet gets torn apart by tengu fleet. |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
137
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:19:00 -
[247] - Quote
"Flexibility" isn't much of a strong point for a hull. Hasn't CCP learned from the whole split weapons thing? No one's gonna fly a ship that can be a subpar X or Y, they'll just find a ship that's specialized in what they need. If T3s just become inferior HACs/recons/logi, no one's gonna fly them; they'll just dock up and switch to a HAC/recon/logi as needed
"Flexibility" is not an advantage in EVE; the best ships and fits in the game are specialized and focused |
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
692
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:21:00 -
[248] - Quote
One thing I don't get is that people seem to point blank refuse to believe neuts as a direct counter to t3s, yes t3s need to be toned down, but even right now a few arby's mixed with t1 AHACS could compete very well against a t3 gang. wumbo |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
370
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:25:00 -
[249] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Amarra Mandalin wrote:
You can't (shouldn't) passive tank a Tengu.
And at a stroke you instantly lose all credibility. Amarra Mandalin wrote:
I guess we don't need the drake then...oh wait, yes we do. It's easier to skill for and cheaper and drake blobs are (were) win.
Drakefleet gets torn apart by tengu fleet.
A less skilled fleet of anything should be torn down by the more skilled fleet, unless the latter is flown by morons. Where is the problem here? |
baltec1
Bat Country
6886
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:31:00 -
[250] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
A less skilled fleet of anything should be torn down by the more skilled fleet, unless the latter is flown by morons. Where is the problem here?
It doesnt matter how good the drakes FC is, they will die in a fire. |
|
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
137
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:35:00 -
[251] - Quote
Drakes were the most overrated ship in the game for a long time and the nerf was completely unnecessary with the introduction of tier 3s |
Sailo Ormand
Rogue Blades
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:35:00 -
[252] - Quote
. |
Sailo Ormand
Rogue Blades
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:37:00 -
[253] - Quote
Angsty Teenager wrote: T3's shouldn't be balanced around the fact that they can do multiple things, because they cannot swap these things on the fly.
I dont't quite follow all your points but I get this one 100%.
I worry that after heavy nerfing, T3s will be able to fill any T2 cruiser role with 80% (or whatever amount) effectiveness. Well, that's great, but that means that we'll have a very expensive ship that at any one time performs only nearly as well as the T2 it's mimicking. Even if you could have the T3s perform equally well as any T2, that still begs the question "Why would I spend 2-3x more and risk skillpoints to do the same thing?"
Are strategic cruisers going to become one of those facets of the game that people just train all 25 days (ish?) of subsystem training just for that extra 2% of whatever on their fit compared to an analogous T2? That makes for dull game progression.
The fact that it's one single hull that can be fit many different ways is largely irrelevant. The niche T3s fill isn't one of a cruiser that can be setup many ways, it's of a cruiser that outperforms all other cruisers in line with its price and risk of operation. If it didn't, nobody would fly them except for luls and ISK burning.
I have to ask, if T3s are rebalanced to become the versatile cruisers that can perform nearly as well as any T2, then why are you going to buy one? What justification will you have for training the skills, buying the subsystems, and risking the skillpoints to do something that there is already a T2 capable of doing better (or even equally well).
Obviously these ships need a nerf. In some places they soar SO far ahead of their T1/2 counterparts it's ridiculous. But making them underperform or even be matched by T2s will make them largely pointless. I think there needs to be some kind of safeguard (I dont know how it would best be implemented, perhaps with certain subsystems bonuses interacting with each other?) to limit how much a T3 can excel in a role and introduce larger weaknesses to different setups. |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
588
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:38:00 -
[254] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Amarra Mandalin wrote:
You can't (shouldn't) passive tank a Tengu.
And at a stroke you instantly lose all credibility. Amarra Mandalin wrote:
I guess we don't need the drake then...oh wait, yes we do. It's easier to skill for and cheaper and drake blobs are (were) win.
Drakefleet gets torn apart by tengu fleet.
I'm not talking logi fleets and so don't pat yourself on the back too hard.
What I am saying, is that I miss the days of the OP Dramiel and Drake ---when they were a royal pain in the ass to deal with these ships but it actually *meant something* (skill and tactics) to kill them.
It's like now, big deal, it's just a dram -- if you even see one. Big deal, it's just a Tengu. Where is the fun in that?
And you failed to answer the question (aside from some mostly agreed upon adjustments, like off-grid boosting) WHY is there a problem that the Tengu is a superior ship to a drake or T3s in general?
If it's driven by lack of T2 use/sales, should we nerf interceptors now (because people became smart) as the Arazus sure aren't seeing much use and not allowed in some doctrines because of isk efficiency.
HAC does need love though. |
baltec1
Bat Country
6886
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:45:00 -
[255] - Quote
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
And you failed to answer the question (aside from some mostly agreed upon adjustments, like off-grid boosting) WHY is there a problem that the Tengu is a superior ship?
The problem is that they do not fit into their class of hull. Much like the dram pre nerf they are simply far too good compared to everything else. So good that they even out class ship hulls above them, the drake is just one example of a BC that is outclassed at its own job by a t3 cruiser.
Amarra Mandalin wrote: HAC does need love though.
Most HACs don't look nearly as bad when you take t3s out of the picture. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
1109
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 16:50:00 -
[256] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
Until the Black OPs BS can cloak in warp I think they will be White elephants in any fleet or hanger
An' then [email protected], he come scramblin outta theTerminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system'scrashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children' |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
226
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 17:08:00 -
[257] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[quote=Amarra Mandalin]
The problem is that they do not fit into their class of hull. Much like the dram pre nerf they are simply far too good compared to everything else. So good that they even out class ship hulls above them, the drake is just one example of a BC that is outclassed at its own job by a t3 cruiser.
Most HACs don't look nearly as bad when you take t3s out of the picture.
Indeed although ABC's still overshadow HACS too much until they get nerfed this will still be a problem. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
baltec1
Bat Country
6887
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 17:09:00 -
[258] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:
Until the Black OPs BS can cloak in warp I think they will be White elephants in any fleet or hanger
Black OPs are great if you use them right. |
Gah'Matar
Knights of the Nyan I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
29
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 17:20:00 -
[259] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:[quote=Grimpak]Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more.
That's bull.
Chances are, the T1 would actually cost more because: (1) It is refinable to more minerals so it has a higher intrinsic price floor built-in and (2) Absolutely no one would ever make them since X-Type is so much better, in every way, then T2 and invention would be the only reason to make meta 0 T1 mods. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3633
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 17:57:00 -
[260] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Amarra Mandalin wrote:You can't (shouldn't) passive tank a Tengu. And at a stroke you instantly lose all credibility. That's not how it's works here on EVEO GD.
I'm waiting for the TEST passive tank tengufleet now. I am a nullsec zealot. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
6889
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 18:04:00 -
[261] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:baltec1 wrote:Amarra Mandalin wrote:You can't (shouldn't) passive tank a Tengu. And at a stroke you instantly lose all credibility. That's not how it's works here on EVEO GD. I'm waiting for the TEST passive tank tengufleet now.
Tengu is so yesterday. They will come in 3 billion isk drakes. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
284
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 18:07:00 -
[262] - Quote
So where do I go to find a linkable image version of this? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3633
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 18:07:00 -
[263] - Quote
At that rate they might as well just pimp out the "foxcats" more. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1603
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 18:15:00 -
[264] - Quote
Angsty Teenager wrote:
The Legion, Loki, and Proteus have never been good ships outside of very niche roles (i.e. heavy tackle proteus, or armor web loki) in fleets, where they simply fill a role that their counterparts (huginn/lach) cannot fill because the huginn and lach do not have the low slots available to field a suitable armor tank.
In any sort of small gang pvp, T3's are in most cases outclassed by other ships in terms of price/effectiveness as well as how "scary" they are considered. .
Tell me more:
https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_battle.php?start_time=2013-06-04%2002:17:00&end_time=2013-06-04%2002:47:00&system=C3N-3S
Lenier Chenal wrote:
You've got to be really careful with this rebalance. If you nerf the T3s too much, people won't use them.
You mean kind of like HACs have been shelved since T3's were released, and anytime anybody DOES engage a T3 fleet with a HAC fleet it gets murdered?
Tell me what role you see HAC (which take more training than t3's, way more training, T3= Train Cruiser 5, pick up sub skills and t3 skil, and go, HACs have a huge list of prereqs) filling since you expect T3's to outperform them.
Donedy wrote:
You say that 2 things costing a price with a 10 factor should have the same capabilities. .
My nerfed titan called and said that CCP will never balance ships around cost. |
Lexmana
1001
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 18:19:00 -
[265] - Quote
Gah'Matar wrote:Lexmana wrote:Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more. That's bull. Chances are, the T1 would actually cost more because: (1) It is refinable to more minerals so it has a higher intrinsic price floor built-in and (2) Absolutely no one would ever make them since X-Type is so much better, in every way, then T2 and invention would be the only reason to make meta 0 T1 mods.
What you are suggesting will only happen when there is a gross oversupply of both items so they sell below manufacturing cost. Then the items have no value except for the reprocessing and of course in such situation x-types are worth more to the buyer. That was my point entirely that availability does not set the price of a product. And in any other realistic scenario (with availability held constant), the market will price the x-type higher because it is actually worth more to the buyer. |
Draconic Slayer
Cold Moon Destruction. Transmission Lost
29
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 18:50:00 -
[266] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
Yay! Death to wormhole pvp!
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14726
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 18:52:00 -
[267] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:So where do I go to find a linkable image version of this? EDIT: I also thought of something actually constructive to say. I want to quote someone from CSM7 - "Don't throw the Legion out with the Tengu bathwater." Here. Note the date on that blog postGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Garcia Arnst
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 19:20:00 -
[268] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance.
The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible..
If Tech2s are always better than Tech3s then some subsystems will always never be used (unless maybe the ship itself is way cheaper), because some roles kind of depend on a certain level of bonus to make them work. You wouldn't - for instance - use a Loki as a webber over a rapier/huginn if it was worse than both of them. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
908
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 19:27:00 -
[269] - Quote
so, a conclusion can be drawn from all this mess, to wich I also helped a bit to create:
1 - T2's specialized role is where they must shine, and they better be damn good at it; 2 - T3's flexibility cannot beat T2's in their turf, but they must be attractive nevertheless. 3 - people still think that cost is a balance factor.
all this means that CCP is gonna have a hard time to get to the sweet spot. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Lexmana
1002
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 19:35:00 -
[270] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:so, a conclusion can be drawn from all this mess, to wich I also helped a bit to create:
1 - T2's specialized role is where they must shine, and they better be damn good at it; 2 - T3's flexibility cannot beat T2's in their turf, but they must be attractive nevertheless. 3 - people still think that cost is a balance factor.
all this means that CCP is gonna have a hard time to get to the sweet spot. For sure. The sweet spot could be made a bit wider though if they added some unique qualities on the field like some limited shapeshifting capabilities. |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3637
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 19:36:00 -
[271] - Quote
Tribal band eh. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
234
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 19:59:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance.
Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas. Speaking from a W-space perspective, T3s are used because they bring decent (not necessarily world class) firepower with a strong tank. If you take away the tank, there is usually little reason to bring a T3 over a T2. It's that simple. Drastic changes are needed for this to be different.
The cost, while not a complete balancing factor, is still a factor. You can buy 3-4 T2s for the price of a similar T3. And there is the skillpoint loss issue. But really, because of the tank difference between the two, the (ISK) costs need to be where they are. Sure, if time is no issue, ISK costs are irrelevant. But not everyone can field and replace as many T3s as they could T2s or as fast.
In most cases, I will fly a T2 instead of a T3 because of those reasons. The DPS is good, mobility is better than a T3, and the tank is enough for you to take a little bit of a beating so you can last until Logi finds you. Only if it's a full-on fleet battle where every tiny bit counts that is also fielding competent Logi will I be willing to risk the SP loss. In these situations, there is more than enough DPS to go around; you just need to be able to stay on the field longer. My T2 ships are disposable; my T3 ships are not. Again, different situations require different ships.
Recently I compared a (Laser) Legion to an Absolution. If I wanted DPS, I'd bring the Abso, but if I needed extra tank/buffer then I'd bring the Legion. In every equal situation, a well-fit Abso could best a similarly well-fit Legion in raw DPS output. But the Legion could out-tank the Abso and could engage larger fleets with heavier-hitting opponents. Overall, I would say the two are equal and useful for different purposes ... except one costs 3x as much and includes an SP loss. I can't judge between Gallente or Minmatar ships yet, and, well, Caldari ships are a joke.
At this point, I would say that DPS Strategic Cruisers are comparable to DPS Command Ships, and that is acceptable to me.
And really, the flexibility doesn't matter since you can't refit in the field unless there are capitals involved or you can nip out to a friendly POS/station. If you're waiting to refit until you are near a capital, you deserve to lose the T3. Make it possible to refit a T3 in the field (including subsystems) without a SMA nearby, and THEN you'll have something truly unique that can counter nerfs to DPS or tank potential.
|
Lexmana
1002
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 20:03:00 -
[273] - Quote
Almost like accidentally a gate-camp, but on the forums ... |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
588
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 20:14:00 -
[274] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:[quote=Angsty Teenager]
You mean kind of like HACs have been shelved since T3's were released, and anytime anybody DOES engage a T3 fleet with a HAC fleet it gets murdered?
I shelved my HAC when your boys and Shadow started small gang cap warfare in lowsec Since then, i haven't been in a fleet that supported a (an Amarr) HAC properly.. Meh, I should just go back to the Blue Donut because that is the only PvP that counts.
I feel sorry for new people though. It was so exciting to get (and be well-trained for) a T3 and no one can take away that feeling. What's there to get excited over now, with T1s being so decent? |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
588
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 20:29:00 -
[275] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:baltec1 wrote:Amarra Mandalin wrote:You can't (shouldn't) passive tank a Tengu. And at a stroke you instantly lose all credibility. That's not how it's works here on EVEO GD. I'm waiting for the TEST passive tank tengufleet now.
Seriously, don't you have to make an ass of yourself like 10X or something to lose the credibility you (a person) never had? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1603
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 20:29:00 -
[276] - Quote
Meytal wrote:
You can buy 3-4 T2s for the price of a similar T3.
And that t3 can perform all the jobs those 3-4 t2's can so in that regard its cost is balanced.
Meytal wrote:Recently I compared a (Laser) Legion to an Absolution.
Why would you compare a cruiser to a battlecruiser, why wouldn't you compare the Legion to a Zealot and an Omen?
Meytal wrote:At this point, I would say that DPS Strategic Cruisers are comparable to DPS Command Ships, and that is acceptable to me.
And here we have the basics of it all, the Legion is doing damage a ship class order higher than the other cruisers, and considering a HAC takes more training than a t3 cruiser why would you ever bother flying the HAC, who's role should be specialized?
T3's got it right in 2 areas right now.
Logis: T3's can rep more than a standard t1 or t2 Logi but without the added range, thus ensuring that the t2 hulls retain their specialized nature doing their job better than the T3 that can take on many roles.
Recons: T3's can use one of their two racial ewars but not as effectively as the more specialized t2 counterparts, having roughly 2/3s the strength of the specialized hulls.
Then you have HACs, the allegedly specializd t2 cruisers whos area of expertise is tank and damage. In this area you have the t2 specialist ships completely outclassed in every possible way by the t3 cruisers.
Finally you have the command ships, who currently are massively overpowered by their t3 counterparts, even though the Command Ships take massive amounts of training that the T3's do NOT require.
One t3 hull can do any of the jobs that 4 other types of t2 specialist hulls (that require WAY more training) can do, but in 2 of 4 cases they do the job slightly worse, as it should be, than the specialist hulls.
Fixing the other 2 areas will bring T3's perfectly in line, which will be achieved by a slight buff and change to T2 HACs and CS, and a slight downward adjustment in T3 Hulls.
For example if you wanted a hard tanking t3, it shouldn't be able to come near the DPS of a HAC, or if you wanted a high DPS t3 it shouldn't be able to touch the tank levels of a HAC.
Perhaps you wanted to mix 2 hull types so you have a Loki that webs, but not as good as a rapier, while doing DPS, tanking, and mobility that doesn't quite touch a Vagabond, while warping cloaked (I fly a Loki thats similar to this now), |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
909
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 20:35:00 -
[277] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Meytal wrote:
You can buy 3-4 T2s for the price of a similar T3.
And that t3 can perform all the jobs those 3-4 t2's can so in that regard its cost is balanced. Meytal wrote:Recently I compared a (Laser) Legion to an Absolution. Why would you compare a cruiser to a battlecruiser, why wouldn't you compare the Legion to a Zealot and an Omen? Meytal wrote:At this point, I would say that DPS Strategic Cruisers are comparable to DPS Command Ships, and that is acceptable to me.
And here we have the basics of it all, the Legion is doing damage a ship class order higher than the other cruisers, and considering a HAC takes more training than a t3 cruiser why would you ever bother flying the HAC, who's role should be specialized? T3's got it right in 2 areas right now. Logis: T3's can rep more than a standard t1 or t2 Logi but without the added range, thus ensuring that the t2 hulls retain their specialized nature doing their job better than the T3 that can take on many roles. Recons: T3's can use one of their two racial ewars but not as effectively as the more specialized t2 counterparts, having roughly 2/3s the strength of the specialized hulls. Then you have HACs, the allegedly specializd t2 cruisers whos area of expertise is tank and damage. In this area you have the t2 specialist ships completely outclassed in every possible way by the t3 cruisers. Finally you have the command ships, who currently are massively overpowered by their t3 counterparts, even though the Command Ships take massive amounts of training that the T3's do NOT require. One t3 hull can do any of the jobs that 4 other types of t2 specialist hulls (that require WAY more training) can do, but in 2 of 4 cases they do the job slightly worse, as it should be, than the specialist hulls. Fixing the other 2 areas will bring T3's perfectly in line, which will be achieved by a slight buff and change to T2 HACs and CS, and a slight downward adjustment in T3 Hulls. For example if you wanted a hard tanking t3, it shouldn't be able to come near the DPS of a HAC, or if you wanted a high DPS t3 it shouldn't be able to touch the tank levels of a HAC. Perhaps you wanted to mix 2 hull types so you have a Loki that webs, but not as good as a rapier, while doing DPS, tanking, and mobility that doesn't quite touch a Vagabond, while warping cloaked (I fly a Loki thats similar to this now),
[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
588
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 20:35:00 -
[278] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:[quote=Meytal]
And here we have the basics of it all, the Legion is doing damage a ship class order higher than the other cruisers, and considering a HAC takes more training than a t3 cruiser why would you ever bother flying the HAC, who's role should be specialized?
And a tier-3 BC can do BS damage.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1604
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 20:36:00 -
[279] - Quote
Amarra Mandalin wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:[quote=Meytal]
And here we have the basics of it all, the Legion is doing damage a ship class order higher than the other cruisers, and considering a HAC takes more training than a t3 cruiser why would you ever bother flying the HAC, who's role should be specialized?
And a tier-3 BC can do BS damage.
Yes, something they specifically said they were doing in the design process of t3 BC's, BS damage with super weak tanks, the trade off that makes those t3 BC's not outclass BS.
EDIT: And just to be clear, since before release, CCP has always maintained that they wanted t3 cruisers to be good at mulitple jobs, but not better than t2 at any one job. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1604
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 20:39:00 -
[280] - Quote
Honestly one of the easiest changes they could make to keep t3's viable after a nerf would be to make its rigs removable* so that you could swap the rigs around to adjust for whatever new job you wanted, as well as making them refitable in space so that their versatility wasn't hung up on the crutch of needing a station.
*removable without destroying them. |
|
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
588
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 20:40:00 -
[281] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:[quote=Amarra Mandalin][quote=Grath Telkin][quote=Meytal]
EDIT: And just to be clear, since before release, CCP has always maintained that they wanted t3 cruisers to be good at mulitple jobs, but not better than t2 at any one job.
And i can live with that. Some of this other stuff is nonsense though -- stuff I won't bother rehashing as several people have posted some germane points that were ignored. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
226
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 20:55:00 -
[282] - Quote
Amarra Mandalin wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:[quote=Meytal]
And here we have the basics of it all, the Legion is doing damage a ship class order higher than the other cruisers, and considering a HAC takes more training than a t3 cruiser why would you ever bother flying the HAC, who's role should be specialized?
And a tier-3 BC can do BS damage.
their so specialized using large weapons and yet they are still T1 aswell as having 8 turrets .... and CCP think they are fine ... its a joke... really is... CCP need to wake up and realize they spoil the roles of the ships around them.. make them T2 like they should have been when released. and remove a turret at least. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3639
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 21:14:00 -
[283] - Quote
Amarra Mandalin wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:baltec1 wrote:Amarra Mandalin wrote:You can't (shouldn't) passive tank a Tengu. And at a stroke you instantly lose all credibility. That's not how it's works here on EVEO GD. I'm waiting for the TEST passive tank tengufleet now. Seriously, don't you have to make an ass of yourself like 10X or something to lose the credibility you (a person) never had? There's NPC alts all over the place here, who cares about that. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Peter Tjordenskiold
90
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 21:14:00 -
[284] - Quote
Quote:T3's need tweaked in the areas that they're truly overpowered. Tank and DPS is not it. Tank and DPS are most certainly it, since the T3 ships have absolutely no problems outperforming their equivalent T2 damage dealing cruisers (HACs).[/quote]
No. A usual 0.0 fleet T3 makes equal damage but has a better tank. Some lonely gankers using active tanks with up to 2000dps tank. But the price being caught is high. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3639
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 21:32:00 -
[285] - Quote
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:Some lonely gankers using active tanks with up to 2000dps tank. But the price being caught is high. That it is. What kind of DPS do they get with such a tank... I am a nullsec zealot. |
ClusterFook
Mors Omnibus.
29
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 22:11:00 -
[286] - Quote
The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships?
hull + mods for best performance for the job Subsystem + mods for best performance for the job.
Both require you to dock up to switch roles. but with t3's you have all your isk in 1 boat instead of 3 or 4. If t3's are not better what justifies the price? versatility? i get that by have 4 different ships, that is no different than switching out subsystems. Only time this would be worth while is in a wormwhole where logistics can be a pain.
TLDR t'3 should have better performance to justify the cost because versatility can be had by owning more ships while risking less. Unless you can change the bonuses on the fly it is no more versatile. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1606
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 22:19:00 -
[287] - Quote
ClusterFook wrote:The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships?
Really, i see tons of people using proteus to tackle and lokis' to web even though they do the job worse than the Recons that do the same thing, I think you're making assumptions that aren't actually true.
ClusterFook wrote: If t3's are not better what justifies the price So my titan costs over 100 billion isk, by your logic you're ok with it literally outclassing anything that appears on the battlefield because of that price right?
ClusterFook wrote:t'3 should have better performance to justify the cost .
Again, stop thinking that cost should justify utility, that will never be the case in CCP's balancing as they've said on multiple occasions. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 22:47:00 -
[288] - Quote
I sure hope you aren't thinking about nerfing T3s, that would be the straw the broke the camels back I'd say. First rebalancing everything in EVE has taking away one of the best and unique things in EVE, ships not being equal and people having to be somewhat creative. It made the game something completely different then any other game, it isn't so much anymore sadly. The thing about T3s is that they are so costly, not just in ISK but also in skills. they are the ONLY ships in EVE that if you loose one you have to retrain a skill, Titian's don't even have to do that. And a T3 easily cost twice to 3 times as much as T2 cruisers. They are also suppose to be the most advanced ships in EVE, which should make them as tough as they are. I am just hoping they don't get nerfed, there is NO reason, nor need for it, and it would just make them completely worthless. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14727
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 22:52:00 -
[289] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote: I sure hope you aren't thinking about nerfing T3s Of course they are. T3s are not working properly and are generally far to capable for what they're supposed to be. There's little else to do about it than nerf them. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
WInter Borne
Cold Station 12 Surely You're Joking
68
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 22:58:00 -
[290] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:Got to agree with Tippia on this one, T3s already offer stuff that is just way too broken powerfull compared to T2 due to that flexibility its just fair their performance drops a bit in exchange for that flexibility.
think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter.
price is NEVER a performance measurement, if it was, marauders would be destroying capital ships like they were frigates and would be impervious to any sub capital ship. FYI, unless you stupidly officer fit your tengu, there is no way you can get 500 dps with HAMs and keep the cloak and interdiction nullifier.
CCP needs to fix T2 HAC's before they start screwing around with T3's. T3's are the benchmark for combat in wspace because they pack survivability, dps, and low mass into a single hull.
Considering the overall great job Fozzie and co. have done rebalancing the rest of the hulls I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to T3's (even if I cant forgive them for nerfing my beloved archon). |
|
chris elliot
EG CORP Mass Overload
181
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 01:53:00 -
[291] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
So what you are saying is you are going to do it wrong again. And then it will be 4 more years and 2 more new people getting hired before it gets unbroken again right? |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
3689
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 02:15:00 -
[292] - Quote
Removing rig slots from T3 will certainly help us use them as adaptable ships. Half the reason my mission-running Tengu doesn't go on incursions or lowsec roams is that the rigs I use for mission running don't work so well for Incursions or lowsec exploration. Once those (expensive) rigs are on, I don't want to mess with the rest of the fit.
Why do I use a Tengu instead of a Cerberus for missions? The Tengu is faster, has more range, and deals more DPS. Why do I use the Tengu instead of a raven? Faster warp, faster travel between gates, and better tank due to speed and sig radius. Removing rig slots or calibration will help to some degree. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1170
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 04:20:00 -
[293] - Quote
After getting off work, what do I see? The thread has turned into a discussion about how a ship that takes a few days to train into (T1 cruisers) should be more capable than a ship that requires 2 months of dedicated training (T3's).
Are you Fcking kidding?
Go ahead CCP. Do it! Add another few hundred bitter vet ex-eve players. Kill w-space industry with a turd of a ship that is its #1 industry. In the end you'll kill w-space...which I'm beginning to believe is exactly what you want. HTFU!...for the children! |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
1019
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 04:41:00 -
[294] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Anyone else seeing the writing on the wall? Yes, it says 'Can I have your stuff?' Oh god. |
Sanadras Riahn
This Nightmare
47
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 04:45:00 -
[295] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Anyone else seeing the writing on the wall?
I find your signature oddly appropriate to the situation... "This is our way of wisdom, warrior. To be true. To be full. To include our hearts in every aspect of what we do. --- Let those that fly cold numbers be the Amarr. We fly better than that."---Alica Wildfire, inscribed on the inside and outer shell of Sanadras' Capsule. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3641
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 05:03:00 -
[296] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:After getting off work, what do I see? The thread has turned into a discussion about how a ship that takes a few days to train into (T1 cruisers) should be more capable than a ship that requires 2 months of dedicated training (T3's).
Are you Fcking kidding?
Go ahead CCP. Do it! Add another few hundred bitter vet ex-eve players. Kill w-space industry with a turd of a ship that is its #1 industry. In the end you'll kill w-space...which I'm beginning to believe is exactly what you want.
Let's add up some pieces of info:
1) CCP states w-space shouldn't support permanent habitation. Yes, day tripping makes just so much since in deep w-space. Everyone in w-space knows this tripe being spread by CCP is just that.
2) Grav sites are now anoms not giving any warning in w-space of danger.
3) Relic/data get a 3 fold time sink nerf
4) W-space's backbone fleet is getting nerfed to uselessness which....
5) Will drive sleeper loot prices into the coffin along side the T3
6) W-space is no longer capable of supporting permanent habitation.
Anyone else seeing the writing on the wall? Amazing perception there.
Next up would be converting lowsec into highsec, starting off with resurrecting that proposed gate gun buff, right? I am a nullsec zealot. |
Liltha
Lost My Way Enterprises
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 05:25:00 -
[297] - Quote
A lot of the problem with the tech 3's is the amount of bonuses they get. Due to the flexibility each subsystem gets it's own benefits that are often at the level of the benefits of individual ships.
An example being a Cerberus has 5% kinetic missile damage, 10% missile velocity, 10% missile flight time, and 5% rate of fire. Comparatively just the offensive subsystem accelerated ejection bay has 5% kinetic missile damage, 7.5% rof bonus, and 10% missile velocity. Add to that the bonuses from the 4 other subsystems and the innate overheat bonus it's no wonder the "generalized" tengu far outdoes the "specialized" HAC in most uses you would use a HAC for. It doesn't have quite the range of the tengu, but it will do more damage in almost any configuration using this subsystem.
It's obvious that some of the subsystems need their bonuses toned down a little, while others might need a boost, and yet others have bonuses considered so useless in general they might need the bonus changed.
To put it in another perspective in general a tech 1 ship gets 2 bonuses, a tech 2 gets 4, and a tech 3 gets 6+, with that if you keep the bonus numbers similar it is inevitable that certain configurations of tech 3 will be considered overpowered. |
ClusterFook
Mors Omnibus.
29
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 05:39:00 -
[298] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:ClusterFook wrote:The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships? Really, i see tons of people using proteus to tackle and lokis' to web even though they do the job worse than the Recons that do the same thing, I think you're making assumptions that aren't actually true. Maybe that has something to do with their tank and the fleet comp synergy...
Grath Telkin wrote:ClusterFook wrote: If t3's are not better what justifies the price So my titan costs over 100 billion isk, by your logic you're ok with it literally outclassing anything that appears on the battlefield because of that price right? apples and oranges. Tell me what other ship has dd, and can jump entire fleets? A better comparison would be carriers and super carriers, and i'm damm sure the extra isk on supers allows it to outclass carriers.
Lets try an exercise so we can get on the same page. lets say T3's are downgraded to match their T2 hull counterparts they have the exact same stats. Now you have to have all the subsystems ready to go and mods so you can switch roles. So now i have a ship that can do 4 different roles as long as i can switch around my subsystems and it does everything exactly the same as the T2 variant (same tank,dps,sig, speed, etc.). How is that any better than just having the 4 different hulls? Only difference is if i lose a T3 im out 5 days training and 600* mil compared to just 200* mil for the t2. |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
589
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 05:47:00 -
[299] - Quote
ClusterFook wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:[quote=ClusterFook]The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships? Lets try an exercise so we can get on the same page. lets say T3's are downgraded to match their T2 hull counterparts they have the exact same stats.
I'm interested in the responses you get as some are pushing for worse stats and/or euthanasia. Because, ya know, Drake > Tengu is only logical. |
Lexmana
1010
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 06:43:00 -
[300] - Quote
Amarra Mandalin wrote:ClusterFook wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:[quote=ClusterFook]The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships? Lets try an exercise so we can get on the same page. lets say T3's are downgraded to match their T2 hull counterparts they have the exact same stats. I'm interested in the responses you get as some are pushing for worse stats and/or euthanasia. Because, ya know, Drake > Tengu is only logical. I didn't know drake could warp cloaked through bubbles. |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3642
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 06:46:00 -
[301] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Amarra Mandalin wrote:ClusterFook wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:[quote=ClusterFook]The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships? Lets try an exercise so we can get on the same page. lets say T3's are downgraded to match their T2 hull counterparts they have the exact same stats. I'm interested in the responses you get as some are pushing for worse stats and/or euthanasia. Because, ya know, Drake > Tengu is only logical. I didn't know drake could warp cloaked through bubbles. They can also warp while cloaked and use covert cynos. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
589
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 06:59:00 -
[302] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Amarra Mandalin wrote:ClusterFook wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:[quote=ClusterFook]The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships? Lets try an exercise so we can get on the same page. lets say T3's are downgraded to match their T2 hull counterparts they have the exact same stats. I'm interested in the responses you get as some are pushing for worse stats and/or euthanasia. Because, ya know, Drake > Tengu is only logical. I didn't know drake could warp cloaked through bubbles.
It twas /sarcasm derived from page 11 or so. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10012
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 07:02:00 -
[303] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
Just remember that no one is going to pay any premium for ships that are mediocre at several roles. Remember the glory days of "flexible" pirate ships with split weapon bonuses?
If we're putting a quarter of a million SP on the line, then that ship damb well better do something better than anything else. Otherwise I'll simply buy the 2-3 racial T2 ships instead.
The other huge barrier to "flexibility" is rigs. If I have to destroy the rigs every time I "flexibly" change my T3s role, then it very very quickly becomes cheaper and easier to simply have multiple ships. In fact people have multiple T3s now because of this.
The idea of owning a "flexible" multi-role hull that you can refit to your immediate purpose sounds appealing on the face of it, but there are a large number of game mechanics that make it rather unappealing.
(1) The relative cost of subsystems (2) Rigs (3) Price premium (including SP loss) (4) The need to have multiple fitted ships ready to go in any case in case of ship loss
1 Kings 12:11
|
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
589
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 07:06:00 -
[304] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote: They can also warp while cloaked and use covert cynos.
Yeah, well gives you something to wait for along with the passive Tengu fleet. Of course, you might be waiting a long while while people fumble with the fit. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3642
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 07:12:00 -
[305] - Quote
Amarra Mandalin wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote: They can also warp while cloaked and use covert cynos.
Yeah, well gives you something to wait for along with the passive Tengu fleet. Of course, you might be waiting a long while while people fumble with the fit. I actually do not have a character anywhere near skilled for a Tengu fleet. I know, I've missed out on so many structure shooting ops with Boat. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
589
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 07:16:00 -
[306] - Quote
No, no, silly, I meant this.
Alavaria Fera wrote:[ I'm waiting for the TEST passive tank tengufleet now.
I need to go to bed. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1606
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 07:33:00 -
[307] - Quote
ClusterFook wrote: apples and oranges. .
Sorry, no thats not the way it works, if you're using price as justification for ability then the most expensive ships in the game should be the most powerful and thats not the case, and shouldn't be the case, and never will be the case.
You can make any set of arguments you want, no matter who flawed and misplaced, or 'spoiled rotten brat' type of arguments they may be, but the second you bring up price in any way you're simple flat out wrong.
As per CCP's own words, price will never be taken into account where balance is concerned.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10012
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 07:55:00 -
[308] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:ClusterFook wrote: apples and oranges. .
Sorry, no thats not the way it works, if you're using price as justification for ability then the most expensive ships in the game should be the most powerful and thats not the case, and shouldn't be the case, and never will be the case. You can make any set of arguments you want, no matter who flawed and misplaced, or 'spoiled rotten brat' type of arguments they may be, but the second you bring up price in any way you're simple flat out wrong. As per CCP's own words, price will never be taken into account where balance is concerned.
And yet T3s have a non-ISK price associated with them as well.
EDIT: also you're wrong in any case. Price can never be the sole balancing factor, agreed, but it most definitely can be A balancing factor, especially for ships which can be killed in routine engagements without the extraordinary effort required to down eg: a Titan. Or else how could navy faction ships ever be balanced with their T1 basic equivalents?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Oxide Ammar
Aurora Security Transstellar Operations
5
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 08:04:00 -
[309] - Quote
Ironically, everyone was bitching about cost doesn't translate to more powered ship yet everyone forgot that all nerf happened to T1 BC was reverted back in the new Navy BC tier which proves that more you pay the better results you are suppose to get. Yesterday I was doing 4/10 plex and sadly there was Cynabal blitzing the whole site before me so I sat and watched its performance in 4/10, It was blitzing like any T3 before the patch yet T3 were the only who got excluded from 4/10. are we seeing incoming nerf to pirate cruisers ? no...because this what you expect from pirate version of cruisers, an enhanced version. This applies to all navy/pirate (don't make me start talking about Vindi and Mach) and especially T3 cruisers since on top its cost the SP you lose if you lost your T3.
Someone mentioned before in this thread that route to T3 is the shortcut to perform well in different aspects of the game like doing missions, exploring and pvp. It cuts sometimes a year or 1.5 year of training to excel on these aspects of this game together and believe me you don't want every god damn new player to take this route to see some results at the end. It kills any interest in the game, I know we all have to take this route eventually but CCP needs to leave shortcut for players to breath.
Let's not forget that CCP laziness to fix HACs, Command ships derived many people to T3 and as I noticed everyone is OK with it, some HACs are horribly designed and its bonuses sometimes aren't convenient with CPU/ PG/ layout. And my first question in my mind when I played EVE was asking what is the role of HACs in game ? dps and die?
IMO this is sensitive topic which affects most of EVE players, many people spent/lost a lot of ISK / SP and CCP will open can of worms if they dealt with their alleged fixes in not smart way.
Sorry English is not my first language. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10013
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 09:01:00 -
[310] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:
Let's not forget that CCP laziness to fix HACs, Command ships derived many people to T3 and as I noticed everyone is OK with it, some HACs are horribly designed and its bonuses sometimes aren't convenient with CPU/ PG/ layout. And my first question in my mind when I played EVE was asking what is the role of HACs in game ? dps and die?
It's not "laziness". The ship rebalancing program is being done in a coherent sequence, with the T1 ships being reworked before the T2.
It would be nonsensical to rebalance the T2 "specialised" ships before the fundamental roles of the T1s are sorted out.
(Not to mention that the T1 Frigate/Cruiser rebalance was a significant factor in making Retribution the most successful expansion ever.)
Yes, everyone agrees that HACs desperately need a rework. It sucks that they couldn't be among the first classes to be fixed, but there is a good reason for it, and they're basically next up, along with the T2 Frigates (EAFs and Combat Interceptors are even worse off than HACs!)
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
1987
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 09:23:00 -
[311] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:ElQuirko wrote:you're still paying 4-5x the cost of the T2 hull. My Zealot costs 232m isk, my Legion costs 480m isk. That's roughly twice as much. and at that price, their stats are pretty similar tbh. legion will just have more tank. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
1022
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 09:26:00 -
[312] - Quote
55k vs 112k. Twice as much tank for twice as much isk. Oh god. |
Oxide Ammar
Aurora Security Transstellar Operations
5
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 09:57:00 -
[313] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:
Let's not forget that CCP laziness to fix HACs, Command ships derived many people to T3 and as I noticed everyone is OK with it, some HACs are horribly designed and its bonuses sometimes aren't convenient with CPU/ PG/ layout. And my first question in my mind when I played EVE was asking what is the role of HACs in game ? dps and die?
It's not "laziness". The ship rebalancing program is being done in a coherent sequence, with the T1 ships being reworked before the T2. It would be nonsensical to rebalance the T2 "specialised" ships before the fundamental roles of the T1s are sorted out.(Not to mention that the T1 Frigate/Cruiser rebalance was a significant factor in making Retribution the most successful expansion ever.) Yes, everyone agrees that HACs desperately need a rework. It sucks that they couldn't be among the first classes to be fixed, but there is a good reason for it, and they're basically next up, along with the T2 Frigates (EAFs and Combat Interceptors are even worse off than HACs!)
When 10 years have been past from EVE's age and this is the state of HACs then you have 2 options you need to pick one from:
- If they tried to buff/ fix HACs in the past 10 years and this is the result, we call it a Failure. - If this is the state of HACs since EVE launch and after 10 years they are in queue line to start thinking about fixing them, we call it Laziness.
Since the overall trend of CCP is being slow to fix things, I don't want in 20th year anniversary CCP reverting the nerfs they will apply to T3 in the upcoming expansion because clearly I don't want T3 to be option 1 above. |
Alexsis Solette
Hard Knocks Inc.
13
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:00:00 -
[314] - Quote
Tippia wrote:ElQuirko wrote:The hull and subs on your average T3 is going to set you back around 500-700mil. GǪand a HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi and Fleet Command ship is going to set you back just over one billion. That means the T3 costs 0.5GÇô0.7+ù what the T2 equivalent would do GÇö not 4GÇô5+ù as much. You're off by almost an order of magnitude. If you stupidly choose to ignore the versatility GÇö the neat trick you actually pay for GÇö and thus disqualify yourself from making any kind of sensible comparison, it's still only maybe 2+ù for a single function, as Riot Girl points outGǪ If you want to add the 500M worth of vanity fittings that people put onto their T3s, then we'll have to do the same to the T2 cruisers to maintain a reliable point of comparison, at which point they will close in on 1.5GÇô2bn. That's the number you need to compare against. And we haven't even gotten to the ridiculously short training path and the vastly simplified logistics the much cheaper price of a T3 buys you.
Just gotta say, what are you smoking? You pay 4-600m for the tech 3 HULL AND SUBSYSTEMS. a Tech 2 cruiser HULL will not cost you 1b. You can certainly achieve 1b with fittings added, but then again so can a tech3 and in fact my arazu is my only tech 2 cruiser that even comes within 500m of my typical tech 3 fits.
And what do you mean ridiculously short training path? For both tech 2 and tech 3s you need to get the cruiser V skill, and then for tech 2s you need a speciailized skill such as hac or hic etc. But for a tech 3 you have 6 skills. 1 for the ship and then 1 more for each of the 5 subsystems. And although strategic cruiser is only 5x to the Heavy assault ships 6x, the additional 5 1x skills ends up taking you much longer to get everything to 5. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
177
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:03:00 -
[315] - Quote
To the guys that says the price shouldnt be taken in account at all, invoking that no matters the price everyone will buy the most powerfull ships to fight and go to pewpew (and we are speaking about subcaps here) and that Tech 3 are so much OP, you are totally wrong. Why?
For several reasons :
1.) Everyone would be flying T3s atm if it was the case, cause according to you T3s are SOOOO MUCH OP 2.) Not everyone can afford it 3.) You forgot you're in eve and that every ship you put on the field no matters if its a T3 or a Vindi, you can lose it. People dont like losing ships, even less when they are expensive, so rare are the people flying expensive ships for pvp. (Tell me the last time you saw a fleet of Vindicators?)
Snuff Box is one of the only corps flying Machariel fleets. I think everyone would agree to say Machariels outgun/outrun/outdistance/outetc most of the subcaps (with exceptions in some situations of course...). So why other people dont fly with it fleets of Machs? Ive some ideas here : - Its expensive, people dont wanna take the risk to lose so much money in pvp (WE TAKE THIS RISK) - They are not confident into winning the fight and fear the blob - For every ship you lose, you have to kill like 10 in front or more to be "efficient", so i dont think there is a lot of FC wanting to take this risk
So yeah, please stop yelling "NERF T3S" when you fly only in drakes or whatever scrubby BC for PVP because its the one of the cheapest ships in the game, you dont wanna take any risk and not because of what the ship does.
I am not saying T3s dont need rebalance, i totally agree with the linkylinky nerf/reabalance part. But the "recon" subsystems are fine, the tank is mostly fine, the dps is mostly fine according to the price of the ship. I agree that some subsytems need rebalance, because they just dont make sense. I agree that 100mn tengus are a bit OP, but nothing dramatic.
And, if you think its not normal that tengus do better job than drakes, go kill yourselves. Its not because you're to scared to fly in expensive ships that other ships need nerfing. What i see is just people willing to fly in cheap ships and be able to defeat easylee shiny stuff.
You're so wrong, for obvious reasons. (Yes price, risk and stuff you scrublord)
How you say it in english? In french its "Vouloir le beurre, l'argent du beurre, et le cul de la cr+¬mi+¿re", well apparently according to google, the english version is something about not being able to have a cake and eat it. The french version is so much better so i let it. |
dirtydebbs
Aperture Harmonics K162
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:12:00 -
[316] - Quote
as its already be mentioned I am just going to highlight some aspects that makes the t3 good v bad
they are meant to be adaptable?
how can a ship be adaptable when to do this you would have to carry or store a tone of rigs! you cant possibly make a op ship to the situation you need without having to change rigs constantly and in the long run it not worth it so you then have to fit a t3 and make another t3 to fit a different role,
maybe the answer to that question is to
a) remove rigs on them altogether b) have the rigs fit to the sub system ( ie a energy rig is fitted to a engineering sub and a shield/armour rig fitted to a defensive sub) but still only giving you 3 rigs max, that way the hull is adaptable as you can change you're subs to suite with fitted rigs?
t3s were in my eyes on primarily introduced for wh space hence the tanks and dps of bigger ship's but then less mass why not make them so they are useless out side of wh space?
I am well up for the looking at all sub systems as there are some that are totally worthless or are no longer in line with current ideas ( yes im looking at you loki-hard point efficiency! shouldn't this be changed to only missiles and not split system )
don't get me wrong the tengu was OP for a very long time but with the missile nerf it brought it into line this was a good nerf tbh
as it stands the gains that people seem to see is the fact we have to spend over a bill some time son fittings just to make it worth while as a base t3 is ruffly not that much more or in some cases VERY poor to its t3 counter part,
if they nerf them to be less than a t2 counter part in all cases and at the moment they are if you disregard tank and dps
for the tank and dps subs they have come from sleeper tech ( im not saying there fine but some shipps could do with a slight nerf in these aspects but not by much )
people who talk about 500+ dps cloak nullified ships please send me your fits now !!!
and for us to get the right ship fit takes months of sp training to be worth while and then when we do get popped we then have to re train the sub skills again and again and again.
please ccp don't go batshit crazy on this everything apart from dps and tank on some ship would need to be tweak very slightly as all other fits and subs system combinations to make them equivalent to cruiser hulls t1 and t2 variety's in game are still VERY below par right now or to get them close to the t2 variety we need to spend billions in isk to get even sub par.
example
ECMGU - ROOK/FALCON
the ECMGU is no where near as effective as there t2 counterpart but what they do bring to the field is more tank but still no where as near as any other t3.
running out of time to do all the t2 ships and the t3 counter set up but if you are going to do it you need to do this pick a t2 hull fitted ofc then ge ta t3 and fit it to do the same role then compare the price and the effectiveness of the end product, what you will find is 90% of the fits would either be better tank but poor bonus or almost as good bonus but poor tank or no where in between and the fact you might find that the t3 in some cases has no equivilant in game for what it can do.
and then after all that take into acount the sp loss |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14735
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:18:00 -
[317] - Quote
Alexsis Solette wrote:Just gotta say, what are you smoking? Are you familiar with the conjunction GÇ£andGÇ¥?
Quote:a Tech 2 cruiser HULL will not cost you 1b. GǪand no-one said it did. I said that Gǣa HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi and Fleet Command ship is going to set you back just over one billion.Gǥ
Notice that conjunction in there?
Quote:And what do you mean ridiculously short training path? I mean, for a T3:
Cruiser V (+ù5), Mechanics / Shield ops V + III (+ù1), Electronics V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), [weapon class skills] V + III (+ù1), and Navigaion V (+ù1) = 10 ranks to V, plus miscellaneous.
For the T2 equivalents: Cruiser V (duh, +ù5), Energy Grid Upgrades V (+ù2), Weapon Upgrades V (+ù2), Spaceship Command V (+ù1), Energy Management IV (+ù3), Propulsion Jamming V (+ù3), Graviton Physics V (+ù5), Science V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), Battlecruiser V (+ù6), Warfare Link Specialist 4 (+ù6), Leadership V (+ù1), Armored Warfare V (+ù2), Information Warfare V (+ù2), Siege Warfare V (+ù2), Skirmish Warfare V (+ù2), Cloaking IV (+ù6), Signature Analysis V (+ù1), Electronics Upgrades V (+ù2), Long Range Targeting V (+ù2) = 40 ranks to V, 15 ranks to IV. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10017
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:22:00 -
[318] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:Malcanis wrote:Oxide Ammar wrote:
Let's not forget that CCP laziness to fix HACs, Command ships derived many people to T3 and as I noticed everyone is OK with it, some HACs are horribly designed and its bonuses sometimes aren't convenient with CPU/ PG/ layout. And my first question in my mind when I played EVE was asking what is the role of HACs in game ? dps and die?
It's not "laziness". The ship rebalancing program is being done in a coherent sequence, with the T1 ships being reworked before the T2. It would be nonsensical to rebalance the T2 "specialised" ships before the fundamental roles of the T1s are sorted out.(Not to mention that the T1 Frigate/Cruiser rebalance was a significant factor in making Retribution the most successful expansion ever.) Yes, everyone agrees that HACs desperately need a rework. It sucks that they couldn't be among the first classes to be fixed, but there is a good reason for it, and they're basically next up, along with the T2 Frigates (EAFs and Combat Interceptors are even worse off than HACs!) When 10 years have been past from EVE's age and this is the state of HACs then you have 2 options you need to pick one from: - If they tried to buff/ fix HACs in the past 10 years and this is the result, we call it a Failure. - If this is the state of HACs since EVE launch and after 10 years they are in queue line to start thinking about fixing them, we call it Laziness. Since the overall trend of CCP is being slow to fix things, I don't want in 20th year anniversary CCP reverting the nerfs they will apply to T3 in the upcoming expansion because clearly I don't want T3 to be option 1 above.
You're forgetting that HACs have been extremely popular and successful for much of the time that they've been in game (which is in turn less than 10 years)
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10017
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:27:00 -
[319] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Alexsis Solette wrote:Just gotta say, what are you smoking? Are you familiar with the conjunction GÇ£andGÇ¥? Quote:a Tech 2 cruiser HULL will not cost you 1b. GǪand no-one said it did. I said that GÇ£a HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi and Fleet Command ship is going to set you back just over one billion.GÇ¥ Notice that conjunction in there? Quote:And what do you mean ridiculously short training path? I mean, for a T3: Cruiser V (+ù5), Mechanics / Shield ops V + III (+ù1), Electronics V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), [weapon class skills] V + III (+ù1), and Navigaion V (+ù1) = 10 ranks to V, plus miscellaneous. For the T2 equivalents: Cruiser V (duh, +ù5), Energy Grid Upgrades V (+ù2), Weapon Upgrades V (+ù2), Spaceship Command V (+ù1), Energy Management IV (+ù3), Propulsion Jamming V (+ù3), Graviton Physics V (+ù5), Science V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), Battlecruiser V (+ù6), Warfare Link Specialist 4 (+ù6), Leadership V (+ù1), Armored Warfare V (+ù2), Information Warfare V (+ù2), Siege Warfare V (+ù2), Skirmish Warfare V (+ù2), Cloaking IV (+ù6), Signature Analysis V (+ù1), Electronics Upgrades V (+ù2), Long Range Targeting V (+ù2) = 40 ranks to V, 15 ranks to IV.
I've never heard of anyone using the T3 logi for anything to do with RR, because it doesn't get the all important range bonus.
The Loki and Proteus don't tread all that hard on the Huginn/Lachesis's roles because they work in different fleets; Web Lokis and Tackle Prots support heavy armor fleets; Hugs and Lachs go in shield skirmish fleets.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the +5% warfare link bonus is worth keeping in anything like its current form. The whole fleet boosting ship concept needs to be reworked anyway.
The big advantage that the T3s have is the covops/nulli combo which needs to die, and the EHP subsystems. I'm OK with the EHP subs, especially if the HACs are getting a sig/speed buff, which will help their damage mitigation a lot - none of the T3s are fast compared to HACs even now. But if CCP are keeping the skillpoint loss mechanism, then the EHP subs should definitely stay also.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Tribal Band
689
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:30:00 -
[320] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:SMT008 wrote:Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable. You might have solved most of the rebalancing right there. Simple and effective. Time to call Fozzie ...
There's always the possibility of another option ..
shameless plug |
|
dirtydebbs
Aperture Harmonics K162
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:32:00 -
[321] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Alexsis Solette wrote:Just gotta say, what are you smoking? Are you familiar with the conjunction GÇ£andGÇ¥? Quote:And what do you mean ridiculously short training path? I mean, for a T3: Cruiser V (+ù5), Mechanics / Shield ops V + III (+ù1), Electronics V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), [weapon class skills] V + III (+ù1), and Navigaion V (+ù1) = 10 ranks to V, plus miscellaneous. For the T2 equivalents: Cruiser V (duh, +ù5), Energy Grid Upgrades V (+ù2), Weapon Upgrades V (+ù2), Spaceship Command V (+ù1), Energy Management IV (+ù3), Propulsion Jamming V (+ù3), Graviton Physics V (+ù5), Science V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), Battlecruiser V (+ù6), Warfare Link Specialist 4 (+ù6), Leadership V (+ù1), Armored Warfare V (+ù2), Information Warfare V (+ù2), Siege Warfare V (+ù2), Skirmish Warfare V (+ù2), Cloaking IV (+ù6), Signature Analysis V (+ù1), Electronics Upgrades V (+ù2), Long Range Targeting V (+ù2) = 40 ranks to V, 15 ranks to IV.
think you need to add most of them skills from the t2 plan into the t3 one aswel or al you can do is sit int he ship and spin it around as it just would not be viable to fly |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
177
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:34:00 -
[322] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Tippia wrote:Alexsis Solette wrote:Just gotta say, what are you smoking? Are you familiar with the conjunction GÇ£andGÇ¥? Quote:a Tech 2 cruiser HULL will not cost you 1b. GǪand no-one said it did. I said that GÇ£a HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi and Fleet Command ship is going to set you back just over one billion.GÇ¥ Notice that conjunction in there? Quote:And what do you mean ridiculously short training path? I mean, for a T3: Cruiser V (+ù5), Mechanics / Shield ops V + III (+ù1), Electronics V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), [weapon class skills] V + III (+ù1), and Navigaion V (+ù1) = 10 ranks to V, plus miscellaneous. For the T2 equivalents: Cruiser V (duh, +ù5), Energy Grid Upgrades V (+ù2), Weapon Upgrades V (+ù2), Spaceship Command V (+ù1), Energy Management IV (+ù3), Propulsion Jamming V (+ù3), Graviton Physics V (+ù5), Science V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), Battlecruiser V (+ù6), Warfare Link Specialist 4 (+ù6), Leadership V (+ù1), Armored Warfare V (+ù2), Information Warfare V (+ù2), Siege Warfare V (+ù2), Skirmish Warfare V (+ù2), Cloaking IV (+ù6), Signature Analysis V (+ù1), Electronics Upgrades V (+ù2), Long Range Targeting V (+ù2) = 40 ranks to V, 15 ranks to IV. I've never heard of anyone using the T3 logi for anything to do with RR, because it doesn't get the all important range bonus. The Loki and Proteus don't tread all that hard on the Huginn/Lachesis's roles because they work in different fleets; Web Lokis and Tackle Prots support heavy armor fleets; Hugs and Lachs go in shield skirmish fleets. I don't think anyone is arguing that the +5% warfare link bonus is worth keeping in anything like its current form. The whole fleet boosting ship concept needs to be reworked anyway. The big advantage that the T3s have is the covops/nulli combo which needs to die, and the EHP subsystems. I'm OK with the EHP subs, especially if the HACs are getting a sig/speed buff, which will help their damage mitigation a lot - none of the T3s are fast compared to HACs even now. But if CCP are keeping the skillpoint loss mechanism, then the EHP subs should definitely stay also.
Whats the problem with the covops/nulli sub? That you cant catch them in gate camps? The ships fitted like that do so poor dps, its just fine for scouting. and its an expensive ship for scouting.
I really dont see anything to complain about that.
|
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:35:00 -
[323] - Quote
Tippia wrote:For the T2 equivalents: Cruiser V (duh, +ù5), Energy Grid Upgrades V (+ù2), Weapon Upgrades V (+ù2), Spaceship Command V (+ù1), Energy Management IV (+ù3), Propulsion Jamming V (+ù3), Graviton Physics V (+ù5), Science V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), Battlecruiser V (+ù6), Warfare Link Specialist 4 (+ù6), Leadership V (+ù1), Armored Warfare V (+ù2), Information Warfare V (+ù2), Siege Warfare V (+ù2), Skirmish Warfare V (+ù2), Cloaking IV (+ù6), Signature Analysis V (+ù1), Electronics Upgrades V (+ù2), Long Range Targeting V (+ù2) = 40 ranks to V, 15 ranks to IV. Why are you adding the HICtor requirements when they are something that T3's can't do. |
dirtydebbs
Aperture Harmonics K162
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:41:00 -
[324] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Tippia wrote:[quote=Alexsis Solette]Just gotta say, what are you smoking? Are you familiar with the conjunction GÇ£andGÇ¥? The big advantage that the T3s have is the covops/nulli combo which needs to die, and the EHP subsystems. I'm OK with the EHP subs, especially if the HACs are getting a sig/speed buff, which will help their damage mitigation a lot - none of the T3s are fast compared to HACs even now. But if CCP are keeping the skillpoint loss mechanism, then the EHP subs should definitely stay also.
why should it need to die? do you think a covert ops v a covert nullified t3 woudl survive a proper wh/gate camp?
tbh i would much prefer to use the covert ops over a t3 version for scouting as it is much much faster to align and warp out than a clumbersum t3, ok it can warp to 0 but what going to happan on the other side? insta lock or a good finger clicking will soon declock or point it compared to a covert ops.. the only real benifit a covert ops t3 has over a covert ops is holding point due to tank scan strength is not as good as a covert ops and its locking time is much slower
the one thign i woul dliek to point out is that maybe if you have a nullified sub fitted then you should not b abel to fit stabs |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
177
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:51:00 -
[325] - Quote
Tippia, if you dont give me your main PvP character to see what PvP you do, i will assume you dont have one.
And so everything you're saying is based on nothing but theory. Which is not enough. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3645
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 10:54:00 -
[326] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Tippia wrote:For the T2 equivalents: Cruiser V (duh, +ù5), Energy Grid Upgrades V (+ù2), Weapon Upgrades V (+ù2), Spaceship Command V (+ù1), Energy Management IV (+ù3), Propulsion Jamming V (+ù3), Graviton Physics V (+ù5), Science V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), Battlecruiser V (+ù6), Warfare Link Specialist 4 (+ù6), Leadership V (+ù1), Armored Warfare V (+ù2), Information Warfare V (+ù2), Siege Warfare V (+ù2), Skirmish Warfare V (+ù2), Cloaking IV (+ù6), Signature Analysis V (+ù1), Electronics Upgrades V (+ù2), Long Range Targeting V (+ù2) = 40 ranks to V, 15 ranks to IV. Why are you adding the HICtor requirements when they are something that T3's can't do. Besides the Interdiction Nullifying sub, clearly there's a hidden Interdiction Projection sub you didn't know about. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Liam Mirren
619
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:02:00 -
[327] - Quote
dirtydebbs wrote:Malcanis wrote:Tippia wrote:[quote=Alexsis Solette]Just gotta say, what are you smoking? Are you familiar with the conjunction GÇ£andGÇ¥? The big advantage that the T3s have is the covops/nulli combo which needs to die, and the EHP subsystems. I'm OK with the EHP subs, especially if the HACs are getting a sig/speed buff, which will help their damage mitigation a lot - none of the T3s are fast compared to HACs even now. But if CCP are keeping the skillpoint loss mechanism, then the EHP subs should definitely stay also. why should it need to die? do you think a covert ops v a covert nullified t3 woudl survive a proper wh/gate camp? tbh i would much prefer to use the covert ops over a t3 version for scouting as it is much much faster to align and warp out than a clumbersum t3, ok it can warp to 0 but what going to happan on the other side? insta lock or a good finger clicking will soon declock or point it compared to a covert ops.. the only real benifit a covert ops t3 has over a covert ops is holding point due to tank scan strength is not as good as a covert ops and its locking time is much slower the one thign i woul dliek to point out is that maybe if you have a nullified sub fitted then you should not b abel to fit stabs
Here's what I would do; remove the covert sub from the offensive sub line and drop it in the tank line, together with the nulli one.
That way T3 can choose what kind of offensive sub they want, freedom of choice, but they can't have both covert as nulli and at the same time they have to choose between cloak/nulli or tank.
Also; I really like the "remove rigs from T3" as a way to help them balance and to make them truly adaptable.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14737
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:30:00 -
[328] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I've never heard of anyone using the T3 logi for anything to do with RR, because it doesn't get the all important range bonus.
The Loki and Proteus don't tread all that hard on the Huginn/Lachesis's roles because they work in different fleets; Web Lokis and Tackle Prots support heavy armor fleets; Hugs and Lachs go in shield skirmish fleets. GǪand those subs may very well be fine. It doesn't change the fact that the T3 can fill a wide variety of the T2 specialist roles, and that it's pretty misleading to simply do a 1:1 comparison with a ship that can do all of that and just one of the T2 ships. If all T3s could do was to be HAC++:es, then maybe they'd have a point when complaining about costs and training (actually, not even then would training be a balancing factor in favour of the T3s), but they can do so much more and provide heavily a bonused hull with a single training path.
dirtydebbs wrote:think you need to add most of them skills from the t2 plan into the t3 one aswel or al you can do is sit int he ship and spin it around as it just would not be viable to fly Not really, no. I'm simply comparing what's needed to get the hulls that can fulfil the roles. The notion that, somehow, T3s are expensive and hard to train for requires some pretty huge blinders in order to overlook what it is you get for your SP and ISK. There's a reason why thee T3s were hailed as complete n00bships when they were first introducedGǪ
Sal Landry wrote:Why are you adding the HICtor requirements when they are something that T3's can't do. T2 have HIC; T3 have anti-HIC. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to equate the two in terms of ability. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1171
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:30:00 -
[329] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:
Also; I really like the "remove rigs from T3" as a way to help them balance and to make them truly adaptable.
Still wouldn't make them truly adaptable. Noone but noobs and bears are going to go back to pos to swap out subs + modules to "adapt" their T3 as situation dictates. Every pvp T3 pilot worth their salt already has T3's fit specific to different engagements. It's the difference between a 10s ship change and a 15m ship change. And while you could say, "b-b-but you'll have all your modules right there and know exactly how to change up the ship".....I'll say, "God damit, who the hell took my faction enam....where the fck is it?".......then someone else is going to say, "Oh dude, sorry man, I needed to use it and didn't think you'd mind, it's on my Thorax dude......soz!"
So, this idea of re-configuration is meh at best. HTFU!...for the children! |
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
259
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:32:00 -
[330] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote: Assuming this farce would be the case, Tech 3 Cruisers would drop from Battleship levels of Gank and Tank down to cruiser level? That seems like too large of a nerf.
Not really.
It's a versatile ship but not a specialized ship. That flexibility comes at a price.
It's like in MMORPGs those who multi-class have a penalty, while the pure classes enjoy full class perks. Pures trade the versatility for the benefits of specialization.
This is a win for those specializing in particular careers, and rewards those willing to put the time into it. "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
|
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
259
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:34:00 -
[331] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote: Still wouldn't make them truly adaptable. Noone but noobs and bears are going to go back to pos to swap out subs + modules to "adapt" their T3 as situation dictates.
Well, that's what needs to change.
Those specializing in a ship/skill should be rewarded for that time and effort. More versatile (and easier to get into ships) need to adapt to a situation, instead of being great at all things.
"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
Liam Mirren
619
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:34:00 -
[332] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:
Also; I really like the "remove rigs from T3" as a way to help them balance and to make them truly adaptable.
Still wouldn't make them truly adaptable. Noone but noobs and bears are going to go back to pos to swap out subs + modules to "adapt" their T3 as situation dictates. Every pvp T3 pilot worth their salt already has T3's fit specific to different engagements. It's the difference between a 10s ship change and a 15m ship change. And while you could say that, "b-b-but you'll have all your modules right there and know exactly how to change up the ship".....I'll say, "God damit, who the hell took my faction enam....where the fck is it?".......then someone else is going to say, "Oh dude, sorry man, I needed to use it and didn't think you'd mind, it's on my Thorax dude......soz!"
Sure, but just because there's cookie cutter fleet fits out there (which alter ever so often anyway) doesn't mean that a T3's main feature isn't about being adaptable. Not being "held back" by earlier rig choices helps in that regard, and it also helps in making them more balanced. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
|
Peter Tjordenskiold
90
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:36:00 -
[333] - Quote
T3s are used because they give an advantage for the higher price. A nerf would nothing do than a change to other and cheaper fleet concepts. Currently T3 are used for boosting, mini professions, travel, takling and webbing and as a better HAC. The Tengu as the king for PVE is out of game. Just calling for a nerf doesn't make sense. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1171
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:38:00 -
[334] - Quote
Ace Uoweme wrote:Tom Gerard wrote: Assuming this farce would be the case, Tech 3 Cruisers would drop from Battleship levels of Gank and Tank down to cruiser level? That seems like too large of a nerf.
Not really. It's a versatile ship but not a specialized ship. That flexibility comes at a price. It's like in MMORPGs those who multi-class have a penalty, while the pure classes enjoy full class perks. Pures trade the versatility for the benefits of specialization. This is a win for those specializing in particular careers, and rewards those willing to put the time into it.
T3's are not flexible in the manner to which you speak. The can't be all things at the same time. Besides what you're suggesting would make them subpar in all categories. If so, then please CCP, make sure it performs all roles at the same time. Then I would be ok with it being subpar in every role.
HTFU!...for the children! |
Peter Tjordenskiold
90
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:43:00 -
[335] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: (1) Allow T3s to self-refit subs and modules dynamically in space (this would actually be a useful advantage) (2) Go back in time to around and stem the wealth boom that has meant that it's easy to afford large numbers of fitted ships.
1) isn't possible because of the resulting consequences. Every time a player loses his advantage in PVP he would try to get away by refitt or he would be overpowered.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10022
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:45:00 -
[336] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Malcanis wrote:I've never heard of anyone using the T3 logi for anything to do with RR, because it doesn't get the all important range bonus.
The Loki and Proteus don't tread all that hard on the Huginn/Lachesis's roles because they work in different fleets; Web Lokis and Tackle Prots support heavy armor fleets; Hugs and Lachs go in shield skirmish fleets. GǪand those subs may very well be fine. It doesn't change the fact that the T3 can fill a wide variety of the T2 specialist roles, and that it's pretty misleading to simply do a 1:1 comparison with a ship that can do all of that and just one of the T2 ships...
hmmm maybe sorta.
Because if cost isn't a viable factor in T3 balance, then it's not a viable factor in arguing against why I would simply use T2 specialist ships for any given job rather than a T3 if the T3 isn't superior for anything.
It might be instructive to put up a list of exactly which specialist roles T3s are outperforming the T2 ships on. Which T2 ships are being "obsoleted" by T3s: let's get some more facts and less generalisations into the discussion.
I'll start off with the most obvious one:
- The Cerberus. The Missile Tengu totally dominates the Cerb, no question. It's superior in every way bar ultra-extreme range missile spamming, which is a job that nobody needs doing these days.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Liam Mirren
619
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:45:00 -
[337] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:T3's are not flexible in the manner to which you speak. The can't be all things at the same time. Besides what you're suggesting would make them subpar in all categories. If so, then please CCP, make sure it performs all roles at the same time. Then I would be ok with it being subpar in every role.
That's the point really, because they're now really good and focussed we don't regard them as being versatile, just as a direct upgrade with obvious benefits in stats. This makes it difficult for most ppl to see them as anythign else and thsu they base their issues and logic on this current fact.
Changing T3 to never be best at anything but actually, really, being versatile would make them less obvious choices for obvious stuff like missions or 300 man T3 fleets. It would however make them, perhaps, interesting in smaller engagements and for less straight forward PVE.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10022
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:53:00 -
[338] - Quote
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:Malcanis wrote: (1) Allow T3s to self-refit subs and modules dynamically in space (this would actually be a useful advantage) (2) Go back in time to around and stem the wealth boom that has meant that it's easy to afford large numbers of fitted ships.
1) isn't possible because of the resulting consequences. Every time a player loses his advantage in PVP he would try to get away by refitt or he would be overpowered.
Yeah that's kind of what I mean by "this would actually be a useful advantage".
It's about the only scenario I can think of where "flexibility" actually means flexibility, rather than "You have a wide choice of which role your ship can be fixed into filliing in an inferior way until you can redock and swap your fit out, taking more time than the T2 pilots do to just change their ship".
That's where this whole "flexibility" thing falls down at the moment. You're actually no more flexible in practice than a guy who's just trained HAC IV, Recon IV and Logi IV and bought 3 T2 Cruisers.
You know how many people use their T3s "flexibly" right now, even with the currently overpowered subs?
None. Zero. Nada.
Hangar-based flexibility is a dead concept. It has gone to meet it's maker. It is not pining for the fjords, it is a dead concept. It's in a little concept grave pushing up little concept poppies, mourned and sadly missed by Mrs Concept and the little Concepts.
Rebalance the overpowered subsystems by all means. The Accelerated Ejection Bay is ridiculously good, everyone agress that T3 gang link bonuses are too good and so on. But don't forget to leave a ship that's actually worth flying by the time you're done
1 Kings 12:11
|
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:56:00 -
[339] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Meytal wrote:
You can buy 3-4 T2s for the price of a similar T3.
And that t3 can perform all the jobs those 3-4 t2's can so in that regard its cost is balanced. Not at the same time it can't. If you want a new role, you need to refit; and at that point, you might as well just switch to another ship. The changes necessary are that drastic.
It's all nice and cute to say the T3 fits multiple roles, but it exaggerates the truth and overlooks the fact that you have the same limitation you have when you have multiple ship hulls, and even higher costs. If you could refit IN THE FIELD, including free swapping of T2 rigs, then I would say you have a point. Until then, you don't.
Grath Telkin wrote:Meytal wrote:Recently I compared a (Laser) Legion to an Absolution. Why would you compare a cruiser to a battlecruiser, why wouldn't you compare the Legion to a Zealot and an Omen? Meytal wrote:At this point, I would say that DPS Strategic Cruisers are comparable to DPS Command Ships, and that is acceptable to me.
And here we have the basics of it all, the Legion is doing damage a ship class order higher than the other cruisers, and considering a HAC takes more training than a t3 cruiser why would you ever bother flying the HAC, who's role should be specialized? This is probably the point of contention and where the decisions will be made. They are called Strategic Cruisers, so one might be tempted to think they should fall in line with all other cruisers. Should that be the case? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure CCP will decide, and will most likely decide in favour of Nullsec economy over WH economy.
But like I said, any nerfs (especially to the tank) will make the T3 not worth flying because of the ISK cost and SP cost. Then you've completely killed off a portion of your economy and playerbase.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14737
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 11:59:00 -
[340] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:hmmm maybe sorta.
Because if cost isn't a viable factor in T3 balance, then it's not a viable factor in arguing against why I would simply use T2 specialist ships for any given job rather than a T3 if the T3 isn't superior for anything. Oh, misunderstand me correctlyGǪ
GǪI'm not saying that they're good arguments. I'm saying that even if hull cost and skill investment were reasonable balancing factors, the T3s would still be unbalanced because they are actually cheaper and quicker than the alternatives. So the whole GÇ£hurr burr half a bilGÇ¥ sulking ignores huge portions of what that money actually buys and falls on its own sword. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Myriad Blaze
54
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:01:00 -
[341] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Just remember that no one is going to pay any premium for ships that are mediocre at several roles.
If we're putting a quarter of a million SP on the line, then that ship damb well better do something better than anything else. Otherwise I'll simply buy the 2-3 racial T2 ships instead.
The other huge barrier to "flexibility" is rigs. If I have to destroy the rigs every time I "flexibly" change my T3s role, then it very very quickly becomes cheaper and easier to simply have multiple ships. In fact people have multiple T3s now because of this.
The idea of owning a "flexible" multi-role hull that you can refit to your immediate purpose sounds appealing on the face of it, but there are a large number of game mechanics that make it rather unappealing.
(1) The relative cost of subsystems (2) Rigs (3) Price premium (including SP loss) (4) The need to have multiple fitted ships ready to go in any case in case of ship loss (5) The ease of resupply/reshipping
Basically to make the "flexibility" concept really attractive you have maybe 2 options
(1) Allow T3s to self-refit subs and modules dynamically in space (this would actually be a useful advantage) (2) Go back in time to around and stem the wealth boom that has meant that it's easy to afford large numbers of fitted ships.
Malcanis sums it up very well here. (+1 from me )
From my point of view - and I believe that at least some people share it - T3s are not really "adaptive" or "flexible". When I fit a T3 I always do the same I do when fitting any other ship: I try to find a good fit for the intended task. The only difference from fitting a T1 or T2 is that the T3 has subsystems, which means you need to put some more thought into it. If I'm able to get a better (=more dps or more tank or more specials or being cheaper while being as good) result with another ship I will get that other ship instead. Unless I no longer need the T3 for the original task I would never change the subsystems to fit it for another task; instead I simply buy a second T3 (or T1 or T2 if they are better suited for the task).
I'm not saying that T3s aren't in need of a rebalance. But I believe it will be very difficult to rebalance them without making them obsolete. Maybe it would be a good idea to think out of the box here. I liked the ideas about removing the rig slots and giving T3s the ability to self-refit subs and mods. Imagine flying your explorer T3 in a scanner setup, refit it to a fighting setup on finding a combat site, refit to a PvP or a cloaky fit on noticing neutrals (or reds) on dscan. Yes, this might open a new can of worms and if not done right could make the T3s OP. But that way you would get a truly unique ship type, a jack of all trades but master of none.
Come to think of, as long as T3s are still tough enough to deal with sleepers I would actually like to have such a versatile ship and wouldn't care if they have the best dps/tank or not.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10023
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:01:00 -
[342] - Quote
Cross posting from FHC:
whispous wrote:
I don't think the useful ewar subs (point range, web range) should be able to be combined with the best damage subs. It just makes them into HACs+
Best answer I can think of is to give the subs a rig calibration cost and combine subs & rigs into one large calibration pool.
So if you want the "good" sub combos then you get less or maybe even no rigs
So rather than remove the covops/nulli combo, have it consume a very large amount of calibration.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Tialano Utrigas
Critical Mass Inc. Nexus Fleet
22
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:03:00 -
[343] - Quote
Ah f*ck it, T3's should have their damage projection and tank nerfed and bought back into line, somewhere between Navy Cruiser and Battlecruisers.
In return they should carry the ability to be able to refit off each other (or by themselves perhaps). |
Oxide Ammar
Aurora Security Transstellar Operations
5
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:23:00 -
[344] - Quote
Tialano Utrigas wrote:Ah f*ck it, T3's should have their damage projection and tank nerfed and bought back into line, somewhere between Navy Cruiser and Battlecruisers.
In return they should carry the ability to be able to refit off each other (or by themselves perhaps).
..yea and in same way pls nerf the sleepers sites to the level of lvl 3 missions so we make everything convenient to each other. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:25:00 -
[345] - Quote
Tippia wrote: T2 have HIC; T3 have anti-HIC. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to equate the two in terms of ability.
Yes it does. Stop blatantly lying and saying they perform the same role when they very obviously don't. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14737
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:31:00 -
[346] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Yes it does. Stop blatantly lying and saying they perform the same role when they very obviously don't. Ok. Then T3s are infinitely quicker to train and effectively cost zero, since they provide something that T2s can never do. As such, they need to be nerfed into the stone age. Better?
The question is what do you get for your SP and ISK compared to what you'd have to put in if you took the T2 option. Equating the value of HIC with the value of anti-HIC is not even remotely a stretch. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10024
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:32:00 -
[347] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Malcanis wrote:hmmm maybe sorta.
Because if cost isn't a viable factor in T3 balance, then it's not a viable factor in arguing against why I would simply use T2 specialist ships for any given job rather than a T3 if the T3 isn't superior for anything. Oh, misunderstand me correctlyGǪ GǪI'm not saying that they're good arguments. I'm saying that even if hull cost and skill investment were reasonable balancing factors, the T3s would still be unbalanced because they are actually cheaper and quicker than the alternatives. So the whole Gǣhurr burr half a bilGǥ sulking ignores huge portions of what that money actually buys and falls on its own sword.
The thing is that that half a bill doesn't save you from buying several t2 ships because no one is using their T3s "flexibly". If you want to replace a Command Ship and a HAC and a Recon and a Logi and a HIC with your T3s, you have to buy 3 T3s and a Logi and a HIC, (because T3s can't actually do the Logi or HIC roles). And you usually end up buying a Commandship as well, because safespotting T3s boosters are less useful for mobile fleets, so you want both.
It either buys you a HAC that actually works, or a heavy armour tackle recon that doesn't otherwise exist or a SS linkbooster. The fittings, subsystems and rigs for each role are different; all they have in common is the hull, and by the time you've paid for all the rest, you might as well just get a couple of extra hulls and save yourself the refitting time (not to mention the expense of new rigs).
Most of the T3 emo is because HACs are bad and outdated. Lets see those T2 medium ships fixed and given useful roles, then we'll see how badly T3s actually tread on their toes in everyday situations.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14737
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:48:00 -
[348] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The thing is that that half a bill doesn't save you from buying several t2 ships because no one is using their T3s "flexibly". If you want to replace a Command Ship and a HAC and a Recon and a Logi and a HIC with your T3s, you have to buy 3 T3s and a Logi and a HIC, (because T3s can't actually do the Logi or HIC roles). And you usually end up buying a Commandship as well, because safespotting T3s boosters are less useful for mobile fleets, so you want both.
It either buys you a HAC that actually works, or a heavy armour tackle recon that doesn't otherwise exist or a SS linkbooster. The fittings, subsystems and rigs for each role are different; all they have in common is the hull, and by the time you've paid for all the rest, you might as well just get a couple of extra hulls and save yourself the refitting time (not to mention the expense of new rigs). Oh, I don't knowGǪ I've seen T3 logis being used as supports for cloaky-covert-bridge fleets GÇö jump harmonics 5 is a very fun stat.
The refitting is still entirely possible with reasonable and generic rigs GÇö it's just a button click in the fitting browser, and the time required compared to double-clicking a ship in the hangar can be debated. Still, that only reinforces the notion that it's the rigs that are causing problems for letting the T3 ships have their particular role. So bring that back to the devs as an observation for their next rebalancing batch. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10025
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:55:00 -
[349] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Malcanis wrote:The thing is that that half a bill doesn't save you from buying several t2 ships because no one is using their T3s "flexibly". If you want to replace a Command Ship and a HAC and a Recon and a Logi and a HIC with your T3s, you have to buy 3 T3s and a Logi and a HIC, (because T3s can't actually do the Logi or HIC roles). And you usually end up buying a Commandship as well, because safespotting T3s boosters are less useful for mobile fleets, so you want both.
It either buys you a HAC that actually works, or a heavy armour tackle recon that doesn't otherwise exist or a SS linkbooster. The fittings, subsystems and rigs for each role are different; all they have in common is the hull, and by the time you've paid for all the rest, you might as well just get a couple of extra hulls and save yourself the refitting time (not to mention the expense of new rigs). Oh, I don't knowGǪ I've seen T3 logis being used as supports for cloaky-covert-bridge fleets GÇö jump harmonics 5 is a very fun stat.
I'll take your word for it, but if true, then (1) That's a very niche role indeed and (2) it's not something that T2 Logis can do anyway.
Tippia wrote:The refitting is still entirely possible with reasonable and generic rigs GÇö it's just a button click in the fitting browser, and the time required compared to double-clicking a ship in the hangar can be debated. Still, that only reinforces the notion that it's the rigs that are causing problems for letting the T3 ships have their particular role. So bring that back to the devs as an observation for their next rebalancing batch.
Ah, that weaselist of weasel words: Reasonable
What's reasonable to you might be outrageous to me. And as I said... if you're going to all the time and trouble of making sure that you have the correct fittings saved, and all the rigs and modules present and all the subsystems and yadda yadda... where's the flexibility advantage over just having pre-fitted T2 ship ready to go with a single right-click -> make active?
If flexibility was all that awesome, we'd be using it now. We're not. T3s need to be able to do things that other ships can't or they're pointless; sucking at several roles isn't a role in itself.
Your example of the covops logi is actually a good one - A role that's too niche to justify a ship class of its own that the T3 can sorta of half-ass do.
But complaining about (for instance) the web/tackle subs is erroneous.
Again, lets see a list of exactly which T2 ships are being made useless by T3s.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Haramir Haleths
Nutella Bande
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:55:00 -
[350] - Quote
Make T3 cheaper, problem solved. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10025
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 13:00:00 -
[351] - Quote
Haramir Haleths wrote:Make T3 cheaper, problem solved.
No point making them cheaper if they're not still useful.
I mean unless you want W-space to be depopulated ofc.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14738
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 13:06:00 -
[352] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Ah, that weaselist of weasel words: Reasonable
What's reasonable to you might be outrageous to me. Tank, fitting, cap GÇö those are pretty reasonable no matter what role you're after and no matter what your limits for outrageousness are. There are things that all ships need by virtue of being flown around in space, and there are rigs that improve those facets of the ship.
Quote:And as I said... if you're going to all the time and trouble of making sure that you have the correct fittings saved, and all the rigs and modules present and all the subsystems and yadda yadda... where's the flexibility advantage over just having pre-fitted T2 ship ready to go with a single right-click -> make active? The fact that you only needed to bring one ship along for the ride before you even knew what you were going to do. The value of that flexibility increases with the time the ship stays alive, and this is probably the only place where I'd accept cost as a factor ofGǪ well, anything.
Quote:Your example of the covops logi is actually a good one - A role that's too niche to justify a ship class of its own that the T3 can sorta of half-ass do.
But complaining about (for instance) the web/tackle subs is erroneous. GǪbut then, I don't think anyone is complaining about the web/tackle subs other than when used in combinations that create Recon++:es, HAC++:es, or the odd CS++. I'd argue that, beyond HACs, Combat Recons are another class that T3s do better. Sure, they're a bit weaker as far as the GǣreconGǥ part goes, but they sure as hell make up for it in the GǣcombatGǥ area.
As for the covops logi, that's just part of a pretty wide swath of ability-area that the T3 brings: almost anything that doesn't exist as a covops ship already can be provided by a covops-subbed T3. That's all four non-offensive subs and the various roles they can provide. Of course, that's not really something where they compete with T2, but rather an example of the flexibility advantage. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
589
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 13:06:00 -
[353] - Quote
Haramir Haleths wrote:Make T3 cheaper, problem solved.
Have we made any progress yet on the topic? Nope. Okay. Have a nice day. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10026
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 13:12:00 -
[354] - Quote
Tippia wrote: I don't think anyone is complaining about the web/tackle subs other than when used in combinations that create Recon++:es, HAC++:es, or the odd CS++. I'd argue that, beyond HACs, Combat Recons are another class that T3s do better. Sure, they're a bit weaker as far as the GÇ£reconGÇ¥ part goes, but they sure as hell make up for it in the GÇ£combatGÇ¥ area..
What are your thoughts on giving the subsystems a calibration cost to make certain combinations impossible or at least with reduced/eliminated scope for rigs?
This seems to dial back the powercreep potential while still leaving the option open (I don't like arbitrary limitations)
Incidentally my experience with the tackle/web subs is that DPS is a very secondary consideration. I'd say that if anything, T3s tread on the Force Recons, not the Combat recons, and even then really just the Arazu. The Legion doesn't tread on either the Curse (range bonused Neuts, usually shield tanked) or the Pilgrim (Just as good, 1/3 the price). ECMgus are pretty bad too.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14739
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 13:16:00 -
[355] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:What are your thoughts on giving the subsystems a calibration cost to make certain combinations impossible or at least with reduced/eliminated scope for rigs? Sounds entirely reasonable (there we go again ).
If the GÇ£goodGÇ¥ subs (and let's face it, they will always exist) cost enough calibration to effectively render rigging of those ships impossible, then re-regging becomes a non-issue because you can't fit them anyway. Meanwhile, rigs allow you to make up for the GÇ£lesserGÇ¥ subs' shortcomings.
GǪof course, the tricky bit is to properly identify which is which and calibration-price them accordingly. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Garcia Arnst
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 13:21:00 -
[356] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Cruiser V (+ù5), Mechanics / Shield ops V + III (+ù1), Electronics V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), [weapon class skills] V + III (+ù1), and Navigaion V (+ù1) = 10 ranks to V, plus miscellaneous.
For the T2 equivalents: Cruiser V (duh, +ù5), Energy Grid Upgrades V (+ù2), Weapon Upgrades V (+ù2), Spaceship Command V (+ù1), Energy Management IV (+ù3), Propulsion Jamming V (+ù3), Graviton Physics V (+ù5), Science V (+ù1), Engineering V (+ù1), Battlecruiser V (+ù6), Warfare Link Specialist 4 (+ù6), Leadership V (+ù1), Armored Warfare V (+ù2), Information Warfare V (+ù2), Siege Warfare V (+ù2), Skirmish Warfare V (+ù2), Cloaking IV (+ù6), Signature Analysis V (+ù1), Electronics Upgrades V (+ù2), Long Range Targeting V (+ù2) = 40 ranks to V, 15 ranks to IV.
If you want to boost in a T3 you'll have to train up all the leadership skills listed above anyway:
Warfare Link Specialist 4 (+ù6), Leadership V (+ù1), Armored Warfare V (+ù2), Information Warfare V (+ù2), Siege Warfare V (+ù2), Skirmish Warfare V (+ù2)
If you want to cloak in a T3 you have to train up:
Cloaking IV (+ù6), Electronics Upgrades V
and so on.
The prerequisites to sit in a T3 hull are not the same prerequisites needed to use that T3 in each of the roles outlined, a raw comparison shows precisely nothing. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10026
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 13:26:00 -
[357] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Malcanis wrote:What are your thoughts on giving the subsystems a calibration cost to make certain combinations impossible or at least with reduced/eliminated scope for rigs? Sounds entirely reasonable (there we go again ). If the GǣgoodGǥ subs (and let's face it, they will always exist) cost enough calibration to effectively render rigging of those ships impossible, then re-regging becomes a non-issue because you can't fit them anyway. Meanwhile, rigs allow you to make up for the GǣlesserGǥ subs' shortcomings. GǪof course, the tricky bit is to properly identify which is which and calibration-price them accordingly.
usage stats would be a good first-pass approximation
1 Kings 12:11
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
2135
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 13:29:00 -
[358] - Quote
Blah blah blah.
The obvious answer to the balance problems is to simply introduce Tech 4 ships. They'll be so balanced no one will fly anything else. But they will come at a price, if you die in one not only do you lose SP but CCP will charge an additional $20 to your credit card. THAT my friends is BALANCE!
As you can see I have nothing good to add to this discussion (lol) except maybe to suggest that "flexible" T3s that are meh at everything other ships can do would be ok IF they could mount special tech 3 "Strategic Weapons" that would give them a unique battlefield role. IIRC that was kind of the idea behind the ships in the beginning right?
I want my tengu to be able to shoot AOE nano-killbots at enemy fleets that bypasses shields and armor while slowly whittling away at Hull and modules, or Legions that can "siege" in place for 5 mins and shoot little micro black holes or wormholes at the enemy blob that sucks 2 or 3 enemy ships in and deposits them 5 jump away or something. It would be hilarious.
Yes, I'm drunk on vacation and yes you should be glad CCP won't hire me to do game design stuff |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
2135
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 13:30:00 -
[359] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Tippia wrote:Malcanis wrote:What are your thoughts on giving the subsystems a calibration cost to make certain combinations impossible or at least with reduced/eliminated scope for rigs? Sounds entirely reasonable (there we go again ). If the GǣgoodGǥ subs (and let's face it, they will always exist) cost enough calibration to effectively render rigging of those ships impossible, then re-regging becomes a non-issue because you can't fit them anyway. Meanwhile, rigs allow you to make up for the GǣlesserGǥ subs' shortcomings. GǪof course, the tricky bit is to properly identify which is which and calibration-price them accordingly. usage stats would be a good first-pass approximation
Another wild, drunken idea. Get rid of rigs in tech3s, let the changable sub-systems be the "rigs".
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10026
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 14:13:00 -
[360] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Yes, I'm drunk on vacation and yes you should be glad CCP won't hire me to do game design stuff
So very glad.
(Direct hull damage will be reserved for strip miners)
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1171
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 16:28:00 -
[361] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:T3's are not flexible in the manner to which you speak. The can't be all things at the same time. Besides what you're suggesting would make them subpar in all categories. If so, then please CCP, make sure it performs all roles at the same time. Then I would be ok with it being subpar in every role.
That's the point really, because they're now really good and focussed we don't regard them as being versatile, just as a direct upgrade with obvious benefits in stats. This makes it difficult for most ppl to see them as anything else and thus they base their issues and logic on this current fact. Changing T3 to never be best at anything but actually, really, being versatile would make them less obvious choices for obvious stuff like missions or 300 man T3 fleets. It would however make them, perhaps, interesting in smaller engagements and for less straight forward PVE. - edit - Being able to swap Sub systems while in space (on its own) could be an interesting twistt. Perhaps create some form of "siege mode" with 2 minute cycles where you can't cloak, move or warp but you can swap out subs.
Ok 2 points here.
1) We have plenty of examples of ships not being the best at what they do. Noone uses them. So, you can understand my apprehension at a "nerf" to that extent. It's exactly why so many people hate T3's right now. Because it's a go to ship that apparently a lot of haters can't afford or won't. This mentality is insatiable. There will always be a go to ship and always haters because they can't/won't fly it. And CCP is shoving a shell game down our necks in the guise of content and apparently, a many more people don't realize that.
2) Refitting in space. Never going to happen. Noone is ever going to carry a billion or more in mods around to switch configs on the fly in a combat vessel. What? We'll be able to pull from stockpiles else where? Right. Same system as we store our stuff, yeah that's going to be flexible. I seriously doubt anything like this would ever occur. If it did you can be sure that CCP will build in some significant utterly vulnerable period to it that assures your death
But whatever the case, noone is going to fly a ship that performs a single role at a time that doesn't perform it at the top of the game.....other than noobs without skills, players without isk and fools who cling to racial loyalties. You can consider me, partially, the latter. I haven't trained the falcon or the pilgrim or Armageddon or the Bhaalgorn or any number of other ships of different races that do jobs better than what I can fly. On the other hand, unlike many in this thread, I also don't join the witch hunts to nerf them. Fcking deal with it. Learn how to counter them. Or learn when to turn the ship around and disengage. Being in a Proteus, one on one with a Pilgrim, I do not engage because I know what happens when I have no cap....and people are calling that overpowered.....give me a break!
CCP is feeding off ignorance, inexperience and trollism. CCP's motivation is not to balance a game, it's to increase its income. These continual nerfs of supposedly "overpowered" ship classes and types only serve to require more skill and more isk investment both of which mean more revenue for CCP. HTFU!...for the children! |
Casirio
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
473
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 16:34:00 -
[362] - Quote
so when you guys nerf T3s are you gonna get rid of skillpoint loss? |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1172
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 18:21:00 -
[363] - Quote
Nah, they'll prolly keep it because *yawn* the code's too messy. HTFU!...for the children! |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
5180
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 18:23:00 -
[364] - Quote
Casirio wrote:so when you guys nerf T3s are you gonna get rid of skillpoint loss? Why would they? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1606
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 18:35:00 -
[365] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Price can never be the sole balancing factor, agreed, but it most definitely can be A balancing factor, especially for ships which can be killed in routine engagements without the extraordinary effort required to down eg: a Titan.
Titans die anytime anybody puts the minimal effort into stalking and killing one.
Even by your own suddenly ******** logic my 100 billion isk titan should at the very least be balanced against other supers and caps, and yet one hic, and a single mothership, or 1 hic, and 5 dreads, can down a titan because they've been neutered so hard, because in the words of the CCP Devs, Price cannot be a factor in balancing.
But I guess since you're changing your mind on how you see balance I can assume you'll now be the champion of Titan buffing so that my Titan is the equal isk to power value in supers and or dreads. You know, making a titan worth 30 dreads worth of tank and firepower, or 4 supers of tank and firepower (roughtly 50k dps or so, and about 100 million hp by your logic).
Tell me why as they sit right now you'd ever use a HAC over a combat t3? Hell, tell me why you'd ever use a Huggin over a webbing (armor or shield) Loki? Oh whats that, you wouldn't? The T3 is significantly less training time you say? And outclasses just about everything it has to compete with you say? Oh its made several classes of ship simply useless you say and the only justifiable reason that you can come up with is price?
And cry me a rive about the skill point loss, as a guy who's lost 12 T3's and had to retrain those skills several times I can say that the 3-5 days it takes isn't really a detractor, and anybody who says it is, is largely just a whiney ninny.
|
Rune Ainur
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 18:39:00 -
[366] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:Got to agree with Tippia on this one, T3s already offer stuff that is just way too broken powerfull compared to T2 due to that flexibility its just fair their performance drops a bit in exchange for that flexibility.
think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter.
price is NEVER a performance measurement, if it was, marauders would be destroying capital ships like they were frigates and would be impervious to any sub capital ship.
You mad you can't catch T3s in your impossible-to-escape camped entrance systems to Providence?
I think so. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10036
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 18:42:00 -
[367] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Malcanis wrote: Price can never be the sole balancing factor, agreed, but it most definitely can be A balancing factor, especially for ships which can be killed in routine engagements without the extraordinary effort required to down eg: a Titan. Titans die anytime anybody puts the minimal effort into stalking and killing one.
OK go kill me one tonight.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1606
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 18:52:00 -
[368] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Malcanis wrote: Price can never be the sole balancing factor, agreed, but it most definitely can be A balancing factor, especially for ships which can be killed in routine engagements without the extraordinary effort required to down eg: a Titan. Titans die anytime anybody puts the minimal effort into stalking and killing one. OK go kill me one tonight.
If anybody had bothered to try one would have died last night as it simply motor'd out of a pos afk, fortunately nobody bothered and the titan was warned and went back in, acting like titans are hard to kill, or daring the alliance thats killed more than anybody else in EVE to kill one makes you look....well it makes you look dumb malcanis.
I understand that your inept alliance struggles with it but mine doesn't, we average several killed a year, every year, for as long as I've been here.
Please though, go on and tell me about how price should matter in balance for everything except the most expensive ships in game.
I'm all ears.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10036
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 18:55:00 -
[369] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Malcanis wrote: Price can never be the sole balancing factor, agreed, but it most definitely can be A balancing factor, especially for ships which can be killed in routine engagements without the extraordinary effort required to down eg: a Titan. Titans die anytime anybody puts the minimal effort into stalking and killing one. Even by your own suddenly ******** logic my 100 billion isk titan should at the very least be balanced against other supers and caps, and yet one hic, and a single mothership, or 1 hic, and 5 dreads, can down a titan because they've been neutered so hard, because in the words of the CCP Devs, Price cannot be a factor in balancing. But I guess since you're changing your mind on how you see balance I can assume you'll now be the champion of Titan buffing so that my Titan is the equal isk to power value in supers and or dreads. You know, making a titan worth 30 dreads worth of tank and firepower, or 4 supers of tank and firepower (roughtly 50k dps or so, and about 100 million hp by your logic). Tell me why as they sit right now you'd ever use a HAC over a combat t3? Hell, tell me why you'd ever use a Huggin over a webbing (armor or shield) Loki? Oh whats that, you wouldn't? The T3 is significantly less training time you say? And outclasses just about everything it has to compete with you say? Oh its made several classes of ship simply useless you say and the only justifiable reason that you can come up with is price? And cry me a rive about the skill point loss, as a guy who's lost 12 T3's and had to retrain those skills several times I can say that the 3-5 days it takes isn't really a detractor, and anybody who says it is, is largely just a whiney ninny.
Your tears are precious btw and I'm not done with titans yet.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1606
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 19:08:00 -
[370] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Malcanis wrote: Price can never be the sole balancing factor, agreed, but it most definitely can be A balancing factor, especially for ships which can be killed in routine engagements without the extraordinary effort required to down eg: a Titan. Titans die anytime anybody puts the minimal effort into stalking and killing one. Even by your own suddenly ******** logic my 100 billion isk titan should at the very least be balanced against other supers and caps, and yet one hic, and a single mothership, or 1 hic, and 5 dreads, can down a titan because they've been neutered so hard, because in the words of the CCP Devs, Price cannot be a factor in balancing. But I guess since you're changing your mind on how you see balance I can assume you'll now be the champion of Titan buffing so that my Titan is the equal isk to power value in supers and or dreads. You know, making a titan worth 30 dreads worth of tank and firepower, or 4 supers of tank and firepower (roughtly 50k dps or so, and about 100 million hp by your logic). Tell me why as they sit right now you'd ever use a HAC over a combat t3? Hell, tell me why you'd ever use a Huggin over a webbing (armor or shield) Loki? Oh whats that, you wouldn't? The T3 is significantly less training time you say? And outclasses just about everything it has to compete with you say? Oh its made several classes of ship simply useless you say and the only justifiable reason that you can come up with is price? And cry me a rive about the skill point loss, as a guy who's lost 12 T3's and had to retrain those skills several times I can say that the 3-5 days it takes isn't really a detractor, and anybody who says it is, is largely just a whiney ninny. Your tears are precious btw and I'm not done with titans yet.
Yes because you have say in the design process, sorry thats not the way it works, I know what the CSM is and how it works, and I know what your limitations are.
|
|
FraXy
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 19:50:00 -
[371] - Quote
If anyone responsible for balancing or can pass along.
When T3s are receiving the critical stare, bribe someone to code the rig slots onto the Engineering subsystem so we can have a relatively inexpensive way to CHANGE THE GODDAMN RIGS.
Thank you. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
911
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 19:51:00 -
[372] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The other huge barrier to "flexibility" is rigs. If I have to destroy the rigs every time I "flexibly" change my T3s role, then it very very quickly becomes cheaper and easier to simply have multiple ships. In fact people have multiple T3s now because of this oh I have an idea for that.
remove rig slots from the hull itself, add them to the subsystems instead. perhaps 2 per sub. increase the rig points accordingly, BUT, restrict rig types to the subsystems. offensive subs can only carry weapon rigs, electronic rigs go to the electronic subs, etc etc, etc, [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Liltha
Lost My Way Enterprises
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 23:53:00 -
[373] - Quote
Or add a 6th subsystem that contains the rigs themselves and they remain on that subsystem, then you can swap out the rigs when you swap the subsystems without losing them and you could keep sets of rigs according to need. |
Typherian
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
39
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 00:11:00 -
[374] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Your tears are precious btw and I'm not done with titans yet.
Is it just me or does this make malcanis look like a petty idiot that ran out of arguments. Debating PL on how hard it is to kill titans while in an alliance like Init is just sad. Seriously sad. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3658
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 00:18:00 -
[375] - Quote
Typherian wrote:Malcanis wrote:Your tears are precious btw and I'm not done with titans yet. Is it just me or does this make malcanis look like a petty idiot that ran out of arguments. Debating PL on how hard it is to kill titans while in an alliance like Init is just sad. Almost as sad as pretending that it was him that nerfed titans and he will nerf them more because he has ~power~. Quit making the CSM look bad malcanis. oh god I think I just agreed with Grath on something. The insanity that is General Discussion has claimed another victim. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Typherian
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
40
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 00:20:00 -
[376] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Typherian wrote:Malcanis wrote:Your tears are precious btw and I'm not done with titans yet. Is it just me or does this make malcanis look like a petty idiot that ran out of arguments. Debating PL on how hard it is to kill titans while in an alliance like Init is just sad. Almost as sad as pretending that it was him that nerfed titans and he will nerf them more because he has ~power~. Quit making the CSM look bad malcanis. oh god I think I just agreed with Grath on something. The insanity that is General Discussion has claimed another victim.
confirmed. Add beer and I'm about as coherent as a syphilitic monkey with a brain disorder. |
Amarra Mandalin
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
595
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 00:23:00 -
[377] - Quote
Everyone has a bad day. I'm pulling for Malcanis's recovery. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3660
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 00:26:00 -
[378] - Quote
Typherian wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Typherian wrote:Malcanis wrote:Your tears are precious btw and I'm not done with titans yet. Is it just me or does this make malcanis look like a petty idiot that ran out of arguments. Debating PL on how hard it is to kill titans while in an alliance like Init is just sad. Almost as sad as pretending that it was him that nerfed titans and he will nerf them more because he has ~power~. Quit making the CSM look bad malcanis. oh god I think I just agreed with Grath on something. The insanity that is General Discussion has claimed another victim. confirmed. Add beer and I'm about as coherent as a syphilitic monkey with a brain disorder. Beer is ok. If only we were friends enough so that you could join Boat's fleet and shoot TEST structures. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Typherian
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 00:29:00 -
[379] - Quote
I will be sure to have an extra beer in salute next time we engage in glorious internet spaceship combat. o7
Oh and I must admit I love a good boat fleet. |
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
525
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 02:15:00 -
[380] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Grimpak wrote:Kor'el Izia wrote:You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market. if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1. Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more.
depends on how big the supply is. There have been items, over the years, that were extremely highly supplied, wherein the Meta 1 and 2 loot versions were cheaper than the T1 items at Jita. So if the supply was large enough X-types might be cheaper than Tech 1 simply because of the mineral cost attached to T1.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
|
Liltha
Lost My Way Enterprises
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 05:52:00 -
[381] - Quote
Ris Dnalor wrote:Lexmana wrote:Grimpak wrote:Kor'el Izia wrote:You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market. if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1. Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more. depends on how big the supply is. There have been items, over the years, that were extremely highly supplied, wherein the Meta 1 and 2 loot versions were cheaper than the T1 items at Jita. So if the supply was large enough X-types might be cheaper than Tech 1 simply because of the mineral cost attached to T1.
Possibly, but a lot of that price desrepency was because most people used meta 3/4 or tech 2 items, no one used the lower metas so they got refined into minerals, but the meta 1 and 2 had less minerals than the base item so they were worth next to nothing. In the case of the X-type it would be used by everyone so not really sure it would drop below the tech 1 price though you'd see the price of 3 and 4 drop to base prices and tech 2 would never be made again nor would the base items as any existing amounts would be refined as there would be no more demand for anything other than the X-types. This is of course assuming the supply of X-types got close to current supplies of tech 1 modules. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
179
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 09:15:00 -
[382] - Quote
Liltha wrote:Ris Dnalor wrote:Lexmana wrote:Grimpak wrote:Kor'el Izia wrote:You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market. if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1. Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more. depends on how big the supply is. There have been items, over the years, that were extremely highly supplied, wherein the Meta 1 and 2 loot versions were cheaper than the T1 items at Jita. So if the supply was large enough X-types might be cheaper than Tech 1 simply because of the mineral cost attached to T1. Possibly, but a lot of that price desrepency was because most people used meta 3/4 or tech 2 items, no one used the lower metas so they got refined into minerals, but the meta 1 and 2 had less minerals than the base item so they were worth next to nothing. In the case of the X-type it would be used by everyone so not really sure it would drop below the tech 1 price though you'd see the price of 3 and 4 drop to base prices and tech 2 would never be made again nor would the base items as any existing amounts would be refined as there would be no more demand for anything other than the X-types. This is of course assuming the supply of X-types got close to current supplies of tech 1 modules. Well, i think that everyone agrees that it would be stupid to provide as much or even more X-type modules than T1. (Im gonna give obvious reasons for it cause people will say im just a mad guy who ran out of arguments other way... So yeah, that would make disappear any progression curve, so kill the interest of having shiny stuff, which is for a lot of people a reason to play among a lot of other reasons, and plus it would make useless all the other modules) Tippia is just a ******* communist, theorycrafting stupid stuff without even apparently pvping. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
310
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 09:17:00 -
[383] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:So where do I go to find a linkable image version of this? EDIT: I also thought of something actually constructive to say. I want to quote someone from CSM7 - "Don't throw the Legion out with the Tengu bathwater." Here. Note the date on that blog postGǪ
Yeah, about that...
...that's the old one, and if you click the link that I.. well.. linked, it shows the new one. I already have the old one, but it's old and outdated. I'm looking for the new one, as an image rather than a video snippet.
I would reply to your snark with counter-snark about reading comprehension and visual acuity, but I really don't feel like it. |
Donedy
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
179
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 09:24:00 -
[384] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Tippia wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:So where do I go to find a linkable image version of this? EDIT: I also thought of something actually constructive to say. I want to quote someone from CSM7 - "Don't throw the Legion out with the Tengu bathwater." Here. Note the date on that blog postGǪ Yeah, about that... ...that's the old one, and if you click the link that I.. well.. linked, it shows the new one. I already have the old one, but it's old and outdated. I'm looking for the new one, as an image rather than a video snippet. I would reply to your snark with counter-snark about reading comprehension and visual acuity, but I really don't feel like it. Screenshot -> Resize -> Upload |
Wallis Jenkins
Revenge of the Liquidators
21
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 11:24:00 -
[385] - Quote
NERF NERF NERF!!! This is the way the world ends... |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3682
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 11:27:00 -
[386] - Quote
So does the chart need to be corrected, or is it working as intended? I am a nullsec zealot. |
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
1103
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 11:29:00 -
[387] - Quote
Why did you necro post this? One of the oldest mission players in EVE designed a chart that explains stat priority in regards to mission running, compared Alpha, DPS, Ship Speed and Sig Radius and scores them. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m24dbrfuWn1r86ax8o1_1280.jpg |
AlStorm Prime
Revenge of the Liquidators
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 12:25:00 -
[388] - Quote
Just like in my visions.
Null sec super stars say - tech3 are overpowered and need fixes more then tech2.
Low sec super stars say - tech3 are overpowered and need fixes more then tech2
CCP says - Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance...
W-space super stars say - HEY! Hands away from my tech3! I used to rule all other ships and fleets just with one hand while drinking soda! How i will live without this further??? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14815
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 13:01:00 -
[389] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Yeah, about that...
...that's the old one, and if you click the link that I.. well.. linked, it shows the new one. GǪwhich is not different in any way that matters. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10117
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 13:05:00 -
[390] - Quote
AlStorm Prime wrote:Just like in my visions. Null sec super stars say - tech3 are overpowered and need fixes more then tech2.
I guess am not a superstar
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
Charles the Miner
Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 13:48:00 -
[391] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:SMT008 wrote:Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable. You might have solved most of the rebalancing right there. Simple and effective. Time to call Fozzie ... It would certainly be a great compromise.
Remove raw stats, but change mechanics so that T3 are truly flexible and only depend on their sub-systems.
It should remove some balancing pains, in order to ensure that T3 never beats a specialized T2 hull for a single purpose.
The problem is, when has "jack of all trades, king of nothing" ever been worthwhile in an MMO?
Being able to exchange subs at places where one could also just store other specialized T2 hulls, isn't really being flexible.
On that note, I see the true strenght of T3 as being able to rival multiple T2 hull stats, in one hull. That's kinda what we have now; it's a very fine line to walk.
Should they remove rigs, they need to add more subsystems, to expand the roles T3 can be fitted for. Maybe add a backup sub for each slot, so T3 can activate and de-activate subs on the fly? Increasing flexibility, but at the risk of losing x2 the ISK if you get blown up?
|
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2879
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 14:00:00 -
[392] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I guess am not a superstar But,but... I voted for you because I thought you were :( |
Merouk Baas
676
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 14:20:00 -
[393] - Quote
My crazy idea for "flexible but not overpowered" would be:
- give the ship plenty of slots - give the ship a zillion different bonuses, but all small - have the ship have an amplified stacking penalty effect so you cannot take any one stat to ludicrous levels via modules
This should promote installing everything and the kitchen sink in your solomobile, without making a solopwnmobile.
|
Dual B
Duol's Corp
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 14:40:00 -
[394] - Quote
Merouk Baas wrote:My crazy idea for "flexible but not overpowered" would be:
- give the ship plenty of slots - give the ship a zillion different bonuses, but all small - have the ship have an amplified stacking penalty effect so you cannot take any one stat to ludicrous levels via modules
This should promote installing everything and the kitchen sink in your solomobile, without making a solopwnmobile.
Congratulations, you just came up with the most complicated and difficult to balance solution to this 'problem'...
Ever. |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
285
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 20:34:00 -
[395] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
What I really hope is that CCP realizes that EVE isn't "Tengus Online". It seems that everyone bases the status of T3's off of the admittedly overpowered Tengus, but they fail to even look at the performance of other T3's...
How about you start with nerfing the Tengus rather than just breaking every other T3? The Legion is already fine as it is, nerfing all T3's would maintain the imbalance between the Tengu and everything else. What you want to break is the overpowered status of the Tengu, but why ruin the Legion and Proteus?
If CCP just nerfed everything in a T3 and increased them in the name of "flexibility", no one in their right mind would use a T3 in the first place. T3's are useful because they are tanky and powerful - why would I spend 700M ISK on a T3 if I could be outperformed by a HAC? Because I can keep another 1.4bn ISK worth of subsystems in my cargo? Thinking so is ludicrous. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3689
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 21:04:00 -
[396] - Quote
Nyancat Audeles wrote:What I really hope is that CCP realizes that EVE isn't "Tengus Online". It seems that everyone bases the status of T3's off of the admittedly overpowered Tengus, but they fail to even look at the performance of other T3's...
How about you start with nerfing the Tengus rather than just breaking every other T3? The Legion is already fine as it is, nerfing all T3's would maintain the imbalance between the Tengu and everything else. What you want to break is the overpowered status of the Tengu, but why ruin the Legion and Proteus?
If CCP just nerfed everything in a T3 and increased them in the name of "flexibility", no one in their right mind would use a T3 in the first place. T3's are useful because they are tanky and powerful - why would I spend 700M ISK on a T3 if I could be outperformed by a HAC? Because I can keep another 1.4bn ISK worth of subsystems in my cargo? Thinking so is ludicrous. Sounds like a nice lossmail. I am a nullsec zealot. |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
286
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 21:05:00 -
[397] - Quote
Myriad Blaze wrote:Malcanis wrote: Just remember that no one is going to pay any premium for ships that are mediocre at several roles.
If we're putting a quarter of a million SP on the line, then that ship damb well better do something better than anything else. Otherwise I'll simply buy the 2-3 racial T2 ships instead.
The other huge barrier to "flexibility" is rigs. If I have to destroy the rigs every time I "flexibly" change my T3s role, then it very very quickly becomes cheaper and easier to simply have multiple ships. In fact people have multiple T3s now because of this.
The idea of owning a "flexible" multi-role hull that you can refit to your immediate purpose sounds appealing on the face of it, but there are a large number of game mechanics that make it rather unappealing.
(1) The relative cost of subsystems (2) Rigs (3) Price premium (including SP loss) (4) The need to have multiple fitted ships ready to go in any case in case of ship loss (5) The ease of resupply/reshipping
Basically to make the "flexibility" concept really attractive you have maybe 2 options
(1) Allow T3s to self-refit subs and modules dynamically in space (this would actually be a useful advantage) (2) Go back in time to around and stem the wealth boom that has meant that it's easy to afford large numbers of fitted ships.
Malcanis sums it up very well here. (+1 from me ) From my point of view - and I believe that at least some people share it - T3s are not really "adaptive" or "flexible". When I fit a T3 I always do the same I do when fitting any other ship: I try to find a good fit for the intended task. The only difference from fitting a T1 or T2 is that the T3 has subsystems, which means you need to put some more thought into it. If I'm able to get a better (=more dps or more tank or more specials or being cheaper while being as good) result with another ship I will get that other ship instead. Unless I no longer need the T3 for the original task I would never change the subsystems to fit it for another task; instead I simply buy a second T3 (or T1 or T2 if they are better suited for the task). I'm not saying that T3s aren't in need of a rebalance. But I believe it will be very difficult to rebalance them without making them obsolete. Maybe it would be a good idea to think out of the box here. I liked the ideas about removing the rig slots and giving T3s the ability to self-refit subs and mods. Imagine flying your explorer T3 in a scanner setup, refit it to a fighting setup on finding a combat site, refit to a PvP or a cloaky fit on noticing neutrals (or reds) on dscan. Yes, this might open a new can of worms and if not done right could make the T3s OP. But that way you would get a truly unique ship type, a jack of all trades but master of none. Come to think of, as long as T3s are still tough enough to deal with sleepers I would actually like to have such a versatile ship and wouldn't care if they have the best dps/tank or not.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
T3's are NOT versatile. To nerf them would be to make them obsolete! The ideas above are perfect! Make it so a T3 is very good at one task (say, Incursions) or decent at a wide variety of tasks! Make it so we could "focus" our T3's on one thing or "spread" focus among other roles. |
Senn Denroth
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
86
|
Posted - 2013.06.17 05:17:00 -
[398] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Just remember that no one is going to pay any premium for ships that are mediocre at several roles. Remember the glory days of "flexible" pirate ships with split weapon bonuses?
If we're putting a quarter of a million SP on the line, then that ship damb well better do something better than anything else. Otherwise I'll simply buy the 2-3 racial T2 ships instead.
The other huge barrier to "flexibility" is rigs. If I have to destroy the rigs every time I "flexibly" change my T3s role, then it very very quickly becomes cheaper and easier to simply have multiple ships. In fact people have multiple T3s now because of this.
The idea of owning a "flexible" multi-role hull that you can refit to your immediate purpose sounds appealing on the face of it, but there are a large number of game mechanics that make it rather unappealing.
(1) The relative cost of subsystems (2) Rigs (3) Price premium (including SP loss) (4) The need to have multiple fitted ships ready to go in any case in case of ship loss (5) The ease of resupply/reshipping
Basically to make the "flexibility" concept really attractive you have maybe 2 options
(1) Allow T3s to self-refit subs and modules dynamically in space (this would actually be a useful advantage) (2) Go back in time to around and stem the wealth boom that has meant that it's easy to afford large numbers of fitted ships.
You sir hit the nail on the head. Probably one of the only people here looking at things diplomatically.
Or am I to believe that a Tech2 ship is going to be better than a Tech3 ship in every way? Sure if they actually pull off the flexibility factor and make T3's scalable to the situations at hand, why wouldn't I just have a dozen T2 ships instead as I can just own higher Tech level ships.
Also, cool aliens gave us T3's. Why are we questioning their power? lolz |
Pantson Head
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 20:01:00 -
[399] - Quote
I'm bothered by two things in what I've read of this thread. The first is the certainty that tech 3 cruisers need balancing now. The tengu is a better hac than a cerberus. It isn't hard to be better than a cerberus, because a cerberus is bad. Why don't we compare the two after you balance hac's and see where we are. Were t3 cruisers nerfed to **** because a Talos out vagas a vaga? No, HAC balancing is yet to come and may end up with both ships being viable kiting tackle killers or good soloing ships. However you feel strategic cruisers should compare to t2 ships in their specialized roles, the performance of those t2 ships in those roles is soon to change so a sense of certainty that changes need to happen to tech 3 ships could very well lead to unnecessary changes being made for the sake of doing something.
My other fear is that the fact that a great many pilots make their living from the construction of these ships doesn't seem to be an issue in much of the discussion. Many suggestions here would empty out wormholes faster than an outbreak of the Bubonic Plague. While it isn't written in stone that tech 3 production needs to form a significant part of the WH economy, possible effects on that economy should be something which are taken into the discussion from the very start. The health of wormholes is intricately linked with strategic cruisers and cannot be an afterthought. |
Ooklah TheMoc
Balls and Shaft
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 17:11:00 -
[400] - Quote
T3's themselves are not OP. Its the subsystems that are OP. Fix the subsystems and fix T3's. A Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locust Analyzer should not be intended for a PVP fit but its bonus' to slots are what makes a Tengu have a BS tank not the tengu hull itself. Fix the subsystems or give the hull base slots regardless of what subs you have on it. |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
898
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 17:46:00 -
[401] - Quote
Ooklah TheMoc wrote:T3's themselves are not OP.
Pretty much this.
Scrap command subs, scrap OGB ----> if people still put T3 links ship on the field over a command ship they will be doing it wrong.
HACs spot: Hacs are terrible, how many times we need to go through this???
T1 Cruisers are fine now, som estill need adjustements but still, T2 cruisers and specially HACs need to take the same balance path which means :BUFFS therefore relegating T3's to their spot without even touching them.
Last point, once HACs are balanced vs T1 performances all the sudden T3's will be the last choice for large fleets because HACs will do their job for 1/3rd of the price, the "cost is not a balance argument" propagande works fine,hundreds o hurricanes turning appart capitals "yey OP success we're gods", Drakes by thousands thrown at the enemy face "yey we win because we're too good" Caracals against Munnins fleets "yey kill only half of them but they lost "x billions more than us", Bombers shooting structures "yey cost/balance FU in the face" ...
I'm waiting all of the T3 hating guys right around the corner after T2 balance to provide them links to their own posts, eventually fleet battle repports to see how many man up and assume their stupidity but I already know the answer: none because those brainless fowllowers can't see any further than their nose and think above what they're told to.
Gallente got nerf to the ground years ago for these same argumentations and idiots posting, they needed another pixels icon to pass their anger and frustration instead of using their brains, T3's are their goal and they will probably succeed to ruin an awesome addition to the game just because they can and have the friends to achieve this.
CCP being CCP, whoever is on the idea of training for those T3's skip it, from what I can read those will soon enough be turned ion to hangar queens and collectors for years to come.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
160
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 18:40:00 -
[402] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:
Seriously tho.
Yes, some subsystems need rebalancing. Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.
This is a big issue with T3s. CCP wants T3s to be all versatile by changing out the sub systems, but you have to destroy the rigs each time you change sub systems to get best use out of the fit most of the time.
REMOVE RIGS from T3 HULLS
CCP should rework sub system bonuses to compensate for losing rigs. R.I.P. Vile Rat |
Christopher Multsanti
Frag Executors ROMANIAN-LEGION
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 21:39:00 -
[403] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
I like the overall proposal and idea but t3s should be able to have interchangeable rigs (without them getting destroyed when removed) otherwise it does defeat the purpose of them being flexible.
|
Christopher Multsanti
Frag Executors ROMANIAN-LEGION
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 21:41:00 -
[404] - Quote
Kyt Thrace wrote:SMT008 wrote:
Seriously tho.
Yes, some subsystems need rebalancing. Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.
This is a big issue with T3s. CCP wants T3s to be all versatile by changing out the sub systems, but you have to destroy the rigs each time you change sub systems to get best use out of the fit most of the time. REMOVE RIGS from T3 HULLS CCP should rework sub system bonuses to compensate for losing rigs.
I agree with the fact it negates the purpose of them being flexible but why not make t3s the only ships that can change rigs without them getting destroyed. problem solved. |
Nyla Skin
Maximum fun chamber
258
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:07:00 -
[405] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:The popularity of a T3 comes from exactly what is saying needs to be fixed: adaptability & flexibility. These are exactly the reasons they're popular and yet CCP wants to fix that. No. The reason they're popular is because they outperform T2 ships for a fraction of the cost (and training time), and that is what CCP wants to fix since the intended design is that they should be adaptable and flexible, but not as good at any one thing as T2 ships are.
And nobody would want to fly such a "master of none" ship, would they? I know I wouldn't. In after the lock :P -á - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4147
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 04:14:00 -
[406] - Quote
Christopher Multsanti wrote:Kyt Thrace wrote:SMT008 wrote: Seriously tho.
Yes, some subsystems need rebalancing. Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.
This is a big issue with T3s. CCP wants T3s to be all versatile by changing out the sub systems, but you have to destroy the rigs each time you change sub systems to get best use out of the fit most of the time. REMOVE RIGS from T3 HULLS CCP should rework sub system bonuses to compensate for losing rigs. I agree with the fact it negates the purpose of them being flexible but why not make t3s the only ships that can change rigs without them getting destroyed. problem solved. Pretty great. Of course rigs and your skillpoints are destroyed when the ship is. There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2194
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 09:41:00 -
[407] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote: That CCP is nerfing the current top dog irks me because of the investment I've made in skilling for those hulls. Once T2's become the top dog CCP will then again want to nerf those hulls devaluing any investment in time and isk I've made there and so on and so on.
I have skilled all subsystems for a Loki, Legion and Proteus to V (left out the Tengu because it is so OP I consider it embarassingly lame to be seen flying one), but I'm personally looking forward for a rebalance.
It definitely is going to be a tough one - my explo T3s would be a fine example - they can probe, cloak, fit a codebreaker, analyzer and salvager at the same time and still perform reasonably good without being particularily good at anything.
Compared to other nerfs, even if you consider them useless after it, the SP investment is a minor one - I have HAC and CS on V on two characters and after the current rebalance, I'd love to redistribute the SP into something different (maybe not CS, but definitely HAC skills), but such is life.
Compared to Supercarrier pilots whose drone SP where rendered useless in a whim, having a couple of x1 skills that aren't as useful anymore is nothing.
Welcome to eve You know... morons. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7591
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 10:37:00 -
[408] - Quote
Nyla Skin wrote: And nobody would want to fly such a "master of none" ship, would they? I know I wouldn't.
Thats because you chase the FOTM. |
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
352
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 14:32:00 -
[409] - Quote
Christopher Multsanti wrote:Kyt Thrace wrote:SMT008 wrote:
Seriously tho.
Yes, some subsystems need rebalancing. Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.
This is a big issue with T3s. CCP wants T3s to be all versatile by changing out the sub systems, but you have to destroy the rigs each time you change sub systems to get best use out of the fit most of the time. REMOVE RIGS from T3 HULLS CCP should rework sub system bonuses to compensate for losing rigs. I agree with the fact it negates the purpose of them being flexible but why not make t3s the only ships that can change rigs without them getting destroyed. problem solved. Because making loot pi+¦atas out of T3 cruiser hulls isn't the solution. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4149
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 15:40:00 -
[410] - Quote
Loot pinatas are great. There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
|
Jezza McWaffle
The-Hole-Idea Void-Legion
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:00:00 -
[411] - Quote
Maybe its just me but everytime I hear someone say "T3's need to be more versatile etc" I think great, ok, so how does this work?
Switching subs mid fight isnt the answer. Because:
A - It will waste valuable time and you will also need to re-fit modules B - It will add a massive cost and risk that wont be worth it (who will put every sub and module needed in their cargo hold)
Also in EVE ships which can do everything but nothing well has NEVER EVER worked. |
Spurty
942
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:11:00 -
[412] - Quote
Looking forward to undocking in my Phantasm and not being laughed at.
You are fixing it right?????????????? --- GÇ£If you think this Universe is bad, you should see some of the others.GÇ¥ GÇò Philip K. **** |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
3326
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 23:08:00 -
[413] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
There will be oceans of tears. Oceans.
The Hate Boat will be out of dry dock before then, I hope.
|
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 01:02:00 -
[414] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Sanadras Riahn wrote:
Tech 3 Cruisers don't necessarily need to be better than Tech 2 ships, but they do need to bring something unique. Something that Tech 2 cruisers can't do. As the chart suggests, that should be filling multiple roles at the same time, while Tech 2 ships would be specialized to fit a single role.
Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense.
But the more expensive the ship, the better its explosion right?
|
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 01:07:00 -
[415] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Malcanis wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Malcanis wrote: Price can never be the sole balancing factor, agreed, but it most definitely can be A balancing factor, especially for ships which can be killed in routine engagements without the extraordinary effort required to down eg: a Titan. Titans die anytime anybody puts the minimal effort into stalking and killing one. Even by your own suddenly ******** logic my 100 billion isk titan should at the very least be balanced against other supers and caps, and yet one hic, and a single mothership, or 1 hic, and 5 dreads, can down a titan because they've been neutered so hard, because in the words of the CCP Devs, Price cannot be a factor in balancing. But I guess since you're changing your mind on how you see balance I can assume you'll now be the champion of Titan buffing so that my Titan is the equal isk to power value in supers and or dreads. You know, making a titan worth 30 dreads worth of tank and firepower, or 4 supers of tank and firepower (roughtly 50k dps or so, and about 100 million hp by your logic). Tell me why as they sit right now you'd ever use a HAC over a combat t3? Hell, tell me why you'd ever use a Huggin over a webbing (armor or shield) Loki? Oh whats that, you wouldn't? The T3 is significantly less training time you say? And outclasses just about everything it has to compete with you say? Oh its made several classes of ship simply useless you say and the only justifiable reason that you can come up with is price? And cry me a rive about the skill point loss, as a guy who's lost 12 T3's and had to retrain those skills several times I can say that the 3-5 days it takes isn't really a detractor, and anybody who says it is, is largely just a whiney ninny. Your tears are precious btw and I'm not done with titans yet. Yes because you have say in the design process, sorry thats not the way it works, I know what the CSM is and how it works, and I know what your limitations are.
Right the CSM is to be a voice for the players. Make suggestions about the game and CCP takes those suggestions in consideration and how it effects the game balance. Correct me please if I'm wrong here.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4167
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 02:46:00 -
[416] - Quote
Mm, nerfing titans. There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
Gealbhan
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
412
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 05:12:00 -
[417] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary:
- Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
- Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
- Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
- Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.
Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
tl;dr - sell your T3 ship now because soon they'll be worthless. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7594
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 06:10:00 -
[418] - Quote
Gealbhan wrote: tl;dr - sell your T3 ship now because soon they'll be worthless.
Only to the people who need an overpowered mess of a ship to succeed. |
Nyla Skin
Maximum fun chamber
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 07:19:00 -
[419] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nyla Skin wrote: And nobody would want to fly such a "master of none" ship, would they? I know I wouldn't.
Thats because you chase the FOTM.
Is this even an argument? And no I don't, its just basic logic. Why would I want to fly a ship that is weaker than everything it faces with no edge whatsoever?
ps. I don't even play this game anymore.. In after the lock :P -á - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies |
baltec1
Bat Country
7594
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 08:01:00 -
[420] - Quote
Nyla Skin wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nyla Skin wrote: And nobody would want to fly such a "master of none" ship, would they? I know I wouldn't.
Thats because you chase the FOTM. Is this even an argument? And no I don't, its just basic logic. Why would I want to fly a ship that is weaker than everything it faces with no edge whatsoever? ps. I don't even play this game anymore..
It is an argument because the only reason peoply fly these ships is because the out class everything else. After seeing a decade of people trying to defend their overpowered ships you start to see the same old poor excuses they give to keep their broken ships.
T3 are not going to be worse than everything else but we know that they will be balanced in such a way that does not invalidate t1 cruisers. A big nerf is garenteed at this point simply because these ships are so out of whack. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: [one page] |