Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sigras
Conglomo
405
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 19:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
There has been a lot of talk, and this chart concerning the meta level of the ships and their relation to each other as far as balance is concerned.
Well that chart shows the theory that T3 ships should be "more generalized" than T1 and not quite as powerful as T2, but what does more generalized even mean? That it can fill multiple roles/lines? Thats useless if your ship has to dock to do it. Why not just have another ship in the station? especially if you have to carry around all of the subsystems/fittings to refit your ship anyway.
What I propose would be a massive undertaking, but it would definitely result in gameplay where T3 ships were more generalized and harder to use but very rewarding if you got them right.
1. change all T3 ships to be 8/8/8 ships and have subsystems turn on/off certain slots instead of giving/removing slots. 2. change all T3 ships to be worse than their T2 counterparts (ie an AHAC fit legion should be worse than an AHAC fit zealot) 3. allow all T3 ships to swap subsystems in combat 4. make a UI that says something like "your new configuration allows for 6 high slots 4 mid slots and 7 low slots; please select the slots you want to be active"
This is the only way youre going to get ships that are more generalized than T1 and less powerful than T2
TL;DR A ship will never be more generalized unless it is able to fill multiple roles or switch roles on the battlefield because anyone can switch roles in a station by switching to a different ship |
Gigan Amilupar
Legion of Darkwind Order of the Void
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 20:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
I don't fly T3's (yet) but I don't really like this idea and I'll explain why.
#1 Doesn't really have any point unless paired with #3 which I'll get to in a minute.
#2 Effectively ruins T3's. No one is going to fly a Legion fit for heavy assault and risk losing SPs on death when they can fly a cheaper zealot that does a better job and doesn't carry that risk.
#3 Subsystems come across to me as some pretty serious hardware so it doesn't seem like switching them out readily is something that is reasonable. Were talking about millions of ISK in advanced hardware that controls the very processing power and power distribution abilities of your ship; it's not like changing a light bulb.
4# No comment, it's just a popup pertaining to #1 and #3.
When CCP says that T3 is supposed to be more generalized I don't think that means T3 ships are supposed to be highly adaptive platforms on the fly. I think it means that the hull itself has lots of different capabilities and can be set up in different ways, although not always in ways superior to a specialized tech 2 hull. For example, as far as warp technology goes a T3 can become immune to non-targeting warp interdiction via an interdiction nullifier and thus be more flexible, but there is no subsystem that allows a T3 to launch interdiction bubbles or use infinite point. And while yes it is true that a T3 might be superior to a HAC in terms of offensive power or by combining covops and an interdiction nullifier be better at running blockades then a blockade runner, in the case of HACs there is more risk involved in flying the T3 (due to aforementioned SP loss) and in the case of blockade runners your probably not going to see a T3 with more cargo space then a BR. While I don't know enough to make any sort of argument that T3's are balanced in relation to other ships in the game (they are without a doubt strong and many players complain about them being OP, although that could just be tears) I can say that T3's are on a delicate ground where CCP has to try and keep them balanced in terms of strength, cost and risk while simultaneously avoiding overlap with other ships (namely T2's) and it's difficult to strike a balance with a ship that is inherently stronger and more versatile in comparison to many others; and I think the T3s current restrictions and risks does a good job of that. If T3s are greatly overshadowing another hull in a particular specialization then that should be a call to revisit THAT hull before deciding whether or not to nerf its T3 counterpart. But that's just my opinion. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
187
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 21:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
That T3 more general chart is ******** as it stands now.
T3's are currently higher risk/higher reward ships because of skill loss. If they're going to change them to be "more general" they need to remove the risk associated with flying them, because no one wants to fly a ship that is worse than a ship half it's cost that does what it needs to do better. |
Mike Flynn
Meltdown.
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 21:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
I believe that some t3 setups give far too much gank to overshadow Hacs, that being said, I don't think it should be outputting t1 cruiser DPS. Though now that has kind of grown considerably. Generalization without being better than another role means that a t3 should be able to put out respectable dps while performing ewar while performing evasion, though not doing any of those better than a ship that is specialized to do them individually.
However folks let's get to the point where we can realistically balance t3's https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=248338&find=unread
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
357
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 21:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
That chart is outdated.
This is the new chart as of FanFest 2013: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKx87NwKaIE&feature=youtu.be&t=8m19s |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
230
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 21:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
more generalization for T3's mean performing multiple roles at the same time i would expect a jack of all trades.. - e-war and links -logi and e-war
possibly even able to do 3 things at a time ... at 80% of T2 level .. but they need to be on the same price scale as T2 cruisers or less -remove SP loss -increase training time on subs and hull -remove rigs to allow subs to switch between shields and armour easily.. encouraging versatility -make subs cheap so it doesn't cost 500mil or more too buy all the subs which atm discourages versatility and sub switching. '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 |
Zircon Dasher
229
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 21:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Who knew that 256k SP was sooooo expensive! lolz Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Sigras
Conglomo
405
|
Posted - 2013.06.14 22:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
Gigan Amilupar wrote:I don't fly T3's (yet) but I don't really like this idea and I'll explain why.
#1 Doesn't really have any point unless paired with #3 which I'll get to in a minute.
#2 Effectively ruins T3's. No one is going to fly a Legion fit for heavy assault and risk losing SPs on death when they can fly a cheaper zealot that does a better job and doesn't carry that risk.
#3 Subsystems come across to me as some pretty serious hardware so it doesn't seem like switching them out readily is something that is reasonable. Were talking about millions of ISK in advanced hardware that controls the very processing power and power distribution abilities of your ship; it's not like changing a light bulb.
4# No comment, it's just a popup pertaining to #1 and #3.
All 4 of those things were ideas to implement together, but in response to #2 no, nobody would fly a legion when a zealot is a better, cheaper less risky ship, but would you fly a legion fit like a zealot that could turn into a guardian or pilgrim on the fly if thats what the fleet needed? I certainly would. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
245
|
Posted - 2013.06.15 01:33:00 -
[9] - Quote
Quote:No one is going to fly a Legion fit for heavy assault and risk losing SPs on death when they can fly a cheaper zealot that does a better job and doesn't carry that risk.
This. People use what is worth using.
Thing is, it's very easy for T2s or T3s to end up invalidating each other at the end of the day.
The problem really comes from the fact that prohibitive expense used to be a balancing factor, but that doctrine is currently being rejected.
T2s at present tend to being flat out better versions of the T1, with a little extra thrown in. They were previously balanced only by their being expensive and having longer training time.
T3s were designed to be a platform whereby you could design of your own accord, a powerful ship for a variety of specific purposes. This failed. Some of the subsystems work, some of them don't, and some of the T3s (Legion) just don't do very many things well. T3s were balanced around their even higher prohibitive expense, and around their skill loss on death, along with the fact that the skills for the T3s are exclusive in that they do not help you build toward anything else, they are just wasted skill points if the T3 in question isn't highly competitive.
The second problem with balancing T3s is that the subsystems aren't really representative of how the game has evolved to work. The cloak subsystems are useless. The link subsystems is built in such a way that it outright assumes the ship will never see combat.
So, a subsystem overhaul is pretty much required, along with price balancing (if they are going to be nerfed overall, their price needs to go down by about 30%). This is compounded by the incoming T2 rebalance.
If they go into the T2 rebalance while keeping T3s in their minds at the same time, then this could turn out well. I hope... Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Sigras
Conglomo
405
|
Posted - 2013.06.15 18:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:more generalization for T3's mean performing multiple roles at the same time i would expect a jack of all trades.. - e-war and links -logi and e-war
possibly even able to do 3 things at a time ... at 80% of T2 level .. but they need to be on the same price scale as T2 cruisers or less -remove SP loss -increase training time on subs and hull -remove rigs to allow subs to switch between shields and armour easily.. encouraging versatility -make subs cheap so it doesn't cost 500mil or more too buy all the subs which atm discourages versatility and sub switching. I agree that more generalization means performing multiple roles on the battlefield at the same time, but how do you do that without being able to switch subsystems on the fly?
If you gave it 8 high slots, a double damage bonus, a RR bonus and 4 turrets so it could both DPS and RR at the same time, most people would just fit neuts in the utility highs for a better combat ship.
if you gave it a bunch of mids and lows with a TD bonus most people would just shield tank it and use the lows for damage.
Switching subsystems mid combat is the only way to make the T3s more generalized.
Also I agree that if they do this, they should remove the SP loss but i think they should keep the price the same |
|
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1177
|
Posted - 2013.06.15 19:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
While I agree they should be able to refit by themselves in space I do not agree that during combat is the correct place. I believe they should have a 1 min refuting penalty while switching subsystems and can refit modules from a special module and subsystem bay around 600m^3. The hull should have a special bonus that reduces the capacitor needs of onlining modules by 15%/level. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
548
|
Posted - 2013.06.15 21:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
The generalization aspect is in having five different types of subsystems. Pick any one subsystem you like, it should not do its role better than a whole ship oriented in that direction. You can now customize the other 4 subsystems to have what you want in conjunction with the one.
Setting up a T3 is about having effective combinations of subsystems. Every subsystem should be balanced to by itself be quite effective though less effective than an entire tech 2 ship streamlined into the same role. A HAC can shoot a bit harder than a tech 3 and maybe tank better, but the tech 3 maybe also has bonused EWAR on it at the same time, or is using interdiction nullifiers to get past a blockade, or maybe just has the specific type of tank/slot setup you want with your particular offense type.
Have to dock to swap subsystems? So what, you can secure a station system deep in enemy territory and do skirmishes around there, hopping back to the station to make quick refits. I feel that any fitting service should be able to swap subsystems though, so that includes a POS or ship fitting service. So you jump a carrier into a system, refit your T3s super fast, then jump it back out again.
That's the way T3s should be, that's what CCP sees in them and I agree. They are already sort of that, but a lot of the subsystems are ****, and a lot of others are overpowered. So the current T3s have "right" setups and everyone uses them as a specialized better-than-tech-2 ship. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
250
|
Posted - 2013.06.15 23:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
Quote:That's the way T3s should be, that's what CCP sees in them and I agree. They are already sort of that, but a lot of the subsystems are ****, and a lot of others are overpowered
I'd agree with some of that statement. Most of the subsystems are ****, but the only ones that are really overpowered is the Tengu missile offensive, and the links. The rest of them, on just about all the T3s, need buffed badly.
Quote:So the current T3s have "right" setups and everyone uses them as a specialized better-than-tech-2 ship
This isn't as much of a problem as you think. T3s still have a huge opportunity cost associated with skilling them, and a possible loss of skillpoints even undocking in one.
Furthermore, if a T3 isn't competitive against a T2, no one will fly it. It's just that simple.
That's the real trick to all of this. Depending on how the T2s turn out after their rebalance, it might be different. But with things standing the way they are now, it's really a knife's edge balance between one side invalidating the other.
My thought is T2s will end up becoming more specialized in their roles, while T3s will become powerful, but not as hyper specialized, in a lot of roles.
But all that hinges on them giving enough of a damn to properly balance the different racial subsystems against each other, and to make certain choices not automatically worse than others. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
367
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 03:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
I went out and bought a Vagabond. Haven't bothered with my Loki since. From what I can tell on Singularity, it'll be the same thing with my Tengu after I buy a Sacrilege. |
Sigras
Conglomo
407
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 03:48:00 -
[15] - Quote
ummm what? the loki is a better vagabond than the vagabond can ever be . . . if you have a vagabond fit that can challenge a loki, i'd love to see it. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
551
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 06:33:00 -
[16] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:I went out and bought a Vagabond. Haven't bothered with my Loki since. From what I can tell on Singularity, it'll be the same thing with my Tengu after I buy a Sacrilege. Vagabond can't get a target painter bonus. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
373
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 08:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Neither can the Loki. You're thinking of web range bonuses. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
551
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 08:52:00 -
[18] - Quote
Yeah that one. Vagabond doesn't get it.
Loki should have a target painter bonus option though. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
713
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 09:34:00 -
[19] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The generalization aspect is in having five different types of subsystems.... Pretty much my understanding of the concept, they can occupy any T2 hull niche by choosing the appropriate subsystems, but never as good at the role as the dedicated T2 and never more than one at a time. Also part of the 'generalisation' is that they are not restricted by the slot tyranny in the same way as T2 hulls often are .. sure one might min/max subs to get enough grid and whatnot but it is not forced.
And didn't they just add, or say they intended to add, the ability to re-sub from POS maintenance arrays to make T3 use in worms more viable? That alone is an insane boost to T3. |
Sigras
Conglomo
412
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 21:22:00 -
[20] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The generalization aspect is in having five different types of subsystems. Pick any one subsystem you like, it should not do its role better than a whole ship oriented in that direction. You can now customize the other 4 subsystems to have what you want in conjunction with the one.
Setting up a T3 is about having effective combinations of subsystems. Every subsystem should be balanced to by itself be quite effective though less effective than an entire tech 2 ship streamlined into the same role. A HAC can shoot a bit harder than a tech 3 and maybe tank better, but the tech 3 maybe also has bonused EWAR on it at the same time, or is using interdiction nullifiers to get past a blockade, or maybe just has the specific type of tank/slot setup you want with your particular offense type. This would be ideal, but right now, the T3 ships outclass HACs in every way (except for the edge cases of the Cerberus range and the Ishtar's drones)
Also, how do you give a ship bonused e-war without giving it a bunch of mid slots that can be re-purposed. Say you make a proteus as a carbon copy of a deimos except it does 10% less damage but has +2 mid slots and a sensor dampening bonus. People would say "screw the damp bonus, im shield tanking this ship" and you'd end up with a shield tanked deimos with extra damage mods/TEs in the lows
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Have to dock to swap subsystems? So what, you can secure a station system deep in enemy territory and do skirmishes around there, hopping back to the station to make quick refits. I feel that any fitting service should be able to swap subsystems though, so that includes a POS or ship fitting service. So you jump a carrier into a system, refit your T3s super fast, then jump it back out again. If you're going to go through the trouble of returning to the station, why not just come back with a different ship specialized for what you want it to do? its cheaper and less risky
Even if youre going to jump in a carrier to refit, why not just bring in the ship you need?
Basically as I see it, there are two options: 1. T3s must be straight better than T2 or nobody will fly them given their cost 2. T3s must be able to refit in combat meaning they arent as good as T2 but can do something T2 ships cant. |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
552
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 21:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Also, how do you give a ship bonused e-war without giving it a bunch of mid slots that can be re-purposed. Say you make a proteus as a carbon copy of a deimos except it does 10% less damage but has +2 mid slots and a sensor dampening bonus. People would say "screw the damp bonus, im shield tanking this ship" and you'd end up with a shield tanked deimos with extra damage mods/TEs in the lows Why give it +2 mid slots? Why not leave it with the same net number of slots as the Deimos, maybe with more total mids but less lows to balance it out. It doesn't even necessarily need that. It could have the same slot layout as a Deimos, 2 hybrid bonuses instead of 3, a sensor damp bonus, and have a strong advantage over a Deimos. The Deimos can fit one or two sensor dampeners too, but it/they won't be nearly as effective. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Sigras
Conglomo
413
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 22:46:00 -
[22] - Quote
be honest, would you really fly that ship? a deimos that looses you SP when you die in it, costs 3x as much and has a sensor damp bonus? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
552
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 22:48:00 -
[23] - Quote
You had me at Deimos with sensor damp bonus. Gimme gimme.
To be honest, I personally would not fly it in most situations, but then I wouldn't really fly a strategic cruiser at all anyway. This has more to do with my inability to keep ships alive than anything else. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Sigras
Conglomo
413
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 23:07:00 -
[24] - Quote
well, maybe the deimos was a bad example cause pretty much nobody wants to fly that ship anyway . . . its nickname is "the die-most" for a reason
That being said, the general consensus in ship fitting is "make your ship do one thing really well" this is why we dont see falcons with mag stabs in the lows, and why we all fit either short ranged or long ranged guns. Years of ship fitting have told us that being flexible isnt as good as being good at what you do, so we make specialized fits for specialized roles; we have dedicated tackle and dedicated e-war ships.
The T3 ships would need a serious incentive to break out of this idea, and I just dont see a ship bonus being that incentive.
We already have ships that ignore some of their bonuses in favor of a more focused ship: the falcon (ignores damage for more jamming) the myrmadon (shield tank fit) the brutix (shield tank fit) the hyperion (shield tank fit) the HICs (ignore damage for additional tank)
This is why I propose being able to switch subsystems mid combat; this would allow the ship to retain it's focused fit, but it would also be able to change what that focus was based on the battlefield.
Now of course you would only have 8/8/8 modules so you could only change to the extend that you prepared for when you undocked, but you could effectively fill 2-3 roles I think.
This would make for some seriously powerful ships, but really expensive as you would be losing all 24 modules + rigs + all the subsystems you were carrying with you at the time. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
552
|
Posted - 2013.06.16 23:33:00 -
[25] - Quote
Maybe T3s should just be ships flown by eccentric master PVPers who know how to properly use them. Maybe they should be rare. MOST people have learned to specialize their ships. This is not because flexible fits are bad, it's because most people can't figure out how to set one up.
Commander Ted can show you a nice Arbitrator fit which makes a great solo pvper. That's a ship with inadequate tank and inadequate dps using its EWAR bonus along with the other two to shine. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Sigras
Conglomo
417
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 10:12:00 -
[26] - Quote
I feel like the elite PvPers all specialize their ships. Looking at the fits of the top PvP groups and individuals, ive seen specialized fit after specialized fit. I am of the opinion that a specialized ship is usually better.
Like I mentioned before, nobody would fit both railguns and blasters to their ship. This would make it more flexible and more versatile but in reality it just makes your ship less effective in the best of circumstances, and marginally less terrible in the worst of circumstances. |
max ericshaun
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire
11
|
Posted - 2013.06.18 12:58:00 -
[27] - Quote
This debate is getting tiresome. I can understand making some of the subsystems more useful. I can even see making some slightly less powerful, but why on earth should a T2 ship be better than a T3? Doesn't T3 mean more technologically advanced than T2? A T3 cruiser fit up as a HAC should be better than a T2 cruiser fit up as a HAC. If anything, increase the skills needed to fly the T3s. Make them much more skill intensive. A good FC with a good fleet of pilots can honestly hold their own in thoraxes against both AHAC fleets and proteus fleets with fairly even numbers. I've been on both sides of that. Stop crying about how over powered they are. The cries for the nerf bat to hit ships that you can't kill is so damn annoying. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
555
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 05:04:00 -
[28] - Quote
In many instances, specialized ships are better. It's highly situational. But most "elite pvpers" are pretty close-minded about fits too. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
717
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 09:51:00 -
[29] - Quote
max ericshaun wrote:...Doesn't T3 mean more technologically advanced than T2?... Yes and no. Advancement is not always vertical, sometimes it goes off to the side.
T3 is the Spork, a sideways evolution of the most basic utensils .. it can function as either a Spoon or a Fork but will always be inferior to the real deals as either. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
417
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 10:04:00 -
[30] - Quote
That is a wonderful analogy. The spork is the personification of T3 ships, made into something suitable for eating my dinner with. For all its versatility though, the spork is not modular. This is what makes it so versatile in the first place. You can eat all kinds of things with it and you don't actually have to touch it (well you do, but..) or modify it in any way. It's just ready to go, all the time.
I wonder if properly capitalizing on the "flexibility" aspect intended for V3s will require going completely back to the drawing board. Perhaps the key to proper T3 flexibility is to assign generalized, well-rounded bonuses to the hull itself. From there, you then add your subsystems, whose bonuses are completely redesigned around the notion of giving certain stats or abilities a nudge this way or the other, with some stripping away a bonus, heavily penalizing a bonus/stat or simply adding a new function/altering the weapon platform with no change to the hull's basic stats.
Such an approach might also include standardizing a slot layout, so that each T3 has its own specific slot layout and only certain subsystems have the ability to move a slot from here to there with no other significant effects, while other powerful subsystems remove a slot entirely as a way of balancing what they do. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |