| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10227
   |
Posted - 2013.06.20 08:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
The T3 rebalance shouldn't be until after the T2 rebalance has been done; it's meaningless to compare T3s to HACs and Recons before the T2 cruiser rebalance has been completed.
I personally will be very intensively engaged on this, because any slip up in T3 balancing will have extremely severe repercussions (eg: the economy of W-space), and I think it's fair to say that quite a few of the other CSMs are going to be heavily involved on this subject too.
The summary of my current position on T3s is:
(1) We shouldn't let the hate for T3 link boosters overshadow the other things T3s can do. T3 ships need to be effective to justify the cost and risk of using them, and they need to be effective in a wide enough range of roles that they are popular or W-space is screwed.
(2) Rebalance Command Ships, HACs & Recons first, so we have a valid field of ships to compare them to.
(3) It's OK for T3s to be a better platform than a given T2 ship, as long as it can't exceed the T2 ship in it's specialized role. So it's OK for a Loki to do more DPS and have more EHP than a Vagabond, but it shouldn't be nearly as fast or small as a Vaga, for instance, because speed and evasion are the Vaga's T2 speciality.
(4) Give subsystems a calibration cost, and have them share a common pool of calibration with rigs. This allows us to assign an opportunity cost to picking the "cookie cutter" OP combinations: if you want a 1k DPS tengu that can trivially tank the toughest L4s, then you don't get to have 3x T2 missile rigs as well. In the other hand, careful choice of less-used subs will allow rig combinations that other ships can't attain.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10229
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 09:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
This bears repeating. I do hope the devs share similar views.
Not all of them do yet.
But they will! 
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10234
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 12:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
pft what kind of chump would take a job like that?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10258
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
As Schultz says, it's pointless to try and discuss T3 until the T2 medium range has been reworked.
It's obvious that the t3 link boosters are going to be thoroughly changed, and once they're removed from the equation, the situation is much less clear-cut than some make it out to be.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10260
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 15:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:stup idity wrote:baltec1 wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
If a T3 is not meant to over perform a T1 hull what's the point of it?
T3 will be better than T1, just not to the point where they invalidate hull classes above them let alone in their own class.. You could consider T3s a class of its own. Not when they are called cruisers.
Game balance > fluff
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10261
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 16:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Nyancat Audeles wrote:T3s are not overpowered, but HACs are UNDERPOWERED! So we should buff HACs to be more powerful than T3s? Would that really be healthy for the game? It would create tiny monsters who are called the "Power Creeps". They are related to Cavity Creeps but are immune to Floride based toothpastes. long as we have the attack battlecruiser HACs basically have no role. has very little to do with the T3s.
ABCs own the sniper role but HACs can do more than snipe.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10354
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 12:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Tengu fleets aren't even that common, because you need 150 to do enough damage to break battleship tanks, adn with HAMs you have to be right in their face to do it.
Tengu fleets died as a doctrine the day the new Apocs and Domis hit the server. What we're seeing now is the corpse twitching and festering as the existing stockpiles of fleet fit Tengus are used up and not replaced.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10358
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:Acacia Eden wrote:
T3 are also expensive.
I'll say it again, since people seem to have missed it the first (dozen) time(s). Production costs of ships are not fixed, and thus cost is not a balancing factor. You can say it until you are blue in the face but you will still be wrong. If T3 hulls were cheaper than T1 & T2, they would be OP. The high price creates a barrier to entry and a much bigger investment risk when flying them. So price is a balancing factor, otherwise people would be flying nothing but T3's and super caps.
It's interesting to note that CCP thought that T3s would be slightly cheaper than HACs.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10358
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 13:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Paikis wrote:
Boosting T3s are too good. This is accepted and the Devs have already stated that this will change. But all their other configurations need either huge amounts of bling to fit/work or they just aren't that good.
They will be balancing them with the other cruisers so.. Big nerfs are on the way.
A moderate rebalance is on the way.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10375
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 19:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Acacia Eden wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:Acacia Eden wrote:
T3 are also expensive.
I'll say it again, since people seem to have missed it the first (dozen) time(s). Production costs of ships are not fixed, and thus cost is not a balancing factor. You can say it a thousand times more, if you wish. It won't make it true though. I did see your argument. It's just so logically flawed that I simply ignored it. oh god here I go again... explain your logic then.
Of course cost is a balancing factor. It must never be the sole balancing factor, but it's simply foolish to say that it has no effect at all.
How else can you balance eg: Navy Ships vs T1 basic? The Navy Caracal is simply better than the basic Caracal in every statistic. This is balanced mostly by the fact that it costs more to produce, and the cost factor is much higher than the effectiveness factor
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10379
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Malcanis wrote:How else can you balance eg: Navy Ships vs T1 basic? The Navy Caracal is simply better than the basic Caracal in every statistic. This is balanced mostly by the fact that it costs more to produce, and the cost factor is much higher than the effectiveness factor it's quite more easy to get a T1 blueprint that won't run out and you can improve upon, than a limited run blueprint that you need to use time (in form of LP). thus, the availability of the item is the balance factor here. cost is the consequence, mostly because of a combination of availability and market supply/demand rules.
I'm pretty sure that the massed armies of caldari mission runners could easily provide a 4-digit number of navy caracals per day.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10393
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 10:39:00 -
[12] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rek Seven wrote:
Recons are already better at their job than T3 but they could do with a slightly better tank.
Now they are not balanced with t1 cruisers. Welcome to power creep, a nasty little creature that has plagued this game for 9 years. CCP are no longer buffing everything else around one set of overpowered ships anymore and rightly so. Rek Seven wrote:
At the end of the day, a lot of it is situational and down to player skill as a pilgrim can kill Proteus quite easily.
At the end of the day, T3s are getting three times the tank of that pilgrim and the same firepower but with the added benefit of ignoring bubbles when they warp cloaked and being able to probe down their targets.
Pilgrims can probe down targets.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10471
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 06:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
ITT: dishonest people.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10486
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 21:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:No, no, actually that's not true. We have a "trolling" contest going on between CCP Fozzie, Rise, Tallest and myself to see who can create the biggest rage threadnought on the forums, while we keep scores on a whiteboard. 
The T1 hauler thread was a suprise high scorer, btw
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
10501
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 12:20:00 -
[15] - Quote
Zendon Taredi wrote:Dps nerf is out of the question, they are barely scraping by in that area. 100mn nerf is probablty justified, make the ab sub bonus apply only to 10mn and that's fixed. Maybe the tengu tank is too good? that's all I can think of really. The legion needs love, not nerfs.
Seriously, this discussion is meaningless until after the T2 Cruisers are done.
1 Kings 12:11
|
| |
|