Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Rek Seven
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
736
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 11:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
The last bit of consequence was the T3 rebalance. Citing a post CCP made about looking into a nerf, someone asked the CSM what they thought. Ripard and Chitsa agreed that cloaky T3s are overpowered in their present configuration, and Chitsa added that boosting T3s are unbalanced as well. I said I'd like it if they scaled worse, so they were a good small gang option but HAMgus were less attractive. James said that he thought the T2 cruiser balancing should come before any serious T3 rebalance, as the big issue for k-space is how the two ship classes interact. Chitsa lamented the potential effect on W-space income if T3 demand was nerfed, and mynnna suggested that the T3s would fit better in the utility role they were advertised for. We could have gone on for longer (and the conversation continued after), but the time demanded we move on. Link: http://themittani.com/features/csm-8-first-town-hall
Can someone explain to me why our representatives think cloaky T3's are OP?
Also, i see very little activity from Chitsa and James on these forums. Does anyone know if either of these two have a list somewhere, of features/changes that they are trying to get CCP to implement? 3 years 6 expansions: incursions, the venture, 3 BCGÇÖs and 3 destroyers... Is this all you are capable of CCP? |
stup idity
21
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 12:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
I think it's because they simple have no equal in what they can do.
You get a heavy tackler with 400 - 500 dps or nullified scan ship (which still can have some dps) with a very heavy tank. High resists and the ability for most of them to fit into armor fleet doctrines let them stay on field when the battle escalates - something that is much harder to do with Arazus or Rapiers.
I think the whole "t3 is op" discussion has to do with the immense tanks they can fit that overshine those of most other sub-caps (and of course the obvious boosting capabilities, but I guess nobody is questioning that). Much too blame is the ability to fit dual 1600mm plates on some fittings and the high hitpoint gain with the defensive buffer subs. Fix those things and bring tech2 cruisers up a little and all will be good - hopefully.
I reign supreme. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
90
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 12:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
cloaky T3s might be OP because they can be cloaky and have both higher dps and tank than a HAC...
Hopefully T3s will get rebalanced only after HACs and CSs are done. Until then it seems pointless and silly to me. W-Space Realtor |
Rek Seven
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
736
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 12:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
I see what you are saying but i don't buy that argument. Yeah it's a good heavy tackler but without the support of a fleet a cloaky T3 can't do much. Two drakes could probably kill a solo cloaky Proteus in under 2 mins. 3 years 6 expansions: incursions, the venture, 3 BCGÇÖs and 3 destroyers... Is this all you are capable of CCP? |
Talon Reese
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 13:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Also, a T3 costs 3-5 times what a HAC costs, and you risk some skill loss. It ought to be at least a bit better than a HAC. But I agree that the t2 changes should be made 1st, it wouldn't make sense to try and balance the t3's without knowing what the t2 changes will be. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
276
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 13:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Bit confused about the desire to nerf cloaky t3s thats gonna hit some of the more pro-active wormholers who like to hunt solo or in very small numbers when the rest of the corp isn't active, etc.
Also think any changes to T3s other than bugfixes is a bit silly when T2s are still in need of considerably attention and T3s mostly work. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1460
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
First off I have to say I am extremely disappointed with our WH CSM members on this topic. There is already lots of public outcry over the "OP T3" situation and that they have to be nerfed into the ground. Some may be justified, much of it is not. Part of this problem is that many who are screaming nerf often do not even fly T3's. And many who do seem to understand that for HAC's as an example, the bigger issue is the T2 HAC's and not just the T3's
By having our CSM members basically agreeing publicly on this subject so early on, it lends more weight than it should to the nerf idea. It's one thing to have the uneducated masses crying out, but another when our "elected officials" agreeing with them.
At the very least I think the appropriate answer should be "yes there are balance issues, but we should all hold judgement until the T2 balance pass and go from there"
As to the actual issue, it is a tough call. As a cloaky HAC, the T3 has nothing to compare it to, as there is no T2 HAC variant.
As to the cloaky T3 "recon" vs T2 recons, I honestly haven't played around to feel comfortable comparing. I will say as an example at all 5, a cloaky tengu "falcon" gets a longer jam range, but the jam strength is half that of a falcon. So while there may be an imbalance, I'm sure in time those can be adjusted appropriately. |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
2032
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:11:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Can someone explain to me why our representatives think cloaky T3's are OP? cos zomg, T3s cant be better than T2!!!! in all seriousness though, the probe bonus on a T3 should be less than on a covops.
To the CSM, I highly urge you to take an exaggerated 'do not nerf' stance because CCP are very clearly taking an exaggerated 'T3s are LOL op stance'.
basically, T3s are not op, T2s are just junk atm. compare t2 to any and all other shipe, including t1, and they are severely under performing as they are. when the whole class needs a buff, it's not hard to see the T3s are op by comparison. T3s need balancing among themselves, T2s need a buff. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
276
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote: As to the cloaky T3 "recon" vs T2 recons, I honestly haven't played around to feel comfortable comparing. I will say as an example at all 5, a cloaky tengu "falcon" gets a longer jam range, but the jam strength is half that of a falcon. So while there may be an imbalance, I'm sure in time those can be adjusted appropriately.
You can't even make a proper T3 version of the falcon as the jam strength sub-system is the same slot as the cloaky one.
The prot doesn't have as long point range bonus as an arazu and neither does the loki get the web range of a rapier, can't remember the legion v pilgrim off the top of my head.
Unless the price of the ships drops hugely (and I don't think thats a good thing at all) then any significant nerf to their survivability will reduce their useage a lot also which isn't a good thing either. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1460
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:19:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote: As to the cloaky T3 "recon" vs T2 recons, I honestly haven't played around to feel comfortable comparing. I will say as an example at all 5, a cloaky tengu "falcon" gets a longer jam range, but the jam strength is half that of a falcon. So while there may be an imbalance, I'm sure in time those can be adjusted appropriately.
You can't even make a proper T3 version of the falcon as the jam strength sub-system is the same slot as the cloaky one. The prot doesn't have as long point range bonus as an arazu and neither does the loki get the web range of a rapier, can't remember the legion v pilgrim off the top of my head. Unless the price of the ships drops hugely (and I don't think thats a good thing at all) then any significant nerf to their survivability will reduce their useage a lot also which isn't a good thing either.
Legion can have a much bigger tank, but cannot field any drones, so while it can neut well it cannot apply any DPS. |
|
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
91
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:26:00 -
[11] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:First off I have to say I am extremely disappointed with our WH CSM members on this topic... ...At the very least I think the appropriate answer should be "yes there are balance issues, but we should all hold judgement until the T2 balance pass and go from there" "James said that he thought the T2 cruiser balancing should come before any serious T3 rebalance"
Have you unplugged your Reading hardwiring or what just happened there? W-Space Realtor |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1460
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:29:00 -
[12] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:First off I have to say I am extremely disappointed with our WH CSM members on this topic... ...At the very least I think the appropriate answer should be "yes there are balance issues, but we should all hold judgement until the T2 balance pass and go from there" "James said that he thought the T2 cruiser balancing should come before any serious T3 rebalance" Have you unplugged your Reading hardwiring or what just happened there?
Quote:Chitsa agreed that cloaky T3s are overpowered in their present configuration,
So sorry. I forgot the word "some". |
stup idity
21
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:29:00 -
[13] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Legion can have a much bigger tank, but cannot field any drones, so while it can neut well it cannot apply any DPS.
Of course it can. Neuting-sub is electronic and can be combined with the drone offensive sub or the cloaky one.
I reign supreme. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
276
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:31:00 -
[14] - Quote
stup idity wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:
Legion can have a much bigger tank, but cannot field any drones, so while it can neut well it cannot apply any DPS.
Of course it can. Neuting-sub is electronic and can be combined with the drone offensive sub or the cloaky one.
The comparison was of the cloaky recons so the cloaky sub-system takes the slot of the drone offensive one. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
136
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Hopefully T3s will get rebalanced only after HACs and CSs are done. Until then it seems pointless and silly to me.
+1 |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1460
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:33:00 -
[16] - Quote
stup idity wrote:Derath Ellecon wrote:
Legion can have a much bigger tank, but cannot field any drones, so while it can neut well it cannot apply any DPS.
Of course it can. Neuting-sub is electronic and can be combined with the drone offensive sub or the cloaky one.
OMG REALLY!
Quote:Chitsa agreed that cloaky T3s are overpowered in their present configuration
Rroff wrote:You can't even make a proper T3 version of the falcon as the jam strength sub-system is the same slot as the cloaky one.
The prot doesn't have as long point range bonus as an arazu and neither does the loki get the web range of a rapier, can't remember the legion v pilgrim off the top of my head.
We are talking about cloaky here. Rroff wasn't talking about Legion vs Curse. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
276
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 14:52:00 -
[17] - Quote
From looking at more general posts on the subject of cloaky T3s it seems a lot of the reason people are asking for a wholesale nerf to cloaky T3s is due to small areas of the game where they are overpowered, just that small area of the game makes up a large part of those people's day to day life in Eve. i.e. people who like to camp null entry gates see dozens of cloaky nullified t3s escape them daily and are bitter about it. |
Icarus Able
Pheonix Corp Selectus
28
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 15:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
Only T3 that needs a bit of balancing is the Tengu imo. Its DPS output and its potential to tank seems to outweigh the other T3s. |
chris elliot
EG CORP Mass Overload
191
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 16:46:00 -
[19] - Quote
Seems James is the only one over there with his head not inside his anus, while chitsa has joined ytterbium in a rectal tea party of sorts.
This does not bode well for anything other than complete fail should the tea party grow larger. |
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards Mass Overload
1365
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 17:19:00 -
[20] - Quote
chris elliot wrote:Seems James is the only one over there with his head not inside his anus, while chitsa has joined ytterbium in a rectal tea party of sorts.
This does not bode well for anything other than complete fail should the tea party grow larger.
Zed! You're back! http://www.wormholes.info |
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
150
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 19:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
Icarus Able wrote:Only T3 that needs a bit of balancing is the Tengu imo. Its DPS output and its potential to tank seems to outweigh the other T3s. Not really, no, especially not in cloaky form. A cloaky Proteus will do ~100dps more than a cloaky Tengu. The Tengu also can't fit anywhere near as obscene a buffer tank as the armor T3s can. |
Nix Anteris
Bite Me inc Bitten.
57
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 20:00:00 -
[22] - Quote
The goal with T3 was versatility - the ability to change subsystems depending on the situation encountered.
They were introduced at the same time as wormholes.
CCP never expected people to live in wormholes permanently.
T3s are not versatile for many wormholers because subsystems cannot be changed at a POS.
Before any nerfs can occur (and I agree there should be some), refitting at a POS must be implemented first.
Otherwise they will be sub-par to T2 and not versatile. |
Svodola Darkfury
Heaven's End League of Infamy
197
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 20:21:00 -
[23] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Can someone explain to me why our representatives think cloaky T3's are OP? cos zomg, T3s cant be better than T2!!!! in all seriousness though, the probe bonus on a T3 should be less than on a covops. To the CSM, I highly urge you to take an exaggerated 'do not nerf' stance because CCP are very clearly taking an exaggerated 'T3s are LOL op stance'. basically, T3s are not op, T2s are just junk atm. compare t2 to any and all other shipe, including t1, and they are severely under performing as they are. when the whole class needs a buff, it's not hard to see the T3s are op by comparison. T3s need balancing among themselves, T2s need a buff.
Agreed. I think that to call a cloaky Legion or Tengu "OP" is a hilarious misuderstanding of how wormhole cloaky warfare is actually played. What they're REALLY concerned about is Cloaky Proteus' and Lokis, because they can do 400-575 damage with a 200k+ buffer tank (or a nice shield tank in the Loki's case).
T1: Very powerful right now due to rebalancing T2: Resists are great, but they're out-dated by 6 years. T3: Very strong in several areas that I think is slightly unnecessary.
Reasonable T3 nerfing? Bring the DPS in line on non-cloaky subsystems so that they're a little under par on a command ship of their race (the 700-900 dps range). Maybe consider removing some of the bonus from the pure buffer fits (7.5% instead of a full 10% to armor/shields).
Currently in cloaky warfare T3 so heavily out-weighs recon that not flying a T3 makes you a joke to deal with. Legion and Tengu both suffer from poor bonuses in their Cloaky fits, Legion much more so. Legion can supplement this by being a cloaky neut legion, but really that shouldn't be their only choice.
I don't think any of those changes would be game-breaking to T3s unless T2s turned into monsters again. 7.5% bonus change would net 2.5%x5 (12.5%) change in total armor/shield. While significant, my current Proteus fit has more armor than my triple plated Dominix, which is silly.
And as several others have said, command ships should be 5% boosting, T3s should be 3% boosting.
Svo. CEO of Heaven's End; Seller of Wormholes. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
137
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 20:27:00 -
[24] - Quote
chris elliot wrote:Seems James is the only one over there with his head not inside his anus, while chitsa has joined ytterbium in a rectal tea party of sorts.
This does not bode well for anything other than complete fail should the tea party grow larger.
Ahhh, another person who thinks their fair share is in my wallet. |
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
117
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 20:37:00 -
[25] - Quote
What Axloth said.
In addition: Would love to see a revamp, pushing them from tanking nightmares that they are right now together with logistics to those jack-of-all-trades and complement of your wormhole-smallscale-fleet. In my opinion, the resistances of a T3 are the smaller problem, but 1-2 LSE / 1-2 1600 plates AND 50% buffer bonus AND CDFEs or trimarks is just nuts. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
106
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 22:44:00 -
[26] - Quote
Any sane person surely has to agree that T3s cannot be balanced until T2 ships have been balanced. (oh and ogb...) HACs in particularly are rubbish on the whole.
I'm happy for T3s to be rebalanced between themselves, but they cannot have fundamental changes in relation to lower tech ships until everything else has been balanced from the ground up.
The thing I'd love to see most is some subsystem tweaks, some subs are just absolute no brainers, whilst there are others I cannot fathom a use for. |
chris elliot
EG CORP Mass Overload
191
|
Posted - 2013.06.21 23:01:00 -
[27] - Quote
Nathan Jameson wrote:chris elliot wrote:Seems James is the only one over there with his head not inside his anus, while chitsa has joined ytterbium in a rectal tea party of sorts.
This does not bode well for anything other than complete fail should the tea party grow larger. Zed! You're back!
I'm sure zed would be insulted.
But in all seriousness, asking people how they want to nerf T3's without telling them how HAC's will be redone is beyond asinine and borders on levels of incompetence only seen when examining real life governments.... or when examining the inner workings of ytterbiums head.
Of course the cloaky t3 subsystems are going to be OP you insipid morons. The recon ships that can cloak are terrible for anything other than.... well, actually they are just terrible. They lack slot layouts, CPU, powergrid ect ect.
And of course they are going to dominate the small and large scale metas. Its either shell out tons of isk and hope you do not die or fly a hac. And lets be honest, all of the hacs are so monumentally terrible that the shift to tons and tons of t3's is like wondering why everyone picks the Klondike bar over the sh*t sandwich.
Lets examine shall we,
Loki: Only minmatar ship that can armor tank worth a damn that is not a battleship. Add in a web bonus and of course people are going to fly it out the nose.
Proteus: Well the diemos is absolutely terrible beyond reason. And the ishtar is so bad that even the old navy vexor was better at its job in an armor configuration than it was. Add in how useless and terrible the bonus's on the old and new brutix are and you are only left with the new navy brutix, and the astarte as decent stuff to fly.
Legion: A sacralige that does not suck, a zealot that can actually survive being hit, and a mini bhaalgorn at not bhaalgorn prices. Yes please!
Tengu: Well its either tengu or drake really because the cerberus and eagle might as well be noobships when compared to even the drake... never mind comparing them to the tengu.
Hell, even the new navy cruisers can pop a squat on the current HAC's that's how bad they are.
Now if the CSM was told, hey here is what we are planning to do with HAC's, how do you think we can rework t3's around this so they are both viable options. And chitsa said, yeah that could work but t3's would still be too strong, and James replyed that more flushing out would be needed before he would comment further. Then I would stand and applaud you for taking the time and initiative to do it right.
This whole backasswards way they are going about it and one of our two CSM's falling for it like a sucker is just full on stupid.
|
Quinn Corvez
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.22 01:05:00 -
[28] - Quote
I hate the word "nerf", especially when we are talking about the class of ship that I have sunk a lot of sp into.
I would be more welcoming of the idea to reinvent the T3 line to give them stronger bonuses in some area and perhaps some new abilities in exchange for less dps, for example. What I will never be okay with is a simple reduction in dps and tank.
The new navey BC are pretty close to T3s in terms of dps and tank and I'd assume that when the command ships are rebalanced, they will be even better. |
Nix Anteris
Bite Me inc Bitten.
58
|
Posted - 2013.06.22 07:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
chris elliot wrote:Loki: Only minmatar ship that can armor tank worth a damn that is not a battleship. Old cane / new navy cane does very well in this department. Rupture also used to do it well, haven't tried since the T1 tweaks.
|
TurboX3
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
21
|
Posted - 2013.06.22 08:08:00 -
[30] - Quote
Chitsa & James, maybe speak with your community before you go and purpose T3 nerf's as you shouldn't encourage CCP dev team for any excuse to downgrade us WH-dwellers... They are all 0.0 carebears in the Reykjavik office from my personal experience! ;-) |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |