No.
I hope Chribba checks in and tells us what he thinks.

Where is he? im calling and calling but he doesnt appear , im starting to worry

Where is he? im calling and calling but he doesnt appear , im starting to worry

As the title says, with the up and coming re-balance of T3's should CCP consider removing the SP loss associated with T3's

Discuss :)

wasn't he going to eve vegas then to that australian thing straight after? i have no idea when those events are but i thought he was basically taking an extended holiday to attend them both.

He has also been without Internet for almost a week, per his Tweets.

No.
I hope Chribba checks in and tells us what he thinks.

wouldn't know about that, i don't follow him on twitter.

He has also been without Internet for almost a week, per his Tweets.

Now why some spam is allowed and some other isn't? reported,
Do rules in GD apply only when someone wish/need?

Er... shouldn't tweeting require internet access?

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/5/k8m.gif/
No.

Sp loss is the only downside to having a T3 cruiser, fear of losing a bunch of SP is the reason why T3 Cruisers aren't just thrown around like frigates.

Er... shouldn't tweeting require internet access?

Now why some spam is allowed and some other isn't? reported,
Do rules in GD apply only when someone wish/need?

Now why some spam is allowed and some other isn't? reported,
Do rules in GD apply only when someone wish/need?

Herp derp derpy derp. He has phone. Physical line to home computer is cut.


edit: what's scary is you couldn't figure this out.

You lose sp when you get killed in a tech 3??

Sorry I'm a noob...

really depends how hard they nerf them.
if they just balance them, then penalty should stay.
if they nerf the hell out of them to below T2 levels (ie: junk) then the penalty should go.

Aaahahaha...hello future war target of so many people

Like I feel scared by "such" so many people? lol.

Of course not.
You're a hypocrit and a coward hiding behind an npc alt.

No.

Also, they're supposed to be below T2, so if that doesn't happen, maybe they should consider increasing the SP loss to compensate.

They are not supposed to be below T2. They are supposed to be not as specialized in one field as T2 such that they make T2 pointless to use

In other words:

Not as good as HACing as a HAC. Not as good at logistics as a Logi. Not as good at gangboosting as a CS. Not as good at sneaking around and ewaring as a Recon. Not as good for a bubble environment as a HIC.

GǪi.e. below T2.

Then again, the cost is irrelevant and you don't lose 400k SP when your T3 blows up either.

Cost is very relevant unless you want to see T3's everywhere.

It's not relevant for balancing, no.

Stop dying or use another ship. T3 are OP and that's why you lose SP.

If cost isn't relevant then neither is SP loss.

You can buy SP in the form of characters on the Bazaar.

As the title says, with the up and coming re-balance of T3's should CCP consider removing the SP loss associated with T3's

Discuss :)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/5/k8m.gif/
No.

Sp loss is the only downside to having a T3 cruiser, fear of losing a bunch of SP is the reason why T3 Cruisers aren't just thrown around like frigates.

They are very very expensive? That is pleanty downside for most expensive ships.

The irony here is t3 are about to get buffed.

yay thread goes from change to sp loss in regards to t3's to twitter chat. next will be FACEBOOK!

Not sure what you mean by that.

@poster above:

Your post shows why all the T2 cruisers are in dire need of a rebalancing. Recons are so **** it hurts.

I don't get how CCP could rebalance T1 cruisers and ignore their variations.

I do hope that T3 get galanced together with the remaining untouched ships or it is going to be a mess... (Knowing CCP it will probably be the later).

The buff to med long rang range turrets and the buff to shield and armour reps coming in 1.1 will make t3 even better than now.

I must have turned my brain off or something. Completely forgot about that.

The buff to med long rang range turrets and the buff to shield and armour reps coming in 1.1 will make t3 even better than now.

They deserve a buff...a propper fit t3 is worth 5 times more than the t2 version so it deserves a clear advantage imo.

The federate issue megathron is worth 10 times that of a titan. I guess it should get the tank and firepower ten times that of a titan?

Also the new frigates from the tournament are worth at least 10 billion each, I guess they should have 500 times the firepower of a normal frigate...

Cost means nothing when it comes to balancing ships.

Incidently a legion is only twice as expensive as a zealot.

At worst one loses a Level 5 that takes all of 4 days to retrain as Subsystems are a rank 1 skill. So what ?

And it's chance based, so it doesn't even necessarily happen.

Does this really take a 4 page Thread to grasp the concept ?

I currently have no issue with the SP loss associated with T3's as currently they are overpowered and the SP loss goes a little way to balancing there power.

(I did say little )

The reason I ask is that from what I have read so far it does seem that the T3 line is going to be changed (noticed I didn't say nerfed :)), so if they are changed and are no longer the overpowered ships they are now, is the SP loss still necessary?

For example if (and I hope this does come true) the T3 line up is changed so they sit between T1 and T2.. i.e better the T1 ships and multi-rolled but not better then the specialized T2 variants, then should they keep the SP loss?

As the title says, with the up and coming re-balance of T3's should CCP consider removing the SP loss associated with T3's

Discuss :)

However if they get the nerfhammer you can expect instead of fixing bad mechanics (OGB and oversize modules fittings) then they need to loose that drawback or they will simply not be worth flying at all, if they will ever be for many years to come after bad rebalance about to hit them hard.

No the chance based is which skill you lose, you ALWAYS lose a skill level from one of the subs.

...that being said if you only have one sub at 5 you can pretty much bet your ass it will be that one.

I currently have no issue with the SP loss associated with T3's as currently they are overpowered

What is wrong with all of you guys???

How can you say "x" or "y" is overpowered without even mention what's really wrong??
Because if would crush your tralala oversize modules fitted favorite frigates/cruisers/BC's???

Seriously?
The day you can't fit oversize modules on your hull, OGB gets flushed down the toilets then you can say which ship is op or not, until then there's only flawed opinions.
Being able to fit battleship modules in to cruiser/BC hulls is not smart but a stupid mechanic having a far greater influence in gaming quality then T3 ships them selves fitted with modules of their size and T2 ones.

Take the extreme case of the Elite "solo" with the elite/s boosters inside the dangerous POS boosting system wide, using strong combat boosters, dead space faction or officer modules often again oversize, to claim "x" or "y" ship is overpowered is above silly, it's just stupid.

Get rid of those bad mechanics first, and unlike many claim this will not flush all the viable setups but bring a lot more options for fittings as bring back to the scene ships underused or considered bad because they don't have the fittings to use those mods.
Flush OGB, get rid of it, delete it from DB, this crap needs to go away from the game once and for all. Not the semi half bad choice is being done currently. Simply get rid of it immediately in all its forms and build an entire new boosting system ON GRID with viable ships to do it.

Because for you guys fit a medium ASB in a frigate is not OP but a smart choice? -this is the most idiot reasoning you can find around.

Sorry you couldn't kill it with your Tornado, but it sounds about fair to me.

1600plate on Proteus or Legion? -of course and why not? -because this stupid module has no restriction as 100MN AB's.
Shield T3's with 4K local reps and dishing HAC firepower? -indeed but only because I can fit BS size in my ships.

OGB is a very bad mechanic point blank and I could care less it takes one year to get leadership skills, a perfect logi pilot takes over a year too but they can't provide reps from inside the POS shields or off grid, from here there's no valid argument to justify OGB.

Nor there is a single one to claim current T3's are op if you take OGB and oversize modules out of the equation and it's that simple.

There are only a few class indexed items in the game. Spec breakers, MJDs, DCUs, etc.

Everything else is fair game.

You ever roll a 100mn Tengu? or Scimi? Try it, then tell me how op it is when you lose it. They aren't all that are they are EXTREMELY difficult to fly, one screw up and that 100mn booster just turned against you as the ship every so slowly gets back up to speed.

Is fair game because it's in every one and his grandmother mind "it's normal"

I request to fit capital armor reps on my BS too, or capital shield armor transporters. Why not??
Why it's only fair and good when it suits current meta but at all when personal tr+ál+ál+ás are touch?

HAC firepower, negative.

HOWEVER you can easily fit a 1600 plate on basic T1 cruiser this is by design.

A T3 is not actually a rare ship anymore, it has a high prize because it is better than other ships.

My point being, this is a bad design. As bad as OGB, and seems a lot of players agree on this.

So what you are going to limit ALL cruiser class hulls to 800? Have fun with 15k eHP cruisers, they just became useless. The T1 frigs down to what? Maybe a 200mm

....and the shield tankers LOL, without being able to oversize the extenders no shield ship wold be able to tank a drone. Much less 5 of them for any amount of time.

Would you like a global damage reduction to go with that, because everything is going to get alpha'd with your system.

At all, if something I'm all for more gank less tank, modules size restriction would force players to make real important choices from fittings to which ship undock with instead of the current meta. Numbers would still have the upper hand and more ships destruction can't be bad for the game.

More gank less tank, we have already super caps and sov structures idiocy of HP numbers no need to continue this hilarious bad design with smaller ships or at least make it differently than current lol'ish ones.

SP loss is relevant because it's something you can't get back. it is time lost forever, and until you've trained that SP back, you are less effective, which alters the balance of the ship.

No. You can only by collections of skills in the form of characters on the bazaar. You can never buy SP.

.....and that is where your argument falls completely apart.

Completely unrealated.

False.

Are you saying untank Attack Battlecruisers are bad, not used, underpowered etc?

Of course they aren't, those perfectly support my comment: all gank, little to no tank and as everyone already knows they're rather good and very used, therefore a valid point to think about cruisers balances.

Instead of oversize tank or weapon modules cruisers need tools to achieve their job, and specially HACs need more dmg and projection abilities, smaller signature. Not fit double large extenders or 1600 plates because of "alpha fleets" excuse.

Argument invalid and you know it.
You talk of super - rare ships.
A T3 is not actually a rare ship anymore, it has a high prize because it is better than other ships.

It's not relevant for balancing, no.

The vindicator is worth what? 3-4 times the price of a normal megathron? So why does it not have three to four times the tank? The t3s do when compared to the t1 ships. A lot more in many cases.

CCP once tried to use cost to balance a class of ships, you know what happened?

They invalidated everything else and were mass produced. Turned out, no matter how expensive you make something we can not only afford it but we can blob them. These ships were the titans, ships that got upwards of 60 billion each.

A ship that costs around 400 to 450 million is not expensive. This is why CCP are balancing them with other ships of their class and ignoring how much they cost. T3s are going to be nerfed because they must be to balance them with the other cruisers.

of course you can get a impressive Tank if you fit a proteus like a flying brick. Sure a Loki has immense resists if you fit it right - even with t2 fit. but they also cost a lot mor than the t1 version and about double as much as the t2 cruisers.
The Vindi has other Bonuses that justify the price up to a certain amount...

But cost means nothing to balance.

False. Why would I fly a zealot if an omen could do the exact same thing equally well?

But it cant. The zealot is slightly better.

But it is still balanced because it doesnt render the oem useless. CCP know you cannot balance on cost, they tried and it failed utterly. Ships will be balanced against the other ships of their class and those in the classes around it.

And the legion is slightly better than a zealot.

The two primary things separating the zealot and the omen are cost and power. I can just as easily say the legion is still balanced because it doesn't render the zealot useless.

The correct statement would have been: CCP knows you cannot balance on cost alone.
Cost is very much a factor.

There is no restriction on using capital reps on a BS hull, other than them taking 10 times the grid that a battleship has available.....HOWEVER you can easily fit a 1600 plate on basic T1 cruiser this is by design.

No it plays zero part in balancing. CCP have more or less said balancing on cost will not be happening at all. They are balancing on hulls and hulls alone.

If it plays zero part in balancing why is the zealot better than the omen at all? They fill the same role. As you say, the zealot does it slightly better.

The zealot also costs more.

Seems to me that cost is indeed a factor.

It's possible to get a capital shield rep on a Maelstrom.

So fine a hair has never been split.

They are being balanced against the t1 class ships so that they are only a bit better not not to the point where they dominate.

So.......they are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Their combat capabilities certainly aren't going to be buffed, since they're extremely strong and they hurt both battleships and HACs. Namely:

The Legion is stronger at the Zealot's role than the Zealot is.
The Tengu is stronger at the Cerberus' role than the Cerberus is.
The Loki is stronger at the Muninn's role than the Muninn is.
The Proteus is stronger at the Diemos' role than the Diemos is.

The Loki and Proteus are also better than the Huginn and Lachesis, respectively, even though the and relevant EWAR bonuses (web range and point/scram range, respectively) are halved. Why? Because the Loki and Proteus have staying power, while the recons really don't. The Huginn and Lachesis also have secondary EWAR bonuses, but in fleet doctrines these are rarely used. Because the tackling Loki and Proteus are both armor tanked, this is the primary reason that 0.0 fleet doctrines now heavily favor armor tanking.

Their boosting capabilities are getting nerfed, that much is confirmed.

You know all this. I'm putting it here for the benefit of everyone else.

Being a generalized jack of all trades, master of none isn't a buff. It doesn't make a ship good. Just look at the Gnosis. It sends the ship to the scrapheap because any other ship can do one of those things better, and so people will just mix combinations of ships that do things well. The only people who will fly T3s then are people who fly solo.

If you really ask me, I think CCP has no idea what to do about T3s, because they know that in their current capacity they're too damaging to the T1/T2 dynamic, but they also want to keep them as ships that people will actually pay money to use.

No. Cost is a product of balance (through the affect balance has on the demand for the item). It is not a factor in balance for the simple reason that it can never affect that balance. Something overpowered and costly does not mean it's not overpowered, and something underpowered and cheap does not mean it's not underpowered.

You're confusing cause and consequence.

So.......they are better. Check.

And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor.

No it not.

The cost is only what it is because of what players are willing to pay. This is why you can never balance anything with cost.

Did you stop to consider that the reason the Huginn and Lachesis are are not used more might be because they were pre-nerfed. For them to fullfill a role like fleet tackle - lets take the Lachesis because I''m familiar with it - might it have been wise of CCP to realise that they'd be getting targetted and maybe give them a bit more HP...

Its not the T3 that are lacking.

False. Again. There is a fundamental mineral, PI material, and moon material cost to every ship. It has absolutely nothing to do with what people will pay. The zealot will always have a higher cost than the omen.

So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor.

So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor.

but there is a fundamental mineral, pi product, and moon product cost associated with any given ship irrespective of market price.

[snip]

False. Again. There is a fundamental mineral, PI material, and moon material cost to every ship. It has absolutely nothing to do with what people will pay. The zealot will always have a higher cost than the omen.

So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor.

The fact remains: if they changed the price on the Zealot to be the same as an Omen, the balance would not be affected in the slightest.

Again, no. Here are the build materials for a zealot.

So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

No one would ever produce an omen again if they could produce a zealot for the same exact material cost

Again, no. Here are the build materials for a zealot.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Zealot

Note how it requires one (1) omen and an additional minerals and commodities to produce a zealot.

A zealot will ALWAYS cost more than an omen, irrespective of market.

So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor.

GǪthe price of which is almost entirely determined by players, and the cost difference of which is so small as to not particularly matter.

The fact remains: if they changed the price on the Zealot to be the same as an Omen, the balance would not be affected in the slightest.

No it isn't.

The zealot costs more as it is more difficult to build, the materials also cost more, HOWEVER, the costs are created by the player, not CCP.

So, you're telling me that on a pound for pound basis, the zealot and the omen are balanced against each other.

But there IS an absolute immutable cost difference in terms of materials between a zealot and an omen.

So, you're telling me that on a pound for pound basis, the zealot and the omen are balanced against each other.

GǪthat doesn't affect the balance between the two in the slightest.

No. I'm merely telling you that the balance between the two ships are determined by their respective stats, not their costs.

I'm telling you that cost is not a factor in balance because no ship has had its balance altered by its cost: awful ships are awful ships, no matter how cheap; overpowered ships are overpowered, no matter how costly; you cannot compensate for balance deficiencies by altering the cost GÇö not in EVE, not in any game ever. All cost does is delay the deployment (which is used in PvE games to adjust the difficulty curve line so that, while you come across more difficult enemies, you have now unlocked more powerful ships that deal with them as easily as the old cheap stuff dealt with the lower-class stuff you went up against before).

The fact remains: if they changed the price on the Zealot to be the same as an Omen, the balance would not be affected in the slightest.

Ok...so the zealot is equivalent or better than the omen in practically every way (Damage, Damage projection, Tracking, EHP, etc. etc.).

The Omen is likewise worse in all of those categories. So what exactly does the zealot give up to be superior or equivalent to the omen in every other way?

I suggested raw material cost, to which you replied:

Various other stats, but there's your other problem: you're assuming that balance means equality. It doesn't.

Which stats specifically?

Lets put it another way. Lets assume the zealot was moved to T1 with identical material costs, while keeping its exact current stats, resists, and bonuses. Would it be balanced with respect to the omen, and other T1 cruisers?

These ship hulls are indeed getting balanced against eachother. Thats the entire point of teircide, to get rid of T1 T2 T3.

... I wonder what T4 will have.

... I wonder what T4 will have.

mining lasers that can mine the hulls of ships trying to gank them. clearly.

but they should be better than T2...because they are T3. count it with me.

1. 2. ....3.

if they didn't want them to be better they should have called them "Tech 1 -+'s" or Tech 1-+'s"

Tech, which impacts ship performance, and roles. Tech 1 is the reference in ship balancing, while faction ships (navy and pirate variants) are most often plain improvements, tech 2 offer a specialized purpose and tech 3 give opportunities for generalization.
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg