EVE Search - The great T3 rebalance

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The great T3 rebalance

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 731	Posted - 2014.08.22 15:52:00 - [1] - Quote No they aren't overpowered - however I don't think the balance of bonuses and penalties is quite right - i.e. that afore mentioned augmented plating sub-system where the sig penalty associated with the massive increase in buffer HP is too small (in some cases even lower than the resist or active tank bonused ones which should be the ones with the smaller sigs). While they shouldn't be quite as big as BCs or BSs that extra HP should come with a sig and possibility mobility penalties that is much closer to that class than that of the smaller cruisers. Removing rig slots would be utterly daft for reasons which is a whole topic of its own and taking the knife to HP or similar isn't much better. There are however quite a few areas where they don't have appropriate penalties for the bonus certain sub-systems give IMO. There are also a few tweaks needed to make certain configurations more useful.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 731	Posted - 2014.08.22 16:14:00 - [2] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: I definitely think there is a problem with T3s being OP relative to T1 and Pirate Battleships. For example you don't see many Maelstroms in null or WH space, even though they are nominally more expensive than a T3. I don't know if the answer is to nerf the T3s or buff some of the battleships, but I would think that CCP would like to see more of a balance. A maelstrom is relatively slow and lumbering - for quite a lot of use in null people don't want to be in what is essentially a sitting duck (hence the huge rise in the use of ishtars and VNI - other than just because of their drone bonuses) and it lacks attributes that make it that useful as a ship of the line outside of its artillery alpha role. You may see them used a little for PVE due to the active tanking capabilities.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 732	Posted - 2014.08.22 18:45:00 - [3] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Seriously, outside of the Ishtar why would you fly any hac over a tengu? And then we have the daftness that is fitting both a cov ops cloak and a nullifier at the same time. Regarding Ishtar depressingly that also applies outside of any t3 topic, that is really another topic of its own however. Turning T3s into something comparable to current T2 stats though would be a complete joke as things stand - go one way and you water them down so far you lose a lot of character from the game which is the last thing it needs, go the other way and you end up with something that has such high cost and penalties for what it is no one wants to fly them.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 732	Posted - 2014.08.22 18:56:00 - [4] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Rroff wrote: Turning T3s into something comparable to current T2 stats though would be a complete joke as things stand - go one way and you water them down so far you lose a lot of character from the game which is the last thing it needs, go the other way and you end up with something that has such high cost and penalties for what it is no one wants to fly them. what does that even mean? and penalties can be removed, costs are relative. Maybe not quite the best way of putting it but - for instance there is a lot more interest in killing a shiny tengu say than a drake, water t3s down too much and that is largely reduced or goes away leaving less interesting things in the game.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 732	Posted - 2014.08.22 19:02:00 - [5] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: so your saying the very reason its fun to kill T3's is because they are so blatantly over powered? Because they don't conform to the curve, for instance their higher than normalised tank means people consider them a viable option for putting bling on they generally wouldn't dream of putting on other t1/2 hulls, etc. making things far more interesting.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 733	Posted - 2014.08.22 20:33:00 - [6] - Quote Harvey James wrote: more options are always a good thing .. this is what the crux of the T3 debate is about .. more options .. moving away from the uber battleship like stats that T3's use all the time .. bar the cloaky WH type fits I don't entirely disagree with you - not every t3 needs to be an uber tanked, uber pimped ship and the ability to do things like make something that was an approximation of a guardian but trade some repping ability for increased ewar resistence for instance as touched on earlier would be a good thing but I don't want to see those kind of changes happen to t3s come part and parcel with savaging their current capabilities. I don't think that being able to battleship tank a t3 cruiser is a bad thing but I do think that being able to battleship tank a t3 cruiser should come with much closer to battleship (though as its not a battleship not the same level) sacrifices to things like sig and mobility and likewise if you want a configuration that has uber low sig and/or extreme mobility then it should be in the shape of something that is closer to HACs (though personally I think HACs are in a bad bad place and shouldn't be used as a measurement of anything) and so on for other areas where you can get extremes. Regarding rigs personally I'd like to see it so that each level in the strategic cruiser skill gave you an extra set of rig slots - with the ability to have 1 of those 5 sets of 3 rigs active at any one time - so for instance on a loki you could have 1 set with 3x trimarks and another set with 3x shield extenders and the ability to swap between them - obviously no ability to remove rigs other than destroying them. Could be some technical issues with that though.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 733	Posted - 2014.08.22 20:41:00 - [7] - Quote Harvey James wrote: rigs just kill any versatility on T3's though .. you can't swap around subs easily because 1. you have too destroy rigs 2. subsystems cost so much .. 10- 50 mil each ..higher end being off/def subs .. 3. slot layouts/fittings are attached too subs rather than the hull where they should be just like every other ship. Not aimed at you specifically but my opinion on this is if your worried about the ISK costs you probably shouldn't be flying a t3 and I'd like to see it stay that way.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 733	Posted - 2014.08.22 20:56:00 - [8] - Quote Harvey James wrote: the reason i mentioned the cost about subs .. is that its unfeasible too expect people too have 100's of millions of isk worth of subs just too be able too swap them around I guess I have a very different play style to you - I can't really see it from your perspective.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 733	Posted - 2014.08.22 21:29:00 - [9] - Quote Lin Fatale wrote: T3s in fleets are bit OP because its too easy to fly in this hardcore game there is 0 skill needed for 99% of the people in the fleet F1 and anchor, more wins Come to wormhole space :P Same can be said though of many compositions, many of the heavy BS setups used in null are basically (as far as it goes for the grunts) press F1 and see which side folds first under the stream of losses.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 733	Posted - 2014.08.22 21:45:00 - [10] - Quote Valkin Mordirc wrote: SFM Hobb3s wrote: Only thing that needs to be fixed with tech3 in my opinion is doing something about the lackluster subs that no one uses, and actually make them useful. TBH not interested at all in hearing how OP t3's are. They are counterable, not like some doctrines that truly deserve a wooden nerfbat with a nail in it. Here's looking at you, carriers. Supplemental Coolant Injector? I tried using that once. Left disappointed. I've sometimes used them due to the PG and/or slot layout where the only option is to use that sub-system to get that but never really used it for its bonuses.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 733	Posted - 2014.08.23 10:08:00 - [11] - Quote Jon Joringer wrote: Bleedingthrough wrote: Why are they so cheap these days if they are so OP? Because of, like, supply and demand, man. Lots of demand, lots of supply. I don't think T3s in general need too much nerfing (and, in fact, think many subsystems, and one T3 in particular, need fairly decent buffs), but the Augmented Plating subs need a big nerf. T3s with that sub don't get battleship levels of tank, they surpass them, easily, while keeping cruiser sig and decent speed. Spend the same kind of isk on tank modules for a bs and you get similar or higher results, t2 fit t3s aren't uberly tanky - fairly similar to command ships, do agree though that its wrong that they can get those stats while still retaining sig and mobility that puts many cruisers to shame.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 733	Posted - 2014.08.23 20:20:00 - [12] - Quote Jon Joringer wrote: The sad thing is, I wasn't talking about pimped fits, I was talking about T2. Even in T2 fits, the buffer subs (especially when combined with the PG sub, easily allowing fittings like double 1600mm plate while still fitting weapons/prop/etc.) allow T3s to get massive amounts of tank, more than your average BS. Was covering both angles in my reply, most double plate t3 fits still come with (often severe) compromises, dps tends to be much more limited and much more range limited than the single plate fits, others are relegated to purely utility roles, etc. its more edge cases where they fulfil a useful role fit like that than a wholesale thing and likewise there are edge cases where you can press gang other cruisers into similar EHP setups i.e. augoror navy issue, sacrilege, etc.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 753	Posted - 2014.08.26 00:55:00 - [13] - Quote Abso and damnation are pretty nasty/useful in their respective roles, the problems with rapier/huginn, arazu, pilgrim, etc. are more of an issue with those ships than it is a problem with the t3s - they are badly in need of another balance pass.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 753	Posted - 2014.08.26 02:06:00 - [14] - Quote While I agree that buffing out of a balance issue rarely makes sense I can't agree that recons or hacs are in any kind of good place i.e. stick a plate on a pilgrim and your mobility is almost into battleship territory which is hardly recon stuff, muninn and rapier overall don't seem to know what they are trying to be, huginn should probably go dedicated missiles in the line of cyclone, etc. I'd kind of like to see rapier viable as an arty platform though thats more of a personal thing as I like arty. (Not ignoring their actual roles just that there is a lot overall that tends to put people off them). Someone wrote a good post in the other thread about the issues with the eagle and so on. Suffice to say I don't think any changes to t3s should be measured against current t2 cruisers.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 753	Posted - 2014.08.26 11:17:00 - [15] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: baltec1 wrote: There is also the issue with T3 getting both the nullifier and the cov ops at the same time. What issue? Nullifier without cloak would be useless in solo flying. In fleets it doesn't matter as you admited. You can use the MWD cloak trick with it and it will continue to be a nice tool to have in fleets. Having a ship that is uncatchable is never a good thing. Only its not uncatchable, though admittedly harder to catch in k space than w space.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 754	Posted - 2014.08.26 17:43:00 - [16] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I didn't say remove the cov ops cloak, just don't allow it to be used with the nullifier. You have to be an utter moron to be caught when using a cloaky nullified t3. I've not had much luck with it myself but I don't really fly small ships and not really practised at it - but some people I know have a fairly good record for decloaking, bumping out of alignment and killing nullified cloaky t3s - sure no guarantee they will catch someone but that is how it should be.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 755	Posted - 2014.08.26 18:02:00 - [17] - Quote baltec1 wrote: No you don't. By the time you see it and point your cepter at its general location it is already in warp. Even cepter fleets don't bother trying to catch them. Depends a bit on whether you get lucky or not with the server tick(s) and skills/implants/fit/pimp of the t3.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 758	Posted - 2014.08.26 20:39:00 - [18] - Quote Due to the amount of versatility rigs bring (and possibly being a factor that they are one of the biggest sinks of T2 rigs - though in the long term that would possibly sort it self out) I'm against removing rigs - however I do think that some degree of flexibility in regard to rigs needs to happen - my personal preference being selectable groups of rigs with the number of groups tied to the level of the strategic cruiser skill. There is no way realistically to replicate the range of potential possibilities via rolling the bonuses into the sub-systems.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 781	Posted - 2014.08.28 02:51:00 - [19] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Ersahi Kir wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: They are meant to be weaker than T2 at specific task but able to do more different task out of the same hull. How hard is it to understand? So T3's should be the cruiser class nestor? A hull that is ok at many things is terrible at everything. The jack of all trades model doesn't work in eve. It does not work becuase the space they are all intended to be used in was not designed to enforce this need. If you could not have a bunch of different ship with you in a WH, a T3 and a nestor would be the best thing ever because it would mean you don't have to get out of the hole every time you want to do something different. With the current design, you just say FU to those limitation and grab another ship ready for you at the POS. We could make those ships usefull by changing how WH works but the people living there would probably freak out about how much would need to change... You can't expect them to be modular in design and also as good ad T2 at the specific task or you render T2 completely irrelevant. T2 do a good job of making themselves irrelevant (a couple aside) without help from any thing else. Also apparently it doesn't matter about the people in wh space freaking out :s As you can't realistically carry everything (modules, ammo, drones, etc.) for a wide range of refits I can't see on the fly versatility being very useful in practice.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 781	Posted - 2014.08.28 11:15:00 - [20] - Quote That 70k, 800dps deimos should have 4 significant advantages over a 150k, 900dps prot - signature should be a lot smaller, mwd sig bloom and cap use reduced, base speed quite a bit higher, agility quite a bit better. (part of that does mean making adjustments to both t3 and t2).
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 781	Posted - 2014.08.28 11:42:00 - [21] - Quote Personally I don't see the need to drop the dps like that, it has nowhere near the damage projection of a battleship with that level of dps and combined with lesser mobility than a hac has a harder time applying it in many situations. I do agree though that one of the biggest problems with t3s is that they don't get anything like the trade offs they should for a given bonus.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 786	Posted - 2014.08.28 17:52:00 - [22] - Quote SMT008 wrote: + All mobility/speed subsystems = T3s in general have the agility and speed of a cement truck. There should be subs designed to bring regular cruiser levels of agility and speed (I'm talking +1.8km/s speeds to the slowest T3s, 2-2.2km/s speeds to the fastest T3s). If T3s keep their current BC-level agility and speed...well, it will be a shame for T3 "versatility" if not a single T3 can have cruiser-like speeds. You can very easily get cruiser like speeds and agility or better out of a t3 - it comes at some compromise but thats a good thing, on the flip side I don't think that the configurations with augmented plating, etc. are close enough to the penalties to sig, speed and mobility for that level of EHP. Regarding covert ops + nullifier - yes it is overly powerful but there is a big issue there in terms of there being no real balance - its either overly powerful or almost useless if you go about nerfing it unless someone can think of some clever middle ground. However disguised most of the calls to nerf it are due to people not liking that there is something they can't easily and quickly kill with little effort.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 787	Posted - 2014.08.28 19:19:00 - [23] - Quote ^^ Granted the HACs will get a little better speed and mobility in like for like configurations - if you aim for similiar EHP and damage as the equivalent HAC you can get quite close to the same mobility - you do actually end up with slightly more EHP/damage and slightly less mobility. But you can also do pretty crazy fits with T3s (not like for like with their T2 counterpart) which have great mobility.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 789	Posted - 2014.08.28 19:54:00 - [24] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: My tengu moves almost 3 km/s, just learn how tengus are REALLY fit for speed. And in fact how any of the non proteus t3 are really fit when on kiting mode. Albeit with implants, links, yada yada and a fair bit of pimp etc. but done the whole 100mn AB tengu 3km/s/10s align, adrestia style prot almost 6km/s with about 5 second align, etc. sadly don't really have the skill to fly something like that as a regular thing. But yeah its about fitting a t3 to take advantage of its attributes to end up at a similar result rather than just sticking with a like for like approach to fitting. My thoughts basically are though that the whole augmented plating, etc. style t3s should be basically closer to battlecruisers/commandships whereas the other subs are less tanky but closer/t2 to cruisers in terms of mobility, etc.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 789	Posted - 2014.08.28 20:37:00 - [25] - Quote SMT008 wrote: I'm not talking about snaked/linked things. I'm comparing ships as they are. You can't compare them as they are though (even ignoring snakes and silly stuff like that) if you take a slightly different approach towards the same goal as a cerberus for instance you end up with a tengu that does ~1800ms, 6.2 align, while having slightly more EHP, same dps, slightly less missile range but better ability to apply missile damage. (And while it can't quite beat the MWD performance it has very slightly better base speed and mobility).
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 789	Posted - 2014.08.28 21:44:00 - [26] - Quote Shield prot, no links, t2 modules, over 2km/s, 6s align, 70% more EHP than a comparable HAC, dps a bit mixed depending on what you want tracking and projection wise. (Don't hate hah).

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,06s, ref 20251009/1153
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.