Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wynta
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 10:33:23 -
[1] - Quote
So I am messing around with Tengu fits in Pyfa and I came to the conclusion that T3's were not just overpowered, but there is this awkward design in subsystem.
I know that CCP has previously stated that they intend to balance T3s and that there are plenty of forum posts about this subject.
I believe that T3s are supposed to be more powerful than T1 cruisers but less powerful than T2 hulls in similar roles. So a Rail Tengu should be less powerful than a Rail Eagle, and a ECMgu should be less powerful than a Rook.
I believe that the subsystem system is great and should remain.
I believe that a complete overhaul is needed, but should that complete overhaul take a while there needs to be a more immediate tweak to the useless/boring subsystems.
The Engineering Subsystems, and some Navigation Subsystems.
Since I came to some of these conclusions based on the Tengu I will use it as my example.
The Engineering Subsystems are secondary Offensive Subsystems. Each Engineering Subsystem (ESS) gives either and extra hard point or extra power grid. In the Tengu's case they have one subsystem with a Turret HP, one with a Launcher HP, and then 2 with an extra 200-300 PG and a Low slot, but no launcher.
With the two hardpoint SS's you gain extra turret, but with the others you get an extra weapon upgrade and the extra PG. This concept is good, but implementation vastly limits choices.
If you go Power Grid Multiplier you get a turret slot and the power grid to fit it.
If you go Augmented Capacitor Reserve you get a launcher slot and 500 Cap.
If you go Cap Regen Matrix you get a low, Cap stability, and 200-300 PGU.
If you go Supp Coolant Injection you get a low, more sustained DPS/Tank, and 200-300 PGU.
Here comes my problem with these subsystems. You only ever have 3 real choices unless you really want to waste a lot of what the subsystem offers.
The two hardpoint subsystems should not be divided, they should both give a launcher and turret hardpoint.
The PGU SS should be changed to something more dynamic, as should the CPU SS as they are sort of uninteresting. But separating turrets from it would open it up to use in missile boats.
In summation the Engineering Subsystem choices need to be separated slightly from the Offensive Subsystem choices.
Tengu's have the misfortune of having the Gravitational Capacitor, which I have yet to find a practical use for. Maybe it would be better if it was a MWD sigradius or cap use bonus. The Proteus also suffers from this horrid SS.
Other offhanded musings....
The Covert Reconfiguration should be shifted to either the Engineering or Electronic Subsystem with a 2M or 1M/1L slot layout. This would allow for you to choose your weapon of choice ECM, Missiles, Hybrids, Drones, Nuet but if you want to fit a cloak you can if you give up a hardpoint/ utility high slot. A cloaky missile/drone Legion, a cloaky drone Proteus, or a Cloaky Missile Loki would be cool.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
248
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 11:08:39 -
[2] - Quote
Wynta wrote:Tengu's have the misfortune of having the Gravitational Capacitor, which I have yet to find a practical use for. Maybe it would be better if it was a MWD sigradius or cap use bonus. The Proteus also suffers from this horrid SS. Grav is one of the best propulsion subsystem for explorers. Nearly 5.0 warp AU at lvl5 skill.
Wynta wrote:The Covert Reconfiguration should be shifted to either the Engineering or Electronic Subsystem with a 2M or 1M/1L slot layout. This would allow for you to choose your weapon of choice ECM, Missiles, Hybrids, Drones, Nuet but if you want to fit a cloak you can if you give up a hardpoint/ utility high slot. A cloaky missile/drone Legion, a cloaky drone Proteus, or a Cloaky Missile Loki would be cool. This is intentional would be overpowered otherwise. Cloak is too powerfull.
"...genre is a definition, the definition in itself must have boundaries, the boundaries act as barriers, and the barriers are like walls, like the walls of a prisonn++..."
The Good, The Bad and The Bantam
|
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
450
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 11:47:18 -
[3] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Wynta wrote:The Covert Reconfiguration should be shifted to either the Engineering or Electronic Subsystem with a 2M or 1M/1L slot layout. This would allow for you to choose your weapon of choice ECM, Missiles, Hybrids, Drones, Nuet but if you want to fit a cloak you can if you give up a hardpoint/ utility high slot. A cloaky missile/drone Legion, a cloaky drone Proteus, or a Cloaky Missile Loki would be cool. This is intentional would be overpowered otherwise. Cloak is too powerfull. Doesn't make it good though. There's no reason why Covops couldn't be moved off the Offensive sub and still have a damage reducing role bonus or whatever. A little bit fo flexibility wouldn't go amiss, especially if it allows more wiggle room for nerfing the **** out of their headline stats
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2844
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 13:33:06 -
[4] - Quote
Ix Method wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:Wynta wrote:The Covert Reconfiguration should be shifted to either the Engineering or Electronic Subsystem with a 2M or 1M/1L slot layout. This would allow for you to choose your weapon of choice ECM, Missiles, Hybrids, Drones, Nuet but if you want to fit a cloak you can if you give up a hardpoint/ utility high slot. A cloaky missile/drone Legion, a cloaky drone Proteus, or a Cloaky Missile Loki would be cool. This is intentional would be overpowered otherwise. Cloak is too powerfull. Doesn't make it good though. There's no reason why Covops couldn't be moved off the Offensive sub and still have a damage reducing role bonus or whatever. A little bit fo flexibility wouldn't go amiss, especially if it allows more wiggle room for nerfing the **** out of their headline stats I honestly think it needs to be swapped with the warfare processor, and then it would Nerf the resists down. It should offer no other bonuses other than the fact you get a covert ops cloak.
Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
|
Tykonderoga
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
47
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 15:50:12 -
[5] - Quote
Stop messing with stuff. K, thanks. |
Wynta
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 00:55:59 -
[6] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Wynta wrote:Tengu's have the misfortune of having the Gravitational Capacitor, which I have yet to find a practical use for. Maybe it would be better if it was a MWD sigradius or cap use bonus. The Proteus also suffers from this horrid SS. Grav is one of the best propulsion subsystem for explorers. Nearly 5.0 warp AU at lvl5 skill. Wynta wrote:The Covert Reconfiguration should be shifted to either the Engineering or Electronic Subsystem with a 2M or 1M/1L slot layout. This would allow for you to choose your weapon of choice ECM, Missiles, Hybrids, Drones, Nuet but if you want to fit a cloak you can if you give up a hardpoint/ utility high slot. A cloaky missile/drone Legion, a cloaky drone Proteus, or a Cloaky Missile Loki would be cool. This is intentional would be overpowered otherwise. Cloak is too powerfull.
The basic premise behind moving the Covops Cloak off Offense is that it gives flexibility in what weapon system is used. It could be moved to Defense or Electronic, didn't really think of defense that is a cool idea. The way it would balance out is that all your high slots would be determined by engineering and offensive subsystems. With 6 Highslots you would also have 6 hardpoints so picking up the Covops would require sacrificing one of the hardpoints and in turn damage.
As for the Grav Capacitor, 4.8 up from 3, and from my understanding it doesn't increase acceleration which means your not cutting off as much time as one would assume. Even if it did increase acceleration, interdiction nullification is 1000x time better stat to have on an exploration ship given that a majority of your travel will be from gate to gate. |
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
159
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 03:14:32 -
[7] - Quote
Wynta wrote: With the two hardpoint SS's you gain extra turret, but with the others you get an extra weapon upgrade and the extra PG. This concept is good, but implementation vastly limits choices.
you can still fit a tengu with 6 hml or ham launchers with spare cpu/powergrid. Your choices are not really limited.
Wynta wrote:If you go Power Grid Multiplier you get a turret slot and the power grid to fit it.
If you go Augmented Capacitor Reserve you get a launcher slot and 500 Cap.
If you go Cap Regen Matrix you get a low, Cap stability, and 200-300 PGU.
If you go Supp Coolant Injection you get a low, more sustained DPS/Tank, and 200-300 PGU.
Here comes my problem with these subsystems. You only ever have 3 real choices unless you really want to waste a lot of what the subsystem offers.
and what's the problem here? 1st gives you extra launcher/turret and extra power. 2nd gives you extra launcher and extra cap 3rd gives you ALOT of cap comparing to other subsystems and extra low 4th gives you extra low and heat reduction
Wynta wrote: The two hardpoint subsystems should not be divided, they should both give a launcher and turret hardpoint.
first you talk about 4 subsystems that that and 'only' have 3 real choices, but then you want 2 subsystems to have nearly the same bonuses. There is a reason why subsystem with extra turret hardpoint has bonus to powergrid, turrets require more powergrid than launchers.
Wynta wrote: In summation the Engineering Subsystem choices need to be separated slightly from the Offensive Subsystem choices
No they don't, they offer extension of offensive subsystem and make you choose if you want more gank(hardpoints) or tank( capacitor subsystem)
Wynta wrote: Tengu's have the misfortune of having the Gravitational Capacitor, which I have yet to find a practical use for. Maybe it would be better if it was a MWD sigradius or cap use bonus. The Proteus also suffers from this horrid SS.
If you look closely at propulsion subsystems, then you'll notice there's fuel catalyst subsystem. It gives you bonus so you don't actually have to fit mwd on your tengu and have signature of a battleship. |
Traejun DiSanctis
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
107
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 06:57:54 -
[8] - Quote
I actually think the Tengu is pretty well balanced, with most (if not all) the subsystems have a practical value. Obviously, for something like ratting/missions/plexing, the fit is pretty static. You're just going for max DPS and passable tank. But the other subsystems have their uses for the variety of other roles the Tengu can fit.
While I don't fly any of the other Strategic Cruisers regularly, I've only noticed a hole in the Proteus. But it's so powerful in its dedicated roles that the role gap doesn't really matter. |
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Mara's Hounds
25
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 13:27:38 -
[9] - Quote
Wynta wrote: I believe that T3s are supposed to be more powerful than T1 cruisers but less powerful than T2 hulls in similar roles. So a Rail Tengu should be less powerful than a Rail Eagle, and a ECMgu should be less powerful than a Rook.
Why should a T3 ship be less powerful than a T2? Both from a matirials and a technological standpoint this does not make sense. A fully fit rail tengu is much more expensive than a rail eagle. Often the subsystems and hull cost 500m or more.
While i agree that T3s need a rebalance, nuetering them to be worse than a t2 ship would remove the point of having a T3 ship. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
405
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 13:32:57 -
[10] - Quote
remove rigs slots from T3 cruisers and they will be well balanced. |
|
NovemberMike
Hole Violence Whole Squid
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 13:51:29 -
[11] - Quote
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:Wynta wrote: I believe that T3s are supposed to be more powerful than T1 cruisers but less powerful than T2 hulls in similar roles. So a Rail Tengu should be less powerful than a Rail Eagle, and a ECMgu should be less powerful than a Rook.
Why should a T3 ship be less powerful than a T2? Both from a matirials and a technological standpoint this does not make sense. A fully fit rail tengu is much more expensive than a rail eagle. Often the subsystems and hull cost 500m or more. While i agree that T3s need a rebalance, nuetering them to be worse than a t2 ship would remove the point of having a T3 ship.
They're not supposed to be worse than a T2, they're supposed to be worse that the T2 at what the T2 does. You should not be able to make the tengu a better rail sniper than the eagle, but you should be able to make a competent rail sniper with solid ECM or a RLML system that can put down competent remote reps as well. Overall the T3's should be 80% as good at two things for a higher cost, which is great in small gangs but less useful in fleets. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
642
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 17:49:04 -
[12] - Quote
NovemberMike wrote:Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:Wynta wrote: I believe that T3s are supposed to be more powerful than T1 cruisers but less powerful than T2 hulls in similar roles. So a Rail Tengu should be less powerful than a Rail Eagle, and a ECMgu should be less powerful than a Rook.
Why should a T3 ship be less powerful than a T2? Both from a matirials and a technological standpoint this does not make sense. A fully fit rail tengu is much more expensive than a rail eagle. Often the subsystems and hull cost 500m or more. While i agree that T3s need a rebalance, nuetering them to be worse than a t2 ship would remove the point of having a T3 ship. They're not supposed to be worse than a T2, they're supposed to be worse that the T2 at what the T2 does. You should not be able to make the tengu a better rail sniper than the eagle, but you should be able to make a competent rail sniper with solid ECM or a RLML system that can put down competent remote reps as well. Overall the T3's should be 80% as good at two things for a higher cost, which is great in small gangs but less useful in fleets. The problrn comes in ehen you try to build a multi purpose fit on most t3s, that fit barely beats the t1 version in most regards. The only standouts are tackle& DPS loki and proteus when armor fit, and the ecm tengu being the only ecm boat that can mount a credible shield tank for it's size.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Wynta
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 23:37:14 -
[13] - Quote
I think the way I worded my problem with the engineering subsystems came off wrong. My main problem with the Power Multiplier SS is that if gives an extra turret hard point and the powergrid to fit it whereas the Augmented Cap gives a launcher and some cap. I have no problem with the other two SS. Hell I don't even really have a problem with the Augemented Cap SS as it does actually give you benefits outside the extra hardpoint. I'd like to see the Power Grid Multiplier give the hardpoint, have the extra 100PGU shifted to its baseline and have a minor engineering bonus added. |
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1023
|
Posted - 2015.05.11 01:43:01 -
[14] - Quote
Before drone proteus, drone legion, cloaky legion and about any configuration for the loki gets ungimped, they better not buff the tengu any further. For the tengu, atleast two offensive subs work, unlike the others. Even besides that, it's the one by far most powerful and versatile strat already... |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
524
|
Posted - 2015.05.11 01:58:12 -
[15] - Quote
The balance between individual subs is a serious issue that does need to be comprehensively addressed during their next major balance pass.
In regards to the cloak sub, it would be a simple issue to move the covops ability to all of the covops offensive subs into the Emergent Locus Analyzer, but remove any cpu reduction so it has to have 100 spare CPU to fit it properly. This would ensure that combat fits using covert ops would be gimped to fit them appropriately, and the normal use for the sub, which is scanning, doesn't go to waste since generally it's not used for direct combat outside of combat probes.
|
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
524
|
Posted - 2015.05.11 02:10:37 -
[16] - Quote
Going to post this separately since it's a separate thought from my earlier bit.
In regards to OP's observation about how the engineering and nav subs I'm inclined to believe that the issues lie more with slot distribution and secondary bonus application. The Proteus in particular is a particularly bad offender in this category, as it gets a number of drone bonuses which have absolutely nothing to do with the ship. Moving all of these into the offensive subsystem category would be a very easy fix, especially with where weapon slots are allocated.
Secondly, ensuring that Augmented Capacitor Reservoirs and Capacitor Regeneration Matrices are consistent is paramount. Quite a few of the latter have more capacitor (even after bonused) than the former, the tengu being one of the worst offenders in this category. This is simply a numbers issue so it would be very simple to balance.
Lastly, nav systems are weird. The t3 cruiser's base mass and agility should be rolled into them in the same way defensive and engineering stats are with the other subs. Having the mass amount be variable would be excellent as it would permit better options between mwd and ab setups with subsystems that support them. Having a higher mass and higher speed would benefit Fuel Catalyst subsystems, and having a much lower mass would benefit Wake Limiter subsystems. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1450
|
Posted - 2015.05.11 10:05:41 -
[17] - Quote
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:Wynta wrote: I believe that T3s are supposed to be more powerful than T1 cruisers but less powerful than T2 hulls in similar roles. So a Rail Tengu should be less powerful than a Rail Eagle, and a ECMgu should be less powerful than a Rook.
Why should a T3 ship be less powerful than a T2? Both from a matirials and a technological standpoint this does not make sense. A fully fit rail tengu is much more expensive than a rail eagle. Often the subsystems and hull cost 500m or more. While i agree that T3s need a rebalance, nuetering them to be worse than a t2 ship would remove the point of having a T3 ship.
ISK is a poor choice for a basis on balance
T2 ships fill specialist niche roles T3's are multi-role generalists
A Tengu can duplicate the roles from several T2 hull classes based on fittings Frigate - Cov-Ops Cruiser - HAC, Recon, Logistic Battle Cruiser - Command Ship Industrial - Transport
[edit] If you want a Logi ship best choice is a Logi (no brainer there really) a T3 will work, but its not as effective a HAC is really bad choice
this choice process SHOULD follow the same pattern for each role that a T3 can assume for some T3's and some roles, this is not the case |
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
159
|
Posted - 2015.05.11 22:13:08 -
[18] - Quote
Wynta wrote:I think the way I worded my problem with the engineering subsystems came off wrong. My main problem with the Power Multiplier SS is that if gives an extra turret hard point and the powergrid to fit it whereas the Augmented Cap gives a launcher and some cap. I have no problem with the other two SS. Hell I don't even really have a problem with the Augemented Cap SS as it does actually give you benefits outside the extra hardpoint. I'd like to see the Power Grid Multiplier give the hardpoint, have the extra 100PGU shifted to its baseline and have a minor engineering bonus added.
but PGM does give you turret bonus and fitting requirements to gave rail platform. If you want launcher hardpoint, you go with augm cap reservior, which also gives you extra cap recharge. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
560
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 01:44:51 -
[19] - Quote
Augmented Plating subs at 7.5% still broken with exact T2 resist profiles.
But nobody cares.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |