These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why are "generalized" t3's betters at "Specialization" Command ships at givi

First post
Author
Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#21 - 2012-05-27 04:22:24 UTC
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
btw one big step to make a T3 more flexible is to alow to remove subsystems without destroying the rigs.

You know you can already do that, right? Just drag them on to the fitting window like modules.



You are misunderstanding his meaning.

You cannot have an unpackaged T3 Hull without any subsystems. In order to assemble a T3 hull it MUST always have 5 subsystems in it.

So you cannot for example have 3 T3 hulls with rigs but no subsystems. And then say one complete set of subsytems and then mix and match for the particular ship.

If it would be too hard to do this, one workaround would maybe be to have "placeholder" subs. They would impart no benefits, but be inexpensive so you essentially could have rigged hulls without having to buy duplicate subsystems for each one.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2012-05-27 04:33:34 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.


If you're going to look at dialing back some of their advantages over T2, could you give some attention to the viability of tech 2 cruisers in large scale (50-200+ on each side) PvP? As it stands right now, much of the reason for the popularity of T3 cruisers is because they are essentially T2 cruisers with enough survivability to stand on-grid during fleet fights and even act as counters to the "bigger is better" fleet comps of Maelstroms and Abaddons. Simply nerfing T3 would be a net loss for the game's ecology and wouldn't make HACs any better at actually influencing the "epic fights" EVE is known for.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2012-05-27 04:37:50 UTC
Yeah, a dude from Black Legion just straight up asked a dev to boost Muninns.

Sunglasses, gravity, "deal with it"
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2012-05-27 05:37:02 UTC  |  Edited by: MotherMoon
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.

The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.


why not leave them alone and balance the commandships, and other tech 2 cruisers around them instead? Since balancing them must be hard with so many sub systems. just buff..errr change, command ships bonuses, while keeping tech 3 as better ships overall.

Think Tech 2 is better than 1. Tech 3 is better than 2. overall.

BUT, tech 2 cruisers and T2BC or future classes, are better bonus wise than tech 3. So you might do as much damage but tech 2 should give better web range, better ECM,better healing, better utility. Well, at least this is one direction you could go.

Another way to think of this is. the main strenght of a tech 3 ship is it feels like you're flying 2-3 ships. You get a massive number of bonuses. To kill this 10-12 bonuses on tech 3 would ruin them. However as long as tech 2 ships always have better bonuses, it won't be a big deal that tech 3 is so much better when they can't match tech 2 ships at the roles they fill.

So if the tech 3 is out performing in one area. buff the ships they are overlapping or change them. The loki web bonus is a great example. Great bonus, but weaker than a web boat.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#25 - 2012-05-27 07:34:03 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.

The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.


Given the (K-space) ease of keeping plenty of ships in one's hangar, plus the factor of rigs only being removable with destruction, and not to mention the skillpoint loss risk, people aren't going to use T3s unless they exceed at something. Certainly not at anything remotely like the current prices. A ship with a 500M ISK hull price and skillpoint loss had damb well better do something better than anything else, and that something had better be a good, useful niche.

Given the relative ease of skilling for them, and the width of the supply chain (compared to the technetium/BPO bottleneck, for instance) I'm not sure that it's all that terrible for Tech 3 cruisers to be significantly better than Tech 2s

tbh the only things I would suggest to rebalance T3s are

(1) Reduce the T3 ganglink bonus to +2%/level. Don't swap T3 and CS bonuses as is often suggested - T2 gang links are already extremely strong and gang bonuses as a whole could do with toning down a smidgen.

(2) Have a look at Cruise Missiles, because it's a poor situation when HMLs are better than Cruise even for killing BS. This would allieviate the Tengu's dominance over all other missile ships for PvE

(3) Fix the "orphan" HACs. The Eagle is utterly obseleted in every way by the Naga in it's rail sniper and blaster brawler roles - the only role I can think of for it is as a sort of blaster Vaga: give it speed and small sig so it can do something the Naga can't. Likewise, the Cerb is dominated by the Drake (close/med range) and the Tengu (close-long ranges), leaving only the near-useless extreme range niche. And the Sacrilege is just sad, partly because HAMs need a little love, partly because "brawler" is a bad role for a cruiser with only 5 slots for tank and damage mods, partly because that niche is amply filled by other ships.

(4) For the love of sweet bleeding jesus on the cross fix the moongoo bottleneck so that T2 ships can be more competitive in price. This can't be that hard; Akita T produced an excellent, racially balanced plan for you guys almost two years ago, with each race's T2 ships depending primarily on a different flavour of goo. Or it that's too hard, R32 alchemy. Whichever.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Barbie D0ll
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-05-27 07:43:00 UTC
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
Seriously an insult not just to Command Ships but the entire balance and design philosophy of this game in general.

T3 cruisers are supposed to be "generalized" ships, doing everything pretty well but not as excellent as a T2 ship in its specialized role.


Hi there, apparently you have not seen the legion in PVP, or flown one. the legion ( in my opinion) is the worse of the T3s, where the zealot outperforms it and often has the worse fate of dying in a fire (loki and tengu can run faster, and proteus can remove someone's arm or leg from DPS)
I think T3s should be a quilt of t2 cruiser special abilities (because they are expensive and carry a very hefty loss cost) but should not carry a big bonus to links, 75 to 50% of their command ability should be fine.
Buzzmong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-05-27 10:13:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzmong
MotherMoon wrote:
why not leave them alone and balance the commandships, and other tech 2 cruisers around them instead? Since balancing them must be hard with so many sub systems. just buff..errr change, command ships bonuses, while keeping tech 3 as better ships overall.

Think Tech 2 is better than 1. Tech 3 is better than 2. overall.

BUT, tech 2 cruisers and T2BC or future classes, are better bonus wise than tech 3. So you might do as much damage but tech 2 should give better web range, better ECM,better healing, better utility. Well, at least this is one direction you could go.

Another way to think of this is. the main strenght of a tech 3 ship is it feels like you're flying 2-3 ships. You get a massive number of bonuses. To kill this 10-12 bonuses on tech 3 would ruin them. However as long as tech 2 ships always have better bonuses, it won't be a big deal that tech 3 is so much better when they can't match tech 2 ships at the roles they fill.

So if the tech 3 is out performing in one area. buff the ships they are overlapping or change them. The loki web bonus is a great example. Great bonus, but weaker than a web boat.


Thing is, T3 are not meant to be better than T2.

I'd post CCP's diagram from Fanfest if I can be bothered to find it to show you their official view, but T2 are meant to be the best in the area they specialise in, T3 are meant to be mearly good but across multiple areas.

A good example in terms of bonuses only is that when using the exploration sub, T3's can probe just as well as a Cov Ops can as they get the exact same probe strength boost. This is wrong, irrelevent of the differences in cost, as it puts them on par as a dedicated prober, while also allowing them to obsolete said dedicated ships by being able to do more stuff on top (ie, also do combat exploration sites with relative ease).

T3's are meant to embody the "jack of all trades, master of none" philosophy, instead for the most part they're currently "jack of all trades, master of all".

If you leave T3 alone and balance the other ships around them, you have a bigger problem: Power Creep.
Power Creep is a massive problem as it affects so many other things.
TomyLobo
Negative Density
Unchained Alliance
#28 - 2012-05-27 11:50:53 UTC
A lot of people are really making sense in this thread. How can you say 'boost T2s because they are being outclassed by T1s' then go ahead and also say 'T3s should be nerfed because they perform better than T2s'?
What will be the opportunity cost of flying T3s, if command ships totally eliminate them from the boosting role? Boosting T3 configs can barely fit any viable tank or dps unlike command ships and both will still end up chilling in the pos or at some safe spot for the most part.
There's a reason you opt for a neut legion or loki over their T2 counterparts.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#29 - 2012-05-27 12:56:12 UTC
Full t2 resists, similar slot numbers to bcs, 6 bonuses that are more powerful than bonuses found on t2s, and 3 rigs slots...

It's rather obvious why they are generally the best sub caps at practically everything outside of max gank potential... However they all do substantially more dps than their respective hacs and are very comparable to dpls lvls of gank Field command ships while retaining the list of advantages posted above...

t3 do not obsolete just hacs... They obsolete Fleet Commands, Field Commands, and many other ships as well while having a relatively short training time. CCP has allot of work on their hands...
Jack Miton
Perkone
Caldari State
#30 - 2012-05-27 13:21:46 UTC
they dont 'obsolete' anything.
that's like saying pirate BSs obsolete T1-2 battleships cos they are much better.
well yeah, theyre better, but they also cost a hell of a lot more.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#31 - 2012-05-27 13:30:34 UTC
Buzzmong wrote:
Thing is, T3 are not meant to be better than T2.

A good example in terms of bonuses only is that when using the exploration sub, T3's can probe just as well as a Cov Ops can as they get the exact same probe strength boost. This is wrong, irrelevent of the differences in cost, as it puts them on par as a dedicated prober, while also allowing them to obsolete said dedicated ships by being able to do more stuff on top (ie, also do combat exploration sites with relative ease).


This is where it gets complicated however. It is easy for you to say "irrelevent of cost" but cost is a factor that has to be considered. Along with loss of SP upon death.

Sure I can make a covert ops T3 that scans just as well as my covert ops frigate. At 10X or more the cost.

Another example, in the opposite direction, which is a better comparison, since it is a command ship vs T3. Take the Nighthawk vs Tengu.

I have many friends who prefer the NH over the Tengu, for example, when running C3 sites. Similarily T2 fit, the NH gets a comparable tank and gank to the Tengu, but at a fraction of the cost. And no risk when they "inevitably" get ganked. IMO I think this is a situation where there is an acceptable balance.
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#32 - 2012-05-27 17:05:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
Most T3s are balanced.

The Tengu is hugely overpowered (the 'PG'/cap subsystem is just the tip of the iceberg), and the cloaky Legion is only able to be terrible, with the neut Legion being a close second worst.

All of them have issues using their RR option due to having no range bonus at all to RR (Logi ships have a huge difference here, although while they're also additionally bonused to fitting RR modules, such modules curently scale terribly with size and it's not that Large RR has any more notable range than small RR, let alone medium. RR only works with range bonuses atm).

Cost is a terrible way to balance things (flat out invalid even according to CCP, as per the recent discussion of Titan nerfs and the resulting possible fits when considering all officer modules). T3s however also have a game mechanic to increase their true cost to players, the high risk of very useful SP loss, which no amount of isk can really speed the replacement & inconvenience of.
Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#33 - 2012-05-27 17:44:10 UTC
Just thought I'd try taking a deeper look into the various facets of T2 vs T3. Overall I don't think the imbalances are that bad, at least IMO. Keep in mind that some of this is my own speculation as I cannot fly all races yet. But based on other reading etc I've drawn the following conclusions.


HAC
Amarr- General consensus seems to be that the T2 HAC are better than the legion. If anything the T3 needs some love in this area.

Caldari- Tengu is obviously king here. I don't know if I have eer seen a Cerb or Eagle all that much. But Given they all use similar weapon systems, I'm guessing maybe the T2 just needs some love and the Tengu could use a little toning down.

Gallente- This one is the most interesting for me, since I fly gallente the most. There really is no direct comparison between an Ishtar and Proteus. They are both awesome in different ways. Hard to say on the Deimos vs Proteus, as they kind of fit the same role. Overall though, if anything maybe the Deimos could use something extra rather than nerfing the proteus heavily.

Minmatar- I know the least about minmatar. But I have seen Muninns (and died to them) as well as vagabonds. So if I had to guess I'd say there is a decent balance between them and the Loki.


HIC

AFAIK there is no direct T3 loadout to match HIC's. So no problem here.

LOGI

As pointed out earlier in the thread, the RR subsystems do not have any bonus for range. So there really isn't a T3 replacement for logistic ships. Seems ok on this. I think leaving the RR subsystem as is works however, giving a RR gang option.

RECON

Aside from a web loki, and maybe a neut Legion it generally seems that T3's fail compared to their T2 counterparts here. Seems fine IMO.

COMMAND

this is an area that seems to be the biggest point of contention. And I would tend to agree. Given the lopsided bonuses, plus the ease of making a formerly unscannable but still near impossible to scan T3 booster, I'd say T3 command ships are unbalanced.
One thought I had was to maybe even out the bonuses, but then also give an additional bonus for command ships when on grid. It doesnt kill off grid boosting, but gives an incentive to bringing that ship on the field.


TLDR: in the T2-T3 balancing, the main areas seem to be HAC vs. T3, although mostly for specific ships, and command ships vs T3 boosters. The other roles seem ok.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#34 - 2012-05-27 18:15:15 UTC
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
btw one big step to make a T3 more flexible is to alow to remove subsystems without destroying the rigs.

You know you can already do that, right? Just drag the new ones on to the fitting window like modules.

Unless you mean simply removing them, without having a replacement sub?

nope. i was talking about removing not replacing.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2012-05-27 20:09:37 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:


HAC
Amarr- General consensus seems to be that the T2 HAC are better than the legion. If anything the T3 needs some love in this area.

Caldari- Tengu is obviously king here. I don't know if I have eer seen a Cerb or Eagle all that much. But Given they all use similar weapon systems, I'm guessing maybe the T2 just needs some love and the Tengu could use a little toning down.

Gallente- This one is the most interesting for me, since I fly gallente the most. There really is no direct comparison between an Ishtar and Proteus. They are both awesome in different ways. Hard to say on the Deimos vs Proteus, as they kind of fit the same role. Overall though, if anything maybe the Deimos could use something extra rather than nerfing the proteus heavily.

Minmatar- I know the least about minmatar. But I have seen Muninns (and died to them) as well as vagabonds. So if I had to guess I'd say there is a decent balance between them and the Loki.


Yep, it's not so much that T3s are better HACs than HACs themselves as a Tengu or Loki can be fit to survive seriousface fights whereas Cerbs and Muninns can't hope to match. Zealots are the 'best' HAC in that regard simply because they sport the biggest buffer.
Robert Tables
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2012-05-27 21:05:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.

The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.


(2) Have a look at Cruise Missiles, because it's a poor situation when HMLs are better than Cruise even for killing BS. This would allieviate the Tengu's dominance over all other missile ships for PvE


1) Only one battleship-sized ship offers a bonus to cruise missile or torpedo damage: the Golem. All other battleships with missile bonuses offer rate of fire and missile velocity bonuses. In contrast, all medium-sized missile ships offer a bonus to missile damage.

2) Because of the mechanics behind how missiles assign damage, Heavy missiles can do more of their available damage to larger ships.
Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#37 - 2012-05-27 21:06:59 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:


HAC
Amarr- General consensus seems to be that the T2 HAC are better than the legion. If anything the T3 needs some love in this area.

Caldari- Tengu is obviously king here. I don't know if I have eer seen a Cerb or Eagle all that much. But Given they all use similar weapon systems, I'm guessing maybe the T2 just needs some love and the Tengu could use a little toning down.

Gallente- This one is the most interesting for me, since I fly gallente the most. There really is no direct comparison between an Ishtar and Proteus. They are both awesome in different ways. Hard to say on the Deimos vs Proteus, as they kind of fit the same role. Overall though, if anything maybe the Deimos could use something extra rather than nerfing the proteus heavily.

Minmatar- I know the least about minmatar. But I have seen Muninns (and died to them) as well as vagabonds. So if I had to guess I'd say there is a decent balance between them and the Loki.


Yep, it's not so much that T3s are better HACs than HACs themselves as a Tengu or Loki can be fit to survive seriousface fights whereas Cerbs and Muninns can't hope to match. Zealots are the 'best' HAC in that regard simply because they sport the biggest buffer.


Which IMO is fine. A T3 in a HAC role should have a better buffer considering I am risking on average 5 days of re-training every time I take one out.
Lili Lu
#38 - 2012-05-27 21:07:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Just thought I'd try taking a deeper look into the various facets of T2 vs T3. Overall I don't think the imbalances are that bad, at least IMO. Keep in mind that some of this is my own speculation as I cannot fly all races yet. But based on other reading etc I've drawn the following conclusions.


HAC
Amarr- General consensus seems to be that the T2 HAC are better than the legion. If anything the T3 needs some love in this area.

Caldari- Tengu is obviously king here. I don't know if I have eer seen a Cerb or Eagle all that much. But Given they all use similar weapon systems, I'm guessing maybe the T2 just needs some love and the Tengu could use a little toning down.

Gallente- This one is the most interesting for me, since I fly gallente the most. There really is no direct comparison between an Ishtar and Proteus. They are both awesome in different ways. Hard to say on the Deimos vs Proteus, as they kind of fit the same role. Overall though, if anything maybe the Deimos could use something extra rather than nerfing the proteus heavily.

Minmatar- I know the least about minmatar. But I have seen Muninns (and died to them) as well as vagabonds. So if I had to guess I'd say there is a decent balance between them and the Loki.

. . .

RECON

Aside from a web loki, and maybe a neut Legion it generally seems that T3's fail compared to their T2 counterparts here. Seems fine IMO.

COMMAND

this is an area that seems to be the biggest point of contention. And I would tend to agree. Given the lopsided bonuses, plus the ease of making a formerly unscannable but still near impossible to scan T3 booster, I'd say T3 command ships are unbalanced.
One thought I had was to maybe even out the bonuses, but then also give an additional bonus for command ships when on grid. It doesnt kill off grid boosting, but gives an incentive to bringing that ship on the field.


TLDR: in the T2-T3 balancing, the main areas seem to be HAC vs. T3, although mostly for specific ships, and command ships vs T3 boosters. The other roles seem ok.

As for HACs

Amarr- Most people seem to prefer a Zealot over a laser legion. Most people prefer a HAM legion over a Sacrilege. At least from my perspective on reading the forums. So I would take the preferences as indicative of the relative strength of each ship.

Caldari- Pretty much correct. CCP made the Tengu a monster right out of the box, obsoleting the Cerb and Eagle, but then those two ships were already suffering to the isk efficiency of the Drake. I still think the Cerb is a decent ship, they seem to appear on my loss mails more than I would like. But again, the Drake, and the Tengu are both better for cheapness or overall power.

Gallente- Most people complain about the drone subsystem on the Proteus. Most people detest the Diemost. Again, I would take that as indicative of the relative strengths of the ships.

Minmatar- Vagabond and Muninn both get use. Probably due to relative cheapness compared to a tech III that is not much more of an improvement in performance.

Recons- This is where you missed the fact that in shield gangs people can tank and fit the Huggins and Lachesises to do the job at a much lesser cost than a Proteus or Loki. However, for armor gangs the Proteus and Loki are the only ships that can be sufficiently armor tanked and do the distance tackler role so they do get lots of use as opposed to their tech II counterparts for the role in armor fleets.

Commands- This is where ITT and before this thread CCP conceeded that they ****** up in making the bonuses better on the tech III ships. I agree with Malcanis that the better thing would be just to nerf the tech III command subsystem bonus to less than the present command ship bonus and leave the command ship bonus as it is. As for the on-grid argument many would love it to be implemented. However, from previous dev statments it appears the coding would be quite difficult. One wonders though whether they could just substitute a range on the effect, say 200 or 250km. Regardless, the present bassackward imbalance between these two classes of ship, is slated to and will be remedied . . .




. . . in 2023.
Alain Badiou
Gradatim Ferociter
#39 - 2012-05-27 22:21:44 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
.

(4) For the love of sweet bleeding jesus on the cross fix the moongoo bottleneck so that T2 ships can be more competitive in price. This can't be that hard; Akita T produced an excellent, racially balanced plan for you guys almost two years ago, with each race's T2 ships depending primarily on a different flavour of goo. Or it that's too hard, R32 alchemy. Whichever.


+10
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#40 - 2012-05-27 23:07:33 UTC
Robert Tables wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.

The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.


(2) Have a look at Cruise Missiles, because it's a poor situation when HMLs are better than Cruise even for killing BS. This would allieviate the Tengu's dominance over all other missile ships for PvE


1) Only one battleship-sized ship offers a bonus to cruise missile or torpedo damage: the Golem. All other battleships with missile bonuses offer rate of fire and missile velocity bonuses. In contrast, all medium-sized missile ships offer a bonus to missile damage.

2) Because of the mechanics behind how missiles assign damage, Heavy missiles can do more of their available damage to larger ships.


(1) Uh a RoF bonus is a DPS bonus. No one cares about volley damage for PvE; RoF is almost always a better bonus.

(2) Yes that's what I was saying: CMs need looking at so that they're not obseleted by HMLs.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016