These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

What do we want from the Tech 3 rebalance?

First post
Author
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#1 - 2013-06-11 17:16:20 UTC  |  Edited by: jonnykefka
All right, look. Tech 3s are going to change. Not soon, but we know it's going to happen. Speaking as a w-space person, I will miss the 5% booster T3 and the massive tank/mega gank brawler Proteus, among others, but it seems quite clear that Ytterbium wants to take T3s in a different direction.

From what he's said so far, T3s are supposed to be more versatile ships, doing things that other, more specialized ships can't do. Right now they aren't that, in fact most (but not all) of the time they are just better versions of other ships. My personal favorite, the heavy combat Legion, is basically just a Zealot with BS-sized tank.

Before the great nerf guillotine swings down on our beloved Tech 3s, I thought it would be worth getting ahead of Ytterbium a little bit and brainstorming what NEW roles a new kind of T3 could fill.

To start with, I wanted to look at the one type of T3 that actually genuinely fills a niche no other ship can: The heavy cloaky/scanny. Beloved of W-space, there is no other kind of ship that can fit a solid BC-sized tank, a covops cloak, an expanded probe launcher, and still put out decent DPS (there is such a thing as a 600dps cloaky Proteus).

First, I hope the rebalance will take it to heart that this is something Tech 3s should continue to be able to do, because at least in w-space it's an incredibly useful thing that no other ship can do. You can get partway there with a well-fit recon, but nothing can actually be a genuinely combat-capable (non-support) ship and still a cloaky/scanny.

Second, what other unique roles would we like to see filled, that no other ship in the game currently fills? Here's a couple of rough ideas I've been playing with:

- A mini-HIC. Bubble half the size, but faster and capable of using prop mods while bubbling. Can be scripted for a more mobile infinipoint because I feel no compassion for supercap pilots whatsoever.

- A cruiser that can fit an MJD. Granted this is kind of rendered irrelevant by the interdiction nullifier, but I don't know if that's on the chopping block or not. Also relies on mid-sized long-range weapons being non-terrible.

- An industrial subsystem. No, seriously. Cloaky miner? Dic-nulled hauler? There's potential here.

- The lesser Etana. Already sort of possible with the Adaptive Augmenter and Cloaky subsystem, but with no range bonus to reps the application is exceedingly limited.

- A smartbomb-bonused subsystem. The miniature, mobile firewall, or specialized drone-killer.

- Viable EWAR subsystems for all races. Right now you've got the ECMgu, which is pretty nasty, the neut Legion, and the web Loki. No TD bonused Legion, no damp bonused Proteus, and I'm just going to skip over target painters because seriously the web loki is better for that anyways.

- A minidread. Moreso even than the attack BC, a cruiser-sized siege module that actually REDUCES tank but does tremendous violence to stationary objects.

My goal for this thread is mostly to give CCP some ideas to chew over, because a straight nerf to Tech 3s would be very disappointing. They are unique, interesting ships and I would be content if they could do unique, interesting things.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#2 - 2013-06-11 17:37:15 UTC
The title of the thread asks what I want from the T3 rebalance. I'll reply to that, since my thoughts on the matter aren't specific enough for OP's post.

I want the Legion to not suck compared to the other T3s.

I want the T2-fitted Loki to not have the tank of a T1 cruiser.

I want the Tengu to stop being a ridiculous, ubiquitous, overpowered beast that makes all T3s look ridiculous and overpowered even though every single other T3 pales in comparison to it.

I want the cloaking subsystem on the Proteus to not be strange and beyond bizzarre, resulting in truly hideous ships that I cannot even force myself to consider flying, let alone actually fly. Don't even start with me on aesthetics being important or not, your ship is right there in the middle of your screen all the time and some of us don't fly in full zoom-out mode. There are some things I'd like to be able to cloak and have drones for.

I suppose the Proteus being able to reach EHP levels on par with an unfitted carrier might be a bit wildly, ridiculously and completely out of line as well.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-06-11 18:23:19 UTC
Well first of all T3 is meant to be generalization not specialization thus any subs that give it a unique role is the opposite of generalization so is not viable option.

The main thing for me is T3's should have navy cruiser like tank (default resists) whether that is achieved with rigs or just subs..
- i prefer just subs only i think rigs encourage more specialization and decrease flexibility like..
- say a Loki is shield fit but wants to swap to armour it atm has to destroy its rigs and buy new ones etc...

And to be able to do 2 roles well and maybe a third role at a slight reducement/stretch. at a level inbetween T1 and T2
-Logi and e-war or links and e-war etc.
make shield tanking more viable on proteus and legion so 3/4 T3's can switch between armour and shield tanking.

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#4 - 2013-06-11 18:47:37 UTC
I want to see T3 industrial subsystems. Increased cargo bays, mining hardpoints, ore holds, tractor beam/salvager bonuses, gas/ice/ore mining bonuses, mining link hardpoints, mining drone bonuses, ore compressors, etc.

Put about two or three in each line. No benefits larger than what the t2 industrial focused on that line could do (don't let it mine more than a hulk, or carry more ore than an orca, etc). Let us mix and match industrial components in with the combat subsystems. Give the entire strategic cruiser line that extra bit of 'diversity' it needs to be truly unique.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2013-06-11 22:48:47 UTC
A realization that most T3 fits are complete garbage and only a few are even worth of being called "T2" let alone T3.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-06-11 23:01:38 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
The title of the thread asks what I want from the T3 rebalance. I'll reply to that, since my thoughts on the matter aren't specific enough for OP's post.

I want the Legion to not suck compared to the other T3s.

I want the T2-fitted Loki to not have the tank of a T1 cruiser.

I want the Tengu to stop being a ridiculous, ubiquitous, overpowered beast that makes all T3s look ridiculous and overpowered even though every single other T3 pales in comparison to it.

I want the cloaking subsystem on the Proteus to not be strange and beyond bizzarre, resulting in truly hideous ships that I cannot even force myself to consider flying, let alone actually fly. Don't even start with me on aesthetics being important or not, your ship is right there in the middle of your screen all the time and some of us don't fly in full zoom-out mode. There are some things I'd like to be able to cloak and have drones for.

I suppose the Proteus being able to reach EHP levels on par with an unfitted carrier might be a bit wildly, ridiculously and completely out of line as well.

QFT
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2013-06-12 00:14:03 UTC
I just want something that doesn't obsolete HACs, yet is still actually useful in it's own right.

<_<
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#8 - 2013-06-12 01:14:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Well first of all T3 is meant to be generalization not specialization thus any subs that give it a unique role is the opposite of generalization so is not viable option.

The main thing for me is T3's should have navy cruiser like tank (default resists) whether that is achieved with rigs or just subs..
- i prefer just subs only i think rigs encourage more specialization and decrease flexibility like..
- say a Loki is shield fit but wants to swap to armour it atm has to destroy its rigs and buy new ones etc...

And to be able to do 2 roles well and maybe a third role at a slight reducement/stretch. at a level inbetween T1 and T2
-Logi and e-war or links and e-war etc.
make shield tanking more viable on proteus and legion so 3/4 T3's can switch between armour and shield tanking.


The "generalization" and "flexibility" aspects of T3 design refer to its ability to switch subsystems and change its purpose, not that the ship should be forever locked in a "can do everything but is terrible at everything" paradigm. You should be completely able to specialize your ship if that's what you want - you just shouldn't be able to do that specific thing as well as the relevant T2.

T2 resists don't specialize the ships or obsolete existing T2s, so they should keep those. The rig slots need to stay as well. Having to pull out all your shield rigs to switch to armor tank is what you get for putting in specialized rigs that aren't very universal.

You can already switch between armor and shield tanking on most of the T3s. The ship isn't guaranteed to be any good at the off-race tanking type though. A shield Proteus should be clearly inferior to a shield tengu or a shield Loki. A shield Legion should in fact be absurd, but possible. Fortunately, this is the way it already is.

I know you hate T3s, as shown by your signature, but please try to refrain from asking that they be watered-down into uselessness.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#9 - 2013-06-12 01:44:52 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Well first of all T3 is meant to be generalization not specialization thus any subs that give it a unique role is the opposite of generalization so is not viable option.

The main thing for me is T3's should have navy cruiser like tank (default resists) whether that is achieved with rigs or just subs..
- i prefer just subs only i think rigs encourage more specialization and decrease flexibility like..
- say a Loki is shield fit but wants to swap to armour it atm has to destroy its rigs and buy new ones etc...

And to be able to do 2 roles well and maybe a third role at a slight reducement/stretch. at a level inbetween T1 and T2
-Logi and e-war or links and e-war etc.
make shield tanking more viable on proteus and legion so 3/4 T3's can switch between armour and shield tanking.


The "generalization" and "flexibility" aspects of T3 design refer to its ability to switch subsystems and change its purpose, not that the ship should be forever locked in a "can do everything but is terrible at everything" paradigm. You should be completely able to specialize your ship if that's what you want - you just shouldn't be able to do that specific thing as well as the relevant T2.

T2 resists don't specialize the ships or obsolete existing T2s, so they should keep those. The rig slots need to stay as well. Having to pull out all your shield rigs to switch to armor tank is what you get for putting in specialized rigs that aren't very universal.

You can already switch between armor and shield tanking on most of the T3s. The ship isn't guaranteed to be any good at the off-race tanking type though. A shield Proteus should be clearly inferior to a shield tengu or a shield Loki. A shield Legion should in fact be absurd, but possible. Fortunately, this is the way it already is.

I know you hate T3s, as shown by your signature, but please try to refrain from asking that they be watered-down into uselessness.


In my opinion, the point is more that T3's, in their most optimized subsystem/module pairing, should not be as good at a specific role as the ships that are designed for it.

Take HAC's. IF a HAC's force output (tank/gank focus) is at a certain level, than a T3 should not be better than them at that role. This is a big IF, however, because it requires CCP to more specifically define which ships are for tanking (traditionally HIC's), which are for ganking (traditionally, HAC's), and which ships are for speed.

Without a bit more definition, T3's capabilities cannot truly be limited. However, when a T3 strategic cruiser can reach massive EHP's that supersede all HIC's AND HAC's ... that means it is doing the job of tanking far better than any of it's t2 counterparts.

Now, you fit a T3 with the tank almost reaching a HIC, with the gank almost meeting a HAC, and the ability to cloak or use command modules or repair others ... then you are achieving what I feel was the point of T3. Versatility, not simply in changing out subsystems, but in battlefield roles.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#10 - 2013-06-12 01:56:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Absolutely.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#11 - 2013-06-12 02:39:07 UTC
Quote:
I want the Legion to not suck compared to the other T3s.


This. Balance this **** out, it's like the Legion got the leftovers of what the other T3s ended up with, especially the Tengu.

Someone else mentioned that only a few of their platform have EWAR. This is also a problem.

Basically, I suggest that we take out a lot of the under used (that being, the useless) subsystems, and turn them into more specialized options.

But, the thing with T3s is, that they are an interesting dichotomy with regards to their performance.

If they aren't tip top in performance, no one will use them in comparison to T2 cruisers, because if T3s aren't awesome, then they are just T2s that you lose skillpoints for dying in. No one will fly them if that happens.

Conversely, you have to make sure that the T3s do not outright invalidate the T2s at any role the T2 is supposed to excel at.

To this end, I would suggest that T3s not be permitted to fire Interdiction effects of any kind. They should be able to duck them, with their superior technology, but they should not be able to use them. The entire point of Interdiction vessels is their ability to use these mods, let them keep that ability.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#12 - 2013-06-12 02:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
Ruze wrote:


In my opinion, the point is more that T3's, in their most optimized subsystem/module pairing, should not be as good at a specific role as the ships that are designed for it.



Then whats the point? You have to dock up to switch to a new config, so you can just as easily get a new ship, and it can be a ship that is better, costs less and doesnt cost skill points when you lose it.
Gorgoth24
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2013-06-12 03:29:19 UTC
I want T3 to lack rigs (but compensate with subsystems) so the changing of subsystems on-the-fly is more reasonable
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#14 - 2013-06-12 03:50:55 UTC
Voith wrote:
A realization that most T3 fits are complete garbage and only a few are even worth of being called "T2" let alone T3.



this basically.

Its not all t3 that are a menace to society. And in the actual t3 ship you can quite easily mix up some subs and mods to make utter crap fits real quick. You don't run in fear when you see hybrid tengu for example. CCP would have to fix medium hybrids for this to happen. How can you nerf that which is not even working well in the first place.


Why I have said it before and I'll sya it again...the mob roars nerf t3. I go which t3/sub/mod combo is your problem.

I know the common gripes. Linky t3...no more offgrid, loki is on grid, go kill em, problem solved.

Hardcode no more 100mn t3 somehow. They have a basis for this. SB's can fit torps but not cruise. Along time ago...frigs could fit cruise however. Guessing in the sb code that says -xyz% fitting need there is an IF-THEN-ELSE saying no sneaking in cruise missles (that would fit easy otherwise unless denied).

Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#15 - 2013-06-12 04:18:07 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Ruze wrote:


In my opinion, the point is more that T3's, in their most optimized subsystem/module pairing, should not be as good at a specific role as the ships that are designed for it.



Then whats the point? You have to dock up to switch to a new config, so you can just as easily get a new ship, and it can be a ship that is better, costs less and doesnt cost skill points when you lose it.


Again, it's not just the versatility of swapping out subsystems. It's the versatility on the battlefield.

Having a machine with good dps, a cloak, and decent speed. Having a cruiser that has natural stabs and good armor plus command links. Having a beast of a tank that can drop a cyno and remote rep.

The idea isn't JUST that the subsystems allow one ship to do many roles by swapping them out. We all know that if you gotta swap subsystems, you might as well swap ships. But you can also do many roles at the same time on the battlefield ... just theoretically, not as good as the dedicated t2 counterpart.

Keep in mind, as well, the cost. With the latest T2 build cost changes, T2 ships cost considerably more. If they rebalance the T2 ships to reflect a more effective and specialized role on the battlefield, then the cost difference between T2 and T3 won't be as severe, and the role difference may be more appropriately realized.

All in all, it still comes down to a 'wait and see' mentality with what CCP's goal is.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#16 - 2013-06-12 05:18:17 UTC
T3s cannot be balanced. In EVE, either you're the best at what you do, or you don't get flown. End of.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#17 - 2013-06-12 06:08:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
I want to see Tengu's Acceleration Ejection Bay nerfed as it is out of balance compared to others: it gives 100% boost to DPS AND(!) damage projection bonus when maximum what other subs give is 60% + some damage projection. It needs its kinetic damage bonus removed and it'll be in line with other subs but still a bit OP due to damage type selection.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

Kane Fenris
NWP
#18 - 2013-06-12 06:19:21 UTC
Gorgoth24 wrote:
I want T3 to lack rigs (but compensate with subsystems) so the changing of subsystems on-the-fly is more reasonable



no.... just make the rigs fit in the defensive sub not in the hull (and let em stay there if sub is "unfited"
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#19 - 2013-06-12 06:28:41 UTC
Paikis wrote:
T3s cannot be balanced. In EVE, either you're the best at what you do, or you don't get flown. End of.

Even if true it's not an obstacle to the balancing T3. The ability to do many things with a good level of profiency is extremely valuable at times. It allows you to handle a wider range of targets and situations on a single ship. Slightly lower EFT numbers won't make them obsolete in actual combat situations, where an additional ability/bonus set can turn the situation in your favor again. Therefore they can easily remain better then specialized ships in many areas, but that advantage has to be gained through abilitites and stats, that fall outside the individual T2 specializations.
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#20 - 2013-06-12 06:31:29 UTC
Personally, I think T3's should get balanced with each other but not balanced against other ships. This is because:

1) They cost a fair amount and are by no means indestructible
2) I don't want WHs themselves nerfed. If T3's are balanced against other ships and so become jack of all trades, master of none, they won't get used as there will always be another, cheaper ship that is better at whatever you're doing. If this happens the price of T3 components will drop drastically in order to make T3's preferable by cost rather than power or people will just stop doing WHs as there wouldn't be any profit in it which would be a crying shame.

Just my twopence worth, anyway.
123Next pageLast page