These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Chart is confusing, please correct the chart.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liltha
Lost My Way Enterprises
#381 - 2013-06-12 05:52:31 UTC
Ris Dnalor wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Kor'el Izia wrote:
You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost

false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market.

if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.


Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more.



depends on how big the supply is. There have been items, over the years, that were extremely highly supplied, wherein the Meta 1 and 2 loot versions were cheaper than the T1 items at Jita. So if the supply was large enough X-types might be cheaper than Tech 1 simply because of the mineral cost attached to T1.


Possibly, but a lot of that price desrepency was because most people used meta 3/4 or tech 2 items, no one used the lower metas so they got refined into minerals, but the meta 1 and 2 had less minerals than the base item so they were worth next to nothing. In the case of the X-type it would be used by everyone so not really sure it would drop below the tech 1 price though you'd see the price of 3 and 4 drop to base prices and tech 2 would never be made again nor would the base items as any existing amounts would be refined as there would be no more demand for anything other than the X-types. This is of course assuming the supply of X-types got close to current supplies of tech 1 modules.
Donedy
Lulzsec Space
#382 - 2013-06-12 09:15:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Donedy
Liltha wrote:
Ris Dnalor wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Kor'el Izia wrote:
You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost

false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market.

if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.


Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more.



depends on how big the supply is. There have been items, over the years, that were extremely highly supplied, wherein the Meta 1 and 2 loot versions were cheaper than the T1 items at Jita. So if the supply was large enough X-types might be cheaper than Tech 1 simply because of the mineral cost attached to T1.


Possibly, but a lot of that price desrepency was because most people used meta 3/4 or tech 2 items, no one used the lower metas so they got refined into minerals, but the meta 1 and 2 had less minerals than the base item so they were worth next to nothing. In the case of the X-type it would be used by everyone so not really sure it would drop below the tech 1 price though you'd see the price of 3 and 4 drop to base prices and tech 2 would never be made again nor would the base items as any existing amounts would be refined as there would be no more demand for anything other than the X-types. This is of course assuming the supply of X-types got close to current supplies of tech 1 modules.

Well, i think that everyone agrees that it would be stupid to provide as much or even more X-type modules than T1. (Im gonna give obvious reasons for it cause people will say im just a mad guy who ran out of arguments other way... So yeah, that would make disappear any progression curve, so kill the interest of having shiny stuff, which is for a lot of people a reason to play among a lot of other reasons, and plus it would make useless all the other modules)



Tippia is just a ******* communist, theorycrafting stupid stuff without even apparently pvping (except on forums).
Also Malcanis you're bad and you should feel bad.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#383 - 2013-06-12 09:17:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Tippia wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
So where do I go to find a linkable image version of this?

EDIT: I also thought of something actually constructive to say. I want to quote someone from CSM7 - "Don't throw the Legion out with the Tengu bathwater."

Here. Note the date on that blog post…


Yeah, about that...

...that's the old one, and if you click the link that I.. well.. linked, it shows the new one. I already have the old one, but it's old and outdated. I'm looking for the new one, as an image rather than a video snippet.

I would reply to your snark with counter-snark about reading comprehension and visual acuity, but I really don't feel like it.
Donedy
Lulzsec Space
#384 - 2013-06-12 09:24:25 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
So where do I go to find a linkable image version of this?

EDIT: I also thought of something actually constructive to say. I want to quote someone from CSM7 - "Don't throw the Legion out with the Tengu bathwater."

Here. Note the date on that blog post…


Yeah, about that...

...that's the old one, and if you click the link that I.. well.. linked, it shows the new one. I already have the old one, but it's old and outdated. I'm looking for the new one, as an image rather than a video snippet.

I would reply to your snark with counter-snark about reading comprehension and visual acuity, but I really don't feel like it.

Screenshot -> Resize -> Upload
Wallis Jenkins
GiveMeURFace
#385 - 2013-06-14 11:24:22 UTC
NERF NERF NERF!!!Big smileBig smileBig smile

This is the way the world ends...
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#386 - 2013-06-14 11:27:27 UTC
So does the chart need to be corrected, or is it working as intended?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
#387 - 2013-06-14 11:29:54 UTC
Why did you necro post this?

Now with 100% less Troll.
AlStorm Prime
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#388 - 2013-06-14 12:25:05 UTC  |  Edited by: AlStorm Prime
Just like in my visions. Cool

Null sec super stars say - tech3 are overpowered and need fixes more then tech2.

Low sec super stars say - tech3 are overpowered and need fixes more then tech2

CCP says - Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance...

W-space super stars say
- HEY! Hands away from my tech3! I used to rule all other ships and fleets just with one hand while drinking soda! How i will live without this further???
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#389 - 2013-06-14 13:01:21 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Yeah, about that...

...that's the old one, and if you click the link that I.. well.. linked, it shows the new one.
…which is not different in any way that matters.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#390 - 2013-06-14 13:05:25 UTC
AlStorm Prime wrote:
Just like in my visions. Cool

Null sec super stars say - tech3 are overpowered and need fixes more then tech2.



I guess am not a superstar Sad

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Charles the Miner
Amarr Empire
#391 - 2013-06-14 13:48:46 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
SMT008 wrote:
Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.

You might have solved most of the rebalancing right there. Simple and effective. Time to call Fozzie ...
It would certainly be a great compromise.

Remove raw stats, but change mechanics so that T3 are truly flexible and only depend on their sub-systems.

It should remove some balancing pains, in order to ensure that T3 never beats a specialized T2 hull for a single purpose.

The problem is, when has "jack of all trades, king of nothing" ever been worthwhile in an MMO?

Being able to exchange subs at places where one could also just store other specialized T2 hulls, isn't really being flexible.

On that note, I see the true strenght of T3 as being able to rival multiple T2 hull stats, in one hull. That's kinda what we have now; it's a very fine line to walk.

Should they remove rigs, they need to add more subsystems, to expand the roles T3 can be fitted for. Maybe add a backup sub for each slot, so T3 can activate and de-activate subs on the fly? Increasing flexibility, but at the risk of losing x2 the ISK if you get blown up?
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#392 - 2013-06-14 14:00:51 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


I guess am not a superstar Sad

But,but... I voted for you because I thought you were :(

Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Merouk Baas
#393 - 2013-06-14 14:20:16 UTC
My crazy idea for "flexible but not overpowered" would be:

- give the ship plenty of slots
- give the ship a zillion different bonuses, but all small
- have the ship have an amplified stacking penalty effect so you cannot take any one stat to ludicrous levels via modules

This should promote installing everything and the kitchen sink in your solomobile, without making a solopwnmobile.
Dual B
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#394 - 2013-06-14 14:40:36 UTC
Merouk Baas wrote:
My crazy idea for "flexible but not overpowered" would be:

- give the ship plenty of slots
- give the ship a zillion different bonuses, but all small
- have the ship have an amplified stacking penalty effect so you cannot take any one stat to ludicrous levels via modules

This should promote installing everything and the kitchen sink in your solomobile, without making a solopwnmobile.



Congratulations, you just came up with the most complicated and difficult to balance solution to this 'problem'...

Ever.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#395 - 2013-06-14 20:34:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyancat Audeles
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.

The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.

In summary:

  • Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
  • Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
  • Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
  • Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.


Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.


Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.




What I really hope is that CCP realizes that EVE isn't "Tengus Online". It seems that everyone bases the status of T3's off of the admittedly overpowered Tengus, but they fail to even look at the performance of other T3's...

How about you start with nerfing the Tengus rather than just breaking every other T3? The Legion is already fine as it is, nerfing all T3's would maintain the imbalance between the Tengu and everything else. What you want to break is the overpowered status of the Tengu, but why ruin the Legion and Proteus?


If CCP just nerfed everything in a T3 and increased them in the name of "flexibility", no one in their right mind would use a T3 in the first place. T3's are useful because they are tanky and powerful - why would I spend 700M ISK on a T3 if I could be outperformed by a HAC? Because I can keep another 1.4bn ISK worth of subsystems in my cargo? Thinking so is ludicrous.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#396 - 2013-06-14 21:04:51 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
What I really hope is that CCP realizes that EVE isn't "Tengus Online". It seems that everyone bases the status of T3's off of the admittedly overpowered Tengus, but they fail to even look at the performance of other T3's...

How about you start with nerfing the Tengus rather than just breaking every other T3? The Legion is already fine as it is, nerfing all T3's would maintain the imbalance between the Tengu and everything else. What you want to break is the overpowered status of the Tengu, but why ruin the Legion and Proteus?

If CCP just nerfed everything in a T3 and increased them in the name of "flexibility", no one in their right mind would use a T3 in the first place. T3's are useful because they are tanky and powerful - why would I spend 700M ISK on a T3 if I could be outperformed by a HAC? Because I can keep another 1.4bn ISK worth of subsystems in my cargo? Thinking so is ludicrous.

Sounds like a nice lossmail.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#397 - 2013-06-14 21:05:02 UTC
Myriad Blaze wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Just remember that no one is going to pay any premium for ships that are mediocre at several roles.

If we're putting a quarter of a million SP on the line, then that ship damb well better do something better than anything else. Otherwise I'll simply buy the 2-3 racial T2 ships instead.

The other huge barrier to "flexibility" is rigs. If I have to destroy the rigs every time I "flexibly" change my T3s role, then it very very quickly becomes cheaper and easier to simply have multiple ships. In fact people have multiple T3s now because of this.

The idea of owning a "flexible" multi-role hull that you can refit to your immediate purpose sounds appealing on the face of it, but there are a large number of game mechanics that make it rather unappealing.

(1) The relative cost of subsystems
(2) Rigs
(3) Price premium (including SP loss)
(4) The need to have multiple fitted ships ready to go in any case in case of ship loss
(5) The ease of resupply/reshipping

Basically to make the "flexibility" concept really attractive you have maybe 2 options

(1) Allow T3s to self-refit subs and modules dynamically in space (this would actually be a useful advantage)
(2) Go back in time to around and stem the wealth boom that has meant that it's easy to afford large numbers of fitted ships.

Malcanis sums it up very well here. (+1 from me Smile)

From my point of view - and I believe that at least some people share it - T3s are not really "adaptive" or "flexible". When I fit a T3 I always do the same I do when fitting any other ship: I try to find a good fit for the intended task. The only difference from fitting a T1 or T2 is that the T3 has subsystems, which means you need to put some more thought into it. If I'm able to get a better (=more dps or more tank or more specials or being cheaper while being as good) result with another ship I will get that other ship instead. Unless I no longer need the T3 for the original task I would never change the subsystems to fit it for another task; instead I simply buy a second T3 (or T1 or T2 if they are better suited for the task).

I'm not saying that T3s aren't in need of a rebalance. But I believe it will be very difficult to rebalance them without making them obsolete. Maybe it would be a good idea to think out of the box here. I liked the ideas about removing the rig slots and giving T3s the ability to self-refit subs and mods. Imagine flying your explorer T3 in a scanner setup, refit it to a fighting setup on finding a combat site, refit to a PvP or a cloaky fit on noticing neutrals (or reds) on dscan. Yes, this might open a new can of worms and if not done right could make the T3s OP. But that way you would get a truly unique ship type, a jack of all trades but master of none.

Come to think of, as long as T3s are still tough enough to deal with sleepers I would actually like to have such a versatile ship and wouldn't care if they have the best dps/tank or not. Big smile





THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS


T3's are NOT versatile. To nerf them would be to make them obsolete! The ideas above are perfect! Make it so a T3 is very good at one task (say, Incursions) or decent at a wide variety of tasks! Make it so we could "focus" our T3's on one thing or "spread" focus among other roles.
Senn Denroth
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#398 - 2013-06-17 05:17:35 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Just remember that no one is going to pay any premium for ships that are mediocre at several roles. Remember the glory days of "flexible" pirate ships with split weapon bonuses?

If we're putting a quarter of a million SP on the line, then that ship damb well better do something better than anything else. Otherwise I'll simply buy the 2-3 racial T2 ships instead.

The other huge barrier to "flexibility" is rigs. If I have to destroy the rigs every time I "flexibly" change my T3s role, then it very very quickly becomes cheaper and easier to simply have multiple ships. In fact people have multiple T3s now because of this.

The idea of owning a "flexible" multi-role hull that you can refit to your immediate purpose sounds appealing on the face of it, but there are a large number of game mechanics that make it rather unappealing.

(1) The relative cost of subsystems
(2) Rigs
(3) Price premium (including SP loss)
(4) The need to have multiple fitted ships ready to go in any case in case of ship loss
(5) The ease of resupply/reshipping

Basically to make the "flexibility" concept really attractive you have maybe 2 options

(1) Allow T3s to self-refit subs and modules dynamically in space (this would actually be a useful advantage)
(2) Go back in time to around and stem the wealth boom that has meant that it's easy to afford large numbers of fitted ships.


You sir hit the nail on the head. Probably one of the only people here looking at things diplomatically.

Or am I to believe that a Tech2 ship is going to be better than a Tech3 ship in every way? Sure if they actually pull off the flexibility factor and make T3's scalable to the situations at hand, why wouldn't I just have a dozen T2 ships instead as I can just own higher Tech level ships.

Also, cool aliens gave us T3's. Why are we questioning their power? lolz
Pantson Head
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#399 - 2013-06-18 20:01:40 UTC
I'm bothered by two things in what I've read of this thread.
The first is the certainty that tech 3 cruisers need balancing now. The tengu is a better hac than a cerberus. It isn't hard to be better than a cerberus, because a cerberus is bad. Why don't we compare the two after you balance hac's and see where we are. Were t3 cruisers nerfed to **** because a Talos out vagas a vaga? No, HAC balancing is yet to come and may end up with both ships being viable kiting tackle killers or good soloing ships. However you feel strategic cruisers should compare to t2 ships in their specialized roles, the performance of those t2 ships in those roles is soon to change so a sense of certainty that changes need to happen to tech 3 ships could very well lead to unnecessary changes being made for the sake of doing something.

My other fear is that the fact that a great many pilots make their living from the construction of these ships doesn't seem to be an issue in much of the discussion. Many suggestions here would empty out wormholes faster than an outbreak of the Bubonic Plague. While it isn't written in stone that tech 3 production needs to form a significant part of the WH economy, possible effects on that economy should be something which are taken into the discussion from the very start. The health of wormholes is intricately linked with strategic cruisers and cannot be an afterthought.
Ooklah TheMoc
Balls and Shaft
#400 - 2013-06-25 17:11:12 UTC
T3's themselves are not OP. Its the subsystems that are OP. Fix the subsystems and fix T3's. A Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locust Analyzer should not be intended for a PVP fit but its bonus' to slots are what makes a Tengu have a BS tank not the tengu hull itself. Fix the subsystems or give the hull base slots regardless of what subs you have on it.