These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What do we want from the Tech 3 rebalance?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#141 - 2013-07-09 13:01:54 UTC
Shade Millith wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
nd when T3s are given there nerf to where they are supposed to be then what? You have an overpriced novelity ship than will be outperformed by T2 (as they should be) and more expensive than a pirate faction ship but with the role quality of a navy ship.
Without a gimmic of there own they will collect dust like many ships have in the past.


no you have a ship that performs a lot of tasks good just no i win button so a specialized ship does the job little bit better so its still usefull! the prices will drop a bit and its fixed. you act like a ship that can fullfill a ton of diffrent roles almost as good as the specialized ship isnt good Ugh


Versatility doesn't make a ship good.

If another ship will do it better, than why the heck would anyone put money down on the lesser ship?

"Hmm, I can purchase a 200+ million isk slightly beefed up Vexor... or a 120 mil Ishtar."

Not to mention the horrifically devaluing that would do to wormhole space. Because there's no point in keeping them around if a cheaper cruiser will do their jobs better, so price goes down from 500 mil to 150-180 mil. Suddenly, C3s are less valueble than nullsec space. Sounds like a swell idea.



Right now, the whole shtick of the T3 is Battleship like power cruiser for a lot of isk and skill training loss on death.

Nerfing them, they would be decent at a lot of things, but other ships do it better, so buy something else.


FFS, STOP. JUST STOP













You are using logic. We cannot have that in an idea thread. Just think of the carnage it would cause in Eve if logic was used? You would use a better ship which costs less and doesn't lose SP when blown up? OMG, EVE would die!! ;)















;) denotes sarcasm for the sarcastically challenged reader.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#142 - 2013-07-09 13:54:49 UTC
Along with the links and HAC rebalancing, not much needs to be done.

+ small range bonus to all RR subsystems
- one rig slot from all T3s

Proteus-specific, others may have similar minor issues:

+ 25m3 drone bay and 25mbit/s bandwidth to Dissonic Encoding Platform (it's a Gallente ship ffs)
+ 50m3 drone more to Proteus Drone Synthesis Projector
+ Proteus Dissolution Sequencer graphics swapped with CPU Efficiency Gate graphics




.
Keira Kashuken
Daikoku Innovations
#143 - 2013-07-09 16:34:55 UTC
I just want all T3s to be usable and balanced against each other.

Other than that their role seems pretty clear to me.
They will always be slightly worse than their T2 counterparts, but no matter what they will be tanky as ****.

I mean a Loki cant web as far as a Rapier but it can take a lot more punishment, thats how it should be with every role they can fill. Well almost all, if Hac build T3s are not all around stronger than their T2 versions nobody is going to fly them. You can get away with slightly less EW/Scanning/Salvaging/Command/whatever capacity since you get it on a brick rather than a sheet of paper, but combat T3s need to be strong.

Well either that or allow T3s to fit several roles at once without crippling their tank. If I can get a Legion with 2 30km Medium Neuts and 500 dps I can live with the fact that it cant tank much more than a Zealot.
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#144 - 2013-07-09 18:01:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Onomerous
**Edited**
Misread his post.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#145 - 2013-07-09 22:42:49 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Well you could just go nuts and universally nerf all T3's by removing their ability to fit normal T1 and T2 rigs, and create a set of Sleeper Rigs that are fittable on T3's. They can be balanced between the T1 and T2 rigs, but can be restricted to just 1 style (meaning no T1 and T2 sleeper rig). They would be removable unlike Normal Rigs. The reason for the removal ability of the T3 rigs would be that T3's are modular, the subsystems can be swapped out for different (sometimes Dramatically different) setups, the rigs should be able to follow suit.


I like this idea as well. Plus it would give some great use/importance for the sleeper salvage loot than currently exists. +1 sir.

I'm right behind you
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#146 - 2013-07-09 22:52:14 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.



I'd have to second this one as QFT, somewhat.

One thing I do not like about the game is the way how things like this get implemented. Not our game of course as CCP is Big Boss, but it never seize to amaze me how one just runs in to the knife by stating "balance is everything" and they implement T3 ships exactly as how it is said above. Roll

The Subsystems ruleset/feature is AWESOME as an idea and it is really a Utility-Player's wet dream. But right now, it is promoting way too many cookie cutter features too.

I don't like too much that there is so much emphasize on cloaking. Balance-wise, it should either be Cloaking OR Nullifier, not both. That is a rather biased demand, but I'm just going to leave it there.

I know T3 and the lore around it is all about extremely advanced pwnage Sleeper Tech. That works in a "real world EVE" but you can't do that in an MMO that is more of about hard-n-fast rather than slow-n-strategic gameplay. Or as a different example, EVE =|= Silent Hunter series or oldschool Star Trek Wrath of Khan (Enterprise vs tha Miranda Class destroyer in the nebula), where you get "subsystem dmg" etc.


In short,
I'd say what the quote above said, while introducing viable, down to earth subsystems-choices for fits. T3 can still kick ass while not having to be over the top like the current version as displayed by the quoted post.
I know people invested a crapton of ISK and produced gazillion Killmails and Tears, but in the end, this is not World of Tanks. So........

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

George Boothe
Blootered Bastards
#147 - 2013-07-10 11:13:58 UTC
I think, in the HAC vs HAC configured T3 it might be interesting to separate the application of both a little bit.

If T3s were to loose quite a bit of resistances but gained raw armor hp, whereas HACs should gain more resistances and less raw armor hp.
In that way, you can still have a massive buffer on the T3, but it scales worse with logis so in large fleet battles with lots of logi, you would want a HAC with better resistances but a little less buffer, whereas for smaller gang stuff with less/no logi, the bigger buffer might be still preferable.
It would also fit lorewise, that T2 cruisers that are produced with 0.0 moon materials are supposed to scale well into large fleets whereas the wormhole produced T3s are better at small and medium gang engagements.

Obviously this would also require a buff to (addition of) an active tank bonus so you can still use T3s for PVE the same as before.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#148 - 2013-07-10 11:40:02 UTC
Onomerous wrote:
Roime wrote:
Along with the links and HAC rebalancing, not much needs to be done.

+ small range bonus to all RR subsystems
- one rig slot from all T3s

Proteus-specific, others may have similar minor issues:

+ 25m3 drone bay and 25mbit/s bandwidth to Dissonic Encoding Platform (it's a Gallente ship ffs)
+ 50m3 drone more to Proteus Drone Synthesis Projector
+ Proteus Dissolution Sequencer graphics swapped with CPU Efficiency Gate graphics






If so then you would have to lower the damage the guns do. I fly Proteus on 2 different characters but it would OP with the drone changes by themselves.


Why? Hybrid Propulsion Armature gets 50/75 drones on top of same damage and falloff bonuses. 7.5% tracking is nice, but doesn't really substitute for a flight of lights.

50m3 more drone bay to the drone subsys would not affect it's dps, just the amount of drones you can have in bay. Bay size gimps it a bit as an exploration ship, which I think is the primary application for the drone subsys. Furthermore it would be cool if it had a bit more cargo bay. As it is, you can't transport subsystems and drones in cloaky mode like on other T3s.

.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#149 - 2013-07-10 11:49:25 UTC
George Boothe wrote:
I think, in the HAC vs HAC configured T3 it might be interesting to separate the application of both a little bit.

If T3s were to loose quite a bit of resistances but gained raw armor hp, whereas HACs should gain more resistances and less raw armor hp.
In that way, you can still have a massive buffer on the T3, but it scales worse with logis so in large fleet battles with lots of logi, you would want a HAC with better resistances but a little less buffer, whereas for smaller gang stuff with less/no logi, the bigger buffer might be still preferable.
It would also fit lorewise, that T2 cruisers that are produced with 0.0 moon materials are supposed to scale well into large fleets whereas the wormhole produced T3s are better at small and medium gang engagements.

Obviously this would also require a buff to (addition of) an active tank bonus so you can still use T3s for PVE the same as before.


I'd rather tune the HACs faster and smaller, and T3s slower and bigger. HACs might find their role as skirmishers and ranged ships, T3s as tankier, slower sluggers. This would also leave room for T3s to keep their current gank numbers, although I'd still like to see one rig slot removed as T2s don't have three either. Which would translate into a slightly thinner tank.

.
David Kir
Hotbirds
#150 - 2013-07-10 12:43:02 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
well, they can be caught if the pilot is an idiot or at bad luck but too hard still. want it to be nerfed.


Titans can only be caught if the pilot is an idiot.
JFs can only be caught is the pilot is an idiot.
Covops BSs, too.
Bombers.
Shuttles: as you said, instalock doesn't exist.

The "pilot being an idiot" is a pretty relevant factor.
That said, nerfing nullifiers will not stop people from moving valuable low-volume items from nullsec.
They'll get the stuff in a JF/Carrier, and there you go.
Your proposal is meaningless.

PS: tthe pilot doesn't have to be an idiot, for his t3 to be caught.
Stop chatting while gatecamping, and maybe you'll catch some.
No sympathy for nullsec campers.

Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#151 - 2013-07-10 12:46:21 UTC
Roime wrote:
Onomerous wrote:
Roime wrote:
Along with the links and HAC rebalancing, not much needs to be done.

+ small range bonus to all RR subsystems
- one rig slot from all T3s

Proteus-specific, others may have similar minor issues:

+ 25m3 drone bay and 25mbit/s bandwidth to Dissonic Encoding Platform (it's a Gallente ship ffs)
+ 50m3 drone more to Proteus Drone Synthesis Projector
+ Proteus Dissolution Sequencer graphics swapped with CPU Efficiency Gate graphics






If so then you would have to lower the damage the guns do. I fly Proteus on 2 different characters but it would OP with the drone changes by themselves.


Why? Hybrid Propulsion Armature gets 50/75 drones on top of same damage and falloff bonuses. 7.5% tracking is nice, but doesn't really substitute for a flight of lights.

50m3 more drone bay to the drone subsys would not affect it's dps, just the amount of drones you can have in bay. Bay size gimps it a bit as an exploration ship, which I think is the primary application for the drone subsys. Furthermore it would be cool if it had a bit more cargo bay. As it is, you can't transport subsystems and drones in cloaky mode like on other T3s.


Disregard my previous post. I totally misread what subsystems were being mentioned. :(
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#152 - 2013-07-10 12:51:53 UTC
Rgr, nevermind then :)

.
David Kir
Hotbirds
#153 - 2013-07-10 13:33:36 UTC
I would like to point out that the only T3 that is really unbalanced is the Tengu.

Legion, Proteus and Loki are fairly well balanced.
They have lesser EWAR capacities than their Recon counterparts, lesser RR capacity than the respective logistic ships, similar damage application to the HAC line ships, similar (often lower) mobility, similar slot layouts, similarly sized signatures.


Do they have insane tanks?
They do!
That's what stands between the pilot and a heavy SP loss.
Yes, 3 days of training are not many.
But think of losing several of them a month.
T3s are currently a huge SP sink.

Think of this.
You could lose 5 HACs a day, still be under the price of a single T3, and your SP count would be intact.
That's balance, in my opinion.






Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.