These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

SMARTER T3 Rebalances, Please!

First post First post
Author
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
#401 - 2013-09-06 00:43:09 UTC
Onomerous wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Making the cost of a ship appropriate to its performance doesn't mean ships are balanced around their cost.


And up is not up since it is really down? Or left is not left but really right? Your comment doesn't make any sense.


Faction noob ships. 'nuff said.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#402 - 2013-09-06 01:26:34 UTC
with my last day I just need to say this

RE INTRODUCE AND USE THE 5TH SUBSYSTEMS WHEN YOU RE-BALANCE K THX BYE!!!

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

Onictus
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#403 - 2013-09-06 05:59:19 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Onomerous wrote:
Each T3 seems to do a slightly different 'thing' best. Depending on what you are trying to do, pick the T3 of choice. It seems balancing to some people means that all T3s should be fairly equal at all roles. If that is the case, why have different races, weapons, etc.?

and thus we arrived to the crux of the problem: how to make T3's useable and attractive while maintaining them balanced vs other ships, keeping the (apparent) flexibility of T3's, while maintaining them exotic enough between themselves and all the other ship classes.
Caveat:

  • they are, in the end, cruisers and thus should be balanced around that paradigm.
  • no, cost is not a damn balance factor.
  • yes, they are an important (the main) factor on the wormhole economy viability, so better not screw this up.


altho hard, considering the fact that T2's are next, and then only CCP will touch T3's, there will be some time to fix them. perhaps next year's summer expansion only, altho I wish they would be fixed together with the entire T2 cruiser class, as to keep things a bit more coherent.


Judging by the HAC changes, I have doubts about the T3s hopefully they change the skill tree so I can get the SP for the three I can fly back.
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#404 - 2013-09-06 08:10:22 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Onomerous wrote:
Cost does play SOME part of balance.

Cost is a result of ship performance, not a cause of it.

Quote:
I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply.

Why would I be nasty or call you names? I'm a civil and mature adult. Here's a bear Bear



Cost is a result of supply and demand. Higher costs create a barrier to entry i.e a Ballanced economy... Read a book for once in your miserable life.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#405 - 2013-09-06 08:27:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
Quinn Corvez wrote:
Cost is a result of supply and demand.

It's also a result of manufacturing requirements which are decided by CCP after the ships have been rebalanced. Show me a single F&I thread where CCP have said they want a ship to cost a certain price and so they need to adjust the stats to suit the price range.

Quote:
Higher costs create a barrier to entry i.e a Ballanced economy... Read a book for once in your miserable life.

Sorry but your words are garbage. They make no sense.
Onictus
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#406 - 2013-09-06 08:32:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
So ummm why do you think BS AND BC prices jumped...


Wasn't the market.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#407 - 2013-09-06 08:34:33 UTC
Which price jump are you referring to? Prices jump all the time.
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#408 - 2013-09-06 08:40:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Quinn Corvez
lol I'm talking crap? Take a look in the mirror pal.

If you were right, everyone would be flying nothing but T3s and faction ships. Your real world principles don't apply to a virtual world in which CCP can influence anything they choose (again, ballance)

If a thorax was the same price as a Deimos, everyone would consider the Deimos to be overpowered. If you don't understand that, you are a fool and you don't deserve our attention regarding your flawed logic.
Onictus
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#409 - 2013-09-06 08:40:42 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Which price jump are you referring to? Prices jump all the time.


The build requirements that doubled the prices of the cbcs, abd pushed the former tier 1 battleships up 60 mil.

That was a misquote that is to annoying to fix on a phone.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#410 - 2013-09-06 08:48:00 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Onomerous wrote:
Each T3 seems to do a slightly different 'thing' best. Depending on what you are trying to do, pick the T3 of choice. It seems balancing to some people means that all T3s should be fairly equal at all roles. If that is the case, why have different races, weapons, etc.?

and thus we arrived to the crux of the problem: how to make T3's useable and attractive while maintaining them balanced vs other ships, keeping the (apparent) flexibility of T3's, while maintaining them exotic enough between themselves and all the other ship classes.
Caveat:

  • they are, in the end, cruisers and thus should be balanced around that paradigm.
  • no, cost is not a damn balance factor.
  • yes, they are an important (the main) factor on the wormhole economy viability, so better not screw this up.


altho hard, considering the fact that T2's are next, and then only CCP will touch T3's, there will be some time to fix them. perhaps next year's summer expansion only, altho I wish they would be fixed together with the entire T2 cruiser class, as to keep things a bit more coherent.


Judging by the HAC changes, I have doubts about the T3s hopefully they change the skill tree so I can get the SP for the three I can fly back.


Not a chance. This is the risk you take when you chase the fotm.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#411 - 2013-09-06 08:50:05 UTC
CCP adjusted build costs to reflect their vision of balance within the tiericide. They didn't rebalance the ships based on the build costs, that was decided separately and while the costs reflect the balance of ships, I doubt they consulted a list of changed stats and bonuses while deciding those costs.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#412 - 2013-09-06 08:51:12 UTC
Quinn Corvez wrote:
you don't deserve our attention regarding your flawed logic.

Sorry but I honestly can't follow anything you say. It's all garbage and makes no sense to me.
Onictus
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#413 - 2013-09-06 08:58:51 UTC
Quote:


Not a chance. This is the risk you take when you chase the fotm.


You mean train alliance doctrine?

Because you know, your alliance uses recon T3s with all doctrines.....and has both Tengu and Loki specific fleet doctrines.

My last alliance used basically nothing but Tengu for a year, and the hell with flying full time logi.
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#414 - 2013-09-06 09:02:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Quinn Corvez
Riot Girl wrote:
Quinn Corvez wrote:
you don't deserve our attention regarding your flawed logic.

Sorry but I honestly can't follow anything you say. It's all garbage and makes no sense to me.


lol this guy, right?

"I can't dispute your argument so I'm just gonna say, I don't know what you are saying" Spoiler alert - I'm calling you a ******* idiot! Big smile

Maybe you should go to the doctor and see if they can do something about your autism, rain man.
Onictus
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#415 - 2013-09-06 09:03:52 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Onomerous wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Making the cost of a ship appropriate to its performance doesn't mean ships are balanced around their cost.


And up is not up since it is really down? Or left is not left but really right? Your comment doesn't make any sense.


Faction noob ships. 'nuff said.


You know there is a sansha nub ship out there.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#416 - 2013-09-06 09:08:11 UTC
Quinn Corvez wrote:
"I can't dispute your argument so I'm just gonna say, I don't know what you are saying"

What argument? You don't have an argument, you are talking crap.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#417 - 2013-09-06 09:12:43 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Quote:


Not a chance. This is the risk you take when you chase the fotm.


You mean train alliance doctrine?

Because you know, your alliance uses recon T3s with all doctrines.....and has both Tengu and Loki specific fleet doctrines.

My last alliance used basically nothing but Tengu for a year, and the hell with flying full time logi.


And like every nerf before we will adapt.
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#418 - 2013-09-06 09:14:47 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Quinn Corvez wrote:
"I can't dispute your argument so I'm just gonna say, I don't know what you are saying"

What argument? You don't have an argument, you are talking crap.


Right back at you buddy.
Dorrann
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#419 - 2013-09-06 10:09:01 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Onomerous wrote:
Cost does play SOME part of balance.

Cost is a result of ship performance, not a cause of it.

Quote:
I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply.

Why would I be nasty or call you names? I'm a civil and mature adult. Here's a bear Bear



Youre confusing Cost with Price.

Price is the cash you pay or items you trade for what you want and is determined by the buyer and seller meeting a mutually acceptable compromise (in most cases, sometimes not)

Cost is not the same. Cost is set by the volume of the materials used to create the item, and that is determined in this universe by CCP when they pluck the numbers out of the crack of their rear ends (or crunch numbers till they are happy with them). THIS IS used in balancing terms. See the Additional Materials section on numerous blueprints.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#420 - 2013-09-06 10:24:41 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Yes, YES, the only reason why we are nerfing them down is to generate a river of tears from our player base - we need it to add some flavor in our morning oatmeal Twisted

No, no, actually that's not true. We have a "trolling" contest going on between CCP Fozzie, Rise, Tallest and myself to see who can create the biggest rage threadnought on the forums, while we keep scores on a whiteboard. Oops

Also, when we are going to nerf them, we'll just launch a 6-faced dice to see how many slots we are going to randomly remove. Except for the Legion, we'll use a 20-faced dice. Doesn't matter if we end up with negative slot number!


Ok, more seriously, let's sit down a bit and talk about this. See that big sofa over there? Yes, the big black comfy one. Let's sit down and relax. Now breathe deeply. Slowly. See? There is no reason to go into panic mode waving your arms all over the place. May hurt yourself. Then spill fluids all over the place. Messy.

First, we are not even sure on how we want to tackle Tech3s yet - we have a general direction on where we want to go, but not how yet. See that hill far away in the horizon? That's the end of Tech2 rebalancing - if we had to put Tech3s into perspective, we wouldn't even be able to see them due to the curvature of the Earth. Sure, some small tweaks may happen more or less shortly (like the rebalancing of Warfare Links and associated bonuses on Tech3 when we get to Command Ships), but we are not up to the point where we are going to touch the Tech3 hulls themselves.

So speaking of nerf at this point is just plain premature. When we get to them we'll discuss the changes through the proper channels, like the CSM and the Features & Ideas Discussion sub-forum section, so you'll have plenty of time to see them coming and voice your concerns.

Then, we are not going to casually blanket-nerf them with one hand while eating a jambon-beurre-fromage sandwich with the other at a random lunch break. Along with capitals, Tech3s are the most complicated hulls out there, and we will be careful they still have a proper role when we're done with them. As much as I want to nerf the Tengu to oblivion while singing dirty French limericks, we actually have responsible and fully-mature people out there, like CCP Fozzie and Rise that won't let me run amok in the office.

But yes, there may be some changes on how they function as a whole - for instance we have discussed things like making them more flexible by allowing rigs to be removed from them, rebalancing the sub-systems to be less terrible in their selection while offering gameplay not necessarily competing with current hulls, or even introducing a new line of modules with flexibility in mind to complement Tech3 hulls.

Whatever we end up with may be different with what we have now, yes. I like to pick the same crappy frozen pizza brand when I go food hunting instead of trying something different, like I don't know, cooking for instance. That's just because I don't want to get out of my comfort zone, even if the pizza tastes like chewed plastic. It's the same exact problem here, fear of change can be a potent adversary.

We are not making such a change because we like to troll our player base by randomly switching various numbers on ships while staring at our screens drunk. We do it because we feel such an effort is justified for the overall health of the game, and because in the long term, the gained value will outweigh the pains involved. That's also a given we will be careful when we get to it, because our jobs remain based on what on player subscription and what they may or may not like.


Wrote a wall of text Cry Oh well, hope that helps a bit.





The Jambon-Beurre and cooking part was interesting, everything else is ok and supports the main thing to retain right now: wait and see

Not curious or in hurry and a lot less "afraid" of what's going to happen to T3's but rather "fixed" on what's going to happen most probably.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne