These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Get rid of Tiers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Max Von Sydow
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2011-10-23 18:51:22 UTC
Alaric Faelen wrote:
I think Lilli explained the reason for the broken tier system pretty well. Changes in other parts of the game had ramifications on the choice of ships.
I submit for consideration that the fix may not lie in constantly tweaking ships but perhaps adjusting the skill training times. The Procurer is the classic example. It's a fine tier one ship (lackluster, but it's there to give you a ship for going with Barges instead of Cruiser on your path to a dedicated mining player) but ONLY if stepping up to a Retreiver wasn't a matter of a couple hours. Given that, the Procurer is an utter waste of isk.
The reason I hesitate to tweak the ships (much) is that the result is pretty much make them all the same. The idea of roles is nice, but making ships too focused at the lower end of the spectrum also limits their use by low SP characters, who are the people we are talking about, since anyone playing for a few months is well into specializing in some aspect of Eve and SP is no longer applicable for the low end, generalized types of ship (frig, cruiser, BC)
I don't know if getting rid of tiers is the answer, nor fiddling with the ships very much- but I agree that the system doesn't work very well right now and needs addressed. Drastically increase training time per level of ship piloting skill?


Unfortunately it is a bit too late to increase training time , since it would either screw over the new guys by forcing them to train longer than we had to, or screw over us who has trained those skills if the game suddenly tells us the time we spent training wasn't enough and we now have to train even more to get back into the ships we have used all this time.
I still believe that the tier system is flawed, and while I understand that some ships need to be cheaper and require less time to get into, they shouldn't have to be this much worse than their high tier brethren. And if we buff them to be almost as good as the high tier ships, but not quite as. then the rookies would still have a cheap option before they proceed while we who have played for a while could consider them an option to the high tier ships.
Ruah Piskonit
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#42 - 2011-10-24 13:09:59 UTC
I don't think you even know what you are asking for, or have not bothered to think about it enough to realize that not every ship has to be the rifter/punisher whatever. And considering that Black-Ops, Moms, Titans and a whole lot of possibly useful ships are not really balanced well - what do you think makes CCP want to ever revisit t1 frigates.

think about it
Erim Solfara
House of Solfara
#43 - 2011-10-24 15:49:18 UTC
Ruah Piskonit wrote:
I don't think you even know what you are asking for, or have not bothered to think about it enough to realize that not every ship has to be the rifter/punisher whatever. And considering that Black-Ops, Moms, Titans and a whole lot of possibly useful ships are not really balanced well - what do you think makes CCP want to ever revisit t1 frigates.

think about it


We're asking for more variety, less rifters/punishers being flown proportionally, by making other options more viable.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#44 - 2011-10-24 18:33:21 UTC
Erim Solfara wrote:
Ruah Piskonit wrote:
I don't think you even know what you are asking for, or have not bothered to think about it enough to realize that not every ship has to be the rifter/punisher whatever. And considering that Black-Ops, Moms, Titans and a whole lot of possibly useful ships are not really balanced well - what do you think makes CCP want to ever revisit t1 frigates.

think about it


We're asking for more variety, less rifters/punishers being flown proportionally, by making other options more viable.


This.
Genocide Machine
Ritual Suicide
#45 - 2011-10-25 22:14:43 UTC
Ruah Piskonit wrote:
I don't think you even know what you are asking for, or have not bothered to think about it enough to realize that not every ship has to be the rifter/punisher whatever. And considering that Black-Ops, Moms, Titans and a whole lot of possibly useful ships are not really balanced well - what do you think makes CCP want to ever revisit t1 frigates.

think about it


because the number of people flying moms/titans/black ops versus t1 frigs/cruisers/battlecruisers

think harder about it
Nezumiiro Noneko
Alternative Enterprises
#46 - 2011-10-26 03:48:59 UTC
Genocide Machine wrote:
Ruah Piskonit wrote:
I don't think you even know what you are asking for, or have not bothered to think about it enough to realize that not every ship has to be the rifter/punisher whatever. And considering that Black-Ops, Moms, Titans and a whole lot of possibly useful ships are not really balanced well - what do you think makes CCP want to ever revisit t1 frigates.

think about it


because the number of people flying moms/titans/black ops versus t1 frigs/cruisers/battlecruisers

think harder about it



this....only reason frigates are still viable on this server are die hards run them. Most go for bigger and better. Which is a shame, the smaller boats are more fun. And I think more of a challenge to fly well. But the masses want to hit f1 and see stuff instapop. And in the smaller ships, ccp is not giving reason to stay there beyond die hards who jsut don't think F1 spamming is a fun night.


Moms and titans will never balanced. they are meant to be uber weapons and rightly so. hard ships to get and some kick ass ability should be expected. Thier "balance" was cost. Which ccp shot ouf of the water since jsut in the 2.5 years I have played this game, ccp made making isk easier than years past. I started pvp...I'd see 4 titans between 2 sides occasionally. 2 years later hell you cna get 5 titans hot dropping just on one side.

Black ops fixing will be hard to make happen as you can't pin down whats wrong with them. I hear they suck. then I hear from bitter vets not even in crews like vivicide who say crews like vivicide ran these things very effectively. What did vivicide do right others did wrong....you'll have to ask them or those who they messed up lol.
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2011-10-26 04:25:41 UTC
Basically, nerf all battlecruisers to have stats, fitting space and slots similar to that of tier 1 BC's.
Buff all cruisers to have stats, fitting space, and slots similar to those of top tier cruisers.
Buff all frigates to have stats, fitting space, and slots similar to those of top tier frigs.
Leave battleships alone, as the're pretty decently balanced as far as tiers go.

This should bring BC's closer in line to cruisers, and also brings the different "tiers" (which would now be called "roles") more in line with each other. People would actually fly new and exciting varieties of ships.
Ruah Piskonit
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#48 - 2011-10-26 11:34:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ruah Piskonit
Erim Solfara wrote:
Ruah Piskonit wrote:
I don't think you even know what you are asking for, or have not bothered to think about it enough to realize that not every ship has to be the rifter/punisher whatever. And considering that Black-Ops, Moms, Titans and a whole lot of possibly useful ships are not really balanced well - what do you think makes CCP want to ever revisit t1 frigates.

think about it


We're asking for more variety, less rifters/punishers being flown proportionally, by making other options more viable.


there are lots of options. . . 5 frigs per race, 2 AFs per race, an EAF per race, faction frigs, navy frigs. . . And, it has nothing to do with the tier system. Moreover, there will always be better and worse ships. You have variety or you have equality - not both.

Genocide Machine wrote:


because the number of people flying moms/titans/black ops versus t1 frigs/cruisers/battlecruisers

think harder about it


that again, has nothing to do with tier system.

If you don't want to fly against moms and titans and black ops (really? black ops? who?) then join FW. Lots of frigs. True, there are lots of BCs - but you can always evade those. I mean, I may not play a whole lot, but I do fly AFs 90% of the time now and spend most of my pvp time fighting frigs. Lots of variety, lots of options. . .

Honestly, I am still very confused as to what exactly it is you guys are complaining about - that people want to fly big ships? that the 20 t1 frigs out there are not all like rifters and punsihers? That there are not enough frigs? what.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#49 - 2011-10-26 12:33:55 UTC
Jejju wrote:
The idea of the Tornado and its counterparts sounds interesting, if difficult to balance. However, it is depressing that you are taling about it as a tier 3 battlecruiser. Doesn't everyone accept that tiers are a bad idea?

The idea of tiers is to have a set of ships that are designed to be slightly less powerful and slightly cheaper. Tier 1 battlecruisers include the Cyclone and the Ferox. Tier 2 battlecruisers include the Hurricane and the Drake. The problem is that people are very rarely going to use tier 1 ships. Why use a bad ship, when there is a better version. We know that cost isn't a good balancing technique, this is particularly true when the cost difference is only 10-20% (after insurance, rigged and t2 fitted). CCP knows the exact statistics on how few people fly tier 1 ships, but we all know that you rarely see Feroxes and Cyclones, particularly compared to the tier 2 BCs.

Why deliberately design a ship to be weak and therefore unusable? Why not get rid of tiers and make all battlecruisers different, but equally powerful? (Same for battleships.) If the Cyclone was buffed, then it would be a viable alternative to the Hurricane for solo or very small gangs. People would have more ships to use, a greater choice of tactics and a wider variety of opponents.

Tiers just seem like a bad idea. Am I missing something? It would be a bit of a waste of time if these new tier 3 BCs just made the tier 2 ones obsolete and we still only really had 4 useful ships.


brutixes are very popular in gallente high-sec, simply hop in a mackinaw and mine ice in tolle and you'll see them in action

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Erim Solfara
House of Solfara
#50 - 2011-10-26 12:36:28 UTC
Ruah I'm going to make this as simple as I can for you, because you're clearly not comprehending the discussion at hand.

In a given class, each ship is different, they have unique bonuses, these bonuses allude to them having different roles. For instance, a Maller is a good tanking ship, an Omen a good ganking ship, an Arbitrator is an EW platform with drones, and the Augoror is a logistics ship. These are different things.

Because of the tier system, the lower tier ships suffer from more restricted fitting space for their given tasks, less armour hp for what they do, they're slower, etc. Essentially, the lower tier ships are made worse at their jobs than the high tier ships are at theirs.

Does this make sense to you now?

We are asking that each ship be as good at it's job as the other ships are at their jobs. We are not asking for all ships to be good at one ship's job. (We don't want all frigates to be punishers, or rifters).
Max Von Sydow
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2011-10-26 12:47:03 UTC
Ruah Piskonit wrote:


there are lots of options. . . 5 frigs per race, 2 AFs per race, an EAF per race, faction frigs, navy frigs. . . And, it has nothing to do with the tier system. Moreover, there will always be better and worse ships. You have variety or you have equality - not both.




Variety and balance has nothing to do with each other, making the slasher, atron, condor and executioner viable as tackle wont all of the sudden make them the new rifters.
Aimy Louis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2011-10-27 00:09:36 UTC
I think the real problem is not that many low tier ships are meh/useless -many other ships are lacking too- but that they're bad by design.
Does it mean that these ships should be CCP's #1 priority ? Not necessarily, BUT they should acknowledge the tier system creates problems for no real benefit in ship classes such as frigates and that they should work on this issue.
Pinaculus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2011-10-29 13:14:01 UTC
Probably the best take-away point from this thread is that rebalancing old ships is a faster/cheaper way to increase the number of viable player options than creating new ships from scratch. Players don't need more options. We need more >viable< options.

I know sometimes it's difficult to realize just how much you spend on incidental things each month or year, but seriously, EVE is very cheap entertainment compared to most things... If you are a smoker, smoke one less pack a week and pay for EVE, with money left over to pick up a cheap bundle of flowers for the EVE widow upstairs.
Ruah Piskonit
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#54 - 2011-10-29 13:58:19 UTC
Erim Solfara wrote:
Ruah I'm going to make this as simple as I can for you, because you're clearly not comprehending the discussion at hand.

In a given class, each ship is different, they have unique bonuses, these bonuses allude to them having different roles. For instance, a Maller is a good tanking ship, an Omen a good ganking ship, an Arbitrator is an EW platform with drones, and the Augoror is a logistics ship. These are different things.

Because of the tier system, the lower tier ships suffer from more restricted fitting space for their given tasks, less armour hp for what they do, they're slower, etc. Essentially, the lower tier ships are made worse at their jobs than the high tier ships are at theirs.

Does this make sense to you now?

We are asking that each ship be as good at it's job as the other ships are at their jobs. We are not asking for all ships to be good at one ship's job. (We don't want all frigates to be punishers, or rifters).


See, now that is the most intelligent, most concise argument in this thread. Spacifically the part in bold. Although there are a lot of people who are thinking more along the lines of the italics part.

Hense my skepticism.
Erim Solfara
House of Solfara
#55 - 2011-10-29 14:01:46 UTC
I have been saying precisely that throughout the entire thread, and most of the replies have been echoing the same thoughts, you're too quick to misinterpret people here and assume they're being stupid.
Ruah Piskonit
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#56 - 2011-10-29 19:11:37 UTC
anyway, its not going to happen anyway so moot point.
Erim Solfara
House of Solfara
#57 - 2011-10-29 20:47:00 UTC
Wow, if you can't play with your toys no-one can?
Houseki Shoujo
Perkone
Caldari State
#58 - 2011-10-29 21:41:09 UTC
I am all for the removal of the tier system. I would love to see every ship have a roll and do that roll well. I like the Ferox hull a lot but you would never catch my pod in one.
David Xavier
The Capsuleers of Unconscious Thought
#59 - 2011-11-18 10:56:06 UTC  |  Edited by: David Xavier
The forum ate my post so this time I will keep this short.

Diversity does not equals with usefulness. Drop the tiers, give the ships of the same class the same slot and attribute budget and allocate them corresponding to the ship's role.

The current system only constricts people instead of giving them options.

I don't suffer from insanity.. I enjoy it !
Erim Solfara
House of Solfara
#60 - 2011-11-18 15:12:22 UTC
I don't think cookie-cuttering the slot layouts is a good idea, the Arbitrator clearly needs more mid slots than the Omen, regardless of how potent you want to make the ships relative to each other. Different roles call for different layouts.

I do agree that the idea of 'potency' is a bit nebulous, but it's the only logical solution IMO.