These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Future of T3 Cruisers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#221 - 2013-12-12 10:20:21 UTC
Quinn Corvez wrote:
And they aren't "outright better" as T2 ships can do things that T3 can't just like T1 vs T2.

If you just look a stats and pretend that the two classes of ship are going to be brawling at point blank range, then of course T3 will look better but this is not what happens in game.

If someone can point me to a corp or alliance that only uses T3 and are unbeatable, I'll admitt that T3 needs a nerf but until then I'll consider myself right in this argument.


Adhocracy, Kill it With Fire, (previously) Narwhals Ate My Duck, Surely you're Joking to name a few.

None of them are unbeatable, but they use T3 fleets in wormholes for a very good reason.

I'm not sure T2 ships can do anything significantly better than T3 other than logistics and heavy interdiction. Interestingly, you will see a heavy interdictor and multiple guardians in every wormhole T3 fleet.

What you won't see are HACs and recons, because T3s do those jobs better.

Eve players are ultimately rational. They will eventually choose the best tool for each job. The evidence is that right now, the best tools for close range brawling are:

brawling: proteus, legion
ecm: armour 100mn tengu
dps augmentation: 100mn loki
logistics: guardian w/ECCM
initial interdiction, wormhole denial: devoter, phobos
showing off: vindicator
neutralising carriers: bhaalgorn

Notice that HACs and recons don't make it into the list - even though the new HACs are brilliant skirmishers and recons have the best magic EWar projection capabilities. In reality they're not strong enough to apply that brilliance before being destroyed.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#222 - 2013-12-12 10:45:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Quinn Corvez
This conversation is about T3 ships not wormhole space. Do you really need me to explain to you why the mechanics of wormhole space cause people to use t3 ships almost exclusively?

None of those groups are unbeatable and one of them doesn't even exist anymore so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#223 - 2013-12-12 11:34:07 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Cost does not mean crap when balancing ships. T3 are supposed to be on par with navy ships in terms of power, but have the ability to swap roles.
A T3 should never have higher DPS than a HAC, should not have better EWAR than a recon ship, should never boost better than command ships, they do full some unique roles such as exploration and covert combat cruiser.

Some subsystems need a buff, such as the logistic style one, others need a nerf such as most combat related ones.



They should never tank more than the tanky hacs (i.e sacriledge and eagle (when fit for tank with blasters) )


I disagree. I'm always hearing people say "tech 3 was not supposed to be better than t2" but there is nothing to back that statement up. Just because you believe it to be so doesn't mean you are right.

Nerfing T3 below the ability of t2 would be tremendously stupid and imbalanced... Tell me, why would you fly a t3 designed for tank and dps if a t2 can do the job better?

Cost does matter in balance because it creates a barrier to entry and limits a ships use. Losing a t3 also costs the players time due to the loss of skill points

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Kira Rumatova
Night cats
#224 - 2013-12-12 11:52:37 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
The ship rebalance programme is progressing very nicely, and soon will be at the point where Fozzie et al are reviewing the Tech 3 Cruisers.

There are aspects of the T3's that need serious attention, in both buffing and nerfing
Both aspects, I believe, are required.

I am only going to address the Tengu in all of it's various roles, but the data presented will apply equally to the other 3 factions and as such does not need to be included, which keeps the post shorter.

The Role of a T3 Cruiser
CCP's original intent was for it to be versatile, able to assume to many different roles but specialising in none.
Currently the T3 cruiser fails in that role.
It cannot effectively and easily swap roles without additional pre-rigged base hulls for that different role.
It outperforms many of the specialised T2 hulls in that particular role.




Tengu Roles & T1/T2/T3 Progression
A Tengu is defined by the subsystems fitted to it. There should be a clear progression when compared to other base hulls in the game, which I will ouline below.

The Tengu can utilise roles from 3 hull classes, Frigate, Cruiser & Battlecruiser

Exploration & Scouting:
Heron -> Tengu -> Buzzard

Combat:
Caracal -> Tengu -> Cerberus
Moa -> Tengu -> Eagle

E-War:
Blackbird -> Tengu -> Falcon

Logistics:
Osprey -> Tengu -> Basilisk

Fleet Command:
Drake -> Tengu -> Nighthawk
Ferox -> Tengu -> Vulture

The nerf's
The above shows where the Tengu currently needs to be re-evaluated
e.g. In the Combat Role, it should perform better than the Caracal & Moa, but both the Cerberus & Eagle should outperform it
this would allow pilots of the specialised T2 classes to shine more in their chosen roles
many subsystems need to have their bonus % rates lowered
1% or 3% instead of 5%, 3% or 5% instead of 7.5%, 5% or 7.5% instead of 10%
this should see a more balanced performance from T3 pilots compared to their T1 & T2 counterparts.

The Buff's
For the multirole non-specialisation role to work, T3 Cruisers MUST be able to change rigging options in the same way that subsystems can swapped around.

The best One way around this would be to introduce a new line of T3 (T3 hull only) rigs at the same time as the subsystem bonus' are adjusted downwards in the rebalance pass (when they receive it).


PLEASE!!!! Leave T3 alone! Let them be as they are!!! People who plays EVE (we - the players) pays You money (yes we are the people who pays You salary - not Your boss) not for making changes for the worse and not for the giving orders to us on how we should play EVE or how we should think! You wanna nerf T3 ships? Create new T3 ships with 3% bonuses instead of 5% bonuses. Would You be so kind and tell me please why do You always change good things for the worse things?! Why not create new ones?! The lack of creativity?

RESUME: Do not make any of the changes that You've proposed and leave everything as it is now. Create new ships and let the players decide if we wanna fly on them or not. We will vote for the new ideas with our ISKs (ISK = time = money $$$) spent on Your new ships. That is the best way to compare the new and old ideas.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2013-12-12 12:31:39 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Cost does not mean crap when balancing ships. T3 are supposed to be on par with navy ships in terms of power, but have the ability to swap roles.
A T3 should never have higher DPS than a HAC, should not have better EWAR than a recon ship, should never boost better than command ships, they do full some unique roles such as exploration and covert combat cruiser.

Some subsystems need a buff, such as the logistic style one, others need a nerf such as most combat related ones.



They should never tank more than the tanky hacs (i.e sacriledge and eagle (when fit for tank with blasters) )


I disagree. I'm always hearing people say "tech 3 was not supposed to be better than t2" but there is nothing to back that statement up. Just because you believe it to be so doesn't mean you are right.

Nerfing T3 below the ability of t2 would be tremendously stupid and imbalanced... Tell me, why would you fly a t3 designed for tank and dps if a t2 can do the job better?

Cost does matter in balance because it creates a barrier to entry and limits a ships use. Losing a t3 also costs the players time due to the loss of skill points



That is not OUR opinion. Its CCP opinion. Stated several times.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2013-12-12 13:41:51 UTC
^ Oh yeah that's the evidence to back up your statement that i was looking for Roll

Seriously, show me an official statement or a eve wiki link that describes Tech 3 as worse than T2 but more versatile.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#227 - 2013-12-12 14:15:22 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
^ Oh yeah that's the evidence to back up your statement that i was looking for Roll

Seriously, show me an official statement or a eve wiki link that describes Tech 3 as worse than T2 but more versatile.


Cool bro you just don't seem to get it. Have you actually missed every related presentation and blog on the topic for 2 years?

IMO T3's amongst other things should just have their resists set to low-grade t2, like marauders and certain other t2 ships. Tone down their ridiculous ehp/repping power by reducing their damage mitigation. If there's one thing T3's have no shortage of, it's ability to repair themselves.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2013-12-12 14:19:18 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

Cool bro you just don't seem to get it. Have you actually missed every related presentation and blog on the topic for 2 years?


I must have... Please provide links as i'm not interested in personal opinion or off handed dev comments.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#229 - 2013-12-12 14:21:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
Rek Seven wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

Cool bro you just don't seem to get it. Have you actually missed every related presentation and blog on the topic for 2 years?


I must have... Please provide links as i'm not interested in personal opinion or off handed dev comments.



Off handed dev commets fromt he devs tha DECIDE that are MUCH more relevant than official statements from marketing department that has no clue about the game.

You want to ignore the way that information is handled to us? Your problem. Your sturbon ways altoughdo not change the FACTS, the facts that the peopel that MATTER have expressed that T3 shoudl NOT be strogner than T2 on their specialized roles!

I have no obligation to dig posts for you. You are the lazy ones causing turmoil because you want to act as a baby and defy somethign that everyoen knows. You want to swaim against the stream.. YOU DIG IT YOURSELF, or simply SHUT UP!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#230 - 2013-12-12 14:26:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Okay, so you have no official source for your claim. That is what i though, thanks.

Feel free to answer my earlier question as to why you would fly a t3 that was worse than a HAC...

Edit: i don't know if you can call someone a baby if you're the one typing in caps and unable to come up with a ligitamate argument to a reasonable question.

I don't think you have really though this through and because of that, your opinion hold little weight with me. So forgive me if i am unwilling to take your opinion on the nature of Tech 3 ships as fact.

The fact is, many T2 ship can out perform T3 in a similar configuration. The only one people get stuck on is the HAC and the fleet T3 (dps, buffer tank).

Just because it's called a heavy assault cruiser doesn't mean it needs to do the most dps and have the biggest tank of all cruisers. HACs are faster, have a sig reduction bonus, better damage projection and are cheaper. That is what makes the HAC good imo.

I've presented my argument, now please let us all hear yours or top talking to me.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#231 - 2013-12-12 14:42:31 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

Cool bro you just don't seem to get it. Have you actually missed every related presentation and blog on the topic for 2 years?


I must have... Please provide links as i'm not interested in personal opinion or off handed dev comments.

On mobile so I won't make the links pretty.
Tech progression
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg
Source
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/9129

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2013-12-12 14:48:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

Cool bro you just don't seem to get it. Have you actually missed every related presentation and blog on the topic for 2 years?


I must have... Please provide links as i'm not interested in personal opinion or off handed dev comments.

On mobile so I won't make the links pretty.
Tech progression
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg
Source
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/9129


Thank you for finding that. Smile

In that blog they said: "Tech, which impacts ship performance, and roles. Tech 1 is the reference in ship balancing, while faction ships (navy and pirate variants) are most often plain improvements, tech 2 offer a specialized purpose and tech 3 give opportunities for generalization."

Generalization doesn't mean better or worse it just mean unspecified and fit for multiple purposes.

That is pretty much how it is now. I only skimmed through that blog but i didn't see it mention that HACs should do more dps than combat T3.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Meytal
Doomheim
#233 - 2013-12-12 14:52:38 UTC
Mournful Consciousness wrote:
You really don't want huginns or rapiers in a WH fleet fight at range 0!

Mournful Consciousness wrote:
I don't see T3s as solopwnmobiles - solo they are very beatable, as is anything.
What I do see is that when 2 similarly-sized fleets meet, one in T2 and one in T3s, both with logi support, the T3 fleet won't lose a ship.
The T2 fleet will have all the low ehp Ewar ships stripped away, allowing the T3s to get to work on the logi and then the DPS.

Granted, most of my pvp experience is high-end wormholes. Money is simply not a consideration. You either field a T3 fleet with logi or you lose.

Again, this applies only to limited situations.

My corp is a W-space corp as well. But even I can admit that WH PvP is not the only kind of PvP that exists, nor is it even a majority of it. We WH types only have a small slice of that pie. Even if T3 cruisers rule W-space PvP, that doesn't mean anything in the overall picture. Personally, I think it's GOOD that T3 cruisers are the ship of choice in the area of space where their components originate.

Take your two similar T3 and T2 fleets out of W-space, or away from the safety of the wormhole, and the results are MUCH less certain. You very well might be better served by that Huginn or Rapier instead of that Loki.

I think we all agree that you can't balance around 1 vs 1 encounters. But that is only a subset of the more generalized concept, "You can't balance around limited situation, you have to look at the whole picture". W-space PvP is only a small part of that total PvP picture. As mentioned, this is a discussion about T3 ships vs T2 ships, not about T3 ships vs T2 ships in W-space at 0 on the hole.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#234 - 2013-12-12 14:57:32 UTC
Well if nothing else you'll be one of the people caught out when the nerfs come.

You would fly a t3 because HACs can't warp through bubbles w/ covops cloak, then deploy scan probes and still deal a solid 400-500 dps while tanking an entire room.

Assuming the nerfs aren't too extreme of course.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#235 - 2013-12-12 15:04:11 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Well if nothing else you'll be one of the people caught out when the nerfs come.

You would fly a t3 because HACs can't warp through bubbles w/ covops cloak, then deploy scan probes and still deal a solid 400-500 dps while tanking an entire room.

Assuming the nerfs aren't too extreme of course.



I would love to see this fit.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#236 - 2013-12-12 15:04:52 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:


Generalization doesn't mean better or worse i just mean unspecified and fit for multiple purposes.

That is pretty much how it is now. I only skimmed through that blog but i didn't see it mention that HACs should do more dps than combat T3.


Yes I'm seeing the issue here, you've ignored the signs for years that it is coming. The changes are subtle but each one individually is adding up.

Let's observe just a couple that come to mind:
a) nerfed out of highsec 4/10's : not a direct nerf on its own merits but this is an outright statement that they're OP and belong being used elsewhere, also that they're far too common.
b) command link nerfs: had to happen and far overdue. They had no right to be giving more bonuses than command ships.

and FWIW it stands to reason that a HAC should do more dps than a T3 because the specialisation of a HAC is kinda in the name... dps and tank...

The real question I have is why my cerb can do 825 dps vs my ravens 1000 when the difference in training time is so heavily favoured to the raven? Not to mention damage application. Obviously you can't have battleships running around pulling 2k dps everywhere BUT that's not to say battleship weapons need significantly worse application in addition to being more skill intensive.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2013-12-12 15:18:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

Yes I'm seeing the issue here, you've ignored the signs for years that it is coming. The changes are subtle but each one individually is adding up.

Let's observe just a couple that come to mind:
a) nerfed out of highsec 4/10's : not a direct nerf on its own merits but this is an outright statement that they're OP and belong being used elsewhere, also that they're far too common.
b) command link nerfs: had to happen and far overdue. They had no right to be giving more bonuses than command ships.

and FWIW it stands to reason that a HAC should do more dps than a T3 because the specialisation of a HAC is kinda in the name... dps and tank...

The real question I have is why my cerb can do 825 dps vs my ravens 1000 when the difference in training time is so heavily favoured to the raven? Not to mention damage application. Obviously you can't have battleships running around pulling 2k dps everywhere BUT that's not to say battleship weapons need significantly worse application in addition to being more skill intensive.


I'm not really understanding what you are saying here.

Basically i'm getting:

1. Tech 3 is OP because they used to be able to do low level pve sites
2. Tech 3 is OP because they used to be better command ships than command ships
3. HAC actually stands for "can do more dps than a T3" instead of it just implying a better version of the t1 variant.
4. You don't understand that medium weapons have better damage application than battleship weapons and things like speed and sig radius are irrelevant when talking about ship balance.

Did i get that right?

I know the balancing pass is coming to tech 3 ships, i just don't want them to be nerfed into the ground, rendering them obsolete. The issue is not as simple as some of you are making it out to be.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#238 - 2013-12-12 15:57:57 UTC
T3's are fine generally. I think they just need to be more balanced against each other. Currently one particular T3 is much better than the other three.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2013-12-12 16:11:49 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
T3's are fine generally. I think they just need to be more balanced against each other. Currently one particular T3 is much better than the other three.



You mean the one that everyone stopped using?
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#240 - 2013-12-12 16:48:25 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:


The real question I have is why my cerb can do 825 dps vs my ravens 1000 when the difference in training time is so heavily favoured to the raven? Not to mention damage application. Obviously you can't have battleships running around pulling 2k dps everywhere BUT that's not to say battleship weapons need significantly worse application in addition to being more skill intensive.


I'm not really understanding what you are saying here.

Basically i'm getting:

3. HAC actually stands for "can do more dps than a T3" instead of it just implying a better version of the t1 variant.
4. You don't understand that medium weapons have better damage application than battleship weapons and things like speed and sig radius are irrelevant when talking about ship balance.

Did i get that right?

I know the balancing pass is coming to tech 3 ships, i just don't want them to be nerfed into the ground, rendering them obsolete. The issue is not as simple as some of you are making it out to be.


1) A HAC gets no EWAR or logi bonuses, they're pure dps ships. This was covered several times including during the HAC rebalance thread.
2) 825 dps applied from a cerb is certainly preferable which is exactly why I said it. The problem that went over your head is how the jump from cruiser to battleship is such a small increase in DPS, even for T2 battleships. The marauder package got extra tank and projection much like a mini dread --- but critically misses the damage bonus. 3 out of 4 ships got 125% damage at all 5, golem drew the short straw and got better application, on weapon systems that can't cause wrecking hits.

So actually yeah things like speed and sig radius are very relevant to ship balance which I am pointing out now since you clearly didn't notice but

The golem gets a target painter (OH MAH GERD sig radius) and explosion velocity (OH MAH GERD) bonuses to the hull. I'd say those two things are very very relevant to game balance, infact, justifying using a golem and large missiles critically depends on those two bonuses. Not to mention heavy missiles and the TP bonus interaction for killing frigs or speed tanking cruisers.

The issue is pretty complex we agree but I'm not the simpleton here.