These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Tech 3 Cruiser rebalance idea
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Chimpface Holocaust
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2014-10-28 06:12:17 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
I strongly suggest that the bonus from the augmented plating sub on both the legion and the proteus be changed to 5% per level, and then reviewed later. Cutting half the bonus from these subs puts the subsystem bonus back into semi-reasonable territory, although they do synergize far too well with plates and slaves for my taste. It would be nice if these subsystems were done first, as they are by far the least balanced part of these ships, and doing iterations at 6 week intervals is likely to find a balance point fairly quickly.

Considering the legion, usually considered the lesser of the two evils, is able to hit a Ehp mark of nearly 700k if completely brick fit (and shiny, with implants but before links) and a real armor HP of 98k if triple plated, this single sub system cries out to be nerfed savagely before any other changes. While such a subsystem might be okay in isolation, the synergy between the slave set, trimarks, the over-sized buffer mods and the subsystem is entirely broken.


I beleive the removal of rig slots and T2 resists would adequately compensate for this byremoving the ability to fit trimarks and forcing players to either deal with the T1 resists or swap some of the plates for resist mods to compensate
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#22 - 2014-10-28 06:32:21 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
Chimpface Holocaust wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
I strongly suggest that the bonus from the augmented plating sub on both the legion and the proteus be changed to 5% per level, and then reviewed later. Cutting half the bonus from these subs puts the subsystem bonus back into semi-reasonable territory, although they do synergize far too well with plates and slaves for my taste. It would be nice if these subsystems were done first, as they are by far the least balanced part of these ships, and doing iterations at 6 week intervals is likely to find a balance point fairly quickly.

Considering the legion, usually considered the lesser of the two evils, is able to hit a Ehp mark of nearly 700k if completely brick fit (and shiny, with implants but before links) and a real armor HP of 98k if triple plated, this single sub system cries out to be nerfed savagely before any other changes. While such a subsystem might be okay in isolation, the synergy between the slave set, trimarks, the over-sized buffer mods and the subsystem is entirely broken.


I beleive the removal of rig slots and T2 resists would adequately compensate for this byremoving the ability to fit trimarks and forcing players to either deal with the T1 resists or swap some of the plates for resist mods to compensate


This heavy handed approach completely destroys any ability to use the loki or the tengu for many many of their current roles which are not PvP related. And even in such a case, even running from t1 resists, the sheer ridiculous buffer of these armor fits skews the entire conversation. A surgical nerf of this one, particularly outrageous aspect and then a trial period to see what further nerfs are needed is almost certainly the best course.

BTW; even with no trimarks as opposed to the 3 t2 used for the intitial numbers, the bonus from this subsystem pushes the raw armor buffer of even a single plate legion with slaves to ~25k. It is far more these two subsystems that allow for the insane tanks than it is rigging t3s that causes the issue. Resists are once again, something that is comparable to a t2 hull, and in some cases (the logisitics defensive subs) better, but this is not the issue people keep bringing up. the issue I keep hearing is with the 300k ehp + legions and protei that, because they use a single plate to get there, retain the agility and speed of a standard armor cruiser.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#23 - 2014-10-28 06:53:32 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
I strongly suggest that the bonus from the augmented plating sub on both the legion and the proteus be changed to 5% per level, and then reviewed later. Cutting half the bonus from these subs puts the subsystem bonus back into semi-reasonable territory, although they do synergize far too well with plates and slaves for my taste. It would be nice if these subsystems were done first, as they are by far the least balanced part of these ships, and doing iterations at 6 week intervals is likely to find a balance point fairly quickly.

Considering the legion, usually considered the lesser of the two evils, is able to hit a Ehp mark of nearly 700k if completely brick fit (and shiny, with implants but before links) and a real armor HP of 98k if triple plated, this single sub system cries out to be nerfed savagely before any other changes. While such a subsystem might be okay in isolation, the synergy between the slave set, trimarks, the over-sized buffer mods and the subsystem is entirely broken.


Entirely broken, how? What kind of issues those pure EFT joke fits have caused in the game?

Most of the ideas in this thread are terrible, only rebalancing T3s actually need is removal of rig slots and fixing unusable subsystems.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2014-10-28 07:12:44 UTC
Chimpface Holocaust wrote:
Tech 3 cruisers were originally meant to be modular "jack of all trades" type ships able to refit and change their role on the fly but would be unable to match T2 ships in their specific role. Currently, they are more "build-a-bear" FOTM type ships that you can customize to a specific role and some of them can be even better than their T2 counterparts. I've detailed a method that I think would adequately resolve these issues and fit the T3 ships into their desired place in EVE.

1. Remove SP loss and make the ships/subs cheaper to build

the main excuse people use for leaving these ships so overpowered is their cost. if they were cheaper SP-wise and money-wise, then perhaps they could be balanced without a major community backlash

2. remove rig slots

the reason these ships can't simply be refit on the fly is rigs which have to be destroyed and replaced everytime you change roles.

removing rig slots would eliminate this issue and also limit the FoTM nature of these ships

3. remove T2 resists

some of the T3 ships can have insane tanks, nearly surpassing that of battleships while remaining fast and nimble.

removing the T2 resists from the base subs would limit this

4. Move logistics bonuses from the defense subsystem to the offense subsystem to replace the lesser used offense sub

every T3 ship has an offensive sub that's rarely ever used. moving the logistics bonuses from defense to this sub would allow the ship to fit better into a logistics role while still being less powerful than T2 logis. This would also allow each ship to have a buffer, rep, and resist sub for their race's tanking method, and an alternate defense sub

5. remove the interdiction nullifier sub

the interdiction nullifier is unique to T3 ships, making them the only ships that if fit with warp stabs, could potentially get past any gate camp

6. balance between T3 ships

some subs rarely ever get used because they're so underpowered and some are seen on every ship because they're so overpowered.

The T3 subs need to be balanced against eachother so that each sub has it's place in a specific ship role

Bottom line: we need to get these ships balanced before we even think about adding T3 ships of other sizes


1. No would be a big nerv for the income of people living in the wh.
2. Don´t like the ideas rigs are good to make you ship special and adaptable to your gameplaystyle.
3. In special cases the resistance are needed (capital escalation C5/C6), if there would be a solution found i´ll would be okay with it
4. Would be okay with that too but as an alternative not to kick some away.
5. No. There are also the interceptors. Try harder if you wanna catch a t3.
6. Good idea, CCP also said the same thing but it is not that easy to keep a game balanced.

Dear god why can´t we focused on more T2-ships like logicstic frigs, assault battleships or something like this why has it to be every time t3. There is also the posibility to make T2 equipment like the Reactive Armor hardner/ T2 Capital guns etc. There are so many things i would rather see than any more T3 stuff. The T3 Cruisers are needed to fill a space. The t3 destroyer i´m not shure what to think about it.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#25 - 2014-10-28 08:47:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
NEONOVUS wrote:
Why remove something that makes the t3 unique with the nullifier sub?

I keep seeing this and its always going on about how they shouldnt have to actually play the game and point things


i keep seeing this and wondering "what about the interceptor?"

Also moving the logi sub to an offensive sub would be a hit to BLOPS gangs and they are already suffering some collateral as it stands T3 logi still fall far short of their T2 counterparts so try thinking of all they ways your changes would affect the game rather then just the areas you deal with.

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Ix Method
Doomheim
#26 - 2014-10-28 10:36:42 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
[quote=NEONOVUS]Also moving the logi sub to an offensive sub would be a hit to BLOPS gangs and they are already suffering some collateral as it stands T3 logi still fall far short of their T2 counterparts so try thinking of all they ways your changes would affect the game rather then just the areas you deal with.

Wouldn't that be addressed in the balance though?

Travelling at the speed of love.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2014-10-28 13:48:47 UTC
Ok I read this and I’m quite sure most of the people posting here do not fly T3 nor do they fight T3. Some EFT-warriors, crying for EFT-balance...

To the point:

1) T3 are mostly used in WH. The balance here is a non-issue since T3 fight T3. It’s rather a matter of making other ships viable in WH (Absolution being the one exception) and making T3 balanced against each other.

2) Why some people cry about T3 vs. HAC? I fly all T3 and all HACs and I would never take my T3 on a roam in LowSec on Null. Why? Price and sp loss. Nerfing T3 to a point of HAC would just make another HAC...

3) T2 resist is a must, not only coz it's stupid for T3 ships (maybe T3 resists) to have T1 stats, but coz T3 fly mostly with logi - resists are more important here then buffer. Solution: nerf buffer (see below).

4) Nerfing T3 in any way is a tricky idea. Not due to the PvP but rather PvE. T3 are the main tool for fighting sleepers, mostly capital spawns. Without T2 resists and huge buffer they would just die to cap spawns. Nerfing sleepers themselves would also be hard coz it would make income in wh too easy (or you would have to nerf capital ships also...)

5) A T3 are probably only ships (except maybe Cpas) that use faction mods as standard. So yes, they may seem overpowered when fighting them, but remember they pay a lot of ISK for that.

So before you propose any more great ideas take into account how T3 are flown and what is their place in EVE. Then try to balance.
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
#28 - 2014-10-28 15:33:02 UTC
totally yes to 1 and 6.

maybe to 4.

everything else is just plain stupid and shows a lack of undersanding and knowledge regarding strategic cruisers.

Removing their rigs and T2 resists would go a long way to making them completely useless and inefficient to the point of not being used again, ever.

also, interdiction nullification is NOT unique to strategic cruisers. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT OP.

Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci

CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase - Frostys Virpio
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#29 - 2014-10-28 15:41:39 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
I strongly suggest that the bonus from the augmented plating sub on both the legion and the proteus be changed to 5% per level, and then reviewed later. Cutting half the bonus from these subs puts the subsystem bonus back into semi-reasonable territory, although they do synergize far too well with plates and slaves for my taste. It would be nice if these subsystems were done first, as they are by far the least balanced part of these ships, and doing iterations at 6 week intervals is likely to find a balance point fairly quickly.

Considering the legion, usually considered the lesser of the two evils, is able to hit a Ehp mark of nearly 700k if completely brick fit (and shiny, with implants but before links) and a real armor HP of 98k if triple plated, this single sub system cries out to be nerfed savagely before any other changes. While such a subsystem might be okay in isolation, the synergy between the slave set, trimarks, the over-sized buffer mods and the subsystem is entirely broken.


Entirely broken, how? What kind of issues those pure EFT joke fits have caused in the game?

Most of the ideas in this thread are terrible, only rebalancing T3s actually need is removal of rig slots and fixing unusable subsystems.

Where else i eve can you triple the performance of a module? How else can you get 50k armor buffer on a cruiser, before resists? The 10% armor buffer subsystems are over powered, and cutting their bonus in half to start and then adjusting from there makes for a better balance point.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#30 - 2014-10-28 16:20:38 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
I strongly suggest that the bonus from the augmented plating sub on both the legion and the proteus be changed to 5% per level, and then reviewed later. Cutting half the bonus from these subs puts the subsystem bonus back into semi-reasonable territory, although they do synergize far too well with plates and slaves for my taste. It would be nice if these subsystems were done first, as they are by far the least balanced part of these ships, and doing iterations at 6 week intervals is likely to find a balance point fairly quickly.

Considering the legion, usually considered the lesser of the two evils, is able to hit a Ehp mark of nearly 700k if completely brick fit (and shiny, with implants but before links) and a real armor HP of 98k if triple plated, this single sub system cries out to be nerfed savagely before any other changes. While such a subsystem might be okay in isolation, the synergy between the slave set, trimarks, the over-sized buffer mods and the subsystem is entirely broken.


Entirely broken, how? What kind of issues those pure EFT joke fits have caused in the game?

Most of the ideas in this thread are terrible, only rebalancing T3s actually need is removal of rig slots and fixing unusable subsystems.

Where else i eve can you triple the performance of a module? How else can you get 50k armor buffer on a cruiser, before resists? The 10% armor buffer subsystems are over powered, and cutting their bonus in half to start and then adjusting from there makes for a better balance point.


You are still talking only about numbers on paper, can't you give a real situation as an example why you think T3 tanks are overpowered?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#31 - 2014-10-28 16:28:04 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:

You are still talking only about numbers on paper, can't you give a real situation as an example why you think T3 tanks are overpowered?

Okay, lets take a t2 hull and a pirate hull, and compare them, using A type and faction gear to a straight t2 fit t3 hull. Pick a legion or a proteus (the 2 t3s with the subsystem I want nerfed before a full balance pass) , and I'll walk through the numbers on why it is so OP compared to both of these things.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#32 - 2014-10-28 18:03:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Cassius Invictus wrote:

2) Why some people cry about T3 vs. HAC? I fly all T3 and all HACs and I would never take my T3 on a roam in LowSec on Null. Why? Price and sp loss. Nerfing T3 to a point of HAC would just make another HAC...


I've taken T3s on nullsec roams/fights a fair bit - my loki fit that has the mobility, etc. to hang with a HAC fleet has an incredible game breaking 55K EHP. Granted the armor one I use in guardian/triage fleets has more like 200K EHP (at the expense of damage output but its there for webbing) but that has generally seen action in null against 70+ man BC fleets hideously out numbered.

James Baboli wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:

You are still talking only about numbers on paper, can't you give a real situation as an example why you think T3 tanks are overpowered?

Okay, lets take a t2 hull and a pirate hull, and compare them, using A type and faction gear to a straight t2 fit t3 hull. Pick a legion or a proteus (the 2 t3s with the subsystem I want nerfed before a full balance pass) , and I'll walk through the numbers on why it is so OP compared to both of these things.


Most T2s are in no shape that they should be used as any benchmark as to what T3s should be like.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#33 - 2014-10-28 18:17:19 UTC
Rroff wrote:

James Baboli wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:

You are still talking only about numbers on paper, can't you give a real situation as an example why you think T3 tanks are overpowered?

Okay, lets take a t2 hull and a pirate hull, and compare them, using A type and faction gear to a straight t2 fit t3 hull. Pick a legion or a proteus (the 2 t3s with the subsystem I want nerfed before a full balance pass) , and I'll walk through the numbers on why it is so OP compared to both of these things.


Most T2s are in no shape that they should be used as any benchmark as to what T3s should be like.

HACs have gone through the balance pass. CCP has stated they don't want t3s to be straight up better than HACs in a straight combat role. This means that t3s need to be balanced against HACs and pirate hulls so as not to obsolete them.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Saeger1737
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#34 - 2014-10-28 22:08:47 UTC
No to all, stop trying to make the game less risk adverse, this game is supposed to be high risk.

Take the rigs off the hull yes but add them to the defensive subsystem, increasing strategic value without diminishing usability and tank.

MERC WITH A MOUTH, Send me DPS and my fleet will double it back! Special offer!
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#35 - 2014-10-28 22:27:35 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:

You are still talking only about numbers on paper, can't you give a real situation as an example why you think T3 tanks are overpowered?

Okay, lets take a t2 hull and a pirate hull, and compare them, using A type and faction gear to a straight t2 fit t3 hull. Pick a legion or a proteus (the 2 t3s with the subsystem I want nerfed before a full balance pass) , and I'll walk through the numbers on why it is so OP compared to both of these things.


You still don't seem to get it. Balancing is not about arbitrary numbers, and stating that X is bigger than Y, hence "OP".

You need to come with a systematic game balance issue persisting on TQ caused by these subsystems, until you have an argument.

These subsystems and their bonuses don't exist in EFT vacuum, they are fitted on ships that have easily exploitable weaknesses.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#36 - 2014-10-28 23:06:15 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:

You are still talking only about numbers on paper, can't you give a real situation as an example why you think T3 tanks are overpowered?

Okay, lets take a t2 hull and a pirate hull, and compare them, using A type and faction gear to a straight t2 fit t3 hull. Pick a legion or a proteus (the 2 t3s with the subsystem I want nerfed before a full balance pass) , and I'll walk through the numbers on why it is so OP compared to both of these things.


You still don't seem to get it. Balancing is not about arbitrary numbers, and stating that X is bigger than Y, hence "OP".

You need to come with a systematic game balance issue persisting on TQ caused by these subsystems, until you have an argument.

These subsystems and their bonuses don't exist in EFT vacuum, they are fitted on ships that have easily exploitable weaknesses.

So what weakness does a proteus with a 168m sig 210k ehp, 650ish DPS at 18km, a 17km scram and 15km web, and still no links on it have? 18 points of sensor strength means that its not a guaranteed jam. It can still get links and get faster, longer weba and point range and has a 7s align time, again before links. Its not exactly sluggish, has 50mbits for some drones not yet included in the DPS above and generally looks like a total baller. Needs to escape? The long scram and web virtually assure it the ability to do so if it is well piloted, and it can sustain 1300m/s once it lights its own micro. Only issue with such a ship is the cost and SP loss.

With links, its a solid 110m sig, 270k EHP for a 6s align time and 23km scram and 20km web, with everything cold.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#37 - 2014-10-28 23:46:52 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
.


Most T2s are in no shape that they should be used as any benchmark as to what T3s should be like.


so what you are saying is T3s are supposed to over-class almost everything ? because that is what your post implies. and with almost you mean everything except commandships and logistics ? because that are the only T2s that have any real value over T3s and the commandship only achieved this due to a balancing pass before that they got owned by any T3

riddle me this why is it you use a loki only for the webs? isn't there a T2 hull that is specially designed for that task ? the ONLY reason is because it has a big ass tank so there is your answer because you can fill in every T2 roll and a T3 does it better or almost as good but with a big ass tank.

and that is exactly the problem! it makes almost all T2 ships (that are specially designed for a special task) completly obsolete, this is a fact

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#38 - 2014-10-28 23:50:43 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
[quote=King Fu Hostile][quote=James Baboli]
.


You are still talking only about numbers on paper, can't you give a real situation as an example why you think T3 tanks are overpowered?


because this is a nr game why do you think everybody uses EFT because it helps you get the max out of a ship without buying every module and ship and puzzle for hours. those nrs on paper as you like to post are giving a huge tank and that sub is OP as hell and you and i know it damn everybody in this topic knows it, the only difference is that you don't want it changed and i do

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#39 - 2014-10-29 00:11:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Ellendras Silver wrote:

so what you are saying is T3s are supposed to over-class almost everything ? because that is what your post implies. and with almost you mean everything except commandships and logistics ? because that are the only T2s that have any real value over T3s and the commandship only achieved this due to a balancing pass before that they got owned by any T3

riddle me this why is it you use a loki only for the webs? isn't there a T2 hull that is specially designed for that task ? the ONLY reason is because it has a big ass tank so there is your answer because you can fill in every T2 roll and a T3 does it better or almost as good but with a big ass tank.

and that is exactly the problem! it makes almost all T2 ships (that are specially designed for a special task) completly obsolete, this is a fact


I wasn't really talking about stuff like command ships which are BC hulls but T2 cruisers that are generally in a rather mixed state.

My main uses of lokis for webbing comes down to:

-T3 WH fights were blap dreads aren't a completely uncommon occurrence and your often facing enough sub-cap dps to alpha most recons if your not in a position to dictate range (i.e. jumping through a wh into a brawl fleet at effectively 0km).

-Capital escalations - sure rapiers, etc. are usable but if stuff hits the fan and/or your pulling multiple waves they have fairly low survivability.

-Engaging nullsec fleets heavily outnumbered i.e. 15 v 70+ where the incoming damage is so high recons would insta pop.

That T2 hull is entirely unsuited to many of the situations ingame that it was designed for with the evolution of the game to date. A generalised T3 that sat below current T2 (at the expense of current T3s) for the most part would be a very sad thing in today's game.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#40 - 2014-10-29 00:30:56 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:

so what you are saying is T3s are supposed to over-class almost everything ? because that is what your post implies. and with almost you mean everything except commandships and logistics ? because that are the only T2s that have any real value over T3s and the commandship only achieved this due to a balancing pass before that they got owned by any T3

riddle me this why is it you use a loki only for the webs? isn't there a T2 hull that is specially designed for that task ? the ONLY reason is because it has a big ass tank so there is your answer because you can fill in every T2 roll and a T3 does it better or almost as good but with a big ass tank.

and that is exactly the problem! it makes almost all T2 ships (that are specially designed for a special task) completly obsolete, this is a fact


1. I wasn't really talking about stuff like command ships which are BC hulls but T2 cruisers that are generally in a rather mixed state.

2. My main uses of lokis for webbing comes down to:

-T3 WH fights were blap dreads aren't a completely uncommon occurrence and your often facing enough sub-cap dps to alpha most recons if your not in a position to dictate range (i.e. jumping through a wh into a brawl fleet at effectively 0km).

-Capital escalations - sure rapiers, etc. are usable but if stuff hits the fan and/or your pulling multiple waves they have fairly low survivability.

-Engaging nullsec fleets heavily outnumbered i.e. 15 v 70+ where the incoming damage is so high recons would insta pop.

3. That T2 hull is entirely unsuited to many of the situations ingame that it was designed for with the evolution of the game to date. A generalised T3 that sat below current T2 (at the expense of current T3s) for the most part would be a very sad thing in today's game.


1. do you think i don't know that? it makes the more clear how OP they are (or in this case was) all T2 cruisers have had the balancing pass and they are still **** compared to T3s even in their specilized task.

2. you dont say it flat out but everything in your response says you agree with me on this.

3. evolution? they just got the balancing pass so they should perform perfectly fine in their specialized task, fact is T3s are used in almost all cases simply because of more tank and if we post that T3s have too much tank people like you are crying rivers that it supposed to be this way and they need it or else they cant do A. B. and C etc etc

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Previous page123Next page