These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

T3's
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kestral Anneto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2015-06-19 13:04:13 UTC
Hey, a radical idea on how to slow down the propergation of T3's popped into my head, feel free to call BS on it if needs be, but at least provide something constructive.
This would almost certainly create outcry, but if would (in my opinion) make the game a tad more interesting, as the fleets you encounter would be something different, other than ishtars and T3's, they are solving the ishatr problem, but simply nerfing T3's isn't the way forward. T3's should be extremely powerfull as T3's are reverse engineered sleeper tech, and as the sleepers are uber advanced, T3's should be the hardest ships to train into in the entire game, caps, and supercaps included. Very much endgame and for bittervets (i'm not one).
You should be able to sit in a super before you should be able to sit in a T3, think about it, even a titan is T1.
Caps and Supers are situational, but you can pretty much fit a T3 as you want to and it should come at an extremely high training cost, they should be end game.
As for the actualy training times, i'd be open to sugestions, but from what i'm thinking, a T3 destroyer should be the same length of a train as a blops, T3 cruisers, twice that of the T3D. If/when (they bloody better) bring in T3 battleships, it should be twice that of a T3 cruiser.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2015-06-19 13:18:56 UTC
You can also fly a frigate in any situation. A titan or super is capable of immense amounts of damage in a very short amount of time, that is why they need to take so long to Train into.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Kestral Anneto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2015-06-19 13:21:08 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
You can also fly a frigate in any situation. A titan or super is capable of immense amounts of damage in a very short amount of time, that is why they need to take so long to Train into.


granted, but a frigate isn't able to compete with a T3, and T3's en masse can deal huge amount of damage as well. I'm not advocating for changes in cap and super train time, they should stay the same.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#4 - 2015-06-19 13:23:59 UTC
Except the mantra of CCP in prior skill changes bites them. "If you could fly it before, you can fly it now." would make it so that this mostly just means no newbies ever can match the vets sitting in t3s already, and the announcement of such a change would send everyone fleeing to pick up the remaining t3 skills if they don't have an absolute need for some other skill.......


Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-06-19 13:32:29 UTC
Kestral Anneto wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
You can also fly a frigate in any situation. A titan or super is capable of immense amounts of damage in a very short amount of time, that is why they need to take so long to Train into.


granted, but a frigate isn't able to compete with a T3, and T3's en masse can deal huge amount of damage as well. I'm not advocating for changes in cap and super train time, they should stay the same.


En masse. Anything En masse can. James is also correct.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2015-06-19 13:37:09 UTC
Unfortunatelly T3 are not Sleepers. Using their technology doesn't mean they are the same stats and performance. T3D longer than Blops? Then it should outperform it by twice. Here is the trick - the longer you trained then your expectation is much higher in terms of what would you have at the end. Time/Isk/Perormance/Efficiency. Plus the skills which are required to fly a certain ship. If you want to extend skills time for T3 to an obvious madness then you should extend some of the base line support skills which are required to train subs. Or make the subs extremly havy Rank #. Which put the whole class in danger of usage. You shluld rebalance them firstly and then work hard on skill requirements programm.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Leto Aramaus
Frog Team Four
Of Essence
#7 - 2015-06-19 14:45:07 UTC
Tiddle wrote:
T3D longer than Blops? Then it should outperform it by twice.


This reads like a fallacy to me. Training time =/= combat performance. We generally associate the two yes, but that should not be a rule.

Also this whole thread is based on this same training time = combat performance fallacy. Like James said, changing the skill requirements NOW... would do nothing. Even if they took T3 skills away from everyone, made it take 6 months to train into, but left the stats the same as they are now... I would still say "T3s are dumb and OP". The ship's stats are OP, and an increase in training time is in NO WAY a balance.

My wish is that "Tech 3" in EVE just means "choice", or "customizable". Not "better than T2", or "extremely advanced", or "extremely good".

Just good old regular ship stats, with customizable choice in role. This means T3s built for cloaky+scanning perform just a bit WORSE than T2 Cov ops at scanning.

T3s built for max tank get the EHP of the other really high tank CRUISERS... i.e. Aug Navy, Maller, Phobos, etc. (but low DPS)
T3s built for max gank get DPS near the other max gank cruisers... but low EHP, (just like Deimos)

T3s built for racial e-war get bonuses to their Scram range, jam strength, neut range/amount, etc... BUT NOT AS GOOD AS the T2 recons. (lower point range than Lachesis, lower jam strength than Falcon, shorter neut range than Curse, etc)

Just make them **balanced**, is it that hard?

The UI update we deserve
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2015-06-19 15:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tusker Crazinski
training time isn't a real way to balance them. namely so many people already have them trained.

honestly the best way balance OP ships in general is re nerf tank, and make damage more mitigatable, so pretty much fights would be dictated by the pilot more than the fit or fleet comp.

so remove any drone HP bonuses, make missiles shootable or avoidable without needing a ship that can straight up go 8km/s, guns are for the most part perfect.

and on T3s in particular just delete them would be the best for the game, that would would come with issues, without deleting, I'd say just give them more utility than T1, T2, or faction without absurd sensor strength, fitting, and buffers.

On the ishtar, and any drone boat really. I firmly believe drones do not deserve to be a primary weapons system, a weapon system with no fitting reqs shouldn't also be the most all around versatile, well applied, long reaching, highest damaging tool in the game....... just say'n.
Market Wizard
Doomheim
#9 - 2015-06-19 19:57:29 UTC
Leto Aramaus wrote:
My wish is that "Tech 3" in EVE just means "choice", or "customizable". Not "better than T2", or "extremely advanced", or "extremely good".


I'll +1 to that. The addition of the new T3 dessy's are making anything under them absolutely obsolete. This is on top of the fact that you can train into them faster than AF and dictors. The T3 cruisers have been over powering anything for a while now and its about time we make them versatile and not powerful just because of tech level.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2015-06-19 21:06:49 UTC
I'm just gonna leave this here...

I think increasing the training time by a ridiculous amount is a bad idea.
It doesn't reduce the power of T3's but instead means that only the elite can fly a pwn boat.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#11 - 2015-06-19 21:24:19 UTC
Kestral Anneto wrote:
Hey, a radical idea on how to slow down the propergation of T3's popped into my head, feel free to call BS on it if needs be, but at least provide something constructive.
This would almost certainly create outcry, but if would (in my opinion) make the game a tad more interesting, as the fleets you encounter would be something different, other than ishtars and T3's, they are solving the ishatr problem, but simply nerfing T3's isn't the way forward. T3's should be extremely powerfull as T3's are reverse engineered sleeper tech, and as the sleepers are uber advanced, T3's should be the hardest ships to train into in the entire game, caps, and supercaps included. Very much endgame and for bittervets (i'm not one).
You should be able to sit in a super before you should be able to sit in a T3, think about it, even a titan is T1.
Caps and Supers are situational, but you can pretty much fit a T3 as you want to and it should come at an extremely high training cost, they should be end game.
As for the actualy training times, i'd be open to sugestions, but from what i'm thinking, a T3 destroyer should be the same length of a train as a blops, T3 cruisers, twice that of the T3D. If/when (they bloody better) bring in T3 battleships, it should be twice that of a T3 cruiser.


Call me old fashioned....

But give back my supers AoE DD.... and I could care less how long you have to train for t3s....

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Market Wizard
Doomheim
#12 - 2015-06-19 21:38:16 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
I'm just gonna leave this here...

I think increasing the training time by a ridiculous amount is a bad idea.
It doesn't reduce the power of T3's but instead means that only the elite can fly a pwn boat.



Increasing their training time by a large amount is a bad idea but making them BCs is also a bad idea and increases their training time. They are fine at their size they just need to act more like cruisers. Hint: BCs were not part of the normal ship line a few years ago which is why they were not made as a BC before. BCs and dessys are not just "The next ship" they were implemented to fill a specific role and the T3 cruisers do not fit with them.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2015-06-19 21:50:06 UTC
Market Wizard wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
I'm just gonna leave this here...

I think increasing the training time by a ridiculous amount is a bad idea.
It doesn't reduce the power of T3's but instead means that only the elite can fly a pwn boat.



Increasing their training time by a large amount is a bad idea but making them BCs is also a bad idea and increases their training time. They are fine at their size they just need to act more like cruisers. Hint: BCs were not part of the normal ship line a few years ago which is why they were not made as a BC before. BCs and dessys are not just "The next ship" they were implemented to fill a specific role and the T3 cruisers do not fit with them.



Not really, you could simply consider a side step to BCs, which would require the same amount of training time as current.
Market Wizard
Doomheim
#14 - 2015-06-19 22:02:03 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Market Wizard wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
I'm just gonna leave this here...

I think increasing the training time by a ridiculous amount is a bad idea.
It doesn't reduce the power of T3's but instead means that only the elite can fly a pwn boat.



Increasing their training time by a large amount is a bad idea but making them BCs is also a bad idea and increases their training time. They are fine at their size they just need to act more like cruisers. Hint: BCs were not part of the normal ship line a few years ago which is why they were not made as a BC before. BCs and dessys are not just "The next ship" they were implemented to fill a specific role and the T3 cruisers do not fit with them.



Not really, you could simply consider a side step to BCs, which would require the same amount of training time as current.



So you consider the extra 12 or more days to train BC to 5 the same as training cruiser to 5? Which only looks at doing one, training for all four races would increase the time to train to about two months extra. Yea that's the same training time Roll
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2015-06-19 22:25:25 UTC
Keep in mind that the Gallentean Titans superweapon Aurora Ominae is also reversed engineered Sleeper technology, so not all titans are t1 so to speak.
Decripid Sano
Doomheim
#16 - 2015-06-20 11:29:51 UTC
Leto Aramaus wrote:
Tiddle wrote:
T3D longer than Blops? Then it should outperform it by twice.


This reads like a fallacy to me. Training time =/= combat performance. We generally associate the two yes, but that should not be a rule.

Also this whole thread is based on this same training time = combat performance fallacy. Like James said, changing the skill requirements NOW... would do nothing. Even if they took T3 skills away from everyone, made it take 6 months to train into, but left the stats the same as they are now... I would still say "T3s are dumb and OP". The ship's stats are OP, and an increase in training time is in NO WAY a balance.

My wish is that "Tech 3" in EVE just means "choice", or "customizable". Not "better than T2", or "extremely advanced", or "extremely good".

Just good old regular ship stats, with customizable choice in role. This means T3s built for cloaky+scanning perform just a bit WORSE than T2 Cov ops at scanning.

T3s built for max tank get the EHP of the other really high tank CRUISERS... i.e. Aug Navy, Maller, Phobos, etc. (but low DPS)
T3s built for max gank get DPS near the other max gank cruisers... but low EHP, (just like Deimos)

T3s built for racial e-war get bonuses to their Scram range, jam strength, neut range/amount, etc... BUT NOT AS GOOD AS the T2 recons. (lower point range than Lachesis, lower jam strength than Falcon, shorter neut range than Curse, etc)

Just make them **balanced**, is it that hard?


what a useless idea. It'd be better if they didn't exist at all if this was their intended use because next to nobody would ever use them.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#17 - 2015-06-20 14:25:17 UTC
Leto Aramaus wrote:
Tiddle wrote:
T3D longer than Blops? Then it should outperform it by twice.


This reads like a fallacy to me. Training time =/= combat performance. We generally associate the two yes, but that should not be a rule.

Also this whole thread is based on this same training time = combat performance fallacy. Like James said, changing the skill requirements NOW... would do nothing. Even if they took T3 skills away from everyone, made it take 6 months to train into, but left the stats the same as they are now... I would still say "T3s are dumb and OP". The ship's stats are OP, and an increase in training time is in NO WAY a balance.

My wish is that "Tech 3" in EVE just means "choice", or "customizable". Not "better than T2", or "extremely advanced", or "extremely good".

Just good old regular ship stats, with customizable choice in role. This means T3s built for cloaky+scanning perform just a bit WORSE than T2 Cov ops at scanning.

T3s built for max tank get the EHP of the other really high tank CRUISERS... i.e. Aug Navy, Maller, Phobos, etc. (but low DPS)
T3s built for max gank get DPS near the other max gank cruisers... but low EHP, (just like Deimos)

T3s built for racial e-war get bonuses to their Scram range, jam strength, neut range/amount, etc... BUT NOT AS GOOD AS the T2 recons. (lower point range than Lachesis, lower jam strength than Falcon, shorter neut range than Curse, etc)

Just make them **balanced**, is it that hard?


T3 power level is pretty balanced atm.
Or would you say your absolution is not OP, while claiming a legion is? No, you've flown an abso and you know how goddamn broken strong some (if not all) CS are.

The gap between T1 and T2 is massive. The gap between T2 and T3 is near non-existant.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#18 - 2015-06-20 15:37:23 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:


T3 power level is pretty balanced atm.
Or would you say your absolution is not OP, while claiming a legion is? No, you've flown an abso and you know how goddamn broken strong some (if not all) CS are.

The gap between T1 and T2 is massive. The gap between T2 and T3 is near non-existant.



Uhm, no. The top of t2 reaches the bottom of t3. This is to say, a sub 2-3 t3 will usually be able to outperform a HAC 5 HAC (other than ishtars) in at least one key area in the role of a HAC.

A sub 2-3 t3 will crap all over a recon in surviving long enough to be a good EWAR platform.

ETC.

There are some t2 ships that are stand out favorites (Sleipnir, abso, ishtar) which are hard to beat the overall performance of with a t3, but at least 1 of them is widely decried as broken enough that CCP has been slowly draking it.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#19 - 2015-06-20 16:07:06 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:


T3 power level is pretty balanced atm.
Or would you say your absolution is not OP, while claiming a legion is? No, you've flown an abso and you know how goddamn broken strong some (if not all) CS are.

The gap between T1 and T2 is massive. The gap between T2 and T3 is near non-existant.



Uhm, no. The top of t2 reaches the bottom of t3. This is to say, a sub 2-3 t3 will usually be able to outperform a HAC 5 HAC (other than ishtars) in at least one key area in the role of a HAC.

A sub 2-3 t3 will crap all over a recon in surviving long enough to be a good EWAR platform.

ETC.

There are some t2 ships that are stand out favorites (Sleipnir, abso, ishtar) which are hard to beat the overall performance of with a t3, but at least 1 of them is widely decried as broken enough that CCP has been slowly draking it.


Could you please be more vague?

My T1 ship is outperforming T2 ships in atleast one trait too, promise. Doesn't make them universally better.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#20 - 2015-06-20 19:29:05 UTC
What I noticed recently is that armor Legions/Lokis/Proteuses have an a lot higher agility than armor T2 ships like Onis. With a 1600 plate fitted, they warp faster than the Oni. That could be nerfed a bit.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
12Next page