These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 end of an era - the T3 nerf thread
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#81 - 2016-08-16 21:35:55 UTC
Price is very much a balancing tool, it just cannot be used in isolation is all. This is why T1 cruisers cost 20 million and supers are 20 billion Smile
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2016-08-16 23:12:54 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Price is very much a balancing tool, it just cannot be used in isolation is all. This is why T1 cruisers cost 20 million and supers are 20 billion Smile




You seem to be confusing balancing tool with build requirement. A super costs 20 bil because of how much it costs to build. Phoenix(sorry Phoenix crowd) still costs around 2b, even though it's arguably more useless than alot of T1 frigates and destroyers. And if Titan proliferation taught us anything, it's that you can't use build requirements as a 'balance' point either, because remember how there were supposed to only be like.... 5 titans? Ever? yeah....

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2016-08-16 23:30:22 UTC
Not sure what you're trying to say here.

But I gather you don't like your Phoenix? I'll trade yours for a Tristan then if you don't mind.

Does not invalidate what Morrigan said though. I too have asked this question many times and never got an answer except "you can't balance around price". I still don't know why not. If a Vagabond were cheaper nobody would fly Stabbers; same with T3 destroyers by the way.

In such discussions, the difference between what a deadspace fit Tengu can do versus a cheapish one if often discarded as well. A regular T2 fit Legion is quite a bit more expensive than a Curse and not really all that much better. It only becomes good when copious amounts of faction fitting are involved... see where price comes into play again?

The reason behind T3cruiser doctrines is base resists, allowing to build a fleet you cannot break, much like the old RR archon ball. Such fleets are not cheap- otherwise they'd have pushed out Muninn fleet/Prophecies/any other concept that works well in a ball already.

That's my line of thinking anyways- I'm probably missing something. No balancing around cost WHY? Elaborate.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#84 - 2016-08-17 00:33:29 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:

That's my line of thinking anyways- I'm probably missing something. No balancing around cost WHY? Elaborate.

Because balancing around cost has been repeatedly proven to be broken.
For a number of reasons such as....
* Just because the ship is more expensive, the fact you lose less means over time it becomes cheaper than other options.
* Because players will just spend extra time grinding the isk.
* Because cost is not fixed in EVE, and if something is overly popular people will put more effort into getting it's components bringing price down over time typically.

But basically, past experience has shown you can't balance by price. T2's being more expensive is not why T1's get used. T1's get used because many people don't have the skills to fly a T2 so using a T1 doctrine means you have a larger unified fleet. (Though a lot of fleet doctrines are T2 or GTFO anyway, especially when talking cruisers)
Dethahal Khardula
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#85 - 2016-08-17 08:57:49 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
If a Vagabond were cheaper nobody would fly Stabbers; same with T3 destroyers by the way.



You mistake cost with balance. Being balanced does not mean it is used often, no. A ship is often used when it is good in comparison to the cost.
A ship is balanced when it does what it is supposed to do. If vagabond were cheaper than a stabber, ofc everyone with the skills would fly a vagabond. Doesn`t mean though that the vagabond gets better or worse when it costs less or more. The ship itself in this case stays always the same. And a hac is supposed to outclass cruisers -> vagabond will ALWAYS get picked if it was cheaper than a stabber, because it is balanced that way,
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2016-08-17 09:54:09 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
That's my line of thinking anyways- I'm probably missing something. No balancing around cost WHY? Elaborate.



The other two dudes did a pretty good job, but I'll add in:

If things were balanced around their cost, then a handful of months ago an ishtar should have cost a billion isk per hull. A ship costs what it costs based on what it takes to build it, NOT on how good or bad it is at its role. A phoenix is not a great dread, but it still requires a comparable build list to the others.


Balancing on costs and build costs is a proven way to really mess up the game.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#87 - 2016-08-17 12:48:33 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:

That's my line of thinking anyways- I'm probably missing something. No balancing around cost WHY? Elaborate.

Because balancing around cost has been repeatedly proven to be broken.
For a number of reasons such as....
* Just because the ship is more expensive, the fact you lose less means over time it becomes cheaper than other options.
* Because players will just spend extra time grinding the isk.
* Because cost is not fixed in EVE, and if something is overly popular people will put more effort into getting it's components bringing price down over time typically.

But basically, past experience has shown you can't balance by price. T2's being more expensive is not why T1's get used. T1's get used because many people don't have the skills to fly a T2 so using a T1 doctrine means you have a larger unified fleet. (Though a lot of fleet doctrines are T2 or GTFO anyway, especially when talking cruisers)



Only if it is used in isolation, like I said.

To take the cruiser example, the reason a HAC costs more than a basic cruisers is because they are substantially stronger. The cost is part of the balance there.

Disregarding cost in balance is every bit as bad as focusing on it entirely. This is why T3Ds costs were increased and insurance altered - because they had too much bang for their price point.
Dethahal Khardula
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2016-08-17 14:37:51 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:

Only if it is used in isolation, like I said.

To take the cruiser example, the reason a HAC costs more than a basic cruisers is because they are substantially stronger. The cost is part of the balance there.

Disregarding cost in balance is every bit as bad as focusing on it entirely. This is why T3Ds costs were increased and insurance altered - because they had too much bang for their price point.


This is definitely an important point, but it does not balance it. it decides whether a ship is viable or not. For example, a balanced ship is, hopefully, viable. But if there are other ships that are way cheaper and only slightly worse than the balanced one, then they are more viable in many fights. In this case, the ship is balanced, and has the right cost. The others are unbalanced, and have the right cost aswell.

Other situation: A ship is totally trash (trasher). Say it only has one highslot, no bonuses, little tank. Now say it costs 100 million because of mineral requirements, not because of limited amount of bps. Of course, you could improve the ship until it deserves the cost of 100 million, but this wouldn't balance it. The trasher is a destroyer, it should be cheap. So we set the mineral reqs to 1.5 million isk, the producers take a bit for themselves, the ship costs 1.7 million now. Neither it is more balanced, nor more off-balance.


So, balance is one thing, cost another. Using cost to balance a ship is a bad idea because it cannot really work. However, this does not mean that cost cannot be balanced, in the second example the cost was not balanced. Adjusting this does not make the ship balanced, though, it just makes the cost balanced.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#89 - 2016-08-17 15:06:39 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:

That's my line of thinking anyways- I'm probably missing something. No balancing around cost WHY? Elaborate.

Because balancing around cost has been repeatedly proven to be broken.
For a number of reasons such as....
* Just because the ship is more expensive, the fact you lose less means over time it becomes cheaper than other options.
* Because players will just spend extra time grinding the isk.
* Because cost is not fixed in EVE, and if something is overly popular people will put more effort into getting it's components bringing price down over time typically.

But basically, past experience has shown you can't balance by price. T2's being more expensive is not why T1's get used. T1's get used because many people don't have the skills to fly a T2 so using a T1 doctrine means you have a larger unified fleet. (Though a lot of fleet doctrines are T2 or GTFO anyway, especially when talking cruisers)



Only if it is used in isolation, like I said.

To take the cruiser example, the reason a HAC costs more than a basic cruisers is because they are substantially stronger. The cost is part of the balance there.

Disregarding cost in balance is every bit as bad as focusing on it entirely. This is why T3Ds costs were increased and insurance altered - because they had too much bang for their price point.


Don't get mad dear, but I see that a little different. The whole point of the ship tiericide was that our basic tech one ship line got viable ships and we can agree that is was very successful.

When we now look at a comparison between the tech one attack and combat cruiser line to a HAC we should get a completely different ship.
Both tech one lines were supposed to be good anti-support and a HAC is supposed to be able to do anti-support and shoot above it's weight class, namely battlecruisers and maybe even battleships.

The base price for HACs back in the day was supposed to be around 40m isk per HAC but since all sov-sec alliances are always starving and in dire need of funds they made moon-poop so unbelievable expensive that we get dizzy when we go to a tradehub and look for price tags.

Now instead of a 10 fold increase in price from a tech one Moa to an Eagle, we have to pay a 20 fold price increase to keep the moon-poo harvesters in funds.

Those sleeper cruisers are made completely of sleeper poo and all the unknown-space fellas are dictating the prices on them. But even they are so terrible poor that they need all the funds our capsuleers can muster to keep them afloat.

Even if CCP decides to remove the sleeper cruisers from the database, nobody in unknown-space will abandon ship. And for the whack-a-mole of price tags you need to show your gratitude to the Ferengi of New Eden.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Dethahal Khardula
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2016-08-17 17:34:31 UTC
Ferengi of New Eden, ay. You are totally right. Though...
In the end, we are all capsuleers, and if those ******* won't pay me my isk I cannot buy my plex my blingy tengu char, my blinghy bhaalgorn alt, my avatar alt and my supercarrier alt.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2016-08-17 18:20:00 UTC
So, what I take away from your remarks is that you all agree but you insist on naming it differently?

Mind you, no ship in New Eden has a role. It has bonuses and base stats and fitting slots, and you could slap anything on it you want. If a certain combination proves useful, then that becomes the role it's usually assigned.

If a nutjob example like a Thrasher with 1 highslot gets tossed around, then no matter what it says on the label nobody's going to use it as a destroyer properly. Nobody said an Ishtar is a ratting ship either. In-game it says nothing of the sort. It can however be perceived viable in said role when it, indeed, is the most cost-effective solution for the job.

Certain hulls become more popular than others because the price is right, and you can't break that down in two efficiencies. You can rate the quality of the hull Q, and the cost of the raw materials C, but C divided by Q eventually dictates whether the ship is worth it or not. You may intend to use it in another role, in which case you're looking at Q' and comparing the ship to the others that fit the prerequisites ... but yet again, Q' / C will be your new metric.

From the input you've provided I think we pretty much agree on that. You just don't want to call it "balancing around cost".

Taking the Phoenix for example, it has according to some a lower performance yet the same price tag than the other ships. And you complain about that. Which means its price/performance ratio is off, and you can find better dreads for the job. The question now becomes: do you want to up the performance, lower the price, or does it have other roles in which it can be more suitable (and in said role, more cost efficient)?

Already you yourself make price comparisons to demonstrate how price cannot be used as a balancing factor -- how does that work exactly?

*still confused - thanks for the input nontheless *
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2016-08-17 21:13:18 UTC
Lol. Did you even bother reading?


Go back and re-read.



Cost can be balanced by adjusting build requirements. But balance can't be defined by adjusting cost.



Stop being obtuse. That distinction has been made quite clearly.



You keep jumping on this Phoenix thing likes it's a life raft. It's not. If you were to balance the phoenix by adjusting its price then it would be significantly cheaper than it is now. But that's not how balance is achieved. The phoenix is balanced based on how well it performs its role as a dreadnaught, not by changing how much it costs until it costs an acceptable amount for how well it does. Same thing for everything else. They are balanced based on how well they do their intended function as a HAC, or an interceptor, or a miner, or whatever. Each ship may be able to fit alot of different things, but, each ship has an intended role. Sure some anomalies appear from time to time and CCP decides if they should remain or not, and acts accordingly. Example, your ishtar. But while doing this they don't go around saying 'Eh, the ishtar is really good right now, we'll add.... ehh.... 50mil to its price tag.' They do it by 'Wow, The ishtar is too good right now. Let's modify that drone bonus.'



It really is a very clear, easy to understand thing. Cost can be balanced. Balance cannot be achieved by adjusting cost.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2016-08-17 22:22:49 UTC
Mostly because of a desire to remain equivalent within the same class. If you're talking about rebalancing an entire line of ships, you're still wrong. CCP just did that for dreads - they used to require double of what it takes today.

So too, can certain subsystems be rebalanced or can the entire T3C line be compared to the entire line of HACs.

Doesn't matter either way- you're just going to say the same thing and I still won't grasp that "easy to understand" concept. I re-read your posts and I don't see the distinction, sorry bud.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2016-08-17 23:10:02 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Mostly because of a desire to remain equivalent within the same class. If you're talking about rebalancing an entire line of ships, you're still wrong. CCP just did that for dreads - they used to require double of what it takes today.

So too, can certain subsystems be rebalanced or can the entire T3C line be compared to the entire line of HACs.

Doesn't matter either way- you're just going to say the same thing and I still won't grasp that "easy to understand" concept. I re-read your posts and I don't see the distinction, sorry bud.



well then you're beyond help, I agree

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2016-08-18 05:53:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
afk phone wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
T3 cruisers are fine as they are. If they were not you'd see T3 cruisers everywhere instead of the current FOTM ships. The only T3 cruisers I see around Horde space are the occasional Tengu hotdropping tackler.

Our region is one of the most active for small gang pvp and I'd say I see a T3 cruiser once a day. The most common ships are T3D's, Garmurs, T1 cruisers (Caracals and Stabbers) and faction cruisers like the Orthrus and Cynabal.

The litmus test for something being OP is overuse and T3 cruisers are definitely not a common ship in our space.



They can't be alpha'd off the field by med sized n+1 doctrines, so they are OP.
They counter cheap kiting doctrines, so they are OP.

It's the BS tank w/ a cruiser sig radius that is problematic.



You don't see them in horde space because FC's aren't stupid. Here's how it works:

Small/Medium T3 gang will eventually (once you guys get your poop stacked just right) get raped by a bunch of T3 destroyers in your space. Folks just don't enjoy losing half a bil cruisers and SP to a bunch of chumps in T3 dessy and caracals. It gets old quickly, so it doesn't happen.

Large T3 fleets - you guys don't fight, because 100 rail tengus will just ruin your day in an unfun way.

So, you don't see T3 cruiser fleets in your space because it's NEVER fun for one side or the other. If you want to see T3 cruiser fleets in your space you have to stop flying svipul/caracal defense fleets. You don't see solo BS roaming your space picking fights either, because it just wouldn't be fun. Expensive fleets will never be the counter to your cheap chump fleets. Don't get me wrong - you're fleets are fine, just don't misinterpret T3 cruiser fleets being a bad idea in your space w/ T3 cruisers aren't OP.

"The litmus test for something being OP is overuse and T3 cruisers are definitely not a common ship in our space" is kind of like walking into a butcher shop and drawing a conclusion about ice cream, because there isn't any there.


I think in WH space the proteus/guardian/jamgu fleets died out for 2 reasons. They aren't fun for anyone on either side AND PL left and they were the last folks to be stuck in that tired, worn out WH meta. It works/worked great - it just wasn't any fun for either side. Once PL lost interest in WH space the focus moved more toward FUN and less toward WIN. WH space fleets are pretty varied right now. There is a bit more cerb than I care for in wh space, but it is the risk averse 'go to' fleet right now. I'd give a thumbs up to removing damage bonus for RLML from every ship in the game (I dislike kiting - a personal play style thing).

LS - let the last round of carrier adjustments settle out for another month or so. I think it will come down to 2 doctrines. (1-push cyno button, 2-more cerbs than the other guy AND keep finger on cyno button).

Perhaps your correct. The thing that doesn't add up regarding your explanation is its not just Horde that aren't using T3. Horde has fights with PL, NC, MOA, Agony Empire, Blood Covenent, Darkness.... and they seem to be using the same ships as well, Omens, Caracals, T3D's. Not fleets of T3.

I'm a very experienced Proteus pilot myself, its my go to ship. Its very good in terms of tank but its slow as shite when its buffered to stupidity. Its dps is good but its a coffin if its nueted or kited. Its not a Svipul that can do 4k, optimal out to 55km, passive tank to 20kehp, essentially the same ratio / ehp a Proteus has for its class.

There are better ships than a Proteus for fleet work that cost much less (and yes cost is a significant balancing factor and always has been) and perform better in terms of application, range, speed.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
eVRiAL
Reveka.
Bad-Touch
#96 - 2016-08-18 12:37:03 UTC  |  Edited by: eVRiAL
I think price for CS and HACs should be corrected in first place, 345m for Nighthawk is ridiculous. NH even worse than Drake by some parameters (slots, speed, range), not to mention Tengu.