These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
 

Strategic cruiser balance pass

Author
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2017-04-20 03:33:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Coralas
Cade Windstalker wrote:


This is just bad logic.

"Oh, I'm using the hull with a fit that isn't good for what I'm trying to do, but this one hull does alright so that hull must be fine because it enables my play-style."

You are trying to use a hammer like a power drill and then complaining when it doesn't work well. You should not expect one particular restricted style of play to work well in every part of the game.



I'm using my racial high powered multipurpose exploration ship for its intended task.

This is again a discussion in the context of nerfing a proteus to have vexor scale power, which I'm pointing out that the minor innefficiencies and pecularities of being a drone boat suddenly become an unusable pile of tedium that nobody is going to play.

Quote:


The only reason the Proteus is working for you when you try to use it as a drone boat at something drone boats are bad at is because it's really really OP when used correctly. It's like removing screws with a hammer that just blows away the entire block of wood. Yeah it works, but...



then common sense would fix the overperforming fit, instead of retaining the current balance between the general fits. sentry drones are a weapon intended for pve play (as well as pvp), and drone aggro is mostly intended to afk check.

Quote:


He's not putting words in your mouth, he's analogizing your argument to another more common one you might be familiar with and drawing parallels. If that's not what you're saying then you've probably been unclear...



that is exactly what he is doing.

Quote:


It's not optimized for dual-boxing, it's meant to be done with a ship that's actually good at the sites you're running.

You're using a ship and a fit that you flat out admit isn't particularly good at what you're trying to do. That's not CCP's fault, they should not have to make every piece of content in the game equally accessible to every player's arbitrary decision about what sort of fits they "just like".


Its acceptable at running the sites *now*. It will not be acceptable if its a covert/nullfiable vexor. and the mobility capability is for me a big reason for choosing a t3. The mobility is part of running sites, particularly if it happens to be an unrated site with a 4 step escalation. Honestly who is going to move a rattlesnake 40 jumps through hostile null.
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
Somethin Awfull Forums
#122 - 2017-04-20 03:49:58 UTC
I guess the question is, "balanced/ Nerfed" equals, how many need to be fielded for the ermagerdzerg button to work?

R.I.P. Vile Rat

Wanda Fayne
#123 - 2017-04-20 04:29:20 UTC
Ioci wrote:
I guess the question is, "balanced/ Nerfed" equals, how many need to be fielded for the ermagerdzerg button to work?


42?

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Salvos Rhoska
#124 - 2017-04-20 07:44:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Gimme Sake wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Whatever changes are made need to consider solo/duo combat explorers and nomads (whether PvP or PvE driven) as well.

In the current ship trees, T3Cs are the optimal choice for that..


I agree that, like the name strategic implies, they should be a valid option, just not the best. Especially when there are ships designed for the respective role.


They arent the "best".
A Gila is better as a cheaper craft with less SP requirements.
A Stratios is better as a dedicated covops scanning ship with a larger cargo hold and drone redundancy.
HACs are well and fine in blue space, (albeit some are pretty crap such as Minmatar HACs. Ishtar stands head and shoulders above the rest).

TC3s are optimal for nomadic deepspace operations in hostile sectors and refitting for specific tasks onsite, albeit as higher cost, cargo space issues and risk of SP loss.

Furthermore the TC3s are different. For example the Loki being a suboptimal choice for PvE content.

TC3 changes need to include consideration of the above. There is a substantial segment of the playerbase using them for this kind of playstyle in the sandbox, and they should not be unduly penalized.

People who want to play this way, have invested into the skills and assets to do so in TC3s.
So can anyone else, or they can run them in Gilas/Stratios/HACs if they wish as the game is right now.
Nothing is stopping them from choosing either path, as suits their situation/means best.

Nerfing TC3s without consideration of this wont cause deepspace solo nomads to swap to Muninns or Gilas.
It will just cause them to stop living that way ingame, as well as make WHs/Null even safer for locals as a result.
It will remove content and activity.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Legion
#125 - 2017-04-20 09:32:16 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


They arent the "best".
A Gila is better as a cheaper craft with less SP requirements.
A Stratios is better as a dedicated covops scanning ship with a larger cargo hold and drone redundancy.
HACs are well and fine in blue space, (albeit some are pretty crap such as Minmatar HACs. Ishtar stands head and shoulders above the rest).

TC3s are optimal for nomadic deepspace operations in hostile sectors and refitting for specific tasks onsite, albeit as higher cost, cargo space issues and risk of SP loss.

Furthermore the TC3s are different. For example the Loki being a suboptimal choice for PvE content.

TC3 changes need to include consideration of the above. There is a substantial segment of the playerbase using them for this kind of playstyle in the sandbox, and they should not be unduly penalized.

People who want to play this way, have invested into the skills and assets to do so in TC3s.
So can anyone else, or they can run them in Gilas/Stratios/HACs if they wish as the game is right now.
Nothing is stopping them from choosing either path, as suits their situation/means best.

Nerfing TC3s without consideration of this wont cause deepspace solo nomads to swap to Muninns or Gilas.
It will just cause them to stop living that way ingame, as well as make WHs/Null even safer for locals as a result.
It will remove content and activity.


They use them because they are overpowered. We have been here many many times and the arguments for keeping them overpowered are exactly the same.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#126 - 2017-04-20 10:29:26 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

No, it's literally pretty much just because T3Cs are way better than them at everything they do. There's plenty of room for a fast, tanky fleet DPS ship in a Cruiser or BC hull size with decent damage projection, DPS, and Tank. The problem is that why would anyone ever want a ship like that when they can have *GREAT* DPS and Tank, equivalent or better damage projection, and Utility throw in on top.


Only the prot has that significant combination of dps and tank - there are some trick legion and tengu fits that can have around 1000dps but they take a big hit to tank to get there and the prot largely sacrifices utility high and mid slots to get there - it also doesn't have the greatest projection in blaster form and while not bad with rails you take a fair damage and tracking drop doing that. Legion has some ok options there but outclassed by the Absolution in many cases which is less penalised than some of the other commandships by its sig and mobility due to having the resist bonus and naturally large armor hitpoints.

If you want a ship for say a defensive op - that can maximise the damage output and stand its ground on the field then ostensibly you'd be looking at Gallente - back in the day maybe a Brutix or Megathron - these days where you are likely to encounter tier3s warping in at range, bombing runs, carrier fighters, etc. you might as well run around with your pants on your head as use those and while OP the Proteus is the only ship that has the tank to work in that environment while retaining useful levels of damage you can take that away and wax lyrical about the meta but that doesn't really do anything good for the game - this isn't necessarily a defence of the Prot but see below.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

If other ships require buffs to make the roles the T3 used to fill viable that's fine in my book, but that will never require buffing *any of them* near the level T3Cs are currently at and any buffs would be marginal at best.


Problem with that is keeping things balanced within the tiers below - just changing say the Deimos or Brutix significantly to fill in the gap left if you remove the Prot as talked about above is going to have further knock on effects as while maybe they "should" be able to fulfil that role on paper the way things have changed doesn't make it that simple and could require rebalancing of entire tiers of ships.

Looking over some of what people are saying in this thread though a few things strike me:

-Consolidating sub-systems isn't necessarily a bad thing but if the goal is to make it easier to do things like skin the ships and promote micro-transactions, etc. then you need to retain that connection people have with the ships or you aren't far off a zero sum game.

-The concept of one ship that can be refit depending on scenario on the fly might sound great on paper but in reality after someone has lost a couple they are going to become resistant to filling it up with modules (never mind the logistics) that are just going to be lost and either go back to having multiple ships with different static fits as T3Cs are now or become far more reluctant to engage unless they have a significant;y high chance of winning. You also have the problem that you basically need EFT implanted in your skull to do anything useful with refitting and dealing with the PG and CPU limits, etc.

-Knocking T3Cs back to that tiericide entry making them a jack of all trades would run into the issue of making them not powerful enough and hence no one uses them or too powerful and making too many other ships completely redundant - as you'd also have to reduce the cost and investment to put them into that spot meaning even less reason to choose anything else. Also don't underestimate how many people just play the game to purple up their T3C as its a viable platform for blinging out. You also pretty much have to savage the current T3Cs completely or you are handicapping any chance of actually making that gameplay work ingame anything remotely close to how it sounds on paper and that also won't have a net good result.

To me it sounds like they should rebadge the current strategic cruisers as some kind of modular battlecruiser, give it an initial balance pass as its new reality as a battlecruiser and start implementing new strategic cruisers that have a static slot layout, no rigs and can be adjusted on the fly via a bunch of sliders in a window i,e. granular changes between offensive ewar and defensive ewar resilience i.e. on a Gallente ship you'd have say point range bonuses of 100, 50, 25% on one side versus sensor strength of 25, 50, 100%, trading damage output for ehp, between signature and capacitor, etc. and turning covert capabilities on or off (with some appropriate mechanism so it can't just be instantly switched) - which would probably mean they'd have to have 7-8 high slots though i.e. a covert cloak fitted wouldn't always be enableable depending on settings. Problem is the risk of rendering other cruisers obsolete entirely though would leave space for the T2 variants.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#127 - 2017-04-20 11:22:19 UTC
here's hoping the tengu's engineering get fixed and that active tank bonus on it will go back to minmatar where it belongs.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#128 - 2017-04-20 11:45:09 UTC
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
here's hoping the tengu's engineering get fixed and that active tank bonus on it will go back to minmatar where it belongs.



You just bought all the minmatar engineering subsystems on the market didn't you? Cool

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#129 - 2017-04-20 12:37:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


They arent the "best".
A Gila is better as a cheaper craft with less SP requirements.
A Stratios is better as a dedicated covops scanning ship with a larger cargo hold and drone redundancy.
HACs are well and fine in blue space, (albeit some are pretty crap such as Minmatar HACs. Ishtar stands head and shoulders above the rest).

TC3s are optimal for nomadic deepspace operations in hostile sectors and refitting for specific tasks onsite, albeit as higher cost, cargo space issues and risk of SP loss.

Furthermore the TC3s are different. For example the Loki being a suboptimal choice for PvE content.

TC3 changes need to include consideration of the above. There is a substantial segment of the playerbase using them for this kind of playstyle in the sandbox, and they should not be unduly penalized.

People who want to play this way, have invested into the skills and assets to do so in TC3s.
So can anyone else, or they can run them in Gilas/Stratios/HACs if they wish as the game is right now.
Nothing is stopping them from choosing either path, as suits their situation/means best.

Nerfing TC3s without consideration of this wont cause deepspace solo nomads to swap to Muninns or Gilas.
It will just cause them to stop living that way ingame, as well as make WHs/Null even safer for locals as a result.
It will remove content and activity.


They use them because they are overpowered.


Thats like saying people use Machs for blitzing cos they are OP.
Or people use Epithal cos its OP for PI shipping.

No.

People use them because they are ships which are optimal for that job.

In this case, T3Cs have the versatility that playing solo in hostile deepspace needs.
T3Ds cant do it, and there is no T3BC in existence.

They are not "overpowered" for this purpose.
They are ideal for it because of their versatility.
A HAC or Faction cruiser does not have this kind of versatility.
They are not a substitute for that versatility.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
ChaosTheory.
#130 - 2017-04-20 12:45:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
I really am going to enjoy watching people cry when their overpowered thing becomes less overpowered.

Whats going to be really funny, though, are the people playing who don't pay attention to things like forums and fan fest and so won't know it's coming. We've all seen it before.

On patch day at least 20 people will come to this forum screaming "the last patch screwed up my tengu, I'm missing whole sub systems, is anyone else having this problem?!?!? I tried relogging and my 5th sub system slot is still missing!! EVE is dying!!" Twisted
March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron
The-Culture
#131 - 2017-04-20 13:46:27 UTC
Rroff wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

The only reason those ships are hamstrung is because T3C do the job so much better.


Nope.

Spent many many hours in those kind of engagements - most of the other "options" in the line for that role are too laughable in today's Eve to even entertain, the others that are adequate are hamstrung by the bar for entry - personally I had my alt in a halo'd Eos or Astarte in a fair few cases but that isn't an option for many mainstream players.

You talk about "today's Eve". What do you mean by this?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Legion
#132 - 2017-04-20 14:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Thats like saying people use Machs for blitzing cos they are OP.
Or people use Epithal cos its OP for PI shipping.

No.

People use them because they are ships which are optimal for that job.

In this case, T3Cs have the versatility that playing solo in hostile deepspace needs.
T3Ds cant do it, and there is no T3BC in existence.

They are not "overpowered" for this purpose.
They are ideal for it because of their versatility.
A HAC or Faction cruiser does not have this kind of versatility.
They are not a substitute for that versatility.


So I take it you think the dram wans't overpowered, or remote doomsday titans, or the nano age, or max heatsink geddons, or cavalry ravens.

All of these things were the optimal choice of their age because all of them were overpowered. T3C are just as bad or even more overpowered than these.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#133 - 2017-04-20 14:27:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
March rabbit wrote:


You talk about "today's Eve". What do you mean by this?


For instance when I started playing the game things like tier 3s (battlecruisers), stealth bombers, the current shape of carrier fighters, dreads (even low angle weapons or whatever though I don't imagine they are used that much) either didn't exist or were under utilised and there were a lot less people skilled up into or able to afford those things and things like drake fleets were much more common (not just because of the meta changes) and quite a lot of the "alternatives" to T3Cs for fundamental racial roles are still balanced against or have one foot in the era of Eve before those things.

This is more focused on the viability of the Gallente blaster boats as an alternative to the example buffer/1000dps Proteus banded about at the start of the thread - I'd have to widen it a bit to cover other scenarios.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
ChaosTheory.
#134 - 2017-04-20 15:08:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


So I take it you think the dram wasn't overpowered, or remote doomsday titans, or the nano age, or max heatsink geddons, or cavalry ravens.

All of these things were the optimal choice of their age because all of them were overpowered. T3C are just as bad or even more overpowered than these.



I remember that there was some really obstinate people defending each of those things too, even though they are measurably bad. The arguments were very similar.

"but this thing allows small groups to fight bigger groups"

"getting rid of this thing will hurt the people who spent time training for it and they will leave!"

"There are no other good options, so you should leave this thing alone"

It never ever changes, and the people making the arguments never notice that they are rehashing arguments others made about things they knew were bad but liked anyway.
Cade Windstalker
#135 - 2017-04-20 16:03:14 UTC
Coralas wrote:
I'm using my racial high powered multipurpose exploration ship for its intended task.

This is again a discussion in the context of nerfing a proteus to have vexor scale power, which I'm pointing out that the minor innefficiencies and pecularities of being a drone boat suddenly become an unusable pile of tedium that nobody is going to play.


Ah, see this seems to be a bit of confusion on your part.

First off, the Proteus was never intended as a dedicated exploration ship. There are very few ships in Eve that are built by CCP to fill one singular and specific role, and all of the ones I can think of are haulers. The SOE ships are more intended as exploration ships and have bonuses toward that end but the T3s don't really and neither hull is completely dedicated to exploration.

Also no one is saying the Proteus is going to fly like a Vexor. If you go back to the original ship tiericide dev blog you'll see that the sort of high level concept for T3s as a class is not as good at any specific role as T2 but more general than Navy ships. If we then take the T3Ds as a sort of baseline then we get a ship that maybe tanks around the level of the T2 ships but doesn't do any specialized role as well as the T2 hulls.

Coralas wrote:
Quote:


The only reason the Proteus is working for you when you try to use it as a drone boat at something drone boats are bad at is because it's really really OP when used correctly. It's like removing screws with a hammer that just blows away the entire block of wood. Yeah it works, but...



then common sense would fix the overperforming fit, instead of retaining the current balance between the general fits. sentry drones are a weapon intended for pve play (as well as pvp), and drone aggro is mostly intended to afk check.


You don't seem to be understanding here, there isn't one over-performing fit, the ship is OP as a package and the fact that you can use it in a way that is actively bad by your own admission and still perform well is also OP, because if you were using that same fit in a place it's actually good it would be OP itself.

The primary things about these ships that are OP are the tank and the DPS. Those are the same things that are allowing your fit to work.

Coralas wrote:
Its acceptable at running the sites *now*. It will not be acceptable if its a covert/nullfiable vexor. and the mobility capability is for me a big reason for choosing a t3. The mobility is part of running sites, particularly if it happens to be an unrated site with a 4 step escalation. Honestly who is going to move a rattlesnake 40 jumps through hostile null.


You're still overly focused on your own niche of play here.

If you want to use the ship for exploration going forward then consider either swapping to a gun fit or otherwise experimenting with your options. Worst case if you're not willing to risk an expensive fit in hostile space then either opt to run escalations that spawn closer to home or bring a friend and split the payout.

There are always options, CCP are not required to enable your arbitrary decisions about how you want to play the game.
Cade Windstalker
#136 - 2017-04-20 16:29:33 UTC
Rroff wrote:
-Knocking T3Cs back to that tiericide entry making them a jack of all trades would run into the issue of making them not powerful enough and hence no one uses them or too powerful and making too many other ships completely redundant - as you'd also have to reduce the cost and investment to put them into that spot meaning even less reason to choose anything else.


This is not correct, it's likely that some tuning will be required but the general premise here that there's no room to nerf T3s without creating another problem is just flat wrong.

There's plenty of room for a ship that can be good at a couple of things at once but not as good at any one thing as a specialist T2 ship. Given that the cost doesn't need to be adjusted significantly, since these ships will perform almost as well as specialist T2 ships and they're already almost the same cost. A small change in cost shouldn't significantly change usage either way so long as there is still some value in the ships.

Rroff wrote:
Also don't underestimate how many people just play the game to purple up their T3C as its a viable platform for blinging out. You also pretty much have to savage the current T3Cs completely or you are handicapping any chance of actually making that gameplay work ingame anything remotely close to how it sounds on paper and that also won't have a net good result.


You, again, have zero evidence or data to back up this assertion. You're just making vague hypothetical alarmist statements about the playerbase in an effort to justify your view that T3s should somehow be left OP.

I get it, having your shiny toy nerfed doesn't feel great, but not being able to fly a ship you like because it's been completely forced out of the meta by this OP god-ship sucks too.

Please either cite some statistics or actual evidence that all of these hypothetical players with this hypothetical playstyle actually exist as anything more than a small niche group or please stop making these claims.

Rroff wrote:
To me it sounds like they should rebadge the current strategic cruisers as some kind of modular battlecruiser, give it an initial balance pass as its new reality as a battlecruiser and start implementing new strategic cruisers that have a static slot layout, no rigs and can be adjusted on the fly via a bunch of sliders in a window i,e. granular changes between offensive ewar and defensive ewar resilience i.e. on a Gallente ship you'd have say point range bonuses of 100, 50, 25% on one side versus sensor strength of 25, 50, 100%, trading damage output for ehp, between signature and capacitor, etc. and turning covert capabilities on or off (with some appropriate mechanism so it can't just be instantly switched) - which would probably mean they'd have to have 7-8 high slots though i.e. a covert cloak fitted wouldn't always be enableable depending on settings. Problem is the risk of rendering other cruisers obsolete entirely though would leave space for the T2 variants.


First off, point-buy systems are inherently incredibly difficult to balance and extremely easy to break, because the value of any given stat is not fixed and rarely follows a clean or easily defined pattern. The result is often a system where unneeded stats are left at zero and needed ones are maxed as far as they'll go, which results in an extremely powerful ship with the minimum possible in meaningful tradeoffs and a very stale and static system.

On top of that these are already the "Strategic Cruisers" we've got, and there's no actually solid reason to remove them in favor of some hypothetical other variable ship concept beyond you think it would be cool.

I actually agree that it looks like the re-balanced T3Cs are going to fit more into a BC role than a C role, but that doesn't mean they actually need to be bumped up to BCs or that if they were CCP would need to create a new T3C class to replace them, let alone something as hilariously likely to break the game as what you're proposing here.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#137 - 2017-04-20 16:32:06 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

The primary things about these ships that are OP are the tank and the DPS. Those are the same things that are allowing your fit to work.


Mind you while the DPS numbers are very high - the fit that has been talked about has to get right on top of its target to apply it - it has almost zero projection of that damage and at further ranges its applied damage output drops more inline with other ships.

The issue with tank will also to some degree apply to any ship that is sufficiently top of the line to be worth putting bling on and isn't specifically an issue with T3Cs - take that away and you massively take away the incentives for people to work towards the shinier stuff. Those buffer blaster prots with T2 modules have slightly high tanks but nothing that incredibly amazing until you start putting T2 rigs, deadspace hardeners, etc. those 400+K setups you are talking slave sets and ganglinks and possibly taking a dps trade off if you want an ultra brick tanked tackle ship in the upper 100s of K. If you shove that kind of stuff on almost any ship in Eve it becomes something of a monster - dunno if anyone remembers the bait rupture that used to troll outside Jita 4-4 but people don't tend to put that stuff so much on a run of the mill ship that isn't king of the hill.
Cade Windstalker
#138 - 2017-04-20 16:32:14 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Only the prot has that significant combination of dps and tank - there are some trick legion and tengu fits that can have around 1000dps but they take a big hit to tank to get there and the prot largely sacrifices utility high and mid slots to get there - it also doesn't have the greatest projection in blaster form and while not bad with rails you take a fair damage and tracking drop doing that. Legion has some ok options there but outclassed by the Absolution in many cases which is less penalised than some of the other commandships by its sig and mobility due to having the resist bonus and naturally large armor hitpoints.


"1000 DPS" isn't some magical number here. All of the T3s are extremely strong in both short-range and long-range configurations. Often more so in the long-range ones these days because T3s can fit 100MNs and kite while still projecting very good DPS for their size. If you use another short-range weapon system you trade raw DPS for tracking, projection, or some combination of the two (ignoring issues with medium ACs).

The whole reason the T3Cs are OP is because of this combination of tank and DPS.

This is not some niche that should be preserved, or some bar that everything else should be elevated up to.

Each weapon system has situations it does well in. Blasters tend to favor smaller and faster fights where you can either get on top of your opponent and finish them quickly or disengage and run away if the fight doesn't look to be winnable. Not every weapon system needs to be good in every situation.

Rails are absolutely a viable option here, you just don't seem to like the trade-offs they require in DPS and tracking. That doesn't mean that they're not usable though, it means that you either don't like them for arbitrary reasons or you haven't found a setup for them that works. Neither of those is a justification for keeping the Proteus in its current state.

Rroff wrote:
Problem with that is keeping things balanced within the tiers below - just changing say the Deimos or Brutix significantly to fill in the gap left if you remove the Prot as talked about above is going to have further knock on effects as while maybe they "should" be able to fulfil that role on paper the way things have changed doesn't make it that simple and could require rebalancing of entire tiers of ships.

Looking over some of what people are saying in this thread though a few things strike me:

-Consolidating sub-systems isn't necessarily a bad thing but if the goal is to make it easier to do things like skin the ships and promote micro-transactions, etc. then you need to retain that connection people have with the ships or you aren't far off a zero sum game.


So, first off I never said "significant changes" to either of those ships, in fact I rather specifically said that any changes CCP might make to improve ships T3s were previously eclipsing wouldn't be as severe as the nerfs to the T3s need to be. The role you are looking for here is inherently OP and should not be filled, you just don't seem to accept this even as you accept every fact leading to this conclusion.

Consolidating subsystems isn't just a case of art asset issues, it's also a problem with the design space of the ship and having subsystems that rarely if ever get used. The more options these ships have the more chance there is that the players will find a combination that's OP and breaks something. By tightening up the design space from 5 subsystems with 4 options each to 4 subsystems with 3 options each CCP reduces the possible number of combinations from 1024 to just 81 which is *much* easier to keep balanced and interesting, as well as making it easier to keep all the subsystems interesting and useful.

It's also not at all about selling skins. The major barrier to Skins for T3s was the projection tech that they showed off at the Art presentation at Fanfest. That works no matter how many Subsystems there are in the game.

The fewer subsystems there are though the less maintenance work the T3s represent and the more time the art team has for other things whenever a T3 needs an art or texture tech update or whatever.

Rroff wrote:
-The concept of one ship that can be refit depending on scenario on the fly might sound great on paper but in reality after someone has lost a couple they are going to become resistant to filling it up with modules (never mind the logistics) that are just going to be lost and either go back to having multiple ships with different static fits as T3Cs are now or become far more reluctant to engage unless they have a significant;y high chance of winning. You also have the problem that you basically need EFT implanted in your skull to do anything useful with refitting and dealing with the PG and CPU limits, etc.


You don't need to carry around your fittings with you for the modularity of T3s to be useful. Whether it's only needing one hull in your Wormhole or being able to do a forward Null deploy with a T3-based doctrine so that you can easily vary the amount of different roles in the fleet on a whim and in response to what your enemies bring there are plenty of potential uses for actually fully modular T3s besides filling them full of modules and a mobile depot.
Cade Windstalker
#139 - 2017-04-20 16:39:23 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:

The primary things about these ships that are OP are the tank and the DPS. Those are the same things that are allowing your fit to work.


Mind you while the DPS numbers are very high - the fit that has been talked about has to get right on top of its target to apply it - it has almost zero projection of that damage and at further ranges its applied damage output drops more inline with other ships.

The issue with tank will also to some degree apply to any ship that is sufficiently top of the line to be worth putting bling on and isn't specifically an issue with T3Cs - take that away and you massively take away the incentives for people to work towards the shinier stuff. Those buffer blaster prots with T2 modules have slightly high tanks but nothing that incredibly amazing until you start putting T2 rigs, deadspace hardeners, etc. those 400+K setups you are talking slave sets and ganglinks and possibly taking a dps trade off if you want an ultra brick tanked tackle ship in the upper 100s of K. If you shove that kind of stuff on almost any ship in Eve it becomes something of a monster - dunno if anyone remembers the bait rupture that used to troll outside Jita 4-4 but people don't tend to put that stuff so much on a run of the mill ship that isn't king of the hill.


People bling-fit ships to be top of the line, a ship doesn't need to be above and beyond OP already in order for someone to decide that what it really needs is another few billion in fittings.

Claiming that people will somehow stop bling fitting just because T3s get nerfed is ridiculous. People did it before T3s were even in the game, they'll do it after T3s get run through the nerf-bat factory.

The trade-off in projection on Blasters is something that's inherent to the guns, and there are ways around it, like using a different ship with different weapons, fitting for range mods and ammo, or using Railguns. These variations in weapons make them good at different scales and different types of engagements. Just because your Blaster Proteus is the only Medium Blaster boat that can last long in a big fight does not mean there is a problem with medium blasters, Gallente ships, or any other hull.

Say it with me: "Eve is about tradeoffs"
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
ChaosTheory.
#140 - 2017-04-20 16:42:08 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
If you go back to the original ship tiericide dev blog you'll see that the sort of high level concept for T3s as a class is not as good at any specific role as T2 but more general than Navy ships. If we then take the T3Ds as a sort of baseline then we get a ship that maybe tanks around the level of the T2 ships but doesn't do any specialized role as well as the T2 hulls.


I still have hope the CCP can get there. But they aren't the only ones who have had that general idea, and I've never seen it work right.

In the turn based table top game Battletech that had 'mechs that were supposed to fill that same kind of role (of course there were a blatant ripoff of Robotech and it all ended up in court, but that's another story). The idea was that the had a mech mode that wasn't a very good mech, a fighter mode that was worse than real fighters, and an 'airmech mode' that made them almost but not quite like helicoptes (VTOLs) BUT it was all combined in one package and that versatility was supposed to be the selling point.

It wasn't, the choice between being a crappy mech that died in 2 turns or a crappy aerospace fighter that died in 1 turn was no choice at all. The ONLY real selling point was a quirk on the original rule set that made them crazy overpowered (transforming dissipate all heat generated in a turn, heat being the primary balancing factor for offensive weapons in BT).

Likewise, the idea of a versatile ship that can' transform' but it pretty much a crappier version of several other ships sounds great in EVE, but human nature dictates that most people will simply fly the thing that works the best in the situation they choose and just run away or dock up and reship is the situation changes.

TL;DR, Tech 3s are probably a failed experiment.