These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#141 - 2017-04-20 17:00:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Cade Windstalker wrote:

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.


We used rail prots quite a bit after the introduction of tier 3 battlecruisers, etc. separate to that personally I used to fly around wormhole space quite a bit with this ship:

http://imgur.com/oo8tXD6

(If you check one of the POS bashes in the killboard record for Rroff where I used a Prot you can see the faction railguns on there - this was before the changes to railguns where the faction variety had a slight advantage in actual damage application at range).

You assume a ton about me that couldn't be further from the truth - as I mentioned before I spent long enough in the game I had the skills and ISK to turn to other options if the strat cruiser wasn't there (even if that meant putting slaves on a ship that you really shouldn't) so personally I'm not really that bothered what happens to them in that regard despite you thinking I'm being protective of them out of self interest.
Pandemic Legion
#142 - 2017-04-20 17:08:51 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:

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.


We used rail prots quite a bit after the introduction of tier 3 battlecruisers, etc. separate to that personally I used to fly around wormhole space quite a bit with this ship:

http://imgur.com/nDu3iTu

(If you check one of the POS bashes in the killboard record for Rroff where I used a Prot you can see the faction railguns on there - this was before the changes to railguns where the faction variety had a slight advantage in actual damage application at range).

You assume a ton about me that couldn't be further from the truth - as I mentioned before I spent long enough in the game I had the skills and ISK to turn to other options if the strat cruiser wasn't there (even if that meant putting slaves on a ship that you really shouldn't) so personally I'm not really that bothered what happens to them in that regard despite you thinking I'm being protective of them out of self interest.


You are putting up an awful lot of fight for someone not bothered if CCP nerf T3C down to cruiser/navy cruiser levels.
#143 - 2017-04-20 17:11:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


You are putting up an awful lot of fight for someone not bothered if CCP nerf T3C down to cruiser/navy cruiser levels.


I don't even play the game any more and unlikely to again - but I still have an interest in the game and a semi-professional (done some video game development, modding and private beta testing) passion for game balance/design.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#144 - 2017-04-20 17:30:58 UTC
Teros Hakomairos wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Yes there are plans for rebalance, not only consolidation of subsystems.

No one has seen any details yet.


Calling a nerf "rebalalnce" is sweet.....nonsense but sweet....

A rebalance would be a new skin....

A nerf creates more problems than it solves than it creates another uber ship somerwhere else.....an another,and another...you see the problem?

Nerfs are bullshit....adapt to the new situation and find tactics to solve the "uber status".....

Whine post ingame and in the forum are childish.....




Nerfing is simply a part of rebalancing, notice the root word there is "balance." Meaning adjustments up and down will be required. If you only ever buffed you get "power creep" which is absolutely horrible for game balance.

As for T3 cruisers, the reduction of subsystems is a buff in balance as it means merging subsystems that you used to have to select one or the other in the old system. Meanwhile an increase in sig radius or reduction in raw damage/tank are all obviously nerfs.

Currently everyone who actually plays knows these ships are far too powerful for their cost/train time/hull, meaning regardless of the subsystem changes a nerf was imminent.

Personally, I would leave their damage intact as I really actually don't see a problem here considering they are T3 and in order to get some of these BB damage numbers you're sacrificing tank or agility (as you should). I would however hit their sig and buffer with a nerf truck filled with crates of nerf bats. The tank we get out of a BC should be these things upper limit while sharing a slightly bloated sig to that of a normal cruiser. Anything more or less is out of balance with other hulls.



Just remember, these ships were never meant to be the end all be all of ships to fly, they were simply meant to be diverse and adaptable to the conditions they were being taken in to.
#145 - 2017-04-20 17:43:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Nasar Vyron wrote:

Personally, I would leave their damage intact as I really actually don't see a problem here considering they are T3 and in order to get some of these BB damage numbers you're sacrificing tank or agility (as you should). I would however hit their sig and buffer with a nerf truck filled with crates of nerf bats. The tank we get out of a BC should be these things upper limit while sharing a slightly bloated sig to that of a normal cruiser. Anything more or less is out of balance with other hulls.


This is something a lot of people seem to gloss over - there is a lot of nuance to the tank aspect - ultra high resist combined with big EHP, small sig and high mobility has to go but that doesn't mean just savaging EHP blindly to balance them - higher resists should be a trade off with EHP and produce something more inline with HACs while bigger EHP should result in something that is more like commandships with bigger sig, etc. etc.

Pretty sure a good few of the posters above would like nothing better than to see T3Cs nerfed until no one uses them and then move straight onto griping about whatever ship emerges as the next to stand out from the pack repeat.
Goonswarm Federation
#146 - 2017-04-20 18:24:20 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Nasar Vyron wrote:

Personally, I would leave their damage intact as I really actually don't see a problem here considering they are T3 and in order to get some of these BB damage numbers you're sacrificing tank or agility (as you should). I would however hit their sig and buffer with a nerf truck filled with crates of nerf bats. The tank we get out of a BC should be these things upper limit while sharing a slightly bloated sig to that of a normal cruiser. Anything more or less is out of balance with other hulls.


This is something a lot of people seem to gloss over - there is a lot of nuance to the tank aspect - ultra high resist combined with big EHP, small sig and high mobility has to go but that doesn't mean just savaging EHP blindly to balance them - higher resists should be a trade off with EHP and produce something more inline with HACs while bigger EHP should result in something that is more like commandships with bigger sig, etc. etc.

Pretty sure a good few of the posters above would like nothing better than to see T3Cs nerfed until no one uses them and then move straight onto griping about whatever ship emerges as the next to stand out from the pack repeat.


We don't want them to never get used we want them to not be such an easy "GOTO" choice in so many roles. There are really few roles which can't be covered by a T3C and in a lot of case, the T3C is also better than any other options.
#147 - 2017-04-20 20:40:35 UTC
Rroff wrote:
We used rail prots quite a bit after the introduction of tier 3 battlecruisers, etc. separate to that personally I used to fly around wormhole space quite a bit with this ship:

http://imgur.com/oo8tXD6

(If you check one of the POS bashes in the killboard record for Rroff where I used a Prot you can see the faction railguns on there - this was before the changes to railguns where the faction variety had a slight advantage in actual damage application at range).

You assume a ton about me that couldn't be further from the truth - as I mentioned before I spent long enough in the game I had the skills and ISK to turn to other options if the strat cruiser wasn't there (even if that meant putting slaves on a ship that you really shouldn't) so personally I'm not really that bothered what happens to them in that regard despite you thinking I'm being protective of them out of self interest.


You seem to assume that I care if you're being protective out of self interest, I really don't care if you're playing devil's advocate or arguing for purely selfish reasons. What I care about is the quality of your arguments and what they are, and so far yours are repetitive and lacking.

So far you've mostly:


  • Made vague claims about this role that only these ships can fill which eventually boiled down to "High DPS, High EHP fleet pwn-mobile" which appears to be based off of some misguided idea about what Medium Blasters should or should not be able to do.

  • Made repeated vague insinuations about all of the people that will quite the game if T3Cs are nerfed, with no stats to back it up or other facts of any kind beyond that these people (probably) exist and that they will definitely (maybe, you think) quit the game if T3Cs are nerfed to the level CCP have said they're going to nerf them. All in all lots of fluff, no substance to be found so far.

  • Run up a list of ships that these things eclipse, and generally provided a strong argument for nerfing the **** out of them.


Consider me unconvinced and unimpressed with the quality of your points here.

I will say that you at least seem to be debating in good faith though, so thank you for that. Big smile

Rroff wrote:
This is something a lot of people seem to gloss over - there is a lot of nuance to the tank aspect - ultra high resist combined with big EHP, small sig and high mobility has to go but that doesn't mean just savaging EHP blindly to balance them - higher resists should be a trade off with EHP and produce something more inline with HACs while bigger EHP should result in something that is more like commandships with bigger sig, etc. etc.

Pretty sure a good few of the posters above would like nothing better than to see T3Cs nerfed until no one uses them and then move straight onto griping about whatever ship emerges as the next to stand out from the pack repeat.


I don't think anyone with an actual clue wants T3Cs to be nerfed out of use completely. There's plenty of interesting potential there, but they *desperately* need a nerf and have for years now. That doesn't mean blindly changing *anything* but the current combination of EHP, DPS, tank, projections, and utility is ridiculous and over the top.

The primary benchmark for DPS and Tank should be HACs. They're the class that T3Cs have basically sat on for the last six or eight years, and the easiest ruler to measure the rebalance by. If they're beating the HACs too significantly in any of DPS, Tank, or Mobility or beating them at all in all three at once then they're probably OP, especially considering that a T3C will have some additional Utility a HAC won't even if it's just in something like the Nullifier subsystem.
#148 - 2017-04-20 21:02:10 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
and so far yours are repetitive and lacking.


Largely that is because the arguments they are in response to are also repetitive lacking - not aimed at anyone specifically but most people don't progress beyond one dimensionally complaining about their tank and DPS and that somehow just straight up nerfing them will make everything right.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

I don't think anyone with an actual clue wants T3Cs to be nerfed out of use completely. There's plenty of interesting potential there, but they *desperately* need a nerf and have for years now. That doesn't mean blindly changing *anything* but the current combination of EHP, DPS, tank, projections, and utility is ridiculous and over the top.

The primary benchmark for DPS and Tank should be HACs. They're the class that T3Cs have basically sat on for the last six or eight years, and the easiest ruler to measure the rebalance by. If they're beating the HACs too significantly in any of DPS, Tank, or Mobility or beating them at all in all three at once then they're probably OP, especially considering that a T3C will have some additional Utility a HAC won't even if it's just in something like the Nullifier subsystem.


HACs aren't really a good benchmark of where T3s should be overall IMO - HACs are generally designed around fast paced, usually ranged, engagements - but it does serve as a template as to where high resist, small sig, high mobility variants of the T3C should be (adaptive augmenter). There isn't really a T2 cruiser (combat cruiser) that sits in the spot that the augmented plating type sub-system occupies which I think is part of the problem with T3Cs - the closest really is HICs but they are a specialisation all of their own and can't really be used as a template.
#149 - 2017-04-21 00:28:10 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Largely that is because the arguments they are in response to are also repetitive lacking - not aimed at anyone specifically but most people don't progress beyond one dimensionally complaining about their tank and DPS and that somehow just straight up nerfing them will make everything right.


Because that's the problem with them? These are ships that are, in almost every way, somewhere between slightly and ridiculously too strong. I mean, they used to be worse back when you had multi-million EHP Legions and what-not, but the crux of the issue here is too much DPS and too much tank. That's why the overshadow the HACs and even a lot of Battleships, and it's why when you throw them into a Utility role they overshadow a lot of specialist ships, even ones that do the specialist part of the job a little better, because bringing twice or more the EHP to the party is a *really* strong advantage.

I'm really not sure what your counter argument to this is. All the numbers, data, and statements by CCP and *tons* of different players known for their fitting and fleet knowledge support this. Even your own arguments in this thread flatly admit that the T3Cs have more DPS and EHP than any other remotely comparable ship.

Rroff wrote:
HACs aren't really a good benchmark of where T3s should be overall IMO - HACs are generally designed around fast paced, usually ranged, engagements - but it does serve as a template as to where high resist, small sig, high mobility variants of the T3C should be (adaptive augmenter). There isn't really a T2 cruiser (combat cruiser) that sits in the spot that the augmented plating type sub-system occupies which I think is part of the problem with T3Cs - the closest really is HICs but they are a specialisation all of their own and can't really be used as a template.


So, first off, I disagree with your assessment of HACs. There are HACs that are good fleet boats and HACs that are good active-tanked solo and small gang ships. In both cases the T3C is the flat out better option. The HIC is a specialist and has high EHP as a result of its role, it is not in any meaningful way comparable to a T3C as a combat ship. The HACs are the ship that had the largest section of usage taken from them by T3Cs and for them to have any future as a ship class they need to get that back, which means the T3Cs need to perform worse than the HACs at the things the HACs do. Since they're mostly fast tanky DPS boats that kinda puts the HAC as the closest point of comparison for the T3Cs' combat performance.

There's some room here for them to have more raw EHP but to take damage worse than HACs, and CCP have already said they're planning on increasing the sig radius, but that only goes so far, and doesn't do anything about the DPS which is going to be equal to or better than a similarly fit and skilled HAC.

The Proteus for example can get the same Damage and Falloff bonuses the Deimos gets, a 2.5% per level better active rep bonus, one extra turret, an extra low slot, about 50% more *base* EHP, a slightly better drone bay, an extra rig slot, its choice of about 75% of a longer Point and Scram, more CPU, or longer targeting range and better sensor strength, AND a choice of either half the MWD bonus the HACs get or way better MWD or AB cap use. Total tradeoffs vs Deimos: 25-50% MWD sig radius and one mid slot.

It can't *quite* do the same thing to the Ishtar, but only by dint of not being able to get a 5th Heavy Drone. The bonuses are still as good or better and it gets gun damage on top of them.

Second, the Augmented Plating is being removed in its current form if you've seen the chart from the Fanfest presentation. The Defensive subsystems are being reduced to:


  • Cloak
  • Passive Tank
  • Active Tank


Given the issues these ships have with EHP I highly doubt that will include a resist bonus and an EHP bonus on the passive subsystem. Which they choose will likely depend on what they want to do with fitting space and how much base HP the hull has post-rework.
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2017-04-21 02:00:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Coralas
Cade Windstalker wrote:


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.



I spent the almost the entirety of this characters career flying a stratios - the proteus drone fit is the natural extension of the skills trained for the stratios and it is a natural upgrade in firepower and tank, with the trade off of having to depot switch the covert mode off it to fight properly. ie I understand perfectly where the 2 ships fit into and why you choose each for a particular subrole within exploration, and ultimately if you fly about finding things, after you find them, you have to DO them. To suggest that I'm not choosing the right tool for the right area is farcical. The tengu shares fewer skills with the stratios, its essentially a scrap and rework for someone coming naturally up the modern exploration path as laid out by CCP.

Quote:

Quote:


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.



its a bit over 600 dps at garde II optimal and an active tank It is already below the ishtar in application, range and raw dps. it _has_ to have a bigger tank or its not a trade off, its a heads up lesser ship.

I know where this leads to, this leads to the observation that the rail/buffer fit is dramatically superior to rail/buffer fit deimos, and we know what the correct options are for fixing that, and only half that fix is on the proteus side and does not need to affect how I use the ship. Most races have a good hac and a **** hac and that is generally something CCP could fix.

Quote:

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



Did I, or did I not say, fix the fit that is out of line, and the accusation that I'm focused on a niche is just as easily levelled at you.

Quote:



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.


Rails don't out damage drones at midfield ranges, and I lived in gurista space for a long time, which has a lot of that, and they also mitigate a lot of ewar and shoot into resistance holes, and you can run ammoless on targets that don't require full dps, since well railgun ammo is a major space hog that will force you to do dull space trucking work if you run railguns for everything, ie drones used well economize on a lot of irritations of exploration. I'm sure tengu pilots view missile bulk as a problem.

and lastly I think that running content in a sea of blue space, supported by jump freighters is a pretty naff concept for an exploration ship or an exploration career, and if the power of this ship is reduced, it utterly must have logistic issues reduced too so that the flexibility can be used to work around the resultant lack of power right there on the spot.
#151 - 2017-04-21 06:00:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
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.


Gilas and HACs are not an alternative for deepspace nomads to run combat sites with in hostile space.
No other ship class has the versatility of T3Cs.
I wish there was, but there isnt.

Arguably the submodule system should have been implemented on BC hulls in the first place, as a more appropriate step between cruisers and BS, which lacks the small size/speed of cruisers, and the raw firepower/ehp of BS. Also would have encouraged more training into BCs which are universally pretty unpopular and lack luster.

I agree its sad a Tengu can fit as much dps as a Sleipnir, with comparable raw tank, yet smaller sig/ better, speed, and the refit versatility ontop. Arguably thats a problem with BCs though, not T3Cs.

Im not against nerfs per se.

Im pointing out they need to be made with this playstyle in mind.
Its exactly the capacity to refit for specific purposes which makes the T3Cs optimal for this.

If T3Cs are nerfed so hard they cant, for example, clear a 5/10, there is therafter very little use for a T3C in PvE.

See what I mean?
Minmatar Republic
#152 - 2017-04-21 06:20:12 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
No, the T3 changes won't encourage players to use the hundreds of other ships currently available in the game.. All it will do is make even more players leave this game. Some players may try to find a suitable replacement for their T3 but most will just leave. There's already been so many nerfs done to this game in the name of " Balance" that it's becoming apparent the only option left for solo and small group players is being another KM stat farmed by roaming PvP blobs.

This game has been suffering a slow painful death due to the endless amounts of nerfs, eventually it will become a ghost town.


DMC
Tactical Supremacy
#153 - 2017-04-21 06:49:02 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
No, the T3 changes won't encourage players to use the hundreds of other ships currently available in the game.. All it will do is make even more players leave this game. Some players may try to find a suitable replacement for their T3 but most will just leave. There's already been so many nerfs done to this game in the name of " Balance" that it's becoming apparent the only option left for solo and small group players is being another KM stat farmed by roaming PvP blobs.

This game has been suffering a slow painful death due to the endless amounts of nerfs, eventually it will become a ghost town.


DMC


Totally agree with this, I gave up on my solo small gang life because CCP had made it a pain in every area of the game.

I think they are perfectly fine as they are, in fact the real issue is that Battleships are too weak in terms of tank.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

#154 - 2017-04-21 07:39:11 UTC
First of all we need to wait and see how far nerfs will go. I'm flying SoE and T3C for most of my time spend in EvE. Truly nomad life. I'm not sure T3C should be so powerfull to do almost all DED sites in the game solo. There should be progress in power. I don't think we need one ship to do them all. If balancing T3C will go well I think it would be a good time to introduce T3BS, pattern will be there.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

#155 - 2017-04-21 09:45:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
One way to go about it, might be to specialise the 4 different T3Cs further, differently, at the expense of other specialisations.

Lokis for example currently make very poor solo PvE ships, but have web bonuses for gangs and group PvE.

Something laterally similar to the rather cool diversity among the 4 factions haulers having bonuses for ammo, PI,more and mineral transport, respectively, although not as clear cut.

This way T3Cs would remain useful, stats can be arranged appropriately, and you skill into/use the one that best suits your playstyle/content, rather than them being as much of a "catch-all" type (althpugh arguably they already arent, as they are bonused for different weapon systems, mods, resist profiles etc already).

I think most players would understand that and be ok with that.



I dont think a T3BS is a good direction at this point.
BS already have internal balance issues, where some hulls are almost obsolete.
BS can be improved without a T3 option, which would make the rest even more redundant.

If there is to be more T3 lines, BC would be the next logical step, and would be less power-creep.

BC are conveniently wedged between cruisers and BS, much the same way dessies are between frigates and cruisers.
They are a good half-step, which has an averaged out min/max of +/-ship classes on either side.

Would also make sense as a lateral BC option, considering there are no faction BCs except the Gnosis.
I havent run a count, but off the top of my head BC hull options are something like 14/-1/5 of other classes.
Thats pretty crappy.

I think the game would benefit from more BCs.
#156 - 2017-04-21 10:04:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Cade Windstalker wrote:

So, first off, I disagree with your assessment of HACs. There are HACs that are good fleet boats and HACs that are good active-tanked solo and small gang ships. In both cases the T3C is the flat out better option. The HIC is a specialist and has high EHP as a result of its role, it is not in any meaningful way comparable to a T3C as a combat ship. The HACs are the ship that had the largest section of usage taken from them by T3Cs and for them to have any future as a ship class they need to get that back, which means the T3Cs need to perform worse than the HACs at the things the HACs do. Since they're mostly fast tanky DPS boats that kinda puts the HAC as the closest point of comparison for the T3Cs' combat performance.

There's some room here for them to have more raw EHP but to take damage worse than HACs, and CCP have already said they're planning on increasing the sig radius, but that only goes so far, and doesn't do anything about the DPS which is going to be equal to or better than a similarly fit and skilled HAC.

The Proteus for example can get the same Damage and Falloff bonuses the Deimos gets, a 2.5% per level better active rep bonus, one extra turret, an extra low slot, about 50% more *base* EHP, a slightly better drone bay, an extra rig slot, its choice of about 75% of a longer Point and Scram, more CPU, or longer targeting range and better sensor strength, AND a choice of either half the MWD bonus the HACs get or way better MWD or AB cap use. Total tradeoffs vs Deimos: 25-50% MWD sig radius and one mid slot.


Be that as it may at the end of the day HACs are assault ships and their specialisation is (or should be) straight line speed, low sig, damage projection and application (hence the Ishtar having drone range, drone speed and tracking bonuses) and these are the only attributes that should be directly compared - T3Cs are a strategic ship with theater wide application not a HAC variant. Likewise with recons where their tactical bonuses are directly compared - recons should also really warp faster and scan faster than a T3C.

The lack of a proper T2 combat cruiser does skew things a bit.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
One way to go about it, might be to specialise the 4 different T3Cs further, differently, at the expense of other specialisations.

Lokis for example currently make very poor solo PvE ships, but have web bonuses for gangs and group PvE.

Something laterally similar to the rather cool diversity among the 4 factions haulers having bonuses for ammo, PI,more and mineral transport, respectively, although not as clear cut.

This way T3Cs would remain useful, stats can be arranged appropriately, and you skill into/use the one that best suits your playstyle/content, rather than them being as much of a "catch-all" type (althpugh arguably they already arent, as they are bonused for different weapon systems, mods, resist profiles etc already).


I was thinking that in respect to the strategic aspect i.e. IIRC Gallente tangle with Caldari quite a bit who amongst other things use ECM so for strategic purposes ewar resilience on the Prot could be a useful feature - which is why I kind of liked the idea mentioned earlier where it would be possible to adjust a compromise between offensive ewar and defensive ewar resilience on the fly.
#157 - 2017-04-21 10:22:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
I agree with Rorrf.

HACs and T3Cs are not comparable.

Their functions are different.
HACs are heavy assault cruisers, T3Cs are strategic cruisers.

HACs are elite frontline combat cruisers.
T3Cs are refittable expensive ships with SP loss risk, that fulfill a wide variety of tasks.

That T3Cs are prevalent or present in mass combat, is a result of the inordinate wealth/SP of players choosing to field them who can shrug off the loss, not of the class itself.

If anything, many HACs are underperforming, possibly in large part because of the rather limited versatility of the MWD role bonus universal to the class.

Im a big proponent of more ship diversity, and its always chafed me that the HAC MWD role bonus is a lazy universal.
Id much prefer that different HACs had a different role bonus, especially since it doesnt scale with SP thus putting a cap on OPness, but making different HACs better for different tasks.
#158 - 2017-04-21 10:33:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Rroff wrote:
I was thinking that in respect to the strategic aspect i.e. IIRC Gallente tangle with Caldari quite a bit who amongst other things use ECM so for strategic purposes ewar resilience on the Prot could be a useful feature - which is why I kind of liked the idea mentioned earlier where it would be possible to adjust a compromise between offensive ewar and defensive ewar resilience on the fly.


Yes. To further define the T3Cs along specialisation it would be good to follow existing faction characteristics.

I think players would understand that more than outright nerfs.

Nonetheless, versatility is the key that must not be broken off in TC3s.

For a nomadic, hostile deepspace player, they need that.
No other ship class comes close.
Not because of stats per se, but because of versatility to refit for different tasks.

NO OTHER SHIP CLASS CAN REFIT SUBSYSTEMS.
This is the fact of the matter currently.
This is what makes T3Cs optimal for this playstyle primarily, not their stats.
This versatility is what makes them an optimum choice, not the stats.

A Tengu does not perform that much better onsite when running PvE than a Gila or Ishtar for there to be an imbalance.
The Tengu needs more training, costs more, and carries the SP loss risk.
Blue locals can run BS/carriers.

The versatility is the key to T3Cs, but that doesnt mean they cant be laterally adjusted so that the differentiation between T3Cs is deeper and more important to the chosen task at hand compared to another T3C (note: to another T3C, not another cruiser).

Having said that, If T3Cs are nerfed across the board so hard that they cant, for example, clear even a 5/10 solo, that versatility will no longer matter. It will kill the nomadic hostile deepspace content overnight. Nor will anybody run Gilas/Rattlesnakes to fulfill that same playstyle, as it would be suicide.

TLDR:
Differentiation of T3Cs, sure.
Outright nerfing of T3Cs, no.
Amarr Empire
#159 - 2017-04-21 11:11:50 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

That T3Cs are prevalent or present in mass combat, is a result of the inordinate wealth/SP of players choosing to field them who can shrug off the loss, not of the class itself.


The problem is the ship class, not the wealth. The ship can do the job better in mass combat than its alternatives, so they spend the wealth on that particular ship. If it couldn't, they would spend the wealth on something else.
Caldari State
#160 - 2017-04-21 11:12:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Rroff wrote:
I was thinking that in respect to the strategic aspect i.e. IIRC Gallente tangle with Caldari quite a bit who amongst other things use ECM so for strategic purposes ewar resilience on the Prot could be a useful feature - which is why I kind of liked the idea mentioned earlier where it would be possible to adjust a compromise between offensive ewar and defensive ewar resilience on the fly.


Yes. To further define the T3Cs along specialisation it would be good to follow existing faction characteristics.

I think players would understand that more than outright nerfs.

Nonetheless, versatility is the key that must not be broken off in TC3s.

For a nomadic, hostile deepspace player, they need that.
No other ship class comes close.
Not because of stats per se, but because of versatility to refit for different tasks.

NO OTHER SHIP CLASS CAN REFIT SUBSYSTEMS.
This is the fact of the matter currently.
This is what makes T3Cs optimal for this playstyle primarily, not their stats.
This versatility is what makes them an optimum choice, not the stats.

A Tengu does not perform that much better onsite when running PvE than a Gila or Ishtar for there to be an imbalance.
The Tengu needs more training, costs more, and carries the SP loss risk.
Blue locals can run BS/carriers.

The versatility is the key to T3Cs, but that doesnt mean they cant be laterally adjusted so that the differentiation between T3Cs is deeper and more important to the chosen task at hand compared to another T3C (note: to another T3C, not another cruiser).

Having said that, If T3Cs are nerfed across the board so hard that they cant, for example, clear even a 5/10 solo, that versatility will no longer matter. It will kill the nomadic hostile deepspace content overnight. Nor will anybody run Gilas/Rattlesnakes to fulfill that same playstyle, as it would be suicide.

TLDR:
Differentiation of T3Cs, sure.
Outright nerfing of T3Cs, no.



The reason for the rebalance is pvp not pve.

You can do a 5/10 in Cerberus if that's your major worry.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Forum Jump