These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#181 - 2017-04-21 16:48:12 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


I read that in another thread on this subject and assumed it was correct, just checked on one of my characters and it is 6.31 seconds, and for my Loki it is 6.36 seconds, that is still doable.


The base stats for the nullification sub-system are relatively high but easy to bring down to reasonable numbers on most fits.
#182 - 2017-04-21 17:17:50 UTC
Rroff wrote:
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.


Not playing the game puts your opinions on it's current state in question.
#183 - 2017-04-21 17:24:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Keno Skir wrote:

Not playing the game puts your opinions on it's current state in question.


I'm sure there will be no shortage of people queuing up to tell me when and where I'm wrong ;)
Pandemic Legion
#184 - 2017-04-21 17:26:39 UTC
In the last two pages we got:

People will quit if you nerf these ships

There are no other ships that can do what I currently do in a T3

But all of the other options are ****

dont take away my get past the gatecamp free card

But they cost so much


My OP ship nerf bingo card is just about full.
#185 - 2017-04-21 17:28:29 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Keno Skir wrote:
[quote=Rroff]
Not playing the game puts your opinions on it's current state in question.


I'm sure there will be no shortage of people queuing up to tell me when and where I'm wrong ;)


Im sure :D

I actually support some of your points, though i still think a small to medium nerf is in order.
#186 - 2017-04-21 18:11:40 UTC
Rroff wrote:
That is the original CCP vision for them not something I've made up - some of them seem to have lost their way somewhat with more recent changes/balances - maybe for good reason at the time I dunno - some of them like the Deimos are probably hard to balance the bonuses between blaster and rail application.


I don't know who told you this but it's pretty much completely incorrect.

CCP have flatly stated previously that one of the major problems with rebalancing HACs was that they were originally just "T1 but better" not as super long range or fast in a straight line ships. If you read through the original HAC tiericide thread and this post by CCP Rise specifically and majorly the first post of the second HAC thread they had to do which contains the following lines regarding HACs and their role:

Quote:
The reality is that when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct 'specialization', but they were nowhere near as specialized as something like Recons or Stealth Bombers.

...

So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.


Emphasis mine.

Rroff wrote:
Not something I necessarily disagree with but the scope of where comparisons should be made is another story and would be clearer if HACs were tweaked back towards their original incarnation i.e. the Deimos should have optimal range and tracking bonuses that the Prot should be atleast 15+% less effective at.


Again, not sure where you got this from but I think you've been misinformed. The Deimos has never had a Tracking bonus or an Optimal Range bonus. It had a Falloff bonus but two of its bonuses have always been damage and the fourth used to be MWD Cap Penalty. Of those the Falloff was always fairly secondary to the other bonuses since the ship used to be used mostly as a brawler.

Rroff wrote:
HACs are more of the attack versus combat variety - something CCP seems to apply somewhat patchily but there it is - this is a fairly succinct summary of it:

Vaarsuvius13 wrote:

The distinction is in base stats. Generally the attack have a weaker base tank with more speed, agility and damage application. They can come with higher damage than the combat, but the DPS/tank is better on the combat generally.



Except, as noted above, CCP specifically called out the tank and general resilience of the hulls when they re-balanced them, and excepting the *very* specialized and tank-focused role of the HIC the HACs have always been the tankiest and generally most survivable Cruisers in the game until T3s came along.

That combination of DPS and very good tanking potential is what made the AHAC doctrine work in the first place.
#187 - 2017-04-21 18:15:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
In the last two pages we got...


...many people trying to run this thread into the ground.

Speak ontopic, or gtfo.

I know T3Cs have been an issue for you for years.
But at least read and respond, and make your case, in a thread defined by this.

This topic is about how to nerf T3Cs, not whether they should be.



T3Cs cost more
T3Cs risk SP loss
T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility

These are important characteristics to consider in a nerf.

Diversification of the 4 T3Cs is the best way forward.
Goonswarm Federation
#188 - 2017-04-21 19:24:26 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rroff wrote:

HACs are more of the attack versus combat variety - something CCP seems to apply somewhat patchily but there it is - this is a fairly succinct summary of it:



There are 2 HACs per faction. There is nothing preventing them from splitting a bit so they cover both combat and attack.


Then they should do so.

Recons are already split between roles.

HACs are largely crap, not only in comparison to T3Cs, but due to universal role bonus and really terrible slot/stat/cap/etc layouts.
Same thing for T2 frigates.

HACs are terrible, just as AFs are.
Not because of T3Cs, but because of class internal stats in comparison.


HAC are suffering from the T3 plague just like AF do. Their role is better done by another ship so they see really low usage. The way to correct the HACs problem is not to buff them. You have to move away what flat out stomped them out of their designed role.
Pandemic Legion
#189 - 2017-04-21 19:42:17 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

T3Cs cost more


Cost is always a poor way to balance things. See remote doomsday titans and CCP thinking only a handful would ever exist at any one time.


Salvos Rhoska wrote:

T3Cs risk SP loss


Should be removed entirely, it doesn't work.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility


Any ship with a cov ops cloak can do that, what you want is a virtually guaranteed way to avoid gatecamps.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

These are important characteristics to consider in a nerf.


All 3 should have no place in the balance work.

Things that need to be considered is fitting room, base stats, and making sure they are balanced around where they are supposed to be which is between cruisers and navy cruisers.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Diversification of the 4 T3Cs is the best way forward.


No the best way forwards is to make them the generalists they were always supposed to be.
#190 - 2017-04-21 19:46:09 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

T3Cs cost more
T3Cs risk SP loss
T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility

These are important characteristics to consider in a nerf.

Could not disagree more.

First, the famous line that needs repeating right now is cost is not a balancing factor. Or, perhaps a bit more nuanced way of putting it, cost cannot be a *primary* balancing factor. Besides, if you argue "well it's OP but costs more", you just hand the keys to OP toys over to the richest players and let them bowl over all the poorer saps. That's not good from a game development platform. Entire wings of remote DD titans.

Plus, your first and second points coincide with bit of reality that negates both as legitimate arguments - the cost and SP loss only mean anything if it blows up. A one-time cost of anything can usually be shrugged off, especially if it gets used for a long time and you get great return on your investment. And SP loss is meaningless if it doesn't blow up - the chances of that happening are already reduced by the OPness of it to begin with. Plus...hate to break it to you, but the SP loss is rather insignificant unless you are losing one every week.

You can send the T3C line through a car wash of nerf bats and they'd still emerge from the other side as great and versatile vessels. In fact, let me put it this way. I'm going to quote one snippet of your line there...

T3Cs are the only hull that

Isolating that tidbit and going from there - that is an important thing in EvE. But not just for T3C. Every vessel should be able to be described with a similar sentence. "[X] is the only hull that...", and a decent description of it's role should follow. Ideally, in a perfect EvE, each ship should have one thing that only it can do (within it's weight class of course), one or two other things it's great at, and a ton of things it's bad at. That's my interpretation of what the Devs seem to be working towards in this game based on statements they've made like "every ship should have a use".

The problem is that many ships do NOT have a statement "[X] is the only hull that...", because T3C also do it and do it much better. See Baltec1's Proteous/Deimos example from earlier. And because of the versatility of T3C, a bunch of ships that "also great at" also get overshadowed by T3C.

I'm going to speak just for myself here, but add a caveat that it seems to be the common sentiment here based on what I've seen from others. I want T3C to be fun, versatile vessels. I want there to be things that only T3C can do. I just don't want them to overshadow other ships in doing so. In the same vain as HIC recently getting a quick nerf smack so they don't overshadow Gallente recons, there can be a little overlap so long as one isn't obsoleted by the other.
#191 - 2017-04-21 19:51:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Cade Windstalker wrote:
snip....


You misunderstood a bit what I meant with the Deimos - it "should" have that tracking advantage over a T3 - all of those ships "should" have that damage application advantage over their respective T3 counterparts - that is a major feature of their specialisation but some of them embody it more than others i.e. the Ishtar.

You are also basing a lot of that on what CCP Rise said (who didn't work for CCP when they were originally developed) - in the original days HACs were conceived a bit differently to where he went with them on the rebalance - the old vision - which he kind of glosses over in those threads - was for dominant solo ships that could close quickly with their target and efficiently take them down. You'd probably have to dig into eve-search to find the older info and to be frank I really can't be bothered to try and drag it up.
#192 - 2017-04-21 20:05:53 UTC
I would kind of like to disect these three things because I don't think they're really true...

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
T3Cs cost more
T3Cs risk SP loss
T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility



Salvos Rhoska wrote:
T3Cs cost more


Yes, ish, but not by much. The hull plus subsystems on a Proteus costs around 275-300m, an Ishtar (one of the only HAC with much demand for it these days) costs 192m, and a Damnation Command Ship (one of the most used) costs just under 400m. That means that a relatively widely used T3C hull costs about as much more than a HAC than a Damnation costs more than the T3C, and we've already clearly established that the Command Ships are inferior in terms of raw combat potential to the T3Cs and have fewer options. Even the Astarte, a relatively little-used Command Ship costs 325m, 50m more than the Proteus.

Based on that they're pretty severely under-costed for their current performance and utility.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
T3Cs risk SP loss


This is pretty much just an ISK cost these days. Injectors mean that a pilot can keep enough Free SP floating around that they don't even have any performance downtime to re-train in the event of successive losses. A pilot isn't actually losing much if any time to a ship loss here.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility


This I just find kinda false and even CCP called this out in their own balance presentation. The vast majority of T3s just get fitted with subsystems and are left static.

Because of rigs T3Cs are basically one ship one fitting, just like every other ship. There are a couple of places you can skirt around this but you still probably need to dock up to swap around subsystems and modules, and if you have somewhere to dock you have somewhere to keep other hulls.

So yeah, T3Cs are more versatile than most other ship hulls, but in practice this doesn't really enable any sort of special gameplay in hostile space. The cloaking and interdiction nullifier make them great raiders, but again that's not a function of the subsystem swapping. Mostly the versatility gets you multiple hulls for the price of one ship's worth of training and not much more than that.

CCP are buffing this somewhat by making the rigs swappable, but this still won't have a huge impact on this mythical "nomad living in hostile space" playstyle.
#193 - 2017-04-21 20:16:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility
Any ship with a cov ops cloak can do that, what you want is a virtually guaranteed way to avoid gatecamps.

Roll Go check what ships can use covops cloak and name 3 that will be usefull for nomad life.


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

Pandemic Legion
#194 - 2017-04-21 20:18:14 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility
Any ship with a cov ops cloak can do that, what you want is a virtually guaranteed way to avoid gatecamps.

Roll Go check what ships can use covops cloak and name 3 that will be usefull for nomad life.




Purifier, stratios, pilgrim.
#195 - 2017-04-21 20:20:16 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
snip....


You misunderstood a bit what I meant with the Deimos - it "should" have that tracking advantage over a T3 - all of those ships "should" have that damage application advantage over their respective T3 counterparts - that is a major feature of their specialisation but some of them embody it more than others i.e. the Ishtar.

You are also basing a lot of that on what CCP Rise said (who didn't work for CCP when they were originally developed) - in the original days HACs were conceived a bit differently to where he went with them on the rebalance - the old vision - which he kind of glosses over in those threads - was for dominant solo ships that could close quickly with their target and efficiently take them down. You'd probably have to dig into eve-search to find the older info and to be frank I really can't be bothered to try and drag it up.


And you seem to have missed my point entirely, you say "those ships should" but there's no *reason* they "should" have that application advantage. As I showed, with sourced evidence, they never had it, they've never needed or wanted it, and there's no significant benefit to it beyond it relegating the HACs to the garbage bin so T3Cs can keep being over-tanked little monsters.

What HACs are supposed to be is tanky. The MWD bonus is entirely a tank bonus, the base hulls aren't even *that* fast to begin with. The Deimos, for example, loses in base speed to a Vigilant and the only HAC hull that isn't beaten by at least one pirate Cruiser is the Vagabond.

As to what you're saying about HAC hulls, considering they were originally introduced in 2003, there was no forum thread for them, and the web pages where such information might have lived are long gone there is no source for this. That was also so many changes and itterations of the game and its mechanics ago that it's a moot point and any argument based on that is ridiculous. Personally I'm going to go with CCP Rise on this one, considering that he was hardly the only one working on that design and he has access to whatever notes and people are left from the early days of Eve when considering how the ships should be reworked.

We're 14 years on, the game has changed massively, and how HACs have actually been used is as tanky high DPS Cruisers. That's also what they've been tiericided to be. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous, and it's almost certain that they're the ship that CCP is going to be using as a baseline for the combat stats of the T3 Cruisers.
#196 - 2017-04-21 20:23:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Purifier, stratios, pilgrim.

Do you know what "nomad life" mean? It's not roam for a day. Stratios? outside hisec? SB? for what? data site? DED?

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

Pandemic Legion
#197 - 2017-04-21 20:32:12 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Purifier, stratios, pilgrim.

Do you know what "nomad life" mean? It's not roam for a day. Stratios? outside hisec? SB? for what? data site? DED?


I spend weeks at a time in a purifier.
Amarr Empire
#198 - 2017-04-21 20:33:48 UTC
Strategic cruisers fail this thing.

I threw together a 2B proteus build which could grab hold of a polarized nightmare with 6 shiny damage mods in the lows and not let go. Ever. I was playing with this in the in-game fitting tool with all subsystems at IV and no armor implants of any kind.
You can't neut it (unless you're packing a lot of neuts and/or are neut-bonused), it's highly resistant to jamming, it doesn't run out of cap booster charges, and it doesn't care about weapon disruption because that wasn't the point. Damps don't really work because it's designed to be in your face. Target painting doesn't help unless you're part of a fleet. The very best you can do solo is avoid the fight, because you're not killing it.

Oh, and your shiny-fit solo prot won't break it, either :)

The regengu has a similar problem, except it can kill things with RLML.

A signature :o

Goonswarm Federation
#199 - 2017-04-21 20:40:41 UTC
At the end of the day, the T3C should be hulls that can go from lesser HAC to lesser Logi to lesser Recon (cloaky or not cloaky one depending on fit) by swapping it's sub systems. Able to do it all but not as good as the specialized hull in any roles.

If you stretch it's resources, it might also be a lesser HAC that happen to build a ghetto recon capability on top depending on how each sub system ends up being rolled.
#200 - 2017-04-21 20:43:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
I spend weeks at a time in a purifier.

You flow megathron in frigates fleets, you are not good statistics example.

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

Forum Jump