These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Strategic cruiser balance pass

Author
Salvos Rhoska
#361 - 2017-04-24 12:18:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1:

I dont see much use or interest for T3Cs after your proposed changes.

You yourself said you would not field any of them in your alliances fleets post-change.

With your proposed removal of cloak/null and drops in bonuses, I doubt they will be able to run deespace PvE content either.

For pure data/relics, Covops/SoE/Interceptors do it better already.

Some T3Cs might still have some use as a cloaky hunter, but thats quite a marginal activity.

From where Im standing, looks like a largely dead class thereafter.

People arent going to start running HACs and Pirate cruisers past NS gates/bubbles in hostile space to run content there that these ships can only barely handle, if at all.

In still encourage the specialisation of the 4 T3Cs, rather than a blanket nerf.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#362 - 2017-04-24 12:20:44 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Why are you people arguing with Infinity or anyone else about this? CCP is finally going to change these overpowered monstrosities that puts such a damper on everything else, so who cares what the people who have abused them for years have to think?

Just sit back and enjoy their anger and discomfort, it's more enjoyable than wasting time trying to convince the perpetually unconvinced.

The issue with that is Baltec will be back here whinging about the other 15 or so ships that can get 150k + EHP.

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

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#363 - 2017-04-24 12:23:45 UTC
Infinity wrote:

The weapons systems are unimportant since they can easily be switched out.

Feel free to explain to us how you are going to fit anything but missiles on a ship with missile slots.
Quote:

Your argument was the T3s are overpowered because EHP / DPS.

Wrong. I have always stated the above.
Quote:

I clearly showed the other cruisers and BCs can do likewise. They were all cap stable, none had fitting problems, implants, or fitting only mods or rigs.



All of them are dogshit EFT warrior fits.
Quote:

You are wrong. Admit and move on.


Said the guy who just seriously proposed flying a rapid light missile doctrine in place of what we use for fighting battleships. How about addressing what is actually being pointed out rather than tossing around useless fits nobody wants to use.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#364 - 2017-04-24 12:26:27 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1:

I dont see much use or interest for T3Cs after your proposed changes.

You yourself said you would not field any of them in your alliances fleets post-change.

With your proposed removal of cloak/null and drops in bonuses, I doubt they will be able to run deespace PvE content either.

For pure data/relics, Covops/SoE/Interceptors do it better already.

Some T3Cs might still have some use as a cloaky hunter, but thats quite a marginal activity.

From where Im standing, looks like a largely dead class thereafter.

People arent going to start running HACs and Pirate cruisers past NS gates/bubbles in hostile space to run content there that these ships can only barely handle, if at all.

In still encourage the specialisation of the 4 T3Cs, rather than a blanket nerf.


If you require an overpowered ship to do something then you shouldn't be doing that thing.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#365 - 2017-04-24 12:35:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity wrote:

The weapons systems are unimportant since they can easily be switched out.

Feel free to explain to us how you are going to fit anything but missiles on a ship with missile slots.
Quote:

Your argument was the T3s are overpowered because EHP / DPS.

Wrong. I have always stated the above.
Quote:

I clearly showed the other cruisers and BCs can do likewise. They were all cap stable, none had fitting problems, implants, or fitting only mods or rigs.



All of them are dogshit EFT warrior fits.
Quote:

You are wrong. Admit and move on.


Said the guy who just seriously proposed flying a rapid light missile doctrine in place of what we use for fighting battleships. How about addressing what is actually being pointed out rather than tossing around useless fits nobody wants to use.

Strawmanning. The tactic of someone losing an argument.

I never proposed any particular purpose (Fleet or otherwise) and I posted both gun and missile fits. PLs doctrines are not Tue be all end all and judging by your whining you guys are having trouble fighting T3Cs. Perhaps get better, not the alliance name that wins fights.

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

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#366 - 2017-04-24 12:47:58 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Not even baltec1s alliance will have use for T3Cs after the nerf he proposes.


Maybe I'm wrong (correct me if so) - I'm not some big alliance military strategist charged with coming up with fleet doctrines - but I don't see why big alliance fleets would in general want generalist ships (good at lots of things, not the best at any one thing) in their fleet compositions. Seems like they would craft their fleets out of non-generalist ships.
Salvos Rhoska
#367 - 2017-04-24 12:56:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1:

I dont see much use or interest for T3Cs after your proposed changes.

You yourself said you would not field any of them in your alliances fleets post-change.

With your proposed removal of cloak/null and drops in bonuses, I doubt they will be able to run deespace PvE content either.

For pure data/relics, Covops/SoE/Interceptors do it better already.

Some T3Cs might still have some use as a cloaky hunter, but thats quite a marginal activity.

From where Im standing, looks like a largely dead class thereafter.

People arent going to start running HACs and Pirate cruisers past NS gates/bubbles in hostile space to run content there that these ships can only barely handle, if at all.

In still encourage the specialisation of the 4 T3Cs, rather than a blanket nerf.


If you require an overpowered ship to do something then you shouldn't be doing that thing.


But what will they be good for after your proposed change?

You wont want them in your alliance fleets, and looks to me like they will barely be able to run 5/10s.

What use do you see for them, post-change, to validate the SP investment?

PS: This is the LS cyno issue all over again, in parallel.
JFs, cynos and caps are overpowered for bypassing LS gates, or running LS content, yet they still exist.
Salvos Rhoska
#368 - 2017-04-24 12:58:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Not even baltec1s alliance will have use for T3Cs after the nerf he proposes.


Maybe I'm wrong (correct me if so) - I'm not some big alliance military strategist charged with coming up with fleet doctrines - but I don't see why big alliance fleets would in general want generalist ships (good at lots of things, not the best at any one thing) in their fleet compositions. Seems like they would craft their fleets out of non-generalist ships.


Which is the paradox here.

After his own proposed change, he says his alliance wont use any T3Cs in fleet combat.

So what will they be used for /good for then?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#369 - 2017-04-24 13:26:58 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Not even baltec1s alliance will have use for T3Cs after the nerf he proposes.


Maybe I'm wrong (correct me if so) - I'm not some big alliance military strategist charged with coming up with fleet doctrines - but I don't see why big alliance fleets would in general want generalist ships (good at lots of things, not the best at any one thing) in their fleet compositions. Seems like they would craft their fleets out of non-generalist ships.


Which is the paradox here.

After his own proposed change, he says his alliance wont use any T3Cs in fleet combat.

So what will they be used for /good for then?


Mid range cruiser work. T1 cruisers are massively popular, slightly better adaptable cruisers will be just as popular.

We meanwhile will use the specialist cruisers for their intended jobs.
Salvos Rhoska
#370 - 2017-04-24 13:31:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Not even baltec1s alliance will have use for T3Cs after the nerf he proposes.


Maybe I'm wrong (correct me if so) - I'm not some big alliance military strategist charged with coming up with fleet doctrines - but I don't see why big alliance fleets would in general want generalist ships (good at lots of things, not the best at any one thing) in their fleet compositions. Seems like they would craft their fleets out of non-generalist ships.


Which is the paradox here.

After his own proposed change, he says his alliance wont use any T3Cs in fleet combat.

So what will they be used for /good for then?


Mid range cruiser work. T1 cruisers are massively popular, slightly better adaptable cruisers will be just as popular.

We meanwhile will use the specialist cruisers for their intended jobs.


You and others have suggested that the tank/dps would be somewhere between T1s and Navy issues.

1) What kind of cost would a T3C with subsystems have after your change?

2) What exactly do you mean by "mid range" cruiser work?

3) To what purposes would these post change T3Cs be adaptable?
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#371 - 2017-04-24 13:34:47 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Not even baltec1s alliance will have use for T3Cs after the nerf he proposes.


Maybe I'm wrong (correct me if so) - I'm not some big alliance military strategist charged with coming up with fleet doctrines - but I don't see why big alliance fleets would in general want generalist ships (good at lots of things, not the best at any one thing) in their fleet compositions. Seems like they would craft their fleets out of non-generalist ships.


Which is the paradox here.

After his own proposed change, he says his alliance wont use any T3Cs in fleet combat.

So what will they be used for /good for then?

Very specialist roles apparantly, that require a ship mid way between a T1 Cruiser and a Pirate Cruiser. The best thing about them though will be the ability to carry all your subs around with you + a depot + mods + ammo and cap charges so you can refit it to something equally average that does nothing as good as a easily more trainable, cheaper and better pirate cruiser.

Just don't get blown up with all that loot in your hold :)

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

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Salvos Rhoska
#372 - 2017-04-24 13:40:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Not even baltec1s alliance will have use for T3Cs after the nerf he proposes.


Maybe I'm wrong (correct me if so) - I'm not some big alliance military strategist charged with coming up with fleet doctrines - but I don't see why big alliance fleets would in general want generalist ships (good at lots of things, not the best at any one thing) in their fleet compositions. Seems like they would craft their fleets out of non-generalist ships.


Which is the paradox here.

After his own proposed change, he says his alliance wont use any T3Cs in fleet combat.

So what will they be used for /good for then?

Very specialist roles apparantly, that require a ship mid way between a T1 Cruiser and a Pirate Cruiser. The best thing about them though will be the ability to carry all your subs around with you + a depot + mods + ammo and cap charges so you can refit it to something equally average that does nothing as good as a easily more trainable, cheaper and better pirate cruiser.

Just don't get blown up with all that loot in your hold :)


Fug :DDD

Sounds EBIN!

SPRÖLLÖÖÖLÖ SPÄRDEPÄRDE!
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#373 - 2017-04-24 13:45:12 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Which is the paradox here.

After his own proposed change, he says his alliance wont use any T3Cs in fleet combat.

I guess my point is, I don't find that paradoxical, strange, unusual, or noteworthy. Seems to me that you wouldn't want to compose a large combat fleet around generalist ships. You'd want to compose it out of specialist ships.

Well... you would want to compose your large combat fleet out of generalist ships if the generalist ships are OP. Which is the problem now - they have fleet doctrines using these ships, because they're OP. But in a normal state of affairs, where generalist ships aren't OP, you wouldn't want to compose fleets out of them. You'd want to choose specialist ships instead.

Quote:
So what will they be used for /good for then?

They are supposed to be generalist ships. So they will be used for, and good for, situations which require generalist ships. Situations where you need flexibility, where you don't necessarily know what you're gonna face or what you're gonna be doing, where you need a "jack of all trades, master of none," etc.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#374 - 2017-04-24 13:46:29 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) What kind of cost would a T3C with subsystems have after your change?


The 40-50 mil mark sounds about right if it lands between T1 and navy cruisers.
Quote:

2) What exactly do you mean by "mid range" cruiser work?


Middle of the pack. Better than t1 but worse than the specialised cruisers.
Quote:

3) To what purposes would these post change T3Cs be adaptable?


Fit cov ops to get to an area then refit for dedicated brawler. Fit for brawler and refit for dealing with frigates. Fit for exploration then refit for combat. Fit for speed then refit for tank. And so on. Key thing would be the unique ability to refit the rigs without destroying them.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#375 - 2017-04-24 13:51:15 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


You wont want them in your alliance fleets, and looks to me like they will barely be able to run 5/10s.

What use do you see for them, post-change, to validate the SP investment?

PS: This is the LS cyno issue all over again, in parallel.
JFs, cynos and caps are overpowered for bypassing LS gates, or running LS content, yet they still exist.


If they change the rep bonus down to 7.5% to put it inline with the deimos, then it will still be able to tank 5 through 10/10 serpentis and 5 through 10/10 gurista as long as the sig doesn't become battlecruiser scale.

I don't have experience with the blood/sansha encounters, but I imagine it would work fine for anything that doesn't have excessive neuts.

As it turns out the t3s are a large part of how things bypass gates, ie your argument down that line just doesn't make sense, any cursory examination of zkill is going to show you dead proteus after dead proteus with covert cloak, covert cyno and regular cyno.

In any case, I can't view t3 hotdrop tackle as a problem because that is exactly the thing that causes a rorqual to die and its the kind of thing I don't get tackled by.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#376 - 2017-04-24 13:55:02 UTC
Hey CCP any info on what subs(visually) stay / go?

Will there be an update to them i need more awesome in them considering you are cutting short visual options.

My venom glands are working double shifts but i will wait official thread on the balancing / nerfing aspect of changes.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Salvos Rhoska
#377 - 2017-04-24 14:00:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) What kind of cost would a T3C with subsystems have after your change?


The 40-50 mil mark sounds about right if it lands between T1 and navy cruisers.
Quote:

2) What exactly do you mean by "mid range" cruiser work?


Middle of the pack. Better than t1 but worse than the specialised cruisers.
Quote:

3) To what purposes would these post change T3Cs be adaptable?


Fit cov ops to get to an area then refit for dedicated brawler. Fit for brawler and refit for dealing with frigates. Fit for exploration then refit for combat. Fit for speed then refit for tank. And so on. Key thing would be the unique ability to refit the rigs without destroying them.


1) 40-50mil. Jesus...
That will wreck the T3C market.
Is that for just the hull, or including subsystems?

2) There isnt much space between T1s and specialised cruisers.
Many are asymmetrically aligned with pros/cons for that specialisation.
Doesnt leave much space for a swiss-army knife.

3) What kind of PvE content could a T3C in your proposal comfortably run?
What DEDs, escalations, WH content?

4) What about training time into a T3C?

5) Why should such a gimped cruiser not be able to cloak/null simultaneously?

6) So a post-change T3C, with tank/dps between T1 and specialised cruisers, would have to carry a mobile depot, subsystems AND rigs inorder to be less effective than a specialised cruiser? Is that correct?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#378 - 2017-04-24 14:20:11 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) 40-50mil. Jesus...
That will wreck the T3C market.
Is that for just the hull, or including subsystems?


Including. It's a fair price to pay.
Quote:

2) There isnt much space between T1s and specialised cruisers.
Many are asymmetrically aligned with pros/cons for that specialisation.
Doesnt leave much space for a swiss-army knife.


There is a 300 power grid difference between the thorax and the demos as well as several differences in bonuses. There is plenty of wiggle room to play with.
Quote:

3) What kind of PvE content could a T3C in your proposal comfortably run?
What DEDs, escalations, WH content?


Roughly the same as can be done with a navy cruiser.
Quote:

4) What about training time into a T3C?

Not much change needed.
Quote:

5) Why should such a gimped cruiser not be able to cloak/null simultaneously?

Because it makes it impossible to catch.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#379 - 2017-04-24 14:27:58 UTC
Quote:

6) So a post-change T3C, with tank/dps between T1 and specialised cruisers, would have to carry a mobile depot, subsystems AND rigs inorder to be less effective than a specialised cruiser? Is that correct?


If it's as good as the specialised cruisers it would invalidate them just like today. I did say earlier on that I would quarter the size of subsystems and increase the size of cargo bays to compensate but you were too busy screaming to notice.
Salvos Rhoska
#380 - 2017-04-24 15:01:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) 40-50mil. Jesus...
That will wreck the T3C market.
Is that for just the hull, or including subsystems?


Including. It's a fair price to pay.
Quote:

2) There isnt much space between T1s and specialised cruisers.
Many are asymmetrically aligned with pros/cons for that specialisation.
Doyldoesnt leave much space for a swiss-army knife.


There is a 300 power grid difference between the thorax and the demos as well as several differences in bonuses. There is plenty of wiggle room to play with.
Quote:

3) What kind of PvE content could a T3C in your proposal comfortably run?
What DEDs, escalations, WH content?


Roughly the same as can be done with a navy cruiser.
Quote:

4) What about training time into a T3C?

Not much change needed.
Quote:

5) Why should such a gimped cruiser not be able to cloak/null simultaneously?

Because it makes it impossible to catch.

1) Is it even possible to reduce the cost of a T3C and subsystems to a 40-50mil cost?
Wont that utterly wreck the market?
Why punish manufacturers/material sourcers?
Who would even buy the POS ships your changes make of T3Cs?
Would you buy one? For what purpose?

2) PG is only one aspect of the existing differential between T1 and specialized cruisers.
There are resist profiles, speeds, sigs, slots, etc that offer far more diversity across all cruiser classes, than the T3C in your proposal.

3) VNI can run a 5/10 with extreme difficulty (probably several warp outs and drone losses) and looong completion time, forget about it with other navy cruisers. If the T3C in your proposal cant match even that, that relegates them to HS 4/10s which other cruisers can already run even better.

WH activity would be limited to C2 at most, and even that is a stretch.

4) Atleast, all T3C skills should be refunded (especially to stop extractor prices going through the roof)
Only an idiot would skill into a T3C therafter, with no fleet use, and all other cruisers having better tank/dps to compete.
EVE has never seen a class nerf as severe as the one you propose.
You want to kill a class, just so you wont use them in fleet PvP.
Its insane.

5) After your change, T3Cs are a T1-Navy cruiser that cant even run any content in NS.
Wtf are you afraid of?
What are they going to do?
Attack a miner in NS and gets hotdropped by your ton of potatoes?



After your change, not even an idiot will run these ships in NS.

Worse than that, nobody will use them AT ALL.

Your change will not only kill the class, it will kill all the content it provides as well as the market that supplies it.

All this, just so YOU WILL NO LONGER FIELD T3Cs IN YOUR NS FLEETS :D



If the changes you propose go through, I propose that all T3Cs should thereafter be referred to as "Baltecs"
Ie: Completely useless pieces of space trash that only an idiot would consider valid.
PvP fleets wont want you.
You can run HS 4/10s worse than a Pirate cruiser.
Navy cruisers will kick your teeth in PvP.

May that be your legacy.