These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#721 - 2017-05-19 01:32:18 UTC
Lillith Sakata wrote:
@beast: How else are they going to get any feedback? demand it?


Personally, I think the best way to do it would be a thread like this. Anyone can participate, put their views out, defend them, ask or answer questions from the devs, etc. In other words, an open forum. They could even start by copying and pasting the entirety of this thread into the OP, and proceed from there.

Just having a couple people on some 'panel' hash things out is a prescription for disaster.
HydrogenBond Shaishi
C-H-C
#722 - 2017-05-19 03:07:32 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Are there plans for nerfs (I haven't seen them) or are they simply going to consolidate subsystems?


A universe without increased DPS from NPCs doesn't deserve T3 Nerfs/Buffs. Comparing T3 Cruisers to T2 BS is irrelevant if the space which they operate augments based on the player ship dealing DPS. In other words., the space should adapt to the player ship that's attacking it. For PVP...the player should adapt to the ships attacking them.

Point: drone sub system is a joke on T3 when it gimps Legion and forces only a neut legion as the best available option.
Salvos Rhoska
#723 - 2017-05-19 06:23:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Lillith Sakata wrote:
@beast: How else are they going to get any feedback? demand it?


Personally, I think the best way to do it would be a thread like this. Anyone can participate, put their views out, defend them, ask or answer questions from the devs, etc. In other words, an open forum. .


Hopefully that will happen anyways at some point, regardless of the closed focus groups discussions.

In anycase we can continue here so as to maintain a public, open thread for discussion on it.
Thread has remained fairly civil (bias considered normal) and I expect CCP will allow it some small levity to continue.

Id sign up to the focus group, but I dont fly T3C often so I doubt I meet that specific entry criteria.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#724 - 2017-05-19 12:29:49 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Id sign up to the focus group, but I don't fly T3C often so I doubt I meet that specific entry criteria.


???

http://eve-search.com/stats/thread/517087-1
Quote:
Salvos Rhoska 142 (19,6%)


You think you know enough to reply 142 times in a totally useless general discussion thread that CCP cares nothing about, but not enough to be a part of a CCP created focus group that will actually have an impact on the thing you took the time to make 142 posts about...

Don't you think you should gain more personal experience with a thing before spending 142 posts talking about what to do with that thing? One of the biggest problems with these forums is people wasting time talking about things that they could be experiencing (so as to then cure their ignorance about the thing being discussed), it's crazy to be the poster responsible for 1/5th of a 36 page discussion thread about something they are generally unfamiliar with.

You have EVE Online, why not start it up and fly some T3Cs?
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#725 - 2017-05-19 13:12:39 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Id sign up to the focus group, but I don't fly T3C often so I doubt I meet that specific entry criteria.


???

http://eve-search.com/stats/thread/517087-1
Quote:
Salvos Rhoska 142 (19,6%)


You think you know enough to reply 142 times in a totally useless general discussion thread that CCP cares nothing about, but not enough to be a part of a CCP created focus group that will actually have an impact on the thing you took the time to make 142 posts about...

Don't you think you should gain more personal experience with a thing before spending 142 posts talking about what to do with that thing? One of the biggest problems with these forums is people wasting time talking about things that they could be experiencing (so as to then cure their ignorance about the thing being discussed), it's crazy to be the poster responsible for 1/5th of a 36 page discussion thread about something they are generally unfamiliar with.

You have EVE Online, why not start it up and fly some T3Cs?


Hilarious, isn't it.
Cade Windstalker
#726 - 2017-05-19 15:22:03 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Re: Focus Group

The way this appears to be being organized doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me. Just asking for people to randomly sign up is a recipe for getting a stacked deck. The first couple people volunteering are wormholers who fly the things in wormholes as a matter of course. It's like... do you think they will want their bread and butter nerfed?

I'm not jumping the gun or pronouncing judgment. But I will say if they aren't careful as hell in choosing who the focus group members are, this is going to be a disaster.


It's not like it's first-come first-served for focus groups, and the previous ones have worked pretty well.

The whole point of a focus group is to have a lot of different perspectives to create a good discussion. CCP aren't just going to fill the thing with Wormholers or Null players, or PvEers.

Beast of Revelations wrote:
Lillith Sakata wrote:
@beast: How else are they going to get any feedback? demand it?


Personally, I think the best way to do it would be a thread like this. Anyone can participate, put their views out, defend them, ask or answer questions from the devs, etc. In other words, an open forum. They could even start by copying and pasting the entirety of this thread into the OP, and proceed from there.

Just having a couple people on some 'panel' hash things out is a prescription for disaster.


Personally I *really* disagree. As much as I enjoy debating with others on the forums and generally participating on here the quality of feedback is about one step short of a cow patty on most days, and it's a *lot* of work to sort through all the digressions, stupid arguments, and niggling over details to get to the actually good discussion.

With a focus group CCP can weed out anyone they feel is just going to cause trouble or detract from the discussion and can focus on getting a lot of subject matter experts from a lot of different game areas together in one place.

While this thread has had some good discussion it's also had a ton of personal attacks, digressions, bad information, and unsupported speculation thrown into it. Out of 36 pages of debate and discussion I'd be surprised if there's even 6 pages of actually good and useful feedback and discussion on the T3Cs, and most of *that* is at a fairly low level of "this is why they're OP and here's the numbers/proof".

By bringing in people who actually know what they're talking about with regards to a large swath of ship balance they can avoid the basics and skip a lot of the low level debate as to whether or not the ships actually need fixing and get around to fixing them.
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#727 - 2017-05-19 19:38:28 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Personally I *really* disagree. As much as I enjoy debating with others on the forums and generally participating on here the quality of feedback is about one step short of a cow patty on most days, and it's a *lot* of work to sort through all the digressions, stupid arguments, and niggling over details to get to the actually good discussion.


It's not a lot of work. I could sift through this whole thread in 10 minutes optimistically, 30 minutes pessimistically, and generate bullet point arguments 'for' and 'against,' things most people 'agree' vs. 'disagree' on, etc.

Quote:
By bringing in people who actually know what they're talking about with regards to a large swath of ship balance they can....


1) If they actually do that, great. But who says they will? Just saying 'sign up for focus group' doesn't necessarily accomplish that.

2) Knowing what you are talking about, and not being biased and wanting to do 'the right thing,' is two different things. So even if they get people who know what they are talking about, they still may be biased or not want to do the right thing. Some guy could have more knowledge than anyone else about ship balance, he may be able to beat anyone else in the game 1v1 PvP. He may also have an agenda of preserving his favorite OP ship.

I say cast a wider net. Sure, you'll get a lot of garbage opinions, as you stated above. But those are extremely easy to filter out.
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
#728 - 2017-05-19 20:02:27 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
SP loss was put in to try to justify T3C power.

maybe this was the intention originally but I suspect it's working the other way now

we'll see I guess

Hey! I don't know about you

but I'm joining CTRL-Q
Cade Windstalker
#729 - 2017-05-19 21:02:06 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
It's not a lot of work. I could sift through this whole thread in 10 minutes optimistically, 30 minutes pessimistically, and generate bullet point arguments 'for' and 'against,' things most people 'agree' vs. 'disagree' on, etc.


I highly doubt you could actually read everything posted in this thread in 30 minutes, let alone check all of the various claims made, vet any links, ect.

This isn't even a huge thread either, it's been running for over a month and it's only 37 pages. If CCP posted up a public thread asking for actual feedback on something like this it'd be 36 pages inside of a day or two.

Beast of Revelations wrote:
Quote:
By bringing in people who actually know what they're talking about with regards to a large swath of ship balance they can....


1) If they actually do that, great. But who says they will? Just saying 'sign up for focus group' doesn't necessarily accomplish that.

2) Knowing what you are talking about, and not being biased and wanting to do 'the right thing,' is two different things. So even if they get people who know what they are talking about, they still may be biased or not want to do the right thing. Some guy could have more knowledge than anyone else about ship balance, he may be able to beat anyone else in the game 1v1 PvP. He may also have an agenda of preserving his favorite OP ship.

I say cast a wider net. Sure, you'll get a lot of garbage opinions, as you stated above. But those are extremely easy to filter out.


1. This is literally how these focus groups work. Go read the post and check the contents of the previous focus groups.

No seriously, go look at the past focus groups, read some of the logs, and look at the list of participants.

2. Eliminating this, or at least reducing it, is part of the point of a focus group. Individuals will all be biased, even the devs. If you gather a group of people with different view points together though then the biases average out to something approximating the gravitational center of opinion on a subject. Sure, not everyone is going to agree with the end result, but it's a lot better than only having input from one or two people, or from people all belonging to one group.

Really, for someone who spends as much time on the forums as you do (I know, I'm around here too to watch you posting) you seem to *greatly* underestimate the volume of garbage an open discussion can produce.

Case and point one and two, 95% of everything posted in the Player Features and Ideas Discussion section and half the comments on the last round of Rorqual changes. Most of what's posted in PFaID is either hilariously impractical or hilarious bad. Most of the comments in the Rorqual nerfs thread ignored available evidence or were just straight up bad economics.

In a completely open discussion for every good and well thought out comment you're going to have ten idiotic comebacks and maybe one good response and then the chain continues. Discussions like that are exhausting for the participants, don't encourage good feedback, and are generally just a terrible way to get anything done.
J03ys3v3n
Blue Canary
Watch This
#730 - 2017-06-27 00:08:05 UTC
Seems like most of the commenters have been shot by a t3c and not flown one of them, at a battleship tank/dps level requires a lot of training and isk not to mention when you die you have to reskill using up the second most valuable thing in eve: time. Nerf them? Are you joking? High dps/ehp proteus is only just that with almost 0 utility, and a drone proteus? Laffo!!!
Fabled Warrior
State War Academy
Caldari State
#731 - 2017-06-28 08:08:05 UTC
OLD PVE Tengu

Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System

Gistum B-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pith X-Type EM Ward Field
Pith X-Type EM Ward Field
Gistum A-Type Medium Shield Booster
Pith X-Type Shield Boost Amplifier
Corelum A-Type 10MN Afterburner

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II

Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II
Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II

Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node
Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst

NEW PVE Tengu

Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System

Gistum B-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pith X-Type EM Ward Field
Pith X-Type EM Ward Field
Gistum A-Type Medium Shield Booster
Pith X-Type Shield Boost Amplifier
Corelum A-Type 10MN Afterburner

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II

Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II
Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II

Tengu Core - Augmented Graviton Reactor
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Chassis Optimization


Differences in stats:

DPS: OLD: 1021 - NEW: 1021

Rezist: OLD: 88/89/83/71 - NEW: 88/77/74/71

Cap: OLD: 2 173/255s - 4,4% stable - NEW: 2 871/210s - 40,4% stable

Boost: OLD: 568hp/3s - NEW: 568hp/3s

Speed: OLD: 690,6m/s - NEW: 531,3m/s

Signature: OLD: 150m - NEW: 180m

Align: OLD: 6,95s - NEW: 6,40s

inertia: OLD: 0.26112x - NEW: 0,2405x

EHP: OLD: 34 719 - NEW: 22 739


Where is the buf? This is NERF!!!
Chan'aar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#732 - 2017-06-28 13:04:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Chan'aar
Fabled Warrior wrote:
Where is the buff? This is NERF!!!



Erm, that was the whole point of this rebalance the T3C's were (in general) over powered, the Tengu especially being the go to ship for lots of roles, therefore it is the one that has taken the heaviest nerf.

Nerf and boost, boost and nerf such is the cycle of Eve.

You might want to check out the Loki, it seems to be the favoured child this time around.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#733 - 2017-06-29 13:46:03 UTC
Fabled Warrior wrote:



Where is the buf? This is NERF!!!


The intent of the balance pass was not to make them more powerful...
Mike Adoulin
Happys Happy Hamster Hunting Club
#734 - 2017-06-29 14:06:01 UTC
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Hilarious, isn't it.



What is actually funny is that it is easier to get in to a t3 cruiser than a t2 cruiser, skillwise.

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
Mike Adoulin
Happys Happy Hamster Hunting Club
#735 - 2017-06-29 14:07:35 UTC
And that they are better at blopping than actual BLOPS.....

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#736 - 2017-06-29 17:25:04 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Fabled Warrior wrote:



Where is the buf? This is NERF!!!


The intent of the balance pass was not to make them more powerful...


Actually, the numbers the guy posted up there look like a joke. I see an EHP reduction, but practically nothing else. Even the EHP reduction doesn't look like enough, off the top of my head.

Doesn't look like much of a nerf to me, and they are in serious need of serious nerfs. Fortunately, after they nerfed carriers in PvP because CCP had issues in PvE, I unsubbed. So I really don't care that much, and am just lurking around here and there for fun or when I'm bored.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#737 - 2017-06-29 18:59:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Fabled Warrior wrote:



Where is the buf? This is NERF!!!


The intent of the balance pass was not to make them more powerful...


Actually, the numbers the guy posted up there look like a joke. I see an EHP reduction, but practically nothing else. Even the EHP reduction doesn't look like enough, off the top of my head.

Doesn't look like much of a nerf to me, and they are in serious need of serious nerfs. Fortunately, after they nerfed carriers in PvP because CCP had issues in PvE, I unsubbed. So I really don't care that much, and am just lurking around here and there for fun or when I'm bored.


EHP-reduction, increase in signature radius, less speed and much less agility, Both CPU and PG slashed.

Does something else need to be nerfed?

Wormholer for life.
Cherry Sulphate
ojingo
#738 - 2017-06-29 19:04:58 UTC
i read the first three posts on page 37 and just thought 'jesus christ ******* kill me'.
Ikudza Saraki
Doomheim
#739 - 2017-06-30 20:03:56 UTC
Rest in peace my favorite brick prottie... Tried it on Sisi and... decided to sell and train to fly leggie
Cade Windstalker
#740 - 2017-06-30 20:29:14 UTC
Fabled Warrior wrote:
Where is the buf? This is NERF!!!


So, first off, thanks for showing your work! Really great post, more like this please.

Second: No **** it's a nerf. This was always going to be a nerf. You're posting in a thread that's 37 pages of people debating how big of a nerf the T3Cs were going to get

Beast of Revelations wrote:
Actually, the numbers the guy posted up there look like a joke. I see an EHP reduction, but practically nothing else. Even the EHP reduction doesn't look like enough, off the top of my head.

Doesn't look like much of a nerf to me, and they are in serious need of serious nerfs. Fortunately, after they nerfed carriers in PvP because CCP had issues in PvE, I unsubbed. So I really don't care that much, and am just lurking around here and there for fun or when I'm bored.


So, I'm going to withhold judgement on whether this is 'enough' or not. I haven't looked hard enough to say.

I will say that this is more significant than you're making it out to be though. The reason the T3Cs are so absurd is largely because of their tank and not all of that is in EHP, a lot of it is in sig and speed.

To enumerate, on the commented fit the following changed:


  • The raw EHP dropped by 1/3rd.

  • The resists dropped significantly. This means that both remote and local reps are less effective.

  • The speed dropped by almost 25%. This is not at all insignificant in terms of tank or how easy these ships are to catch and kill.

  • The signature radius grew by 30m from 150 to 180. Again, not at all insignificant in terms of effect on tank for the hull. For reference that's slightly more than the effect of a single Large Shield Extender II on the ship's sig radius (25m increase vs 30m for this nerf) but without the 2.6k shield hit points it grants.


The only buff I'm seeing is a small one to capacitor.

I'm not sure if it's enough of a nerf or not, but I wouldn't call it a small one by any means, and it's not just to EHP.