Ships & Modules

...Just like Ishtar is significantly better than Vexor and Vindicator is much better than Mega.



That's an exaggeration.
I agree that all T3s are in need of *some* balancing ( it's more about giving a very specific roles, which are distinct from T2s and there is no overlap ) but saying that ALL T3s are OP is just too much.

Today I visited about 36 systems ( 12 hisec and the rest was in lowsec ).
Proteus and Legion are a very rare sight. I saw only 3 Protei and 2 Legions.
Loki is slightly more common. 6 or 7 Lokis spotted today.
Tengu is way too common. I saw around 30 of those aberrations today. Wouldn't mind some nerfing being applied to that bugger.

I have seen many, many more other combat ships today.
If T3s are all so OP then why don't I see more of them ( excluding the One ) ?

Hello there, we've read your post a while back - again, it's not because we are not replying that we aren't interested in various hot topics.

What's making (some) tier2 BCs partially so good is due to the modules they use and less to the hull itself. That's the case for the Drake for example. The combination of long range heavy missiles plus shield tanking is amplifying the potential of the ship far too much than intended. That's an issue that cannot be fixed by just quickly changing some numbers up and down as part of a temporary fix.

Sure, a temporary fix may help in the meantime, but it can actually complicate things when we actually get to fully rebalance the battlecruisers. We're not saying it cannot be done, but, for being an old Dev chap within CCP, I have seen first hand what happens when ship balance is prematurely rushed: things tend to get over-nerfed or buffed one way or another and then left to rot for ages. And don't let me fool anyone here by trying to put the blame on other Devs, for this isn't the case: I know this for a fact for doing this very mistake myself several times. I was the one overbuffing the Dramiel to insane speeds in the first place (and to an extend all Angel Cartel Pirate ships).

That's why I tend to be cautious and recommend the balancing guys to do the same when dealing with such problems. Balancing ship hulls on their own is already difficult, but add module balancing into the fray and the complexity blows out of proportion. Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers.

We're not trying to specifically wallow in self-pity here but to explain it is important to learn from previous mistakes. We are not excluding the possibility of giving temporary fixes to ships that need them, we are just suggestion caution.


We would also like to reply on the comments about tech3 ships being balanced for their cost and skill requirements. This should not be a factor for balancing most EVE vessels, because it breaks the purpose of a sandbox game which offers differently shaped tools for you to use as you see fit. And that's without even saying that, with time, as your playerbase gets older and accumulate resources, entry requirements are more and more easily reached, thus resulting in everyone getting their hands on the ship that was initially restricted to a few. And before you ask, some ships, like the Navy/PIrate hulls were designed to be plain better than tech1, others, like tech2/tech3 were not. Tech2 are supposed to be specialized, and tech3 more generalized - performance gap should not be so great that you can forget about tech1 entirely.

Also, we are aware of the number of used tech3 ships in general, and how far the repercussions could go for tweaking them. We know this would be a hot discussion from our playerbase as nobody wants to see their assets changed. That is normal human reaction. We can guarantee you that no matter what happens here, we will definitely do our very best to be as diplomatic, open minded and communicative as we have been in the past to ensure we hear all ends of the arguments and annoy the less amount of people.

However, we are not here to win a popularity contest, we, as ship balancing designers are here to make sure the state of the game is healthy in the long run, and if we have to be universally hated for doing what's needed for EVE Online to last 10 more years in the long run, so be it.


Ooops, made a wall of text , well, hope that helps a bit.

I agree that all T3s are in need of *some* balancing ( it's more about giving a very specific roles, which are distinct from T2s and there is no overlap ) but saying that ALL T3s are OP is just too much.

The problem with your assertion is that the current prices would fall because the demand for the final products would fall. Learn 2 Economy.

Though Liang, that doesn't apply when we compare ships that use the same base components. T3 sticks out a bit since even their production is wildly different and tied to a specific part of the game. Whereas a CS for example will always be more expensive than a HAC, to produce, or a BS more expensive than a frigate.

I am really not fond of Ytterbium's comments, since it feels like he is venting industry-terms without rooting them in this game. Slipping a "balance shouldn't be about cost" out there without getting to the bottom of what he means or intend for it to play out within EVE seem somewhat unresponsible.

Read Mittens Smedley article. He likes the Rifter and Drake because it doesn't matter if he lose them. Have Ytterbium even gotten around to ponder the implications of that?

I'm extra weary of these topics (and i'm not trying to sound effectfully fatal here), but i have literally seen games die because the interaction lost meaning. It didn't stop first. I have seen admirable attempts to cater to players to go out there and shoot - but when it lost all meaning it had the opposite effect. It's not a eulogy over EVE or anything, i'm just saying it's a perspective to consider. EVE is struggling with those topics on a community-level, at the very least.

It's the ship-version of discussing Moons (or better yet, space) as conflict-drivers.

Have you ever seen a T3 Hictor

or a T3 Logistic?

T2 field command ships typical are superior to T3 cruiser in firepower. (Except the Nighthawk which is a lulzy and problematic ship.) The Astarte, Absolution, and Sleipnir kicks T3 ass the dps department.

T2 HACs typically have better mobility, smaller sig radius, and longer range capabilities than T3. HAC's are mobile, tanky RR gang cruisers with good firepower.

I ask of CCP to be reasonable and not listen to rabid blabbering people who say things without any real backup.

When was the last time you say anyone flying a Cerberus or Eagle? How often do you see people flying Sacrileges? The problem you ignore is that many of these HAC's are simply poor. Are you saying that it is the fault of Tech 3 ships that many of the HAC's are not flown very much?

Why should I fly a deimos when I can fly a brutix for more power and only a quarter of the price? The deimos tank makes little difference as it is still a fairly glass cannon.

Your argument is the same saying that Marauders should be weak while at the same time you pvp in a pwnmobile Pirate BS.

...

The problem here is that they're not meant to be better at the T2's role than the T2 ship is.

The Loki that you complained about, for example, occupies some weird place between Vagabond/Huginn/Sleipnir that sometimes obsoletes all three.

The problem with your assertion is that the current prices would fall because the demand for the final products would fall. Learn 2 Economy.