These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Communication Center » EVE General Discussion » Tech 3, maybe a mistake.

Topic is locked indefinitely.

Tech 3, maybe a mistake. First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Harvey James

The Sengoku Legacy

Likes received: 1,267

#21 - 2012-11-10 23:02:52 UTC

CCP Falcon wrote:

Harvey James wrote:

wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost....

My job isn't to balance ships, so that's my personal opinion after having been a PvPer for best part of 10 years Smile

Then its lucky for me it isn't your job Smile

but you do accept T3's are OP in nearly every way especially its amazing resists that only belong on CS?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Viziam Amarr Empire 3,706
Nicolo da'Vicenza Viziam Amarr Empire Likes received: 3,706	#22 - 2012-11-10 23:05:48 UTC ccp fozzie seems to have concluded that it's heavy missiles that are overpowered.

Harvey James

The Sengoku Legacy

Likes received: 1,267

#23 - 2012-11-10 23:07:05 UTC

Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

ccp fozzie seems to have concluded that it's heavy missiles that are overpowered.

now that's a seperate argument which he is correct also

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Jack Miton

School of Applied Knowledge

Caldari State

Likes received: 5,031

#24 - 2012-11-10 23:25:05 UTC | Edited by: Jack Miton

T3s are awesome.
Generally people who complain about them come in 2 varieties:

1. people who have no clue how to fit them
2. people who can't afford them

it comes down to a similar argument as 'titans are overpowered, theyre so much better than dreads!!'

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Harvey James

The Sengoku Legacy

Likes received: 1,267

#25 - 2012-11-10 23:31:41 UTC

Jack Miton wrote:

ofc they are it couldn't possibly be because they are correct ... god forbid you're in denial about there overpowerdness....

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Pohbis

Neo T.E.C.H.

Likes received: 482

#26 - 2012-11-11 00:04:16 UTC

Harvey James wrote:

wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost....

They do, but that is a scaling thing coupled with diminishing returns. The higher you go up the power ladder, the less power additional ISK buys you.

It's not a no-questions-asked-design-religion, or every ship in EVE would cost the same and they could just throw out faction ships, since they are all about raw power increase at extra cost.

Anyway, you are hinting at things they mostly talk about when we discuss multi-billion ISK supercaps. When we are talking sub-caps, risk vs. reward is just as significant.

Harvey James

The Sengoku Legacy

Likes received: 1,267

#27 - 2012-11-11 00:07:02 UTC

Pohbis wrote:

Harvey James wrote:

wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost....

no i'm not talking about caps at all CCP have said that ship balancing isn't based on isk at all

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Lin-Young Borovskova

Doomheim

Likes received: 1,145

#28 - 2012-11-11 00:18:17 UTC

Harvey James wrote:

CCP Falcon wrote:

Tech 3 is awesome Cool

too awesome to the detriment of every other ship which is unfortunate because they have great potential to add something unique to the game of being a true multi-purpose ship.
Hopefully the re-balance will do this they should be a support ship at its heart not some uber battleship in a cruiser disguise.

However i feel in order for this to happen and still remain viable the cost of the ship must be brought in line with T2 cruisers or thereabout.

Versatility, let me repeat it to you: VERSATILITY

Negative points:
Command sub ->quite ridiculous this sub does not limit fittings and slots so they are not better than Command ships and still profit from some ridiculous sign radius still making them IMPROBABLE when you put the money for.

From expensive to extremely expensive if you want to get the best out of those

SP loss

Extra SP training

For the last part "uber battleship in a cruiser desguise" you clearly haven't flown battleships these days. Show me the T2 fitted Tengu with over 1K dps hands down and please explain me the mechanics and sign radius influence on applied dps.

You have about 1h and I want at least 10 pages. If you're good you'll get cookies. Lol

brb

Harvey James

The Sengoku Legacy

Likes received: 1,267

#29 - 2012-11-11 00:27:21 UTC

Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:

Harvey James wrote:

CCP Falcon wrote:

Tech 3 is awesome Cool

lol, i was referring more to its tank than its dps although there dps application is always better than a battleship
and people can throw extra training and lots of isk at me all you want although besides the cruiser lv5 training subs is ridiculously easy and isk cost is because they are so OP to begin with and maybe raw cost is too high aswell.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Azrin Stella Oerndotte

Caldari Provisions

Caldari State

Likes received: 118

#30 - 2012-11-11 00:27:31 UTC

Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:

Harvey James wrote:

CCP Falcon wrote:

Tech 3 is awesome Cool

Because a battleship can totally apply full "1000" DPS on almost any ship and zip around at a couple of km/s with a tiny sig and a +80km range.

Most complaints I have seen about tech 3's is that killing them is bloody hard and that one of the best ways to kill another tech 3 is by using another tech 3.


Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy Likes received: 1,267	#31 - 2012-11-11 00:32:40 UTC It's amazing people will nitpick to the tiniest of details instead of taking the sentiment from a post as its intended.... T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Lin-Young Borovskova

Doomheim

Likes received: 1,145

#32 - 2012-11-11 00:45:53 UTC | Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova

Azrin Stella Oerndotte wrote:

Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:

Harvey James wrote:

CCP Falcon wrote:

Tech 3 is awesome Cool

No they are not hard to kill. As long as you understand strong and weak point of each they're not. Eatch and every one of them is extremely fragile to neuts, they loose all their tank or dps/both, mobility, and have thin skins.
Now for sure if we're talking about the carebear faction/officer fit BS that got caught at that random sanctum with a passive shield tank, no neuts no webs and no ecm drones...

Roll

Neuts.

Drones

Dead T3

And if you keep trying to stay on grid with some T3 shooting at you from 80km then I'm sorry to tell you it's and idiots idea to do so.
You can also shoot a battleship from 140K with a battlecruiser (+ if you fit it specifically for)
Why would you run away from some T3 at the gate if you fit at least one heavy neut, and have decent skills?-the only reason I see to do so is if he lights a cyno. Again, it's just an opinion.

brb

The Cursed Navy 418
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Likes received: 418	#33 - 2012-11-11 00:47:58 UTC 2 I'm glad Falcon isn't going to balance T3 ships because that statement doesn't seem to reflect 10 years of experience with pvp...

Altrue

Exploration Frontier inc

Tactical-Retreat

Likes received: 2,124

#34 - 2012-11-11 00:51:14 UTC | Edited by: Altrue

The problem of some people here is a misunderstanding of a basic metaphysical concept : There is always something that is above everything. And when you make it dissapear, the second becomes the first... You can continue like this until you've entierly wiped the concept of existence.

T3 is balanced, as said by CCP Falcon. Because they are expensive you know what you risk when you fly one. The fact that big alliances are flying fleets of them shouldn't surprise you... After all, they are big alliances, rather than having another titan they decided to buy a T3 fleet. What's the matter ? If T3 were suddenly deleted they would simply faction-fit something else. So, outside of this little exception (because huge faction-fitted T3 fleet fights ARE an exception), T3 is working the way it was supposed to be, with enough money involved to make it's abilities "fair". Eventually, versatility is somehow disturbed in wormhole because you can't switch subsystems, that's the only thing I could complain about.

So, back to my first statement, I prefer to see at the top something that was designed to be slightly better than the rest, rather than some unexpected popular ship with a balancing issue.. As said : T1
I guess the reason for so much agressive tears (that are not including everyone in this topic) is more a lack of skills than a lack of balance in EvE...

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Lin-Young Borovskova

Doomheim

Likes received: 1,145

#35 - 2012-11-11 00:58:40 UTC

Pinky Denmark wrote:

I'm glad Falcon isn't going to balance T3 ships because that statement doesn't seem to reflect 10 years of experience with pvp...

Not sure what to understand, T3's 10 years ago? Shocked

Or so many changes after 10 years that T3's with OGB and billions in fit makes them a little bit OP?
Sorry I stil do not see the problem with T3's, but a serious one with OGB.
But then I have to think about double XL-ASB/750DPS sleipnir or eventually, really eventually, ASB Vagabons, ASB Cyclones, ASB Talos, ASB Cynabals that are well known for being underpowered etc.

Whatever, this thread is going places Lol

brb

Inquisitor Kitchner

The Executives

Likes received: 1,118

#36 - 2012-11-11 01:22:22 UTC

Fix Lag wrote:

CCP Falcon wrote:

My job isn't to balance ships, so that's my personal opinion after having been a PvPer for best part of 10 years Smile

As soon as you log in to Eve Online, you engage in the mythical "Pee Vee Pee" that everyone so desperately seeks, so calling yourself a "PvPer" is entirely redundant and inherently a part of being a player in this game.

What a ridiculous notion.

You're not automatically a "PvPer" if you undock. Likewise you can easily be in the game without being a "PvP" player. Not being a PvP player does not = unable to have players kill you.

In real life I'm not a mugger, but someone can still mug me (orami?)

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

Lin-Young Borovskova

Doomheim

Likes received: 1,145

#37 - 2012-11-11 01:25:37 UTC

Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:

Fix Lag wrote:

CCP Falcon wrote:

My job isn't to balance ships, so that's my personal opinion after having been a PvPer for best part of 10 years Smile

Incorrect.

you're automatically a "PVPer" the moment you log in in eve, because everything in eve is about competition between players, therefore every single activity in game is PVP, be it at the undock or while you're trading in your CQ's.

brb

James Amril-Kesh

Viziam

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 11,532

#38 - 2012-11-11 01:45:15 UTC

Azrin Stella Oerndotte wrote:

I'm sure you would think so if you actually believed the numbers you're posting. However they're way, way off the mark, as is your assessment. Try again with some actual figures this time.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Pohbis

Neo T.E.C.H.

Likes received: 482

#39 - 2012-11-11 01:51:29 UTC

Harvey James wrote:

Pohbis wrote:

Harvey James wrote:

wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost....

no i'm not talking about caps at all CCP have said that ship balancing isn't based on isk at all

Not on ISK alone. It factors in tho.

Please feel free to dig up the CCP quotes that state that ISK plays no role what so ever in balancing – they don't exist.

The closest you get is that ISK shouldn't be able to buy you more and more power. Should be quite evident looking at building costs for ships, that CCP is indeed fine with power vs ISK. As long as it is kept on a reasonable level.

T3 is far from unreasonable.

Sigma Special Tactics Group 8,697
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group Likes received: 8,697	#40 - 2012-11-11 02:47:52 UTC 1 CCP Falcon wrote: Tech 3 is awesome OK there you have it. Now somewhere there are drinks to consume.... Bring back DEEEEP Space!