These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

So who wants T3's nerfed then?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Anuki Peime
LM Industry and more
#61 - 2013-01-19 10:12:00 UTC
T3's are generally OK.
Some subsys need rebalance to make them usefull, boosting must be changed like planed in devlog.
Finally T3 ship cost more then T2 and you have sp lose if they are blown up.

Sorry for my bad english, spelling errors are for general amusement, if you find a grammar error you can keep it !!!
Casirio
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2013-01-19 10:27:10 UTC
With t2 cruisers being sandwiched in the middle of super cheap buffed t1 cruisers, and jack of all trade heavy tanked T3s of course people are going to fuckin whine about T3 being OP. T2 haven't been balanced.. why the hell would I fly a Muninn when its ****?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#63 - 2013-01-19 10:27:16 UTC
About the useless subsystems, I'd like to see a very small range bonus on the logi subsystems.

.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#64 - 2013-01-19 10:36:45 UTC
Casirio wrote:
With t2 cruisers being sandwiched in the middle of super cheap buffed t1 cruisers, and jack of all trade heavy tanked T3s of course people are going to fuckin whine about T3 being OP. T2 haven't been balanced.. why the hell would I fly a Muninn when its ****?


What's Muninn? Never heard. P

Anyway, T2 cruisers can't be simply balanced against T3s , they need to be balanced against all other ship classes. We might end up with HACs that would still lose to a T3 fleet of same size, but would be preferred option against other kinds of fleets.

Other T2 cruisers are largely fine and work very well, T2 BCs on the other hand.. What?

.
Arazel Chainfire
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2013-01-20 06:24:12 UTC
Personally, I don't really care about the argument of the T3 vs. the HAC. I care about the argument of the T3 vs. the damn command ship...

Lets compare fits that are generally designed to be equivalent (aka, not worrying about interdiction nullification, covops cloaking, scanning, and command links, which CCP already is planning to address).

Loki v Slepnir
Loki:
can be effectively armor tanked
can have web range bonus
speed/agility advantage
sig advantage
better EHP
Slepnir:
more dps
a better active tank (maybe...)

In this comparison, the big thing that needs to change is that the slepnir should be able to manage better EHP than the loki. Maybe it should have to choose between having more EHP or more DPS than the loki, and only get 1 or the other, but as it is if you want EHP to see you through a fight, you fly a loki. It is slower, hit harder (with its larger sig), and the loki can have the web range bonus. I'm not sure whether or not the slepnir should have the opportunity to armor tank.

Proteus V Astarte
Proteus:
more ehp
point/scram range bonus
smaller sig
more agility/speed
better active tank
Astarte:
more dps

umm... well. Why the hell would you ever fly an astarte? Actually, I can't tell you the last time I saw one. And the additional dps of the astarte is kind of lost with the reduction in the ability to get in range to apply it (and of course the significanly less EHP available to survive getting in range). Once again, the astarte needs to have SOME reason to make it worth flying over flying a proteus.

Nighthawk V tengu
Tengu
dps is about even with missile fit
can actually fit HAM's
missile range bonus
speed/agility
sig radius
active tank
EHP (this is kind of close, but the tengu can generally manage better EHP)
Nighthawk:
Has drones...

Ok, so the nighthawk barely compares favorably even to a drake, and can't really even fit HAM's either. It really is an insult to even try to compare it to the tengu - lets just leave it at the nighthawk needs ALOT of love, but it really needs the ability to actually put HAM's on a viable fit, and it really needs to be able to manage either noticeably more dps and/or noticeably more tank than the tengu.

Lastly, Legion V Absolution
Legion:
Range
speed/agility
sig radius
active tank
buffer tank
Absolution:
Dps
drones

In this case, you may actually manage to get an absolution with better EHP than a legion (though it will loose its dps advantage if it attempts to do so). This may or may not be acceptible. However, the absolution encounters difficulties in actually applying its dps, as it suffers from 50% less range than the legion, as well as less maneuverability. Absolutions are at least more common to see than astarte's, though I still can't remember the last time I actually saw one being used. The absolution needs a buff, but probably less so than either the astarte or the nighthawk.

Conclusion - I don't care if the T3's are better than HAC's at everything. What needs to change is the T3's being better than command ships at pretty much everything. The command ships niche got pushed back with the introduction of teir 2 BC's, but it got absolutely destroyed by the introduction of T3's. I believe that it is far past time to bring them back.

Ok, I will admit though, I do have command ship 5 because of slepnir... and I hate flying T3's due to that possibility of skillpoint loss.

-Arazel
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#66 - 2013-01-20 06:36:51 UTC
Arazel Chainfire wrote:
Personally, I don't really care about the argument of the T3 vs. the HAC. I care about the argument of the T3 vs. the damn command ship...

Lets compare fits that are generally designed to be equivalent (aka, not worrying about interdiction nullification, covops cloaking, scanning, and command links, which CCP already is planning to address).

Loki v Slepnir
Loki:
can be effectively armor tanked
can have web range bonus
speed/agility advantage
sig advantage
better EHP
Slepnir:
more dps
a better active tank (maybe...)

In this comparison, the big thing that needs to change is that the slepnir should be able to manage better EHP than the loki. Maybe it should have to choose between having more EHP or more DPS than the loki, and only get 1 or the other, but as it is if you want EHP to see you through a fight, you fly a loki. It is slower, hit harder (with its larger sig), and the loki can have the web range bonus. I'm not sure whether or not the slepnir should have the opportunity to armor tank.

Proteus V Astarte
Proteus:
more ehp
point/scram range bonus
smaller sig
more agility/speed
better active tank
Astarte:
more dps

umm... well. Why the hell would you ever fly an astarte? Actually, I can't tell you the last time I saw one. And the additional dps of the astarte is kind of lost with the reduction in the ability to get in range to apply it (and of course the significanly less EHP available to survive getting in range). Once again, the astarte needs to have SOME reason to make it worth flying over flying a proteus.

Nighthawk V tengu
Tengu
dps is about even with missile fit
can actually fit HAM's
missile range bonus
speed/agility
sig radius
active tank
EHP (this is kind of close, but the tengu can generally manage better EHP)
Nighthawk:
Has drones...

Ok, so the nighthawk barely compares favorably even to a drake, and can't really even fit HAM's either. It really is an insult to even try to compare it to the tengu - lets just leave it at the nighthawk needs ALOT of love, but it really needs the ability to actually put HAM's on a viable fit, and it really needs to be able to manage either noticeably more dps and/or noticeably more tank than the tengu.

Lastly, Legion V Absolution
Legion:
Range
speed/agility
sig radius
active tank
buffer tank
Absolution:
Dps
drones

In this case, you may actually manage to get an absolution with better EHP than a legion (though it will loose its dps advantage if it attempts to do so). This may or may not be acceptible. However, the absolution encounters difficulties in actually applying its dps, as it suffers from 50% less range than the legion, as well as less maneuverability. Absolutions are at least more common to see than astarte's, though I still can't remember the last time I actually saw one being used. The absolution needs a buff, but probably less so than either the astarte or the nighthawk.

Conclusion - I don't care if the T3's are better than HAC's at everything. What needs to change is the T3's being better than command ships at pretty much everything. The command ships niche got pushed back with the introduction of teir 2 BC's, but it got absolutely destroyed by the introduction of T3's. I believe that it is far past time to bring them back.

Ok, I will admit though, I do have command ship 5 because of slepnir... and I hate flying T3's due to that possibility of skillpoint loss.

-Arazel


try comparing 1xT3 with 3xCS, because that's how the numbers play out if you factor in ISK.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#67 - 2013-01-20 11:35:16 UTC
Here's what CCP thinks about CS vs T3:

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Command and conquer

When we're finished with tech 1 hulls we are going to start looking into more advanced roles, starting with Command ships. They are seriously lacking at the moment for two reasons: first, regular tier 2 battlecruisers mostly fill the same combat role for less expensive operational costs, and second, tech 3 hulls are just plain better at gang link boosting.

Our goal is to make them appealing to fly as a whole, not something you keep inside a POS forcefield while watching your favorite TV show. For this reason, we want:

- Tech 3 ships to be able to carry more gang links at once than Command Ships, but with less effect
- Tech 3 ships to be able to carry some gang links while still maintaining some combat capability
- Command Ships to carry fewer types of gang links than Tech 3, but with stronger effects (specialization over generalization) - if fitted with gang links, they have less combat capability than Tech3 hulls.
- All Command Ships to have a combat role on the field on top of having the possibility to be fit for a pure fleet commanding platform.

What does that mean in practice? We are removing the distinction between “fleet” and “field” Command Ships. All of them will now have 3% bonuses to two Warfare Link fields and be able to fit three warfare link modules simultaneously (instead of 3 for fleet versions only). That also means that the previous fleet Command Ships will be rebalanced to fit combat roles. Want to use an Eos as a truly effective drone ship? You can. Or the Damnation as a sexy Khanid missile platform beast? Be our guest. All that matters is the specialization choices you make before undocking by deciding to fit gang links or not, not something forced to you from the arbitrary "field" versus "fleet" hull.

Tech 3 treatment will focus on making them more generalized. Their Warfare Link bonuses will be reduced from 5% to 2% effectiveness; however they will have bonuses to three racial Warfare Link fields while being able to fit three Warfare Link modules simultaneously.

As a side note, as we announced a while ago, we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid. Command and Tech3 ships providing that much of an advantage should commit to an engagement instead of being safely parked inside a POS bubble.


.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#68 - 2013-01-20 11:37:32 UTC
Arazel Chainfire wrote:
[...]
Loki v Slepnir
Loki:
can be effectively armor tanked
can have web range bonus
speed/agility advantage
sig advantage
better EHP
Slepnir:
more dps
a better active tank (maybe...)
[...]
-Arazel


Also note that those two ships are probably not made for the same role. If you want to shieldtank, I'm not sure if the Loki compares that well to the sleip. However, if those two went up against each other, both fitted with an X-large sb, my bets are placed on the sleip.

Aside from that, shieldtanked T3s really are damn fast. Even armor T3s are moving rather rapidly.

Armor t3s are funny, don't they have only 2500-3500 armor HP to start with? Now a plate and three trimarks and you already have around 12k. Paired with great resists... you end up with 80k+ armo-EHP even on a 500 mil fit.

And there are those superspecialized subsystems: amplification node and nanobot-injector with 10% to active reps -- why?
Project CareBears
GAARD Tactics
#69 - 2013-01-20 11:44:37 UTC
a good t3 ship also cost 800mill-2bill....there is a reason they are good, they cost a **** lot, and just 420mill when not fittet...

Higher price = better ship, they are better than t2 and so it should stay, but also cost a fu*k lot more tbh.
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#70 - 2013-01-20 12:05:37 UTC
When will people get this:
Price is not a balancing factor!
Especially not in a playerdriven economy with functioning supply/demand.
Otherwise we would still have titans with aoe-doomsday.

Wasn´t it obvious what CCP wants to do?
t3 > t1
t2 better than t3 in some areas (HACs faster than T3s f.e.)

If that is a good thing for the wormhole economy is another thing...
Arazel Chainfire
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2013-01-20 16:23:16 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:

try comparing 1xT3 with 3xCS, because that's how the numbers play out if you factor in ISK.

Not really. Last time I bought a slepnir it was for around 300mil. A T3 costs between 400 and 450mil. I guarantee you that you can put equal amounts of pimping on either of these ships, and the pimping scales somewhat effectively between them. Yes, a fed navy web is going to scale better on a web loki, but that doesn't mean you won't ever find a fed navy web on a slepnir. Similarly, crystals/deadspace shield boosters are going to scale better on the slepnir than on the loki.

So don't give me that 1xT3 compared to 3xCS, because it is at best 1xT3 and 2xCS, but more usually 1xT3 and 1.5xCS. And don't give me that BS about having to buy all the subsystems at once when you buy a T3 - if you loose it, you don't loose those extra subsystems, and most people fit their T3 for one purpose, and get another T3 for other purposes (due to lack of ability to swap subsystems in WH space). So what should you get with the T3? Better manuverability, bonuses to racial ewar (if you want it), while maintaining a strong tank and good dps, and smaller sig radius.

Roime wrote:
Here's what CCP thinks about CS vs T3:
...

Read this before, it explains very well what they currently think they want to do with ganglinks. I am also looking forward to having the current fleet command ships be actually useful in combat, instead of being always set up to be giant tubs in space. But aside from the ganglinks, it doesn't address anything in the comparison between T3's and CS's.

Lloyd Roses wrote:
Arazel Chainfire wrote:
[...]
Loki v Slepnir
...


...


For active shield tank, the slepnir beats the loki. It has the boost bonus, compared to the loki's resist bonus. But if we want to compare buffer fits used in PvP the loki comes out ahead with its shield tank. In this comparison, I'll use T2 mods and T1 rigs because both scale pretty equally effectively with faction/deadspace.

[Sleipnir, PvP buffer]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Damage Control II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Large Shield Extender II
Warp Disruptor II

425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
[empty high slot]

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I

Valkyrie II x3
Warrior II x2

This fit gets 683dps with barrage and drones, 913 with hail and drones, and has just short of 68k EHP. Again, remember that you can pimp this quite a bit, but I'm using T2 because it is a great starting comparison base.

For the loki, you have the option of going with the tactical targeting network, and flying very similarly to the slepnir, or the immobility driver for the web range. If you go with tactical targeting network, you get this:

[Loki, Shield PvP]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Large Shield Extender II
Warp Disruptor II

425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
[empty high slot]

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Loki Defensive - Adaptive Shielding
Loki Electronics - Tactical Targeting Network
Loki Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
Loki Offensive - Projectile Scoping Array
Loki Propulsion - Chassis Optimization or intercalated nanofibers

Warrior II x5

And this gets 553dps with barrage, 742dps with hail, 150m/s speed advantage, with about twice the agility with the nanofibers, or slightly better agility and a 500m/s speed advantage, and of course, smaller sig radius. Swapping subsystems to dissolution sequencer and you swap a mid for a low (which naturally reduces tank), and you get something like this:

[Loki, Shield PvP]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Damage Control II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Stasis Webifier II
Large Shield Extender II

425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M
[empty high slot]

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Loki Defensive - Adaptive Shielding
Loki Electronics - Immobility Drivers
Loki Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
Loki Offensive - Projectile Scoping Array
Loki Propulsion - Chassis Optimization or intercalated nanofibers

Warrior II x5

Dps is the same, as is agility, but EHP drops to 66k EHP, less than 2k less than the slepnir.

So the slepnir gets more DPS. And the loki gets either equal or more tank, in addition to all of its other advantages.

-Arazel
Arazel Chainfire
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2013-01-20 16:29:30 UTC
Project CareBears wrote:
a good t3 ship also cost 800mill-2bill....there is a reason they are good, they cost a **** lot, and just 420mill when not fittet...

Higher price = better ship, they are better than t2 and so it should stay, but also cost a fu*k lot more tbh.


A t3 ship costs between 400 and 450mil. Everything else beyond that is fitting - it is just more common to pimp a ship that is already close to half a bil instead of one that is worth only 200mil. I guarantee you that I can get a T2 ship to match a T3 in cost - i just have to throw more deadspace at it. Aside from maybe the vagabond and maybe the ishtar, it doesn't make sense to throw as much is at a HAC than at a T3, because generally the T3 is going to be better. Not because it is more expensive - with pure T2 fits on both the T3 is still better than the HAC.

-Arazel
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#73 - 2013-01-20 16:39:59 UTC
Yes, CCP did announce their vision of the relative balance of T3s and BCs:

"- Command Ships to carry fewer types of gang links than Tech 3, but with stronger effects (specialization over generalization) - if fitted with gang links, they have less combat capability than Tech3 hulls."

I personally wouldn't mind T2 Battlecruisers to be stronger than T3s, they are one ship class above and have higher skill requirements (at least now), but looks like that is not going to happen.

Who knows why they wanted links on T3s in the first place.





.
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2013-01-20 17:14:42 UTC
Roime wrote:
AP John wrote:

I run a Proteus, so I'm pretty sure this thing costs more then a freaking Dred or a Carrier fully fitted :D, so this kind of makes up for the high stats, and let's admit that it can't do what a cap ship can... but it costs the same.. I don't see why it is an issue that we can afford to fly them..


Sorry, my stats we're off my head, these are checked from pyfa with my skills and implants, (all Vs are even higher):

1224 dps w/Void+heat & Hammers (1247) at point blank (3.8km), w/Null and Hammers deals about 700 dps @ 15km (834)
143K EHP (149)

Paid approx 1.18bil, pyfa shows 1.4bil

Fairly standard issue AHAC Proteus if you ask me, can fit either MWD or AB. Non-pimped stats are dangerous when discussing T3s, they are not as impressive, but also not as common on Tranquility.

Quote:
they are not better then a BS hull


Comparable BS has much more range, utility, and sensor strength bit higher dps and less tank when you count in the sig. Unfortunately this comparable BS has 5 times more mass, if you need to get ******** amounts of gank with as much EHP as possible on the field, nothing really compares to a Proteus.

And this is why simple "buff Deimos dps & EHP" without nerfing Proteus is not really a realistic option IMHO- if we stick to the principle that T2 > T3 in specialized role, which I assume in this case is dealing damage while receiving reps. Question remains whether simply making HACs even more mobile, but with weaker tank/gank would be enough to make them viable options.

Maybe, at least different and possibly more fun.












can you just give me your fit please that does this

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#75 - 2013-01-20 20:01:19 UTC
nope

.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#76 - 2013-01-20 21:09:37 UTC
corbexx wrote:
Roime wrote:
[quote=AP John]
1224 dps w/Void+heat & Hammers (1247) at point blank (3.8km), w/Null and Hammers deals about 700 dps @ 15km (834)
143K EHP (149)

can you just give me your fit please that does this

those are stock standard triple mag stab proteus stats mate.

There is no Bob.

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

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#77 - 2013-01-20 21:56:22 UTC
Shilalasar wrote:
When will people get this:
Price is not a balancing factor!
Especially not in a playerdriven economy with functioning supply/demand.
Otherwise we would still have titans with aoe-doomsday.


Quoting this because it needs to be said again.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#78 - 2013-01-20 22:41:01 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Shilalasar wrote:
When will people get this:
Price is not a balancing factor!
Especially not in a playerdriven economy with functioning supply/demand.
Otherwise we would still have titans with aoe-doomsday.


Quoting this because it needs to be said again.


this view is ignorant in the extreme.
ignore T3s for a sec. what are these ships, all filling the same role, balanced on:

thorax
brutix
deimos
astarte

yeah, skill requs and ISK. note the isk.
if isk was not a balancing factor, these ships should all cost the same.

There is no Bob.

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

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Lin Gerie
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2013-01-21 00:42:56 UTC
Honestly with the rebalancing and how they are buffing everything, when they buff T2 ships T3 ships will be in line and not require a nerf.

Or if you prefer, they seem to be nerfing T3's by buffing everything else with minimal changes to T3's when they get to them.

I understand why T3's might be popular, but between cost and the skill point loss if you lose them they seem balanced, perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why they are the go to ship with these drawbacks when compared to T2 cruisers and BC's?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#80 - 2013-01-21 01:04:07 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
corbexx wrote:
Roime wrote:
[quote=AP John]
1224 dps w/Void+heat & Hammers (1247) at point blank (3.8km), w/Null and Hammers deals about 700 dps @ 15km (834)
143K EHP (149)

can you just give me your fit please that does this

those are stock standard triple mag stab proteus stats mate.


This. I wouldn't cite any absurd officer fits to prove a point, that is cookie cutter wh fleet fit. EFT it yourself.

And like Jack said, ISK is a balancing factor even according to Ytterbium in the latest CSM minutes. High cost does not however mean that T3s should completely trump T2 ships in their role. Too wide performance gaps just raise the barrier to pvp and results in obsoleted ships.



.