These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#81 - 2013-01-21 02:32:24 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
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.


So you're saying that its OK to have ships that completely out-class anything in their size range (cruiser) because they cost more? I'll also point out that a T3 cruiser requires LESS skill points than a HAC (HAC V vs all subs to V) and also much less skill points than a Command Ship.

So both HACs and Command Ships should just be flat out better than T3s by your own logic?

Price does come into it, but it needs to be AFTER the ships are balanced, and not as a justification for the ship being above and beyond anything else in it's class.

I have no objection to T3s being better than T2s, but not at their specialties, and not in the complete package they are currently.
Krops Vont
#82 - 2013-01-21 10:46:42 UTC
Don't nerf a ship because it is being used to its design.
stop what was not intended. (like the dread blapping in wormholes, a bi-product of w-space)

not exactly like TF2 but... each ship should play a role, yes? no?
so revamp the subs if you "have" to

--==Services==--

Propaganda/Art/Media

Wormhole Finding & Selling

o/ Play for fun
Cyniac
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2013-01-21 18:19:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyniac
Lin Gerie wrote:
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?


Skill points.

It takes a lot less skill points to train up to fly a T3 competently than it would to fly HACs + Recons + CovOps + Command ships etc.

Thus especially for alt accounts or rich pilots, where the player has access to a significant isk pool, T3s are the go to ships because they are significantly faster to train for.
Casirio
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2013-01-21 18:55:04 UTC
Cyniac wrote:
Lin Gerie wrote:
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?


Skill points.

It takes a lot less skill points to train up to fly a T3 competently than it would to fly HACs + Recons + CovOps + Command ships etc.

Thus especially for alt accounts or rich pilots, where the player has access to a significant isk pool, T3s are the go to ships because they are significantly faster to train for.


No... because the tank/gank/ewar to mass ratio is better than anything else.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#85 - 2013-01-21 20:04:05 UTC
Paikis wrote:
I have no objection to T3s being better than T2s, but not at their specialties, and not in the complete package they are currently.


the ONLY thing T3s currently do outright better than t2 (not counting covops) is tank and boosts.
the combat CSs do more DPS and recons have MUCH better ewar.
boosts are already being addressed.

There is no Bob.

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

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#86 - 2013-01-21 21:04:54 UTC
Cyniac wrote:
Lin Gerie wrote:
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?


Skill points.

It takes a lot less skill points to train up to fly a T3 competently than it would to fly HACs + Recons + CovOps + Command ships etc.

Thus especially for alt accounts or rich pilots, where the player has access to a significant isk pool, T3s are the go to ships because they are significantly faster to train for.


its less skill points till you start repeatedly losing level 5 subs

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
lanyaie
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#87 - 2013-01-21 21:11:15 UTC
corbexx wrote:
Cyniac wrote:
Lin Gerie wrote:
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?


Skill points.

It takes a lot less skill points to train up to fly a T3 competently than it would to fly HACs + Recons + CovOps + Command ships etc.

Thus especially for alt accounts or rich pilots, where the player has access to a significant isk pool, T3s are the go to ships because they are significantly faster to train for.


its less skill points till you start repeatedly losing level 5 subs


aah well that is assuming you lose a lvl 5 subsystem between the time it takes to train it up again ;)

Spaceprincess

People who put passwords on char bazaar Eveboards are the worst.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#88 - 2013-01-21 22:52:42 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Paikis wrote:
I have no objection to T3s being better than T2s, but not at their specialties, and not in the complete package they are currently.


the ONLY thing T3s currently do outright better than t2 (not counting covops) is tank and boosts.
the combat CSs do more DPS and recons have MUCH better ewar.
boosts are already being addressed.



Last I checked, the Command Ships were battle cruisers, not cruisers. They also don't get the same level of tank or speed that the T3s do while only doing slightly more DPS.

I'd take a T3 over a combat command ship any day, and judging by the kill mails I've seen, so would most other people (including you).
Mister Tuggles
Dickhead Corner
#89 - 2013-01-21 23:42:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister Tuggles
Lloyd Roses wrote:
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?




Just wait until mid Feb when CCP roles out the beginning of the armor changes. There is a dev post somewhere but to recap it a bit:


-New skill that reduces the mass addition of plates by 5% per, rank 3 skill, needs mechanic 3

-without the skill 800mm, 200mm, 50mm plates (It may be different plates, can't recall) are getting their mass + reduced by 25%. Stacks with new skill ****is an attempt to get people to use plates other than 1600's, 400's****

-New rig that gives something like an additional 19% rep bonus when overheated (over regular heated)

-New module (similar to ASB), one per ship, without charges is 75% effective as a t1 repper, with charges is (I believe) 215% as effective as t1 repper

Only bad part is that they are changing all the armor rigs to give a 10% increase in PG use of reppers.


Plated t3's will now not only have a ton of EHP, and be a lot more maneuverable to boot.



On topic: I think CCP is going a bit to far with trying to bring everything in line with each other. T3's need slightly adjusted, not nerfed. We are starting to get ships of different races that are basically cookie cutters of another race's ship. T3's gave us a break from that, and allowed us to basically create our own type of ship. It is amazing, and you shouldn't **** with it.
The only glaringly obvious problem with T3's was the boosting ability. That is being addressed soon, and that doesn't even address the larger problem people had with t3 boosting which was being off grid.

T3's take a huge investment in time, and isk to be flown effectively. You lose up to 4 days of SP when you get popped. If you want to nerf T3's to be more in line with t2's you should drop the SP loss completely. Then you can nerf it to be only slightly better, and you won't hear many complaints. From my understanding the SP loss was put in place to keep everyone in the game from flying them, and that did not work at all since most people train for t3's as soon as possible.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#90 - 2013-01-22 02:31:35 UTC
Mister Tuggles wrote:
T3's take a huge investment in time, and isk to be flown effectively. You lose up to 4 days of SP when you get popped. If you want to nerf T3's to be more in line with t2's you should drop the SP loss completely. Then you can nerf it to be only slightly better, and you won't hear many complaints. From my understanding the SP loss was put in place to keep everyone in the game from flying them, and that did not work at all since most people train for t3's as soon as possible.


Source for plates/armour tanking changes?

T3s don't take a huge investment of time. They take less time than HACs, and MUCH less time than command ships.

The SP loss was a gimmick, and it needs to go no matter what happens. I would have thought CCP would have learned from other ships, people will fly what is best, costs be damned. (see: super caps)
Casirio
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2013-01-22 03:06:47 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Mister Tuggles wrote:
T3's take a huge investment in time, and isk to be flown effectively. You lose up to 4 days of SP when you get popped. If you want to nerf T3's to be more in line with t2's you should drop the SP loss completely. Then you can nerf it to be only slightly better, and you won't hear many complaints. From my understanding the SP loss was put in place to keep everyone in the game from flying them, and that did not work at all since most people train for t3's as soon as possible.


Source for plates/armour tanking changes?

T3s don't take a huge investment of time. They take less time than HACs, and MUCH less time than command ships.

The SP loss was a gimmick, and it needs to go no matter what happens. I would have thought CCP would have learned from other ships, people will fly what is best, costs be damned. (see: super caps)


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=196273
Cypher Decypher
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#92 - 2013-01-22 03:33:46 UTC
The skill point loss feature on T3s isn't anywhere as nasty as it was three years ago when they were first introduced.

Nowadays the majority of capsuleers and their alts are refining level 5 skills at 7-14 days +

4-5 days to get back a T3 L5 skill isn't a hardship.

Skillpoint loss was one of those typically clever short-term ideas which CCP should be forgiven for.

Dump that silly feature, remove T3 boosting altogether, make cross-the-board sig radius reduction subsystems instead.
Tecear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#93 - 2013-01-22 06:18:15 UTC
I believe T3s are working as intended in at least the wormhole enviorment. If fitted properly they are anywhere from 900 mill-1.5 bill which is pretty expensive for a sub cap but that pays off in its overall output. While I believe that T3 ogb needs to be looked at I think the overall t3 experience is balanced and saying they out class all t2s is an invalid argument a rainbow legion can be outdpsed by a Zealot, and a neuting legion is almost as good (not in tank but in neuts) as a ashimuu (these are just two examples off of the top my head).
Talon Reese
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#94 - 2013-01-22 21:38:49 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
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.


So you're saying that its OK to have ships that completely out-class anything in their size range (cruiser) because they cost more? I'll also point out that a T3 cruiser requires LESS skill points than a HAC (HAC V vs all subs to V) and also much less skill points than a Command Ship.

So both HACs and Command Ships should just be flat out better than T3s by your own logic?

Price does come into it, but it needs to be AFTER the ships are balanced, and not as a justification for the ship being above and beyond anything else in it's class.

I have no objection to T3s being better than T2s, but not at their specialties, and not in the complete package they are currently.


If ship cost isn't a balancing factor, aren't all faction ships gloriously op? A cynabal is easier to get into then a HAC, but arguably better than at least most of them.
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2013-01-22 23:00:59 UTC
Cypher Decypher wrote:
The skill point loss feature on T3s isn't anywhere as nasty as it was three years ago when they were first introduced.

Nowadays the majority of capsuleers and their alts are refining level 5 skills at 7-14 days +

4-5 days to get back a T3 L5 skill isn't a hardship.

Skillpoint loss was one of those typically clever short-term ideas which CCP should be forgiven for.

Dump that silly feature, remove T3 boosting altogether, make cross-the-board sig radius reduction subsystems instead.


Pardon my french but you're pulling that 'majority of capsuleers' out of your ass.

Anyway I agree that the SP loss should just disapear.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2013-01-22 23:23:14 UTC
Cypher Decypher wrote:
The skill point loss feature on T3s isn't anywhere as nasty as it was three years ago when they were first introduced.

Nowadays the majority of capsuleers and their alts are refining level 5 skills at 7-14 days +

4-5 days to get back a T3 L5 skill isn't a hardship.

Skillpoint loss was one of those typically clever short-term ideas which CCP should be forgiven for.

Dump that silly feature, remove T3 boosting altogether, make cross-the-board sig radius reduction subsystems instead.





What da fuq? 5 days is 5 days. That's about exactly the same as it once was.

If I lose 6 of any non T3 ship I lose what? Some isk.

If I lose 6 T3's. I lose about a month of training time. I don't know about you but I can think of tons of skills I would have preferred to train in that month.

As long as SP loss exists I have no problem with T3's having a mega tank.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#97 - 2013-01-23 00:21:07 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.

not sure if trolling or just insanely stupid.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#98 - 2013-01-23 08:19:09 UTC
Daniel Plain 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.

not sure if trolling or just insanely stupid.


Not sure if NPC trolling or just too insanly stupid to get how economy or even just this game works.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#99 - 2013-01-23 11:57:21 UTC
Talon Reese wrote:
Paikis wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
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.


So you're saying that its OK to have ships that completely out-class anything in their size range (cruiser) because they cost more? I'll also point out that a T3 cruiser requires LESS skill points than a HAC (HAC V vs all subs to V) and also much less skill points than a Command Ship.

So both HACs and Command Ships should just be flat out better than T3s by your own logic?

Price does come into it, but it needs to be AFTER the ships are balanced, and not as a justification for the ship being above and beyond anything else in it's class.

I have no objection to T3s being better than T2s, but not at their specialties, and not in the complete package they are currently.


If ship cost isn't a balancing factor, aren't all faction ships gloriously op? A cynabal is easier to get into then a HAC, but arguably better than at least most of them.


exactly...
apparently there are some very stupid people around that don't get this...

There is no Bob.

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

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Makavelia
National Industries
#100 - 2013-01-23 22:56:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Makavelia
Hey, i just want to add a small side to this. I Can't fly a t3 ship. All i can fly that is of any potential and isk vs risk in WH space is a hurricane. I run solo, i know i don't have much to argue on becuase of that.. but if i can not solo in bc then why can a cruiser do it ;/.

The problem i find, is.. not only is the hurricane realy, realy hard to do anything with in c2 ( and i have almost maxed it's skills out) .. it also have no chance vs a t3 cruiser. Ofc, it's rarely a 1v1 in this blob fest of a game, but the T3 ships are so powerfull i have seen plenty going solo with huge success. They have very little to worry about, i don't think that's right. I remember the days you had to know the strengths of every ship, and quickly work out your strat for chance of vicotry/escape. This T3 just feels like ''Yeah I'll give it a go.. then warp out if i start to lose #T3''.

I had left the game, and when i did their was none of the T3 stuff. I don't knock change.. but it does feel like so many other ships have been put on the back burner, and not a viable option for the new content. Yes you can say the T3 cost a lot?.. but so does a well fitted BS. The issue is.. jumping a BS into WH space solo is just a bad idea. We all know a cruiser (even if it cots more) is at far, far less risk. The T3 is all the pro's of a cruiser.. the tank of a BS. This leaves a solo BC/BS where?.

I just think it's wrong that a player can train for less time than it took me to get this cane upto what it is.. and then spank the living day light out of me... before proceeding to afk clear up the rad site i was working.

All i can think of when i look at these T3 ships is ''Pay to win''.

P.s, no i have not been spanked by a T3 ship, so this is not a butthurt rant. The fact is, it would happen though.