These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Rage against the Tech 3

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#1 - 2013-04-03 20:20:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Felsusguy
Tech 3 ships get a lot of rage for outcompeting Tech 3 ships. Some of it is understandable, some of it isn't.

I have a solution to satisfy both sides of the argument.

Currently, Tech 3 Cruisers are mind-bogglingly good at competing with Tech 2 Cruisers. At many things. On one hand, if CCP nerfs Tech 3 to be the Jack of All Trades, Master of None, Tech 3 will become underpowered against all things Tech 2. On the other hand, if they remain Master of All Trades, Tech 2 will continue to be simply outmatched by Tech 3 with no hope of salvation. CCP seems to be heading down the road of generalization, which I think is a very, very bad thing. Tech 3 should, in general, be superior to Tech 2. Otherwise it would be Tech 1.5.

For this reason, I suggest that Tech 3 ships not only be generalized, but also specialized in that they can be made to excel at one role but still be good at other roles at the same time. Let me elaborate.

A Tech 3 ship will have three subsystems for every 'role'. Using one 'role' subsystem allows for the Tech 3 ship to play that role, but not as effectively as Tech 2 ships can. Using two 'role' subsystems allows for the Tech 3 ship to become an equal to Tech 2 in that role. Using all three 'role' subsystems allows the Tech 3 ship to effectively outcompete a Tech 2 ship at that role by a small margin. Using this kind of system, it becomes impossible for a Tech 3 ship to outcompete more than two Tech 2 ships, but it still allows them to outcompete Tech 2 ships at a specific role or compete with two Tech 2 ships at two specific roles, or it allows them to substitute for a Tech 2 pilot in multiple roles. Tech 3 pilots are happy because they aren't underpowered compared to Tech 2 pilots, Tech 2 pilots are happy because they can still outcompete Tech 3 pilots at something that the Tech 3 pilot did not specialize in. Is there anyone unhappy by this sort of arrangement?

I'm not sure of the specifics of how this would work, but I'm certain it is a better route than the one we are currently moving towards.

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Alexa Coates
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2013-04-03 20:53:32 UTC
I love my tengu and all but it is brutally overpowered, even with my shite skills. No other t3 (and very few other ships) can deal 655 dps at any range with long range weapons, the supposed low-power weapons.

And supposedly when I get t2 HAMS i'll be dealing 800 dps. At 25km+.

And that's ridonk.

That's a Templar, an Amarr fighter used by carriers.
Red zeon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-04-03 21:42:56 UTC
Alexa Coates wrote:
I love my tengu and all but it is brutally overpowered, even with my shite skills. No other t3 (and very few other ships) can deal 655 dps at any range with long range weapons, the supposed low-power weapons.

And supposedly when I get t2 HAMS i'll be dealing 800 dps. At 25km+.

And that's ridonk.


well, machariel has over 100km fallof with barrage and do 800dps+ :P
1200dps on a 50km fallof with hail.

but, actually, alot of ships can outdamage you, and for all eve ships (subcap) 800dps at 25km is kinda, meh.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4 - 2013-04-03 21:54:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
T3s are nowhere near as indestructible as people make them out to be.
They also cost an arm and a leg compared to T1/2 and in the case you lose it, your left nut too.
What generally puts them over the top is the 1-2bil of plex mods people fit them with, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Go T2 fit a T3 and then compare it to a T2 fit T2. Yes, still a gap, but it's very much in line with cost.

Complaining that T3s are better than T2s is like complaining that a machariel is better than a tempest, or that a vindicator is better than a dominix.
yes, you're right, but it's not an issue.

There is no Bob.

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

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
marVLs
#5 - 2013-04-03 21:59:35 UTC
Red zeon wrote:

well, machariel has over 100km fallof with barrage and do 800dps+ :P
1200dps on a 50km fallof with hail.


Lol You still don't get it do You?

800dps but on 8,5km
1200dps? just 4,2km
Dibblerette
Solitude-Industries
#6 - 2013-04-03 23:38:57 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
T3s are nowhere near as indestructible as people make them out to be.
They also cost an arm and a leg compared to T1/2 and in the case you lose it, your left nut too.
What generally puts them over the top is the 1-2bil of plex mods people fit them with, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Go T2 fit a T3 and then compare it to a T2 fit T2. Yes, still a gap, but it's very much in line with cost.

Complaining that T3s are better than T2s is like complaining that a machariel is better than a tempest, or that a vindicator is better than a dominix.
yes, you're right, but it's not an issue.


Cost is not a balancing factor, but you're right. People are more likely to pimp their ship when the hull costs a few hundred million to begin with.

The issue as I see it is that T2 ships are supposed to specialize in a role, but if they were superior to T3s in combat (The only area where the T3s are not bested by a T2 at the intended purpose), the remaining strengths of the T3s would be like polish on a turd.

While I completely agree that T3s need a good looking at for balancing (Legion and Tengu in particular, albeit for different reasons), it will be much easier to see what needs to be done once we get to T2 cruisers, hopefully this winter.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#7 - 2013-04-04 00:25:21 UTC
I will argue that cost is somewhat of a balancing factor.

Otherwise if you have two equal ships with one ship being more expensive than the other. It'd be no brainer to use the cheaper one as there is no benefit of taking the more expensive ship over the cheaper one at equal capabilities.
Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2013-04-04 01:32:21 UTC
Yeah cost isn't a balancing factor in that it's a normal stat on the ships attribute page like shield regen or the number of slots it has, it's a factor in whether the pilot flying it is willing to risk losing it versus a less expensive ship.

Factor in the delay for having to retrain the lost skill points when you get blown up in one and it could be more expensive than it first appears.
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#9 - 2013-04-04 04:23:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Alexa Coates wrote:
No other t3 (and very few other ships) can deal 655 dps at any range with long range weapons, the supposed low-power weapons.

Actually...just about every battleship can.



I think T3's need to have their rigs removed, fitting stats tweaked, and a low/mid slot added depending on which style of tanking their defensive sub favors, to make up for the ubiquitous resist-hole-patch rig that'd be lost. Coupled with them soon being able to change subs in a POS, that'd make them finally well-suited for their intended role in wormholes, as well as not being shoehorned into one or two roles by whatever rigs happen to be on it.

thhief ghabmoef
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#10 - 2013-04-04 04:32:14 UTC
First three posts were so ******* clueless that I hope CCP buffs all T3s, and makes a bubble subsystem.

.
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#11 - 2013-04-04 04:38:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Terranid Meester
I think in a way t3's are supposed to be a jack of all trades, master of none, unlike t2 [Ishtar + 5 sentry drones, no t3 equivalent]. Though there are some things that no other ship can do, that they are master of [interdiction nullifier for instance].
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#12 - 2013-04-04 05:10:08 UTC
Terranid Meester wrote:
I think in a way t3's are supposed to be a jack of all trades, master of none

Which would result in them being completely outclassed by Tech 2 in every way.
Give me one good reason why Tech 3 shouldn't be better than Tech 2.
Balance doesn't count. Tech 2 is better than Tech 1 and I rarely hear anyone cry about that.

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#13 - 2013-04-04 05:15:08 UTC
Ships & Modules? How did I end up here?

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Kampffalke
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2013-04-04 06:05:45 UTC
T3 are easy to explain: They are flexible like hell. You dont need to take a bunch of Ships with you. Just take a T3, the subs you want/need and be happy. But life with the LITTLE less efficiency of it. Or take your personal fleet with ya.
There's no rest for the godless and the righteous need none.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-04-04 11:50:14 UTC
oh knows i picked a weapon system i knew was too short, time to complain about how my weapon system range being too short.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#16 - 2013-04-04 11:54:06 UTC
Moving from Ships & Modules to Features & Ideas Discussion.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#17 - 2013-04-04 12:28:32 UTC
I would feel kinda okay with T3's if their price tag would rise and i would love to see the training times for the subsystem skills raised but unfortunately i'm pretty sure that won't happen...

I mean the ship prices should matter and when you pay more you get more.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2013-04-04 12:50:59 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
I would feel kinda okay with T3's if their price tag would rise and i would love to see the training times for the subsystem skills raised but unfortunately i'm pretty sure that won't happen...

I mean the ship prices should matter and when you pay more you get more.



Yea cause I'd love having to take even MORE time re-training my subsystem skill when my T3 goes POP.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#19 - 2013-04-04 12:59:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
just because the number '3' in T3 is higher than the number '2' in T2 does not mean that T3 is meant to be better at all. they are just an arbitrary labeling. the fact that T1 ships can beat T2 ships if u take the T2 out of its comfort zone should tell u that T2 is not necessarily better than T1.

the idea is that:
T1 is generalised, versatile within a niche
T2 is specialised, very powerful within its niche but weak outside of it
T3 is adaptable, customizable to perform within multiple niches

T3 would not be ineffective if they were made less powerful than T2. they'd likely still be able to bring a combo of cloaks, combat, command and e-war. something very useful that no other ship can do.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Beaver Retriever
Reality Sequence
#20 - 2013-04-04 13:47:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Beaver Retriever
I think the problem is that an equally fit tech 3 cruiser compared to a heavy assault cruiser will have the same DPS or better, whilst also maintaining comparable speed, an ungodly tank usually three times better than the HAC, and a signature that's either the same, or even smaller.

Versus recons the tech 3s will win out when it comes to tank, but usually their ewar is not as strong. The Loki can't web anywhere near the range the Huginn can, for example. They also lack the secondary ewar bonuses, so no damping, tracking disruption, or target painting for the tech 3s.

I think if you look at recons vs tech 3s, this is where HACs vs tech 3s ought to be and they really aren't. There's literally no reason to fly a Muninn, Deimos, Sacrilege or Zealot when there's arty Lokis, Proteus, HAM Legions and pulse Legions.

I think the tech 3s could do with some looking at how much damage they do vs. their ungodly tank and low sig. Reducing their tanking capability would be boring because then they would just be HACs with ewar capability, thus still always outclassing the HACs whilst being a tad worse. If their damage wasn't as good as a HAC (as opposed to now where it's the same or better), or in the case of long-range specialized ones their range wasn't as good, it would be a choice between bringing a more vulnerable type of ship with better damage and DPS projection, or a tankier ship with supportive ewar that couldn't do as much damage.

Speaking of ewar, I think that once the tech 3s have been put into line they should be given the capability of using racial secondary ewar as well. They ought to be separate subsystems so that tech 3s can't use both types at the same time. It would be boss as **** to be able to make fleets of damping Proteuses or tracking disrupting Legions in the same way webbing arty Lokis are presently being awesome all across the galaxy.

Johnson Oramara wrote:
I would feel kinda okay with T3's if their price tag would rise and i would love to see the training times for the subsystem skills raised but unfortunately i'm pretty sure that won't happen...

I mean the ship prices should matter and when you pay more you get more.

Ah yes balancing ships with ISK, because that's worked so well in the past.

No, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Pull the game design 101 card.
12Next page