These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Chart is confusing, please correct the chart.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#21 - 2013-06-09 11:02:00 UTC
And I'm sitting here wondering when anyone ever implied that the vertical axis meant more damage.....

The vertical axis is inconsequential to me and thus non-confusing. It only shows a progression from T1 to navy to pirate.

Since T2 and T3 have no such progression they can sit w/e they damn well please on that vertical axis.

The Drake is a Lie
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#22 - 2013-06-09 11:09:38 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
Go on out and find me a legion fit with lasers that is as pragmatic and powerful as the Zealot or ONI.

I just spent 5 minutes in EFT and came up with a fit that outperforms Zealot in every way. I'm not sure what you're doing wrong.

Oh god.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-06-09 11:10:45 UTC
wait, people are still thinking that cost is a balancing factor?




I see EVE hasn't changed in 10 years.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Lexmana
#24 - 2013-06-09 11:16:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
ElQuirko wrote:
It costs at least 6x as much as a T2 ship. It costs skillpoints. It should be better than T2.

But it is better .. at generalisation meaning flexible. It is like a swiss army knife and very useful if there are constraints on how much you can take with you. But you are almost always better off bringing a real pair of scissors if you plan to do some serious tailoring.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#25 - 2013-06-09 11:17:12 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Riot Girl wrote:
ElQuirko wrote:
Go on out and find me a legion fit with lasers that is as pragmatic and powerful as the Zealot or ONI.

I just spent 5 minutes in EFT and came up with a fit that outperforms Zealot in every way. I'm not sure what you're doing wrong.


I have also done this.

BS buffer, Zealot firepower and sig, faster speed, can fit more tackle and to top it all off, its cap stable and only 440 mil.

The zealot cannot possibly do what a legion can do by a long way.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#26 - 2013-06-09 11:18:57 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
the point is they're not nearly as expendable as T2, thus they're not nearly as commonplace in combat

So you're telling me people use T2 cruisers in PvP a lot more than they use T3 cruisers? I don't have any figures but I find that hard to believe.

Quote:
When you say "balanced", do you mean "dies to my ships because I can't afford it"?

No, I mean its performance should be in line with other ships of its class and nature.

Quote:
It's a T3. It costs at least 6x as much as a T2 ship. It costs skillpoints. It should be better than T2.

Why? I'm not saying it should be worse, but I'd like a reason why it should be better. The way I see it, the extra cost is the price of versatility. In terms of performance, maybe they should be a little stronger than HACs, but they should still be kept in line with HACs.

Oh god.
Kaahles
Jion Keanturi
#27 - 2013-06-09 11:20:08 UTC
So let me get this straight: you're whining about a chart that displays the general idea where T3's should go once it is their turn to be rebalanced without us having any kind of information about how that actually will work out in detail?

That is stupid beyond any description really.

Maybe when doing so they decide to adjust their plan somewhat based on feedback from actual playtesting.

Maybe they do exactly what the chart says but adjust manufacturing costs of the ships somewhat (which they have done with other ships that got rebalanced already)

Maybe, just maybe those T3's become some sort of the on-the-fly shapeshifter you mentioned.

The end result is: we don't know anything about what is to happen with T3's so this entire whining of yours (and yes it is whining not feedback) is totally pointless at this point in time. Yeah I know maybe I put way too much faith in the team doing the actual rebalancing but so far they have not slipped up an any major way that screwed entire ships/ship classes just think about that for a moment.

And don't you bring up arguments like "oh but they made several versions of the iteron useless" or "but they ****** up capitals" yeah guess what... they haven't rebalanced them yet (cap changes you see in the patchnotes are quick'n'dirty fixes until they get to fully rebalance the entire ship line they said that on multiple occasions).

Oh and FYI cost plays a factor in balance. Just look at the Hurricane/Fleet Hurricane.
Dave stark
#28 - 2013-06-09 11:33:59 UTC
Kaahles wrote:
Oh and FYI cost plays a factor in balance. Just look at the Hurricane/Fleet Hurricane.


no it doesn't, look at exhumers and catalysts.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#29 - 2013-06-09 11:39:18 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Kaahles wrote:


Oh and FYI cost plays a factor in balance. Just look at the Hurricane/Fleet Hurricane.


Disposable dreads, Nyx losses replaced the next day, welp a tengu fleet? Buy another, endless talwars.

Cost means nothing when it comes to balance, whatever it is, we can pay for it.
Tiber Ibis
The Paratwa Ka
#30 - 2013-06-09 11:48:01 UTC
The only thing that confuses me about that chart is why is pirate tech better than tech 2 from a lore perspective. Imagine when pirates finally get hold of tech II technology. *evil grin*
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-06-09 12:00:02 UTC  |  Edited by: ElQuirko
Lexmana wrote:
But it is better .. at generalisation meaning flexible. It is like a swiss army knife and very useful if there are constraints on how much you can take with you. But you are almost always better off bringing a real pair of scissors if you plan to do some serious tailoring.


But there is no such flexibility. The point of flexibility is to be pragmatic and allow for on-the-fly changes; with the current state of T3s and the way the fitting system works, all refitting comes from a static point - the hangar where the subsystems and modules are kept. The idea of a "swiss army knife" is lovely, but as I've said a couple of times before if you're going to dock up to refit you may as well dock up and get another ship. It's the same price to buy one of every T2 cruiser as to buy a single T3, and a hangar full of ships is about as mobile as a hangar full of subsystems and modules when it comes down to it. The point I want to make is that to make the T3s "swiss army knives" CCP will either have to completely revamp the subsystems system, or accept the fact that T3s have become gunboats. Hell, even the rigging system forces specialisation on T3s that are supposed to be liquid and ever-changing. While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function.

Dodixie > Hek
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-06-09 12:01:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Sanadras Riahn wrote:
ElQuirko wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Why does it matter? If you can fly a T3, you can fly a HAC.


Eerm no, check the requirements next time you log in? The Proteus requires neither Weapon Upgrades V nor Energy Grid Upgrades V, for example.

As for the OP: Tom Gerard may usually be a shiptoasting loon, but this is a topic very dear to me and he has my complete support. The idea of "flexibility" in a ship is ludicrous; for the cost of a T3 you can buy a fleet of every T2 cruiser. Nor does a T2 require the skill investment to reach the same level of performance. The subsystems we swap out with have to remain in a station anyway and we cannot remove rigs. The only feasible role of a T3, therefore, is to be top of the food chain for that cost. They're fine as they are, besides usurping command ships.


In a game of role-based combat, having a ship that can fill multiple roles is a huge boon. Right now, T3s are OP. If they brought them back in line to, say, be able to fill two roles at once, and did just as well as some dedicated ships, and then brought their cost a bit more in line, it'd give an advantage to T3, promote customization and varying fits, and prevent it from being over-the-top any longer.


The flexibility of a ship dependent upon refit is absolutely useless when it's in the field. It's not even a cool feature since I'll have to spend a few minutes dik-ing around with modules when I could hop into a T1/2 ship already fit specific for the task.

From the flowchart it appears a T3 is going to tank and shoot like a T1. Frankly, I want my SP back when it's nerfed.

Oh, and with the way CCP screwed with data/relic sites, you can expect the intermediate time range cost of T3's to go up due to severe shortages of materials because it requires a sizable fleet to clear data/relic sites of sleepers with those pilots making about 500mil/hr/pilot in C5/6 territory and then an hour and a half for them to stick around to make 350mil for the entire fleet once they open the cans. Expensive + mediocre = fail. And even when demand drops because T3 is functionally equivalent to flying a couple of specific fit T1's, the income based off sleeper data/relics is going to drop meaning still, noone is going to farm the materials required to produce them. So, T3's will still be overly expensive but post nerf undesirable ships.

Frankly, I'm not flying a +1bil isk ship that doesn't tank and shoot like a +1bil isk ship.

Don't ban me, bro!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#33 - 2013-06-09 12:17:24 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
ElQuirko wrote:
While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function.


No it makes perfect sense to lower T3 cruisers so that they are balanced with the other cruisers.
Lexmana
#34 - 2013-06-09 12:19:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
ElQuirko wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
But it is better .. at generalisation meaning flexible. It is like a swiss army knife and very useful if there are constraints on how much you can take with you. But you are almost always better off bringing a real pair of scissors if you plan to do some serious tailoring.


But there is no such flexibility. The point of flexibility is to be pragmatic and allow for on-the-fly changes; with the current state of T3s and the way the fitting system works, all refitting comes from a static point - the hangar where the subsystems and modules are kept. The idea of a "swiss army knife" is lovely, but as I've said a couple of times before if you're going to dock up to refit you may as well dock up and get another ship. It's the same price to buy one of every T2 cruiser as to buy a single T3, and a hangar full of ships is about as mobile as a hangar full of subsystems and modules when it comes down to it. The point I want to make is that to make the T3s "swiss army knives" CCP will either have to completely revamp the subsystems system, or accept the fact that T3s have become gunboats. Hell, even the rigging system forces specialisation on T3s that are supposed to be liquid and ever-changing. While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function.


I think you made some good points there. T3 should be about flexibility but certain mechanics might be putting too much constraints to flexibility. Addressing these constraints seems to be a better way to rebalance T3s than making them outshine every other T2 cruiser and BC .

For example, T3s could gain the ability to re-ship in space (subs and even modules) maybe even be able to remove rigs without them being destryed (or have rigs tied to subs).
Tiber Ibis
The Paratwa Ka
#35 - 2013-06-09 12:21:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiber Ibis
Tech 3s give flexibility, so they aren't meant to be as powerful as a specialised tech 2 ship. I'm not sure why the OP is so surprised as CCP has specifically pointed out this is there intention. For example Tech 3s are going to be able to fit 3 types of warfare link simultaneously instead of the standard 2 on a command ship. I expect more changes in this vein in the next rebalance.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2013-06-09 12:27:01 UTC
Kaahles wrote:
Oh and FYI cost plays a factor in balance. Just look at the Hurricane/Fleet Hurricane.


no it's not. cost only comes into play if you consider the availability of the ship, and that's where cost does count.

increased availability -» decreased costs. be it a battleship, a T3, a frigate, an interceptor.

IF cost was a factor, then catalysts wouldn't be able to kill exhumers, a handfull of interceptors wouldn't be able to kill a battleship.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
iskflakes
#37 - 2013-06-09 12:29:02 UTC
You see, having one ship be better than other ships is clearly unbalanced because it would allow one person to make themselves better than another person. This is clearly bad as we should all be completely equal, and the winner should be the side that brings the most numbers.

For this reason the T3s must be nerfed, just like every other ship that makes you better than another player. You can't balance by skillpoints, price or risk you know!

[/CCP]

-
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#38 - 2013-06-09 12:30:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Yes, T3s are meant to be weaker in any given area than the T2 ships specialising in that area. Ever heard of the term “jack of all trades, master of none”? That's T3. T2 are their complete opposite and should therefore qualify for that “master” status in whatever field is their specialisation.

And for those trying to claim that T3 should remain better because of cost, please do a price-check for me:
What is the cost of buying a HAC, a Logi, both types of Recon, a HIC, and a Field Command Ship?
What is the cost of buying a Strategic Cruiser with the standard assortment of subsystems?

Moreover, could you please calculate the total (assembled and unassembled) hangar space required to move those T2 ships around? How much is needed to move the T3 + subs around?

Grimpak wrote:
no it's not. cost only comes into play if you consider the availability of the ship, and that's where cost does count.
…and even then, cost is not actually a factor, but the product as your causal model illustrates. The factors are supply and demand, and cost just comes out as a function of that.
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-06-09 12:43:44 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
ElQuirko wrote:
While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function.


No it makes perfect sense to lower T3 cruisers so that they are balanced with the other cruisers.


No, it really doesn't. Care to explain your point?

Dodixie > Hek
Sanadras Riahn
Turbo Nuclear Pirate Punch
#40 - 2013-06-09 13:01:16 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
ElQuirko wrote:
While I agree it would be lovely to see the properly protean T3s, it seems futile to lessen the power of the T3 ships without giving them some sort of in-space purpose-changing function.


No it makes perfect sense to lower T3 cruisers so that they are balanced with the other cruisers.


No, it really doesn't. Care to explain your point?


Because at the heart of it, T3 cruisers are just that: Cruisers. They should be in line with the hulls that share their class. But here's the thing that needs to be addressed with the balance passes to ensure that they actually remain a viable ship:

Tech 3 Cruisers don't necessarily need to be better than Tech 2 ships, but they do need to bring something unique. Something that Tech 2 cruisers can't do. As the chart suggests, that should be filling multiple roles at the same time, while Tech 2 ships would be specialized to fit a single role.

This obviously means changes are going to happen, and they might even be big. But the long and short of it is, Tech 3 needs to be unique among cruisers, or their gameplay is dull and not compelling, and you run into the issue of "why not just bring the Tech 2?".

Tradition defines and shapes a person, but should be evaluated frequently; far too often does Tradition no longer help, but hobble a person and stunt their growth. Especially a Capsuleer.