These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#61 - 2013-06-09 15:43:08 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?


T3 cruisers are not only better than cruisers, they are better than battlecruisers and get into battleship areas.

Give me one reason why a cruiser should have the firepower, sig and speed of a zealot while sporting a buffer an apoc would be happy with and still have room for tackle gear.

Then there is the issue of t3s ability to warp cloaked AND ignore bubbles. Those two things should never have been allowed to be put on one ship.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#62 - 2013-06-09 15:50:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Give me one reason why a cruiser should have the firepower, sig and speed of a zealot while sporting a buffer an apoc would be happy with and still have room for tackle gear.


I'm not saying it was aliens.. but it was aliens.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2013-06-09 15:53:31 UTC
Kor'el Izia wrote:
You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost

false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market.

if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.

[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
#64 - 2013-06-09 16:12:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Grimpak wrote:
Kor'el Izia wrote:
You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost

false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market.

if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.


Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#65 - 2013-06-09 16:20:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.

The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.

In summary:

  • Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
  • Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
  • Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
  • Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.


Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.


Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.



Thats sad to hear considering T3's are the class most in need of a rebalance alongside command ships especially with the links i would have thought you would do them together....
At least consider a partial rebalance of T3's mainly their extremely high resists.
And battleship tank and then the price of their subs is too high.

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#66 - 2013-06-09 16:35:00 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter.

price is NEVER a performance measurement, if it was, marauders would be destroying capital ships like they were frigates and would be impervious to any sub capital ship.


How many T3 can fly cloaked, with 100MN ABs, doing 500 DPS on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances ? None.

Can a Tengu be a Recon, a Hac, a minitransport and an interceptor at the same time ? No.

100MN AB Tengus have pretty poor DPS (and good range). Cloaky Tengus have very poor DPS too. Recon Tengu, like, a Falcon ? Nah. No one uses Recon Tengus except a couple WH groups. Minitransport ? Well, every ship is a transport except for pods. An interceptor ? Nah, you don't know what you're talking about.

Seriously tho.

Yes, some subsystems need rebalancing. Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.
Lexmana
#67 - 2013-06-09 16:39:24 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.

You might have solved most of the rebalancing right there. Simple and effective. Time to call Fozzie ...
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#68 - 2013-06-09 16:43:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
SMT008 wrote:
Ager Agemo wrote:
think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter.

How many T3 can fly cloaked, with 100MN ABs, doing 500 DPS on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances ? None.

Can a Tengu be a Recon, a Hac, a minitransport and an interceptor at the same time ? No.

"Owned." Seriously. Like someone who accidentally into a gatecamp, but on the forums.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Moonlit Raid
Doomheim
#69 - 2013-06-09 17:41:51 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
You got it backwards. Your "corrected" chart describes the current situation of one ship to rule them all. That is not good game design so they are fixing it. One day you will understand.

The sad truth being his correction is fairly accurate. I'd expect any T3 to kill any pirate cruiser.

If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.

Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#70 - 2013-06-09 17:45:43 UTC
Moonlit Raid wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
You got it backwards. Your "corrected" chart describes the current situation of one ship to rule them all. That is not good game design so they are fixing it. One day you will understand.

The sad truth being his correction is fairly accurate. I'd expect any T3 to kill any pirate cruiser.

Then it's probably time to start adjusting your expectations… Blink
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2013-06-09 18:11:10 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Kor'el Izia wrote:
You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost

false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market.

if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.


Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more.

by a very small margin, because T1 would drop even further in price to be able to compete vs the X-type.

offer and demand.

[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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#72 - 2013-06-09 18:25:19 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
ElQuirko wrote:
you're still paying 4-5x the cost of the T2 hull.

My Zealot costs 232m isk, my Legion costs 480m isk. That's roughly twice as much.



so i heard the cost of stuff is a great way to balance... see sc and titans as an excellent example of price based balancing...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#73 - 2013-06-09 18:26:12 UTC
What are you talking about?

Oh god.
Lexmana
#74 - 2013-06-09 18:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Grimpak wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Grimpak wrote:

if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.

Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more.

by a very small margin, because T1 would drop even further in price to be able to compete vs the X-type.

offer and demand.

It is almost impossible for T1 and x-types to have the same price on the market and for it to happen x-type need to have much higher availability than T1. Interestingly though I think there also need to be quite restricted supply of both for anyone to even consider buying a T1 in such scenario.

My point is that availability does not set the price of a product, not even after demand has been taken into account.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#75 - 2013-06-09 18:50:21 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
What are you talking about?


you would like to know wouldn't you...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2013-06-09 18:52:28 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Grimpak wrote:

if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.

Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more.

by a very small margin, because T1 would drop even further in price to be able to compete vs the X-type.

offer and demand.

It is almost impossible for T1 and x-types to have the same price on the market and for it to happen x-type need to have much higher availability than T1. Interestingly though I think there also need to be quite restricted supply of both for anyone to even consider buying a T1 in such scenario.

My point is that availability does not set the price of a product, not even after demand has been taken into account.

it does. if any item that has a limited supply had more availability for the same demand, price would drop accordingly. increased supply means more people able to supply the market, price wars would drop the price further.


unless, of course, you include cartelization.

[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
#77 - 2013-06-09 18:59:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Grimpak wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Grimpak wrote:

if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.

Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more.

by a very small margin, because T1 would drop even further in price to be able to compete vs the X-type.

offer and demand.

It is almost impossible for T1 and x-types to have the same price on the market and for it to happen x-type need to have much higher availability than T1. Interestingly though I think there also need to be quite restricted supply of both for anyone to even consider buying a T1 in such scenario.

My point is that availability does not set the price of a product, not even after demand has been taken into account.

it does. if any item that has a limited supply had more availability for the same demand, price would drop accordingly. increased supply means more people able to supply the market, price wars would drop the price further.


unless, of course, you include cartelization.

So you are saying that if there were the same number of T1 available on the market as x-types they would have the same price?
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#78 - 2013-06-09 19:00:23 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
What are you talking about?


you would like to know wouldn't you...

Sure, if it adds something to the discussion.

Oh god.
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2013-06-09 19:07:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Tippia wrote:
Moonlit Raid wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
You got it backwards. Your "corrected" chart describes the current situation of one ship to rule them all. That is not good game design so they are fixing it. One day you will understand.

The sad truth being his correction is fairly accurate. I'd expect any T3 to kill any pirate cruiser.

Then it's probably time to start adjusting your expectations… Blink


The popularity of a T3 comes from exactly what is saying needs to be fixed: adaptability & flexibility. These are exactly the reasons they're popular and yet CCP wants to fix that. I can only assume the fix will require some modification that encumbers them to all but specialty roles.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.


They are extremely flexible and adaptable. Overlapping roles is to be expected in a ship that is 1) flexible and 2) adaptable. Yet the implication of that quote is that CCP intends to remove overlap. Well, if it doesn't overlap, then what role will it fill? Paperweight?

CCP is in the habit of re-writing their own history. T3's are no different. They are meant to be what they are. Last I checked, one has to know exactly what they're coding to code. It's not like the devs that developed T3's took a bunch of lines of code, tossed it in a pile picking pieces here and there arranging them in random order only to be surprised of the outcome.

T3's need tweaked in the areas that they're truly overpowered. Tank and DPS is not it. To achieve overpowering tank and dps people are paying for that through faction/deadspace mods and specialized implant sets pushing the overall cost to fly for ship and pilot well over 2bil isk.

Current T3 flexibility is what makes the ships fun to fly. You're not stuck in a hull that has a very specific role as we see with T2 waiting for the opportunity to apply its role. If a pilot wants to pimp it out to give it capabilities considered overpowered then that's their choice as it is for all other hulls. And again, the reason people are pimping their T3 hulls and pilots and those flying T2's are not is because of flexibility and adaptability.

Don't ban me, bro!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#80 - 2013-06-09 19:16:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Kidd wrote:
The popularity of a T3 comes from exactly what is saying needs to be fixed: adaptability & flexibility. These are exactly the reasons they're popular and yet CCP wants to fix that.
No. The reason they're popular is because they outperform T2 ships for a fraction of the cost (and training time), and that is what CCP wants to fix since the intended design is that they should be adaptable and flexible, but not as good at any one thing as T2 ships are.

Quote:
CCP is in the habit of re-writing their own history. T3's are no different. They are meant to be what they are.
Not really, no. They were always intended to be flexible; they were also always intended to not be quite as good as T2 at any given task. That last thing unfortunately never happened, in spite of the many warnings that the design was headed down the wrong path, and now is as good a time as ever to go back to that original design idea.

Quote:
T3's need tweaked in the areas that they're truly overpowered. Tank and DPS is not it.
Tank and DPS are most certainly it, since the T3 ships have absolutely no problems outperforming their equivalent T2 damage dealing cruisers (HACs).