These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
#141 - 2013-06-10 11:21:06 UTC
I guess no one cares that a t3 nerf will destroy WH industry?

wumbo
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#142 - 2013-06-10 11:22:58 UTC
Eli Green wrote:
I guess no one cares that a t3 nerf will destroy WH industry?


No it wont, you will just use other ships.
Grace Ishukone
Ishukone Advanced Research
#143 - 2013-06-10 11:23:55 UTC
Simple lesson from the Gnosis.

If you make something super-versatile, you risk making it the master of absolutely nothing, so much so that it is never used in pvp.

Buy all means nerf t3's, and make the useless modules valuable. But unless you intend to refund 100% all t3 skills to pilots, and permit NPC buyback of ships and subsystems at pre-patch prices, do NOT make them like the gnosis - so versatile that they fail equally at doing anything particularly well.

Sure, there are currently a tiny number of super powerful builds. Yes they cost far more than T2, and take buckets of skills to fly that have a unique skill loss system as well. But fair's fair - having introduced them as the pvp elite ship. if they get nerfed back to being nothing more than an expensive ratting ship there better be a "refund my skill points and buy my useless t3' option added.

Re balance as needed. But don't go too far - these massively expensive ships must remain viable in their roles in pvp. Do I care if a t3 is better in pvp at say perhaps ECM than my t1 scorpion? No way, the t3 is worth x4 the cost of my bird. Same but cf a t2 ecm cruiser? Again, no problem - they paid double what I chose to risk. If I could *never* jam them, and they *always* jam my t2 (etc), then there would be a problem.


Re balancing is needed, No-one should have an instant win button. But if you nerd t3 too much, you will betray the pilots who spent a huge amount of time investing skills and isk into those ships. Either give them the option to reallocate to t2 skills, and buy their ships, or keep the changes proportionate to the skills and isk costs invested. These should be scary opponents in pvp, as they are now - which make for delicious kills. And just so we're clear, I am old school, and always thought t3 were too good to be true. I can't fly any of them, because I expected CCP to nerf them to hell and back. Give me a reason to train them CCP.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2013-06-10 11:25:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Borlag Crendraven
Tippia wrote:
Voyager Arran wrote:
I know this is a bit far back, but you are doing something hilariously dumb if your T2 ships cost more than a T3.
Not really, no. I'm simply doing a correct price comparison.

Do a price check on buying a HAC, one of each Recon, a Logi, a HIC, and a Field Command Ship. When I did, it came out as roughly a billion ISK. At half a billion, a T3 with the corresponding subs is only a fraction of that cost, not to mention far easier to carry around and hellalot easier (and less costly) to train for.

Quote:
I'm seriously wondering what you put on your HACs at this point.
The same thing I put on a T3, which is why the fittings are not a factor in the price.


Price as well as other included risk quite simply must play a factor in this. By flying a T3 instead of that recon or hac, you risk the loss of each of those ships in a single loss along with the loss of skillpoints that is now pretty much entirely unavoidable, instead of just the specific boat you're using at any given time. Additionally no t3 that is fitted for recon duty, will be able to outperform a recon in the said role, as in the proteus will still have weaker ewar than the arazu, ditto with loki vs rapier, legion vs curse and the tengu vs the falcon. What they do is a role of their own in the said configuration; their ewar capability is weaker and their ability to cloak up is also taken from them, while the benefit you have with them is stronger tank and damage. And in the case of the tengu and the legion, not even that. You get better tank and that's it. Sound like a fair trade off? Most definitely.

With the upcoming command ship changes, the strongest boosters will be the command ships, thus again the t3's would be weaker counterparts in that specific role. HAC's have yet to seen any kind of rebalances, and looking at them now I find it hard to even consider the diemost above the t1 hull Thorax. Why bother with the diemost when it just barely outperforms a thorax? Why bother with the zealot when for the same price you could get a simple harbinger that tanks better while having higher dps to top it off? Different hull class sure, but what difference does that make in the end. The important part is how well the boat does its role, not what the boat itself is. If you can fulfill the same role with a cheaper t1 boat, there's quite simply no reason to use the t2 hull. The argument about logistics is quite simply laughable as t3 logistics are laughably bad in that role, with the sole exception of the curiosity that is the cloaky t3 logi that some people use in black ops hot drops. Downside there? The range of the remote repairs is ridiculously low. That itself balances it more than fine.

I also find it quite hilarious that you ignore it entirely that in order to properly change say a legion from the dps role to its recon role of neuting, you'd have to not only swap all the subsystems and the vast majority of modules, but you'd also have to completely rerig it. Take a wild guess how many people are actually doing that instead of buying a t3 for each role. There's a reason why at best I've owned 11 tech 3 ships of various factions at the same time. Because they can not do all those jobs simultaneously, and I'm fine with that.
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
#145 - 2013-06-10 11:25:28 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Eli Green wrote:
I guess no one cares that a t3 nerf will destroy WH industry?


No it wont, you will just use other ships.


You missunderstand, WH's produce t3s as a chief export. If the demand drops, profit drops and thevalue of sleeper salvage will too.

wumbo
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#146 - 2013-06-10 11:31:50 UTC
Grace Ishukone wrote:
But unless you intend to refund 100% all t3 skills to pilots, and permit NPC buyback of ships and subsystems at pre-patch prices.


Not a chance. The nerf bat has swung many times and nobody has ever had a refund. This is the risk you take when you aim for the FOTM.
Donedy
Lulzsec Space
#147 - 2013-06-10 11:32:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Donedy
baltec1 wrote:
Donedy wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
Donedy wrote:
Oh really?

I know my english is bad, but make an effort mate, reread my last post i think you can understand.

Random guy 1 : "This is blue!"
Random guy 2 : "NO, and im glad you're not a color professional, this is blue!"

good man, if we all went with your ideas, there should be only 1 ship with 1 gun in the entire game.

For god sake, im gonna make it easier for you, i am saying the contrary.


So in that case you agree to the t3 nerfs.

They need a little rebalance, not strong nerf.

Honestly atm,all what i see is a bunch of T1 pilots winning about more expensive ships kicking their asses, what is NORMAL.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#148 - 2013-06-10 11:32:29 UTC
Donedy wrote:
Yeah because having ships with the same stats would be better (if there is not "better" ships). :p

Giving ships competitive stats and capabilities is not the same as giving ships equal stats. Perhaps you have forgotten that in EvE there are many different weapon systems, tanking styles, EWAR and role bonuses. These can create strengths and weaknesses which can be exploited and countered. That's part of what makes the game interesting.

Oh god.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#149 - 2013-06-10 11:33:48 UTC
Eli Green wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Eli Green wrote:
I guess no one cares that a t3 nerf will destroy WH industry?


No it wont, you will just use other ships.


You missunderstand, WH's produce t3s as a chief export. If the demand drops, profit drops and thevalue of sleeper salvage will too.


I wouldnt worry, t3s will still be viable ships, just not the horribly unbalanced monsters they are now. Plus more balanced t3s can now be added for frigates ect.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#150 - 2013-06-10 11:34:01 UTC
Donedy wrote:
"Yeah, lets have T3 with the same tank/dps than T1.”
The only one making any such suggestion is you.

Quote:
How any subcap hull shouldnt have the best tank/dps of subcaps? THAT, is non sense.
No, it is balance. Will some hull have the best DPS? Sure. Will some hull have the best tank? Of course. Should they be the same hull? Under no circumstances, and T3 are the least deserving candidate of either of those distinctions, much less any combination of hem.

Quote:
I dont think a big T3 nerf will bring diversity but everyone flying in T1 scrub ships.
…and that's why people are calling out your… ehm… less than stellar balancing suggestions. If T1 are “scrub ships”, then the balancing has failed. If there is a “best ship”, then the balancing has failed. T1 should be a viable option for everyone.

Quote:
Stop posting, you're so wrong. And im lazy to take care of you.
Translation: “damn, you're right, and I can't think of any argument to prove otherwise, so I'll just dismiss you out of hand and hope someone falls for it.”
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#151 - 2013-06-10 11:35:37 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Donedy wrote:

They need a little rebalance, not strong nerf.

Honestly atm,all what i see is a bunch of T1 pilots winning about more expensive ships kicking their asses, what is NORMAL.


They need a stong nerf to be rebalanced. Also yes, t1 cruiser should be able to win fights vs more expensive ships, thats called balance.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#152 - 2013-06-10 11:37:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Donedy wrote:

They need a little rebalance, not strong nerf.

Honestly atm,all what i see is a bunch of T1 pilots winning about more expensive ships kicking their asses, what is NORMAL.


They need a stong nerf to be rebalanced. Also yes, t1 cruiser should be able to win fights vs more expensive ships, thats called balance.


Taking a knife into a firefight and expecting to win with the said knife isn't expecting balance, it's expecting stupidity to work.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#153 - 2013-06-10 11:39:15 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:


Taking a knife into a firefight and expecting to win with the said knife isn't expecting balance, it's expecting stupidity to work.


Good thing then that t1 cruisers have been very well balanced then isnt it?
Donedy
Lulzsec Space
#154 - 2013-06-10 11:40:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Donedy
Riot Girl wrote:
Donedy wrote:
Yeah because having ships with the same stats would be better (if there is not "better" ships). :p

Giving ships competitive stats and capabilities is not the same as giving ships equal stats. Perhaps you have forgotten that in EvE there are many different weapon systems, tanking styles, EWAR and role bonuses. These can create strengths and weaknesses which can be exploited and countered. That's part of what makes the game interesting.

Yup, thats why my rifter should be competitive with a Nyx.

I see your point, but i disagree about your "same competitive stats and capabilities for every ship" chich would encourage people to fly only T1 while T1 should be a step to T2/T3, not an impass because its cheaper and nearly as effective as the rest.

And yes if i pay more, i want better stats, not a sticker or a skin. As a lot of people i guess.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#155 - 2013-06-10 11:40:45 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Taking a knife into a firefight and expecting to win with the said knife isn't expecting balance, it's expecting stupidity to work.

Or being smart and not running in head first with a knife.

Oh god.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#156 - 2013-06-10 11:44:53 UTC
Donedy wrote:


And yes if i pay more, i want better stats, not a sticker or a skin. As a lot of people i guess.


EVE isn't like all of those other scrub MMOs where purple gear or gtfo rules. Just because you spend more doesn't mean you should win here.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#157 - 2013-06-10 11:45:59 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Price as well as other included risk quite simply must play a factor in this.
No, it simply must not. Price doesn't balance anything because if something is suitably awesome, people will get it at all cost. This is a lesson this particular game has learned the hard way twice with Titans and Moms.

Price is a result of a number of factor — it is not a factor in and of itself, and it is in every way useless for balancing.

Quote:
Additionally no t3 that is fitted for recon duty, will be able to outperform a recon in the said role, as in the proteus will still have weaker ewar than the arazu, ditto with loki vs rapier, legion vs curse and the tengu vs the falcon.
…and that is as it should be. The recon subsystems are properly balanced against the recon ships, but that leaves the rest of the bonuses the T3 will have as a pretty significant unbalancing factor.

Quote:
HAC's have yet to seen any kind of rebalances, and looking at them now I find it hard to even consider the diemost above the t1 hull Thorax. Why bother with the diemost when it just barely outperforms a thorax? Why bother with the zealot when for the same price you could get a simple harbinger that tanks better while having higher dps to top it off?
…and all of those are the reasons why HACs need to be buffed to perform certain tasks better than their lumbering half-cousins. They used to have the edge in speed and sheer shock value as a tool to go up against larger ships (most notably BS). With the speed nerf and the slow decline of BS doctrines, they were left without a purpose. Like all ships in tiercide, they need a new one, and they need to do it better than T3s.

Quote:
I also find it quite hilarious that you ignore it entirely that in order to properly change say a legion from the dps role to its recon role of neuting, you'd have to not only swap all the subsystems and the vast majority of modules, but you'd also have to completely rerig it.
…except that I don't ignore it. You'll notice that I've only ever talked about the logistical ease of bringing all those roles with you — not of deploying them on the field. The simple fact remains: a Legion can change between roles; a HAC or Recon cannot. The advantage of the T3 — adaptability and flexibility — means you only ever have to bring one ship instead of 6–7. Since people love to bring up the ISK-balance fallacy, I merely mentioned that the equivalent T2 ships actually cost a hell of a lot more, so even if it were a balancing factor, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. And no, you don't have to completely re-rig it. Just pick generally useful rigs to begin with. That said, the idea suggested earlier that T3s should not have any rig slots was somewhat interesting…
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#158 - 2013-06-10 11:46:16 UTC
Gah! Mobile network lag pwns.
Donedy
Lulzsec Space
#159 - 2013-06-10 11:55:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Donedy wrote:
"Yeah, lets have T3 with the same tank/dps than T1.”
The only one making any such suggestion is you.

Quote:
How any subcap hull shouldnt have the best tank/dps of subcaps? THAT, is non sense.
No, it is balance. Will some hull have the best DPS? Sure. Will some hull have the best tank? Of course. Should they be the same hull? Under no circumstances, and T3 are the least deserving candidate of either of those distinctions, much less any combination of hem.

Quote:
I dont think a big T3 nerf will bring diversity but everyone flying in T1 scrub ships.
…and that's why people are calling out your… ehm… less than stellar balancing suggestions. If T1 are “scrub ships”, then the balancing has failed. If there is a “best ship”, then the balancing has failed. T1 should be a viable option for everyone.

Quote:
Stop posting, you're so wrong. And im lazy to take care of you.
Translation: “damn, you're right, and I can't think of any argument to prove otherwise, so I'll just dismiss you out of hand and hope someone falls for it.”


T1 should be a step to T2/T3. Never a 100% viable option against T2/T3 (with same numbers).
Why would we fly T2/T3 other way?

You say that 2 things costing a price with a 10 factor should have the same capabilities.
And thats why i say you're wrong.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#160 - 2013-06-10 11:59:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
CCP

is there any way we can convince you to do T3's sooner rather than later .. say with the Command ship rebalance/links?
I can't think that doing all the T2 ships first is what people want or need...

perhaps if people could +1 this in support .. like a petition..

'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