These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Amarra Mandalin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#281 - 2013-06-10 20:40:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarra Mandalin
Grath Telkin wrote:
[quote=Amarra Mandalin][quote=Grath Telkin][quote=Meytal]

EDIT: And just to be clear, since before release, CCP has always maintained that they wanted t3 cruisers to be good at mulitple jobs, but not better than t2 at any one job.


And i can live with that. Some of this other stuff is nonsense though -- stuff I won't bother rehashing as several people have posted some germane points that were ignored.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#282 - 2013-06-10 20:55:42 UTC
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
[quote=Meytal]

And here we have the basics of it all, the Legion is doing damage a ship class order higher than the other cruisers, and considering a HAC takes more training than a t3 cruiser why would you ever bother flying the HAC, who's role should be specialized?



And a tier-3 BC can do BS damage.


their so specialized using large weapons and yet they are still T1 aswell as having 8 turrets .... and CCP think they are fine ... its a joke... really is... CCP need to wake up and realize they spoil the roles of the ships around them.. make them T2 like they should have been when released. and remove a turret at least.

'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

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#283 - 2013-06-10 21:14:01 UTC
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
You can't (shouldn't) passive tank a Tengu.

And at a stroke you instantly lose all credibility.

That's not how it's works here on EVEO GD.

I'm waiting for the TEST passive tank tengufleet now.

Seriously, don't you have to make an ass of yourself like 10X or something to lose the credibility you (a person) never had?

There's NPC alts all over the place here, who cares about that.

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 ?
Peter Tjordenskiold
#284 - 2013-06-10 21:14:50 UTC

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).[/quote]


No. A usual 0.0 fleet T3 makes equal damage but has a better tank. Some lonely gankers using active tanks with up to 2000dps tank. But the price being caught is high.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#285 - 2013-06-10 21:32:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:
Some lonely gankers using active tanks with up to 2000dps tank. But the price being caught is high.

That it is. What kind of DPS do they get with such a tank...

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 ?
ClusterFook
Doomheim
#286 - 2013-06-10 22:11:22 UTC
The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships?

hull + mods for best performance for the job
Subsystem + mods for best performance for the job.

Both require you to dock up to switch roles. but with t3's you have all your isk in 1 boat instead of 3 or 4. If t3's are not better what justifies the price? versatility? i get that by have 4 different ships, that is no different than switching out subsystems. Only time this would be worth while is in a wormwhole where logistics can be a pain.

TLDR
t'3 should have better performance to justify the cost because versatility can be had by owning more ships while risking less. Unless you can change the bonuses on the fly it is no more versatile.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#287 - 2013-06-10 22:19:30 UTC
ClusterFook wrote:
The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships?


Really, i see tons of people using proteus to tackle and lokis' to web even though they do the job worse than the Recons that do the same thing, I think you're making assumptions that aren't actually true.


ClusterFook wrote:
If t3's are not better what justifies the price
So my titan costs over 100 billion isk, by your logic you're ok with it literally outclassing anything that appears on the battlefield because of that price right?


ClusterFook wrote:
t'3 should have better performance to justify the cost .


Again, stop thinking that cost should justify utility, that will never be the case in CCP's balancing as they've said on multiple occasions.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Thaddeus Eggeras
Urkrathos Corp
#288 - 2013-06-10 22:47:44 UTC
I sure hope you aren't thinking about nerfing T3s, that would be the straw the broke the camels back I'd say. First rebalancing everything in EVE has taking away one of the best and unique things in EVE, ships not being equal and people having to be somewhat creative. It made the game something completely different then any other game, it isn't so much anymore sadly. The thing about T3s is that they are so costly, not just in ISK but also in skills. they are the ONLY ships in EVE that if you loose one you have to retrain a skill, Titian's don't even have to do that. And a T3 easily cost twice to 3 times as much as T2 cruisers. They are also suppose to be the most advanced ships in EVE, which should make them as tough as they are. I am just hoping they don't get nerfed, there is NO reason, nor need for it, and it would just make them completely worthless.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#289 - 2013-06-10 22:52:43 UTC
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:
I sure hope you aren't thinking about nerfing T3s
Of course they are.
T3s are not working properly and are generally far to capable for what they're supposed to be. There's little else to do about it than nerf them.
WInter Borne
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#290 - 2013-06-10 22:58:00 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
Got to agree with Tippia on this one, T3s already offer stuff that is just way too broken powerfull compared to T2 due to that flexibility its just fair their performance drops a bit in exchange for that flexibility.


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.

FYI, unless you stupidly officer fit your tengu, there is no way you can get 500 dps with HAMs and keep the cloak and interdiction nullifier.

CCP needs to fix T2 HAC's before they start screwing around with T3's. T3's are the benchmark for combat in wspace because they pack survivability, dps, and low mass into a single hull.

Considering the overall great job Fozzie and co. have done rebalancing the rest of the hulls I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to T3's (even if I cant forgive them for nerfing my beloved archon).
chris elliot
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#291 - 2013-06-11 01:53:12 UTC
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.



So what you are saying is you are going to do it wrong again. And then it will be 4 more years and 2 more new people getting hired before it gets unbroken again right?
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#292 - 2013-06-11 02:15:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Removing rig slots from T3 will certainly help us use them as adaptable ships. Half the reason my mission-running Tengu doesn't go on incursions or lowsec roams is that the rigs I use for mission running don't work so well for Incursions or lowsec exploration. Once those (expensive) rigs are on, I don't want to mess with the rest of the fit.

Why do I use a Tengu instead of a Cerberus for missions? The Tengu is faster, has more range, and deals more DPS. Why do I use the Tengu instead of a raven? Faster warp, faster travel between gates, and better tank due to speed and sig radius. Removing rig slots or calibration will help to some degree.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#293 - 2013-06-11 04:20:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
After getting off work, what do I see? The thread has turned into a discussion about how a ship that takes a few days to train into (T1 cruisers) should be more capable than a ship that requires 2 months of dedicated training (T3's).

Are you Fcking kidding?

Go ahead CCP. Do it! Add another few hundred bitter vet ex-eve players. Kill w-space industry with a turd of a ship that is its #1 industry. In the end you'll kill w-space...which I'm beginning to believe is exactly what you want.

Let's add up some pieces of info:

1) CCP states w-space shouldn't support permanent habitation. Yes, day tripping makes just so much since in deep w-space. Everyone in w-space knows this tripe being spread by CCP is just that.

2) Grav sites are now anoms not giving any warning in w-space of danger.

3) Relic/data get a 3 fold time sink nerf

4) W-space's backbone fleet is getting nerfed to uselessness which....

5) Will drive sleeper loot prices into the coffin along side the T3

6) W-space is no longer capable of supporting permanent habitation.

Anyone else seeing the writing on the wall?

Don't ban me, bro!
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#294 - 2013-06-11 04:41:58 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Anyone else seeing the writing on the wall?

Yes, it says 'Can I have your stuff?'

Oh god.
Sanadras Riahn
Turbo Nuclear Pirate Punch
#295 - 2013-06-11 04:45:57 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Anyone else seeing the writing on the wall?


I find your signature oddly appropriate to the situation...

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.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#296 - 2013-06-11 05:03:52 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
After getting off work, what do I see? The thread has turned into a discussion about how a ship that takes a few days to train into (T1 cruisers) should be more capable than a ship that requires 2 months of dedicated training (T3's).

Are you Fcking kidding?

Go ahead CCP. Do it! Add another few hundred bitter vet ex-eve players. Kill w-space industry with a turd of a ship that is its #1 industry. In the end you'll kill w-space...which I'm beginning to believe is exactly what you want.

Let's add up some pieces of info:

1) CCP states w-space shouldn't support permanent habitation. Yes, day tripping makes just so much since in deep w-space. Everyone in w-space knows this tripe being spread by CCP is just that.

2) Grav sites are now anoms not giving any warning in w-space of danger.

3) Relic/data get a 3 fold time sink nerf

4) W-space's backbone fleet is getting nerfed to uselessness which....

5) Will drive sleeper loot prices into the coffin along side the T3

6) W-space is no longer capable of supporting permanent habitation.

Anyone else seeing the writing on the wall?

Amazing perception there.

Next up would be converting lowsec into highsec, starting off with resurrecting that proposed gate gun buff, right?

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 ?
Liltha
Lost My Way Enterprises
#297 - 2013-06-11 05:25:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Liltha
A lot of the problem with the tech 3's is the amount of bonuses they get. Due to the flexibility each subsystem gets it's own benefits that are often at the level of the benefits of individual ships.

An example being a Cerberus has 5% kinetic missile damage, 10% missile velocity, 10% missile flight time, and 5% rate of fire.
Comparatively just the offensive subsystem accelerated ejection bay has 5% kinetic missile damage, 7.5% rof bonus, and 10% missile velocity. Add to that the bonuses from the 4 other subsystems and the innate overheat bonus it's no wonder the "generalized" tengu far outdoes the "specialized" HAC in most uses you would use a HAC for. It doesn't have quite the range of the tengu, but it will do more damage in almost any configuration using this subsystem.

It's obvious that some of the subsystems need their bonuses toned down a little, while others might need a boost, and yet others have bonuses considered so useless in general they might need the bonus changed.

To put it in another perspective in general a tech 1 ship gets 2 bonuses, a tech 2 gets 4, and a tech 3 gets 6+, with that if you keep the bonus numbers similar it is inevitable that certain configurations of tech 3 will be considered overpowered.
ClusterFook
Doomheim
#298 - 2013-06-11 05:39:36 UTC  |  Edited by: ClusterFook
Grath Telkin wrote:
ClusterFook wrote:
The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships?

Really, i see tons of people using proteus to tackle and lokis' to web even though they do the job worse than the Recons that do the same thing, I think you're making assumptions that aren't actually true.

Maybe that has something to do with their tank and the fleet comp synergy...
Grath Telkin wrote:

ClusterFook wrote:
If t3's are not better what justifies the price
So my titan costs over 100 billion isk, by your logic you're ok with it literally outclassing anything that appears on the battlefield because of that price right?

apples and oranges. Tell me what other ship has dd, and can jump entire fleets? A better comparison would be carriers and super carriers, and i'm damm sure the extra isk on supers allows it to outclass carriers.


Lets try an exercise so we can get on the same page. lets say T3's are downgraded to match their T2 hull counterparts they have the exact same stats. Now you have to have all the subsystems ready to go and mods so you can switch roles. So now i have a ship that can do 4 different roles as long as i can switch around my subsystems and it does everything exactly the same as the T2 variant (same tank,dps,sig, speed, etc.). How is that any better than just having the 4 different hulls? Only difference is if i lose a T3 im out 5 days training and 600* mil compared to just 200* mil for the t2.
Amarra Mandalin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#299 - 2013-06-11 05:47:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarra Mandalin
ClusterFook wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
[quote=ClusterFook]The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships?


Lets try an exercise so we can get on the same page. lets say T3's are downgraded to match their T2 hull counterparts they have the exact same stats.


I'm interested in the responses you get as some are pushing for worse stats and/or euthanasia. Because, ya know, Drake > Tengu is only logical.
Lexmana
#300 - 2013-06-11 06:43:15 UTC
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
ClusterFook wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
[quote=ClusterFook]The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships?


Lets try an exercise so we can get on the same page. lets say T3's are downgraded to match their T2 hull counterparts they have the exact same stats.


I'm interested in the responses you get as some are pushing for worse stats and/or euthanasia. Because, ya know, Drake > Tengu is only logical.

I didn't know drake could warp cloaked through bubbles.