These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

SMARTER T3 Rebalances, Please!

First post First post
Author
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2013-06-16 13:35:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyancat Audeles
The purpose of this thread was to get a response from CCP regarding the state of Tech 3's and what they plan to do with them, or how much they plan to nerf or change them.

This purpose was accomplished with CCP Ytterbium's wall of text a couple of pages down.


With the upcoming T3 "rebalance" (read: nerf), I am wondering why CCP did not make any distinctions between the Tengu, Proteus, and Legion. The Legion is obviously the most underpowered of the T3's for many tasks. Does CCP realize this?

I can only hope CCP acknowledges that EVE is not "Tengus Online" but that other T3's exist too, which don't confide to the overpowered status of some other T3's. Don't base assumptions of all T3's off one T3, otherwise you'll make all but one T3 useless.

Also, just saying - "generalizing" a T3 - making it so a T3 can be fitted like a HAC but never perform as good as one, or be fitted like a recon but never perform as good as one - will make a T3 absolutely useless. T3's should be generalized in a way that a combination of certain subsystems can make it VERY powerful in one role, and weak or nonexistant in others; or it could be a jack of all trades, but master of none.

I seriously hope CCP reads this thread instead of taking a giant hammer and slamming all T3's in one blow. I hope they considerer individual T3's seperately. The Tengu is arguably overpowered for missions, but the Legion is not; nerfing both in the same way would mean that the Legion would be absolutely useless and the Tengu might still be useful, maintaining the imbalance.

T3s are NOT overpowered - rather, HACs are UNDERPOWERED. Buff HACs rather than nerfing T3s...
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2013-06-16 13:41:54 UTC
I don't know anything about T3s, but I also don't see cause for concern. CCP's been very good with balancing different ships in the same type/tier separately from each other so far. There's no need to worry.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#3 - 2013-06-16 13:44:03 UTC
The problem here seems to be, that instead of taking what CCP actually said, you substituted it with your own words and then started to see problems with your replacement words. For example CCP is talking about rebalancing, so there is really no need to make distinctions, since rebalancing can include both nerfs and buffs. Generalizing T3s also doesn't mean specialization, but only worse. It means multiple profiencies at the same time, which is impossible for specialized ships, but each individual profiency will remain below what a specialized ship can do in that individual area.
ENTRACK Voidborn
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2013-06-16 13:45:56 UTC
I fully support Nyancat.

whats the point of having a ship you almost need a billion isk just to fit and lose SP when destroyed when you could get a T2 wich is a lot cheaper to buy and fit and outperforms the T3.

it would make T3 the worst investment you could make since you got the risk of losing SP besides just your ship
Khadi Nakrar
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2013-06-16 13:46:50 UTC
Well i hope they will change the friggin subsystems to make some sense, for the legion augmented defense you need shield operation at lvl 3, its a bloody armor subsytem......
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#6 - 2013-06-16 13:49:15 UTC
Had a quick look and im lazy anyone feel like linking the details?
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#7 - 2013-06-16 13:52:18 UTC
ENTRACK Voidborn wrote:
I fully support Nyancat.

whats the point of having a ship you almost need a billion isk just to fit and lose SP when destroyed when you could get a T2 wich is a lot cheaper to buy and fit and outperforms the T3.

it would make T3 the worst investment you could make since you got the risk of losing SP besides just your ship
But can you have 3 T2 cruisers, a T2 battlecruiser, a T1 battlecruiser and a T1 battleship capabilities for a billion?
No?

Then your T3 is cheaper than the specialised roles.

For the Op, I'd just like to see where CCP said that.
After seeing Ytterbium, Fozzie and Rise going through the T1 subcapitals, I'm fairly confident in their general abilities.
Give them ideas, discuss the changes they propose, try it out on SiSi, enjoy results.

Sounds alright to me.
Tiber Ibis
The Paratwa Ka
#8 - 2013-06-16 13:57:11 UTC
What is the OP actually referring to? Is there actually some factual basis to back up the OPs whinging, or is it simply unsubstantiated whinging as usual?
ENTRACK Voidborn
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2013-06-16 14:02:17 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
ENTRACK Voidborn wrote:
I fully support Nyancat.

whats the point of having a ship you almost need a billion isk just to fit and lose SP when destroyed when you could get a T2 wich is a lot cheaper to buy and fit and outperforms the T3.

it would make T3 the worst investment you could make since you got the risk of losing SP besides just your ship
But can you have 3 T2 cruisers, a T2 battlecruiser, a T1 battlecruiser and a T1 battleship capabilities for a billion?
No?

Then your T3 is cheaper than the specialised roles.

For the Op, I'd just like to see where CCP said that.
After seeing Ytterbium, Fozzie and Rise going through the T1 subcapitals, I'm fairly confident in their general abilities.
Give them ideas, discuss the changes they propose, try it out on SiSi, enjoy results.

Sounds alright to me.


it cost almost a billion for a single role
true you could use modules for the other roles but the same goes for multiple T2 ships.
the T3's wouldn't be as cost effecient as T2 would be.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#10 - 2013-06-16 14:24:26 UTC
Just fly GNOSIS... no real skills needed, but if you have the skills they can be tweaked into some very solid fits and they are an order of magnitude cheaper than a T3.

I love T3's... but right now they desperately need some Fozzie luvin'. Blink

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )

Sanya Chan
Blazing Phoenix Logistics Corp
Black Rose.
#11 - 2013-06-16 14:28:46 UTC
ENTRACK Voidborn wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
ENTRACK Voidborn wrote:
I fully support Nyancat.

whats the point of having a ship you almost need a billion isk just to fit and lose SP when destroyed when you could get a T2 wich is a lot cheaper to buy and fit and outperforms the T3.

it would make T3 the worst investment you could make since you got the risk of losing SP besides just your ship
But can you have 3 T2 cruisers, a T2 battlecruiser, a T1 battlecruiser and a T1 battleship capabilities for a billion?
No?

Then your T3 is cheaper than the specialised roles.

For the Op, I'd just like to see where CCP said that.
After seeing Ytterbium, Fozzie and Rise going through the T1 subcapitals, I'm fairly confident in their general abilities.
Give them ideas, discuss the changes they propose, try it out on SiSi, enjoy results.

Sounds alright to me.


it cost almost a billion for a single role
true you could use modules for the other roles but the same goes for multiple T2 ships.
the T3's wouldn't be as cost effecient as T2 would be.


cost is not a balancing factor deal with it
Bolow Santosi
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-06-16 14:34:53 UTC
ENTRACK Voidborn wrote:

it cost almost a billion for a single role
true you could use modules for the other roles but the same goes for multiple T2 ships.
the T3's wouldn't be as cost effecient as T2 would be.


T3's don't cost almost a billion. They cost the same or slightly less than most faction battleships, with a better tank, far better resists, all on a cruiser sized hull. They also make the best boosters by giving better bonuses, being nigh uncatchable and requiring 1bil isk worth of implants in a covops to have a chance at probing them down.
All on a shorter training cycle than it is to get into a tech2 equivalent.

If you can't see how all of that might be just a teeny tiny bit broken you're either stupid or blind.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#13 - 2013-06-16 14:38:01 UTC
ENTRACK Voidborn wrote:

it cost almost a billion for a single role
true you could use modules for the other roles but the same goes for multiple T2 ships.
the T3's wouldn't be as cost effecient as T2 would be.


It costs well under a billion for a single role. But if you want to pay almost a billion, forward me your list of materials, I will happily sell them to you.

Meantime, go ahead and pack up your extra T2 ships and stick them in the cargo hold of the first one for easy transport to your next area of choice.

Oh, wait...
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2013-06-16 14:38:27 UTC
Sanya Chan wrote:
ENTRACK Voidborn wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
ENTRACK Voidborn wrote:
I fully support Nyancat.

whats the point of having a ship you almost need a billion isk just to fit and lose SP when destroyed when you could get a T2 wich is a lot cheaper to buy and fit and outperforms the T3.

it would make T3 the worst investment you could make since you got the risk of losing SP besides just your ship
But can you have 3 T2 cruisers, a T2 battlecruiser, a T1 battlecruiser and a T1 battleship capabilities for a billion?
No?

Then your T3 is cheaper than the specialised roles.

For the Op, I'd just like to see where CCP said that.
After seeing Ytterbium, Fozzie and Rise going through the T1 subcapitals, I'm fairly confident in their general abilities.
Give them ideas, discuss the changes they propose, try it out on SiSi, enjoy results.

Sounds alright to me.


it cost almost a billion for a single role
true you could use modules for the other roles but the same goes for multiple T2 ships.
the T3's wouldn't be as cost effecient as T2 would be.


cost is not a balancing factor deal with it


Cost is not a balancing factor? What?

Then that must be totally why CCP increased BS mineral requirements, specifically stating so the price goes up by 40M ISK. It also must be why CCP lowered LP prices on the Navy Battlecruisers?

Cost IS a balancing factor. Deal with it.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2013-06-16 14:40:04 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
ENTRACK Voidborn wrote:

it cost almost a billion for a single role
true you could use modules for the other roles but the same goes for multiple T2 ships.
the T3's wouldn't be as cost effecient as T2 would be.


It costs well under a billion for a single role. But if you want to pay almost a billion, forward me your list of materials, I will happily sell them to you.

Meantime, go ahead and pack up your extra T2 ships and stick them in the cargo hold of the first one for easy transport to your next area of choice.

Oh, wait...

I have not met a single T3 pilot who actually carries around subsystems in their cargo hold.

Now if CCP made it so T3's could actually change subsystems in space in exchange for compensation in other areas, that would be neat...
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#16 - 2013-06-16 14:41:12 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
With the upcoming T3 "rebalance" (read: nerf), I am wondering why CCP did not make any distinctions between the Tengu, Proteus, and Legion. The Legion is obviously the most underpowered of the T3's for many tasks. Does CCP realize this?

I can only hope CCP acknowledges that EVE is not "Tengus Online" but that other T3's exist too, which don't confide to the overpowered status of some other T3's. Don't base assumptions of all T3's off one T3, otherwise you'll make all but one T3 useless.

Also, just saying - "generalizing" a T3 - making it so a T3 can be fitted like a HAC but never perform as good as one, or be fitted like a recon but never perform as good as one - will make a T3 absolutely useless. T3's should be generalized in a way that a combination of certain subsystems can make it VERY powerful in one role, and weak or nonexistant in others; or it could be a jack of all trades, but master of none.

I seriously hope CCP reads this thread instead of taking a giant hammer and slamming all T3's in one blow. I hope they considerer individual T3's seperately. The Tengu is arguably overpowered for missions, but the Legion is not; nerfing both in the same way would mean that the Legion would be absolutely useless and the Tengu might still be useful, maintaining the imbalance.




Lets forget for a second the Command Subsystem that shouldn't even exist in the first place.

Then lets put aside the simple fact HACs are simply bad.

Lets then talk about "versatility" and advantages for using such ships with the cost and risks involved.

1-Tengu: versatility means something when it comes to dps roles with missiles and exploration, for everything else it's just plain bad

2-Loki: the second most versatile T3 boat imho, natural Tengu predator, strong recon, decent dps, overall good

3-Proteus: huge tank but reduced mobility, lacks 1 mid slot, awesome point range making it an awesome recon while still having the highest dps of all in this role but in HAC role is terrible, med rails are terrible and ranges you can hit with blasters+null are far under regular engagement envelope (25km) after TE nerf than other T3 in HAC version.

4-Legion: best version imho atm is the HAM one with huge tank and you can perma run local rep if not under neuts, a good engagement envelope with javelins, dps bonus could get a bit of love
Laser sub didn't got better but with TE nerf and other weapons changes makes it less bad of them all, still in need of a lot of love. Overall a good ship but lacks a role where it shines other than the stupid command sub.

Imho these ships are already awesome to have, they have their weaknesses and their strong points, yes I think they need a lot of love and thinking after HACs and other T2 ships revamp but we're not there yet so lets not start finding problems for something not on the table yet.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-06-16 14:42:56 UTC
Bolow Santosi wrote:
ENTRACK Voidborn wrote:

it cost almost a billion for a single role
true you could use modules for the other roles but the same goes for multiple T2 ships.
the T3's wouldn't be as cost effecient as T2 would be.


T3's don't cost almost a billion. They cost the same or slightly less than most faction battleships, with a better tank, far better resists, all on a cruiser sized hull. They also make the best boosters by giving better bonuses, being nigh uncatchable and requiring 1bil isk worth of implants in a covops to have a chance at probing them down.
All on a shorter training cycle than it is to get into a tech2 equivalent.

If you can't see how all of that might be just a teeny tiny bit broken you're either stupid or blind.

You leave out the part where faction battleships have better DPS, and more buffer tank.

A well fitted T3 will often cost around a billion ISK. I agree that T3 boosts and some of the other aspects need some nerfing, but I think T3's are fine with tank and DPS right now.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#18 - 2013-06-16 14:50:18 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
ENTRACK Voidborn wrote:

it cost almost a billion for a single role
true you could use modules for the other roles but the same goes for multiple T2 ships.
the T3's wouldn't be as cost effecient as T2 would be.


It costs well under a billion for a single role. But if you want to pay almost a billion, forward me your list of materials, I will happily sell them to you.

Meantime, go ahead and pack up your extra T2 ships and stick them in the cargo hold of the first one for easy transport to your next area of choice.

Oh, wait...

I have not met a single T3 pilot who actually carries around subsystems in their cargo hold.

Now if CCP made it so T3's could actually change subsystems in space in exchange for compensation in other areas, that would be neat...


I see it all the time. It's the easiest way to move them station to station. Surely you don't suggest that someone hire a freighter/JF just to move a few extra subsystems?
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
#19 - 2013-06-16 14:50:33 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
I don't know anything about T3s, but I also don't see cause for concern. CCP's been very good with balancing different ships in the same type/tier separately from each other so far. There's no need to worry.


What game have you been playing? Shocked

CCP...good with balancing, now I have seen it all....

Signature removed - CCP Eterne

Bolow Santosi
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2013-06-16 14:53:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Bolow Santosi
Nyancat Audeles wrote:

You leave out the part where faction battleships have better DPS, and more buffer tank.

A well fitted T3 will often cost around a billion ISK. I agree that T3 boosts and some of the other aspects need some nerfing, but I think T3's are fine with tank and DPS right now.


Faction battleships have better DPS with enormous sigs that make them extremely vulnerable to bombers unless you're running an armor setup.

Just looking at the Tengu and Tempest Fleet Issue fits we're using right now, The Tengu has more buffer, more resists and over 70,000 more EHP. All on a hull that takes significantly less time to train into than a T2 equivalent. Also most Tech3's will run you 600mil'ish, with a few minor exceptions, mostly if you're using them as armor tanked recon ships in a fleet.

Their DPS is fine, hell the Legion could use a decent bump in the DPS department. But the Tank and training requirements need to be adjusted.
123Next pageLast page