These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

SMARTER T3 Rebalances, Please!

First post First post
Author
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2013-06-16 17:23:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Yep, but this thread is full of "it already happened, unleash nerdrage now!" statements. So convincing I started to think I got some strange forum ban where I can only see whine without seeing which CCP dev's post caused it. My god, that was terrible feeling...
Oh, don't worry. When it happens, it'll be impossible not to notice (but as always, some will succeed anyway). This is just the preparatory stage when people are gearing up for the inevitable threadnought and testing out which arguments hold any water and which don't.

So far, they're all in the “don't” column except for maybe the claim that T3s don't fully offer the versatility and adaptability they're supposed to… And even then, it's not an argument against nerfs, but rather a reflection of what makes T3 rebalancing so needed.

Everything else is just a variation of “I paid to be overpowered, so therefore I deserve to not be subject to balancing” (never mind that being overpowered is the primary reason for being subject to balancing, and that prices are irrelevant).
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#42 - 2013-06-16 17:33:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:
“I paid to be overpowered, so therefore I deserve to not be subject to balancing"

Pretty much sums it up. The only people who are against T3 rebalancing are people who care more about their own selfish concerns than the overall health of the game and the experience it offers to everyone.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-06-16 17:44:43 UTC
We'll see what they do.


The average line ship T2 fit T3 isn't that unbalanced, what people complain most about are full pimped solo boats with a perfect T3 booster and pirate implants.

....but meh, if you have two accounts and the 3 billion to put into it, I say go with your bad self.


The 550mil fleet tengu isn't that big of a problem in comparison.
Jarod Garamonde
Jolly Codgers
Get Off My Lawn
#44 - 2013-06-16 18:27:22 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Tippia wrote:
“I paid to be overpowered, so therefore I deserve to not be subject to balancing"

Pretty much sums it up. The only people who are against T3 rebalancing are people who care more about their own selfish concerns than the overall health of the game and the experience it offers to everyone.


FALSE.

The fact is that some people pay a premium for a machine that is better than everyone else's. Should Ferrari make slower cars because Honda can't build something just as fast? The answer is NO. And the reason for that answer is "That's why Ferraris cost 150,000 bones, and a Honda S2000 is only 38k, fully loaded."

That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...

    [#savethelance]
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#45 - 2013-06-16 18:35:16 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
FALSE.
Ok…

Quote:
The fact is that some people pay a premium for a machine that is better than everyone else's.
So, not actually false, then. In fact, you just illustrated perfectly how right he is.

The fact is that cost is not a balancing factors and that Ferrari vs. Honda is not a game mechanic that needs balancing.
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2013-06-16 18:38:27 UTC
And the lemmings continue to buy tengu alts on the bazaar for top dollar.

I personally can't wait for the tear storm when this rebalance hits. It will be glorious.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2013-06-16 18:42:06 UTC
now the last time the 'expensive ships should be overpowered' argument was used it was in regards to the tracking titan nerfs

that ended well eh
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#48 - 2013-06-16 18:42:16 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
The fact is that some people pay a premium for a machine that is better than everyone else's. Should Ferrari make slower cars because Honda can't build something just as fast? The answer is NO. And the reason for that answer is "That's why Ferraris cost 150,000 bones, and a Honda S2000 is only 38k, fully loaded."

Should a Ferarri be put in a race against a Honda?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2013-06-16 18:48:28 UTC
T3 nerf, fine, whatever.

Sanctums still need to be buffed. All the spawns are still ridiculously far away.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

iskflakes
#50 - 2013-06-16 18:59:39 UTC
The last time something was this overpowered it got nerfed into irrelevance for multiple years, and most people were fine with that. I suspect the same thing will happen here.

-

Dtawahn
Doomheim
#51 - 2013-06-16 19:04:46 UTC
nerfing T3s will make the demand for them alot smaller and therefor the components will get alot cheaper. This will make living in a wh harder and that is in line with the new policy of CCP - getting more people out of the w-space.

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2013-06-16 19:05:42 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
There are only a few T3 setups that are overpowered, and the rest are generally pretty terrible with few exceptions.
Boosting T3s are overpowered as is well known, but that's a pretty easy fix and one that we already know about.
PVE T3s are fine and don't need to be changed.
Fleet Alpha Lokis and HAM Tengus are currently overpowered as they stand. Both could do with a nerf to tank, speed, or signature radius (or some combination of the three).
Tackling Proteus and Lokis are also vastly overpowered compared to their recon counterparts, mainly owing to their massive tanking ability.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#53 - 2013-06-16 19:07:58 UTC
Posting in a "by nerfing T3's, wh space takes a hit, because null sec can't control it through current game mechanics, therefore must lobby to get the game mechanics changed" thread.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2013-06-16 19:14:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Grimpak
Nyancat Audeles wrote:

Cost IS a balancing factor. Deal with it.

then I expect my multi-trillion fully officer fitted rifter to kill at the very least 2 titans by itself by just sneezing at them.


since cost is a balancing factor and all that.

[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

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#55 - 2013-06-16 19:32:22 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Posting in a "by nerfing T3's, wh space takes a hit, because null sec can't control it through current game mechanics, therefore must lobby to get the game mechanics changed" thread.


Posting in yet another "Dinsdale Pirannha didn't read the thread before posting" thread. Big smile

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

crazy0146
The Federation of assorted candy
#56 - 2013-06-16 19:33:05 UTC
Can I have the link to the dev post explaining how they are nerfing T3's as I can't seem to find any.

To the op, yes T3's will get nerfed. Why? Because in some areas they outstrip the supposed specialised ships thus obsoleting them. To use one area as an example of where the legion and proteus are most likely to get nerfed is in their tank.

Why you ask, because when fitted for tank they outstrip BATTLESHIP level ehp and in some cases can approach unfitted carrier or dread levels of ehp. They should not be able to reach that level of effectiveness.

Now that is not to say that they will only get nerfed, what will most likely happen is that the under performing sub systems will get rebalanced to the point of where they are useful, ie. the legions cloaks sub.

TL:DR T3's will be nerfed but that doesn't mean that ccp won't buff the sub systems that need it.
AyayaPanda
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2013-06-16 19:41:29 UTC
crazy0146 wrote:
Can I have the link to the dev post explaining how they are nerfing T3's as I can't seem to find any.





CCP Ytterbium;

Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.

source
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#58 - 2013-06-16 19:41:50 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Nyancat Audeles wrote:

Cost IS a balancing factor. Deal with it.

then I expect my multi-trillion fully officer fitted rifter to kill at the very least 2 titans by itself by just sneezing at them.


since cost is a balancing factor and all that.

Well it is a balancing factor in that ships that are more expensive tend to be better at their role than less expensive ships for the same role.

The Zealot and the Omen have pretty much exactly the same role, but the Zealot is more expensive because it's much better at its role.

If you have two ships or modules A and B, and A is more expensive than B, then A either has to do what B does but better, or A has to have an entirely different role than B. Otherwise nobody will buy or build A and it's pointless. Just look at storyline modules. Nobody uses them.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#59 - 2013-06-16 19:45:44 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
[quote=Grimpak][quote=Nyancat Audeles]
The Zealot and the Omen have pretty much exactly the same role, but the Zealot is more expensive because it's much better at its role.


That's not entirely why the Zealot is more expensive. Demand and performance are certainly a big factor, but the Zealot has higher overhead tied into it's base cost to begin with. Even if they performed exactly the same, and margins were nonexistant as a result, a Zealot would still have to be sold for more on the market simply to break even.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#60 - 2013-06-16 19:48:28 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
[quote=Grimpak][quote=Nyancat Audeles]
The Zealot and the Omen have pretty much exactly the same role, but the Zealot is more expensive because it's much better at its role.


That's not entirely why the Zealot is more expensive. Demand and performance are certainly a big factor, but the Zealot has higher overhead tied into it's base cost to begin with. Even if they performed exactly the same, and margins were nonexistant as a result, a Zealot would still have to be sold for more on the market simply to break even.

Well obviously, but if they performed exactly the same it wouldn't sell for more on the market at all. Nobody would build them, because nobody would buy them, because nobody would want to fly them, except maybe a few people who would want them just because they like the green skin or something.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)