These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2013-06-16 19:51:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Grimpak
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
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.

but is it because they cost more that they are better, or is it the other way, meaning that since they are in high demand, they also get their price up?

I mean, I remember a time when pirate faction ships were worthless, for example the dramiel, and with an update, it went from 10mil to 100mil.
availability didn't increased nor decreased (afaik), so the marketed volume should've been roughly the same...

or when module X is rumored to be nerfed, their price drops a few days before the patch day they get nerfed, because people start offloading them on the market en masse, thus increasing offer, but having the demand dropping substantially. something that, curiosly, happened to the dramiel too when it was nerfed.

don't forget how the market works.

this also happens with the zealot-omen dichtomy, altho at the time being, we're in the middle of a readjustment on the ships, and the zealot hasn't been touched on.
also, the price of the zealot might be less because of how good it is, and more because of the materials and the high-demand of said materials AND the ship itself.

usually, as I said above, high market demand drives the prices up.

[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
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2013-06-16 19:52:26 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
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.

but is it because they cost more that they are better, or is it the other way, meaning that since they are in high demand, they also get their price up?

I mean, I remember a time when pirate faction ships were worthless, for example the dramiel, and with an update, it went from 10mil to 100mil.
availability didn't increased nor decreased (afaik), so the marketed volume should've been roughly the same...

or when module X is rumored to be nerfed, their price drops a few days before the patch day they get nerfed, because people start offloading them on the market en masse, thus increasing offer, but having the demand dropping substantially. something that, curiosly, happened to the dramiel too when it was nerfed.

don't forget how the market works.

I'm not forgetting how the market works, but don't forget how build cost works either.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2013-06-16 19:54:22 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I'm not forgetting how the market works, but don't forget how build cost works either.

yes, and I updated the post above to clear it a bit.

bottom line what I'm trying to say is: cost is not a factor, but a consequence.

[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
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#64 - 2013-06-16 19:58:09 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

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.


Exactly. But the cost of the ship is a factor of its performance, not the other way around. If something does well and is in demand, prices will rise. Some things perform poorly, and are still expensive on the market for exactly the reasons you stated. Low demand does not always yield low prices when the initial overhead is high. Scarcity can play as much of a part in pricing as high performance. There are faction ships that are still comparatively expensive, yet no one flies them often; they don't tend to overwhelmingly out do anything, even for the high cost.

Some other people in this thread seem to believe that something should always perform better because it costs more on the market. That's not the case, since some things have a higher overhead, or enjoy relative scarcity, regardless of performance. A T3 will always cost a lot to construct, regardless of performance. It will always be more expensive on the market, regardless of performance.
Alyssa Yotosala
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#65 - 2013-06-16 20:57:58 UTC
Tiber Ibis wrote:
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?


I would like to officially confirm that, yes indeed, it is unsubstantiated whinging as usual.
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2013-06-16 21:07:47 UTC
Alyssa Yotosala wrote:
whinging


*snort*
Jarod Garamonde
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2013-06-16 21:34:56 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
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?


Not if the Honda driver is either
a: smart enough to realize he can't compete (which sadly isn't the way it works... I can't tell you how many poorly boosted Civics I have trying to race my heavily modified 240Z every time I get on the freeway)
or b: the guy that spent over 50,000 re-engineering the entire car because he wanted a "sleeper" machine.

The fact of the matter is, if you want something that gives you an edge, you're going to pay good money for it. There should be no cheap "easy button" in IRL or in EVE. And if you don't have the skills to handle your expensive ownage-machine, you're going to be very disappointed in the results (again, both IRL and in EVE).

If CCP is just going to nerf everything that gets popular, we might as well kill everything but noobships, and let everything be determined by a mix of SP and player tactics.

That's really all I'm trying to say, here. But, again... keep in mind... I only use my T3 for missions. When I PvP, I look for cheaper solutions, because I count my ship for dead as soon as I undock to look for a fight.

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

    [#savethelance]
Oggat
The Adam's Family
#68 - 2013-06-16 21:39:54 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:


If CCP is just going to nerf everything that gets popular


ding, ding, ding, ding!!!

It started a long time ago.
Anyone care to make a list?
Jarod Garamonde
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-06-16 21:41:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jarod Garamonde
Oggat wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:


If CCP is just going to nerf everything that gets popular


ding, ding, ding, ding!!!

It started a long time ago.
Anyone care to make a list?


I was around for the nano-nerf. I remember it well, and I was sad.
But don't take that out-of-context, here. I am about as pro-CCP as they come... I just don't think there's much to be gained by nerfing something to s**t when everyone seems to like it.

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

    [#savethelance]
Oggat
The Adam's Family
#70 - 2013-06-16 21:44:40 UTC
"My ship sucks" is code for "Don't nerf my stuff"
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#71 - 2013-06-20 00:28:34 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
This is one of the few places I'm going to solidly disagree with CCP on... they say they want more people involved in missioning and exploration... and now they're considering nerfing ships whose primary purpose is those two things. The majority of T3 owners use their ships for missions and complexes.

What is the problem with a player being able to fit a cap-stable T3 that can permatank L4 missions? It's not like you can AFK those missions... you still have to pay attention to what's happening to you. Especially if your primary DPS comes from your drones (as is the case with many PvE Proteus pilots).

So why the nerf? Nerf T3's and nobody will fly them anymore. They're too expensive to NOT be OP'd.

I'm Jarod Garamonde, and I approved this message.


Dude, seriously? Do you even play eve with other people? Here, let me educate you.

No one gives a rat's skinny ass what people do with their bling ratting ships except awoxers, bombers, and war-threats. Guys like you buy the fancy mods we dig up. Or did you forget all those dead-space mods coem from nulsec?

The problem is that Tech 3s do everything better than everything except EWAR.

Cost is not a huge factor here. A T2-fit strat cruiser can be as cheap as 500M. But with appropriately skilled and implanted command ships boosting one in a fleet, they can exceed 333kEHP with the signature approaching that of a destroyer. (Thrasher - base 75m. Boosted arty Loki, 88m)

A Legion fit with T2 trimark armor pumps can exceed 333kEHP, sigRad of only 99.5 meters, and still put out 400dps with HAMs. Or you can drop a 1600m plate and fit lasers for better damage projection but much less tank (only 218k EHP). Oh, did I mention it still has 3 spare midslots after a prop mod for EWAR, cap booster, whatever?

In case you haven't figured it out, there is a very good reason why every nulsec entity that can afford to reimburse tech 3s is flying them. They are so OP that the SP loss and greater expense is justified.

CCP, It would be so easy to nerf tech 3. Reduce grid. Reduce command link bonuses from link subsystem. Increase signature radius. I have never had any complaint about their EWAR abilities or dps. But the tanking ability is absurd, and the links are just as good as a command ship with the added bonus of being able to fit covert cloaks at the same time, added agility, off-grid boosting, and near impossibility to probe.

There is really only one thing to say about Strategic Cruisers in their current form: **** is OP. CCP, plz fix.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2013-06-20 00:45:59 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
This is one of the few places I'm going to solidly disagree with CCP on... they say they want more people involved in missioning and exploration... and now they're considering nerfing ships whose primary purpose is those two things. The majority of T3 owners use their ships for missions and complexes.

What is the problem with a player being able to fit a cap-stable T3 that can permatank L4 missions? It's not like you can AFK those missions... you still have to pay attention to what's happening to you. Especially if your primary DPS comes from your drones (as is the case with many PvE Proteus pilots).

So why the nerf? Nerf T3's and nobody will fly them anymore. They're too expensive to NOT be OP'd.

I'm Jarod Garamonde, and I approved this message.


Dude, seriously? Do you even play eve with other people? Here, let me educate you.

No one gives a rat's skinny ass what people do with their bling ratting ships except awoxers, bombers, and war-threats. Guys like you buy the fancy mods we dig up. Or did you forget all those dead-space mods coem from nulsec?

The problem is that Tech 3s do everything better than everything except EWAR.

Cost is not a huge factor here. A T2-fit strat cruiser can be as cheap as 500M. But with appropriately skilled and implanted command ships boosting one in a fleet, they can exceed 333kEHP with the signature approaching that of a destroyer. (Thrasher - base 75m. Boosted arty Loki, 88m)

A Legion fit with T2 trimark armor pumps can exceed 333kEHP, sigRad of only 99.5 meters, and still put out 400dps with HAMs. Or you can drop a 1600m plate and fit lasers for better damage projection but much less tank (only 218k EHP). Oh, did I mention it still has 3 spare midslots after a prop mod for EWAR, cap booster, whatever?

In case you haven't figured it out, there is a very good reason why every nulsec entity that can afford to reimburse tech 3s is flying them. They are so OP that the SP loss and greater expense is justified.

CCP, It would be so easy to nerf tech 3. Reduce grid. Reduce command link bonuses from link subsystem. Increase signature radius. I have never had any complaint about their EWAR abilities or dps. But the tanking ability is absurd, and the links are just as good as a command ship with the added bonus of being able to fit covert cloaks at the same time, added agility, off-grid boosting, and near impossibility to probe.

There is really only one thing to say about Strategic Cruisers in their current form: **** is OP. CCP, plz fix.


And people like you ignore the effect the nerf would have on hisec activities. This would kill missioners with T3's, it would kill, absolutely DECIMATE Incursioners, and it would throw almost every WH T3 fit out the window. Don't be so narrow-minded, there is much more in EVE than a bit of PvP.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#73 - 2013-06-20 00:49:15 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
And people like you ignore the effect the nerf would have on hisec activities. This would kill missioners with T3's, it would kill, absolutely DECIMATE Incursioners
So not much of an effect at all, then.
The mission-runners could switch to HACs and the incursioners could join the remaining 90% in whatever they're flying (or, like the mission-runners, switch to HACs).
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-06-20 01:08:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
And people like you ignore the effect the nerf would have on hisec activities. This would kill missioners with T3's, it would kill, absolutely DECIMATE Incursioners
So not much of an effect at all, then.
The mission-runners could switch to HACs and the incursioners could join the remaining 90% in whatever they're flying (or, like the mission-runners, switch to HACs).

This would only be viable if HACs received a large, large buff...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#75 - 2013-06-20 01:16:05 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
This would only be viable if HACs received a large, large buff...
…as they should. Well, for the Incursion part, perhaps. They're already entirely viable for missions.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#76 - 2013-06-20 01:30:58 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
This is one of the few places I'm going to solidly disagree with CCP on... they say they want more people involved in missioning and exploration... and now they're considering nerfing ships whose primary purpose is those two things. The majority of T3 owners use their ships for missions and complexes.

What is the problem with a player being able to fit a cap-stable T3 that can permatank L4 missions? It's not like you can AFK those missions... you still have to pay attention to what's happening to you. Especially if your primary DPS comes from your drones (as is the case with many PvE Proteus pilots).

So why the nerf? Nerf T3's and nobody will fly them anymore. They're too expensive to NOT be OP'd.

I'm Jarod Garamonde, and I approved this message.


Dude, seriously? Do you even play eve with other people? Here, let me educate you.

No one gives a rat's skinny ass what people do with their bling ratting ships except awoxers, bombers, and war-threats. Guys like you buy the fancy mods we dig up. Or did you forget all those dead-space mods coem from nulsec?

The problem is that Tech 3s do everything better than everything except EWAR.

Cost is not a huge factor here. A T2-fit strat cruiser can be as cheap as 500M. But with appropriately skilled and implanted command ships boosting one in a fleet, they can exceed 333kEHP with the signature approaching that of a destroyer. (Thrasher - base 75m. Boosted arty Loki, 88m)

A Legion fit with T2 trimark armor pumps can exceed 333kEHP, sigRad of only 99.5 meters, and still put out 400dps with HAMs. Or you can drop a 1600m plate and fit lasers for better damage projection but much less tank (only 218k EHP). Oh, did I mention it still has 3 spare midslots after a prop mod for EWAR, cap booster, whatever?

In case you haven't figured it out, there is a very good reason why every nulsec entity that can afford to reimburse tech 3s is flying them. They are so OP that the SP loss and greater expense is justified.

CCP, It would be so easy to nerf tech 3. Reduce grid. Reduce command link bonuses from link subsystem. Increase signature radius. I have never had any complaint about their EWAR abilities or dps. But the tanking ability is absurd, and the links are just as good as a command ship with the added bonus of being able to fit covert cloaks at the same time, added agility, off-grid boosting, and near impossibility to probe.

There is really only one thing to say about Strategic Cruisers in their current form: **** is OP. CCP, plz fix.


So, basically, T3s have an OP level of tank for their sig radius, when links are involved?

All I really hear in this post is "remove links".

They're the true cause here. Gimp the T3s, and it will just be something else afterward to abuse with links.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#77 - 2013-06-20 02:07:38 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.

the concern is that the noise coming out oif ccp so far regarding T3s is down right disturbing to anyone with experience flying them.
all indications are that theyre going to nerf the entire class into a joke ship category.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Skill Training Online
Doomheim
#78 - 2013-06-20 02:12:03 UTC
We needed another thread about this.

Thank You Obama!
Jaan Thiesant
Star Cluster Wanderer
#79 - 2013-06-20 02:16:38 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:


And people like you ignore the effect the nerf would have on hisec activities. This would kill missioners with T3's, it would kill, absolutely DECIMATE Incursioners


And this is a problem why. T3s are too much for Hi Sec and you know it.
Skill Training Online
Doomheim
#80 - 2013-06-20 02:23:05 UTC
Jaan Thiesant wrote:
Nyancat Audeles wrote:


And people like you ignore the effect the nerf would have on hisec activities. This would kill missioners with T3's, it would kill, absolutely DECIMATE Incursioners


And this is a problem why. T3s are too much for Hi Sec and you know it.


It disrupts the trend of all cruisers being viable level 4 mission boats... oh wait... no T3s being able to do missions disrupts the trend of cruisers NOT being able to do level 4 missions.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong.

Thank You Obama!