These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
stup idity
#141 - 2013-06-21 01:21:13 UTC
Grimpak wrote:


if cost was a factor, as I said more than once, the more expensive ship would win all the time. kinda akin to a freighter winning a fight against 5 interceptors because the freighter's cost is more than those 5 interceptors combined.


1. A factor is not the same as the decisive factor.

2. You are fully aware that there is very rarely something like comprehensively superior when comparing ships in EVE. It always depends on (complex) situations, desired roles and also personal preferences and skills of the people using it.
For example: Try to haul a total of 600k m³ of pos modules with your interceptors.

3.a) "cost" as in "Isk price in the market is not really a balancingfactor, because - as mentioned several times - it incorporates too many factors unrelated to the ship itself. Although, it may have an influence on most players what to actually choose.

b) However, there is something like "the effort to create this ship-item in game" which varies and is to some extent a balancing factor. After all, tech 1 ships are much easier to produce than tech 2 and 3.


Grimpak wrote:

... and second, T3's are supposed to do more than T2, but not better than T2. T2 are specialized hulls that can only do one thing well. T3's are (supposedly) to be able to perform in a wider variety of roles, something that T2's aren't able to.

granted however, nobody wants to make T3's suck. but making the rest of the hulls obsolete just by them existing is not the right approach either.


Lets assume this will some day be true, it will still kill t3 usage for all people living out of a pos. Right now, subsystems still cannot be changed and even if this will be implemented, it would still be needed change the fittings manually module by module (no pressing the 'fit' button from your saved fittings).
Additionally you have the problem that the ship will end up with the wrong rigs quite often.





I am the Herald of all beings that are me.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#142 - 2013-06-21 01:22:27 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
Players taking cost as a factor doesn't relate to balance because cost isn't static and reacts to demand.


Yep, that's why Marauders are so cheap, right? Roll

Last check they ran a few hundred mill behind pirate BS's, also since the source materials aren't as unique in application for T2 as they are for T3 Marauders can't fall as far with more popular T2 ship types propping component prices up.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
Nerfing a ship reduces demand which causes a reduction in price. In time they will come to rest at a price that reflects their performance.


You are totally overlooking the fact that, no matter how low the demand for T3s might fall, they are still more costly by far than the production of a T2. So if a T2 overshadows a T3 in this regard, then it's not a matter of their price reflecting their performance, it's a matter of no one will fly a T3.

One oh 2 things has to happen: Either sleeper bits/ have to crash because no one is buying T3's, thus reducing production costs, or people continue to find T3's worthwhile. I won't comment on how far they can fall as I can't account for all costs that can't be recovered. But base material costs can and will react.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2013-06-21 01:31:26 UTC
stup idity wrote:

Grimpak wrote:

... and second, T3's are supposed to do more than T2, but not better than T2. T2 are specialized hulls that can only do one thing well. T3's are (supposedly) to be able to perform in a wider variety of roles, something that T2's aren't able to.

granted however, nobody wants to make T3's suck. but making the rest of the hulls obsolete just by them existing is not the right approach either.


Lets assume this will some day be true, it will still kill t3 usage for all people living out of a pos. Right now, subsystems still cannot be changed and even if this will be implemented, it would still be needed change the fittings manually module by module (no pressing the 'fit' button from your saved fittings).
Additionally you have the problem that the ship will end up with the wrong rigs quite often.

This has more to do with the limits of subsystems and why they don't necessarily make sense on a "generalized" ship in my opinion (if it's generalized why am I picking sets of specializations?). Same with rigs to a similar degree.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2013-06-21 01:45:54 UTC
stup idity wrote:
Grimpak wrote:


if cost was a factor, as I said more than once, the more expensive ship would win all the time. kinda akin to a freighter winning a fight against 5 interceptors because the freighter's cost is more than those 5 interceptors combined.


1. A factor is not the same as the decisive factor.

2. You are fully aware that there is very rarely something like comprehensively superior when comparing ships in EVE. It always depends on (complex) situations, desired roles and also personal preferences and skills of the people using it.
For example: Try to haul a total of 600k m³ of pos modules with your interceptors.

3.a) "cost" as in "Isk price in the market is not really a balancingfactor, because - as mentioned several times - it incorporates too many factors unrelated to the ship itself. Although, it may have an influence on most players what to actually choose.

b) However, there is something like "the effort to create this ship-item in game" which varies and is to some extent a balancing factor. After all, tech 1 ships are much easier to produce than tech 2 and 3.


Grimpak wrote:

... and second, T3's are supposed to do more than T2, but not better than T2. T2 are specialized hulls that can only do one thing well. T3's are (supposedly) to be able to perform in a wider variety of roles, something that T2's aren't able to.

granted however, nobody wants to make T3's suck. but making the rest of the hulls obsolete just by them existing is not the right approach either.


Lets assume this will some day be true, it will still kill t3 usage for all people living out of a pos. Right now, subsystems still cannot be changed and even if this will be implemented, it would still be needed change the fittings manually module by module (no pressing the 'fit' button from your saved fittings).
Additionally you have the problem that the ship will end up with the wrong rigs quite often.







THIS
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2013-06-21 01:49:18 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Soldarius wrote:


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?


Yes that is true...

If you have links and your head is plugged in with 3 - 4 Billion isk worth of Implants.

And a Double Plated HAM legion can get over 600dps.


It amazes me that people are using extreme cases where people are blinging their ships into cap cost territory to use as examples for nerfs. It's ridiculous.

This, and people who have too much ISK to dump everywhere saying that "cost is not a balancing factor"...



If cost wasn't a balancing factor we would all be running around in machs and vindis out in null sec.

...except no one want to pay for the lost of 120 vindi's at a time, for a cool 2 bill a whop.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2013-06-21 01:49:35 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
It is quite odd that T3's have been out for what, 3 years now, with zero changes, and no one complained much about them being OP, but suddenly, there is this huge push to wreck them.

It has been said before, and I will say it again.
T3 mfg is essentially the purview of wh's, as the materials come from there.

The null sec cartels can't control that income stream, because, well, it is wormholes.
Hence the propaganda campaign by null sec to nerf the T3's.

Lowered T3 performance = lower demand = lower T3 prices = lower income for wh players = more wh players moving to null sec = higher tax income for the null sec cartel leadership .

CCP won't wait for the December release to wreck T3's. The standard methodology is the null sec cartel propagandists start a campaign, usually of multiple threads, using non null sec chars. They bombard the thread with alts claiming this is good for the game, and throw in the occasional comment from null sec. Typically, about 3 months after they start the campaign, CCP will announce "we have read the forums, and are responding" and then do precisely what was called for in the forum threads. Of course, they vet the changes with the CSM, but we already know where the CSM's allegiances lie.

This is precisely the methodology that was used to wreck the drone AI, and to wreck high sec mining, and will be used to wreck T3's. I guess goons and pl have decided that Tengu fleets are just too expensive to use in battles. Of course, CCP might only ruin the PVE capabilities of T3's. (Not that they have already not nerfed them with the resist bonus nerf.)

Fozzie is the expected dev to maim T3's sometime after the CCP summer break. Expect the hammer to come down in Aug/ Sept.


This. The people that will be hurt the MOST by the T3 nerf will be the people who PvE, the people in wormholes, the people in incursions... the nullsec cartels will simply move on to another FOTM and when that gets too expensive, have that nerfed too...
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2013-06-21 01:54:47 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:


This. The people that will be hurt the MOST by the T3 nerf will be the people who PvE, the people in wormholes, the people in incursions... the nullsec cartels will simply move on to another FOTM and when that gets too expensive, have that nerfed too...


I heard that PvEer can adjust to the next FoTM.....

Personally I tend to choose the best ship for the job when in carebrear mode, whatever that may be.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#148 - 2013-06-21 04:45:54 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:


This. The people that will be hurt the MOST by the T3 nerf will be the people who PvE, the people in wormholes, the people in incursions... the nullsec cartels will simply move on to another FOTM and when that gets too expensive, have that nerfed too...


The Tengu is better at being a drake than the drake and the Legion is a Zealot with a battleship buffer. They are being nerfed because they are more overpowered than the dram used to be.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#149 - 2013-06-21 06:49:24 UTC
stup idity wrote:
Grimpak wrote:


if cost was a factor, as I said more than once, the more expensive ship would win all the time. kinda akin to a freighter winning a fight against 5 interceptors because the freighter's cost is more than those 5 interceptors combined.


1. A factor is not the same as the decisive factor.

2. You are fully aware that there is very rarely something like comprehensively superior when comparing ships in EVE. It always depends on (complex) situations, desired roles and also personal preferences and skills of the people using it.
For example: Try to haul a total of 600k m³ of pos modules with your interceptors.

3.a) "cost" as in "Isk price in the market is not really a balancingfactor, because - as mentioned several times - it incorporates too many factors unrelated to the ship itself. Although, it may have an influence on most players what to actually choose.

b) However, there is something like "the effort to create this ship-item in game" which varies and is to some extent a balancing factor. After all, tech 1 ships are much easier to produce than tech 2 and 3.


market 101: X is a rather useless item that only some people buy because of some odd reason or because of scam.
CCP rebalances X.
X happens to become quite good, perhaps even overpowered due to something that CCP overlooked.
the fact that is good makes demand going up the roof, but supply stays the same, because X is the only one that requires "mumbo-jumbo", a relatively scarce item in new-eden, of wich only a handfull of people have acess.
production and extraction of said material can't keep up with the new demand, so X has a hard time to create surplus stock in the market.
because of this, price rises up, due to, in part,speculation, and increase of profit margins on a, before useless item that was sold at production cost at most, so that producers have a faster return on their investment, because people want the item and will pay premi

ergo, price is a component that indicates popularity of item and also indicates the availability of said item. price will raise accordingly if said item is popular because it's good, and not the other way around.
a most prime example of all this is the pirate ships before and afterthe first round of changes that made the dramiel overpowered.
they were more of a gimmic and I remember seeing drams and daredevils at about 30mil a piece, and once I even bought an ashimmu once for 50 mil back in the day.
why was this?
they had the same building requirements and their drop rates haven't changed. only thing that really changed was the demand.

There might be a "cartelization" of said item however, but, amazingly, it doesn't need to be a bad thing, like what it happened with cov ops cloaks back in the days before invention. it kept supply levels high enough, with a stable price and a relatively good % of profit in the end, or so rumours say.





stup idity wrote:
Grimpak wrote:

... and second, T3's are supposed to do more than T2, but not better than T2. T2 are specialized hulls that can only do one thing well. T3's are (supposedly) to be able to perform in a wider variety of roles, something that T2's aren't able to.

granted however, nobody wants to make T3's suck. but making the rest of the hulls obsolete just by them existing is not the right approach either.

Lets assume this will some day be true, it will still kill t3 usage for all people living out of a pos. Right now, subsystems still cannot be changed and even if this will be implemented, it would still be needed change the fittings manually module by module (no pressing the 'fit' button from your saved fittings).
Additionally you have the problem that the ship will end up with the wrong rigs quite often.


well yes, but:
a) we don't know what CCP will do with T3's. maybe using subsystems themselves to carry rigs, or maybe a whole new different mechanic alltogether, ergo we go t the second point, of wich I must say I am also guilty of doing both;
b) I don't have CCP's crystal ball that sees in the future;
c) assumption is the mother of all ****-ups.

so in the end how and when T3's will remain in the domain of speculation or heresay until CCP decides to touch them.

[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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#150 - 2013-06-21 07:08:00 UTC
Quote:
The Tengu is better at being a drake than the drake and the Legion is a Zealot with a battleship buffer. They are being nerfed because they are more overpowered than the dram used to be.


The Tengu, a strategic cruiser, is not nor should it be balanced against a T1 battlecruiser.

So what if the Tengu performs better than the Drake? It's thrice as hard to skill for, costs 10-15 times as much, and you lose skillpoints if you die in it. It damn well better be superior.

And we all know that the T2 cruisers need help, so that argument doesn't hold water either. Especially given that they are pretty much the subject for the next major rebalancing effort, the current state between them should not be a primary concern for future balancing of T3s, which will be worked on AFTER T2s get a revamp.

"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.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#151 - 2013-06-21 07:13:07 UTC
T3 cruisers are planned to be on par with navy faction cruisers.

Oh god.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#152 - 2013-06-21 08:12:39 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


The Tengu, a strategic cruiser, is not nor should it be balanced against a T1 battlecruiser.



Correct. It, like all T3 cruisers, should be balanced against T1 and T2 cruisers.

That should likely include removing the stupid skill point loss penalty.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#153 - 2013-06-21 08:17:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Domanique Altares wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


The Tengu, a strategic cruiser, is not nor should it be balanced against a T1 battlecruiser.



Correct. It, like all T3 cruisers, should be balanced against T1 and T2 cruisers.

That should likely include removing the stupid skill point loss penalty.


I'd disagree about being balanced against T1, but yeah, more or less.

Idk though, the skill point loss is pretty well one of the defining features of T3s, I don't really see them removing it.

That said, the T3s should be seriously looked at once the T2s have gotten their balance revamp. Until then, all we are doing is exchanging vitriol.

"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.
Shade Millith
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#154 - 2013-06-21 08:38:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nyancat Audeles wrote:


This. The people that will be hurt the MOST by the T3 nerf will be the people who PvE, the people in wormholes, the people in incursions... the nullsec cartels will simply move on to another FOTM and when that gets too expensive, have that nerfed too...


The Tengu is better at being a drake than the drake and the Legion is a Zealot with a battleship buffer. They are being nerfed because they are more overpowered than the dram used to be.


And a Cerberus is better at being a Caracal than the Caracal. And a Zealot is a Omen with a 40k+ buffer.

Just because they cost more, doesn't mean anything!

Nerf T2 cruisers too. And T2 frigates. They cannot be better than their T1 counterparts!
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#155 - 2013-06-21 09:02:10 UTC
Shade Millith wrote:
And a Cerberus is better at being a Caracal than the Caracal. And a Zealot is a Omen with a 40k+ buffer.

Just because they cost more, doesn't mean anything!

Nerf T2 cruisers too. And T2 frigates. They cannot be better than their T1 counterparts!


Now try comparing them to ships above their class.

Oh god.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#156 - 2013-06-21 09:17:54 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
The Tengu is better at being a drake than the drake and the Legion is a Zealot with a battleship buffer. They are being nerfed because they are more overpowered than the dram used to be.


The Tengu, a strategic cruiser, is not nor should it be balanced against a T1 battlecruiser.

So what if the Tengu performs better than the Drake? It's thrice as hard to skill for, costs 10-15 times as much, and you lose skillpoints if you die in it. It damn well better be superior.

And we all know that the T2 cruisers need help, so that argument doesn't hold water either. Especially given that they are pretty much the subject for the next major rebalancing effort, the current state between them should not be a primary concern for future balancing of T3s, which will be worked on AFTER T2s get a revamp.


There is everything wrong with a cruiser being better than battlecruisers. T3s and T2s will both be balanced to be in line with T1 cruisers, not battlecruisers.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#157 - 2013-06-21 09:21:22 UTC
Shade Millith wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nyancat Audeles wrote:


This. The people that will be hurt the MOST by the T3 nerf will be the people who PvE, the people in wormholes, the people in incursions... the nullsec cartels will simply move on to another FOTM and when that gets too expensive, have that nerfed too...


The Tengu is better at being a drake than the drake and the Legion is a Zealot with a battleship buffer. They are being nerfed because they are more overpowered than the dram used to be.


And a Cerberus is better at being a Caracal than the Caracal. And a Zealot is a Omen with a 40k+ buffer.

Just because they cost more, doesn't mean anything!

Nerf T2 cruisers too. And T2 frigates. They cannot be better than their T1 counterparts!


Frigates have already been balanced. Thats why a crow is now a viable option even when against more expensive T2 frigs.
stup idity
#158 - 2013-06-21 09:27:31 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Shade Millith wrote:
And a Cerberus is better at being a Caracal than the Caracal. And a Zealot is a Omen with a 40k+ buffer.

Just because they cost more, doesn't mean anything!

Nerf T2 cruisers too. And T2 frigates. They cannot be better than their T1 counterparts!


Now try comparing them to ships above their class.


And also below and sideways. When taking a look at the balancing of ships, there are some questions that will answer if a ship is 'balanced' in the big picture:

1. Are there viable alternatives for the role and situation I need right now?
If not, it might be overpowered.

2. Will a slight change of the situation shift the favor to other ship choices?
Then it might not be overpowered.

3. Is there any relevant situation or role where my ship is one of the better alternatives?
if yes, it has a role and is at least somehow balanced.

4. Is my ship outperformed in all relevant roles and situations by a reasonable alternative?
If yes, it's clearly underpowered.

Of course it can be debated what 'reasonable' and 'relevant' means. I guess if you declare 'cruising through hi-sec' a relevant situation and 'being special in a mean looking cruiser with lots of spikes' a relevant role, even the Phantasm is well balanced - if not overpowered, because it outshines everything else in this case Roll

I am the Herald of all beings that are me.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2013-06-21 14:04:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
The Tengu is better at being a drake than the drake and the Legion is a Zealot with a battleship buffer. They are being nerfed because they are more overpowered than the dram used to be.


The Tengu, a strategic cruiser, is not nor should it be balanced against a T1 battlecruiser.

So what if the Tengu performs better than the Drake? It's thrice as hard to skill for, costs 10-15 times as much, and you lose skillpoints if you die in it. It damn well better be superior.

And we all know that the T2 cruisers need help, so that argument doesn't hold water either. Especially given that they are pretty much the subject for the next major rebalancing effort, the current state between them should not be a primary concern for future balancing of T3s, which will be worked on AFTER T2s get a revamp.

I agree with this
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2013-06-21 14:09:03 UTC
Problem is that it seems that CCP is against one ship being BETTER than another ship. I see nothing wrong with one ship being better if you spend the training time and ISK on it. Otherwise NO ONE will fly a Zealot over the Omen, or Vagabond over SFI, etc.