These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#321 - 2013-06-29 03:09:14 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
So there was too many whiney posts in the thread. Couldn't catch up reading it.

Did we establish that cost is not a balance? And also that the cost is based on the balance.

In this case a Tech III ship is on the overpowered side of balance. Because of that the ship is highly desirable and because the ship is desirable the demand is high and because demand is high it is very expensive.

So in simplistic terms: its expensive because its good, its not good because its expensive.

I thought this was obvious, but I am saying that CCP takes cost into account when balancing a ship as they know how desirable it could be.

I would hate to see a world where CCP nerfs the T3s to oblivion under the banner of "generalization". It would absolutely kill incursions, destroy the wormhole business, harm thousands of missioners, and make everyone's current T3s worthless. I am fine with command bonus nerfs, but lowering the tank bonuses ships like the Legion get would be horrible.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#322 - 2013-06-29 05:12:00 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
So there was too many whiney posts in the thread. Couldn't catch up reading it.

Did we establish that cost is not a balance? And also that the cost is based on the balance.

In this case a Tech III ship is on the overpowered side of balance. Because of that the ship is highly desirable and because the ship is desirable the demand is high and because demand is high it is very expensive.

So in simplistic terms: its expensive because its good, its not good because its expensive.

I thought this was obvious, but I am saying that CCP takes cost into account when balancing a ship as they know how desirable it could be.

I would hate to see a world where CCP nerfs the T3s to oblivion under the banner of "generalization". It would absolutely kill incursions, destroy the wormhole business, harm thousands of missioners, and make everyone's current T3s worthless. I am fine with command bonus nerfs, but lowering the tank bonuses ships like the Legion get would be horrible.


No they don't. If a ship is good by design, it is more valuable due to demand.

The world you would hate to see isn't balanced by cost either. Ironically, in the world you describe less ISK is injected into the economy and therefore ISK itself is worth more.

Sorry about the hypothetical losses, but that sounds good to me.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#323 - 2013-06-29 07:13:12 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
So there was too many whiney posts in the thread. Couldn't catch up reading it.

Did we establish that cost is not a balance? And also that the cost is based on the balance.

In this case a Tech III ship is on the overpowered side of balance. Because of that the ship is highly desirable and because the ship is desirable the demand is high and because demand is high it is very expensive.

So in simplistic terms: its expensive because its good, its not good because its expensive.

I thought this was obvious, but I am saying that CCP takes cost into account when balancing a ship as they know how desirable it could be.

I would hate to see a world where CCP nerfs the T3s to oblivion under the banner of "generalization". It would absolutely kill incursions, destroy the wormhole business, harm thousands of missioners, and make everyone's current T3s worthless. I am fine with command bonus nerfs, but lowering the tank bonuses ships like the Legion get would be horrible.


God forbid you have to use battleships to get battleship tanks.
Brujo Loco
Brujeria Teologica
#324 - 2013-06-29 07:47:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Brujo Loco
Posting here to show the world what I do when read these kind of threads .. NOW WE WAIT (for CCP to actually say something) Big smile

Waffles not ready, dont complain about them Cool

Inner Sayings of BrujoLoco: http://eve-files.com/sig/brujoloco
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#325 - 2013-06-29 07:56:58 UTC
Oh my god, that girl is hilarious.

Oh god.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#326 - 2013-06-29 09:24:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyancat Audeles
Riot Girl wrote:
Oh my god, that girl is hilarious.

Thank you for constructively contributing to the discussion.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#327 - 2013-06-29 11:52:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
baltec1 wrote:
God forbid you have to use battleships to get battleship tanks.



That's more about Battleships bad design than T3's, the EHP jump from frigates to cruiser is really huge, from cruisers to BC's fair engough, from bc's to battelships meh, then from battleships to Capitals is an absolutely gigantic jump.

Again the problem lies somewhere else but it's easier to point at an easy prey. A chimaera with 1.250 million EHP looks at the 20+M EHP of a super carrier and cries.

T3's have a lot of defaults, a lot of qualities but for the few roles they are good it's by design and worth the extra training while training from BC for a battleship is certainly not.
Fixing stuff that doesn't need and keep badly designed stuff because lol, CCP and its players since 2003. Welcome.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#328 - 2013-06-29 12:04:40 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
God forbid you have to use battleships to get battleship tanks.



That's more about Battleships bad design than T3's, the EHP jump from frigates to cruiser is really huge, from cruisers to BC's fair engough, from bc's to battelships meh, then from battleships to Capitals is an absolutely gigantic jump.

Again the problem lies somewhere else but it's easier to point at an easy prey. A chimaera with 1.250 million EHP looks at the 20+M EHP of a super carrier and cries.

T3's have a lot of defaults, a lot of qualities but for the few roles they are good it's by design and worth the extra training while training from BC for a battleship is certainly not.
Fixing stuff that doesn't need and keep badly designed stuff because lol, CCP and its players since 2003. Welcome.


CCP dont nerf my ship, buff everything else!

The very fact you are trying to argue that CCP should buff battleship tanks because 4 cruisers are tanking in the same ballpark is yet another fine example of how badly balanced these ships are.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#329 - 2013-06-29 12:37:22 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Oh my god, that girl is hilarious.

Thank you for constructively contributing to the discussion.

You don't have to thank me, being a role model for other posters is my duty.

Oh god.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#330 - 2013-06-29 19:18:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
God forbid you have to use battleships to get battleship tanks.



That's more about Battleships bad design than T3's, the EHP jump from frigates to cruiser is really huge, from cruisers to BC's fair engough, from bc's to battelships meh, then from battleships to Capitals is an absolutely gigantic jump.

Again the problem lies somewhere else but it's easier to point at an easy prey. A chimaera with 1.250 million EHP looks at the 20+M EHP of a super carrier and cries.

T3's have a lot of defaults, a lot of qualities but for the few roles they are good it's by design and worth the extra training while training from BC for a battleship is certainly not.
Fixing stuff that doesn't need and keep badly designed stuff because lol, CCP and its players since 2003. Welcome.


CCP dont nerf my ship, buff everything else!

The very fact you are trying to argue that CCP should buff battleship tanks because 4 cruisers are tanking in the same ballpark is yet another fine example of how badly balanced these ships are.


T3's are not simply cruisers. When fitted for a battleship tank, they will get one; when fitted for battleship DPS they will get it. But since Odyssey, T3's can't get near any faction battleship or better in terms of tank or DPS.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#331 - 2013-06-29 19:40:19 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:


T3's are not simply cruisers. When fitted for a battleship tank, they will get one; when fitted for battleship DPS they will get it. But since Odyssey, T3's can't get near any faction battleship or better in terms of tank or DPS.


Now compare them to other cruisers because that is what they are going to be balanced against, not ships two classes above them.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#332 - 2013-06-29 19:54:39 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
God forbid you have to use battleships to get battleship tanks.



That's more about Battleships bad design than T3's, the EHP jump from frigates to cruiser is really huge, from cruisers to BC's fair engough, from bc's to battelships meh, then from battleships to Capitals is an absolutely gigantic jump.

Again the problem lies somewhere else but it's easier to point at an easy prey. A chimaera with 1.250 million EHP looks at the 20+M EHP of a super carrier and cries.

T3's have a lot of defaults, a lot of qualities but for the few roles they are good it's by design and worth the extra training while training from BC for a battleship is certainly not.
Fixing stuff that doesn't need and keep badly designed stuff because lol, CCP and its players since 2003. Welcome.


CCP dont nerf my ship, buff everything else!

The very fact you are trying to argue that CCP should buff battleship tanks because 4 cruisers are tanking in the same ballpark is yet another fine example of how badly balanced these ships are.


T3's are not simply cruisers. When fitted for a battleship tank, they will get one; when fitted for battleship DPS they will get it. But since Odyssey, T3's can't get near any faction battleship or better in terms of tank or DPS.

if they do that, I expect the T3's to be re-labeled as T3 battleships, their sig, mass and agility to be in the same ballpark as battleships too.

[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
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#333 - 2013-06-29 21:39:49 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
if they do that, I expect the T3's to be re-labeled as T3 battleships, their sig, mass and agility to be in the same ballpark as battleships too.


You can't get battleship level DPS on a T3. You can get a battleship-level tank, but so what? You can get that tank on at least a dozen other cruisers and BCs.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#334 - 2013-06-30 18:22:02 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
if they do that, I expect the T3's to be re-labeled as T3 battleships, their sig, mass and agility to be in the same ballpark as battleships too.


You can't get battleship level DPS on a T3. You can get a battleship-level tank, but so what? You can get that tank on at least a dozen other cruisers and BCs.

THIS! How hard is it for people to understand this?
Red Woodson
Estrale Frontiers
#335 - 2013-06-30 21:49:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Red Woodson
baltec1 wrote:
*snip*
CCP dont nerf my ship, buff everything else!


The very fact you are trying to argue that CCP should buff battleship tanks because 4 cruisers are tanking in the same ballpark is yet another fine example of how badly balanced these ships are.


I think he's implying "battleships are undertanked compared to capitals and battlecruisers, and that makes T3 cruisers appear overtanked", rather than "battleships are undertanked compared to T3 cruisers, and should be buffed because of that". If so, there is some truth in what he's saying in my opinion, but not the whole truth. I also believe the current state of T2 cruisers, especially HACs, is also clouding the issue.

And there is some truth to the concerns that if they are nerfed too much, at least without a price reduction* and/or skill point loss mechanic change or some more unique roles only they can field that are worth doing, they may not be worth fielding. *CCP has some control over price via drop rates on stuff to build them, as well as material requirements.

All this said, even after T2 cruisers are properly balanced, certain T3 sub combinations are most likely going to need a nerf. Hopefully, CCP will do so on a case by case basis, and not a blanket nerf. We can even hope that some T3 subs may even find themselves in line for small boosts or changes, such as the RR sub and some of the nav subsystems that are a bit weak.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#336 - 2013-07-01 02:00:37 UTC
Red Woodson wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
*snip*
CCP dont nerf my ship, buff everything else!


The very fact you are trying to argue that CCP should buff battleship tanks because 4 cruisers are tanking in the same ballpark is yet another fine example of how badly balanced these ships are.


I think he's implying "battleships are undertanked compared to capitals and battlecruisers, and that makes T3 cruisers appear overtanked", rather than "battleships are undertanked compared to T3 cruisers, and should be buffed because of that". If so, there is some truth in what he's saying in my opinion, but not the whole truth. I also believe the current state of T2 cruisers, especially HACs, is also clouding the issue.

And there is some truth to the concerns that if they are nerfed too much, at least without a price reduction* and/or skill point loss mechanic change or some more unique roles only they can field that are worth doing, they may not be worth fielding. *CCP has some control over price via drop rates on stuff to build them, as well as material requirements.

All this said, even after T2 cruisers are properly balanced, certain T3 sub combinations are most likely going to need a nerf. Hopefully, CCP will do so on a case by case basis, and not a blanket nerf. We can even hope that some T3 subs may even find themselves in line for small boosts or changes, such as the RR sub and some of the nav subsystems that are a bit weak.

This is what I meant! Exactly!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#337 - 2013-07-01 06:56:48 UTC
ITT: dishonest people.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#338 - 2013-07-01 10:43:41 UTC
I just hope CCP don't screw up wormhole space when they change T3s.

T3s are the bread an butter of wormhole pvp and we can't use fleets of BSs because of mass limits and we need high tanks to engage hostile fleets with cap support or when we fight in a sleeper site.

If the problem with T3s is to do with their use in K-space, then perhaps CCP could make it so T3s only perform as well as the do now, in wormhole space... but that may be unfair idk

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#339 - 2013-07-01 10:58:03 UTC
Why is it that everyone says the legion is underpowerd, some folks have obviusly never tryed a HAM legion
Klymer
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#340 - 2013-07-01 11:10:00 UTC
They should turn the Legion into a shield tanking drone boat