These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#381 - 2013-07-02 15:50:05 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Making the cost of a ship appropriate to its performance doesn't mean ships are balanced around their cost.


Shall Scultz quote you for future reference. Lol

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#382 - 2013-07-02 15:52:50 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


No, no, actually that's not true. We have a "trolling" contest going on between CCP Fozzie, Rise, Tallest and myself to see who can create the biggest rage threadnought on the forums, while we keep scores on a whiteboard. Oops


The T1 hauler thread was a suprise high scorer, btw



Me thinks RAH and armor tanking was a greater one, but it's just me Lol

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#383 - 2013-07-02 15:58:10 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
For many applications they are literally the only choice that results in an ISK to Risk ratio that is acceptable and still achieves the required level of performance. That seems like the thing that has to change



Tell me more about my Tengu being able to achieve same performances than a Vindicator or Machariel, I'd like to see how much badly my T2 fitted Tengu is.

I can't get over 2.5k dps like a Machariel or a Vindicator

I have no drones or web bonus

I don't have the same agility the Machariel has unless I make sacrifices in fittings or subs and even less 1/4th the tank of a Vindicator once my hardeners are off.

No, you can't compare in any terms Tengu with any pirate battleship once you remove links and faction items from the equation, not even close.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Victor Jangid
Doomheim
#384 - 2013-07-02 17:01:31 UTC
CCP I hope you do understand this is "t3" and it does not mean should be weaker than any t2 ship of it's size. And pls improve other ships if want to by improving their ability not nerfing other's.

btw when are we getting moon mining in wh for t3 bs's:D just an idea.
thx.
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#385 - 2013-07-02 19:25:29 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Making the cost of a ship appropriate to its performance doesn't mean ships are balanced around their cost.


And up is not up since it is really down? Or left is not left but really right? Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#386 - 2013-07-02 19:59:04 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


No, no, actually that's not true. We have a "trolling" contest going on between CCP Fozzie, Rise, Tallest and myself to see who can create the biggest rage threadnought on the forums, while we keep scores on a whiteboard. Oops


The T1 hauler thread was a suprise high scorer, btw


My missile thread from Retribution still has a commanding lead.



Nerf warfare links by 60%


Tears will flow and Ytter/rise will never be able to touch your glory.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#387 - 2013-07-02 20:19:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
" As much as I want to nerf the Tengu to oblivion while singing dirty French limericks"

..this need to be recorded and linked thru billboards across caldari space!

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#388 - 2013-07-03 10:23:54 UTC
Onomerous wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Making the cost of a ship appropriate to its performance doesn't mean ships are balanced around their cost.


And up is not up since it is really down? Or left is not left but really right? Your comment doesn't make any sense.


Which part are you struggling with? Okay, let me create a couple of scenarios so you can understand how balance doesn't work.

Scenario A:
Player A buys a Tengu for 1m isk from her friend while player B gets ripped off in Jita and pays 1bn isk for his. Both players have the same skills trained and use the same fit. They get into a fight.
What happens: Player A wins because she is smart. Player B does not win because his ship is not a billion times better just because it's a billion times more expensive. He is also incredibly stupid and that is why he lost the fight.

Scenario B:
Player A and Player B both have the same skills trained and are flying identical Tengus with identical fittings. They fight.
What happens: Player A wins because she is very intelligent and cunning. Player B loses the fight and loses SP as a result. Despite what Player B thinks (because he is incredibly stupid), he did not lose the fight because he lost SP after the fight. In fact, before the fight started, both players were evenly matched and he had at least a 20% chance of winning the fight, up to a maximum of 50% if he were smarter.

I hope this helps you understand why cost and SP loss are not balancing factors when it comes to ships engaging eachother in battle. I am player A in both examples scenarios described in this post.

Oh god.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#389 - 2013-07-03 11:03:51 UTC
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Did we establish that cost is not a balance?


I' fairly sure you can find some dev post after battleships balance saying something about increasing build COST to match and reflect their new performances.


But yep...lets keep this going on, makes something interesting to debate on GD for once. Lol

If the ships are less useful than their cost implies, people won't buy them. When people don't buy them, they don't get made. When ships don't get made, minerals don't get used. When minerals don't get used, they pile up. When minerals pile up, prices start to drop as people compete to try to offload. This would be far more prevalent in T3s than any other ship type as well, because T3s are the only ships that require the most expensive things used to build them.



You forgot that there is the optiont hat people simply farm less wormholes and the price doe snto balance itself. IN eve peopel are not stuck for their lives in a single specialization as most peopel feel they are in real life. In eve, if your current work is notpaying enough.. you change it.. in 10 minutes.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#390 - 2013-07-03 11:25:43 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:


You forgot that there is the optiont hat people simply farm less wormholes and the price doe snto balance itself. IN eve peopel are not stuck for their lives in a single specialization as most peopel feel they are in real life. In eve, if your current work is notpaying enough.. you change it.. in 10 minutes.

Try telling that to the people who have a lot of time and ISK invested into living in WH space. Besides, I am quite convinced that living in a wormhole is much like living in an insane asylum. When you first enter, everyone seems weird, and you are still relatively normal. After a while, you suddenly notice that you are uncomfortable with local, and even more uncomfortable with being uncloaked for long periods of time. A bit into the future from there, you'll find the idea of being outside of your wormhole for more than a day or two causes symptoms of withdrawal, and eventually psychosis.

TL;DR: people who live in wormholes are ******* weird and scary, and we don't need to give them a reason to rejoin the k-space population. :)
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#391 - 2013-07-03 11:56:35 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


No, no, actually that's not true. We have a "trolling" contest going on between CCP Fozzie, Rise, Tallest and myself to see who can create the biggest rage threadnought on the forums, while we keep scores on a whiteboard. Oops


The T1 hauler thread was a suprise high scorer, btw


My missile thread from Retribution still has a commanding lead.


I have a feeling that the first of you three (Fozzie, Rise, Ytterbium) to post the first T2 ship rebalance thread will win and have the biggest rage threadnought on the forums, for sure. Evil

Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-)
Zendon Taredi
Tier Four Technologies
#392 - 2013-07-03 12:03:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Zendon Taredi
Dps nerf is out of the question, they are barely scraping by in that area. 100mn nerf is probablty justified, make the ab sub bonus apply only to 10mn and that's fixed. Maybe the tengu tank is too good? that's all I can think of really. The legion needs love, not nerfs.
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#393 - 2013-07-03 12:05:19 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Onomerous wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Making the cost of a ship appropriate to its performance doesn't mean ships are balanced around their cost.


And up is not up since it is really down? Or left is not left but really right? Your comment doesn't make any sense.


Which part are you struggling with? Okay, let me create a couple of scenarios so you can understand how balance doesn't work.

Scenario A:
Player A buys a Tengu for 1m isk from her friend while player B gets ripped off in Jita and pays 1bn isk for his. Both players have the same skills trained and use the same fit. They get into a fight.
What happens: Player A wins because she is smart. Player B does not win because his ship is not a billion times better just because it's a billion times more expensive. He is also incredibly stupid and that is why he lost the fight.

Scenario B:
Player A and Player B both have the same skills trained and are flying identical Tengus with identical fittings. They fight.
What happens: Player A wins because she is very intelligent and cunning. Player B loses the fight and loses SP as a result. Despite what Player B thinks (because he is incredibly stupid), he did not lose the fight because he lost SP after the fight. In fact, before the fight started, both players were evenly matched and he had at least a 20% chance of winning the fight, up to a maximum of 50% if he were smarter.

I hope this helps you understand why cost and SP loss are not balancing factors when it comes to ships engaging eachother in battle. I am player A in both examples scenarios described in this post.


yeah ok... that's nice

Making the cost of something appropriate to the performance is a fancy way of saying balancing. Why would you increase the cost of a ship because it performs very well? Balance. Why would you reduce the cost of a ship because the performance is not on par with other ships near the same cost? Balance. Cost does play SOME part of balance.

I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#394 - 2013-07-03 12:15:59 UTC
Onomerous wrote:
Cost does play SOME part of balance.

Cost is a result of ship performance, not a cause of it.

Quote:
I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply.

Why would I be nasty or call you names? I'm a civil and mature adult. Here's a bear Bear

Oh god.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#395 - 2013-07-03 12:20:25 UTC
Zendon Taredi wrote:
Dps nerf is out of the question, they are barely scraping by in that area. 100mn nerf is probablty justified, make the ab sub bonus apply only to 10mn and that's fixed. Maybe the tengu tank is too good? that's all I can think of really. The legion needs love, not nerfs.


Seriously, this discussion is meaningless until after the T2 Cruisers are done.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#396 - 2013-07-03 13:59:10 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Onomerous wrote:
Cost does play SOME part of balance.

Cost is a result of ship performance, not a cause of it.

Quote:
I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply.

Why would I be nasty or call you names? I'm a civil and mature adult. Here's a bear Bear



I'll back out as I agree to disagree.

And I appreciate your civility!! It's just pixels on a screen and numbers in a database when get right down to it!! :)
Jarod Garamonde
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#397 - 2013-09-05 22:38:33 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.



FIRST of all, friendo... I am PRIMARILY a small-gang PvP player, so don't even go there with me.
Second, I have lived and fought in nullsec. I'm well aware of where deadspace and officer mods come from, because I've dug a few of them up, myself.
Third, I T2 fit everything... faction and deadspace are too cost-ineffective for my needs. So, don't go THERE with me, either.
LASTLY... don't patronize me or attempt to educate me on any of the issues you brought up. I have been a part of this game world in one form or another, since the beginning. I might know a thing or two.

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

    [#savethelance]
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#398 - 2013-09-05 22:53:32 UTC
Onomerous wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Onomerous wrote:
Cost does play SOME part of balance.

Cost is a result of ship performance, not a cause of it.

Quote:
I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply.

Why would I be nasty or call you names? I'm a civil and mature adult. Here's a bear Bear



I'll back out as I agree to disagree.

And I appreciate your civility!! It's just pixels on a screen and numbers in a database when get right down to it!! :)

Actual cost is the minerals it takes to build.
These don't reflect a ships performance.

MarketPrice is the result of the actual cost + supply/demand.

More people buy the exceptionally well performing ship,
making it more expensive.


Cost is a *result* of ship performance, not a cause of it.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#399 - 2013-09-05 22:58:22 UTC
It seems that what you're missing here is the realization
that it's relatively easy to gather so much ISK,
that cost can never be a working balancing factor at all.

That's the "obvious" reason, btw.
Nocturnal Phantom
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#400 - 2013-09-05 23:13:38 UTC
I believe all T3's are exactly where they need to be except the Legion. The Legion needs a buff with its laser subsystem, even the HAM subsystem needs some slight dps buff... The Legion is a joke for when it comes to DPS compared to its other T3 counterparts. Fix it, please!