These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP: Leave T3 Strategic Cruisers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Prototype Delta
Prototype Research and Technologies
#21 - 2013-07-22 17:22:54 UTC
They need to be balanced but not nerfed hard.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#22 - 2013-07-22 17:27:02 UTC
Prototype Delta wrote:
They need to be balanced but not nerfed hard.

A little bit hard.

Oh god.
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-07-22 17:30:27 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Prototype Delta wrote:
They need to be balanced but not nerfed hard.

A little bit hard.


Or not hard. Y'know. Because 3 > 2. Alternatively you could make them something new, which is what an improvement in tech level would suggest.

Dodixie > Hek
bloodknight2
Revenu.Quebec
#24 - 2013-07-22 17:35:46 UTC
Oh look, that thread again.

T3 should and must be nerfed hard. -25 to 33% in their EHP would be a good start. Every one seems to agree that the legion is the "worst" T3 of all and it is OP. A T3 should be versatile and not be able to have the same EHP than a command ship or battleship with the agility and speed of a cruiser.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#25 - 2013-07-22 17:41:02 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
make them something new, which is what an improvement in tech level would suggest.

They are being made into something new. When they are rebalanced, I'm sure their roles will be suitably different and improved.

Oh god.
illirdor
Upper Class Goat
#26 - 2013-07-22 17:56:05 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Yes, they're op - they're supposed to be


Well nothing is suppose to be OP.. thats the meaning of Overpowered.

ElQuirko wrote:
Because 3 > 2.


Well this is EvE not math so it doesn't work that way.
They are suppose to be more versatile and t2 is suppose to be more specialized.

Soooo this is my sig.... 
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#27 - 2013-07-22 17:58:41 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
The T3 subsystems are hilariously out of balance and if you don't see this you're bad and should feel bad.


wtf i am finding myself agree more and more with goons now a days :(

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#28 - 2013-07-22 17:59:05 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
How do you expect CCP to leave them alone, when even you admit they're OP. Saying it's ok because it's achieved by paying a high price hasn't worked for anyone in the history of EVE balancing, but feel free to keep trying it. That said T3s won't be touched until all the ship classes they're directly competing with are balanced, so don't expect any major changes in the short term.

except for the command subsystems, maybe

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#29 - 2013-07-22 18:03:47 UTC
illirdor wrote:
Well nothing is suppose to be OP.. thats the meaning of Overpowered.


There was a HAC/T3 cost-benefit comparison in the HAC rebalance thread, so for the price - they're not Op. I'm fine with some revised roles, but I'm not interested in seeing T3s strictly because other classes need adjustments.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#30 - 2013-07-22 18:04:25 UTC
again we need to define what is a tech III ship and what its supposed to be for.... Before they actually hit the game i always wanted my corps version of a ship... Simply i wanted to design a ship for me. if i wanted 10% to optimal range and fall off i should have that right.

to me that is what tech III should be... not better then tech I or tech II but designed by you.

you were supposed to get this but ccp reduced from 5 versions of each sub system to 4 and only made one per sub system even worth fitting... so in the end you are left with a ship that is way better then either tech I or II without any selection for how the ship will look and feel.

this is the fix that needs to be put to make Tech III what they are supposed to be.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#31 - 2013-07-22 18:13:09 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Until you've rebalanced HACs, Black Ops, Marauders and Pirate Faction - T3 rebalancing is moot. And that was my point.


They have posted the plans for HACs.

The rest don't matter to t3 cruiser balance because they are BATTLESHIPS.
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-07-22 18:24:54 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
ElQuirko wrote:
make them something new, which is what an improvement in tech level would suggest.

They are being made into something new. When they are rebalanced, I'm sure their roles will be suitably different and improved.


And what are these new roles going to do, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure T2 and specialised ships (e.g. barges, rorquals) have got all the bases covered.

Dodixie > Hek
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-07-22 18:30:43 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
ElQuirko wrote:
make them something new, which is what an improvement in tech level would suggest.

They are being made into something new. When they are rebalanced, I'm sure their roles will be suitably different and improved.


And what are these new roles going to do, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure T2 and specialised ships (e.g. barges, rorquals) have got all the bases covered.


My goodness, you're right!

May as well delete them entirely then since all bases in Eve have already been covered.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-07-22 18:40:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
T2 hulls are intended to be specialized in their roles while T3s are intended to be jacks of all trades. So you can fit a Loki that warps cloaked, disregards bubbles and can project webs farther than an unbonused ship, but a Rapier or Huginn is still superior with the web range bonus.

T3s are not supposed to dwarf the capabilities of a role specialized T2 hull. This is why you don't see T3s being used in place of logistics or as dedicated ewar ships. One big part of the problem is that HACs don't exactly have a specialty, they're mostly upgraded versions of their T1 counterparts. But that part of the problem is easily discarded when you consider the fact that a T3 doesn't just gain superior DPS and far superior EHP over a HAC, but superior mobility and, in many cases, superior ewar projection.

So yeah, whatever cost-benefit analysis you made in some thread isn't relevant.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#35 - 2013-07-22 18:40:28 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
And what are these new roles going to do, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure T2 and specialised ships (e.g. barges, rorquals) have got all the bases covered.

They're going to do some of the stuff T2 cruisers do, only not as good and in a different capacity. They might be able to do some other stuff too and they'll probably be suitable for certain playstyles but not others. That's all we've been told so far, I'm kind of excited.

Oh god.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#36 - 2013-07-22 18:44:32 UTC
Not going to happen, OP. CCP has determined that wormhole income must be destroyed, since too many people are able to live there full time. The best way to do that is through a significant T3 nerf. The overpowered nature of T3s is of secondary importance to this goal.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2013-07-22 18:49:16 UTC
Andski wrote:
T2 hulls are intended to be specialized in their roles while T3s are intended to be jacks of all trades. So you can fit a Loki that warps cloaked, disregards bubbles and can project webs farther than an unbonused ship, but a Rapier or Huginn is still superior with the web range bonus.

T3s are not supposed to dwarf the capabilities of a role specialized T2 hull. This is why you don't see T3s being used in place of logistics or as dedicated ewar ships. One big part of the problem is that HACs don't exactly have a specialty, they're mostly upgraded versions of their T1 counterparts.


Indeed, the issue with T3 isn't really an issue........nerf the tech 3s down HACs will still not be worth the money.

Fix the HACs.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#38 - 2013-07-22 18:51:45 UTC
Onictus wrote:


Fix the HACs.


The new HACs are up. They are not being buffed to be in line with t3s, they are balanced with the other cruisers.

Welcome to your nano nerf.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-07-22 18:58:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Onictus wrote:


Fix the HACs.


The new HACs are up. They are not being buffed to be in line with t3s, they are balanced with the other cruisers.

Welcome to your nano nerf.


Of them still suck yes.

They also said during the AT that they were going to look over the changes. As it stands there is no real motivation to use HACs over a bc or even a T1.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#40 - 2013-07-22 19:11:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Fix the HACs.

The new HACs are up. They are not being buffed to be in line with t3s, they are balanced with the other cruisers.

Welcome to your nano nerf.

Nano nerfs?!

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?