These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Chart is confusing, please correct the chart.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#401 - 2013-06-25 17:46:31 UTC
Ooklah TheMoc wrote:
T3's themselves are not OP.



Pretty much this.

Scrap command subs, scrap OGB ----> if people still put T3 links ship on the field over a command ship they will be doing it wrong.

HACs spot: Hacs are terrible, how many times we need to go through this???

T1 Cruisers are fine now, som estill need adjustements but still, T2 cruisers and specially HACs need to take the same balance path which means :BUFFS therefore relegating T3's to their spot without even touching them.

Last point, once HACs are balanced vs T1 performances all the sudden T3's will be the last choice for large fleets because HACs will do their job for 1/3rd of the price, the "cost is not a balance argument" propagande works fine,hundreds o hurricanes turning appart capitals "yey OP success we're gods", Drakes by thousands thrown at the enemy face "yey we win because we're too good" Caracals against Munnins fleets "yey kill only half of them but they lost "x billions more than us", Bombers shooting structures "yey cost/balance FU in the face" ...


I'm waiting all of the T3 hating guys right around the corner after T2 balance to provide them links to their own posts, eventually fleet battle repports to see how many man up and assume their stupidity but I already know the answer: none because those brainless fowllowers can't see any further than their nose and think above what they're told to.

Gallente got nerf to the ground years ago for these same argumentations and idiots posting, they needed another pixels icon to pass their anger and frustration instead of using their brains, T3's are their goal and they will probably succeed to ruin an awesome addition to the game just because they can and have the friends to achieve this.

CCP being CCP, whoever is on the idea of training for those T3's skip it, from what I can read those will soon enough be turned ion to hangar queens and collectors for years to come.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises
Goonswarm Federation
#402 - 2013-06-25 18:40:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Kyt Thrace
SMT008 wrote:


Seriously tho.

Yes, some subsystems need rebalancing. Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.



This is a big issue with T3s. CCP wants T3s to be all versatile by changing out the sub systems, but you have to destroy the rigs each time you change sub systems to get best use out of the fit most of the time.

REMOVE RIGS from T3 HULLS

CCP should rework sub system bonuses to compensate for losing rigs.

R.I.P. Vile Rat
Christopher Multsanti
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#403 - 2013-08-14 21:39:51 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.

The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.

In summary:

  • Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
  • Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
  • Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
  • Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.


Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.


Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.


I like the overall proposal and idea but t3s should be able to have interchangeable rigs (without them getting destroyed when removed) otherwise it does defeat the purpose of them being flexible.

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Christopher Multsanti
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#404 - 2013-08-14 21:41:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Christopher Multsanti
Kyt Thrace wrote:
SMT008 wrote:


Seriously tho.

Yes, some subsystems need rebalancing. Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.



This is a big issue with T3s. CCP wants T3s to be all versatile by changing out the sub systems, but you have to destroy the rigs each time you change sub systems to get best use out of the fit most of the time.

REMOVE RIGS from T3 HULLS

CCP should rework sub system bonuses to compensate for losing rigs.


I agree with the fact it negates the purpose of them being flexible but why not make t3s the only ships that can change rigs without them getting destroyed. problem solved.

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#405 - 2013-08-15 09:07:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
The popularity of a T3 comes from exactly what is saying needs to be fixed: adaptability & flexibility. These are exactly the reasons they're popular and yet CCP wants to fix that.
No. The reason they're popular is because they outperform T2 ships for a fraction of the cost (and training time), and that is what CCP wants to fix since the intended design is that they should be adaptable and flexible, but not as good at any one thing as T2 ships are.


And nobody would want to fly such a "master of none" ship, would they? I know I wouldn't.

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#406 - 2013-08-16 04:14:54 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Kyt Thrace wrote:
SMT008 wrote:

Seriously tho.

Yes, some subsystems need rebalancing. Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.

This is a big issue with T3s. CCP wants T3s to be all versatile by changing out the sub systems, but you have to destroy the rigs each time you change sub systems to get best use out of the fit most of the time.

REMOVE RIGS from T3 HULLS

CCP should rework sub system bonuses to compensate for losing rigs.

I agree with the fact it negates the purpose of them being flexible but why not make t3s the only ships that can change rigs without them getting destroyed. problem solved.

Pretty great. Of course rigs and your skillpoints are destroyed when the ship is.

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 ?
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#407 - 2013-08-16 09:41:00 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:

That CCP is nerfing the current top dog irks me because of the investment I've made in skilling for those hulls. Once T2's become the top dog CCP will then again want to nerf those hulls devaluing any investment in time and isk I've made there and so on and so on.



I have skilled all subsystems for a Loki, Legion and Proteus to V (left out the Tengu because it is so OP I consider it embarassingly lame to be seen flying one), but I'm personally looking forward for a rebalance.

It definitely is going to be a tough one - my explo T3s would be a fine example - they can probe, cloak, fit a codebreaker, analyzer and salvager at the same time and still perform reasonably good without being particularily good at anything.

Compared to other nerfs, even if you consider them useless after it, the SP investment is a minor one - I have HAC and CS on V on two characters and after the current rebalance, I'd love to redistribute the SP into something different (maybe not CS, but definitely HAC skills), but such is life.

Compared to Supercarrier pilots whose drone SP where rendered useless in a whim, having a couple of x1 skills that aren't as useful anymore is nothing.

Welcome to eve
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#408 - 2013-08-16 10:37:30 UTC
Nyla Skin wrote:

And nobody would want to fly such a "master of none" ship, would they? I know I wouldn't.


Thats because you chase the FOTM.
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#409 - 2013-08-16 14:32:30 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Kyt Thrace wrote:
SMT008 wrote:


Seriously tho.

Yes, some subsystems need rebalancing. Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.

This is a big issue with T3s. CCP wants T3s to be all versatile by changing out the sub systems, but you have to destroy the rigs each time you change sub systems to get best use out of the fit most of the time.

REMOVE RIGS from T3 HULLS

CCP should rework sub system bonuses to compensate for losing rigs.

I agree with the fact it negates the purpose of them being flexible but why not make t3s the only ships that can change rigs without them getting destroyed. problem solved.
Because making loot piñatas out of T3 cruiser hulls isn't the solution.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#410 - 2013-08-16 15:40:05 UTC
Loot pinatas are great.

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 ?
Jezza McWaffle
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#411 - 2013-08-16 17:00:33 UTC
Maybe its just me but everytime I hear someone say "T3's need to be more versatile etc" I think great, ok, so how does this work?

Switching subs mid fight isnt the answer. Because:

A - It will waste valuable time and you will also need to re-fit modules
B - It will add a massive cost and risk that wont be worth it (who will put every sub and module needed in their cargo hold)

Also in EVE ships which can do everything but nothing well has NEVER EVER worked.

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog
Commander Spurty
#412 - 2013-08-16 17:11:49 UTC
Looking forward to undocking in my Phantasm and not being laughed at.

You are fixing it right??????????????

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#413 - 2013-08-16 23:08:32 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.

The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.

In summary:

  • Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
  • Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
  • Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
  • Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.


Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.


Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.



There will be oceans of tears. Oceans.

The Hate Boat will be out of dry dock before then, I hope.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#414 - 2013-08-17 01:02:57 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Sanadras Riahn wrote:


Tech 3 Cruisers don't necessarily need to be better than Tech 2 ships, but they do need to bring something unique. Something that Tech 2 cruisers can't do. As the chart suggests, that should be filling multiple roles at the same time, while Tech 2 ships would be specialized to fit a single role.


Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense.


But the more expensive the ship, the better its explosion right?
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#415 - 2013-08-17 01:07:23 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Price can never be the sole balancing factor, agreed, but it most definitely can be A balancing factor, especially for ships which can be killed in routine engagements without the extraordinary effort required to down eg: a Titan.


Titans die anytime anybody puts the minimal effort into stalking and killing one.

Even by your own suddenly ******** logic my 100 billion isk titan should at the very least be balanced against other supers and caps, and yet one hic, and a single mothership, or 1 hic, and 5 dreads, can down a titan because they've been neutered so hard, because in the words of the CCP Devs, Price cannot be a factor in balancing.

But I guess since you're changing your mind on how you see balance I can assume you'll now be the champion of Titan buffing so that my Titan is the equal isk to power value in supers and or dreads. You know, making a titan worth 30 dreads worth of tank and firepower, or 4 supers of tank and firepower (roughtly 50k dps or so, and about 100 million hp by your logic).

Tell me why as they sit right now you'd ever use a HAC over a combat t3? Hell, tell me why you'd ever use a Huggin over a webbing (armor or shield) Loki? Oh whats that, you wouldn't? The T3 is significantly less training time you say? And outclasses just about everything it has to compete with you say? Oh its made several classes of ship simply useless you say and the only justifiable reason that you can come up with is price?

And cry me a rive about the skill point loss, as a guy who's lost 12 T3's and had to retrain those skills several times I can say that the 3-5 days it takes isn't really a detractor, and anybody who says it is, is largely just a whiney ninny.



Your tears are precious btw and I'm not done with titans yet.


Yes because you have say in the design process, sorry thats not the way it works, I know what the CSM is and how it works, and I know what your limitations are.


Right the CSM is to be a voice for the players. Make suggestions about the game and CCP takes those suggestions in consideration and how it effects the game balance. Correct me please if I'm wrong here.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#416 - 2013-08-17 02:46:14 UTC
Mm, nerfing titans.

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 ?
Gealbhan
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#417 - 2013-08-17 05:12:23 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.

The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.

In summary:

  • Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
  • Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
  • Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
  • Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.


Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.


Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.


tl;dr - sell your T3 ship now because soon they'll be worthless.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#418 - 2013-08-17 06:10:41 UTC
Gealbhan wrote:

tl;dr - sell your T3 ship now because soon they'll be worthless.


Only to the people who need an overpowered mess of a ship to succeed.
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#419 - 2013-08-17 07:19:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nyla Skin wrote:

And nobody would want to fly such a "master of none" ship, would they? I know I wouldn't.


Thats because you chase the FOTM.


Is this even an argument? And no I don't, its just basic logic. Why would I want to fly a ship that is weaker than everything it faces with no edge whatsoever?

ps. I don't even play this game anymore..

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#420 - 2013-08-17 08:01:49 UTC
Nyla Skin wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nyla Skin wrote:

And nobody would want to fly such a "master of none" ship, would they? I know I wouldn't.


Thats because you chase the FOTM.


Is this even an argument? And no I don't, its just basic logic. Why would I want to fly a ship that is weaker than everything it faces with no edge whatsoever?

ps. I don't even play this game anymore..


It is an argument because the only reason peoply fly these ships is because the out class everything else. After seeing a decade of people trying to defend their overpowered ships you start to see the same old poor excuses they give to keep their broken ships.

T3 are not going to be worse than everything else but we know that they will be balanced in such a way that does not invalidate t1 cruisers. A big nerf is garenteed at this point simply because these ships are so out of whack.