These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Future of T3 Cruisers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2013-09-12 12:15:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:


Better at T2 role than T3's?

-logistics hands down

-reccon hands down

-interdiction hands down

-DPS not really hands down but at least half of them yes. (Cerberus Deimos Ishtar Zealot and the outsider Eagle)

Travel cloak nullified: nope T2 can't do this but it's maybe a T3 special ability that actually makes it T3, I don't know, maybe heh


I'm happy to have a reasoned discussion with you. I'll take these in order.

-logistics hands down
I agree, as already mentioned.

-reccon hands down
I do not agree that this is a 'hands down' argument. The huge tank of the T3 recon cannot be ignored. T2 recons are very flimsy.

-interdiction hands down
Yes, this is one class where the T3 has no equivalent subsystem. This has to be a good thing I think, because a covert heavy interdictor would be the stuff of everyone's worst nightmares.

-DPS not really hands down but at least half of them yes. (Cerberus Deimos Ishtar Zealot and the outsider Eagle)
* Deimos with neutrons and 3 mag stabs achieves max 892dps unheated. Proteus achieves 1004. Deimos has 52k ehp compared with 137k ehp on the proteus.

* The ishtar will deliver about the same ranged dps as a railgun proteus, with a much smaller buffer but better range - although here I would certainly choose the ishtar, trading buffer for utility.

* cerberus as already demonstrated has 20% lower dps and 60% of the buffer of an equivalent tengu.

* legion w/conflag + 3 heat sinks: 690dps vs zealot w/conflag + 3 heat sinks: 639dps. Legion is stronger and does more dps.

Do not forget the T3 overheating bonus - that is very significant to overall damage done and the strength of a shield tank.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Trixie Rocks
Gnomes von Zurich
Get Off My Lawn
#82 - 2013-12-08 21:13:05 UTC
Stop with the NERFING already.

By the time a player can fly something worthwhile, someone decides to make it unusable. CCP should learn to content balance, rather than nerf to balance. ALL other games have a clear upward path for players to strive for. You have T1 gear all the way up, and when they run out of player content, they make more content that is more difficult and the cycle continues. When you make something and put it out there, players skill for it......and it takes A LONG TIME to do that. It's a game, not a job!

In regard to the OP's post.

T3 Cruisers should be the target for most cruiser pilots to aspire to. The fact that dying in one takes about 5 days or more of SP training right off your skill sheet, is enough to have them a little Over powered in comparison to HAC's. Not even considering the cost is almost 3x the price with subs. Risk = reward!
ExookiZ
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#83 - 2013-12-08 21:59:11 UTC  |  Edited by: ExookiZ
Trixie Rocks wrote:
Stop with the NERFING already.

By the time a player can fly something worthwhile, someone decides to make it unusable. CCP should learn to content balance, rather than nerf to balance. ALL other games have a clear upward path for players to strive for. You have T1 gear all the way up, and when they run out of player content, they make more content that is more difficult and the cycle continues. When you make something and put it out there, players skill for it......and it takes A LONG TIME to do that. It's a game, not a job!

In regard to the OP's post.

T3 Cruisers should be the target for most cruiser pilots to aspire to. The fact that dying in one takes about 5 days or more of SP training right off your skill sheet, is enough to have them a little Over powered in comparison to HAC's. Not even considering the cost is almost 3x the price with subs. Risk = reward!





Except that Eve isnt about linear progression, its about choices. Them being expensive, or hard to train doesnt balance them. If your losing 5+ days when you lose one your doing it wrong. Anyone who doesn't understand how theyre need nerfing hasnt flown a properly fit one yet.

The only truth you need is to look at WH PVP, theyre the only fleets used. Why? Because theyre significantly better than every other choice out there. I welcome you to bring a HAC fleet to my WH to "show me how much better HACs are", youll whelp the entire fleet for probably 0 kills.

Event Organizer of EVE North East
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2013-12-08 23:02:17 UTC
ExookiZ wrote:
Trixie Rocks wrote:
Stop with the NERFING already.

By the time a player can fly something worthwhile, someone decides to make it unusable. CCP should learn to content balance, rather than nerf to balance. ALL other games have a clear upward path for players to strive for. You have T1 gear all the way up, and when they run out of player content, they make more content that is more difficult and the cycle continues. When you make something and put it out there, players skill for it......and it takes A LONG TIME to do that. It's a game, not a job!

In regard to the OP's post.

T3 Cruisers should be the target for most cruiser pilots to aspire to. The fact that dying in one takes about 5 days or more of SP training right off your skill sheet, is enough to have them a little Over powered in comparison to HAC's. Not even considering the cost is almost 3x the price with subs. Risk = reward!





Except that Eve isnt about linear progression, its about choices. Them being expensive, or hard to train doesnt balance them. If your losing 5+ days when you lose one your doing it wrong. Anyone who doesn't understand how theyre need nerfing hasnt flown a properly fit one yet.

The only truth you need is to look at WH PVP, theyre the only fleets used. Why? Because theyre significantly better than every other choice out there. I welcome you to bring a HAC fleet to my WH to "show me how much better HACs are", youll whelp the entire fleet for probably 0 kills.


Re-iterates my argument succinctly.

This is why T3s are too powerful. There is just no other choice.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#85 - 2013-12-08 23:17:35 UTC
The simplest solution to rebalancing T3s is to remove the rig slots and revamp a few of the subsystems. Take the Tengu for example:

• Obfuscation Manifold - this should give a +10% effectiveness to target painters per level
• Rifling Launcher Pattern - this should give a +5% to explosion radius, +5% to explosion velocity and +5% rate of fire per level

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2013-12-08 23:43:08 UTC
I think it's a tricky subject. It's all very well having 10 bonuses on a ship, but if the one you need at that moment is not as good as the bonus on another ship like a HAC, you'll take the HAC. If the bonus is slightly better on the T3, you'll take the T3. So the re-balancing game has a "winner takes all" payoff.

So I think CCP are damned either way. If they reduce T3 bonuses and tanks to just below HAC/Recon/etc no-one will fly them ever. If they leave them as they are, no-one (except me because I'm bloody minded) will use a HAC fleet in WH space because an equivalent T3 fleet will always outperform it.

perhaps they can be worked so that each fit has one very strong bonus, while all others are very weak (either huge dps OR huge tank, for example). At least that way there'd be some decisions to make.

At the moment, the choice for a WH fleet is basically:

DPS - triple mag-stab proteus
Neuts - legion
ECM - 100mn Armour Tengu
Webs - (usually 100mn) Armour loki
logistics - guardians.

plus maybe the odd vindicator or Bhaalgorn if you're feeling flamboyant.

The winner is the fleet with more T3s & guardians, which is a bit dull.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#87 - 2013-12-09 00:24:07 UTC
ExookiZ wrote:

The only truth you need is to look at WH PVP, theyre the only fleets used. Why? Because theyre significantly better than every other choice out there. I welcome you to bring a HAC fleet to my WH to "show me how much better HACs are", youll whelp the entire fleet for probably 0 kills.


*Le sigh*

This arguement again?

The thing with wormholes is mass, dreads, and EHP.

Hacs have the mass, but don't have hte EHP. Battleships have the EHP, but way too much mass and are easy targets for dreads. T3s are the best solution to the very unique issues WHs pose to players.

Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


500k ehp on a proteus is ridiculous, 2k/s active tengu tanks are also ridiculous.




Could you please share me a fitting with these stats?


Just caught this before I jump in the car for a 3 hour trip. will post fits when I arrive. In the meantime, have a look on battleclinic - it's full of them.



I found some and... your right allout 750k+ EHP just, wow... Shocked


Yep. And it costs over 2b isk and does 200 DPS overheated with void at a range of 4km... and moves at a speed equatable to a brick.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Black Canary Jnr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2013-12-09 00:36:31 UTC
Oh my, some people are in for a shock, prehaps they didn't see the 'rabid dogs' thing.

Yup, T3s are gonna be nerfed, particularly the proteus and tengu.

When you buy a T3 you buy a scanner, booster, combat, covert ops ship, even if you don't do all those things with it. That's where your 400 mil and SP is going, the ability to respec your ship relatively easily as opposed to buying all those hulls.

The more useless subsystems will be getting changed though so should be interesting.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#89 - 2013-12-09 01:05:24 UTC
Black Canary Jnr wrote:
Oh my, some people are in for a shock, prehaps they didn't see the 'rabid dogs' thing.

Yup, T3s are gonna be nerfed, particularly the proteus and tengu.

When you buy a T3 you buy a scanner, booster, combat, covert ops ship, even if you don't do all those things with it. That's where your 400 mil and SP is going, the ability to respec your ship relatively easily as opposed to buying all those hulls.

The more useless subsystems will be getting changed though so should be interesting.


Apparently you didn't see subsequent posts. One of the devs said they would be keeping nerfs minimal and instead making useless subsystems who's name I can't think of because nobody uses them useful.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#90 - 2013-12-09 02:34:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Black Canary Jnr wrote:
Yup, T3s are gonna be nerfed, particularly the proteus and tengu.

Proteus and Legion nerfs, simply because no one likes flying bricks. Tengus have been hard hit with the heavy missile and now the rapid heavy launcher nerfs, so anything more and you're going to see Caracals running circles around them. Seriously…

M1k3y Koontz wrote:
The more useless subsystems will be getting changed though so should be interesting.

Only provided they don't also nerf the more popular ones.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#91 - 2013-12-09 02:37:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Zvaarian the Red
Kitty Bear wrote:
The ship rebalance programme is progressing very nicely, and soon will be at the point where Fozzie et al are reviewing the Tech 3 Cruisers.

There are aspects of the T3's that need serious attention, in both buffing and nerfing
Both aspects, I believe, are required.

I am only going to address the Tengu in all of it's various roles, but the data presented will apply equally to the other 3 factions and as such does not need to be included, which keeps the post shorter.

The Role of a T3 Cruiser
CCP's original intent was for it to be versatile, able to assume to many different roles but specialising in none.
Currently the T3 cruiser fails in that role.
It cannot effectively and easily swap roles without additional pre-rigged base hulls for that different role.
It outperforms many of the specialised T2 hulls in that particular role.




Tengu Roles & T1/T2/T3 Progression
A Tengu is defined by the subsystems fitted to it. There should be a clear progression when compared to other base hulls in the game, which I will ouline below.

The Tengu can utilise roles from 3 hull classes, Frigate, Cruiser & Battlecruiser

Exploration & Scouting:
Heron -> Tengu -> Buzzard

Combat:
Caracal -> Tengu -> Cerberus
Moa -> Tengu -> Eagle

E-War:
Blackbird -> Tengu -> Falcon

Logistics:
Osprey -> Tengu -> Basilisk

Fleet Command:
Drake -> Tengu -> Nighthawk
Ferox -> Tengu -> Vulture

The nerf's
The above shows where the Tengu currently needs to be re-evaluated
e.g. In the Combat Role, it should perform better than the Caracal & Moa, but both the Cerberus & Eagle should outperform it
this would allow pilots of the specialised T2 classes to shine more in their chosen roles
many subsystems need to have their bonus % rates lowered
1% or 3% instead of 5%, 3% or 5% instead of 7.5%, 5% or 7.5% instead of 10%
this should see a more balanced performance from T3 pilots compared to their T1 & T2 counterparts.

The Buff's
For the multirole non-specialisation role to work, T3 Cruisers MUST be able to change rigging options in the same way that subsystems can swapped around.

The best One way around this would be to introduce a new line of T3 (T3 hull only) rigs at the same time as the subsystem bonus' are adjusted downwards in the rebalance pass (when they receive it).


In my opinion, as long as the skill loss mechanic remains the logic of this post just doesn't hold up. For that matter, as long as T3s cost what they do the logic of this post just doesn't hold up. If CCP follows through with such an approach T3s will no longer be seen anywhere.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#92 - 2013-12-09 02:46:19 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
In my opinion as long as the skill loss mechanic remains, the logic of this post just doesn't hold up. For that matter, as long as T3s cost what they do the logic of this post just doesn't hold up. If CCP follows through with such an approach T3s will no longer be seen anywhere.

And let's just get this out of the way: these weak bullish*t comments about cost and loss of SP not being valid arguments are just that - bullsh*t. These are the two reasons always cited for why T3s are overpowered, yet we all know that the minions doing the majority of b*tching and griping are too cheap and too risk-averse to ever put even half the coin most T3s fly with or risk losing a 4-5 day skill.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2013-12-09 03:39:18 UTC
In the case of T3, I believe it is better to look at why someone is using a certain ship than why they are not using another ship.

T3 provide alot more EHP, with a smaller sig, then any other other ship class in the game. This makes them harder to bomb then battleships and allows them to stay on field longer then HACs. This is the main reason people use T3s right now.

So should they be nerfed? Well that is relative to other possible changes in the game.

Most HACs are not up to snuff when it comes to survivability. Frankly I think the HAC balance was underwhelming, the MWD bonus is just not a good bonus. It isn't big enough to matter, no one is looking at HACs and seeing how much they can tank with their MWD on. It is just a useless bonus that only benefits a skirmish role.

We end up with most of the HACs being skirmisher and the two most popular HACs still being the zealot and the ishtar, the only two none skirmish/sniper HACs.

I could get into more specifics about each ship, but I think the point is clear. T3s provide something only a few other ship can provide. It would better if they where used as a benchmark for other changes then something that, "needs to be nerfed into none use."
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2013-12-09 12:12:23 UTC
WarFireV wrote:
In the case of T3, I believe it is better to look at why someone is using a certain ship than why they are not using another ship.

Agree

WarFireV wrote:

a: T3 provide alot more EHP, with a smaller sig, then any other other ship class in the game. This makes them harder to bomb then battleships and allows them to stay on field longer then HACs. This is the main reason people use T3s right now.

b: So should they be nerfed? Well that is relative to other possible changes in the game.


a: Completely agree. This was not mentioned in Kitty's otherwise excellent post, but it's a pivotal factor.

b: Nerfed is an emotive term. They certainly need to change.

WarFireV wrote:

Most HACs are not up to snuff when it comes to survivability. Frankly I think the HAC balance was underwhelming, the MWD bonus is just not a good bonus. It isn't big enough to matter, no one is looking at HACs and seeing how much they can tank with their MWD on. It is just a useless bonus that only benefits a skirmish role.

Can't agree with you here. Right now almost all my PVP is in HACs. I'll happily take on anything except fleets of T3s (which I can't drill through in time) or guardian-supported squads. Ishtar is my current ship of choice. The MWD sig bonus is very useful and the ship is very survivable.

WarFireV wrote:

We end up with most of the HACs being skirmisher and the two most popular HACs still being the zealot and the ishtar, the only two none skirmish/sniper HACs.

Agree. The natural role of a HAC seems to be a skirmisher. Sacrilege is also very popular for pvp in my corp. The vagabond remains well-liked. I agree that we don't use any of the long range specialisations (other than sentries on an ishtar). The caldari ones don't seem to do enough DPS to be attractive to us.

WarFireV wrote:

I could get into more specifics about each ship, but I think the point is clear. T3s provide something only a few other ship can provide. It would better if they where used as a benchmark for other changes then something that, "needs to be nerfed into none use."


The problem as I see it is that a T3, except under exceptional circumstances, is essentially unkillable by one other similarly-sized ship. This seems to me to be a poor benchmark for designing anything.

I'm happy to see a proteus (being a perfect proteus pilot) being able to put out 1000dps, but it should be at a large cost to ehp in my view (say 50k, not 150k+). This then makes it as offensively powerful as a navy cruiser while retaining versatility.

I'm also ok with a 750dps HAM tengu, but not when it has a huge dual-asb tank or huge numbers of hitpoints.

I'm less ok with seeing a 2k dps/s perma-tank tengu because it's simply immune to 90% of the hardware available in eve - only neuts or a fleet can take it down, and there is no specialised HAC that can perform a similar feat.

Similarly with the legion and loki. They are almost as offensively dangerous as the recon equivalents but have 3-4x the EHP.

That's not right.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2013-12-09 14:03:02 UTC
Recons have better range with their ewar bonus, while the T3s have more EHP. I actually like that balance, although I could easily see Recons needing to have there ewar range bonus increased at lest a little bit.

(then people can complain about falcons again)
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2013-12-09 14:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

The problem as I see it is that a T3, except under exceptional circumstances, is essentially unkillable by one other similarly-sized ship. This seems to me to be a poor benchmark for designing anything.


You mean like another T3?

Trust me they aren't immune, I've tackled the vaunted 100mn tengu with a frigging bomber and got away with it.

Mournful Conciousness wrote:

I'm happy to see a proteus (being a perfect proteus pilot) being able to put out 1000dps, but it should be at a large cost to ehp in my view (say 50k, not 150k+). This then makes it as offensively powerful as a navy cruiser while retaining versatility.


150k eHP with 1000DPS? Slave clone?

Mournful Conciousness wrote:

I'm also ok with a 750dps HAM tengu, but not when it has a huge dual-asb tank or huge numbers of hitpoints.

I'm less ok with seeing a 2k dps/s perma-tank tengu because it's simply immune to 90% of the hardware available in eve - only neuts or a fleet can take it down, and there is no specialised HAC that can perform a similar feat.

The issue there is the ASBs not the Tengu, and even then you can kit them with the right ship and make them run out of booster, how many navy 800s can a Tengu carry? 20 maybe, and that isn't leaving a lot of space for ammo.

Mournful Conciousness wrote:

Similarly with the legion and loki. They are almost as offensively dangerous as the recon equivalents but have 3-4x the EHP.

That's not right.


Except that there is no painter bonus, no fuel bonus, no spool time bonus and the webs are about 25km less tange overall. i.e. its not as good as a recon at being a recon. That is fine for twice the price with skill loss. A recon build webber loki tends to run over a billion when you get done throwing 300mil in webs alone on it.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#97 - 2013-12-09 15:34:52 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Black Canary Jnr wrote:
Oh my, some people are in for a shock, prehaps they didn't see the 'rabid dogs' thing.

Yup, T3s are gonna be nerfed, particularly the proteus and tengu.

When you buy a T3 you buy a scanner, booster, combat, covert ops ship, even if you don't do all those things with it. That's where your 400 mil and SP is going, the ability to respec your ship relatively easily as opposed to buying all those hulls.

The more useless subsystems will be getting changed though so should be interesting.


Apparently you didn't see subsequent posts. One of the devs said they would be keeping nerfs minimal and instead making useless subsystems who's name I can't think of because nobody uses them useful.


The "rabid dogs" comment was made by Ytterbium.

The "make useless subs useful" comment was, I believe, also made by Ytterbium. I may be mistaken or I may not be, but I do remember seeing that post myself.

As long as they convert the Loki's split weapon subsystem from 1st-gen split weapons to 2nd-gen split weapons (as seen on the Scythe/Phoon Fleet Issues) I'll be quite happy with it. Taking it the route of the T1 phoon (missile bonuses but a full complement of unbonused gun hardpoints) would be acceptable as well, though less exciting.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2013-12-09 17:06:35 UTC
Onictus wrote:


... various comments ...



I hear where you're coming from but in practice it makes no difference that a rapier has a 20km range bonus over a loki. Almost all combat in wormholes takes place at range 0. The rapier will have to warp out or die. The loki won't.

150kehp and 1000dps on a proteus does not require slaves (although many WH fleet pilots will fit them).

2000dps tank tengu can perma-tank (cap stable, not ASB). it's pricey, but that's not the point. This is too much for anything to perma-tank.

Despite the fact that recon ships have paper advantages over T3s, it's only T3s that are used. This is, as has been mentioned before, because of their Herculean survivability.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2013-12-09 17:12:06 UTC
My view. If t3 were suposed to be adaptable and versatile but not specialzied.

How to reach that?


REMOVE ALL RIG SLOTS on T3!!

And buff a bit each subsystem that are least used.

Peopel will swap the subsystem way more without rigs on their ships, and non t3 can be made too specialized ( specialziation is what Rigs do).

In fact.. T2 hulls should get 3 rig slots, since t2 hulls are to be specialized and main use of rigs is to specialize a ship.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2013-12-09 17:13:01 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Onictus wrote:


... various comments ...



I hear where you're coming from but in practice it makes no difference that a rapier has a 20km range bonus over a loki. Almost all combat in wormholes takes place at range 0. The rapier will have to warp out or die. The loki won't.

150kehp and 1000dps on a proteus does not require slaves (although many WH fleet pilots will fit them).

2000dps tank tengu can perma-tank (cap stable, not ASB). it's pricey, but that's not the point. This is too much for anything to perma-tank.

Despite the fact that recon ships have paper advantages over T3s, it's only T3s that are used. This is, as has been mentioned before, because of their Herculean survivability.




and that is why I think t3 should loose all 3 rig slots. Since rigs slots are mostly used for tanking purposes.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"