These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The T3 Thread

First post
Author
Meytal
Doomheim
#41 - 2014-03-19 18:44:45 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
* The speed you enter the wormhole equals the speed you exit the wormhole. This way a nano (fast shield) could zip past a brawling fleet camping the wormhole. Obviously you couldn't have this and a de-cloak timer.

That's actually a great idea, if everyone's network connection and computers were equal and loaded grid instantly after transitioning to a new system. This is one of those situations where gameplay trumps common sense. (The decloak timer is there to protect people entering a system from those already in it, briefly. It has become a scouting/intelligence gathering method)
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#42 - 2014-03-19 19:02:10 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Kynric wrote:
Here you go, for the ultimate meta disruptor, change the spawn distance after diving through a wormhole to be 1 km for each remaining 10% of mass + 1 km for each remaining 10% of remaining time. .



I personally think random/complicated mechanics like that would be bad game design... But here is an idea that would achieve the same goal while also making sense:

* The speed you enter the wormhole equals the speed you exit the wormhole. This way a nano (fast shield) could zip past a brawling fleet camping the wormhole. Obviously you couldn't have this and a de-cloak timer.

Interesting solution, I suppose you could make spawn distance proportional to the speed at the moment "enter wormhole" is selected. Kalels suggestion to make it proportional to remain time/mass rather than remaining % is interesting as well. But those are details rather than goals. The point I was trying to make was that meta depends more on external conditions than ship design. If you want a variety of different fleet concepts the obvious answer is to have a variety of different external conditions.
Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#43 - 2014-03-19 19:40:40 UTC
No-Local Article:

Strategic Cruisers | Part I
Reddit Comments

I also linked the article to this thread to further discussion. Cheers!

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: diogenes.proc@gmail.com

My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe

Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#44 - 2014-03-19 20:06:28 UTC
Nerf the 10% tank bonus to a 7.5%. Make some subs more useful and done they will be balanced.
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2014-03-19 20:11:29 UTC  |  Edited by: unimatrix0030
Except the tengu , t3's can't put out any damage beyond 20km.
T2's can do that , so i conclude that T2 ships are overpowered in null sec and require an urgent nerf!
It is that bad that you don't see any T3 close range fighting in null sec!

No local in null sec would fix everything!

Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#46 - 2014-03-19 20:25:23 UTC
unimatrix0030 wrote:
Except the tengu , t3's can't put out any damage beyond 20km.
T2's can do that , so i conclude that T2 ships are overpowered in null sec and require an urgent nerf!
It is that bad that you don't see any T3 close range fighting in null sec!


Except there are more than just Tengus that can project beyond 20km.

No trolling please

Calsys
Monks of War
#47 - 2014-03-19 20:52:38 UTC
nerf proteus!
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#48 - 2014-03-19 22:49:38 UTC
Icarus Able wrote:
Nerf the 10% tank bonus to a 7.5%. Make some subs more useful and done they will be balanced.

No, that would give T3s a lower resist profile than similarly fit HACs, meaning they are less useful with logi. Reduce the base buffer to reduce tank, not resists.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#49 - 2014-03-19 23:00:23 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Icarus Able wrote:
Nerf the 10% tank bonus to a 7.5%. Make some subs more useful and done they will be balanced.

No, that would give T3s a lower resist profile than similarly fit HACs, meaning they are less useful with logi. Reduce the base buffer to reduce tank, not resists.


The 10% bonuses to tank are all buffer. The resist bonuses are all 4% per level. +50% base resists would be hillariously overpowered.

Basic *) like this is something you should know before you comment on T3 balance. Not knowing basic *) like this is why 97% of EVE players have no business discussing balance of any kind, and especially not T3s.

*) = *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#50 - 2014-03-19 23:31:26 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Paikis wrote:

The 10% bonuses to tank are all buffer. The resist bonuses are all 4% per level. +50% base resists would be hillariously overpowered.

Basic *) like this is something you should know before you comment on T3 balance. Not knowing basic *) like this is why 97% of EVE players have no business discussing balance of any kind, and especially not T3s.

*) = *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal.

I would like to confirm that I have no idea how T3s work, and that I have never flown them nor designed fits for them. I would also like to confirm that I genuinely think that's how some of the sub bonuses work, rather than simply misreading your post. The three pints I had at the curry house earlier this evening had nothing to do with it. Be more chill, friend.

Although in fairness 97% of Eve do think you get 400k EHP 800 DPS cloaky nullified pwnmachines using T3s, so
Duke Wendo
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2014-03-20 00:06:35 UTC
Kynric wrote:
Here you go, for the ultimate meta disruptor, change the spawn distance after diving through a wormhole to be 1 km for each remaining 10% of mass + 1 km for each remaining 10% of remaining time. I.e. strong young holes toss you further than old weak ones. This would make conditions in the field more varied and challenged for a single meta to be the right answer for all situations. In the end however ccp will do what ccp does and players, myself included are a terrible source for game design guidance. If you doubt that I invite you to go read features and ideas...


You hit the nail on the head there with that last. " In the end however ccp will do what ccp does and players, myself included are a terrible source for game design guidance. If you doubt that I invite you to go read features and ideas.. "

Some ideas I think are pretty well thought out with the best of intentions and others, well...... Let's just say I'm really happy that CCP don't take much notice of the ideas submitted and glad that CSM are not on any game design team either. CCP mess things up enough without the player base adding to it.

A good example is the E.S.S being able to be anchored in w-space on a wormhole and broadcasting information into the local channel..... Didn't anyone think to test that one out before release? Really?
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#52 - 2014-03-20 00:30:31 UTC
Proclus Diadochu wrote:
No-Local Article:

Strategic Cruisers | Part I
Reddit Comments

I also linked the article to this thread to further discussion. Cheers!


After reading the article, I do have a concern.

You say they need to have more versatility. I would argue that would make it even worse for the wh meta. It would essentially make MORE ships obsolete. Using the example you've provided, having a T3 with a bubble would make sure that no one ever flies a HIC again. It would be like Jamgus over Falcons, but worse.

Personally, I think if we start making T3s the jack of all trades type ship (bubbles, logi, etc), it should require a far greater sp investment

No trolling please

Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#53 - 2014-03-20 00:55:03 UTC
unimatrix0030 wrote:
Except the tengu , t3's can't put out any damage beyond 20km.

^quoting for gross inaccuracy.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#54 - 2014-03-20 00:57:10 UTC
Louis Robichaud wrote:
I think a major problem here is how closely t3 performance and the economic value of WH space are tied together. To me it seems a bit silly that a t3 outperforms a HAC by such a large margin... But it is difficult to nerf the t3 without disrupting the economy.

I believe that this situation is unique, and well it is a problem.


That would be because generally HACs suck.

Lilli Tane wrote:

How I would fix them?
• Remove the skill loss
• Lower the tank to T2 Cruiser levels
• Lower the DPS to T1 Cruiser levels (hacks should do more DPS than T3’s)

This will make a ship that:
• Is completely gutted and unused


Seriously, the point is to rebalance T3s, not gut them.

Icarus Able wrote:
Nerf the 10% tank bonus to a 7.5%. Make some subs more useful and done they will be balanced.


Pretty much a summary of what needs to be done.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Tetsuo Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
#55 - 2014-03-20 01:10:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tetsuo Tsukaya
I've always thought that recons should get +1 utility slot and a bonus to probe launcher fitting just so they can actually compete in their role of recon compared to now where a t3 is almost always a better choice. Don't give them a bonus to probe strength so that covops retain their role as probing specialists and boom, recons that can actually recon.
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#56 - 2014-03-20 01:34:14 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
unimatrix0030 wrote:
Except the tengu , t3's can't put out any damage beyond 20km.

^quoting for gross inaccuracy.


Quoted because I corrected what he quoted with my own quote before this quote. Quote the Nucleus, nevermore

No trolling please

BayneNothos
United Electro-Magnetic Federation
Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
#57 - 2014-03-20 02:27:15 UTC
While you can certainly do some pretty broken things with them, and those things should be curtailed, your standard T3 PvP boat isn't all that extreme when you match it up against what I think it should be matched up against. Battleships.

This is all coming from a low end WH-ler so keep that in mind. As we've been discussing for the last few weeks, there's a pretty big divide between higher and lower wh's.

For me, the biggest worry I have with the upcoming T3 balance is that I'll be losing an important tool out of my toolbelt. I'm not one to drop T3's on everythingI see, the vast majority of kills I've gotten with my T3 are things like PI runners and miners, if the T3's didn't exist those kills would be done via SB. But there are times when having that ship that can perform a beatdown while holding up well against opponents is important. Elsewhere this is usually done via BS's, Napocs, Tempests, Domi swarms, Megathrons, old school pulse Abaddons, all the fun stuff. But WH space, at least in the low end, can't throw these kinds of fleets around, the Mass Limit won't allow it.

In general you get 20 BS jumps through a low end WH, excluding C1's for the obvious reason. If you wish to go home afterwards, you need to cut that back to 10 each way. If you didn't open the WH yourself and the text is saying it isn't half mass, at worst you may only be able to get 10 jumps through it, 5 if you wish to return. If you're fighting on a WH itself the possibility of MWD'ing back through is pretty high and can nut those numbers down even more. Taking anymore than 4 BS's to a WH fight I'd be uncomfortable doing as the chance I'll end up having to park it out in HS is pretty high. That's now an asset that can't be used. There's no suitcase carrier and jump clones to get these back home easily after all.

As such, we need something that can fulfill that requirement and T3's do that currently.

Ideally I'd like them balanced to work nicely with K-Space, if that means nerfing them hard, then so be it. But after that, I'd like each sub to have an additional bonus that only works in W-Space so we can have our replacement monster ships and K space can have their balance. One that works on class of WH instead of skill level would be extra cool. We're used to ships changing depending on where you are, it'd slide nicely into our thinking.

Everyone wins...


Also if there are and CCP Devs following this, can you say hi so we know you guys are actually paying attention to W-Space and our concerns. We don't see many blue flags round these parts.
Lilli Tane
Deu-La-Deu
#58 - 2014-03-20 12:09:53 UTC
you gota love how people edit what you post and the consider it a quote
Justin Cody
War Firm
#59 - 2014-03-20 13:47:42 UTC
Meytal wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
* The speed you enter the wormhole equals the speed you exit the wormhole. This way a nano (fast shield) could zip past a brawling fleet camping the wormhole. Obviously you couldn't have this and a de-cloak timer.

That's actually a great idea, if everyone's network connection and computers were equal and loaded grid instantly after transitioning to a new system. This is one of those situations where gameplay trumps common sense. (The decloak timer is there to protect people entering a system from those already in it, briefly. It has become a scouting/intelligence gathering method)



I was joking with a corp member about how silly it would be if we could bump enemies into a wormhole and they would actually be sent there...oh the fun we would have with polarization mechanics then! But it is a bad idea...a fun one but a bad one.
Louis Robichaud
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2014-03-20 13:48:48 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Louis Robichaud wrote:
I think a major problem here is how closely t3 performance and the economic value of WH space are tied together. To me it seems a bit silly that a t3 outperforms a HAC by such a large margin... But it is difficult to nerf the t3 without disrupting the economy.

I believe that this situation is unique, and well it is a problem.


That would be because generally HACs suck.


HACs sucking is a problem... But is part of the suckage due to T3 being so much better?

Aaaanyway, that is getting away from my main point, which is the linkage between T3 performance and the wormhole economy. It really shouldn't be like that, because of the added complexity it brings to the problem.

I blog a bit http://hspew.blogspot.ca