These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 great T3 rebalance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lin Fatale
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2014-08-22 21:24:48 UTC
T3s in fleets are bit OP because its too easy to fly
in this hardcore game there is 0 skill needed for 99% of the people in the fleet
F1 and anchor, more wins
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#42 - 2014-08-22 21:29:49 UTC
Lin Fatale wrote:
T3s in fleets are bit OP because its too easy to fly
in this hardcore game there is 0 skill needed for 99% of the people in the fleet
F1 and anchor, more wins


Come to wormhole space :P

Same can be said though of many compositions, many of the heavy BS setups used in null are basically (as far as it goes for the grunts) press F1 and see which side folds first under the stream of losses.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#43 - 2014-08-22 21:31:17 UTC
Only thing that needs to be fixed with tech3 in my opinion is doing something about the lackluster subs that no one uses, and actually make them useful. TBH not interested at all in hearing how OP t3's are. They are counterable, not like some doctrines that truly deserve a wooden nerfbat with a nail in it. Here's looking at you, carriers.
Valkin Mordirc
#44 - 2014-08-22 21:39:46 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Only thing that needs to be fixed with tech3 in my opinion is doing something about the lackluster subs that no one uses, and actually make them useful. TBH not interested at all in hearing how OP t3's are. They are counterable, not like some doctrines that truly deserve a wooden nerfbat with a nail in it. Here's looking at you, carriers.



Supplemental Coolant Injector? I tried using that once. Left disappointed. 
#DeleteTheWeak
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#45 - 2014-08-22 21:45:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Only thing that needs to be fixed with tech3 in my opinion is doing something about the lackluster subs that no one uses, and actually make them useful. TBH not interested at all in hearing how OP t3's are. They are counterable, not like some doctrines that truly deserve a wooden nerfbat with a nail in it. Here's looking at you, carriers.



Supplemental Coolant Injector? I tried using that once. Left disappointed.


I've sometimes used them due to the PG and/or slot layout where the only option is to use that sub-system to get that mixture but never really used it for its bonuses.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#46 - 2014-08-23 00:17:02 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Only thing that needs to be fixed with tech3 in my opinion is doing something about the lackluster subs that no one uses, and actually make them useful. TBH not interested at all in hearing how OP t3's are. They are counterable, not like some doctrines that truly deserve a wooden nerfbat with a nail in it. Here's looking at you, carriers.


cloaky nullified nano T3.

There is no counter.
Bleedingthrough
#47 - 2014-08-23 01:48:36 UTC
Why are they so cheap these days if they are so OP?
Jon Joringer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2014-08-23 02:56:09 UTC
Bleedingthrough wrote:
Why are they so cheap these days if they are so OP?

Because of, like, supply and demand, man. Lots of demand, lots of supply.

I don't think T3s in general need too much nerfing (and, in fact, think many subsystems, and one T3 in particular, need fairly decent buffs), but the Augmented Plating subs need a big nerf. T3s with that sub don't get battleship levels of tank, they surpass them, easily, while keeping cruiser sig and decent speed.
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#49 - 2014-08-23 03:27:08 UTC
They need a bit of a nerf but not a huge one. Chuck the tank bonuses down from 10% per level to 7.5% or maybe even a tiny bit lower and i think youve got a decent sweetspot. Making all the subs usefull and having removeable rigs would help as well though.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2014-08-23 06:38:05 UTC
All I have to say is, if they decide to "nerf T3's stats to a level appropriate for their size class", ill be glad as hell I dont live in wormholes anymore. Due to mass restrictions, its already ahrd enough sieging someone out of a wormhole when you O bring in your 2 capitals and 10-15 T3, now imagine when T3 are the equivalent of slightly pimped cruisers, the onyl way to bring enough DPS to oust someone from a hole will be with battleships, which will be impossible because theres no way in hell your getting enough battleships into their hole, let alone the possible ability to reinforce your losses (since again, your heavily limited by what you can bring in at a time at the battleship scale, even in C6). Whereas defenders can just field all the battleships/etc they want in defense, which would be a hard counter to the weakened T3.

Right now, T3's are the only thing making C5/C6 warfare possible, making battleships required for an actual fight will just prove a logistical nightmare to great for ANYONE to want to fight, itll be almost as depressing as a SOV grind.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#51 - 2014-08-23 10:08:51 UTC
Jon Joringer wrote:
Bleedingthrough wrote:
Why are they so cheap these days if they are so OP?

Because of, like, supply and demand, man. Lots of demand, lots of supply.

I don't think T3s in general need too much nerfing (and, in fact, think many subsystems, and one T3 in particular, need fairly decent buffs), but the Augmented Plating subs need a big nerf. T3s with that sub don't get battleship levels of tank, they surpass them, easily, while keeping cruiser sig and decent speed.


Spend the same kind of isk on tank modules for a bs and you get similar or higher results, t2 fit t3s aren't uberly tanky - fairly similar to command ships, do agree though that its wrong that they can get those stats while still retaining sig and mobility that puts many cruisers to shame.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#52 - 2014-08-23 10:15:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
CCP have stated that they will land between T1 and T2 cruisers. Expect many nerfs but also a few buffs but mostly massive nerfs.


It will end up looking something like this.
Bleedingthrough
#53 - 2014-08-23 17:37:46 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
CCP have stated that they will land between T1 and T2 cruisers. Expect many nerfs but also a few buffs but mostly massive nerfs.


It will end up looking something like this.



No one would fly a T3 if it was only slightly better than a t1 cruiser.
So stop this childish propaganda. Only makes you sound clueless.

If you wanna discuss T3s you NEED to talk about specific configurations and not T3s in general. Anything else is just ranting.

What subsystems are overpowered? What subs need a buff?

Also we are going to get a recon rebalance soon. Maybe this discussion should wait till we see what CCP has in mind for them.

Have a great weekend,
Bleeding
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2014-08-23 18:04:12 UTC
Elisiist Aldent wrote:
T3 is kinda the jack of all trades. Just the problem with a jack of all trades is that whatever the T3 can do.. something can do better!

The question is.. how's that T3 rolling up on you fit out? (unless you've just memorized the looks of every single subsystem)
^
this

They don't need to do any one job better than another ship. They can be built with any of a huge variety of wild combos, and can be made to do multiple good jobs at once. They should absolutely lose to Tech 2 ships in raw performance every time.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2014-08-23 18:10:09 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Elisiist Aldent wrote:
T3 is kinda the jack of all trades. Just the problem with a jack of all trades is that whatever the T3 can do.. something can do better!

The question is.. how's that T3 rolling up on you fit out? (unless you've just memorized the looks of every single subsystem)
^
this

They don't need to do any one job better than another ship. They can be built with any of a huge variety of wild combos, and can be made to do multiple good jobs at once. They should absolutely lose to Tech 2 ships in raw performance every time.

your right, a T3 should always lose to a HAC in a fight, combat fit T3's should be relegated to 1v1'ing T1 cruisers and ganking industrials.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2014-08-23 18:14:50 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
your right, a T3 should always lose to a HAC in a fight, combat fit T3's should be relegated to 1v1'ing T1 cruisers and ganking industrials.

Because fights are determined by raw performance every time. The highest DPS ship always wins in a brawl. Yep.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#57 - 2014-08-23 18:37:43 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Elisiist Aldent wrote:
T3 is kinda the jack of all trades. Just the problem with a jack of all trades is that whatever the T3 can do.. something can do better!

The question is.. how's that T3 rolling up on you fit out? (unless you've just memorized the looks of every single subsystem)
^
this

They don't need to do any one job better than another ship. They can be built with any of a huge variety of wild combos, and can be made to do multiple good jobs at once. They should absolutely lose to Tech 2 ships in raw performance every time.

your right, a T3 should always lose to a HAC in a fight, combat fit T3's should be relegated to 1v1'ing T1 cruisers and ganking industrials.


well one key difference your missing is the e-war aspect combat T3's can use..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Jon Joringer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2014-08-23 19:27:10 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Jon Joringer wrote:
Bleedingthrough wrote:
Why are they so cheap these days if they are so OP?

Because of, like, supply and demand, man. Lots of demand, lots of supply.

I don't think T3s in general need too much nerfing (and, in fact, think many subsystems, and one T3 in particular, need fairly decent buffs), but the Augmented Plating subs need a big nerf. T3s with that sub don't get battleship levels of tank, they surpass them, easily, while keeping cruiser sig and decent speed.


Spend the same kind of isk on tank modules for a bs and you get similar or higher results, t2 fit t3s aren't uberly tanky - fairly similar to command ships, do agree though that its wrong that they can get those stats while still retaining sig and mobility that puts many cruisers to shame.

The sad thing is, I wasn't talking about pimped fits, I was talking about T2. Even in T2 fits, the buffer subs (especially when combined with the PG sub, easily allowing fittings like double 1600mm plate while still fitting weapons/prop/etc.) allow T3s to get massive amounts of tank, more than your average BS.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#59 - 2014-08-23 20:20:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Jon Joringer wrote:

The sad thing is, I wasn't talking about pimped fits, I was talking about T2. Even in T2 fits, the buffer subs (especially when combined with the PG sub, easily allowing fittings like double 1600mm plate while still fitting weapons/prop/etc.) allow T3s to get massive amounts of tank, more than your average BS.


Was covering both angles in my reply, most double plate t3 fits still come with (often severe) compromises, dps tends to be much more limited and much more range limited than the single plate fits, others are relegated to purely utility roles, etc. its more edge cases where they fulfil a useful role fit like that than a wholesale thing and likewise there are edge cases where you can press gang other cruisers into similar EHP setups i.e. augoror navy issue, sacrilege, etc.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#60 - 2014-08-23 20:33:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Bleedingthrough wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
It will end up looking something like this.

No one would fly a T3 if it was only slightly better than a t1 cruiser.
So stop this childish propaganda. Only makes you sound clueless.


So pointing out what CCP has said about the matter and using their own materials to do it is "childish propaganda" now?

My, my. It's almost as if someone has a vested interest in the status quo.