These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Technology and Research Center » Player Features and Ideas Discussion » The great T3 rebalance

Topic is locked indefinitely.

The great T3 rebalance
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

The Fall of Leviathan 830
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan Likes received: 830	#141 - 2014-08-26 19:42:48 UTC SMT008 what are the drawbacks of your T3's after rebalance? removed rigs? anything else? SP loss? "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

baltec1

Bat Country

Pandemic Horde

Likes received: 19,001

#142 - 2014-08-26 20:29:56 UTC

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

baltec1 wrote:

Why would you when you can just warp out of a bubble cloaked?

I can still warp out from bubble cloaked, not to mention i would be waking in fresh clone soon after. Burning through bubble in T3? Blind would find me.

baltec1 wrote:

You can use the MWD cloak trick with it and it will continue to be a nice tool to have in fleets.

You can use nullifier in fleets now, why making change to nerf solo players? You still have the oportuinity to build nullifed combat ships but covert t3 is an abomination. Becuase you don't bother to do proper gate camp?
There shouldn't be situation that there are no escape from gate camp. One kind of ship have that ability, not cheap, skill heavy, with SP loss drawback. Why covert cloak is so overpowerd to you anyway? 100% cloaked speed? I don't think MWD+cloak trick would be worser from covops cloak warping

There also shouldnt be an impossible to catch cruiser. Gate camps can be avoided, blockade runners do it all the time.

Rroff

Antagonistic Tendencies

Likes received: 1,155

#143 - 2014-08-26 20:39:42 UTC

Due to the amount of versatility rigs bring (and possibly being a factor that they are one of the biggest sinks of T2 rigs - though in the long term that would possibly sort it self out) I'm against removing rigs - however I do think that some degree of flexibility in regard to rigs needs to happen - my personal preference being selectable groups of rigs with the number of groups tied to the level of the strategic cruiser skill. There is no way realistically to replicate the range of potential possibilities via rolling the bonuses into the sub-systems.

Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 806
SMT008 Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State Likes received: 806	#144 - 2014-08-26 21:09:24 UTC 1 Jeremiah Saken wrote: SMT008 what are the drawbacks of your T3's after rebalance? removed rigs? anything else? SP loss? Removed rigs is a good start, a Proteus without trimarks isn't all that impressive anymore. I think that removed rigs + rebalancing subs will bring a good result. SP Loss should be removed, I really don't see the point of that "drawback".

M1k3y Koontz

Speaker for the Dead

Shadow Cartel

Likes received: 806

#145 - 2014-08-26 21:29:40 UTC | Edited by: M1k3y Koontz

SMT008 wrote:

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

SMT008 what are the drawbacks of your T3's after rebalance? removed rigs? anything else? SP loss?

Removed rigs is a good start, a Proteus without trimarks isn't all that impressive anymore. I think that removed rigs + rebalancing subs will bring a good result.

SP Loss should be removed, I really don't see the point of that "drawback".

Rebalancing subs is what really needs to happen. A lot of people clamor for a "nerf" but don't seem to get that there isn't a singule hull that is OP like with the Ishtar, but rather one or two subsystems that throw off the balance of specific setups. You can fit a Tengu to be an excellent solo boat, or it can be a steaming pile of ****. It depends on the subs used.

Remove rigs or nerf HP bonused defensive subs (I think doing both would be rather severe to ships like the Loki), then buff the useless subs, and T3s will be in a good place.

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

Jeremiah Saken

The Fall of Leviathan

Likes received: 830

#146 - 2014-08-26 21:40:51 UTC | Edited by: Jeremiah Saken

baltec1 wrote:

There also shouldnt be an impossible to catch cruiser. Gate camps can be avoided, blockade runners do it all the time.

What are you doing? Arrow in the knee? It doesn't make any sense. Blockade runners can avoid, T3 with certain fitting can't? Just because it's cruiser class? Not to mention BR can haul more cargo than T3's.

SMT008 wrote:

But who really reconfigures a single T3 for different tasks ? No one. They just buy 3 hulls and fit each accordingly.

Exactly. I have one tengu for L4's and one for exploration. I may change propulsion subsystems on exploration fit but core ship stays the same.

SMT008 wrote:

Removed rigs is a good start, a Proteus without trimarks isn't all that impressive anymore. I think that removed rigs + rebalancing subs will bring a good result.

Maybe overheating to reach T2 role level?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

SMT008

Deep Core Mining Inc.

Caldari State

Likes received: 806

#147 - 2014-08-26 21:49:45 UTC

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

SMT008 wrote:

Removed rigs is a good start, a Proteus without trimarks isn't all that impressive anymore. I think that removed rigs + rebalancing subs will bring a good result.

Maybe overheating to reach T2 role level?

Mhmm, I don't really know. I'd say let T3s match T2 stats more or less. Considering their price, and considering their current stat, I'm not sure about giving them sub-T2 stats.

Jeremiah Saken

The Fall of Leviathan

Likes received: 830

#148 - 2014-08-26 22:03:18 UTC | Edited by: Jeremiah Saken

SMT008 wrote:

Mhmm, I don't really know. I'd say let T3s match T2 stats more or less. Considering their price, and considering their current stat, I'm not sure about giving them sub-T2 stats.

but...but...that's the Plan. Didn't you see the Chart? Lol

Edit: every ship supposed to have drawbacks. Ask Duo of Nerf.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Frostys Virpio

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 3,464

#149 - 2014-08-26 22:35:57 UTC

SMT008 wrote:

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

SMT008 wrote:

Removed rigs is a good start, a Proteus without trimarks isn't all that impressive anymore. I think that removed rigs + rebalancing subs will bring a good result.

Maybe overheating to reach T2 role level?

Mhmm, I don't really know. I'd say let T3s match T2 stats more or less. Considering their price, and considering their current stat, I'm not sure about giving them sub-T2 stats.

What's the point of flying a T2 if a T3 can do it just as well since you want to give them the same stats but can also be used for an entirely different role?

Remember, cost is not a balancing factor in EVE.

Sigras

Conglomo

Likes received: 1,109

#150 - 2014-08-26 22:47:14 UTC

what if it could switch roles in combat as your fleet needed? I feel like this would be a useful thing that T2 ships just cannot do.

Picture this scenario:
Youre in a small to medium sized fleet of say 20 legions and 10 guardians and you get jumped by a battleship fleet of 40 ships, they have little to no RR support so you think you can take them, but they begin to put out far more DPS than your 10 guardians can keep up with. Luckily for you, your fleet was prepared for this and half of your legions are carrying RR subsystems with them. They refit mid combat and supplement your failing guardian force.

Your enemy, seeing that you are now tanking their damage calls in an archon which drops into triage and begins RRing the battleships. Again your fleet adapts and 4-5 of your remaining DPS ships switch to curse mode and begin cap draining the triage archon. Once it is cap dry 3 of them switch back to DPS mode and focus it down with relative ease then proceed to destroy the remaining battleship fleet.

Yes, T2 ships in those specific roles would be better, but your fleet doesnt know ahead of time what exactly it is going to be facing, so that point is moot; yes a zealot may do more DPS, and a guardian may rep more, and a curse may cap drain more, but the legion is the only one that can do all of those things on the fly as the fleet needs.

I know that the mobile deployables can allow for this already, but it would be cool to see the T3 ships get a special "module bay" and the mobile depots only have 17,000 EHP so they dont tend to live very long in combat.

Caleb Seremshur

Commando Guri

Guristas Pirates

Likes received: 885

#151 - 2014-08-27 00:39:53 UTC

SMT008 wrote:

As I said a couple months ago in a T3 rebalance thread, here's what I would do :

T3s should be able to refit in space :

If possible, T3s should be able to refit off themselves with conditions : Not having been shot at for 5 minutes, Takes 1-2 minutes to change subs. No cap-consumption for onlining/fitting modules.

This is the only part of your post I really like. Carrying 80+ m3 of subs is already penalising enough for a T3 with their 30% smaller cargo bays than HACs. Add on top the 50m3 for a mobile depot and it's hard to really justify the 'flexibility' in fittings these ships are reputed to possess. I fit my rigs as t2 grid, t2 shield resists. That's the only universally appealing combo I can come up with for my T3's.

Being able to refit and save that 50m3 of space would actually make a huge amount of difference to time spent on the field and not in station. If CCP have to make you uncloakable for 1 minute at a time to do it per sub then so be it, at least make it sensible.

M1k3y Koontz

Speaker for the Dead

Shadow Cartel

Likes received: 806

#152 - 2014-08-27 02:27:10 UTC

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Remember, cost is not a balancing factor in EVE.

Cost doesn't balance things, but it does prevent people from using a ship if it's a ****** ship, which is what T3s will be if they were nerfed to between T1s and T2s.

Which is why T3s won't be nerfed to between T1s and T2s, they'll be below T2s and off to the side. There isn't a straight linear progression there, as Baltec's much toted infographic shows.

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

Vincintius Agrippa

Crimson Serpent Syndicate

Likes received: 77

#153 - 2014-08-27 03:26:13 UTC

I dont think t3's are op.
Compare the price of a fully fit t1 BS, 200-230mil. Compare that to the blinged out t3's which top out at 1-1.5bil. T3's are fit with the best and most expensive modules to increase survivability over all those underneath it. Sp loss and subsystem cost contribute to this. They are modular so you can fit them anyway you like.

Also worth noting, tech 3 cruisers are above tech 2 cruisers and tech 1 battleships in class and technology.

Now when we start talking about tech 2 battleships.......now thats different. I dont see a t3 standing toe to toe with a marauder, especially in bastion mode.

t3''s are used in very specific ways. high sec: fit for full on combat. low sec: cloaky hunters.

t3's are not op. they dont have max tank, max dps. they have the same t2 resistances, however, they have the added benefit of more expensive modules with higher bonuses and attributes in addition to being able to overheat substantially longer. You get what you pay for.

Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!

Vincintius Agrippa

Crimson Serpent Syndicate

Likes received: 77

#154 - 2014-08-27 03:40:26 UTC

M1k3y Koontz wrote:

SMT008 wrote:

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

SMT008 what are the drawbacks of your T3's after rebalance? removed rigs? anything else? SP loss?

I utterly despise the idea of completely removing rigs from t3's. They are still cruisers. Now, if your talking about reducing the number of rigs from 3 to 2 then that something that seems more in line. all t2 ships have 2 rigs.

Fully fit Hacs cost 180-200mil, battleships cost the same maybe with an extra 20 or so mil. T3's cost a bil and a half.
Also, some hacs can take on t1 battleships as well.

Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!

Jeremiah Saken

The Fall of Leviathan

Likes received: 830

#155 - 2014-08-27 06:51:25 UTC

Vincintius Agrippa wrote:

I utterly despise the idea of completely removing rigs from t3's.

This would be a huge drawback. We don't get nothing in return, you can just put most of rigs bonuses on hull. It would be good from hull versatiliy perspective but T3's would be weaker a lot than T2's. Depends ofc how they balance subsystems.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville


baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Horde Likes received: 19,001	#156 - 2014-08-27 12:14:22 UTC Vincintius Agrippa wrote: Fully fit Hacs cost 180-200mil, battleships cost the same maybe with an extra 20 or so mil. T3's cost a bil and a half. Also, some hacs can take on t1 battleships as well. 296 mil for our rail tengu. At any rate isk cost has zero input on balancing.

M1k3y Koontz

Speaker for the Dead

Shadow Cartel

Likes received: 806

#157 - 2014-08-27 12:51:03 UTC | Edited by: M1k3y Koontz

baltec1 wrote:

Vincintius Agrippa wrote:

Fully fit Hacs cost 180-200mil, battleships cost the same maybe with an extra 20 or so mil. T3's cost a bil and a half.
Also, some hacs can take on t1 battleships as well.

296 mil for our rail tengu. At any rate isk cost has zero input on balancing.

I'm curious to see this Tengu fit you keep talking about, since I haven't seen a Goon Tengu fleet since the war with TEST.

After all, if it's so OP why don't you always use it, since costs just as much as a Megathron?

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

baltec1

Bat Country

Pandemic Horde

Likes received: 19,001

#158 - 2014-08-27 13:13:53 UTC

M1k3y Koontz wrote:

baltec1 wrote:

Vincintius Agrippa wrote:

Fully fit Hacs cost 180-200mil, battleships cost the same maybe with an extra 20 or so mil. T3's cost a bil and a half.
Also, some hacs can take on t1 battleships as well.

296 mil for our rail tengu. At any rate isk cost has zero input on balancing.

Where have you been for the last two months? Tengu fleet sees more action than baltec fleet.

Frostys Virpio

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 3,464

#159 - 2014-08-27 17:14:57 UTC

Jeremiah Saken wrote:

Vincintius Agrippa wrote:

I utterly despise the idea of completely removing rigs from t3's.

They are meant to be weaker than T2 at specific task but able to do more different task out of the same hull. How hard is it to understand?

Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 439
Ersahi Kir Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic Likes received: 439	#160 - 2014-08-27 19:05:54 UTC 1 Frostys Virpio wrote: They are meant to be weaker than T2 at specific task but able to do more different task out of the same hull. How hard is it to understand? So T3's should be the cruiser class nestor? A hull that is ok at many things is terrible at everything. The jack of all trades model doesn't work in eve.