These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Tech 3 Destroyers coming in RHEA

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#21 - 2014-10-18 21:21:07 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Carribean Queen wrote:


What is wrong with you.

T1 < T2 < T3

working as intended.


Incorrect. That is not the way the game is balanced at all.

Have you ever read a single devblog about balance?

Orly?
T2 logi > T1 logi
T2 ewar ships > T1 ewar
T2 dps > T1 dps

Why do people believe that T3s should be an exception to that rule?
The dev blog was about removing the progression within the Tiers.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#22 - 2014-10-18 21:23:29 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Jessica Duranin wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Carribean Queen wrote:


What is wrong with you.

T1 < T2 < T3

working as intended.


Incorrect. That is not the way the game is balanced at all.

Have you ever read a single devblog about balance?

Orly?
T2 logi > T1 logi
T2 ewar ships > T1 ewar
T2 dps > T1 dps

Why do people believe that T3s should be an exception to that rule?
The dev blog was about removing the progression within the Tiers.


Incorrect. Tech1 is about versatility, tech2 is about specialization. There are some very few exceptions to this rule, but even then CCP has moved to change that (see: mining barges).

T2 DPS is also not always better than Tech1 DPS.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#23 - 2014-10-18 21:28:08 UTC
As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited.
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
#24 - 2014-10-18 21:30:31 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Garbage, absolute garbage.

They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap.

Agreed. They haven't worked out how to make configurable ships that are balanced yet.
And the whole 'Small command ship' was never needed. People could warp rig T3 cruisers to easily keep up with Inty gangs. They just wouldn't be able to tank like a T3 normally could, but they didn't need to tank like normal if they are keeping up with Frigates.
This is just a sop to people crying out rather than using the current tools in inventive ways. And will introduce more problems, not fix problems.


They aren't going to be configurable in the dame way as strategic cruisers. CCP Fozzie stated at the Eve Vegas keynote that tactical destroyers will not have subsystems at all. but rather 3 distinct modes of operation.

The problem with slavery is that only half of the manacles are visible. The Holder, supposed master, is equally bound by the gilded chains of privilege and wealth.
Raelaem Eudain
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2014-10-18 21:30:41 UTC
Ama Scelesta wrote:
Raelaem Eudain wrote:
ummm.... okay

I think I'd rather have new types of mods then ships tbh

they are just going to be super expensive in price just like any new ship

I don't feel like flying a 200-300mil destroyer.

I'd like to hear from CCP Rise on this

They're not going to be that expensive in the long run. As far as modules are concerned the biggest news was definitely the new weapons, that will drop all resists on your ship to zero to balance them out. They'll be more expensive though, since they don't want every highsec gank ship to be fitted with them.


new weapons? I missed the boat on that one, whats the deal with those?
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
#26 - 2014-10-18 21:32:55 UTC
Tear Jar wrote:
As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited.


CCP Fozzie said that he doesn't anticipate that tech 3 destroyers will ever be cost-effective for suicide banking, so you might be out of luck. P

The problem with slavery is that only half of the manacles are visible. The Holder, supposed master, is equally bound by the gilded chains of privilege and wealth.
Regnag Leppod
Doomheim
#27 - 2014-10-18 21:33:18 UTC
Tear Jar wrote:
As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited.


Right. CODE is going to gank in T3's. I can just see that happening. Kinda like I can see the sun rising in the west.

Unless CCP hits the Catalyst with a thermo-nuclear nerf bomb, my guess is you're going to be stuck with them.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#28 - 2014-10-18 21:40:43 UTC
Jessica Duranin wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Carribean Queen wrote:


What is wrong with you.

T1 < T2 < T3

working as intended.


Incorrect. That is not the way the game is balanced at all.

Have you ever read a single devblog about balance?

Orly?
T2 logi > T1 logi
T2 ewar ships > T1 ewar
T2 dps > T1 dps

Why do people believe that T3s should be an exception to that rule?
The dev blog was about removing the progression within the Tiers.

T3 is currently out of whack. Exceedingly better in some areas and worse than T2 in others.

The intention is:
T1 is bonuses for a role
T2 is even better in that role, but less flexible for others
T3 is generalized. Can fill multiple special roles while not exceeding against any particular T2 in that particular role.

How this will apply to destroyers? No idea. We may see an exception to the general rule here since the roles are limited
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#29 - 2014-10-18 21:44:46 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Cost is not a balancing factor. Never was, never will be

Are we talking about the same game?
Look at officer, deadspace and faction items. Higher cost -> more powerful.
T2 ships are more powerful than their T1 equivalent.... and more expensive.

Xuixien wrote:

Incorrect. Tech1 is about versatility, tech2 is about specialization. There are some very few exceptions to this rule,...

Yes, like pretty much every cruiser.

HACs: a more powerful variant of their T1 hull (e.g. Vexor->Ishtar)
Logistics: a more powerful variant of their T1 hulls (e.g. Augoror-> Guardian)
HICs: doesn't have a T1 equivalent
Recons: a more powerful (and versatile) variant of the T1 hull (e.g. Blackbird->Falcon)

Why do people still use the e.g. Augorors instead of Guardians? Cost.
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
#30 - 2014-10-18 21:45:19 UTC
Rowells wrote:
.

How this will apply to destroyers? No idea. We may see an exception to the general rule here since the roles are limited


That really is quite simple. Tactical destroyers are to have 3 modes of operation.

The problem with slavery is that only half of the manacles are visible. The Holder, supposed master, is equally bound by the gilded chains of privilege and wealth.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#31 - 2014-10-18 21:57:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Xuixien
Jessica Duranin wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Cost is not a balancing factor. Never was, never will be

Are we talking about the same game?
Look at officer, deadspace and faction items. Higher cost -> more powerful.
T2 ships are more powerful than their T1 equivalent.... and more expensive.


This has more to do with supply/demand. There are also cases where the deadspace/faction is less powerful than tech2 but way more expensive. The same thing happened with meta/tech2. Argument invalid.

Jessica Duranin wrote:
Xuixien wrote:

Incorrect. Tech1 is about versatility, tech2 is about specialization. There are some very few exceptions to this rule,...

Yes, like pretty much every cruiser.

HACs: a more powerful variant of their T1 hull (e.g. Vexor->Ishtar)
Logistics: a more powerful variant of their T1 hulls (e.g. Augoror-> Guardian)
HICs: doesn't have a T1 equivalent
Recons: a more powerful (and versatile) variant of the T1 hull (e.g. Blackbird->Falcon)

Why do people still use the e.g. Augorors instead of Guardians? Cost.


HACs are not a more powerful variant, they are a more specialized variant. You can still brawl in a Stabber, and kite in a Rupture but you try the same things in a VagabondMunin (or w/e it is) and you're gonna have a bad day.

Tech2 ships also get different bonuses than the tech1.

Tech2 logistics and tech1 logistics have different applications. There ARE times you want a tech1 over a tech2.

Recons are not more powerful and versatile, they're split (ie, SPECIALIZED) which is why there's TWO versions and a single tech1 version, with different bonuses.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Hicksimus
Torgue
#32 - 2014-10-18 22:11:06 UTC
Which one will they be in? I'm not very good at ship scanning. Guess I'll just shoot whichever Rhea CODE. shoots.

Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you? Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
flakeys
Doomheim
#33 - 2014-10-18 22:16:39 UTC
Though i'm frightened by the word.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Jessica Duranin
Doomheim
#34 - 2014-10-18 22:25:44 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
This has more to do with supply/demand. There are also cases where the deadspace/faction is less powerful than tech2 but way more expensive. The same thing happened with meta/tech2. Argument invalid.

Yes, there are useless officer and faction items. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of the expensive modules are more powerful than their cheaper variant.

Xuixien wrote:

HACs are not a more powerful variant, they are a more specialized variant. You can still brawl in a Stabber, and kite in a Rupture but you try the same things in a VagabondMunin (or w/e it is) and you're gonna have a bad day.

Vagabond is superior to a Stabber in every way. More tank, more dps, more speed. Same thing with Rupture vs Munin.

Xuixien wrote:

Tech2 ships also get different bonuses than the tech1.

Yes, on top of the tech1 boni.

Xuixien wrote:

There ARE times you want a tech1 over a tech2.

Yes, when the T2 logi would be too expensive.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#35 - 2014-10-18 22:42:01 UTC
Silverdaddy wrote:
Tear Jar wrote:
As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited.


CCP Fozzie said that he doesn't anticipate that tech 3 destroyers will ever be cost-effective for suicide banking, so you might be out of luck. P

That was because of the new weapons that are also coming, which have better DPS but reduce your resists to 0.

If it's cheaper to upgrade the guns to get the damage needed than to ship up into a bigger hull then they will be used heavily by suicide gankers.

Evil RatKid
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#36 - 2014-10-18 23:13:05 UTC
Jessica Duranin wrote:

Orly?
T2 logi > T1 logi
T2 ewar ships > T1 ewar
T2 dps > T1 dps

Why do people believe that T3s should be an exception to that rule?
The dev blog was about removing the progression within the Tiers.

CCP have specifically said that T3's are not better than T2's in a specialised role but should be capable of filling several roles at once.
They just were so bad at actually balancing those combinations that people believe the current situation where certain T3's (Tengu's with 12 launchers) are king of the hill is intentional, rather than CCP's screw up they haven't worked out how to fix without thousands of tears yet.
EVE T1-T3 Ship layout
As reference.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#37 - 2014-10-18 23:29:42 UTC
Velora Rasc wrote:
http://puu.sh/chx5n/d7cd11db4d.jpg

Looks like a theme in design emerging.

They seem to share visual similarities in surface and angles to the mordu's legion ships.

Cool if that's the case.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#38 - 2014-10-18 23:30:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Jessica Duranin wrote:

Orly?
T2 logi > T1 logi
T2 ewar ships > T1 ewar
T2 dps > T1 dps

Why do people believe that T3s should be an exception to that rule?
The dev blog was about removing the progression within the Tiers.

CCP have specifically said that T3's are not better than T2's in a specialised role but should be capable of filling several roles at once.
They just were so bad at actually balancing those combinations that people believe the current situation where certain T3's (Tengu's with 12 launchers) are king of the hill is intentional, rather than CCP's screw up they haven't worked out how to fix without thousands of tears yet.
EVE T1-T3 Ship layout
As reference.

^^exactly this

also agreed thet the current t3's need a rebalance, even amongst themselves they don't work properly.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#39 - 2014-10-18 23:47:21 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.

The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#40 - 2014-10-18 23:49:32 UTC
Just in : T3 dessis will be able to fire 8 shots in 0.5 before concorded.

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP