These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Tech 3 Cruiser rebalance idea
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#41 - 2014-10-29 00:46:18 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
King Fu Hostile wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
[quote=King Fu Hostile][quote=James Baboli]
.


You are still talking only about numbers on paper, can't you give a real situation as an example why you think T3 tanks are overpowered?


because this is a nr game why do you think everybody uses EFT because it helps you get the max out of a ship without buying every module and ship and puzzle for hours. those nrs on paper as you like to post are giving a huge tank and that sub is OP as hell and you and i know it damn everybody in this topic knows it, the only difference is that you don't want it changed and i do


Your problem is that you are looking at a single isolated number and think it has to be changed just because it is big. You really need to look at all the other numbers that constitute a ship, and how that as a whole interacts with other ships in real situations. And so far you have failed to present any statistics, experiences or observations from TQ which would back up your "OP" cries.

A number being bigger than other doesn't mean anything.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#42 - 2014-10-29 00:50:14 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:

so what you are saying is T3s are supposed to over-class almost everything ? because that is what your post implies. and with almost you mean everything except commandships and logistics ? because that are the only T2s that have any real value over T3s and the commandship only achieved this due to a balancing pass before that they got owned by any T3

riddle me this why is it you use a loki only for the webs? isn't there a T2 hull that is specially designed for that task ? the ONLY reason is because it has a big ass tank so there is your answer because you can fill in every T2 roll and a T3 does it better or almost as good but with a big ass tank.

and that is exactly the problem! it makes almost all T2 ships (that are specially designed for a special task) completly obsolete, this is a fact


I wasn't really talking about stuff like command ships which are BC hulls but T2 cruisers that are generally in a rather mixed state.

My main uses of lokis for webbing comes down to:

-T3 WH fights were blap dreads aren't a completely uncommon occurrence and your often facing enough sub-cap dps to alpha most recons if your not in a position to dictate range (i.e. jumping through a wh into a brawl fleet at effectively 0km).

-Capital escalations - sure rapiers, etc. are usable but if stuff hits the fan and/or your pulling multiple waves they have fairly low survivability.

-Engaging nullsec fleets heavily outnumbered i.e. 15 v 70+ where the incoming damage is so high recons would insta pop.

That T2 hull is entirely unsuited to many of the situations ingame that it was designed for with the evolution of the game to date. A generalised T3 that sat below current T2 (at the expense of current T3s) for the most part would be a very sad thing in today's game.


This is actually a perfect example of the intended balance point of t3s. It fills 2 roles that have a specialized t2 hull for them at 80-90% the effectiveness of the t2 hulls in question, and by doing so is much more valuable than the same pilot in either of those two more specialized roles.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#43 - 2014-10-29 01:05:06 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:


because this is a nr game why do you think everybody uses EFT because it helps you get the max out of a ship without buying every module and ship and puzzle for hours. those nrs on paper as you like to post are giving a huge tank and that sub is OP as hell and you and i know it damn everybody in this topic knows it, the only difference is that you don't want it changed and i do


Your problem is that you are looking at a single isolated number and think it has to be changed just because it is big. You really need to look at all the other numbers that constitute a ship, and how that as a whole interacts with other ships in real situations. And so far you have failed to present any statistics, experiences or observations from TQ which would back up your "OP" cries.

A number being bigger than other doesn't mean anything.


the fact that the T2 hull say a rapier as example will in 95% of the time choose loki over the rapier that is way cheaper simply because the rapier is not up for the task. and so you can replace rapier for whatever T2 cruiser you want with logistics as only exception.

and a bigger nr says a lot because this is a nrs game!

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#44 - 2014-10-29 01:05:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
James Baboli wrote:

This is actually a perfect example of the intended balance point of t3s. It fills 2 roles that have a specialized t2 hull for them at 80-90% the effectiveness of the t2 hulls in question, and by doing so is much more valuable than the same pilot in either of those two more specialized roles.


A 200K EHP webbing Loki has sacrificed a large part of its DPS and using modules that normally you wouldn't find on a cruiser hull, take a slash at that EHP and not only does it no longer make sense to put anything expensive on it you've had a knock on effect of making the now T2 fit mixed dps/tank variant of the webbing Loki have barely better EHP than a Rapier while still having a fairly bit shorter webbing range and no target painting bonus - sure it has about 50% more dps than a rapier and is probably about where T3s "should have been" originally but that pretty much guts the price and anything interesting from them. Which ultimately is going to make the game very meh.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#45 - 2014-10-29 01:09:16 UTC
Rroff wrote:
James Baboli wrote:

This is actually a perfect example of the intended balance point of t3s. It fills 2 roles that have a specialized t2 hull for them at 80-90% the effectiveness of the t2 hulls in question, and by doing so is much more valuable than the same pilot in either of those two more specialized roles.


A 200K EHP webbing Loki has sacrificed a large part of its DPS and using modules that normally you wouldn't find on a cruiser hull, take a slash at that EHP and not only does it no longer make sense to put anything expensive on it you've had a knock on effect of making the now T2 fit mixed dps/tank variant of the webbing Loki have barely better EHP than a Rapier while still having a fairly bit shorter webbing range and no target painting bonus. Which ultimately is going to make the game very meh.


precisely what you are doing is make the loki a tanked rapier that owns, so the much cheaper rapier is not an option in 95% of the cases and that is exactly the problem!

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#46 - 2014-10-29 01:23:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Ellendras Silver wrote:

precisely what you are doing is make the loki a tanked rapier that owns, so the much cheaper rapier is not an option in 95% of the cases and that is exactly the problem!


Your not comparing like for like - even ignoring the lack of TP bonus if you basically replace a rapier (cloaky) with a cloaky recon style loki you end up with something that has huge drop in web range 25 v 40, pitiful dps and sure a bit of EHP but a very sad looking ship. (And you don't even get a cyno -duration bonus).

There is no T2 equivalent of the 200K EHP webbing loki which is essentially an armor brawler webbing ship.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#47 - 2014-10-29 01:42:45 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:

precisely what you are doing is make the loki a tanked rapier that owns, so the much cheaper rapier is not an option in 95% of the cases and that is exactly the problem!


Your not comparing like for like - even ignoring the lack of TP bonus if you basically replace a rapier (cloaky) with a cloaky recon style loki you end up with something that has huge drop in web range 25 v 40, pitiful dps and sure a bit of EHP but a very sad looking ship. (And you don't even get a cyno -duration bonus).

There is no T2 equivalent of the 200K EHP webbing loki which is essentially an armor brawler webbing ship.


Which is where t3s are supposed to be. They fit into the roles that don't have t2 hulls dedicated to them, hybridize the roles which do have t2 hulls dedicated and generally are supposed to be 95% as good in 2 or more areas at once. In my opinion, once you remove the armor buffer subsystems from the equation, t3s need a bit of love on some subsystems, a minor fittings tweak (2-5% less PG for the cap subs, and 2-3% more for the PG subs, some work on the CPU across electronics subs) and a stern look at the base agility on the nullified sub, and maybe a drop in callibration or a rig slot.

Again, the 200k ehp loki is running around with mostly tank, while I can pull 200k ehp out of 4 modules on a legion or proteus.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#48 - 2014-10-29 08:08:34 UTC
For me Loki is a the model T3 - other T3 should be brought down to its level. Little better resists, much less buffer. Anyway proposals for specific T3 changes was posted here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4222155#post4222155
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#49 - 2014-10-29 09:37:15 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
For me Loki is a the model T3 - other T3 should be brought down to its level. Little better resists, much less buffer. Anyway proposals for specific T3 changes was posted here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4222155#post4222155


Agreed, the issue with most t3s and the complaints leveled at them are not for their great damage mitigation, but rather the extreme buffer one must chew threw, little by little, or in the case of the tengu, by its ability to rep half of a moderately sized buffer in a single cycle of it's reps. These two issues, once fixed, leave t3s in a usable spot, with further balancing possible, easier and far less reactionary.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#50 - 2014-10-29 09:50:47 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:

precisely what you are doing is make the loki a tanked rapier that owns, so the much cheaper rapier is not an option in 95% of the cases and that is exactly the problem!


Your not comparing like for like - even ignoring the lack of TP bonus if you basically replace a rapier (cloaky) with a cloaky recon style loki you end up with something that has huge drop in web range 25 v 40, pitiful dps and sure a bit of EHP but a very sad looking ship. (And you don't even get a cyno -duration bonus).

There is no T2 equivalent of the 200K EHP webbing loki which is essentially an armor brawler webbing ship.


that is your defense, i bet you are not a lawyer. you know pretty well that the cyno bonus is completely irrelevant here

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#51 - 2014-10-29 18:45:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
How so? if your going down the T3s are generalised versions of T2s route then the lack of the cyno bonus is one balancing factor.

James Baboli wrote:

Agreed, the issue with most t3s and the complaints leveled at them are not for their great damage mitigation, but rather the extreme buffer one must chew threw, little by little, or in the case of the tengu, by its ability to rep half of a moderately sized buffer in a single cycle of it's reps. These two issues, once fixed, leave t3s in a usable spot, with further balancing possible, easier and far less reactionary.


Bring more dps? / use something more appropriate to kill them with.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#52 - 2014-10-29 19:01:45 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Bring more dps? / use something more appropriate to kill them with.

They mount faction/pirate battleship tank at a fraction of the price, with more mobility and most of the DPS. The only thing in a reasonable place to kill such ships is more of the same as they are, as they can kite brawling battleships, simply mitigate (either tracking or insane sig/resist combo) if you try and use sniper battleships, outclass most battlecruisers and about half the command ships in tank, mobility, and damage. HACs need to be massed and have logi support to bring them down if they either bring logi or have a couple t3s fit mostly for RR. They have better tackle ranges. They have more utility bonuses than one can shake a stick at. As it is, I am arguing that a properly fit t3 should outclass most things via a combination of being 2nd best in most categories with potentially damage mitigation as an overall best in game when fit for it.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Previous page123