These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123Next page
 

Proposal for T3 rebalance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#21 - 2015-01-16 17:10:13 UTC
By all means divest the strategic cruisers of the T3 bit and make a new line of T3 cruisers sitting between T1 and T2 but leave strategic cruiser (for the most part) be.

Only thing that needs to chance with strategic cruisers really is making the choice between small sig, high resists, high mobility <> big ehp more of balanced trade off (and by that I don't mean nerf their EHP into the ground) and doing something interesting with less used or obsolete sub-systems.
Kestral Anneto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2015-01-16 17:46:58 UTC
T3's are fine, they are based on SLEEPER tech, so the lore backs up how powerful they are. A tweek here or there (buffer tank) but nerfing them to between T1 and T3? The lore doesn't support it, at all, and the are tech THREE ships, they are very advanced bits of kit that can do a job very well, but they have to be set up to do that ONE job, you wouldn't take a PVE tenhu into a PVP fight for example.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#23 - 2015-01-16 18:09:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Kestral Anneto wrote:
T3's are fine, they are based on SLEEPER tech, so the lore backs up how powerful they are. A tweek here or there (buffer tank) but nerfing them to between T1 and T3? The lore doesn't support it, at all, and the are tech THREE ships, they are very advanced bits of kit that can do a job very well, but they have to be set up to do that ONE job, you wouldn't take a PVE tenhu into a PVP fight for example.


I've never seen the advantage of being able to fully refit them on the fly (and it doesn't really work as a generalisation) but there are instances when it could be useful i.e. if your PVE fit tengu gets jumped and you could swap to a PVP fit it could be handy which I guess could be potentially doable T3 destroy style if certain slots you could fit a module + alternative module into and switch between main and alternative with 1 press i.e. say 1 mid was alternatively a cap recharger or a scram.



EDIT: Possibly a bit OP but would fit the flavour and be kind of cool if they had say 1 high, 2 mid, 1 low slots that had an alternative module that could be enabled with a bastion/siege style cycle (minus the immobility/remote assistance penalty) i.e. if your PVE tengu gets jumped -salvager, -cap recharger, -ab, -cap power relay, +neut, +scram, +mwd, +damage or your in your scanning T3 and see a potential target, -probes, -2x scanning rigs, -nano, +gun/neut, +point, +web, +tank/damage or in a PVP situation get scrammed and -mwd, etc. etc. and swap to +nos, +web, +ab, +overdrive :D
Helios Panala
#24 - 2015-01-16 18:17:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Helios Panala
Kestral Anneto wrote:
T3's are fine, they are based on SLEEPER tech, so the lore backs up how powerful they are. A tweek here or there (buffer tank) but nerfing them to between T1 and T3? The lore doesn't support it, at all, and the are tech THREE ships, they are very advanced bits of kit that can do a job very well, but they have to be set up to do that ONE job, you wouldn't take a PVE tenhu into a PVP fight for example.



Well that's the problem, they're not meant to be excellent at one job. They're meant to be very good at three jobs.

As for lore, well I think it's supposed to be the case that the Empires can reverse engineer sleeper tech well enough to make a basic cruiser hull much better at a variety of things than they can with their own tech, but they can't get it to all work together well enough to make a ship that can beat a specialized design of their own in the area it was designed to operate.

Or put another way, they can make a better specialized ship with their own technology than they can make from sticking bits of sleeper tech they don't really understand onto a hull.
Zekora Rally
U2EZ
#25 - 2015-01-16 18:42:18 UTC
Who exactly is going to be flying T3 cruisers that are worse than T2 in every way? If they had on the fly adjustment like tactical destroyers, then maybe, but at the moment, they do not.

I'll say, however, that they need a 25% hp reduction especially the prot and various subs need to be made more viable. I'm fine with the t3 being a tankier but slighly less capable, in terms of e-war and outright ship bonus, version of recons, commandships, covert ops, and hacs as most of them already are today.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#26 - 2015-01-16 18:53:43 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:

I would not be opposed to a reduction in price to coincide with a reduction in power. If they cost about the same as T2, including some subs for swaping, that would be fine by me.

But now another sticky situation rears it's ugly head. WH space.

Because let's be serious. If you swap t3's so that they are worse than t2 in each role, the use of them in PvP is going to drop like a rock. There may be a few exceptions. Covert T3's may be bridged in places then refit, but that would still be only a very very tiny usage level compared to current. And people might use them to travel their PvE t3 fleet around in cloaky nullified versions before swapping to the PvE fit for running sites in potentially hostile space.

But overall, the instant t3's become across the board worse at all roles than t2, once they are no longer used as a main fleet ship in combat, or as boosters, or as scanners, the rate at which people lose them would drop by (and this is a guess number pulled out of a hat) 90%.

Anyone want to guess what happens to all the people living in the space that provides the gas, the salvage, and the invention parts for the creation of t3's?

Instant overnight wasteland, as people flood away from WH space after the income is cut by a moderate 25%ish at the least ( for small c5 groups that only run escalations and thus only lose salvage money), down to 90% or more (of the non PI income) for occupants of C4-1, who gain the majority of their isk through the value of the salvage since the blue loot is so pathetic.

After all, I have seen nothing that reduces the massive amount of effort it takes to make a t3 (that now sells at HAC prices or less).

And if it then takes less materials or becomes easier to make t3's, they are then doubly hit by low prices, low demand, and an even greater supply then before.

TLDR: Collateral damage is a *****.


Let's be serious...
use will drop like a rock...
only a very tiny usage...
90% (out of a hat)...
what happens to all the people making T3s.....
Instant wasteland....
income cut by 25% (??from a 90% reduction in losses??)....
[value of] blue loot is so pathetic....
massive amount of effort it takes to make a T3....


What we have here is the early front runner for the 2015 most dramatic poster of the year. It's early, but voters please keep this poster in mind over the upcoming year. This strong performance should not be penalized due to its Jan entry.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2015-01-16 19:02:15 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:

What we have here is the early front runner for the 2015 most dramatic poster of the year.

Go big or go home, I always say.

Ok, maybe it was a bit overdramatic. But most of WH space is propped up by the value of sleeper salvage, relic/data parts, and gas.

Remove most of the demand for it, and the majority of the people who live there and make their money there will poof to greener pastures. The more hardcore PvP groups will stick around, but I rather doubt they will appreciate most of the farmers leaving either. Can't shoot targets that are not there after all.

People do need to understand that any massive changes (and by that I mean the drastic nerfs many people demand) in t3's will have serious consequences for WH'rs, a fairly small segment of the playerbase but not one that needs beaten as hard as wold happen with a drastic drop in t3 usage.
Alexis Nightwish
#28 - 2015-01-16 21:27:18 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:

I would not be opposed to a reduction in price to coincide with a reduction in power. If they cost about the same as T2, including some subs for swaping, that would be fine by me.

(snip)

TLDR: Collateral damage is a *****.

You raise a very good point about the side effects of WH space and industry.

It is my hope that several things would happen to help mitigate this issue:

  1. People who were refusing to train them because of the SP loss would, resulting in T3s being purchased by a new demographic.
  2. Newer players who don't know what they want to train into could use T3s as a sort of trial system. Finding a role, or several, that they really enjoy, they could then dedicate the time to training into the more powerful T2 hulls.
  3. T3 destroyers are (I hope) only the next in a series of T3 ships. I very much hope to see T3 frigates, battlecruisers, and battleships in the future. These will all require components from WH space, which should drive up the industry based on them.
  4. The change on the fly mechanic I proposed could result in a new meta, with people doing PvE, then when a PvP opportunity presents itself, warping to a safe, reconfiguring to PvP, and engaging. Or roaming while travel fit (hopefully CCP as part of the subsystem rebalance makes it so you can be interdiction nullified OR cloaky, but not both at the same time) and then depending on the targets found, swapping to a fit that counters the target fleet.


This is of course all conjecture on my part, but is definitely what I'd like to see.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2015-01-16 21:37:31 UTC
T3s only need a few thing, they need cruiser HP, the resists are fine. Defensive subs need to be nerfed to curret bonus levels. As far as DPS goes they only need to lose one unmodified hardpoint in there highest dps configuration.
Lastly the slot layout and fittings need to be adjusted to be usable all around and not only with certan subs, this would be easiest to accomplish by simple making those values static.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2015-01-16 23:38:17 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:

I would not be opposed to a reduction in price to coincide with a reduction in power. If they cost about the same as T2, including some subs for swaping, that would be fine by me.

(snip)

TLDR: Collateral damage is a *****.

You raise a very good point about the side effects of WH space and industry.

It is my hope that several things would happen to help mitigate this issue:

  1. People who were refusing to train them because of the SP loss would, resulting in T3s being purchased by a new demographic.
  2. Newer players who don't know what they want to train into could use T3s as a sort of trial system. Finding a role, or several, that they really enjoy, they could then dedicate the time to training into the more powerful T2 hulls.
  3. T3 destroyers are (I hope) only the next in a series of T3 ships. I very much hope to see T3 frigates, battlecruisers, and battleships in the future. These will all require components from WH space, which should drive up the industry based on them.
  4. The change on the fly mechanic I proposed could result in a new meta, with people doing PvE, then when a PvP opportunity presents itself, warping to a safe, reconfiguring to PvP, and engaging. Or roaming while travel fit (hopefully CCP as part of the subsystem rebalance makes it so you can be interdiction nullified OR cloaky, but not both at the same time) and then depending on the targets found, swapping to a fit that counters the target fleet.


This is of course all conjecture on my part, but is definitely what I'd like to see.

Wait so low SP characters who don't have the ability to fly t2 ships will somehow have all the skills for a t3 and all the skills for the subsystems, and all the subsystem skills trained to a reasonable level, despite the fact that if you have the skills for t3's you are 85% of the way to most of the t2's?

Also the swap between PvE and PvP at safespots is unlikely, because people are far more likely to just have one ship for PvP, and another for PvE, and it still takes less effort to just dock and jump in the other one than swap anything. You don't want to lose your PvP ship and your way of earning more money to buy another PvP ship at the same time after all. Plus lets face it, t3's are extremely medicore for most PvE.

Pre-combat swapping to engage certain gangs is iffy at best, since 99% of the time, the modifications you would choose to do pre-fight is all in the modules, not the subsystems. And we can already do that with depots. Unless you are switching to or from a travel fit to a combat fit, but that's not enough to stimulate hotswapping and t3 use much.

And lastly, while t3 frigs, BC, and BS's might eventually come out, changing t3's in such a way that it immediate crashes WH space while hoping and betting that demand for ships that may never come out will be high enough to let WH space recover at that time is an incredibly bad idea.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2015-01-17 01:02:13 UTC
T3's are the well known and welcomed battle horses of this game.

Leave them alone please, CCP made a very risky step when added those into the game. They were like something unique and unusual vs. everything else already exists.

They do their job well and to change just make them messy.

If you need something new to fly at, think harder and offer brand new hull no matter it's gonna be T2 or faction ones.

So ( - 1) to the whole idea.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
4Rum Alt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2015-01-28 05:24:30 UTC
I for one don't think T3's are OP. Many Eve players fail to miss the point of what exactly a T3 cruiser is. A T3 ship is a cruiser fused with ancient and advanced sleeper technology. You have to think about what makes a sleeper ship a sleeper ship. They are much tougher ships for their ship classes and do much more dps for their ship class.

Sigras
Conglomo
#33 - 2015-01-28 05:33:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Rroff wrote:
I've never seen the advantage of being able to fully refit them on the fly (and it doesn't really work as a generalisation) but there are instances when it could be useful i.e. if your PVE fit tengu gets jumped and you could swap to a PVP fit it could be handy which I guess could be potentially doable T3 destroy style if certain slots you could fit a module + alternative module into and switch between main and alternative with 1 press i.e. say 1 mid was alternatively a cap recharger or a scram.

EDIT: Possibly a bit OP but would fit the flavour and be kind of cool if they had say 1 high, 2 mid, 1 low slots that had an alternative module that could be enabled with a bastion/siege style cycle (minus the immobility/remote assistance penalty) i.e. if your PVE tengu gets jumped -salvager, -cap recharger, -ab, -cap power relay, +neut, +scram, +mwd, +damage or your in your scanning T3 and see a potential target, -probes, -2x scanning rigs, -nano, +gun/neut, +point, +web, +tank/damage or in a PVP situation get scrammed and -mwd, etc. etc. and swap to +nos, +web, +ab, +overdrive :D


Hmmm... this thread seems familiar

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.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#34 - 2015-01-28 05:34:20 UTC
4Rum Alt wrote:
I for one don't think T3's are OP. Many Eve players fail to miss the point of what exactly a T3 cruiser is. A T3 ship is a cruiser fused with ancient and advanced sleeper technology. You have to think about what makes a sleeper ship a sleeper ship. They are much tougher ships for their ship classes and do much more dps for their ship class.



A T3 was meant to be a jack of all trades but master at none they were meant to be able to do any role a T2 could do just not as good as the T2 Except when it came to over heating where the T3 could preform nearly at the leave of t2.


The were not meant to always use the same subs have bs tank and bs dps with the sig and speed of a cruiser

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#35 - 2015-01-28 05:56:23 UTC
No matter what happens T3 are in for a savage nerf and I welcome that day.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#36 - 2015-01-28 07:21:40 UTC
Fozzie mentioned something at csm summit that they want to remove rigs or make the rigs swappable. I'm for second option.
He also metioned somewhere else that they want T3 to stay strategic (modules), and D3 tactical (modes).
Personaly i think they will be nerfed to T2 cruisers level (maybe with overheat). The same performance as T2 but higher price.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Lugh Crow-Slave
#37 - 2015-01-28 07:23:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
No matter what happens T3 are in for a savage nerf and I welcome that day.


just in there current form with any luck those unused subs will get a buff

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Aajal Truth
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#38 - 2015-01-28 08:08:16 UTC
If they are nerfed in anyway then the sp loss needs to go. People are not going to lose sp for a ship that is lousy. That in turn will mean WH space will be less profitable as most of the WH income is made from T3 production. Whether gas harvesting or plexing. Less profit in WH space equals less pilots which equals less pew. Also the lack of SP loss will likely increase use and therefore drive up the price. Let's all be honest, we love large ISK killmails.

I know people feel feel like ISK isn't a big balancing factor in PvP ship selection but IMO that just isn't true. Cheap people are cheap people. In game and out. If it wasn't so we would see a lot more Garmurs, Orthrus's and Barghests on the field.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#39 - 2015-01-28 08:18:39 UTC
Aajal Truth wrote:
If they are nerfed in anyway then the sp loss needs to go. People are not going to lose sp for a ship that is lousy. That in turn will mean WH space will be less profitable as most of the WH income is made from T3 production. Whether gas harvesting or plexing. Less profit in WH space equals less pilots which equals less pew. Also the lack of SP loss will likely increase use and therefore drive up the price. Let's all be honest, we love large ISK killmails.

I know people feel feel like ISK isn't a big balancing factor in PvP ship selection but IMO that just isn't true. Cheap people are cheap people. In game and out. If it wasn't so we would see a lot more Garmurs, Orthrus's and Barghests on the field.



no the sp loss needs to stay they aren't nurffing T3s into the ground just some of the over powered subs and the new D3s take that same material to build and i'm sure they will become much more common once people figure them out

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2015-01-28 09:41:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Being able to refit modules/subs would only require a "Mobile Structure Bay" that would hold a Mobile Depot.

In reality, T3's need their subsystems (and combination there of) to be extremely and carefully redesigned to:
A: be balanced at the level of power desired
B: be useful in any and all combinations at a desired/intended role
C: Allow the switching or remove rig slots

I would first look at the role for each subsystem/sub combination and figure out what they all should do.

Then I would address how powerful each rig should be

Then look at whether rigs are required or not.

A lot of the subs just need a tweak. Some are overpowered and some plane right useless or extremely niche. The racial specific subs should be available to all (eg Gravitational Capacitor would be nice on Loki/Legion)

Some of the rigs just don't make sense. I mean an Augmented Cap reservoir does not give you a larger cap pool. A cap regeneration matrix does though ??!! Daft stuff like that are just stupid things.

Should T3's be at a power level between T1 and T2? Only if someone fits them for multi role. When you combine subs for a super specialized role you should get better than T2 out of it.
Previous page123Next page