These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page12
 

T3's
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2015-06-20 19:35:16 UTC
Market Wizard wrote:
So you consider the extra 12 or more days to train BC to 5 the same as training cruiser to 5? Which only looks at doing one, training for all four races would increase the time to train to about two months extra. Yea that's the same training time Roll

You don't have to change prerequisites. BCs required cruiser to be trained first, I don't see why we can't pretend for a moment that T3 BC should have a cruiser for prerequisite too. Yes, that's inconsistent with T3Ds and T2 ships, but in the end, who cares?

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2015-06-20 19:45:42 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Market Wizard wrote:
So you consider the extra 12 or more days to train BC to 5 the same as training cruiser to 5? Which only looks at doing one, training for all four races would increase the time to train to about two months extra. Yea that's the same training time Roll

You don't have to change prerequisites. BCs required cruiser to be trained first, I don't see why we can't pretend for a moment that T3 BC should have a cruiser for prerequisite too. Yes, that's inconsistent with T3Ds and T2 ships, but in the end, who cares?



doing so means strategics are easier to balance...

I also feel that doing so would break the current cruiser meta through the use of t3, which could be countered by BS's and other BC's...

Right now, the biggest strength of t3 cruisers is that they can do everything a BC can do (if not a BS), but can do in a cruiser sized hull with cruiser stats.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#23 - 2015-06-20 21:13:50 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Market Wizard wrote:
So you consider the extra 12 or more days to train BC to 5 the same as training cruiser to 5? Which only looks at doing one, training for all four races would increase the time to train to about two months extra. Yea that's the same training time Roll

You don't have to change prerequisites. BCs required cruiser to be trained first, I don't see why we can't pretend for a moment that T3 BC should have a cruiser for prerequisite too. Yes, that's inconsistent with T3Ds and T2 ships, but in the end, who cares?



doing so means strategics are easier to balance...

I also feel that doing so would break the current cruiser meta through the use of t3, which could be countered by BS's and other BC's...

Right now, the biggest strength of t3 cruisers is that they can do everything a BC can do (if not a BS), but can do in a cruiser sized hull with cruiser stats.


Which says they have CBC/BS stats mixed with cruiser stats and all of it wound up in this lovely little ball of 1024 possible combinations of subsystems (4^5) per T3. So, with that in mind, almost every possibility for balancing them is going to require the stats come well down somewhere, and by keeping the high points of the DPS and tank subsystems is not the right way to do it in my mind. Give each t3 a set of 4 lines of subsystems which harmonize particularly well. Make those 4 lines of subsystems fairly obviously supposed to go together, and make them overlap as little as possible. Scanning subsytem goes with cov ops subsystem goes with nullified subsystem goes with [lowest signature defense] subsytem goes with good projection for a WH data/relic site running machine. Then, with these lines of fairly well harmonized subsystems, balance the resulting role to be appropriate. Now a T3 has 4 overarching roles which are somewhat limiting, but you can still mix and match subsystems until you find what you in particular want out of your t3, while the 4 roles (including the reconish subsystem mix and a HAC-like subsystem line) are all balanced to be competative with but not overshadow t2 in those 4 roles.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2015-06-20 21:27:28 UTC
By cutting number of subs would it be fair and beneficial to add T3 role bonus to the hull of strategic cruiser? 5% of heat damage ammount taken looks obsolete.

"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
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2015-06-20 21:48:47 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Market Wizard wrote:
So you consider the extra 12 or more days to train BC to 5 the same as training cruiser to 5? Which only looks at doing one, training for all four races would increase the time to train to about two months extra. Yea that's the same training time Roll

You don't have to change prerequisites. BCs required cruiser to be trained first, I don't see why we can't pretend for a moment that T3 BC should have a cruiser for prerequisite too. Yes, that's inconsistent with T3Ds and T2 ships, but in the end, who cares?



doing so means strategics are easier to balance...

I also feel that doing so would break the current cruiser meta through the use of t3, which could be countered by BS's and other BC's...

Right now, the biggest strength of t3 cruisers is that they can do everything a BC can do (if not a BS), but can do in a cruiser sized hull with cruiser stats.


Which says they have CBC/BS stats mixed with cruiser stats and all of it wound up in this lovely little ball of 1024 possible combinations of subsystems (4^5) per T3. So, with that in mind, almost every possibility for balancing them is going to require the stats come well down somewhere, and by keeping the high points of the DPS and tank subsystems is not the right way to do it in my mind. Give each t3 a set of 4 lines of subsystems which harmonize particularly well. Make those 4 lines of subsystems fairly obviously supposed to go together, and make them overlap as little as possible. Scanning subsytem goes with cov ops subsystem goes with nullified subsystem goes with [lowest signature defense] subsytem goes with good projection for a WH data/relic site running machine. Then, with these lines of fairly well harmonized subsystems, balance the resulting role to be appropriate. Now a T3 has 4 overarching roles which are somewhat limiting, but you can still mix and match subsystems until you find what you in particular want out of your t3, while the 4 roles (including the reconish subsystem mix and a HAC-like subsystem line) are all balanced to be competative with but not overshadow t2 in those 4 roles.


A t3 gets bonuses equal to that of a cov-ops, as far as exploration, but can do so with nullification, significant dps, and significant tank on top of it.

They can put out fleet boosts as well as a command, but with more tank, dps, and do so in a cruiser sized hull.

They can pull out just under BS class DPS, with BS class tank, BS class projection (in some cases), and do so with a cruiser sized hull.

They are as powerful as a stratios at exploration, but do so with nullification.

Anything a t3 can do is as powerful as a t2, but with more versatility, survivability, and utility, all at the same time.

The only area where a t3 is balanced in comparison to a t2 is logistics.


Making them a BC sized hull brings them much more in line with one quick change.
This makes it much easier to balance the sub systems, as the only ones which will need to be balanced are those focused on specialization.

Their tank and dps is fine when you consider them a BC hull.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#26 - 2015-06-20 23:10:21 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
By cutting number of subs would it be fair and beneficial to add T3 role bonus to the hull of strategic cruiser? 5% of heat damage ammount taken looks obsolete.

I wasn't suggesting cutting the number of subsystems. Focusing each subsystem into one of 4 major roles, with the intent of making it so their are 4 known, published and well balanced intended configurations and roles and then letting gameplay ensue from that point was the general thrust of the suggestion.

To clarify, there would be 4 subsystems in each of the 5 types, like there currently are. They would end up set up so each one supports one of 4 primary roles, and is at about parity with the corresponding t2 vessel with all 5 subsystems dedicated to supporting that role.

So, 3 universal roles:
HAC - DPS and tank focused, with more EHP, but without as strong a sig reduction and slightly less speed
Scanning ship - Covert cloak and scanning bonuses. Low agility due to having a much less agile nulification sub.
Recon: Puts out between 45 and 60% of the bonus to racial EWAR that a real recon would, but with a much tougher tank.
Racial: Something which fits the flavor of the race and is useful. Mostly lumped with the little used subsystems, this should be the place to get any interesting flavor ideas on a t3.

So to do this sort of "role based subsystem lines" subsystems would need to have either much more effect on slot layout outside their primary niche, or much less, and have much less impact on slot layout period. I favor the first, with hardpoints and bay/bandwidth distributed over most of the subsystems, rather than almost entirely lumped onto offensive, and other subsystems adding little bits of fitting room and capacitor and so on. This means a real headache for CCP during the design phase, but it should, done right, end up with almost as many viable configurations as one can imagine, and nothing ending up outperforming the 4 main line roles in any one area.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#27 - 2015-06-20 23:25:30 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Their tank and dps is fine when you consider them a BC hull.


So point by point:

Yep. they compete with CBCs for DPS and BS for EHP numbers.

This does not mean that they are balanced as BCs. For the simple reason that they lose the several of the necessary features for their intended enviornment if you up the mass or lower the speed in other ways. So your "fix" breaks them for their intended purpose. Good job.

Now, dropping the DPS and EHP hurts them, but they still have sufficient mitigation to remain viable in WHs.
Serious nerfs to the nullification subsystem, or it's out and out replacement, make them less frustrating to catch, but how many nullified t3s are really out there, being a problem, and how?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#28 - 2015-06-21 00:00:47 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
[quote=Barrogh Habalu][quote=Market Wizard]So you consider the extra 12 or more days to train BC to 5 the same as training cruiser to 5? Which only looks at doing one, training for all four races would increase the time to train to about two months extra. Yea that's the same training time Roll

You don't have to change prerequisites. BCs required cruiser to be trained first, I don't see why we can't pretend for a moment that T3 BC should have a cruiser for prerequisite too. Yes, that's inconsistent with T3Ds and T2 ships, but in the end, who cares?

Their tank and dps is fine when you consider them a BC hull.

if ifs and nuts where candy and nuts we all have a merry Xmass...

they are NOT a BC hull and nor should they become that.

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Leto Aramaus
Frog Team Four
Of Essence
#29 - 2015-06-21 19:27:43 UTC
Decripid Sano wrote:
Leto Aramaus wrote:
Tiddle wrote:
T3D longer than Blops? Then it should outperform it by twice.


This reads like a fallacy to me. Training time =/= combat performance. We generally associate the two yes, but that should not be a rule.

Also this whole thread is based on this same training time = combat performance fallacy. Like James said, changing the skill requirements NOW... would do nothing. Even if they took T3 skills away from everyone, made it take 6 months to train into, but left the stats the same as they are now... I would still say "T3s are dumb and OP". The ship's stats are OP, and an increase in training time is in NO WAY a balance.

My wish is that "Tech 3" in EVE just means "choice", or "customizable". Not "better than T2", or "extremely advanced", or "extremely good".

Just good old regular ship stats, with customizable choice in role. This means T3s built for cloaky+scanning perform just a bit WORSE than T2 Cov ops at scanning.

T3s built for max tank get the EHP of the other really high tank CRUISERS... i.e. Aug Navy, Maller, Phobos, etc. (but low DPS)
T3s built for max gank get DPS near the other max gank cruisers... but low EHP, (just like Deimos)

T3s built for racial e-war get bonuses to their Scram range, jam strength, neut range/amount, etc... BUT NOT AS GOOD AS the T2 recons. (lower point range than Lachesis, lower jam strength than Falcon, shorter neut range than Curse, etc)

Just make them **balanced**, is it that hard?


what a useless idea. It'd be better if they didn't exist at all if this was their intended use because next to nobody would ever use them.


Oh, hmm... looks like you see things the same way I do...

"It'd be better if they didn't exist at all..." 100% agree.

T3s were a dumb addition to the game, not sure why CCP even added them. (most likely subscriptions, to keep bittervets from complaining about the 10 year old game engine by giving them new OP toys).

The UI update we deserve
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#30 - 2015-06-21 19:40:09 UTC
Leto Aramaus wrote:


what a useless idea. It'd be better if they didn't exist at all if this was their intended use because next to nobody would ever use them.


Oh, hmm... looks like you see things the same way I do...

"It'd be better if they didn't exist at all..." 100% agree.

T3s were a dumb addition to the game, not sure why CCP even added them. (most likely subscriptions, to keep bittervets from complaining about the 10 year old game engine by giving them new OP toys).
[/quote]

CCP created them as part of the intended meta of WHs.

People were never expected to live in WHs full time, especially not with every moon towered, and so CCP made T3s that were designed to be able to run C6 content. Fast forward to people living in WHs full time, and t3 proliferation, and you have a ship disconnected from the initial purpose.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#31 - 2015-06-23 01:50:42 UTC
I would personally prefer that T3 Cruisers go the way of the T3Ds and have different modes so that they can't benefit from every subsystem bonus at once.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2015-06-23 02:03:59 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
I would personally prefer that T3 Cruisers go the way of the T3Ds and have different modes so that they can't benefit from every subsystem bonus at once.


Well, that would take away the potential for the nullifier, cloak, and other potential variations that are quite handy..
Zekora Rally
U2EZ
#33 - 2015-06-23 06:30:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Zekora Rally
Joe Risalo wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Market Wizard wrote:
So you consider the extra 12 or more days to train BC to 5 the same as training cruiser to 5? Which only looks at doing one, training for all four races would increase the time to train to about two months extra. Yea that's the same training time Roll

You don't have to change prerequisites. BCs required cruiser to be trained first, I don't see why we can't pretend for a moment that T3 BC should have a cruiser for prerequisite too. Yes, that's inconsistent with T3Ds and T2 ships, but in the end, who cares?



doing so means strategics are easier to balance...

I also feel that doing so would break the current cruiser meta through the use of t3, which could be countered by BS's and other BC's...

Right now, the biggest strength of t3 cruisers is that they can do everything a BC can do (if not a BS), but can do in a cruiser sized hull with cruiser stats.


Which says they have CBC/BS stats mixed with cruiser stats and all of it wound up in this lovely little ball of 1024 possible combinations of subsystems (4^5) per T3. So, with that in mind, almost every possibility for balancing them is going to require the stats come well down somewhere, and by keeping the high points of the DPS and tank subsystems is not the right way to do it in my mind. Give each t3 a set of 4 lines of subsystems which harmonize particularly well. Make those 4 lines of subsystems fairly obviously supposed to go together, and make them overlap as little as possible. Scanning subsytem goes with cov ops subsystem goes with nullified subsystem goes with [lowest signature defense] subsytem goes with good projection for a WH data/relic site running machine. Then, with these lines of fairly well harmonized subsystems, balance the resulting role to be appropriate. Now a T3 has 4 overarching roles which are somewhat limiting, but you can still mix and match subsystems until you find what you in particular want out of your t3, while the 4 roles (including the reconish subsystem mix and a HAC-like subsystem line) are all balanced to be competative with but not overshadow t2 in those 4 roles.


A t3 gets bonuses equal to that of a cov-ops, as far as exploration, but can do so with nullification, significant dps, and significant tank on top of it.

They can put out fleet boosts as well as a command, but with more tank, dps, and do so in a cruiser sized hull.

They can pull out just under BS class DPS, with BS class tank, BS class projection (in some cases), and do so with a cruiser sized hull.

They are as powerful as a stratios at exploration, but do so with nullification.

Anything a t3 can do is as powerful as a t2, but with more versatility, survivability, and utility, all at the same time.

The only area where a t3 is balanced in comparison to a t2 is logistics.


Making them a BC sized hull brings them much more in line with one quick change.
This makes it much easier to balance the sub systems, as the only ones which will need to be balanced are those focused on specialization.

Their tank and dps is fine when you consider them a BC hull.

To correct you, there's no way a T3 cruiser is giving out as many links as a commandship while staying just as tanked. As it stands, you'll need a ton of fitting mods to get 4 links going on aT3; something a CS can do while staying absolutely brick fit and giving out slightly better bonuses.

No T3 is doing anywhere near battleship level dps atm. At the very best, you have a proteus doing approx 900 dps compared to a mega at 1000dps or a vindi at 1455dps.

Cov ops nulli fits can muster a mere 350dps ish max which a stratios can surpass easily but with lesser tank despite being a T1 hull.

As it stands, when you need the best webs, you get a rapier/huginn. When you need the longest point, you get an arazu. When you need the best neuts on a cruiser platform, you grab a curse. When you need the max boost you can get, you grab any of the commandships. If you need a highly mobile dps platform with awesome range projection, HACs beat T3s hands down.
The only area T3s beat out their T2 counterparts is in staying power at the cost of much less ewar effectiveness. Seems like a fair tradeoff to me.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2015-06-23 07:59:09 UTC
Oh, and on OP:
Skill changes like that don't address the problem, they only delay it until everyone can fly good stuff again.
Kinda what happened to supers, CCP eventually had to do something about ships themselves. This will happen again.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2015-06-23 08:08:02 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:


they are NOT a BC hull and nor should they become that.


What’s the difference? Name is just a name and the stats define a ship. I certainly agree that T3 should be balanced vs. command ships and not HAC.

One of the solutions is to increase buffer of CS, decrease buffer of T3 so they are almost equal. So that you would have to choose between T3 and CS.

CS: little more buffer, res or rep bonus, more dps, slower, bigger sig, no utility (except links).

T3: lowers sig, faster, utility subs, lower mass (but CS should be competitive for WH).

This is of course for combat T3 and not recon or ewar versions.

I strongly disagree with comparing T3 and HAC - they are certainly not in the same "weight" category.

Separate problem is balancing T3 vs. BS - but then again you have only T1 combat BS, if there were T2 BS with T2 res profile T3 would not feel so OP...
Previous page12