These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Strategic cruiser balance pass
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#421 - 2017-04-24 19:14:06 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:

Who broke Salvos? baltec1 is that you?


He went off the deep end.

But here is where CCP have said they want them

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.


Other things we know is they want them to gain the ability to unfit rigs without destroying them and there will be a round table to talk about T3C at some future date.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#422 - 2017-04-24 19:44:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:

Who broke Salvos? baltec1 is that you?


He went off the deep end.

But here is where CCP have said they want them

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.


Other things we know is they want them to gain the ability to unfit rigs without destroying them and there will be a round table to talk about T3C at some future date.


I would like to point out that that quote has been proven to be partly troll by Ytterbium. Wormholers raised quite a ruckus over it and I believe it was Fozzie who said in fanfest or at a wormhole-talk that Ytterbium wasn't completely serious when that was posted. I wouldn't keep that old information as the holy truth since CCP has refreshed their ship-rebalancing ideas since then.

Anyways.

This thread is starting to get really nullsec-heavy, so I thought I'd give you a example of Tech 3 -cruiser usage in wormholes, especially in PVP, since that seems to be the main talking point in here.

I joined my first wormhole-corporation back in may of 2010. Apocrypha had come out a few months earlier and things were still very new. This was back in the age of the battlecruiser, so lot of drakes and canes flying around. Fast forward about 6 months and you start seeing the first real tech 3 -cruiser fleets. They were usually shield-fleets with main damage coming from Tengu's.

Some months go by and the first real meta of tech 3 -cruisers come to be the dominant fit around, The blaster proteus. Since wormholes spit you out within 5-6km of the hole, you are pretty much always in blaster range, so why not. For quite a while it was nothing but blaster proteus with support from loki's. At the same time EWAR was raising it's importance, so people came up with one of the weirdest fits eve, the armor-tanked ECM-tengu. It is still used in most PVP-fleets.

This pretty much continued until CCP buffed railguns, so the next meta was rail-proteus with loki-webs and ECM-tengu-support. Some added sensor dampeners to make things harder for the enemy logi/EWAR.

The next big change was when some smart person realized that all the ships in the tech 3-fleet was using capacitor to do something. People started adding energy neutralizers to their fleets (sometimes you could see 3-6 bhaalgorns in a 20-30 man fleet.), sometimes shutting down entire fleets.

This drove the last big change in the meta into using as little cap as possible. The answer: HAM-legion. We are still using the same basic fleet-setup of HAM-legions for mainline DPS, Loki's to web, proteus for long-range point and ECM-tengu's.

We've used the same damn ships for over 6 years. There is no real substitute. Any good-sized wormhole-corporation is going to have a tech 3-fleet as their main doctrine when they need to really fight against another wormhole-entity. They are just so good in every way, that there is no other ship that even comes to mind. There is no other ship that combines the DPS, the tank, the utility and EWAR-capabilities into one ship like a tech 3 -cruiser does.

Do they need a rebalance? Definately yes. There are so many unused subsystems and ideas.
Do they need to be nerfed? Probably nerfs do need to happen, just to give other ships some room as well.
Are wormholers running around like it's the end of the world? No, because there is no solid information on what CCP will do. The best we got is 2 slides from this years fanfest and they don't go into details.

The best course of action? Wait until CCP releases the details and if you are interested in having your ideas brought up, there will be a thread to do so as well as the focus group (I'm quite sure there will be multiple wormholers in that, for obvious reasons)

Wormholer for life.
Cade Windstalker
#423 - 2017-04-24 19:50:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
@Wander Prian good post, agree with a lot of it, and for what it's worth I'm not a null person, I'm someone who tries to learn as much about different areas of the game as possible, and I've talked with a lot of WH people over the years about this.

Most pretty much take your view, that T3Cs get used because they're the best combination of DPS and tank you can shove through a hole for the mass. Most of them also agree that they need a nerf in some form.

I doubt that CCP are ever going to nerf these things so much that WHs suffer an apocalypse or they become unusable, especially since CCP fozzie hinted that he feels the SP loss still have a place in the game (something I disagree with).

As for their plans, yes they've changed somewhat but I think that image still holds, though I believe that the flexibility the T3Cs get is going to put them somewhere between Navy and T2 in the eyes of most of the playerbase, simply because "A VNI that can cloak/has interdiction nullification/ect" is still a step above a raw VNI.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#424 - 2017-04-24 20:31:30 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for their plans, yes they've changed somewhat but I think that image still holds, though I believe that the flexibility the T3Cs get is going to put them somewhere between Navy and T2 in the eyes of most of the playerbase, simply because "A VNI that can cloak/has interdiction nullification/ect" is still a step above a raw VNI.

If so then this would open the gate for T3BS.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Keno Skir
#425 - 2017-04-24 21:48:52 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Seems like it will happen anyways.

Sell your T3Cs and subsystems while you can.
Buy Extractors to get rid of useless SP before the price goes through the roof.
Sorry WH, you got shafted again.
Sorry nomads, you got wrecked.
Sorry T3C builders, new price is 40-50mil including subsystems.

NS entities wins again.
Just so they dont have to deal with T3Cs.

GJ EVE.


I'll be watching from wormhole space (where some people are fine with this) enjoy all the extra SP Pirate

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Cade Windstalker
#426 - 2017-04-24 22:00:32 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for their plans, yes they've changed somewhat but I think that image still holds, though I believe that the flexibility the T3Cs get is going to put them somewhere between Navy and T2 in the eyes of most of the playerbase, simply because "A VNI that can cloak/has interdiction nullification/ect" is still a step above a raw VNI.

If so then this would open the gate for T3BS.


How about we revisit this idea in ~3-4 years and if the general state of Battleships is fairly healthy and T3Ds and T3Cs have opened up enough room that the meta is generally varied and interesting then maybe CCP can revisit this idea, but I am *extremely* skeptical of this being at all a good idea.

Even if T3Cs can be balanced that doesn't mean that logically a T3BS can be balanced. One is not related enough to the other to follow.
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#427 - 2017-04-24 22:57:44 UTC
Seems CCP has released little information on what they plan to do besides redo subsystems to make sure they all have a use. We have the "rabid dog" quote from one guy, but then another guy said it wasn't serious or credible.

The real danger by far is that these things are nerfed far too little, not far too much.

I've never chased flavor-of-the-month. I've recognized these things as being horrendously OP for years. And for years my rich null-sec buddy has said "train T3C! train T3C! train T3C!" and I've refused, just patiently waiting for the day for these things to be brought into line, to be "put down like the drooling rabid dogs they are." Well, if it doesn't happen, and if CCP doesn't nerf the bejesus out of these things, I guess they'll be here to stay. At that point I'll have no other choice but to train them.
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#428 - 2017-04-24 23:10:19 UTC
I look forward to the rebalance. Long overdue. Will effectively make other ship choices much more valid, no buffs required.

I don't see the plan to nerf them into the ground, but focus on what (should) make the ship class unique. The removeable rigs will be nice. Now if they can reduce the size of subsytems and/or increase the cargo hold this will be a good change.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#429 - 2017-04-25 04:16:38 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
OK then we look at a certain faction BS which is used by certain people for fleet fights, 266,244 EHP and 1110 DPS, that is what the BS class should be at so that carriers don't become the new BS, the BS need love, it is not so much that the T3C's are over powered but that BS are under tanked in the main with the exception of the one I just detailed. FC's prefer to use the mobility of the T3C's which is a simple enough thing to understand with command destroyers able to jump ships way to be killed piece meal.

So just doing a simplistic this is the ship it is over powered because of raw stats, means what?

The thing is that certain alliances are investing heavily in Carriers as their new doctrine and they would like to have T3C's to have a weaker tank so they can kill them easier with their swarms of fighters.

Anyway, yes, as always baltec1 is pushing what favours him and his alliances setup, who would have thought that...


I'm really wondering what magical BS fit you're basing this off of, because trawling through zKill for fleet Nightmare and Mach fits yields a couple of different fits, none of which gets close to 266k EHP before boosts. The Machs deal about 400 DPS and tank 196k EHP, the Nightmare deals about 900 DPS with Navy Multi but only tanks 147k EHP.

Also that Faction BS takes damage worse than a T3C making the actual tank favor the T3C in practice.

Also if you haven't noticed there have been people complaining about the current cost to power ratio of Pirate Battleships as well.

So no, the problem here is not that Battleships are under powered. They're good at being a ball of hitpoints and at projecting damage at ranges even the T3Cs can't match. The problem here is 100% that T3Cs are OP.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
Tung Yoggi wrote:
You are indeed special

Sorry for the free flaming; just to be a little more clear: your fits are overly expensive, they do indeed have a lot of "hard to source" mods (you have to take this into consideration when you build a doctrine, a doctrine has to be easily replaceable), and their weapon systems are not competitive in a fleet environment.

No worries. The fits were not presented as fleet fits or any sort of fit for purpose. They were in response to previously posted fits with a lot of bling taking T3C up to 150k ehp or more and my fits were designed to show that any of the resist bonused hulls can achieve similiar levels of tank and dps. Its not an ability unique to the T3C.


Except that your fits don't actually work. Those T3C fits are taken out of an actual fleet engagement, not EFT BS pulled out of someone's rectal cavity as a thought experiment. If you want to actually start bling-tanking T3Cs as a thought experiment then you can get stuff that smokes your fits completely, and they're not doing that well in the first place.

Oh and on top of that you seem to have missed that those T3C fits can actually do important PvP things like point and scram enemies. Also they're armor tanked, while all of your fits were active shield tanked, which is always going to give better EHP but is very vulnerable to cap warfare.

These fits are just laughably bad.

Try and fit up something actually practical that competes with the T3Cs and you might have an argument. Right now you're just throwing around chaff and hoping someone has a brain aneurysm and believes what you're selling.

Fits are fine. You simply do not realise apparantly, that fits are not static. If you did you would be able to do the things I do and have done in EvE - an example is me solo camping an alliance hub for docking rights. I used a XL shield boosted Proteus and ended with 22 kill / 1 loss and the ability to dock. Real EvE is about finding a problem, fitting for the task and solving that problem. Had I been you I would have needed an alliance, entered into a protracted war and probably lost trillions of isk in cookie fits.


If you can't take one of those fits and make it work with a little modification then its not the fit that's bad, its you.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#430 - 2017-04-25 06:07:16 UTC
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:
I look forward to the rebalance. Long overdue. Will effectively make other ship choices much more valid, no buffs required.

I don't see the plan to nerf them into the ground, but focus on what (should) make the ship class unique. The removeable rigs will be nice. Now if they can reduce the size of subsytems and/or increase the cargo hold this will be a good change.


Its what I called for earlier on. Reduce subsystems from 40m3 to 10m3 and bump up the cargo holds to 450m3.
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#431 - 2017-04-25 06:32:20 UTC  |  Edited by: sero Hita
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

2) Nothing is preventing you from using HACs right now.
You dont need T3Cs wiped out to the point YOU will no longer field them, inorder to use HACs.


  • Yeah we kinda do, because HACs don't get used because they're flat worse. Claiming that it's fine if no one wants to use something just because they *can* use it is ridiculous.


    • This is not completely true tbh. I see plenty of Hacs fleets in the area of lowsec where I reside. They get used. To what extend can be debated, as I don't have the data. You are underestimating engagebility as a choice for fleet selection imo. We have a T3 doctrine (Railproteus), A Sac doctrine and a Munin doctrine. We use the Hac doctrines more often, because unleashing T3Cs means everyone docks up. If we go in Muninns everyone and their uncle want to fight us, because they are seen as useless, but when you have 30 of them they will chew through most things what seems to surprise many... Perhaps people are bad at additive calculus?

    TLDR: Hacs are used

    "I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
    Jeremiah Saken
    The Fall of Leviathan
    #432 - 2017-04-25 07:08:36 UTC
    sero Hita wrote:
    We use the Hac doctrines more often, because unleashing T3Cs means everyone docks up.

    Kinda funny conclusion, people won't fight T3Cs because they are OP so T3Cs are used less than HACs. Self-regulation.

    "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
    baltec1
    Bat Country
    Pandemic Horde
    #433 - 2017-04-25 07:11:03 UTC
    Jeremiah Saken wrote:
    sero Hita wrote:
    We use the Hac doctrines more often, because unleashing T3Cs means everyone docks up.

    Kinda funny conclusion, people won't fight T3Cs because they are OP so T3Cs are used less than HACs. Self-regulation.


    Doesn't work.
    Salvos Rhoska
    #434 - 2017-04-25 07:12:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
    Ive said what I have to say.
    I think its been made clear where the lines are drawn on the issue.

    Arguing for or against at this point is largely redundant until CCP releases more information and hopefully puts the topic up for public debate/assessment before launching changes.

    I dont think anyone disagrees T3Cs are OP in various ways.
    The point is how to go about changing that without unfairly punishing some content in the favor of others.

    PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
    Jeremiah Saken
    The Fall of Leviathan
    #435 - 2017-04-25 07:33:19 UTC
    baltec1 wrote:
    Jeremiah Saken wrote:
    sero Hita wrote:
    We use the Hac doctrines more often, because unleashing T3Cs means everyone docks up.

    Kinda funny conclusion, people won't fight T3Cs because they are OP so T3Cs are used less than HACs. Self-regulation.


    Doesn't work.

    Ofc it doesn't. Not in big fights.
    dps graph
    colors are so badly chosen I can't see what hull has 5th place.

    "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
    Salvos Rhoska
    #436 - 2017-04-25 07:40:02 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    As for their plans, yes they've changed somewhat but I think that image still holds, though I believe that the flexibility the T3Cs get is going to put them somewhere between Navy and T2 in the eyes of most of the playerbase, simply because "A VNI that can cloak/has interdiction nullification/ect" is still a step above a raw VNI.

    In baltec1s proposal, you would be unable to fit cloak/nulli.

    PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
    Jeremiah Saken
    The Fall of Leviathan
    #437 - 2017-04-25 07:49:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jeremiah Saken
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    As for their plans, yes they've changed somewhat but I think that image still holds, though I believe that the flexibility the T3Cs get is going to put them somewhere between Navy and T2 in the eyes of most of the playerbase, simply because "A VNI that can cloak/has interdiction nullification/ect" is still a step above a raw VNI.

    In baltec1s proposal, you would be unable to fit cloak/nulli.

    Fozzie already stated that they don't want separate covop and nullfied subsystem configuration. Despite that baltec1 has reasonably proposals for T3C.

    "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
    Tung Yoggi
    University of Caille
    #438 - 2017-04-25 10:37:33 UTC
    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Dracvlad wrote:
    OK then we look at a certain faction BS which is used by certain people for fleet fights, 266,244 EHP and 1110 DPS, that is what the BS class should be at so that carriers don't become the new BS, the BS need love, it is not so much that the T3C's are over powered but that BS are under tanked in the main with the exception of the one I just detailed. FC's prefer to use the mobility of the T3C's which is a simple enough thing to understand with command destroyers able to jump ships way to be killed piece meal.

    So just doing a simplistic this is the ship it is over powered because of raw stats, means what?

    The thing is that certain alliances are investing heavily in Carriers as their new doctrine and they would like to have T3C's to have a weaker tank so they can kill them easier with their swarms of fighters.

    Anyway, yes, as always baltec1 is pushing what favours him and his alliances setup, who would have thought that...


    I'm really wondering what magical BS fit you're basing this off of, because trawling through zKill for fleet Nightmare and Mach fits yields a couple of different fits, none of which gets close to 266k EHP before boosts. The Machs deal about 400 DPS and tank 196k EHP, the Nightmare deals about 900 DPS with Navy Multi but only tanks 147k EHP.

    Also that Faction BS takes damage worse than a T3C making the actual tank favor the T3C in practice.

    Also if you haven't noticed there have been people complaining about the current cost to power ratio of Pirate Battleships as well.

    So no, the problem here is not that Battleships are under powered. They're good at being a ball of hitpoints and at projecting damage at ranges even the T3Cs can't match. The problem here is 100% that T3Cs are OP.

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    Tung Yoggi wrote:
    You are indeed special

    Sorry for the free flaming; just to be a little more clear: your fits are overly expensive, they do indeed have a lot of "hard to source" mods (you have to take this into consideration when you build a doctrine, a doctrine has to be easily replaceable), and their weapon systems are not competitive in a fleet environment.

    No worries. The fits were not presented as fleet fits or any sort of fit for purpose. They were in response to previously posted fits with a lot of bling taking T3C up to 150k ehp or more and my fits were designed to show that any of the resist bonused hulls can achieve similiar levels of tank and dps. Its not an ability unique to the T3C.


    Except that your fits don't actually work. Those T3C fits are taken out of an actual fleet engagement, not EFT BS pulled out of someone's rectal cavity as a thought experiment. If you want to actually start bling-tanking T3Cs as a thought experiment then you can get stuff that smokes your fits completely, and they're not doing that well in the first place.

    Oh and on top of that you seem to have missed that those T3C fits can actually do important PvP things like point and scram enemies. Also they're armor tanked, while all of your fits were active shield tanked, which is always going to give better EHP but is very vulnerable to cap warfare.

    These fits are just laughably bad.

    Try and fit up something actually practical that competes with the T3Cs and you might have an argument. Right now you're just throwing around chaff and hoping someone has a brain aneurysm and believes what you're selling.

    Fits are fine. You simply do not realise apparantly, that fits are not static. If you did you would be able to do the things I do and have done in EvE - an example is me solo camping an alliance hub for docking rights. I used a XL shield boosted Proteus and ended with 22 kill / 1 loss and the ability to dock. Real EvE is about finding a problem, fitting for the task and solving that problem. Had I been you I would have needed an alliance, entered into a protracted war and probably lost trillions of isk in cookie fits.


    If you can't take one of those fits and make it work with a little modification then its not the fit that's bad, its you.


    Really, no, they aren't fine, they were supposed to be examples or alternatives for T3C and they never quite hit the mark. That's how much ? At least three, or four people who pointed that out.

    Making out of the box fits for your activities do not equate making doctrine ships. You are not solving any problem with the proposed fits, besides maybe making Great Wildlands a better missioning place with all those Thukker items.

    Making funky fits or out of the box stuff for your activities is one thing, making doctrine fits is another.
    Infinity Ziona
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #439 - 2017-04-25 10:59:59 UTC
    Tung Yoggi wrote:


    Making out of the box fits for your activities do not equate making doctrine ships. You are not solving any problem with the proposed fits, besides maybe making Great Wildlands a better missioning place with all those Thukker items.

    Making funky fits or out of the box stuff for your activities is one thing, making doctrine fits is another.

    This is not about doctrine fits. Of all the PvP in game the minority is fleet fights. Doctrine need to be developed from ships balanced for the majority not the minority.

    The majority is small to medium gangs.

    Also thukker large extenders are cheap and plentiful. From memory 30 mill

    CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

    Kaalrus pwned..... :)
    Gimme Sake
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #440 - 2017-04-25 11:04:01 UTC
    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    Tung Yoggi wrote:


    Making out of the box fits for your activities do not equate making doctrine ships. You are not solving any problem with the proposed fits, besides maybe making Great Wildlands a better missioning place with all those Thukker items.

    Making funky fits or out of the box stuff for your activities is one thing, making doctrine fits is another.

    This is not about doctrine fits. Of all the PvP in game the minority is fleet fights. Doctrine need to be developed from ships balanced for the majority not the minority.

    The majority is small to medium gangs.

    Also thukker large extenders are cheap and plentiful. From memory 30 mill



    No, Thukker large extenders cost around 60 mil, Republic 30 and Cal. Navy around 20.

    "Never not blob!" ~ Plato