These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Why are "generalized" t3's betters at "Specialization" Command ships at givi

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1 - 2012-05-26 21:38:27 UTC
Seriously an insult not just to Command Ships but the entire balance and design philosophy of this game in general.

T3 cruisers are supposed to be "generalized" ships, doing everything pretty well but not as excellent as a T2 ship in its specialized role.
Bill Serkoff2
Tachyon Technology
#2 - 2012-05-26 21:41:15 UTC
Because T3 ships are OP. End of.

"The Cyclone and the Drake are two ships which will basically never be good for shield tanking, primarily because they have almost no lowslots in addition to shield tanking bonuses. " -Iam Widdershins
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#3 - 2012-05-26 22:39:41 UTC
Bill Serkoff2 wrote:
Because T3 ships are OP. End of.

Are you agreeing that it's a problem or are you ok with the way it is?
TomyLobo
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-05-26 22:53:35 UTC  |  Edited by: TomyLobo
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
Seriously an insult not just to Command Ships but the entire balance and design philosophy of this game in general.

T3 cruisers are supposed to be "generalized" ships, doing everything pretty well but not as excellent as a T2 ship in its specialized role.

Tier system. Does that mean anything to you?
CCP doesn't need to split t3s into different ships with specific roles for anyone to understand why T3s should perform better.
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#5 - 2012-05-26 22:55:50 UTC
TomyLobo wrote:
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
Seriously an insult not just to Command Ships but the entire balance and design philosophy of this game in general.

T3 cruisers are supposed to be "generalized" ships, doing everything pretty well but not as excellent as a T2 ship in its specialized role.

Tier system. Does that mean anything to you?


CCP's stance on generalization T3's vs T2 Specializations, does that mean anything to you?
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-05-26 23:03:42 UTC
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
Are you agreeing that it's a problem or are you ok with the way it is?


Well, any nerf to T3s is going to hurt the (pve) reward of WHs, which are pretty much the riskiest space. I'm personally fine with T3s as they exist currently since it makes WH space the most lucrative in the game.
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#7 - 2012-05-26 23:16:28 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
Are you agreeing that it's a problem or are you ok with the way it is?


Well, any nerf to T3s is going to hurt the (pve) reward of WHs, which are pretty much the riskiest space. I'm personally fine with T3s as they exist currently since it makes WH space the most lucrative in the game.

It's only risky if you're afk botting in WHs because I find WH's to be safer than null and low.
Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#8 - 2012-05-26 23:32:27 UTC
The only area I see an issue would be command bonuses. At the very least the bonuses should be the same.

Otherwise I think overall the T3 ships are fine. Given their cost, and the fact that I lose potentially a week of training (depending on my attribute mapping) when I die, I think their power matches their risk.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#9 - 2012-05-27 01:17:44 UTC
Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.

The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#10 - 2012-05-27 01:19:36 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.

The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind. Not saying this is going to be easy to tackle, but this is an issue we do have in mind and that we will need to fix when we get to it.


I love you
Lili Lu
#11 - 2012-05-27 01:19:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
And we can expect these changes in 2023 judging by the past and current rate of balancing changes. Straight

edit- Seriously, please get faster at this. It's ok if you make some mistakes, as long as you keep revisiting quickly those mistakes. Look at something like technetium. It's taken you guys years now to even get close to fixing it. And please review the threads on the forums. People were warning you about tech even before you put it on tranqulity. Look at how long the Drake has been far and away the most used ship for pve and pvp. Similarly the Tengu. If you made smaller changes more often then these mistakes would not fester in the game they would just be brief hiccups that would reced from memory.
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2012-05-27 01:22:07 UTC
As a Leadership pilot i would love you long time if you made the command ships work instead of as it is now.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-05-27 01:35:59 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
And we can expect these changes in 2023 judging by the past and current rate of balancing changes. Straight

edit- Seriously, please get faster at this. It's ok if you make some mistakes, as long as you keep revisiting quickly those mistakes. Look at something like technetium. It's taken you guys years now to even get close to fixing it. And please review the threads on the forums. People were warning you about tech even before you put it on tranqulity. Look at how long the Drake has been far and away the most used ship for pve and pvp. Similarly the Tengu. If you made smaller changes more often then these mistakes would not fester in the game they would just be brief hiccups that would reced from memory.



ccp tallest should be back from his parental leave soon(tm) iirc his only task was balancing for some time, while ccp ytterbium has some other tasks

im pretty certain we can expect some more stuff in the not to distant future
Lili Lu
#14 - 2012-05-27 01:41:27 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
ccp tallest should be back from his parental leave soon(tm) iirc his only task was balancing for some time, while ccp ytterbium has some other tasks

im pretty certain we can expect some more stuff in the not to distant future

Yes, in six months with the next expansion we will get 5 more frigs rebalanced.
Jack Miton
Perkone
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-05-27 01:49:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
There's no issue with T3s atm.
the only possible exception is off grid boosting to which the fix is making boosting on grid only, not nerfing T3s.

command ships are also fine for the most part.
only one that is bad is the Eos.

ive never heard a good argument for why T3s should get nerfed.
they cost at least 2x that of a CS, you risk losing skill points and they really do not do more than one thing at a time well.
and given you cant refit them in a WH (a MUCH more pressing issue....) you need a different hull for each role you wish to do with it.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#16 - 2012-05-27 02:19:37 UTC
btw one big step to make a T3 more flexible is to alow to remove subsystems without destroying the rigs.

Why?
rigs define the purpose of the ship. Once you have them in your fitting is basically defined. Swaping subsystems is of limited use and works only in corner cases. What would be nice is to have multiple hulls fitted with rigs and just plug in the subsystems like normal items. Currently you have to maintain at least N+1 sybsystems from each types where N is the number of hulls to be able to swap them.

thats the hardcore version of towers of hanoi

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#17 - 2012-05-27 02:53:16 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
There's no issue with T3s atm.
the only possible exception is off grid boosting to which the fix is making boosting on grid only, not nerfing T3s.

command ships are also fine for the most part.
only one that is bad is the Eos.

ive never heard a good argument for why T3s should get nerfed.
they cost at least 2x that of a CS, you risk losing skill points and they really do not do more than one thing at a time well.
and given you cant refit them in a WH (a MUCH more pressing issue....) you need a different hull for each role you wish to do with it.


Agreed that T3s should NOT get nerfed it makes them less special, less of something to work towards and makes the price of them a lot less worthwhile.

At the moment I'm against any changes regarding off/on grid boosting, while some ships like the damnation can feasibly fulfil this role as a whole command ships including t3s aren't really suited to it. I do think there should be a bonus to on grid boosting tho to (rather than lose off grid boosting entirely) to try and encourage it but it needs to come with a lot of changes to the current command ships and boosting t3s.
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#18 - 2012-05-27 03:23:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Bienator II wrote:
btw one big step to make a T3 more flexible is to alow to remove subsystems without destroying the rigs.

You know you can already do that, right? Just drag the new ones on to the fitting window like modules.

Unless you mean simply removing them, without having a replacement sub?

thhief ghabmoef
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-05-27 04:12:57 UTC
All I can think of is if the T is higher, it must be a better ship. So if a T2 cruiser can run an L4 mission, then a T3 cruiser should be able to out preform a T2 BC. Makes sense I suppose.

Lili Lu wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
ccp tallest should be back from his parental leave soon(tm) iirc his only task was balancing for some time, while ccp ytterbium has some other tasks

im pretty certain we can expect some more stuff in the not to distant future

Yes, in six months with the next expansion we will get 5 more frigs rebalanced.


My question is which 5? I posted thoughts on this earlier but it didn't get any traction yet. For example they could re-purpose all the EW frigates.

I can has blogging skills!
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2012-05-27 04:19:41 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:


command ships are also fine for the most part.
only one that is bad is the Eos..


other then the damnation the fleet command ships are a tad to flimsy to actually be in a fleet and on grid where they belong. making an offgrid t3 much better. Up the others tank and i would agree with you
123Next pageLast page