These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

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

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#121 - 2012-05-31 08:25:58 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
[quote=Mechael]A Mach can potentially sport more EHP, with a slot to spare for a cap booster, sebo, point, etc. but the Maelstrom has a better active tank. Of course, in practical terms a Mach is more survivable thanks to it's tremendous speed advantage, which is one thing the Tempest has over the Maelstrom as well.


Yeah, and then there's the speed issue, which probably belongs in another thread. Long story short, with the exception of squad and possible wing-level work (10-50 pilots), there's really no such thing as a speed tank. CCP really ought to look at making ships (especially smaller, faster ships) more difficult to hit at longer ranges. The way fleets spread out when they get large really makes any kind of speed tanking largely irrelevant (which is strange, because you'd think that speedy ships would shine the most over long distances,) even if it still can be useful for getting inside of your optimal from time to time.

I would like to reiterate, though, that yes I do believe price is a balancing factor. Cheapness is just not a good excuse for a no-good ship (like so many T1 frigates and cruisers) nor is a huge pricetag an excuse for a ship that makes many other ships completely obsolete (like cap ships, or T3 cruisers.) It's a balancing act (hence the term game balance.) Every ship needs a role, and "cheap salvage" is just as invalid as "expensive win-button."

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Cosmoes
Peraka
#122 - 2012-05-31 08:30:54 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


.....

No, it would mean never use T3s for gang boosting ever, just like no one ever uses T3s for logistics roles, because a T3 with the warfare processor sub has so little tank that it's pretty much worthless for anything else, and if it can only carry one link, then no FC would ever, ever use one for fleet boosting if he's offered a command ship instead, because 3 +115% links on a relatively cheap high durability ship are massively better than one +125% link on a relatively expensive low durability ship.

.....



I think the three biggest problems aren't with either t2 or t3 balance but instead are

Fleet boosting structure

Command processors

afk pos/ss booster


With a fleet boosting structure you only want the very best boost and that is all you need. You don't need 2 vultures with command links. This means you only want the very best in your command role everyone else can go home and refit as their bonuses do absolutely nothing. There is also the limit of FC/WC/SC applying a limit on the number of squad commanders you can have.

Command processors: They let you specialize in leadership far more than the bonuses that naturally come from ships. They don't have a stacking penalty and they let you put all your fitting all your mids, highs and lows towards command bonuses.

The fact you can do your job from off grid allows you to avoid nearly all risk. It also makes any dps/tank ewar etc. you can do irrelevant. I think this needs to go the way of the titans doomsdaying through cyno's at a pos.



I'd like to see a rework of the whole system honestly so it scaled better with multiple command ships and there where advantages to having your command ship do more than one thing.

The balance between t2 and t3 is supposed to be t2 focused on one task and best while t3 is close to t2 but can do multiple things at the same time as that.

Right now the current system leads to such hyper focusing you have billion isk ships specialized in only one task. The way they work kind of renders the advantage of t3's being multispec'd useless. The fact CCP designed a t3 subsystem to not only outperform it's t2 counterpart but push a ship that's based around spec'ing in multiple roles to hyper focus into one role kind of speaks of their frequent lack of planning.

Right now fleet commanding while very useful isn't a varied enough role for two ships to specialize in it. In the future I'd like to see t2 outperform t3 in pure command while t3 can do more things while commanding.


If we where really to do the changes right now I'd say swap the 3% & 5% bonuses around while giving the command subsystem an additional tank bonus (resists might work or at least an increase in hp for the subsystem) possibly also increase the base number of command links it can put in to 2.
Marzuq
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#123 - 2012-05-31 08:31:58 UTC
Its not hard to see this thread is full of morons who are mad when they get beaten one vs one by a ship(with higher cost and skill requirement) that is better than theirs.

By their reasoning Faction and Deadspace modules should not be better than regular tech 1 or tech 2 modules because "cost should not be a balancing factor".

Before you argue about Titans and Supercaps, those are examples of cost balancing gone out of control. You don't see 200 Tech 3 or Tech 2 ship beating 1000 men t1 gangs do you?

A tech 2 or Tech 3 ship should of course beat a lower class in face to face combat with pilots of equal skills who know what they're supposed to do. (Stupidity is not a Balancing factor, no Gameplay changes can or will fix stupidity which I see.)

And infact they do, they aren't solopwnmobiles that can easily beat gangs that outnumber them.

Sure a Tengu can beat a drake, but when you add another drake, it gets tough for the tengu. A well fit loki can solo a hurricane, but add in another hurricane and its gonna have a hard time surviving.

Might as well nerf and remove all Tech 2, Tech 3, Navy, and Pirate ships because they are simply better than Tech 1 ships and its unfair because cost should not be a balancing factor.

Tech 3 stands are find (though the legion could use fixing CCP screwed up slot configurations - 6 weapon legion has less lowslots than its gallente counterpart). Tech 2 ships can do a lot of things that Tech 3 cannot do. Tech 2 can put up bubbles or infinite point, be actual working logistic ships, powerful ewar ships, etc. Tech 3 ships cannot do these things.

The only think Tech 3 obsolete are terrible Tech 2 ships that need help.

Most of the HAC's are terrible, the only real HAC's that people find worth flying are Zealot, Vagabond, and maybe Ishtar. The rest of the HAC's are not popular do to the fact that there are several ships that can do the same roles they can for cheaper and many times better.

Eagle- A piece of ****, Naga does more dps, more range potential, and cheaper. You never see anyone fly this crap due to fittings, abysmal dps, its a joke.

Cerberus- is a long range missile sniping HAC, it does less dps than the Tengu, but it has more than 50% of the range of the Tengu. The Cerberus has a role that is probably poor due to the long travel time of missiles to hit the target as intended ranges. At Close Range the Cerberus is purely inferior to the drake, being much more expensive, weaker, and fragile.

Deimos- Its gotten better, but still not worth using over a Brutix that is much cheaper and does more DPS. It still has the reputation as Diemost. The Vigilant is the Deimos done right, only reason not as many fly it is due to high costs.

Muninn - Well its an ok ship but a tornado or a hurricane does the job better and cheaper.

Sacrilege - I don't see these flown very often, but the ship is uninspiring it uses short range missiles with slow armor tank. Its DPS is pretty low and I don't really see much real uses for these.

Tech 2 Command Ships are ships that need fixing, they have less hitpoints and slots than their Tier 2 Battlecruiser counterparts. So I'm sure CCP will take a good look into these guys.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#124 - 2012-05-31 08:57:59 UTC
Marzuq wrote:
Its not hard to see this thread is full of morons who are mad when they get beaten one vs one by a ship(with higher cost and skill requirement) that is better than theirs.


More like, "who rightly get mad when what could be an interesting and fun ship is instead rendered mostly useless due to obviously bad game mechanics." When I have to tell a noob, "No, I know that the Bellicose SOUNDS like a cool ship, trust me, the Rupture is just flat out better, even if all you want to do is use target painters." then something is wrong with the way the game is designed. EVE is chock full of examples like that, and it stretches across all tiers and tech levels. I'm not going to list them here, because anyone who's actually played the game for a few months should know about them already.

Marzuq wrote:
By their reasoning Faction and Deadspace modules should not be better than regular tech 1 or tech 2 modules because "cost should not be a balancing factor".


I'd argue that faction and deadspace modules should be removed from the game entirely. This is supposed to be the sandbox. If I wanted a game that was about grinding mobs for hours hoping for that rare loot drop, I'd go play Diablo.

Marzuq wrote:
Before you argue about Titans and Supercaps, those are examples of cost balancing gone out of control. You don't see 200 Tech 3 or Tech 2 ship beating 1000 men t1 gangs do you?


Cost balancing has gone out of control the moment one ship will outperform another ship at the role the second ship was designed for and the only real justification is that, "Well, the first ship is more expensive."

Marzuq wrote:
A tech 2 or Tech 3 ship should of course beat a lower class in face to face combat with pilots of equal skills who know what they're supposed to do. (Stupidity is not a Balancing factor, no Gameplay changes can or will fix stupidity which I see.)


Why should one ship just be arbitrarily better at everything? How does this make the game better and more fun for everyone?

Marzuq wrote:
And infact they do, they aren't solopwnmobiles that can easily beat gangs that outnumber them.

Sure a Tengu can beat a drake, but when you add another drake, it gets tough for the tengu. A well fit loki can solo a hurricane, but add in another hurricane and its gonna have a hard time surviving.


While it is good that most of the ships in the game aren't solopwnmobiles, I'd argue that it is NOT a good thing that a T3 cruiser (or any cruiser) can solo a class of ship whose primary role is to be an anti-cruiser platform. In an ideal, well balanced EVE, the primary role of the battlecruiser is (and was originally intended to be) to keep larger ships safe from more nimble cruiser class ships (much like the Destroyer is the counter to frigates.) The downside to the battlecruiser is that they were supposed to be big and slow enough to be easily destroyed by large weapons (much like Destroyers fall easy prey to medium weapons.)

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#125 - 2012-05-31 08:58:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
(Split up because I can only quote 5 times in a single post. What? )

Marzuq wrote:
Might as well nerf and remove all Tech 2, Tech 3, Navy, and Pirate ships because they are simply better than Tech 1 ships and its unfair because cost should not be a balancing factor.


While cost should be a balancing factor, it should not be an excuse for making a ship no longer capable of filling its intended role.

Marzuq wrote:
Tech 3 stands are find (though the legion could use fixing CCP screwed up slot configurations - 6 weapon legion has less lowslots than its gallente counterpart). Tech 2 ships can do a lot of things that Tech 3 cannot do. Tech 2 can put up bubbles or infinite point, be actual working logistic ships, powerful ewar ships, etc. Tech 3 ships cannot do these things.

The only think Tech 3 obsolete are terrible Tech 2 ships that need help.

Most of the HAC's are terrible, the only real HAC's that people find worth flying are Zealot, Vagabond, and maybe Ishtar. The rest of the HAC's are not popular do to the fact that there are several ships that can do the same roles they can for cheaper and many times better.

Eagle- A piece of ****, Naga does more dps, more range potential, and cheaper. You never see anyone fly this crap due to fittings, abysmal dps, its a joke.

Cerberus- is a long range missile sniping HAC, it does less dps than the Tengu, but it has more than 50% of the range of the Tengu. The Cerberus has a role that is probably poor due to the long travel time of missiles to hit the target as intended ranges. At Close Range the Cerberus is purely inferior to the drake, being much more expensive, weaker, and fragile.

Deimos- Its gotten better, but still not worth using over a Brutix that is much cheaper and does more DPS. It still has the reputation as Diemost. The Vigilant is the Deimos done right, only reason not as many fly it is due to high costs.

Muninn - Well its an ok ship but a tornado or a hurricane does the job better and cheaper.

Sacrilege - I don't see these flown very often, but the ship is uninspiring it uses short range missiles with slow armor tank. Its DPS is pretty low and I don't really see much real uses for these.

Tech 2 Command Ships are ships that need fixing, they have less hitpoints and slots than their Tier 2 Battlecruiser counterparts. So I'm sure CCP will take a good look into these guys.


This is all spot on, for the most part. I do suggest that, rather than looking at individual instances of game imbalance, we instead look at the bigger picture to determine where things are imbalanced. Getting rid of tiers is a good start, as is bringing all of the ships closer in line with each other (some are much worse than others, true, but they all need help.) EVE is currently so imbalanced that trying to fix everything one ship at a time is a lot like trying to paint a wall with a water coloring brush.

Edit: Also, T3 cruisers obsolete T1 cruisers (pretty much all of them.) They can do exactly the same thing, only way better. Not cool.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#126 - 2012-05-31 10:20:27 UTC
Marzuq wrote:


Tech 2 Command Ships are ships that need fixing, they have less hitpoints and slots than their Tier 2 Battlecruiser counterparts. So I'm sure CCP will take a good look into these guys.


Command ships are actually shy 1 slot compared to tier 2 bcs, other than the sleipnir and claymore who both are +1 slot compared to the other field commands. Tier 2 BCs also have higher raw hp values.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#127 - 2012-05-31 11:46:34 UTC
Viribus wrote:
That said the loki is arguably the worst T3 so your point is even worse-off.


Thing is that Loki is just the second best overall T3 after Tengu because of what it's meant to, versatility witch Legion and Proteus are absolutely not.

brb
Stellar Wanderer
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2012-05-31 13:09:29 UTC
Changes need to be delicate. A 2.5% per level drop in one ship or another can make a marked difference in its performance and balance.

Nerfing totally is a shame, as the typical EVE player will usually be quite creative in using the game mechanics to employ a tactic that CCP may never even have envisaged. It will always be a min/max situation where people always look to maximise effect by using a specific hull/tactic/fleet setup.

As far as overall balance;

- Command ships should be command orientated. Its great they can tank.
- T3 should not overide command ships but give an option for cruiser gangs and recon gangs to have a command vessel that isnt slow and can move with the fleet.

EVE is about delicate balance, so ship changes and nerfs must also be delicate or face the possibility of 'breaking' more then it fix's.
Othran
Route One
#129 - 2012-05-31 17:52:03 UTC
Change bonuses so they only work on-grid (probably quite complicated code-wise) or simply change the T3 command bonuses so that they are the same as the T2 Command Ship bonuses.

Doesn't seem that complicated to balance really.

The T3 cruiser command boost fits are bugger all use for anything apart from boosting so either force them onto grid and keep the bonuses they have now or change the bonus such that its the same as T2 Command Ships but works off-grid.

That way you can still have your off-grid (AFK) boosts if you wish but it won't be any better than a T2 Command Ship, which will retain its specialised advantage by actually contributing to stuff on-grid.

As has been said before in the thread, unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Shame really but that's Eve for you.
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#130 - 2012-05-31 18:05:20 UTC
Quote:
EVE is about delicate balance, so ship changes and nerfs must also be delicate or face the possibility of 'breaking' more then it fix's.

True. In Theory. For now EVE is a game about shield tanked drake and tengu, operated by bots for sometimes
CaptainFalcon07
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#131 - 2012-05-31 20:06:26 UTC
Before CCP can do anything with upper tier ships (Tech 2, Tech 3, Faction), they need to first take care of the base.

CCP is going to have change all Tech 1 ships before anything can be done about the upper class.

Tech 1 cruisers are all suffering from the Tier Class Syndrome. These must be fixed before anything else is done.
TomyLobo
U2EZ
#132 - 2012-05-31 20:21:34 UTC  |  Edited by: TomyLobo
Daniel Plain wrote:
with perfect skills and implants and heat, a tengu can project 1k dps to 100km. just sayin...

True stuff but wouldn't the other person just warp away if it were in pvp? My tengu can project dps to 112km, don't be jelly.

Stellar Wanderer wrote:
Changes need to be delicate. A 2.5% per level drop in one ship or another can make a marked difference in its performance and balance.

Nerfing totally is a shame, as the typical EVE player will usually be quite creative in using the game mechanics to employ a tactic that CCP may never even have envisaged. It will always be a min/max situation where people always look to maximise effect by using a specific hull/tactic/fleet setup.

As far as overall balance;

- Command ships should be command orientated. Its great they can tank.
- T3 should not overide command ships but give an option for cruiser gangs and recon gangs to have a command vessel that isnt slow and can move with the fleet.

EVE is about delicate balance, so ship changes and nerfs must also be delicate or face the possibility of 'breaking' more then it fix's.


T3s are in no way overriding command ships because these ships still see use everyday apart from the Eos but that's due to its fate. The actual difference between the two in terms of boosting performance is very minute and negligible; A command ship with mind link combo should even surpass a T3.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#133 - 2012-05-31 21:35:15 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Viribus wrote:


I take it you've never been on an actual fleet. Boost lokis can't fit a tank, and as a consequence basically have to sit in a safespot to give bonuses, it severely reduces the mobility of your fleet since you have to wait for the T3 to be "in position" before you get links, while a CS can stay with the fleet. It also means they're defeated by a decent prober since they have to warp off or just cloak up if they get probed down. T3s are only useful for boosting if they can stay in a pos or you're fighting bads that don't have a prober.

Look at any large battlereport, you'll find command ships are alive and well.



This.

Honestly, it's perfectly reasonable to say that T3s shouldn't out-specialise Fleet Commands, and I'd be very happy to see the bonuses swapped or the T3 bonus reduced to +2%, but to say that Fleet Commands aren't frequently in fleets used is to display either ignorance or dishonesty.



^QFT

no matter which way you spin it, having a booster that can move on field with your fleet is extremely beneficial if youre at all moving between systems.

There is no Bob.

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

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#134 - 2012-05-31 22:47:26 UTC
I'm still not at all sure what the "Specialization" of HACs is meant to be.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#135 - 2012-05-31 23:32:12 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I'm still not at all sure what the "Specialization" of HACs is meant to be.


Yeah I don't know either. Also what specialization are the field command ships?
Archimedes Eratosthenes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#136 - 2012-05-31 23:34:06 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I'm still not at all sure what the "Specialization" of HACs is meant to be.


Specialization for a HAC means the HAC receives EXTRA bonuses for a particular role that is almost always related to its race. The best example is EWAR frigates, they specialize in their race's EWAR but receive no bonuses (or barely any) to anything else.

In the case of HAC's, the munninn specializes in high alpha long range sniping, whereas the Eagle specializes in High dps, long range sniping.

FUN FACT: The Cormorant with seven 150mm railguns has the same range and damage protection as both the Munninn and the Eagle once you include tracking and smaller gun size (albeit being paper thin and very hard to fit)
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#137 - 2012-06-01 00:07:56 UTC
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
In the case of HAC's, the munninn specializes in high alpha long range sniping...


Fun fact: A muninn does the same volley at half the range as a Hellcat Abaddon/Oracle.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#138 - 2012-06-01 03:26:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I'm still not at all sure what the "Specialization" of HACs is meant to be.


Yeah I don't know either. Also what specialization are the field command ships?


Field commands are specialized in... Having fewer slots than tier 2 bcs, being accidentally left out of the bc hp buff 6+ years old, AND being generally outclassed by t3s that take far fewer sp...


Someday someone at ccp may grown a brain and try and balance their game.

Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
whereas the Eagle specializes in High dps, long range sniping.


I lolled... Not because your statement is funny, but rather because you may actually believe what i've quoted... For that you get a 4/10. Congratz!!
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#139 - 2012-06-02 04:11:12 UTC
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
whereas the Eagle specializes in High dps, long range sniping.


Yeah, this should read, "Eagle is supposed to specialize in high dps, long range sniping."

The Eagle is a prime example of why it's important for larger weapons to have a difficult time hitting smaller ships, even (and perhaps especially) at long ranges. When your Naga and Rokh can't pick off medium ships at 70km anymore all of a sudden the Eagle and Ferox will be useful again.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#140 - 2012-06-02 04:25:57 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:
whereas the Eagle specializes in High dps, long range sniping.


Yeah, this should read, "Eagle is supposed to specialize in high dps, long range sniping."

The Eagle is a prime example of why it's important for larger weapons to have a difficult time hitting smaller ships, even (and perhaps especially) at long ranges. When your Naga and Rokh can't pick off medium ships at 70km anymore all of a sudden the Eagle and Ferox will be useful again.


The Eagle still won't be useful. It's not the Eagle's tank (best among the shield HACs) that is the reason no one flies them. And you're making it hard to take you seriously if you think that's the case.