These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shade Millith
Farmhouse.
Simple Farmers
#161 - 2012-06-15 01:52:32 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.


The biggest problem I see with this is that generally people don't buy them because they're flexible. They buy them because they're best at X reason.

If they're not best at X reason, then they simply won't be purchased. Instead people will choose the cheaper, and better ship for the job.

Say I purchase a Tengu for PVE. This thing will NEVER see the hull of another player ship. Not at the least because I'd need to change rigs to do so. And if I didn't think it was the best for the job of farming rats, then I would not purchase a Tengu.

Not to mention purchasing the other subsystems to fill another role cost just as much as purchasing a brand new ship. If that ship that I could have purchased is better for the job than the T3, why would I purchase the subsystems?


TL:DR Stop thinking about the ship as though it's 'modular' and 'flexible'. In practice, they're really not. While the ship can do W, X, Y and Z roles, once the ship is fitted, it's only going to be doing Y. And if it's not the best at that role, then the ship would never have been bought.

T3's could become useless if they're not better than T2. Versatility is completely useless once you undock, and not purchasing the best for the job/ISK is a pretty stupid idea.
Viribus
Furnace
Thermodynamics
#162 - 2012-06-15 20:09:01 UTC
Christ, someone finally gets it
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#163 - 2012-06-15 21:10:45 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Serina Tsukaya wrote:
I feel that someone is forgetting that the purpose of t3 ships was for them to be a lot more versatile than t2, but overall worse than t2 in regards to specific tasks, at least that's what ccp INTENDED it to be. Instead, they gave us ships that can do most of the jobs the tech 1 and tech 2's can do and outpreform a decent amount of them at their roles, that and they outperform a higher tier shipclass aswell in regards to it's role.

Tech three cruisers weren't supposed to have a spesific role, they were thought of as having the abilty to preform any role. but being less good at it.



I too want to pay 5 times the price of a T2 ship for a ship that's not as good as any of the 5 T2 cruisers I could buy instead. I'm literally willing to pay that much simply to simplify my hangar.

Except that I won't be simplifying my hangar, because rigs are fixed, and I'll also need a dozen or so subsystems, plus the loose fittings, plus if I loose my potentially-mediocre-at-everything ship, then I don't have the "versatility" of jumping another pre-fitted ready to go ship, so actually I have to buy some or all of those 5 T2 ships anyway.

Or I could spend 5 times as much and have 4 more T3s ready for me to go and be mediocre in, that's a good option.

Yes sir, that's worth the money to me.

CCP will basically have to rejig the construction/materials costs of T3s to place them somewhere between T1 and T2 if they want to actually go with the "versatile-but-mediocre" model, because no-one is ever going to pay more than the cost of a T2 for a ship that's not as good as a T2 I don't know how to make it more clear than that.

Oh yeah and the skillpoint loss. Eh, if i'm putting 210k SP on the line, then it better be for a ship that does something worthwhile. So that would have to go as well.



Thats good because CCP doesn't balance based on Price. If you payed more for a ship that is less good at X task, you failed to see the point then. Balance shouldn't and isn't based around market price.

T3s were meant for wormhole and small gangs where having a few ships to handle mutltiple different roles was useful. Not to obsolete the T2 cruisers are their specific tasks. Yes, these means your tengu should be worse than a cerberus at long range missile boat'age. And my proteus shouldn't be able to out tank/dps/speed a Deimos. Just because the ship is 2-3x the cost of a T2 cruiser, doesn't justify its obsoleteing an entire roll of ships in the game. Cost, is irrelevant.

Right, and as intended, T3s were not meant to be nearly as popular as they have become. They were meant primarily for wormholes (with which they were introduced, go figure). Not to be the last word in PVP combat in nearly every scenario.

The flexibility is in the need to not carry around multiple ships, into say, a wormhole, where mass and time can prove to be problematic. Yes, while flying, you are only in X role. But you can refit and now its Z role or Y role. The point is very much NOT to be good at XYZ role all at once, that would be ********, and is basically how they are being uesd.

Yes, this does means most people won't fly them, that is the point. They are meant for specific situations where the modular nature is a highly valued asset...hey...kind of like IN A WORMHOLE.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#164 - 2012-06-15 21:24:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Mfume Apocal
PinkKnife wrote:
T3s were meant for wormhole and small gangs where having a few ships to handle mutltiple different roles was useful. Not to obsolete the T2 cruisers are their specific tasks. Yes, these means your tengu should be worse than a cerberus at long range missile boat'age. And my proteus shouldn't be able to out tank/dps/speed a Deimos. Just because the ship is 2-3x the cost of a T2 cruiser, doesn't justify its obsoleteing an entire roll of ships in the game. Cost, is irrelevant.


HACs are largely obsolete because (like you said) price isn't a balancing factor and a BC can do most of what a solo/small-gang HAC can do for much cheaper and (outside of T3) in large fleet fights bigger is better.

I'm comfortable balancing by price-point (to an extent) to counter simple "bigger is better" with regards to balance.
Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#165 - 2012-06-15 22:17:29 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Serina Tsukaya wrote:
I feel that someone is forgetting that the purpose of t3 ships was for them to be a lot more versatile than t2, but overall worse than t2 in regards to specific tasks, at least that's what ccp INTENDED it to be. Instead, they gave us ships that can do most of the jobs the tech 1 and tech 2's can do and outpreform a decent amount of them at their roles, that and they outperform a higher tier shipclass aswell in regards to it's role.

Tech three cruisers weren't supposed to have a spesific role, they were thought of as having the abilty to preform any role. but being less good at it.



I too want to pay 5 times the price of a T2 ship for a ship that's not as good as any of the 5 T2 cruisers I could buy instead. I'm literally willing to pay that much simply to simplify my hangar.

Except that I won't be simplifying my hangar, because rigs are fixed, and I'll also need a dozen or so subsystems, plus the loose fittings, plus if I loose my potentially-mediocre-at-everything ship, then I don't have the "versatility" of jumping another pre-fitted ready to go ship, so actually I have to buy some or all of those 5 T2 ships anyway.

Or I could spend 5 times as much and have 4 more T3s ready for me to go and be mediocre in, that's a good option.

Yes sir, that's worth the money to me.

CCP will basically have to rejig the construction/materials costs of T3s to place them somewhere between T1 and T2 if they want to actually go with the "versatile-but-mediocre" model, because no-one is ever going to pay more than the cost of a T2 for a ship that's not as good as a T2 I don't know how to make it more clear than that.

Oh yeah and the skillpoint loss. Eh, if i'm putting 210k SP on the line, then it better be for a ship that does something worthwhile. So that would have to go as well.



Thats good because CCP doesn't balance based on Price. If you payed more for a ship that is less good at X task, you failed to see the point then. Balance shouldn't and isn't based around market price.

T3s were meant for wormhole and small gangs where having a few ships to handle mutltiple different roles was useful. Not to obsolete the T2 cruisers are their specific tasks. Yes, these means your tengu should be worse than a cerberus at long range missile boat'age. And my proteus shouldn't be able to out tank/dps/speed a Deimos. Just because the ship is 2-3x the cost of a T2 cruiser, doesn't justify its obsoleteing an entire roll of ships in the game. Cost, is irrelevant.

Right, and as intended, T3s were not meant to be nearly as popular as they have become. They were meant primarily for wormholes (with which they were introduced, go figure). Not to be the last word in PVP combat in nearly every scenario.

The flexibility is in the need to not carry around multiple ships, into say, a wormhole, where mass and time can prove to be problematic. Yes, while flying, you are only in X role. But you can refit and now its Z role or Y role. The point is very much NOT to be good at XYZ role all at once, that would be ********, and is basically how they are being uesd.

Yes, this does means most people won't fly them, that is the point. They are meant for specific situations where the modular nature is a highly valued asset...hey...kind of like IN A WORMHOLE.


And once again you conveniently leave out the fact that from day 1, CCP failed to give T3's that capability, since the only facilities you can have in a WH is a POS or Orca/cap with ship services. And a T3 can't swap subs in these scenarios.
Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#166 - 2012-06-15 22:20:54 UTC
I'm going to take a slightly different tact. It seems that rather than overshadowing T2's, especially HAC's, its more that they compounded the failure of many of them.

In cases where the HAC was already pretty good, they still are. People talk alot about the zealot vs legion. Basically the zealot is pretty good, and the Legion just isn't that much better. That seems to work.

Ishtar, great in its role as drone boat. It differs enough that it is still a good ship vs a proteus.

Deimos, eagle, cerberus? They were all crappy HAC's to begin with. the T3's just finally gave someone an alternative finally.
Shade Millith
Farmhouse.
Simple Farmers
#167 - 2012-06-15 23:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Shade Millith
PinkKnife wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
[quote=Serina Tsukaya]

Thats good because CCP doesn't balance based on Price. If you payed more for a ship that is less good at X task, you failed to see the point then. Balance shouldn't and isn't based around market price.

T3s were meant for wormhole and small gangs where having a few ships to handle mutltiple different roles was useful. Not to obsolete the T2 cruisers are their specific tasks. Yes, these means your tengu should be worse than a cerberus at long range missile boat'age. And my proteus shouldn't be able to out tank/dps/speed a Deimos. Just because the ship is 2-3x the cost of a T2 cruiser, doesn't justify its obsoleteing an entire roll of ships in the game. Cost, is irrelevant.

Right, and as intended, T3s were not meant to be nearly as popular as they have become. They were meant primarily for wormholes (with which they were introduced, go figure). Not to be the last word in PVP combat in nearly every scenario.

The flexibility is in the need to not carry around multiple ships, into say, a wormhole, where mass and time can prove to be problematic. Yes, while flying, you are only in X role. But you can refit and now its Z role or Y role. The point is very much NOT to be good at XYZ role all at once, that would be ********, and is basically how they are being uesd.

Yes, this does means most people won't fly them, that is the point. They are meant for specific situations where the modular nature is a highly valued asset...hey...kind of like IN A WORMHOLE.


And that modular ability is completely useless in a wormhole. Because, last I checked, you can't change subs from a POS.

Again, versatility is useless once you leave station, and isn't worth a 500 mil price tag. Also, the value of wormholes will plummet.

A ship being 'Versatile' rather than 'Good' is just going to get itself killed, and people are going to purchase something cheaper, and better.
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#168 - 2012-06-15 23:17:34 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
I'm going to take a slightly different tact. It seems that rather than overshadowing T2's, especially HAC's, its more that they compounded the failure of many of them.

In cases where the HAC was already pretty good, they still are. People talk alot about the zealot vs legion. Basically the zealot is pretty good, and the Legion just isn't that much better. That seems to work.

Ishtar, great in its role as drone boat. It differs enough that it is still a good ship vs a proteus.

Deimos, eagle, cerberus? They were all crappy HAC's to begin with. the T3's just finally gave someone an alternative finally.


Precisely. Someone give this man a medal, he gets it. There are Good HACs and Terrible HACs. Tech 3 cruisers only

obsolete the Terrible HACs which are already obsolete by Tech 1 ships.

The same story with the loki and vagabond. The Vagabond is far more faster and agile than the loki while doing slightly less damage. The Loki is better as a long range webbing, armor ship with decent damage.

The Loki does not get in the way of the Vagabond, the cynabal however does.

The Muninn is inferior to the hurricane as a brawler and the tornado is better long range platform.

The Eagle and cerberus are crappy ships, I have never in my eve career seen anyone fly the eagle. the cerberus is a ship that many tech 1 ships can easily beat. Removing the tengu from the game will never get anyone to fly these junk. The drake is better overall ship than the cerberus and the Naga/Rokh are far superior snipers than the eagle.

The Deimos aka Diemost, nuff said. The Vigilant is a superior ship is every aspect except the cost - it is a deimos done right. The Brutix is a better ship than the deimos, more dps and cheaper cost.

Tech 3 can perform things that Tech 2 cannot and Tech 2 ships can perform things that Tech 3 cannot. Tech 2 HAC's are generally more faster, mobile, and specialized for rapid attack and deployment.

Tech 3 are more of the slower and tougher brawling ships.