These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MisterArch
Red October.
Fanatic Legion.
#321 - 2012-09-13 22:47:46 UTC  |  Edited by: MisterArch
It is usually used for solo out of WH, for better results.

I don't think that the ability to fight several ships with the ability to flee should be nerfed taking into consideration the cost of the ship in comparison with the cost of the enemy fleet. If my ship+pod costs more then all their ships together - I should be at least able to fight them, not just die. And please note that rapier/loki in the fleet makes 100AB tengu dead tengu easily.

With most of the other ships (non-frigs) in the current mechanic your skill simply does not matter.
MisterArch
Red October.
Fanatic Legion.
#322 - 2012-09-13 22:55:53 UTC
double, remove plz
Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#323 - 2012-09-13 23:34:44 UTC
By that arguement the vagabond and cynabal should be nerfed due to engaging slower ships and being able to easily run.

"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."

 Kahlil Gibran
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#324 - 2012-09-14 01:02:47 UTC
MisterArch wrote:
It is usually used for solo out of WH, for better results.

I don't think that the ability to fight several ships with the ability to flee should be nerfed taking into consideration the cost of the ship in comparison with the cost of the enemy fleet. If my ship+pod costs more then all their ships together - I should be at least able to fight them, not just die. And please note that rapier/loki in the fleet makes 100AB tengu dead tengu easily.

With most of the other ships (non-frigs) in the current mechanic your skill simply does not matter.



Rapier / Loki being the recons and t3's that I mentioned above, and even then it = 2 of them. ;)
Your ship would be the same cost range as that t3, so that invalidates that particular argument.

When i put the word 'flee' in there, please don't pick on it as the only focus. I said survive / win / flee, meaning they have the ability to do good to great dps, good tanking, good speed, small sig, etc. They have it all.

If your ship + pod costs more than all of their ships together, think carefully about engaging! If you jump them, you certainly are happy as hell to be in a ship they cant touch, but if they jump you, it should have to be in a multi-ship fleet with a specific composition to be able to take you? Shocked Command ships, Carriers, Miners (in low sec / 0.0), Explorers, and Low Sec mission runners go through the game paranoid every day because they are at risk by everyone, not just by a particular scenario. While carriers can fight back hard at least (so can you), a fleet of ships costing 1/2 the price of that carrier can take it down rapidly if it gets caught. Command ships, T3's, Carriers, Rorq's... these are prize KM's I'm learning out there.

Even among T3's you don't get the versatility in one package the Tengu offers. I know you love your little ship, but CCP has a couple of choices, they can either bring the other T3's up to Tengu status, or they can lower the Tengu a bit (and hopefully fix all t3's other modules so they are more desireable). How / what the changes should be? I am not sure, and don't claim to be expert enough on game mechanics and balance to say. But I do agree with the 'changes are needed' camp.

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
MisterArch
Red October.
Fanatic Legion.
#325 - 2012-09-14 11:48:31 UTC
I meant "or". Repier takes you from higher distance, but you can kill it before it is too late. If loki webs you - you are dead. So it is fine.Even nano 2-web drake can tackle you if you are not careful.

Not that "specific" composition. A group of flies can take 100AB out too. Simply cos they are many.
Tengu is used more then other T3 mostly cos a great lot of people trained for drake first. It is not that superior to others in non-PVE. In PVE - yes, that is GOOD, as other missile-ships. Should CCP nerf Raven for being better PVE farmer then Megathron?
I prefer Loki as a prober, due to the ability to kill some frig faster then Tengu would do it. BTW Loki can be 100AB too, as well as Legion. Proteus would **** tangu in a close combat.

Changes may be needed, but not to the state, that makes T3 minuses (price, skill lose) go over there pluses.
Asssassin X
Gnomosexuals
#326 - 2012-09-15 16:23:47 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Asssassin X wrote:

Please answer on how tech 3 is so OP when you have been shot down by my count atleast 9 different people in your argument so far?


I ask for a fit and you resort to attacking me. Can I safely conclude that you're full of ****?

-Liang


I asked you first to tell me how Tech 3 is OP and you asked me for my fit of a ship......if You can't tell me how there op then why should i give you one of my fits? you could always theory craft on EFT just to find it.....
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#327 - 2012-09-15 21:35:37 UTC
Asssassin X wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Asssassin X wrote:

Please answer on how tech 3 is so OP when you have been shot down by my count atleast 9 different people in your argument so far?


I ask for a fit and you resort to attacking me. Can I safely conclude that you're full of ****?

-Liang


I asked you first to tell me how Tech 3 is OP and you asked me for my fit of a ship......if You can't tell me how there op then why should i give you one of my fits? you could always theory craft on EFT just to find it.....


I've made a few dozen posts in this thread which have detailed how T3s are OP. You've stuck your head in the sand and said "LOL THAT GOT DEBUNKED BY SOMEONE ELSE" when in reality nothing of the sort happened. Then you go talking out your ass and making claims about a fit and you refuse to provide the fit.

You are debunking your own argument.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#328 - 2012-09-15 21:58:34 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Asssassin X wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Asssassin X wrote:

Please answer on how tech 3 is so OP when you have been shot down by my count atleast 9 different people in your argument so far?


I ask for a fit and you resort to attacking me. Can I safely conclude that you're full of ****?

-Liang


I asked you first to tell me how Tech 3 is OP and you asked me for my fit of a ship......if You can't tell me how there op then why should i give you one of my fits? you could always theory craft on EFT just to find it.....


I've made a few dozen posts in this thread which have detailed how T3s are OP. You've stuck your head in the sand and said "LOL THAT GOT DEBUNKED BY SOMEONE ELSE" when in reality nothing of the sort happened. Then you go talking out your ass and making claims about a fit and you refuse to provide the fit.

You are debunking your own argument.

-Liang


Moar liek T3 is OP because I sayz so.

"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."

 Kahlil Gibran
Marcus Harikari
#329 - 2012-09-15 22:27:52 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Threads like this get shat out onto the forums at a steady pace. Basically they are just slobbering over the thought of a tech II or III or faction Drake or Hurricane.

These ships are already due for a trim. When they get that trim let's talk about whether the game really needs new ships that would quite possibly only resurrect our current problems. Those being the rush to tier 2 BC and the isk/utility/power imbalance with them as compared to tech II or faction Cruisers.

Look at it this way. We are getting new ships. Tiericide has begun. And there is talk of a new Destroyer for each race where there is currently only one. Recently we got tier 3 BCs. So, there are your new ships. And frankly they are more exciting than another drake. Roll

nobody cares about destroyers

I WANT A MORE POWERFUL DRAKE YEAHHH DIE SLEEPERS DIE
MooCowofKow
EVE University
Ivy League
#330 - 2012-09-18 14:51:16 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Gabrielle Lamb wrote:

I don't really agree, T3's is balanced very well around risk / reward. They're not overly powerful except when combined with offgrid boosting. The only thing that isn't balanced properly is training time, which is made up by SP loss upon death.



You have got to be kidding ......

I fly Caldari
I trained Missiles

and even i recognise that the Tengu, when configured for 6x HML's, needs a serious beating with the nerf bat, it has completely and utterly destroyed any usefulness in the Cerberus and this is wrong.


All of the T3s seem to be well balanced with eachother...The Cerb is the ship that's broken, not the Tengu.
MisterArch
Red October.
Fanatic Legion.
#331 - 2012-09-19 10:16:43 UTC
Seems like I've got it why we see T3 from the different perspective, then CCP.

CCP's point (as I get it):
T1 - simple ships
T2 - specialized ships better in their task then anyone else
T3 - generalized ships with many tasks, but shouldn't do those better then T2

According to CCP the T3 's task of being "all around" ship is met by giving them the ability to change ship bonuses by changing subsystems, thus creating different kind of ship. And for this plus T3 cost more and we lose our skills from time to time. Actually this is all nice, in theory. But:
1. Rigs. You won't change rigs each time you need to change subsystems, won't you? Thus it limits the ship re-assembly.
2. Wormholes. We here often wonder, if CCP remember about us when changing something? T3 are mainly used in wormholes but we cannot change subsystems here at all! Thus we don't have any advantage of the modular ship system (only problems, cos we cannot assemble them here), My alone Tengu pilot in WH has like 5-6 different tengus at POS! As it goes, we use T3 for them being better in tasks mainly, not for generalization. Thus, if T3 are beaten to the level were their only plus would be subsystems change - how the hell will need them in wormholes?

By the way, with HML nerfed to the ground, and if Tengu is nerfed even further... RIP Tengu at all.

"tech3 ships being balanced for their cost and skill requirements. This should not be a factor for balancing most EVE vessels" - ouch, then all these things don't fit into balancing? How nice! So it is OK to have worse ship two times the price if a better one? Theoretically,
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#332 - 2012-09-19 21:52:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Fronkfurter McSheebleton
I'm not so sure that T3s are as OP as some say. Generally they're pretty well done, it's just 2-3 subsystems on each one that are OP.

T3s basically need to be moved down to be on par with HACs in terms of dps and tank. Nothing else about them is really OP. Remove the extra weapon hardpoint on some of the engineering subsystems, lower the base HP a bit, maybe tweak the cap/fitting on some subs, and voila...


If T3s were universally weaker than all of the T2 ships at all of their roles, then nobody would fly them. Easier just to buy 2-3 T2s at the same price.

thhief ghabmoef
Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#333 - 2012-09-19 23:36:46 UTC
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote:

If T3s were universally weaker than all of the T2 ships at all of their roles, then nobody would fly them. Easier just to buy 2-3 T2s at the same price.


Precisely. People believe at T3 ships can do everything at once, but the truth is they only do the things that they are fitted to do, they cannot suddenly transform and change their roles in the middle of a battle.

That is the delusion that people have with tech 3.

People customize can fit Tech 3 ships beforehand to perform a role that they have in mind, they are not a be all end all ship.

"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."

 Kahlil Gibran
MisterArch
Red October.
Fanatic Legion.
#334 - 2012-09-20 08:42:36 UTC
Maybe CCP should check out the statistics: how many T3s are actually replacing sybsystems? To ny knowledge - only those plexing in low/null do.
Noisrevbus
#335 - 2012-09-20 10:16:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
I promised i would do another follow-up on the topic of layering from this thread (since that pertain quite alot to 100mn, boosters, Tech III and BC). It also pertains to the discussion Zyella and Mister Arch have been holding. You two kind of brought the topic back to what i was talking about, so thank you. I wanted to hop into it right away, but i've been tied up.

When i finally made the post i kind of derped and put it in another related topic (namely that on TD, Missiles and BC):

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1946577#post1946577

It's worth a gander if you find the whole discussion you started about "skill" interesting. What (i belive) was meant when that topic was brought up, was actually "layering" and not player ability.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#336 - 2012-09-21 17:35:23 UTC
Nerfing certain aspects of some ships will get nasty in a hurry.

In specific... webbing armor Loki's and heavy tackle Proteus.


Armor loki with the web subsystems is the only webbing ship capable of fitting well into an armor composition fleet atm. Hughin with armor is slow and fragile. Removing the effectiveness of the webbing armor loki would hit certain currently viable fleet compositions hard.

And Proteus. Gets some use in stealth ganking (likely to be nerferd) and most of the rest as a heavy tackle psuedo arazu.

TLDR: If you nerf the web/scram bonuses for loki/proteus, and beat the boosting capabilities till they cant see straight, expect the number of those t3's to drop by probably 75%

While pure cost may not be a good thing to balance around, having a ship that is less effective at what it does than a ship at 1/4 the cost and no skillpoint loss is hardly good game design either.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#337 - 2012-09-21 18:17:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Zyella Stormborn
Noisrevbus wrote:
I promised i would do another follow-up on the topic of layering from this thread (since that pertain quite alot to 100mn, boosters, Tech III and BC). It also pertains to the discussion Zyella and Mister Arch have been holding. You two kind of brought the topic back to what i was talking about, so thank you. I wanted to hop into it right away, but i've been tied up.

When i finally made the post i kind of derped and put it in another related topic (namely that on TD, Missiles and BC):

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1946577#post1946577

It's worth a gander if you find the whole discussion you started about "skill" interesting. What (i belive) was meant when that topic was brought up, was actually "layering" and not player ability.



Yep. Read them. I do not always agree with you on all points, but I do tend to have similar thought patterns on about 80% of it (although I tend to be much more brief and direct in my posts, lol. You tend to write small novelettes per entry, so I read a couple, get a coffee, and come back Blink ).
Being the blue collar applied type, my math skills flow charts and theorycrafting are no where near where many of the great players in this game are. I mainly go by what I see (over son & nephew's shoulders in case of 0.0 and blob stuff) and encounter in game (myself in high sec and low sec) for much of my opinions and feelings about the game. Ironically for a brief time I did something similar IRL - I test drove and intentionally tried to stress the control systems on new car designs. If it rolled or broke traction / blew a part, overbraked, etc, when it was not supposed to on paper, I'd have a 3 hour Q&A sit down with the engineers picking my brains about it and trying to figure out the internal fix (which was beyond my scope of knowledge. I would them what happened, and what I was intentionally doing to cause it).
Now the detailed 'how' or 'core of the problem is...' I may not always see, due to many behind the scenes things (as you mentioned, layering, cost-effect ratios, etc), but am happy to just look and say 'yep, there is a problem with Drakes', as an admittedly blatant example.

I hear and read a ton of 'CCP needs to - ' ideas, many of them different, but all emphatic that their idea is the only true fix. Some I feel are right, some wrong, but hey, I may be mistaken myself. At the end of the day, all I can do for my part is give feedback to the Devs on the changes they HAVE put in, and hope they adjust and find balance.

~Zyella

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Mayfair Boozie
Hammer Holding
Wardec Mechanics
#338 - 2012-09-21 18:21:49 UTC
My T3's are built, flow into the wormhole, and go there to die. They don't come out unless it's in a ball of fire. They are very expensive NECESSARY pieces of equipment.

You tell me another ship that costs 550m (Cheap and Laughable) to 1.8b (avg cost of WH fleet ships), and is as fragile.

Battleship EHP, it better have it, the hull is more expensive then almost all the BS hulls out there except maybe Pirate, and T2.

The day T3's are nerfed is the day I move back to Empire and retire. My Wife will finally rejoice.

Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#339 - 2012-09-21 18:29:25 UTC
Dibs on Mayfair's stuff!! ;)

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Vendictus Prime
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#340 - 2012-09-22 05:11:26 UTC
Historical Research Advocate wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Also, we are aware of the number of used tech3 ships in general, and how far the repercussions could go for tweaking them. We know this would be a hot discussion from our playerbase as nobody wants to see their assets changed. That is normal human reaction. We can guarantee you that no matter what happens here, we will definitely do our very best to be as diplomatic, open minded and communicative as we have been in the past to ensure we hear all ends of the arguments and annoy the less amount of people.

However, we are not here to win a popularity contest, we, as ship balancing designers are here to make sure the state of the game is healthy in the long run, and if we have to be universally hated for doing what's needed for EVE Online to last 10 more years in the long run, so be it.


I'm not thinking of the next 10 years, I'm thinking of the last 4. The 4 in which I made long term decisions with results that wouldn't be seen for as long as a year or two. EVE has always stressed the importance of long term planning. When you guys say stuff like this, you're putting everyone who has been or will be making decisions about T3 training, acquisition, building, selling, etc into a very bad spot. You're making our old decisions, the ones whose repercussions we're still working through because thats how you designed the game, into potentially irrelevant or stupid choices. You're making decisions on future actions difficult as well, because no one knows how this will turn out. The issue here isn't so much the T3 itself. I'd care a whole lot less about redesigns if they didn't mean that 14 months of training was wasted or that the last 12 months I spent building up a production unit inside a WH was wasted because the produced ship's value drops.

You may not be here to win a popularity contest, but your company is. In fact, that's its purpose-- designing popular games that people want to play. Designing games that keep changing their fundamental elements and rendering old decisions irrelevant but requiring that decisions be made years in advance does not make your game popular, it makes it tedious and frustrating. There is a reason EVE has so many bittervets--you keep kicking us in the nuts.

postscript: Every CCP employee who communicates with the public should be sent to a Communications 101 class. Saying things like "we're not here to win a popularity contest" and "if we have to be universally hated... so be it" is provocative and puts the reader/listener into an adverserial mindset. Half of the crap CCP mods have to deal with from the playerbase is a direct result of poor communication by CCP employees.


I would suggest CCP Devs read the last 2 paragraphs of this post and remember about that " Fearless", fiascoe last year. You start breaking the most used and produced items in the game and not buffing the crap that is not used and you have a lot more crap that people are not going to use or want use. they have A LOT invested in the current T3 ships in the way of isk, training time , cost of skills, and list goes on. I am pretty sure you won't like to see a mass unsub forum begin again.

You fix the crap that no one uses, you don't break the stuff that is being used and add it to the list of unused crap.