These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

T3 nerf (xpost from ships and fittings)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
chris elliot
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#1 - 2012-09-08 17:54:31 UTC  |  Edited by: chris elliot
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
This come once in a while. As some people mentioned before:


  • Tier 2 Battlecruisers already are extremely versatile and popular. Introducing yet improved hulls based on them without looking at tech1 battlecruisers first is in direct contradiction with the tiericide initiative.

  • We already have troubles having diverse, interesting hulls roles on this particular level. HACs, tech3 cruisers, battlecruisers and command ships currently are very close of each other on that field. Introducing a Navy Battlecruiser would aggravate the issue even further.

    • What needs to be done before having Navy Battlecruisers, in no particular order:

  • Have a look at tech1 cruisers and bring tiericide to their sorry little sad faces.
  • Fix tech1 battlecruisers as a whole. Most tier1 BCs are not good enough, some tier2 are just too good. You know we know you know which ones we are talking about Twisted
  • Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example). Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos.
  • HACs, they need love too.
  • 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.


When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.





Figured I would drop this in here since we all use t3 cruisers a lot. How they plan on doing it without making them overpriced and generally useless is beyond me. But I don't get paid to care either, they do.



Edit: This forum tends to have less null-bears and empire idiots puking stupidity everywhere as well. So I figured discussion might also happen.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#2 - 2012-09-08 18:20:37 UTC
Probably get less dev attention here but still.

T3s IMO are mostly fine the odd tweak aside its the other ships that are the problem and as always the rule of good game design "You don't **** with established game mechanics unless absolutely necessary, tweak with as light a hand as possible and massage other features slightly if its a balance issue"

T3s are what you'd expect from a T3 expensive, versatile, a shiny target to kill or to own.


Eos buff would be nice tho :D
Angsty Teenager
Broski North
#3 - 2012-09-08 19:44:29 UTC
I'm going laugh when they nerf the tengu to eagle/cerb levels and it still costs 500mil and you still lose SP.

I'll rage petition CCP evreyday.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#4 - 2012-09-08 20:28:59 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
...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.


Balancing =/= nerfing.

I think that's actually a good thing.
Many subsystem configurations are quite useless while only a select few are good.
Overlapping is also bad.

For instance :

Drone Proteus vs Ishtar :

Give Drone Proteus additional 25 bandwitch and 25-50 drone bay but also apply a penalty of 50% to sentry drone range and tracking.
It already has bonus to drone speed, which compliments mobile drone usage while Ishtar gets bonus to drone control range which enhances sentry sniping setups.
That would make Droneus a brawling drone boat with blasters and ogres, kinda like mini-megathron.
Ishtar could get a bonus to sentry drones. It's already used as a sentry boat in most cases.

That way we get two distinct drone boats, which are not interfering with each other ( being a drone boat is not a role after all ). There is no real overlap and both ships are solid.

See, it can be done without actual nerfing.Blink


Of course they should get generally better stats than T2's. It's like navy/pirate when compared to T1's but the thing is to make them good at some very specific roles, which are not covered by T2 ships. Like in my example above.

Also - boosting T3's really need some nerfing ( or FC ships needs a boost ) because it's painfully obvious that the current situation is just not right.

Finally, the 'generalization' concept failed and let's face it - it cannot be done with proper balance. Let it die and make T3s a better T2s with very specific roles depending on subsystems ( without overlaps ). That may include some subs being removed. We really don't need four subsystems in each group. Three, well defined and balanced subs, would be more than enough.
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#5 - 2012-09-08 20:46:00 UTC
If they plan on making T3s a lesser version of T2 cruisers it will end up with T3s being overpriced and useless, as the other guy said.

Boosting T3s may be the one thing everyone can agree on, but aside from that it would suck if they nerfed other things.
Milena Chang
Tafiy
#6 - 2012-09-08 21:40:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Milena Chang
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line.


When I read this my heart sank a little bit, though the following sentences helped to take the sting out, slightly. In the context of a nerf to tier 2 battlecruisers and other ships, this may not be as bad as it sounds. There are subsystems that certainly need to be redone, and as long as the current cost/benefit ratio of t3 cruisers (with the exception of perhaps OGB) stays the same I will be fairly happy. I am hoping that the net result of this will be a roll-back of a few years of feature creep more than anything else.

Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:

Finally, the 'generalization' concept failed and let's face it - it cannot be done with proper balance. Let it die and make T3s a better T2s with very specific roles depending on subsystems ( without overlaps ). That may include some subs being removed. We really don't need four subsystems in each group. Three, well defined and balanced subs, would be more than enough.


I think this would be a reasonable way to go, as it would create a logical continuation from t1 to t3 with increasing levels of specialization, counterbalanced by cost. It looks as if CCP wants to make t3 somewhere between t1 and t2, except extremely versatile. My feeling is that this will end up in failure, and t3 ships will either stay in the role that they have now if not touched by the nerf-bat hard enough, or become useless hangar candy.
Irya Boone
The Scope
#7 - 2012-09-08 22:50:22 UTC
agree the tengu need a nerf , but in the other hands make all the subs usefull

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Chitsa Jason
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-09-08 23:00:09 UTC
rebalancing is one thing. nerfing is another. if they make t3s sub par to t2s thats just lame.

and yeah nerf the tengu :D

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#9 - 2012-09-09 04:45:16 UTC
This whine about T3 obsolete T2 Ships is simply groundless. One only needs to look at the ships to see it is so.

Have you ever seen a

T3 Hictor or a T3 Logistic?

Hictor option does not exist and the Logistic is mostly bad that its not worth using(except for maybe pve - which is not a balance factor for pvp)

Do T3 recons obsolete T2 recon ships? Look at the bonuses and you can clearly see that it does not.

T2 recon ships have superior ewar capability over T3. e.g. Falcon vs Tengu jams, Pilgrim vs Legion Neut, Rapier vs Loki Web, and Arazu vs Proteus scram.

T2 field command ships typical are superior to T3 cruiser in firepower. (Except the Nighthawk which is a lulzy and problematic ship.) The Astarte, Absolution, and Sleipnir kicks T3 ass the dps department.

T2 HACs typically have better mobility, smaller sig radius, and longer range capabilities than T3. HAC's are mobile, tanky RR gang cruisers with good firepower.

I believe the main argument and complaint is that T3 beat HAC's overall, but if you really think about it, most HAC's see little use even without T3 ships around.

The Fact is that most HAC's are pretty awful. The Eagle out of all is the worst ship and the Cerberus is a joke. The sacrilege is a slow armor ships with short range missiles. The ishtar is a decent drone boat, but suffers from fitting issues and drones are a bit lame. The deimos is well diemost. The Muninn is pointless with the Tornado and Hurricane around.

Out of all 8 HAC's, 2 HAC's see regular use. The zealot and the vagabond, the only decent and worthy of the bunch. The Vagabond is the bread and butter nano ship. The Zealot is the ARMOR HAC.

I ask of CCP to be reasonable and not listen to rabid blabbering people who say things without any real backup.
Raptors Mole
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-09-09 07:48:33 UTC
Pink Marshmellow wrote:
This whine about T3 obsolete T2 Ships is simply groundless. One only needs to look at the ships to see it is so.

Have you ever seen a

T3 Hictor or a T3 Logistic?

Hictor option does not exist and the Logistic is mostly bad that its not worth using(except for maybe pve - which is not a balance factor for pvp)

Do T3 recons obsolete T2 recon ships? Look at the bonuses and you can clearly see that it does not.

T2 recon ships have superior ewar capability over T3. e.g. Falcon vs Tengu jams, Pilgrim vs Legion Neut, Rapier vs Loki Web, and Arazu vs Proteus scram.

T2 field command ships typical are superior to T3 cruiser in firepower. (Except the Nighthawk which is a lulzy and problematic ship.) The Astarte, Absolution, and Sleipnir kicks T3 ass the dps department.

T2 HACs typically have better mobility, smaller sig radius, and longer range capabilities than T3. HAC's are mobile, tanky RR gang cruisers with good firepower.

I believe the main argument and complaint is that T3 beat HAC's overall, but if you really think about it, most HAC's see little use even without T3 ships around.

The Fact is that most HAC's are pretty awful. The Eagle out of all is the worst ship and the Cerberus is a joke. The sacrilege is a slow armor ships with short range missiles. The ishtar is a decent drone boat, but suffers from fitting issues and drones are a bit lame. The deimos is well diemost. The Muninn is pointless with the Tornado and Hurricane around.

Out of all 8 HAC's, 2 HAC's see regular use. The zealot and the vagabond, the only decent and worthy of the bunch. The Vagabond is the bread and butter nano ship. The Zealot is the ARMOR HAC.

I ask of CCP to be reasonable and not listen to rabid blabbering people who say things without any real backup.


This
Moo Moocow
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-09-09 10:05:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Moo Moocow
Pink Marshmellow wrote:
This whine about T3 obsolete T2 Ships is simply groundless. One only needs to look at the ships to see it is so.

Have you ever seen a

T3 Hictor or a T3 Logistic?

Hictor option does not exist and the Logistic is mostly bad that its not worth using(except for maybe pve - which is not a balance factor for pvp)

Do T3 recons obsolete T2 recon ships? Look at the bonuses and you can clearly see that it does not.

T2 recon ships have superior ewar capability over T3. e.g. Falcon vs Tengu jams, Pilgrim vs Legion Neut, Rapier vs Loki Web, and Arazu vs Proteus scram.

T2 field command ships typical are superior to T3 cruiser in firepower. (Except the Nighthawk which is a lulzy and problematic ship.) The Astarte, Absolution, and Sleipnir kicks T3 ass the dps department.

T2 HACs typically have better mobility, smaller sig radius, and longer range capabilities than T3. HAC's are mobile, tanky RR gang cruisers with good firepower.

I believe the main argument and complaint is that T3 beat HAC's overall, but if you really think about it, most HAC's see little use even without T3 ships around.

The Fact is that most HAC's are pretty awful. The Eagle out of all is the worst ship and the Cerberus is a joke. The sacrilege is a slow armor ships with short range missiles. The ishtar is a decent drone boat, but suffers from fitting issues and drones are a bit lame. The deimos is well diemost. The Muninn is pointless with the Tornado and Hurricane around.

Out of all 8 HAC's, 2 HAC's see regular use. The zealot and the vagabond, the only decent and worthy of the bunch. The Vagabond is the bread and butter nano ship. The Zealot is the ARMOR HAC.

I ask of CCP to be reasonable and not listen to rabid blabbering people who say things without any real backup.


Yep

For what we pay for them
And the amount of skills we train for them

They should be powerful ships
terzslave
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-09-09 10:57:55 UTC
NO!!! Don't nerf the Tengu.......I just started training for it..........
:(
Irya Boone
The Scope
#13 - 2012-09-09 11:03:56 UTC
:)

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#14 - 2012-09-09 18:15:15 UTC
Pink Marshmellow wrote:
This whine about T3 obsolete T2 Ships is simply groundless. One only needs to look at the ships to see it is so.

Have you ever seen a

T3 Hictor or a T3 Logistic?

Hictor option does not exist and the Logistic is mostly bad that its not worth using(except for maybe pve - which is not a balance factor for pvp)

Do T3 recons obsolete T2 recon ships? Look at the bonuses and you can clearly see that it does not.

T2 recon ships have superior ewar capability over T3. e.g. Falcon vs Tengu jams, Pilgrim vs Legion Neut, Rapier vs Loki Web, and Arazu vs Proteus scram.

T2 field command ships typical are superior to T3 cruiser in firepower. (Except the Nighthawk which is a lulzy and problematic ship.) The Astarte, Absolution, and Sleipnir kicks T3 ass the dps department.

T2 HACs typically have better mobility, smaller sig radius, and longer range capabilities than T3. HAC's are mobile, tanky RR gang cruisers with good firepower.

I believe the main argument and complaint is that T3 beat HAC's overall, but if you really think about it, most HAC's see little use even without T3 ships around.

The Fact is that most HAC's are pretty awful. The Eagle out of all is the worst ship and the Cerberus is a joke. The sacrilege is a slow armor ships with short range missiles. The ishtar is a decent drone boat, but suffers from fitting issues and drones are a bit lame. The deimos is well diemost. The Muninn is pointless with the Tornado and Hurricane around.

Out of all 8 HAC's, 2 HAC's see regular use. The zealot and the vagabond, the only decent and worthy of the bunch. The Vagabond is the bread and butter nano ship. The Zealot is the ARMOR HAC.

I ask of CCP to be reasonable and not listen to rabid blabbering people who say things without any real backup.


You forgot about the Cynabal, which many people use in place of the Vagabond.
HACs all either suck or have something better than them, with the one exception of the Zealot which is a pretty good ship, though its underused due to BCs being so ridiculously good. I'd love to fly HACs, but there need to be good HACs first.

I like T3s atm, the only gripes I have is:

The Tengu is OP at everything it does and could use a nerf (DPS is fine, if CCP wants to nerf that it should be slight, as it it in line with other T3s, its everything else that's broken)
There's basicly 2 pvp fits & 2 general fleet fit everyone uses, 10mn and 100mn. and then there's no good MWD subsystem to fit which forces everyone into the 100mn fit (exception being the AHAC style Thundercat 10mn tengus)

And compared to the other T3s, the Loki has a terrible tank.

I think that its not T3s that outclass everything else (since ot fly them right, they need faction/deadspace mods making them cost about a bill each) but Battlecruisers that make everything else suck.

That and Buff HACs NAOW!!! I want a brawler shield vagabond Big smile

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Raptors Mole
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-09-10 08:10:08 UTC
"HACs all either suck or have something better than them, with the one exception of the Zealot which is a pretty good ship".

I agree, but even there I prefer the Navy Omen, it is half the price - with a similar performance.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#16 - 2012-09-10 09:47:50 UTC
I hope they nerf Tech3 good Twisted The fact that almost everyone who has the ISK uses them for almost anything, shows they are too good. I'm rather tired of all those 90% T3 fleets. I'd like to see more HACs and Command Ships in the mix.

Another benefit of this is that when fleets are not made up purely of cruiser hulls anymore, battleships could be used more often in wormhole pvp. Currently there's usually no point in bringing a battleship because you cannot apply your dps to all those cruisers whirling around. If there are more battlecruiser hulls around, you have targets for your battleship. And if you bring a battleship, others might do so too, which means even more targets for battleships. Bring on the battleships!

But, I guess this change is a long time away Straight

.
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#17 - 2012-09-10 09:57:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Pink Marshmellow
Terrorfrodo wrote:
I hope they nerf Tech3 good Twisted The fact that almost everyone who has the ISK uses them for almost anything, shows they are too good. I'm rather tired of all those 90% T3 fleets. I'd like to see more HACs and Command Ships in the mix.

Another benefit of this is that when fleets are not made up purely of cruiser hulls anymore, battleships could be used more often in wormhole pvp. Currently there's usually no point in bringing a battleship because you cannot apply your dps to all those cruisers whirling around. If there are more battlecruiser hulls around, you have targets for your battleship. And if you bring a battleship, others might do so too, which means even more targets for battleships. Bring on the battleships!

But, I guess this change is a long time away Straight


Battleships are not used in wormholes because the large mass they take up is not worth what they can bring. For one battleships I can bring 10 cruisers or 6 battlecruiser sized ships.

They are slow and cumbersome and most wormhole engagements occur very up close which does not fare well it the bad tracking of large weapons.

by your reasoning we should nerf logistic ships as well since they're in 90% of fleets.

Most HAC's are lame and are obsolete by cheaper and overall better ships like Battlecruisers.

Command ships are lame, they have less hp and less slots than their tier 2 BC counterparts.

Before you go to the top you'll have to start from the very bottom, which is exactly what CCP is doing. They are balancing lower class ships like t1 frigs first. Then destroyers, then cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, capitals, and finally their tech 2 counter parts.

Then finally Tech 3 ships. Think of it as traveling up a pyramid.

Everything will radically change, fits we know today will be obsolete tomorrow. Ships that have never seen daylight will fly again. Rather than a game where only a handful of ships are worth flying, it will be a game where every ship will have their place and uses. Tiericide and role rebalancing in the path and the future of EVE.
Archdaimon
Merchants of the Golden Goose
#18 - 2012-09-10 11:09:03 UTC
We'll manage. If t3's are becoming too bad, people will just start flying HACS more.

Wormholes have the best accoustics. It's known. - Sing it for me -
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#19 - 2012-09-10 12:14:37 UTC
Pink Marshmellow wrote:
This whine about T3 obsolete T2 Ships is simply groundless. One only needs to look at the ships to see it is so.

Have you ever seen a

T3 Hictor or a T3 Logistic?

Hictor option does not exist and the Logistic is mostly bad that its not worth using(except for maybe pve - which is not a balance factor for pvp)

Do T3 recons obsolete T2 recon ships? Look at the bonuses and you can clearly see that it does not.

T2 recon ships have superior ewar capability over T3. e.g. Falcon vs Tengu jams, Pilgrim vs Legion Neut, Rapier vs Loki Web, and Arazu vs Proteus scram.

T2 field command ships typical are superior to T3 cruiser in firepower. (Except the Nighthawk which is a lulzy and problematic ship.) The Astarte, Absolution, and Sleipnir kicks T3 ass the dps department.

T2 HACs typically have better mobility, smaller sig radius, and longer range capabilities than T3. HAC's are mobile, tanky RR gang cruisers with good firepower.

I believe the main argument and complaint is that T3 beat HAC's overall, but if you really think about it, most HAC's see little use even without T3 ships around.

The Fact is that most HAC's are pretty awful. The Eagle out of all is the worst ship and the Cerberus is a joke. The sacrilege is a slow armor ships with short range missiles. The ishtar is a decent drone boat, but suffers from fitting issues and drones are a bit lame. The deimos is well diemost. The Muninn is pointless with the Tornado and Hurricane around.

Out of all 8 HAC's, 2 HAC's see regular use. The zealot and the vagabond, the only decent and worthy of the bunch. The Vagabond is the bread and butter nano ship. The Zealot is the ARMOR HAC.

I ask of CCP to be reasonable and not listen to rabid blabbering people who say things without any real backup.



^qtf

There is no Bob.

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

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-09-10 12:53:31 UTC
imo tengu should get its tank and range nerfed a little. the dps should stay though or else the next burn jita will be run by missioners and explorers.

I should buy an Ishtar.
123Next pageLast page