These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Chart is confusing, please correct the chart.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
#1 - 2013-06-09 06:47:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tom Gerard
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg

This chart seems to have a huge error on it. If you look at it, from a certain perspective it looks like Tech 2 ships will deal more damage than Tech 3 ships, which is ludicrous and is clearly a misrepresentation.

If we were to believe (for a moment) this isn't obvious glaring mistake on CCP's part. It would suggest that Tech 3 hulls would share the tank/gank of a Navy Cruiser but with more flexibility.

Assuming this farce would be the case, Tech 3 Cruisers would drop from Battleship levels of Gank and Tank down to cruiser level? That seems like too large of a nerf.

So my conclusion is that either people are misreading this chart, or CCP made a huge mistake when creating it.

The only defense that needs to be made is "lore" millions of years ago the Sleepers made the T3 technology and since then no advances have been made so they should be the best at everything, any nerf however slight to the strategic cruisers would destroy all of EVE's lore forever.

I have taken the liberty of correcting the visual error:
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3682/corrected.jpg

If we could just upload this new image before anyone else gets confused and thinks CCP is willing to destroy ALL THE LORE IN EVE, by nerfing strategics.

Many Thanks

Now with 100% less Troll.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#2 - 2013-06-09 07:03:22 UTC
The T3 stuff we use isn't the sleeper tech.

It's a bastardised version, integrating the current tech of the Empires, as well as bits of the sleeper's tech.

The T3s aren't supposed to beat everything, at anything. Just be able to do pretty much anything with a refit.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
GreenSeed
#3 - 2013-06-09 07:36:16 UTC
ITT we pretend T3 doesn't cost 5x as much as a HAC and doesnt cost you 5 days of training if it pops.
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
#4 - 2013-06-09 07:49:20 UTC
GreenSeed wrote:
ITT we pretend T3 doesn't cost 5x as much as a HAC and doesnt cost you 5 days of training if it pops.


^^ This, Why would a ship that costs you millions of skill-points when it is destroyed be any less capable than a Battleship that doesn't have any costs associated with it?

Now with 100% less Troll.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#5 - 2013-06-09 08:22:00 UTC
Why does it matter? If you can fly a T3, you can fly a HAC.

Oh god.
Lexmana
#6 - 2013-06-09 08:41:20 UTC
You got it backwards. Your "corrected" chart describes the current situation of one ship to rule them all. That is not good game design so they are fixing it. One day you will understand.
Himnos Altar
An Errant Venture
#7 - 2013-06-09 08:44:32 UTC
I'm just glad I'm not in charge of balancing T3s.

You have to consider every module in the game, EVE players tendencies to abuse any OP fitting they can think up in their brilliant little minds, AND the combination of subsystems.

eesh.
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-06-09 10:25:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ElQuirko
Riot Girl wrote:
Why does it matter? If you can fly a T3, you can fly a HAC.


Eerm no, check the requirements next time you log in? The Proteus requires neither Weapon Upgrades V nor Energy Grid Upgrades V, for example.

As for the OP: Tom Gerard may usually be a shiptoasting loon, but this is a topic very dear to me and he has my complete support. The idea of "flexibility" in a ship is ludicrous; for the cost of a T3 you can buy a fleet of every T2 cruiser. Nor does a T2 require the skill investment to reach the same level of performance. The subsystems we swap out with have to remain in a station anyway and we cannot remove rigs. The only feasible role of a T3, therefore, is to be top of the food chain for that cost. They're fine as they are, besides usurping command ships.

Dodixie > Hek
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#9 - 2013-06-09 10:30:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
Well I'll be happy to see the change. PvP will be much better when there are 12 great combat cruisers to choose from instead of just one.

ElQuirko wrote:
Eerm no, check the requirements next time you log in? The Proteus requires neither Weapon Upgrades V nor Energy Grid Upgrades V, for example.

So train them? To be honest Energy Grid Upgrades V is a weird requirement to have for HACs. I thought the whole point of changing skill requirements was so that players wouldn't have to train irrelevant skills to fly the ships they want.

Oh god.
Sanadras Riahn
Turbo Nuclear Pirate Punch
#10 - 2013-06-09 10:41:04 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Why does it matter? If you can fly a T3, you can fly a HAC.


Eerm no, check the requirements next time you log in? The Proteus requires neither Weapon Upgrades V nor Energy Grid Upgrades V, for example.

As for the OP: Tom Gerard may usually be a shiptoasting loon, but this is a topic very dear to me and he has my complete support. The idea of "flexibility" in a ship is ludicrous; for the cost of a T3 you can buy a fleet of every T2 cruiser. Nor does a T2 require the skill investment to reach the same level of performance. The subsystems we swap out with have to remain in a station anyway and we cannot remove rigs. The only feasible role of a T3, therefore, is to be top of the food chain for that cost. They're fine as they are, besides usurping command ships.


In a game of role-based combat, having a ship that can fill multiple roles is a huge boon. Right now, T3s are OP. If they brought them back in line to, say, be able to fill two roles at once, and did just as well as some dedicated ships, and then brought their cost a bit more in line, it'd give an advantage to T3, promote customization and varying fits, and prevent it from being over-the-top any longer.

Tradition defines and shapes a person, but should be evaluated frequently; far too often does Tradition no longer help, but hobble a person and stunt their growth. Especially a Capsuleer.
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2013-06-09 10:44:11 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Well I'll be happy to see the change. PvP will be much better when there are 12 great combat cruisers to choose from instead of just one.

ElQuirko wrote:
Eerm no, check the requirements next time you log in? The Proteus requires neither Weapon Upgrades V nor Energy Grid Upgrades V, for example.

So train them? To be honest Energy Grid Upgrades V is a weird requirement to have for HACs. I thought the whole point of changing skill requirements was so that players wouldn't have to train irrelevant skills to fly the ships they want.


There are 12 great combat cruisers to choose from already. T3s are balanced by the fact that they cost an arm and a leg in both ISK and skillpoints and areas vulnerable as their T2 counterparts if not more. Difference is you've gotta hammer on them a bit longer. Every ship has its counter - if you so chose you could kill a Proteus with a Stabber, and that's not even T2. And let's not even talk about the Legion, that thing's needed work from day one.

And "just train them" ain't the point. I happen to have 'em trained, but you said "If you can fly a HAC you can fly a T3". It's not true. Simple as.

Dodixie > Hek
Dave Stark
#12 - 2013-06-09 10:44:27 UTC
Tom Gerard wrote:
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg

This chart seems to have a huge error on it. If you look at it, from a certain perspective it looks like Tech 2 ships will deal more damage than Tech 3 ships, which is ludicrous and is clearly a misrepresentation.


no it doesn't. none of those axis are labeled "damage".
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2013-06-09 10:47:02 UTC  |  Edited by: ElQuirko
Sanadras Riahn wrote:
In a game of role-based combat, having a ship that can fill multiple roles is a huge boon. Right now, T3s are OP. If they brought them back in line to, say, be able to fill two roles at once, and did just as well as some dedicated ships, and then brought their cost a bit more in line, it'd give an advantage to T3, promote customization and varying fits, and prevent it from being over-the-top any longer.


This is a perfectly valid point. IF they were as good as dedicated ships but could be a swiss-army knife it'd be lovely. But they're not and they can't. Ever tried EFT-warrioring a logistics T3? They're terrible. The ECM Tengu is nowhere near as powerful as the Falcon. The laser-Legion is totally outclassed by the Zealot and ONI. The Loki... well, the Loki is a bit OP even by T3 standards. But it cannot tank. Point being, where the T3s cannot excel against their cheaper counterparts they are completely ignored. T3s today are only used as gunboats because that is the only thing they do well. If they had the pricetag they currently had and couldn't beat T2s, I doubt you'd see them used as anything more than cloaky haulers that ignore bubbles in nullsec.

And let's talk about switching subsystems. Unless you could do this in-space without carrying an entire set of subsystems and fits in your cargo it's still a tiny bit useless since you may as well just dock and fetch another ship.

Dodixie > Hek
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#14 - 2013-06-09 10:49:43 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
T3s are balanced by the fact that they cost an arm and a leg in both ISK and skillpoints

Cost is irrelevant to balance.
Quote:
areas vulnerable as their T2 counterparts if not more.

Which areas?

Oh god.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#15 - 2013-06-09 10:49:50 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
T3 cruisers are going to be getting nerfed to the level of cruisers.
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-06-09 10:51:37 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Cost is irrelevant to balance.

Is it not? Feel free to go out into lowsec in your supposedly OP T3. You should easily be able to kill everything right? Roll Risk-free PVP, totally.

Quote:
Which areas?


Proteus moves slow like walrus. Loki cannot tank. Tengu has the sig radius of god. Legion is just legion.

Dodixie > Hek
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#17 - 2013-06-09 10:53:29 UTC
Quote:
The laser-Legion is totally outclassed by the Zealot

Not at all.

Quote:
T3s today are only used as gunboats because that is the only thing they do well. If they had the pricetag they currently had and couldn't beat T2s, I doubt you'd see them used as anything more than cloaky haulers that ignore bubbles in nullsec.

T3s are yet to be rebalanced. I doubt CCP are going to let them become useless.

Oh god.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#18 - 2013-06-09 10:56:32 UTC
Quote:
Is it not? Feel free to go out into lowsec in your supposedly OP T3. You should easily be able to kill everything right? Roll Risk-free PVP, totally.

What does that have to do with ship balance?
Quote:

Proteus moves slow like walrus. Loki cannot tank. Tengu has the sig radius of god. Legion is just legion.

So they're not universally immortal, that doesn't mean they're balanced.

Oh god.
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2013-06-09 10:57:03 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Quote:
The laser-Legion is totally outclassed by the Zealot

Not at all.


Eerm, yes, it is. Go on out and find me a legion fit with lasers that is as pragmatic and powerful as the Zealot or ONI.

Quote:
T3s are yet to be rebalanced. I doubt CCP are going to let them become useless.

Point is that making them weaker than T2 without making them on-the-go shapeshifters is going to relegate them to almost-useless status.

Dodixie > Hek
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2013-06-09 10:59:18 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
What does that have to do with ship balance?

Doesn't. But the point is they're not nearly as expendable as T2, thus they're not nearly as commonplace in combat unless the combatants using the T3s are guaranteed a victory, hence the image of "OP".

Quote:
So they're not universally immortal, that doesn't mean they're balanced.

Generally it does. When you say "balanced", do you mean "dies to my ships because I can't afford it"? It's a T3. It costs at least 6x as much as a T2 ship. It costs skillpoints. It should be better than T2.

Dodixie > Hek
123Next pageLast page