These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

is the T3 nerf an attempt to...

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#81 - 2013-08-01 10:37:00 UTC
Bamsey Amraa wrote:
Yep, its not insane because 3 times more expensive than T2 and skill loss when die. You cant compare this two tiers...


obviously you are not going to look at it from a neutral perspective but the selfish i wanna keep my way overpowered ship and i do (and again i fly all races T3 and live in WH aswell) but you know what, i am gonna be happy when the rebalance comes and you going to cry or rage quit. oh can i have your stuff when you quit?

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Bamsey Amraa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#82 - 2013-08-01 10:46:12 UTC
I have better idea for you. If you say 30% tank and 20% dps more for 3times more expensive is insane then maybe CCP should do this with HAC ? Do you want HAC with better stats but for lets say 460kk instead 160 now? Sounds good ?
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#83 - 2013-08-01 11:29:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Kalel Nimrott
I wouldnt mess with the price of T3. If they get nerfed, then the price goes down and it balance itself. I dont want that. Its a crappy outcome.

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#84 - 2013-08-01 19:35:54 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
unimatrix0030 wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:


why would anyone fly a T2 hull that only can do 1 task as a T3 can perform all those tasks better then any T2 hull can (that is SPECIALY made for that task) ? i asked this question in almost every reply in multiple topics about T3 rebalance nobody answers them i know why and so do you all.

and that is not counting how insanly OP the T3s are (or can be) its realy selfish people that wanna keep their OP T3 ship

That is a lie and you know it!
You only compare T2-ships T2 fit with T3 - faction bling bling ships.
There is no T3 bether then a T2 or a BC.


* rapier paper thin so hardly comparable as it just dies too fast but has slightly better web bonus then loki but who cares if you got paper tank they choose loki anyway
* any HAC (even with changes) dont stand a chance against a T3 even if that T3 is T2 fit
* commandship has 3% per lvl bonus and T3 5% per lvl and both can make decent tank but T3 can get away easier as it can be fitted with nullified and or coverops cloak funny as the T3 is way less training aswell

but keep thinking that mate


Command ships yes. noone with a brain disagrees with the command ships vs T3 balance. But yes they are better than HACs but they are bigger slower most expensive by a factor of 3 and you lose skillpoints when you die. That sounds like fairish Balance. Yeh the HAM Tengu is a bit stupid on the DPS side but none of the others can put out the same DPS. compare the DPS of a loki to a Vagabond or munin and they are roughly the same. Proteus can get some silly passive tank i'll give you that.
But overall they just need some minor tweaks maybe a couple nerfs. They arent the disgustingly OP ships most people seem to think they are.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2013-08-01 20:47:44 UTC
I think it's mostly people who don't fly T3 that often or are too scared to fly them in combat that view then as overpowered.

It's crazy how some eve player could think that simply having more dps or tank automatically makes a ship "better" because there are lost of other stats of a ship that have to be taken into consideration when in combat. (E.g. speed, agility, sig radius, damage projection, etc...)

There are some subsystems that need a tweak but instead of complaining about about T3, go over to the features and ideas section of the forums and take part in the HAC and CS discussions, to see if we can make those ships better in other ways.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#86 - 2013-08-01 21:33:39 UTC
Icarus Able wrote:

Command ships yes. noone with a brain disagrees with the command ships vs T3 balance.

funny i posted this example at least 10x spread over say 3 or 4 plz dont nerf T3 threads and you are the only one who agrees and states that out.
Quote:

But yes they are better than HACs but they are bigger slower most expensive by a factor of 3 and you lose skillpoints when you die. That sounds like fairish Balance. Yeh the HAM Tengu is a bit stupid on the DPS side but none of the others can put out the same DPS. compare the DPS of a loki to a Vagabond or munin and they are roughly the same. Proteus can get some silly passive tank i'll give you that.

now we are agreeing a lot more, last thing i want is to kill em but most people here act like there is nothing wrong and that is just BS

i would say that an HAC would have less tank then T3 but more DPS this way T3 still is a good ship and you can mix up HACs and T3s in WH sites so people have a few more ships to play with.

few extra tweaks HAM tengu needs big nerf and the INSANE tanks can be modified a bit its ok that they have a good tank but what you can get now on tank is absolutely ridiculous. i am not sure about removable rigs (T3 only) but i wont say no right away, and the loose SP when you die is a penalty that can be removed

Quote:

But overall they just need some minor tweaks maybe a couple nerfs. They arent the disgustingly OP ships most people seem to think they are.

well it depends on what you define as minor

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Riel Saigo
Facta.Non.Verba
#87 - 2013-08-01 21:43:34 UTC
Just a personal newb observation of the game.

I'd much rather live with an overpowered class of ships than seeing an entire section of the economy nerfed.

PvP game mechanics come and go, and honestly, who gives a damn.

But the economy in this game is everything. I'll fly just about anything in my future and not care much. But if you're going to close off an entire sector of the economy, then honestly I don't care how much better it made one section of PvP mechanics.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#88 - 2013-08-02 08:19:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellendras Silver
Riel Saigo wrote:
Just a personal newb observation of the game.

I'd much rather live with an overpowered class of ships than seeing an entire section of the economy nerfed.

PvP game mechanics come and go, and honestly, who gives a damn.

But the economy in this game is everything. I'll fly just about anything in my future and not care much. But if you're going to close off an entire sector of the economy, then honestly I don't care how much better it made one section of PvP mechanics.


i disagree balance is very important and so is variety, and the economy will be ok dott worry too much about that too many people rely on it as income

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Riel Saigo
Facta.Non.Verba
#89 - 2013-08-02 15:34:17 UTC
Got it, basically you value ship diversity more than economic diversity.

I don't. The economy in this game is a lot bigger deal to me than crummy ship balancing. Ship balancing will make a fight in a wormhole perhaps more interesting. But a diverse economy will give you a reason to be there in the first place.

If something is going to get thrown under the bus here, I'd pick ship balance - hands down.
Xtrah
Overload This
#90 - 2013-08-02 22:27:18 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:

* rapier paper thin so hardly comparable as it just dies too fast but has slightly better web bonus then loki but who cares if you got paper tank they choose loki anyway
* any HAC (even with changes) dont stand a chance against a T3 even if that T3 is T2 fit
* commandship has 3% per lvl bonus and T3 5% per lvl and both can make decent tank but T3 can get away easier as it can be fitted with nullified and or coverops cloak funny as the T3 is way less training aswell

but keep thinking that mate


You are still not considering the price of the ship, skill loss on death and production requirements for T3 compared to T2. You are right, a T3 performs better at than T2 ships - but it works rhe same way. Only one role at a time, but ~30% better at it in every way for 300% of the cost + 3 to 4 days of skilling lost (unless you dont skill subsystems to 5 and its even less than ~30% better).

Why doesn't the big bad null alliances use T3s more often than T2 if they are sooo much better? Same with smaller gang stuff, you rarely see T3 fleets out of WHs because people tend to blob for shiny KMs.

You seem to be ignoring the relevant parts of the replies you get, and I somehow doubt you've been in WH space for long, if at all.

YouTube channel

Latest video: Bhaals Deep against TLC (dread/triage)
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#91 - 2013-08-03 10:29:01 UTC
Xtrah wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:

* rapier paper thin so hardly comparable as it just dies too fast but has slightly better web bonus then loki but who cares if you got paper tank they choose loki anyway
* any HAC (even with changes) dont stand a chance against a T3 even if that T3 is T2 fit
* commandship has 3% per lvl bonus and T3 5% per lvl and both can make decent tank but T3 can get away easier as it can be fitted with nullified and or coverops cloak funny as the T3 is way less training aswell

but keep thinking that mate


You are still not considering the price of the ship, skill loss on death and production requirements for T3 compared to T2. You are right, a T3 performs better at than T2 ships - but it works rhe same way. Only one role at a time, but ~30% better at it in every way for 300% of the cost + 3 to 4 days of skilling lost (unless you dont skill subsystems to 5 and its even less than ~30% better).

i dont think the price diffrence is such a big deal.
Quote:

Why doesn't the big bad null alliances use T3s more often than T2 if they are sooo much better? Same with smaller gang stuff, you rarely see T3 fleets out of WHs because people tend to blob for shiny KMs.

they use them pretty often in large nrs but not always as a ship that is more expensive gets even more expensive if you need to replace hundreds of them in an SRP program which all the big 0.0 corps have

Quote:

You seem to be ignoring the relevant parts of the replies you get, and I somehow doubt you've been in WH space for long, if at all.

well back at ya my posts are largely ignored too

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Afuran
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2013-08-03 14:57:48 UTC
People keep going on about the t3 are balanced around their cost and skill point losses...

If they made a ship that was better than a t3 in every way but had a 10 day skill loss, people would instantly move to them- at least in w-space.

imo, ships should not be balanced around their cost (ISK and skills) as much as their strengths and weaknesses and at the moment, t3s are very much THE ship for w-space. Their strengths outweigh their weaknesses so much that not many other ships are even considered. To me that is a design flaw. There should be other options that are just as useful.

T2s could be the answer. CCP should design t2s to be THE specialized ships for a particular role while keeping the t3s useful but not necessarily the best. I think t3s should perhaps do 80-90% the strength of a t2 but retain their flexibility through subsystems. So a t3 can be adapted to different situations but would never be as good as a specialized t2 ship.

I don't know what they will do with t3s, but whatever they decide- I just hope it brings more options to POD pilots in terms of combat and strategy. If people lose money through t3 production- I guess they will have to adapt- just like everyone else does.
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#93 - 2013-08-03 15:57:56 UTC
Why would anyone use a T3 if T2 was made better? What exactly do you consider better?

I assume you want T2 to do more dps and have a better tank that a T3. This would mean that T3 would have less tank than a BC. Flexability does not matter in a fleet fight so again, how do you see T3 being used in a post T3 nerf eve?
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#94 - 2013-08-03 16:05:11 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
[quote=Icarus Able]



Yeh T3s being far better boosters than CS is a problem.

My Idea of minor nerfs is what i said pretty much Hamgu needs a bit of a nerf to either damage or range. The Proteus buffer needs to be nerfed a bit. Legion is fine as it is afaik but i have little interest in it so cant say for sure.

But after actually getting a tengu and playing around with it you need to balance it out between good tank and good dps. Having both doesnt really work. It doesnt start to get OP until you put Deadspace on it which most things get OP when you put deadspace on.
Afuran
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2013-08-03 16:13:25 UTC
Quinn Corvez wrote:
Why would anyone use a T3 if T2 was made better? What exactly do you consider better?

I assume you want T2 to do more dps and have a better tank that a T3. This would mean that T3 would have less tank than a BC. Flexability does not matter in a fleet fight so again, how do you see T3 being used in a post T3 nerf eve?



If it were up to me (which it clearly isn't), Id have t2 design ships as THE best ship for a particular role, e.g the best brawlers, kiters, scanners, remote reppers, etc. They would be THE specialized (and therefore BEST for their role) ships for their race.

I'd have t3s reach somewhere near 80-90% ( just under) the effectiveness of a t2 if you design the subsystems and mods around that role, however it would remain flexible enough to swap it's role by replacing sub systems/ modules at stations/ POS so that you could fly a full DPS t3 or swap out at a station/ POS to something different like for example- cloaky, scanner, remote rep, kiter, etc.

That would make t2 the ship you would go to if you needed to specialize your role in a fleet. T3 would be the ship you could change roles depending on what was needed at the time, also if you were limited in terms of ship movement or storage or just if you wanted 1 ship that could do a lot of different things effectively but still not as good as buying/ moving/ alt-piloting many different specialized ships.

If that meant buffing the t2 and nerfing the t3 then that's what I'd do.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#96 - 2013-08-03 16:49:40 UTC
Afuran wrote:
Quinn Corvez wrote:
Why would anyone use a T3 if T2 was made better? What exactly do you consider better?

I assume you want T2 to do more dps and have a better tank that a T3. This would mean that T3 would have less tank than a BC. Flexability does not matter in a fleet fight so again, how do you see T3 being used in a post T3 nerf eve?



If it were up to me (which it clearly isn't), Id have t2 design ships as THE best ship for a particular role, e.g the best brawlers, kiters, scanners, remote reppers, etc. They would be THE specialized (and therefore BEST for their role) ships for their race.

I'd have t3s reach somewhere near 80-90% ( just under) the effectiveness of a t2 if you design the subsystems and mods around that role, however it would remain flexible enough to swap it's role by replacing sub systems/ modules at stations/ POS so that you could fly a full DPS t3 or swap out at a station/ POS to something different like for example- cloaky, scanner, remote rep, kiter, etc.

That would make t2 the ship you would go to if you needed to specialize your role in a fleet. T3 would be the ship you could change roles depending on what was needed at the time, also if you were limited in terms of ship movement or storage or just if you wanted 1 ship that could do a lot of different things effectively but still not as good as buying/ moving/ alt-piloting many different specialized ships.

If that meant buffing the t2 and nerfing the t3 then that's what I'd do.


you can also balance it like this
make HACs (most used roll for T3s) so that they have more tank then HAC but less DPS (bit of how Loki is very populair while rapier has better web bonus the tank makes loki best choice)

but a few things realy need to change
* T3 should not be able to use covert ops and nullified at same time
* passive tank for proteus is too big
* HAM tengu has way too much DPS
* T2 needs te be better at specialized roles (at least for a part)

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2013-08-03 17:20:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Afuran wrote:
Quinn Corvez wrote:
Why would anyone use a T3 if T2 was made better? What exactly do you consider better?

I assume you want T2 to do more dps and have a better tank that a T3. This would mean that T3 would have less tank than a BC. Flexability does not matter in a fleet fight so again, how do you see T3 being used in a post T3 nerf eve?



If it were up to me (which it clearly isn't), Id have t2 design ships as THE best ship for a particular role, e.g the best brawlers, kiters, scanners, remote reppers, etc. They would be THE specialized (and therefore BEST for their role) ships for their race.

I'd have t3s reach somewhere near 80-90% ( just under) the effectiveness of a t2 if you design the subsystems and mods around that role, however it would remain flexible enough to swap it's role by replacing sub systems/ modules at stations/ POS so that you could fly a full DPS t3 or swap out at a station/ POS to something different like for example- cloaky, scanner, remote rep, kiter, etc.

That would make t2 the ship you would go to if you needed to specialize your role in a fleet. T3 would be the ship you could change roles depending on what was needed at the time, also if you were limited in terms of ship movement or storage or just if you wanted 1 ship that could do a lot of different things effectively but still not as good as buying/ moving/ alt-piloting many different specialized ships.

If that meant buffing the t2 and nerfing the t3 then that's what I'd do.


The the picture you paint involves people having to go to their pos and change the sup systems on their T3... Why would they bother doing that when they could just have multiple T2 ships that are specialised for the role people need them to do?

T3s would be redundant if you had your way.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#98 - 2013-08-03 17:40:37 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:

The the picture you pain involves people having to go to their pos and change the sup systems on their T3... Why would they bother doing that when they could just have multiple T2 ships that are specialised for the role people need them to do?

T3s would be redundant if you had your way.

not entirely but i get your point there is also situations where you only have a few ships and or options to refit on carrier

but i see your point ans lean more to my balance ideas posted after him, but you didnt replied to that.

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Afuran
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2013-08-03 18:13:21 UTC
t3s would be the ship you would have that can do a bit of everything without specializing into 1 particular role.

You would would save ISK by not needing to buy and fit a range of t2 ships, you could have 1 t3 at your station / POS and with it you could scan, DPS, RR, salvage, cloaky nullify haul, etc, etc just using that 1 flexible t3.

It would also save you space in a carrier/ orca / hanger.

I doubt that if t2 were better at 1 specialized role it would make tech3s redundant.

They would be attractive to people in w- space where they could be used for multiple roles- however they would be less useful for the min/max fleets you see today that take t3s because they are the only w-space pvp ships worth considering.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2013-08-03 18:29:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
I didn't see much point in replying but since you insist...

Ellendras Silver wrote:

but a few things realy need to change
* T3 should not be able to use covert ops and nullified at same time
* passive tank for proteus is too big
* HAM tengu has way too much DPS
* T2 needs te be better at specialized roles (at least for a part)


* Why? You sacrifice tank/dps. A better alternative would be to massively reduce the agility of a T3 with the nulli sub on it.
* The average proteus has 100k ehp with T2 rigs. A similarly fit BC can achieve that.
* A drake can do more dps than a tengu
* I agree but i don't think that simply having more dps/tank makes a ship better.

Now you could reply to one of my old post that you ignored, if you like:

Rek Seven wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
Lord Xyon wrote:

I doubt the nerf is going to be too serious though. Everytime there is a nerf you get the Sky is Falling reaction. Look back at when they nerfed the range of heavy missiles.

Except in this case T3's are already well balanced except a couple of specific issues,

come on you cant possible believe this


It's true when you look at T3s from the perspective of a wormhole dweller.
* Their tank and dps is close to that of a T1 battle ship but they don't have the utility of a battle ship.
* They are slower and have worse damage projection than a HAC
* They are roughly equivalent to a faction BC and massively inferior to a pirate faction BS
* They allow small gangs to jump someone running a sight without the need for bringing 5+ logistic ships
* They enable a group to enter a hostile wormhole and fight without getting insta-popped due to the home team advantage
* They allow wormhole fleets to be effective with relatively small numbers

The alternative to bringing a 10 man T3 gang is bringing a 20 man HAC fleet and personally, i don't want that style of null sec pvp to come to wormhole space.


Thoughts?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...