These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Future of T3 Cruisers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#181 - 2013-12-11 16:58:37 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
If they were to get static features, which I believe is the best way to balance them, it would think slot layout could be something like this:
Legion 6/3/7
Loki 6/5/5
Proteus 6/4/6
Tengu 6/7/3

I think if we're going to fix slots, it should be more along the lines of this:
Legion ... 6/4/6
Loki ... 6/5/5
Proteus ... 6/4/6
Tengu ... 6/6/4

i suspect they would give them 15 slots like all faction/T2 cruisers get
Legion ... 5/4/6
Loki ... 5/5/5
Proteus ... 5/4/6
Tengu ... 5/6/4

They do have skill point loss which t2 cruisers don't have, I would think that that would be worth an extra slot.

as far as 4 mids and 6 lows on the Legion, Amarr has more lows than Gallente which has less mids than Minmatar. Minmatar being both armor or shield tanked would favor a */5/5 slot layour, which pushes Gallente into a */4/6 and leaves Amarr with a */3/7. The Tengu would be better suited with a */7/3 because it is has the ECM setup which would burn a lot of mid slots.

On a related note, the interdiction nullifier should still remove a low slot and possibly change the Drone Synthesis Projector to remove a high slot.


well i think CCP will remove the sp loss as it seems a pointless mechanic to most people.
Legion ... 5/3/7
Loki ... 5/5/5
Proteus ... 5/4/6
Tengu ... 5/7/3

i think this is the best slot layouts.... on legion i was thinking 3 mids would be problematic if they added a tracking disruption sub but i suppose neuts are its main e-war where they could always move a low to a high could combine well with the drone sub

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#182 - 2013-12-11 17:31:04 UTC
It would be interesting if they added 5th subsystem set, but it would create over 3000 combinations for each ship. Don't know if that would e good or bad.

After think about it some more, the T3 ships all need to drop 1 hardpoint from there configurations, they put DPS T2 ships by having 6 hardpoints. This would put them on par with navy ships in terms of bonuses but less DPS than T2 in there specific areas.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#183 - 2013-12-11 17:42:18 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
It would be interesting if they added 5th subsystem set, but it would create over 3000 combinations for each ship. Don't know if that would e good or bad.

After think about it some more, the T3 ships all need to drop 1 hardpoint from there configurations, they put DPS T2 ships by having 6 hardpoints. This would put them on par with navy ships in terms of bonuses but less DPS than T2 in there specific areas.


well like a posted on previous page a 6th subsystem .. a support set of subs would be better as it would add more choices rather than just stacking options going to the side would offer more... especially moving things like warfare link sub moving from defense to a new set would be good moving the awkward subs as a almost miscellaneous category.

on dps yes removing some hardpoints would be one way too do it but i think its the subs themselves or at least combined that cause the problem like a 6 blaster proteus with same dps as a brutix

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2013-12-11 18:09:27 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
It would be interesting if they added 5th subsystem set, but it would create over 3000 combinations for each ship. Don't know if that would e good or bad.

After think about it some more, the T3 ships all need to drop 1 hardpoint from there configurations, they put DPS T2 ships by having 6 hardpoints. This would put them on par with navy ships in terms of bonuses but less DPS than T2 in there specific areas.


well like a posted on previous page a 6th subsystem .. a support set of subs would be better as it would add more choices rather than just stacking options going to the side would offer more... especially moving things like warfare link sub moving from defense to a new set would be good moving the awkward subs as a almost miscellaneous category.

on dps yes removing some hardpoints would be one way too do it but i think its the subs themselves or at least combined that cause the problem like a 6 blaster proteus with same dps as a brutix

A Brutix has 9 effective turrets, as does the current proteus, if the offensive subsystem group went down by 1 hardpoint, putting most at 4, that would put a proteus at 5 max and bonuses would put it to 7.5 effective turrets which is less than the Deimos 7.8 effective turrets.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#185 - 2013-12-11 18:12:02 UTC
all the 10% bonuses to damage and range on various subs will no doubt be halved brought down to navy level bonuses combined with 1 less turret would put it at more sensible levels

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2013-12-11 18:14:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Harvey James wrote:
all the 10% bonuses to damage and range on various subs will no doubt be halved brought down to navy level bonuses combined with 1 less turret would put it at more sensible levels

It would also put them to worse damage than t1 ships
Edit: more than likely equal to T1 DPS, but they are supposed to be On Par with navy ships not t1

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#187 - 2013-12-11 18:29:41 UTC
The bonuses will probably be changed rather than the number of turrets being reduced.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2013-12-11 20:00:18 UTC
I am wondering if it would be wise to try to flesh out an entire idea 10 pages in or start a new thread based on an entirely different premise.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#189 - 2013-12-11 20:17:07 UTC
Harvey James wrote:

i suspect they would give them 15 slots like all faction/T2 cruisers get
Legion ... 5/4/6
Loki ... 5/5/5
Proteus ... 5/4/6
Tengu ... 5/6/4

Arthur Aihaken wrote:

I think if we're going to fix slots, it should be more along the lines of this:
Legion ... 6/4/6
Loki ... 6/5/5
Proteus ... 6/4/6
Tengu ... 6/6/4

Omnathious Deninard wrote:

If they were to get static features, which I believe is the best way to balance them, it would think slot layout could be something like this:
Legion 6/3/7
Loki 6/5/5
Proteus 6/4/6
Tengu 6/7/3


I'm going to drive a stake through this right now: Static slot layouts for T3s is a TERRIBLE idea.
It removes versatility from hulls like the Loki, which can armor or shield tank. Neither of which it can properly refit to with a 6/5/5 layout. That's too few lows & too many mids for a proper armor fit, and scraps the high slot utility that shield Lokis have entirely.

Tengu needs 4 lows to shield tank because 3 lows? That's a DCU and 2 BCUs. Most shield missile boats have a DCU, 2 BCUs, and a nano or a DCU and 3 BCUs. It would severely damage the Tengu's viability, plus 7 mids is absurdly high. What if I want to armor fit an ECMgu? Can't do that with 3 mids, that's not even enough to armor tank, forget about plugging the Explosive hole or fitting distortion amps.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#190 - 2013-12-11 20:22:15 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
all the 10% bonuses to damage and range on various subs will no doubt be halved brought down to navy level bonuses combined with 1 less turret would put it at more sensible levels


If DPS subs had their bonuses halved they would be on part with the cloaky sub for T3s (except the Legion which has no DPS bonus, and maintains a hilarious level of suck for T3)

If you suggest removing the DPS bonus from cloaky T3 subs I'll know you are entirely ignorant on the topic, as without a DPS bonus they would be entirely useless, like the Cloaky Legion. You ever seen one of these? Neither have I. The only time I did see one was on the killboards, and I laughed and felt sorry for the unfortunate Legion hull wasted on such an ill-planned fit.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#191 - 2013-12-11 20:23:07 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
I'm going to drive a stake through this right now: Static slot layouts for T3s is a TERRIBLE idea.
It removes versatility from hulls like the Loki, which can armor or shield tank. Neither of which it can properly refit to with a 6/5/5 layout. That's too few lows & too many mids for a proper armor fit, and scraps the high slot utility that shield Lokis have entirely.


I agree. Versatility is the name of the game with T3.

However, just as a point of order, I would like to point out that 5 mid slots on an armour tanker is the most epic kind of armour tanking - it allows dual-prop awesomeness which vastly decreases incoming dps.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#192 - 2013-12-11 20:56:27 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
I'm going to drive a stake through this right now: Static slot layouts for T3s is a TERRIBLE idea.
It removes versatility from hulls like the Loki, which can armor or shield tank. Neither of which it can properly refit to with a 6/5/5 layout. That's too few lows & too many mids for a proper armor fit, and scraps the high slot utility that shield Lokis have entirely.


I agree. Versatility is the name of the game with T3.

However, just as a point of order, I would like to point out that 5 mid slots on an armour tanker is the most epic kind of armour tanking - it allows dual-prop awesomeness which vastly decreases incoming dps.


I have to disagree that fixed slot layout hurts T3 versatility, it opes up subsystem combinations that would otherwise be ignored because of terrible slot layout.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#193 - 2013-12-11 21:09:08 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
I'm going to drive a stake through this right now: Static slot layouts for T3s is a TERRIBLE idea.
It removes versatility from hulls like the Loki, which can armor or shield tank. Neither of which it can properly refit to with a 6/5/5 layout. That's too few lows & too many mids for a proper armor fit, and scraps the high slot utility that shield Lokis have entirely.


I agree. Versatility is the name of the game with T3.

However, just as a point of order, I would like to point out that 5 mid slots on an armour tanker is the most epic kind of armour tanking - it allows dual-prop awesomeness which vastly decreases incoming dps.


I have to disagree that fixed slot layout hurts T3 versatility, it opes up subsystem combinations that would otherwise be ignored because of terrible slot layout.


The terrible slot layout with certain combinations can be fixed without giving fixed slots. Configurable slot layout is a powerful way to control the roles of certain subsystems, and I don't think it should go away.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#194 - 2013-12-11 21:16:56 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Still not seeing a real argument as to why combat-focused T3's need to have tank/DPS/ damage application nerfed. I'm also seeing no understanding of the fact that a nerf, on the scale you are advocating, in this area will utterly ruin the Tengu for its most common uses in both PVP & PVE.

The rabid dogs are not T3's, they are the people who clamor for the demise of a ship class that has already been substantially adjusted by other nerfs and other class rebalancing.

Apart from the Proteus subsystem above, I have yet to see a rational argument about a specific subsystem that warrants even a slight nerf.

I would love to see some minor buffs for the worst subsystems as well.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2013-12-11 23:03:05 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Still not seeing a real argument as to why combat-focused T3's need to have tank/DPS/ damage application nerfed. I'm also seeing no understanding of the fact that a nerf, on the scale you are advocating, in this area will utterly ruin the Tengu for its most common uses in both PVP & PVE.

The rabid dogs are not T3's, they are the people who clamor for the demise of a ship class that has already been substantially adjusted by other nerfs and other class rebalancing.

Apart from the Proteus subsystem above, I have yet to see a rational argument about a specific subsystem that warrants even a slight nerf.

I would love to see some minor buffs for the worst subsystems as well.


Hmm. All 3 armour T3s can be brick-fitted while being deadly in combat:
Proteus: DPS
Loki: ranged webs
Legion: neuts/dps

In my view these combinations make the T3 far and away better than any T2 equivalent in any kind of small fleet engagement.

The tengu's 50% bonus to shield rep subsystem is way too powerful (I abuse it every other time I play eve). In addition, the tengu is absolutely the hardest-hitting medium missile ship bar none. If you can afford it (and where there's a will there's a way), there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to fly a caldari HAC over a tengu. I don't believe this state of affairs is reasonable.

I'd still like T3s to be able to perform amazing feats, but these feats should come at a cost. So if you fit for max gank you should not also be able to fit for max tank at the same time.

If the role you have in mind is "heavy assault", then the ship of choice should be a "heavy assault" cruiser. Otherwise why have the class at all?

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#196 - 2013-12-11 23:35:34 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Still not seeing a real argument as to why combat-focused T3's need to have tank/DPS/ damage application nerfed. I'm also seeing no understanding of the fact that a nerf, on the scale you are advocating, in this area will utterly ruin the Tengu for its most common uses in both PVP & PVE.

The rabid dogs are not T3's, they are the people who clamor for the demise of a ship class that has already been substantially adjusted by other nerfs and other class rebalancing.

Apart from the Proteus subsystem above, I have yet to see a rational argument about a specific subsystem that warrants even a slight nerf.

I would love to see some minor buffs for the worst subsystems as well.


Hmm. All 3 armour T3s can be brick-fitted while being deadly in combat:
Proteus: DPS
Loki: ranged webs
Legion: neuts/dps

In my view these combinations make the T3 far and away better than any T2 equivalent in any kind of small fleet engagement.

The tengu's 50% bonus to shield rep subsystem is way too powerful (I abuse it every other time I play eve). In addition, the tengu is absolutely the hardest-hitting medium missile ship bar none. If you can afford it (and where there's a will there's a way), there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to fly a caldari HAC over a tengu. I don't believe this state of affairs is reasonable.

I'd still like T3s to be able to perform amazing feats, but these feats should come at a cost. So if you fit for max gank you should not also be able to fit for max tank at the same time.

If the role you have in mind is "heavy assault", then the ship of choice should be a "heavy assault" cruiser. Otherwise why have the class at all?


Most people agree that the proteus augmented plating sub needs it bonus changed from 10%/level to 5%/level or some other slight decrease in HP. That said, it's not possible to completely brick tank and still do DPS.

Lokis are rather limited in their brick ability to begin with, and their webs aren't all that great. It requires boosts and faction to get out to 50km, using T2 cold no boosts you're only going to get 25km, far lower than a Rapier or Huginn.

The Legion's neut/brick fit needs a capfeed from a Guardian to remain neuting, a single medium cap booster is insufficient to maintain neuts on a target.

Neuts in themselves or webs in themselves aren't "deadly". They can support a fleet and increase the effectiveness of the fleet, but so can a Rapier or Curse. The tank of T3s is often wildly overstated. While bricktanks are possible, they're not even remotely popular.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#197 - 2013-12-11 23:50:22 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Still not seeing a real argument as to why combat-focused T3's need to have tank/DPS/ damage application nerfed. I'm also seeing no understanding of the fact that a nerf, on the scale you are advocating, in this area will utterly ruin the Tengu for its most common uses in both PVP & PVE.

The rabid dogs are not T3's, they are the people who clamor for the demise of a ship class that has already been substantially adjusted by other nerfs and other class rebalancing.

Apart from the Proteus subsystem above, I have yet to see a rational argument about a specific subsystem that warrants even a slight nerf.

I would love to see some minor buffs for the worst subsystems as well.


Hmm. All 3 armour T3s can be brick-fitted while being deadly in combat:
Proteus: DPS
Loki: ranged webs
Legion: neuts/dps

In my view these combinations make the T3 far and away better than any T2 equivalent in any kind of small fleet engagement.

The tengu's 50% bonus to shield rep subsystem is way too powerful (I abuse it every other time I play eve). In addition, the tengu is absolutely the hardest-hitting medium missile ship bar none. If you can afford it (and where there's a will there's a way), there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to fly a caldari HAC over a tengu. I don't believe this state of affairs is reasonable.

I'd still like T3s to be able to perform amazing feats, but these feats should come at a cost. So if you fit for max gank you should not also be able to fit for max tank at the same time.

If the role you have in mind is "heavy assault", then the ship of choice should be a "heavy assault" cruiser. Otherwise why have the class at all?


Most people agree that the proteus augmented plating sub needs it bonus changed from 10%/level to 5%/level or some other slight decrease in HP. That said, it's not possible to completely brick tank and still do DPS.

Lokis are rather limited in their brick ability to begin with, and their webs aren't all that great. It requires boosts and faction to get out to 50km, using T2 cold no boosts you're only going to get 25km, far lower than a Rapier or Huginn.

The Legion's neut/brick fit needs a capfeed from a Guardian to remain neuting, a single medium cap booster is insufficient to maintain neuts on a target.

Neuts in themselves or webs in themselves aren't "deadly". They can support a fleet and increase the effectiveness of the fleet, but so can a Rapier or Curse. The tank of T3s is often wildly overstated. While bricktanks are possible, they're not even remotely popular.


I think just to be clear I'll define some terms.

Brick: a cruiser with EHP approaching or exceeding that of a battleship.

Using this definition, all T3s can be brick-tanked while performing their astonishing feats of gunnery, missilery, webbery etc.
For example, the standard T2-fitted dps proteus with 3 mag stabs does 1000dps with 137k ehp before overheat or fleet boosts. I've got no problem with 1000dps with 60k ehp, or 150k ehp with 500dps. But both together means that it would be illogical to take any other T1, navy or T2 cruiser, or even a navy battlecruiser in place of the proteus. The proteus has crowded out all alternatives.

Yes, I can take of rapier or huginn to a fight instead of a loki, but I never will because it just can't withstand the alpha like a loki can.

This was illustrated to us very recently in C6 sleeper sites. We used to run C5s with rapiers for webbing and they could just about do it. In a C6 site they get erased by alpha strikes while being webbed, so we're forced to use lokis which can withstand the alpha AND the neuting easily (fitted with a large cap battery as well as plates and 3 faction webs).

You really don't want huginns or rapiers in a WH fleet fight at range 0!

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#198 - 2013-12-12 00:09:56 UTC
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
I'm going to drive a stake through this right now: Static slot layouts for T3s is a TERRIBLE idea.
It removes versatility from hulls like the Loki, which can armor or shield tank. Neither of which it can properly refit to with a 6/5/5 layout. That's too few lows & too many mids for a proper armor fit, and scraps the high slot utility that shield Lokis have entirely.


I agree. Versatility is the name of the game with T3.

However, just as a point of order, I would like to point out that 5 mid slots on an armour tanker is the most epic kind of armour tanking - it allows dual-prop awesomeness which vastly decreases incoming dps.


I have to disagree that fixed slot layout hurts T3 versatility, it opes up subsystem combinations that would otherwise be ignored because of terrible slot layout.


The terrible slot layout with certain combinations can be fixed without giving fixed slots. Configurable slot layout is a powerful way to control the roles of certain subsystems, and I don't think it should go away.

You do realize that to get rid of terrible slot layouts you push them closer to a uniformed slot layout correct?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#199 - 2013-12-12 00:12:04 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:


Most people agree that the proteus augmented plating sub needs it bonus changed from 10%/level to 5%/level or some other slight decrease in HP.

If the base armor HP on the Proteus was not close to battle cruiser levels, the 10% would be fine. If anything need to change with that sub systems, all defensive subsystems TBH, is the base HP being brought down to t2 cruiser levels.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#200 - 2013-12-12 00:19:16 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


If the role you have in mind is "heavy assault", then the ship of choice should be a "heavy assault" cruiser. Otherwise why have the class at all?


On one level, you are right - in the combat configuration, the Tengu is an upgraded Heavy Assault ship. In those configurations, when pimped out, it is a better HAC than the Cerberus. That performance comes at increased price and risk of SP loss. To me, the increased performance is perfectly offset by the price and increased risk. I think you would agree that the Cerberus would be totally overpowered if it was as strong as the Tengu while remaining at the current price.

So, why have the HAC class at the current level of performance? Because HAC's are capable ships. They fill a role in small-gang and fleet-level PVP. They are not elite high-end ships, but they also don't have an elite, high-end price.

There is room in Eve for HAC's, T3's, faction cruisers, recon ships, logistics, T1 cruisers, pirate cruisers, etc. We have a plethora of useful and capable ships to choose from. T3's are not solopwn mobiles and do not obsolete other classes (at least not in null sec). I'd be okay with slightly lower buffer tanks, but these ships are not totally OP or breaking Eve.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.