These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#201 - 2013-12-12 00:21:47 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

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.


Which is why I only see Proteii ruling highsec/lowsec/nullsec...............

Prots are slow and have next to no range.
Not to mention they're armor tanked and Lol who armor tanks these days, am I right?

A slight EHP reduction (on Prot, maybe Legion, definitely not Loki) is the only nerf I'd support.
Other than that the crappy subs need a buff and T3s will be fine.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#202 - 2013-12-12 00:25:59 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:

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.


^ Agreed. T3s aren't solopwnmobiles in lowsec either in my experiences I see more frigates/AFs/Faction frigates and T1 cruiser hulls than I have ever seen T3s.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#203 - 2013-12-12 00:46:52 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
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.


I agree that HACs are capable ships (I use them).
I agree that HACs are more common in empire than T3s.
I think the cerberus is very much outclassed by the equivalent T2 tengu fit. I have the money, and I would not consider a cerberus over a tengu. It's like choosing a 50cc moped when you can afford a superbike.
I don't see T3s as solopwnmobiles - solo they are very beatable, as is anything.
What I do see is that when 2 similarly-sized fleets meet, one in T2 and one in T3s, both with logi support, the T3 fleet won't lose a ship.
The T2 fleet will have all the low ehp Ewar ships stripped away, allowing the T3s to get to work on the logi and then the DPS.

Granted, most of my pvp experience is high-end wormholes. Money is simply not a consideration. You either field a T3 fleet with logi or you lose.

Having mentioned cost, a T3 is only twice as much money as a HAC. They are extremely effective when fitted with cheap mods.

And they can overheat guns and tanks for the entire duration of a fight. This is often overlooked.

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".
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#204 - 2013-12-12 01:31:31 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

I think the cerberus is very much outclassed by the equivalent T2 tengu fit. I have the money, and I would not consider a cerberus over a tengu. It's like choosing a 50cc moped when you can afford a superbike.

I don't see T3s as solopwnmobiles - solo they are very beatable, as is anything.


I agree on the choice, or lack thereof between the Cerberus and the Tengu. The Cerberus, while a fine ship, cannot do the things at the high-end of the spectrum that a Tengu can do. It also costs half as much for the hull. Balanced.

Glad we can agree on this - it's a sign that neither of us is totally insane.

Mournful Conciousness wrote:

What I do see is that when 2 similarly-sized fleets meet, one in T2 and one in T3s, both with logi support, the T3 fleet won't lose a ship.
The T2 fleet will have all the low ehp Ewar ships stripped away, allowing the T3s to get to work on the logi and then the DPS.

Granted, most of my pvp experience is high-end wormholes. Money is simply not a consideration. You either field a T3 fleet with logi or you lose.


Not only does cost not appear to be an issue - as mentioned above, you also have restraints on how many ships you can practically bring to the fight. A lot of your fights happen at 0. That favors brick-tanked brawlers. Try that where someone can really maneuver around you and you'd see that brick-tanked brawlers are not always the best choice. As it should be... when two fleets of the same size meet, the one in the better, more expensive ships should win. If my opponents bring an end-game fleet, I better bring one too, or bring more bodies.

Mournful Conciousness wrote:

Having mentioned cost, a T3 is only twice as much money as a HAC. They are extremely effective when fitted with cheap mods.


I agree with the first sentence. I take issue with the second. Because no one wants to lose SP, people usually pimp T3's in a way they would never do for a HAC. T2 fitted T3's are not that special. For the record, I would be okay if T3's cost 4x more than HACs.

Mournful Conciousness wrote:

And they can overheat guns and tanks for the entire duration of a fight. This is often overlooked.


You are correct, this is often overlooked. Why? Because you can overheat your Tengu's launchers for an extra 2-5 seconds with Strategic Cruiser at Level IV.

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

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2013-12-12 02:08:22 UTC
Cost does not mean crap when balancing ships. T3 are supposed to be on par with navy ships in terms of power, but have the ability to swap roles.
A T3 should never have higher DPS than a HAC, should not have better EWAR than a recon ship, should never boost better than command ships, they do full some unique roles such as exploration and covert combat cruiser.

Some subsystems need a buff, such as the logistic style one, others need a nerf such as most combat related ones.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#206 - 2013-12-12 02:26:55 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Cost does not mean crap when balancing ships.


This is quite possibly one of the silliest things you've said yet. Cost is not the only relevant statistic, but it has to be ONE of the factors you consider.

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

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#207 - 2013-12-12 02:44:12 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Cost does not mean crap when balancing ships. T3 are supposed to be on par with navy ships in terms of power, but have the ability to swap roles.
A T3 should never have higher DPS than a HAC, should not have better EWAR than a recon ship, should never boost better than command ships, they do full some unique roles such as exploration and covert combat cruiser.

Some subsystems need a buff, such as the logistic style one, others need a nerf such as most combat related ones.


I disagree. Versatility does not necessarily have to mean "it sucks at everything now and forever". Versatility in this kind of context can just as easily mean that it can do a lot of things passably well or it can do a few things reasonably well or it can do one thing (and only one thing) very well - at the expense of having any other useful qualities.

If you make T3s into a multipurpose ship that can do lots of things but is arguably terrible at everything no matter how you try to fit, fly or rig it, very few people will use them.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2013-12-12 03:14:54 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Cost does not mean crap when balancing ships. T3 are supposed to be on par with navy ships in terms of power, but have the ability to swap roles.
A T3 should never have higher DPS than a HAC, should not have better EWAR than a recon ship, should never boost better than command ships, they do full some unique roles such as exploration and covert combat cruiser.

Some subsystems need a buff, such as the logistic style one, others need a nerf such as most combat related ones.


I disagree. Versatility does not necessarily have to mean "it sucks at everything now and forever". Versatility in this kind of context can just as easily mean that it can do a lot of things passably well or it can do a few things reasonably well or it can do one thing (and only one thing) very well - at the expense of having any other useful qualities.

If you make T3s into a multipurpose ship that can do lots of things but is arguably terrible at everything no matter how you try to fit, fly or rig it, very few people will use them.

I don't, by any means want them to be nerfed to the ground. But I do think there out of place in terms of tank and damage.
They have hp of a battle cruiser and better reps than them. There damage in most cases is battle cruiser as well. They are cruisers after all and should be balanced as a cruiser.

And I feel that navy ships are quite powerful compared to T1 ships and think T3s would still be extremely useful at navy cruiser level.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#209 - 2013-12-12 03:27:00 UTC
I think once they rebalance T2 cruisers, T3 will be in a better place to balance to fill in the proper cracks. The last thing we need is to balance T3s perfectly then have a T2 get buffed/nerfed and then T3s are back on the chopping block again.

That being said, I think T3s are meant to fill multpile roles at once. Best example: Webbing loki. Shorter web range than huggin/rapier but better tank than them (but still stronger than other HACs in same class which is bad).
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#210 - 2013-12-12 03:53:15 UTC
Didn't they just rebalance T2 cruisers?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#211 - 2013-12-12 04:16:53 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Didn't they just rebalance T2 cruisers?

not all of them. they still have to get recons, logistics (not sure if necessary), and Hictors (also not sure if necessary)
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#212 - 2013-12-12 04:59:27 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

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.


Which is why I only see Proteii ruling highsec/lowsec/nullsec...............

Prots are slow and have next to no range.
Not to mention they're armor tanked and Lol who armor tanks these days, am I right?

A slight EHP reduction (on Prot, maybe Legion, definitely not Loki) is the only nerf I'd support.
Other than that the crappy subs need a buff and T3s will be fine.


I can build a 930 DPS shield Ishtar, at about one third the cost, that can fly rings around a brick proteus, but don't let the anti-T3 folks, (also known as 2 devs who have ruined at least 3 classes of ships or game mechanics in the past year), know that fact. Not only will they wreck the T3's (a forgone conclusion), but they will go after the Ishtar as well.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#213 - 2013-12-12 07:09:04 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Didn't they just rebalance T2 cruisers?

not all of them. they still have to get recons, logistics (not sure if necessary), and Hictors (also not sure if necessary)


They are all necessary to one degree or another.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#214 - 2013-12-12 08:36:10 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:

... various points made, including an assertion than I am no insane, which is comforting, Thank you...

... A lot of your fights happen at 0. That favors brick-tanked brawlers....


This for me is the central part of the argument. The class name "Heavy Assault Ship" seems to me to imply a "brick tanked brawler", whereas the name "Strategic Cruiser" does not.

In reality, "Heavy Assault Ship" means "high cruiser dps with 60k ehp max" whereas "strategic cruiser" means "even higher dps with at least double the ehp".

The strategic cruiser hits harder, has the EHP of 2 HACs, has an overheating bonus (which when used on a tank mod with thermodynamics IV or V means you can overheat it for a long time). plus the versatility of multi-bonuses and the ability to reconfigure.

You take issue with the idea that T3s perform well with T2 mods. Well, this is my experience in fleets. For solo work then yes, faction and deadspace are the order of the day. But in a fleet, the difference in performance between fitting 3 navy mag stabs (or equivalent) over 3 T2s is negligible.

Someone mentioned the shield ishtar. 950dps is low. You can get 1100 with the right fit. shield deimos is a little less and shield sacrilege gets up close to 1000.

That's ok, because these ships have ~30k ehp so in a fleet confrontation they will be erased in 1 volley, whether you have logistics support or not.

Someone mentioned previously that the T3s have the same base armour, and shield as a battlecruiser and that this was the root of their unbalanced OPness.

I think I have to agree.

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".
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#215 - 2013-12-12 08:55:48 UTC
Some of the T3s are definitely too tanky. Though again I point to the skill loss mechanic and think "if these things aren't overpowered who is ever going to fly them?". I'm not sure why there isn't more discussion in that area honestly, because if T3s are brought to the level of T2 cruisers (or even lower as some have argued) they will become exceedingly rare. To me the skill point loss practically demands that T3s be broken, so if we want unbroken T3s it needs to go. And no, flexibility alone will not keep people using them when they get the nerf hammer, not if the skill loss mechanic remains.

Seriously, if T3s are brought in line with T2 cruisers their use will plummet off a cliff. People will simply start flying HACs, Stratii (sp?), Recon Ships, and pirate cruisers instead.
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#216 - 2013-12-12 08:56:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Quinn Corvez
They won't be happy until every class of ship can be wiped out by bombing fleets...

1. Most T3 subs need a buff and not a nerf
2. A t3 fleet vs a t2 fleet has an outcome roughly equivalent to a t1 vs t2 fleet
3. Nerfing t3 below the abilities of t2 is a ridiculous proposal and would render t3 obselete for the majority of tasks
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#217 - 2013-12-12 09:22:10 UTC
Quinn Corvez wrote:
They won't be happy until every class of ship can be wiped out by bombing fleets...

1. Most T3 subs need a buff and not a nerf
2. A t3 fleet vs a t2 fleet has an outcome roughly equivalent to a t1 vs t2 fleet


And they have stated that they do not want T3s to be outright superior to T2s, so a nerf is coming.
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#218 - 2013-12-12 09:50:07 UTC
And they aren't "outright better" as T2 ships can do things that T3 can't just like T1 vs T2.

If you just look a stats and pretend that the two classes of ship are going to be brawling at point blank range, then of course T3 will look better but this is not what happens in game.

If someone can point me to a corp or alliance that only uses T3 and are unbeatable, I'll admitt that T3 needs a nerf but until then I'll consider myself right in this argument.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#219 - 2013-12-12 10:10:10 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Cost does not mean crap when balancing ships. T3 are supposed to be on par with navy ships in terms of power, but have the ability to swap roles.
A T3 should never have higher DPS than a HAC, should not have better EWAR than a recon ship, should never boost better than command ships, they do full some unique roles such as exploration and covert combat cruiser.

Some subsystems need a buff, such as the logistic style one, others need a nerf such as most combat related ones.



They should never tank more than the tanky hacs (i.e sacriledge and eagle (when fit for tank with blasters) )

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#220 - 2013-12-12 10:11:03 UTC
Quinn Corvez wrote:
They won't be happy until every class of ship can be wiped out by bombing fleets...

1. Most T3 subs need a buff and not a nerf
2. A t3 fleet vs a t2 fleet has an outcome roughly equivalent to a t1 vs t2 fleet



The only thing that need a nerf on T3 are the degfenses. And that is why i think the problem are the 3 rig slots.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"