These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#101 - 2013-12-09 17:14:31 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
2000dps tank tengu can perma-tank (cap stable, not ASB). it's pricey, but that's not the point. This is too much for anything to perma-tank. Despite the fact that recon ships have paper advantages over T3s, it's only T3s that are used. This is, as has been mentioned before, because of their Herculean survivability.

There's a huge difference between a 250k+ EHP passive brick and a 2000+ DPS active tank. Namely that you'll be absolutely massacred by even a medium neutralizer or vampire.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2013-12-09 17:29:25 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
2000dps tank tengu can perma-tank (cap stable, not ASB). it's pricey, but that's not the point. This is too much for anything to perma-tank. Despite the fact that recon ships have paper advantages over T3s, it's only T3s that are used. This is, as has been mentioned before, because of their Herculean survivability.

There's a huge difference between a 250k+ EHP passive brick and a 2000+ DPS active tank. Namely that you'll be absolutely massacred by even a medium neutralizer or vampire.


Of course there is a difference. 250k ehp is not good for a cruiser to have - it's in pirate battleship territory. A 2k perms-tank is worse because at least another ship has an opportunity to eventually work through the 250k hit points. Against a 2k perms-tank, nothing has a reasonable chance of damaging the tengu unaided.

I have already pointed out that the only way to kill this ship in a 1:1 is with a neut ship. To anything else, it's essentially immune to the other ship's presence.

This is wrong. No pvp-capable ship should be able to perma-tank every subcap in the game indefinitely.

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".
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#103 - 2013-12-09 19:09:15 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Of course there is a difference. 250k ehp is not good for a cruiser to have - it's in pirate battleship territory. A 2k perms-tank is worse because at least another ship has an opportunity to eventually work through the 250k hit points. Against a 2k perms-tank, nothing has a reasonable chance of damaging the tengu unaided.

I have already pointed out that the only way to kill this ship in a 1:1 is with a neut ship. To anything else, it's essentially immune to the other ship's presence.

This is wrong. No pvp-capable ship should be able to perma-tank every subcap in the game indefinitely.

Not disagreeing. I think the only solution is to remove rigs, much as I'll miss them personally. They take a great concept and make it extremely OP, because most of the subsystems are already balanced. It's not until you combine them with rigs and implants that things take a really bizarre turn for the surreal...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#104 - 2013-12-09 19:22:46 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Of course there is a difference. 250k ehp is not good for a cruiser to have - it's in pirate battleship territory. A 2k perms-tank is worse because at least another ship has an opportunity to eventually work through the 250k hit points. Against a 2k perms-tank, nothing has a reasonable chance of damaging the tengu unaided.

I have already pointed out that the only way to kill this ship in a 1:1 is with a neut ship. To anything else, it's essentially immune to the other ship's presence.

This is wrong. No pvp-capable ship should be able to perma-tank every subcap in the game indefinitely.

Not disagreeing. I think the only solution is to remove rigs, much as I'll miss them personally. They take a great concept and make it extremely OP, because most of the subsystems are already balanced. It's not until you combine them with rigs and implants that things take a really bizarre turn for the surreal...


you're kind of skipping over there main strength ... T2 resists combined with resist bonused subs/ HP bonuses/ spider tank

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
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2013-12-09 19:50:14 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Onictus wrote:


... various comments ...



I hear where you're coming from but in practice it makes no difference that a rapier has a 20km range bonus over a loki. Almost all combat in wormholes takes place at range 0. The rapier will have to warp out or die. The loki won't.

150kehp and 1000dps on a proteus does not require slaves (although many WH fleet pilots will fit them).

2000dps tank tengu can perma-tank (cap stable, not ASB). it's pricey, but that's not the point. This is too much for anything to perma-tank.

Despite the fact that recon ships have paper advantages over T3s, it's only T3s that are used. This is, as has been mentioned before, because of their Herculean survivability.




To be fair most of us really don't give a **** about wormholes
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2013-12-09 19:52:39 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Onictus wrote:


... various comments ...



I hear where you're coming from but in practice it makes no difference that a rapier has a 20km range bonus over a loki. Almost all combat in wormholes takes place at range 0. The rapier will have to warp out or die. The loki won't.

150kehp and 1000dps on a proteus does not require slaves (although many WH fleet pilots will fit them).

2000dps tank tengu can perma-tank (cap stable, not ASB). it's pricey, but that's not the point. This is too much for anything to perma-tank.

Despite the fact that recon ships have paper advantages over T3s, it's only T3s that are used. This is, as has been mentioned before, because of their Herculean survivability.




and that is why I think t3 should loose all 3 rig slots. Since rigs slots are mostly used for tanking purposes.



and that would make all T3s half billion isk trash
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#107 - 2013-12-09 20:56:48 UTC
We don't balance Eve around 1v1 combat or artificial environments. If someone brings his 2-3b ISK Tengu to my space, I will not try to 1v1 him with a 300m ISK HAC. I'll get a couple of HAC's, a Recon or two, and kill him. Or I can use my own 2-3b ISK Tengu if I want to be an honorable space samurai. Use the right tool(s) for the job.

It is only OP if it cannot be countered or the counter is unreasonable.

T3 fleets get whelped just like any other. T3 gangs have reasonable counters in any natural environment in Eve (i.e. Anywhere you can bring whatever and whoever you want to the fight.).

If T3's are OP in WH's but fine elsewhere, which has been my experience in 0.0, then maybe WH space needs to be adjusted. It is an artificial environment (like the AT). Not all the counters can be used in WH space. If I have to deal with Dreads in 0.0, I bring more Dreads or SC's. It is harder to bring more Dreads in WH space and the other counters cannot get there at all, so you have to use a doctrine that can survive blap Dread fire. Oh, and the mass is limited.

Do not underestimate the vast changes that have hit Eve during the last few months. I used to see these awful T3 gangs with unprobable, offgrid boosting Loki's. They were like Horse Archers. They were fast and could hit hard, but they could still be countered by a well-organized, disciplined fleet. They are relatively much less powerful now.

Note - I don't fly T3's in PVP. I just don't want to see them nerfed again. Tengus already took a beating from the HML nerf.

If it was up to me, I would fix the ASB situation by making it so you could only fit one. That would fix Eve as a whole quite a bit. I don't think it is necessary, but I would not be sad if 100mn AB T3's were no longer possible.

Most of the whining about T3's, apart from the WH crowd, comes from people who want their killmails served to them on a shiny platter. I should have to work to kill a well-skilled, knowledgable player in a shiny ship. That's what makes it fun to kill them, you have to work for it..

Also, let's not underestimate the effect a T3 nerf will have on WH income. Will there be anyone to hunt or fight in WH space if it isn't lucrative?

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

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#108 - 2013-12-09 21:15:22 UTC
on T3's i would like to see skill requirement changes..

- reduce all lv5 skills requirements to lv4 ... lv5's are for specialist/T2 ships/items/mods
- increase training time on subsystem skills and strategic cruiser skills
- remove skill point loss mechanic.. its unnecessary and also not very clear how it works/ no info in game to explain why/how

- make training strategic cruiser skill worth doing by adding/transferring some of the bonuses from subs into the hull.

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
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#109 - 2013-12-09 23:09:26 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
If it was up to me, I would fix the ASB situation by making it so you could only fit one. That would fix Eve as a whole quite a bit. I don't think it is necessary, but I would not be sad if 100mn AB T3's were no longer possible.

While I agree with most of your points, it's quite possible to have a multitude of 100MN AB cruisers and battlecruisers as well. To single out the T3s is a tad unfair - T3s usually have less base grid than anything else in their class.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#110 - 2013-12-09 23:38:33 UTC
As I said, I don't really have a problem with 100mn AB fits (or 10mn AB destroyers). I'm just not sure there is enough of a drawback to fitting 100mn AB Tengus. If it was up to me, I would make 100mn AB's better and harder to fit.

I like the freedom CCP gives us with oversize prop and tank mods, but I wouldn't cry too hard if I couldn't fit MASB's or MSE's on a frigate or a 100mn AB on a Vexor. Eve wouldn't be quite as wacky, but it would be easier to balance.

I am not advocating these changes, but I think it makes more sense than trying to balance a cruiser around a 1600mm plate. It would also be a huge boost to active armor tanking. That is a totally different topic.

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

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#111 - 2013-12-09 23:42:18 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
As I said, I don't really have a problem with 100mn AB fits (or 10mn AB destroyers). I'm just not sure there is enough of a drawback to fitting 100mn AB Tengus. If it was up to me, I would make 100mn AB's better and harder to fit.

I like the freedom CCP gives us with oversize prop and tank mods, but I wouldn't cry too hard if I couldn't fit MASB's or MSE's on a frigate or a 100mn AB on a Vexor. Eve wouldn't be quite as wacky, but it would be easier to balance.

I am not advocating these changes, but I think it makes more sense than trying to balance a cruiser around a 1600mm plate. It would also be a huge boost to active armor tanking. That is a totally different topic.

Off the top of my head you're giving up 17% DPS and some degree of tank. The problem is that it's a battleship-class module, so changing the fitting for it would adversely affect more than a few battleship fits as well. Personally, I like the whacky aspects - it keeps things interesting. Otherwise we just end up with the top 1-3 fits for each ship on Battleclinic. Kind of boring.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#112 - 2013-12-10 00:18:26 UTC
I think I speak for most when I say that regardless of what changes are proposed, those of us with a vested interest in actually flying the T3 would like a seat at the table with respect to input on the available options. And a substantial testing period, ie: more than a week (yes Rise, I'm specifically referring to you here).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2013-12-10 00:22:21 UTC
Slots, power grid, CPU, cargo capacity, HP, and drone bay would be static features of the ships.
Hardpoints, velocity, drone bandwidth, agility and bonuses should vary with each subsystem.
And of course no matter what the interdiction nullifier should remove a low slot.
Taking the Proteus as an example: (of course these numbers are just the average of what we have right now so they are most likely either to high or to low)

Slot Layout
6 High
4 Mid
6 Low

Power Grid 1100MW
CPU 390
Capacitor 1500 GJ/Recharge Time 415s

Armor HP 3400
Shield HP 2200/Recharge Time 1620
Hull HP 1850

Cargo Capacity 280m^3
Drone Bay 225m^3

From here the subsystems would change things like velocity, agility, turret/launcher hardpoints, drone bandwidth, and bonuses that could/would effect the presented numbers.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#114 - 2013-12-10 00:25:28 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Slots, power grid, CPU, cargo capacity, HP, and drone bay would be static features of the ships.

Yeah, I like the variable aspect of T3s as it keeps things a bit interesting (and you can run some unique fits).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2013-12-10 00:32:43 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Slots, power grid, CPU, cargo capacity, HP, and drone bay would be static features of the ships.

Yeah, I like the variable aspect of T3s as it keeps things a bit interesting (and you can run some unique fits).

By unique are you refering to the OP ones, or the completly useless ones?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#116 - 2013-12-10 00:38:17 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Slots, power grid, CPU, cargo capacity, HP, and drone bay would be static features of the ships.

Yeah, I like the variable aspect of T3s as it keeps things a bit interesting (and you can run some unique fits).

By unique are you refering to the OP ones, or the completly useless ones?

Which ones are completely OP? The flying bricks?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2013-12-10 00:43:46 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:

Note - I don't fly T3's in PVP. I just don't want to see them nerfed again. Tengus already took a beating from the HML nerf.


I presume you mean pve tengus? All the tengus I ever encountered in pvp were either HAM/shield or ECM/armour. Did people use HM tengu fleets in 0.0 for long range dps? If so, I'd say this nerf was welcome. Ranged missile dps should be realm of the Raven etc.

FT Diomedes wrote:

If it was up to me, I would fix the ASB situation by making it so you could only fit one. That would fix Eve as a whole quite a bit.


This. A thousand times this. Are you listening, Mr Rise? For the record, I have a dual ASB recon tengu. No-one has managed to kill it yet - even a squad of 5 with neuts, dps astarte and an interdictor. It shrugged them off, traversed a wormhole 3 times (i.e. longer than 4 minutes under fire) and warped away. Ridiculous.

FT Diomedes wrote:

Also, let's not underestimate the effect a T3 nerf will have on WH income. Will there be anyone to hunt or fight in WH space if it isn't lucrative?


Not so sure about that. The majority of the income is from the blue "books", or whatever they are. They sell for a fixed amount in university stations. Even without nanoribbons a C6 site is worth 800 million isk. A Relic site is worth in the region of 1.6Bn before nanos.

I've seen people mention the skill loss in this thread. I think the skill loss should stay. Once the T3 is able to morph at will, it will be a very versatile ship. Even when less powerful than a HAC, they will still be desirable. An example of this is the new Stratios. Not quite as much dps or tank as an ishtar, but the covops facility makes it excellent as a surprise tackler - particularly in WH space.

If a proteus could be fitted up in the same way (dual rep, 4 ogres, covops), it would always be useful to me and I'd happily pay 400m to get this functionality coupled with refitting versatility.

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
#118 - 2013-12-10 00:49:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Slots, power grid, CPU, cargo capacity, HP, and drone bay would be static features of the ships.

Yeah, I like the variable aspect of T3s as it keeps things a bit interesting (and you can run some unique fits).

By unique are you refering to the OP ones, or the completly useless ones?

Which ones are completely OP? The flying bricks?


Proteus, with 122K EHP, and 600 DPS while being T2 and meta 4 fit sounds balanced for a cruiser right? Or is that just unique?
No implants, drugs, or OGB either.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#119 - 2013-12-10 01:12:02 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Proteus, with 122K EHP, and 600 DPS while being T2 and meta 4 fit sounds balanced for a cruiser right? Or is that just unique? No implants, drugs, or OGB either.

So Proteus and Legion bricks. How do you propose to address those without removing rig slots?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#120 - 2013-12-10 01:29:05 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Proteus, with 122K EHP, and 600 DPS while being T2 and meta 4 fit sounds balanced for a cruiser right? Or is that just unique? No implants, drugs, or OGB either.

So Proteus and Legion bricks. How do you propose to address those without removing rig slots?

Without rigs a proteus does 600dps with T1 ammo and runs 101k tank. Rigs are just nice things to have on T3s, they aren't where the force is coming from.