These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

T3 Nerf coming soon (tm)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sandslinger
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-11-28 09:19:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Sandslinger
I got forum involuntarily sexed by a classmate Lol
Sandslinger
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-11-28 09:21:05 UTC
Sandslinger wrote:
Sandslinger wrote:
[quote=QT McWhiskers]I'm no too worried. Command ships have around the same dps, little less tank, bigger sig size, for less than half the price. If they do nerf T3s to be about on par with the astarte or absolution then I will simply switch. Mass increase is negligible and speed lost is also negligible. Should be fun.


Thanks for illustrating the argument I've been making for a year that if they nerf T3 everyone will just switch to command shjavascript:insertsmiley('Ugh','/Images/Emoticons/ccp_ugh.png')ips and wh fights will continue as they always have been.
Meytal
Doomheim
#23 - 2013-11-28 21:37:33 UTC
Sandslinger wrote:
QT McWhiskers wrote:
I'm no too worried. Command ships have around the same dps, little less tank, bigger sig size, for less than half the price. If they do nerf T3s to be about on par with the astarte or absolution then I will simply switch. Mass increase is negligible and speed lost is also negligible. Should be fun.


Thanks for illustrating the argument I've been making for a year that if they nerf T3 everyone will just switch to command ships and wh fights will continue as they always have been.

It also means a side buff to Nullsec as people spend more money on Null-only resources. Definitely sounds like the path CCP would take.
Senn Denroth
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#24 - 2013-11-29 05:22:09 UTC
Oh no, wormholes are not viable anymore!

Oh wait... I only deal in Moros' or Archons. Oh well guess I'll wait for the capital nerfs..
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2013-11-29 09:18:56 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Tul Breetai wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
I really wonder how people always come up with the nerf-interpretation. Revamping non-viable subs to be viable is not nerfing.

And honestly, legion/prot/tengu-buffersubs are the real issue. There is no doubt that those are strongly over the top.

Doesn't know where nerf interpretation comes from.
Agrees buffer subs need a nerf.
Yes.


I'm aware of the origin, thanks.

''I can say that we aren't going to destroy T3 with nerfs, but we hope to make more subs viable overall.'' (source) - To me, that sounds like they are unlikely to nerf T3s into the ground, but fix the crappy subs - for example loki missile sub, OH-subs, or the legion's wake limiter, but maybe hitting the buffersubs at the same time.
I agree, fiddling with those buffersubs will weaken certain T3-fits afterall, but with their resists/signature unchanged that won't hit them hard.

On the upside, imagine there would be a blastertengu, a droneproteus or a missileloki worth flying - even something out-of-the-box you wouldn't currently anticipate ;)




You can reach same effect by nerfing the subs that are so much better than others that they represent 80% of the occurrences.



PErsonnaly. If I was gonan do the t3 rebalance. I would buff almsot all subsystems , but remove ALL rig slots from t3.

Rigs are specialization stuff. T3 are supposed to be adaptable ships. THe rpesence of rigs is a reason people will nto change subsystem anyway.

By removing rigs you reduce exagerated ships liek the buffer proteus etc... and you create more ooportunities for a single t3 be reconfigured several times in a single day for different tasks.

A lot of the power reduction from the rigs removal can be compensated in some subsystem,.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#26 - 2013-11-29 13:21:04 UTC
I like your idea, buff subsystems and take out the rigs. You would be able to get the same result with more adaptability to the environment making them more flexible.
Have you tried ideas and disscusions subforum?

ps: quotes, it hurts my eyes.

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#27 - 2013-11-29 15:45:50 UTC
Before I say anything else: "T3s won’t be nerfed to the brink of uselessness but the subsystems will be rebalanced to ensure every one has a viable role in different situations." (straight out of the article linked by OP)

THAT DOESN'T NOT MEAN A NERF! A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on indeed...

Glyndi wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
I really wonder how people always come up with the nerf-interpretation. Revamping non-viable subs to be viable is not nerfing.

And honestly, legion/prot/tengu-buffersubs are the real issue. There is no doubt that those are strongly over the top.


Anytime a ship/mod effectiveness is reduced it's a nerf. Wether it be good or bad at this point is unknown.


They haven't said they're reducing effectiveness, only buffing the utter crap ones. If they're bringing the tanks on Legions/Prots down, good. They make my Loki's tank look bad Sad

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#28 - 2013-11-29 15:53:57 UTC
Kalel Nimrott wrote:
I hate when you guys throw prices in your arguments. It has a simple solution, prices go to a bc level and done.


SP loss.
5 days of training for one loss? No thank you, not if it's as ineffective as a Drake...


Sandslinger wrote:
QT McWhiskers wrote:
I'm no too worried. Command ships have around the same dps, little less tank, bigger sig size, for less than half the price. If they do nerf T3s to be about on par with the astarte or absolution then I will simply switch. Mass increase is negligible and speed lost is also negligible. Should be fun.


Thanks for illustrating the argument I've been making for a year that if they nerf T3 everyone will just switch to command ships and wh fights will continue as they always have been.




People would need to find a new source of long-webs and long-points since Recons are rather squishy.


Jack Miton wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
I really wonder how people always come up with the nerf-interpretation. Revamping non-viable subs to be viable is not nerfing.

And honestly, legion/prot/tengu-buffersubs are the real issue. There is no doubt that those are strongly over the top.

the nerf 'interpretations' come form high level CCP people saying crap like "t3s need to be put down like a rabid dog" and "T2s should be better than T3s and all specific roles" ect for months and in some cases years mow.
not really many ways that can be miss read.
if they end up just making all the subs useful (which they clearly are not at the moment) then fine, but everything theyve been saying till now implies a heavy all around nerf, not a rebalance.

PS: there's nothing wrong with the buffer subs.


"rabid dog" was one person one time, and is hardly a policy.

T2s SHOULD be better in specific roles, which they are (webs/longpoint/neuts/ECM). T3s are better in an all around jack-of-all-trades format, which they currently are.

150kEHP Prots/Legions are annoying, that's essentially the only ammunition the "nerf-T3s" crowd has. If Proteus and Legion T3s are fine on EHP, then buff my Loki's tank to be in line with other T3s. ಠ_ಠ


How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#29 - 2013-11-29 16:09:38 UTC
? You can easily get 150K EHP out of a loki.
NickSuccorso
Canadian Bacon.
Honorable Third Party
#30 - 2013-11-29 16:32:36 UTC
Glyndi wrote:
the bat

I guess we will see how bad it really is later on...


As it stands right now each T3 only has a small number of viable configs. We have all seen laser legions, non-webby loki's, ECMgus, etc. We all laughed just as hard...

All the T3 subs need a rebalance. I hope that CCP seriously considers doing more than just a stat re-work as well! It would be incredible if the T3s offered new abilities not just different combinations of the abilities on existing ships!

Everyone should expect a nerf to the max EHP configs and a major re-work of all the other subsystems.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#31 - 2013-11-29 16:38:01 UTC
Rroff wrote:
? You can easily get 150K EHP out of a loki.


Right, and it does 200 DPS... that or it's fit with about 3b of modules, far above what most people deem acceptable and are willing to fly.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#32 - 2013-11-29 19:00:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Rroff wrote:
? You can easily get 150K EHP out of a loki.


Right, and it does 200 DPS... that or it's fit with about 3b of modules, far above what most people deem acceptable and are willing to fly.


Its not a fit I'd use as its better to use the loki for what its made for and leave damage to things like prots but its completely possible to get 150K (well 149.1K) EHP and a little over 700dps out of a 1bn ISK loki.


EDIT: Even my normal fit has over 500dps and 200K EHP and isn't that pimp - I think the last one I lost came to about 860m all in (including implants).
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#33 - 2013-11-29 19:12:29 UTC
Rroff wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Rroff wrote:
? You can easily get 150K EHP out of a loki.


Right, and it does 200 DPS... that or it's fit with about 3b of modules, far above what most people deem acceptable and are willing to fly.


Its not a fit I'd use as its better to use the loki for what its made for and leave damage to things like prots but its completely possible to get 150K (well 149.1K) EHP and a little over 700dps out of a 1bn ISK loki.


EDIT: Even my normal fit has over 500dps and 200K EHP and isn't that pimp - I think the last one I lost came to about 860m all in (including implants).


Link fit or it never happened Smile

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2013-11-30 03:46:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Xequecal
QT McWhiskers wrote:
I'm no too worried. Command ships have around the same dps, little less tank, bigger sig size, for less than half the price. If they do nerf T3s to be about on par with the astarte or absolution then I will simply switch. Mass increase is negligible and speed lost is also negligible. Should be fun.


The Astarte/Eos cost more than many T3 loadouts at this point. Eos is currently at 310m, and I've seen it hit 350m.
Stan Durden
Solar Forged
#35 - 2013-11-30 08:46:43 UTC
The T3s are not in need of nerfing imo... if anything the subs that don't get used should see a buff. Already I have trouble finding many roles for a T3 where another, cheaper, ship won't work almost as well with a lot less isk. How much do you need to nerf the tank before people go back to using T2 cruisers and BC to get the jobs done the T3s still do now?

Example: I recently switched from my close-to-maxed tengu (the explosion velocity missile skill is only 4) to a gila for running C3 sites... Why? Well, for half the cost I get a ship that does twice the damage with a similar tank. Oh and I don't lose SP if I go down.

At the very least, if the T3s do see a nerf then loosing SP for loosing one has got to stop. If I am going to lose a weeks training on top of a half bil minimum then it is going to take a lot to convince me to fly one. I am already on the edge as far as being convinced to use a T3 in most situations.
Stan Durden
Solar Forged
#36 - 2013-11-30 08:51:53 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Tul Breetai wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
I really wonder how people always come up with the nerf-interpretation. Revamping non-viable subs to be viable is not nerfing.

And honestly, legion/prot/tengu-buffersubs are the real issue. There is no doubt that those are strongly over the top.

Doesn't know where nerf interpretation comes from.
Agrees buffer subs need a nerf.
Yes.


I'm aware of the origin, thanks.

''I can say that we aren't going to destroy T3 with nerfs, but we hope to make more subs viable overall.'' (source) - To me, that sounds like they are unlikely to nerf T3s into the ground, but fix the crappy subs - for example loki missile sub, OH-subs, or the legion's wake limiter, but maybe hitting the buffersubs at the same time.
I agree, fiddling with those buffersubs will weaken certain T3-fits afterall, but with their resists/signature unchanged that won't hit them hard.

On the upside, imagine there would be a blastertengu, a droneproteus or a missileloki worth flying - even something out-of-the-box you wouldn't currently anticipate ;)




You can reach same effect by nerfing the subs that are so much better than others that they represent 80% of the occurrences.



PErsonnaly. If I was gonan do the t3 rebalance. I would buff almsot all subsystems , but remove ALL rig slots from t3.

Rigs are specialization stuff. T3 are supposed to be adaptable ships. THe rpesence of rigs is a reason people will nto change subsystem anyway.

By removing rigs you reduce exagerated ships liek the buffer proteus etc... and you create more ooportunities for a single t3 be reconfigured several times in a single day for different tasks.

A lot of the power reduction from the rigs removal can be compensated in some subsystem,.



+1 great idea imo.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#37 - 2013-11-30 18:02:55 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
[...]
PErsonnaly. If I was gonan do the t3 rebalance. I would buff almsot all subsystems , but remove ALL rig slots from t3.

Rigs are specialization stuff. T3 are supposed to be adaptable ships. THe rpesence of rigs is a reason people will nto change subsystem anyway.

By removing rigs you reduce exagerated ships liek the buffer proteus etc... and you create more ooportunities for a single t3 be reconfigured several times in a single day for different tasks.

A lot of the power reduction from the rigs removal can be compensated in some subsystem,.


This is amazing. +1
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#38 - 2013-11-30 20:07:19 UTC
I opened a thread in features and ideas.

Link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=300785&find=unread

If you guys want, leave your thoughts there.

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#39 - 2013-11-30 21:46:16 UTC
Sandslinger wrote:
QT McWhiskers wrote:
I'm no too worried. Command ships have around the same dps, little less tank, bigger sig size, for less than half the price. If they do nerf T3s to be about on par with the astarte or absolution then I will simply switch. Mass increase is negligible and speed lost is also negligible. Should be fun.


Thanks for illustrating the argument I've been making for a year that if they nerf T3 everyone will just switch to command ships and wh fights will continue as they always have been.




So the meta is bad and you don't think things should change because the solution won't change anything?

Yes if t3's change then the players will use command ships. But at least command ships can't neut, can't jam, can't 50km web, and can't 75km point. And if command ships becomes the op meta then they be should rebalanced too. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Wh space has the best pvp mechanics in eve, and the sad fact is, the pvp in it right now is stale at best. It is just a few fixes away from being epic, but you are too afraid of change because you think that won't change anything. Well if you are right ,at worst everyone will be using command ships,which isn't much different than everyone using t3's now.
Radhe Amatin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-11-30 23:03:48 UTC
Joan Greywind wrote:
Sandslinger wrote:
QT McWhiskers wrote:
I'm no too worried. Command ships have around the same dps, little less tank, bigger sig size, for less than half the price. If they do nerf T3s to be about on par with the astarte or absolution then I will simply switch. Mass increase is negligible and speed lost is also negligible. Should be fun.


Thanks for illustrating the argument I've been making for a year that if they nerf T3 everyone will just switch to command ships and wh fights will continue as they always have been.




So the meta is bad and you don't think things should change because the solution won't change anything?

Yes if t3's change then the players will use command ships. But at least command ships can't neut, can't jam, can't 50km web, and can't 75km point. And if command ships becomes the op meta then they be should rebalanced too. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Wh space has the best pvp mechanics in eve, and the sad fact is, the pvp in it right now is stale at best. It is just a few fixes away from being epic, but you are too afraid of change because you think that won't change anything. Well if you are right ,at worst everyone will be using command ships,which isn't much different than everyone using t3's now.

really 50 km webs and 75 points...where the hell do you pull this numbers.
loki with max skills and federation navy = 35 km range
Proteus with republic fleet warp disruptor = 45 km range
And so you do understand that when they revisit stats on ships they will look at the ships stats not your fleet booster. Hell not even with a command ship maxed skilled u can pull the ranges u mentioned on a t3.
Nerfing ship to the brink is not a solution if they nerf t3s people will fly command ships, and you carebears will scream bloody murder again and they`ll nerf command ships to and players will start using another ship and the hole cycle starts again.