These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 great T3 rebalance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Odithia
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2014-08-24 16:58:27 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
mm.. why would anyone want too fly a ship that could do e-war and logi with decent tank at the same time ..mm... i wonder..


Metioned chart puts T3's beetwen T1 and T2 with ability to choose role. T3 will be nerferd hard to accomplish that. Pls tell me why anybody would fly worse ships? Because they would be worse. In every aspect. Worse but you can still choose, by fitting subsystms, how they would be worse...
Specialisation > generalisation.

Again they don't know what to do to Nestor and you all think they would rebalance T3's? Joke.

The way I see it, this is how a T3 is meant to be "worse" than T2 equivalent while remaining relevant.

Take rebalanced T3 "logi", It would repair less (range or ammount) than a specialized T2 logi, but by adjusting the subsystems you could :
-Have more buffer tank
-Have more active tank
-Have more speed
-Have more EWAR resistance
-Have Bubble immunity
-Be able to fit a Covert Ops cloack
(pick 2)

The trick is to balance those numbers properly.

Same for T3 "Recon".

I expect T3 will be harder to balance with HAC and Combat Battlecruisers.

I think that Battlecruiser should always have more raw tank and damage than HAC or T3. Especialy now that they have such a small warp speed.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#82 - 2014-08-24 17:44:11 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
mm.. why would anyone want too fly a ship that could do e-war and logi with decent tank at the same time ..mm... i wonder..


Metioned chart puts T3's beetwen T1 and T2 with ability to choose role. T3 will be nerferd hard to accomplish that. Pls tell me why anybody would fly worse ships? Because they would be worse. In every aspect. Worse but you can still choose, by fitting subsystms, how they would be worse...
Specialisation > generalisation.

Again they don't know what to do to Nestor and you all think they would rebalance T3's? Joke.


actually that chart puts T3 too the left of T1 ... not between.. again .. being able too do 2 or 3 roles instead of one is worse how exactly??? .. 80% of 2 or 3 roles is well worth using over 100% of 1 role..

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
Beta Maoye
#83 - 2014-08-24 19:20:17 UTC
I agree to nerf T3 if moon goos can be mined in wormholes too. Otherwise, no.
w3ak3stl1nk
Hedion University
#84 - 2014-08-24 19:46:06 UTC
I think t3 problem is the price is too low... Make the thing expensive again

Is that my two cents or yours?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#85 - 2014-08-24 20:09:47 UTC
I think it should end up with t3s being subject to something similar to the 85% curve. A newbro, who can just fly the t2 fit, gets about 85% out of the same fit as a bittervet, with all relevent skills 5. I think a t3 should be able to do 2 or 3 related roles (tackle + DPS, logi + ECCM, Scanning + tackle, Cov-ops + DPS, Cov ops + tackle + scanning, etc.) about 85% as well as a dedicated ship when flown by that bittervet, in t2 fits. Let the WHers then make up this difference through shiny modules if they wish.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2014-08-24 21:56:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Odithia wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Both of those ship classes are ment to be better at their jobs than T3. So working as intended.


For their specialized role, T2 ships are better that T3 ships.

Stop acting like you know CCPs plan.

Except for HAC, with the right subsystems T3 are like HAC on steroids.
Logi and Recon I agree.


DPS and tanking ability are not specialisation. HAC are supposed to be like a T1 cruiser on steroids, which they are.

You can fit at T3 to be like a suped up HAC (high dps & tank) but the HAC still has some advantage (speed) while costing less isk and minus the sp loss on death.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#87 - 2014-08-24 22:42:59 UTC
w3ak3stl1nk wrote:
I think t3 problem is the price is too low... Make the thing expensive again



That's price competition from the allure of sleeper loot drawing in some numbers.

Which leads back to a core issue of this whole problem...how to reign in t3 but not kill off the profitability of wh's to make them worth living in.

Does t3 missile tengu need a reality check? Yes. Make that reality check harsh enough so that cerbs are "better" in most ways however, now there goes the markets for tengu potentially.

Why above comment about moon goo in wh's seems like a somewhat reasonable request. IF ccp does not tread carefully a decent section of the game may not be as playable anymore.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#88 - 2014-08-24 23:25:35 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
w3ak3stl1nk wrote:
I think t3 problem is the price is too low... Make the thing expensive again



That's price competition from the allure of sleeper loot drawing in some numbers.

Which leads back to a core issue of this whole problem...how to reign in t3 but not kill off the profitability of wh's to make them worth living in.

Does t3 missile tengu need a reality check? Yes. Make that reality check harsh enough so that cerbs are "better" in most ways however, now there goes the markets for tengu potentially.

Why above comment about moon goo in wh's seems like a somewhat reasonable request. IF ccp does not tread carefully a decent section of the game may not be as playable anymore.


when you close one door ...

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
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#89 - 2014-08-24 23:57:32 UTC
Medium missiles are terrible. Rebalancing the Tengu should only be done with consideration to its weapons systems in mind.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#90 - 2014-08-25 00:27:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Medium missiles are terrible. Rebalancing the Tengu should only be done with consideration to its weapons systems in mind.


hardly terrible ... perhaps heavies got a slight overnerf .. HAMS have battleship range (overpowered) .. rockets have cruiser range ..we could really use those tracking/range mods for missiles though

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
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#91 - 2014-08-25 01:07:54 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
They said they are not going to nerf it into the ground. That does not mean the balance plan has changed. T3 are slated to land between T1 and T2.
Good luck doing that and still keeping them useful in WH space while competing with pirate and faction ships.
Both of those ship classes are ment to be better at their jobs than T3. So working as intended.


Eh, you're not even trying to be creative with the trolling anymore. Add something to the discussion or stop derailing things.


Telling you CCPs plan is now trolling it seems.


Didn't realize you got a job as Fozzie's right hand man.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#92 - 2014-08-25 01:13:23 UTC
Odithia wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Both of those ship classes are ment to be better at their jobs than T3. So working as intended.


For their specialized role, T2 ships are better that T3 ships.

Stop acting like you know CCPs plan.

Except for HAC, with the right subsystems T3 are like HAC on steroids.
Logi and Recon I agree.


HACs mostly suck, Ishtar is OP, and the Zealot and Cerb are ok. Muninn, Vaga, Eagle, and Sac could use work.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#93 - 2014-08-25 01:56:48 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
when you close one door ...



ideally it be a door that still keeps wh viable. Which is not being offered in these ideas usually. Its the usual missile tengu must burn. Only door I see with no replacement "carrot on a stick" is 0.0. If wh crews found something appealing to low sec piracy or fw...they'd be doing it and going oh....this is what its like having stations and not living out of pos, man these peeps don't know how good they got it.


Barring great leadership to unite all the wh crews to be a viable alliance/coalition to fend of the established power blocks...the main door I see is most making the big blue balls even bigger. Not so much a hater of the blob per se...but they don't need to be made bigger. As, and call me pessimistic, I don't see the great unifier of wh corps arising to form the organization to cut out a piece of 0.0 and maintain it. Could be wrong though...and in this case I'd be happy to be wrong tbh.


But we can wait and see what ccp does here. I happen to think it will not be the burn the missile tengu changes as an example some think they will get.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#94 - 2014-08-25 02:33:41 UTC
w3ak3stl1nk wrote:
I think t3 problem is the price is too low... Make the thing expensive again


The price is low because demand is down because they aren't OP Roll

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#95 - 2014-08-25 03:39:34 UTC
T3's are pretty balanced now, I mean granted the proteus / legion can still get wtf stupid armor tanks but all the same theyre not that bad anymore. I would keep them as is to be honest

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#96 - 2014-08-25 06:50:51 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
actually that chart puts T3 too the left of T1 ... not between.. again .. being able too do 2 or 3 roles instead of one is worse how exactly??? .. 80% of 2 or 3 roles is well worth using over 100% of 1 role..


So they even worse when become to specialisation than T1's? Why you keep pressing this whole multirole? It would make sense if main hull took all bonuses. 3 role ship? DPS, ECM, covert, active shield tengu? Can be build, but why?. Quit it with this whole swiss army knife ship. I love my swiss army knife, it's a great tool, but when i want to slice bread i will use bread knife. I have no idea what that "generalisation" term mean. Usefulness factor is main thing here. Why ppl don't fly some of HACs?

T3 suposed to be advance, high level ships and thats why SP loss on kill. Problem is they reaching insane stats values sometimes (like tank). Whole concept must be rewrite if they supose to be worse than T2's. Will they be still useable in WHs after a nerf (sleepers)?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#97 - 2014-08-25 09:46:03 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
mm.. why would anyone want too fly a ship that could do e-war and logi with decent tank at the same time ..mm... i wonder..


Metioned chart puts T3's beetwen T1 and T2 with ability to choose role. T3 will be nerferd hard to accomplish that. Pls tell me why anybody would fly worse ships? Because they would be worse. In every aspect. Worse but you can still choose, by fitting subsystms, how they would be worse...
Specialisation > generalisation.

Again they don't know what to do to Nestor and you all think they would rebalance T3's? Joke.


People still fly t1 ships. The only area t3 will be worse at will be at trying to do dedicate the job of a HAC or force recon. To date they have done a fantastic job with the ship rebalances and we now have more options for viable ships than ever before. You are just angry because your overpowered FOTM is going away.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#98 - 2014-08-25 10:37:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
People still fly t1 ships. The only area t3 will be worse at will be at trying to do dedicate the job of a HAC or force recon. To date they have done a fantastic job with the ship rebalances and we now have more options for viable ships than ever before. You are just angry because your overpowered FOTM is going away.

Big smile I'm not angry because of the nerf. T3 should never have BS tanks for example. If you change something make it with head. For the fantastic job of rebalance ,look at HAC tweaks thread. Do you think it's valuable changes? Nestor tweaks are such crap i don't even mention it.

I don't support changing (nerfing) hulls just to justify possibility of flying another ones. Dedicated job on Eagle - Tengu will do less with hybrids, dedicated job of Cerberus Tengu will do less with missiles, etc. etc. Where's the advantage of flying it (tengu)? More tank? We've been there already. Throw a bone, because i don't see it. Possibility of changing role? I put t2 agility rigs on hull just to switch them to dps/tank rigs when i'll want to shoot crosses in null?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2014-08-25 12:07:20 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Odithia wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Both of those ship classes are ment to be better at their jobs than T3. So working as intended.


For their specialized role, T2 ships are better that T3 ships.

Stop acting like you know CCPs plan.

Except for HAC, with the right subsystems T3 are like HAC on steroids.
Logi and Recon I agree.


HACs mostly suck, Ishtar is OP, and the Zealot and Cerb are ok. Muninn, Vaga, Eagle, and Sac could use work.



Zealot is by far worse thn most of the ones you complained. It cannot evne fit its largest guns in a reasonable fit. THe navy omen is superior 9/10 times

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2014-08-25 12:09:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
mm.. why would anyone want too fly a ship that could do e-war and logi with decent tank at the same time ..mm... i wonder..


Metioned chart puts T3's beetwen T1 and T2 with ability to choose role. T3 will be nerferd hard to accomplish that. Pls tell me why anybody would fly worse ships? Because they would be worse. In every aspect. Worse but you can still choose, by fitting subsystms, how they would be worse...
Specialisation > generalisation.

Again they don't know what to do to Nestor and you all think they would rebalance T3's? Joke.


People still fly t1 ships. The only area t3 will be worse at will be at trying to do dedicate the job of a HAC or force recon. To date they have done a fantastic job with the ship rebalances and we now have more options for viable ships than ever before. You are just angry because your overpowered FOTM is going away.



No need to make a massive nerf to achieve that. Only a few subsystems on some of the t3 are really out of whack.. like proteus defensive systems.

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