These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

t3 balance suggestion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FreshMadFruits
Apotheosis.
#21 - 2015-04-15 18:00:31 UTC
extremely ****** radical change, ccp will go with a overall nerf/buff of the subsystems, taking a bit away from the good ones and giving some love to the worthless ones.
I mean these no rigs fantasies thing you have here is so incomplete, where will the ship stats be displayed since all of the ship stats are attached to the subsystem.
Porucznik Borewicz
GreenSwarm
#22 - 2015-04-15 18:05:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Porucznik Borewicz
FreshMadFruits wrote:
extremely ****** radical change, ccp will go with a overall nerf/buff of the subsystems, taking a bit away from the good ones and giving some love to the worthless ones.
I mean these no rigs fantasies thing you have here is so incomplete, where will the ship stats be displayed since all of the ship stats are attached to the subsystem.

You what mate? Is it not the case like right now? The T3 stats ARE in the subsystems. So who needs rigs?
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#23 - 2015-04-15 18:17:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
What makes you stand so upright? Stellar erections in the portraits, I must say. Smile

Oh dear... There's five! Lol

Porucznik Borewicz wrote:
CCP Capqu. When?


Pls

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2015-04-15 18:25:39 UTC
Capqu wrote:
Arya Regnar wrote:
What happens to t2 rigged scanning tengus though, rip?


boost the scanning sub str by 15% since the best scanning strength you could get involved a single t2 grav rig

the rest can be obtained through midslots


And then what? Are you porposing that the ships get buffed for every single combination of rugs that could possibly exist for each hull?

They once threw around the idea of a rig "subsystem" that would retain rigs but could be swapped out with another. I don't know if possible but would be a hell of a lot better than this.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#25 - 2015-04-15 18:47:35 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
James Baboli wrote:

It's Harvey, he's done like 6 or 7 long rants on t3s and how they *should* be.


Guy apparently flies T3 so much, that he even forgot that scan res/sig/sensor str/med/low/high slot count/captotal/caprech/etc/etc/etc/etc is sub-system specific. Blink

He wants those features baked into the hull, so that subsystems are cosmetic and bonus only. This is his "big idea" on T3s, and one I don't support.

As for the SOON™ nature of it, the new release schedule seems to be helping tune things faster and do a better job of letting CCP fix things in near real time.


as if people enjoy having too refit half of their slots when you change 1 sub...
and is it really bad too want them too be much simpler than the convulated mess they currently are.. hardly new player friendly either as they currently stand..

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
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#26 - 2015-04-15 18:52:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Harvey has a point, though - there are a few (popular) cookie-cutter combos for each hull and that's it.

But variety is life, and so the current situation is better than what they've done with T3D 3-butt0n yolo boats.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#27 - 2015-04-15 18:53:33 UTC
Harvey James wrote:

as if people enjoy having too refit half of their slots when you change 1 sub...
and is it really bad too want them too be much simpler than the convulated mess they currently are.. hardly new player friendly either as they currently stand..


They aren't for new players. They are for WHs, and happen to be great outside them.

As for changing slots, that is THE SINGLE BIGGEST DRAW, as you can make them do the thing you are trying to do at the moment EXTREMELY well if you sit down and figure out what to fit to make the slot layout how you want it.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#28 - 2015-04-15 18:54:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Harvey James wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
James Baboli wrote:

It's Harvey, he's done like 6 or 7 long rants on t3s and how they *should* be.


Guy apparently flies T3 so much, that he even forgot that scan res/sig/sensor str/med/low/high slot count/captotal/caprech/etc/etc/etc/etc is sub-system specific. Blink

He wants those features baked into the hull, so that subsystems are cosmetic and bonus only. This is his "big idea" on T3s, and one I don't support.

As for the SOON™ nature of it, the new release schedule seems to be helping tune things faster and do a better job of letting CCP fix things in near real time.


as if people enjoy having too refit half of their slots when you change 1 sub...
and is it really bad too want them too be much simpler than the convulated mess they currently are.. hardly new player friendly either as they currently stand..


When I change 1 sub it's nearly always part of entirely changing the purpose of the ship. I'm going to refit most of the ship to fit the new purpose anyway unless it's a simple on/off of the nullification sub for travel.

And I wouldn't exactly call the cruiser class with the highest requirements in the game "designed for new players" anyway.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#29 - 2015-04-15 19:51:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
James Baboli wrote:
Harvey James wrote:

as if people enjoy having too refit half of their slots when you change 1 sub...
and is it really bad too want them too be much simpler than the convulated mess they currently are.. hardly new player friendly either as they currently stand..


They aren't for new players. They are for WHs, and happen to be great outside them.

As for changing slots, that is THE SINGLE BIGGEST DRAW, as you can make them do the thing you are trying to do at the moment EXTREMELY well if you sit down and figure out what to fit to make the slot layout how you want it.


they were for wh's ...but with SoE ships etc they aren't the only useful cloaky ship anymore and as we know the original intent doesn't last for long..

a potential example being, you're in a loki shield fit for the current gang, but your fleet might change too a armour fleet or maybe just need a webber, being able too dock up or use mobile depot too change too either could be more convenient and more useful than going home for a T2 ship instead, as it stands you cant really do that because

- rigs at 60mil a pop you per change you can't really do much
- subs are expensive too have sets of spares in cargo
- its pretty horrible too switch subs and slots and mods etc....

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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#30 - 2015-04-15 20:47:44 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
James Baboli wrote:

It's Harvey, he's done like 6 or 7 long rants on t3s and how they *should* be.


Guy apparently flies T3 so much, that he even forgot that scan res/sig/sensor str/med/low/high slot count/captotal/caprech/etc/etc/etc/etc is sub-system specific. Blink

He wants those features baked into the hull, so that subsystems are cosmetic and bonus only. This is his "big idea" on T3s, and one I don't support.

As for the SOON™ nature of it, the new release schedule seems to be helping tune things faster and do a better job of letting CCP fix things in near real time.


as if people enjoy having too refit half of their slots when you change 1 sub...
and is it really bad too want them too be much simpler than the convulated mess they currently are.. hardly new player friendly either as they currently stand..


When I change 1 sub it's nearly always part of entirely changing the purpose of the ship. I'm going to refit most of the ship to fit the new purpose anyway unless it's a simple on/off of the nullification sub for travel.

And I wouldn't exactly call the cruiser class with the highest requirements in the game "designed for new players" anyway.


highest requirements? .. hardly T2 ships require more .. the 5 subs are easy trains, strat cruiser only needs lv1 .. unless you really want the extra heat bonus..

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
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#31 - 2015-04-15 21:05:05 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
highest requirements? .. hardly T2 ships require more .. the 5 subs are easy trains, strat cruiser only needs lv1 .. unless you really want the extra heat bonus..


Hm, it seems that it takes about the same time to get into a t3 with Lv 4 subs+skill as it does a recon or HAC with lv IV skill, significantly more than a logistics, slightly less than a HIC (which are certainly not nooby friendly either).

But if you are using a t3 ship for combat without at the very least V in defensive and engineering, you're going to have a bad time.

P.S: The heat bonus is amazing.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2015-04-15 22:09:01 UTC
Capqu wrote:
hey why not remove rigs from ships with subsystems

let the subsystems be your entire customizability


now they suddenly don't have battleship buffer and t2 resists
now you can't stack locus rigs with the 20% optimal bonus tengu

buff their base stats slightly to compensate

They still have battleship EHP. It's a start, but they still have much higher EHP than battlecruisers due to their t2 resists and higher than t2 base HP, paired with nearly battlecruiser level powergrid, leaving substantial margins remaining after fitting their cruiser fits which are buffed to battlecruiser levels of power with their immense skill bonuses.

I submit that the problem is that their sig radius, speed, and agility are cruiser level when these should be considered fully battlecruisers. Plug in battlecruiser numbers there, and suddenly you can match them up with existing battlecruisers and find reasonable numbers. Wow, so simple!

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#33 - 2015-04-15 22:10:51 UTC
Harvey James wrote:


they were for wh's ...but with SoE ships etc they aren't the only useful cloaky ship anymore and as we know the original intent doesn't last for long..

a potential example being, you're in a loki shield fit for the current gang, but your fleet might change too a armour fleet or maybe just need a webber, being able too dock up or use mobile depot too change too either could be more convenient and more useful than going home for a T2 ship instead, as it stands you cant really do that beacuse

- rigs at 60mil a pop you change really do much
- subs are expensive too have sets of spares in crago
- its pretty horrible too switch subs and slots and mods etc....


So it's too expensive and too annoying to use the unique functionality of a t3 to be able to swap shield vs. armor on a dime. hmmm.

I dunno, but I rarely see even t2 rigs in medium @ 60M
Subs are <50m, and for most swaps you need maybe 7 subs total, of which 5 will be on your ship.
If it is so horrible, why bother with a t3 at all?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#34 - 2015-04-15 22:29:25 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Capqu wrote:
hey why not remove rigs from ships with subsystems

let the subsystems be your entire customizability


now they suddenly don't have battleship buffer and t2 resists
now you can't stack locus rigs with the 20% optimal bonus tengu

buff their base stats slightly to compensate

They still have battleship EHP. It's a start, but they still have much higher EHP than battlecruisers due to their t2 resists and higher than t2 base HP, paired with nearly battlecruiser level powergrid, leaving substantial margins remaining after fitting their cruiser fits which are buffed to battlecruiser levels of power with their immense skill bonuses.

I submit that the problem is that their sig radius, speed, and agility are cruiser level when these should be considered fully battlecruisers. Plug in battlecruiser numbers there, and suddenly you can match them up with existing battlecruisers and find reasonable numbers. Wow, so simple!


no, T1 resists and power grid limited to 1 plate or 2 extenders would be the solution

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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#35 - 2015-04-15 22:31:31 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Harvey James wrote:


they were for wh's ...but with SoE ships etc they aren't the only useful cloaky ship anymore and as we know the original intent doesn't last for long..

a potential example being, you're in a loki shield fit for the current gang, but your fleet might change too a armour fleet or maybe just need a webber, being able too dock up or use mobile depot too change too either could be more convenient and more useful than going home for a T2 ship instead, as it stands you cant really do that beacuse

- rigs at 60mil a pop you change really do much
- subs are expensive too have sets of spares in crago
- its pretty horrible too switch subs and slots and mods etc....


So it's too expensive and too annoying to use the unique functionality of a t3 to be able to swap shield vs. armor on a dime. hmmm.

I dunno, but I rarely see even t2 rigs in medium @ 60M
Subs are <50m, and for most swaps you need maybe 7 subs total, of which 5 will be on your ship.
If it is so horrible, why bother with a t3 at all?


i meant 60mil for a set of 3 rigs usually extenders/trimarks..

but after the presumed nerf too tank/powergrid, you might well ask why bother if they leave everything else as they are..

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
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#36 - 2015-04-15 22:38:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Yes, Tech 2 resist profile on T3 is a disaster, especially with the Augmented Plating subs.

A mid-point between Tech 1 & 2 would be fine, same treatment is to be applied to T3Ds in Defensive mode.

That would precisely fit CCP's design philosophy - http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#37 - 2015-04-16 01:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Harvey James wrote:
no, T1 resists and power grid limited to 1 plate or 2 extenders would be the solution

At which point we hit the bit where you always seem a bit fuzzy on.

So now that my t3 ship has t1 resists, less EHP than a HAC, no exceptional amount of DPS, and I lose 3-5 days of training each time one dies...


Why the **** do I ever fly one?
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#38 - 2015-04-16 02:11:30 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
no, T1 resists and power grid limited to 1 plate or 2 extenders would be the solution

At which point we hit the bit where you always seem a bit fuzzy on.

So now that my t3 ship has t1 resists, less EHP than a HAC


A Legion has 174-222% more EHP than a Zealot, and this is the main issue. There's room for "improvement". Blink

Quote:
no exceptional amount of DPS


Why would it? It's a general platform vs a HAC.

Quote:
I lose 3-5 days of training each time one dies...


That's p bad. Smile

I agree, current EHP levels reduce the chance of that happening -> eject, kekekek

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#39 - 2015-04-16 02:29:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
no, T1 resists and power grid limited to 1 plate or 2 extenders would be the solution

At which point we hit the bit where you always seem a bit fuzzy on.

So now that my t3 ship has t1 resists, less EHP than a HAC


A Legion has 174-222% more EHP than a Zealot, and this is the main issue. There's room for "improvement". Blink

Quote:
no exceptional amount of DPS


Why would it? It's a general platform vs a HAC.

Quote:
I lose 3-5 days of training each time one dies...


That's p bad. Smile

I agree, current EHP levels reduce the chance of that happening -> eject, kekekek


Ejecting from a t3 before it explodes to avoid losing SP has not worked for a long time. I think 2012. Way to be on the ball about updates.

And if it is a general platform that is strong in nothing, why do we fly it. You said why you think it should be nerfed, but neglected the part where you explained why a highly nerfed one would be used.

If it has the same equal or less EHP than a HAC, and equal or less projection than a HAC, and equal or less DPS than a HAC, but still costs 3 times as much as a HAC + SP loss, why do I fly it?

Keeping in mind that "versatility" is a cop out answer unless you bother to explain what "versatility" means, how it works, and why it's an asset to the ship that would make it worth using.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#40 - 2015-04-16 02:54:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Anhenka wrote:

And if it is a general platform that is strong in nothing, why do we fly it. You said why you think it should be nerfed, but neglected the part where you explained why a highly nerfed one would be used.


It is flown so extensively, precisely because it is what it is currently.

A highly "adjusted" platform in only one area - EHP would still sway people to fly them regardless if it has 180k, or 110k EHP, because that is still heads above what everything else offers.

And versatility, ofc ofc, but everyone seems to be forgetting about that.

CCP included. Blink

Quote:
If it has the same equal or less EHP than a HAC, and equal or less projection than a HAC, and equal or less DPS than a HAC

but still costs 3 times as much as a HAC + SP loss, why do I fly it?


Prices would eventually fall as demand "decreases", alternatively input costs can be changed.

Quote:
Keeping in mind that "versatility" is a cop out answer unless you bother to explain what "versatility" means, how it works, and why it's an asset to the ship that would make it worth using.


So then, Cloaking & Cov Cyno, Scanning, Nullification, Proteus' & Loki's Eectronic, and the Nanobot Injector subs count for nothing? Smile I am not going to mention the cookie-cutters like Augmented Plating subs and the like, along with WF links, but I'd rather not mention that at all :because: heh.

A platform that has +-5% the same DPS as a HAC, competitive speeds with identical damage projection, and *hopefully soon* "only" 30-50% more EHP than said HAC, is such a platform utterly horrible then? Roll

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg

I understand that people tend see 1 mil EHP bricks /gross but realistic exaggeration/ as the only real use, and look to exploit and keep exploiting this fact as much as possible, just as T3Ds are seen only useful with 10MNs. Myself being guilty of the latter. Oops

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]