These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

So... how would you nerf T3's ?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Atsi Nola
Kings.Guard.
#41 - 2015-09-09 14:01:26 UTC
Cut 20% across the resists and they are fine and versitile.
Niriel Greez
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2015-09-09 16:00:13 UTC
RcTamiya wrote:
Niriel Greez wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
1) remove T3D from the game entirely (they have no role), reimburse SP.
2) nerf T3 cruisers tank and ewar bonuses. From me they should keep their versatility but they shouldnt overshadow specialized T2 ships like lachesis or huginn in terms of their ewar bonuses... Either you want flexibility of T3 or strength in their own niche of T2, not both in same time. This would be balanced, price doesnt balance anything its just a factor (thats why titans are no longer pwnmobiles).

CCPs desperate attempts to bring in new content in form of unbalanced ships with redundant, not existing or overlapping roles to existing hulls is sort of annoying.


Of course price balances everything. This entire game is built around the very concept of economic warfare because ISK is not infinite, otherwise you would see nothing but deadspace/officer fit T3s, Marauders etc.

For the price of one T2 Proteus, you can bring one T2 Lachesis and one T2 Huginn, which in 99% of situations, is greatly superior. This example applies to just about everything, and is also the reason why T3Ds are in such a bad place right now; when it comes to pure ISK efficiency, nothing else comes close. Recons aren't that far behind, they perform too well for their investment too.



my titan costs >100b, i want it to win against >15 dreads 1v>15 because its investment is equal to X dreads
my AF costs >4 t1 frigs it should win allways against them.
should i continue to apply your logic ? :)
Guys just STOP with isk=better or isk=balance
every Player in eve gets richer in average, so isk for balance can't be any factor at all, considering that there's plenty of corps with TRILLIONS of isk.

If you balance ships only a few factors count:
1. it's role (tackle,supporter,dps,...)
2. slotlayout
3. shipclass (frig, cruiser, BC, BS, ....)
4. EHP/DPS ratio
5. Utilitybonus (webrange, dampstrenght,...)
6. Tech-/Metalevel
(7.rarity -> is this ship unique and can't be replaced?! This CAN be a reason for an overall stronger ship)

What players add as number 8 -> isk efficiency aka how good is Ship X for role Y in compairson to others
if a ship is able to do a lot while beeing cheap and efficient for it's money it in fact is a good ship, but if other ships can compete with it, it's not OP (keep in mind t3d are frigkillers, they are a counter to frigs and their own counter is cruisers, which get eaten up by t3,hacs,recons,bs,...)


The example you used is like saying 'my dread should be able to solo your titan'. No one ever said ISK investment should be like that; the point is certain ships are 30% better at 100% increased cost, which is perfectly reasonable.

If T3 cruisers were equal to other cruisers, in every regard, they would go from rare to never being used again, because there is no reason to justify losing skill points and more ISK, when there is no trade-off.

Right now, if you feel the risk of a greater investment is worth it, you bring a T3 cruiser, otherwise you bring a much more disposable T2 (or even T1) cruiser.


Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#43 - 2015-09-09 16:43:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Niriel Greez wrote:

the point is certain ships are 30% better at 100% increased cost, which is perfectly reasonable.

depends from how much the 100% are. In case of T3 its not even that much and masses of people are paying because the 100% of T2 is pocket change for most. So still, no - ISK is not a balancing factor for T3.

Niriel Greez wrote:
If T3 cruisers were equal to other cruisers, in every regard, they would go from rare to never being used again, because there is no reason to justify losing skill points and more ISK, when there is no trade-off.

noone is asking T3 to be made equal to other ships, however I personally ask T3 not to be better than specialized hulls, thats just plain wrong even at 100% cost markup.
Altair Taurus
#44 - 2015-09-09 17:13:03 UTC
Lay off strategic cruisers! Please nerf Gila and Ishtar more.
RcTamiya
Magister Mortalis.
#45 - 2015-09-09 17:52:59 UTC
Niriel Greez wrote:
RcTamiya wrote:
Niriel Greez wrote:
[quote=Robert Caldera]
stuff



my titan costs >100b, i want it to win against >15 dreads 1v>15 because its investment is equal to X dreads
my AF costs >4 t1 frigs it should win allways against them.
should i continue to apply your logic ? :)
Guys just STOP with isk=better or isk=balance
every Player in eve gets richer in average, so isk for balance can't be any factor at all, considering that there's plenty of corps with TRILLIONS of isk.

If you balance ships only a few factors count:
1. it's role (tackle,supporter,dps,...)
2. slotlayout
3. shipclass (frig, cruiser, BC, BS, ....)
4. EHP/DPS ratio
5. Utilitybonus (webrange, dampstrenght,...)
6. Tech-/Metalevel
(7.rarity -> is this ship unique and can't be replaced?! This CAN be a reason for an overall stronger ship)

What players add as number 8 -> isk efficiency aka how good is Ship X for role Y in compairson to others
if a ship is able to do a lot while beeing cheap and efficient for it's money it in fact is a good ship, but if other ships can compete with it, it's not OP (keep in mind t3d are frigkillers, they are a counter to frigs and their own counter is cruisers, which get eaten up by t3,hacs,recons,bs,...)


The example you used is like saying 'my dread should be able to solo your titan'. No one ever said ISK investment should be like that; the point is certain ships are 30% better at 100% increased cost, which is perfectly reasonable.

If T3 cruisers were equal to other cruisers, in every regard, they would go from rare to never being used again, because there is no reason to justify losing skill points and more ISK, when there is no trade-off.

Right now, if you feel the risk of a greater investment is worth it, you bring a T3 cruiser, otherwise you bring a much more disposable T2 (or even T1) cruiser.





Nope, i said X dreads should kill a titan ;) cuz its very difficult to fit a 100bil dread oO
i just applied your " more money = better logic" thats aobut it, read again, you'll get it :)

Again you brought an isk argument, something i just explained you why it's wrong ....

Okay, i try it again .... T3s CAN'T be equal to t1 cruisers, just applay the steps for balancing

1. role -> cheap fleetship, role in fleet flactuates for its specialisation, build for smaller skirmishes and easy to replace (you aint sending cruisers in real life to brawl with a Battleship ....)
2. slotlayout -> more slots than frigs, less slots than BCs for obvious reasons (again its a basic ship, the lowest tier of cruiser technology!!!!)
3. it's a BASIC cruiser .... not build to surrive big fights, but can in fact cause trouble in numbers
4. EHP/DPS ratio is better than most frigs/destroyers, it in fact can take some hits, but outdps any dessie/frig
5. blackbirds for ecm but easy to kill, celestis for damps but still "easy" to kill, ...
6. TECH ONE
7. -> common cheap ship, no rare bonus applied here

PLAYER ONLY ARGUMENT -> 8. cost efficient, cheap and offers a lot for its money in most cases.

Now T3 Cruisers
1. role -> multipurpose HIGH END fleet ship, it has to fill DPS role AND utility role at the same time (early days wspace had no 50 ppl blobs you know...)
2. slotlayout -> adapts to subs, yo ucan either have brick tank and low utility or the other way around
3. it's a HIGH END tech cruiser, you can compare it like a F117 while a caracal is a Messerschmitt Bf 109 from WW 2.... (didn't want to pick a ship compairson maybe it helps?!)
4. EHP/DPS ratio can flactuate form very bad to very good, it can adapt and it deals less dps if build for utility
5. racial bonus, it is weaker than a fleet recon with it's bonus, but it CAN replace them in a fleet while also dealing slightly better dps (in case of huggin -> loki and lachesis -> proteus, Curse to legion is a 50-100% increase...)
6. HIGH END TECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (yes get it into your mind)
7. used to be are when released, has become ocmmon nowdays, because players became richer and SP overall increased, they however have a drawback of SP loss which can be annoying after some time....

PLAYER ONLY ARGUMENT -> "rare stuff has to be expensive" oh hello mr capitalism, nice to see you.... -> for some odd reasons humans believe, that if demand is higher than production, the value of something increases, which is the base of our econmy system in the world, in eve nobody forced palyers to implement a system like that, we could have choosen several other ways (sandbox ;) ), but humans decided to pick the system from real life to apply it on a game, in fact the value of a t3 is pretty much the same as a t1 cruiser, it's getting farmed and humans influence price as they want, we could deliver T3s for free but have no reason to, our main income is in fact blue loot in wspace ;)
Niriel Greez
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2015-09-09 18:23:30 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Niriel Greez wrote:

the point is certain ships are 30% better at 100% increased cost, which is perfectly reasonable.

depends from how much the 100% are. In case of T3 its not even that much and masses of people are paying because the 100% of T2 is pocket change for most. So still, no - ISK is not a balancing factor for T3.

Niriel Greez wrote:
If T3 cruisers were equal to other cruisers, in every regard, they would go from rare to never being used again, because there is no reason to justify losing skill points and more ISK, when there is no trade-off.

noone is asking T3 to be made equal to other ships, however I personally ask T3 not to be better than specialized hulls, thats just plain wrong even at 100% cost markup.


Specialized hulls are better most of the time.

A Cerberus performs its sniping role better than a Tengu could.

Deimos is an inferior Proteus at half the price. Zealot/Sacri essentially the same thing.

Muninn sort of sucks but so does Loki.

A Huginn webs much further than a Loki. Lachesis points further. Rook/Falcon jams are stronger. Downside? Less tank.

T3 logi vs T2 logi requires no explanation, T3 logi is only justified in very gimmicky situations and is, for the most part, completely overshadowed by its T2 counterpart.


I could go on, but the only real thing T3Cs still have going for them, is tank. Did I mention that T3Cs are also slower than their counterparts?

Now, have you ever asked yourself why Orthrus and Gila are the most expensive pirate cruisers? Hint: It's because they're the best, and most popular, by far. if an Orthrus was as cheap as a Cerberus, you would never again see anyone use a Cerberus outside of larger engagements where its sniping ability shines. It's also why a Ferrari is more expensive than a Lada.

And no, masses of people are not paying that difference for the small to medium increase in performance. Sensible people buy what they need to accomplish a specific task, and most of the time, the most efficient choice out of the above options, is a T2 version. If you ignore the above choices, the most efficient option is usually a T3D, which is precisely why you see nothing but T3Ds now due to their price:performance ratio being so out of balance.
Niriel Greez
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2015-09-09 18:34:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Niriel Greez
RcTamiya wrote:
Niriel Greez wrote:
RcTamiya wrote:
Niriel Greez wrote:
[quote=Robert Caldera]
stuff



my titan costs >100b, i want it to win against >15 dreads 1v>15 because its investment is equal to X dreads
my AF costs >4 t1 frigs it should win allways against them.
should i continue to apply your logic ? :)
Guys just STOP with isk=better or isk=balance
every Player in eve gets richer in average, so isk for balance can't be any factor at all, considering that there's plenty of corps with TRILLIONS of isk.

If you balance ships only a few factors count:
1. it's role (tackle,supporter,dps,...)
2. slotlayout
3. shipclass (frig, cruiser, BC, BS, ....)
4. EHP/DPS ratio
5. Utilitybonus (webrange, dampstrenght,...)
6. Tech-/Metalevel
(7.rarity -> is this ship unique and can't be replaced?! This CAN be a reason for an overall stronger ship)

What players add as number 8 -> isk efficiency aka how good is Ship X for role Y in compairson to others
if a ship is able to do a lot while beeing cheap and efficient for it's money it in fact is a good ship, but if other ships can compete with it, it's not OP (keep in mind t3d are frigkillers, they are a counter to frigs and their own counter is cruisers, which get eaten up by t3,hacs,recons,bs,...)


The example you used is like saying 'my dread should be able to solo your titan'. No one ever said ISK investment should be like that; the point is certain ships are 30% better at 100% increased cost, which is perfectly reasonable.

If T3 cruisers were equal to other cruisers, in every regard, they would go from rare to never being used again, because there is no reason to justify losing skill points and more ISK, when there is no trade-off.

Right now, if you feel the risk of a greater investment is worth it, you bring a T3 cruiser, otherwise you bring a much more disposable T2 (or even T1) cruiser.





Nope, i said X dreads should kill a titan ;) cuz its very difficult to fit a 100bil dread oO
i just applied your " more money = better logic" thats aobut it, read again, you'll get it :)

Again you brought an isk argument, something i just explained you why it's wrong ....

Okay, i try it again .... T3s CAN'T be equal to t1 cruisers, just applay the steps for balancing

1. role -> cheap fleetship, role in fleet flactuates for its specialisation, build for smaller skirmishes and easy to replace (you aint sending cruisers in real life to brawl with a Battleship ....)
2. slotlayout -> more slots than frigs, less slots than BCs for obvious reasons (again its a basic ship, the lowest tier of cruiser technology!!!!)
3. it's a BASIC cruiser .... not build to surrive big fights, but can in fact cause trouble in numbers
4. EHP/DPS ratio is better than most frigs/destroyers, it in fact can take some hits, but outdps any dessie/frig
5. blackbirds for ecm but easy to kill, celestis for damps but still "easy" to kill, ...
6. TECH ONE
7. -> common cheap ship, no rare bonus applied here

PLAYER ONLY ARGUMENT -> 8. cost efficient, cheap and offers a lot for its money in most cases.

Now T3 Cruisers
1. role -> multipurpose HIGH END fleet ship, it has to fill DPS role AND utility role at the same time (early days wspace had no 50 ppl blobs you know...)
2. slotlayout -> adapts to subs, yo ucan either have brick tank and low utility or the other way around
3. it's a HIGH END tech cruiser, you can compare it like a F117 while a caracal is a Messerschmitt Bf 109 from WW 2.... (didn't want to pick a ship compairson maybe it helps?!)
4. EHP/DPS ratio can flactuate form very bad to very good, it can adapt and it deals less dps if build for utility
5. racial bonus, it is weaker than a fleet recon with it's bonus, but it CAN replace them in a fleet while also dealing slightly better dps (in case of huggin -> loki and lachesis -> proteus, Curse to legion is a 50-100% increase...)
6. HIGH END TECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (yes get it into your mind)
7. used to be are when released, has become ocmmon nowdays, because players became richer and SP overall increased, they however have a drawback of SP loss which can be annoying after some time....

PLAYER ONLY ARGUMENT -> "rare stuff has to be expensive" oh hello mr capitalism, nice to see you.... -> for some odd reasons humans believe, that if demand is higher than production, the value of something increases, which is the base of our econmy system in the world, in eve nobody forced palyers to implement a system like that, we could have choosen several other ways (sandbox ;) ), but humans decided to pick the system from real life to apply it on a game, in fact the value of a t3 is pretty much the same as a t1 cruiser, it's getting farmed and humans influence price as they want, we could deliver T3s for free but have no reason to, our main income is in fact blue loot in wspace ;)


If rare stuff wasn't expensive, you would see nothing but pirate battleships, high-end cruisers and so on ever again. At which point all other ships might as well be deleted from the game because they no longer serve a purpose.

Of course your main income in w-space is blue loot, CCP balanced loot drops with T3 production and demand in mind.

Is it really so hard to understand that an Atron is SUPPOSED to be inferior to a Daredevil? One is shiny, the other isn't - one is easy to acquire, one isn't. Thus one is more expensive and riskier to lose, while the other is cheap and disposable but still capable (and vastly more efficient if you were to compare the price:performance ratios).
Kibitt Kallinikov
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#48 - 2015-09-10 06:32:48 UTC
With regards to T3Destroyers - cost. I'd say 100mil a hull is a good place to be. Restrict them to medium - large sized FW plexes.

I haven't had much experience with T3Cruisers so I can't comment on them.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#49 - 2015-09-10 08:24:12 UTC
T3 cruisers and destroyers should be nefed to the same level or slightly higher than t1 but below that of t2. They are supposed to be very adaptable, not the better than everything else ships they currently are.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#50 - 2015-09-10 08:45:51 UTC
A kindergarten lesson in Bat Country:

"Goodmorning kids, today we will learn to count.

Now repeat after me
1, 3, Svipul, 2, Navy Vexor, Gila, Otrhrus, ...."

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
Janeway84
Insane's Asylum
#51 - 2015-09-10 08:50:43 UTC
I wouldn't, Cov op proteus can't solo a gila anymore since the nerf to tank subsystem earlier this year... Sad
You are forced to overheat more to get the basic mileage out of the hulls now more than before. P
Fornost Fornostsen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2015-09-10 09:11:32 UTC
Kibitt Kallinikov wrote:
With regards to T3Destroyers - cost. I'd say 100mil a hull is a good place to be. Restrict them to medium - large sized FW plexes.


100M and medium plex restrictions will be good, if you look at the small meta.
The problem is that for 60/70M you can buy a navy cruiser that can access the same plexes and probably being better in every other aspects expect sig radius. OR spend between 120 and 200M and go for an HAC...

Dunno if at 100M and medium plex restrictions T3D will still be viable.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#53 - 2015-09-10 09:29:57 UTC
Kibitt Kallinikov wrote:
With regards to T3Destroyers - cost. I'd say 100mil a hull is a good place to be. Restrict them to medium - large sized FW plexes...


Translation:

I am totally surprised that an 800dps Catalyst will murder my frigate in 10 seconds. Destroyers op - nurf naow!!!

Except for that minmatar thing there is no nerf necessary for the destroyers. Some subsystems of the sleeper cruisers are in dire need of help and not an abortion.

If some people weren't so obsessed with green keyboards, EVE would be in a better place.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Fornost Fornostsen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2015-09-10 10:27:18 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
If some people weren't so obsessed with green keyboards, EVE would be in a better place.


Totally disagree: ecology matters!
Leila Meurtrier
Why Am I Not Surprised
#55 - 2015-09-10 11:07:37 UTC
Problem with t3 cruisers is the fact that they can pack both tank and CovOps cloak in one package. Give 33% base resist reduction as a trait on CovOps sub — and suddenly T3 cruisers actually follow CCP guideline of "versatile" ships. They still can be a good HACs, they still may bring EWAR, they may bring it in cloaky package, but they can't do it with THAT ******** buffer at least.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2015-09-12 13:31:21 UTC
Some of the most immediate responses above mine have touched upon the big problem. "Tank" is a trait that factors in many things, including raw EHP, resists, ability to deflect damage via speed or agility...and massive tank is or was the big problem with T3 cruisers. When they were configured for racial EWAR, they weren't as powerful in that EWAR as recon cruisers, but the massive tank T3's had made them the natural choice. Why not give up a smidgen of EWAR capability when you get a lot more staying power?

I don't know quite where they stand now that there's been some adjustments made to the line, but if the forums (both in favor of, and against T3's in general) are any indication, T3's unbalanced factor was the tank some of them could field. Most other aspects seem to be in line with the "not quite as good as T2, but still nice" philosophy. But if anybody is talking about nerfing T3's, tank probably should be the focal point.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2015-09-12 14:02:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
T3 cruisers and destroyers should be nefed to the same level or slightly higher than t1 and below that of t2. They are supposed to be very adaptable, not the better than everything else ships they currently are.


Dropping T3's below T2's and pirate cruisers in terms of combat power makes no sense. The ability to swap subsystems will not keep them relevant if they function as slightly buffed T1 cruisers.

My suggestion is to remove all range bonuses from T3 cruisers so they can't outclass battleships as a long range doctrine. I think that will eliminate alot of the complaints.

Svipul needs a speed nerf. Arty Svipul with links and HG snakes can top 8k m/s with 2000+ alpha, that's stupid. T3D's don't need kitey frigate speeds in prop mode. Also ban them from small plexes so people will use AF's again.

The other T 3D's are fine now, I honestly don't see many of the other types. Ultrafast arty svipuls or blinged out brawlers that can solo cruisers left and right are cancerous. Hecate is amazing but the lack of bonus to AB and general slowness makes it very vulnerable to kiting/scram kiting.

And yea the insurance needs fixing if they haven't already or the other T2/3/faction ships need real insurance.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#58 - 2015-09-16 10:43:40 UTC
T3 cruisers:

1) do a balance pass on the sub systems
2) remove the ability to use rigs, without rigs there'll be much less "bullshit fits"


T3D:

1) increase cooldown between modes
2) atm the different modes only have bonuses, there should be downsides as well. Like tanking mode nerfing speed/agility. sharpshooter mode affecting cap or something similar
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#59 - 2015-09-16 13:22:28 UTC
What I never understood about the T3 Dessies was why they were giving a mode option, instead of subsystems like their cruiser counterpart? If CCP had gone that route, then you can bet the T3Ds would be in the perfect price range and balanced.

I believe if the mode switch is what CCP wants, then T3 cruisers should be changed to that; and just reimburse all those SPs we spent on the subsystems skills

Seriously, it's like CCP wanted to take the lazy route when they created the T3Ds.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#60 - 2015-09-22 07:22:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
T3 Cruisers should really be completely overhauled so that they share the same mode switching system as T3Ds. The main advantage T3 Cruisers have is their battleship level tanks and cruiser sig radius. Mode switching would mean that if they want to keep that insane tank, they need to sacrifice something like speed, or damage projection. Currently they get insane bonuses from all the subsystems. There's no jack of all trades, it's just master of all trades.

That being said, they are no longer as big of a cancer as they used to be with the power creep of HACs and Pirate Cruisers (especially the Orthrus and Gila) so try not do over do it.

For T3Ds, increase their base sig radius. I don't really understand why it's as low as frigates when T1 and T2 dessies have on average 50% higher base sigs. I'm fine with their ability to dunk frigates, they're destroyers after all, but their low sigs make them insane heavy tacklers that usurps the role of AFs. Also Assault Frigates in general need a slight speed/agility buff. I think really that's all that's needed.