These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Strategic cruiser balance pass

Author
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#441 - 2017-04-25 11:32:39 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Tung Yoggi wrote:


Making out of the box fits for your activities do not equate making doctrine ships. You are not solving any problem with the proposed fits, besides maybe making Great Wildlands a better missioning place with all those Thukker items.

Making funky fits or out of the box stuff for your activities is one thing, making doctrine fits is another.

This is not about doctrine fits. Of all the PvP in game the minority is fleet fights. Doctrine need to be developed from ships balanced for the majority not the minority.

The majority is small to medium gangs.

Also thukker large extenders are cheap and plentiful. From memory 30 mill


You overheated all of the weapons too and failed to take into account reload timers. The mods you used are not easy to source, most of the fits are way more expensive for worse results and half of them are the class above cruisers. You also used drones which are notoriously bad in fleet fights as are missiles. Your fits are also very vulnerable to neuting, void bombs and bombing runs while sporting massive sigs. You also have huge EM resist holes with is a massive problem given the T3C you are trying to match are fighting nightmares and mach fleet. Even with you fiddling the numbers none of your fits matched the T3C in question.
Cade Windstalker
#442 - 2017-04-25 13:56:47 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
In baltec1s proposal, you would be unable to fit cloak/nulli.


As I said, baltec1 is not the one redesigning these things. You may want to watch the game balance presentation from Fanfest where CCP shows all 12 subsystems each T3 is going to have at a high level. Post changes Cloak is a defensive sub and Nullification is a pop mod subsystem.

sero Hita wrote:
This is not completely true tbh. I see plenty of Hacs fleets in the area of lowsec where I reside. They get used. To what extend can be debated, as I don't have the data. You are underestimating engagebility as a choice for fleet selection imo. We have a T3 doctrine (Railproteus), A Sac doctrine and a Munin doctrine. We use the Hac doctrines more often, because unleashing T3Cs means everyone docks up. If we go in Muninns everyone and their uncle want to fight us, because they are seen as useless, but when you have 30 of them they will chew through most things what seems to surprise many... Perhaps people are bad at additive calculus?

TLDR: Hacs are used


They're used, a little, but that doesn't make using them a good idea.

What someone says "no one uses HACs" they don't mean literally zero use, they mean very very little, especially in the case of the HACs where we have old usage numbers to compare with current usage.

If you look at the zKill stats for HACs and T3Cs as a group you can see T3C usage slowly crawling up over their first two years, hitting a steady state in 2011, and then they really take off in 2012 almost over night. Over the course of 2011 HAC use roughly halves. It sees a bit of a return with the HAC rebalance in late 2013 with bursts of popularity over that time period, but it's never really recovered to pre-2011 levels, especially compared to the game population which peaked between 2011 and 2013.

Besides that it's not just HACs that T3Cs stole "market share" from. They've been a bottleneck on the whole Cruiser class and even most BCs. "Must be noticeably better than a T3C at something in order to see much use".

So yeah, it's great that you can bait people with Muninns, but that doesn't really invalidate the point here. If anything it kinda proves the rule, people know T3Cs are OP so they avoid fighting them. That is the exact opposite of a good thing.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
Fits are fine. You simply do not realise apparantly, that fits are not static. If you did you would be able to do the things I do and have done in EvE - an example is me solo camping an alliance hub for docking rights. I used a XL shield boosted Proteus and ended with 22 kill / 1 loss and the ability to dock. Real EvE is about finding a problem, fitting for the task and solving that problem. Had I been you I would have needed an alliance, entered into a protracted war and probably lost trillions of isk in cookie fits.


If you can't take one of those fits and make it work with a little modification then its not the fit that's bad, its you.


Your fits aren't fine... lol, they're gimicky and not at all practical. They were a sad attempt to prove a point that managed to completely miss the point. If you'd tried to fit up something actually comparable to those T3C fits you'd see how ridiculous they are. For example, lets put your Gila fit on a Tengu...

Quote:
[Tengu, test 1]

Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Thukker Large Shield Extender
10MN Afterburner II
Thukker Large Shield Extender
Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Thukker Large Shield Extender

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile

Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II

Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening
Tengu Electronics - CPU Efficiency Gate
Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst


Better DPS, almost 75k more EHP, little less range. Basically a Tengu tanked like your Gila, or any of your shield fits really, gets to glue another half of a ship's worth of EHP onto it. Cost difference is about 50m.

The problem isn't that those fits can't be made to work, it's that they already don't work and modifying them so that they *do* work at what those T3 fits are trying to do makes the T3s strictly better in *every* way.

Posting a fit and saying "see, this isn't a problem!" only to be called out that your fit doesn't work and then just hand-waving with "well you can modify it" isn't an argument, it's like a plan where line two is "and then a miracle occurs".

I think the reason you didn't post a real fit for any of those ships that's actually cost and performance comparable to a T3 is because you know there isn't one. A T3 with the same fit will smoke anything you could think to put forward so you deflected with a smoke screen and hoped no one would notice.
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#443 - 2017-04-25 15:14:28 UTC
sero Hita wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

2) Nothing is preventing you from using HACs right now.
You dont need T3Cs wiped out to the point YOU will no longer field them, inorder to use HACs.


  • Yeah we kinda do, because HACs don't get used because they're flat worse. Claiming that it's fine if no one wants to use something just because they *can* use it is ridiculous.


  • This is not completely true tbh. I see plenty of Hacs fleets in the area of lowsec where I reside. They get used. To what extend can be debated, as I don't have the data. You are underestimating engagebility as a choice for fleet selection imo. We have a T3 doctrine (Railproteus), A Sac doctrine and a Munin doctrine. We use the Hac doctrines more often, because unleashing T3Cs means everyone docks up. If we go in Muninns everyone and their uncle want to fight us, because they are seen as useless, but when you have 30 of them they will chew through most things what seems to surprise many... Perhaps people are bad at additive calculus?

    TLDR: Hacs are used


    Hacs are used when you decide to downship instead of using the best you can. That's not really balanced now is it?
    Cade Windstalker
    #444 - 2017-04-25 16:49:29 UTC
    Frostys Virpio wrote:
    Hacs are used when you decide to downship instead of using the best you can. That's not really balanced now is it?


    Just to address a couple of the inevitable counter arguments to this point:


    • Yes, some ships are still worse than others but balanced. Generally because they're far far cheaper than the alternatives and you pay a premium for the relatively small performance increase you get. For example HACs vs T1 Cruisers.

    • T3s are not significantly more expensive than HACs for the performance boost they give.

    • Once again this is not just about HACs or just about EHP and DPS or just about utility, it's all of them and a few more. A whole pile of smaller things that make a big mountain of OP labeled T3Cs.
    Shiloh Templeton
    Cheyenne HET Co
    #445 - 2017-04-26 04:06:45 UTC
    Strategic Cruisers were introduced for wormholes. So if CCP feels they must listen to the null-sec groups that want to nerf them, then they should nerf them only when they are outside of wormholes.

    Infinity Ziona
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #446 - 2017-04-26 04:34:23 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    In baltec1s proposal, you would be unable to fit cloak/nulli.


    As I said, baltec1 is not the one redesigning these things. You may want to watch the game balance presentation from Fanfest where CCP shows all 12 subsystems each T3 is going to have at a high level. Post changes Cloak is a defensive sub and Nullification is a pop mod subsystem.

    sero Hita wrote:
    This is not completely true tbh. I see plenty of Hacs fleets in the area of lowsec where I reside. They get used. To what extend can be debated, as I don't have the data. You are underestimating engagebility as a choice for fleet selection imo. We have a T3 doctrine (Railproteus), A Sac doctrine and a Munin doctrine. We use the Hac doctrines more often, because unleashing T3Cs means everyone docks up. If we go in Muninns everyone and their uncle want to fight us, because they are seen as useless, but when you have 30 of them they will chew through most things what seems to surprise many... Perhaps people are bad at additive calculus?

    TLDR: Hacs are used


    They're used, a little, but that doesn't make using them a good idea.

    What someone says "no one uses HACs" they don't mean literally zero use, they mean very very little, especially in the case of the HACs where we have old usage numbers to compare with current usage.

    If you look at the zKill stats for HACs and T3Cs as a group you can see T3C usage slowly crawling up over their first two years, hitting a steady state in 2011, and then they really take off in 2012 almost over night. Over the course of 2011 HAC use roughly halves. It sees a bit of a return with the HAC rebalance in late 2013 with bursts of popularity over that time period, but it's never really recovered to pre-2011 levels, especially compared to the game population which peaked between 2011 and 2013.

    Besides that it's not just HACs that T3Cs stole "market share" from. They've been a bottleneck on the whole Cruiser class and even most BCs. "Must be noticeably better than a T3C at something in order to see much use".

    So yeah, it's great that you can bait people with Muninns, but that doesn't really invalidate the point here. If anything it kinda proves the rule, people know T3Cs are OP so they avoid fighting them. That is the exact opposite of a good thing.

    Infinity Ziona wrote:
    Fits are fine. You simply do not realise apparantly, that fits are not static. If you did you would be able to do the things I do and have done in EvE - an example is me solo camping an alliance hub for docking rights. I used a XL shield boosted Proteus and ended with 22 kill / 1 loss and the ability to dock. Real EvE is about finding a problem, fitting for the task and solving that problem. Had I been you I would have needed an alliance, entered into a protracted war and probably lost trillions of isk in cookie fits.


    If you can't take one of those fits and make it work with a little modification then its not the fit that's bad, its you.


    Your fits aren't fine... lol, they're gimicky and not at all practical. They were a sad attempt to prove a point that managed to completely miss the point. If you'd tried to fit up something actually comparable to those T3C fits you'd see how ridiculous they are. For example, lets put your Gila fit on a Tengu...

    Quote:
    [Tengu, test 1]

    Damage Control II
    Ballistic Control System II
    Ballistic Control System II
    Ballistic Control System II
    Ballistic Control System II

    Thukker Large Shield Extender
    10MN Afterburner II
    Thukker Large Shield Extender
    Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
    Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
    Thukker Large Shield Extender

    Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
    Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
    Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
    Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
    Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile

    Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender II

    Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening
    Tengu Electronics - CPU Efficiency Gate
    Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
    Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
    Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst


    Better DPS, almost 75k more EHP, little less range. Basically a Tengu tanked like your Gila, or any of your shield fits really, gets to glue another half of a ship's worth of EHP onto it. Cost difference is about 50m.

    The problem isn't that those fits can't be made to work, it's that they already don't work and modifying them so that they *do* work at what those T3 fits are trying to do makes the T3s strictly better in *every* way.

    Posting a fit and saying "see, this isn't a problem!" only to be called out that your fit doesn't work and then just hand-waving with "well you can modify it" isn't an argument, it's like a plan where line two is "and then a miracle occurs".

    I think the reason you didn't post a real fit for any of those ships that's actually cost and performance comparable to a T3 is because you know there isn't one. A T3 with the same fit will smoke anything you could think to put forward so you deflected with a smoke screen and hoped no one would notice.

    Nonesense

    CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

    Kaalrus pwned..... :)

    baltec1
    Bat Country
    Pandemic Horde
    #447 - 2017-04-26 08:48:19 UTC
    Infinity Ziona wrote:

    Nonesense


    Care to explain given what has been pointed out so far?
    Salvos Rhoska
    #448 - 2017-04-26 10:27:41 UTC
    Hope they reimburse T3C subsystem/specialisation skills as well.

    That will go a long way towards reducing outrage, preventing attrition and helping players re-skill for something else, if they so choose.
    Beast of Revelations
    Multiverse Trading
    #449 - 2017-04-26 10:33:11 UTC
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Hope they reimburse T3C subsystem/specialisation skills as well.

    That will go a long way towards reducing outrage, preventing attrition and helping players re-skill for something else, if they so choose.

    I'm not so convinced yet that there will be heavy nerfs.

    I'm not an Eve historian by any means, so if someone shows me precedent for a beloved ship that stayed way OP for years, and then CCP nerfed the bejesus out of it despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I might have more faith. Otherwise... not so much.
    Salvos Rhoska
    #450 - 2017-04-26 10:37:41 UTC
    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Hope they reimburse T3C subsystem/specialisation skills as well.

    That will go a long way towards reducing outrage, preventing attrition and helping players re-skill for something else, if they so choose.

    I'm not so convinced yet that there will be heavy nerfs.

    I'm not an Eve historian by any means, so if someone shows me precedent for a beloved ship that stayed way OP for years, and then CCP nerfed the bejesus out of it despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I might have more faith. Otherwise... not so much.


    Might as well reimburse SP anyways and give players the choice.

    But I expect they wont, cos they would love to sell more extractors.
    Keno Skir
    #451 - 2017-04-26 10:40:17 UTC
    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Hope they reimburse T3C subsystem/specialisation skills as well.

    That will go a long way towards reducing outrage, preventing attrition and helping players re-skill for something else, if they so choose.

    I'm not so convinced yet that there will be heavy nerfs.

    I'm not an Eve historian by any means, so if someone shows me precedent for a beloved ship that stayed way OP for years, and then CCP nerfed the bejesus out of it despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I might have more faith. Otherwise... not so much.


    Drake.
    Salvos Rhoska
    #452 - 2017-04-26 10:46:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    I'm not so convinced yet that there will be heavy nerfs..


    If T3Cs end up between T1 and Navy, its probably the hardest nerf any ship class has ever undergone in EVE.

    baltec1s proposal of reducing them from a conservative 450mil cost (with subsystems) to a 40-50mil cost (with subsystems) alone, is unheard of in EVE history.

    That alone also will have catastrophic ramifications for value of WH sourced materials used in their production, such as gas and Sleeper salvage, and T3C/subsystem manufacturers.

    Basically, WH sourced Sleeper salvage and gas will be worth 1/10th of now, as will all existing stock.

    This is something WH dwellers seem to not be yet understanding about baltec1s proposal.

    Also everyones own T3Cs will be only worth 1/10th on the resale market of what they do now, and that is only if anyone wants to buy one after the nerf, and the deluge of people dumping them that will increase supply even further.
    Gimme Sake
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #453 - 2017-04-26 11:20:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Beast of Revelations wrote:
    I'm not so convinced yet that there will be heavy nerfs..


    If T3Cs end up between T1 and Navy, its probably the hardest nerf any ship class has ever undergone in EVE.

    baltec1s proposal of reducing them from a conservative 450mil cost (with subsystems) to a 40-50mil cost (with subsystems) alone, is unheard of in EVE history.



    Well, I got bad news for you! CCP in their infinite wisdom decided to introduce palyer ownable concord ships. Those can't be more powerful than the actual t3's since it is impossible, so t3's need to be nerfed.

    So you'll need to train concord skills and you'll have back your t3's under another name.


    The spice must flow

    etc.

    "Never not blob!" ~ Plato

    Salvos Rhoska
    #454 - 2017-04-26 11:23:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
    Gimme Sake wrote:
    Well, I got bad news for you! CCP in their wisdom decided to introduce palyer ownable concord ships.


    ?!

    Do you happen to have a source bookmarked?
    Havent read anything about this.

    PS: Nevermind. Looking into it myself.
    Gimme Sake
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #455 - 2017-04-26 11:32:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Gimme Sake wrote:
    Well, I got bad news for you! CCP in their wisdom decided to introduce palyer ownable concord ships.


    ?!

    Do you happen to have a source bookmarked?
    Havent read anything about this.


    It's a fanfest video with Fozzie talking about it. Currently searching for it.

    edit:

    Here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9VxKhVgaw

    fwd to minute 7.00

    "Never not blob!" ~ Plato

    Salvos Rhoska
    #456 - 2017-04-26 11:43:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
    Nvm, the link I found is someones own ideas :/
    Gimme Sake
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #457 - 2017-04-26 11:47:45 UTC
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Nvm, the link I found is someones own ideas :/



    No, watch the video. Sec status tank What?

    "Never not blob!" ~ Plato

    Salvos Rhoska
    #458 - 2017-04-26 12:09:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
    Gimme Sake wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Nvm, the link I found is someones own ideas :/

    No, watch the video. Sec status tank What?


    Yeah, I watched it.

    They are interesting ships for HS/LS, but not something as an alternative to T3C for running PvE content with in WH/NS.

    They are, to boil it down, just another Force Recon with sllghtly more effective dps.
    The cyno element is perplexing regarding HS...

    Their accessibility also seems to be restricted to events.

    Thanks for the heads-up, but I dont see these as relevant to the T3C issue.

    PS: Tank scaling with sec status is a ******** system.
    Gimme Sake
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #459 - 2017-04-26 12:21:21 UTC
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Gimme Sake wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Nvm, the link I found is someones own ideas :/

    No, watch the video. Sec status tank What?


    Yeah, I watched it.

    They are interesting ships for HS/LS, but not something as an alternative to T3C for running PvE content with in WH/NS.

    They are, to boil it down, just another Force Recon with sllghtly more effective dps.
    The cyno element is perplexing regarding HS...

    Their accessibility also seems to be restricted to events.

    Thanks for the heads-up, but I dont see these as relevant to the T3C issue.


    Have you look at the proposed bonuses? Those pretty much seem yuuugely op.

    "Never not blob!" ~ Plato

    Salvos Rhoska
    #460 - 2017-04-26 12:24:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
    Gimme Sake wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Gimme Sake wrote:
    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Nvm, the link I found is someones own ideas :/

    No, watch the video. Sec status tank What?


    Yeah, I watched it.

    They are interesting ships for HS/LS, but not something as an alternative to T3C for running PvE content with in WH/NS.

    They are, to boil it down, just another Force Recon with sllghtly more effective dps.
    The cyno element is perplexing regarding HS...

    Their accessibility also seems to be restricted to events.

    Thanks for the heads-up, but I dont see these as relevant to the T3C issue.


    Have you look at the proposed bonuses? Those pretty much seem yuuugely op.


    What bonuses do you mean?
    They are largely identical to Force Recon except they replace EWAR options with secondary dps stats.

    Do you mean the sec status tank bonus?
    Yeah, its significant, but Force Recon dps is terrible even with 4 turret/launcher highs.
    I think we are talking around about 400, along with no drones.
    Thats about 1hr + ~30mins to clear a 5/10.

    Plus these are event sourced ships, hence independent of material costs.

    And if they are "yuuugely OP", shouldnt we be crapping all over this ship?

    Im not seeing this as any form of compromise or alternative towards the T3C issue.