These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Salvos Rhoska
#461 - 2017-04-26 13:10:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
If baltec1s proposal of reducing T3C costs from c. 450 mil (with subsystems) to 40-50 mil (with subsystems) goes through, all T3Cs/subsystems will he reduced to 1/10th of value, as will all stockpiled and future WH sourced gas and Sleeper salvage be reduced to 1/10th of its value.

It will be catastrophic to the T3C/subsystem market/producers, and WH material sourcers.

Not to mention the deluge of people desperately dumping those on the market which will drive supply so far beyond the demand for nerfed T3Cs that it may take years to even out, if ever.

baltec1 has specifically said, that after his proposed nerf, his alliance will no longer field ANY T3Cs.
Meaning there will be no more demand for T3Cs/subsystems from NS fleet warfare.

WH dwellers and T3C/subsystem manufacturers pay attention:


If baltec1s proposal goes through, your Sleeper salvage and gas will be worth <10% of what it is now.
You also will be unable to run C1+ content with the new nerfed T3Cs.

Get off the fence, realize the implications, and speak out.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#462 - 2017-04-26 13:20:26 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
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.

How did you come to this conclussion? Where are the connection between T3C and new concord hulls? Those will be rare giveaways. Stop trolling Salvos, he already think strategic cruisers will cost 50 mil because baltec1 wrote so...

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Salvos Rhoska
#463 - 2017-04-26 13:28:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Stop trolling Salvos, he already think strategic cruisers will cost 50 mil because baltec1 wrote so...


baltec1 wouldnt express the proposal he did, if he wasnt reasonably certain its already in the works.
He is many things aside, but not an empty fool.

It may be a "art of the deal" style high initial demand inorder to allow space for compromise, but the extent of the nerf he proposes is already so enormous that even a fraction of it will impact EVE significantly.

Instead of worrying about me, how about you instead concern yourself with the implications of T3C/subsystems costing <10% of now, and what that will do to WH gas/salvage sourcers as well as T3C/subsystem manufacturers and the market at large.



As to the new ships, as you said, they are event based, and basically just Force Recons with a bit more raw dps.
The cyno capacity is completely wasted in HS.
These ships are a fringe gimmick. No fks given.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#464 - 2017-04-26 13:29:30 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
If baltec1s proposal of reducing T3C costs from c. 450 mil (with subsystems) to 40-50 mil (with subsystems) goes through, all T3Cs/subsystems will he reduced to 1/10th of value, as will all stockpiled and future WH sourced gas and Sleeper salvage be reduced to 1/10th of its value.

It will be catastrophic to the T3C/subsystem market/producers, and WH material sourcers.

Not to mention the deluge of people desperately dumping those on the market which will drive supply so far beyond the demand for nerfed T3Cs that it may take years to even out, if ever.

baltec1 has specifically said, that after his proposed nerf, his alliance will no longer field ANY T3Cs.
Meaning there will be no more demand for T3Cs/subsystems from NS fleet warfare.

WH dwellers and T3C/subsystem manufacturers pay attention:


If baltec1s proposal goes through, your Sleeper salvage and gas will be worth <10% of what it is now.
You also will be unable to run C1+ content with the new nerfed T3Cs.

Get off the fence, realize the implications, and speak out.


The reason nobody is at arms about his ideas:

1)He does not work for CCP
2) This isn't the official feedback-thread
3)CCP did say they will have a focus group about the changes, which will likely have multiple wormholers in it
4) We've voted a CSM-member to push our point of view to CCP

Wormholer for life.

Salvos Rhoska
#465 - 2017-04-26 13:53:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Wander Prian wrote:
The reason nobody is at arms about his ideas:

1)He does not work for CCP
2) This isn't the official feedback-thread
3)CCP did say they will have a focus group about the changes, which will likely have multiple wormholers in it
4) We've voted a CSM-member to push our point of view to CCP


Welcome to the meta of forum warfare.

The battle lines are already being drawn here, with pre-emptive skirmishes, recon and shows of force.

baltec1 has made a demand that would constitute the single largest nerf to a ship class ever in EVE, many times over, and with far reaching implications.

He wouldnt do that, unless he has reasonable expectations of it succeeding and matching CCPs opinion.
He is not a fool.

Representation of the playerbase here on these forums is skewed, but there are some powers that be that specifically employ players for purposes of activity here in their interests.

Call them lobbyists is you wish. Or propagandists. Both exist.

WH players need to realize, that baltec1s proposal, will reduce their salvage/gas income to <10%, as a result of the cost nerf on T3C/subsystems, plummet in demand of T3C/subsystems as they are nerfed to between T1-Navy Cruisers, and the subsequent massive dump of T3C/subsystems and WH materials in the aftermath that will flood the market.

baltec1 has said that after his proposed nerf, his alliance will not field ANY T3Cs, meaning you will no longer have any market there either for T3C/subsystems and materials.

Think about that.

Its pointless to come at me for pointing these things out.

Instead, address your posts to baltec1 as to how his suggestion will wreck the WH economy, whilst NS interests suffer nothing as a result.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#466 - 2017-04-26 13:56:15 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
The reason nobody is at arms about his ideas:

1)He does not work for CCP
2) This isn't the official feedback-thread
3)CCP did say they will have a focus group about the changes, which will likely have multiple wormholers in it
4) We've voted a CSM-member to push our point of view to CCP


Welcome to the meta of forum warfare.

The battle lines are already being drawn here, with pre-emptive skirmishes, recon and shows of force.

baltec1 has made a demand that would constitute the single largest nerf to a ship class ever in EVE, many times over, and with far reaching implications.

He wouldnt do that, unless he has reasonable expectations of it succeeding and matching CCPs opinion.
He is not a fool.

Representation of the playerbase here on these forums is skewed, but there are some powers that be that specifically employ players for purposes of activity here in their interests.

Call them lobbyists is you wish. Or propagandists. Both exist.

WH players need to realize, that baltec1s proposal, will reduce their salvage/gas income to <10%, as a result of the cost nerf on T3C/subsystems, plummet in demand of T3C/subsystems as they are nerfed to between T1-Navy Cruisers, and the subsequent massive dump of T3C/subsystems and WH materials in the aftermath that will flood the market.

baltec1 has said that after his proposed nerf, his alliance will not field ANY T3Cs, meaning you will no longer have any market there either for T3C/subsystems and materials.

Think about that.



Stop eating the tinfoil....

Wormholer for life.

Salvos Rhoska
#467 - 2017-04-26 14:00:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Wander Prian wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Welcome to the meta of forum warfare.

The battle lines are already being drawn here, with pre-emptive skirmishes, recon and shows of force.

baltec1 has made a demand that would constitute the single largest nerf to a ship class ever in EVE, many times over, and with far reaching implications.

He wouldnt do that, unless he has reasonable expectations of it succeeding and matching CCPs opinion.
He is not a fool.

Representation of the playerbase here on these forums is skewed, but there are some powers that be that specifically employ players for purposes of activity here in their interests.

Call them lobbyists is you wish. Or propagandists. Both exist.

WH players need to realize, that baltec1s proposal, will reduce their salvage/gas income to <10%, as a result of the cost nerf on T3C/subsystems, plummet in demand of T3C/subsystems as they are nerfed to between T1-Navy Cruisers, and the subsequent massive dump of T3C/subsystems and WH materials in the aftermath that will flood the market.


baltec1 has said that after his proposed nerf, his alliance will NOT field ANY T3Cs, meaning you will no longer have any market there either for T3C/subsystems and materials.

Think about that .Its pointless to come at me for pointing these things out.

Instead, address your posts to baltec1 as to how his suggestion will wreck the WH economy, whilst NS interests suffer nothing as a result..

Stop eating the tinfoil....


Oh.
A shill.
Saw that coming :)
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#468 - 2017-04-26 14:11:59 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
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.


You'll get the same reimbursement I got for my nerfed heavy missiles years ago.

In case you don't understand what I mean, you won't get **** because CCP will go with the usual "We reimburse only if a skill has absolutely no use" and that would require T3C to be deleted.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#469 - 2017-04-26 14:15:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Welcome to the meta of forum warfare.

The battle lines are already being drawn here, with pre-emptive skirmishes, recon and shows of force.

baltec1 has made a demand that would constitute the single largest nerf to a ship class ever in EVE, many times over, and with far reaching implications.

He wouldnt do that, unless he has reasonable expectations of it succeeding and matching CCPs opinion.
He is not a fool.

Representation of the playerbase here on these forums is skewed, but there are some powers that be that specifically employ players for purposes of activity here in their interests.

Call them lobbyists is you wish. Or propagandists. Both exist.

WH players need to realize, that baltec1s proposal, will reduce their salvage/gas income to <10%, as a result of the cost nerf on T3C/subsystems, plummet in demand of T3C/subsystems as they are nerfed to between T1-Navy Cruisers, and the subsequent massive dump of T3C/subsystems and WH materials in the aftermath that will flood the market.


baltec1 has said that after his proposed nerf, his alliance will not field ANY T3Cs, meaning you will no longer have any market there either for T3C/subsystems and materials.

Think about that .Its pointless to come at me for pointing these things out.

Instead, address your posts to baltec1 as to how his suggestion will wreck the WH economy, whilst NS interests suffer nothing as a result..

Stop eating the tinfoil....


Oh.
A shill.
Saw that coming :)


You have issues with large alliances, which shows in your posts heavily. You are also insinuating that CCP only does things for the big alliances. So here you are, the Don Quixote of the Eve forums, fighting against the boogeyman of big alliances.

Only thing, you are just seeing things.

CCP are smart enough to have kept this wonderful game running for 14 years and have made changes where needed. With how I've seen CCP work during the capital-rebalance and the planning of upwell-structures, I'm confident, we will be able to keep tech 3 -cruisers as a valid choice among other ships.

Wormholer for life.

Salvos Rhoska
#470 - 2017-04-26 14:16:19 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
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.


You'll get the same reimbursement I got for my nerfed heavy missiles years ago.

In case you don't understand what I mean, you won't get **** because CCP will go with the usual "We reimburse only if a skill has absolutely no use" and that would require T3C to be deleted.


Reducing T3Cs to between T1-Navy, and from 450mil to 45 mil is quite a bit different than the heavy missile nerf.

You might be right that they wont, but that doesnt change that it would be wise if they did.
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#471 - 2017-04-26 14:19:05 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

baltec1 has said that after his proposed nerf, his alliance will not field ANY T3Cs, meaning you will no longer have any market there either for T3C/subsystems and materials.


They never should of been dedicated mainline doctrine. Large alliance no longer running them would jsut mean they get the market hey should insetad of an over inflated one like they do right now. They never should of been shitting over every other T2 cruisers in dedicated roles except one.
Salvos Rhoska
#472 - 2017-04-26 14:20:03 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
I'm confident, we will be able to keep tech 3 -cruisers as a valid choice among other ships.


Your confidence doesnt matter.

If batlec1s proposal is enacted, it will reduce the value of WH sourced gas/salvage to <10%, wreck the value of existing stockpiles, and flood the market with T3Cs/subsystems/materials that even his alliance wont use by his own words.
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#473 - 2017-04-26 14:21:57 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
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.


You'll get the same reimbursement I got for my nerfed heavy missiles years ago.

In case you don't understand what I mean, you won't get **** because CCP will go with the usual "We reimburse only if a skill has absolutely no use" and that would require T3C to be deleted.


Reducing T3Cs to between T1-Navy, and from 450mil to 45 mil is quite a bit different than the heavy missile nerf.

You might be right that they wont, but that doesnt change that it would be wise if they did.


Remember when they reimbursed the mining barge skills when they remade the Orca for tiericide? You know, a ship that at that point had never been a mining ship at all but required mining ship line to be trained? All your skill you want reimbursement for were at least directly linked to your ship while others got nothing back for skill they might never have used even once if the character was trained only for the Orca. Why were they not refunded? Because the skills still had legitimate use possible.
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#474 - 2017-04-26 14:23:45 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:


You have issues with large alliances, which shows in your posts heavily. You are also insinuating that CCP only does things for the big alliances. So here you are, the Don Quixote of the Eve forums, fighting against the boogeyman of big alliances.

Only thing, you are just seeing things.

CCP are smart enough to have kept this wonderful game running for 14 years and have made changes where needed. With how I've seen CCP work during the capital-rebalance and the planning of upwell-structures, I'm confident, we will be able to keep tech 3 -cruisers as a valid choice among other ships.


TIL : I'm part of a large windmill farm. Or did I get that wrong and CCP is the windmill farm?
Cade Windstalker
#475 - 2017-04-26 14:54:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Nonesense


Care to explain given what has been pointed out so far?


I'm taking that to mean "my argument has been proven to be nonsense so I'm going to stop now".

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.

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.


You keep treating what baltec1 is saying as gospel when we have no indication that's going to be the case. In fact we have several indications that he's missed the mark in several areas, but I honestly don't think you care about that at this point. You're too busy being alarmist and playing Chicken Little...

Seriously, you should at least go watch the Game Design Panel and the Ship and Module Balance Presentation so you can at least be an *informed* troll... Lol
Salvos Rhoska
#476 - 2017-04-26 15:02:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Salvos Rhoska wrote:


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.


You keep treating what baltec1 is saying as gospel when we have no indication that's going to be the case. In fact we have several indications that he's missed the mark in several areas, but I honestly don't think you care about that at this point. You're too busy being alarmist and playing Chicken Little...


Then address your critique to baltec1 on his proposal.

I havent seen you do that once yet.
Instead you address those that critique his proposal.
See what I mean?
Take his proposal up with him.
If you think its bad, tell him so and explain why.

As to being an alarmist, baltec1s proposal has alarming repercussions which I have explained and you have not addressed or refuted.

Its not my proposal.
Its his.
Take it up with him.
Keno Skir
#477 - 2017-04-26 15:16:41 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Stop trolling Salvos, he already think strategic cruisers will cost 50 mil because baltec1 wrote so...


baltec1 wouldnt express the proposal he did, if he wasnt reasonably certain its already in the works.
He is many things aside, but not an empty fool.

It may be a "art of the deal" style high initial demand inorder to allow space for compromise, but the extent of the nerf he proposes is already so enormous that even a fraction of it will impact EVE significantly.

Instead of worrying about me, how about you instead concern yourself with the implications of T3C/subsystems costing <10% of now, and what that will do to WH gas/salvage sourcers as well as T3C/subsystem manufacturers and the market at large.



As to the new ships, as you said, they are event based, and basically just Force Recons with a bit more raw dps.
The cyno capacity is completely wasted in HS.
These ships are a fringe gimmick. No fks given.


Nobody's worrying about you Salvos Cool

And nobody aside from CCP know what exactly will happen, not Baltec1 or anyone. This whole 50mil thing i'm pretty sure is only Baltec1's prediction and as such is not worth getting your knickers in a twist about Pirate

The market will stabilize, like it always does. Your whinings will fade into the ether until the next big change, where you will undoubtedly have another strongly felt but somehow difficult to back up opinion to thrust at anyone who will listen Pirate
Salvos Rhoska
#478 - 2017-04-26 15:26:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Keno Skir wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Stop trolling Salvos, he already think strategic cruisers will cost 50 mil because baltec1 wrote so...


baltec1 wouldnt express the proposal he did, if he wasnt reasonably certain its already in the works.
He is many things aside, but not an empty fool.

It may be a "art of the deal" style high initial demand inorder to allow space for compromise, but the extent of the nerf he proposes is already so enormous that even a fraction of it will impact EVE significantly.

Instead of worrying about me, how about you instead concern yourself with the implications of T3C/subsystems costing <10% of now, and what that will do to WH gas/salvage sourcers as well as T3C/subsystem manufacturers and the market at large.


This whole 50mil thing i'm pretty sure is only Baltec1's prediction and as such is not worth getting your knickers in a twist about.

The market will stabilize, like it always does.

1) Its not baltecs prediction.
Its his proposal.
See the difference?

2) T3C/subsystem/WH materials stabilising after a nerf to 1/10th of existing value, to supply a ship class that even NS fleets wont use? Hmmm! When? 2020? And at <10% value of today? I guess that is stabilisation, but meanwhile WH value as supplier of T3C/subsystems mats is nerfed by +90%.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#479 - 2017-04-26 17:43:37 UTC
I'm basing my working out on what CCP have told us so far with the exception of the null/cov ops combo which I see as too powerful and easy mode and SP loss which is frankly pointless. That said even that is up for discussion. There are some rather simple rules that are going to have to be followed.

First, T3C must be worse than the t2 specialists.

Second, T3C rigs must either be removable without destroying the rigs or just removed entirely.

Third, power grid and to a lesser extent CPU need to be brought down to cruiser levels.

There is a bunch of other tweeks needed but those three things are needed to balance them. The reason I went with what I did is because CCP have stated they want T3C to land somewhere between T1 and navy cruisers. They have not provided any changes to this plan so that's what I had to go with. The reason for the cost is simply to reflect the new position of the ships and what a fair price would be. Use age of these ships would probably go up as they are far more affordable so that should offset the reduction in build cost so WH don't lose out but I would expand the use of WH goods into, say, refinery construction and possibly capital construction. You can even put small amounts into various mod construction given they are doing another mod teiricide this summer. The options are there.

No matter what happens these ships are in for a massive nerf.

Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#480 - 2017-04-26 18:15:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
Quote:
CCP have stated they want T3C to land somewhere between T1 and navy cruisers


This is my only reason for concern if they did this ships will be horrible from where i stand atm.

Being in between navy ,t2, pirate trio is where they should be with ability to out tank t2 if fitted right out dmg pirate if fitted for dmg and out....what ever navy ships do if fitted as such but not at the same time like now.

That would be my reason to want to use them again but being one shade more than t1 cruiser and below navy just sound like destroying them blatantly.maybe its their wording i don't know but one thing is clear we need to get this over with...official thread nao please.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard