These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Salvos Rhoska
#521 - 2017-04-29 09:21:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Beast of Revelations:

Imo T3Cs would best be balanced such that they operate roughly equivalent to whichever T2 specialisation/role they are currently emulating with subsystems.

The T3C identifying versatility to change between those T2 equivalent roles, is offset by SP loss and higher base cost from materials, as compared to T2s.

In this way T3Cs would largely follow the same logic of being essentially a more skill intensive (pending SP losses) T2, at higher cost, but with versatility, to parallel the relationship between T1s and T2s, as basically "upgraded" T1s with greater cost and skill requirements.


That would mean that if you have a specific role in mind, you are better off flying the T2 (at less cost and no SP loss).
However, if you want the versatility to swap between T2 roles, fly the T3C (albeit at more cost and SP loss).

Result would be nomads and players that want the versatility, can field T3Cs, at cost and risk of SP loss.
Whereas other players, such as those in PvP fleets, can fly the T2 hulls for the same role, at same efficiency, at less cost and no SP loss.

This way everyone should be happy.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#522 - 2017-04-29 09:32:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Something similar to the diagram below:

http://imgur.com/SOVuHDl

Note:
-T3Cs cannot emulate HICs or Combat Recons. (No bubbles or DScan immunity)
-I forgot to include T3Cs as essentially the cruiser class Command ship equivalent with boosters.
-Explorer is roughly a Stratios equivalent.
-The Hybrid is to cover multitask subsystem arrangements that underperform specialised T2s.
-The "1-4" represents the 4 separate T3Cs being defined from each other by subsystem bonuses.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#523 - 2017-04-29 09:33:37 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Beast of Revelations:

Imo T3Cs would best be balanced such that they operate roughly equivalent to whichever T2 specialisation/role they are currently emulating with subsystems.

The T3C identifying versatility to change between those T2 equivalent roles, is offset by SP loss and higher base cost from materials, as compared to T2s.

In this way T3Cs would largely follow the same logic of being essentially a more skill intensive (pending SP losses) T2, at higher cost, but with versatility, to parallel the relationship between T1s and T2s, as basically "upgraded" T1s with greater cost and skill requirements.


That would mean that if you have a specific role in mind, you are better off flying the T2 (at less cost and no SP loss).
However, if you want the versatility to swap between T2 roles, fly the T3C (albeit at more cost and SP loss).

Result would be nomads and players that want the versatility, can field T3Cs, at cost and risk of SP loss.
Whereas other players, such as those in PvP fleets, can fly the T2 hulls for the same role, at same efficiency, at less cost and no SP loss.

This way everyone should be happy.


So basically you want to turn them into the ultimate PVE-ship...

Wormholer for life.
Salvos Rhoska
#524 - 2017-04-29 09:37:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Wander Prian wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Beast of Revelations:

Imo T3Cs would best be balanced such that they operate roughly equivalent to whichever T2 specialisation/role they are currently emulating with subsystems.

The T3C identifying versatility to change between those T2 equivalent roles, is offset by SP loss and higher base cost from materials, as compared to T2s.

In this way T3Cs would largely follow the same logic of being essentially a more skill intensive (pending SP losses) T2, at higher cost, but with versatility, to parallel the relationship between T1s and T2s, as basically "upgraded" T1s with greater cost and skill requirements.


That would mean that if you have a specific role in mind, you are better off flying the T2 (at less cost and no SP loss).
However, if you want the versatility to swap between T2 roles, fly the T3C (albeit at more cost and SP loss).

Result would be nomads and players that want the versatility, can field T3Cs, at cost and risk of SP loss.
Whereas other players, such as those in PvP fleets, can fly the T2 hulls for the same role, at same efficiency, at less cost and no SP loss.

This way everyone should be happy.


So basically you want to turn them into the ultimate PVE-ship...


They would be no better at running data/relic/rats/Incursions/missions/DEDs than a HAC or a Stratios.

As to turning them "into" the ultimate PvE ship, they are that now due to massive tank especially.

Post the change I propose, they are just a T2 equivalent which can refit for another role (albeit more expensive and with SP loss risk).

If you dont need to refit, just fly the T2 equivalents instead for roughly the same performance, and at less cost/SP risk.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#525 - 2017-04-29 09:46:54 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Beast of Revelations:

Imo T3Cs would best be balanced such that they operate roughly equivalent to whichever T2 specialisation/role they are currently emulating with subsystems.

The T3C identifying versatility to change between those T2 equivalent roles, is offset by SP loss and higher base cost from materials, as compared to T2s.

In this way T3Cs would largely follow the same logic of being essentially a more skill intensive (pending SP losses) T2, at higher cost, but with versatility, to parallel the relationship between T1s and T2s, as basically "upgraded" T1s with greater cost and skill requirements.


That would mean that if you have a specific role in mind, you are better off flying the T2 (at less cost and no SP loss).
However, if you want the versatility to swap between T2 roles, fly the T3C (albeit at more cost and SP loss).

Result would be nomads and players that want the versatility, can field T3Cs, at cost and risk of SP loss.
Whereas other players, such as those in PvP fleets, can fly the T2 hulls for the same role, at same efficiency, at less cost and no SP loss.

This way everyone should be happy.


So basically you want to turn them into the ultimate PVE-ship...


They would be no better at running data/relic/combat exploration than a HAC or a Stratios.

As to turning them "into" the ultimate PvE ship, they are now due to massive tank especially.

Post the change I propose, they are just a T2 equivalent which can refit for another role (albeit more expensive and with SP loss risk).

If you dont need to refit, just fly the T2 equivalents instead for roughly the same performance, and at less cost/SP risk.


So basically, make it into a completely new ship. Got it.

Love the fact that you first call out others for trying to break the economy around them and then you do it yourself Roll

Wormholer for life.
Salvos Rhoska
#526 - 2017-04-29 09:55:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Wander Prian wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Beast of Revelations:

Imo T3Cs would best be balanced such that they operate roughly equivalent to whichever T2 specialisation/role they are currently emulating with subsystems.

The T3C identifying versatility to change between those T2 equivalent roles, is offset by SP loss and higher base cost from materials, as compared to T2s.

In this way T3Cs would largely follow the same logic of being essentially a more skill intensive (pending SP losses) T2, at higher cost, but with versatility, to parallel the relationship between T1s and T2s, as basically "upgraded" T1s with greater cost and skill requirements.


That would mean that if you have a specific role in mind, you are better off flying the T2 (at less cost and no SP loss).
However, if you want the versatility to swap between T2 roles, fly the T3C (albeit at more cost and SP loss).

Result would be nomads and players that want the versatility, can field T3Cs, at cost and risk of SP loss.
Whereas other players, such as those in PvP fleets, can fly the T2 hulls for the same role, at same efficiency, at less cost and no SP loss.

This way everyone should be happy.


So basically you want to turn them into the ultimate PVE-ship...


They would be no better at running data/relic/combat exploration than a HAC or a Stratios.

As to turning them "into" the ultimate PvE ship, they are now due to massive tank especially.

Post the change I propose, they are just a T2 equivalent which can refit for another role (albeit more expensive and with SP loss risk).

If you dont need to refit, just fly the T2 equivalents instead for roughly the same performance, and at less cost/SP risk.


So basically, make it into a completely new ship. Got it.

Love the fact that you first call out others for trying to break the economy around them and then you do it yourself Roll


This is some really weak trolling bro :D

Its not a completely new ship.
Its a ship that uses subsystems to take different roles, same as now, albeit at rough T2 equivalency.

Im sorry that you seem to be one of those guys who feel a T3C should still be able to run 10/10s, but that aint gonna happen.
The effective tanks on T3Cs are the single most outstanding problem with T3Cs as they currently are, by far. Nerfs will happen, and its been years too late.

TLDR:
Its a T2 equivalent, that can refit to emulate other T2 roles + some unique roles such as a command cruiser and cloak/nulli.
To offset that it costs more and carries the SP loss penalty.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#527 - 2017-04-29 10:03:23 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Beast of Revelations:

Imo T3Cs would best be balanced such that they operate roughly equivalent to whichever T2 specialisation/role they are currently emulating with subsystems.

The T3C identifying versatility to change between those T2 equivalent roles, is offset by SP loss and higher base cost from materials, as compared to T2s.

In this way T3Cs would largely follow the same logic of being essentially a more skill intensive (pending SP losses) T2, at higher cost, but with versatility, to parallel the relationship between T1s and T2s, as basically "upgraded" T1s with greater cost and skill requirements.


That would mean that if you have a specific role in mind, you are better off flying the T2 (at less cost and no SP loss).
However, if you want the versatility to swap between T2 roles, fly the T3C (albeit at more cost and SP loss).

Result would be nomads and players that want the versatility, can field T3Cs, at cost and risk of SP loss.
Whereas other players, such as those in PvP fleets, can fly the T2 hulls for the same role, at same efficiency, at less cost and no SP loss.

This way everyone should be happy.


So basically you want to turn them into the ultimate PVE-ship...


They would be no better at running data/relic/combat exploration than a HAC or a Stratios.

As to turning them "into" the ultimate PvE ship, they are now due to massive tank especially.

Post the change I propose, they are just a T2 equivalent which can refit for another role (albeit more expensive and with SP loss risk).

If you dont need to refit, just fly the T2 equivalents instead for roughly the same performance, and at less cost/SP risk.


So basically, make it into a completely new ship. Got it.

Love the fact that you first call out others for trying to break the economy around them and then you do it yourself Roll


This is some really weak trolling bro :D

Its not a completely new ship.
Its a ship that uses subsystems to take different roles, same as now, albeit at rough T2 equivalency.

Im sorry that you seem to be one of those guys who feel a T3C should still be able to run 10/10s, but that aint gonna happen.


I'm not one of those people, sorry to break your bubble. Just commenting on what I've seen in this thread so far.

Wormholer for life.
Salvos Rhoska
#528 - 2017-04-29 10:05:43 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
I'm not one of those people, sorry to break your bubble. Just commenting on what I've seen in this thread so far.


So what exactly is YOUR proposal?

Lets hear it.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#529 - 2017-04-29 10:08:21 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
I'm not one of those people, sorry to break your bubble. Just commenting on what I've seen in this thread so far.


So what exactly is YOUR proposal?

Lets hear it.


I don't have one. I'm waiting to see what CCP has planned first.

Wormholer for life.
Salvos Rhoska
#530 - 2017-04-29 10:10:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Wander Prian wrote:
I don't have one. I'm waiting to see what CCP has planned first.


Then since you've got nothing, maybe you should stfu and wait for that before commenting on others discussing their proposals in a thread dedicated to that.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#531 - 2017-04-29 10:15:56 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
I don't have one. I'm waiting to see what CCP has planned first.


Then since you've got nothing, maybe you should stfu and wait for that before commenting on others discussing their proposals.


While I may not have my own idea, it doesn't mean I cannot spot a bad idea when I see one. I've flown enough of these things to be able to comment on them without having my own plan on how to fix them.

Wormholer for life.
Salvos Rhoska
#532 - 2017-04-29 10:22:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Wander Prian wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
I don't have one. I'm waiting to see what CCP has planned first.


Then since you've got nothing, maybe you should stfu and wait for that before commenting on others discussing their proposals.


While I may not have my own idea, it doesn't mean I cannot spot a bad idea when I see one. I've flown enough of these things to be able to comment on them without having my own plan on how to fix them.


And yet you made no comment on people that want T3Cs nerfed to be worse than Navy ships.
Have you even read the thread?

Nor did you respond to my rebuttals.
You made zero effort to explain why its a bad idea.

You said you are waiting for what CCP has planned.
Then do that.

Or are you just a one-liner gish alt.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#533 - 2017-04-29 10:34:11 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
I don't have one. I'm waiting to see what CCP has planned first.


Then since you've got nothing, maybe you should stfu and wait for that before commenting on others discussing their proposals.


While I may not have my own idea, it doesn't mean I cannot spot a bad idea when I see one. I've flown enough of these things to be able to comment on them without having my own plan on how to fix them.


And yet you made no comment on people that want T3Cs nerfed to be worse than Navy ships.
Have you even read the thread?

Nor did you respond to my rebuttals.
You made zero effort to explain why its a bad idea.

You said you are waiting for what CCP has planned.
Then do that.

Or are you just a one-liner gish alt.


I'm no ones alt, unlike you seem to be.

You didn't post any rebuttals, only called me to go away as I apparently wasn't worthy of posting in this thread that you seem to have taken ownership of.

You want to keep tech 3 -cruisers valuable for PVE, but remove them from being a viable option for PVP.

Fun fact:

Tech 2 -ships already have a stronger bonus for their own specialization than the tech 3's do. Recon cruisers have the strongest bonuses for their speciality in the game. Same with command ships. Tech 3's have a smaller bonuses, but have the ability to do 2 different things fairly well. That is what makes them powerful.

Wormholer for life.
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#534 - 2017-04-29 11:02:21 UTC
One thing I'm gonna throw out there that most people on 'my side' of the issue probably already understand, but perhaps others don't, is that there has to be some reason besides ISK or skills to pick a battleship or a T2C over a T3C.

Right now, even assuming you can get a marginally better tank or DPS on another ship (an assumption that often doesn't hold, but lets go with it), it often isn't ENOUGH of a reason to pick the other ship over the T3C because the T3C is still so good at so many other things.

At any rate, I hereby submit at least one 'prime directive' or 'goal' of the re-balance.

GOAL 1:

There has to be ENOUGH of a reason beyond ISK or skills to pick something else (T2 or BS) over a T3C.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#535 - 2017-04-29 11:06:42 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
One thing I'm gonna throw out there that most people on 'my side' of the issue probably already understand, but perhaps others don't, is that there has to be some reason besides ISK or skills to pick a battleship or a T2C over a T3C.

Right now, even assuming you can get a marginally better tank or DPS on another ship (an assumption that often doesn't hold, but lets go with it), it often isn't ENOUGH of a reason to pick the other ship over the T3C because the T3C is still so good at so many other things.

At any rate, I hereby submit at least one 'prime directive' or 'goal' of the re-balance.

GOAL 1:

There has to be ENOUGH of a reason beyond ISK or skills to pick something else (T2 or BS) over a T3C.


I think that is a valid goal to have.

Wormholer for life.
Salvos Rhoska
#536 - 2017-04-29 11:09:25 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
[Same with command ships. Tech 3's have a smaller bonuses, but have the ability to do 2 different things fairly well. That is what makes them powerful.

There is no Cruiser Command ship, except T3Cs.
There is no HIC or Combat Recon T3C build.

You need to read the thread and familiarize yourself more with what T3Cs are currently, before worrying about what they should be.
You said you want to wait till CCP makes a decision. Do that then.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#537 - 2017-04-29 11:17:12 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
[Same with command ships. Tech 3's have a smaller bonuses, but have the ability to do 2 different things fairly well. That is what makes them powerful.

There is no Cruiser Command ship, except T3Cs.
There is no HIC or Combat Recon T3C build.

You need to read the thread and familiarize yourself more with what T3Cs are currently, before worrying about what they should be.
You said you want to wait till CCP makes a decision. Do that then.


Yet you have compared T3C's to battlecruisers before, so I think it's just fine for me to bring command ships to the discussion.

Tech 3 cruisers are used instead of recons as they have the tank to stay on field.

Legions instead of curses/pilgrims
Tengus instead of falcons/rooks
Lokis instead of rapiers/huginns
Proteus instead of arazu/lachesis

They may not have everyone of the bonuses a recon cruiser has, but their are used to fill the same spot in fleets.

The issue with HIC's is quite simple: It is a very powerful ability, which CCP wants to keep to only certain ships. There is no tech 1 ship that does the same thing either.

Wormholer for life.
Salvos Rhoska
#538 - 2017-04-29 11:31:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Beast of Revelations wrote:
GOAL 1:

There has to be ENOUGH of a reason beyond ISK or skills to pick something else (T2 or BS) over a T3C.


T3C tank potential is broken. That is the element that is stepping on BS.
Once that is remedied, that issue goes away.

The inverse of your goal of there being another reason beyond isk/SP loss for T3C equivalency to T2 builds/specialities, means T3Cs will be worse than T2s at specific roles, though they are more expensive and carry SP loss.

Thats a double penalty. Not only will they be worse than T2s at roles, they will also cost more and incur SP loss on destruction.
See what Im saying?

If T3Cs are brought to where they roughly equal T2s at specific roles, the isk/SP loss is what offsets the value of subsystem refits.
If you want a refittable T2, buy a T3C at greater cost and SP loss. If you want a specific T2, buy a T2 which is cheaper and has no SP loss.

Example: If I want a HAC, Ill buy a HAC. If I want a cruiser that can also refit to run relic sites, Ill buy a T3C at greater cost and risk of SP loss.

Paradoxically, some people here want T3Cs to additionally be able to swap rigs too.
I dont understand that at all. Its not enough to swap subsystems? Now they want to swap rigs too?
Being able to swap rigs on a T3C is an outright buff.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#539 - 2017-04-29 11:43:50 UTC
Because rigs are what keep T3C's from being truly changeable to fit any fit you need. Instead of just refitting, you currently get separate hulls. CCP seems to think it's a valid idea. Since you will be nerfing them quite harsly, you will need to give them some kind of buffs as well and refittable rigs would be just the correct one, fitting in with the theme of the ship as well.

Wormholer for life.
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#540 - 2017-04-29 11:44:52 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

The inverse of your goal of there being another reason beyond isk/SP loss...

You misunderstood. Not isk/sp loss. There has to be a reason beyond isk, or skills, PERIOD (no 'loss' in the sentence).

What I mean is, there has to be a reason beyond "I don't have the ISK for a T3C (or can't afford to lose it) so I'm gonna fly X" or "I don't have the skills trained for a T3C so I'm gonna fly X."

Quote:
...means T3Cs will be worse than T2s at specific roles, though they are more expensive and carry SP loss.

Not sure if what I said above changes your calculus here, but either way, what I said remains true: There HAS to be a reason or reasons beyond ISK or skills to choose something else over a T3C.

Period. Paragraph. The end.