These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#581 - 2017-05-01 09:13:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Snip


1) Wrong. SP loss and cost as is, has demonstrably not locked anyone out of T3Cs.
Larger/experienced alliances benefit from Keepstars and Titans too.
You are missapplying Malcanis Law.

The SP loss/cost is the same for everyone.

That someone has more isk/SP than someone else, is not a balance issue.

2) You wont use T3Cs after your proposal.
Thus the SP loss is irrelevant for the impetus of your proposal, which is to remove T3Cs from fleets.

3) The T3C in my proposal wont be better than any specialist T2 hull, for that role.
They will however cost more, and incur SP loss as additional cost.

4) Nobody will fly a T3C that performs equivalent to a T1C.
I can promise you that.

5) Furthermore, your cost adjustment will have catastrophic effect on the WH gas/sleeper salvage markets by reducing them to <10% of current value. This will also have disastrous effects on the T3D market, as the market is flooded with stockpiles.

6) The demand for your proposed T1 equivalent T3Cs would have to increase by 900% inorder to offset that.
If you think that is how popular crappy T1 equivalent T3Cs will be, when even your own alliance will no longer provide demand to the market, you have completely lost perspective.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#582 - 2017-05-01 09:35:38 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) Wrong. SP loss and cost as is, has demonstrably not locked anyone out of T3Cs.
Larger/experienced alliances benefit from Keepstars and Titans too.
You are missapplying Malcanis Law.

The SP loss/cost is the same for everyone.

That someone has more isk/SP than someone else, is not a balance issue.


Tell that to the people who do not have access to super carrier ratting.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

2) You wont use T3Cs after your proposal.
Thus the SP loss is irrelevant for the impetus of your proposal, which is to remove T3Cs from fleets.


Its not to remove T3C from fleets, its to stop them overshadowing the specialist T2 ships. Again, I'm thinking of others not just myself or my alliance interests.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:


3) The T3C in my proposal wont be better than any specialist T2 hull, for that role.
They will however cost more, and incur SP loss as additional cost.


You said they would equal T2, that means they are just as good but with the added abilities that t3 bring. That makes them better than T2.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:


4) Nobody will fly a T3C that performs equivalent to a T1C.
I can promise you that.


Good thing I never said that then.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


5) Furthermore, your cost adjustment will have catastrophic effect on the WH gas/sleeper salvage markets by reducing them to <10% of current value. This will also have disastrous effects on the T3D market, as the market is flooded with stockpiles.

6) The demand for your proposed T1 equivalent T3Cs would have to increase by 900% inorder to offset that.
If you think that is how popular crappy T1 equivalent T3Cs will be, when even your own alliance will no longer provide demand to the market, you have completely lost perspective.


There are other ways to increase WH material usage than just T3C. The new moon mining structures for example, CCP are also looking at making meta mods buildable and a teircide of mods in the summer. You can also look at capital build materials too for this.
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#583 - 2017-05-01 09:38:07 UTC
Ray P wrote:

if they nerf t3's to such an extent doesn't this kill wormhole economy?


T3Cs don't exist in order to create the wormhole economy. The wormhole economy exists in order to create T3Cs. The point being, what we care about here is the T3Cs and their balance, not the wormhole economy.

The wormhole economy will sort itself out after any T3C changes. And if necessary, adjustments can be made to it. And there's plenty of other non-T3C stuff in wormholes - PI, mining, etc.

TL;DR: The prime directive is fixing T3Cs, not preserving the current wormhole economy. If fixing T3Cs can be done while keeping the wormhole economy unchanged, fine. If fixing T3Cs can be done while damaging the wormhole economy, fine. And finally, if fixing T3Cs can be done while damaging, but then repairing, the wormhole economy, that is fine too.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The cost is the same for everyone.
How much SP you have... is again not relevant to balance.


It is relevant. If it costs 1 SP loss, we can agree that isn't a deterrent to flying the ship or losing it. If it costs 1 billion SP loss, we can agree that it is probably a deterrent to many people.

The theme here is the same as with every other ship - balancing the power of the ship against some kind of cost. What baltec1 is saying is, the current SP loss is not high enough to balance out the power of the ship, at least not for super-rich, high-SP people flying in powerful rich alliances. They can essentially treat the ships as disposable and not blink an eye if they lose them.

So the question you should be asking him is, why does he not want to INCREASE SP loss instead of doing away with it altogether? I think his answer is, it's a bad mechanic for numerous reasons, and if the ship gets the nerfs it deserves, it won't need this kind of mechanic to balance it out anyway.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#584 - 2017-05-01 09:45:52 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:


So the question you should be asking him is, why does he not want to INCREASE SP loss instead of doing away with it altogether? I think his answer is, it's a bad mechanic for numerous reasons, and if the ship gets the nerfs it deserves, it won't need this kind of mechanic to balance it out anyway.


Increasing the cost/SP loss only does one thing. It makes it unaffordable to many which means those that can afford it have an advantage, I'm one of those people. Increasing the SP loss and cost only benefits us and hinders everyone else we face.
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#585 - 2017-05-01 09:46:24 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Nobody will fly a T3C that performs equivalent to a T1C.
I can promise you that.

It won't perform equivalent to a T1C. It will have more generalization and flexibility than a T1C, so that's not the same as performing equivalent to a T1C.

It will perform worse than a T1C if you simply want to use it as a T1C. In that case, it SHOULD perform worse than a T1C.

I don't pretend to know how many people will fly it if suggested changes happen. If there is demand for the flexibility and generalization the ship offers, people will fly it. If there isn't, people won't.
Salvos Rhoska
#586 - 2017-05-01 10:31:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Snip.


1) If they dont have super carriers, that is their own issue for lack of isk/sp to field them.
It has nothing to do with super carrier balance.

How wealthy someone is, or how much SP they have, is not relevant to balance.
I can right now buy 100 PLEX, and become a wealthy player with a ton of SP.
Will that change the balance of the ships I fly?
No. Ofc not.

2) In my proposal, T3C stats wont overshadow T2 specialised hulls. Furthermore they will cost more, and incur SP loss.

3) I said roughly equal T2s. I said they wont have bonuses that exceed those of T2s specialised hulls towards their roles.

4) Nobody will fly T1 equivalent T3Cs, that take 2 months longer to skill into, cost 4-5x as much, and lack tank/dps to run any content that a T1 would not be able to.

5) WHs dont have moon mining. Your notion that meta mods or caps would involve T3 mats is nowhere on the drawing board, whilst your proposal of reducing T3Cs to <10% of current value would utterly obliterate WH markets and economy on gas/sleeper salvage which are WH exclusive.

6) Demand for your T1C equivalent T3Cs that take 2 months to skill into, and which cant run any content better than a T1C that costs 20% of the T3C, would have to increase by 900% to offset the loss in value. There is ZERO chance of that happening. Furthermore, the T3D market would get utterly wrecked as T3 mats flood into T3D production instead.

7) Wake up, man. Your proposal is ludicrous.
Salvos Rhoska
#587 - 2017-05-01 10:43:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Beast of Revelations wrote:
I don't pretend to know how many people will fly it if suggested changes happen. If there is demand for the flexibility and generalization the ship offers, people will fly it. If there isn't, people won't.


There will be little to no demand.
Even baltec1s alliance wont have demand for them, as he stated.

T1 cruisers can only run a very narrow margin of content, exclusive to HS ratting, 3/10 DEDs (barely), L2 missions and C1s.

Furthermore, in baltec1s proposal of them costing 40-50mil, that is 5x the cost of a Rupture.
Also, T3Cs cost 2 months longer to skill into compared to T1s.

The versatility is useless on T3Cs, when the output is below T1.

Ask yourself, what would you use a < T1 equivalent T3C cruiser for, that costs over 2 months more to skill into, and costs 5x more?



Mark my words, if T3C are brought down to (or below) T1 performance:
-The class will become extinct.
-Rage will be enormous.
-WH economy will suffer catastrophic collapse.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#588 - 2017-05-01 14:05:41 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
I don't pretend to know how many people will fly it if suggested changes happen. If there is demand for the flexibility and generalization the ship offers, people will fly it. If there isn't, people won't.


There will be little to no demand.
Even baltec1s alliance wont have demand for them, as he stated.

T1 cruisers can only run a very narrow margin of content, exclusive to HS ratting, 3/10 DEDs (barely), L2 missions and C1s.

Furthermore, in baltec1s proposal of them costing 40-50mil, that is 5x the cost of a Rupture.
Also, T3Cs cost 2 months longer to skill into compared to T1s.

The versatility is useless on T3Cs, when the output is below T1.

Ask yourself, what would you use a < T1 equivalent T3C cruiser for, that costs over 2 months more to skill into, and costs 5x more?


lol, exaggerate much ? ded 3s are by and large trivial for a cruiser, I've also done more than one races in a catalyst, a hecate, an ishkur, comet and astero.

Can run all ded 4s with a vexor, though scout outpost is hard and excavator really hard. Also fairly sure it can run most level 4s where its possible to avoid being webbed or kill the web tower right away. With 3 garde IIs, it deals ~430 dps @ 30km which is sufficient to break all mission tanks, and it can be made be only fighting partway into fall off at 63km. ie it can be made to deal ~75% of 430 dps at 63 without needing to go away and change drones. I also used both blaster/heavy drone and rail/sentry vexor fit to belt rat in syndicate, and it can run serp port anoms too (which esc to ded 7).

As I've stated if the proteus keeps its t2 resists and has a similar rep bonus to the deimos (currently its bigger), it will be fine. ie you are going off the deep end with respect to Baltecs opinion which is in any case is not the same as CCPs opinion.

Quote:


Mark my words, if T3C are brought down to (or below) T1 performance:
-The class will become extinct.
-Rage will be enormous.
-WH economy will suffer catastrophic collapse.


A good proportion of the WH econ is blue loot, sold the same way we sell overseers boxes. CCP already added pirate hacking to low WHs to make them more attractive to day trip, its not inconceivable they'd monitor the results and have something else planned. Who knows, refineries might need something from high end holes, in any case its an easily solved problem.

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#589 - 2017-05-01 14:34:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Beast of Revelations
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

There will be little to no demand.
Even baltec1s alliance wont have demand for them, as he stated.


True, he has stated it many times, but I think it is a phenomenon you misunderstand. I think there is something you aren't seeing.

The fact that baltec1's alliance has lots of demand for these things as general 'ship of the line' type ships is the problem. In other words, we purposefully want to create the situation where his alliance (and others) WON'T have demand for them as general 'ship of the line' type ships.

What you keep touting as a fatal flaw or bad consequence in baltec1's desire to nerf these things ("even he states his alliance won't have use for them afterwards!") is actually the purposeful end goal of this entire exercise.
Cade Windstalker
#590 - 2017-05-01 15:53:23 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
-snip-



1. It really really isn't, because the refitability has been hampered by rigs. Most specific T3C roles require at least slightly different rig setups, especially switching between PvE and PvP. The only reason to use a T3C over something else right now is the power level, the number of people that do any kind of in-space refitting or even do more than minor subsystem swaps in a station or Citadel, the same way any other ship swaps Reactor Controls for Damage Mods for different fits, is tiny. I have literally never, in all my time in Eve Uni or hanging out in various newbie chats, channels, or vet hangouts heard anyone recommend training into or using a T3C for any reason beyond it being the best tool for the job. If you have some hard evidence to the contrary here I'd be interested to see it, but until them I am more than a little skeptical of this claim.

2. At which point we're kinda back to the "why would anyone use T3Cs at all?" question, outside of the niche few who want to refit in-space, since you'll no longer be able to make any unique combinations of stats under your proposal.

3. This I just flatly disagree with. There's a big difference between them stating some high level goal or anything prefaced with "we'd like to" and them sharing their current plans for a rebalance they've announced. They have a very long history of following through on the latter kind of announced plans, and I would be very surprised if the eventual blog post and/or forum thread doesn't hew pretty close to what was in that presentation.

4. Again, not disagreeing, but so far you've got a really simplistic idea and no particularly strong reasons why it's preferable to the path CCP have already indicated they're going down.

5. And again, that's baltec1 saying that's where they're going to land, not CCP. CCP has them at Navy power level but more generalized than T2, which functionally puts them above the slightly more specified Navy hulls. IMO your plan has a better chance of killing use of the class than what we've seen of CCP's plan so far does.

6. But it also substantially changes how the class plays, what you can do with it, and in general takes it quite a distance from its current resting point, not just in terms of power but in terms of role and utility. That's something CCP tend to avoid doing quite heavily, especially for a ship class with a lot of usage like the T3Cs see.

7. T3Cs are largely unused as command hulls, since the bonus amount is lower and there's little that they do that a true Command Ships can't do better. The DScan immunity of Combat Recons is extremely niche and not really relevant, as is the HIC's point in most cases. It would also completely kill their role as cloaky Logi for Black Ops bridged fleets. Also Logi is one of the few places the balance around T3Cs is generally considered to be good since they trade range for rep effectiveness which makes them harder to use.

8. Again, that's baltec1's proposal, not the direction CCP seem to be taking. Also I think you're somewhat underestimating what a Navy Destroyer would look like given what the Navy Frigates already do, but that's me.

9. *shrugs* you are free to think what you want. I simply think that by failing to address or take into account CCP's proposal you're limiting the usefulness of your feedback to them, and setting yourself up for nothing but disappointment since given past trends it's highly unlikely they're going to change their current direction without a very strong reason to do so.

baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


The answer to that is in the quote.


It isn't.

Under your plan there would be no point in using a T2 cruiser because it would be less capable than a t3c at its specialised role.


I think what you've missed here is that Salvos is basically binning entirely everything in CCP's proposal, and everything about T3Cs currently in terms of numbers, and just kind of waving a wand that says "no combination of subsystems shall perform better than a flat T2 ship" or something like that.

I honestly have no idea how he plans to preserve the subsystems mechanic while doing that either, but I think that's the less fundamental flaw in his plan and engaging him on it is likely to just result in more hand waving since there's no detail there to begin with.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#591 - 2017-05-01 17:17:04 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) If they dont have super carriers, that is their own issue for lack of isk/sp to field them.
It has nothing to do with super carrier balance.

How wealthy someone is, or how much SP they have, is not relevant to balance.
I can right now buy 100 PLEX, and become a wealthy player with a ton of SP.
Will that change the balance of the ships I fly?
No. Ofc not.


You don't understand what I am saying.

The point is that in you attempt to stop people from using these ships via making them cost more and require more SP if killed you are taking them away from the little guy and handing the big guys a helping hand by ensuring that only they can afford to fly them.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

2) In my proposal, T3C stats wont overshadow T2 specialised hulls. Furthermore they will cost more, and incur SP loss.

3) I said roughly equal T2s. I said they wont have bonuses that exceed those of T2s specialised hulls towards their roles.


Its the combination of just about matching T2 and the other T3C abilities that will make them better than T2.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

4) Nobody will fly T1 equivalent T3Cs, that take 2 months longer to skill into, cost 4-5x as much, and lack tank/dps to run any content that a T1 would not be able to.


Again, I did not say they would be the same level as T1.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

5) WHs dont have moon mining. Your notion that meta mods or caps would involve T3 mats is nowhere on the drawing board, whilst your proposal of reducing T3Cs to <10% of current value would utterly obliterate WH markets and economy on gas/sleeper salvage which are WH exclusive.



Theses are ways of increasing demand for WH mats without relying on T3C. Seems to me this isn't about wormhole income and all about you trying to find an excuse to not go through with the T3C nerf.
Egsise
Outfit 418
Blue Loot Not Included
#592 - 2017-05-01 19:36:28 UTC
I know many wormholers that are so afraid of losing skillpoints that they don't fly T3 cruisers.

If wormholers can't use battleships due to hole mass limits you can forget the battleships from the comparisons.

T3 rebalance?

Add SP loss to all ships, lets see what people pick after that.
or
Limit the number of ships in kspace fights by their mass, stupid idea but that is what wormholers face every day.
what if
T3 cruisers are for wormholers only, nerf them in kspace. Add effect -30% to all stats if used outside of wspace.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#593 - 2017-05-01 19:55:14 UTC
Egsise wrote:
I know many wormholers that are so afraid of losing skillpoints that they don't fly T3 cruisers.

If wormholers can't use battleships due to hole mass limits you can forget the battleships from the comparisons.

T3 rebalance?

Add SP loss to all ships, lets see what people pick after that.
or
Limit the number of ships in kspace fights by their mass, stupid idea but that is what wormholers face every day.
what if
T3 cruisers are for wormholers only, nerf them in kspace. Add effect -30% to all stats if used outside of wspace.

I'm not unsympathetic, but it's part and parcel with the territory. Wormholers have the entire game at their disposal, and they chose to live in wormholes which have very unique rules governing their life. It's a bold choice, but you can't choose those rules then try to fling them back in other people's faces in a bid for pity.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#594 - 2017-05-01 20:05:50 UTC
I don't know... having a ship that tanks and hits like a battleship, travels and runs exploration like a covert ops, nullifies like an interceptor and boosts like light command ship... with just a mobile depot needed to switch between those roles... that seems like it would be the favored choice of anyone doing any of those things. Just because you can also do the other things.

To avoid that and have people run the other ships... you'd probably want it to be somewhat less that being "just as good" at all of those things. If you're at 90% of the top level at all of those... the ship still has lots of value. But specialists will probably still choose the specialized ship.
Egsise
Outfit 418
Blue Loot Not Included
#595 - 2017-05-01 20:11:54 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Egsise wrote:
I know many wormholers that are so afraid of losing skillpoints that they don't fly T3 cruisers.

If wormholers can't use battleships due to hole mass limits you can forget the battleships from the comparisons.

T3 rebalance?

Add SP loss to all ships, lets see what people pick after that.
or
Limit the number of ships in kspace fights by their mass, stupid idea but that is what wormholers face every day.
what if
T3 cruisers are for wormholers only, nerf them in kspace. Add effect -30% to all stats if used outside of wspace.

I'm not unsympathetic, but it's part and parcel with the territory. Wormholers have the entire game at their disposal, and they chose to live in wormholes which have very unique rules governing their life. It's a bold choice, but you can't choose those rules then try to fling them back in other people's faces in a bid for pity.


Just like those who chose to live in kspace, don't call T3 cruisers op when you you can use supercapitals and titans.
Wormholers can't.

If T3 cruisers are op to someone, welcome to live in wspace where they are the pretty much the best ship you can have.
Cade Windstalker
#596 - 2017-05-01 20:18:25 UTC
Egsise wrote:
I know many wormholers that are so afraid of losing skillpoints that they don't fly T3 cruisers.

If wormholers can't use battleships due to hole mass limits you can forget the battleships from the comparisons.

T3 rebalance?

Add SP loss to all ships, lets see what people pick after that.
or
Limit the number of ships in kspace fights by their mass, stupid idea but that is what wormholers face every day.
what if
T3 cruisers are for wormholers only, nerf them in kspace. Add effect -30% to all stats if used outside of wspace.


Wormholes are not the only conditions under which any ship's balance must be considered, let alone T3Cs.

T3Cs are in no way only intended to be used in W-Space, limiting them in K-space is a ridiculous idea.
Egsise
Outfit 418
Blue Loot Not Included
#597 - 2017-05-01 20:32:30 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Egsise wrote:
I know many wormholers that are so afraid of losing skillpoints that they don't fly T3 cruisers.

If wormholers can't use battleships due to hole mass limits you can forget the battleships from the comparisons.

T3 rebalance?

Add SP loss to all ships, lets see what people pick after that.
or
Limit the number of ships in kspace fights by their mass, stupid idea but that is what wormholers face every day.
what if
T3 cruisers are for wormholers only, nerf them in kspace. Add effect -30% to all stats if used outside of wspace.


Wormholes are not the only conditions under which any ship's balance must be considered, let alone T3Cs.

T3Cs are in no way only intended to be used in W-Space, limiting them in K-space is a ridiculous idea.


Correct, I threw some ridiculous ideas to the air.

But as you pointed out the conditions don't forget that if you nerf the T3 cruisers you nerf the best ship in wormholes.

T3 cruisers are our battleships capitals supers and titans, all those in one hull.

T3 cruisers are broken only in kspace.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#598 - 2017-05-01 20:44:08 UTC
Egsise wrote:


Correct, I threw some ridiculous ideas to the air.

But as you pointed out the conditions don't forget that if you nerf the T3 cruisers you nerf the best ship in wormholes.

T3 cruisers are our battleships capitals supers and titans, all those in one hull.

T3 cruisers are broken only in kspace.


Wormholers use dreadnoughts and carriers, its a daft argument to be making there.
Egsise
Outfit 418
Blue Loot Not Included
#599 - 2017-05-01 20:59:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Egsise wrote:


Correct, I threw some ridiculous ideas to the air.

But as you pointed out the conditions don't forget that if you nerf the T3 cruisers you nerf the best ship in wormholes.

T3 cruisers are our battleships capitals supers and titans, all those in one hull.

T3 cruisers are broken only in kspace.


Wormholers use dreadnoughts and carriers, its a daft argument to be making there.


But they can't travel, it's a bit of a drawback Blink
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#600 - 2017-05-01 21:03:19 UTC
Egsise wrote:


But they can't travel, it's a bit of a drawback Blink


They can travel, that's how invasions happen.