These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cade Windstalker
#601 - 2017-05-02 03:31:28 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.


I guarantee you CCP is keeping this in mind, but these days it's not too much of a concern. If T3Cs get nerfed for WH PvP then that hits everyone more or less equally and everyone gets chucked into the same pot to make New WH Meta Stew.

The PvE implications might be an issue, but no one uses T3Cs much for WH PvE anymore, it's all dreads and carriers and FAXes along with Rattlesnakes, Marauders, and a few other ships, very few of which are actually T3Cs, at least for group or group-ish content.

And yeah, T3Cs are OP in Wormholes too, it's just that everyone uses the things and they were introduced at the same time, so for WHs it's less of a problem and more of a feature.

Realistically though that just makes the WH meta *more* stale as a result of T3Cs compared to everywhere else, not less so.
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#602 - 2017-05-02 04:50:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Beast of Revelations
Egsise wrote:

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.


High-sec'ers can't use supercapitals and titans either. But that doesn't entitle them to a grossly OP cruiser.

Egsise wrote:

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.


Jesus H. Christ. Look at what you just wrote. Really... are you people this blind? YOU JUST ADMITTED THE THINGS ARE BATTLESHIPS, CAPITALS, SUPERS, AND TITANS IN ONE HULL. And yet you defend them as not being OP.

Quote:
T3 cruisers are broken only in kspace.


They are broken everywhere, including wormholes. It makes absolutely no sense for the devs to have imposed mass limits on wormholes, only to then turn around and give wormholers a super-cruiser that, effectively-speaking, circumvents those mass limits by being a battleship, a capital, a super, and a titan all in one hull. The simplest thing to have done would have been 'do nothing' (not impose mass limits on holes, not invent a new super-ship) and just let battleships, capitals, titans, etc. roam free. Obviously, the devs didn't intend to give you a pocket super-ship to deal with mass limits on wormholes they themselves created.

The justifications and defenses for this OP ship are getting more and more ridiculous (desperate?) by the minute.
An-Nur
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#603 - 2017-05-02 16:39:33 UTC
I'll be interested how the stealthier options end up stacking up against the stratios and recons.

Given the price of rigs, I have to wonder who will fly around with them in cargo, let alone additional subs. At current prices that's like 120 million working on a set of rigs and 2 subs. One would have to imagine that kind of flexibility would more find its place with refitting through capitals storing them for certain campaigns?

Speaking of rigs and flexibility, I liked the idea raised of specialised rigs, to not only skirt the boundaries of t3d functions, but perhaps lend greater uniqueness to individual ship set ups. I say this as I've had a hard time seeing where they exactly fit given the preceding page discussions.

Egsise
Outfit 418
Blue Loot Not Included
#604 - 2017-05-02 18:44:08 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:

Egsise wrote:

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.


Jesus H. Christ. Look at what you just wrote. Really... are you people this blind? YOU JUST ADMITTED THE THINGS ARE BATTLESHIPS, CAPITALS, SUPERS, AND TITANS IN ONE HULL. And yet you defend them as not being OP.


Battleships as in ehp and dps
Capitals supers and titans as something to look forward, not comparable with ehp or dps doh

I mean a wormholer trains the best ship he can fly, so what is the biggest ship you can use in wspace?
A carrier or a dreadnought, but due to mass limitations it's very rarely to see action outside home solar system.
Capitals in C1-C4 holes are built in there and they never can go out.

Ever wondered why people like Nestors?
They weight only 20mil kg, just like cruisers.
It's the only battleship that can fit thru a medium sized wormhole.
Antichrist of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#605 - 2017-05-02 19:23:05 UTC
Egsise wrote:

Ever wondered why people like Nestors?
They weight only 20mil kg, just like cruisers.
It's the only battleship that can fit thru a medium sized wormhole.


If CCP wants battleships to fit into small or medium-sized holes, then they need to adjust the mass limitations of the holes, not provide "pocket battleships" in the form of T3C.

HOW TO FIX THE SITUATION:

1) Nerf bejesus out of T3C.

2) Decide what class of ships you want flying in wormholes, and adjust mass limitations accordingly.
Egsise
Outfit 418
Blue Loot Not Included
#606 - 2017-05-02 19:41:58 UTC
how about the amount of bling T3 cruisers are used with.
Hull+subs+rigs is 300mil, then we use on average 500mil for the modules.

It's the only way because there's no alternative.
Battleship dps and ehp with 800mil but no insurance and sp loss if it explodes, yeah that sounds fair.

Subs in cargo, yup it's handy but the subsystem size is the problem so I hope CCP helps with that.
The only T3 cruiser that I've used with dual purpose is a cloaky prober nullified laser Legion
with depot+dps+ehp subs in cargo, it's possible only because the laser crystals are so small.

I think we need new toys.
Nerf the T3 cruisers but give us new subs, new meta, new legos to play with.
And since T3s are wh born I see that the sleeper material they are built from activates in wspace thus giving them
better stats in wormholes, kinda like wormhole effects give you all kinds of boosts or nerfs.
Egsise
Outfit 418
Blue Loot Not Included
#607 - 2017-05-02 20:02:03 UTC
Antichrist of Revelations wrote:
Egsise wrote:

Ever wondered why people like Nestors?
They weight only 20mil kg, just like cruisers.
It's the only battleship that can fit thru a medium sized wormhole.


If CCP wants battleships to fit into small or medium-sized holes, then they need to adjust the mass limitations of the holes, not provide "pocket battleships" in the form of T3C.

HOW TO FIX THE SITUATION:

1) Nerf bejesus out of T3C.

2) Decide what class of ships you want flying in wormholes, and adjust mass limitations accordingly.


The wormhole mass limitations are far more complex than just what you proposed Roll

And the problem is that the mass limits the number of players that can join fights.
Lets take a common size for a wormhole, a E175 which has 2bil kg mass limit.
You can bring 20 battleships or 100 cruisers to a fight, which is better?

20 players can have fun pew pew or 100 players can piupiupiupiu.
Now it comes a political question as a corp that has battleship doctrine can't let everyone join, only 20(best) is accepted.
So in many levels the cruisers are the only option.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#608 - 2017-05-02 23:27:11 UTC
Egsise wrote:
how about the amount of bling T3 cruisers are used with.
Hull+subs+rigs is 300mil, then we use on average 500mil for the modules.

It's the only way because there's no alternative.
Battleship dps and ehp with 800mil but no insurance and sp loss if it explodes, yeah that sounds fair.

Subs in cargo, yup it's handy but the subsystem size is the problem so I hope CCP helps with that.
The only T3 cruiser that I've used with dual purpose is a cloaky prober nullified laser Legion
with depot+dps+ehp subs in cargo, it's possible only because the laser crystals are so small.

I think we need new toys.
Nerf the T3 cruisers but give us new subs, new meta, new legos to play with.
And since T3s are wh born I see that the sleeper material they are built from activates in wspace thus giving them
better stats in wormholes, kinda like wormhole effects give you all kinds of boosts or nerfs.


There is a 50 mil difference between T2 and T3 cruisers. Price tag is no excuse for keeping something this blatantly overpowered.
Cade Windstalker
#609 - 2017-05-03 02:50:17 UTC
Egsise wrote:
how about the amount of bling T3 cruisers are used with.
Hull+subs+rigs is 300mil, then we use on average 500mil for the modules.

It's the only way because there's no alternative.
Battleship dps and ehp with 800mil but no insurance and sp loss if it explodes, yeah that sounds fair.

Subs in cargo, yup it's handy but the subsystem size is the problem so I hope CCP helps with that.
The only T3 cruiser that I've used with dual purpose is a cloaky prober nullified laser Legion
with depot+dps+ehp subs in cargo, it's possible only because the laser crystals are so small.

I think we need new toys.
Nerf the T3 cruisers but give us new subs, new meta, new legos to play with.
And since T3s are wh born I see that the sleeper material they are built from activates in wspace thus giving them
better stats in wormholes, kinda like wormhole effects give you all kinds of boosts or nerfs.


You can bling fit anything, that's not unique to T3 Cruisers or even to W-space. W-space people just tend to have enough money to do it consistently and the fights are smaller which makes squeezing more out of each ship more important.

In practice T3Cs are anything but fair. They're OP little monster ships that have deserved nerfs pretty much since day 1, and certainly since the HAC rebalance.

CCP do not owe you anything when they nerf the things you've gotten to abuse the heck out of for the last six or seven years.

When everyone's T3Cs get nerfed then everyone will be on a fairly even playing field because everyone will have been hit with the same nerfs. Wormholes do not needs blingy pwn-mobiles to keep functioning. Go talk to some of your wormhole buddies, former CSMs, major figures in the community, ect. They'll probably say something similar.
Salvos Rhoska
#610 - 2017-05-03 08:03:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
This discussion is about how to change T3Cs, not whether they should be changed.

People would do well to remind themselves of that.

Also, many posters are speaking "past" other posters and their points.
Whether deliberate or not, its not helping.



30 page half-time summary:

1) Just about everyone agrees T3C effective tank is too high.
2) SP loss. Yes/no.
3) Re-fittable rigs. Yes/no.
4) Re-balance to roughly T1, Navy or T2 equivalency. Make your choice.
5) Impact on WH economy as provider of gas/sleeper salvage for T3C/substsyem/T3D.
6) Impact on nomads, pvp fleets, and other T3C use.
7) Slot/bonus layouts for T3Cs.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#611 - 2017-05-03 17:59:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This discussion is about how to change T3Cs, not whether they should be changed.

People would do well to remind themselves of that.

Also, many posters are speaking "past" other posters and their points.
Whether deliberate or not, its not helping.



30 page half-time summary:

1) Just about everyone agrees T3C effective tank is too high.
2) SP loss. Yes/no.
3) Re-fittable rigs. Yes/no.
4) Re-balance to roughly T1, Navy or T2 equivalency. Make your choice.
5) Impact on WH economy as provider of gas/sleeper salvage for T3C/substsyem/T3D.
6) Impact on nomads, pvp fleets, and other T3C use.
7) Slot/bonus layouts for T3Cs.

4 - is absurd to rebalance to T1, Nay or T2 equivalent. Why not just do away with them altogether.

The proper and logical response is to adjust them to be in line with T3 destroyers. Redo the entire T3C system to have switchable modes like T3D's. Remove subsystems entirely.

Currently T3 are not OP but hey if they must be changed they should be changed to something worthwhile to fly. The only thing OP about T3 (and all the other OP ships like Orthrus etc) is the fitting of BS sized mods which have silly fitting requirements. I can stick 4 battleship sized plates on a cruiser ffs.

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..... :)

Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#612 - 2017-05-03 18:30:20 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This discussion is about how to change T3Cs, not whether they should be changed.

People would do well to remind themselves of that.

Also, many posters are speaking "past" other posters and their points.
Whether deliberate or not, its not helping.



30 page half-time summary:

1) Just about everyone agrees T3C effective tank is too high.
2) SP loss. Yes/no.
3) Re-fittable rigs. Yes/no.
4) Re-balance to roughly T1, Navy or T2 equivalency. Make your choice.
5) Impact on WH economy as provider of gas/sleeper salvage for T3C/substsyem/T3D.
6) Impact on nomads, pvp fleets, and other T3C use.
7) Slot/bonus layouts for T3Cs.

4 - is absurd to rebalance to T1, Nay or T2 equivalent. Why not just do away with them altogether.

The proper and logical response is to adjust them to be in line with T3 destroyers. Redo the entire T3C system to have switchable modes like T3D's. Remove subsystems entirely.

Currently T3 are not OP but hey if they must be changed they should be changed to something worthwhile to fly. The only thing OP about T3 (and all the other OP ships like Orthrus etc) is the fitting of BS sized mods which have silly fitting requirements. I can stick 4 battleship sized plates on a cruiser ffs.


CCP are keeping the subsystems. They said they like it as a mechanic and are not changing that part of the ships. They are limiting the amount of subsystem-combinations though.

Wormholer for life.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#613 - 2017-05-03 19:09:54 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:


Currently T3 are not OP but hey if they must be changed they should be changed to something worthwhile to fly. The only thing OP about T3 (and all the other OP ships like Orthrus etc) is the fitting of BS sized mods which have silly fitting requirements. I can stick 4 battleship sized plates on a cruiser ffs.


Which cruiser?
Cade Windstalker
#614 - 2017-05-03 21:08:38 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
4 - is absurd to rebalance to T1, Nay or T2 equivalent. Why not just do away with them altogether.

The proper and logical response is to adjust them to be in line with T3 destroyers. Redo the entire T3C system to have switchable modes like T3D's. Remove subsystems entirely.

Currently T3 are not OP but hey if they must be changed they should be changed to something worthwhile to fly. The only thing OP about T3 (and all the other OP ships like Orthrus etc) is the fitting of BS sized mods which have silly fitting requirements. I can stick 4 battleship sized plates on a cruiser ffs.


It makes far more sense to keep the subsystems and all the time, effort, art, and economic investment by players more or less intact rather than re-do the ships completely.

This claim that fitting oversized mods is what makes these ships "OP" is ridiculous. Even without fitting LSEs or 1600 plates T3Cs have almost Battlecruiser levels of EHP and base stats. Being able to fit larger modules is an intentional part of the subcap balance and design, and you've provided no rational, evidence, or argument for why this is somehow inherently a problem.

Also CCP have flatly stated, repeatedly, that T3 ships are supposed to be roughly equivalent to Navy Faction in terms of performance but more flexible. This has the secondary effect of inherently making them a bit stronger than Navy ships. They're not supposed to exactly mirror any ship class in terms of performance, in any way. That's entirely Salvos' idea of what he thinks the ships should be like, but I don't believe he was referring specifically to that with #4 on his list.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#615 - 2017-05-03 21:42:50 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Also CCP have flatly stated, repeatedly, that T3 ships are supposed to be roughly equivalent to Navy Faction in terms of performance but more flexible.

Quote that, because from fanfest presentation the only nerf so far is increased sig radius, no flatly stated "we will bring them to the level of navies", and so far it is the only viable source of information because it is "fresh". We have no idea where CCP want them. Fozzie and Larrikin didn't share the details.

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

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#616 - 2017-05-03 22:00:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Khan Wrenth
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
...so far it is the only viable source of information because it is "fresh"

That is actually a rather good point. It depends on how long ago some things were stated, but yes it is entirely possible some design goals changed over the years. The fresher the information, the better.

That said, the remarks that T3 should be as powerful as Navy but have more versatility, actually makes the most sense so far. In the grand scheme of ship balancing, it seems to be the (excuse the term) most "balanced" goal for the long-term health of the game. (EDIT: Basically what Baltec1 said in the post below)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#617 - 2017-05-03 22:34:54 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Also CCP have flatly stated, repeatedly, that T3 ships are supposed to be roughly equivalent to Navy Faction in terms of performance but more flexible.

Quote that, because from fanfest presentation the only nerf so far is increased sig radius, no flatly stated "we will bring them to the level of navies", and so far it is the only viable source of information because it is "fresh". We have no idea where CCP want them. Fozzie and Larrikin didn't share the details.


Equally we have had no info saying they have changed the plan so right now that's what we have to work off. Frankly it also makes the most sense, you cant have them be as good as T2 and you won't see them drop to t1 levels so that means they have to land somewhere between those two levels. That means navy cruiser level.

An-Nur
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#618 - 2017-05-04 02:05:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Also CCP have flatly stated, repeatedly, that T3 ships are supposed to be roughly equivalent to Navy Faction in terms of performance but more flexible.

Quote that, because from fanfest presentation the only nerf so far is increased sig radius, no flatly stated "we will bring them to the level of navies", and so far it is the only viable source of information because it is "fresh". We have no idea where CCP want them. Fozzie and Larrikin didn't share the details.


Equally we have had no info saying they have changed the plan so right now that's what we have to work off. Frankly it also makes the most sense, you cant have them be as good as T2 and you won't see them drop to t1 levels so that means they have to land somewhere between those two levels. That means navy cruiser level.



Currently that would make them 5x the price of the comparative hulls making them competitive with the pirate cruisers and most t2 hulls and recons . That would end up being a huge drop in materials to bring them into line with navy cruisers, and I have to wonder what kind of ship bonuses that would entail, let alone there viability. Ability to swap subs/rigs is not enough of a niche if navy cruiser level I would have thought
Cade Windstalker
#619 - 2017-05-04 03:17:02 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Also CCP have flatly stated, repeatedly, that T3 ships are supposed to be roughly equivalent to Navy Faction in terms of performance but more flexible.

Quote that, because from fanfest presentation the only nerf so far is increased sig radius, no flatly stated "we will bring them to the level of navies", and so far it is the only viable source of information because it is "fresh". We have no idea where CCP want them. Fozzie and Larrikin didn't share the details.


Not all valid information is "fresh" especially when you're talking about the time scales tiericide has happened on. CCP's original post put T3s at around Navy level but more flexible. CCP seem to have taken this as "Navy level bonuses/stats but more options" and they've targeted the T3Ds *about* there in terms of base stats. The main problem T3Ds have is being quite fast and essentially getting extra bonuses over other hulls while being a size above their primary competitors, Pirate and T2 Frigates.

With the general Cruiser balance, and the various T3 tweaks over the years, we've only seen CCP push the ships towards "not as good as T2" in terms of specialization, and while I agree we've yet to see hard stats so far, everything CCP has said about the T3Cs and their plans for them puts them pretty solidly in the region I noted above.

So while this is certainly speculation, it's pretty well informed speculation and that's a long way from "anything goes" or not having any idea. We have an idea, it's just a fairly vague one, but it's better supported by the available evidence than anything else we've got so far.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#620 - 2017-05-04 04:17:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
4 - is absurd to rebalance to T1, Nay or T2 equivalent. Why not just do away with them altogether.

The proper and logical response is to adjust them to be in line with T3 destroyers. Redo the entire T3C system to have switchable modes like T3D's. Remove subsystems entirely.

Currently T3 are not OP but hey if they must be changed they should be changed to something worthwhile to fly. The only thing OP about T3 (and all the other OP ships like Orthrus etc) is the fitting of BS sized mods which have silly fitting requirements. I can stick 4 battleship sized plates on a cruiser ffs.


It makes far more sense to keep the subsystems and all the time, effort, art, and economic investment by players more or less intact rather than re-do the ships completely.

This claim that fitting oversized mods is what makes these ships "OP" is ridiculous. Even without fitting LSEs or 1600 plates T3Cs have almost Battlecruiser levels of EHP and base stats. Being able to fit larger modules is an intentional part of the subcap balance and design, and you've provided no rational, evidence, or argument for why this is somehow inherently a problem.

Also CCP have flatly stated, repeatedly, that T3 ships are supposed to be roughly equivalent to Navy Faction in terms of performance but more flexible. This has the secondary effect of inherently making them a bit stronger than Navy ships. They're not supposed to exactly mirror any ship class in terms of performance, in any way. That's entirely Salvos' idea of what he thinks the ships should be like, but I don't believe he was referring specifically to that with #4 on his list.

Yes please quote these repeated statements that T3C are supposed to be equiv to Navy Faction.

Also unless you missed the years and years of Tengu being bleh for PvP and then suddenly being able to tank small to medium fleets I point you to the introduction of battleship sized cap batteries and large and X-large boosters.

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..... :)