These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#641 - 2017-05-05 15:13:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Cade Windstalker:
You've written a lot of critique on the views of others, but have not yet presented a coherent, comprehensive and exhaustive option yourself.

Clearly you are very opinionated on the issue and know what you do/don't think works as you've addressed everyone else's proposal at great length, time and time again.



What is YOUR proposal for T3C changes?


Please also consider the 30page background against which you make your proposal, as you have been constantly involved in critiquing everyone else.

Give us the chance too, reciprocally and fairly, to critique your own proposal on this important issue.
Keno Skir
#642 - 2017-05-05 15:31:14 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Cade Windstalker:
You've written a lot of critique on the views of others, but have not yet presented a coherent, comprehensive and exhaustive option yourself.

Clearly you are very opinionated on the issue and know what you do/dont think works.



What is YOUR proposal for T3C changes?


Please also consider the 30page background against which you make your proposal, as you have been constantly involved in critiquing everyone else.

Give us the chance too, reciprocally and fairly, to critique your proposal.


None of your proposals matter. This is all just aggressive theory crafting and calling each other out on how wrong they are.

CCP aren't watching this space, and i'd be willing to bet NONE of you are anywhere close.

It's my opinion that all 4 T3 should have their tank nerfed substantially and DPS a bit (tho each one would have to be assessed separately). With that said, CCP will do whatever they want and i look forward to all the sweet sweet distress from who ever gets most angry Pirate
Salvos Rhoska
#643 - 2017-05-05 15:34:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Keno Skir wrote:
Snip

>CCP doesnt care
>None of your proposals matter.
>MY PROPOSAL IS XXX!

No. Cmon, man.

Im drunk too bro on a weekend, but step aside for a minute and let people answer.


I asked Cade Windstalker for his proposal, as he has been critiquing everyone else's without posting his own.
You posted yours. Done. Ive posted mine. Done.

Now wait for his.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#644 - 2017-05-05 16:04:17 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its not my job to educate you about EvE but I'll humour you with a question. You get a cookie if you get it right.

In 2016, What battleship sized module had its fitting drastically reduced, had its cap bonuses significantly increased and had a resist to cap drain added that enabled it to he fitted to Tengus making them largely immune to no bonused nueting and enable the Tengu to pump out in excess of 2000 DPS tank with 80 - 90% resists while being cap stable at around 70%??

Its a tough one so I'll give you a few weeks.


The Tengu has always been able to fit a large tank, the cap battery changes helped a bit, but the general effect there was pretty clearly intentional on CCP's part, considering they actually lowered the fittings from their initial proposal in response to player feedback.

Also absolutely nothing changed with the L or XL Shield Boosters, so I'm still not sure what you're talking about there.

Beyond that that doesn't even affect the majority of Tengu fits beyond PvE, where they're still getting outcompeted by the Rattlesnake and Gila, and a few solo fits that while hilarious aren't the worst abuse of the Tengu by far.

Overall this still looks like you trying to twist the facts to fit your narrative. You had about half a point with the Cap Batteries but the other half just kinda dropped off somewhere and died. Large Cap Batteries aren't what's making the Tengu OP, and they've had little effect on the other T3Cs that I've seen.

So please, try again if you want to try and justify this little pet crusade of yours.

Love it. Go take a look at my alt L DOPA's Regengu loss on Zkill vs NC. My ship survived a fleet of HACs, standard T3s, and various assorted other faction ships then they dropped a Rag on it, still didn't die, finally died after dropping the second super.

Tengus could never do that until they changed things so it could fit easily the BS booster and cap battery. Tengu had a very good tank prior to the buff for PvE, after the buff it became insanely OP. They didn't change the Tengu they changed its ability to fit BS sized mods

Therefore it is the oversized mods and not the hull that makes it OP.

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..... :)

Salvos Rhoska
#645 - 2017-05-05 16:18:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Therefore it is the oversized mods and not the hull that makes it OP.


I tend to agree with this, and this can be mitigated by CPU/PG changes on T3Cs.
Oversized modules should be very impractical on T3C hulls.
That alone will mitigate much of T3C OPnessnregarding effective tank.

Reading between the lines of this thread, Im concerned by what some participants seem to be unilaterally driving towards.

Though they present their interest as a T3C nerf, they want it nerfed only so that it still facilitates their intended use,or lack of, for T3C. They also want it nerfed so that it wrecks the WH economy which none of them recognise as an direct result.

Even though I pointed out the impact on WH economy, they avoid responding to that concern.

WH economy depends on gas/sleeper salvage for production of T3 hulls and subsystems.
NS does not. Instead, NS moon mining supplies the T2 market.

See what Im saying?
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#646 - 2017-05-05 16:18:38 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
An-Nur wrote:
Snip

1) Sig increase is fine, especially to incentivize HACs. Note: Musnt overnerf the Loki for Minmatar typical sig/speed characteristics. Halo implants already suck enough. I finally trained Cybernetics V and only dropped like 5 meters in sig for a full medium Halo set. That sucked, but my own fault for not running the numbers...

2) I agree Navy equivalence is an over-nerf. Not only considering SP involved, but also practically what content the ship can run, and being in all cases inferior to a T2, even in the few roles it can emulate that Navies cant anyways.

Thats why I outlined a proposal for rough T2 equivalency that doesnt overstep T2 roles in my previous posts.

3) The Stratios, as SoE ships are overall, are an anomaly. Not just because of their bonuses, but because they cost less SP to use. BUT. The Stratios is only one drone/energy/armor covops explorer cruiser. It makes sense that T3Cs should offer an alternative and superior non-drone/energy/armor covops explorer, albeit at greater SP cost and risk of SP loss.

4) Exactly.
If you want a HACs stats without SP loss, use a HAC.
If you want a HIC, use a HIC. T3Cs cant bubble.
If you want a Force Recon, use it. T3Cs shouldnt be able to covert cyno.
If you want a Combat Recon, use it. T3Cs cant DScan immunity.
If you want a Logi, use T2 Logi. T3Cs wont have equivalent rep bonuses.
If you want a Command Cruiser, use a T3C. No option exists otherwise.
If you want a T3C explorer, use any 4 of them instead of Stratios, albeit at more SP cost and risk of SP loss.

Above is all T2 cruisers and roles covered without any overlap.

And all this without:
-Wrecking the WH gas/sleeper salvage economy
-Any T3C fit overstepping a T2 role without commensurate sacrifice.

Fair. Simple. Easy.


I'm starting to buy your suggestions on this. (other than the Simple/easy part... the computer programmer in me say that finding the balance to make it work the way you suggest will be quite difficult). This would put the benefits of T3C as a ship that can be refit to run various content in WH's or solo-null roams... or as a ship that can merge a couple of roles to have a multifaceted ship that can do two things at an "okay" level as opposed to the T2 variants that do each thing better.

The main resistance will be those who want to be able to run 10/10 DED's in their Tengus. In my opinion being able to do that was the biggest problem with T3's... you're running a site intended to be run by multiple battleships in a single cruiser.

I'd still say if you don't put the base combat stats (tank/damage) a tick below the HAC, there might still be many who won't use HAC's due to other features you get with the T3 that aren't directly tank/damage related that still impact PvP and PvE to the great betterment of the T3C... but I wouldn't be opposed to starting with this plan and seeing how it works.


Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#647 - 2017-05-05 16:47:31 UTC
Scialt wrote:

I'd still say if you don't put the base combat stats (tank/damage) a tick below the HAC, there might still be many who won't use HAC's...


I think it's nearly undebatable that it has to be a 'tick' below the HAC, otherwise people will just use T3C for everything. But beyond that, depending on the definition of 'tick,' it might have to be several ticks below HAC. I mean if 'tick' means 5%, nobody's gonna choose a HAC over a T3C because it's 5% better in base combat stats.
Salvos Rhoska
#648 - 2017-05-05 16:52:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scialt wrote:
Snip

1) As I outlined in my breakdown of T2 classes before, T3Cs can be re-balanced to fit between them so that they dont overstep any T2 role.

2) Running 10/10s will go away. This was a "privilege" of T3Cs running the risk in deep hostile space, but the existing T3C tank stats for that purpose are irreconcilable compared to that builds uses elsewhere. It has to go. I think everyone sees that.

3) All things considered, HACs is what it boils down to, as the hardest common denominator that resists change for T3Cs. Especially since T3C pilots need HAC stats to fulfill cost effective PvE content, and inversely fleets have to choose between T3C and HACs.

Imo, as long as T3Cs still carry SP loss, they are balanced against equivalent HACs.
Because of the cost of SP, either as time or via injectors, this is always still a constant and universal cost.

Given the choice between a T3C that might cost me SP, and an equivalent HAC without the SP loss, and I have no intent to refit for another role, Id choose the HAC every-time. Who wouldnt? Just makes sense.

4) If the balance changes go through as I propose, I would rather fly a HAC in PvP than a T3C, because I dont risk the additional cost of SP loss, and still get the rough equivalent output, and dont need the T3Cs versatility to fulfill other roles that existing T2 ships perform better anyways.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#649 - 2017-05-05 16:57:30 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Scialt wrote:

I'd still say if you don't put the base combat stats (tank/damage) a tick below the HAC, there might still be many who won't use HAC's...


I think it's nearly undebatable that it has to be a 'tick' below the HAC, otherwise people will just use T3C for everything. But beyond that, depending on the definition of 'tick,' it might have to be several ticks below HAC. I mean if 'tick' means 5%, nobody's gonna choose a HAC over a T3C because it's 5% better in base combat stats.



I'm not sure where the balance is. If actual applied damage and tank are 5% less many will use HAC's for PVE (in high-sec). Those percentages matter when you're not really risking ship loss... and high-sec PVE has a pretty low ship loss rate. In Null, people would probably take the 5% hit and use a T3 because of the nullifcation and covert ops ability to travel and then refit for the PVE.

The "tick" has to be big enough that whatever benefits of the variability of fitting for the T3 don't make it a better damage dealer/tanker than the HAC's are. It can be better for PvP... but not in a pure "slog it out with no e-war" matchup. The HAC has to be better at that.

And I know that's vague. That's why this won't be an easy thing for CCP to get right.
Salvos Rhoska
#650 - 2017-05-05 17:08:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Snip.


Answer me this.


If you have no intent to refit, and you want a HAC.
What will you choose?
A) Fly a HAC.
B) Fly a T3C HAC emulator that costs you more, and cost you even more to replace (let alone finding the f"""ing subsytems for sale) in SP loss on explosion.

Isnt A) the obvious choice?

Less cost, less risk, easier to fit, roughly same output.

Choice A) all the way.

This is a non-issue, eh?
Salvos Rhoska
#651 - 2017-05-05 17:30:34 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Snip

Even if T3Cs equal HACs in stats, T3Cs will still incur SP loss on explosion.

If T3C/HACs are equal for performance, why the hell would you choose a T3C over a HAC, for equal performance, when the T3C costs you more and risks SP loss?

The HAC is obviously more cost efficient for the same output as befitting of a HAC than the more expensive, SP loss risking, refittable T3C ship for which you have no intent of refitting.
Cade Windstalker
#652 - 2017-05-05 17:54:43 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Love it. Go take a look at my alt L DOPA's Regengu loss on Zkill vs NC. My ship survived a fleet of HACs, standard T3s, and various assorted other faction ships then they dropped a Rag on it, still didn't die, finally died after dropping the second super.

Tengus could never do that until they changed things so it could fit easily the BS booster and cap battery. Tengu had a very good tank prior to the buff for PvE, after the buff it became insanely OP. They didn't change the Tengu they changed its ability to fit BS sized mods

Therefore it is the oversized mods and not the hull that makes it OP.


Except that no other hull can do anything close to that even fitting blinged out Faction, Deadspace, and Officer mods.

It's the ship, not the oversized modules that's causing the problem. CCP have balanced these ships and the fitting requirements of the modules to include being able to up-fit ships with larger mods. That's why the PG and CPU of ships and their guns don't progress in a linear manner and Battleships tend to sink a bit more of their total PG and CPU into guns than smaller hulls do.

As to your alleged example, there is no kill on zKillboard matching that description. There's three Tengu losses, on L DOPA's killboard only two of which fit the fitting description given.

There's this one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/56277280/

Died to Red Alliance, 8 pilots on the KM, about half tackle, 1 NM, 1 Slephnir, 2 Navy Cruisers.

Then there's this one to NC.: https://zkillboard.com/kill/56294942/

That one has two *supercarriers* on it, but only 12 pilots total and zero Rags. Most of the DPS coming from an Aeon.

Again, the issue is with the ships no the modules. No other hull can do anything close to that, oversized mods or no, even a HIC can't tank that well even if fit for basically nothing else. Oversized mods are just fine on every other hull in the game and quite a few rely on them to perform at a reasonable level against larger ships, let alone against ships of their own class, whether due to restrictive slot layouts or the ships simply assuming large mods (HICS, for one).
Cade Windstalker
#653 - 2017-05-05 18:01:42 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Cade Windstalker:
You've written a lot of critique on the views of others, but have not yet presented a coherent, comprehensive and exhaustive option yourself.

Clearly you are very opinionated on the issue and know what you do/don't think works as you've addressed everyone else's proposal at great length, time and time again.



What is YOUR proposal for T3C changes?


Please also consider the 30page background against which you make your proposal, as you have been constantly involved in critiquing everyone else.

Give us the chance too, reciprocally and fairly, to critique your own proposal on this important issue.


I really don't feel the need to. I'm not working for CCP, they're not paying me to consult on their work, and they absolutely have their own plans which are unlikely to change if I put the effort into presenting something comprehensive. I'd much rather discuss specific cases I'd like to see addressed and the general place I'd like to see the ships land.

When CCP present their proposal I'll critique it the same way I have everything else in this thread, and if things go the way I expect you can expect a few rather exhaustive posts from me on why I feel SP loss is a bad mechanic on these ships.

Generally speaking:

I think the ships shouldn't be as good as their respective T2 counterparts at any one role, but you should be able to fit multiple roles on one hull while doing none overly well.

I'm probably most concerned about how the tank subsystems are going to be balanced and are going to interact with the specialist subsystems, since "Almost as good as X but much tankier" is a bit part of why the T3Cs overshadow non-HAC ships as well as the HACs themselves.

I really want to see the SP loss go away.

I'm almost certain you're not going to like or appreciate this answer, but I just don't feel like it's worth my time to put together an exhaustive and comprehensive proposal of changes when I know that's not what CCP are looking for in terms of feedback, and the actual utility is pretty middling. The only reason I see for doing so is to be able to brag about it later if I guess close to what CCP actually end up going with, and I'm not particularly interested in that so much as these ships being *finally* balanced well against the other hulls they compete with.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#654 - 2017-05-05 18:12:59 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Snip

1) As I outlined in my breakdown of T2 classes before, T3Cs can be re-balanced to fit between them so that they dont overstep any T2 role.

2) Running 10/10s will go away. This was a "privilege" of T3Cs running the risk in deep hostile space, but the existing T3C tank stats for that purpose are irreconcilable compared to that builds uses elsewhere. It has to go. I think everyone sees that.

3) All things considered, HACs is what it boils down to, as the hardest common denominator that resists change for T3Cs. Especially since T3C pilots need HAC stats to fulfill cost effective PvE content, and inversely fleets have to choose between T3C and HACs.

Imo, as long as T3Cs still carry SP loss, they are balanced against equivalent HACs.
Because of the cost of SP, either as time or via injectors, this is always still a constant and universal cost.

Given the choice between a T3C that might cost me SP, and an equivalent HAC without the SP loss, and I have no intent to refit for another role, Id choose the HAC every-time. Who wouldnt? Just makes sense.

4) If the balance changes go through as I propose, I would rather fly a HAC in PvP than a T3C, because I dont risk the additional cost of SP loss, and still get the rough equivalent output, and dont need the T3Cs versatility to fulfill other roles that existing T2 ships perform better anyways.


I'm on board with everything except the HAC comparison. I'm not sure I disagree with you on that... but I haven't bought in yet.

For me in a pure 1 v 1 comparison with neither ship fitting e-war... just sdamage and tank... the HAC has to be the superior choice. Not by a wide margin... but by a small amount. If it is actually equal, the increased utility for people who are either running HS PVE (little chance of ship loss) or high skill point PVP (no worries about SP loss) would cause the HAC to remain fairly unused.
Salvos Rhoska
#655 - 2017-05-05 18:32:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I really don't feel the need to.


Yet you feel the need to post essays critiquing everyone else's proposals.
None of us are working for CCP either.

That doesnt add up.

Put your money where your mouth is.
Ante up, and post what you're proposal is for T3C change.

You presume to critique what others stick their neck out on.
Lets us see what you have so we can do the same.
Put your cards on the table for us to see.

Quid pro quo.
You are not delivering.
We have. You havent.

Post what your proposal is for T3C change.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#656 - 2017-05-05 19:46:23 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I really don't feel the need to.


Yet you feel the need to post essays critiquing everyone else's proposals.
None of us are working for CCP either.

That doesnt add up.

Put your money where your mouth is.
Ante up, and post what you're proposal is for T3C change.

You presume to critique what others stick their neck out on.
Lets us see what you have so we can do the same.
Put your cards on the table for us to see.

Quid pro quo.
You are not delivering.
We have. You havent.

Post what your proposal is for T3C change.


If you don't want people to tell their opinions, don't post on the forums. We don't owe you or anyone else anything. If your ideas are bad, I'm going to say it.

Wormholer for life.

Cade Windstalker
#657 - 2017-05-06 00:31:55 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I really don't feel the need to.


Yet you feel the need to post essays critiquing everyone else's proposals.
None of us are working for CCP either.

That doesnt add up.

Put your money where your mouth is.
Ante up, and post what you're proposal is for T3C change.

You presume to critique what others stick their neck out on.
Lets us see what you have so we can do the same.
Put your cards on the table for us to see.

Quid pro quo.
You are not delivering.
We have. You havent.

Post what your proposal is for T3C change.


Regardless of your views on the matter I am not required to have a proposal of my own to point out flaws or potential issues in the ideas of others.

As I intimated earlier putting together a comprehensive proposal even without specific or fine tuned numbers would be more time and effort than I care to spend. In short it's not worth my time.

I'd much rather use that time to play the game and any serious time spent on proactive work on anything T3C rebalance related is going to be devoted to a comprehensive argument against SP loss on the hulls.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#658 - 2017-05-06 04:56:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Love it. Go take a look at my alt L DOPA's Regengu loss on Zkill vs NC. My ship survived a fleet of HACs, standard T3s, and various assorted other faction ships then they dropped a Rag on it, still didn't die, finally died after dropping the second super.

Tengus could never do that until they changed things so it could fit easily the BS booster and cap battery. Tengu had a very good tank prior to the buff for PvE, after the buff it became insanely OP. They didn't change the Tengu they changed its ability to fit BS sized mods

Therefore it is the oversized mods and not the hull that makes it OP.


Except that no other hull can do anything close to that even fitting blinged out Faction, Deadspace, and Officer mods.

It's the ship, not the oversized modules that's causing the problem. CCP have balanced these ships and the fitting requirements of the modules to include being able to up-fit ships with larger mods. That's why the PG and CPU of ships and their guns don't progress in a linear manner and Battleships tend to sink a bit more of their total PG and CPU into guns than smaller hulls do.

As to your alleged example, there is no kill on zKillboard matching that description. There's three Tengu losses, on L DOPA's killboard only two of which fit the fitting description given.

There's this one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/56277280/

Died to Red Alliance, 8 pilots on the KM, about half tackle, 1 NM, 1 Slephnir, 2 Navy Cruisers.

Then there's this one to NC.: https://zkillboard.com/kill/56294942/

That one has two *supercarriers* on it, but only 12 pilots total and zero Rags. Most of the DPS coming from an Aeon.

Again, the issue is with the ships no the modules. No other hull can do anything close to that, oversized mods or no, even a HIC can't tank that well even if fit for basically nothing else. Oversized mods are just fine on every other hull in the game and quite a few rely on them to perform at a reasonable level against larger ships, let alone against ships of their own class, whether due to restrictive slot layouts or the ships simply assuming large mods (HICS, for one).

That's still two supers, I lasted about 10 mins in that fight and even got a kill. Tengu can only do that because of the bs sized mods.

And yes other ships can do it. I jumped a onyx into a gang of 17 Svipul on L Dopa with same tank setup and killed two before the rest ran away then chased them around 7RM. The killmails are there too.

Onyx

[Onyx, L DOPA's Onyx]
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Damage Control II

Gist X-Type EM Ward Field
Pith X-Type Large Shield Booster
Corelum C-Type 10MN Afterburner
Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Republic Fleet Large Cap Battery

CONCORD Warp Disruption Field Generator, Focused Warp Disruption Script
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile

Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier II
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier II

lost a few of these soloing but never to anything less than a medium fleet in null. You're invulnerable unless you into serious nuets.

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..... :)

Salvos Rhoska
#659 - 2017-05-06 06:23:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Cade Windstalker wrote:
any serious time spent on proactive work on anything T3C rebalance related is going to be devoted to a comprehensive argument against SP loss on the hulls.


Why?

SP loss has no effect on the stats, subsystems or performance of a T3C.


Youve dedicated a great deal of time and effort to critiquing others on many T3C issues.
You are probably the most constant and lengthiest poster in this thread.
Yet your only actual concern is SP loss? That doesnt add up.
Salvos Rhoska
#660 - 2017-05-06 06:29:17 UTC

Wander Prian wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Post what your proposal is for T3C change.


If you don't want people to tell their opinions, don't post on the forums. We don't owe you or anyone else anything. If your ideas are bad, I'm going to say it.


Its easy to sit on the sidelines critiquing everyone else, without putting in your own ante.
Its perfectly reasonable to ask you or anyone else to show their proposal.