These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#681 - 2017-05-08 13:42:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Continued... ^

TLDR:
-SP loss is a core mechanic on T3Cs that offsets the practical value of versatility from refitting subsystems.

-T3Cs are not an optimal choice for newer players. They are an optimal choice for vets who already have the wide, developed skill set to capitalize on the versatility a T3C offers in 1 hull, IF they want a ship that can refit between roles. Newer players lack that wide and developed skill set. They are better off in T2s/Pirate Cruisers till they have developed further, at less cost and no risk of SP loss.

-What is important in this change, is T3Cs do not outperform/overlap with existing T2 specialty roles. As outlined, most of them are already not overlapped due to T2 peculiarities that T3Cs cant emulate (or vice-versa), and the rest can be reconciled with subsystem bonuses lesser than dedicated T2 craft at V (and the T2 also incurring no SP loss risk and at lesser isk cost generally, nor having to hunt down subsystems for purchase).

-Removing SP loss only benefits older players. There is ZERO benefit to newer players over old from removing SP loss.

-The argument that newer players would benefit from no SP loss, as they have smaller existing SP pools, is facile.
If they cant afford the SP loss, they shouldnt be flying T3Cs (especially since they likely cant support its versatility with their narrow skill sets), and should be flying T1/NavyT2/Pirate Cruisers instead.

-Golden Rule: Do not fly what you cant afford to lose.
That applies to newer players and especially to T3Cs as well.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#682 - 2017-05-08 13:58:03 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Continued... ^

TLDR:
-SP loss is a core mechanic on T3Cs that offsets the practical value of versatility from refitting subsystems.


SP loss was put in to try to justify T3C power. Remove that power and you have no excuse to keep SP loss.

It hurts poorer and newer players a lot more than it does the older players and doesn't work at limiting T3C use among alliances like mine because we can simply bypass it. It doesn't work and it won't be needed after the nerfs.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

-Removing SP loss only benefits older players. There is ZERO benefit to newer players over old from removing SP loss.


I just trained up citadel cruise missile specialisation V because I have nothing better to train for. I can also throw money into skill injectors because I have much better income than a new player. SP loss benefits older players because we don't need to be training into new ships because we generally have everything already and we are far richer. Newer player are far more hurt with SP loss than older players. This is Malcanis' Law in action, SP loss is of benefit to older players because it limits newer players ability to use T3C while having no impact on older players because we can avoid it.
Salvos Rhoska
#683 - 2017-05-08 14:37:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Snip.


1) "SP loss was put in to try to justify T3C power."

SP loss is not there to offset the OPness of T3Cs as they are now.
SP loss is there to offset the subsystem refit versatility, and should remain so post-change.

T3Cs are unique with a refittable subsystem mechanic, they are also unique with an SP loss mechanic.
These two mechanics are designed to counterbalance each other.

2) " SP loss is of benefit to older players because it limits newer players ability to use T3C while having no impact on older players because we can avoid it"

Removing SP loss would only benefit older players, as I detailed in my previous post.
Older players would no longer incur a injector malus to replace lost SP as compared to newer players doing the same.
This is the mathematical, factual, outcome when comparing equity between SP loss existing as now, and it being removed.

3) Post-change as I propose it, newer players will be incentivized to fly T2s and Pirate Cruisers rather than T3C cruisers for which a) they dont have the skill sets to support its versatility b) T2s are less to train into for a specific role c) open crosstraining options well beyond T3Cs d) cost less, dont involve finding subsystems for purchase, and dont involve SP loss on destruction.

4) Newer players shouldnt be flying T3Cs. They should be flying specialised cruisers for their purpose, until they have the wide/developed SP base to practically effect the potential of a T3C versatile hull, and till they have the wealth/SP to absorb the loss of a T3C.

THE WHOLE NOTION THAT T3Cs SHOULD BE NEWER PLAYER FRIENDLY MAKES NO SENSE.
WHY WOULD THEY THEN CHOOSE T2s OR PIRATE CRUISERS?

5) What is important, is that T3Cs do not overshadow T2s. I have detailed that before. T3Cs should be skill intensive T2 equivalent multitools. An advanced Cruiser class, that though it does not overshadow existing T2 roles, offers exchange between roles (if you have a wide/developed skill set), albeit at risk of SP loss.

6) You cant "avoid" SP loss anymore than a newer player can.
Its one subsystem level per loss. For everyone.

7) Why fly a T3C, if its output does not exceed T2s, and incurs SP loss, unless you want a refittable ship?

8) Your goal was removing T3Cs from your fleets.
If T3Cs do not exceed T2/Pirate Cruiser performance in any role, and incur SP loss, why would you field T3Cs?
Problem solved.

9) Removing SP loss from T3Cs would only incentivize T3C use among older players, whom you already state can better absorb the loss as is and whom have wider/developed SP pools to exploit its versatility. Removing SP loss from T3Cs would make them even cheaper to lose for older players as compared to new players, compared to with SP loss.

Your goal contradicts itself. Doesn't make sense.

The only net benefit of removing SP loss on T3Cs would be to reduce the cost in time/isk of T3C replacement to older players whom already have deeper pockets and a wider/developed/better skill basis to exploit T3Cs versatility in the first place.

What you propose, is a perversion and misapplication of Malcanis' Law.

10) That you trained Citadel Cruise Missiles Specialization V, is neither here nor there.
Certainly has nothing to do with T3C rebalance.
An-Nur
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#684 - 2017-05-08 16:04:50 UTC
Unless there is something 'special' about t3c's I can't see the point of sp loss. Merely being able to swap subs/rigs doesn't cut it for me. If they are sub hacs, and sub ew recon bonuses, they're just another cruiser, and for that reason sp loss doesn't make sense to me.

I'm really hoping CCP can pull one out of the hat with this rebalance. T3C's were a great idea, and offer(ed) up great possibility for individual design/use. I'm hoping they can bring about something closer to their original intention, and not just a cruiser that can just change subs.
Salvos Rhoska
#685 - 2017-05-08 16:26:19 UTC
An-Nur wrote:
Unless there is something 'special' about t3c's I can't see the point of sp loss.

They are special:
A) Cos refits
B) Cloak/nulli
C) Command bursts
D) Exploration/probing aside from Stratios
E) Hybrid builds
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#686 - 2017-05-08 16:30:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Salvos I just want to throw this out here really quick. To your point about being "more skill intensive" you realize that's a load of crap right?
Training all of a single T3C's subsystems to 5 would take my alt just over 17 days (its remapped for int/mem atm).

Are you forgetting these are all x1 multipliers? Are you forgetting all HACs also require lvl 5 cruiser, which means you can't use that in your argument.

SC skill has a x5 multiplier.
HAC has a x6.
Recon has a x6.
Logi has a x6.
HIC has a x6. (unrelated really but mentioning)

SC is by no means detrimental if it is not trained to 5 unless you make heavy use of overheating.
HAC directly effects your performance while piloting every HAC.

Therefore, comparatively you must compare the HAC skill itself to the subsystem skills. Therefore taking SC to 4 and all subs to 5, still puts you at less of a train than HAC 5. When you factor in training all races SC skills to 4 you come out with slightly more training required out of T3Cs. If you're ocd about the 5% overheat, then you are correct, it will take longer. But again, if were comparing a single hull to anther that still only comes out to about a 2 week difference. If you factor in Recon/Logi then cruisers pull ahead again, but this time by more than a month of training.

Modules skills are another thing you cannot factor in when looking at train times of T2C vs T3C. Since to use that role on the T2 variants are identical to those on the T3C...

So in the end, depends on what you want to compare. Because if you're wanting to look at overlapping roles, you're wrong. It's actually very similar in training (ignoring HIC, since T3C have no comparison).


I just don't see you're argument on skill requirements, not even a little. If it was about SP loss, then I'm with Cade, I want to see this removed. It's nothing more than a deterrent for players new and old to fly the ship. Nobody likes having to retrain skills, no matter if you're at 20m sp or 200m.
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#687 - 2017-05-08 17:04:33 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
...


On SP loss. I say this with all due respect to you. baltec1 is 100% correct on who the mechanic benefits, and who it doesn't. I know characters as old as baltec1 who rake in billions of ISK per month literally without trying - like without batting an eye. They can do it AFK, in their sleep. They have ISK coming out of their asses. They sh!t ISK. They sneeze ISK.

As a younger character, I remember thinking how lucky I was that I found a way to make 30 million ISK in a single day, if the stars aligned correctly (relic/data sites in wormholes). Now I make that in a single tick running incursions. I remember when I literally couldn't obey the rule "don't fly what you can't afford to lose" because I was so poor I couldn't afford to lose anything. ANY loss was a huge loss. Even now - today - I'm only to the level where I can make 1 billion ISK in a month (enough to PLEX, if no other expenses are forthcoming). But I have to work for it - like every day.

I don't know how it is in Finland, but in the USA, regulations hurt small business, not big business. In fact, contrary to what many people believe, big business not only supports more regulations, they actually foster them, paying congressmen and whoever else to write them up. This is because big business knows it can laugh off the costs and burdens of such regulations, while small business cannot. In other words, it's a way to limit competition.

In short, I can understand why you WANT the SP loss mechanic to remain. But I don't understand why you argue that it hurts rich older characters like baltec1 by keeping it, and it benefits them by removing it. There has been no reason presented why this is true, and every reason points to this not being true. There is no doubt that characters like baltec1 could care less how many SPs they lose due to losing T3Cs. baltec1 would laugh and either just buy injectors on the spot to replace the SPs (without even checking the price), or chances are he has already horded 100 injectors which are just sitting there in a hangar. Or he'd just put whatever useless unwanted skill he's currently skilling on hold while he skills T3C for a week.

I'm not remotely close to baltec1 in terms of SPs, richness, etc. But even I laugh off what used to be crippling losses for me. Ships that would take me a whole month to replace in the past, I now just consider to be disposable, and I don't care if I lose them.

However let's compare me and him with SP loss. First off, there are still a TON of skills I actually need and am actively skilling all the time. I don't even have maxed-out tank skills yet, maxed powergrid/CPU skills yet, etc. - and I've poured a TON of time and energy into skilling those up. If I had to buy an injector right now, it would cost me a large percentage of the price of a PLEX I'm trying to earn the ISK for. Or I'd have to put a skill that I need on hold while I reskill the one I just lost. baltec1 would just laugh if he lost a T3C. This just seems obvious.

I think it makes sense to be suspicious of baltec1's motives. Normally, the rich and powerful take care of the rich and powerful. They do what benefits them. Their motives have to be analyzed and scrutinized, and the old Roman question "who benefits?" must be asked of everything. But on who is hurt by the SP loss mechanic, I think he speaks the truth. What's his motivation? Maybe he's tired of everything always benefiting rich old guys. Maybe he finds it boring.

By the way, I'm not part of any alliance or corporation as you can see. I have no reason to want to help big null sec alliances, or hurt the little guy (quite the opposite). Also, I actually don't care whether the SP loss mechanic is kept or removed. In fact I think it's a nerf to keep it, so it is 100% fine with me if it stays. My point simply addresses who the SP loss mechanic hurts and who it doesn't hurt. If you care about that question, I think the answer is easy to see.
Cade Windstalker
#688 - 2017-05-09 02:56:48 UTC
Salvos Rhoska

Not really my point with A. It's not that I want them to be a new player ship, it's that I think that any mechanic that adversely punishes newer players compared to older ones is a bad one. Yes, an older player is going to be more skilled than a newer player, and will have other advantages, but that's different from a newer player feeling disincentivized from flying a ship because it will materially harm his advancement if he loses it.

1&2

This I just have to disagree with here. The subsystem skills are 4 days and change each on an optimal remap to get to 5. The main ship skill is a 5x where as every T2 Cruiser skill is a 6x, so it takes longer to train. On top of that the actual racial strategic cruiser skill (RSC skill) is not nearly as important to get to 5 as the various T2 Cruiser skills since the only benefit to the RSC skill is a 5% bonus in module heat damage taken, which is on the whole a much more minor bonus compared to tank, or damage, or any of the actual subsystem bonuses, all of which can be gotten to 5 in about 20 and a half days.

Throw in the Strategic Cruiser skill to 4 and you have a total training time of 24.5 days.

It takes 27 days to get any of the T2 Cruiser skills to 5.

Even the prerequisites aren't that bad, considering most of them are basic fitting skills, where as the T2 Hulls require things like Energy Grid Upgrades 5 on the HACs, Cloaking on the Recons, and both Signature Analysis and Long Range Targeting to 5 on the Logistics Cruisers, all skills that many players comfortably leave at 4 for months in favor of higher priority skills.

Oh, and with only 4 subsystems that's 4 days off the total for the T3Cs.

#3

Yes, but you still only need the one hull, where as if you were to train into each T2 Cruiser plus that base of skills you would have an extra couple of months of training on top of the basic skills in order to get into just the three main T2 Cruiser Hulls. Plus you don't actually need to be able to do everything a T3C offers to fly it effectively starting out. For example someone looking to fly a T3C in fleet ops can forgo Cloaking starting out quite easily, where as Recon Cruisers require it.

#3 the next one

See above for why I disagree that these ships take more training to fly.

On top of that even if they *did* that does't make them "the pinnacle" of anything. They're supposed to offer another option, not stand above the other options.

#4

See above again.

To add a little to that. That you don't need to be able to use every subsystem is part of why they're good. You don't need to train everything, you can train the hull and the subsystems and then train into individual roles to see what you like without having to invest in all of the prerequisites and other requirements for the full T2 hulls.

Skipping 5, it's pretty much repeating previous stuff.

#6

I kind of just disagree with all of this. T3Cs shouldn't be T2 equivalent, they should offer more options but worse in-role performance, and possibly some unique combination roles as a result. IMO all of these things make them more attractive for newer and intermediate players as opposed to older ones who can push a specialized hull to its limits.

Quote:
7) Cruiser status quo vs post-change:
-HIC: No T3C equivalent. T3Cs cannot use bubbles.
-Combat Recon: No T3C equivalent. T3Cs cannot be DScan immune.
-Force Recon: Imo remove cynos from T3Cs, to avoid super penetrating cloak/null/cyno T3C fits.
-Command Cruiser: No T2 equivalent. Not an issue.
-T2 Logi: T3Cs have less repair bonuses.
-HAC: T3Cs have less PvP fit suitability.
-Exploration: T3Cs offer alternatives to Stratios.


HICs, sure.

Recons not so much. The DScan immunity isn't as defining a trait as the EWar power that both Recon classes share and that's always been where T3Cs end up stepping on Recons because they bring way more tank and almost equivalent EWar.

There's still a serious risk of them stepping on Command BCs though, and they did before CCP nerfed the link strength in favor of more link options.

T3Cs actually have a repair bonus but don't have range. Almost everyone I've talked to considers this a good example of T3C balance because they're not actively stepping on Logi, they're offering a different option.

HACs: This just seems really vague. What is "PvP fit suitability" even supposed to mean here? Less tank? Less Gank? What?

Stratios isn't likely to get stepped on but serves as a pretty good bench mark for a utility combo's power.



Let me see if I can explain this a different way.

In real life someone can be fined $10,000. If they're poor that can be crippling, if they're rich they barely feel it. Even if it's a percentage fine the same thing applies because of what percentage of someone's total income is disposable.

What I'm saying here is that the same thing applies to SP loss. If I have 20mil SP the loss of half a million stings a lot more than if I've got 100m SP because that 500k represents a bigger percentage of my total investment. Further it also cuts more into my "discretionary spending" or in this case future training. Someone who is debating another Carrier skill to 5, or Large Beam Spec 5 doesn't really care about swapping training for a few days, someone working through Advanced Weapon Upgrades 5 does and will feel the sting of the opportunity cost more.

Also at least some of your thinking here is dependent on the idea that T3Cs are going to be equivalent in performance to T2 hulls. That's an assumption, and one that runs counter to the limited information we have from CCP.
Salvos Rhoska
#689 - 2017-05-09 07:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Snip


1) SP loss:
The SP loss itself is the same for everyone.

Replacing it with injectors is currently less efficient for older players, than newer.

If SP loss is removed, this disparity is also removed, and the only equity gained, is by older players whom already have greater wealth to replace the SP loss in the first place.

This means concretely that older players will benefit more from SP loss removal, than newer players.
T3Cs will become proportionately cheaper for older players to replace as a result of SP loss removal, than they will become for newer players.

This runs contrary to the impetus of incentivizing T3Cs for newer players, rather than older ones.
You can argue how significant that is, but you cannot argue that it is not a mathematical fact.

2) T3C equivalency:

The function of T3Cs over T2s, is that T3Cs can perform multiple roles.

When comparing hulls, it doesnt make sense to compare them as less than full V.

For optimal performance from a T2, you want full V skills for that cruisers role.
For optimal performance from a T3C, you want a full V skillset for EACH separate role.

The versatility of a T3C is what makes it a pinnacle T3 cruiser.
It is what differentiates it primarily from T2s, that it can perform multiple roles, whereas T2s are dedicated specialists.
That versatility however is only as effective as the skillsets a player has to enact the options that versatility provides.

Ive outlined several times how this equivalency with T2s can be achieved by adjusting the subsystem bonuses such that they do not exceed the role specific bonuses of those T2 classes that T3Cs somewhat overlap with at V skill.

3) Cade vs baltec1 vs Salvos:

baltec1 wants T3Cs to disappear from his alliances fleets, and replaced by T2s.
Cade wants T3Cs to be newer player friendly.

These objectives are at odds with each other.

baltec1s goal is to reduce proliferation of T3Cs, with T2s filling the gap.
Cades goal is to increase T3C proliferation, rather than people skilling into and using T2s.

My goal is to rebalance T3Cs such that they do not outperform existing T2 specialists at their roles, but offer versatility.
Such that T2s will be preferred for specific roles, and T3Cs the preferred choice IF they want to perform multiple roles, albeit less efficiently than T2 specialists.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#690 - 2017-05-09 08:56:40 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Snip


1) SP loss:
The SP loss itself is the same for everyone.

Replacing it with injectors is currently less efficient for older players, than newer.

If SP loss is removed, this disparity is also removed, and the only equity gained, is by older players whom already have greater wealth to replace the SP loss in the first place.

This means concretely that older players will benefit more from SP loss removal, than newer players.
T3Cs will become proportionately cheaper for older players to replace as a result of SP loss removal, than they will become for newer players.

This runs contrary to the impetus of incentivizing T3Cs for newer players, rather than older ones.
You can argue how significant that is, but you cannot argue that it is not a mathematical fact.



I have the SP and the isk to not care about SP loss and can avoid it very easily.

Newer players are still having to train into a lot of ship and do not have the same level of income as older players so cannot afford to either throw isk at injectors or spend the time training T3C skills again over other things they need.


Newer players are clearly at a much bigger disadvantage than older players in terms of SP loss. There is also no reason at all to keep it from a balance point of view, T3C would be below t2 cruisers in terms of power so why keep a system of punishment that no other ship in this power range has?
Asmodai Xodai
#691 - 2017-05-09 09:42:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Asmodai Xodai
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) SP loss:
The SP loss itself is the same for everyone.


We can try this again, one last time. Then if you can't see it or understand it, we should chalk it up as "something you just can't understand or fathom" and move on.

Yes, the SP loss is the same for everyone. That is also 100% completely irrelevant. The **EFFECT** of the SP loss is **NOT** the same for everyone.

Example:

A rich man has 1 billion US dollars. A poor man living on the street has 100 US dollars. The government decides to tax both of them 99 US dollars. In your words above, the "US dollar loss is the same." Sure it is. But the rich man with 1 billion dollars literally does not notice, or care. The poor man does notice and care - he just had 99% of his wealth removed from him.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#692 - 2017-05-09 10:58:06 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Snip


1) SP loss:
The SP loss itself is the same for everyone.


Its an analogue concept to a regressive tax, which I'm sure wikipedia will help you understand.

Cade Windstalker
#693 - 2017-05-10 01:43:01 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

1) SP loss:
The SP loss itself is the same for everyone.

Replacing it with injectors is currently less efficient for older players, than newer.

If SP loss is removed, this disparity is also removed, and the only equity gained, is by older players whom already have greater wealth to replace the SP loss in the first place.

This means concretely that older players will benefit more from SP loss removal, than newer players.
T3Cs will become proportionately cheaper for older players to replace as a result of SP loss removal, than they will become for newer players.

This runs contrary to the impetus of incentivizing T3Cs for newer players, rather than older ones.
You can argue how significant that is, but you cannot argue that it is not a mathematical fact.


Except that the replaced SP, no matter how it is replaced, still represents a bigger percentage loss to the newer player. If they take that injector and spend it on T3C skills they can't spend it on other skills that they need to advance in the game generally.

Also an older player is more capable of simply not injecting anything and just training the skill back normally. As I've said previously a lot of the T3C pilots I know simply train Attack and Defense to 5 and the others to 4, meaning they have a 3/5ths chance to only have to train ~38k SP rather than ~200k, and they can keep a buffer into Level 5 as well further mitigating the immediate impact.

On top of all of that the newer a player is the more likely they are to lose the ship in the first place.

This is not a matter of absolute cost in SP, it is a matter of opportunity cost, which is *much* greater for a newer player than an older one. An older player doesn't have to re-inject the skill or lose training time towards more valuable skills. An older player loses a much lower percentage of their total SP. An older player is *far* more likely to have the ISK to quickly and easily replace the skill with injectors.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
2) T3C equivalency:

The function of T3Cs over T2s, is that T3Cs can perform multiple roles.

When comparing hulls, it doesnt make sense to compare them as less than full V.

For optimal performance from a T2, you want full V skills for that cruisers role.
For optimal performance from a T3C, you want a full V skillset for EACH separate role.

The versatility of a T3C is what makes it a pinnacle T3 cruiser.
It is what differentiates it primarily from T2s, that it can perform multiple roles, whereas T2s are dedicated specialists.
That versatility however is only as effective as the skillsets a player has to enact the options that versatility provides.

Ive outlined several times how this equivalency with T2s can be achieved by adjusting the subsystem bonuses such that they do not exceed the role specific bonuses of those T2 classes that T3Cs somewhat overlap with at V skill.


It does make sense if the hull is commonly flown at less than full 5s. The All Vs profile exists for theoretical comparison of ship capabilities, this discussion isn't dealing with that it's dealing with the real-world training pilots are going to do, which is going to frequently involve less than optimal skills for a given hull.

The actual Strategic Cruiser skill, a 20 day train for level 5, is a perfect example. I would *never* recommend that a newer player train that to 5 over almost any other ship skill a T3C might possibly use. It has minimal impact on how the ship performs and won't even impact every module you overheat due to the way overheat mechanics and cycle times interact.

Also, if you keep the subsystems and let a T3C run multiple roles each at the level of a T2 specialist then you have a hull that can perform almost any role at a higher level than the relevant T2C because some roles are going to inherently synergize. Even if it's just something like the prop mod bonus off the HACs plus a Recon's EWar you end up with something greater than the sum of its parts. That's why the individual bonuses basically *have to* be less than the T2 ones with the T3Cs performing at a lower level than any given T2 hull in its role.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
3) Cade vs baltec1 vs Salvos:

baltec1 wants T3Cs to disappear from his alliances fleets, and replaced by T2s.
Cade wants T3Cs to be newer player friendly.

These objectives are at odds with each other.

baltec1s goal is to reduce proliferation of T3Cs, with T2s filling the gap.
Cades goal is to increase T3C proliferation, rather than people skilling into and using T2s.

My goal is to rebalance T3Cs such that they do not outperform existing T2 specialists at their roles, but offer versatility.
Such that T2s will be preferred for specific roles, and T3Cs the preferred choice IF they want to perform multiple roles, albeit less efficiently than T2 specialists.


I don't think baltec1 ever said he wants them to flat out disappear and never be used again, just that he'd like them to not be the core of most of his subcap doctrines. Occasional specific role use or "oh I can't fly X, can I bring my T3C instead?" use is not incompatible at all with my desire to see a newer player who wants to fly T3Cs not get shafted by their mechanics.

Also I *never* said I wanted to increase T3C proliferation. That's putting words in my mouth in the worst way, considering I've been saying "these things need a nerf" for *years*, let alone throughout all 35 pages of this thread, I really struggle to see how you got that out of *anything* I've said here.
Salvos Rhoska
#694 - 2017-05-10 06:26:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
1) SP loss on T3Cs is not equivalent to a tax.

SP loss on T3Cs is equivalent to buying a high performance car, crashing it, and incurring brain damage that takes either time or money to recover from.

2) T3Cs with subsystem bonuses that do not exceed those of the few T2 specialist hulls/roles they overlap with, is sufficient re-balance.

3) The point is to rebalance T3Cs. Not to pander to player groups.
Ie: Not according to NS fleet doctrine preferences (arbitrary, depending on alliance) or making them "newer player friendly" (which T3Cs are not, and should not be).
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#695 - 2017-05-10 06:38:30 UTC
So. The world didn't end over this apparently. Doesn't everybody feel better now?

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#696 - 2017-05-10 07:57:39 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) SP loss on T3Cs is not equivalent to a tax.


You are just flat out wrong here.

Quote:


SP loss on T3Cs is equivalent to buying a high performance car, crashing it, and incurring brain damage that takes either time or money to recover from.



This on the other hand is a terrible analogy full of holes, They lose a defined quantity of a simple well understood resource, which is inherently dissimilar to a brain injury.

Quote:


2) T3Cs with subsystem bonuses that do not exceed those of the few T2 specialist hulls/roles they overlap with, is sufficient re-balance.



its not the important issue. I've pointed out that for my use case, ie pve with a proteus for gurista / serpentis, it wouldn't matter if it was brought into deimos scale, but its not important.

Quote:


3) The point is to rebalance T3Cs. Not to pander to player groups.
Ie: Not according to NS fleet doctrine preferences (arbitrary, depending on alliance) or making them "newer player friendly" (which T3Cs are not, and should not be).


Actually I remember CCP stating that they wanted them to be easier to train to cover a couple of roles than specialist t2s and a good choice for newer players coming through.

Secondly I don't believe baltec is an actual PL mouthpiece, ie heads up you are going to have to live with you being quite unpersuasive on that matter.

Lastly the way doctrinal fleets work (as far as I understand it) is that if you can fly the thing, you fly it, if not, then there is a second choice, and if not there is a third choice.

ie the ideal outcome is that if a line pilot goes to join an armor hac fleet, their first choice is a t2 hac, t2 logi or heavy dictor, the second choice is a t3 setup for dps, logi or tackle as per the role they intend doing, the third choice is a t1 dps or logi cruiser or some other smaller tackle.

At the moment the choice is the other way round and that means training for specialist t2s isn't a progression.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#697 - 2017-05-10 08:33:18 UTC
Coralas wrote:
ie the ideal outcome is that if a line pilot goes to join an armor hac fleet, their first choice is a t2 hac, t2 logi or heavy dictor, the second choice is a t3 setup for dps, logi or tackle as per the role they intend doing, the third choice is a t1 dps or logi cruiser or some other smaller tackle.

Why do we need T3s? Your example shows that we don't need multipurpose ships because T2 hulls will always perform better and T1 will always be cheaper. "Niche" hulls.

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

Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#698 - 2017-05-10 09:41:35 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Coralas wrote:
ie the ideal outcome is that if a line pilot goes to join an armor hac fleet, their first choice is a t2 hac, t2 logi or heavy dictor, the second choice is a t3 setup for dps, logi or tackle as per the role they intend doing, the third choice is a t1 dps or logi cruiser or some other smaller tackle.

Why do we need T3s? Your example shows that we don't need multipurpose ships because T2 hulls will always perform better and T1 will always be cheaper. "Niche" hulls.


Players that have been playing for 10 years, all have access to whatever they want, there isn't anything anyone can do about that.

Players that haven't, view a month as a long time, and they'd view 3 months to cover 3 roles as a very long time, particularly if its delaying battleships and capitals by 3 months, so you'd expect that if they needed to cover a different role, the t3 would be the fall back that avoided them needing to stop training other things for quite some time.

Also when I go on roams, we sometimes lose 1 ship, rather than the fleet, or someone has to log, so being able to refit a t3 to change role is pretty good, at the moment, that is very difficult because of cargo space and rig issues.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#699 - 2017-05-10 10:13:59 UTC
Coralas wrote:
Players that have been playing for 10 years, all have access to whatever they want, there isn't anything anyone can do about that.

Players that haven't, view a month as a long time, and they'd view 3 months to cover 3 roles as a very long time, particularly if its delaying battleships and capitals by 3 months, so you'd expect that if they needed to cover a different role, the t3 would be the fall back that avoided them needing to stop training other things for quite some time.

Training into T3C is the same as training into T2, both need cruiser on level V. In the world of SP injectors irrelevant. Flying role T3C needs same skills as flying role T2. Why they should be worse?

Coralas wrote:
Also when I go on roams, we sometimes lose 1 ship, rather than the fleet, or someone has to log, so being able to refit a t3 to change role is pretty good, at the moment, that is very difficult because of cargo space and rig issues.

Wishfull thinking and very SP intense. You telling me that you will be carry role subsytems, rigs for the roles, modules and actually have pilot to fly all that things? Now read what you wrote above.
CCP have to rebalance T3C to be viable in all forms of pvp not small gangs roams.

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

Renfer Deninard
Khorne's Trade Inc.
#700 - 2017-05-10 10:34:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Renfer Deninard
Can someone share those fits with 200k eph tank, 1k+ eph/s, 1k dps on 60km range at same time? Without spending sum worth as much as fitted titan?
Yes, T3C hull isn't now worth much more than T3C but if I'm correct it wasn't a thing earlier. Solely Melted Nanoribbons needed for hull was worth as much as whole hull now, but their price dropped form 7m to 1.3-1.5m. Subsystems need next 30 MNR, there is a 250m drop in price of ship.
If mentioned by CCP "new component" needed for T3C production increase they price by this sum, we can again get 2 HAC hulls in price of one T3C. By it i means that price problems touch not only factional BSs but i would rather say everything except T2 ships.

Ok, lets leave isk efficiency of T3C.

When we see T3C it's a multipurpose tool for solo trips into dangerous, wormhole environment, capable to sneak pass enemy territory, refit, scan his way, refit and fight. What make fall in love with my overpriced Tengu is this ability to daytripping into wh, with cargohold extenders (allowing me to haul with me mobile depot, mtu, some alternate fittings and ammo) and cloak. With knowledge that if I **** something up I gonna fight using very bad fit and in ship worth with cargo about 2.5-3b.

What I don't like is ability of T3C to adapt to nullsec fleets. Their high resist tanks and subsystems increasing incoming remote repair are awesome for this. We get recently a new fighters mechanics forcing players to give them much more attention than before. T3D have their modes allowing players to make tactical decisions during fights. T3C lost their "snowflakness" in moment of leaving station or range of mobile depot. I think they should get something making blind following FC commands impossible, as it sucks when /ship with superior technology/ acts as next tool for F1 mokeys.

In my opinion it would be great to give T3C ability still being awesome as expensive solo/small gang ship but lose ability of being a part of big fleets? Maybe by making a emphasis on overheat mechanic or by making them ineffective for fleet usage by giving them less resists but more raw hp for buffer tanks and less buffer for active tank?