These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#701 - 2017-05-10 11:13:06 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
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?



Injectors is only relevant to people that can afford them, T3s will likely be cheaper after rebalancing, injector cost has opportunity cost, ie you are giving up space ships to PVP with to buy the injector, etc, etc. Again, old players, new players different issues.

Quote:



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.


Yes and I might have level ******* 4 in all of the ******* subroles because I'm not the ******* specialist, and I wouldn't care if I carried a bunch of t1 solaces with me, its just better to have 10 dps ships and a logi than 11 dps ships even if the logi isn't the worlds greatest logi and hasn't spent all the SP on it, and no they are currently super relevant for small gang as is, ie nothing changes if they stay relevant for small gang.

And at the moment, there is relatively little role in fleet pvp for most hacs.

I'm really glad I started this character from scratch and went through the process again, because I suspect that it ruins the perspective of a lot of people to have a complete character or to just lean on the complete characters resources to wallpaper over effort.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#702 - 2017-05-10 12:01:36 UTC
Coralas wrote:
Injectors is only relevant to people that can afford them, T3s will likely be cheaper after rebalancing, injector cost has opportunity cost, ie you are giving up space ships to PVP with to buy the injector, etc, etc. Again, old players, new players different issues.

Then exclude injector, to do role T2 T3 must have the same skills, it's already worse in some ways than T2 cruisers.

Coralas wrote:
Yes and I might have level ******* 4 in all of the ******* subroles because I'm not the ******* specialist, and I wouldn't care if I carried a bunch of t1 solaces with me, its just better to have 10 dps ships and a logi than 11 dps ships even if the logi isn't the worlds greatest logi and hasn't spent all the SP on it, and no they are currently super relevant for small gang as is, ie nothing changes if they stay relevant for small gang.

So you don't want to buy injectors yet you rich enough to fly with all that stuff within refitable hull?
They are super revelant to small gangs because they are BSs wraped in cruisers hulls not because they are multipurpose tools. Just because you want to use them in small gangs doesn't mean they would be usefull in every other aspects of pvp. That's no how you balance hulls, you just want to pull some rope into your style of gameplay.

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

Salvos Rhoska
#703 - 2017-05-10 12:57:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Ive been following discussion on reddit (shameful, I know) and there is far more resistance there to what comes across here as a "we" argument for removing SP loss or where T3Cs should be after re-balance.

The discussion there is also savy to the meta issue of T2 proliferation (or rather T3C attrition) increasing moon goo value, at the expense of WH gas/sleeper salvage.

1j The wealth of a player to replace a T3C, is not material to balance.
The wealth of a player to replace ANY ship, is immaterial to balance.
If you cant afford to replace it, dont fly it.

2) Removing SP loss from T3Cs CATEGORICALLY only improves the situation of older players as no longer having to suffer an SP % replacement malus through injectors compared to newer players. Removing SP loss does not improve the status quo of newer players, at all.

3) The reason some people want SP loss removed from T3Cs, is so that they can justify a harder nerf for T3Cs without it.
They perceive the SP loss mechanic as a counterbalance for the current admitted/apparent OPness of T3C tanks.
That is false.
The SP loss mechanic is a counterbalance to the unique subsystem mechanic.
That subsystem mechanic is what makes T3Cs different from T2s, as offset by SP loss mechanic.

The OPness of T3C effective tank is already heuristically guaranteed to be reduced to T2 rough equivalency.
The SP loss mechanic is NOT a counterweight to that OPnessnof current stats.
The SP loss mechanic is a counterweight to the subsystem mechanic.

4) Its a hypocrisy.
They claim T3C SP loss only benefits the rich, whereas the fact is that removing SP loss only benefits the rich.
They claim they want T3Cs to be better for newer players, but:
A) T3Cs are not, and will not be, better for newer players. They cant be.
B) Newer players do, and will, lack the developed and wide skill sets to fly T3Cs offered versatility effectively.
C) T2s are, and will remain, the preferred choice for a the specific role of that T2. Especially for T2s that T3Cs cannot emulate.

5) They desperately want SP loss removed, inorder to justify collapsing T3Cs as far as possible.
They argue "this should be removed, cos Im so rich it means nothing to me", whereas in the aftermath of their proposals, T3Cs will matter less than nothing to them. Either in cost, or in incentive to use them.

6) Result would be a T3C that these "rich" players no longer use, and which newer players have no use for instead of a T2.

7) The real practical solution is very simple.
-T3C subsystem bonuses that do not overstep T2 bonuses in their roles and incur SP loss.
-HICs/Combat Recon are not overstepped. T3Cs cannot field bubbles or DScan immunity.
-Force Recon are not overstepped. T3C subsystem stats will be different.
-T2 Logi are not overstepped. T3C subsytem stats will be different.
-Command Cruiser will not be overlapped, as none exists, and T3C CC will far short of T2 BC.
-HACs are not overstepped, T3Cs have no MWD/sig bonus, lesser PvP fit application and HACs incurr no SP loss.
-Stratios is not overstepped, rather their are options from T3Cs.

It is critically important to retain T3Cs at rough T2 equivalency.
Crucial to that, is retaining SP loss as a universal penalty for both newer and older players.
Salvos Rhoska
#704 - 2017-05-10 13:30:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Translation of what is happening here:

Rich players, whom themselves already have no problem with replacing their own SP loss via injectors or waiting, want SP loss removed so as to justify nerfing T3Cs below T2s.

I could drop 10k euros on PLEX right now, becoming very isk/SP wealthy, and still I wouldnt agree with removing SP loss from T3Cs as an equalizer between me and poorer players.

The SP loss issue is the peg on which the extent of T3C re-balancing hangs.

If that peg is removed, T3Cs will free fall to T1/Navy equivalency with disastrous results for content styles and WH economy.

If that peg remains, it keeps T3Cs as a "T2 multitool", at SP loss risk and higher cost.

This is why they focus only on the SP loss issue.

They avoid that T3Cs are meant to be a versatile T2 equivalent strategic cruiser.
That versatility requires wide and developed skills to effectively apply and incurs a SP penalty on loss, in addition to subsystem training beyond racial V cruiser.

T3Cs are not a ship for newer players. They CANT be, cos newer players lack the skills for that versatility which defines it. They are a ship for advanced cruiser operators whom have the skills to effectively make use of the versatility it offers.

The SP skill costs invested for a T3C, let alone to perform, dont make sense as a Navy equivalent in performance.
Wtf would be the point of a Navy stat equivalent T3C command cruiser with enormous command related SP invested that in and of itself exceed the SP training for a mere Navy cruiser many times over? Command stats are enormously expensive, way beyond that of a Navy cruiser.

The whole notion of T3Cs being Navy equivalent is unworkable and ridiculous.
Its jamming millions of SP in diverse skills, into a Navy hull that itself costs a fraction of it all to get into.

How can you even be proposing this?
Its complete asinine,


That I even have to explain this to vets far beyond my years, concerns me, deeply.
Surely you must already be aware of these rational counter-arguments or:
a) have you become so isolated in echo chambers that none of this was apparant to you?
b) are you deliberately pretending like you dont see the obvious until its stated, in deference to your own goal?
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#705 - 2017-05-10 15:16:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Coralas
Jeremiah Saken wrote:

Then exclude injector, to do role T2 T3 must have the same skills, it's already worse in some ways than T2 cruisers.


If they intend on the flexible ship playing the flexible balancing role, then yeah thats going to happen. But you can expect that people who are swinging between roles to not actually have trained everything for every role. They are a backup person you use when the specialist isn't around, with a backup ship.

Quote:


So you don't want to buy injectors yet you rich enough to fly with all that stuff within refitable hull?


With this character I have bought at least 15 injectors out of the isk this character has made from scratch, and after the serpentis event until a couple of months ago this character wasn't played either so its really not had as much training time as the age suggests. I do not for a moment think the average player with 1 subbed account is going to inject their way past the T3 to get a T2 even if the T3 is weaker than T2 at the specialist role. Plenty of competing alternatives, including training towards battleships, battleship weapons and capitals. Honestly I think over the typical 9 months of a sub, a typical player might average 2 or 3 injections total. Also I expect the T3 to get cheaper, and as I pointed out before, I'd probably bring cheaper stuff for the refit.

Quote:
That's no how you balance hulls, you just want to pull some rope into your style of gameplay.


Its just bad debating to guess at peoples motivations, you'll be wrong doing it, as you are right now.

I use the proteus for PVE. I'm not asking for any improvement in proteus PVE capabilities, and I'm not expecting it. You can see from early posts in this thread that it was my initial concern, and I'm not repeating anything here that isn't what other players are suggesting should happen, I've simply come to accept that its sensible to make it work that way.
Cade Windstalker
#706 - 2017-05-10 15:41:46 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
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.


So, first off, that analogy makes no sense and is not in any way relevant here.

Second, SP loss is very much like a tax in that it takes something with a value relative to how much else of it you have. Taking away 200k SP from someone with 10m SP is a lot more significant than taking the same away from someone with 40m or 80m or 160m SP.

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


This is a really one dimensional view. If you remember back to the start of this thread basically no one is advocating for just reducing the subsystem effects. For example the tank subsystems aren't in a bad spot, it's the base stats they're applied on top of that cause issues because T3Cs right now have about BC levels of raw HP with Cruiser levels of speed plus the ability to get very desirable tank stats on top of that.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
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).


This goes all ways though, including pandering to your specific views on what T3Cs should or should not be. Ultimately the only ones who get to decide what something should be in this game are CCP. The rest of us can only provide arguments one way or another. So far your argument here seems to be of the fiat variety. "This is simply how it is" where as I've tried to explain to you why I feel T3Cs are a good jumping off point into T2 hulls for a newer player.
Cade Windstalker
#707 - 2017-05-10 15:44:57 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1j The wealth of a player to replace a T3C, is not material to balance.
The wealth of a player to replace ANY ship, is immaterial to balance.
If you cant afford to replace it, dont fly it.


The value of a ship doesn't justify it being over powered, but it's not immaterial to balance. There's always a cost to benefit analysis in play when deciding what you should or should not field against an opponent, not just the raw power of the ship. If something provides too much benefit for its cost then it's over powered, if it provides too little then it's under powered.

This is why things like the Serpentis Capitals or Alliance Tournament Ships are not considered OP. It's also why the Pirate Battleships have suddenly become a problem despite not having their stats change in any significant or meaningful way, they've simply increased in supply and dropped in price enough that they're causing a mess in the Null Fleet meta.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
2) Removing SP loss from T3Cs CATEGORICALLY only improves the situation of older players as no longer having to suffer an SP % replacement malus through injectors compared to newer players. Removing SP loss does not improve the status quo of newer players, at all.


It really really doesn't. This has been explained six different ways by six different people now. The older player is more likely to have access to lots of injectors, is less affected by the SP loss in the first place, and is less likely to lose the ships in the first place on top of that.

Just looking at SP loss as a percentage of total SP clearly shows why SP loss hurts newer players more than older ones, even with the penalty to injector use for an older player.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
3) The reason some people want SP loss removed from T3Cs, is so that they can justify a harder nerf for T3Cs without it.
They perceive the SP loss mechanic as a counterbalance for the current admitted/apparent OPness of T3C tanks.
That is false.
The SP loss mechanic is a counterbalance to the unique subsystem mechanic.
That subsystem mechanic is what makes T3Cs different from T2s, as offset by SP loss mechanic.

The OPness of T3C effective tank is already heuristically guaranteed to be reduced to T2 rough equivalency.
The SP loss mechanic is NOT a counterweight to that OPnessnof current stats.
The SP loss mechanic is a counterweight to the subsystem mechanic.


If the versatility is balanced correctly it really doesn't need an additional counterbalance, especially not one that runs anywhere from equal to the cost of the hull to several times its cost depending on how low on the SP totem pole you are.

At the very least I think we can agree that the SP loss isn't an effective counterweight to the current OP state of the hulls, but that's more because cost does a poor job of balancing something this OP.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
4) Its a hypocrisy.
They claim T3C SP loss only benefits the rich, whereas the fact is that removing SP loss only benefits the rich.
They claim they want T3Cs to be better for newer players, but:
A) T3Cs are not, and will not be, better for newer players. They cant be.
B) Newer players do, and will, lack the developed and wide skill sets to fly T3Cs offered versatility effectively.
C) T2s are, and will remain, the preferred choice for a the specific role of that T2. Especially for T2s that T3Cs cannot emulate.


Yes they can, myself and others have explained why. You insist that you can't fly a T3C without being able to use all of its subsystems. That's ridiculous and is like saying that you can't train Caldari Battleships without being able to use ECM because of the Scorpion.

This is also false, given the subsystems sets we've seen you can fit a T3C for a single purpose with secondary subsystems being dedicated to core skills like Navigation, Tank, or Damage.

That's the hope, yes, but there will likely be situations where a hybrid role is preferable, either because that combination of stats isn't available on another hull or because it plugs some weakness in the base hull at the expense of primary-role effectiveness.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
5) They desperately want SP loss removed, inorder to justify collapsing T3Cs as far as possible.
They argue "this should be removed, cos Im so rich it means nothing to me", whereas in the aftermath of their proposals, T3Cs will matter less than nothing to them. Either in cost, or in incentive to use them.


I can't speak for anyone else here, but personally my part of this "they" you keep referring to thinks that if the ships are actually balanced the SP loss is unneeded, regardless of how "far" they get "collapsed". Personally I don't hate T3Cs, quite a few of my friends are in Wormholes and quite like them. I'd just like to be able to fly one without feeling dirty, and fly any of the various hulls they kick the **** out of without feeling dissatisfied.

The argument here is that the SP loss really only matters to newer players and the small minority who treat their skill queue like a Progress Bar Game (cookie clicker anyone?). Thus if the ships are balanced for older players, who weigh the cost of the SP loss very very low, then they're over-priced compared to their performance for a newer player who needs every point of SP they can get to progress their character (personally I'd say you don't get out of this phase until around 60m SP, which is around 3 years of play, far from being a newbie).

This isn't complicated. Subjective opportunity cost is a well established economic concept. It's one of the cornerstones of trade, where one party gives away something with a lower value for them in exchange for something with a higher value for them. Ideally the other party in the exchange receives something they perceive to have a high value in exchange for something they value less.
Asmodai Xodai
#708 - 2017-05-10 16:41:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Asmodai Xodai
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Rich players, whom themselves already have no problem with replacing their own SP loss via injectors or waiting, want SP loss removed so as to justify nerfing T3Cs below T2s.


Perhaps this is why you refuse to accept the obvious, easy-to-understand truth that the SP loss mechanic has no impact whatsoever on rich high-SP players, at least when compared with poorer, lower-SP players. You believe that if you accept the obvious truth, you must also accept a harder nerf for T3Cs. And you believe that accepting an obvious UN-truth means you will get a lighter nerf for T3Cs.

I can't even begin to fathom the thought process behind this... so lets just set the issue aside. The best way to address this is to simply say, we should all forget so-called "compensation" when considering nerfs.

THE NERFS WHICH SHOULD HAPPEN ARE THE NERFS WHICH SHOULD HAPPEN. PERIOD. PARAGRAPH. THE END.

If EHP needs to be below X, that should happen. If dps needs to be below Y, that should happen. If the hull should land around either T1, pirate, or T2, that should happen.

As for everyone else, I think you can quit wasting your time arguing with Salvos on the SP-loss mechanic. The truth has been presented in the simplest possible terms to understand, in many different configurations. Salvos refuses to accept it, and this will not change no matter what else is said. This is because he believes the SP-loss mechanic is a shield protecting T3Cs from a harder nerf.

What you CAN do is simply tell him this: "If you want to nerf yourself harder and keep the SP-loss mechanic, it is 100% fine with us. We will still advocate that the hull be nerfed to where it should be nerfed, without any regard (compensation, etc) whatsoever to the SP-loss mechanic. In other words, your 'shield' doesn't protect you."
Salvos Rhoska
#709 - 2017-05-10 20:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Shameless, obvious shills everywhere.
Its worse here than I thought.
Unbelievable amount of twisting and spinning on clear facts.

This is no longer about balance, its purely about agenda.

Ironically, this is case where I hope CCP looks at reddit feedback instead.

Here, its just balls to wall shilling.
Unbelievable extent of contrivance.

See you in the official thread when/if it occurs.
I resign from this one in abject disgust.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#710 - 2017-05-10 21:10:46 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Shameless, obvious shills everywhere.
Its worse here than I thought.
Unbelievable amount of twisting and spinning on clear facts.

This is no longer about balance, its purely about agenda.

Ironically, this is case where I hope CCP looks at reddit feedback instead.

Here, its just balls to wall shilling.
Unbelievable extent of contrivance.

See you in the official thread when/if it occurs.
I resign from this one in abject disgust.


Every single person in this thread has an agenda. We all use T3C's in our own ways and see the changes needed from our point of view.

Wormholer for life.

Cade Windstalker
#711 - 2017-05-10 23:08:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Shameless, obvious shills everywhere.
Its worse here than I thought.
Unbelievable amount of twisting and spinning on clear facts.

This is no longer about balance, its purely about agenda.

Ironically, this is case where I hope CCP looks at reddit feedback instead.

Here, its just balls to wall shilling.
Unbelievable extent of contrivance.

See you in the official thread when/if it occurs.
I resign from this one in abject disgust.


Now you're just conjuring ad-hominem out of thin air rather than actually trying to defend your points.

I'm not pushing anyone's agenda here, I honestly believe that SP loss is bad for T3Cs and that it's in no way needed for them to be balanced ships and honestly hurts their usability.

I'm certainly not shilling for baltec1. I have a fair amount of respect for the guy, he knows his ****, but I've been on the opposite side of about as many arguments as we've agreed on over the last few years. This just happens to be one where we agree.

EDIT: Oh and this is the top comment on any T3C rebalance thread I can find on Reddit, it's a hypothetical from 2 months ago, and it has "remove SP loss" as the second thing on the list: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5yn7kf/t3c_rebalance_serious_general_discussion/derduwv/
An-Nur
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#712 - 2017-05-13 01:36:23 UTC  |  Edited by: An-Nur
T3 rebalance on Chaos

T3C new subs


And according to Gorski Car SP loss will stay, so there's end of that argument
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#713 - 2017-05-13 08:02:48 UTC
An-Nur wrote:
T3 rebalance on Chaos

T3C new subs


And according to Gorski Car SP loss will stay, so there's end of that argument

Volume of subsystem is 40. Too much IMO.

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

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#714 - 2017-05-14 08:43:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Again, 160 dps and your "massive tank" is shut down by a single med neut. Damn near anything will tank it and shut you down. You are also trying to compare it to our AHAC proteus which is just laughable as it cannot do a single thing our proteus does, none of your shitfit active setups are any good.

Once again you miss the whole point of EVE which is not surprising given you're obsessed with your PL Proteus fit as the only viable fit in game apparently.

The only thing that matters in EvE is the end result for a solution to a problem. If you have an issue and you fit a ship and that fit solves the problem you fit it for then its a viable and useful fit.

This is the sort of conversation I have with EvE players on a regular basis:

Me: I fit my ship with [Item] because I had a specific problem to solve and I killed all the enemy and my problem was solved.
Baltec Like Player: Hahaha why would you put a [item] on a [insert ship], you're an idiot. You fit it like this [insert copy paste fit from ZKill that would never work for the problem I had].
Me: Um yeah but it worked, I beat [X] ships solo.
Baltec Like Player: Lololol that wasn't the fit that was because that fleet was ********. Your fit sucks.
Me: ....

Its completely ******** to be like the above Baltec Like Player (BLP). Innovation and EvE go together and most intelligent people know (like Alexander the Great) that often thinking outside the square gives better results than following the crowd.

Have a nice day.

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..... :)

Cade Windstalker
#715 - 2017-05-18 14:29:44 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Again, 160 dps and your "massive tank" is shut down by a single med neut. Damn near anything will tank it and shut you down. You are also trying to compare it to our AHAC proteus which is just laughable as it cannot do a single thing our proteus does, none of your shitfit active setups are any good.

Once again you miss the whole point of EVE which is not surprising given you're obsessed with your PL Proteus fit as the only viable fit in game apparently.

The only thing that matters in EvE is the end result for a solution to a problem. If you have an issue and you fit a ship and that fit solves the problem you fit it for then its a viable and useful fit.

This is the sort of conversation I have with EvE players on a regular basis:

Me: I fit my ship with [Item] because I had a specific problem to solve and I killed all the enemy and my problem was solved.
Baltec Like Player: Hahaha why would you put a [item] on a [insert ship], you're an idiot. You fit it like this [insert copy paste fit from ZKill that would never work for the problem I had].
Me: Um yeah but it worked, I beat [X] ships solo.
Baltec Like Player: Lololol that wasn't the fit that was because that fleet was ********. Your fit sucks.
Me: ....

Its completely ******** to be like the above Baltec Like Player (BLP). Innovation and EvE go together and most intelligent people know (like Alexander the Great) that often thinking outside the square gives better results than following the crowd.

Have a nice day.


And what you're being told, and have been told repeatedly, is that your fits are not a solution to the problem being proposed. They're either impractical, overly expensive for a worse result, or simply don't work the way you seem to think they do.

Your fits seem to either rely on a specific situation or are completely ignoring the actual discussion you're inserting them into. For example that Onyx might work for you, but that doesn't mean that it's actually better than a T3C doing the same job. It's certainly not OP, and it's not hard to counter. Any 15 man gang, frigate or otherwise, that ran from that did so out of ignorance or incompetence, not because your fit is godly.

A fit that only works in a specific situation is fair enough, but not when you throw it out and say that it beats out a fit that works in *far more* situations or that your fit just straight up loses to in comparison. Either in cost, effectiveness, or both, as every fit you've thrown up here has done.

An-Nur wrote:
T3 rebalance on Chaos

T3C new subs


And according to Gorski Car SP loss will stay, so there's end of that argument


That's the same list that we saw from the Fanfest slides, it doesn't even have stats or the context the fanfest presentation offered.

Also as things go SP loss is fairly easy to add or remove and tweak the balance of the ships accordingly. Unless you have a link where Gorski is flat out quoting CCP saying SP loss isn't going anywhere then there's *always* room for debate.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#716 - 2017-05-18 14:39:03 UTC
36 pages of useless debate.

Less than one page of people asking to be a part of the focus group.

(yea yea I know it's been up for less than an hour, but you'd think with 36 pages of BS people would be hitting F5 waiting for it Twisted)
Salvos Rhoska
#717 - 2017-05-18 15:12:21 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Hurr Durr


Dont see you signing up, Jenn.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#718 - 2017-05-18 15:58:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Hurr Durr


Dont see you signing up, Jenn.


I'm not signing up because I'm not the one crying about the damn overpowered things that are rightly about to get nerfed.
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#719 - 2017-05-18 17:24:19 UTC
Re: Focus Group

The way this appears to be being organized doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me. Just asking for people to randomly sign up is a recipe for getting a stacked deck. The first couple people volunteering are wormholers who fly the things in wormholes as a matter of course. It's like... do you think they will want their bread and butter nerfed?

I'm not jumping the gun or pronouncing judgment. But I will say if they aren't careful as hell in choosing who the focus group members are, this is going to be a disaster.
Lillith Sakata
Epicentre Syndicate
The Singularity.
#720 - 2017-05-19 00:13:05 UTC
@beast: How else are they going to get any feedback? demand it?
@most of the posts: Honestly unless you've been in a T3C at all, probably have very little useful feedback.
I'm close to getting in one, and I know that there are a few places where they are stupid. The tengu has always been a rough spot for me, as when I played 3 years ago, the sig-tanked oversize monster of missile-death was OP as hell, and now there is the 'raidboss tengu'. Thing is, none of the other fits quite reach that amount of sheer stupidity.

So my take on it is that they should be, with all of the costs that go with them, able to be jack of all trades. For the mass/pvp-value, they should still be better than other cruisers. However, there are also a few fits that are crazy OP, and those specific cases should be looked at.

Frankly though I don't think they should be overshadowed by T2 ships by any stretch of the imagination considering the skill time and isk involved. T2's are very good, and for the roles they're made for, they excel. A HAM sacrilage when matched isk/isk, will outham a ham legion. But sacs aren't blinged out like that generally, so they're more evenly paced in the HAM dept.

Where the legion wins is in the T3 subsystems, the extra regen, extra utility, range, lower sig, etc. But even then if you know what you're fighting, you can easily kill the T3. The "raidboss tengu" for instance, will easily run out of cap batteries and fall apart.

My biggest complaint about the people that are screaming "Nerf the t3c's!!" is that they have no perspective.

Basically get something like this:
https://zkillboard.com/kill/62305886/

Now spend the same amount of isk on a drake or something, and I wonder which will hold and tank better?

Or, https://zkillboard.com/kill/59669149/ is a ******** fit. But you could fit a carrier with that kind of ISK. and probably do better.

Basically my main gripe is that people aren't keeping things in perspective in regard to the ISK and skill investment in these ships. I've got almost 50m SP, and I'm just barely getting into the legion alone. And I'm looking at spending right at 1bn ISK on it once I do get in it, because with the sp loss if I lose it (which i will, for the glory of BOB) I had better be able to take out as much as possible before I go down in my likely to be 1bn isk clone, fully drugged out.

So in the end, to me I think most of the argument here is moot. However I will agree that there are some corner cases where a particular fit is stupidly OP for its purpose. But then again with the isk and effort involved can almost justify it, especially considering there are hard counters to these ships.

If someone drops into your system with a 2bn ISK ship, you best believe it's going to be a tough nut to crack, and it SHOULD be.