|
1001 Arabian dicks posted:i doubt the balancing of a ship class will allow players to overlook the fundamental problems with the game as long as ccp makes the game, there will be fundamental problems with the game but there have been good and bad times for ship balancing, and while the meta is healthier now than it has been in years, it's still not good
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
Ynglaur posted:The Imperium logo probably makes your skin crawl. The rebrand in general does yes, but luckily I'm goonfleetwaffe first
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
ullerrm posted:as long as ccp makes the game, there will be fundamental problems with the game yeah but insinuating that re-balancing t3cs could reinvigorate the game is silly
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
T3 Cruisers need to be nerfed so drastically that I suspect CCP will bottle it and give some minor tweak that solves nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
And people want more T3 ships  The problem with both T3 lines is they're supposed to be a jack of all trades, master of none style ship. A neut legion with the right setup can outneut a curse and ashimmu (134.1 vs 118.8 vs 91.5) while bosting a bigger armor tank than both (144k vs "lol pick neuts or armor tank" vs 64k). The curse does have the advantage of being able to be shield tanked though, and shield tanking is really the only way to get a full rack of T2 mediums on it. The only advantage the Ashimmu has over the legion is that they're dirt cheap and have the "NOS works infinitely" hull bonus. Though with how cheap Bhaals are now, most people fly those (566m for a 7 medium T2 neut/nos fit for the legion, 384 for a T2 Bhaal). iospace fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Mar 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Just create modular T3 versions for all ship classes. Voila, EVE is balanced once more. ECM Chimera? Check. Neuting Avatar? Check. Point Nyx? Check. Nullified CovOps Dominix? Check.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Hollow Talk posted:Just create modular T3 versions for all ship classes. Voila, EVE is balanced once more. ECM Chimera? Check. Neuting Avatar? Check. Point Nyx? Check. Nullified CovOps Dominix? Check. Arty fit Niddy 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Have a special event once a year on April 1st called "Balance Day", where only one ship works and all others are disabled. Balance Day 2017 can start with the rifter, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Have a special event once a year on April 1st called "Balance Day", where only one ship works and all others are disabled. And 2018... and 2019
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Have a special event once a year on April 1st called "Balance Day", where only one ship works and all others are disabled. Well wouldn't even get through one race's frigates before they shut the servers down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
iospace posted:And people want more T3 ships the curse has less neut power but gets a range bonus and it's a lot faster. Also you can fit a decent amount of firepower on it in the form of drones. However, a legion has a ton more tank which is vastly more valuable in a fleet fight. This is less of a problem with the T3 itself and more a game design problem - damage and range is situational, 80k extra EHP isn't. Regardless I think the neut legion v. curse is an example of the T3's being balanced correctly, there are reasons to use either option depending on what you're doing. Something like the proteus, jamgu, or HAM legion, however, is an example of the T3 balance being totally hosed. These ships are so vastly superior in all ways to HACs (or recon ships, in the case of the jamgu) that it makes them irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
abigserve posted:the curse has less neut power but gets a range bonus and it's a lot faster. Also you can fit a decent amount of firepower on it in the form of drones. Lets not forget how it is also the case in cov-ops cruisers, I don't know much about rapiers etc but I don't think anyone uses anything but t3's for dropping on poo poo anymore, save frigates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
Worlds Smuggest posted:Lets not forget how it is also the case in cov-ops cruisers, I don't know much about rapiers etc but I don't think anyone uses anything but t3's for dropping on poo poo anymore, save frigates. Falcons are still used to jam out carrier fighters, and Minmatar recons are sometimes used for webs and paints. T3s still beat them out in terms of raw stats but welping jamgus is not an attractive prospect, so you'll go for a falcon unless you're 100% certain nobody is going to die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Worlds Smuggest posted:Lets not forget how it is also the case in cov-ops cruisers, I don't know much about rapiers etc but I don't think anyone uses anything but t3's for dropping on poo poo anymore, save frigates. We use rapiers instead of Loki's in w-space sometimes but a Loki is universally preferred and the only reason for it is to save on skillpoint losses and money - neither of which are good mechanics to balance ships around IMO
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
abigserve posted:We use rapiers instead of Loki's in w-space sometimes but a Loki is universally preferred and the only reason for it is to save on skillpoint losses and money - neither of which are good mechanics to balance ships around IMO Especially since skill points are now money. Rich groups with vast rental/poco empires can welp T3 all day every day without issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Clerical Terrors posted:Falcons are still used to jam out carrier fighters, and Minmatar recons are sometimes used for webs and paints. T3s still beat them out in terms of raw stats but welping jamgus is not an attractive prospect, so you'll go for a falcon unless you're 100% certain nobody is going to die. This is basically damning Falcons with faint praise, and only serves to illustrate the point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty much. See also:abigserve posted:We use rapiers instead of Loki's in w-space sometimes but a Loki is universally preferred and the only reason for it is to save on skillpoint losses and money - neither of which are good mechanics to balance ships around IMO Recons and HACs aren't in a great place right now. Not sure how you would solve that currently without breaking T3Cs thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
The biggest problem with recons is that if you need substantial amounts of Ewar (which is kind of their point), you have to armour-tank them. The Arazu is probably the worst culprit here. A few years ago, somebody gave me an amazing Arazu as a secret santa present (2x RF Point, 1x SS Scram), but you only have 4 lowslots and 2 rigslots, so you are looking at ~40k EHP and rather terrible align times. The Arazu also has a really terrible EM shield resist hole which means if you want to shield tank it, you probably want 1 resist rig + CDFE, whereas the Rapier can at least use 2 CDFEs. Even their main distinguishing feature -- lighting cynos -- is a so-so, because you melt too quickly when focussed and because they are quite expensive for throwaway certain-death ships. Funnily enough, the Falcon has the best tank options in that scenario.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Should Recons just have their HP buffed? What would that break?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Should Recons just have their HP buffed? What would that break? just nerf tech3 cruisers comeon
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
MacPac posted:just nerf tech3 cruisers comeon Why not both?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Why not both? i like strong ewar ships to be easily killable in a small gang setting because they are always flown by noobs
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Should Recons just have their HP buffed? What would that break? Recons offer too much control to not be fragile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
T3 cruisers have too much EHP. That is their main problem. They should get better bonuses then T2 ships with having less EHP or get even to slightly worse bonuses with the current EHP. Otherwise they make T2 ships pointless. Its also silly to pretend that materials needed to make T3 ships are rare or hard to get any more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
It depends if CCP wants recon's to be fleet support ships, in which case they need a substantial HP buff, or small-gang power multipliers, in which case they either need to make the ewar more effective or give them a bit more firepower.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
abigserve posted:It depends if CCP wants recon's to be fleet support ships, in which case they need a substantial HP buff, or small-gang power multipliers, in which case they either need to make the ewar more effective or give them a bit more firepower. recons are kinda effective tbh
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Should Recons just have their HP buffed? What would that break? Rarely has the temptations of power creep been demonstrated so clearly/unambiguously
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
ullerrm posted:Rarely has the temptations of power creep been demonstrated so clearly/unambiguously Relatedly, should the Machariel be nerfed, or should the Maelstrom be given a Falloff bonus?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Magic Rabbit Hat posted:Relatedly, should the Machariel be nerfed, or should the Maelstrom be given a Falloff bonus? fallloff so i can blap rifters from 420km
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Magic Rabbit Hat posted:Relatedly, should the Machariel be nerfed, or should the Maelstrom be given a Falloff bonus? Bit of both, I suspect: Replace the Mach's falloff bonus with a tracking bonus, and bump up all arty falloff by 5%. Makes the Mael and Tempest viable as an arty platform but still gives the Mach an edge in engagements if the FC makes it work for them. (In particular, if arty was slightly more widely viable, the Mael's extra mid vs the Tempest's ROF bonus makes for an actual stylistic choice.) Although, this too is power creep, as it's bringing arty range up to match laser/rails. My suspicion is that we probably shouldn't see both lasers and rails regularly breaking 200-250km, and arty might need a nerf in damage if its gaining range, as much as they need a nerf in range. It's hard to balance a tripod. I don't envy CCP, and they have to feel some pressure in balancing since alpha clones make it easier for people to walk away from the game if they get butthurt because their fav ship got nerfed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
How did you avoid getting carted off in a net and shipped off to Iceland this time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
To quote an old Arizona legislator, "If nominated, I shall run to Mexico. If elected, I shall fight extradition." (it should be noted that at this moment i am on a boat just outside of cabo san lucas)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Stealthgerbil posted:T3 cruisers have too much EHP. That is their main problem. They should get better bonuses then T2 ships with having less EHP or get even to slightly worse bonuses with the current EHP. Otherwise they make T2 ships pointless. Its also silly to pretend that materials needed to make T3 ships are rare or hard to get any more. T3's theme was supposed to be 'more flexible'. T2's theme was supposed to be 'more specialised'. Yes, Strat Cruisers should get their EHP slashed but the range of modifications and bonuses that each subsystem provides needs drastically trimming back as well since it makes "better than everything at everything" far too easy to obtain. In fact the T3 Cruiser subsystems should work like the flight modes of Tactical Destroyers where only one can be active at a time (though unlike the destroyers the player would have the choice of which subsystems to fit on the ship).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Roller Coast Guard posted:T3's theme was supposed to be 'more flexible'. T2's theme was supposed to be 'more specialised'. the problem with t2 being more specialized is that gal/min HACs are now weird picogang/solo brawlers, and amarr/caldari ones seem to be kinda snipers (except sacs lmao) this leaves the "heavy combat cruiser" role to be filled by t3cs, since nothing else can do this the problem with t3cs comes when people use things like the pg sub combined with oversized ABs (and the AB sub), the interdiction nullification sub, and the armor hp sub, also regengus I guess t3cs also cost like 350m for a hull+subs now, which isnt bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Landsknecht posted:
And 150m worth of injection on ship loss I guess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Honestly, you could easily slash the EHP of T3Cs down to 55-60k with a T2 fit. I'm fine with them being a bit more tanky than a HAC, but if all you gain is 5-10k EHP with a comparable fit and the DPS is roughly the same or a tad higher, you have legitimate "balance by cost", not the whole "oh, titans are 100b, no one will ever afford that!  "Of course, that assumes that the price of T3Cs won't plummet, but if a DPS fit one costs 350m and a HAC 250m, you can fly a cheaper ship and not worry about skillpoint loss for very similar performance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Krogort posted:And 150m worth of injection on ship loss I guess? just join a spaceguild that doesn't lose t3s
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
iospace posted:Honestly, you could easily slash the EHP of T3Cs down to 55-60k with a T2 fit. I'm fine with them being a bit more tanky than a HAC, but if all you gain is 5-10k EHP with a comparable fit and the DPS is roughly the same or a tad higher, you have legitimate "balance by cost", not the whole "oh, titans are 100b, no one will ever afford that! 55k-60k ehp for a cruiser hull is a problem when a mach can get 250k with t2 fit ez, and rattlesnakes can do even better ccp needs to redo faction BS at the same time, because if you nerf t3cs heavily then all anyone will fly will be faction bs
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Landsknecht posted:55k-60k ehp for a cruiser hull is a problem when a mach can get 250k with t2 fit ez, and rattlesnakes can do even better But If you nerf faction bs ehp and damage then you just add to the insane cost/damage difference between a subcap and a carrier or dread. A decent fit Mach will cost 500-750m depending on the level of bling in the tank, and a carrier after insurance with minimal fit is under a billion for ludicrously higher damage and ehp. That would just add to the incentives to have everyone in caps all the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
L0cke17 posted:But If you nerf faction bs ehp and damage then you just add to the insane cost/damage difference between a subcap and a carrier or dread. A decent fit Mach will cost 500-750m depending on the level of bling in the tank, and a carrier after insurance with minimal fit is under a billion for ludicrously higher damage and ehp. That would just add to the incentives to have everyone in caps all the time. ya and then you just force people to get supers to take caps to cobtown
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:40
|
|