EVE General Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

21 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
 

Chart is confusing, please correct the chart.

Jump to first DEV post
Author
#41 Posted: 2013.06.09 13:21
You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost
#42 Posted: 2013.06.09 13:21  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
So maybe T3s will come down in price. Cheap disposable hulls sounds fun.
Oh god.
#43 Posted: 2013.06.09 13:28
Riot Girl wrote:
So maybe T3s will come down in price. Cheap disposable hulls sounds fun.


You still lose skillpoints when they die
-
Gallente Federation
#44 Posted: 2013.06.09 13:31  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Sanadras Riahn wrote:


Tech 3 Cruisers don't necessarily need to be better than Tech 2 ships, but they do need to bring something unique. Something that Tech 2 cruisers can't do. As the chart suggests, that should be filling multiple roles at the same time, while Tech 2 ships would be specialized to fit a single role.


Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense.
Don't ban me, bro!
#45 Posted: 2013.06.09 13:31
Yeah, they need to get rid of that. It's a stupid mechanic.
Oh god.
#46 Posted: 2013.06.09 13:33
Mr Kidd wrote:
Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense.

I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario.
Oh god.
Gallente Federation
#47 Posted: 2013.06.09 13:37
Riot Girl wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense.

I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario.



It does. But, I hope you can understand the fury that some of us have at this upcoming change when we've invested the time to skill for multiple racial T3's plus the billions we've invested in various fitted ships.
Don't ban me, bro!
Trans-Stellar Industries
#48 Posted: 2013.06.09 13:44
Mr Kidd wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense.

I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario.



It does. But, I hope you can understand the fury that some of us have at this upcoming change when we've invested the time to skill for multiple racial T3's plus the billions we've invested in various fitted ships.


Nano Hac's, implant changes, the learning skill revamp, the original drone changes ...

It's not like this kind of massive overhaul of a favorite and arguably OP mechanic hasn't happened before, no matter the personal cost to the individual player. In fact, CCP has kinda made a name for themselves doing it.

As a legion pilot, you can see why I'm not terribly at issue with this change. All the other T3's will probably be balanced with the legion.

But we can rest assured, if they start revamping the t3's, Jita monument will get warmed up again. Protesting seems to be something the EvE playerbase has become good at.
If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?
#49 Posted: 2013.06.09 13:48
Riot Girl wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense.

I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario.

No, it makes not overspending on modules and fitting sensibly the more practical option.
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”

Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1.
#50 Posted: 2013.06.09 13:57
Mr Kidd wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense.

I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario.



It does. But, I hope you can understand the fury that some of us have at this upcoming change when we've invested the time to skill for multiple racial T3's plus the billions we've invested in various fitted ships.


Misdirected fury imo. Everybody should welcome the tiercide initiative trying to make all ships viable at least in some role in EVE. When they nerfed the Dramiel and rebalanced all the frigates it put new life into a whole ship class. I expect the same to happen with T2 cruisers when Tengu et al no longer is the answer to most questions in EVE.
The Devil's Tattoo
#51 Posted: 2013.06.09 13:58
Tippia wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense.

I guess that makes using T2 ships the more practical option in that scenario.

No, it makes not overspending on modules and fitting sensibly the more practical option.


Bravo, more insightful and useful commentary from GD's most prevalent snark. Roll
Dodixie > Hek
#52 Posted: 2013.06.09 14:01  |  Edited by: Tippia
ElQuirko wrote:
Bravo, more insightful and useful commentary from GD's most prevalent snark. Roll

I'm merely pointing out that, no, T3s do not cost 1bn+ to fit (or, if they do then so do T2s so it makes no difference either way), nor do they cost four times as much as a T2 ship, and that no matter what you fly, bad fits makes the ship bad — it has nothing to do with T2 vs. T3.
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”

Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1.
Criminal Minds
#53 Posted: 2013.06.09 14:14
LOL,

I am happy for someone to show me a faction frigate that can kill my AF
Disturbed Acquaintance
#54 Posted: 2013.06.09 14:21
Tom Gerard wrote:
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg

This chart seems to have a huge error on it. If you look at it, from a certain perspective it looks like Tech 2 ships will deal more damage than Tech 3 ships, which is ludicrous and is clearly a misrepresentation.

If we were to believe (for a moment) this isn't obvious glaring mistake on CCP's part. It would suggest that Tech 3 hulls would share the tank/gank of a Navy Cruiser but with more flexibility.

Assuming this farce would be the case, Tech 3 Cruisers would drop from Battleship levels of Gank and Tank down to cruiser level? That seems like too large of a nerf.

So my conclusion is that either people are misreading this chart, or CCP made a huge mistake when creating it.

The only defense that needs to be made is "lore" millions of years ago the Sleepers made the T3 technology and since then no advances have been made so they should be the best at everything, any nerf however slight to the strategic cruisers would destroy all of EVE's lore forever.

I have taken the liberty of correcting the visual error:
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3682/corrected.jpg

If we could just upload this new image before anyone else gets confused and thinks CCP is willing to destroy ALL THE LORE IN EVE, by nerfing strategics.

Many Thanks


T3 is fine where it is.

When you put their roles into perspective it makes sense.
A T3 can fulfil the following roles depending on the subsystems fitted.

Logistic
Recon
HAC
Command Ship
Cov Ops

When you look at that role resume, it makes sense that specialised single role ships will out perform a T3 in the same role.

The T3's strength is in it's versatility, not it's DPS.


SpaceMonkey's Alliance
#55 Posted: 2013.06.09 14:26
CCP was ok with t3's as long they did put plex in the right pocket. Balance wise, Fozzy wise, prolly even the fact someone did meet the sleepers is a heresy and complete untrue story. Bah.
***
Bring da*uque EvE's awesomeness back.
The Devil's Tattoo
#56 Posted: 2013.06.09 14:38  |  Edited by: ElQuirko
Tippia wrote:
I'm merely pointing out that, no, T3s do not cost 1bn+ to fit (or, if they do then so do T2s so it makes no difference either way), nor do they cost four times as much as a T2 ship, and that no matter what you fly, bad fits makes the ship bad — it has nothing to do with T2 vs. T3.


The hull and subs on your average T3 is going to set you back around 500-700mil. Granted that's not one bil, but many people like to stick faction mods on 'em to boost that performance past the levels seen in other ship classes. Even without this, you're still paying 4-5x the cost of the T2 hull.
Dodixie > Hek
C C P Alliance
#57 Posted: 2013.06.09 14:50  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.

The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.

In summary:

  • Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
  • Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
  • Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
  • Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.


Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.


Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.
#58 Posted: 2013.06.09 14:51  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
ElQuirko wrote:
you're still paying 4-5x the cost of the T2 hull.

My Zealot costs 232m isk, my Legion costs 480m isk. That's roughly twice as much.
Oh god.
#59 Posted: 2013.06.09 14:52  |  Edited by: Tippia
ElQuirko wrote:
The hull and subs on your average T3 is going to set you back around 500-700mil.
…and a HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi and Fleet Command ship is going to set you back just over one billion. That means the T3 costs 0.5–0.7× what the T2 equivalent would do — not 4–5× as much. You're off by almost an order of magnitude. If you stupidly choose to ignore the versatility — the neat trick you actually pay for — and thus disqualify yourself from making any kind of sensible comparison, it's still only maybe 2× for a single function, as Riot Girl points out…

If you want to add the 500M worth of vanity fittings that people put onto their T3s, then we'll have to do the same to the T2 cruisers to maintain a reliable point of comparison, at which point they will close in on 1.5–2bn.

That's the number you need to compare against. And we haven't even gotten to the ridiculously short training path and the vastly simplified logistics the much cheaper price of a T3 buys you.
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡ you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”

Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1.
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#60 Posted: 2013.06.09 15:04
Got to agree with Tippia on this one, T3s already offer stuff that is just way too broken powerfull compared to T2 due to that flexibility its just fair their performance drops a bit in exchange for that flexibility.


think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter.

price is NEVER a performance measurement, if it was, marauders would be destroying capital ships like they were frigates and would be impervious to any sub capital ship.
21 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
Forum Jump