EVE General Discussion

 
37 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
 

Strategic cruiser balance pass

Author
ChaosTheory.
#41 - 2017-04-17 15:52:38 UTC
Rroff wrote:


I find it cute how many people in Eve call for things to be pulled down to their level because they got killed a few times bringing a knife to a gun fight - instead of investing in a gun they want CCP to force everyone else to bring knives :D

(Not a comment directed at anyone specifically)


THIs proves the point. A standard response by someone who doesn't want to see their unbalanced thing go away is "it's balanced by the fact that you can have one too, so you should just get one and leave mine alone".

They always ignore you when you tell them that you DO have or do the thing in question, which is how you know how unbalanced they are. I own Tengus to run DED 6/10s, Proteus' for fleet doctrine things, a Loki that can tank the worst COSMOS complexes and run the Epic arc missions and so on. I KNOW how overpowered they are, I own several. No cruiser sized ship can match my FoF missile tengu support ships.

I heard the same from incursion runners, high sec lvl 5 runners who were mad when CCP fixed the bug (hell, I STILL have my high sec lvl 5 Rattlesnake somewhere), ishtar pilots and so on. EVERY time CCp fixes an obvious problem (like the outrageous 'nano ships" prior to 2009), people make the claims you do.

Bookmark this thread.
#42 - 2017-04-17 15:58:27 UTC
CCP said they will make a focus group soon

In my opinion the problems are:

- extreme cap recharge rates with cap batterys making some ships extremly tanky for a longer period of time, especially the blaster tengu with 2 large batterys
- to low sig radius, should be around 200
- some subsystems give useless bonuses, like the cap rech subsystem on the proteus gives bonus to drone tracking
- 6th turret comes from an engineering subsystem, which doesn't make sense at all



the solutions:

- tank bonus should be lowered to 7.5%, like all the other ships
- cap bonuses subsystems should have a high base cap, so that cap batterys don't double or triple the cap/s
- buffer subsystems should give a bonus to resistances and not ehp directly, or they should have a penalty to sig radius or mobility
- T3 should again be allowed in Ded 3 and 4 sites

T3 do the same amount of damage as Battlecruisers, both have 9 effective turrets each, which is fine. Pirate cruisers and some HAC do similar damage(vigilant, deimos, cerberus, phantasm, gila etc)
I've been using T3 since my early days in Eve and even back then there were aspects that I didn't like. One example is the missile subsystem on the legion, which only gives a bonus to heavy assault missiles, but not heavy missiles, also the tengu's damage bonus only being applied to kinetic missiles while the jackdaw's bonus gets applied to all damage types. This doesn't make much sense.

I also used a Legion for running C3 sites, and I was able to do that with just 2 slot of tank, one Eanm and one deadspace armor rep. This shows the power of that ship, low sig makes missiles from sleeper battleships completly harmless. I also solod C5 sites in a Tengu and I was able to keep my Shield booster running permanently while beeing neuted. There you see the power of cap batterys on cruisers. If the tengu has like 8k base cap with lower recharge rate, this wouldn't have been so easy.
Now people say that these ships are overpowered, in my opinion this is false. It takes forever to train for them, plus you lose skillpoints when gettting killed. So that is a good reason why they should be a little(but not too much) OP. If a Tengu is able to tank a C5 sleeper site(about 2k dps), then this is fine. But if a Tengu can tank a 100 man fleet with like 20k dps and tons of neuts over a longer period of time, that is overpowered. But you also have to keep in mind that you can't have max tank and max dps togheter. These dual cap battery tengus are usually only able to fit 5 heavy electron blasters due to lack of PG and CPU, means they do less dps. The same goes for my C5 Tengu, it only can use 5 launchers and not 6.

Also what I always wondered: Why do the offensive subsystems not give the full amount of turrets? If you want maximum dps you have to use a subsystem that gives bonus to PG even though you have enought to fit everything without it?
Some people think here, that it is not ok to have good cap recharge and maximum dps togheter. These subsystems still have fitting restrictions, a Legion can't fit 6 heavy pulse lasers and a 1600 plate togheter with the augmented cap reservoir. It is just enought to fit 6 HPL and a armor rep.

Another thing could be to disallow T3 to change subsystems in space on mobile depots and capital ships, it should only be possible on NPC stations and structures. Changing subsystems is changing a part of your ship with another one. Also this will make them also a bit less op, as you have to choose subsystem combination wisely before you undock. For me, even though I use T3 to farm wormholes and have a covops fit, it would be ok, because that was the only reason why I choose a Legion to daytrip C3, I was able to change a covops ship to a combat ship in space on a mobile depot, and when I was finished back to a covops ship again. Limiting the changing of subsystems to stations and structures would still make them a good choice, but you have the wisely choose subsystems before undocking. There should also be the difference to T3 destroyers that can change from dps mode to tank mode with just one click.

i'm REALY miss the old stuff. 

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183

#43 - 2017-04-17 16:01:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Jenn aSide wrote:

THIs proves the point. A standard response by someone who doesn't want to see their unbalanced thing go away is "it's balanced by the fact that you can have one too, so you should just get one and leave mine alone".

They always ignore you when you tell them that you DO have or do the thing in question, which is how you know how unbalanced they are. I own Tengus to run DED 6/10s, Proteus' for fleet doctrine things, a Loki that can tank the worst COSMOS complexes and run the Epic arc missions and so on. I KNOW how overpowered they are, I own several. No cruiser sized ship can match my FoF missile tengu support ships.

I heard the same from incursion runners, high sec lvl 5 runners who were mad when CCP fixed the bug (hell, I STILL have my high sec lvl 5 Rattlesnake somewhere), ishtar pilots and so on. EVERY time CCp fixes an obvious problem (like the outrageous 'nano ships" prior to 2009), people make the claims you do.

Bookmark this thread.


While I'm sure there are plenty of people that applies to - your talking to the wrong person really - most of my T3 use was either Tengus running wormhole sites, T3s in wormhole combat where the mass restrictions, etc. made them the logical choice or pottering around in highsec doing silly things like double/triple boxing prots and stuff for basic PVE because I found it interesting and more satisfying than other approaches:

http://imgur.com/uKC1G8I

Most of my attraction to T3s was the ability to do esoteric things with them and the power is part of that but the blunt nerf hammer would also trample over many interesting uses for them that nothing else in the game comes close to.
ChaosTheory.
#44 - 2017-04-17 16:49:28 UTC
Rroff wrote:


While I'm sure there are plenty of people that applies to - your talking to the wrong person really - most of my T3 use was either Tengus running wormhole sites, T3s in wormhole combat where the mass restrictions, etc. made them the logical choice or pottering around in highsec doing silly things like double/triple boxing prots and stuff for basic PVE because I found it interesting and more satisfying than other approaches:

http://imgur.com/uKC1G8I

Most of my attraction to T3s was the ability to do esoteric things with them and the power is part of that but the blunt nerf hammer would also trample over many interesting uses for them that nothing else in the game comes close to.


How many people do you think do that, as opposed to how many people fly those ships because they are overpowered?

You're going to have to get used to losing things in this game that you think are cool because others abuse those things. It happens to me more times than I can count.


The worst time it happened to me was with the fighter assign function. For years I used the assign fighters function the thwart "claoky campers" in null sec. I would fit up a cheap tech1 cruisers or even a tanky tech1 hauler and assign 5 fighters to it from my carrier at the edge of a pos shield.

If the cloaky was actually a hot dropper and attacked the carrier I'd just scoot it into the pos shield, if they hotdropped the t1 cruiser (usually a Maller for the tank), at BEST they'd kill a T1 cruiser that that cost less than the fuel they used to drop me, and occasionally and with the help of the fighters I'd kill one or 2 of them 1st. So rather than do what many do and complain about hotdroppers/cloaky campers, I used the tools the game already had and did something about them..

Then CCP made some changes that made assigned fighters super over powered (it was called "Skynet"). CCP eventually killed fighter assign, in part to kill skynet and in part to prepare for the coming changes to fighter/carrier gameplay.

I was miffed. Here I had come up with something I thought was cool and cleaver. and CCP killed it. I realized very shortly that I was being selfish. I'd have rather had my cool way to deal with cloaky campers/hotdroppers rather than see the game balanced to the point where people weren't camping gates with T1 frigates with super powerful assigned fighters. I grew out of that selfishness, CCP{ does what they need for the overall game, regardless of what I like or want.

I'd suggest you do the same. T3Cs are changing, nothing you post is going to change that, and at the end of the day it will be good for EVE as a whole, even if you don't like it and feel you lost something. As most players fly T3Cs because they are op, they will adapt.
#45 - 2017-04-17 16:56:05 UTC
oiukhp Muvila wrote:
I think mobility might be the biggest reason to use T3 instead of a BS in Null Sec for rattin.

Nothing like cloaky nullified traveling to where you need to go, change out your subs/mods, rat a bit, change back and go home.
Why risk a BS when you can do that?


for ratting that sounds like, well a big waste of time all around. I'd assume for ratting you are part of the local bloc and have the ships you need staged appropriately. T3c sound like a great way to run complexes or other exploration sites though. And with the way they are breaking up subsystems you will be able to fit cloak and nullification with a damage sub, so that might be interesting.

selling officer BCUs! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6872141

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

#46 - 2017-04-17 17:08:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Jenn aSide wrote:

How many people do you think do that, as opposed to how many people fly those ships because they are overpowered?

You're going to have to get used to losing things in this game that you think are cool because others abuse those things. It happens to me more times than I can count.


The worst time it happened to me was with the fighter assign function. For years I used the assign fighters function the thwart "claoky campers" in null sec. I would fit up a cheap tech1 cruisers or even a tanky tech1 hauler and assign 5 fighters to it from my carrier at the edge of a pos shield.

If the cloaky was actually a hot dropper and attacked the carrier I'd just scoot it into the pos shield, if they hotdropped the t1 cruiser (usually a Maller for the tank), at BEST they'd kill a T1 cruiser that that cost less than the fuel they used to drop me, and occasionally and with the help of the fighters I'd kill one or 2 of them 1st. So rather than do what many do and complain about hotdroppers/cloaky campers, I used the tools the game already had and did something about them..

Then CCP made some changes that made assigned fighters super over powered (it was called "Skynet"). CCP eventually killed fighter assign, in part to kill skynet and in part to prepare for the coming changes to fighter/carrier gameplay.

I was miffed. Here I had come up with something I thought was cool and cleaver. and CCP killed it. I realized very shortly that I was being selfish. I'd have rather had my cool way to deal with cloaky campers/hotdroppers rather than see the game balanced to the point where people weren't camping gates with T1 frigates with super powerful assigned fighters. I grew out of that selfishness, CCP{ does what they need for the overall game, regardless of what I like or want.

I'd suggest you do the same. T3Cs are changing, nothing you post is going to change that, and at the end of the day it will be good for EVE as a whole, even if you don't like it and feel you lost something. As most players fly T3Cs because they are op, they will adapt.


No actually I stopped playing because of it - what interested me in the game was long term goals and it got to the point where I was like - "well I'm not going to work towards that because there is a high chance stuff will get changed by the devs before or just as I get there" and I lost interest in the game.

I got burnt by the fighter changes and was pretty much the last straw for me - and I was one of the people that campaigned to put an end to the ability to do the whole skynet thing - my own use being totally unrelated and I'd been working towards it long before the introduction of the drone mods that made it possible - your whole argument over that being selfish is a load of BS though - if you go back read the threads I came up with a number of approaches that would have killed skynet deader than dead with minimal impact on people using them in other ways but CCP just rode roughshod over it - there was no need for anyone to be selfless for the bigger good.

(Skynet was hilarious mind - could blap just about anything sub-capital in the game when setup right no matter speed or tank or low sig or whatever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUZsKXSEU8M ).

I'm not going to lose anything - I stopped playing 2 years ago other than coming back and burning my remaining PLEX with the alpha thing - I still have a lot of love for the core concept of the game but changes like this aren't going to do the good people think in the long run.

EDIT: PS you didn't need to scoot back into the shields - you could put a SMA on the edge of the POS shield and just store it in there and get your pod out if engaged. Skynet was hilariously broken if you knew your way around all the facets of it.
#47 - 2017-04-17 17:46:59 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


even when they should clearly be able to see how that advantage is unfair to other people".



I find it cute how many people in Eve call for things to be pulled down to their level because they got killed a few times bringing a knife to a gun fight - instead of investing in a gun they want CCP to force everyone else to bring knives :D

(Not a comment directed at anyone specifically)


T3Cs are objectively overpowered. CCP have stats that show this pretty clearly, and even players have access to enough data to show how powerful T3Cs are. Just a quick flip through zKill shows how prevalent and widely used these ships are and how under-used ships like HACs are. Similarly you can easily see that HACs don't see much use anymore, especially relative to their cost, or that certain subsystems see basically no use or market movement. All of this is supported by the comments and data we've seen out of CCP.

So, from that we can conclude that this isn't just a case of someone getting killed by some new hot ship and demanding that it be brought down to their level. This is a case of a ship class being so massively oppressive in the meta that the options for dealing with it are to either bring that ship, or something that hard counters it, outside of a few specialist roles, because if your opponent brings them and uses them at all correctly you're going to get wrecked.

Rroff wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Would like to bet?


My previous take on the impact of changes has largely worked out as I said it would (check my older posts :( ) so wouldn't be much of a bet :| I'm not saying people would stick with T3Cs btw in the comment above - I'm pretty sure it will just lead to increasing numbers being disengaged with the game even as they move to other stuff - I just didn't want to spell out yet again that it will lead to more people slowly trickling away from the game.


This is bad logic.

The underlying assumption is that nerfing something that's OP is going to be generally viewed as bad by a majority of players as opposed to leaving something OP. Leaving a thing OP has a negative impact on the playerbase as well. It makes the game feel bad to anyone who isn't a fan of that ship, especially one as prevalent in the meta as T3Cs are, and it makes players less likely to recommend the game to friends because 'they never balance anything' (a complaint I've literally heard about other games).

The assumption here is that the loss from nerfing the thing is going to be greater than the loss from not nerfing the thing, when you have zero evidence to support this. It's essentially entirely supposition on your part and pretty clearly informed by your own bias.

Yeah, getting something nerfed sucks, but it's not generally what makes people quit a game. People swap games, quit and come back, and generally change their play patterns all the time. Games grow until the influx of new players drops below the attrition of the old, and these old players will continue to drop out through normal attrition whether things are nerfed or not. Blaming this kind of attrition on nerfing things, especially things that clearly deserve the nerf, is ridiculous.
#48 - 2017-04-17 17:52:07 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Yeah, getting something nerfed sucks, but it's not generally what makes people quit a game. People swap games, quit and come back, and generally change their play patterns all the time. Games grow until the influx of new players drops below the attrition of the old, and these old players will continue to drop out through normal attrition whether things are nerfed or not. Blaming this kind of attrition on nerfing things, especially things that clearly deserve the nerf, is ridiculous.


The logic here is that - you look at say the horde of people that jumped on the Ishtar - few had any love for the ship it was just pure and simple one of if not the best tools for the job and relatively low investment, etc. you look at T3Cs though and yeah a lot of people jump on them because of their power but you'll find a lot of people also have some level of affection for their strategic cruisers - don't underestimate that.
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2017-04-17 17:55:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Mieyli
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The assumption here is that the loss from nerfing the thing is going to be greater than the loss from not nerfing the thing, when you have zero evidence to support this. It's essentially entirely supposition on your part and pretty clearly informed by your own bias.


I agree with your post, but where is the win in this equation? Both outcomes seem to result in lost players.
#50 - 2017-04-17 18:21:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
Gustav Mannfred wrote:
CCP said they will make a focus group soon

In my opinion the problems are:

- extreme cap recharge rates with cap batterys making some ships extremly tanky for a longer period of time, especially the blaster tengu with 2 large batterys
- to low sig radius, should be around 200
- some subsystems give useless bonuses, like the cap rech subsystem on the proteus gives bonus to drone tracking
- 6th turret comes from an engineering subsystem, which doesn't make sense at all



the solutions:

- tank bonus should be lowered to 7.5%, like all the other ships
- cap bonuses subsystems should have a high base cap, so that cap batterys don't double or triple the cap/s
- buffer subsystems should give a bonus to resistances and not ehp directly, or they should have a penalty to sig radius or mobility
- T3 should again be allowed in Ded 3 and 4 sites

T3 do the same amount of damage as Battlecruisers, both have 9 effective turrets each, which is fine. Pirate cruisers and some HAC do similar damage(vigilant, deimos, cerberus, phantasm, gila etc)
I've been using T3 since my early days in Eve and even back then there were aspects that I didn't like. One example is the missile subsystem on the legion, which only gives a bonus to heavy assault missiles, but not heavy missiles, also the tengu's damage bonus only being applied to kinetic missiles while the jackdaw's bonus gets applied to all damage types. This doesn't make much sense.

I also used a Legion for running C3 sites, and I was able to do that with just 2 slot of tank, one Eanm and one deadspace armor rep. This shows the power of that ship, low sig makes missiles from sleeper battleships completly harmless. I also solod C5 sites in a Tengu and I was able to keep my Shield booster running permanently while beeing neuted. There you see the power of cap batterys on cruisers. If the tengu has like 8k base cap with lower recharge rate, this wouldn't have been so easy.
Now people say that these ships are overpowered, in my opinion this is false. It takes forever to train for them, plus you lose skillpoints when gettting killed. So that is a good reason why they should be a little(but not too much) OP. If a Tengu is able to tank a C5 sleeper site(about 2k dps), then this is fine. But if a Tengu can tank a 100 man fleet with like 20k dps and tons of neuts over a longer period of time, that is overpowered. But you also have to keep in mind that you can't have max tank and max dps togheter. These dual cap battery tengus are usually only able to fit 5 heavy electron blasters due to lack of PG and CPU, means they do less dps. The same goes for my C5 Tengu, it only can use 5 launchers and not 6.

Also what I always wondered: Why do the offensive subsystems not give the full amount of turrets? If you want maximum dps you have to use a subsystem that gives bonus to PG even though you have enought to fit everything without it?
Some people think here, that it is not ok to have good cap recharge and maximum dps togheter. These subsystems still have fitting restrictions, a Legion can't fit 6 heavy pulse lasers and a 1600 plate togheter with the augmented cap reservoir. It is just enought to fit 6 HPL and a armor rep.

Another thing could be to disallow T3 to change subsystems in space on mobile depots and capital ships, it should only be possible on NPC stations and structures. Changing subsystems is changing a part of your ship with another one. Also this will make them also a bit less op, as you have to choose subsystem combination wisely before you undock. For me, even though I use T3 to farm wormholes and have a covops fit, it would be ok, because that was the only reason why I choose a Legion to daytrip C3, I was able to change a covops ship to a combat ship in space on a mobile depot, and when I was finished back to a covops ship again. Limiting the changing of subsystems to stations and structures would still make them a good choice, but you have the wisely choose subsystems before undocking. There should also be the difference to T3 destroyers that can change from dps mode to tank mode with just one click.


Amarr missile-ships all have bonuses to short-ranged missiles only. It's not just the Legion that has these. Check the Sacrilege for example.

Also, your idea of stopping tech 3's from changing subsystems would screw over wormhole-space, since we don't have NPC-stations....

Wormholer for life.

Gallente Federation
#51 - 2017-04-17 20:44:09 UTC
Keno Skir wrote:

Correct. I have a proteus that has 200,000hp and does 1000DPS.

I have BS that do more in both areas obviously, but to make up for the increase in sig over the Prot they really have to do a lot more than that, which limits the options. The Proteus is approx 700M fully fit which is another bonus over most decent BS.

Pirate


is there anything you may have forgotten like full slave set , drugs , mind-linked fleet boosts etc ..?
200 k ehp / 1000 dps and only 700 mill all in one fit .. amazing plz do share the fit if you can ..
bolded and underlined the important part for you Big smile


#52 - 2017-04-17 20:46:12 UTC
I suspect he is including fleet boosts in that EHP calculation.
#53 - 2017-04-17 21:00:16 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The assumption here is that the loss from nerfing the thing is going to be greater than the loss from not nerfing the thing, when you have zero evidence to support this. It's essentially entirely supposition on your part and pretty clearly informed by your own bias.


I agree with your post, but where is the win in this equation? Both outcomes seem to result in lost players.


Welcome to the catch-22 of MMO development.

The things that tend to bring in new players are big flashy updates, though rebalances, buffs, and bug fixes can all bring back players as well especially if someone hears that their old favorite ship is viable again.

You are correct though, both courses of action lose players. That's the point, the game is going to lose players to general attrition and boredom no matter what CCP does. It's happened to every MMO in history.

Rroff wrote:
The logic here is that - you look at say the horde of people that jumped on the Ishtar - few had any love for the ship it was just pure and simple one of if not the best tools for the job and relatively low investment, etc. you look at T3Cs though and yeah a lot of people jump on them because of their power but you'll find a lot of people also have some level of affection for their strategic cruisers - don't underestimate that.


The people with an affection for the ships will likely stick with them unless they're nerfed into uselessness which seems highly unlikely. Anyone who quits because their ship is no longer OP as hell didn't have an affection for the ship, they had an affection for being OP.

Those players will either go off looking for something else to abuse or they'll quit because they were looking for a reason and this is the one they picked. They'll probably go off to some other game with worse balance where they can lord over someone else with something that probably needs to be nerfed.

Regardless you don't have a case against nerfing these ships. You have a lot of supposition that it *might* cause players to leave, but no evidence of how many or that it even will cause any significant number to leave. That's not an argument against nerfing a blatantly unbalanced ship class.
#54 - 2017-04-17 21:10:33 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Those players will either go off looking for something else to abuse or they'll quit because they were looking for a reason and this is the one they picked. They'll probably go off to some other game with worse balance where they can lord over someone else with something that probably needs to be nerfed.


I see what your problem is.

As an aside games that are balanced to perfection tend to be incredibly bland and short lived a game needs character and texture and that comes from things not being too finely tuned in balance - that isn't necessarily an argument that T3s don't need changing but the changes people often call for won't do what they think they will do.

Regarding loss of players - the number of people complaining about the balance of T3s is minimal while these people themselves are saying what an outcry the kind of nerfs they want will cause - you can guess where the balance of player loss lies.
Caldari State
#55 - 2017-04-17 22:13:40 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
oiukhp Muvila wrote:
I think mobility might be the biggest reason to use T3 instead of a BS in Null Sec for rattin.

Nothing like cloaky nullified traveling to where you need to go, change out your subs/mods, rat a bit, change back and go home.
Why risk a BS when you can do that?


for ratting that sounds like, well a big waste of time all around. I'd assume for ratting you are part of the local bloc and have the ships you need staged appropriately. T3c sound like a great way to run complexes or other exploration sites though. And with the way they are breaking up subsystems you will be able to fit cloak and nullification with a damage sub, so that might be interesting.



Sorry, my view of "Rattin" is all of the above.

I know its not being specific, but its simply all PVE making isk using weapons shooting Rats, belt, complex, or what ever. Blink

#56 - 2017-04-18 08:59:54 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Gustav Mannfred wrote:
CCP said they will make a focus group soon

In my opinion the problems are:

- extreme cap recharge rates with cap batterys making some ships extremly tanky for a longer period of time, especially the blaster tengu with 2 large batterys
- to low sig radius, should be around 200
- some subsystems give useless bonuses, like the cap rech subsystem on the proteus gives bonus to drone tracking
- 6th turret comes from an engineering subsystem, which doesn't make sense at all



the solutions:

- tank bonus should be lowered to 7.5%, like all the other ships
- cap bonuses subsystems should have a high base cap, so that cap batterys don't double or triple the cap/s
- buffer subsystems should give a bonus to resistances and not ehp directly, or they should have a penalty to sig radius or mobility
- T3 should again be allowed in Ded 3 and 4 sites

T3 do the same amount of damage as Battlecruisers, both have 9 effective turrets each, which is fine. Pirate cruisers and some HAC do similar damage(vigilant, deimos, cerberus, phantasm, gila etc)
I've been using T3 since my early days in Eve and even back then there were aspects that I didn't like. One example is the missile subsystem on the legion, which only gives a bonus to heavy assault missiles, but not heavy missiles, also the tengu's damage bonus only being applied to kinetic missiles while the jackdaw's bonus gets applied to all damage types. This doesn't make much sense.

I also used a Legion for running C3 sites, and I was able to do that with just 2 slot of tank, one Eanm and one deadspace armor rep. This shows the power of that ship, low sig makes missiles from sleeper battleships completly harmless. I also solod C5 sites in a Tengu and I was able to keep my Shield booster running permanently while beeing neuted. There you see the power of cap batterys on cruisers. If the tengu has like 8k base cap with lower recharge rate, this wouldn't have been so easy.
Now people say that these ships are overpowered, in my opinion this is false. It takes forever to train for them, plus you lose skillpoints when gettting killed. So that is a good reason why they should be a little(but not too much) OP. If a Tengu is able to tank a C5 sleeper site(about 2k dps), then this is fine. But if a Tengu can tank a 100 man fleet with like 20k dps and tons of neuts over a longer period of time, that is overpowered. But you also have to keep in mind that you can't have max tank and max dps togheter. These dual cap battery tengus are usually only able to fit 5 heavy electron blasters due to lack of PG and CPU, means they do less dps. The same goes for my C5 Tengu, it only can use 5 launchers and not 6.

Also what I always wondered: Why do the offensive subsystems not give the full amount of turrets? If you want maximum dps you have to use a subsystem that gives bonus to PG even though you have enought to fit everything without it?
Some people think here, that it is not ok to have good cap recharge and maximum dps togheter. These subsystems still have fitting restrictions, a Legion can't fit 6 heavy pulse lasers and a 1600 plate togheter with the augmented cap reservoir. It is just enought to fit 6 HPL and a armor rep.

Another thing could be to disallow T3 to change subsystems in space on mobile depots and capital ships, it should only be possible on NPC stations and structures. Changing subsystems is changing a part of your ship with another one. Also this will make them also a bit less op, as you have to choose subsystem combination wisely before you undock. For me, even though I use T3 to farm wormholes and have a covops fit, it would be ok, because that was the only reason why I choose a Legion to daytrip C3, I was able to change a covops ship to a combat ship in space on a mobile depot, and when I was finished back to a covops ship again. Limiting the changing of subsystems to stations and structures would still make them a good choice, but you have the wisely choose subsystems before undocking. There should also be the difference to T3 destroyers that can change from dps mode to tank mode with just one click.


Amarr missile-ships all have bonuses to short-ranged missiles only. It's not just the Legion that has these. Check the Sacrilege for example.

Also, your idea of stopping tech 3's from changing subsystems would screw over wormhole-space, since we don't have NPC-stations....



this has been changed on the sac about 4 years ago or so?

i'm REALY miss the old stuff. 

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183

Shadow Cartel
#57 - 2017-04-18 13:12:13 UTC
I think it's sad that everything has to be "balanced". Different ships for different tasks is what I love.

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP

#58 - 2017-04-18 13:25:41 UTC
Gustav Mannfred wrote:
Wander Prian wrote:
Gustav Mannfred wrote:
CCP said they will make a focus group soon

In my opinion the problems are:

- extreme cap recharge rates with cap batterys making some ships extremly tanky for a longer period of time, especially the blaster tengu with 2 large batterys
- to low sig radius, should be around 200
- some subsystems give useless bonuses, like the cap rech subsystem on the proteus gives bonus to drone tracking
- 6th turret comes from an engineering subsystem, which doesn't make sense at all



the solutions:

- tank bonus should be lowered to 7.5%, like all the other ships
- cap bonuses subsystems should have a high base cap, so that cap batterys don't double or triple the cap/s
- buffer subsystems should give a bonus to resistances and not ehp directly, or they should have a penalty to sig radius or mobility
- T3 should again be allowed in Ded 3 and 4 sites

T3 do the same amount of damage as Battlecruisers, both have 9 effective turrets each, which is fine. Pirate cruisers and some HAC do similar damage(vigilant, deimos, cerberus, phantasm, gila etc)
I've been using T3 since my early days in Eve and even back then there were aspects that I didn't like. One example is the missile subsystem on the legion, which only gives a bonus to heavy assault missiles, but not heavy missiles, also the tengu's damage bonus only being applied to kinetic missiles while the jackdaw's bonus gets applied to all damage types. This doesn't make much sense.

I also used a Legion for running C3 sites, and I was able to do that with just 2 slot of tank, one Eanm and one deadspace armor rep. This shows the power of that ship, low sig makes missiles from sleeper battleships completly harmless. I also solod C5 sites in a Tengu and I was able to keep my Shield booster running permanently while beeing neuted. There you see the power of cap batterys on cruisers. If the tengu has like 8k base cap with lower recharge rate, this wouldn't have been so easy.
Now people say that these ships are overpowered, in my opinion this is false. It takes forever to train for them, plus you lose skillpoints when gettting killed. So that is a good reason why they should be a little(but not too much) OP. If a Tengu is able to tank a C5 sleeper site(about 2k dps), then this is fine. But if a Tengu can tank a 100 man fleet with like 20k dps and tons of neuts over a longer period of time, that is overpowered. But you also have to keep in mind that you can't have max tank and max dps togheter. These dual cap battery tengus are usually only able to fit 5 heavy electron blasters due to lack of PG and CPU, means they do less dps. The same goes for my C5 Tengu, it only can use 5 launchers and not 6.

Also what I always wondered: Why do the offensive subsystems not give the full amount of turrets? If you want maximum dps you have to use a subsystem that gives bonus to PG even though you have enought to fit everything without it?
Some people think here, that it is not ok to have good cap recharge and maximum dps togheter. These subsystems still have fitting restrictions, a Legion can't fit 6 heavy pulse lasers and a 1600 plate togheter with the augmented cap reservoir. It is just enought to fit 6 HPL and a armor rep.

Another thing could be to disallow T3 to change subsystems in space on mobile depots and capital ships, it should only be possible on NPC stations and structures. Changing subsystems is changing a part of your ship with another one. Also this will make them also a bit less op, as you have to choose subsystem combination wisely before you undock. For me, even though I use T3 to farm wormholes and have a covops fit, it would be ok, because that was the only reason why I choose a Legion to daytrip C3, I was able to change a covops ship to a combat ship in space on a mobile depot, and when I was finished back to a covops ship again. Limiting the changing of subsystems to stations and structures would still make them a good choice, but you have the wisely choose subsystems before undocking. There should also be the difference to T3 destroyers that can change from dps mode to tank mode with just one click.


Amarr missile-ships all have bonuses to short-ranged missiles only. It's not just the Legion that has these. Check the Sacrilege for example.

Also, your idea of stopping tech 3's from changing subsystems would screw over wormhole-space, since we don't have NPC-stations....



this has been changed on the sac about 4 years ago or so?


Yeahh, I just rechecked. Seems my memory is not what it used to be... My mistake.

Wormholer for life.

ChaosTheory.
#59 - 2017-04-18 13:30:45 UTC
Eugene Kerner wrote:
I think it's sad that everything has to be "balanced". Different ships for different tasks is what I love.


Balanced doesn't mean "equal", it doesn't mean everything is good at everything.

And ironically, the way T3s are, they kill the "different ships for different tasks" idea.

Need a cloaky ship that can go somewhere and light a covert cyno and survive? Then use a T3C because Recons aren't nullified and can't get near as much EHP.

Need a fleet combat ship with lots of EHP? Screw a battleship (those just get bombed, even if you have defender missile dessies with you), get a Proteus or a Tengu.

Need an exploration ship. We have bonused exploration ships, but screw those, Tengu is better because it can survive the more dangerous sites.

If you love different ships for different tasks you will love EVE after these abominations get fixed.
#60 - 2017-04-18 14:54:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Jenn aSide wrote:


Need a fleet combat ship with lots of EHP? Screw a battleship (those just get bombed, even if you have defender missile dessies with you), get a Proteus or a Tengu.


This is the thing though - we looked at it a lot because outside of casual roams, etc. quite often there are situations where you want those durable fleet ships that can brawl (i.e. Gallente blasters) with atleast a decent chance against the full spectrum of threats in today's Eve.

-Thorax - lol.
-Brutix - Not a totally bad choice but not a great one either - t1 resists with its ehp/sig ratio doesn't do it favours and hard to fit without some significant compromises. Works well in situations where you have weight of numbers on your side (but then so do most ships at some point).
-Brutix Navy - A little better than the plain Brutix but still lacking.
-Deimos - Has the sig and resists but unless you go mad with like a slave set lacking in EHP for that kind of role, dps is adequate but only just - not really a great option.
-Vigilant - As Deimos but worse due to T1 resists.
-Astarte - A reasonable option but sig leaves it a bit vulnerable and has way too high bar for entry, mobility is so-so also.
-Megathron - Sadly signature and mobility leave it highly vulnerable i.e. to bombing runs as you mentioned otherwise it would have been a decent choice. Also mass is a consideration if you are transiting wormholes at all or combat in wormholes.
-Vindicator - Similar story to the Megathron slightly offset by the fact that its worth sticking some bling on it to bring up its resists/EHP but then you have something potentially overall a bit too expensive making cost a bar for entry.
-Proteus - Now we are talking - generic fit it has the EHP to make it survivable, waaay too small sig, reasonable mobility, good damage, not cheap but not so costly its a significant barrier - but then being the top pick it makes it viable to bling out a bit which further turns it from a great choice into a monster.

Nerfing the Proteus does nothing really to shift the balance of power unless you savage it and that doesn't change the fact that the other options are lacking.
37 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
Forum Jump