Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
160
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 13:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
The issue of Tech 3 balancing has come up a lot in the last couple of months, specifically the problem of their being better at certain roles than the dedicated T2 ships (like HACs). It has been suggested that they should be a "jack of all trades, master of none", which is to say nerfed to be inferior to the T2 versions in a particular role. Under current game mechanics this simply doesn't work as a solution.
A good ship is fitted directly for its role. A mission boat is made for maximum DPS, so that it can make as much money as possible, a PvP ship to be good at brawling, or ganking, or repping, or tanking, or whatever, but it fits to the role. There may be the odd ewar mod on an armor Cane, or some missile launchers on a recon, but the ship is chosen because it is good at one thing. The idea of a "jack of all trades", therefore doesn't work. People will choose the best specialised fit for the role they need, and then they will get another ship for a different role, and if the T3 is worse than the HAC, people will fly the HAC, regardless of whether the T3 has some minor secondary ability.
The solution I propose is that, in addition to being nerfed below T2 level, T3s should be able to refit themselves on the move. To be able to carry and swap out modules, drones, rigs, without being docked in a station or at a carrier or POS. That way the role of the T2 ships is not threatened by the T3, but the T3 still has a unique versatility that gives it a different strength all of its own. A T3 gang would be incredibly unpredictable and flexible, while still having the disadvantages of lower "head on" strength, higher price, and skill loss, when compared to T2s. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
441
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
nerf Interdiction Nullifier somehow. 0.0 transports shouldnt be that safe (practically uncatchable). |
Major Eyeswater
Snake Eyes Inc SoulWing Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Plus1 to the OP.
Seeing as someone abused the OP's subject ;) I would like to see a passive armour recharge subsystem (some kind of nanite/ fullerene self repair system) for the Legion and/or Proteus. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
560
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Being able to totally refit on the fly would be problematic...
You shouldn't be able to refit when targetted by another player or NPC... much like you can't board a ship under such circumstances. This will prevent people from refitting stabs in the middle of a battle to gtfo.
Also, I think I know how interdiction nullifiers should be nerfed:
Around the release of dominion, CCP changed something so that IntNull T3's could safely warp out of bubbles, but they would still be dragged INTO bubbles. This was perfect, because they couldn't just warp safely gate to gate... or else they might land in a drag bubble. It also let gangs use bubbles to make it much more difficult for a t3 to get through a gate. |
Xenobli
Armored Core Inc. Industrial Technonauts
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Rather than being able to straight up refit, why not set up fittings first, and have a certain number of slots for those? That way you're not quite refitting on the fly, but you can switch your fit to something else you've prepared in advance. |
Vaal Hadren
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 11:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
Double Post, see below. >.> |
Vaal Hadren
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 11:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
I don't like your suggestion really, as it would increase the cost of the TIII while making it less capable in any configuration. I mean, you'd need to carry so much gear including expensive subsytems with you to take advantage of your suggestion making the risk issue unfeasible in the field.
The "Jack of All Trades" thing with regard to TIII's is not what you're implying but rather the supreme flexibility of the hull (and subsytems).
So, as you suggested and I think we all agree, a HAC, well fit to its strengths, should be better in that role (or simply completely comparable though an order of magnitude cheaper) than a similarly fit TIII.
The HAC though remains what it is, where as the TIII can be reconfigured to act as Recon (again, similar to it's TII specialised cousin) though the TII Recon's should again be a better choice if one has both hulls on hand due (to cost efficiency and by being at least as effective).
So, the way I see it, and how I've seen CCP hint at their perspective, is that (say) a Legion - currently - can be configured as a Super-Zealot or a Super-Sacrilege or a Super-Pilgrim and so on.
When really it should only be reconfigurable as a Pseudo-Zealot (with perks and drawbacks), a Pseudo-Sacrilege (with perks and drawbacks) or a Pseudo-Pilgrim (with perks and drawbacks) or something that borrows heavily from all at the cost of raw single role efficiency. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
441
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 12:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP, please hit the nullifier sh*t with your nerf bat once... or twice |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
162
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vaal Hadren wrote:I don't like your suggestion really, as it would increase the cost of the TIII while making it less capable in any configuration. I mean, you'd need to carry so much gear including expensive subsytems with you to take advantage of your suggestion making the risk issue unfeasible in the field.
The "Jack of All Trades" thing with regard to TIII's is not what you're implying but rather the supreme flexibility of the hull (and subsytems).
So, as you suggested and I think we all agree, a HAC, well fit to its strengths, should be better in that role (or simply completely comparable though an order of magnitude cheaper) than a similarly fit TIII.
The HAC though remains what it is, where as the TIII can be reconfigured to act as Recon (again, similar to it's TII specialised cousin) though the TII Recon's should again be a better choice if one has both hulls on hand due (to cost efficiency and by being at least as effective).
So, the way I see it, and how I've seen CCP hint at their perspective, is that (say) a Legion - currently - can be configured as a Super-Zealot or a Super-Sacrilege or a Super-Pilgrim and so on.
When really it should only be reconfigurable as a Pseudo-Zealot (with perks and drawbacks), a Pseudo-Sacrilege (with perks and drawbacks) or a Pseudo-Pilgrim (with perks and drawbacks) or something that borrows heavily from all at the cost of raw single role efficiency.
That doesn't solve the problem, because people generally fit for single role efficiency. So if it's worse at that than the T2 at the main thing, people won't use it. That's why if the T3 isn't as good at the single role, and needs to have flexibility as an advantage, it can't simply have the potential to fit differently. It has to actually be able to do more in space. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
basically it needs to do 2 jobs instead of one at a t1/navy level and the removal of rigs would help flexibility aswell as drive away from bs tank nonsense but hopefully they will use the primary ewar of each race so TP/ecm etc. instead of webs/disruptor range which stamps on the recon role completely and is out of place on these ships as the recons are OP atm too.
|
|
Dread Pirate Pete
Tribal Core Defiant Legacy
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
A ship that needs to dock and refit is not flexible, you might as well just have a second ship to reship to. Flexibility must exist on field.
Logically a "Jack of all trades" would be a ship that can perform more than one role at any one time. So you could configure a T3 as a HAC/Logi or a Recon/HIC. A T3 would always be worse than a specialized T2 at its own game, but its ability to (competently and simultaneously) perform a second role would weight it up and allow for adaptation without the need to reship or refit.
So a HAC/Recon Loki would be 20% worse than a Vagabond at shooting and kiting, and 20% worse than a Rapier at webbing, but would be able to perform both roles at the same time. Thus making it a much more flexible and capable platform, that will still be beat by a specialized Vaga/Rapier team. |
Momoyo
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 19:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
I think being able to refit would be problematic and maybe a bit overpowered but an idea was suggested a while back for special t3 modules that could use scripts to change their parameters. So maybe resist mods that had scripts for the base resist type allowing you to change your resists on the fly, or a web/disruptor that could switch roles with a script. These mods wouldnt be as good a a specific t2 mod of course but it would allow the ships to adapt to different encounters. Maybe with a time based mechanic to change scripts as well |
tankus2
Endless Destruction Against ALL Anomalies
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 20:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
I agree with the OP and Dread Pirate Pete (DPP), the best way to make t2 cruisers more desirable without being overpowered and yet making t3s not gimped would be to give the t3s an innate ability to swamp modules on the fly. Though I think that having the ability to swap rigs and subsystems would be silly since:
1) rigs are supposed to be bolted to the ship and thus a part of it. Perhaps giving rigs on over to the engineering subsystem could give a t3 more flexiblity in this department?
2) subsystems are physical parts of the ship. when trying to undock with any configuration that has less than 4 subsystems will get an error stating that your ship isn't complete. Perhaps being able to script out subsystems would help solve this by having the ship's subsystems lose all but the most general bonus, then gain a new general bonus that increases the effectiveness of these scripts (by anywhere from 5% to 10%) on a per-level basis.
There is a lot of thought yet to be put into this, but this thread is already more than worth it! Where the science gets done |
King Rothgar
Black Watch Guard Gl0rious Bastards
308
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:46:00 -
[14] - Quote
It's an interesting idea but is seriously broken for reasons already mentioned. I think the real solution is to go back to the concept and try again.
I remember when T3 was still in the concept phase. So many of us had high hopes for truly customizable ships. I thought we would get a cruiser hull where we could actually pick the ship bonuses and slot layout from a list without racial restrictions. An example would be I could pick an amarr drone boat hull with a web strength and range bonus. And then I could select the slot layout, perhaps giving it 8 lows and 4-5 mids while dropping down to only a few high slots. Such a hull does not currently exist in game and thus is far easier to balance against the others. The price and skillpoint loss grants uniqueness rather than simply being better.
That may have been the concept and the dream, but obviously it didn't happen. We ended up with racial specific subsystems that did very specific things, all of them having t2 and faction equivalents. There simply wasn't anything new with them at all. Since they cost 5x as much with risk of skill loss, the only way to balance them was to make them far superior to the t2/faction equivalent ships. And thus we have what we have now.
The current setup does work, they are well balanced vs most other hulls (the legion being an exception, most of its subsystems are completely broken). The only one they aren't balanced with are HAC's. But tbh HAC's aren't balanced with anything else either. They get murdered by BC's and frigates as well. So I consider HAC balancing a completely separate issue from t3's. The Troll is trolling. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:CCP, please hit the nullifier sh*t with your nerf bat once... or twice
Dont rely on bubbles
Fit a Scrambler/Disrupter, they are the "Targetted" systems the nullifier does not protect against. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
411
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 10:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:CCP, please hit the nullifier sh*t with your nerf bat once... or twice Dont rely on bubbles Get a ship with a fast locktime. Fit a Scrambler/Disrupter, they are the "Targetted" systems the nullifier does not protect against. Also Remote Sensor Boosters ... and review both scripts that can be ran. 1 of them will help.
You're ignorant. First it's only possible to lock a cloaking ship before it cloaks in the case of either pilot error or some server weirdness-- even using a Dramiel with about 4k scan res (base-- RSBed up to something like 6 or 7k, I don't remember exactly but it was ridiculous) and decent pings I'm unable to pull this off 98% of the time.
Second, assuming you can't lock the target before it cloaks (generally the case), it's then literally impossible to decloak and tackle the target in the case of most cov/null T3s due to the way decloaking mechanics work. When the pilot hits the cloak button, their ship takes a couple of seconds to complete the cloaking animation, during which time it is not possible to "cancel" their cloaking process (they will end up cloaked at the end regardless of whether something gets within 2km of them). The only way they can be decloaked is by something getting within 2km of them AFTER they become fully cloaked, at which point it then takes another second or so of server lag / general hamsters in wheels stuff before they actually become visible and targetable again. THEN they need to be locked (takes another 0.5 seconds at least, regardless of scan-res, due to latency) and a point needs to activate on them (another ~0.5 sec).
When you add up all those delays in the process, you usually come up with a number larger than the align time of a properly-fit covert/nullified T3 ship. As a result, they are generally untackleable. Yes, there are rare exceptions (such as when players screw up and take their time hitting the cloak button, allowing you to lock them, or when people fit plates instead of nanos on their cov/null T3, resulting in an align time long enough to allow decloaking) but they are just that-- extremely rare exceptions to the rule. For the most part, the best outcome you can really hope for is managing to decloak the target only to receive "Interference from xxxx's warp prevents you from" as they warp off when you try to target them.
Covert / nullified T3 setups are almost entirely risk free as it stands. Barring technical difficulties or someone already sitting within 2km of where you appear after jumping through a gate (meaning you can't activate your cloak at all when you break gate-cloak) you're pretty much invulnerable. While for the most part this isn't a problem (you can't combat or cargo-fit a T3 and run camps with impunity) the fact that you can fit gang links and remain invulnerable is pretty OP. Given how crucial links can be in affecting the outcomes of fights, it seems quite silly that people fit with a multitude of them can cruise past any gatecamp with ease one moment, then provide their gang the bonuses they need to destroy the camp the next. CCP should probably consider adding align time penalties to the warfare processing subsystems for T3s to lengthen their align times slightly (even 1.5-2 seconds would be sufficient) so that competent gatecamps can decloak them. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
763
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 12:52:00 -
[17] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Being able to totally refit on the fly would be problematic...
You shouldn't be able to refit when targetted by another player or NPC... much like you can't board a ship under such circumstances. This will prevent people from refitting stabs in the middle of a battle to gtfo.
Also, I think I know how interdiction nullifiers should be nerfed:
Around the release of dominion, CCP changed something so that IntNull T3's could safely warp out of bubbles, but they would still be dragged INTO bubbles. This was perfect, because they couldn't just warp safely gate to gate... or else they might land in a drag bubble. It also let gangs use bubbles to make it much more difficult for a t3 to get through a gate.
You know there are some modules on the market from meta 1 to 4, T2 and faction officer with some role called "link"?
If you use those at gates in dedicated ships I can guarantee you nothing uncloaking at the gate can ever cloak before it's targeted but yeah, requires :effort: witch means some ships loose 1 slots for this purpose. You don't use them it's ok, but don't complain because someone trained more skills to use some ship offering some advantages and a lot of disadvantages just because you make your :parrot: brb |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
411
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 22:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Being able to totally refit on the fly would be problematic...
You shouldn't be able to refit when targetted by another player or NPC... much like you can't board a ship under such circumstances. This will prevent people from refitting stabs in the middle of a battle to gtfo.
Also, I think I know how interdiction nullifiers should be nerfed:
Around the release of dominion, CCP changed something so that IntNull T3's could safely warp out of bubbles, but they would still be dragged INTO bubbles. This was perfect, because they couldn't just warp safely gate to gate... or else they might land in a drag bubble. It also let gangs use bubbles to make it much more difficult for a t3 to get through a gate. You know there are some modules on the market from meta 1 to 4, T2 and faction officer with some role called "link"? If you use those at gates in dedicated ships I can guarantee you nothing uncloaking at the gate can ever cloak before it's targeted but yeah, requires :effort: witch means some ships loose 1 slots for this purpose. You don't use them it's ok, but don't complain because someone trained more skills to use some ship offering some advantages and a lot of disadvantages just because you make your :parrot:
Read the post above yours, you're wrong. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 23:05:00 -
[19] - Quote
The ability to refit is problematic, this would increase the cost of T3 losses significantly as most people would be losing 3-4 extra subsystems and new modules for their roles.
Im not sure how exactly I would fix them, but I know that allowing them to refit in space, even without being in combat, would be problematic, and probably isnt the best way to fix them. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |