open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Tiericide
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.17 10:09:00 - [1]
 

The odd name for this thread basically means Killing the Tier System.

Pros and Cons of the current tier system for tech I ships:

Pros
  • None


Cons
  • Obsoletes nearly half the Tech I ship lineup simply by existing

  • Arbitrarily dictates ship build cost

  • Impacts balance excessively

  • Has no logical basis


I see several ways to go about committing tiericide:

  1. Reduce all class appropriate skill requirements to lvl 1 (the skill that affects the bonuses)

  2. Change material cost to be based on mass (Tech 1 only)

  3. Adjust hp, cap, and fitting values to be more normalized

  4. Make the ship bonuses and slots be the differentiating factors

  5. Tweak individual ships to be more unique if there is excessive overlap

  6. Possibly add role bonuses to each ship to further define them (such as the Omen's could be 50% optimal range, Caracal's might be 25% shield resist, Stabber's could be 50% webifier range, etc)


Any thoughts?

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.17 10:16:00 - [2]
 

They're fine as they are right now.

Tiers also serve to dictate the T2 variant and potential other variants these ships may have in the future, and I really don't think they're nearly as 'arbitrary' as you think, in terms of build cost.


Giving T1 ships 'more' bonuses is also a bad idea; to compensate, T2 ships would also need even more bonuses, and having too large a split between what ships can do makes the potential for permanent FOTM ships far too great.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.17 10:21:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
They're fine as they are right now.


No they aren't.

Quote:
Tiers also serve to dictate the T2 variant and potential other variants these ships may have in the future,


Which is unnecessary.

Quote:
and I really don't think they're nearly as 'arbitrary' as you think, in terms of build cost.


Yes they are. It is entirely based on the tier system, which is completely arbitrary.

Quote:
Giving T1 ships 'more' bonuses is also a bad idea; to compensate, T2 ships would also need even more bonuses, and having too large a split between what ships can do makes the potential for permanent FOTM ships far too great.


T2 ships are almost always better than T1 ships with rare... well few exceptions. T2 ships also have the distinction of tending to be totally different in function than the T1 ship they are based on.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.17 10:31:00 - [4]
 

And what I'm saying has been said countless times before. If you add extra bonuses to tech1 ships to make them each more 'unique', you have to add even more stuff ot the tech 2 ships, and consequently the tech3 ships, which would cause so massive a difference between them that we would likely end up having permanent FOTM ship choices.


Their build costs are not arbitrary, as their usefulness is dictated by what purposes suits them best, which, depending on what that purpose is, should be a more expensive piece of technology or a less expensive one.

If you think they're that arbitrary, why not explain in detail why you think they are. I could explain at length why I think they're not, but it would take significantly less of my time to address your points than to cover all the bases upfront.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.17 16:40:00 - [5]
 

Ship build cost is based on their tier. That is about as arbitrary as it gets. If it was based on mass, it would make more sense.

Why should the best DPS Amarr BS also be the cheapest with the least hp and fitting? It is arbitrary.

T1 ships getting more bonuses wouldn't necessarily hurt T2 ships, but many T2 ships already need to be reviewed regardless of what happens with T1 ships.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.17 16:50:00 - [6]
 

Actually, if you look at it, the ships' costs are based on their overall capabilities.


An Armageddon may have high dps output potential, as you say, but it trades off survivability and capacitor capacity (included in the fact it has a rof bonus, not a damage one), for that. An Apocalypse has more sophisticated systems affording it more armor, more capacitor and better turret control, giving it a range bonus, whereas the Abaddon combines higher survivability with damage output capabilities, with higher PG allowing it to fit a full rack of Tachyons, should the pilot choose.


Look at real world airplanes or ships; a ship that has multiple times the size and mass, with an awesome array of sophisticated components, may actually be cheaper to manufacture than a jet fighter, simply because in the jet fighter's case, it needs even more sophisticated, more compact and more rugged hardware. Similarly, an airplane multiple times the size of a jet fighter could still end up being cheaper simply because its components are less sophisticated and/or its capabilities are inferior.

This makes your mass argument even more arbitrary than the current tier-based system.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.17 17:18:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 17/02/2011 17:20:11
Agreed. The tier system serves no useful purpose. The one purpose it had — to create an ability/price differentiation as skills increase — is no longer in effect since price differences are too marginal now that the economy has matured and since skill training has been sped up. The effect is that the tier system obsoletes all but one or two ships since the restrictions imposed by the tiered system means a lot of ships were purposfully designed to be bad. That design philosophy no longer has any place in the game as it exists today.

The differentiation the tiers were once meant to provide now happens through T1/T2/T3 instead, and is done much better there since the tech levels and the attached skills define specific purposes for the ships.

Ditch the tiers and give the various ships proper roles that are defined by useful role bonuses.

Malen Nenokal
The Nightshift
Posted - 2011.02.17 17:26:00 - [8]
 

Ship build costs are based on mineral requirements for each Hull. Also with th exception of frigate hulls, each tier caters to different play styles, the higher tiers aren't always preferred / better.

sabre906
Posted - 2011.02.17 18:00:00 - [9]
 

Hyperion costs 3 times as much as Domi, while not nearly as good, for anything, due to nothing but the tier system.Razz

Xe'Cara'eos
Posted - 2011.02.17 18:06:00 - [10]
 

whoa - define tier system - do you mean the skill requirements necessary to fly a ship?
as in rifter is frig 3, slasher is frig 2?
or something else?
ship bonuses and slots are already a largely differentiating factor, particularly for the high end ships.
HP, Cap and fitting, are differentiating factors - I thought you wanted more of those...
typically the ships with lowest HP and/or cap are the fastest/highest DPS
you can't base min reqs just on mass, you've got to take into the consideration the subsystems - propulsion, capacitor, engineering, shield, slot capability, targetting/tracking, anything else you can think of but I can't - each mineral has a different property, trit, when alloyed makes a very hard substance, pyerite (or is it mex) is a good conductor, etc.
ummm, that's all I can think of atm, I'm sure I'll come back with something daft to say.

Zilberfrid
Posted - 2011.02.17 18:11:00 - [11]
 

Tiers need to go, badly.

There might be a small hickup about build costs, but now some 50% of the ships have no purpose.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.17 19:53:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Xe'Cara'eos
whoa - define tier system - do you mean the skill requirements necessary to fly a ship?
as in rifter is frig 3, slasher is frig 2?


That is the way to tell which tier a ship is in, yes.

But the tier system is bad because a Slasher technically has no chance against a Rifter, despite both ships having the same purpose, to do damage.

Another example is the tier 1 cruisers... who uses them?

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.17 20:48:00 - [13]
 

So basically, Op, you don't want tiers removed for a real reason, just because you think "nobody uses these because they are tier x", even though your examples are false in the assumption that because you wouldn't use a particular ship, that means the vast majority of other players wouldn't use them, and as such the build costs of ships should be more balanced for no other reason than that there is a large perceived disparity between ships you deem worthless and ships you deem worth it?


The Osprey and Scythe are used for mining. The Osprey, Augoror and Exequror are used extensively in less expensive fleets as low-skill-requirement logistics for emergency remote repair from a player that may not have the skill requirements to use a RR battleship worth flying or a logistics ship, yet.

Similarly the Augoror, Exequror and Osprey are used by some mission runners for tag-along alts that provide them with remote cap, armor or shields, respectively, as well as tractoring and salvaging or simply cargo storage. For some people, the tracking link bonus on a scythe is more useful to them than remote repair, where their ship's fit can otherwise handle repair or cap requirements fine on its own without sacrificing DPS or other fitting factors.


In this way, you are essentially ignoring the potential uses for these ships purely because you aren't creative enough or don't have utility for them (any more), and want to impart your biased opinion as a design flaw that must, not might need to, but must be 'fixed'.


The skills ranking system is fine, it creates an artificial barrier of entry which doesn't need to be taken down. The fact that these ships vary in cost is, in large part, not purely based on tier, it's based on function and ship component costs as far as story is concerned.

In fact, if you look at the costs of some frigates, considering many are at a level 2 frigate skill requirement, you may find that some of the less 'complex' ships are cheaper to manufacture than their seemingly less useful ships in their 'tier', while similarly, a Blackbird is worth less than an Osprey, even though the Blackbird has the higher 'tier'.



I think you need to go back and revise your facts. The 'tier' system doesn't make anything 'obsolete', player choice does. 'Tier' does not determine the ship cost, its systems complexity and such does. It does not have any kind of 'excessive' balance impact and does have a logical basis in terms of CONCORD licensing for use.

That's right, by training a skill level, you're essentially improving the vehicle category you're allowed to drive as far as CONCORD is concerned. They are the ones that allow you to use those civvy ship designs, after all.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.17 21:47:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
So basically, Op, you don't want tiers removed for a real reason
No, he wants them removed for the simple reason that they no longer serve any purpose in today's game. They were put into place to be a differentiator between similar ships but that function is gone and has since been replaced by tech levels and class roles.

For a discussion on that topic, go here.
Quote:
The skills ranking system is fine, it creates an artificial barrier of entry which doesn't need to be taken down. The fact that these ships vary in cost is, in large part, not purely based on tier, it's based on function and ship component costs as far as story is concerned.
That's just it: there is no barrier of entry. Or, rather, there is one, but it lasts for… oh… all of 1 day when a player is new. Then it's no longer a barrier for anything… and then the whole functionality is tossed aside as people get into more advanced ships.

And yes, the cost is based on tier: the only reason some ships are more expensive than others is because they're higher-tier, which is supposed to mean that they're also more capable and "better". These differentiators hardly exist any more. The difference between tier-1 and tier-3 in terms of cost is negligible in today's economy, and the difference in skill reqs is a matter of hours. That only leaves the difference in capability, which, since those two other differentiators are gone, no longer has any useful reasoning behind it.
Quote:
I think you need to go back and revise your facts. The 'tier' system doesn't make anything 'obsolete', player choice does. 'Tier' does not determine the ship cost, its systems complexity and such does.
The tier determines cost because it's the tier system that determine the material reqs for the ships. The market sits on top of this and changes the final ISK price, but there is no reason for those material differences to exist any more.

It also obsoletes ships because as long as the tier system is in place, the ships cannot be given proper functions and roles that separate them from, not just ships in the same category, but ships in other ship classes. The BCs are a prime example of this: tier-1 BCs are worse than tier-2 for no other reason than that they are lower-tiered. The tiers do not provide any kind of role or special functionality, they just determine price/performance/skill req. Since price and skill reqs offer exactly zero hindrance these days, only performance remains so only one tier is relevant in any way.

The tier system has served out its purpose. It mattered back in the triassic era when it took a week more to mine for a tier-3 ship than for a tier-1 one, and when the skills actually took a while to acquire.

Since it no longer serves any purpose, the tier system could and should be replaced with something that signals proper roles and which make these different ships worth-well to come back to even when you (effortlessly) get your hands on more advanced ships. Then they can be balanced against each other in ways that the tier system simply doesn't allow (because it enforces a rule where lower tier ≡ less capability). It is a relic of a design philosophy that these days sit in the way of proper balancing and role management.

sabre906
Posted - 2011.02.17 21:57:00 - [15]
 

Hyperion must cost 3 times as much as Domi despite the fact that it sucks and few people would use it over domi or Megathorn for any purpose, because it is tier 3 and Domi is tier 1. This is the law and it must be so.Cool

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.18 00:12:00 - [16]
 

As seems to always happen, I disagree with you entirely, Tippia.

The stabber, as an example, serves many buffered tackling purposes. The arbitrator, in cheaper fleets, works well as a turret disruption platform, again with a solid buffer.

The Prophecy, with its armor resists bonus and ability to fit a sizeable buffer, again, works as a rugged tackling and bleeding platform, while a Brutix still provides superior brute-force firepower whereas a Myrmidon's drones are prone to being smartbombed into oblivion.

A Cyclone can fit a better local tank than a Hurricane can in terms of raw tanking potential, and your enemies can't always assess at the drop of a hat whether your ship is contributing more dps or if it's just there to divert your attention, the same way you may sometimes have a low-dps buffer Drake as opposed to a high-dps ewar Drake. Until you actually start shooting it and spend a bit of time on it, you won't necessarily be able to tell which it is.

A Ferox on the other hand serves as a great guerilla sniper for use against frigate sized ships and drones, particularly when working around stations or POSs.



I specifically pointed out that the perceived 'tiers' have some ships that, although they are higher in tier than their counterparts, are less expensive to build, not more expensive. Yes, among the Battleships, such as for the Dominix vs Hyperion example, there is the disparity in perceived functionality, but then, look at the Myrmidon vs Brutix example above. A Hyperion quite simply has a greater raw firepower potential while also having the utility of fitting a robust local tank should the user opt to go with such a fit as opposed to a buffered Megathron for whatever reason.

As such, no, no ship makes any other ship obsolete, player choices do. By your argument, players will always, without fail, use a Sleipnir as soon as they're able to, simply because they're able to, even if they know that there's an extremely high likelyhood of their dying in the roam or op they're heading out to use it in. They won't even consider using a Hurricane because it is now obsolete.


Similarly, people will always, without fail, use a Hyperion vs a Megathron, simply because it's higher tier, not because they had any other reason to, let alone cost effectiveness as a factor for their decision.


The skill barrier, as you said yourself takes "oh, a few hours" to overcome, but that's a few hours that a new player should not be allowed to get into that ship that costs that much more than the Slasher, Condor, Executioner or Atron they just got, because they still think that 1mil isk is insanely amazing money, and will become even more depressed if they die in their 150k frigate when they were supposed to be failing in their 30-50k frigate, instead.


Purpose? Mallers may be 'higher tier' than Omens, but which do you think people are more likely to use when they want firepower rather than more tank?
A Rupture may be higher tier than a Stabber, but which are they going to use when they want to be able to keep their distance on their targets?
A Moa may be higher tier than a Caracal, but when people want to not deal with turret tracking issues, they're still going to turn to the Caracal, whereas if they want their guerilla warfare they're going to use the Moa instead.
A Thorax is higher tier than a Vexor, but if they want higher agility and gank, knowing they're going to get some remote support and that their drones skills are up to par, they're going to use the Vexor instead, unless they're not going to get remote support, in which case they may be more inclined to use a Thorax for its superior buffer and direct-fire capabilities, not to mention that they don't need to have T2 heavy drones to make it worth it.


Again, tier has nothing to do with things becoming 'obsolete', while ships' potential, and thus its story-based systems complexity, is a greater determining factor than 'tier' in build cost.

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.02.18 00:34:00 - [17]
 

Your analysis of the issue of the tier system is something more of an opinion verses the idea and intentions of fundamentals which can be wrong.

You never explained your reasoning on why you think the tier system exists let alone approach it in such a manner as of being a neutral party so your arguement is very biased.

Now then onto wrong footing here.

Tier system is an arbitary semi-existent methaphorical idea in existence put in place and invented by players not the original programmers. Where some players definition of tier is newest which is whole hartingly true. Case in point tier 3 frigates and battleships, or the tier 2 battlecruisers wheren't around in the earliest days of eve, back then the Tristan a gallente tier 3 frigate was code named the fat man instead.

Now onto your absolutly wrong notion of what you think is wrong and how wodnerfully you think on how to fix it.
Obseltion of Ship line up is simply a notion you came up with as most ships are commonly still flown despite other competitive ships in the class existing. Now it would be unfair to point out the ferox and drake as an example but the fact there are still thousands of pilots who still command a ferox is valid ponit that the ship class isnt 'obsolete'.
There is only one case of a possibly under utilitized ship and that would be the mining frigates which might I add are still used by flourishing new players.

The price of ships in materials are based on the ship's inital scores or thier original expected performance and role, this is very obvoius if you look at the price of a mining frigate vs a recon frigate vs a electronic frigate vs an interceptor frigate vs support/secondary special warfare vs a strike frigate. Would it be fair if a mining frigate that isnt even built for combat be using the same amount of minerals for its armor and weapon mounts as an strike frigate? I think not. Which goes onto your next notion of incorrectness, balance, there is no reason why a electronics ship be able to match ounce per ounce against a strike frigate let alone almost any other normal tech 1 frigate able to withstand the onslaught of a ship purely built for brawling. In essence trying to balance a miner vs an attacker makes absolute no sense.

Now onto your solutions
If you tried to get rid of tiers the compensation would be to make every ship more difficult to get into, tiers are provided by player's minds as a sense of progression as well. The change of costs would be too much of a major impact on the market and prices as well its a situation where the cat is already out of the bag for these long time ship designs where if you increase price would cause much woe and lost market values of the ship and decreasing the cost would destroy the already built inventory's value significantly.
As pointed out earlier a mining ship has no business having the same amount of hp as an attack ship. Furthermore most ships are already unique in terms of bonues and performance the only thing eve needs now is more warfare options to continue increasing the libary of possible bonuses to pull from.

And finally your signature I think needs to be applied to yourself a bit more.

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2011.02.18 00:36:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 18/02/2011 00:38:36
Simple question: why does it hurt to have tiers?
Something concrete please. Some examples.

Are you talking about boosting low tiers. For balance?
Are you talking about ... doing stuff to higher tiers?
Or is this just a proposal for the sake of changing things?

Which ships are held back by the tiers? Where exactly is the problem?
Dominix is tier 1, Hyperion is tier 3. Yet the Dominix is more widely used and generally considered 'better'.
So the Dominix isn't hurt by the tier system.
Arbitrator is not tier 3. however I'd use it over a Maller in many cases.
Vexor is tier 2 and I'd prefer it over a Thorax in many situations.
Same with Armageddon. Perfectly viable ship. All that could happen is a bit more hp for a hefty price increase. Would that be an improvement? Right now it's nice and affordable. And those few base hp are hardly noticeable with todays plates and trimark rigs.
Still, the price tag on an Abaddon is justified.

So please tell everybody, where exactly is the problem and what would be better afterwards?
Besides those Cons are merely more than hot air.
No logical basis? Higher tier => it's a more sophisticated ship. Reason enough. A Ferrari is smaller than a pickup, still it's more expensive..
'Obsoletes nearly half the T1 ships' and 'impacts balance' is basically the same, and a sweeping claim not backed up by facts. Almost all T1 ships are viable, for different tasks. If you think otherwise, please post a list of obsolete ships and reason for being so.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.18 01:09:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
The stabber, as an example, serves many buffered tackling purposes. The arbitrator, in cheaper fleets, works well as a turret disruption platform, again with a solid buffer. [etc]
…and yet the lower-tiered ships are less capable in various ways than their higher-tiered brethren simply because they are lower-tiered. Less fitting room, less HP, less… well… everything. In some cases, the ships have bonuses that switch these things around, but ask yourself: why? Why did it have to be done through bonuses? The answer is: because the tier system requires the base stats to be lower, so the ships cannot be "naturally" better. Instead, bonus slots that could be used to very clearly define the ship's role are wasted on counter-acting the stat limits enforced by the tier system.

That is the tiered part that no longer serves any purpose or make any sense. The tier system keeps these ships from being balanced towards a role and instead demands a rather nonsensical progression in stats from one ship to the next.
Quote:
I specifically pointed out that the perceived 'tiers' have some ships that, although they are higher in tier than their counterparts, are less expensive to build, not more expensive.
The only comparable example you gave was Osprey (tier 1) vs. Blackbird (tier 2), and as it happens, the Blackbird is more costly.
Quote:
By your argument, players will always, without fail, use a Sleipnir as soon as they're able to, simply because they're able to,
No, because the Sleipnit is T2 and the Tech level system is the idea of tiered ships done right: more complex, more expensive, more capable, but these things balance each other out so one factor (e.g. capability) does not automatically make the ship "best" at all times.
Quote:
Similarly, people will always, without fail, use a Hyperion vs a Megathron, simply because it's higher tier […].
The Hype on the other hand is the perfect example of why the tier system fails: because it is higher tier, it must be more expensive, but it has no useful role that would rationalise that extra cost. Instead, it is just given a jumble of high stats and bonuses (because it's higher-tier) that make it supremely worthless. And since the tier system require it to be this way, it cannot be balanced to be made worth-while compared to the Mega or Domi.

The illustration is made extra clear by the fact that the Mega and Domi are unusually well-defined: they have bonuses that clearly marks one as a drone boat, and the other as a gunboat. Even so, the tier spectre is still there: one has higher stats for the sole reason that its higher tier demands it, not because it fits the role.
Quote:
The skill barrier, as you said yourself takes "oh, a few hours" to overcome, but that's a few hours that a new player should not be allowed to get into that ship that costs that much more than the Slasher,[…]
…you mean those prices that are completely artificial and a result of the tier system? Again, why does it have to be that way? Why can't the new players get 6 ships that cost the same but have very distinct roles? Without the tier system, losing any one of them won't hurt more than the other, and the player can instead try out all the different roles the ships have to offer. Instead we get a progression where earlier ships (because they do the same thing, but with lower stats) are no longer worth it.

It's not really about how some ships will in practice be better than others — in line with their respective tiers or not — but how the tier system requires ships to have better stats for absolutely no good reason. There's nothing that says that an Osprey must have less hull and grid and locking range [etc] than a Blackbird. The only reason it is so is because the tier system says it must be that way. There might be some very good reason why an Osprey should have tons of hull, but the tier system says "no".

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.18 01:16:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Nova Fox
Tier system is an arbitary semi-existent methaphorical idea in existence put in place and invented by players not the original programmers. Where some players definition of tier is newest which is whole hartingly true. Case in point tier 3 frigates and battleships, or the tier 2 battlecruisers wheren't around in the earliest days of eve, back then the Tristan a gallente tier 3 frigate was code named the fat man instead. […]

The price of ships in materials are based on the ship's inital scores or thier original expected performance and role, this is very obvoius if you look at the price of a mining frigate vs a recon frigate vs a electronic frigate vs an interceptor frigate vs support/secondary special warfare vs a strike frigate. Would it be fair if a mining frigate that isnt even built for combat be using the same amount of minerals for its armor and weapon mounts as an strike frigate? I think not.
But that's just it: why is it not the roles that determine the ship stats as a whole rather than its place in some arbitrary, metaphorical progression?

The problem right now is that "lower tier = lower stats", rather than "mining ship = lower armour, but higher [whatever] than a damage-dealer". The tier system doesn't allow for the latter because it's tied to the idea of the former. It causes some severe rigidities in the balancing between the various ships, which in turn means that the classes can't be as freely designed as one might wish.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.18 01:54:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
So basically, Op, you don't want tiers removed for a real reason,


I have stated real reasons.

Quote:
just because you think "nobody uses these because they are tier x", even though your examples are false in the assumption that because you wouldn't use a particular ship, that means the vast majority of other players wouldn't use them, and as such the build costs of ships should be more balanced for no other reason than that there is a large perceived disparity between ships you deem worthless and ships you deem worth it?


Do you ever use the Burst? How about the Navitas? Augoror? Exequeror? Scythe? Bellicose? Slasher? Magnate? Prophecy? Ferox?

Quote:
The Osprey and Scythe are used for mining.


Barely.

Quote:
The Osprey, Augoror and Exequror are used extensively in less expensive fleets as low-skill-requirement logistics for emergency remote repair from a player that may not have the skill requirements to use a RR battleship worth flying or a logistics ship, yet.


I'd love to see that, I really would, but those people are typically in Drakes...

Quote:
Similarly the Augoror, Exequror and Osprey are used by some mission runners for tag-along alts that provide them with remote cap, armor or shields, respectively, as well as tractoring and salvaging or simply cargo storage.


Niche usage. Extreme niche usage.

Quote:
For some people, the tracking link bonus on a scythe is more useful to them than remote repair, where their ship's fit can otherwise handle repair or cap requirements fine on its own without sacrificing DPS or other fitting factors.


But what is the role of the ship?

Quote:
In this way, you are essentially ignoring the potential uses for these ships purely because you aren't creative enough or don't have utility for them (any more), and want to impart your biased opinion as a design flaw that must, not might need to, but must be 'fixed'.


The tier system has nothing to do with a ship's role, if anything it makes giving a ship a designated role more difficult. Why is the Rupture hands down better than any other Minmatar cruiser is the vast majority of situations it will be in? Why is the only Amarr cruiser worth having a drone ew boat? They are the Meltagun and armor race btw.

Quote:
The skills ranking system is fine, it creates an artificial barrier of entry which doesn't need to be taken down.


LOL

Quote:
The fact that these ships vary in cost is, in large part, not purely based on tier, it's based on function and ship component costs as far as story is concerned.


The cost of the ship is 100% related to its tier.

Quote:
In fact, if you look at the costs of some frigates, considering many are at a level 2 frigate skill requirement, you may find that some of the less 'complex' ships are cheaper to manufacture than their seemingly less useful ships in their 'tier', while similarly, a Blackbird is worth less than an Osprey, even though the Blackbird has the higher 'tier'.


Blackbirds are one of the most produced ships in the game. That might have something to do with it.

Quote:
The 'tier' system doesn't make anything 'obsolete', player choice does.


Slasher vs Rifter, which is your choice and why?

Quote:
It does not have any kind of 'excessive' balance impact and does have a logical basis in terms of CONCORD licensing for use.


No balance impact? Why are Command Ships inferior in many ways to tier 2 BCs?

NOTE: CS came before tier 2 BCs.

Quote:
That's right, by training a skill level, you're essentially improving the vehicle category you're allowed to drive as far as CONCORD is concerned. They are the ones that allow you to use those civvy ship designs, after all.


CONCORD is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.18 02:04:00 - [22]
 

Because to get that speed that the Condor, Executioner, Atron and Slasher have, you have to make sacrifices.
To fit in and make affordable those electronics systems in a Griffin, Crucifier, Maulus and Vigil, you have to make sacrifices.
To make them as tough as they are on the front lines, the Merlin, Punisher, Tristan and Rifter require more materials for better weapons systems.


Those artificial and arbitrary 'tiers' aren't linear, they're based on the complexity of a system based on the sum of its components.


Let's take a C-130 Herclues as an example. Around a dozen variants of this one plane exist in military, aeronautical research, rescue, surveillance, transport and aid relief operations.

If you're using one for military purposes, you have a ratio of 3.0 for the equipment required, such as the various forms of surveillance equipment as well as weaponry, requires that both are fairly compact, that the plane's hull be reinforced to withstand some degree of received munitions, have counter-measures should missiles be used against them and a crew to operate all the machinery/equipment, including ways for them to secure themselves and/or extra emergency facilities.

If you're using one for aeronautical research purposes, the equipment required, you have a ratio 1.0, because there is no specific need to make it more compact; the rest of the interior of the plane doesn't really need to be used for anything else and the total weight is not a concern. With massive automation of the equipment onboard, crew requirements are minimal.

If you're using one for rescue purposes, such as sea-based lifting, you're looking at a 0.6 ratio so that there's some surveillance equipment, some emergency treatment equipment and the lifting equipment required.

If you're using one for transport purposes, there's virtually no equipment required, which gives you a 0.75 ratio since you're not adding anything special into the plane.

For research purposes, the systems are similar to that of the aeronautical research platform in complexity and cost, giving you a 1.0 ratio again.

If you're using it for aid relief, you're essentially working with a transport plane or a mixture of transport and rescue plane, minus the surveillance equipment, so you're again looking at a 0.75 ratio.



In all these instances, what you're looking at is, as far as your argument, Tippia, and your argument, Op, a tier system. Clearly, the military oriented plane has the highest tier and has an arbitrarily high cost. All of these planes are the same hull, but what sets them apart is the extensive modifications that are required and sacrifices in functionality and facilities that have to be made just to accommodate the specific functions each build has. The military oriented one is going to cost the most by far simply because of the reinforcement, extra internal modification and expensive equipment required to support its weaponry and crew, and yet, sacrifices have to be made in its cargo carriage capacity, its overall speed due to a very large increase in mass as well as the cost of keeping its crew. The military personnel and the fact the thing is being flown for what amounts to war purposes makes it more dangerous and thus requires far greater security measures etc, which creates another artificial tier in terms of its risk profile, which amounts to the skill requirements for ships in EVE (see my CONCORD licenses remark).


On the other hand, the rescue, aid relief or transport planes could be entirely non-military and as such, their crews require far less security, their equipment is far less expensive and their external factors are far less pervasive. This could be a lower ranked ship in EVE.


But once you actually start doing aftermarket things to the ship, now you're changing its role, giving it your own bonuses (or in EVE working with inherent ones). You could completely change its 'tier' simply based on what you do with it.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.18 02:10:00 - [23]
 

Quote:
Do you ever use the Burst? How about the Navitas? Augoror? Exequeror? Scythe? Bellicose? Slasher? Magnate? Prophecy? Ferox?


I use a burst for hauling, and if I were inclined to do ninjamining I would probably use it for that in low-sec/0.0 or wormholes. I've used the Navitas to bait with, since it makes for a great little miner killer. I make use of the Augoror for inexpensive cap support on local tanking, neuting bait ships. I've similarly made use of the Exequror for supporting buffered ships where I didn't need any cap support on them. I've used the Scythe for personal mission tracking boosting, whereas the Scimitar, being the natural progression, allows for both that and remote shields on a ship such as the Rokh, or on a shield-buffered rail-Domi/Myrmidon. The Bellicose is great for painting targets when performing guerilla warfare sniping since it adds a bit of artillery to the fray at the same time. I prefer using a Slasher over a Rifter for inexpensive tackling. I use a Magnate on a probing alt of mine to scout out wormhole systems. I use the Prophecy for baiting since it's one of those charmingly underestimated ships. Same goes for the Ferox, when I don't use one for guerilla warfare.


Everyone may not be me, but then, everyone is not who you think they are, either.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.18 02:10:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Nova Fox
Your analysis of the issue of the tier system is something more of an opinion verses the idea and intentions of fundamentals which can be wrong.


I can be wrong. It does happen from time to time.

Quote:
You never explained your reasoning on why you think the tier system exists let alone approach it in such a manner as of being a neutral party so your arguement is very biased.


The tier system was no doubt created to differentiate ship hierarchy. Back in the day when a ship's raw stats determined how good... or bad it would ever be. Today's t1 ship lineup is barely recognizable compared to back then.

Quote:
Obseltion of Ship line up is simply a notion you came up with as most ships are commonly still flown despite other competitive ships in the class existing.


Sure, why not.

Quote:
Now it would be unfair to point out the ferox and drake as an example but the fact there are still thousands of pilots who still command a ferox is valid ponit that the ship class isnt 'obsolete'.


But it is inferior to the Drake in every way that actually matters. I fly the Ferox rather than the Drake, but that is because I'm a gunnery nut.

Quote:
There is only one case of a possibly under utilitized ship and that would be the mining frigates which might I add are still used by flourishing new players.


Not for long, the ships themselves are unequivocally inferior to their peers in any long term capacity and no new player actually needs them. Even being a mining frig is no reason to keep the rest of their stats and build cost prohibitively low.

Quote:
The price of ships in materials are based on the ship's inital scores or thier original expected performance and role, this is very obvoius if you look at the price of a mining frigate vs a recon frigate vs a electronic frigate vs an interceptor frigate vs support/secondary special warfare vs a strike frigate.


Tiers, guess which one the more expensive ships are on.

Quote:
Would it be fair if a mining frigate that isnt even built for combat be using the same amount of minerals for its armor and weapon mounts as an strike frigate?


Why not? They are the same class of ship and there is no timeline based obsolescence occurring. As in ships are not replacing them for their role.

Quote:
I think not. Which goes onto your next notion of incorrectness, balance, there is no reason why a electronics ship be able to match ounce per ounce against a strike frigate let alone almost any other normal tech 1 frigate able to withstand the onslaught of a ship purely built for brawling. In essence trying to balance a miner vs an attacker makes absolute no sense.


Balance is not always about the obvious, sometimes it is subtle. And if differentiating combat from mining ship is so gorram important... why are there not civilian parallels to the combat ship skills?

Quote:
If you tried to get rid of tiers the compensation would be to make every ship more difficult to get into, tiers are provided by player's minds as a sense of progression as well.


LOL

Quote:
The change of costs would be too much of a major impact on the market and prices as well its a situation where the cat is already out of the bag for these long time ship designs where if you increase price would cause much woe and lost market values of the ship and decreasing the cost would destroy the already built inventory's value significantly.


You haven't been playing EvE very long...

Quote:
As pointed out earlier a mining ship has no business having the same amount of hp as an attack ship.


Bullhockey.

Quote:
Furthermore most ships are already unique in terms of bonues and performance the only thing eve needs now is more warfare options to continue increasing the libary of possible bonuses to pull from.


Normalizing stats and more bonuses would enhance this not take away from it.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.18 02:13:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Quote:
Do you ever use the Burst? How about the Navitas? Augoror? Exequeror? Scythe? Bellicose? Slasher? Magnate? Prophecy? Ferox?


I use a burst for hauling, and if I were inclined to do ninjamining I would probably use it for that in low-sec/0.0 or wormholes. I've used the Navitas to bait with, since it makes for a great little miner killer. I make use of the Augoror for inexpensive cap support on local tanking, neuting bait ships. I've similarly made use of the Exequror for supporting buffered ships where I didn't need any cap support on them. I've used the Scythe for personal mission tracking boosting, whereas the Scimitar, being the natural progression, allows for both that and remote shields on a ship such as the Rokh, or on a shield-buffered rail-Domi/Myrmidon. The Bellicose is great for painting targets when performing guerilla warfare sniping since it adds a bit of artillery to the fray at the same time. I prefer using a Slasher over a Rifter for inexpensive tackling. I use a Magnate on a probing alt of mine to scout out wormhole systems. I use the Prophecy for baiting since it's one of those charmingly underestimated ships. Same goes for the Ferox, when I don't use one for guerilla warfare.


Everyone may not be me, but then, everyone is not who you think they are, either.


None of that requires a tier system... so what is your argument exactly?

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.18 02:28:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 18/02/2011 02:31:00
Actually, that's your argument, not mine. You'd have it that ships' costs be brought in line with eachother and be based on nothing but their mass, which I find a more idiotic notion than your belief that their costs are based on nothing but their 'tier'.


I feel that the prices scale well with the ships' actual usefulness, currently, and as such I don't think this 'tier' thing needs to be 'fixed' in any way.
*edit* And there's a thing such as being too 'unique'. The second that incredibly beautiful new girl walks into the class room, all those other girls know that the boys are going to be all over her and immediately know to approach her with caution. On the other hand, if she looks about as good as the other girls in class but has some minor attributes that could make her somewhat attractive, whether the girls know how to handle her or not won't come up until they actually interact with her and figure out if she's a threat to their rule over the boys or not.

So no, having more bonuses isn't necessarily a good thing, especially not boosting the current bonuses to differentiate ships further from eachother.

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.02.18 02:54:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Val'Dore

The tier system was no doubt created to differentiate ship hierarchy. Back in the day when a ship's raw stats determined how good... or bad it would ever be. Today's t1 ship lineup is barely recognizable compared to back then.


... okay I'm definetly confused I look at todays line up and still see very distinctive roles for each ship best suited for it and nobody else within races.

Quote:
But it is inferior to the Drake in every way that actually matters. I fly the Ferox rather than the Drake, but that is because I'm a gunnery nut.


Inferior in what way? Drake leans to heavily in either direction and cannot be middle ground.

Quote:
Not for long, the ships themselves are unequivocally inferior to their peers in any long term capacity and no new player actually needs them. Even being a mining frig is no reason to keep the rest of their stats and build cost prohibitively low.


Im begininng to wonder if you ever did any time base studies on effort cost per ship.

Quote:
Why not? They are the same class of ship and there is no timeline based obsolescence occurring. As in ships are not replacing them for their role.


You're suggesting on making the playing field a bit blander, oh its nother tristan cept it mines... There is a reason why a freighter uses aluminium while a destroyer uses a yard of steel.

Quote:
Balance is not always about the obvious, sometimes it is subtle. And if differentiating combat from mining ship is so gorram important... why are there not civilian parallels to the combat ship skills?


Why dont you sit down and figure out the score cards for these ships and you'll see something way off.

Quote:
LOL

I usually take this as you're not going address the idea of progression, why don't we all just put players in battleships on thier first day and call it done, and get rid of frigates and cruisers becuse and while we are at it might as well get rid of battleships and give everyone a titan or a super carrier.

Quote:
You haven't been playing EvE very long...

Ive played long enough to know that the tristan wasnt always named that and titans didnt exist and was able to hear veterans complain about battleships showing up in more and more places while a HAC still could burn a battleship in manner of seconds. Aside that its pertty obvious you dont manufacture either and have always been a customer of these ships instead of a procurer of them. The problem with older ships is distribution of the blueprints the age of the blueprints and the amount of competition over them. Where as the new battlecruisers and battelships where mostly brushed aside rather quickly in a flood of other technologies such as the tech 3 cruisers and many other fun and neat new things that somewhat negleted the newer teirs. So competition is pertty low for them its not a gum bleeding experince trying to sell a ship but cant because somone undercut your supply on ship construction by 75% of mineral costs and thats the only way that ship is going to sell. Also demand and supply is a factor, there is just simply too many of the older teirs in stock further driving the prices down in an attempt to sell where as newer teirs despite price are mostly stable. Once upon a time that domonix used to be 300 million isk on hull alone.

Quote:
Bullhockey.

Sigh another refusual to acknowledge a proper response. Ill state this one more time, "Its a Rifter but instead of autocannon bonuses it mines."

Quote:
Normalizing stats and more bonuses would enhance this not take away from it

Normalizing is exactly what it sounds like making it less special, less unique, less arbitary and less subjective. See above statement, and chancers are they DO have a base ship they start with and use the score card to dole out the stats just weighing how valuable stats are is the fun part of balancing.

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.02.18 04:52:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Actually, that's your argument, not mine. You'd have it that ships' costs be brought in line with eachother and be based on nothing but their mass, which I find a more idiotic notion than your belief that their costs are based on nothing but their 'tier'.


You'll have to elaborate, as reality does not fit into your line of "argument".
The tier system arbitrarily dictates the hp, cap, number of slots and mineral requirements of any ship in eve. That is a fact you will not be able to talk away, as proven by mapping out the entire frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship lineup of all four empires by tier vs. build cost, slot amount and hp.

While tier progression isn't a problem for battleships, the lack of slots and hp on lower tier cruiser and frigates due to their legacy status is an issue, as evidenced by their lack of roles. The condor, executioner, slasher, breacher..they all need at least 3 more slots, they all need an hp boost. There's a reason why you don't see condors or executioners tackle, because merlins and punishers make better jobs due to being tier3, even though they are not the speed/tackle frigates.

Ships in eve should have a role they fit in. Not one ship to rule them all. For frigates, each race has one catch-all for all things combat, one probing ship, and one very weak ship with a mining bonus. The other two ships are either complete garbage or in the case of the griffin, moderately garbage. Removing the outdated tier system and bringing all ships in line will make all obsolete legacy frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers fill out their destined role instead of having their role taken from them by a higher tier ship.

A ship with a 1/2/3 slot layout does not have a place in eve, but the same general ship with a 2/4/3 would make an excellent tackler or scout. Un-nerfing these legacy ships would do something good to reduce the number of completely obsolete ships in eve.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.18 05:03:00 - [29]
 

Wow... just... wow...

Okay, I'll say it again, this time in as short a way as possible so that there might not be any misunderstanding.


The sum of the complexity of every individual ship component is what determines its cost.

Mikalya
Amarr
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2011.02.18 05:26:00 - [30]
 

I agree with the sentiments behind the idea: Ships should be grouped via "Role", not by an arbitrary tier system. The number of slots, offensive capability, defenses, etc should also be tied to that role.

There is a legitimate counter in the cost of ships, especially for a newer player, but again removing the tier system in favor of roles does not have to dramatically alter that.

Basically a ship should have a purpose that is as viable as its counter-part in both PvE and PvP. The Ferox and Prophesy are prime examples of ships that are basically so far overshadowed by the next tier as to be almost worthless. At least the Ferox got its 6th turret which helped; the Proph can only be bait. Remember when the Ferox was the ultimate low-skilled mission runner? As a passive shield/missile boat? It even lost that role when the shield recharge rates for all BCs were altered to balance the drake. I have fond memories of my first character's ferox and would like to see all ships have a purpose again...


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only