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

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.20 15:35:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: Takeshi Yamato
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
So now you're changing the topic of the thread entirely from wanting to have more balanced ship prices, to wanting more balanced ship fitting slots and attributes...

Did you even read the original post? Do you even know what the tier system is for that matter?


I don't think he understands the concept of tier system.


I'll try to explain to the best of my knowledge *snipped for character count*


Actually, back in the day, my Rupture fit, using only T2 modules, would come to roughly 45mil, while the hull was only 6mil, thanks to the T2 and named mod prices.
This was in 2005.

The tier system, as some (most?) in this thread regard it is that, as the 'tier' of a ship increases, it should, by default, have no inferior qualities as far as attributes and overall slots are concerned.

That is to say, if a tier1 cruiser has 1k hull, 2k armor and 1k shields, with a slot layout of 3/3/5, then the tier2 should logically have 1.5k hull, 3k armor, 1.5k shields, 4/3/5, and the tier3 should logically have 2k hull, 4k armor, 2k shields and a 4/3/6 or 5/3/5, or even 5/3/6 slot layout.

This logic isn't theirs as players, just in case there's any confusion there. It's the 'logic' they are referring to that causes things to become senseless and arbitrary.


As I've said multiple times in this thread, as far as I'm concerned, looking at the various ships, their cost and capabilities are based on what their overall systems are capable of in terms of bonuses and, to accommodate those bonuses, their slot layouts. A prime example of this exists with the Scorpion, which if fitted for its role, usually ends up having the single most horrible buffer for its class imaginable; to an extent it even makes a shield phoon with a MWD look more attractive.

Why does it end up like this? Because of its very description.

Quote:
The first Scorpion-class battleship was launched only a couple of years ago, and those that have been built are considered to be prototypes. Little is known of its capabilities, but what has been garnered suggests that the Scorpion is crammed to the brink with sophisticated hi-tech equipment that few can match.
.

Based on this, it's reasonably safe to assume that in order to cram as much electronics in there as possible, sacrifices had to be made. Those sacrifices came in the form of one less low-slot and comparably poor hull/armor/shields when looking at other ships in its class.

Other ships, as far as story is concerned, 'suffer similar fates'. It's because these ships feel underpowered to some (largely because the norm for low-slots is 4 at a stretch and 3 minimum, even if it's a shield using ship) that they refuse to give them a chance at their present fitting capabilities, and this is without considering attributes.

As an example, Templar Dane is adamant that ships such as the Arbitrator or Bellicose are, quite simply, crap, when you're using one for its bonuses. Personally, having put these things to practical use and having tested them across a variety of scenarios, I can with fair authority say that '25%' makes a pretty big difference when you're working with stacking penalties, especially against a remotely sensor boosted, remote ECCMd, tracking linked buffer Rokh.

Those tracking links would come from a scythe, or where the players could afford to use them, a Scimitar. Similary, I've had to deal with people using Apoc/Exequror combos in this way, and more often than not, thinking to simply jam or gank the 'assisting' ships isn't practical, as they're assisted by their own assisting ships, which even if you took the time to get rid of them, wouldn't mean anything with the primary target simply deaggressing and docking up again.

Worse is that these ships are so inexpensive if used within their role that they can often add to a fight in DPS, and be an inconsequential loss to their employers. And they're 'crap-tier'...

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.02.20 15:35:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: Nova Fox on 20/02/2011 15:47:20
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Nova Fox
Then explain to me why a Domonix is 13hrs of effort vs the Geddons 11hrs or more accurately?

In relation to what? Mining? Ratting? Killing with Velator? Very Happy

If you are referring to mining then look at the mineral content. BPO's vary in requirements for the different races with Gallente taking more Zydrine if I recall.
Has absolutely nothing to do with tier system though, so why you'd ask here is beyond me, so I'll just refer you to my opening paragraph in my previous entry.


? The zydrine difference between the two in total composition is 0.01% so try again, unless thats beginning to get too hard for you then you start to understand my fustration verses mettling your concerns because to you my numbers can be seemingly just as arbitary as my view of the threads groundless conclusions about tiers existence. BTW I updated the numbers as I refreshed the references. But the fact remains the same give or take.

Meanwhile I can start cooking up alot more numbers while you sit there and prattle about how your imaginary system causes unfounded worries and unfairness and we can see where things are really concerned and may need attention.


Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.20 16:09:00 - [93]
 

IN RELATION TO WHAT!?

You mention some time difference, but completely neglect to say what the hell it is you mean ..
Try thinking stuff out before typing, try making drafts before submitting. Does wonders for basic communication.

Let me simplify it for you and the other troll who are not actually participating in the discussion:
Manufacturing has ZERO to do with ship/game balance.
ISK has ZERO to do with ship/game balance.
Slot/Fitting/Bonuses/Attributes (SFBA) has EVERYTHING to with ship/game balance.

~75% of all ships have such abysmal SFBA that one is taking on an unnecessary handicap by choosing them rather than the high-tier hulls .. they might as well not even be in game anymore.
By changing SFBA of the low-tier hulls you make them viable which leads to choice.

And yes, a <insert low-tier name> is bloody awesome at what it does but it is crap compared to a <insert high-tier name>, why?
The high-tier lives/stays long enough to have an impact on the outcome of a fight.

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.02.20 17:23:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Nova Fox on 20/02/2011 17:23:32
No its just the fact you're refusing numbers to fix and numbers to ID problems and I for one cant see the problem until you start ID'ing them.

The only tiers I really see are the industrials you can start there.

Heres and example

Who would fly an Iteron I when there is the Iteron V?

How would any of the OP's suggestion fix this problem without removing any of the ship hulls?

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.20 17:31:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Actually, I have; I've challenged your desire to get rid of 'it', and you've provided no solid argument for why your stance is correct, simply that you consider these imagined attributes pertaining to the 'issue' you have with this 'tier' system to be valid concerns.


The issues are real and the only argument you've made sofar are about roles, which have nothing to do with the tier system at all. Well you also did try to put forward an argument against normalizing build costs, but that one was just laughable and not worth any real debate. I'll say it again, you haven't actually made any argument that supports the retaining of the tier system.

Quote:
Why not show us exactly how you would change things so that they make more sense? If you cannot do so, how can you expect the development team to do so for you? Surely, if you have such an advanced understanding of this 'problem', you should be able to address the 'problem' with a 'solution'?


Done and done, or did you want me to get ultra specific about how it would effect each and every ship? That's a bad idea on this forum, people tend to argue about the details and not the meat of the discussion.

Quote:
Also, why are you suddenly talking about yourself in the third person?


Que?

Originally by: Nova Fox
You're not the OP as far as the thread is concerned.


I'm not sure what that means exactly.

Originally by: Nova Fox
I hate to break it to you but the OP has been blanket holing the entire subject and providing no real value to any of the arguments and wont take alot of our own questions seriously including her purposed fixes, what would making all the frigates have similar slots and same cost fix? they still wont be flown when there are bigger ships people would rather fly.


I never said the slots would be similar, but more slots is not a bad thing. As for build cost, normalizing it based on mass does not necessarily mean they will be the same either. Why does a Slasher not weigh half as much as a Rifter?

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.20 17:42:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
That is to say, if a tier1 cruiser has 1k hull, 2k armor and 1k shields, with a slot layout of 3/3/5, then the tier2 should logically have 1.5k hull, 3k armor, 1.5k shields, 4/3/5, and the tier3 should logically have 2k hull, 4k armor, 2k shields and a 4/3/6 or 5/3/5, or even 5/3/6 slot layout.


Yes, but why should this remain in the game?

Quote:
As I've said multiple times in this thread, as far as I'm concerned, looking at the various ships, their cost and capabilities are based on what their overall systems are capable of in terms of bonuses and, to accommodate those bonuses, their slot layouts. A prime example of this exists with the Scorpion, which if fitted for its role, usually ends up having the single most horrible buffer for its class imaginable; to an extent it even makes a shield phoon with a MWD look more attractive.


Not exactly true, but not sure how this relates to the subject at hand. The role of a ship is not in question.

Originally by: Nova Fox
No its just the fact you're refusing numbers to fix and numbers to ID problems and I for one cant see the problem until you start ID'ing them.


Your numbers mean nothing until you put meaning to them.

Quote:
The only tiers I really see are the industrials you can start there.

Heres and example

Who would fly an Iteron I when there is the Iteron V?


Industrials are a really good example of why the tier system is a waste now. What is lost by making going the Amarr route and making your industrials all tier 1? Adjust the slots and stats to make them unique in other ways.

Quote:
How would any of the OP's suggestion fix this problem without removing any of the ship hulls?


The OP already covered it.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.20 17:46:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 20/02/2011 17:48:55
If roles have nothing to do with this, then this entire thread is broken by default, as roles should, based on limitations imposed on ships to not make them an entirely capible ewar-packing substitute for their front-lines brawling counterpart, be lower in 'tier' by default, as there are compromises required as far as the ship's composition is concerned to accommodate its role's systems.

I think this is the fifth time I've said this.


Additionally:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slasher

Mass
1,150,000 kg

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rifter

Mass
1,067,000 kg


The Rifter is lighter than the Slasher; your mass argument would see a ship you deem worthless be more expensive in build cost than the ship you feel is superior to it in every way.
*edit* And don't you dare say "yes, that's what I was implying", because your statement was ambiguous, and I am going to attack it, because I can! YARRRR!!

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2011.02.20 18:16:00 - [98]
 

removing tiers is a thing i like but i dont like basing the price on the mass.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.20 21:23:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
If roles have nothing to do with this, then this entire thread is broken by default, as roles should, based on limitations imposed on ships to not make them an entirely capible ewar-packing substitute for their front-lines brawling counterpart, be lower in 'tier' by default, as there are compromises required as far as the ship's composition is concerned to accommodate its role's systems.


The fact you can't distinguish between roles and tiers makes it impossible to debate with you.

Quote:
I think this is the fifth time I've said this.


Repetition doesn't make you right.


Quote:
Additionally:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Slasher

Mass
1,150,000 kg

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rifter

Mass
1,067,000 kg


The Rifter is lighter than the Slasher; your mass argument would see a ship you deem worthless be more expensive in build cost than the ship you feel is superior to it in every way.
*edit* And don't you dare say "yes, that's what I was implying", because your statement was ambiguous, and I am going to attack it, because I can! YARRRR!!


You forgot about the part where I said all ship stats and slots should be reviewed, that includes mass... I'm sure nobody believes a Slasher should weigh more than a Rifter. But should the Slasher replace the Rifter? No, there is still a role for a decent t1 interceptor. Of which none exist.

Templar Dane
Amarr
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.02.20 23:46:00 - [100]
 

Edited by: Templar Dane on 20/02/2011 23:47:46
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Based on this, it's reasonably safe to assume that in order to cram as much electronics in there as possible, sacrifices had to be made. Those sacrifices came in the form of one less low-slot and comparably poor hull/armor/shields when looking at other ships in its class.



And the tech 1 inty hulls? They die like *****es, every last one. Oh sure, they can long-point, but a higher-tier frigate can do that AND be just as fast AND have a higher scan res and some of them can get even better agility AND EHP. there is absolutely no reason to pick them, except for saving a pittance of isk.

IMAGINE if there were a reason to fly the ships on the aforementioned list! Wow, we'd see more than rifters and griffins! All of the frigates on that list are worse than a rifter/griffin, every last one. Why fly a crucifier over a griffin? Heck, put 3 TDs on a griffin! That's 50% more TDs than the crucifier!

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

As an example, Templar Dane is adamant that ships such as the Arbitrator or Bellicose are, quite simply, crap, when you're using one for its bonuses.



I never said the arbitrator is crap at it's intended role. It rocks at what it does. The bellicose is garbage, however.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Personally, having put these things to practical use and having tested them across a variety of scenarios, I can with fair authority say that '25%' makes a pretty big difference when you're working with stacking penalties, especially against a remotely sensor boosted, remote ECCMd, tracking linked buffer Rokh.



Had to check, but I don't see any periods in there. So, we have "remotely sensor boosted, remote ECCMd, tracking linked buffer Rokh" in the same sentence as "practical". You're either trying hit something up close with blasters(in which I would tell you to just bring a rifter or two to web the target) or you're trying to snipe at 34298734280934km?

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Those tracking links would come from a scythe, or where the players could afford to use them, a Scimitar. Similary, I've had to deal with people using Apoc/Exequror combos in this way, and more often than not, thinking to simply jam or gank the 'assisting' ships isn't practical, as they're assisted by their own assisting ships, which even if you took the time to get rid of them, wouldn't mean anything with the primary target simply deaggressing and docking up again.



Hey, guess what's better than tracking links? Webs. Fitted on rifters.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Worse is that these ships are so inexpensive if used within their role that they can often add to a fight in DPS, and be an inconsequential loss to their employers. And they're 'crap-tier'...



And yet, nobody EVER FLIES THEM FOR A REASON. Someone in my gang, in an inferior ship, is nothing more than dead weight. If they are in an executioner, they aren't worth their weight. That is one more guy the enemy is going to see in local, that may just end up causing them to dock/jump/log/etc and he isn't bringing enough to the table to warrant him being there.

Of course, if it's a loltheme fleet where we're all supposed to be in ****ty ships....why not? But, I would suggest he bring a velator instead because even it brings more to the gang(if fitted right) than that stupid executioner.

Ria Antoniou
Posted - 2011.02.21 02:08:00 - [101]
 

Actually the existing ship progression is fairly linear already. Sleipnir isn't that much better than Hurricane overall and if you factor in the risk of loss, Hurricane is often a safer choice. If you look at the number of slots, the resists and other buffs on Sleipnir add the equivalent of maybe 2 or 3 unpenalized slots while it loses in DPS.

With all the advantages Sleipnir has, the risk premium I have to pay for Sleipnir vs Hurricane to me personally makes it not worth using.. the Sleipnir :) It's literally 10x more expensive after factoring in the insurance.


And you should expect a significant boost from training a level 5 skill since it takes so long. And CCP would never reduce training time since that's a large part of the reason why people pay subscriptions and characters in the game have so much value.

Originally by: Val'Dore
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?

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.21 02:36:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: Val''Dore on 21/02/2011 02:37:04
Originally by: Ria Antoniou
Actually the existing ship progression is fairly linear already. Sleipnir isn't that much better than Hurricane overall and if you factor in the risk of loss, Hurricane is often a safer choice. If you look at the number of slots, the resists and other buffs on Sleipnir add the equivalent of maybe 2 or 3 unpenalized slots while it loses in DPS.

With all the advantages Sleipnir has, the risk premium I have to pay for Sleipnir vs Hurricane to me personally makes it not worth using.. the Sleipnir :) It's literally 10x more expensive after factoring in the insurance.


And you should expect a significant boost from training a level 5 skill since it takes so long. And CCP would never reduce training time since that's a large part of the reason why people pay subscriptions and characters in the game have so much value.

Originally by: Val'Dore
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?



Well, the Sleipnir is the ultimate evolution of the Cyclone. But this thread isn't about tech levels. Tech 2 ships are an entirely different problem to deal with separate from this one. However, the problems with the tier system do bleed through to the Sleipnir, which existed before the Hurricane.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.21 04:18:00 - [103]
 

Templar Dane, I am going to say this quite simply. While you have stated that I am being called out on being stupid, I feel that you have very little clue what you are talking about as far as PVP fittings are concerned, as you seem to believe that every ship should either be able to perform as a jack of all trades, or it's not worth flying at all.

You have no regard for stacking penalties, you seem to think that more modules as opposed to higher quality per module used where one is working with bonuses and percentages automatically makes another ship superior, and you seem to think that every single ship in the game should be able to tackle AND mwd AND fit a massive buffer AND gank, all at the same time.

TDs have a very high optimal for a very good reason; to help keep the ships using them away from the danger. Arbitrators can do this well while using sentry drones, while a Crucifier has a small signature radius and relatively high agility+scanres to its advantage, but you seldom see people doing this, they'd prefer to keep them in the middle of a brawl where they're most vulnerable, just so they can add more DPS.

Similarly, TPs have a very nice optimal, which allows a Bellicose or a Vigil to hang out far from the brawl, but you again seldom see people doing this, they'd rather be up in everything's faces, which is again how you view the Rifter, as a ship that can be in the brawl, whereas the other frigates can't, so it's obviously the only logical choice.


You seem to think that a Rokh can only fit blasters, or that if it fits rails there's no chance it would be TDd so that its aggressors might eliminate its long-range capabilities using their advantage, namely staying as far away as possible. Failing TDing, they might want to ECM it, instead. Failing that, they might want to sensor damp it, instead.

I have had to make use of fits like this to counter Rokhs like this using smaller, less experienced gangs of new players, as well as be the one doling out the punishment using the Rokh.

I suspect you cannot imagine how fights like this work, as you seem to believe that EVE is, without fail, either solo-pvp or nothing but a blobfest. In Empire, at the very least, all of those frigates still have a purpose. Similarly, all of those 'crap-tier' cruisers, Bellicose included, still have a purpose.


When you want the most gank and most tank on a Rokh, you don't fit a MWD to it. You don't fit sensor boosters to it. You don't fit tracking enhancers or computers to it. You fit nothing but its rails, damage mods, shield mods and shield supplementing rigs, and allow ships that would otherwise have limited utility to assist your ship to make it that much better.


I have actually used all of these ships that you guys are calling crap, that you feel need more slots, that you feel have arbitrary costs.
I can appreciate how virtually all of them actually have a role and how there is no such thing as a 'tier system' that is making them crap, only a specific story based component.


Val'Dore, you say that role has nothing to do with tiers, nor this thread, and yet you have contradicted yourself multiple times in this one thread.

Opening post
Originally by: "Val'Dore"
Make the ship bonuses and slots be the differentiating factors
Tweak individual ships to be more unique if there is excessive overlap
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)


Originally by: "Val'Dore"
The issues are real and the only argument you've made sofar are about roles, which have nothing to do with the tier system at all. Well you also did try to put forward an argument against normalizing build costs, but that one was just laughable and not worth any real debate. I'll say it again, you haven't actually made any argument that supports the retaining of the tier system.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.21 04:31:00 - [104]
 

Fact: If you have a Security guard able to run as fast as most olympic runners, as strong as most heavy-weight champion boxers, as agile and with as excellent reflexes as professional fighters, but that happens to lack the knowledge and intelligence to work in the offices of the building he's working in, they're lower tier by default than those working in the company he works for as a security guard.


A secretary lacks the above three qualities and could be snapped like a twig, and yet he/she is responsible for managing appointments, gathering and processing contact and other information for their employers, for ensuring that calls get to the right people at the right times, but the moment someone starts threatening them with violence on their floor, they become useless.


The office worker has the knowledge and intelligence required to gather and process the information that company works with, information that is responsible for making the company money to pay the secretary and security guards with. This office worker, however, doesn't have the aptitude required for simultaneously managing their own appointments, ensuring that they and their colleagues receive information pertaining to their office's operation from their Manager, ensuring that calls are directed to the right people at the right time. Similar to the secretary, they might be incredibly weak and timid, snapping like a twig the moment someone threatens them with violence.



To put this to EVE terms, the security guard is the Rifter.
The secretary is the Slasher.
The office worker is the Vigil.


The Vigil is designed to stay as far away from the people that might hurt him or the calls that need to be directed as possible, he is not designed to do anything else.

The Slasher, timid and weak as it appears, is expendable and easily replaced, with limited functionality, but even so it's designed to be closer than the Vigil, yet further than the Rifter from anyone that might cause it harm.

The Rifter is designed to be the first line of defence, getting up close and personal with anyone that might try to harm the Vigil and Slasher. With the Vigil's assistance (calling of additional security as necessary from the safety of their office, which they can lock, closing it off from the lobby of that floor), the Rifter might be able to better perform their job. This comes in the form of bolstering the Rifter's self-confidence, knowing that backup is on its way, while this backup is truly nothing but his own self-confidence improving his ability to deal with the situation at hand.

Similarly the Slasher, weak and timid as it is, helps to keep things around the Rifter by blocking any routes up to the offices where the Vigil is located. It may not be strong, but it is definitely fast and agile, and knows the office layout better than the intruders do, so it has the upper hand of survivability simply by avoiding getting hurt.



What does this have to do with the tier system? Everything.


In order to eliminate the tier system, you need to make all ships fairly equal in all aspects. The second you place bonuses on these ships, you are creating an artificial, albeit significantly less obvious tier system. This comes from the fact that, as an example, you could have the total survivability of a Maller combined with the TD effectiveness of a Arbitrator as well as a middle-ground between the previous DPS of an Arbitrator and the DPS of an Omen.


Or you could have the TP effectiveness of a Bellicose combined with the speed and survivability of a Stabber and Rupture, with a middle-ground of DPS between where it was and what the Rupture affords it.


Fact: In smaller fights, these ships would well see more use, but only because people are more confident that they can stick closer to a fight and get what they want, namely more damage on a killmail. Fact: People will now start not using other ships because what they want out of the previously 'crap' ships doesn't 'nerf' them.

TheBooky
Posted - 2011.02.21 04:36:00 - [105]
 

Also by removing tiers and making all ships of the same class have similar bonuses, slots, ehp, and mass you turn each class into wow where as far as I remember you could pick from 4 different classes that all did the same thing with maybe one or two differences. When you do that you do not add to the diversity of the fight but rather remove the uniqueness of the game by homogenizing all of the game content. This is the reason game developers have a hard to time balancing in the first place, how do you make class/ship x equal to class/ship y without them being exactly the same thing.

I fly amarr on my main and when you look at the supposed tier system for their frigates you get one useful ship (punisher) for pvp for the simple fact that the bonuses and slots of the ships are geared towards something entirly different. Rather they be for mining, scanning, or missiles ( if your amarr why do you have missiles?), which leads them to being useless rather than the tier system. When you look at our battleships you can say that tier 3 is better than tier 2 however the problem with this is bad comparison, armargeddon is for dps no tank, apoc is for long range no tank, abbadon is massive tank little dps. While the tier 3 may last longer its role is completely different from tier 2 and 1.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.21 04:39:00 - [106]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 21/02/2011 04:43:53
So what do you get? People using ships not because they are now balanced, but because there's no longer too much complexity or limitation to their use for their liking.

People will still be creating their own tiers, the exact same way Templar is doing.

Why bother using a Rupture if you can use a Bellicose instead? They have about the same survivability and DPS now, and you can web, paint, WD and MWD all at the same time, allowing you to deal with small, crap, annoying ships like a Stabber that much better!

But wait! The Stabber now has too much tank for you to deal with, and is still that much faster than you, now with even more gank so that it would be more balanced with the Rupture! I guess we might as well actually just use a Stabber, since it's faster than the Rupture but still has that all-important gank, and just kite things we're fighting in our 1vs1s so that their sig radius matters less!

But wait! Those small things we wanted to kite are as fast as or faster than us, and now have better tanks and DPS output, along with TDs, making our turrets useless at our kiting ranges! I guess we might as well use them!

But wait! We're now fighting a Maulus, which has rendered our TDs useless by preventing us from locking onto it! We have no chance at all of killing it before it damps us down, and it's fit for speed, so we're never going to catch it, so I guess we might as well give up or use one of them!

But wait! Now that we're using a Maulus, we find that we can't deal with those cruisers we wanted to as nicely, because their tanks are simply too tough for us to break unless we can neut them! We can't get close either, or they'll be able to lock us and melt us!


Ironically, all of this is what happens right now. People don't want to use those other ships because there's always a different ship that they would rather use, because that other ship has the qualities they want for 1vs1s or extremely small fights, rather than small-medium fleets or even large, inexpensive fleets.


This is why the 'tier' system as you see it doesn't exist, it's a player made concept. Yes, there are ships that need to have their stats receive minor revisions, but nothing as drastic as you (Templar Dane, Val'Dore) think they should receive, because it would do nothing but hurt balance. No, their prices should not be based on mass, and the mass of ships such as the Rifter and Slasher should not be swapped around, because you are ignoring what role mass plays in ship fitting, especially when coupled with their slot layouts and other attributes.


Repeating myself might not make me right in your eyes, but then, nothing you have said makes you right in my eyes either, because you have essentially done nothing but tell me that I am wrong in different ways. Yes, I want you to explain in per-slot and per-attribute detail exactly how you would have 'every single ship changed'. Why? Because I want to see if you're able to take into consideration how that might make other ships seem less desirable for all-purpose use, or how it could have a severely negative impact on overall balances in skirmishes.

*edit* lysdeixa edit
*edit* lsydexia edit2

Donnovich Vacano
Posted - 2011.02.21 04:46:00 - [107]
 

You wan't an argument that directly addresses the op, fine:

There is no tier system. We made it up. If you look at a ships stats there is no mention of a tier anywhere. Players made up the tier system.

The different baseline skill requirements of t1 ships are there to let you know which ones require more skill training to be effective. You can train up for the Griffin in a couple of hrs and go out and be a useful asset to a fleet, on the other hand you need to train for weeks at the very least to be even remotely useful as a dps in a Rifter. Sure you can put tackle gear on a Rifter, but for a 3 day old pilot you are better off putting them in a slasher, it flies faster and it's cheaper (for the price of one Rifter you can buy 10 Slashers). And who cares how much dmg it can do the newbie isn't gonna be able to hit squat anyway. Likewise you can't put a new pilot in a Rifter and expect him to use ecm effectively.

Later when you have the skills to make up for it, the Rifter (or racial equivalent) becomes the better choice despite it's lack of any task specific bonus. That is what the difference in requirements is there to tell you. And that is where the price difference comes from. The rifter is a better choice for experienced pilots. Experienced pilots who have more money, and can therefore be charged more for the ship they want. The most popular ships cost more, that's simple reality.

The higher tier ships do not make the lower tier ships obsolete. Tec 2 ships do that. The tec 2 variants of generalist ships like the Rifter do little more than add marginal stat increases without changing functionality at all. Therefore many people still use the tec 1 version because it is cheap. However the specialist ships are far outstripped by their tec 2 counterparts. The move to tec 2 opens up new capabilities and better more specialized bonuses. As an ecm operator there is no question of sticking with the Blackbird, i'm going for the Falcon. Likewise why would someone fly an Executioner for any length of time when the Malediction is just a couple of weeks of training away. This has nothing to do with weather or not the Punisher is a better ship it's all about ship role. The Punnisher could never fit the role of the Magnate, there simply is no need for the Magnate because there is a better option.

There is no issue of game balance a condor can hold it's own against even a tec 2 assault ship. And frankly if you ever find yourself trying to compare between a mining frig and a solo pvp frig you are doing something wrong.

Sheledra
Posted - 2011.02.21 04:57:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Ironically, all of this is what happens right now. People don't want to use those other ships because there's always a different ship that they would rather use, because that other ship has the qualities they want for 1vs1s or extremely small fights, rather than small-medium fleets or even large, inexpensive fleets.



Lol and this is why this is a horrible game for people with ADD. I'm half trained for every ship in the game but can't fly any of them.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.21 04:59:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: TheBooky
Also by removing tiers and making all ships of the same class have similar bonuses, slots, ehp, and mass you turn each class into wow where as far as I remember you could pick from 4 different classes that all did the same thing with maybe one or two differences.


Nothing I've suggested does that.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Val'Dore, you say that role has nothing to do with tiers, nor this thread, and yet you have contradicted yourself multiple times in this one thread.


Let me put it a way you might understand.

Tier is not why certain ships are a certain role. Tier came before ANY of those ships had specific roles. The Blackbird used to have damage bonuses. The Arbitrator used to have a laser cap use bonus.

Has it sunk in yet? Role should and is completely independent of tier, but tiers are why ships are gimped compared to others rather than balanced for their role.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.21 05:31:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 21/02/2011 05:44:55
Oh wow.

You know, I was around in the age of the Blackbird, and I remember when ECM got nerfed, and the Blackbird lost its damage bonus and some fitting in favour of the ECM-only bonuses to focus its role. Oddly, even though it was lower tier back then, people didn't mind using it at all!

Even though it's lower tier now, people still don't mind using it at all!

Even though the Arbitrator is lower tier, people have no problem using it!

Even though the Exequror, Augoror and Osprey are the lowest of their tiers, people have no problem with using them for logistics purposes!


Tiers have nothing to do with any of this, what players want out of the ships and their inability to get that because they feel their stats are too gimped does. Most people end up foregoing any of these ships in favour of their T2 counterparts purely because the T2 versions have what they want, regardless of the fact that they're that much more expensive, which even causes the whole "these things are crap tier and too expensive for what they can do so nobody bothers" argument to collapse.


Tier will always exist. You are currently talking about the tiers that were used to determine the ship stat allocations at design-time way back when, but seem to be unable to accept that, even if their prices were balanced out and you 'made their slots make more sense', people would still be as reluctant to use them because they would still have something bigger and better, or simply something else they would rather fly, creating an artificial higher tier for that item in their own mind.


Arguably, a Rupture is at the pinnacle of T1 cruisers' tier, with the Thorax and Vexor coming in second and third. The Hurricane is at the pinnacle of T1 BCs' tier, with the Harbinger coming second and the Drake third.


By bringing the other battlecruisers in line, making their costs be more sane, making their slots be more sane, making their bonuses be better or simply different to make them more sane, you will still have a 'best for all purposes', 'second best for all purposes' and 'third best for all purposes' scenario. People will use them because they want to, not because of the 'tier system'.

*edit* And in case I haven't said this already, ships such as the Absolution and Sleipnir are only 'worse than their T1 counterparts' because of their prices. If those in control of moon goo wouldn't be such money-grubbing jerks, T2 prices would be as low as they're supposed to be and we'd see far more use of these ships. But then, there's no reason for them to lessen their profits when isk is so delicious.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.21 07:07:00 - [111]
 

As a final note from me regarding this topic, even Tech3 ships have tiers. There are fits that people simply will not use, bonuses or not, because the slot and attribute combinations don't please them, and yet those combinations are possible.

Does this mean Tech3 ships are also broken because they also have a tier system that prenerfs some of them (assuming players had to use such combinations)? No, it means that players are making the active choice to not use them, or when they do use them there is some niche reason they do, but a reason nonetheless.

So as I've said so many times before and will say again, the current Tech1 ships are not broken because of 'tiers'. If anything, some of them need minor revisions to their attributes (not their slots, at all), while some others need to have their bonuses revised slightly, possibly affording better bonuses, such as a 7.5% bonus to TDs or TPs on the Crucifier, Vigil, Arbitrator and Bellicose, so that players like Templar Dane can start saying "yes, only 37.5% better, a Rupture can do all of that and more!" instead.

Mikalya
Amarr
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2011.02.21 08:07:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: Mikalya on 21/02/2011 08:10:45
Again, the issue with the tier system is that it prohibits the ships from filling their roles effectively as compared to a non-bonused ship in a higher tier.

You should not be able to use a higher tier ship and be as effective (effeciency includes survivability) simply because the higher tier ship has more slots. Each ship should have a role for its racial profiles; if you are looking at performing a specific job then the choice should be obvious for each class of ship. Right now either the bonus is not enough to warrant its use OR you are better using a different ships simply because it will be around longer. As examples, about the only sub-BS T1 Electronic warfare ships that actually are in that position are the Griffin and Blackbird. Yes, those two ships fulfill their role very well as cheap and effective ships. They WILL be chosen as specific targets and in the skill levels of the players flying them can turn the tide of the fight. Compare that will the other EWar ships; can you honestly say that with the skill level of the pilots that can fly them do they make a difference? Hell the Scythe can't even fill its role as a mining ship; at the skill point level of the pilots that will use it its gimped enough that it can't even mount a full rack of mining lasers.

This is influenced by just bad ships also. There are several options; fix the ships' bonuses, fix the Tiers (or remove), redo the entire T1 line-up for the sub-BS ships.

Not all ships are bad even counting their teirs, mainly because they successfully fulfill a role and do it better than the comparable ships. The Stabber is one of the best hit-n-run T1 ships in the game and can be a match for anything its size. The Arbitrator is a great drone ship; only the Vexor can match it in its class. Caracal, great pre-ship for Drakes and Ravens. The Omen, great gank ship, though needs a touch more grid so a younger player can actually use it effectively. Thorax and Vexor actually fill their roles well; guns vs. drones. The Osprey is the best T1 logistics ships in the game and its actually chosen for that if they can't fly T2. And it can almost match a covetor for mining ability. Wierd, it actually fills its role. The Augorer, lolz. Scythe, uck. Bellicrose? Meh. Can do its job, but inadequate compared to something else that is non-bonused. Celestis? WIshy-washy, you are better off with something else even if it is decent at its "role".

Entire frigate line is borked, honestly. Though it is true that "why use a frig when you can be in the cruiser equiv in 5 more days", why WOULDN'T you try your hand at first in one? The only frigs really worth it are the Griffin and Rifter, maybe the Kestrel and Punisher.

An example of redoing roles/bonuses where CCP got it pretty good is in the T1 frigates designed for probing. Their bonuses, slot layouts and such are actually in line with their role. We would like to see the rest of the smaller T1 ships be given some special treatment too so that there is an obvious choice of what to fly AND you don't hear groans on the other side of teamspeak when you say "I'm in a XXXXX, and am skilled in YYYY".

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.21 09:04:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Oh wow.


I know, right?

Quote:
You know, I was around in the age of the Blackbird, and I remember when ECM got nerfed, and the Blackbird lost its damage bonus and some fitting in favour of the ECM-only bonuses to focus its role. Oddly, even though it was lower tier back then, people didn't mind using it at all!


It has six mid slots, which were the minimum you needed to be a pvp ECM ship back in the day. Guess which ships fit that qualification?

Quote:
Even though it's lower tier now, people still don't mind using it at all!


Its an ECM ship, none of them are unpopular.

Quote:
Even though the Arbitrator is lower tier, people have no problem using it!


Drone boats are a massive exception to tiers, if anything they are an argument in favor of tiericide.

Quote:
Even though the Exequror, Augoror and Osprey are the lowest of their tiers, people have no problem with using them for logistics purposes!


Lol.

Quote:
The Hurricane is at the pinnacle of T1 BCs' tier, with the Harbinger coming second and the Drake third.


Hear that? That was the last of your credibility flying out the window.

Quote:
*edit* And in case I haven't said this already, ships such as the Absolution and Sleipnir are only 'worse than their T1 counterparts' because of their prices. If those in control of moon goo wouldn't be such money-grubbing jerks, T2 prices would be as low as they're supposed to be and we'd see far more use of these ships. But then, there's no reason for them to lessen their profits when isk is so delicious.


The Absolution and Sleipnir are unequivically superior to their t1 counterparts

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.21 09:27:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Oh wow.

BB's are have always been used because ECM is by far the single most powerful module in game. It is downright gamebreaking in certain scenarios (read relevant threads).
Arbitrator's are only used because it is the least crappy Amarr cruiser, that is the only reason. Alternatives are a brick, a battery ship that caps out very fast or a gun boat that nearly does less damage than the Coercer.

If you have seen Aurogors used in anything but a lol-uber-brick capacity then count yourself lucky. You are quite literally one of a kind in the regard I think.

Tier2 BCs are very evenly matched. Drake scales better than the rest but other than that it is very difficult to say that XX is better than YY.

Commandships are underpowered and underused. Simple reason is that they have not had any work done since the tier2 BCs came out all those years ago.
Very much like the relationship between T3 and T2, they are fairly equal but T3 offers more tank.

The whole "T3 also has tier" .. inventing 'truth' to make an argument does not really work. A few subs are not used because they are poorly thought out (looking at you Legion!) and thus make no sense to use.
Originally by: Mikalya
The only frigs really worth it are the Griffin and Rifter, maybe the Kestrel and Punisher.

You forgot the mighty Tristan! New rocks and blasters makes it not just fun but very, very effective Smile
Originally by: Mikalya
An example of redoing roles/bonuses where CCP got it pretty good is in the T1 frigates designed for probing.

And that is sad truth, CCP started on what probably to them looks like an insurmountable task and then stopped cold when they had a ship they could use with the revamped probing.
That, I fear, is the way it is going to be. They make some larger change and then adjust the ships/modules piecemeal to complement the change until everything is crap outside of its narrow niche .. they have lost focus and have let Eve grow beyond what they can control.

Korg Leaf
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2011.02.21 09:41:00 - [115]
 

Most of the problems with the tier system are due to either bad bonuses (Cap bonus on prophecy, range on ferox) or lack of fitting (omen's powergrid) fix those sort of problems and it removes most of the problem.

Giving them extra bonuses is not a good idea. They should be balanced by role.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.21 09:42:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: "Val'Dore"
Originally by: "AnonyTerrorNinja"
*edit* And in case I haven't said this already, ships such as the Absolution and Sleipnir are only 'worse than their T1 counterparts' because of their prices. If those in control of moon goo wouldn't be such money-grubbing jerks, T2 prices would be as low as they're supposed to be and we'd see far more use of these ships. But then, there's no reason for them to lessen their profits when isk is so delicious.

The Absolution and Sleipnir are unequivically superior to their t1 counterparts



Originally by: "Ria Antoniou"
Sleipnir isn't that much better than Hurricane overall and if you factor in the risk of loss, Hurricane is often a safer choice. If you look at the number of slots, the resists and other buffs on Sleipnir add the equivalent of maybe 2 or 3 unpenalized slots while it loses in DPS.


I was addressing multiple statements in the thread rather than you, Val'Dore.


Some people seem to feel that the command ships are worthless 'because their T1 counterparts are better', even though technically, the command ships are meant to only be a bit more expensive than the T1 ships they're based on, as with the HASs.

While true that their cost effectiveness is quite low for the average consumer, those in control of the bulk of moon goo get to have extremely low prices for these ships, such as some corporations in 0.0 even offering their HASs to 'valuable contributors to killboards' for as low as 25mil a Vaga, provided the ships aren't ever resold.

Similarly, command ships such as a Sleipnir or Nighthawk could be had for 40-60mil, respectively.


In any event, you don't seem to want to address anything in this thread, just quote snippets and have something to say about those, so you really do make for a terrible op; the kind that just says "this is broken, fix it!".

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.21 09:47:00 - [117]
 

Which of your points have I not addressed?

Mikalya
Amarr
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2011.02.21 16:53:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: Korg Leaf
Most of the problems with the tier system are due to either bad bonuses (Cap bonus on prophecy, range on ferox) or lack of fitting (omen's powergrid) fix those sort of problems and it removes most of the problem.

Giving them extra bonuses is not a good idea. They should be balanced by role.

I think we all agree (well, except for one who thinks everything is rosey) that they should be balanced by role, not by some random "teir".

The argument is that those ships under-perform in their jobs and because of the tier system cannot be made to effectively perform. In most of those cases the ships higher up have the extra slots to make up for their lack of bonuses or are enough superior overall that they can be more efficient as they survive longer or do more while still being "good enough" at the role the lower tier ship was supposed to fill.

Each race should have a ship designed for specific uses (and no, saying the BB is the best sub-BS T1 EWar ship doesn't make it so the Scythe or Augorer doesn't need to be fixed). The advantage to using that ship should be good enough that you would have to make a conscious decision to gimp yourself and take another one instead. That specific use should ALSO be important enough to be considered when creating a small to medium fleet or roving gang.

Right now there are too many ships that either don't fill a role or are so overall poor they aren't used even IF their role can be effective. What does it tell you when of the 24 frigates 4-5 of them are actually worth flying if you are a newer person trying to get into combat with your corp?

Mikalya
Amarr
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2011.02.21 17:05:00 - [119]
 

Edited by: Mikalya on 21/02/2011 18:42:48
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

In any event, you don't seem to want to address anything in this thread, just quote snippets and have something to say about those, so you really do make for a terrible op; the kind that just says "this is broken, fix it!".

Seems to me that there are plenty of examples of why multiple of us feel the system is broken. Just because you think every ship is perfect at its job doesn't mean that it is true Wink

Whether the issue is the Tier system of just a bunch of bad ships isn't perfectly clear, but regardless of the "cause" there are a bunch of ships that are pretty much worthless for any situation.

Removing the tiers and regrouping/balancing via roles is the most likely way to get ALL of them fixed so that each race has a valid ship related to that race's philosophy of combat. They might not be exactly as effective, but at least that way the first thing a person is told isn't "Oh, missions? Train Caldari". "PvP? Train Minmatar" Some of the ship choices just don't make sense for a military organization. I mean, why would Amarr have one of the best missile frigates, but no other T1 classes that uses missiles? Maller and Prophesy should be missile boats in preparation for the T2 Khanid ships. Moa? Range bonus for something that hits like a soggy bee? Needs to be able to mount a full brace of guns, drop the missile slots. At least the Ferox could handle an equal number of missiles/guns until they FINALLY gave it the 6th turret turning it into the gunboat it should have always been.

Anyways, not going to happen so not sure why we are even arguing it Neutral Those that are broke will remain broke and those that are hanger queens shall remain so.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.21 21:41:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 21/02/2011 21:42:29
Every ship? No. Every ship listed by Val'Dore and Templar Dane? Yes.

Some people have simply never considered how having someone tracking linking you from 40km+ away as opposed to having to waste one of your mid or low slots for the same module could be valuable. Some simply don't want to see how having a guy that would otherwise not be of much worth to you being around to give emergency cap boosts using an Augoror would be useful.

Maybe I'm just an arrogant bastard then, but I feel that I have more of a clue when it comes to fitting these ships and can see how giving some of them more slots would severely adversely affect balance. Equalization of some other attributes to increase their potential for survivability? Perhaps. Increases to their PG/CPU? For some of them, most certainly not, while for others it may be worth considering.


Val'Dore, I asked you to specifically list what you would have done to which ships so that you feel they are balanced and to illustrate exactly how you think that would change balance from multiple perspectives; you have failed to deliver in that regard and have seemingly adopted a "lol you're an idiot, I'm not even going to bother" attitude. I have an opinion that does not agree with yours, and as such, being that this forum is for the discussion of ideas, you need to deliver on your part as the OP and explain in adequate detail exactly why any particular point you do not agree on is incorrect in your view.

Again, I may not be correct woth my opinion, but that does not automatically make any of you correct with your opinions either; if the changes you want will only break things (again) anyway, then you are incorrect in your assumptions and are going about your desired changes the wrong way entirely.


This thread, based on its opening post, was about the following things:

1. Ensuring that no new ship class added will ever have a significant 'tiering' system that, in whichever way, automatically creates ships 'lower in tier' obsolete through there being 'automatically superior' ships
2. Ensuring that the ships' prices are not balanced by what find to be some arbitrary tier system that makes up the only cost-factor and finding some other way to balance prices instead (which I feel is already addressed, but anyway)
3. Reevaluation of the roles ships have so that there is a more distinct distribution of ship capabilities so that no one ship is better to use "because it can do what ship x can do and more" (which again, I feel is handled quite sufficiently by the current ship roles/bonuses etc)
4. Force slots and point 3. to determine what the ships are designed to do without causing faults in fittings that still make it possible for another ship to "do what ship x does, and more" (which is one of the things I would like you to address, that you have failed to do, Val'Dore)


If you want something changed about the game, then damnit, you need to actually take the time to explain how you want them changed with details. You do not simply walk into F&I and chuck your idea into the volcano, you do not use a catapult, you do not use an Alt-visibility cloak, you do not send an alt-army to distract everyone while you slip through unnoticed.

You go in there, you look at that guy with the big eye like a man, and you tell him exactly how you are going to throw that idea into the volcano, detailing each and every single step you take up its craggy path to the peak.


Val'Dore, you are like Sam. You are just an idle character that sits at the side and has something 'witty' to say about what everyone else says, and tell everyone that they're wrong without taking the time to specifically detail anything. You agreed to help get the ring to the volcano, but once it came to the crunch, you just sat by while everyone else fought your fight for you, saying that this other guy coming out of the shadows is a sneaky, stupid creature that just wants to ruin everything for you.

Man up, do your part.


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