Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sigras
Conglomo
387
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 16:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
The main problem is that the concept of "jack of all trades, master of none" doesnt apply to them. Currently they are the "master of most trades, jack of some"
This however, is a necessity because they are currently locked into a role when they undock, so if each of their roles was worse than the perspective T2 ship they were "replacing" they would just be a more expensive worse ship, and nobody wants that.
Since they are so much more expensive than T2 ships though, they must be more effective at their chosen role or why would anyone fly them.
The solution: Make T3 ships be able to switch subsystems in space in combat. This seems like a crazy radical ridiculous solution, but there is a way to make it work and make it practical. What you would do is make all T3 ships 8/8/8 slot layout; then each subsystem, instead of giving you slots, would make a certain number of slots "active" or able to be used.
This would allow ships to change their role in combat (to some extent) without having to refit at a station/POS/carrier
The balance of course would be to make sure that in each configuration, the ship is slightly worse than the T2 version it's trying to emulate. This would allow it to be the true "jack of all trades, master of none"
Also a T3 ship would have to carry with it all the subsystems it would otherwise want to switch into as well as fill all the "unused" slots to prepare ahead of time for what is to come . . .
This would make T3 ships the most skillful ship in game, not just the out and out best one.
Thoughts? |
Ersahi Kir
Freelance Mining Company
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 16:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Eve doesn't support the idea of "jack of all trades" in ship design. It just doesn't work. Each ship has to be tuned and fit to do a single task very well; it has to be a brawler, kiter, sniper, scanner, hauler, booser, or some other very specific setup. So when I hear "jack of all trades" what I immediately turn that into is "terrible at everything in eve." |
RoAnnon
Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab
59
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 16:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm having a hard time seeing the "problem" or how your proposed solution would be better than the current situation. |
Nariya Kentaya
Always Negative.
449
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 17:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Eve doesn't support the idea of "jack of all trades" in ship design. It just doesn't work. Each ship has to be tuned and fit to do a single task very well; it has to be a brawler, kiter, sniper, scanner, hauler, booser, or some other very specific setup. So when I hear "jack of all trades" what I immediately turn that into is "terrible at everything in eve." This.
In EVE a ship is either useful or not. you cant make a ship a "jack of all trades" without making it inferior to everything.
I'm sorry OP, your idea wouldnt work because you would still have to carry all the modules for every possible fit, which would take a large amount of space that could no longer be used for ammo, not to mention the fact that the time it takes for you to open the inventory and get everything switched, you will be most assuredly dead. And you still have the issue that its "worse than the T2 its trying to emulate", all that would do is insure no matter how you had it fit, there would be a cheaper and better alternative. |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
32
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 18:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
There IS a problem with T3 ships, but it isn't where you say it is. The problem is in each separate subsystem combination taken in comparison to equal combination of other races' ships. Just one example: Will you prefer Arbitrator vs. Vexor? It's hardly an easy answer. Will you take drone Legion vs. drone Proteus? Don't make my socks laugh.
There's more of these issues, but they have nothing to do with being able to do everything at once. |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
2756
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 20:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
No.
The only T3 buff I will support is to remove the skill point loss associated with their destruction.
I Also support the following NERFS to T3s: Currently the command subbed T3 is better than the current Command ships. This needs to be reversed. There needs to be more gimpage to the ships when they are covert reconfigured AND nullified.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
174
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 20:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:No.
The only T3 buff I will support is to remove the skill point loss associated with their destruction.
I Also support the following NERFS to T3s: Currently the command subbed T3 is better than the current Command ships. This needs to be reversed. There needs to be more gimpage to the ships when they are covert reconfigured AND nullified.
CCP have already said they plan on dropping the command bonus on T3's to 2%, but to apply it across 3 of the fields. Just waiting on when that will happen, hopefully summer expansion. Or I predict a lot of screaming over that point. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1931
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 20:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:No.
The only T3 buff I will support is to remove the skill point loss associated with their destruction.
I Also support the following NERFS to T3s: Currently the command subbed T3 is better than the current Command ships. This needs to be reversed. There needs to be more gimpage to the ships when they are covert reconfigured AND nullified.
I agree... T3's don't need a buff, and they certainly don't need the ability to swap subsystems in combat!!!
I think covert t3's are fine.... I think the nullified subsytem should be altered: --- around the time of dominion, the t3 subsystem allowed your ship to warp out of bubbles, but you still got pulled into drag bubbles at your destination... I'd like to see this dynamic returned! |
Sentinel zx
Shadow Phoenix Special Forces
15
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 21:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
i think they will be nerved in some kind to bring them in line to navy ships
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1155
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 21:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
Make them normal powered, but give them scripts for everything.
AB/MWD script, Tracking Enhancer/Damage Mod Script, Inertia Stabilizer/Overdrive Injector/Nanofiber Script. Plate/Armor Repper Script Shield Extender/Shield Booster Script Hardener Script (One for each damage type)
etc.... |
|
Sigras
Conglomo
388
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 21:15:00 -
[11] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:No.
The only T3 buff I will support is to remove the skill point loss associated with their destruction.
I Also support the following NERFS to T3s: Currently the command subbed T3 is better than the current Command ships. This needs to be reversed. There needs to be more gimpage to the ships when they are covert reconfigured AND nullified.
I agree... T3's don't need a buff, and they certainly don't need the ability to swap subsystems in combat!!! I think covert t3's are fine.... I think the nullified subsytem should be altered: --- around the time of dominion, the t3 subsystem allowed your ship to warp out of bubbles, but you still got pulled into drag bubbles at your destination... I'd like to see this dynamic returned! perhaps you guys should read first and post second
The proposed change would be a massive nerf to T3 ships; they would be strictly worse than every T2 ship's role they could take, but they would be able to switch on the fly. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
2114
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 21:24:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Eve doesn't support the idea of "jack of all trades" in ship design. It just doesn't work. Each ship has to be tuned and fit to do a single task very well; it has to be a brawler, kiter, sniper, scanner, hauler, booser, or some other very specific setup. So when I hear "jack of all trades" what I immediately turn that into is "terrible at everything in eve." This. In EVE a ship is either useful or not. you cant make a ship a "jack of all trades" without making it inferior to everything. I'm sorry OP, your idea wouldnt work because you would still have to carry all the modules for every possible fit, which would take a large amount of space that could no longer be used for ammo, not to mention the fact that the time it takes for you to open the inventory and get everything switched, you will be most assuredly dead. And you still have the issue that its "worse than the T2 its trying to emulate", all that would do is insure no matter how you had it fit, there would be a cheaper and better alternative. I agree and disagree.
I agree in that in order to make a ship effective you have to give it a "focus"... fit it in a way that it can successfully employ a good tactic. Without this "focus" you are, yes, pretty much terrible at everything.
However, I don't agree that being a "jack-of-all-trades" is necessarily a bad thing... when you literally have 5 ship bonuses to work with!!! The "Drone Proteus" is a fine example of this. It can't use as many drones as the Ishtar... but it can tank FAR better (and even if the active and HP subsystems were nerfed to 7.5%, it would still be better). It's not as fast as the Ishtar can be... but it has bonuses that make its drones move faster. Most of the Proteuses configs may not have as many mid-slots as the Ishtar... but it does have more low slots, utility highs, CPU, and PG to play with. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Nagnor
The Happy Shooters
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 14:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
Maybe start small: allow T3 to be more flexible by removing that inflexible rigging part.
Suggestions to achieve this:
- Allow for rigs to be removed without destroying them on T3s
- When adding rig don't attach it to ship hull, but to a subsystem (selected by user)
Ad 2) When replacing subsystem for another, the attached rigs will accompany the subsystem (in and out). Rigs could be removed from subsystems by destroying them
Don't you think attaching the Armor/Shield rigs to defensive subsystems, weapon rigs to offensive subsystem and Energy grid rigs to either offensive subsystem (to match supply and demand) or engineering subsystems (eg. CCC -Power Core Multiplier package) will allow for more usage of T3's fitting flexibility |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 14:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
making T3'd riggless would help promote flexibility if you want to change a fleet to shields after using armour being able to do it would help.
But i think price is the main issue once they have nerfed them down to being navy level ships... tank..e-war...com links...reps etc.
150mil might be the right price but the price needs to come out of the subs mainly it stops people buying all the subs like a spare workshop if you will.. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
46
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 14:29:00 -
[15] - Quote
I understand your point but it's trying to fix something that is not broken. No ship should be as flexible as you are asking for. You have to make decisions and trade-offs. Right ship, right fittings and right situation are the keys to success rather than 1 ship which can be switched on the fly to do everything in all situations.
T3 ships fit best in specific situations and roles (just like all ships). If a cheaper ship can fit the role as well then use the cheaper ship. T3 ships seem to be flown way too much by too many people who shouldn't be flying them in situations where they aren't a good fit... I have no problem with this since shiny ships are the most fun to destroy!! |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
678
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 14:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
Nerf them across the board and let them switch rigs without destroying them (Or remover rigs from them entirely)
Changing subsystems in space would be extremely silly considering how much their looks change depending on subs Beyond Divinity Recruitment is open! |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 17:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
Onomerous wrote:I understand your point but it's trying to fix something that is not broken. No ship should be as flexible as you are asking for. You have to make decisions and trade-offs. Right ship, right fittings and right situation are the keys to success rather than 1 ship which can be switched on the fly to do everything in all situations.
T3 ships fit best in specific situations and roles (just like all ships). If a cheaper ship can fit the role as well then use the cheaper ship. T3 ships seem to be flown way too much by too many people who shouldn't be flying them in situations where they aren't a good fit... I have no problem with this since shiny ships are the most fun to destroy!!
I think you are missing the point about what T3 ships are meant to do... multi purpose and versatility is the key to what there purpose is.. you are talking about them like they are T2 specialist ships. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
46
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 17:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:Onomerous wrote:I understand your point but it's trying to fix something that is not broken. No ship should be as flexible as you are asking for. You have to make decisions and trade-offs. Right ship, right fittings and right situation are the keys to success rather than 1 ship which can be switched on the fly to do everything in all situations.
T3 ships fit best in specific situations and roles (just like all ships). If a cheaper ship can fit the role as well then use the cheaper ship. T3 ships seem to be flown way too much by too many people who shouldn't be flying them in situations where they aren't a good fit... I have no problem with this since shiny ships are the most fun to destroy!! I think you are missing the point about what T3 ships are meant to do... multi purpose and versatility is the key to what there purpose is.. you are talking about them like they are T2 specialist ships.
I think you miss the point of T3 ships... they aren't the end all/be all of EVE. They are a great target though.
Letting them switch mods in open space? Rigs you don't have to destroy to switch them out? You want them to be all things at all times.
Carry the mods in your ship, dock up and switch them out. Problem solved.
Don't like the rigs you have? Destroy them like all other ships.
I really don't see an issue which needs to be fixed. I see where it could really be to your advantage (or the current situation isn't ideal for you) but that does not make it a problem which needs a fix.
If you are suggesting the ability to switch mods at an SMA (like in a WH) then yes. This is an issue which needs to be addressed since an SMA is supposed to duplicate the functions of a normal station. But it is still not a switch in open space. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 19:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
Onomerous wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:Onomerous wrote:I understand your point but it's trying to fix something that is not broken. No ship should be as flexible as you are asking for. You have to make decisions and trade-offs. Right ship, right fittings and right situation are the keys to success rather than 1 ship which can be switched on the fly to do everything in all situations.
T3 ships fit best in specific situations and roles (just like all ships). If a cheaper ship can fit the role as well then use the cheaper ship. T3 ships seem to be flown way too much by too many people who shouldn't be flying them in situations where they aren't a good fit... I have no problem with this since shiny ships are the most fun to destroy!! I think you are missing the point about what T3 ships are meant to do... multi purpose and versatility is the key to what there purpose is.. you are talking about them like they are T2 specialist ships. I think you miss the point of T3 ships... they aren't the end all/be all of EVE. They are a great target though. Letting them switch mods in open space? Rigs you don't have to destroy to switch them out? You want them to be all things at all times. Carry the mods in your ship, dock up and switch them out. Problem solved. Don't like the rigs you have? Destroy them like all other ships. I really don't see an issue which needs to be fixed. I see where it could really be to your advantage (or the current situation isn't ideal for you) but that does not make it a problem which needs a fix. If you are suggesting the ability to switch mods at an SMA (like in a WH) then yes. This is an issue which needs to be addressed since an SMA is supposed to duplicate the functions of a normal station. But it is still not a switch in open space.
i never asked for the ability to swap subs in space and i think they shouldn't have rigs at all... every attribute should come from the subs and normal mods... not rigs |
Nagnor
The Happy Shooters
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 19:57:00 -
[20] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote: .....
every attribute should come from the subs and normal mods... not rigs
Fine with me, under the condition the subs get a slight boost to compensate for the lack of rigs, which generally have higher % boosting than % drawback and for some no drawback (Energy Grid rigs)
|
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 20:58:00 -
[21] - Quote
Nagnor wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote: .....
every attribute should come from the subs and normal mods... not rigs
Fine with me, under the condition the subs get a slight boost to compensate for the lack of rigs, which generally have higher % boosting than % drawback and for some no drawback (Energy Grid rigs)
The subs excessive resistances along with bonuses to HP or resis etc.. is the problem rigs just accentuate them and allow for 100mn tengus and other nonsense that shouldn't happen. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium |
Sigras
Conglomo
389
|
Posted - 2013.03.25 09:46:00 -
[22] - Quote
RoAnnon wrote:I'm having a hard time seeing the "problem" or how your proposed solution would be better than the current situation. You dont think that the fact they're better than every other ship in their class at what they do is a problem?
How exactly do you intend to counter a fleet of T3 plus logistics? bring more T3 and logistics?
Im simply stating that this is a problem, and that there is no way to fix the problem without allowing them to change roles in combat.
T3 should not completely obsolete T2 otherwise why even have T2 in the game, but that is what is currently happening. Honestly can you give me a situation where you would take a deimos over a proteus? or even an astarte over a proteus?
How about a nighthawk over a tengu?
How about a zealot over a legion?
what about a vagabond over a loki?
What im saying is, T3 is now better in pretty much every way than a T2 HAC or Command Ship, and it is understandable; otherwise what are you getting for that extra cost? It would, however, be much better design to give people versatility for that cost instead of making it T3 > T2 > T1
You cannot give people versatility currently because you're locked into one thing when you undock, but if you changed it from being straight better to being able to switch roles in combat you'd have a much more interesting ship that doesnt make other ships obsolete. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Shockwave Sovereign Industries
50
|
Posted - 2013.03.25 13:51:00 -
[23] - Quote
Sigras wrote:RoAnnon wrote:I'm having a hard time seeing the "problem" or how your proposed solution would be better than the current situation. You dont think that the fact they're better than every other ship in their class at what they do is a problem? How exactly do you intend to counter a fleet of T3 plus logistics? bring more T3 and logistics? Im simply stating that this is a problem, and that there is no way to fix the problem without allowing them to change roles in combat. T3 should not completely obsolete T2 otherwise why even have T2 in the game, but that is what is currently happening. Honestly can you give me a situation where you would take a deimos over a proteus? or even an astarte over a proteus? How about a nighthawk over a tengu? How about a zealot over a legion? what about a vagabond over a loki? What im saying is, T3 is now better in pretty much every way than a T2 HAC or Command Ship, and it is understandable; otherwise what are you getting for that extra cost? It would, however, be much better design to give people versatility for that cost instead of making it T3 > T2 > T1 You cannot give people versatility currently because you're locked into one thing when you undock, but if you changed it from being straight better to being able to switch roles in combat you'd have a much more interesting ship that doesnt make other ships obsolete.
I'm totally lost as to what you are trying to change. This post seems to say T3 are overpowered but OP seems to indicate T3 need changes to make them more flexible. Wouldn't making them able to swap out subsystems in mid space and/or tying the rigs to the subsystems make them even more overpowered? I'm lost as to what this thread is trying to accomplish. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |