Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
584
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 11:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
Rather than the BS be T3 tech i'd prefer simply to change BS and BC to use the T3 style fittings and be formed from subsystems much like real BS and BC's were.
Allow us to create a 'Hood' type BC with BS guns but good speed at expense of armour or more balanced 'Bismarck' style BS, or even 'Monitor' style ships with lots of BS guns at the expense of mobility and armour (good for POS bashing but equally good for gank targets) at expense of mobility. I'm sure the existing hulls could be modeled in this way but then players can tweaks subsystems to suit their own. I'm equally sure this could be tricky to balance but not as tricky as full blown T3 BS would be. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1738
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 12:00:00 -
[32] - Quote
The hood was bigger than the bismarck though EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
584
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 12:29:00 -
[33] - Quote
Still only a battlecruiser albeit with 15" guns (theoretically the armour plan should have been fine against Bismarck at the range they engaged, it was a 'lucky' hit that caused the magazine explosion), but that's my point, the flexibility in subsystem creation of BC and BS could breathe new life into those classes |
Michael Mach
Nova Wolves
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 16:59:00 -
[34] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:There is no place in eve for a T3 battleship in a combat role.
I would prefer to see a t3 industrial or a t3 frigate.
But, but, but my Marauder isn't good enough for ratting! |
ido spaceship
24
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 22:17:00 -
[35] - Quote
maybe just axing rigs on all ships in favour of class customized subsystems would be a good thing.. this is prolly one of those type before you think posts but still im having fun thinking of the possibilities.. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
585
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 23:43:00 -
[36] - Quote
A lot of people talking about how OP T3s are now, which is rather amusing since they are hardly what people are claiming, as per usual.
That said, balancing T3 BSs would be impossible. And it has been proposed before. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
stoicfaux
5026
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 02:01:00 -
[37] - Quote
Sigh. T3 ships are supposed to be flexible ships, and not super-powerful at any one thing to the point that they overshadow a T2 or pirate ship. However, the Tengu (and the Proteus) happened. Plus, high-sec exploration gates were changed to prohibit T3 ships, so being flexible enough to fit dps, tank, probes and analyzer modules all at once would be considered too powerful in the high-sec context.
So if you assume that a T3 battleship would be a flexible generalist that would be noticeably less powerful than a Marauder or Pirate battleship, then what would a T3 battleship need in order to be flexible enough to provide more value than a T2/Pirate battleship? (Especially given the existence of mobile depots.)
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
838
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 05:49:00 -
[38] - Quote
OP, you seem to have totally forgotten the whole point of T3's. They are meant to be versatile, not just powerful. You haven't approached that side of the subject at all. How can you claim to be trying to create a balanced line of new ships when you ignore the core principals behind their existance?
T3 cruisers are presently on par with Battleship levels of tank and dps, and they can apply it to smaller targets easier and they are also much faster and maneuverable. As much as I would love to see modular BS's because I think they would be cool, I also understand that they could not be balanced if they were in line with the present T3 designs.
So, instead of apparently pulling numbers out of thin air, you better go back and start at the begining of the design process and FIND A ROLE for these ships.
Also, remember that NO one ship should ever be able to do everything. It is also important to make sure that you not making existing ships redundant. Lastly, power creep should be avoided, so making them any more powerful than comparable ships in their weight class would just be making them the next "must have" ship. http://meme-generator.me/media/created/d3r3t8.jpg |
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Easily Excited
35
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 19:35:00 -
[39] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:A lot of people talking about how OP T3s are now, which is rather amusing since they are hardly what people are claiming, as per usual.
That said, balancing T3 BSs would be impossible. And it has been proposed before.
^ Confirming SYJ does T3s better than most of you folks here.
I think part of the issue is due to the "stigma" of T3s. People always love to say 300k EHP, but it takes slaves and fleet boosts to get that high with a reasonable fit. Then people say things like "well it's a T3, it's supposed to be flown with slaves and fleet boost".
But really, everything gets pretty good when you add on slaves and fleet boost. Not to mention, if I'm buying slaves for my super duper proteus, they don't go away when I fly other ships...
Here's a megathron fit for comparison: [Megathron, lol meg] - links + slaves
7x Neutron Blaster Cannon II (Void L)
Damage Control II Armor Explosive Hardener Armor Kinetic Hardener Armor Thermic Hardener Armor EM Hardener 3x 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
3x Large Trimark Armor Pump I
1x Gecko 1x Hammerhead II 3x Hobgoblin II
920 DPS, 387k EHP (501k overheated). That looks like T3 stats to me, on a <200m hull! If you're going to tell me the proteus is faster and hits small targets for better, I'd say I sure hope so, at twice the cost of my beautiful megathron. But the proteus also has low sensor strength, tends to be vulnerable to neuting, has crap for range when blaster fit, and crap for tracking when rail fit.
So moral of the story: Those protei are only scary if you're a high sec bear being hunted by a guy with slaves, links and neutral logi. The proteus is a good boat, but the only thing that would make it OP is that unlike you, the guy is dropping a few bil on a slave clone and spent the last 6 months training perfect link skills on his alt. |
DingieSan
Black Salmon
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 11:16:00 -
[40] - Quote
I do think it is possible to introduce T3 battleships but with limited different roles compared to strategic cruisers.
By clearly defining roles for the different moduled T3 bs's the potential unbalancing could be reduced considerably.
When I would design T3 bs's I would define the roles as covert ops, mining, (logi) carrier. The latter could fill the gap between drone boats and carriers. Another option would be to introduce tier 3 battleships that would do the above suggestion.
This is only high level thinking. |
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
24445
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 11:19:14 -
[41] - Quote
...
nope.
Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
I like to gank it, gank it!
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1626
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 13:20:07 -
[42] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:There is no place in eve for a T3 battleship in a combat role.
I would prefer to see a t3 industrial or a t3 frigate. T3 Industrial would actually be useful, with the ability to reconfigure subsystems on the fly for covert travel, then the type of ore/gas/ice/transport you need, then back to covert to extract from hostile territory. And with strong tank. |
|
CCP Logibro
C C P C C P Alliance
633
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 11:26:51 -
[43] - Quote
Unlocked at OP request.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13699
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 11:31:45 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Logibro wrote:Unlocked at OP request. Wait, that's a thing?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
The Hamilton
Outer Ring Sleeper Collective Illusion of Solitude
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 12:20:10 -
[45] - Quote
Saelem Black wrote:Consuela says, "No no. Mr. CCP no es home. No... No..."
But seriously, the devs have often commented thinly veiled statements to the effect of, "Despite their popularity, T3s were the worst ships we ever introduced."
Don't think they're going to add more T3s any time soon... or ever, really.
Love this comment since EVE Vegas. Destroyers aren't exactly Battleships, but T3 they are. Who knows, our big T3 rebalance may be closer than I'd like.. Along with it the possibility for more T3 stuff. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
927
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 12:50:36 -
[46] - Quote
The Hamilton wrote:Saelem Black wrote:Consuela says, "No no. Mr. CCP no es home. No... No..."
But seriously, the devs have often commented thinly veiled statements to the effect of, "Despite their popularity, T3s were the worst ships we ever introduced."
Don't think they're going to add more T3s any time soon... or ever, really. Love this comment since EVE Vegas. Destroyers aren't exactly Battleships, but T3 they are. Who knows, our big T3 rebalance may be closer than I'd like.. Along with it the possibility for more T3 stuff.
perhaps Tactical battleships like the tactical dessies that are coming ..
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
|
Arronicus
Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra
1188
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 13:19:55 -
[47] - Quote
Brutus Le'montac wrote: Gallante Drone Decoder, offensive system: gives +2 Max drone control, + 20m3 drone bay and +50 drone bandwith,
CCP is trying to crack down on the number of drones being used, in various ways. I think you'd be far more likely to see say, 100 bandwidth with a 50% drone damage bonus, (3 effective geckos, or 7.5 effective mediums) than +2 drone control, and over 125mb bandwidth.
T3 battleships have been proposed in the past, and shot down by ccp. They have been really open about there being little to no interest or desire to add additional t3 ships in the game. Even the destroyers they are adding are closer to marauders than t3s in terms of functionality. |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
189
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 13:27:50 -
[48] - Quote
Why?
|
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 13:40:28 -
[49] - Quote
Now isn't really the time to propose T3 battleships because any discussion on it will be colored by the current T3 cruisers. Wait 'til they do a balance pass on T3 cruisers (and probably a tweak pass on the T3 destroyers after they're released). |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
162
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:08:51 -
[50] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:CCP Logibro wrote:Unlocked at OP request. Wait, that's a thing? Apparently it is if you ask nicely and it was locked for inactivity rather than because it violated rules.
Yes, I do incursions. Find out how to be as space rich as me here
Things I support:
Channel links directly from tab.
Tech 3 battleships.
Brains over blobs.
|
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
162
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:12:26 -
[51] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:Why?
This is a thread I made because I like the idea and want to put a proposal up, get feedback on the proposal itself and see if a reasonably balanced version can be made to exist.
Yes, I do incursions. Find out how to be as space rich as me here
Things I support:
Channel links directly from tab.
Tech 3 battleships.
Brains over blobs.
|
Airto TLA
Puppeteers of Doom
65
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:25:04 -
[52] - Quote
The problem with T3 in general is that it was a mistake. It is from a time when EVE developers had not yet realized that MMO power creep was going to kill the game. It also exist from a cruiser centric game design, where you could get a fast hit in power by going BS, but you were going to be out maneuvered by T2 then T3 cruisers the "vets" flew.
Along this line the super caps and maybe even caps fall into this box.
So, all new ideas must fall into either filling a new role or be an 5x expensive 10% better faction/t2 variant. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
162
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:29:38 -
[53] - Quote
Airto TLA wrote:The problem with T3 in general is that it was a mistake. It is from a time when EVE developers had not yet realized that MMO power creep was going to kill the game. It also exist from a cruiser centric game design, where you could get a fast hit in power by going BS, but you were going to be out maneuvered by T2 then T3 cruisers the "vets" flew.
Along this line the super caps and maybe even caps fall into this box.
So, all new ideas must fall into either filling a new role or be an 5x expensive 10% better faction/t2 variant. As I said, I want these to end up balanced no higher than parity with faction or the correct t2, and have much more room to completely screw the ship up by making even a single bad choice.
Yes, I do incursions. Find out how to be as space rich as me here
Things I support:
Channel links directly from tab.
Tech 3 battleships.
Brains over blobs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13704
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:32:21 -
[54] - Quote
Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
162
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:32:51 -
[55] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Now isn't really the time to propose T3 battleships because any discussion on it will be colored by the current T3 cruisers. Wait 'til they do a balance pass on T3 cruisers (and probably a tweak pass on the T3 destroyers after they're released). I'd like to be soliciting the same sort of feedback, and tweaking my proposal this whole time, so that by the time they're ready to listen, I have a tuned up proposal, with all the MASSIVE holes filed in
Yes, I do incursions. Find out how to be as space rich as me here
Things I support:
Channel links directly from tab.
Tech 3 battleships.
Brains over blobs.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
162
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 16:33:58 -
[56] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS. I understand completely. Can you, when I finish one, tell me in reasonably polite terms, how ***** broken it is, and how it might be fixed somewhat?
Yes, I do incursions. Find out how to be as space rich as me here
Things I support:
Channel links directly from tab.
Tech 3 battleships.
Brains over blobs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13705
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 17:22:30 -
[57] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:baltec1 wrote:Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS. I understand completely. Can you, when I finish one, tell me in reasonably polite terms, how ***** broken it is, and how it might be fixed somewhat?
When CCP nerf them back into being cruisers rather than pocket battleships.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
162
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 17:25:05 -
[58] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:James Baboli wrote:baltec1 wrote:Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS. I understand completely. Can you, when I finish one, tell me in reasonably polite terms, how ***** broken it is, and how it might be fixed somewhat? When CCP nerf them back into being cruisers rather than pocket battleships. Oh well. Here's hoping I can eventually get your imput on these things.
Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here
Things I support:
Channel links directly from tab.
Tech 3 battleships.
Brains over blobs.
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
137
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 18:45:17 -
[59] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:
I'm working on a set of subsystems and build costs that would put the material cost in the 1.5B range
I think that's too cheap.
Besides, if T3 battleships ever became a thing... I'd say 150 days of training for it would be reasonable. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
162
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 18:58:30 -
[60] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:James Baboli wrote:
I'm working on a set of subsystems and build costs that would put the material cost in the 1.5B range
I think that's too cheap. Besides, if T3 battleships ever became a thing... I'd say 150 days of training for it would be reasonable.
1.5 in sleeper componets, + blueprint costs + subsystems at something else fairly high. Will clarify OP.
Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here
Things I support:
Channel links directly from tab.
Tech 3 battleships.
Brains over blobs.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |