Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
328
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
I will be brief.
I have played since 2009, right when Incarna was launched. I have witnessed the entire rebalancing initiative from its conception to its current state. What I have learned is thus, in bullet point fashion.
- T1 ships are meant to be the most common ship flown in game. Not just because they are cheaper but because they can be flown sooner and are perfected faster.
- T2 ships are specialised in one direction or another. They are very skill intensive to fly in the first case and take many more SP further to be maximised. In effect they are their own ship line.
- T3 ships can generally be accessed just after T2's. At this point in time they're a bit slower than HACs, have a bit better EHP and otherwise apart from a few specific subsystems have been outclassed by various T2 ships in those specific roles (as was intended).
In having gained access to every ship in the game (ie I have trained for every t2 and t3 hull available, I can fly dreads and carriers soon(tm)) I have seen something. A very little something about the T3 hull. It is a solo ship. It is a ship that has modules which innately mimic T2 ships but fall short. It is a ship that is costly to build and hard to gain the materials for. It is a ship designed for the most dangerous space in the game. It has the capacity for solo work and this where it should be the most utilised. It should have diminished appeal for fleet work. It is not these things right now but it could be.
My thoughts are these.
- Remove SP loss - these are draconian and arbitrary limitation that is no longer needed as a balancing factor.
- Consolidate all subsystem skills in to a single T3 skill. This single skill will gain synergy bonuses from relevantly trained T2 skills which will apply to the specific subsystem you have fit at the time.
- Rebalance the subsystems with this new model in mind - combat subsystems should be synergetic and should have poorer synergy with non-combat subsystems. In other words, make slot layouts less subsystem specific.
- Generally lower EHP values on T3's. T2s have ~50% more ehp than T1's, T3's should have maybe a scratch more again for 160% the ehp of a T1.
I reserve the right to modify or expand the lists at a future date.
My main objective for these modifications is because I want to create more scenarios where T3's do what they were designed for - these ships were advertised as being flexible and adaptable. Right now there are ships that are pidgeon holed in to a couple of roles which is in contradiction with this mission statement, but I attribute this more to the march of time and of the global rebalancing effort than strictly to T3's themselves.
I will preface the skill consolidation with the assumption that right now T3's are quite balanced internally, within a vacuum. The skill consolidation works as thus:
T1 Cruiser skill | --- Level 1 | ---- Level 5 T2 Cruiser skills - Logi, HAC etc \\\ T3 skill plugged in. T3's available to fly. T3 Subsystem skill available | | T3 level 5. \\ T3 subsystems skill level 5.
This basic model does not do justice to the graph in my head. What I want is to take the 5 subsystem skills which are level 1 and replace them with a single level 6 (or level 8 or whatever) skill that never loses SP against it but that applies a bonus per level to the bonus per relevant t2 skill in addition to existing bonuses we see today.
Much like set bonuses of games of Yore this is my open objective. If you have for example trained Logi V then logistics based subsystems should grant bonuses based on this level. HAC V should grant bonuses to combat related subsystems and if you have HAC 1 it should offer a straight 20% of the bonus of HAC 5.
This is only a draft but I wanted to put it to the floor here before taking it to the CSM forum section to iron out any bugs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1958
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
If they removed SP loss for T3's I'd never fly a different cruiser. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Lothros Andastar
The Minutemen The Bastion
157
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
The skill loss is there for a reason. The multiple skills are there for a reason.
This is not Hello Kitty Online. |
Ellendras Silver
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
145
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:I will be brief.
T3 ships can generally be accessed just after T2's. At this point in time they're a bit slower than HACs, have a bit better EHP and otherwise apart from a few specific subsystems have been outclassed by various T2 ships in those specific roles (as was intended).
a BIT more EHP ??? are you on crack ??? Carpe noctem |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
5505
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
It sucks when I lose a Proteus (usually because of my own stupidity), but it doesn't happen often and the 4 days loss of training is not really a disincentive for me to keep flying them.
It's the cost of the bloody things that I hate.
I see no need to change the current mechanic.
Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass! |
Ellendras Silver
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
145
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:If they removed SP loss for T3's I'd never fly a different cruiser.
exactly why they need to remove SP loss and balance T3 cruisers, and that will be reality soon enough, ofc T3s need to be viable and usefull but not the OP godly ships they are at this moment Carpe noctem |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
328
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:I will be brief.
T3 ships can generally be accessed just after T2's. At this point in time they're a bit slower than HACs, have a bit better EHP and otherwise apart from a few specific subsystems have been outclassed by various T2 ships in those specific roles (as was intended). a BIT more EHP ??? are you on crack ???
Than HACs.
Quote:The skill loss is there for a reason. The multiple skills are there for a reason.
The reason for their existence is probably not as concrete and irrefutable as you've permitted yourself to believe. At this point in the balancing program T3s are being outclassed in a number of roles and perhaps as part of the T3 rebalance addressing one of their most obscure pain points should be a considered.
also T3 skill loss doesn't stop anyone from flying them really as you will consistently see from wormhole and pirate groups. Furthermore I shall mention the nullsec T3 blobs.
Quote:If they removed SP loss for T3's I'd never fly a different cruiser.
I'm curious how you have arrived at this conclusion, bearing in mind not everyone is able to afford one. Does your sweeping generalisation apply to FW and highsec as well? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1958
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Sentamon wrote:If they removed SP loss for T3's I'd never fly a different cruiser. exactly why they need to remove SP loss and balance T3 cruisers, and that will be reality soon enough, ofc T3s need to be viable and usefull but not the OP godly ships they are at this moment
Meh, that's your point of view. It's nice to have more choices, not less. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
933
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
If they did that why fly any other ship.
However a line of implants that reduced effects of skill loss (including when you get podded without a proper clone.) would be interesting.
While you still lose SP if you sacrifice say slaves or crystals you can greatly reduce SP lost. Or you can use another implant set and earn a vastly improved combat modifier.
So people who wish to not lose SP can invest into them, and people who don't care can continue on with how they do. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
202
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
OP you are getting from "is" (or rather perceived) to "ought", that's a fallacy and your whole argument is based on that.
Besides that I have not flown and probably will not fly a T3 and can not really judge the necessity for such a drastic penalty, but since it has stayed that long, is well established and your argument is false to begin with I doubt this needs fixing. Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
|
Catalina Cruz Madeveda
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
Lothros Andastar wrote:The skill loss is there for a reason. The multiple skills are there for a reason.
This is not Hello Kitty Online.
Exactly. T3s come with high risk and high reward. Tech 3 means better than T1 and T2.
I just wish we could start getting tech 3 modules. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
328
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 21:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:If they did that why fly any other ship.
However a line of implants that reduced effects of skill loss (including when you get podded without a proper clone.) would be interesting.
While you still lose SP if you sacrifice say slaves or crystals you can greatly reduce SP lost. Or you can use another implant set and earn a vastly improved combat modifier.
So people who wish to not lose SP can invest into them, and people who don't care can continue on with how they do.
This is pretty much the exact thinking I am trying to address.
T3's were made for wormholes or otherwise any dangerous area of space were having a versatile ship that can refit remotely into a very different ship was the main selling point.
How does taking a T3 with a no doubt very expensive clone in to space where getting blown up is already ISK expensive but also SP expensive become any less painful when you now fly a clone deliberately designed to mitigate one cost while dramatically increasing the other? Your implant set is about as useful as the booster set i.e nearly completely useless. Only extremely fringe examples find them workable and even then you're still hamstrung by how much you can bring through the door.
T3's I think should be pushed in to the solo players direction with much more assertiveness than now. Your secondary implant set idea is covered by the synergy concept I thought of but if you want to take the notion further I will state that the variation provided by the SP needed in my model is much higher than the variation produced by your plug&play implant concept which like any ISK-only related constraint is immediately gamed by those who have enough money for it not to matter. I just personally don't think we need another implant set or at least neither of these ones as they don't bring enough value to the table outside of their ridiculously niche applications.
Sentamon wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:Sentamon wrote:If they removed SP loss for T3's I'd never fly a different cruiser. exactly why they need to remove SP loss and balance T3 cruisers, and that will be reality soon enough, ofc T3s need to be viable and usefull but not the OP godly ships they are at this moment Meh, that's your point of view. It's nice to have more choices, not less.
I focus in my suggestions on increasing the number of gameplay applications things have, or increasing access to them in logical and reasonable ways. This is one of those cases. By making T3's in the first instance be more organic and intuitive for the majority of playstyles in particular the neglected solo play style and in the second instance of making them less penalising for people using them for what they were originally designed to do (fly around wormholes, a space where you are by design alone and transient) I hope to diversify their use away from being super-tanked cruisers. To paraphrase the wormhole subforum "T3 combat is about who makes a mistake first". This shouldn't be the case.
Catalina Cruz Madeveda wrote:
Exactly. T3s come with high risk and high reward. Tech 3 means better than T1 and T2.
I just wish we could start getting tech 3 modules.
You are wrong. CCP confirmed this during Fanfest. They're not immediately better they're more generalised and that fact is often forgotten because T3's are fundamentally broken in their design which leans them towards the lack of enthusiasm in their use and the very specific builds which have eventuated. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Ellendras Silver
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
145
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 22:05:00 -
[13] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:Sentamon wrote:If they removed SP loss for T3's I'd never fly a different cruiser. exactly why they need to remove SP loss and balance T3 cruisers, and that will be reality soon enough, ofc T3s need to be viable and usefull but not the OP godly ships they are at this moment Meh, that's your point of view. It's nice to have more choices, not less.
coming from someone that clearly said he would not fly ANY other ship if there wasn't skill loss, thats pretty hilarious Carpe noctem |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
455
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 22:17:00 -
[14] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:The reason for their existence is probably not as concrete and irrefutable as you've permitted yourself to believe. At this point in the balancing program T3s are being outclassed in a number of roles and perhaps as part of the T3 rebalance addressing one of their most obscure pain points should be a considered.
Apparently its keeping some like the people you want to hook up from flying them sooooo....it must be working. Yes there are hundreds out there. This is keeping hundreds + the damn the sp loss sucks holdouts away.
You made the point that its more solo based than fleet and should shift there. Here I will use my argument of that is better for solo is even better for the fleet. I use it in the lets boost eve solo pvp threads. Ship that better handles say 2 on 1's.....becomes even better when its the 2 on 1 and not the 1 vs 2.
Consolidation of subs also a bad idea. T3 is nice in that early on its it training you pick what you want to do well first and roll with it. Want the dakka dakka t3, offensive subs a good top list skill to put on the to do list. I want to make my tengu a falcon variant....I'd put in that skill instead. I get what I want faster, you get what you want faster. We all win end of the day really.
Also you have to lose the must be xyz skill e-peen. I have popped a few t3 to pebcak errors. I then roll them out at one skill at 4 not 5. They still work decent enough and the skill loss is a subtle reminder to not fly a tard at least for a little while.
T3 based on t2 skills he start of rather slippery slope...you don't want this. Skills should not carry over for it. This be a slippery slope just in t3 alone. I could push for my CS 5 boosting my t3 link fits after CCP had logi skill affect logi t3 fits. CCP with firm intent in a rebalance had t3 boost less than CS. This would negate this. Even worse...t3 gets 3 areas of link boosts vice t2's 2 areas of boosting. I'd get stronger boosts for more areas. This is why t3 is a pain to balance. You in your example looked at logistics. t3 balance has to look at all options it can do.
YOu also need to look grandscheme as you keep on comparing t2 to t3. Cerb had a short lived hayday with rlml post buff prenerf. RLML got its nerf bat...and cerb got cut down abit. end result.....tengu still kept its dominant role in caldari cruiser use. Have to look at the big picture...not all races have t2 cruisers outshining the t3 the take away. |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
933
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 22:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote: How does taking a T3 with a no doubt very expensive clone in to space where getting blown up is already ISK expensive but also SP expensive become any less painful when you now fly a clone deliberately designed to mitigate one cost while dramatically increasing the other? Your implant set is about as useful as the booster set i.e nearly completely useless. Only extremely fringe examples find them workable and even then you're still hamstrung by how much you can bring through the door.
T3's I think should be pushed in to the solo players direction with much more assertiveness than now. Your secondary implant set idea is covered by the synergy concept I thought of but if you want to take the notion further I will state that the variation provided by the SP needed in my model is much higher than the variation produced by your plug&play implant concept which like any ISK-only related constraint is immediately gamed by those who have enough money for it not to matter. I just personally don't think we need another implant set or at least neither of these ones as they don't bring enough value to the table outside of their ridiculously niche applications.
Whats wrong with spending money for time? Worked for sec status. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra
43
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 23:18:00 -
[16] - Quote
all I hear here is 'Whaaa, im a crap T3 user and hate having to retrain a skill every week because I keep losing T3's '
the sp's are a risk to using a powerful ship. adapt or fly something else |
Christopher Tsutola
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 23:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:I will be brief.
In having gained access to every ship in the game (ie I have trained for every t2 and t3 hull available, I can fly dreads and carriers soon(tm)) I have seen something. A very little something about the T3 hull. It is a solo ship. It is a ship that has modules which innately mimic T2 ships but fall short. It is a ship that is costly to build and hard to gain the materials for. It is a ship designed for the most dangerous space in the game. It has the capacity for solo work and this where it should be the most utilised. It should have diminished appeal for fleet work. It is not these things right now but it could be.
A T3 is meant to be slightly worse off then its T2 counterpart untill over heating where it gains an advantage along with its modular utility
A T3 is not a solo ship T3s shine when working in combination with one another especially in the small gangs of WH space
now do the sub-systems need re-balance? yes but CCP has already stated they are working on this.
is there a problem with risking as much as 4 days of sp? No if you cant afford that then don't un-dock the ship |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
965
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 23:54:00 -
[18] - Quote
Nobody gonna point out that incarna was not in 2009? |
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
254
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 00:32:00 -
[19] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Nobody gonna point out that incarna was not in 2009? Shh, I want to see this play out. |
Nariya Kentaya
Phoenix funds
1442
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 03:15:00 -
[20] - Quote
The problem with "rebalancing" T3's in ANY WAY is this:
If its weaker at any given time than ANY T2, but able to be fit for more T2 roles, then it will never see use, ebcause it would be vastly superior to just bring a T2. If it is aimed at being "versatile" or "adaptable", then anything short of having 3 fittign widnows with the ability to enter a 1-minute siege cycle to switch them out, is pointless.
The main problem with making T3 more "versatile" is that between the logistics of hauling a bunch of modules around with you on top of the mobile depot, the time it takes to deploy, refit, and scoop the depot, and the fact you cant change your rigs, means T3's are usually locked into a SINGLE role, no matter what, unless your defending in close proximity to a starbase/outpost.
Basically, T3's are powerful, but thats because if they worked like they were originally intended, not only would they be useless for wormholes because they were weak, there wouldnt be much use running them since you may as well go home or to your carrier and swap ships to begin with. |
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1960
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 04:35:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Sentamon wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:Sentamon wrote:If they removed SP loss for T3's I'd never fly a different cruiser. exactly why they need to remove SP loss and balance T3 cruisers, and that will be reality soon enough, ofc T3s need to be viable and usefull but not the OP godly ships they are at this moment Meh, that's your point of view. It's nice to have more choices, not less. coming from someone that clearly said he would not fly ANY other ship if there wasn't skill loss, thats pretty hilarious
I take it English isn't your first language. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
254
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 06:02:00 -
[22] - Quote
To be fair, I had to read that a few times to catch it. |
Andrew Indy
Four Pillar Production Headshot Gaming
92
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 09:08:00 -
[23] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:The problem with "rebalancing" T3's in ANY WAY is this:
If its weaker at any given time than ANY T2, but able to be fit for more T2 roles, then it will never see use, ebcause it would be vastly superior to just bring a T2. If it is aimed at being "versatile" or "adaptable", then anything short of having 3 fittign widnows with the ability to enter a 1-minute siege cycle to switch them out, is pointless.
The main problem with making T3 more "versatile" is that between the logistics of hauling a bunch of modules around with you on top of the mobile depot, the time it takes to deploy, refit, and scoop the depot, and the fact you cant change your rigs, means T3's are usually locked into a SINGLE role, no matter what, unless your defending in close proximity to a starbase/outpost.
Basically, T3's are powerful, but thats because if they worked like they were originally intended, not only would they be useless for wormholes because they were weak, there wouldnt be much use running them since you may as well go home or to your carrier and swap ships to begin with.
Not really true, You can't turn a normal T2 ship into a Nullified Covert Ops for travel and then into a DPS ship 1 minute later, or a scanning ship ect ect. Sure in HS its not benefit but just about any other dangerous space it is.
The Rigs are some what of an issue and the size of the Subs is really a limiting factor (My Legion can only carry like 4000 missiles after fittings and subs and thats with 2 Cargo expanders).
PS, I support the removal of the SP loss assuming CCP changes the T3s to be sub part of a T2. While they are OP the SP lose is justified however once the are inferior not so much. |
Anthar Thebess
585
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 09:18:00 -
[24] - Quote
Loosing SP is always something that discouraged me from using T3 ships. 5 days is not much , but always some time that i prefer to put to some other LVL 5 skills.
Still i agree , only thing that makes T3 not to OP ships is this SP loose : risk vs reward. Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
Nariya Kentaya
Phoenix funds
1443
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 13:22:00 -
[25] - Quote
Andrew Indy wrote:Nariya Kentaya wrote:The problem with "rebalancing" T3's in ANY WAY is this:
If its weaker at any given time than ANY T2, but able to be fit for more T2 roles, then it will never see use, ebcause it would be vastly superior to just bring a T2. If it is aimed at being "versatile" or "adaptable", then anything short of having 3 fittign widnows with the ability to enter a 1-minute siege cycle to switch them out, is pointless.
The main problem with making T3 more "versatile" is that between the logistics of hauling a bunch of modules around with you on top of the mobile depot, the time it takes to deploy, refit, and scoop the depot, and the fact you cant change your rigs, means T3's are usually locked into a SINGLE role, no matter what, unless your defending in close proximity to a starbase/outpost.
Basically, T3's are powerful, but thats because if they worked like they were originally intended, not only would they be useless for wormholes because they were weak, there wouldnt be much use running them since you may as well go home or to your carrier and swap ships to begin with. Not really true, You can't turn a normal T2 ship into a Nullified Covert Ops for travel and then into a DPS ship 1 minute later, or a scanning ship ect ect. Sure in HS its not benefit but just about any other dangerous space it is. The Rigs are some what of an issue and the size of the Subs is really a limiting factor (My Legion can only carry like 4000 missiles after fittings and subs and thats with 2 Cargo expanders). PS, I support the removal of the SP loss assuming CCP changes the T3s to be sub part of a T2. While they are OP the SP lose is justified however once the are inferior not so much. Great, now think about how costly a T3 is, even though to effectively "use" it as an "adaptable" platform, youll have to carry well over a billion in mods and subsystems, AND a mobile depot, AND 2 types of ammo depending on offensive subsystem, It becomes incredibly inefficient, and in most cases irresponsible.
I hate when peopel try to argue "flexibility" in eve, the only ship in EVE thats "flexible" without being rendered obsolete is carriers, and thats because they are primarily repping platforms with millions of EHP, at subclass levels, being flexible is equivalent to not being good or worth it. And thats where CCP wants T3 to be after their "rebalance".
On a more meta note, nerfing T3's in any way would make it IMPOSSIBLE to siege out a solid group in a C5 or C6 wormhole, since T3's with their battleship stats and cruiser mass, are the only way to bring in a significant enough amount of force within a reasonable timeframe to counter a heavy capital presence in a defenders home wormhole. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
328
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 13:31:00 -
[26] - Quote
Reserving this post here for a much larger reply in a few minutes. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
843
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 13:42:00 -
[27] - Quote
Quote:On a more meta note, nerfing T3's in any way would make it IMPOSSIBLE to siege out a solid group in a C5 or C6 wormhole, since T3's with their battleship stats and cruiser mass, are the only way to bring in a significant enough amount of force within a reasonable timeframe to counter a heavy capital presence in a defenders home wormhole
battleship stats on a cruiser hull kind of tells you its time they are re-balanced does it not 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 ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
328
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 14:03:00 -
[28] - Quote
Quote:
- If its weaker at any given time than ANY T2, but able to be fit for more T2 roles, then it will never see use, ebcause it would be vastly superior to just bring a T2. If it is aimed at being "versatile" or "adaptable", then anything short of having 3 fittign widnows with the ability to enter a 1-minute siege cycle to switch them out, is pointless.
- The main problem with making T3 more "versatile" is that between the logistics of hauling a bunch of modules around with you on top of the mobile depot, the time it takes to deploy, refit, and scoop the depot, and the fact you cant change your rigs, means T3's are usually locked into a SINGLE role, no matter what, unless your defending in close proximity to a starbase/outpost.
- Basically, T3's are powerful, but thats because if they worked like they were originally intended, not only would they be useless for wormholes because they were weak, there wouldnt be much use running them since you may as well go home or to your carrier and swap ships to begin with.
- The Rigs are some what of an issue and the size of the Subs is really a limiting factor (My Legion can only carry like 4000 missiles after fittings and subs and thats with 2 Cargo expanders).
- Great, now think about how costly a T3 is, even though to effectively "use" it as an "adaptable" platform, youll have to carry well over a billion in mods and subsystems, AND a mobile depot, AND 2 types of ammo depending on offensive subsystem, It becomes incredibly inefficient, and in most cases irresponsible.
- I hate when peopel try to argue "flexibility" in eve, the only ship in EVE thats "flexible" without being rendered obsolete is carriers, and thats because they are primarily repping platforms with millions of EHP, at subclass levels, being flexible is equivalent to not being good or worth it. And thats where CCP wants T3 to be after their "rebalance".
- On a more meta note, nerfing T3's in any way would make it IMPOSSIBLE to siege out a solid group in a C5 or C6 wormhole, since T3's with their battleship stats and cruiser mass, are the only way to bring in a significant enough amount of force within a reasonable timeframe to counter a heavy capital presence in a defenders home wormhole.
- You don't need any of the things you have just suggested, also the mobile depot is your 1 minute timer and finally it has 3000m3 room when unpacked. If you want to argue that it's a liability due to things like combat probes or whatever be my guest but that's been discussed before in other threads and I recommend you take it there.
- The rigs argument is pretty flimsy. I would wager an overwhelming majority of ships are fit with resist/hp rigs and/or a damage rig. The whole point of T3's is the subsystems are the part you swap, not the rigs. Realistically T3's shouldn't even have rigs at all, they're a design oversight and add little value.
- T3's working solo is the only practical design they possess. If you want to swap out to a T2 from your starbase or whatever it's a cost issue or a doctrine issue. T3's are the amongst the last ships to be balanced because they're not meant to be better than T2. Your perception of the issues of their relative power is skewed and off balance. They are functional in wormholes (or in lowsec if you wish) just fine because you're not meant to be taking everything, you take what you need. Mobile depot, salvagers and tractor beams and a cloak. Done and dusted. Mobile depots have their advantages and their disadvantages. They're meant to be a locked chest or a tent, not a pallisade or a fort. If you're a solo pilot then you travel smart and you travel light. Not because of the cost of what you may lose but because carrying around 1000 different things introduces functional redundancies.
- Carriers are flexible in that they can rep smaller ships as well as larger ships. If logi modules acted like missiles with their effectiveness affected by sig radius interactions then things would be very different, wouldn't they? Also carriers require a ridiculous amount of SP in support modules not the least of which includes needing Logi V to run t1 triage modules. Carriers also don't get used for what they're supposed to (talking about wrecking ball) and hey presto! they're also on the ironing board soon so please don't compare pre-balance ships against each other. It is only proper to compare pre-balance to post-balance since the post-balance ships are what they'll be competing with in the end anyway. See? Ships have been rebalanced by roles and this is important because the role of the T3 is to be flexible which means it must make sacrifices for the advantage of not automatically having a hard-counter, unlike neuts vs a zealot or TD vs blasters, etc.
- My impression of Wormhole life and why sieging of larger groups doesn't occur is more a matter of culture and not a matter of practicality. Wormhole corps think they're some kind of space-SAS and that others are inferior. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=2934 <--- actually go here and take a look some time. Beneath the veneer of wanting more players (whom they openly call targets) they cry about how boring and static their part of the game is. They're so hungry for action that they're poisoning their own wells, clawing at themselves at the chance to kill someone new and then most hilariously of all the dichotomy of yelling at one another for killing new corps while simultaneously adding those same corps to 'eviction lists' when they refuse to play by 'the rules' of wormhole space which the subtext suggests is just "please whelp your entire corps assets against my fortress of overtanked T3's and capitals".
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Bohneik Itohn
Amarrian Salvage Gnomes and Associates
488
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 14:24:00 -
[29] - Quote
Support T3's assisting carriers that have been tanked to almighty hell still get alpha'd off the field in WH ratting, let alone PvP. If the idea is to keep them useful for WH's while nerfing them below T2's, you're not going to do it. C4-C6 corps will change their ship preferences and suffer the logistics problems of more BS's and WH mass limits, because it just isn't worth the time to continually ferry T2's and T3's out to the WH because they keep popping.
I'm still of the opinion that the SP loss isn't a big deal, given the utility of the ships. It makes large nullsec fleets hard to do because you're going to get alpha'd off the field when you're called primary no matter what your tank, and people aren't willing to take that hit twice a week or however often their alliance forms up, but it's not an issue in small gang and solo PvP where a single hull can last weeks, and a smart pilot can reap the benefits of having a flexible ship ready to go at any time. I think this is where the benefit to reward ratio starts to balance out.
And again, you can do anything with these ships, PvP is just the beginning. Given that their value to people not currently engaging in PvP is even higher, because they can mitigate more risk while keeping the same utility that makes them desirable. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
Ellendras Silver
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
148
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 16:44:00 -
[30] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:[quote=Caleb Seremshur]I will be brief.
T3 ships can generally be accessed just after T2's. At this point in time they're a bit slower than HACs, have a bit better EHP and otherwise apart from a few specific subsystems have been outclassed by various T2 ships in those specific roles (as was intended). a BIT more EHP ??? are you on crack ??? Than HACs.
i know but its not a bit, if you think its a bit you really need to redefine your definition of a bit, fact is that they are OP as hell and that goes beyond a bit and beyond they are T3 blah blah. They are too strong are easy to get into (SP wise) and the small price of loss of SP is too much for you. please be a bit more honest because i don't believe you really think that.
on a side note you are going to freak out when they rebalance the T3s i am sure, if so can i have your stuff then? Carpe noctem |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |