Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
351
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 00:39:00 -
[151] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:As I said a couple months ago in a T3 rebalance thread, here's what I would do :
T3s should be able to refit in space :
If possible, T3s should be able to refit off themselves with conditions : Not having been shot at for 5 minutes, Takes 1-2 minutes to change subs. No cap-consumption for onlining/fitting modules.
This is the only part of your post I really like. Carrying 80+ m3 of subs is already penalising enough for a T3 with their 30% smaller cargo bays than HACs. Add on top the 50m3 for a mobile depot and it's hard to really justify the 'flexibility' in fittings these ships are reputed to possess. I fit my rigs as t2 grid, t2 shield resists. That's the only universally appealing combo I can come up with for my T3's.
Being able to refit and save that 50m3 of space would actually make a huge amount of difference to time spent on the field and not in station. If CCP have to make you uncloakable for 1 minute at a time to do it per sub then so be it, at least make it sensible. 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
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
594
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 02:27:00 -
[152] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: Remember, cost is not a balancing factor in EVE.
Cost doesn't balance things, but it does prevent people from using a ship if it's a ****** ship, which is what T3s will be if they were nerfed to between T1s and T2s.
Which is why T3s won't be nerfed to between T1s and T2s, they'll be below T2s and off to the side. There isn't a straight linear progression there, as Baltec's much toted infographic shows. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
56
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 03:26:00 -
[153] - Quote
I dont think t3's are op. Compare the price of a fully fit t1 BS, 200-230mil. Compare that to the blinged out t3's which top out at 1-1.5bil. T3's are fit with the best and most expensive modules to increase survivability over all those underneath it. Sp loss and subsystem cost contribute to this. They are modular so you can fit them anyway you like.
Also worth noting, tech 3 cruisers are above tech 2 cruisers and tech 1 battleships in class and technology.
Now when we start talking about tech 2 battleships.......now thats different. I dont see a t3 standing toe to toe with a marauder, especially in bastion mode.
t3''s are used in very specific ways. high sec: fit for full on combat. low sec: cloaky hunters.
t3's are not op. they dont have max tank, max dps. they have the same t2 resistances, however, they have the added benefit of more expensive modules with higher bonuses and attributes in addition to being able to overheat substantially longer. You get what you pay for. Only YOU can prevent internet bullying! |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
56
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 03:40:00 -
[154] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:SMT008 wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:SMT008 what are the drawbacks of your T3's after rebalance? removed rigs? anything else? SP loss? Removed rigs is a good start, a Proteus without trimarks isn't all that impressive anymore. I think that removed rigs + rebalancing subs will bring a good result. SP Loss should be removed, I really don't see the point of that "drawback". Rebalancing subs is what really needs to happen. A lot of people clamor for a "nerf" but don't seem to get that there isn't a singule hull that is OP like with the Ishtar, but rather one or two subsystems that throw off the balance of specific setups. You can fit a Tengu to be an excellent solo boat, or it can be a steaming pile of ****. It depends on the subs used. Remove rigs or nerf HP bonused defensive subs (I think doing both would be rather severe to ships like the Loki), then buff the useless subs, and T3s will be in a good place.
I utterly despise the idea of completely removing rigs from t3's. They are still cruisers. Now, if your talking about reducing the number of rigs from 3 to 2 then that something that seems more in line. all t2 ships have 2 rigs.
Fully fit Hacs cost 180-200mil, battleships cost the same maybe with an extra 20 or so mil. T3's cost a bil and a half. Also, some hacs can take on t1 battleships as well.
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying! |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
68
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 06:51:00 -
[155] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:I utterly despise the idea of completely removing rigs from t3's. This would be a huge drawback. We don't get nothing in return, you can just put most of rigs bonuses on hull. It would be good from hull versatiliy perspective but T3's would be weaker a lot than T2's. Depends ofc how they balance subsystems. Bacon tastes so much better when it's marinated in vegan tears.-á
I am the night. I'm Bantam. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12813
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 12:14:00 -
[156] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote: Fully fit Hacs cost 180-200mil, battleships cost the same maybe with an extra 20 or so mil. T3's cost a bil and a half. Also, some hacs can take on t1 battleships as well.
296 mil for our rail tengu. At any rate isk cost has zero input on balancing. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
595
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 12:51:00 -
[157] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote: Fully fit Hacs cost 180-200mil, battleships cost the same maybe with an extra 20 or so mil. T3's cost a bil and a half. Also, some hacs can take on t1 battleships as well.
296 mil for our rail tengu. At any rate isk cost has zero input on balancing.
I'm curious to see this Tengu fit you keep talking about, since I haven't seen a Goon Tengu fleet since the war with TEST.
After all, if it's so OP why don't you always use it, since costs just as much as a Megathron? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12816
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 13:13:00 -
[158] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:baltec1 wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote: Fully fit Hacs cost 180-200mil, battleships cost the same maybe with an extra 20 or so mil. T3's cost a bil and a half. Also, some hacs can take on t1 battleships as well.
296 mil for our rail tengu. At any rate isk cost has zero input on balancing. I'm curious to see this Tengu fit you keep talking about, since I haven't seen a Goon Tengu fleet since the war with TEST. After all, if it's so OP why don't you always use it, since costs just as much as a Megathron?
Where have you been for the last two months? Tengu fleet sees more action than baltec fleet. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1224
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 17:14:00 -
[159] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:I utterly despise the idea of completely removing rigs from t3's. This would be a huge drawback. We don't get nothing in return, you can just put most of rigs bonuses on hull. It would be good from hull versatiliy perspective but T3's would be weaker a lot than T2's. Depends ofc how they balance subsystems.
They are meant to be weaker than T2 at specific task but able to do more different task out of the same hull. How hard is it to understand? |
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
393
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 19:05:00 -
[160] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:They are meant to be weaker than T2 at specific task but able to do more different task out of the same hull. How hard is it to understand?
So T3's should be the cruiser class nestor?
A hull that is ok at many things is terrible at everything. The jack of all trades model doesn't work in eve. |
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1226
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 19:24:00 -
[161] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:They are meant to be weaker than T2 at specific task but able to do more different task out of the same hull. How hard is it to understand? So T3's should be the cruiser class nestor? A hull that is ok at many things is terrible at everything. The jack of all trades model doesn't work in eve.
It does not work becuase the space they are all intended to be used in was not designed to enforce this need. If you could not have a bunch of different ship with you in a WH, a T3 and a nestor would be the best thing ever because it would mean you don't have to get out of the hole every time you want to do something different. With the current design, you just say FU to those limitation and grab another ship ready for you at the POS. We could make those ships usefull by changing how WH works but the people living there would probably freak out about how much would need to change...
You can't expect them to be modular in design and also as good ad T2 at the specific task or you render T2 completely irrelevant. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
68
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 20:27:00 -
[162] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:You can't expect them to be modular in design and also as good ad T2 at the specific task or you render T2 completely irrelevant. Let's make T3's completly irrelevant because you want to fly T2's. Logic. Why i can't expect modulat design to be good? Can i change fits during combat? Why they are so powerfull with same stats or a bit worse as T2's? Rigged for ECM T3 damage dealer won't be as good as combat rigged T2 HAC (assuming T2=T3). What do you think about last HAC's tweaks? Now imagine small steps in T3 rebalance. Bacon tastes so much better when it's marinated in vegan tears.-á
I am the night. I'm Bantam. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1881
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 23:57:00 -
[163] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:They are meant to be weaker than T2 at specific task but able to do more different task out of the same hull. How hard is it to understand? So T3's should be the cruiser class nestor? A hull that is ok at many things is terrible at everything. The jack of all trades model doesn't work in eve.
clearly works on some things. Why use an ECMgu? or a T3 booster since they were changed? 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" |
Sigras
Conglomo
840
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 01:26:00 -
[164] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:They are meant to be weaker than T2 at specific task but able to do more different task out of the same hull. How hard is it to understand? So T3's should be the cruiser class nestor? A hull that is ok at many things is terrible at everything. The jack of all trades model doesn't work in eve. What if they were just slightly worse than T2 at everything but you got to refit in space without a refitting station?
So yeah, you're not as good as a guardian or a zealot or a curse, but you can switch roles mid combat without having to dock somewhere to provide extra rep or damage or Ewar as you need. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
781
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 02:51:00 -
[165] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:They are meant to be weaker than T2 at specific task but able to do more different task out of the same hull. How hard is it to understand? So T3's should be the cruiser class nestor? A hull that is ok at many things is terrible at everything. The jack of all trades model doesn't work in eve. It does not work becuase the space they are all intended to be used in was not designed to enforce this need. If you could not have a bunch of different ship with you in a WH, a T3 and a nestor would be the best thing ever because it would mean you don't have to get out of the hole every time you want to do something different. With the current design, you just say FU to those limitation and grab another ship ready for you at the POS. We could make those ships usefull by changing how WH works but the people living there would probably freak out about how much would need to change... You can't expect them to be modular in design and also as good ad T2 at the specific task or you render T2 completely irrelevant.
T2 do a good job of making themselves irrelevant (a couple aside) without help from any thing else.
Also apparently it doesn't matter about the people in wh space freaking out :s
As you can't realistically carry everything (modules, ammo, drones, etc.) for a wide range of refits I can't see on the fly versatility being very useful in practice. |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
56
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 05:11:00 -
[166] - Quote
I still dont see t3's being op against anything because they are t3's alone. People spend billions on advanced modules to fit to these ships. They spend billions more on implants. They arent better than t2's at any specific role, however, given the amount of isk that goes into these things, people can more than hold themselves in combat while being fit for another role, like scanning etc.... Only YOU can prevent internet bullying! |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
72
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 06:31:00 -
[167] - Quote
How about rebalance T3s to the level of T2s (role bonuses, tank, etc.). Then changing SP loss to 24h timer or longer. No concrete tanks anymore, still usefull role bonuses. Bacon tastes so much better when it's marinated in vegan tears.-á
I am the night. I'm Bantam. |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
755
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 11:05:00 -
[168] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:They arent better than t2's at any specific role
Sorry but...they are. T2 fitted Proteus gets a MUCH stiffer tank than a T2 fitted Deimos for a rather small cost upgrade (compared to "billions of expensive modules".
What people don't want to see anymore are T2 150k EHP Proteus with 910 DPS.
That's a T2 fit. Not a single faction/officer/deadspace module.
Now compare that to a Deimos. At most, you get something around 800 DPS with half the tank. That's what's wrong, there is no denying that. Heavy Assault Cruiser really are subpar at being heavy assault cruiser compared to most T3s.
What I want to change with the things I've proposed is exactly that.
Have the massive EHP upgrade compared to HAC bring a DPS loss (Can't have both, you know ?)
Upgrade T3s mobility so that they reach HAC levels in HAC-tanks configurations while keeping current DPS (Yes, they'll be HAC+, but considering the upgrade in cost and the fact that it's not really a MASSIVE DPS upgrade, It's fine)
T3 versatility should be top notch (Refitting/changing subs without exterior help, no rigs, etc)
T3s won't replace T2, they'll still be quite a lot more expensive, they won't have special advantages T2s have (like sig-radius reduction, amazing capacitor life, fantastic ECCM strenght) or at least not all of them at the same time like HACs. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
781
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 11:15:00 -
[169] - Quote
That 70k, 800dps deimos should have 4 significant advantages over a 150k, 900dps prot - signature should be a lot smaller, mwd sig bloom and cap use reduced, base speed quite a bit higher, agility quite a bit better. (part of that does mean making adjustments to both t3 and t2). |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
755
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 11:24:00 -
[170] - Quote
Rroff wrote:That 70k, 800dps deimos should have 4 significant advantages over a 150k, 900dps prot - signature should be a lot smaller, mwd sig bloom and cap use reduced, base speed quite a bit higher, agility quite a bit better. (part of that does mean making adjustments to both t3 and t2).
If you want more like hac levels of mobility out of your t3, etc. then you'd have to choose other sub-systems and take the tank hit.
Yeah well, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
You can have a 70k EHP 800 DPS Deimos, you can have a 150k EHP 600 DPS Proteus, you can have a 70k EHP 900 DPS Proteus with HAC-like agility (but no MWD sig bloom reduction or no HAC-like ECCM strenght etc).
Mobility = reduced EHP EHP = reduced mobility and damage Damage = reduced tank
It's all a trade-off. I want T3s to be able to compare to their races' T2 ships in terms of stats (if not a bit higher stats than the T2 ships) but without the special things T2 ships get (like the smaller sig, MWD sig bloom, cap use reduced, ECCM strenght and so on). |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
781
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 11:42:00 -
[171] - Quote
Personally I don't see the need to drop the dps like that, it has nowhere near the damage projection of a battleship with that level of dps and combined with lesser mobility than a hac has a harder time applying it in many situations.
I do agree though that one of the biggest problems with t3s is that they don't get anything like the trade offs they should for a given bonus. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
595
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 12:56:00 -
[172] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Vincintius Agrippa wrote:They arent better than t2's at any specific role Sorry but...they are. T2 fitted Proteus gets a MUCH stiffer tank than a T2 fitted Deimos for a rather small cost upgrade (compared to "billions of expensive modules". What people don't want to see anymore are T2 150k EHP Proteus with 910 DPS. That's a T2 fit. Not a single faction/officer/deadspace module. Now compare that to a Deimos. At most, you get something around 800 DPS with half the tank. That's what's wrong, there is no denying that. Heavy Assault Cruiser really are subpar at being heavy assault cruiser compared to most T3s.
The problem with comparing the T3 to the HAC on just DPS and EHP is that it overlooks key points. That T3 is going to move with the mobility of a cement mixer, meanwhile that Diemost will run circles around it, with its tiny little sig. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
82
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 15:38:00 -
[173] - Quote
Rather than argue about generalities, can we please get a list of which subsystems probably need a good hard took to see if they are where they should be, and those that aren't buffed or nerfed accordingly? Here's my little short list, with the over powered systems in BOLD and the underwhelming in italics
All: Cov ops Interdiction Nullifier Supplemental coolant Injector
Proteus: Augmented Plating Friction Extension Processor Drone Synthesis Projector
Tengu: Rifling Launcher Pattern Obfuscation Manifold Amplification Node Supplemental Screening
Legion: Augmented plating Drone synthesis projector Liquid Crystal magnifiers
Loki: Adaptive augmenter Hardpoint Effeciency Configuration Projectile Scoping Array
That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did. |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
755
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 17:41:00 -
[174] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
The problem with comparing the T3 to the HAC on just DPS and EHP is that it overlooks key points. That T3 is going to move with the mobility of a cement mixer, meanwhile that Diemost will run circles around it, with its tiny little sig.
The key points are EHP, DPS, Mobility.
Those are the main values that dictate if a ship is good or not, in terms of pure combat (I'm not talking about Recons or special roles here).
Combat T3 and T2 HACs should be comparable. Different, but comparable considering they're both combat ships, ruled by the 3 main points, being Firepower, Defense and Mobility.
Let me add a few things to James Baboli's list :
All :
Cov ops = Ok
Interdiction Nullifier = Ok
Supplemental coolant Injector = Needs an interesting additionnal/different bonus, or a serious buff to the current "Heat damage reduction" bonus. I was thinking "Buff to overheating effectiveness", to replicate Red Giant effects, that would be interesting ? As long as the bonus is powerful enough to warrant not using the other 2 good engineering subs.
+ Adaptive Augmenter/Adaptive Shielding = Logistic subsystems are terrible. Nothing to add to that. It really needs a range bonus to be effective. I think something can be done with a 25-35km range.
+ Warfare Processor = As long as the Boosting subsystem wrecks the whole ship by requiring Command Processors, it will be either off-grid boosting, or no boosting at all. Allow 2 links online without Command Processors and add +1 Highslot to those subs. It will still be worse than Command-ships in terms of boosting, but at least it will be usable with a combat-fit, like CS, as opposed to constantly hiding in safes.
+ All mobility/speed subsystems = T3s in general have the agility and speed of a cement truck. There should be subs designed to bring regular cruiser levels of agility and speed (I'm talking +1.8km/s speeds to the slowest T3s, 2-2.2km/s speeds to the fastest T3s). If T3s keep their current BC-level agility and speed...well, it will be a shame for T3 "versatility" if not a single T3 can have cruiser-like speeds.
Proteus:
Augmented Plating = Too much EHP Friction Extension Processor = Mhmm, yeah maybe a bit over the top. Drone Synthesis Projector = Yep, sucks big times. It needs more bandwith, more drone-bay, and a drone-related bonus instead of the 5% damage bonus for 3 guns...Like a drone-velocity or drone-tracking bonus maybe ?
+ No damping sub ? Could be interesting to convert one of the least used Electronic subs to a damping sub.
+ I'd like to see a shield subsystem for the Proteus. Gallente ships can be shield fit, why not the Proteus ?
Tengu: Rifling Launcher Pattern = You say it's too powerful, I'm not so sure about that. Obfuscation Manifold = Working along with the Rifling Launcher Pattern, it brings a "Combat ECM boat" feel to the Tengu, which means a ship that can actually tanks and deal damage, while being able to jam reasonably well. I like that, it's versatility. DPS is subpar, Jamming power isn't Falcon-like of course. But the mix of the two works (or should work decently when T3 mobility/agility issue is fixed).
Amplification Node = It's a regular active tanking bonus. I don't see what's wrong. Supplemental Screening = Too much EHP probably. Less than Proteus/Legions, but it's still a bit over the top.
+ Power Core Multiplier = This sub, bonused for PWG, gets less PWG than the Capacitor Regeneration Matrix. Needs a nice PWG boost obviously, so that 100MN fits will use this one and have to deal with capacitor issues (More vulnerability to neuting too)
+ Gravitationnal Capacitor = Uninteresting bonuses tbh. The Tengu could use a good MWD-bonused sub. This one brings the most max velocity, but even with it being the most MWD oriented sub, A MWDing Tengu with a nano gets 1488m/s. That's terrible.
+ Magnetic Infusion Basin = Maybe 20% Optimal per level is a bit too much. I would rather see 10% per level along with a 5% damage per level. Better DPS, lower range. That way, it doesn't step too much on the Eagles' toes.
Legion: Augmented plating = Too much EHP Drone synthesis projector = It's horrible, period. Liquid Crystal magnifiers = I disagree, it's basically Zealot-style bonuses. I don't really see what's wrong here.
+ Assault Optimization = Might want to change "HAM Damage bonus" to "Missile Damage bonus". More versatility, and I don't see how it would wreck the current meta
+ Wake Limiter = Mhmm, that subsystem really doesn't shine. Could use a nice mass-reduction bonus (or an agility bonus), a speed buff to bring a bit closer to the pure MWD subsystem.
Loki :
Adaptive augmenter = Nope, I don't really see what's wrong. If anything, add an Armor RR bonus to that one, when RR subs are fixed it will make the Loki the only T3 that can be a logi for both shield and armor (Not at the same time ofc, that would be terrible).
Hardpoint Effeciency Configuration = Totally agree, this sub needs to be the top brawling sub for the Loki (ie the Max DPS one). It doesn't have damage projection bonus, which should be kept that way. The issue is, you absolutly need the maximum amount of highslots available. And for that, you need to get rid of the good active tanking subs. This is why the dual-weapon sub isn't used much. The DPS is alright, but the required subs to reach it wreck the ship.
Projectile Scoping Array = Yep, but it's not the sub, it's the weapon system. Medium ACs and ACs in general are subpar, and that makes the Loki subpar despite being a pretty good gunboat
Augmented Capacitor Reservoir = Mhmm, 1677 GJ instead of 2228 GJ with the Cap-Regen-Matrix. Nah seriously, Cap-Regen Matrix subs aren't balanced with other Engineering subs for each race. This needs fixing. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
786
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 17:52:00 -
[175] - Quote
SMT008 wrote: + All mobility/speed subsystems = T3s in general have the agility and speed of a cement truck. There should be subs designed to bring regular cruiser levels of agility and speed (I'm talking +1.8km/s speeds to the slowest T3s, 2-2.2km/s speeds to the fastest T3s). If T3s keep their current BC-level agility and speed...well, it will be a shame for T3 "versatility" if not a single T3 can have cruiser-like speeds.
You can very easily get cruiser like speeds and agility or better out of a t3 - it comes at some compromise but thats a good thing, on the flip side I don't think that the configurations with augmented plating, etc. are close enough to the penalties to sig, speed and mobility for that level of EHP.
Regarding covert ops + nullifier - yes it is overly powerful but there is a big issue there in terms of there being no real balance - its either overly powerful or almost useless if you go about nerfing it unless someone can think of some clever middle ground. However disguised most of the calls to nerf it are due to people not liking that there is something they can't easily and quickly kill with little effort. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
72
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 18:23:00 -
[176] - Quote
Why covops subsystem is overpowerd? 100% CPU reduction? same bonus on recon ships. Covop cloak? That's why it's called COVOP subsystem. Dmg bonus? only Proteus has bonus to damage, rest have nondirect bonuses.
Nullifier subsystem is obviously OP, but it's to be or not to be. There's nothing in beetwen. That's why this ships have SP loss. Powerfull ability but huge drawback.
If we start to make limitations which subsystem can or can't be fitted with others it wouldn't make sense to build modular ships.
Bacon tastes so much better when it's marinated in vegan tears.-á
I am the night. I'm Bantam. |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
755
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 18:26:00 -
[177] - Quote
Rroff wrote: You can very easily get cruiser like speeds and agility or better out of a t3 - it comes at some compromise but thats a good thing, on the flip side I don't think that the configurations with augmented plating, etc. are close enough to the penalties to sig, speed and mobility for that level of EHP.
A Proteus with the best sub for speed and agility gets 1750m/s, 7.5s align time.
A Deimos similarly fit gets 2106m/s, 7.3 align time.
Very easily ? I think not.
A shield Loki with the best sub for speed gets 2061m/s, 8.5s align time.
A Vagabond similarly fit gets 2683m/s, 6.6s align time.
A Tengu with the best sub for speed gets 1488m/s (That's terrible), and a nice suprising 5.9s align time.
A Cerberus gets 1893m/s (6.5s), a Caracal gets 2058m/s (6.3s)
Do I need to go further ?
T3s have horrible mobility in general and that should be fixed at the same time as the outrageous EHP bricktank setups. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
787
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 19:19:00 -
[178] - Quote
^^ Granted the HACs will get a little better speed and mobility in like for like configurations - if you aim for similiar EHP and damage as the equivalent HAC you can get quite close to the same mobility - you do actually end up with slightly more EHP/damage and slightly less mobility.
But you can also do pretty crazy fits with T3s (not like for like with their T2 counterpart) which have great mobility. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1597
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 19:46:00 -
[179] - Quote
Rroff wrote:That 70k, 800dps deimos should have 4 significant advantages over a 150k, 900dps prot - signature should be a lot smaller, mwd sig bloom and cap use reduced, base speed quite a bit higher, agility quite a bit better. (part of that does mean making adjustments to both t3 and t2).
If you want more like hac levels of mobility out of your t3, etc. then you'd have to choose other sub-systems and take the tank hit.
Just slashing EHP as a balancing factor in this context shows a massive ignorance and lack of imagination in my opinion (not intended to be an attack on anybody).
ya know. .you gave me an idea.. All woudl be fixed if T3 cruisers were BATTLECRUISERS. with speed, agility , mass and warp speed of BC. But with their current other stats. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1597
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 19:47:00 -
[180] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Rroff wrote: You can very easily get cruiser like speeds and agility or better out of a t3 - it comes at some compromise but thats a good thing, on the flip side I don't think that the configurations with augmented plating, etc. are close enough to the penalties to sig, speed and mobility for that level of EHP.
A Proteus with the best sub for speed and agility gets 1750m/s, 7.5s align time. A Deimos similarly fit gets 2106m/s, 7.3 align time. Very easily ? I think not. A shield Loki with the best sub for speed gets 2061m/s, 8.5s align time. A Vagabond similarly fit gets 2683m/s, 6.6s align time. A Tengu with the best sub for speed gets 1488m/s (That's terrible), and a nice suprising 5.9s align time. A Cerberus gets 1893m/s (6.5s), a Caracal gets 2058m/s (6.3s) Do I need to go further ? T3s have horrible mobility in general and that should be fixed at the same time as the outrageous EHP bricktank setups.
My tengu moves almost 3 km/s, just learn how tengus are REALLY fit for speed. And in fact how any of the non proteus t3 are really fit when on kiting mode.
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |