Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
sereneabt
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
woop, more pew pew without the subsytems and skill loss,
Modes can be changed on the fly (after a cooldown)
Ohh and Amarr gets first pick since they won the race Love me... Hate me...
...as long as you pay me
|
Ama Scelesta
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
They can also change their ship bonuses in space on the fly with a cooldown. I guess sort of like subsystem change on demand. |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1798
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. Epic Space Cat |
Mag's
the united
18010
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Any link for info on this?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Velora Rasc
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
http://puu.sh/chx5n/d7cd11db4d.jpg |
Ama Scelesta
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. No they shouldn't. If we wait for everything to be rebalanced before we get new cool stuff, we're never going to get anything new.
Besides it doesn't quite sound like they're T3 in the current sense. CCP talked about a speed mode and a tank mode switch, so the changes between modes don't seem to correspond how current subsystems work. They seem to be something totally new and their introduction should not be tied down to other ship lines. |
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. No they shouldn't. If we wait for everything to be rebalanced before we get new cool stuff, we're never going to get anything new. Besides it doesn't quite sound like they're T3 in the current sense. CCP talked about a speed mode and a tank mode switch, so the changes between modes don't seem to correspond how current subsystems work. They seem to be something totally new and their introduction should not be tied down to other ship lines.
+1
The concepts underpinning the Tech 3 tactical destroyers seems pretty sweet. New ships give us something to look forward to. The problem with slavery is that only half of the manacles are visible. The Holder, supposed master, is equally bound by the gilded chains of privilege and wealth. Sorrowful is the state of humanity, which shall never be free until all share equally in Liberty.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1520
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
Info please
Don't destroy my dreams |
Jandice Ymladris
Aurora Arcology
949
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Upcoming holiday update shapes up to be a good expansion, adding new things to Eve! new ships, new shipline & new weapons! (Pocket highsec carrier, T3 destroyers & glasscannon guns that pump up damage at the cost of your resists!) Sansha fleets raiding deep space facilities! A summary of the ancient civilizations of New Eden |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
3869
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Better mean T3 Battleships are on the horizon... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Carribean Queen
Vadimus Quarrier Works The Big Dirty
56
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap.
How about no. T3's are fine as they are now and should be expanded upon, seeing as how they have yet to give us the remaining subsystems for them. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1600
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:07:00 -
[12] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. Agreed. They haven't worked out how to make configurable ships that are balanced yet. And the whole 'Small command ship' was never needed. People could warp rig T3 cruisers to easily keep up with Inty gangs. They just wouldn't be able to tank like a T3 normally could, but they didn't need to tank like normal if they are keeping up with Frigates. This is just a sop to people crying out rather than using the current tools in inventive ways. And will introduce more problems, not fix problems. |
Raelaem Eudain
Evil Turtles Chelonaphobia
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
ummm.... okay
I think I'd rather have new types of mods then ships tbh
they are just going to be super expensive in price just like any new ship
I don't feel like flying a 200-300mil destroyer.
I'd like to hear from CCP Rise on this |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1800
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:13:00 -
[14] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. No they shouldn't. If we wait for everything to be rebalanced before we get new cool stuff, we're never going to get anything new. Besides it doesn't quite sound like they're T3 in the current sense. CCP talked about a speed mode and a tank mode switch, so the changes between modes don't seem to correspond how current subsystems work. They seem to be something totally new and their introduction should not be tied down to other ship lines.
False Premise 1: We should get/need "new cool stuff". I could care less about "new cool stuff" - the game needs to be balanced first. False Premise 2: We'll never get new stuff if the devs focus on balancing existing ships. False. We've gotten new "cool" ships along with rebalances.
Your argument is garbage. Moving on.
Carribean Queen wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. How about no. T3's are fine as they are now and should be expanded upon, seeing as how they have yet to give us the remaining subsystems for them.
How about you're flat wrong. Tech3's are not fine as they are, and are in fact terribly balanced. When you fit them for combat roles, they outperform the tech2 combat variants. Obsolescence is not a smart balancing ideology.
Expansion and balance iteration are not mutually exclusive. This is another crap premise that another crap argument is being built on.
Epic Space Cat |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1521
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
I'm assuming that the fact they are even touching/creating T3s means a rebalance is on the way. Seems great oppurtunity to create definitive roles between the two classes. |
Ama Scelesta
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:15:00 -
[16] - Quote
Raelaem Eudain wrote:ummm.... okay
I think I'd rather have new types of mods then ships tbh
they are just going to be super expensive in price just like any new ship
I don't feel like flying a 200-300mil destroyer.
I'd like to hear from CCP Rise on this They're not going to be that expensive in the long run. As far as modules are concerned the biggest news was definitely the new weapons, that will drop all resists on your ship to zero to balance them out. They'll be more expensive though, since they don't want every highsec gank ship to be fitted with them. |
Carribean Queen
Vadimus Quarrier Works The Big Dirty
56
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:16:00 -
[17] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. No they shouldn't. If we wait for everything to be rebalanced before we get new cool stuff, we're never going to get anything new. Besides it doesn't quite sound like they're T3 in the current sense. CCP talked about a speed mode and a tank mode switch, so the changes between modes don't seem to correspond how current subsystems work. They seem to be something totally new and their introduction should not be tied down to other ship lines. False Premise 1: We should get/need "new cool stuff". I could care less about "new cool stuff" - the game needs to be balanced first. False Premise 2: We'll never get new stuff if the devs focus on balancing existing ships. False. We've gotten new "cool" ships along with rebalances. Your argument is garbage. Moving on. Carribean Queen wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. How about no. T3's are fine as they are now and should be expanded upon, seeing as how they have yet to give us the remaining subsystems for them. How about you're flat wrong. Tech3's are not fine as they are, and are in fact terribly balanced. When you fit them for combat roles, they outperform the tech2 combat variants. Obsolescence is not a smart balancing ideology. Expansion and balance iteration are not mutually exclusive. This is another crap premise that another crap argument is being built on.
What is wrong with you.
T1 < T2 < T3
working as intended.
|
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:17:00 -
[18] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Tech3's are not fine as they are, and are in fact terribly balanced. When you fit them for combat roles, they outperform the tech2 combat variants. Of course they do. They cost more, require more skills and you lose skills when your ship dies. If they wouldn't outperform HACs no one would use them in that role. |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1800
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:18:00 -
[19] - Quote
Carribean Queen wrote:
What is wrong with you.
T1 < T2 < T3
working as intended.
Incorrect. That is not the way the game is balanced at all.
Have you ever read a single devblog about balance?
Epic Space Cat |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1800
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:20:00 -
[20] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote:Xuixien wrote:Tech3's are not fine as they are, and are in fact terribly balanced. When you fit them for combat roles, they outperform the tech2 combat variants. Of course they do. They cost more, require more skills and you lose skills when your ship dies. If they wouldn't outperform HACs no one would use them in that role.
Cost is not a balancing factor. Never was, never will be. CCP tried that with Supers and look what the result was.
Skill point loss is also irrelevant to balance, although I do feel that is a stupid mechanic.
Last point is the problem with tech3's - the don't specialize enough when it comes to combat role. They outperform HACs, so people use them. If they didn't outperform HACs, people would use HACs. They should perform in a different way from HACs; there should be some disadvantage to using them.
Again, to reiterate; EVE is not balanced around "this ship is better than that ship so fly the better ship" and power creep will not help EVE.
Epic Space Cat |
|
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:21:00 -
[21] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Carribean Queen wrote:
What is wrong with you.
T1 < T2 < T3
working as intended.
Incorrect. That is not the way the game is balanced at all. Have you ever read a single devblog about balance? Orly? T2 logi > T1 logi T2 ewar ships > T1 ewar T2 dps > T1 dps
Why do people believe that T3s should be an exception to that rule? The dev blog was about removing the progression within the Tiers. |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1800
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:23:00 -
[22] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote:Xuixien wrote:Carribean Queen wrote:
What is wrong with you.
T1 < T2 < T3
working as intended.
Incorrect. That is not the way the game is balanced at all. Have you ever read a single devblog about balance? Orly? T2 logi > T1 logi T2 ewar ships > T1 ewar T2 dps > T1 dps Why do people believe that T3s should be an exception to that rule? The dev blog was about removing the progression within the Tiers.
Incorrect. Tech1 is about versatility, tech2 is about specialization. There are some very few exceptions to this rule, but even then CCP has moved to change that (see: mining barges).
T2 DPS is also not always better than Tech1 DPS.
You have zero grasp on balance, and I'm talking about more than 1 devblog. But then again I've been reading devblogs since I started this game years ago so I can understand if some people aren't as well versed as others. Epic Space Cat |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
145
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited. |
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. Agreed. They haven't worked out how to make configurable ships that are balanced yet. And the whole 'Small command ship' was never needed. People could warp rig T3 cruisers to easily keep up with Inty gangs. They just wouldn't be able to tank like a T3 normally could, but they didn't need to tank like normal if they are keeping up with Frigates. This is just a sop to people crying out rather than using the current tools in inventive ways. And will introduce more problems, not fix problems.
They aren't going to be configurable in the dame way as strategic cruisers. CCP Fozzie stated at the Eve Vegas keynote that tactical destroyers will not have subsystems at all. but rather 3 distinct modes of operation. The problem with slavery is that only half of the manacles are visible. The Holder, supposed master, is equally bound by the gilded chains of privilege and wealth. Sorrowful is the state of humanity, which shall never be free until all share equally in Liberty.
|
Raelaem Eudain
Evil Turtles Chelonaphobia
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:30:00 -
[25] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:Raelaem Eudain wrote:ummm.... okay
I think I'd rather have new types of mods then ships tbh
they are just going to be super expensive in price just like any new ship
I don't feel like flying a 200-300mil destroyer.
I'd like to hear from CCP Rise on this They're not going to be that expensive in the long run. As far as modules are concerned the biggest news was definitely the new weapons, that will drop all resists on your ship to zero to balance them out. They'll be more expensive though, since they don't want every highsec gank ship to be fitted with them.
new weapons? I missed the boat on that one, whats the deal with those?
|
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:32:00 -
[26] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited.
CCP Fozzie said that he doesn't anticipate that tech 3 destroyers will ever be cost-effective for suicide banking, so you might be out of luck. The problem with slavery is that only half of the manacles are visible. The Holder, supposed master, is equally bound by the gilded chains of privilege and wealth. Sorrowful is the state of humanity, which shall never be free until all share equally in Liberty.
|
Regnag Leppod
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:33:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited.
Right. CODE is going to gank in T3's. I can just see that happening. Kinda like I can see the sun rising in the west.
Unless CCP hits the Catalyst with a thermo-nuclear nerf bomb, my guess is you're going to be stuck with them. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1522
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote:Xuixien wrote:Carribean Queen wrote:
What is wrong with you.
T1 < T2 < T3
working as intended.
Incorrect. That is not the way the game is balanced at all. Have you ever read a single devblog about balance? Orly? T2 logi > T1 logi T2 ewar ships > T1 ewar T2 dps > T1 dps Why do people believe that T3s should be an exception to that rule? The dev blog was about removing the progression within the Tiers. T3 is currently out of whack. Exceedingly better in some areas and worse than T2 in others.
The intention is: T1 is bonuses for a role T2 is even better in that role, but less flexible for others T3 is generalized. Can fill multiple special roles while not exceeding against any particular T2 in that particular role.
How this will apply to destroyers? No idea. We may see an exception to the general rule here since the roles are limited |
Carribean Queen
Vadimus Quarrier Works The Big Dirty
56
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:41:00 -
[29] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited.
A CHODE agent? a CHODE ENFORCER?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN? |
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:44:00 -
[30] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Cost is not a balancing factor. Never was, never will be Are we talking about the same game? Look at officer, deadspace and faction items. Higher cost -> more powerful. T2 ships are more powerful than their T1 equivalent.... and more expensive.
Xuixien wrote: Incorrect. Tech1 is about versatility, tech2 is about specialization. There are some very few exceptions to this rule,...
Yes, like pretty much every cruiser.
HACs: a more powerful variant of their T1 hull (e.g. Vexor->Ishtar) Logistics: a more powerful variant of their T1 hulls (e.g. Augoror-> Guardian) HICs: doesn't have a T1 equivalent Recons: a more powerful (and versatile) variant of the T1 hull (e.g. Blackbird->Falcon)
Why do people still use the e.g. Augorors instead of Guardians? Cost. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |