Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
338
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 07:49:13 -
[1] - Quote
1) Subsystems are taking cargo space. What if they were 5 systems (defensive, electronic, engineering, offensive and propulsion) with 5 slots each to attach subsystems on fitting menu? We may build setups we commonly using that way without reducing cargo space (this is a problem with tengu for example, missiles weighing too much);
2) SKINs and general looking update. There are too many configure options for T3 to easily update those ships. What if there were basic hull looks? Attaching subsystem would change the basic look of the hull (something like with D3s stances), maybe with some animation?
I know they need to take a look from balance perspective, but ad.1 would make them more versatile in use.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1675
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 07:51:20 -
[2] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:1) Subsystems are taking cargo space. What if they were 5 systems (defensive, electronic, engineering, offensive and propulsion) with 5 slots each to attach subsystems on fitting menu? We may build setups we commonly using that way without reducing cargo space (this is a problem with tengu for example, missiles weighing too much);
You are currently required to make trade-offs and choices. This is a good thing. Your proposed changes would make T3 Cruisers even more overpowered. That would require even more massive nerfs to their performance. Please think about how CCP will balance your idea, before you propose it.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
FireFrenzy
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
575
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 07:53:01 -
[3] - Quote
this sounds like "rebuild the entire t3 class from the ground up while the current system works well enough (barring the lack of v5++ness) |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
338
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 08:15:33 -
[4] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:You are currently required to make trade-offs and choices. This is a good thing. Your proposed changes would make T3 Cruisers even more overpowered. That would require even more massive nerfs to their performance. Please think about how CCP will balance your idea, before you propose it. I was not accurate. Attaching subsystems don't mean they will stack bonuses from all, at their class. You can only use one at time. They would be "inject" into system, but switched when needed different option (via depot for example).
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2160
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 12:23:18 -
[5] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:You are currently required to make trade-offs and choices. This is a good thing. Your proposed changes would make T3 Cruisers even more overpowered. That would require even more massive nerfs to their performance. Please think about how CCP will balance your idea, before you propose it. I was not accurate. Attaching subsystems don't mean they will stack bonuses from all, at their class. You can only use one at time. They would be "inject" into system, but switched when needed different option (via depot for example).
You currently have limitation to what subs you can bring around. Your suggestion removes that limitaion so it is a buff that needs to be countered by a nerf of equal of greater (T3 are ridic already anyway) significance. Do you understand that? |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
338
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 12:37:17 -
[6] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:You currently have limitation to what subs you can bring around. Your suggestion removes that limitaion so it is a buff that needs to be countered by a nerf of equal of greater (T3 are ridic already anyway) significance. Do you understand that? That's the whole point of making T3 hull, make it versatile. CCP already stated they will be nerfed beyond T2s. We don't know how they resolve rigs on them, but metioned rigs make huge difference when coming to role of the hull. My superagile tengu (rigs) is crap when comes to do deal with DED 5. Currently flying with subsystems and mods in cargohold is no option. I did penumbra arc few days ago in tengu. There are no room for them plus ammo. Not to mention T3 cruiser have less cargohold than D3.
Let's make only two slots options in the systems. So we must choose between two subsystems we can carry.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1676
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 13:21:19 -
[7] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:You currently have limitation to what subs you can bring around. Your suggestion removes that limitaion so it is a buff that needs to be countered by a nerf of equal of greater (T3 are ridic already anyway) significance. Do you understand that? That's the whole point of making T3 hull, make it versatile. CCP already stated they will be nerfed beyond T2s. We don't know how they resolve rigs on them, but metioned rigs make huge difference when coming to role of the hull. My superagile tengu (rigs) is crap when comes to do deal with DED 5. Currently flying with subsystems and mods in cargohold is no option. I did penumbra arc few days ago in tengu. There are no room for them plus ammo. Not to mention T3 cruiser have less cargohold than D3. Let's make only two slots options in the systems. So we must choose between two subsystems we can carry.
Like I said, you have to make trade-offs. You are asking for a ship that can carry multiple fits, tons of ammo, and maximize each fit. That is insanely powerful. You want to make it way too easy to fit Covert Ops, Nullification, and great damage potential all in one platform.
The world does not revolve around your ability to run a 5/10 in perfect safety and perfect efficiency.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
757
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 03:38:51 -
[8] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:You currently have limitation to what subs you can bring around. Your suggestion removes that limitaion so it is a buff that needs to be countered by a nerf of equal of greater (T3 are ridic already anyway) significance. Do you understand that? That's the whole point of making T3 hull, make it versatile. CCP already stated they will be nerfed beyond T2s. We don't know how they resolve rigs on them, but metioned rigs make huge difference when coming to role of the hull. My superagile tengu (rigs) is crap when comes to do deal with DED 5. Currently flying with subsystems and mods in cargohold is no option. I did penumbra arc few days ago in tengu. There are no room for them plus ammo. Not to mention T3 cruiser have less cargohold than D3. Let's make only two slots options in the systems. So we must choose between two subsystems we can carry.
CCP doesn't balance on pve, its based on pvp.
Your 2 options stuff...well ninjya fit to slink around or bubble nullify came to mind off the bat. Done the traveling, convert to the combat mode with say fuel catalyst sub running as it were. This would be an issue. that is too versatile. Want that....bring the subsystems to add some effort to the process. Nullify t3 is already disliked by some. Lets not have it go into combat mode too easily fit like that to make the discontent worse. This, as Diomedes mentioned, will just be fuel to the fire to make it nerfed even harder when the time comes.
You can also resolve your ammo issue by packing bpc's and making at local stations. Since there to change out mods tack on some time to roll out the ammo. Generally can find ores on market. This many do on prolonged runs out of empire. They get a good string on luck and don't die. hate the ammo prices....they roll their own. CCP nice here even...with the (crap, imo) indy changes they went PE as king heavy. This an age old trick used by people on prolonged walk abouts out of empire. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
338
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 06:18:09 -
[9] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Your 2 options stuff...well ninjya fit to slink around or bubble nullify came to mind off the bat. Done the traveling, convert to the combat mode with say fuel catalyst sub running as it were. This would be an issue. that is too versatile. Want that....bring the subsystems to add some effort to the process. Nullify t3 is already disliked by some. Lets not have it go into combat mode too easily fit like that to make the discontent worse. This, as Diomedes mentioned, will just be fuel to the fire to make it nerfed even harder when the time comes. If I premade hull for combat (rigs) and want to carry covert and nullified subsystem to switch when necessary it's not going to be as good as my agility rigs setup. Competent gate camp will catch it. They won't be invincible. Not to mention these 2 subsystems plus covert cloak is 180m3 in cargo, additional mods + ammo, where's the versatility? At station? At station I can buy cheaper and better hull for the job. You all forget one thing, they will be nerfed hard in the future. Propably harder that we think, so versatility may be all they got.
Zan Shiro wrote:You can also resolve your ammo issue by packing bpc's and making at local stations. Since there to change out mods tack on some time to roll out the ammo. Generally can find ores on market. This many do on prolonged runs out of empire. They get a good string on luck and don't die. hate the ammo prices....they roll their own. CCP nice here even...with the (crap, imo) indy changes they went PE as king heavy. This an age old trick used by people on prolonged walk abouts out of empire. All true. On the other side you have Legion with almost infinite ammo and D3s with cargohold better than most of T3s.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
1051
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 07:38:38 -
[10] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:You currently have limitation to what subs you can bring around. Your suggestion removes that limitaion so it is a buff that needs to be countered by a nerf of equal of greater (T3 are ridic already anyway) significance. Do you understand that? I, for one, think this can be a good approach. We already have T2 ships to handle specialist roles, why not make T3s into something else not that min-max-able.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
1990
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 08:29:56 -
[11] - Quote
Or just cut the subsystem volume in half.
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |