Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1353
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 07:59:56 -
[1] - Quote
This is brewing for a while now and while this may not be ready for deployment yet, I want your thoughts about this and I promise, it will cause a lot of tears and drama.
Just a heads up, I don't know all the subsystem names by heart, so I refer to them as "Recon", "Hac", "Command Ship" and so on subsystems. And to make this very clear, I lived in wormholes before and I know the most of my proposals will hurt your feelings but will be very good for the game, promise.
Now this for all tech 3 cruisers, in case you want to fly a HAC, fly a hac!
If you want to fly a Recon, fly a Recon!
If you want to fly a Command Ship, fly a Command Ship!
If you want logi, fly a logi!
If you want a swiss army knife, I suggest you get tissues now.
The Proteus: HAC: - the HAC subsystem gives you 5 turrets and a +5% medium hybrid damage per level bonus or - 10% drone damage and hitpoints per level and 125m-¦ bandwidth - the Recon subsystem cannot be fit with the HAC subsystem - gives 6 lows, not matter what other subsystem you fit - gives 4 med slots and full t2 resist - the plate subsystem goes out the window - the nullifier sub cannot be fit in HAC config - Deimos armor and hull hp
Recon - get 4 highslot - can fit nullifier - gives 5 med slots - gives 5 low slots and Recon resist and armor/hull hp - can fit covert ops cloak, cloak reactivation time 5 seconds, regular sensor reactivation time - 7.5% point and scram range per level - 5% dampener effectiveness per level - 100m-¦ dronebay and 50mbit - can fit nullifier and cynos
Logistic - gives 4 high slots - cannot fit nullifier - cannot fit Recon subsystem - 50m-¦ dronebay 50mbit +10 logi drone effectiveness per level - Oneiros armor and hull hp, logi resistance
loki: HAC: - the HAC subsystem gives you 5 turrets and a +5% medium projective damage per level bonus or - 10% missiles speed per level - the Recon subsystem cannot be fit with the HAC subsystem - gives 5 lows, not matter what other subsystem you fit - gives 5 med slots and full t2 resist - the plate / shield hp subsystem goes out the window - the nullifier sub cannot be fit in HAC config - munin shield, armor and hull hp and resistance
Recon - get 6 highslot - can fit nullifier - gives 4 med slots - gives 4 low slots and Recon resist and armor/hull hp - can fit covert ops cloak, cloak reactivation time 5 seconds, regular sensor reactivation time - 7.5% webifier range per level - 10% target painter optimal range per level - 60m-¦ dronebay and 40mbit - can fit nullifier and cynos
Logistic - gives 4 high slots with scimitar fitting - cannot fit nullifier - cannot fit Recon subsystem - 50m-¦ dronebay 50mbit +10 logi drone effectiveness per level - scimitar shield, armor and hull hp, scimitar resistance
Tengu: HAC: - the HAC subsystem gives you 5 turrets or launchers and +5% medium hybrid damage per level bonus or - 10% missiles speed per level and +5% explosion radius for hams and heavy missiles - the Recon subsystem cannot be fit with the HAC subsystem - gives 3 lows, not matter what other subsystem you fit - gives 7 med slots and full t2 resist - the plate / shield hp subsystem goes out the window - the nullifier sub cannot be fit in HAC config - Eagle shield, armor and hull hp and resistance
Recon - get 4 highslot - can fit nullifier - gives 6 med slots - gives 4 low slots and Recon resist and armor/hull hp - can fit covert ops cloak, cloak reactivation time 5 seconds, regular sensor reactivation time - 10% ecm strength and range per level - 25m-¦ dronebay and 25mbit - can fit nullifier and cynos
Logistic - gives 6 high slots with Basilisk fitting - cannot fit nullifier - cannot fit Recon subsystem - 50m-¦ dronebay 50mbit +10 logi drone effectiveness per level - Basilisk shield, armor and hull hp, scimitar resistance
By now you should have an idea where I am going with this and make the Command Ship equal for all four of them:
- gives 6 high, no turret, no launcher - gives 5 med - gives 4 lows - can fit 3 warfare links - command processor 50% cpu use reduction, limits to 3 command processors - 250m signature radius - cannot fit nullifier - cannot fit Recon subsystem - can fit medium mjd - no dronebay - Recon racial shield, armor, hull hp and resistance
the hacking config: - gives 4 med - gives 4 high - gives 4 low - Recon resistance - 5% salvager duration and difficulty bonus - the relic and data modules bonuses from the covet ops - can fit covert ops - cloak reactivation time 5 seconds - can fit nullifier - cannot fit Recon, Hac, Logi or whatever else you can think of subsystem - +1 warp strength bonus
And the heat bonus of course.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17782
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 10:04:13 -
[2] - Quote
The goals should be as follows.
T3 must not invalidate T1 ships, they can be more powerful sure but not to the point where a t1 will get crushed.
T2 cruisers must be better at their job than a T3. They are specialists, T3s should not do their job better.
T3 should not be invalidating ships of a higher class. For example, T3 cruisers should not be sporting battleship level tanks.
T3 should be jack of all traits, masters of none.
Nullification and covert ops should not be allowed to be on the same ship. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1353
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 10:25:39 -
[3] - Quote
I agree.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3482
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 11:47:21 -
[4] - Quote
T3's seem better suited to be adjusted to actually being BC's rather than Cruisers really. That would allow them to keep more capability. The other thing I think would really make them much easier to balance is take the Tactical route with 'modes' rather than the current 5000 or so combinations of subsystems that you can make with them. Subsystems could be kept as you could make the T3 have 3-5 modes, and you pick the mode by plugging in a subsystem rather than the modes that are available being hard wired.
To make them actually the jack of all trades they are meant to be rather than the master of all trades, they need to get double the number of bonuses. An example might be 'Aggressive mode' for a tengu. (Someone other than I can come up with cooler names). Damage bonus to missiles, velocity bonus to missiles, kinda like a T1 Cruiser/BC might get, then Strength bonus to ECM & Range bonus to ECM just like a T1 Ewar ship might get. Ok sure they'll end up better than a T1 ship, but I think we can like with them being better than T1's, but they won't be better than a T2 ship at it's speciality. And they will still be quite powerful. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2637
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 12:09:21 -
[5] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The goals should be as follows.
T3 must not invalidate T1 ships, they can be more powerful sure but not to the point where a t1 will get crushed.
T2 cruisers must be better at their job than a T3. They are specialists, T3s should not do their job better.
T3 should not be invalidating ships of a higher class. For example, T3 cruisers should not be sporting battleship level tanks.
T3 should be jack of all traits, masters of none.
Nullification and covert ops should not be allowed to be on the same ship.
As much as I agree with that philosophically, why would I want to fly a jack of all trades, master of none? If they are somewhere between T1 and T2 in power, why would I fly it?
The versatility thing is vastly over rated - and frankly pointless. If the ship does not have the ability to carry the full range of modules and subsystems to refit, then I am better off just using multiple, specialized T2 Cruisers/Battlecruisers and reshipping.
The cure for T3's is to remove their rig slots. Plain and simple. Then adjust the subsystem sizes and bonuses accordingly. Take off the rigs from a current Tengu, Loki, or Legion, Proteus, then compare it to the T2 counterpart. For example, an old fleet Proteus fit I had laying around:
1256 m/s, 481 DPS (18+23), 162.5k EHP, 176m sig (MWD off)
Just dropping the three Trimark II's takes it down to 99.4k EHP. The speed goes up to 1423 m/s.
It is still better than a Zealot in terms of EHP (similarly fit Zealot gets 79k EHP), but not more than 2x better. Now you have a small margin better, but still balanced by SP loss and not insanely better. And it is not as good as a fleet-fit Sleipnir or other Command Ship, so I still have a better T2 Battlecruiser option(s).
I can see the virtue in being able to fly a ship that can be quickly reconfigured to be roughly equivalent to an Ishtar, or a Deimos, or an Arazu, but which does not have rig slots - so it can actually be configured to fill multiple roles.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2663
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 12:11:14 -
[6] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:T3 must not invalidate T1 ships, they can be more powerful sure but not to the point where a t1 will get crushed That does not make any sense. T3s are by definition superior to T1: they are build with and base on more advanced technology than T1 ships. Making T3 worse than T1 obsoletes the more expensive T3.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3482
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 12:13:59 -
[7] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: That does not make any sense. T3s are by definition superior to T1: they are build with and base on more advanced technology than T1 ships. Making T3 worse than T1 obsoletes the more expensive T3.
Dear god, I'm defending Baltec. Literacy, that thing you don't have today. He specifically said T3 should be Better, just not so much better than a skilled pilot in a T1 can't even have a chance against a T3.
& to answer FT. You would fly it because it could do the roles of 2 T1 cruisers at once. So yes, it can be worse than a T2 ship at it's speciality while still worth flying. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2663
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 12:39:15 -
[8] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: That does not make any sense. T3s are by definition superior to T1: they are build with and base on more advanced technology than T1 ships. Making T3 worse than T1 obsoletes the more expensive T3.
Literacy, that thing you don't have today. He specifically said T3 should be Better, just not so much better than a skilled pilot in a T1 can't even have a chance against a T3. That puts balancing into an unresolvable position: You cannot have a ship that is just a bit better than T1 ships but also not obliteratingly worse than the T2 specialized ship. My point stands.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2638
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 13:30:07 -
[9] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote: That does not make any sense. T3s are by definition superior to T1: they are build with and base on more advanced technology than T1 ships. Making T3 worse than T1 obsoletes the more expensive T3.
Dear god, I'm defending Baltec. Literacy, that thing you don't have today. He specifically said T3 should be Better, just not so much better than a skilled pilot in a T1 can't even have a chance against a T3. & to answer FT. You would fly it because it could do the roles of 2 T1 cruisers at once. So yes, it can be worse than a T2 ship at it's speciality while still worth flying.
What two roles can these two ships do better at the same time?
The T3 Cruisers are not currently overpowered because they are versatile, they are overpowered because when you specialize them for a role they are better than the T2 counterpart.
A properly fit Tengu is a better "fleet ship of the line" than any other Caldari ship. It is a better Guristas 10/10 runner than any other ship. Arguably, the Falcon is better at its role than than the ECM Tengu, but that is also debatable.
A Loki is a better "armor fleet web support ship" than any other ship.
A Legion is a better Zealot than the Zealot.
And so on and so forth.
Balancing T3 Cruisers so that a Legion can be a Curse and a Zealot at the same time - without refitting - is stupid and overpowered.
Balancing T3 Cruisers so that a Legion can be an Arbitrator and Omen at the same time - without refitting - is stupid and useless.
Balancing T3 Cruisers so that a Legion can be a Curse or a Zealot with just swapping subsystems and modules is fine - if the subsystems are small enough that the Legion can carry both and the modules required to swap. Then you have a versatile ship, worth a slight premium on the hull, and worth the potential for HP loss. This is best accomplished by removing rigs from T3 Cruisers.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
943
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 13:46:12 -
[10] - Quote
elitatwo you are asking for opinions and that is what I will give you.
Taken as a whole the T3 ships are one of the worst things CCP ever did to this game. It was somewhat tolerable when there was just the 4 cruisers but then they doubled down on the disaster by introducing the T3 destroyers which overnight rendered the entire assault frigate class of ships virtually worthless. The best thing CCP could do to balance these nightmares is to remove them from the game completely and yes I mean ALL of them cruiser and destroyer.
However since it is unlikely that CCP will remove them from the game we are left with what to do with them and for that I turn to a few comments from others.
FT Diomedes wrote:The versatility thing is vastly over rated - and frankly pointless. If the ship does not have the ability to carry the full range of modules and subsystems to refit, then I am better off just using multiple, specialized T2 Cruisers/Battlecruisers and reshipping. Versatility and not dominance was the idea behind the T3 ships from the beginning. As I remember from back in the day the whole idea was that it is easier to have extra sub systems lying around that you can plug in as needed instead of multiple ships and this is especially true when it comes time to move from one location to another. In the end analysis the fact that you cannot haul multiple sets of subsystems around in your cargo hold does not in any way diminish the versatility of the ships.
To get specific to you comment quoted here what does it matter? If you have to warp back to refit with new subsystems OR warp back to get another ship either way you still have to warp back.
Rivr Luzade wrote:baltec1 wrote:T3 must not invalidate T1 ships, they can be more powerful sure but not to the point where a t1 will get crushed That does not make any sense. T3s are by definition superior to T1: they are build with and base on more advanced technology than T1 ships. Making T3 worse than T1 obsoletes the more expensive T3. Ahh Rivr what to say here. I agree that any T3 ship should be equal to or better than a T1 dedicated ship since that would ring true with the whole different tech aspect. Considering their extreme versatility they should never be better at any single task than a dedicated T2 and yet that is exactly what we have now.
To sum up the entire T3 line of ships should sit right in the middle between T1 and T2 in capabilities, never worse than T1 and never better than T2. This in between status would be about the right penalty for the extreme versatility these ships offer. |
|
Tragot Gomndor
Khanid's Damnation
70
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 13:48:19 -
[11] - Quote
I hate T3 and i say YES to every nerf. Nerf and get rid of skillloss.
And then disallow unplugging implants in space, but thats a different case ^^
NONONONONONO
TO
CAPS IN HIGHSEC
NO
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2666
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 15:14:33 -
[12] - Quote
An interesting module to study for this subject are the 2 new Multi-Purpose Analyzers, Ligature and Zeugma. They both combine Data and Relic analyzer functionalities in one module, the Zeugma at least is better than T1/worse than T2 (Ligature is worse than T1) but cost 150/350 million ISK, respectively. Except for the 1 free slot that you gain with this module:
How many people use these over the T2/T1 variations for the reason of versatility/1 gained slot? How many people have lost more cans in sites due to these modules compared to people with the specialized modules? How willing are people to pay an extra premium for slight increase in versatility over the specialized version if the versatility comes at such high cost (both in terms of ISK and performance drop)?
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17790
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 17:00:50 -
[13] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:baltec1 wrote:T3 must not invalidate T1 ships, they can be more powerful sure but not to the point where a t1 will get crushed That does not make any sense. T3s are by definition superior to T1: they are build with and base on more advanced technology than T1 ships. Making T3 worse than T1 obsoletes the more expensive T3.
Where did I say worse than T1?
Lets take for example the T1 destroyers vs the Svipul. Right now they stand zero chance of ever beating the Svipul which is very poor game balance. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1353
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 17:11:03 -
[14] - Quote
Sorry for interrupting your vivid discussion but what are your thoughts on the stats I listed?
My intend was to brainstorm over those, thought I still agree with baltec1
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
183
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 18:01:40 -
[15] - Quote
I think it would be simple if we reclassify T3C to BC level instead Cruiser, then nerf their mobility to BC. |
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
1057
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 20:22:34 -
[16] - Quote
You need to address one thing here, namely, recons do not do (fully) their job in the first place. Let me expand on that idea before these words are jumped on in true EvE-O forum style.
So recons are in a good spot for micro and small gang, and really do bring the best in class support to the fight in terms of their respective specialties. However, on any engagement that is larger than say, 50 ish, they are absolutely nonviable as fleet ships due to an acute lack of tank. Proteus and Loki have been (for better or worse) the bread and butter point/scram and webbing ships of any serious engagement for quite some time - if they lose their tank, there will be effectively zero fleet ships that can do their role well.
Fleet engagements in the current meta are already way too much kite/snipe/alpha; removing the viability of the only two good control ships from the equation will surely exacerbate this even worse. It is a crutch that the game needs at this point.
The problem of 'T3' in general was the philosophy was tradeoffs and versatility, but it degenerated into, you get all of the things, rather than a protean (pun intended) mix.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2667
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 20:32:32 -
[17] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:baltec1 wrote:T3 must not invalidate T1 ships, they can be more powerful sure but not to the point where a t1 will get crushed That does not make any sense. T3s are by definition superior to T1: they are build with and base on more advanced technology than T1 ships. Making T3 worse than T1 obsoletes the more expensive T3. Where did I say worse than T1? Lets take for example the T1 destroyers vs the Svipul. Right now they stand zero chance of ever beating the Svipul which is very poor game balance. Poor wording on my side, my bad. Yet, I do not see why a T1 destroyer should have a chance against a properly fitted and piloted T3D, even if the T1 destroyer is piloted outstandingly. If a Thrasher can win against a properly flown Svipul, what is the point of a Svipul?
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17797
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 20:34:14 -
[18] - Quote
unidenify wrote:I think it would be simple if we reclassify T3C to BC level instead Cruiser, then nerf their mobility to BC.
They still need a hefty nerf to EHP, sig and utility to make them BC. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
17200
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 20:36:34 -
[19] - Quote
Agreed with baltec ... Mostly, i think the level of tank they can achieve is fine
but
i dont think they compramise nearly as much as they should to do so. It rightly should gimp the rest of the fit. I dont mind bs levels of ehp but doing so and having the same level of dps and still being mobile with whatever application mods you want is a bit much.
You want to tank jesuschrist himself? Fine but thats prettymuch all you can do.
=]|[=
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17797
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 20:41:00 -
[20] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: Poor wording on my side, my bad. Yet, I do not see why a T1 destroyer should have a chance against a properly fitted and piloted T3D, even if the T1 destroyer is piloted outstandingly. If a Thrasher can win against a properly flown Svipul, what is the point of a Svipul?
Because isk and time should not trump skill. Ships must be balanced otherwise why bother with anything other than the FOTM? Right now the svipul invalidates everything below and around it to the point where there is no point in engaging the svipul. This means newer players who don't have the SP or isk to fund a svipul but do have raw talent can do **** all to even a bad pilot in a svipul.
A thrasher has every right to be viable to fly, it will probably die but it does have the right to at least stand some chance at winning. |
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2667
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 20:56:57 -
[21] - Quote
There are tons of other targets a new player can engage that are not Svipuls and viability extends only so far, usually hitting the ceiling when you try to engage something above your weight class.
What would a Svipul look like that gives a Thrasher a better chance at winning?
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
1057
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 21:07:54 -
[22] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:There are tons of other targets a new player can engage that are not Svipuls and viability extends only so far, usually hitting the ceiling when you try to engage something above your weight class.
What would a Svipul look like that gives a Thrasher a better chance at winning?
What we currently have, svipul wise:
400dps, 20k tank, super fast.
Pick one of those at great cost to the other two. Modes should carry penalties as well as bonuses.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17797
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 21:22:36 -
[23] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:There are tons of other targets a new player can engage that are not Svipuls and viability extends only so far, usually hitting the ceiling when you try to engage something above your weight class.
What would a Svipul look like that gives a Thrasher a better chance at winning?
Actual drawbacks to their different modes and lose the cruiser like stats coupled with frigate like sig and speed. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3485
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 22:10:39 -
[24] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:An interesting module to study for this subject are the 2 new Multi-Purpose Analyzers, Ligature and Zeugma. They both combine Data and Relic analyzer functionalities in one module, the Zeugma at least is better than T1/worse than T2 (Ligature is worse than T1) but cost 150/350 million ISK, respectively. Except for the 1 free slot that you gain with this module:
How many people use these over the T2/T1 variations for the reason of versatility/1 gained slot? How many people have lost more cans in sites due to these modules compared to people with the specialized modules? How willing are people to pay an extra premium for slight increase in versatility over the specialized version if the versatility comes at such high cost (both in terms of ISK and performance drop)?
Actually the Zeg is better than T2, and the Lig may be almost as good as T2. They get bonuses from both skills, so their numbers are better than they look. However the fact they cost something like 150 times more due to crazy build requirements is what kills them. If it was only 15 times more, you would see a lot more of them being used. Which considering we are comparing a T2 to a T3..... T3C's are only about 3-4 times more than a T2 at the moment. Much closer than your example you tried using.
And sure Ft, there is only a narrow spot for them to be better than a T1 at two things while still being worse than a T2 at those two things. And to make it work you would have to remove the total flexibility of subsystems and go much more like the tactical modes. Though as I said before, you could use subsystems to decide what tactical modes you get on your T3. So you don't have to get rid of subsystems entirely, they just become a much smaller part of the ship, since part of the problem is balancing every single possible combination of subsystem/slot layout they can have.
And sure to Baltec's idea to get rid of rigs on T3C's. (Would that help balance T3D's also?). I can see the point. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1354
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 22:41:41 -
[25] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:There are tons of other targets a new player can engage that are not Svipuls and viability extends only so far, usually hitting the ceiling when you try to engage something above your weight class.
What would a Svipul look like that gives a Thrasher a better chance at winning? Actual drawbacks to their different modes and lose the cruiser like stats coupled with frigate like sig and speed.
The only "problem boat" here is that minmatar abomination. The Confessor was right at the beginning, now she is a very, very small titan with terrible movement and capacitor.
The Caldari and Gallente one can be alphaed of the field while they try to move around.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
388
|
Posted - 2016.08.03 23:55:08 -
[26] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The goals should be as follows.
T3 must not invalidate T1 ships, they can be more powerful sure but not to the point where a t1 will get crushed.
T2 cruisers must be better at their job than a T3. They are specialists, T3s should not do their job better.
T3 should not be invalidating ships of a higher class. For example, T3 cruisers should not be sporting battleship level tanks.
T3 should be jack of all traits, masters of none.
Nullification and covert ops should not be allowed to be on the same ship. Jack-of-all-trades implies that it can do several things simultaneously. I think that's where T3Cs become too strong.
They have;
- BS-size tanks,
- Cruiser-size sigs,
- Nullification,
- Damage.
All at the same time.
It's fine to call a ship flexible, but if it can flex three ways at once then it's a problem. The direct approach of nerfing numbers while keeping the 'flexibility' will leave ships in on a knife-edge of being too weak to do anything and strong enough to do everything.
What I think should happen is the T3D treatment to subsystems. An active subsystem provides bonuses. Only one subsystem is active at any point in time.
You've got break the synergy of certain subsystem combinations. And a good balance will break that synergy without making the subsystems useless.
[EDIT]
I realise that role bonuses (can fit module x) are somewhat incompatible with mode-switching. I'd like to propose that all subs that give role bonuses be moved into one special group that is always on. For argument's sake, let's say Engineering Subsystems. Cloaking, Nullification, and Command Links all move to there.
Would this open up room for more role-bonus subsystems? I imagine a bubble launcher would be OP. Fun, but OP. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3486
|
Posted - 2016.08.04 02:32:59 -
[27] - Quote
Rawketsled wrote:Jack-of-all-trades implies that it can do several things simultaneously. I think that's where T3Cs become too strong. They have;
- BS-size tanks,
- Cruiser-size sigs,
- Nullification,
- Damage.
All at the same time. It's fine to call a ship flexible, but if it can flex three ways at once then it's a problem. That isn't three different ways. Sig is part of tank. Tank & Damage are both part of a single role. Direct combat. When flexibility is used we are meaning Ewar, specialist tackle, Logistics. Look at all the T2 specialities or even the T1 differences. |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
388
|
Posted - 2016.08.04 03:40:50 -
[28] - Quote
Yes, sig and mobility do affect overall tank. Maybe I had a poor choice of words. I was thinking in terms of HP pool and resists when I said BS-size tank.
I consider getting bonuses that help being in a Direct Combat role and getting bonuses that help specialist at the same time to be the key problem.
I can slap together a shitfit Proteus that is; cloaky, nullified, and have bonused probes. After dropping a gun to fit the probes, I still get 550dps out of it hot with a 5% implant. It's got 100k EHP without Slaves or links.
Individually, a cloaky Proteus is fine. As is a nullified one. Individually, each bonus is perfectly reasonable.
If modes were applied to this, I would lose access to; 20% dps, (roughly) 27% EHP, mobility while cloaked, bubble immunity, 50% probe strength. Having to pick a mode means if I want to burn something to the ground, I lose tank and some ability to disengage. If I need to tank while waiting for fleet, I can't do full damage. If I'm warping cloaked, I should get caught by bubbles. Conversely, if I'm bubble immune, a conventional gatecamp should catch me. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3486
|
Posted - 2016.08.04 05:13:16 -
[29] - Quote
The problem there is you are quoting statistics that are BETTER than the T2 versions that are specialised in the same thing. Having to drop one thing to do another is still overpowered if it means that the T3 is better than the specialised T2 in that particular role. Especially since it can then later switch to be better than another T2 in another role. So it doesn't work as a 'swap mode to mode' thing. Which is why the T3D's are too good.
To get T3's where they are meant to be they need to have T1 level bonuses to several totally different aspects at once. |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
388
|
Posted - 2016.08.04 05:35:25 -
[30] - Quote
For the Augmented Plating bonus, and the probe bonus; you're right. They are bigger than T2/Faction (Stratios being the only cruiser with probe bonuses). I has assumed that they'd be equal.
However, the Covops bonus is +5% damage per level, which is the same as the Arazu. Relevant differences are that the Arazu has three guns, not 4-5, but has drones where this Proteus had none.
I'll concede that you have a valid point. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |