Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
7827
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 16:16:50 -
[1] - Quote
Strategic Cruisers (Tech-3 Cruisers) are an interesting ship class in New Eden. They are not without issues though.
Now, we are working on a fundamental revamp of these Strategic Cruisers. We plan to deploy these changes in July.
Check out the dev blog Strategic Cruisers and You for all the details!
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer
|
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
21386
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 16:37:13 -
[2] - Quote
be nice to the legion, please.
Murderers of Negotiable Motivations
=]|[=
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
15916
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 16:45:55 -
[3] - Quote
There is not enough popcorn in all North America for whats going to happen when you change T3Cs |
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
222
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 16:52:46 -
[4] - Quote
I'm curious to see how the change will even affect me, i mostly use my T3's for exploration, i imagine there won't be much in the way of drama for me to deal with and the ability to swap out rigs really won't matter to me in my line of work :P |
Enigma Cesaille
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 16:54:16 -
[5] - Quote
Hopefully these changes will bring the substantial nerfs that have been needed for years. So tired of the garbage that is T3Cs. |
Xair Nuitarius
BAND of MAGNUS CeskoSlovenska Aliance
6
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 16:58:25 -
[6] - Quote
I hope, that one of first things that will be removed, is skill loss when ship explodes.
|
jack morrigan
red vine industrial services
21
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 17:06:34 -
[7] - Quote
i had along and expencive journey to get my tengu to where i wanted it to be if you screw it up now i will be a very unhappy bunny |
Ecrir Twy'Lar
Federation Navy 3rd Fleet Wrong Hole.
28
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 17:06:44 -
[8] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:There is not enough popcorn in all North America for whats going to happen when you change T3Cs
Yep, I smell a nerf coming. |
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
223
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 17:12:42 -
[9] - Quote
Xair Nuitarius wrote:I hope, that one of first things that will be removed, is skill loss when ship explodes.
Unlikely, its obviously not stopping people from flying them in great numbers and it actually means there is some genuine risk involved, if people don't like how common they are now just wait until they remove the SP loss and you see them literally everywhere :P |
Jasper Sinclair
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
44
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 17:18:38 -
[10] - Quote
Please discuss removing variable slot layouts. Consider making the slots static and adjust benefits and drawbacks based on the subsystems used.
Alternatively consider redesigning to be more like tactical destroyers. Static slots and modes that can be entered based on the subsystems chosen.
For example, to enter 'speed' mode, you have to accumulate a certain number of 'speed points'. Each subsystem may (or may not) provide 'speed points.' Naturally a specific propulsion subsystem will get you almost all the way there, but perhaps you can make it there with a certain combination of other subsystems as well. Maybe certain defensive subsystems will provide negative points!
And of course there will be more modes possible than just speed/sniper/defense.
And please, there is no reason for skill point loss! Do you want people flying these ships or not?
Former Blue CEO, admirer of Caracals (and Tristans)
|
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3453
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 17:21:07 -
[11] - Quote
Wouldnt it be easier and less hassle to just remove the rig slots (and balance/stat-tweak accordingly) rather than having an exception that allows them to be removed?
Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
3040
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 17:27:10 -
[12] - Quote
Ecrir Twy'Lar wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:There is not enough popcorn in all North America for whats going to happen when you change T3Cs Yep, I smell a nerf coming. That's the only thing that can make them balanced again. They are tankier or as tanky as BS, as agile and fast as cruisers, deal damage up to BS ranges and have the same or even more versatility as BS/HAC.
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.
|
Xair Nuitarius
BAND of MAGNUS CeskoSlovenska Aliance
6
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 17:31:05 -
[13] - Quote
Cypherous wrote:Xair Nuitarius wrote:I hope, that one of first things that will be removed, is skill loss when ship explodes.
Unlikely, its obviously not stopping people from flying them in great numbers and it actually means there is some genuine risk involved, if people don't like how common they are now just wait until they remove the SP loss and you see them literally everywhere :P
Thats probably true, but i hate situation when one ship is much more expensive for veteran players, than for new ones. We cen now inject skill points, but veteran can inject much less with one injector. One burned ship means more than 200k SP. For new player (less than 50M SP) that means 370M isk loss, but for veteran it is 1B. And that is realy awfull. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1289
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 17:31:58 -
[14] - Quote
Quote:Some power reductions to long range combat
good. if you could make 250mm railguns not outdamage 425mm autocannons and dual 250mm railguns that would be great
and I'd like to see some real t3c nerfs rather than what happened with the capital group |
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
224
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 17:38:27 -
[15] - Quote
Xair Nuitarius wrote:Cypherous wrote:Xair Nuitarius wrote:I hope, that one of first things that will be removed, is skill loss when ship explodes.
Unlikely, its obviously not stopping people from flying them in great numbers and it actually means there is some genuine risk involved, if people don't like how common they are now just wait until they remove the SP loss and you see them literally everywhere :P Thats probably true, but i hate situation when one ship is much more expensive for veteran players, than for new ones. We cen now inject skill points, but veteran can inject much less with one injector. One burned ship means more than 200k SP. For new player (less than 50M SP) that means 370M isk loss, but for veteran it is 1B. And that is realy awfull.
Thing is, they don't really look at the ISK value, its a 5 day skill, less with optimal remaps and implants, and that cost is the same for both old and new characters, veterans also have much easier ways of making that ISK in the first place :P |
NextDarkKnight
mental disorders inc. Guardians of the Asylum
54
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 17:54:41 -
[16] - Quote
Hmm.. This smells like BAD NEWS for solo players.
|
NextDarkKnight
mental disorders inc. Guardians of the Asylum
54
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 17:58:00 -
[17] - Quote
LOL, Told the guy next to me at work and his first thing he said to me is "They are making T3 cruisers have negative effects when receiving command bursts". LOL |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
800
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 18:01:13 -
[18] - Quote
Quote:The current state of T3 Cruisers is unsustainable from a technical graphics perspective What do you mean by that? Some graphic rework?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
514
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 18:10:51 -
[19] - Quote
Thanks for including me, I'll try to bring valuable advice and work with a couple group's I know to get some opinions. I'll even pull out the ol' graphing calculator if needed.
Edit: Not that I don't already have my own opinions - but I'm not going to be closed minded about this. |
Toxic Fuzz
Fuzz Industries Fuzzy Logic.
4
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 18:15:11 -
[20] - Quote
I have noticed that CCP seems to be forcing people to play in Corporations, gearing all new content towards that end, pushing those of us who enjoy being solo players into a position where we will not advance or being to engage new content unless we join a corporation and play in mobs.
This has ultimately ruined most 1vs1 combat where groups gank singular players now instead of engaging in combat as it used to be.
It has created massive gate camps where the only way they can be avoided is to fit a Strategic Cruiser with interdiction nullification.
It has just about ruined gameplay for those of us who seek to be individuals, solo hunters/pirates, players with a mind geared towards a different type of gameplay.
And now, the one ship that seems to even those odds, that still allows individuals to be so is being ruined. Just like all other ships that have been used by singular players, CCP is now proposing once again to nerf, to ruin a ship that some of us have been piloting for years and have focused all our training towards that end.
It's always the people who cry the most that get the most attention from CCP. Interdiction pilots who set up bubbles and believe they should be able to effectively block all traffic, capture and destroy all players gating through a specific gate they camp with their corp are crying about the only ship that can make it through their gate camps without concern for their blocking traffic. And because of their childish complaints, I cannot believe this by it seems CCP is now considering removing interdiction nullification.
For every offensive strategy their should be a counter defensive strategy. For every mod that enables a ship to pin or capture another ship, there should be a counter. If interdiction nullification is removed, then interdiction pilots will not be able to be countered by a ship or mode. That is not fair gameplay and will tip the game mechanics in favor of interdiction pilots.
There are players who enjoy being able to play stealthy, to avoid forced battles and to be able to pick and choose their battles based on their STRATEGIC ability. Who enjoy being solo pirates, or who enjoy being able to enter a system and carefully plot and plan their way around all the offensive positions that attempt to catch them. It's the old game of cat and mouse. And yet, CCP again seems to be ignoring these players, and instead focused on forcing conflicts, forcing fights when this cat and mouse type play is so exhilarating.
If CCP goes through with changing these ships into something they are currently not. If they wish to de-evolve them into just another cruiser, if they are going to ruin solo gameplay or the ability to do combat sights solo, or all the other things the larger sig radius will ruin, the interdiction nullification removal will ruin, the reduction in the distance damage can be applied then there should be an option to recover those skill points so that they can be applied towards other things. Because honestly, these are the exact reasons why many of us have spent years of game play perfecting our skills in regards to strategic cruisers.
If CCPs ultimate goal is to ruin solo gameplay, I think they should come out and state it so, instead of silently removing all options for solo play, and forcing fights where they use to allow an option for a different type of gameplay.
You cannot rightfully give someone a benefit on a particular ship, and then remove it all together. Doing so is equal to giving someone a benefit and then taking it away, effectively punishing those people for exploiting those benefits. If interdiction nullification is removed, then it should be added to another ship, there has to be some way that people can avoid interdiction, their must be a counter. If not, then you effectively trap players in systems and ruin their entire style of gameplay.
I for one, will discontinue playing EVE Online if there is no interdiction nullification, if CCP removes the very reasons why I have used strategic cruisers for so many years, if there are no other options or ways I can continue to play the game I so very much love in the way I love to play it. I suspect many others will do exactly the same.
TO say the very least I am not happy at all with the new suggested changes. Yet again just as with other ships it seems that CCP's true intent is to force people to join corporations, force people to play in mobs, force people to engage when otherwise they would prefer playing a different way, and to ruin ships that have a place in the game. And to leave wide gaping holes in a universe that if real would never allow them, would naturally fill those gaping holes with ships that excel at solo gameplay.
All new content, ships, changes, nerfs, "re-balancing" seem to be geared towards forcing solo players out of the game. It's been this way for years and it doesn't seem like it's going to change anytime soon. I fear that I am going to be looking for a new MMORPG to play in the very near future. |
|
Apollo Zhukov
Omicron Defense Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 18:33:11 -
[21] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:Thanks for including me, I'll try to bring valuable advice and work with a couple group's I know to get some opinions. I'll even pull out the ol' graphing calculator if needed.
Good luck. I hope for the best. I don't want anyone to have a ship that was worse than before. |
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions
453
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 19:15:41 -
[22] - Quote
Toxic Fuzz wrote:I have noticed that CCP seems to be forcing people to play in Corporations, gearing all new content towards that end, pushing those of us who enjoy being solo players into a position where we will not advance or being to engage new content unless we join a corporation and play in mobs.
This has ultimately ruined most 1vs1 combat where groups gank singular players now instead of engaging in combat as it used to be.
It has created massive gate camps where the only way they can be avoided is to fit a Strategic Cruiser with interdiction nullification.
It has just about ruined gameplay for those of us who seek to be individuals, solo hunters/pirates, players with a mind geared towards a different type of gameplay.
And now, the one ship that seems to even those odds, that still allows individuals to be so is being ruined. Just like all other ships that have been used by singular players, CCP is now proposing once again to nerf, to ruin a ship that some of us have been piloting for years and have focused all our training towards that end.
It's always the people who cry the most that get the most attention from CCP. Interdiction pilots who set up bubbles and believe they should be able to effectively block all traffic, capture and destroy all players gating through a specific gate they camp with their corp are crying about the only ship that can make it through their gate camps without concern for their blocking traffic. And because of their childish complaints, I cannot believe this by it seems CCP is now considering removing interdiction nullification.
For every offensive strategy their should be a counter defensive strategy. For every mod that enables a ship to pin or capture another ship, there should be a counter. If interdiction nullification is removed, then interdiction pilots will not be able to be countered by a ship or mode. That is not fair gameplay and will tip the game mechanics in favor of interdiction pilots.
There are players who enjoy being able to play stealthy, to avoid forced battles and to be able to pick and choose their battles based on their STRATEGIC ability. Who enjoy being solo pirates, or who enjoy being able to enter a system and carefully plot and plan their way around all the offensive positions that attempt to catch them. It's the old game of cat and mouse. And yet, CCP again seems to be ignoring these players, and instead focused on forcing conflicts, forcing fights when this cat and mouse type play is so exhilarating.
If CCP goes through with changing these ships into something they are currently not. If they wish to de-evolve them into just another cruiser, if they are going to ruin solo gameplay or the ability to do combat sights solo, or all the other things the larger sig radius will ruin, the interdiction nullification removal will ruin, the reduction in the distance damage can be applied then there should be an option to recover those skill points so that they can be applied towards other things. Because honestly, these are the exact reasons why many of us have spent years of game play perfecting our skills in regards to strategic cruisers.
If CCPs ultimate goal is to ruin solo gameplay, I think they should come out and state it so, instead of silently removing all options for solo play, and forcing fights where they use to allow an option for a different type of gameplay.
You cannot rightfully give someone a benefit on a particular ship, and then remove it all together. Doing so is equal to giving someone a benefit and then taking it away, effectively punishing those people for exploiting those benefits. If interdiction nullification is removed, then it should be added to another ship, there has to be some way that people can avoid interdiction, their must be a counter. If not, then you effectively trap players in systems and ruin their entire style of gameplay.
I for one, will discontinue playing EVE Online if there is no interdiction nullification, if CCP removes the very reasons why I have used strategic cruisers for so many years, if there are no other options or ways I can continue to play the game I so very much love in the way I love to play it. I suspect many others will do exactly the same.
TO say the very least I am not happy at all with the new suggested changes. Yet again just as with other ships it seems that CCP's true intent is to force people to join corporations, force people to play in mobs, force people to engage when otherwise they would prefer playing a different way, and to ruin ships that have a place in the game. And to leave wide gaping holes in a universe that if real would never allow them, would naturally fill those gaping holes with ships that excel at solo gameplay.
All new content, ships, changes, nerfs, "re-balancing" seem to be geared towards forcing solo players out of the game. It's been this way for years and it doesn't seem like it's going to change anytime soon. I fear that I am going to be looking for a new MMORPG to play in the very near future.
Had you read the post, you would have seen this:
"Some power reductions to long range combat alongside the nullification subsystem"
Also, it was shown at Fanfest that the nullification -subsystem is still among their planned modules.
Wormholer for life.
|
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
1192
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 19:23:06 -
[23] - Quote
Bring back Loki skull !!1!
Good news lets see this thru sooner rather than later.
You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear
Because >>I is too hard
|
Iakim Akrelthor
Skipper Logistics Nefatari Union
3
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 19:25:52 -
[24] - Quote
Love it. A nice kick to the sandbox is healthy, and T3C had it coming.
We currently have to train six T3C skills to pilot them. Will there be a skill reimbursement, or the new Subsystems will require two (or more) skills to be able to use them?
|
BESTER bm
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 19:34:13 -
[25] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Quote:The current state of T3 Cruisers is unsustainable from a technical graphics perspective What do you mean by that? Some graphic rework?
CCP can't monetize skins due to the current design of the T3D .. they want your $$ |
Karl Jerr
Herzack Unit
128
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 19:37:12 -
[26] - Quote
The ability to swap the rig without destroying them will be pretty cool. I'll wait to see about damage changes, but since I do L4 mission with a Proteus, and it isn't considered efficent, it will not change my fun |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
800
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 19:38:42 -
[27] - Quote
BESTER bm wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:Quote:The current state of T3 Cruisers is unsustainable from a technical graphics perspective What do you mean by that? Some graphic rework? CCP can't monetize skins due to the current design of the T3D .. they want your $$
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services Singularity Syndicate
2158
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 19:42:06 -
[28] - Quote
As mentioned earlier I also think it would be a better idea to fix slot layouts and simply use the subs to apply % increases to stats instead
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
299
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 20:05:22 -
[29] - Quote
So, what about 3rd weapon sub for Legion?
Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
-- Harlan Ellison
|
Firicel
Broscarii Veseli
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 20:43:13 -
[30] - Quote
I would like my skill points back please, seems to me you want to nerf them to the point they will become unusable. For a 1yo pilot, spending months of training into a tengu which soon will become unusable is a lot. How you manage to shoot yourself in the foot with each patch, it's beyond my imagination really. Rorq, now plexes which price exploded as expected, next t3 cruisers, what's after that, platforms, right? well, gg How about an event, to keep people in the game? When was the last one, December? Anyway, a sincere FO from me. |
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
21401
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 20:53:29 -
[31] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Quote:The current state of T3 Cruisers is unsustainable from a technical graphics perspective What do you mean by that? Some graphic rework? it takes months to implement any gfx changes on them , the art team refers to them as "divas" from time to time because of the volume of extra work needed to get them working with even a shader, never mind the qa
Murderers of Negotiable Motivations
=]|[=
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
529
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 20:55:27 -
[32] - Quote
Yes, worth the wait.
At this rate we might even get atmospheric flight when Star Citizen launches
Regards, a Freelancer
ps: don't make the Tengu suck
Eve online is :
A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online
D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
800
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 21:12:24 -
[33] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:Quote:The current state of T3 Cruisers is unsustainable from a technical graphics perspective What do you mean by that? Some graphic rework? it takes months to implement any gfx changes on them , the art team refers to them as "divas" from time to time because of the volume of extra work needed to get them working with even a shader, never mind the qa I was thinking something like T3D for graphics.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Lexx Devi
Freeport . 7
5
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 21:22:47 -
[34] - Quote
Hmm, Remove rigs all together? Yes, Yes, You do like the idea, Yes.
Then Buff the bonuses of each Subsystem. Give the T3 Cruiser Hulls a 10% bonus to storyline modules. |
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
224
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 21:39:32 -
[35] - Quote
Firicel wrote:I would like my skill points back please, seems to me you want to nerf them to the point they will become unusable. For a 1yo pilot, spending months of training into a tengu which soon will become unusable is a lot. How you manage to shoot yourself in the foot with each patch, it's beyond my imagination really. Rorq, now plexes which price exploded as expected, next t3 cruisers, what's after that, platforms, right? well, gg How about an event, to keep people in the game? When was the last one, December? Anyway, a sincere FO from me.
If they remove a subsystem altogether and the skill for that subsystem you'll get a refund of the SP invested in the removed skill, but only the removed ones |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 22:40:47 -
[36] - Quote
[url] http://media1.giphy.com/media/rl0FOxdz7CcxO/giphy.gif [/url] |
BESTER bm
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
11
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 22:42:58 -
[37] - Quote
CCP will nerf the nullification to the point where it's useless to keep the gate gankers happy. They will make it a nessicity to bring additional modules when travelling solo as the nerf will not allow for a solid all round fit, the T3C will be nerfed into a 'fly as a group' fit.
How many of the players in the focus group are solo roamers or explorers?
Seeing how CCP wrecked the map and the DSCAN/Probe scan system I can only hope they will not break the T3C to the point where it wil lbe waste of time.
Exploration sites which now basically require the T3C will get run less, prices for the modules made using the drops in these sites will soar.. all in the interest of moving players to invest plex and with that $$
CCP is not working in the player interest here IMO, the endgoal here is still to drive players to invest and raise the CCP net worth to optimize the chance of a buyout. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed The Bastard Cartel
1704
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 22:51:56 -
[38] - Quote
BESTER bm wrote: CCP will nerf the nullification to the point where it's useless to keep the gate gankers happy. They will make it a nessicity to bring additional modules when travelling solo as the nerf will not allow for a solid all round fit, the T3C will be nerfed into a 'fly as a group' fit.
How many of the players in the focus group are solo roamers or explorers?
Seeing how CCP wrecked the map and the DSCAN/Probe scan system I can only hope they will not break the T3C to the point where it wil lbe waste of time.
Exploration sites which now basically require the T3C will get run less, prices for the modules made using the drops in these sites will soar.. all in the interest of moving players to invest plex and with that $$
CCP is not working in the player interest here IMO, the endgoal here is still to drive players to invest and raise the CCP net worth to optimize the chance of a buyout.
You may need to loosen your tinfoil hat just a smidge.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
Circumstantial Evidence
417
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 23:02:10 -
[39] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:Quote:The current state of T3 Cruisers is unsustainable from a technical graphics perspective What do you mean by that? Some graphic rework? it takes months to implement any gfx changes on them , the art team refers to them as "divas" from time to time because of the volume of extra work needed to get them working with even a shader, never mind the qa And the problem they described was texturing the model, because it changes depending on subsystems. Speculation: will CCP do away with that, and pick one fixed shape for each tech 3 cruiser? That would make the graphic artist's work much easier. |
Ben Ishikela
84
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 23:29:07 -
[40] - Quote
Please a FleetHangarThing for additional Fits. now that rigs are changeable. Proteus always struggled with carrying refits. Please afterburnerbonus on all ships possible.
Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
|
|
Ebony Texas
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 23:43:33 -
[41] - Quote
this reads like a gigantic freaking nerf..
ccp fozzie-logic strikes again..
well atleast I have a deadline to enjoy the last of the great t3c era.
#BURNFOZZIE
|
Sir BloodArgon Aulmais
Fortis Fortuna Adiuvatt Dot Dot Dot
132
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 01:59:56 -
[42] - Quote
Quote:We highly encourage all players who will be flying T3 Cruisers at the time of downtime on July 11th get themselves into a safe location such as a friendly starbase or docked within a station/structure before the downtime begins. This will ensure that they do not get caught in a dangerous situation with some of their modules offline when they next log in.
Now taking bets on how many people login to the forums that day to say "OOMFGGFFF CCP BROKE MY TENGU WTF NO WARNING CCP WHY YOU SHADY I CANT TRUST A SHADY COMPANY UNSUBSCRIBED"
I'm thinking at least 5 threads on patch day. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
64
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 02:53:49 -
[43] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:be nice to the legion, please.
be nice to the legion AND the tengu, please. Need mah lazers AND missiles. |
Toxic Fuzz
Fuzz Industries Fuzzy Logic.
6
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 03:00:06 -
[44] - Quote
I understand the need to write new code to replace anything that is legacy, but the proposed changes make the strategic cruiser not strategic at all.
I think CCP needs to read the meaning of strategic!
Strategic:
Carefully designed or planned to serve a particular purpose or advantage.
A strategic ship should have specific advantages over other ships. i.e. long range, interdiction nullification, smaller sig radius, etc.
Relating to the gaining of overall or long-term military advantage.
Again, strategic means that those specific ships should have a significant advantage over others. This is why there is so much more training involved in being able to properly fly these ships. Why else would people go through the hassle of training so many different things to be able to pilot these specific ships well? All that hard work, and CCP is planning on nerfing them to utterly useless. I am tired, sick of training a specific ship because it has a specific advantage only to have CCP nerf it to death to the point where it can no longer be used for the purpose it was good for. I understand balancing, but when it changes the ship to such a point that it can no longer be used for what it was before, it seems out of line.
(of bombing or weapons) done or for use against industrial areas and communication centers of enemy territory as a long-term military objective.
Again, these ships should be able to pass through interdiction spheres, they should be light and nimble, able to do what it might normally take several different ships to accomplish. To be able to stay in hostile territory for extended lengths of time, and survive. This ships have a very special niche, a special purpose, no other ships can perform in their intended purposes and yet, these are the very things being proposed to be nerfed.
It seems to me that CCP is focusing too much on the graphical content, skins, ways to increase profit at the expense of veteran players. New players will never know or understand the differences.
It seems CCP is far more interested in newer players than their loyal veterans who have been playing, for years.
It seems CCP has taken balancing too far, to the point where eventually it will not matter what ship you fly, they will all do more or less the same damage and have advantages and defenses that make them all equal. Personally I prefer ships that are specialized, where one ship can take out several others in it's class except for a few others. This makes PVP, engaging in fleet battles, using ships for mission running or combat sites far more interesting and dynamic. Making all the ships vanilla flavor just seems like blah to me. |
Otto Schultzky
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 03:27:22 -
[45] - Quote
If I was a gambling man, I would place a bets that T3 Cruisers / Subsystem Combination "adjustments" are going to be inversely proportional of kill board performance.
In other words, (possibly) "Rip and press F to pay respects" : "W-Space Gank" Proteus, "Rapier/ Huginn" Loki, Neut or Ham Legion.
On the up side the Arazu and Pilgrim may see more use, or more likely everyone and their dog will use a Stratios until that gets nerfed too.
P.S. Devblog with some new art and not many details, this is going to be interesting, as in "Hold my beer and watch this..."
|
Kiera Oramara
Roadkill Limited
22
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 04:04:53 -
[46] - Quote
Hmmm so while iam sure CCP will do whatever they think is smart (at the time atleast) dont forget that not everyone flying a T3C is part for a big ass null Alliance or whining as loudly as they can that they dont want ppl travelig true "there" space or "damn the smartbombs didnt kill him"
So as the focus group is a bit one sided (as you can see under) dont just listen to those guys and think "Thats how everyone thinks / want it"... IOW. or for short if you want Dont fu the nullification plz
Quote: Asher Elias -- Goon Capri Sun KraftFoods -- Hard Knocks Eustise -- It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake ExookiZ -- Scary Wormhole People frsd -- Triumvirate. Icarus Narcissus -- Last Calamity lanyaie -- Cynosural Field Theory. Lemkor Gengod -- Stacmon Production and Trade Institue Mawderator -- The Tuskers Co. Noxisia Arkana -- Deadspace Knights progodlegend -- Test Alliance Please Ignore Rowells -- Mercenary Coalition StarFleetCommander -- - WE FORM V0LTA Sturm Gewehr -- HYDRA RELOADED Titus Tallang -- Ivy League White 0rchid -- WAFFLE
|
BESTER bm
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
11
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 08:18:51 -
[47] - Quote
The composition of the focus panel is a hugeconcern to me as an explorer. It means that what I need/want will be ignored, if not actively advocated against.
These guys in general will not want to see the clocking plus nullification retained as it makes the T3C harder for them to catch, this function for me is a vital part of flying a Tengu and I may as well switch to Stratios when I loose this. And that is saying something as the stratios really is juts a slower/more expensive Astero for me as an explorer,
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
802
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 09:04:27 -
[48] - Quote
BESTER bm wrote:The composition of the focus panel is a hugeconcern to me as an explorer. It means that what I need/want will be ignored, if not actively advocated against.
These guys in general will not want to see the clocking plus nullification retained as it makes the T3C harder for them to catch, this function for me is a vital part of flying a Tengu and I may as well switch to Stratios when I loose this. And that is saying something as the stratios really is juts a slower/more expensive Astero for me as an explorer, Fozzie said on fanfest panel that he want to retained cloaking with nullification. Covert will be moved to tanking subsystems so that configuration will have less tank for obvious reasons. We will see where this will bring exploration T3C.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
BESTER bm
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
11
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 10:17:35 -
[49] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:BESTER bm wrote:The composition of the focus panel is a hugeconcern to me as an explorer. It means that what I need/want will be ignored, if not actively advocated against.
These guys in general will not want to see the clocking plus nullification retained as it makes the T3C harder for them to catch, this function for me is a vital part of flying a Tengu and I may as well switch to Stratios when I loose this. And that is saying something as the stratios really is juts a slower/more expensive Astero for me as an explorer, Fozzie said on fanfest panel that he want to retained cloaking with nullification. Covert will be moved to tanking subsystems so that configuration will have less tank for obvious reasons. We will see where this will bring exploration T3C.
He was quite clear about his opinion that nullification is an annpoyance and irritation to his PVP buddies and somewhat reluctatntly mentioned that it was an important function. What I expect is they will nerf it to the point it becomes risky with a 'reasonable' chance for gate gankers to catch a T3C which is nullified. Thu cloaky nullification of T3D has been a major source of tears from these groups.
Cloaking will move to the same group as tank which for me as an explorer is really not good as it means I will be forced to refit to run for instance superior sleeper caches as I will need the tanking subsystem in those sites, that will then mean I lose my ability to cloak if I need to.
The same goes ofr CAP/PG which will be in the same sub system group as sensors/electronics which as i read it wil lmean I can't have cap regen _and_ analyzer/scanning bonusses at the same time. Again, if this works out the way it was presented it will basically exclude T3C as an option to run high end/high risk sites.
From everything I have read and heard it is quite obvious that the parties more likely to benefit CCP in the bottom line (those who generate loses and thus requirement to spend) will gain the upperhand against those who actually find and bring to market the materials needed to build replacements (exploration) as doing so will also benefit the bottom end.
The proposed changes would IMO end the suitability of the T3C, expecially the Tengu, as an exploration platform and make access to some sites a lot harder. But again.. it's all about those who kill ships and thus drive the market and in doing so the bottom line for CCP. |
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions
454
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 10:31:30 -
[50] - Quote
BESTER bm wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:BESTER bm wrote:The composition of the focus panel is a hugeconcern to me as an explorer. It means that what I need/want will be ignored, if not actively advocated against.
These guys in general will not want to see the clocking plus nullification retained as it makes the T3C harder for them to catch, this function for me is a vital part of flying a Tengu and I may as well switch to Stratios when I loose this. And that is saying something as the stratios really is juts a slower/more expensive Astero for me as an explorer, Fozzie said on fanfest panel that he want to retained cloaking with nullification. Covert will be moved to tanking subsystems so that configuration will have less tank for obvious reasons. We will see where this will bring exploration T3C. He was quite clear about his opinion that nullification is an annoyance and irritation to his PVP buddies and somewhat reluctantly mentioned that it was an important function. What I expect is they will nerf it to the point it becomes risky with a 'reasonable' chance for gate gankers to catch a T3C which is nullified. The cloaky nullification of T3D has been a major source of tears from these groups. Cloaking will move to the same group as tank which for me as an explorer is really not good as it means I will be forced to refit to run for instance superior sleeper caches as I will need the tanking subsystem in those sites, that will then mean I lose my ability to cloak if I need to. The same goes for CAP/PG which will be in the same sub system group as sensors/electronics which as i read it wil lmean I can't have cap regen _and_ analyzer/scanning bonusses at the same time. Again, if this works out the way it was presented it will basically exclude T3C as an option to run high end/high risk sites. From everything I have read and heard it is quite obvious that the parties more likely to benefit CCP in the bottom line (those who generate loses and thus requirement to spend) will gain the upperhand against those who actually find and bring to market the materials needed to build replacements (exploration) as doing so will also benefit the bottom line. The proposed changes would IMO end the suitability of the T3C, especially the Tengu, as an exploration platform and make access to some sites a lot harder. But again.. it's all about those who kill ships and thus drive the market and in doing so the bottom line for CCP.
Yo uare basically saying the war is lost even without seeing what the other side is fielding.
There is no details on the subsystem attributes OR bonuses. I'd wait until we at least get those out before running in circles and shouting that the sky is falling....
There's quite a few smart people in the focus group, even a few industrials got in there. I'm pretty sure there will be people bringing your usage-case into the table as well.
Wormholer for life.
|
|
Erve Auscent
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 11:04:45 -
[51] - Quote
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! PLEASE REMOVE THE SKILL LOSS! |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
204
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 11:39:32 -
[52] - Quote
yes please remove the skill loss. I dont fly the ships because of that. And dont even start with the skill injection crap... |
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
224
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 12:03:52 -
[53] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:yes please remove the skill loss. I dont fly the ships because of that. And dont even start with the skill injection crap...
Thing is, its risk vs reward, you get a high versatility high performance ship but you risk losing 4 days of training time if you die, i'm fine with it remaining and i don't touch injectors |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
204
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 14:36:34 -
[54] - Quote
Cypherous wrote:DeadDuck wrote:yes please remove the skill loss. I dont fly the ships because of that. And dont even start with the skill injection crap... Thing is, its risk vs reward, you get a high versatility high performance ship but you risk losing 4 days of training time if you die, i'm fine with it remaining and i don't touch injectors
The ship with rigs is already very expensive + fittings. Add to that 4-5 days of training. And the risk doesnt cover the reward. Unless you use cloacky crap, use them for hot drop or fly with gangs of 73474437 guys
The loss It's to heavy for regular use on pvp, specially when you prefer to go on very small gangs and usually tend to fight very outnumbered with much higher chances of dying. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
803
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 14:48:15 -
[55] - Quote
Cypherous wrote:DeadDuck wrote:yes please remove the skill loss. I dont fly the ships because of that. And dont even start with the skill injection crap... Thing is, its risk vs reward, you get a high versatility high performance ship but you risk losing 4 days of training time if you die, i'm fine with it remaining and i don't touch injectors Nothing to do with risk vs reward. SP loss was there because they were OP (high versatility is debatable), they won't be now from what we seen so far.
CCP already has release date, so there is raw data about the changes, maybe it's a good time to share it? Aside from focus group. 1,5 month for changes so huge ships potential seems very short.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Ramius Decimus
Dominion Fleet
29
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 16:23:32 -
[56] - Quote
Team Five 0 wrote:T3 Cruisers overlap too much with other ships (especially Heavy Assault Cruisers and Recon Ships) and their dominance can reduce ship variety. But isn't that the point? Isn't Tech III supposed to be better than Tech 2?
Other than general balancing between each class, Strategic Cruisers do not need to be nerfed. Rather, if you want them to be more uncommon, make them require additional skills or up the difficulty by increasing the 'Training Time Multiplier' of all of the subsystem and spaceship command skills.
The same goes for the Tactical Destroyers, they are rediculously easy to train into for Tech III....
Now I know this would make some people disgruntled, but the fact being is that T3 is suppose to be the elite state-of-the-art technology and shouldn't be a cake walk to qualify in operating. Even worse if they're surpassed by lower tech level starships; what's the point if any T3C configuration can't even match it's ship class counterpart?!
Just my 0.02 kredits.
Rear Admiral
Commander-in-Chief
90th Fleet
Caldari Navy
|
Toxic Fuzz
Fuzz Industries Fuzzy Logic.
10
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 19:22:13 -
[57] - Quote
Ramius Decimus wrote:Team Five 0 wrote:T3 Cruisers overlap too much with other ships (especially Heavy Assault Cruisers and Recon Ships) and their dominance can reduce ship variety. But isn't that the point? Isn't Tech III supposed to be better than Tech 2? Just my 0.02 kredits.
That is exactly the point, this is why it's difficult to train, this is why it's so expensive, this is the very reason why their is skill loss.
Strategic means you should be able to do multiple things with the same ship, stay in hostile space for extended lengths of time. Be stealthy, slippery, sneaky, gather intel or do combat/scanning sites.
Increase the sig radius and an entire tactic is wiped out, that being slippery Petes, even though you hardly see them anymore I for one use this fit when doing combat sites in low sec space.
Remove the reach, nerf the hell out of the ability to tank, and you effectively ruin these ships for doing these difficult sites and then what, forced to use a BS? Or???
I hope, truly hope that CCP does not screw this up. It seems like every time they make changes like this they alter a ships ability to continue in it's primary role. When the Tengu was nerfed before, it became a ship that was not able to continue it's role in single PVP in the way it was able before. That is something all of us pilots who fly TC3 dealt with, some of us training other TC3s so that we could retain the use of these ships in PVP.
The ship serves a purpose, it performs well in that role, I cannot even begin to imagine what benefit TC3 pilots are going to have if just some of the proposed changes take place. CCP should not be taking functionality away, and so far as I am concerned with very few issues they are pretty well balanced, each racial type having it's place and purpose.
Gate campers, interdiction pilots somehow believe that they should have the ability to capture every ship that moves through the gate they are camping. Just yesterday while on a low/nul sec roam I was baited verbally by campers on a gate for my ability to warp off without issue. CCP needs to consider balancing when making any decision to change interdiction nullification. For every ability an offensive ship might have, there needs to be the ability to counter it. Otherwise, what would be the point in gating anywhere if you know that two jumps off high sec into nul, there is going to be a gate camp waiting to overwhelm you with multiple pilots laying in wait? And considering that the proposed changes seem to me like they will drastically increase the price of these ships, why would anyone wish to risk the isk?
It makes no sense to me at all, nerf the ship to almost useless for it's intended purpose, then increase the price so that even if you can afford it, you cannot use it for fear of the isk loss. And then prevent it from entering any High Sec combat sites (4/10s currently) so that even if you do train to use the ship you are guaranteed huge isk loss, thus creating and driving the need to spend even more so that you can continue to play.
CCP better listen, or give me the skill points back that I trained on all 4 TC3s. If not, I'm not sure I will continue to play considering that CCP has shown calloused disregard to those of us who have played for so long, enabling CCP and EVE Online to be what it is today. We the loyal veterans that spend so much time in this virtual world should also be considered.
Please CCP, carefully think about what it is you are doing. Don't make the ship fit in such a tiny little niche that you make it utterly broken. It should overlap as it does now several different ships specially considering the time it takes to train. It should be better than all other lower tier ships. It should be special, something to strive for. People who fly TC3s well should be able to take pride in this fact. THIS is what keeps us coming back, keeps us buying plex, allows EVE to grow. We are the ones who go out into hostile space and bring back what is needed for industry. It is we who slip through space with billions worth of mods fitted to our ship and in our cargo so that we can change when we get to where we are going. It is us who push the envelope, who do things others do not, who fly solo where only gangs of gankers roam. Do not forget how important we are to the story that is EVE. Do not forget that we have worked hard to specialize in this particular area, and have a love for the ships we fly. Do not forget that we are also just as important as raging battles, corporations and groups. Do not punish us for our desire to be solo pirates, or explorers, or PVEers/PVPers. Do not cripple these ships, don't screw this one up, this is far larger a change to a ship class than you might think. Make changes responsibly, consider more the people who pilot these ships rather than those who do not train them and complain about their abilities. If they were not lazy, they would train them themselves.
Do not change things to such a degree that we are left with only skillpoints trained in nerfed skills. If you do, then at the very least give us the opportunity to recover those skill points without loss, skill extractors are not good enough! |
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
224
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 19:34:25 -
[58] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Cypherous wrote:DeadDuck wrote:yes please remove the skill loss. I dont fly the ships because of that. And dont even start with the skill injection crap... Thing is, its risk vs reward, you get a high versatility high performance ship but you risk losing 4 days of training time if you die, i'm fine with it remaining and i don't touch injectors Nothing to do with risk vs reward. SP loss was there because they were OP (high versatility is debatable), they won't be now from what we seen so far. CCP already has release date, so there is raw data about the changes, maybe it's a good time to share it? Aside from focus group. 1,5 month for changes so huge ships potential seems very short.
They have already detailed the basic plans, reduce the sub counts, merge some of the lesser used together, this focus group will help nail down exact configurations, there isn't much to share :P |
Ben Ishikela
87
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 19:55:49 -
[59] - Quote
i hope the refit feature gets some love. its THE uniqueness in design they have. --> more cargo --> less time for mobile depot or not needed --> rigs refittable --> less powerful than T2 but highly adaptable. ==> kung fu
==> therefor killing a T3C will drop lots of refits.
Maybe this can be achieved by modes like on T3D but with a higher transittime. and also not instantly (30seconds enough?) Refit/depot mode: dont need mobile Depot. Exploration/travel mode: bonus to warpspeed align and scannerprobe strength. Normal/Combat mode: just the usual bonuses from subsystems. OR each subsystem gives a bonus to each mode. (but that would be a mess and too much for average Pilots's memory)
Greetings and HF Ben
Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
|
Ol' Smithy
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 20:14:48 -
[60] - Quote
- I LOVE the idea of switching out rigs freely. Now you won't need to buy multiple T3s for different roles like PvP and can easily switch out your exploration fit for PvP deep in null without gimping your fit. This helps solo players a lot too who are far away from home. This is probably my favorite change.
- I imagine this is a given, but keep the covert ops + nullification function. I usually use the emergent locus analyzer too for the scanning bonus when using that setup in wormholes to get around.
- How slots change when switching out subsystems could be made easier visually at a glance that it is currently.
- Remove the skill-point loss upon death. T3s are already expensive enough to lose without having that additional hit incurred and makes players more risk averse in them.
- Looking forward to getting updated art for them, and hopefully new skins at some point.
- Make a dedicated subsystem for extra cargo-hold space (or roll the bonus into an existing subsystem used commonly during travel like covert ops). Solo T3 players have to carry everything around all the time and it would alleviate the headache of juggling cargo expanders. Or just add a separate "charges" cargohold to hold ammunition since that is what takes of most of the space the majority of the time. |
|
BESTER bm
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
12
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 02:07:04 -
[61] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote: Yo uare basically saying the war is lost even without seeing what the other side is fielding.
There is no details on the subsystem attributes OR bonuses. I'd wait until we at least get those out before running in circles and shouting that the sky is falling....
There's quite a few smart people in the focus group, even a few industrials got in there. I'm pretty sure there will be people bringing your usage-case into the table as well.
The 'plan' was laid out rather clearly during fanfest and only details remain. From basically every change we have seen so far recently we know that by the time CCP announced a change is coming they have most of it already locked down and what we get is mostly what is announced. From that we can expect the new subsystems to be as they were shown and I am basing my comments ion that layout, It makes tank and cloak as wel as CAP/PG vs sensors/electronics mutually exclusive. At best this will force a refit between travel and action and in fact will increase the overall risk fo using the ship. |
BESTER bm
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
12
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 02:13:25 -
[62] - Quote
can't delete it seems |
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
575
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 07:35:30 -
[63] - Quote
This makes me excited! Especially the change to rigs, but the promise to power up some of the more exotic combinations is nice, too.
Whenever I used T3Cs, I tended to waste tons of money because I kept changing rigs and subsystems to experiment around. So the ability to change rigs without destroying them is pretty damn important for me.
|
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
1373
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 10:26:33 -
[64] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:As mentioned earlier I also think it would be a better idea to fix slot layouts and simply use the subs to apply % increases to stats instead
So how many high slots do you give a ship that, can use covert cloak, scanners, missiles and or hybrids. How many extra subsystems would need to be created to cover current uses but with fixed slot layouts? What about mids? You need 3 dedicated to exploration plus some sort of tank, so is it 5, 6 or 7 mids? Remembering, the more mid slots it has the more OP it becomes in other roles..
Fixed slot layout just doesn't work with a modular ship, so unless the plan is to completely redo T3C's to remove all of their utility (turn them into hac's) it won't work.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
WhiteOrm
Outer Space Random Corp
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 11:16:57 -
[65] - Quote
I just was going to buy my first T3C.. But now I will probably wait and see. They will either nerf it and it will become tanky good for nothing or they will "accidently" imbalance it into something like Svipul not long ago.. and nerf it later. Either way if it will not fill roles of HAC and Recon what can it be good for anyway? Command ship? Logistic cruiser? Relic hacking explosion tanking covops? Somehow I don't think anything good will come out of it. If number of subsystems on T3C will go down, how by the way it will affect overall price of the ship? |
Janeway84
Insane's Asylum Evil Monkies Incorporated
185
|
Posted - 2017.05.29 08:21:12 -
[66] - Quote
I hope you got a chance to break a tripple t2 purger rigged gila with a cov op fit after the changes and not having to dogpile in more ships. Imo the prot got whacked hard the last time t3 defensive bonuses where adjusted... I just hope its not going to be all focus on the big blob fleets meta game. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1264
|
Posted - 2017.05.29 09:33:26 -
[67] - Quote
I hate these exclusive little Focus groups that just excludes everyone else.. isn't there already a csm for that? removable rigs ... at 60 mil a pop for a set of T2 rigs.. does that really encourage versatility?
T3's need simplifying and cheapening ... 600mil plus isn't acceptable price for a cruiser especially when you add on spares (rigs/subs/mods)... and thats before you nerf them...
Needed Changes
massive price reduction ( dirt cheap subs so its viable too have lots of them in cargo too swap around) No rigs T1 resists (the EHP is just insane and the low sig + high resists is just a dumb combo) build all stats/slots into the hull ( would make it much less convoluted and less time consuming and annoying)
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
228
|
Posted - 2017.05.29 09:52:27 -
[68] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I hate these exclusive little Focus groups that just excludes everyone else.. isn't there already a csm for that? removable rigs ... at 60 mil a pop for a set of T2 rigs.. does that really encourage versatility?
T3's need simplifying and cheapening ... 600mil plus isn't acceptable price for a cruiser especially when you add on spares (rigs/subs/mods)... and thats before you nerf them...
Needed Changes
massive price reduction ( dirt cheap subs so its viable too have lots of them in cargo too swap around) No rigs T1 resists (the EHP is just insane and the low sig + high resists is just a dumb combo) build all stats/slots into the hull ( would make it much less convoluted and less time consuming and annoying)
The price is mostly set by players, the BPC's and parts come from sleeper sites, supply and demand affect the prices, maybe you should train up some exploration skills and build your own cheap T3's :P |
Blazemonger
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
3
|
Posted - 2017.05.29 12:13:10 -
[69] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I hate these exclusive little Focus groups that just excludes everyone else.. isn't there already a csm for that? removable rigs ... at 60 mil a pop for a set of T2 rigs.. does that really encourage versatility?
T3's need simplifying and cheapening ... 600mil plus isn't acceptable price for a cruiser especially when you add on spares (rigs/subs/mods)... and thats before you nerf them...
Just guess here, but you also believe a Ferrari needs to be much less expensive..
These are supposed to be specialized high-end ships and that comes with a price both in prerequisite to fly and components. I agree with the Focus group comment though. That is more of a 'see.. we care' option than anything else and will not add anything to the probably already locked and set plans for the nerf. |
Arkoth 24
Phayder
378
|
Posted - 2017.05.29 12:20:22 -
[70] - Quote
Reducing the number of subsystems is a bad idea. When you try to make game "more simple" Star Wars Galaxies happens.
Evelopedia via Wayback Machine
|
|
CPuiu
Tilica Nation
9
|
Posted - 2017.05.29 13:07:20 -
[71] - Quote
Arkoth 24 wrote:Reducing the number of subsystems is a bad idea. When you try to make game "more simple" Star Wars Galaxies happens. The very idea that "less subsystems = more simple game" is stupid. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1264
|
Posted - 2017.05.29 13:13:13 -
[72] - Quote
Blazemonger wrote:Harvey James wrote:I hate these exclusive little Focus groups that just excludes everyone else.. isn't there already a csm for that? removable rigs ... at 60 mil a pop for a set of T2 rigs.. does that really encourage versatility?
T3's need simplifying and cheapening ... 600mil plus isn't acceptable price for a cruiser especially when you add on spares (rigs/subs/mods)... and thats before you nerf them...
Just guess here, but you also believe a Ferrari needs to be much less expensive.. These are supposed to be specialized high-end ships and that comes with a price both in prerequisite to fly and components. I agree with the Focus group comment though. That is more of a 'see.. we care' option than anything else and will not add anything to the probably already locked and set plans for the nerf.
as it stands yes they are .. but they aren't meant too be specialist high end ships , they were meant to be a versatile jack of all trades ship, which is what they are talking about making it now, so therefore they have too adjust the cost and performance level of the ships thus making them no longer specialist high end ships .. which is the point of T2 ships/pirates ofc.
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
2196
|
Posted - 2017.05.29 14:57:23 -
[73] - Quote
Ramius Decimus wrote:Team Five 0 wrote:T3 Cruisers overlap too much with other ships (especially Heavy Assault Cruisers and Recon Ships) and their dominance can reduce ship variety. But isn't that the point? Isn't Tech III supposed to be better than Tech 2? Other than general balancing between each class, Strategic Cruisers do not need to be nerfed. Rather, if you want them to be more uncommon, make them require additional skills or up the difficulty by increasing the 'Training Time Multiplier' of all of the subsystem and spaceship command skills. Add month of two for skill training and then what? We will have the same situation as now.
It was already proven that neither SP cost or ISK cost are good balancing factor.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
230
|
Posted - 2017.05.29 15:34:03 -
[74] - Quote
Arkoth 24 wrote:Reducing the number of subsystems is a bad idea. When you try to make game "more simple" Star Wars Galaxies happens.
Hardly, they are being reduced because some of them are just flat out worthless and the engineering and electronics are being rolled in to a single core package, whats the point in having 5 billions subs if only a handful are ever actually used |
Akira Whitlock
modro Swords of Damocles
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 04:31:56 -
[75] - Quote
While i agree with most of the combining and shifting of subsystems but how will these changes effect the overshadowing they currently have on current HACs?
One more thing. I think it would be best if we ditched rigs for the t3 altogether. My personal opinion at least |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 05:48:34 -
[76] - Quote
Cypherous wrote:DeadDuck wrote:yes please remove the skill loss. I dont fly the ships because of that. And dont even start with the skill injection crap... Thing is, its risk vs reward, you get a high versatility high performance ship but you risk losing 4 days of training time if you die, i'm fine with it remaining and i don't touch injectors
Skill loss makes them less fun to fly (dangerously)... for many.
Don't we want to fly dangerously and have fun? Despite EVE being real, isn't this a game we want to have fun with?
I agree, it would be nice to remove the SP loss. They already removed clone/pod insurance/SP loss... this is the next step. t3dds don't have skillpoint loss on death.
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Nothing to do with risk vs reward. SP loss was there because they were OP (high versatility is debatable), they won't be now from what we seen so far.
And exactly, if the balancing is going to be overall a net nerf... then removing the SP loss will (somewhat) balance that out for t3c users. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 06:08:24 -
[77] - Quote
Ramius Decimus wrote:Team Five 0 wrote:T3 Cruisers overlap too much with other ships (especially Heavy Assault Cruisers and Recon Ships) and their dominance can reduce ship variety. But isn't that the point? Isn't Tech III supposed to be better than Tech 2? Other than general balancing between each class, Strategic Cruisers do not need to be nerfed. Rather, if you want them to be more uncommon, make them require additional skills or up the difficulty by increasing the 'Training Time Multiplier' of all of the subsystem and spaceship command skills. The same goes for the Tactical Destroyers, they are rediculously easy to train into for Tech III.... Now I know this would make some people disgruntled, but the fact being is that T3 is suppose to be the elite state-of-the-art technology and shouldn't be a cake walk to qualify in operating. Even worse if they're surpassed by lower tech level starships; what's the point if any T3C configuration can't even match it's ship class counterpart?! Just my 0.02 kredits.
If you wanted to make t3dds harder to train into, just add 3 new skills, one for each mode (tank, sharpshooter, propulsion) that you can train to both unlock (at L1? L3?) and increase the efficiency of each mode. |
Hannah McPewPew
U2EZ
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 06:59:31 -
[78] - Quote
No one is going to fly a T3 that sucks in comparison to a T2. There has to be some benefit to using a T3 in place of T2, if we still have to dock to change ship parameters. Point proteus, neut legion, web loki and jamgu have more tank in place of less ewar effectiveness.
These ship configurations provide meaningful ewar bonuses without stepping on the toes of their recon counterparts. They were balanced and meant you could have beefy ewar for huge brawls without having to rely on a BS.
In the case of HACs, they could be given more dps to match their T3 counterparts. No more no less. They are already faster and more agile. |
Rising Rider
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 07:55:22 -
[79] - Quote
Reading all of the posts in this thread, one thing became clear in my mind.Most people hate change and everyone is a sceptic. It is clear,to me at least,that we are heading for a big nerf (usually described as "rebalance" ) and my guess is that very few people will be happy with it. However this is not something new to most of us.It has happened before and, by the looks of it , it will happen again. Regardless of what everyone here has to say decisions are already taken and we all have to follow. Even the pilots chosen to test the "new" ships are amongst those who will use this knowledge to their Alliance/corp benefit and I don't think they care about different play styles etc.(Lets only hope I am wrong on this) Overall all us (the under-priveledged ones) have to wait and see what our future with these changes will look like. The only thing that really makes me hate the upcoming nerf is that when those t3 ships were introduced myself and lots of other players spent lots of time cross training for all subsystems and hulls because of what these ships represented at the time.This taken into account we are now called to fly some new ships that we don't know if we like them (that said, in my opinion it is VERY important to like something when ever you are playing a game for fun on your own spare time and, of course money) while in fact we could have devoted that time to train for something different. Personally i would like to be given the choice to able to decide if I want to fly this new type or not. Of course I know this is not going to happen but I just had to say it. |
Arkoth 24
Phayder
378
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 08:04:26 -
[80] - Quote
CPuiu wrote:Arkoth 24 wrote:Reducing the number of subsystems is a bad idea. When you try to make game "more simple" Star Wars Galaxies happens. The very idea that "less subsystems = more simple game" is stupid. I'm not too smart.
Cypherous wrote:Hardly, they are being reduced because some of them are just flat out worthless and the engineering and electronics are being rolled in to a single core package, whats the point in having 5 billions subs if only a handful are ever actually used More subs - more choices.
If subsystems are useless or worthless - rework 'em to be usefull, change traits, fitting bonuses etc. But CCP just trash 'em, so T3C will become not "very special class" but just another boring ships comparable with T2C.
Less subs > less choices > T3Cs are less "strategic".
Evelopedia via Wayback Machine
|
|
ModusOperandi
Celestial Geologics Mineral Concern
26
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 09:13:19 -
[81] - Quote
What will happen to the Strategic Cruiser skills? I have them injected, but not trained. I guess training them now would be a bad idea? |
Rising Rider
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 10:01:39 -
[82] - Quote
ModusOperandi wrote:What will happen to the Strategic Cruiser skills? I have them injected, but not trained. I guess training them now would be a bad idea?
I don't think anyone (from the players side) in here can give you valid instuctions on what to do in this occasion, simply because we don't have a clue. Only the devs know for sure but i doubt that they will tell you something more than what is already revealed. In my opinion follow your instincts in cases like this and hope for the best. At least you have the luxury , at this point, to wait end see and then decide.Most of us don't. |
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
232
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 13:02:32 -
[83] - Quote
Rising Rider wrote:ModusOperandi wrote:What will happen to the Strategic Cruiser skills? I have them injected, but not trained. I guess training them now would be a bad idea? I don't think anyone (from the players side) in here can give you valid instuctions on what to do in this occasion, simply because we don't have a clue. Only the devs know for sure but i doubt that they will tell you something more than what is already revealed. In my opinion follow your instincts in cases like this and hope for the best. At least you have the luxury , at this point, to wait end see and then decide.Most of us don't.
It will likely work exactly like other times skills have been removed, the SP will be added to that characters pool of unallocated SP for you to use elsewhere, they may also opt to give you back the NPC purchase price of the skillbook, generally speaking you own't be left any "worse" than you were in terms of SP |
Kayle Saviant
Strategic Defense and Deployment Directive
4
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 14:17:52 -
[84] - Quote
My personal request: dual tank all the things! Shield legion for the win! (Maybe with a Sansha subsystem?) |
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom Best Alliance
613
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 20:17:41 -
[85] - Quote
Why don't you want to remove rigs from t3 completely?
Member of CSM 4&5 ... &8
|
Pi Prophet
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 04:36:47 -
[86] - Quote
Let me tell you about T3 cruisers.
In Providence every night the Tengus roam through our territory. They can't be bubbled, can't be locked, and are cloaked. They carry cynos. They are the perfect scout ship. They lurk around, completely uncontested, like drones over Afghanistan. until they find a miner to pick on. Then they cyno in a fleet of 20 and hotdrop on the guy. Then as quick as they came, they cyno out, and the tengu persists to terrorize our region. We set up frigate camp with double sensor boosters and scripts for insta-lock, with heavy dps fleets. I haven't caught one yet We were in a fleet of 200 and we just had to pass by, because there wasn't a thing we could do to catch it. It is completely unfair to have a ship that powerful with the attributes of an interceptor. Even interceptors can't fit covert ops cloak. I am not even talking about their tank or firepower, just their inability to be caught. The nerf to the sig radius and mass will help our fast lock interceptor pilots tackle these things in a fair fight.
One solo pilot said he enjoys flying though gatecamps unharmed. Maybe there should be a cloaky nullified exploration ship. Just make it a frigate that can't fit cynos. Why should a cruiser fill the role of a scout in the first place?
No ship this powerful should be allowed to blast through our backyards terrorizing us without a way for us to defend ourselves.
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
74
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 06:26:22 -
[87] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:i hope the refit feature gets some love. its THE uniqueness in design they have. --> more cargo --> less time for mobile depot or not needed --> rigs refittable --> less powerful than T2 but highly adaptable.
Maybe this can be achieved by modes like on T3D but with a higher transittime. and also not instantly (30seconds enough?) Refit/depot mode: dont need mobile Depot.
Interesting idea... or go the Nestor route and give them tiny little ship bays that can hold no more than a shuttle so they can refit off each other instantly.
Won't help a single t3c, but all you need is 2 and boom, refitting + rerigging in space.
I'm very excited about carrying alternate rigs + a mobile depot around to be able to change rigs on the go. I hope it will be possible, and not just while docked in station/citadel.
Ol' Smithy wrote:- I LOVE the idea of switching out rigs freely. Now you won't need to buy multiple T3s for different roles like PvP and can easily switch out your exploration fit for PvP deep in null without gimping your fit. This helps solo players a lot too who are far away from home. This is probably my favorite change.
- I imagine this is a given, but keep the covert ops + nullification function. I usually use the emergent locus analyzer too for the scanning bonus when using that setup in wormholes to get around.
- How slots change when switching out subsystems could be made easier visually at a glance that it is currently. Switching out preset fits is clunky and time consuming, especially in space at a mobile depo. The whole fitting system for T3s needs redesigned so you can actually use preset fits without a bunch of errors due to slots being added and removed during the fit. It pretty much makes it mandatory to do it manually.
- Remove the skill-point loss upon death. T3s are already expensive enough to lose without having that additional hit incurred and makes players more risk averse in them.
- Looking forward to getting updated art for them, and hopefully new skins at some point.
- Make a dedicated subsystem for extra cargo-hold space (or roll the bonus into an existing subsystem used commonly during travel like covert ops). Solo T3 players have to carry everything around all the time and it would alleviate the headache of juggling cargo expanders. Or just add a separate "charges" cargohold to hold ammunition since that is what takes of most of the space the majority of the time.
Good post. If they added an ammo bay (like the Hoarder's) to t3cs, I have a feeling they'd massively shrink down the regular cargo bay, tho. Double-edged swords and all that.
Updating the visuals, making sure turrets/launchers still work okay, and being able to design and implement skins for t3cs is indeed one of the main reasons they're doing these changes to number of subsystem types and number of individual subsystems per type.
I hope CCP will give us some way of getting Purity of the Throne + Cold Iron skins for our Legions and Guardian's Gala skins for our Proteii since t3c skins weren't a thing during those last three events.
Either have them drop during a future event, issue them to everyone for free (yay!) as a gift or put them up for sale as NPC sell orders or something!
Lastly, I'm very excited about the rig thing, too. However, I've seen at least 3-4 people call for the removal of rigs entirely from t3c fitting... I guess they want to just have rig benefits rolled in with the existing (or changing) subsystem effects, but... I dunno, (almost) every ship in EVE... and certainly every combat ship in EVE... has access to similar sets of rigs right now, it would be really weird to make t3cs the one class of ship that can't use rigs.
I'm most excited by being able to change my Hamgu to a HMLgu and re-fit missile rigs to match, as I use two range rigs on my HAMgus and obviously don't need them for a HMLgu. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
74
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 06:35:14 -
[88] - Quote
WhiteOrm wrote:I just was going to buy my first T3C.. But now I will probably wait and see. They will either nerf it and it will become tanky good for nothing or they will "accidently" imbalance it into something like Svipul not long ago.. and nerf it later. Either way if it will not fill roles of HAC and Recon what can it be good for anyway? Command ship? Logistic cruiser? Relic hacking explosion tanking covops? Somehow I don't think anything good will come out of it. If number of subsystems on T3C will go down, how by the way it will affect overall price of the ship?
ModusOperandi wrote:What will happen to the Strategic Cruiser skills? I have them injected, but not trained. I guess training them now would be a bad idea?
I mean, if you can't comfortably afford to buy a t3c / train into t3cs right now, guys... wait and see never hurts. But you have about 6 weeks to try out the "old" t3c system right now... which could be fun, or could just be frustrating once the patch day in July hits.
As for the skills themselves, the ACTUAL ship skill (Gal/Cal/Min/Amarr Strategic Cruiser skillbooks) are probably fine to train. I doublt they'll be removing or changing those, though the bonuses they give to each ship could change. Right now they're only useful to train up to 4 or 5 to reduce overheat damage. As most of the bonuses to t3cs come straight from the subsystem choice + your subsystem skill levels.
And on that note, the subsystem skills might be the place to not worry about getting them all to 5 since one of them is presumably going to be refunded or changed into something else we can't predict like they did with an indy skill back at Krius and like they did with the leadership/wing command/fleet command skills last November with the on-grid-boosters-only Ascension update. We're mostly assuming they'll be refunding either Engineering or Electronics but they might end up turning whichever of them into a new "overall subsystem effectiveness" support skill or something. I wouldn't put it past 'em, they love to recycle suddenly useless skills into something else rather than refund them all (some exceptions, such as the learning skills, ofc do exist).
CPuiu wrote:Arkoth 24 wrote:Reducing the number of subsystems is a bad idea. When you try to make game "more simple" Star Wars Galaxies happens. The very idea that "less subsystems = more simple game" is stupid.
Indeed. After all, every single ship in the game besides t3 cruisers has less subsystems... but I don't think we all constantly cry about how no ships in the game are worth flying besides t3cs because they're so damned simple and lack any complexity. Subsystems are cool, but they're not the be-all end-all of ship fitting, period.
Hannah McPewPew wrote:No one is going to fly a T3 that sucks in comparison to a T2. There has to be some benefit to using a T3 in place of T2, if we still have to dock to change ship parameters. Point proteus, neut legion, web loki and jamgu have more tank in place of less ewar effectiveness.
These ship configurations provide meaningful ewar bonuses without stepping on the toes of their recon counterparts. They were balanced and meant you could have beefy ewar for huge brawls without having to rely on a BS.
In the case of HACs, they could be given more dps to match their T3 counterparts. No more no less. They are already faster and more agile.
If CCP tweaks the t3cs and still feels like there's too much overlap with HACs, then that would be cool... I would love more DPS on my HACs, I trained into all 8 of 'em on my main, probably my fave ship class (though I do love Marauders, Pirate BSes, Pirate cruisers, and t3cs + t3dds as well).
But I doubt it will happen. I think a (hopefully gentle) nerf for t3cs will have them feeling like any overlap with HACs has been reduced enough.
Another option that they sometimes use with different ships (highlighted by how they added range to the battlecruisers during their recent-ish balancing) is that maybe one class of ship will have more deeps but the other class will have more range. Half of the HACs are already sniper ships with one or TWO range bonuses sometimes, so... not sure they'd want to remove that. Give the HACs even more range (for the long-range ones) or application (for the brawlers) and let the t3cs keep the deeps advantage at the cost of range/application. |
Arkoth 24
Phayder
378
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 07:12:19 -
[89] - Quote
Make good ships to be crappy to make crappy ships look better and call it a rebalance. Instead of making crappy ships to be not-so-crappy. Good point.
Evelopedia via Wayback Machine
|
Blazemonger
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
3
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:40:50 -
[90] - Quote
Pi Prophet wrote:One solo pilot said he enjoys flying though gatecamps unharmed. Maybe there should be a cloaky nullified exploration ship. Just make it a frigate that can't fit cynos. Why should a cruiser fill the role of a scout in the first place?
So basically you are saying Nullification and ability to us a Cyno should be mutually exclusive? I can see that argument in that.
I have also long been an advocate of a specialized exploration ship which is cloaky, nullified and carrier an interceptor like vessel where the pilot can choose to launch and use the frigate to run sites while the 'mother vessel' sits cloaked, providing bonusses for analysis and hacking.. But that is a completely different topic..
|
|
Arcin Hamir
FUITA The Bastard Cartel
13
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 19:53:35 -
[91] - Quote
Rather than some special rule for rigs on T3s that lets them be removed why not attach rigs (non-removeable ) to sub-systems? |
Orakkus
Imperium Technologies Army of New Eden
361
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 20:08:55 -
[92] - Quote
In my opinion, the mass of the subsystems should be smaller too, that way you can have some capacity to change them out while out on a trip, maybe added cargo space so that such changes could be done using a mobile depot.
He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
|
Gerark
6
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 20:27:40 -
[93] - Quote
Free 1 million SP to allocate, I'll take it! It's all about the silver lining. |
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus
209
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 22:34:12 -
[94] - Quote
Kayle Saviant wrote:My personal request: dual tank all the things! Shield legion for the win! (Maybe with a Sansha subsystem?)
FACTION SUB-SYSTEMS!
Very good idea. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
74
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 02:07:13 -
[95] - Quote
Rising Rider wrote:Reading all of the posts in this thread, one thing became clear in my mind.Most people hate change and everyone is a sceptic.
A lot of people hate change... but I wouldn't say most. I'd say most people FEAR change that isn't clear in advance. If we don't know good and bad effects a change will have or even what the change really IS yet...
Then of course there's going to be some trepidation. But once the change sets in and the unknown is now (mostly) known, the fear goes away and then yes... do we love it, like it, feel neutral about it, dislike it, or hate it. Everyone can line up behind whichever shade on that spectrum they resemble and go to town on each other.
Till then... we shall fear the change, to whatever light or heavy degree.
Rising Rider wrote:It is clear,to me at least,that we are heading for a big nerf (usually described as "rebalance" ) and my guess is that very few people will be happy with it. However this is not something new to most of us.It has happened before and, by the looks of it , it will happen again. ... (snip)... The only thing that really makes me hate the upcoming nerf is that when those t3 ships were introduced myself and lots of other players spent lots of time cross training for all subsystems and hulls because of what these ships represented at the time.This taken into account we are now called to fly some new ships that we don't know if we like them (that said, in my opinion it is VERY important to like something when ever you are playing a game for fun on your own spare time and, of course money) while in fact we could have devoted that time to train for something different. Personally i would like to be given the choice to able to decide if I want to fly this new type or not. Of course I know this is not going to happen but I just had to say it.
But how is that any different from people crosstraining into all 4 (8) varieties of HACs or Command Ships or all 4 varieties of Logi Cruisers or Marauders or Blackops? Most of which takes way more training (at least with the skills to L5) than cross training into all 4 t3cs at present, even with subsystems maxxed at L5 x 5. Those x1s are a blessing.
Every time we cross train, we are either hedging our bets against future nerfs/changes by CCP or we are saying "hey, I really love this ship class and I want to try ALL varieties of it." Either way, if we find that the crosstraining is worth it to us, what's not to be happy about?
Also, I doubt there are many crosstrainers out there who haven't had at least one (if not more than one) great experience of "wow, I am so glad I already have this skill I thought would only be good for one ship I wanted to fly but now... wow, it's good for this and that... or this new ship CCP just released into the game... or whatever."
Harvey James wrote:removable rigs ... at 60 mil a pop for a set of T2 rigs.. does that really encourage versatility?
T3's need simplifying and cheapening ... 600mil plus isn't acceptable price for a cruiser especially when you add on spares (rigs/subs/mods)... and thats before you nerf them...
Needed Changes
No rigs
Korvin wrote:Why don't you want to remove rigs from t3 completely?
But why do you guys (and a few others) want to remove rigs in the first place?
On the one hand we have people complaining about the reduction in complexity since we're going from 5 subsystem types and 4 choices within each type to just 4 subsystem types and 3 choices within each type (though some of the choices now do some or all of what 2 choices used to do, mind you)...
And on the other hand we have multiple people asking for rigs to just be removed from t3cs instead of allowed to be unfit and refit at will.
Don't rigs add complexity to a fitting choice just as much as subsystems can? Aren't rigs and subsystems together wayyy more complex for t3c fitting than just subsystems (especially since we're going to have less subsystems)?
Just doesn't make much sense.
CCP is gonna have a hard time pleasing even SOME of the people with this rebalance... let alone all of the people.
Arcin Hamir wrote:Rather than some special rule for rigs on T3s that lets them be removed why not attach rigs (non-removeable ) to sub-systems?
Now that is an interesting idea... hard to imagine how it would work visually on the fitting screen, tho... unless you rip out the normal t1/t2/t3dd rig section, expand the subsystems section to incorporate rig slots into it... hmmm... I like it! |
MB ThePhotographer
One MB Again
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 02:47:45 -
[96] - Quote
CCP at its best...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_ofPVUhO3U
I forgot this one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDvgL58h_Y |
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
1374
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 04:26:54 -
[97] - Quote
Arcin Hamir wrote:Rather than some special rule for rigs on T3s that lets them be removed why not attach rigs (non-removeable ) to sub-systems? Doing that would severely reduce the versatility of T3's. Choice of subsystems and rigs is not always the same, it depends on what you want to do.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services Singularity Syndicate
2161
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 10:25:21 -
[98] - Quote
Maybe it might be better to make the subsystems a 'chassis' with different components being plugged in on a hot-swap basis to provide the different functions. The components would be sized so that you could only carry 2-3 full changes of configuration for all subs.
This would be modeled as scripted modules in code with the chassis being the module and the components being the scripts (with appropriate reload times). Fix the slot layout for each hull and let the scripts apply % bonus and/or effects as required.
Make the components the expensive part of theT3C build and you have increased risk/reward around how many you carry. 3 full changes would mean you can effectively take 3 ships with you (like the t3d's), but get caught in the wrong config and you effectively lose 3 ships.
This should also be balanced to maintain the current WH exploration and industry or even boost it. |
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 11:20:30 -
[99] - Quote
T3's biggest deterrent is the sink in Skillpoints if you lose it, flying this ship feels more like punishment. I wouldn't mind the sink in Skillpoints if they were fair more superior than they currently are. I just don't like being punished for trying to find content losing the ship as well as skillpoints its like a double wammy.
I think T3's don't have a defined role, its meant to be a strategic cruiser but it's anything but strategic. What are we looking at here? The value, in terms of strategy and tactical, of a t3 being more than a logi but less than a BS? I think these questions needs answering and only then will you know what direction to take the t3s in . |
Elassus Herron
Revenent Defence Corperation 404 Alliance Not Found
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 12:23:15 -
[100] - Quote
I'd like to reiterate here two excellent point I've heard elsewhere in the debate:
the point of shrinking down the subsystems is to create more possible combinations. A lot of subsystem combinations simply weren't used. Remember, there are a total of 4^5 = 256 possible configurations per race; how many of those actually see regular use? I'd wager fewer than a dozen. If the stated goal is achieved, we'd have 3^4 = 81 possible combinations, but many more of them would be viable choices. I'd *much* rather see that world.
Second: what if, as part of the SP loss on death, there was a chance to drop a mini injector for some portion of the SP? That would make T3Cs much more attractive targets as primaries, would reward attacking them, but might also help the pilot who lost it potentially recoup some SP if their gang holds the field. That, too, would be an interesting gameplay change I'd like to see.
Lastly, something I'd like to suggest (someone upthread mentioned it as analogous to the Nestor, maybe?): give T3Cs a dedicated subsystems bay to carry rigs and SSs, and allow them to provide fitting services to other T3Cs. Then, if you have a gang of them, and are packing enough spare parts, you can re-fit SSs along with everything else on the fly, allowing T3Cs to fill their role of being adaptable and versatile, even while in enemy territory with no docking available. |
|
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
578
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 14:09:18 -
[101] - Quote
Elassus Herron wrote: Lastly, something I'd like to suggest (someone upthread mentioned it as analogous to the Nestor, maybe?): give T3Cs a dedicated subsystems bay to carry rigs and SSs, and allow them to provide fitting services to other T3Cs. Then, if you have a gang of them, and are packing enough spare parts, you can re-fit SSs along with everything else on the fly, allowing T3Cs to fill their role of being adaptable and versatile, even while in enemy territory with no docking available.
Oh please this. I still remember my first flight into W-Space with a Legion. I had this crazy idea to fly with a Stealth-Legion, but to refit using stored subsystems and a mobile depot and run sites. But of course this meant my first flight was also rather short, since the tiny bit of free cargo space left over after carrying just a couple subsystems was filled up basically instantly.
Having a dedicated bay for refits would be even better than just making the cargo space larger. |
Toxic Fuzz
Fuzz Industries Fuzzy Logic.
14
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 16:22:37 -
[102] - Quote
Pi Prophet wrote:Let me tell you about T3 cruisers.
In Providence every night the Tengus roam through our territory. They can't be bubbled, can't be locked, and are cloaked. They carry cynos. They are the perfect scout ship. They lurk around, completely uncontested, like drones over Afghanistan. until they find a miner to pick on. Then they cyno in a fleet of 20 and hotdrop on the guy. Then as quick as they came, they cyno out, and the tengu persists to terrorize our region. We set up frigate camp with double sensor boosters and scripts for insta-lock, with heavy dps fleets. I haven't caught one yet We were in a fleet of 200 and we just had to pass by, because there wasn't a thing we could do to catch it. It is completely unfair to have a ship that powerful with the attributes of an interceptor. Even interceptors can't fit covert ops cloak. I am not even talking about their tank or firepower, just their inability to be caught. The nerf to the sig radius and mass will help our fast lock interceptor pilots tackle these things in a fair fight.
One solo pilot said he enjoys flying though gatecamps unharmed. Maybe there should be a cloaky nullified exploration ship. Just make it a frigate that can't fit cynos. Why should a cruiser fill the role of a scout in the first place?
No ship this powerful should be allowed to blast through our backyards terrorizing us without a way for us to defend ourselves.
What do you mean you cannot defend yourself? If they are opening a Cyno, and droping other ships on you then ship up, fly whatever you need to pilot to counter their 20 ships. You would have the same complaint it would seem, of any ship that can open a cyno and cannot be scanned down or d-scanned. Point is, there is a counter to your problem, to the cyno Tengu's you are talking about, but making nullification so that it captures all ships, there being no counter, would not be fair at all.
There should be a counter to every offensive or defensive strategy, regardless what you would like for people to believe there are counters to the effectiveness of someone opening a cyno and dropping a fleet on you. You are either just too lazy, too small, or too stuck in your ways to figure it our or imagine anything to counter it.
As a Tengu pilot, I get sick of hearing people whine and complain that they cannot catch a Tengu, and yet, there are plenty of examples of killmails of nullified Tengu's being caught and blown up. Dictor pilots get mad when they cannot catch every single ship they desire in their bubbles. They effectively block travel between systems. And yet, when a ship is able to disregard their bubbles they cry. Sometimes as I fly through their attempts to catch me in their bubble, and I see them rage in local, cursing the effectiveness of my tactics I imagine them standing on their office desk chair, trying to keep their balance as it rolls around, screaming, frothing at the mouth, jumping up and down while they jab their pointer finger at their computer screen blabbering about how interdiction nullification is unfair!
Personally I'm not about ganking anyone, not my thing, not my style. I understand their is a place in this virtual world for people who would play this game this way. But I also do not believe that there should be any ship without a counter. If you want to kill a Tengu there are ways to do it, a neut Strat is extremely well fitted for this exactly. Just man up, imagine something outside your static way of thinking, dream up a counter and stop crying about not being able to kill a ship because you absolutely refuse to imagine a way you can.
I say remove interdiction bubbles all together, you can still capture ships using insta lock and a warp scramble/web just as effectively as you can a warp bubble. So do away with them all together! |
NImbex Diprivan
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 16:31:54 -
[103] - Quote
Pi Prophet wrote:Let me tell you about T3 cruisers.
In Providence every night the Tengus roam through our territory. They can't be bubbled, can't be locked, and are cloaked. They carry cynos. They are the perfect scout ship. They lurk around, completely uncontested, like drones over Afghanistan. until they find a miner to pick on. Then they cyno in a fleet of 20 and hotdrop on the guy. Then as quick as they came, they cyno out, and the tengu persists to terrorize our region. We set up frigate camp with double sensor boosters and scripts for insta-lock, with heavy dps fleets. I haven't caught one yet We were in a fleet of 200 and we just had to pass by, because there wasn't a thing we could do to catch it. It is completely unfair to have a ship that powerful with the attributes of an interceptor. Even interceptors can't fit covert ops cloak. I am not even talking about their tank or firepower, just their inability to be caught. The nerf to the sig radius and mass will help our fast lock interceptor pilots tackle these things in a fair fight.
One solo pilot said he enjoys flying though gatecamps unharmed. Maybe there should be a cloaky nullified exploration ship. Just make it a frigate that can't fit cynos. Why should a cruiser fill the role of a scout in the first place?
No ship this powerful should be allowed to blast through our backyards terrorizing us without a way for us to defend ourselves.
It is enough to (combined) remove cyno ability and slow down nulified/cloaked warp speed. Complete solution for your complaint without versility nerf. |
April rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
5
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 16:57:21 -
[104] - Quote
Toxic Fuzz wrote:... Sometimes as I fly through their attempts to catch me in their bubble, and I see them rage in local, cursing the effectiveness of my tactics... What is this tactics actually? I hope it is more than putting proper subsystems and covert ops cloak?
|
Gene Greyy
Pheonix Rising Corp
12
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 00:34:22 -
[105] - Quote
Toxic Fuzz wrote:I have noticed that CCP seems to be forcing people to play in Corporations, gearing all new content towards that end, pushing those of us who enjoy being solo players into a position where we will not advance or being to engage new content unless we join a corporation and play in mobs.
This has ultimately ruined most 1vs1 combat where groups gank singular players now instead of engaging in combat as it used to be.
It has created massive gate camps where the only way they can be avoided is to fit a Strategic Cruiser with interdiction nullification.
...
...
There are players who enjoy being able to play stealthy, to avoid forced battles and to be able to pick and choose their battles based on their STRATEGIC ability. Who enjoy being solo pirates, or who enjoy being able to enter a system and carefully plot and plan their way around all the offensive positions that attempt to catch them. It's the old game of cat and mouse. And yet, CCP again seems to be ignoring these players, and instead focused on forcing conflicts, forcing fights when this cat and mouse type play is so exhilarating.
If CCP goes through with changing these ships into something they are currently not. If they wish to de-evolve them into just another cruiser, if they are going to ruin solo gameplay or the ability to do combat sights solo, or all the other things the larger sig radius will ruin, the interdiction nullification removal will ruin, the reduction in the distance damage can be applied then there should be an option to recover those skill points so that they can be applied towards other things. Because honestly, these are the exact reasons why many of us have spent years of game play perfecting our skills in regards to strategic cruisers.
If CCPs ultimate goal is to ruin solo gameplay, I think they should come out and state it so, instead of silently removing all options for solo play, and forcing fights where they use to allow an option for a different type of gameplay.
...
TO say the very least I am not happy at all with the new suggested changes. Yet again just as with other ships it seems that CCP's true intent is to force people to join corporations, force people to play in mobs, force people to engage when otherwise they would prefer playing a different way, and to ruin ships that have a place in the game. And to leave wide gaping holes in a universe that if real would never allow them, would naturally fill those gaping holes with ships that excel at solo gameplay.
All new content, ships, changes, nerfs, "re-balancing" seem to be geared towards forcing solo players out of the game. It's been this way for years and it doesn't seem like it's going to change anytime soon. I fear that I am going to be looking for a new MMORPG to play in the very near future.
Well said!!! I'm grateful you posted this and very much appreciate your point-of-view. I've been feeling this way since about 2013 but, I've stuck with it thinking ...maybe...eventually... holding out a fools desperate hope... that CCP would eventually show some love for solo (or hell... I'd settle for small {less than 5} group play) game play.
Yet with every release, every patch, every feature, I felt like the devs were watching me play and taking bets on who could fork up my game worse. Frustration does not begin to describe my feelings. A close approximation, if you've ever watched bugs bunny and friends cartoons, there was this cat who would be minding his business trying to sleep or go get some food... just going about his day... and then out of nowhere, a young energetic puppy dog would sneak up on him... barking, growling, generally being a playful nuisance and the shock would send the poor cat flying through the air ending up with his hair standing on end, claws buried in the ceiling hanging upside down with this confused look like...what the F...just happened to me???? Hilarious, and wonderful entertainment for everyone else who chooses to be part of a mega corp/ mega alliance (not that there is anything wrong with that...if that's your thing, great, more power to you; in fact, without you, it would be a pretty boring game!!!) but.... Yeah, pretty much that.
And to those of you still laughing and getting ready to belittle and dismiss this post and then think of a new and clever way to ask for my stuff. I would simply ask, do you really want a game without uncontrolled/unsanctioned 1 on 1 combat (albeit rare, I admit) or just a challenging mouse to hunt??? Really??? And then the natural extension would be, how long till you get extremely bored with a game where you have just a few big alliances... Oh, wait... now serving big blue donuts and coffee, enjoy.
Notice, there is no hate toward anyone here, no snide comments on anyones particular style of play... I'm not suggesting anything particular with T3's at all; I'm only asking the devs to consider an alternative style of play and it does not have to come at the expense of anyone else's style of play (please remember it should be a sandbox and stop forcing a particular play style with the very large - and blunt - stick of game design!!!!).
It's just that I have a real love of this game and sadness at the lack of vision for something that used to really be a true sandbox game. It's not about safety (quite the opposite), it's not about isk, it's not about special favors!!!!!! It's about having fun and being able to choose how, when, and where I play... no matter what anyone else is doing.
Again, thank you kindly for your post, I'm glad to know I am not alone. |
Jimy F
Aliastra Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 14:24:59 -
[106] - Quote
Pi Prophet wrote:Let me tell you about T3 cruisers.
In Providence every night the Tengus roam through our territory. They can't be bubbled, can't be locked, and are cloaked. They carry cynos. They are the perfect scout ship. They lurk around, completely uncontested, like drones over Afghanistan. until they find a miner to pick on. Then they cyno in a fleet of 20 and hotdrop on the guy. Then as quick as they came, they cyno out, and the tengu persists to terrorize our region. We set up frigate camp with double sensor boosters and scripts for insta-lock, with heavy dps fleets. I haven't caught one yet We were in a fleet of 200 and we just had to pass by, because there wasn't a thing we could do to catch it. It is completely unfair to have a ship that powerful with the attributes of an interceptor. Even interceptors can't fit covert ops cloak. I am not even talking about their tank or firepower, just their inability to be caught. The nerf to the sig radius and mass will help our fast lock interceptor pilots tackle these things in a fair fight.
One solo pilot said he enjoys flying though gatecamps unharmed. Maybe there should be a cloaky nullified exploration ship. Just make it a frigate that can't fit cynos. Why should a cruiser fill the role of a scout in the first place?
No ship this powerful should be allowed to blast through our backyards terrorizing us without a way for us to defend ourselves.
Something is wrong with your story, if u have 200 ppl fleet, you will auto decloak any ship that jump to system. and if someone decide to live in null, but is new to game and don't know how to do in null, is his lack of knowlage. u can also declock that kinda ship at gate in small number of ppl if you know how, u angry me so much with that kinda things. |
Arcin Hamir
FUITA The Bastard Cartel
14
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 14:35:08 -
[107] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Arcin Hamir wrote:Rather than some special rule for rigs on T3s that lets them be removed why not attach rigs (non-removeable ) to sub-systems? Doing that would severely reduce the versatility of T3's. Choice of subsystems and rigs is not always the same, it depends on what you want to do.
I rather thought that this was a major point of this entire review of T3s - I suggested this as it would allow for keeping the ship versatile but not creating a new rule for rigs (i.e. once you attach a rig to a sub-system that is it - nothing to stop you having several of the same sub-system with different rigs). |
Mustache Dealer
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 04:46:12 -
[108] - Quote
As a solo C3 farmer in a tengu that roams all over new eden, this is my typical routine:
1) Load up all needed subsystems (covert ops, nullification, emergent probe bonus, about 5-6 others). Load up MTU and mobile depo... space is very tight after this so I have to fill all 3 (4 if I drop the scan bonus sub) lows with cargo expanders. Whatever room I have left I'll fill with ammo.
2) I use a travel cloaky fit with the emergent sub to scan down sigs quickly as I travel through systems and check out wormholes. Once I find a decent one I'll scan down all the sigs to see how dangerous the hole might be.
3) Make a safe spot, deploy the depo and switch into my ratting or exploration fit.
4) When done ratting or if a hostile pops up on dscan, I warp back to the depo and quickly try to fit my cloak to hide out for a while or move on with everything in tow again.
Some QoL things I would love to see to make life easier for a nomad T3 explorer like me:
- Add a subsystem only bay to T3s. Even shedding the 200m3 or so of cargo space is more ammo I can bring with me on a long trip. Make it big enough to fit at least 1 of every subsystem available for that T3. Would be great to hold a depo/rigs too but that might be pushing it :) Hot swapping subsystems automatically moves the unwanted one back into the subsystem bay by default.
- I would love to be able to use the "strip fitting" function while in space like you can in stations. This would help with the repetitive dragging and dropping of modules and everything going offline all the time during the fitting process. Better yet, improve the saved fittings system while in space for T3s, so (as long as I have everything needed in cargo/sub bay) it will be a seamless process to switch between my ratting/exploration/cloaky travel fit with 1 or 2 clicks. The current state of fitting in space is really cumbersome and doesn't really work with T3s, especially when subsystems are getting switched out and altering your available slots throwing up a bunch of error notifications every single time. I would love not to have to manually drag/drop a dozen modules every time I need to switch out a fit.
- If the subsystem bay idea doesn't work (or in addition to it), add an extra cargo bonus to the covert subsystem so there's a lot more room for hauling everything around on travel fits.
Looking forward to the overhaul next month. Swappable rigs will be excellent. |
Blazemonger
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 23:39:44 -
[109] - Quote
Mustache Dealer wrote: - Add a subsystem/rig only bay to T3s.
This.. CCPlease..
Oh, and allow T3C to refit from this bay without the need for Mobile Depot.. That by itself would give these ships so much more versatility. If as a balance you'd decide to immobalize the ship for say 30-40 seconds after a refit (call it recalibation timer or whatever) I can live with that as it would align with using a depot.
As a side note, I think having a separate ammo bay on cruisers and up would also not be a bad idea..
But the above may be a tad to progressive/radical for CCP to consider.. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
62642
|
Posted - 2017.06.05 03:20:12 -
[110] - Quote
Solo T3 Cruiser / Explorer Pilot here.
Gotta say CCP is definitely going overboard with all this so called Ship Re-balance stuff. When I started playing in 2008 I'd log into the game everyday for hours on end. However for the past couple of years now I've rarely log into the game. Seems to me Eve is no longer a player driven game where we can choose how we want to play it. Now it's all about how CCP wants us to play the game.
Goodbye to freedom of choice.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions
467
|
Posted - 2017.06.05 08:14:56 -
[111] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Solo T3 Cruiser / Explorer Pilot here. Gotta say CCP is definitely going overboard with all this so called Ship Re-balance stuff. When I started playing in 2008 I'd log into the game everyday for hours on end. However for the past couple of years now I've rarely log into the game. Seems to me Eve is no longer a player driven game where we can choose how we want to play it. Now it's all about how CCP wants us to play the game. Goodbye to freedom of choice. DMC
In 2008, there was also a lot less choices of valid ships as certain ones were always considered the best of each class. Currently the ships are more balanced, meaning more of them are being flown.
Wormholer for life.
|
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
60
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 09:39:39 -
[112] - Quote
I have been following the focus group discussions and T3C work in progress sheet, what is clear is the difficulty CCP face here in making the ship less capable in certain group situations, but still a jolly good ship for solo activities. I must say I don't envy them in this.
The focus group seems to have turned out some good points, well done chaps, I had severe concerns the solo player perspective would be omitted completely. Good solid informative discussions and well put up arguments.
I suspect that this is more of a kill two birds with one stone approach. Due to the basic ship design CCP have been unable to release skins for this class of ship, while they do the physical redesign why not sort out the subsystems/stats to boot.
From the solo player perspective, It looks at this point like my jaunts into C4, C5 WH's will be harder, while harder is not a bad thing in anyway, in fact generally a good thing, I suspect with perpetual skill loss, it will turn out to be further into the realm of just not worth it anymore.
For my setup, I use a prot, it's fairly bling to help speed s**t up a bit. I currently use the interdiction/Drone Synth/Aug Cap/Nano Inj/Emergent locust subsystems. I'm sure fitting experts will have something to say about it but the reality is such that it gets in, does it's job, and gets out. The interdiction sub is vital, without it it's good bye T3C fun in null/WH. I skip the covert sub, a solo player does not need cyno's etc, and getting the cloak skill to lvl5 helps speed up the time from uncloak to applying dps. Once you are in the WH you don't even need to warp cloaked, it's a nice idea warping about unseen but you will always have to uncloak to do the sites. I have not had any issues with being stationary and cloaked while scanning. I put 3 fed navy blasters in the highs, with a Med remote rep, salvager II and a faction cloak. It's cap stable with the salvager, MWD and faction web running. Have to pulse the Med Armor Rep or Remote Rep depending on if the ship or drones are taking the hits. It it by no means a perfect fit, it hits ~650 dps depending on drones used ofc, and with the MWD running it has a small whale sized sig of 880m. But it's such good fun.
Do we have any actual numbers for the sig increase? Or what the base lock ranges will be?
In regards the the reduction in available subsystems, improved ship info and swappable rigs I an not think of anything negative, but that's just me.
A little bit more cargo space would be nice... ...Or even better... ...a smaller TII mobile depot that can cloak...
...MWAAHahahahahahaha
|
Karmen Baric
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 15:01:32 -
[113] - Quote
Now that T3 will be fairly average, remove the skill loss part !! |
Daniel Estrella
Intel Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 04:11:01 -
[114] - Quote
I have an idea what CCP could do regarding skillpoint loss. I think what is missing is options. So my idea is there should be an option like "cooldown timer" for strategic cruisers, to wait it out. I would say a proper timer would be like 2-4 weeks. Then you can chose between skillpoint loss and retraining the skills faster in 4-5 days or you decide to wait out the timer and have fun with it after timer runs out. You should get a warning if the timer is active that if you board the ship, you'll lose a skill by doing so. So it's up to you to decide. |
dragonlord00420
Silver Guardians DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.23 22:14:07 -
[115] - Quote
sorry if this question has been an asked and answered already but looking on test server i seen the enginering subsystem has been removed will we get the sp back from training those skills |
Blazemonger
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.25 04:49:57 -
[116] - Quote
dragonlord00420 wrote:sorry if this question has been an asked and answered already but looking on test server i seen the enginering subsystem has been removed will we get the sp back from training those skills
check your free SP on SiSi to find out.. |
noone kun
Hisp Eto Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2017.06.25 14:22:52 -
[117] - Quote
i saw "subsystem bay" on tech 3 cruisers on singularity. it could be great to make it "fitting bay" and add role bonus to in-space refitting without mobile depot, nestor on carrier nearby. that would make those ships even more "flexible" - just as ccp wanted them to be. aslo, it will counter all that nerfs little bit. |
Blazemonger
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
10
|
Posted - 2017.06.29 11:48:31 -
[118] - Quote
noone kun wrote:i saw "subsystem bay" on tech 3 cruisers on singularity. it could be great to make it "fitting bay" and add role bonus to in-space refitting without mobile depot
This has been suggested/brought up several times by a number of people. Neither the FG nor CCP has pickd up on it or even brought it up in the FG discussion as there is no reference that I can find in the logs.
Seems it's not something considered viable by anyone but a number of players. |
Kayle Saviant
Strategic Defense and Deployment Directive
8
|
Posted - 2017.07.01 08:27:23 -
[119] - Quote
As an Incursion FC, I would like to request the following feature from T3's (especially having had regard to the previous command boost rebalance).
Seeing as you are going to combine T3 command subsystem with a logi subsystem, what I would like to see is the following:
T3 Ship [Tengu/Loki esp, but any would work]
[High Slots] Large Remote Shield Booster II (or armor for armor) Large Remote Shield Booster II (or armor for armor) Large Remote Shield Booster II (or armor for armor) Large Remote Shield Booster II (or armor for armor) Command Booster (esp in practical use for skirmish or info)
[Medium Slots] 1x 10MN AB Adaptive Invuln II Adaptive Invuln II Cap or Something Mod (i.e. resist amp) Cap Mod or room for Large Shield Extender
[Low Slots] Damage Control II Cap Mod Cap Mod Cap Mod
[Rigs] Em / Expl Hole / I.e. Medium Anti Em Screen Core Def Shield Extender /Trimark Core Def Shield Extender /Trimark
Looking at subsystem skills the main thing would be comparative range, falloff and transfer effectiveness to existing logi.
Here is for hoping . . . |
Kayle Saviant
Strategic Defense and Deployment Directive
16
|
Posted - 2017.07.01 12:24:45 -
[120] - Quote
Evaluating SISI
Okay so let's work with some fundamental assumptions:
1. The T3 needs to be comparable to existing logi (basilisk/scimitar) yet it sacrifices link, cap and ecm advantages for the purposes of command bursts. (i.e no remote tracking links, sebo links or remote cap boosts)
2. Nope, that is it. No other assumptions. It just needs to be feasible.
So what do we get?
http://imgur.com/a/bmzF7
1. EHP? Pretty meh-ish 2. Cap life: disasterous 3. CPU and grid all round a pain: Cant fit 4 Large Transfers. Loki can fit 3 but with impossibly terrible cap life, tengu can only fit 2, with merely atrocious cap life. Of course can use mediums, but then why not fly a proper logistics ship like a Scimitar or Basilisk?
Interimverdict? Trash it and let's move on
So maybe someone else can get a better fit. Please do. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |