EVE Search - [theory] Why T3 will fail

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

[theory] Why T3 will fail

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
FlyinS Caldari Planetary Industry and Trade Organization	Posted - 2009.02.20 17:52:00 - [91] Originally by: ceaon if you have the choice to put your money in 300 different banks so you will check all of them ? You're making it out as if you would NEED to put it in all 300. I would put it a different way - that I enjoy the choice of 300 different banks to put my money in so I can find the specific one(s) that fit what I like. And if I want to try others I have many different options to go with rather that just a few. I'll make another analogy. I am from the US. I do not fully identify with either the Republican or Democrat party in this country. I wish there were many other (viable) options to choose from in an election. I think it sucks that there are only 2 "real" options, neither of which fit me. Would it be better if you could only choose from black or white for a color for your car?
MukkBarovian	Posted - 2009.02.20 18:01:00 - [92] T3 ships are less skill intensive than t2 ships. Only require cruiser 5 and some support skills to 3 or 4. And if you think you should be flying t2 ships without those support skills to 3 or 4 you are an idiot. T2 ships require at least 1 or 2 other skills to 5 and t2 cruisers require about 4 level 5 skills in addition to the racial cruiser. Given that the skill requirement wasn't through the roof even considering the stupid skill loss ploding makes, its vaguely possible that in addition to the ease of flying t3 ships in terms of skill, there will be an ease of flying t3 ships in terms of isk. Would only be balanced if t3<t2 but the skills point that way anyhow. So there is a possibility that t3 parts will drop like mana out of heaven after Jesus has walked into the room, and t3 ships will be cheap. Personally I cant wait to see Jesus. He hasn't stopped by lately though.
Rheed Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.20 18:05:00 - [93] Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. beat me to it... =( ----------------------------------- Look at me! I'm on the INTERNET!!!
Dirk Culliford H A V O C Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.02.20 18:11:00 - [94] Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. You just restored my faith in CCP, have my babies plz
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.02.20 18:42:00 - [95] Originally by: FlyinS I'll make another analogy. I am from the US. I do not fully identify with either the Republican or Democrat party in this country. I wish there were many other (viable) options to choose from in an election. I think it sucks that there are only 2 "real" options, neither of which fit me. Would it be better if you could only choose from black or white for a color for your car? like i said on other post one or few options = bad several number of option = good many options = choose paralysis => bad i got a funny quote for the car thing hehe Henry Ford said this about cars "the customer can have any color he wants so long ss it's black" Somos universales, Pero andamos como el resto de los mortales, Ocultando nuestros miedos, Parece que no pero las guapas tambien se tiran pedos, Tambien los listos sumamos con los dedos.
Kingwood Amarr Defile.	Posted - 2009.02.20 18:45:00 - [96] What the op is saying is that out of all the touted many possible combinations, only a select few will be used: e.g. a max DPS setup, a max tanking setup, a max speed setup, maybe a combination of speed and gank, etc. I kinda agree with him, people will need a week, then they've figured out the best combination for a specific purpose. For me, I'll only fly T3 if it's possible to create a shield tanked Zealot. And for the people sucking up to Whisper: You guys should wipe your nose. It's brown.
SecHaul	Posted - 2009.02.20 18:45:00 - [97] Several weeks will be all at takes before people min/max the options, and come out with several optimum fits - in reality I don't think you'll see a fraction of the combinations being leveraged. If anything will cause T3 to fail it'll be the high cost, and the SP loss mechanic. I would love to tinker and fit up a ship, it's just very, very unlikely I would ever actually fly it in PvP. Heck, I'd probably get enough kicks with T3 on SISI, get over the "ooh, look shiny" feeling and continue on my way.
Kingwood Amarr Defile.	Posted - 2009.02.20 18:49:00 - [98] Originally by: Gaius Aemilius Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. Wow! It's true. There is no charge for Awesomeness! I love you CCP Whisper, will you have my babies? Can you even see, what with your head stuck so deep inside Whisper's behind?
achoura	Posted - 2009.02.20 18:55:00 - [99] Once people finally get o grips with how difficult these things will be to produce i.e. the cost, then the complaining really will start *The EVE servers and their patches*
FlyinS Caldari Planetary Industry and Trade Organization	Posted - 2009.02.20 19:14:00 - [100] Edited by: FlyinS on 20/02/2009 19:16:53 Edited by: FlyinS on 20/02/2009 19:14:51 Originally by: ceaon Originally by: FlyinS I'll make another analogy. I am from the US. I do not fully identify with either the Republican or Democrat party in this country. I wish there were many other (viable) options to choose from in an election. I think it sucks that there are only 2 "real" options, neither of which fit me. Would it be better if you could only choose from black or white for a color for your car? like i said on other post one or few options = bad several number of option = good many options = choose paralysis => bad i got a funny quote for the car thing hehe Henry Ford said this about cars "the customer can have any color he wants so long ss it's black" I love that Henry Ford quote, but of course that was a much different time. I guess I don't buy into the choice paralysis theory. Choice paralysis implies the chooser feels the need to obtain all of or a large portion of the options available. This isn't a failure on the part of the one offering the choices, it's a failure of the chooser to be satisfied with a few of the available options. The point I will definitely agree on is that there will end up being a small subset of configurations that people use in PvP or even PvE as they will be considered the "best". For some of us (myself included) I will try to make some of the less "popular" configs along with the more effective ones simply to just do it and try them out for fun.

Kingwood Amarr Defile.	Posted - 2009.02.20 19:16:00 - [101] Anyways, T3 will not fail because of the min/maxing. It will fail because of the SP loss. Unless there's something we don't know about yet. Waiting for M10. Kinda excited, tbh.
People Eater No Limit Productions Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.02.20 19:29:00 - [102] Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. This is why I <3 Eve and will never ever quit
Cohkka Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2009.02.20 19:31:00 - [103] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Which will be true for the whole 15 minutes it takes for everyone to figure out the perfect cookie-cutter setups, once final stats are released on SiSi and added to EFT. Sure, it'll take a bit more work to figure out the best combinations (thanks to so many ways of getting the same slot layouts, etc), but it's just wishful thinking to expect cookie-cutter setups to go away just because there are more variables. Cookie-cutter doesn't mean it's best though. You have a lot more variables than now and there are already lots of ways on improoving a cookie-cutter fit. T3 just means a bigger advantage for people who actually know how to fit a ship, and I for one am looking forward to it. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5...
Thorian Baalnorn	Posted - 2009.02.20 20:06:00 - [104] I like what CCP is trying to accomplish with T3 ships even if it does( not saying it will or wont) fail. the whole cookiecutter builds are pathetically boring. And its sad that so many have to use cookie cutter builds to actually be decent or good at pvp.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.02.20 20:08:00 - [105] Originally by: Empyre if ccp doesn't do something soon about the power grind then i'm quitting. next to e-honor, it's the hardest thing to get in this game. E-honor is the easiest thing to get in this game. All you need is a couple of T2 cargoholds in your lows.
TimGascoigne The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.02.20 20:15:00 - [106] Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. ? I think you'll find that most good fleet commanders do not wish for the pilots to think individually but rather to control+V from official fleet setups. That way they can know exactly what a ship can do and what its set up for. and beyond all things the FC can thus remove fail setups and ensure that they are all good. I think eve dev somehow believe themselves to be superior to us, this is to bad.
Thorian Baalnorn	Posted - 2009.02.20 20:31:00 - [107] Originally by: TimGascoigne Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. ? I think you'll find that most good fleet commanders do not wish for the pilots to think individually but rather to control+V from official fleet setups. That way they can know exactly what a ship can do and what its set up for. and beyond all things the FC can thus remove fail setups and ensure that they are all good. I think eve dev somehow believe themselves to be superior to us, this is to bad. If CCP intended for the game to work like so for fleet commanders then they would let FCs command fleets without pilots. this shows what cookiecutter does to people. it makes them braindead. A good FC would adapt to the changes like so, IF they wanted to know every little detail of every ship in their fleet:" In your evemail you will find a list of ships we will be using in fleet ops. Please fit the ship according to the specs. If you need to make some fitting changes for some reason, let me know. -thanks, your FC." See, so while in this scenerio the FC will know the ships set ups, your enemies are less likely too since not everyone is using the same cookiecutter build all over eve. a GOOD FC would see the changes in this respect as good not bad.
Hooded Person Amarr	Posted - 2009.02.20 21:06:00 - [108] Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. ♥ CCP
Cyb3r D3ath Ministry of War	Posted - 2009.02.20 22:07:00 - [109] Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. Yea.. give it to em Whisper!
Gartel Reiman Civis Romanus Sum	Posted - 2009.02.20 22:12:00 - [110] Originally by: ceaon Originally by: FlyinS I'll make another analogy. I am from the US. I do not fully identify with either the Republican or Democrat party in this country. I wish there were many other (viable) options to choose from in an election. I think it sucks that there are only 2 "real" options, neither of which fit me. Would it be better if you could only choose from black or white for a color for your car? like i said on other post one or few options = bad several number of option = good many options = choose paralysis => bad I think you are missing a critical point here. So far you've only really considered things from the point of view of services - things that people find a need for, and then want to assess the potential options. In this respect (and with your cheese example) - yes, you're probably right. If you want to see whether a company is good at making cheese, you don't want to have to taste 100 different ones to come to an opinion. What you fail to grasp is that EVE is more like a competition - you design your setup to be better than other peoples' setups, and the harder it is to go through all the options, the more ability you have to differentiate yourself through your intelligence and dilligence. It's not quite like you're given all 7,000+ combinations in front of you and you have to point to one and say "that one". It's more like tuning up an old car; you start with a reasonable setup initially, and you can try playing around with different parts until you find combinations that complement each other and improve on what you had, that give you an advantage over players that haven't discovered the benefits of that particular combination yet. (Though I agree with others that likely the good combinations will become widely known fairly quickly, but eh) Or to continue the cheese analogy - we're not the consumers, all of us are cheese companies, and we make the cheese. Would you rather have only 3 or 4 ingredients to choose from to put in your cheese, so that all cheeses are more or less the same and there's no room to stand out - or would you rather have a choice of thousands if not millions of ingredients, giving you the ability to really come up with an astounding cheese that's much better than what your opponents can come up with? EVE is, and has always been, a complex game. It's sad that in general there is little scope for variation in fittings because most are simply sub-par. The T3 concept looks to introduce a much broader range of viable configurations for a single ship, and that's good. The more choice, the more challenging it becomes to work with (as you point out), and that is a good thing in a competitive game. (Besides, if you view us as consumers, I'm sure that having the new rats be really really easy to kill and have 50m ISK bounty each would make us happy, and would be better for us than a potential logistic nightmare. But that doesn't mean it would be a good thing for the game by any stretch of the imagination. Start thinking like an athlete, a competitor, a protagonist, and you'll view T3 in a different way.)

Silverphlame Minmatar	Posted - 2009.02.20 23:27:00 - [111] The way I see it - T3 is built to defy the cookie cutter setups by letting you design a ship that is built from the ground up to fit your specifications. Yeah - ok - theres going to be the optimal DPS and best tank sort of shapes come out of the cookie bakery ... but I'm looking on the ships more along the lines of "Well - I want it to do this, and also to be fairly good at this, while not ignoring this ..." rather than "Ok - I need ship A for this job, and ship B to do that job, and then of course I'll need ship C to deal with this". IIRC - there's a post somewhere in which CCP state that T3 is not a better T2. My T3 ship when I finally get around to designing/building it will be exactly that ... MY ship. There may be a setup posted somewhere that will do some of the things I want, but I'll bet that there will be few people that decide to get the ship to do all the things I want it to. (I know - I'm not making the most of my ship by turning it into some sort of swiss army knife. I'd disagree, if I wanted a pure combat cruiser, there are plenty of T2 ships to choose from :) )
Imaos	Posted - 2009.02.20 23:42:00 - [112] Originally by: ceaon Originally by: FlyinS I'll make another analogy. I am from the US. I do not fully identify with either the Republican or Democrat party in this country. I wish there were many other (viable) options to choose from in an election. I think it sucks that there are only 2 "real" options, neither of which fit me. Would it be better if you could only choose from black or white for a color for your car? like i said on other post one or few options = bad several number of option = good many options = choose paralysis => bad choose paralysis = girlfriend in front of a shoe shop (no real advantage besides looks so no tangible decision instrument available) lots of options with t3 = I like to think it through and experiment with ('technical' values you can work with and can compare) Imaos PS: Rotweiler is a name? I thought that's the dog. You could call yourself Indiana. Wait, that's also the dog. ------------------------------------------ Originally by: NoNah My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari.
Guillame Herschel Gallente Buffalo Soldiers	Posted - 2009.02.20 23:46:00 - [113] Originally by: ceaon i my opinion that is not the main problem (like i try to explain here) this t3 stuff create a big expectation and will fail to deliver. Listen to him, folks. He is clearly on expert on failing to deliver. *-- The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then* --**
Malvorak Amarr IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2009.02.20 23:48:00 - [114] Originally by: ceaon i hope to explain this is a proper way :) when you have a ship t1 one or t2 there are few choices to use/fit the ship so you will know pretty well how the ship will be able to tank/dps/etc.But whit T3 you get more choices some part give more speed, other more power grind, other cpu, other fitting slots etc What this make is that our expectation to be much bigger that should be, so there you can get the parts to build ultimate tank ship you get the ship is good it tank well but is not what you expected to be whit all this options you get some kind of illusion for ultimate tank ship. now come on troll me Shut up no one cares!! Quote: So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. <3 "I wave my private parts at your aunties son of a window dresser"
Cliffords Dad	Posted - 2009.02.21 00:38:00 - [115] Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. Oh, so THAT'S how you talk to paying customers. I've been doing it wrong for years.
Lexa Hellfury Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2009.02.21 00:47:00 - [116] Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. OH MY ****ING GOD YES!
Dirk Culliford H A V O C Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.02.21 00:49:00 - [117] Originally by: Cliffords Dad Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. Oh, so THAT'S how you talk to paying customers. I've been doing it wrong for years. Considering 99% of the people that play eve do nothing but constantly slate the devs I think it's perfectly acceptable tbh, especially when they are talking out their ***. Most people in this thread seem to agree too
Al Thorr Caldari The Wheel	Posted - 2009.02.21 01:01:00 - [118] personally t3 is this. Q: how many single digit integers below 8 can you add to make 8 of course there will be many combinations but only certain combinations will prove vialble. thus we will be back to square one when the combinations have been tried and tested. just like now. Its change for the sake of change. nothing new just different. Regards Al Thorr "You cant polish a turd" - The new rendered font is living proof.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2009.02.21 01:11:00 - [119] Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. Who are you and what have you done with the usual pacificists who've plagued this game? I demand this person be put in charge!
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2009.02.21 01:23:00 - [120] Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup from scrapheap challenge or wherever for "guaranteed" results. Boo hoo. Cry some more. except the cookie cutter setups on scrapheap challenge are still going to exist, they will just include high, meds, lows, rigs, and hull components



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.