| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Cailais
Amarr
0utbreak
KrautbreaK
   |
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:40:00 -
[1]
Feedback - failure to bring in Subsystems 4 and 5 (and the massive potential these could have provided) is a bitter disappointment.
C.
 Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
0utbreak
KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 22:23:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Aya Vandenovich
Originally by: Amarr Holymight
You should consider giving the Neut/Vampire a range bonus to make it useful this is one of the areas the Pilgrim suffers, but at least they can use a Covert ops cloak.
The pilgrim also doesn't have half a dozen pulse lasers and a decent armour tank, the neut/nos effectiveness bonus is fine. A range bonus might be a bit imbalanced.
No. But it does have E-War in the form of TD's and actually its tank isn't too bad. The reason the Pilgrim is viable as a short range nos / neut platform is its cloak. Without this its a trivial matter to disable one. A range / amount bonus is a must imho - although that wouldnt prevent a slot modifier being applied or some other minor drawback.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
0utbreak
KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 22:49:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Amarr Holymight
... there isn't enough diversity in the layouts from what I can see.
Because we're missing 2 subsystems. Its the 5^5 that provided the breadth of options. reduce it to 3^5 and the 'optimal set up' criteria is that much easier to determine.
In essence you've got a choice from a selection of 15 subsystems (rather than 25). Of those 15, about 5 will be sub-par in comparison to the other 10, regardless of configuration purely on the basis of role bonuses. In reality then you're only looking at 2^5 options - still a large number sure but nothing in terms of what was unveiled at FF09.
(as an analogy its like playing MTG with red and blue removed as color options for deck construction)
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
0utbreak
KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 23:03:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Aya Vandenovich
That's the point though. It's not a Pilgrim, it's essentially a HAC with T2 resists, four other subsystem bonuses, and a heat bonus. It wouldn't need to rely on nos/neuts as one of its primary weapons, hence why it only gets effectiveness right now, and giving it all of the Curse's nos/neut bonuses would be as imbalanced as giving the Pilgrim a range bonus.
The other subsystems aren't really "bonuses", they simply comprise the ships 'structure' - you dont refer to the Pilgrims 4 slot highs as a 'bonus' do you? And the 'subsystem skill' bonuses make the ship equivalent to or slightly better than, its T2 counterpart.
It's really back to the old Pilgrim argument of nos/neut bonus at close range at the problems that entails. i.e you're inside web range / scram range or dangerously close to it - but if you dont get that close your nos/neut bonus is wasted. If you do - and you really aught to to maximise the ships capability - you'll need a demon tank to survive. At which point any T3 attribute 'boost' to your tank becomes not an advantage but an out right necessity in order to be competitive.
Compare this with say a web ranged bonus on a +tank HAC.
A HAC + web range bonus vs a HAC with neut amount bonus. The webber HAC is a hands down winner every time, because it loses no high slots to fit the web (maxing dps), the Neut HAC loses dps = neuts fitted (out of range) and cant close (webbed).
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
0utbreak
KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 23:12:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Laszlo Ozawa
Edited by: Laszlo Ozawa on 25/02/2009 23:04:42
Originally by: Aya Vandenovich
That's the point, though. It's not a Pilgrim, it's essentially a HAC with T2 resists, four other subsystem bonuses, and a heat bonus. It wouldn't need to rely on nos/neuts as one of its primary weapons, hence why it only gets effectiveness right now, and giving it all of the Curse's nos/neut bonuses would be as imbalanced as giving the Pilgrim a range bonus.
lets think outside of currently-existing conventions for a moment, why does the ship effectively have to be a HAC or a pilgrim? Are no roles to fill or ways to balance the class that they've to be locked into some kind of a red-headed stepchild of those two?
Because HACs / HICS and RECONS are the T2 cruiser class its against these that all T3 cruisers will be compared.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 01:37:00 -
[6]
Ive been giving some thought to the nature of T3 ships. The impression Im getting is that the subsystems are being tailored along racial lines - but in my view that might be the wrong way to approach T3.
I think, that the subsystems themselves should be basically identical for all races, with the exception of a 'Racial Special' for Electronic Subsystem 1 (which would mirror the Combat Recon bonus to Nos/Web/Scram/ECM).
So, as an example Defense Subsystem X would always provide a % bonus to shield booster and armour repair amount regardless of its race. The base ship (chasis/hull) would provide a generic bonus along racial lines.
Therefore you could build a caldari drone boat with extra low slots, or a better armour tank.
Im working on a spread sheet at the moment to provide some form of example, but Id be interested to hear others views on this.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 20:22:00 -
[7]
If we're looking for different capability for T3 Id suggest 2 potential subsystems:
Propulsion V - Warp Core Strength +1 (with targeting penalty that drops to 0 as you reach Lvl V subsystem skill).
Engineering V - Warp Scramble Strength +1 (with cap recharge penalty that drops to 0 as you reach Lvl V subsystem skill).
Id also suggest that the Electronic Subsystems (e.g sig rad / scan resolution) included profession bonuses to mining, archaeology, salvage and hacking.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 23:47:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Laszlo Ozawa
Originally by: Cailais
If we're looking for different capability for T3 Id suggest 2 potential subsystems:
Propulsion V - Warp Core Strength +1 (with targeting penalty that drops to 0 as you reach Lvl V subsystem skill).
Engineering V - Warp Scramble Strength +1 (with cap recharge penalty that drops to 0 as you reach Lvl V subsystem skill).
Id also suggest that the Electronic Subsystems (e.g sig rad / scan resolution) included profession bonuses to mining, archaeology, salvage and hacking.
C.
great stuff, likely already proposed and discussed. in the end, there isn't enough variability to the bonuses, but proposing individual things like that is like giving someone tylenol to treat multiple stab wounds. the design is fundamentally crippled in the way bonuses are assigned.
Certainly we need more variability.
Ideally players should be looking at the subsystems and saying 'ooh I like that one...but then I also like that one'.
Clearly the 'better' the capability the more impact it should have on slot layout. At the moment we're still hamstrung into the old 'racial model'. What we should be seeing is something along the lines of:
Offensive Subsystems
Subsystem 1 'Fusilade': Bonus to [Racial] Turret Tracking and Optimal. Bonus High.
Subsystem 2 'Broadside': Bonus to Missile Vel and Exp Radius.
Subsystem 3 'Breach': Bonus to ROF (Turret / Launcher). Neg Low Slot.
Subsystem 4 'Infomatic': Bonus Drone Cargo. Bonus High.
Subsystem 5 'Adaption': Bonus High slots (+2, +3 etc), Neg Low Slot.
So a Tengu could select any of these five, as could a Loki. Applying this concept across all the subsystem brackets and you could have a very appealing, complex system of choices.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 00:44:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Sarin Adler
On topic... there is a large amount of combinations which make non sense, like Tengu with 75m3 dronebay and 0 bandwith, fix that plz.
Well that might make sense if you've applied subsystems that have bonuses to other attributes - but which sacrifice bandwidth as a result.
What I think is missing, and is pretty crucial imho, is a means to visually see the various combinations without having the actually skills / subsystems to hand. A graphical "EFT" if you will.
e.g Gallente Electronic Subsystem 1 - Looks like this, does this.
Something which appeared semi-transparent in the fitting window would work well I think.
In this way players could easily determine what ship they wanted to build or purchase.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 22:26:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk
why should T2 cost the same as T3 ?
why bother referring to it as T3 if it's just going to be jack of all trades/crappy t2 + sp loss ?
Id assume because it mimics T2 pretty closely, but has different build / resource requirements and is more durable when overheated?
I think T3 ships can be 'jack of all trades' but equally you could build a ship that's quite focused on one specific area.
The issue Im seeing with the T3 ships is that whilst 'slot plentiful' they cant really equip to much onto those slots because of the limitations of both PG and CPU. Upscale the PG and CPU and you run into T3 ships that can assume BS roles in terms of heavy weaponry and so forth - which feels wrong in my view.
Id suggest the subsystem IV and V (once / if implemented) come with some 'new' capabilities such as warp core strength, profession based bonuses and maybe some defensive capabilities such as ECCM or anti neut technology. These might need to be 'smeared' across the subsystems, rather than rely upon the electronic subsystem. In this fashion the high/mid/low slot arrangement might be toned down a little.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 22:33:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Freyya
To the people saying they are ment to be costing around t2 price think again. Up a few subforums is the T3 production thread and there's a guy in there who did all the math.
Production cost of a single t3 cruiser was estimated to be around 800 mil iirc. That's including every little thing down to operating costs of the pos building the cruisers. And his math seems very sound.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=995617&page=6#177
link for the lazy 
A good post there (linked) but it all depends upon market demand and how many pilots choose to enter W-Space to harvest the base materials.
Its feasible that a lot of players will enter W-Space and the resources will be plentiful - if the T3 ships are regarded as 'ok but not outstanding' their price will be relatively affordable. Tilt either end of the scale and prices will climb (either due to lack of resources, or high demand).
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 23:43:00 -
[12]
I think the Legion electronic subsystem II (energy parasitic complex) really needs a range modifier bonus.
vs the min recons / T3 cruiser (webifier) or the Gallente recons / T3 cruiser (scram) the Parasitic Legion stands next to no chance of getting to use the nos / neuts. The equivalent Amarr recon (pilgrim) can because it is able to sneak up and into range whilst cloaked, but a Parasite fitted Legion has no such luxury.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.03.06 00:01:00 -
[13]
Originally by: IceAero
Originally by: Cailais
I think the Legion electronic subsystem II (energy parasitic complex) really needs a range modifier bonus.
vs the min recons / T3 cruiser (webifier) or the Gallente recons / T3 cruiser (scram) the Parasitic Legion stands next to no chance of getting to use the nos / neuts. The equivalent Amarr recon (pilgrim) can because it is able to sneak up and into range whilst cloaked, but a Parasite fitted Legion has no such luxury.
C.
As it stands the only way to really use a neut on the legion and stay out of web range is to fit a faction neut and get 14km.
Overheated webs get you at like 13km, and a faction at 18km... so having to be at 12 to neut a BS right now spells instant death. I'd like to see a bonus that lets the neuts work outside of overheated T2 web's range but inside of an overheated faction web range. I think that's fair, don't you?
Yep I agree. It doesn't have to be a monstrous bonus, but it needs to be viable. Ultimately you're sacrificing dps when you fit neuts / nos because you're not fitting turrets. That's fine for the pilgrim, as it can close to range and pin down the target with a mix of scram / webs before the target can react. The Legion doesnt have that capability making the short ranged neut/nos redundant in the face of longer ranged propulsion jamming systems.
Equally the pilgrim can mitigate some of the incoming damage of turret based ships through its excellent TD ability - but again the Legion doesnt (currently) have an EW subsystem so has to rely upon a tank: probably an active one.
Im quite surprised CCP have not included any form of range bonus considering the extensive moans about the pilgrim pre-speed nerf.
C.
Originally by: Capa
So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
| |
|