Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Mayda Junichiro
Vascerum Maximus Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 23:23:00 -
[31] - Quote
I don't see the need for Tech 3 destroyers.
I would, however, like to see tier 2 destroyers.  |

Spy 21
Lonetrek Exploration and Salvage
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 23:43:00 -
[32] - Quote
Right you mean tier 3 then ...right?
I also heard that the next T3 ship was going to be the frigates (aka awesomsauce and who needs assault ships anyway?)... but that might have been an expansion or 2 ago and maybe not on the burner any more?
Also, CCP stated they want to balance the Destroyers before doing anything else... ie make the Amarr/Caldari worth a crap I think. That was in regards to changing the skill tree but would think that would also apply to any new potential hulls which I have heard nothing about... right?
S "The next time airport security tells you to put your hands over your head and hold that vulnerable position for seven seconds, ask yourself: Is this the posture of a free man?" |

Sentinel Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
74
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 23:49:00 -
[33] - Quote
I'd like to see Tier 2 and Tier 3 Destroyers, to be released before, or at the same time, as the Destroyer skill split..
But no, we don't need Tech 3 destroyers at this time. |

Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
82
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 23:54:00 -
[34] - Quote
Ah yes,
A Tech 3 flycatcher with 8 highs (6-8 launchers slots and/or 1-2 turret slots), six mids and 2 lows and enough fittings for a 10MN AB! Throw in a high grade Halo set and a Loki booster and it will be a platinum tear machine.
CCP dooooo iiiiiitttttttt! NAO!
Patri
Miners! Make Moar Isks Nao! |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 14:45:00 -
[35] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:Shepard Book wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:there shouldnt be any other T3 ship type other than cruisers
ever I am pretty sure worm hole people, new players, and other veterans would disagree with you. Thanks for your opinion though. no, more tier 3's would just obsolete even more ships, i eman, holy crap, think of the ridiculous amount fo DPS a NORMAL destroyer can get, now slap some T3 specialties on that mofo, you LITERALLY have an "i kill everything" ship.
Normal destroyers should be a stepping stone or do you not see that? T3 cruisers are not a kill everything ship so I do not see your point. |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 14:46:00 -
[36] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:the art for tech 3 frigates is rumored to be done, I'd like to see that. frigates as expensive as battleships, cool.
Id take either T3 frigates or destroyers really. I would prefer destroyers but eh |

Krixtal Icefluxor
Bison - Ammatar Thunder Thundering Herd
624
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 15:01:00 -
[37] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Unfortunately, introducing new ships for the sake of new ships is a bad idea. They need to have a purpose and a reason for existing first. After that I am all for it.
Yup. T3 destroyers and frigates are the answer to a question nobody is asking. There isn't anything left for you to do to Carebears. -áGo, kill them some more. They're like fungus or bacteria, they won't die and they won't stop. All you have to show for years of organized harassment campaigns against them is ... nothing. |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 16:02:00 -
[38] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Unfortunately, introducing new ships for the sake of new ships is a bad idea. They need to have a purpose and a reason for existing first. After that I am all for it.
Yup. T3 destroyers and frigates are the answer to a question nobody is asking.
My hope is they would add some new roles with T3 |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 16:04:00 -
[39] - Quote
Shepard Book wrote:Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Unfortunately, introducing new ships for the sake of new ships is a bad idea. They need to have a purpose and a reason for existing first. After that I am all for it.
Yup. T3 destroyers and frigates are the answer to a question nobody is asking. My hope is they would add some new roles with T3
There are many modules that are just not used at smaller ship classes. Logistics comes to mind. Smart bombs, defender missiles Ect |

Cloned S0ul
Blood Fanatics
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 17:12:00 -
[40] - Quote
No more ships unification, t3 cruisers are awesome, but meny other ship got less usage since CCP introduce t3 cruisers, you want kill all nice destroyers and interdictor, aslo i say no for t3 frigates, because we got a lot of specific roles small frigates, like assault ships, electronic frigates, interceptors even mining firgates. |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 17:34:00 -
[41] - Quote
Cloned S0ul wrote:No more ships unification, t3 cruisers are awesome, but meny other ship got less usage since CCP introduce t3 cruisers, you want kill all nice destroyers and interdictors, aslo i say no for t3 frigates, because we got a lot of specific roles small frigates, like assault ships, electronic frigates, interceptors even mining firgates.
Is really easy to add new ships, but is hard to balance them while we got a lot good old ships.
Do not forget tech 3 costs more and is skill intensive to fly too. I was all for slow roll out of tech 3 and not in all classes but that seems years ago. I think CCP can learn from last time and make them have an impact but t2 will still be viable. If you wanna spend less for t1 you'll be able to but it wont be as good. I do not see anything wrong with that.
|

Lubomir Sakato
Sakato Engineering Services
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 17:50:00 -
[42] - Quote
There are some things to note in this context.
1. atm there is absolutely no need for a tech3 destroyer when not even tier2 destroyers exist. First things first...
2. CCP dedicated themselves to remove the whole "tier"-concept and want to start this rebalancing process soon(TM)
3. Before even thinking about new tech3 ships they should and mostly will try to finish the above mentioned rebalancing process and the in this context necessary tuning of all existing shiplines including allready existing tech2 and tech3. that might take a wile, so no tech3 destroyer on the horizon i think. |

Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
150
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 17:53:00 -
[43] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Title is misleading...
We talking Tech 3 or Tier 3...never can be really sure anymore.
I am all for new ships and designs...especially of the Tech 3 kind because they are more customizable in designs making them a little more unique to each person. Sorta...
Unfortunately, introducing new ships for the sake of new ships is a bad idea. They need to have a purpose and a reason for existing first. After that I am all for it.
I think the purpose and reason for existing of any Tech 3 ship is in what it is and does. That's pretty much it, but it doesn't really need any other reason. Just a high tech hull that is configurable and maybe allows you to mix up options and sorta create your own ship. Turn WiS into wIN! ..make all the characters Nude. |

Lubomir Sakato
Sakato Engineering Services
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 17:55:00 -
[44] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:Jayrendo Karr wrote:I despide Tech 3 cruisers and what they stand for. The tengu/loki/proteus all need nerfs, tbh the Legion is what tech 3's should be. Adaptable to an extent but against a ship fit for the same role it should be subpar. your RIGHT, 700mil should buy you a ship that will NEVER outperform ANYTHING, it amkes perfect since, paying more for less, with the threat of insta-losing SP if you dont eject in time, is TOTALY gonna make people want to even own a T3 of any kind.
In fact CCP put much emphasis on exactly this fact! Tech 3 is more versatile while at the same time less capable in each of this specialised roles than it-¦s tech2 counterpart.
so maybe you should be prepared to see your soapbubble of imba-tech3 burst... |

Krixtal Icefluxor
Bison - Ammatar Thunder Thundering Herd
632
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 17:56:00 -
[45] - Quote
Lubomir Sakato wrote: 3. Before even thinking about new tech3 ships they should and mostly will try to finish the above mentioned rebalancing process and the in this context necessary tuning of all existing shiplines including allready existing tech2 and tech3. that might take a wile, so no tech3 destroyer on the horizon i think.
They need to continue fixing Hybrid Turrets so that Nagas and other Caldari Hybrid-based Ships actually work. The last thing the game needs is another class of ships that STILL don't work.
Rokhs suck atm, still. I use mine only for gas cloud mining, for sakes. There isn't anything left for you to do to Carebears. -áGo, kill them some more. They're like fungus or bacteria, they won't die and they won't stop. All you have to show for years of organized harassment campaigns against them is ... nothing. |

Seleia O'Sinnor
Drop of Honey
215
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 19:49:00 -
[46] - Quote
I wonder if Eve needs more fancy ships atm. Look at Tiericide, this should happen first. Ok maybe some add ons for the industrialists, but the pew pew side is already stuffed. EGD: If you jettison what's in your brain, at least expect can flipping. |

Sunviking
The Shining Knights
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 16:56:00 -
[47] - Quote
I thought I heard Soundwave mention 'Tech3 Destroyers' in that Ten Ton interview.
I may have misheard, but it seemed like he was dropping a pretty big hint that Tech 3 Destroyers are incoming. |

Sunviking
The Shining Knights
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 16:57:00 -
[48] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Lubomir Sakato wrote: 3. Before even thinking about new tech3 ships they should and mostly will try to finish the above mentioned rebalancing process and the in this context necessary tuning of all existing shiplines including allready existing tech2 and tech3. that might take a wile, so no tech3 destroyer on the horizon i think.
They need to continue fixing Hybrid Turrets so that Nagas and other Caldari Hybrid-based Ships actually work. The last thing the game needs is another class of ships that STILL don't work. Rokhs suck atm, still. I use mine only for gas cloud mining, for sakes.
The Naga is fine - some people actually think it is a little too good, although not as obviously OP as the Tornado.
The Rokh fails because it is lacking that damage bonus - it needs its tanking bonus switched to a damage bonus, so that it has identical bonuses to the Naga. |

Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
245
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 17:07:00 -
[49] - Quote
Strategic destroyer:
May fit 8 torp launchers and variant of the infinite point
Torps fly 80km at x10 speed if regular torps
Primary Purpose : quick response to kill super caps Secondary purpose : hold down caps that are immune to conventional warp disruption
Modular design allows fewer options than cruiser strat ships. No interdiction nullification or covert ability.
Torps have 1500 ..... Train station approaches.... Someone else with 1/3 of a brain help
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |

Krixtal Icefluxor
Bison - Ammatar Thunder Thundering Herd
652
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 17:58:00 -
[50] - Quote
Spurty wrote:Strategic destroyer:
May fit 8 torp launchers and variant of the infinite point
Torps fly 80km at x10 speed if regular torps
Primary Purpose : to suicide gank.
There.
"No Sir, I didn't like it." There isn't anything left for you to do to Carebears. -áGo, kill them some more. They're like fungus or bacteria, they won't die and they won't stop. All you have to show for years of organized harassment campaigns against them is ... nothing. |

ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
114
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 18:19:00 -
[51] - Quote
Shepard Book wrote:ITTigerClawIK wrote:can we please get a teir 2 destroyer before we even consider "TECH 3" destroyer here? Interdictors fill that role I thought.
let me rephrase that.... Another "TECH" 1 Destroyer that is a "TIER" 2
Tech and Teir are 2 entirely different things |

Krixtal Icefluxor
Bison - Ammatar Thunder Thundering Herd
652
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 18:23:00 -
[52] - Quote
ITTigerClawIK wrote:Shepard Book wrote:ITTigerClawIK wrote:can we please get a teir 2 destroyer before we even consider "TECH 3" destroyer here? Interdictors fill that role I thought. let me rephrase that.... Another "TECH" 1 Destroyer that is a "TIER" 2 Tech and Teir are 2 entirely different things
Regardless, they need to find an actual current ROLE for the T1 Dessies before adding yet more ship types to the game. And the role for many other ships as well. Too many loose ends still out there. There isn't anything left for you to do to Carebears. -áGo, kill them some more. They're like fungus or bacteria, they won't die and they won't stop. All you have to show for years of organized harassment campaigns against them is ... nothing. |

Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
245
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 21:45:00 -
[53] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Spurty wrote:Strategic destroyer:
May fit 8 torp launchers and variant of the infinite point
Torps fly 80km at x10 speed if regular torps
Primary Purpose : to suicide gank.
There. "No Sir, I didn't like it."
Don't you like lose 5 days of skills and usually explode / jammed before missiles hit? (so zero damage)
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |

Impulse252
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 22:26:00 -
[54] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Regardless, they need to find an actual current ROLE for the T1 Dessies before adding yet more ship types to the game. And the role for many other ships as well. Too many loose ends still out there.
Dessies already fill the role of antifrig better than most ships. Yes a couple are bad, the catalyst & cormorant, and yes specific cruisers tear through frig gangs. However they are effective for the isk and skill investment if they are deployed correctly. It's unfortunate that they are tin cans but that can be remedied easily with some base stat changes.
As you pointed out before many ships need to be evaluated and tweaked if necessary but going off on a tangent and pushing aside the discussion of a new class of ships just to make your poor opinion about the Naga known is hardly the way to do it. |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 22:44:00 -
[55] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:I thought I heard Soundwave mention 'Tech3 Destroyers' in that Ten Ton interview.
I may have misheard, but it seemed like he was dropping a pretty big hint that Tech 3 Destroyers are incoming.
Likewise
|

Riggs Droput
Born-2-Kill Northern Coalition.
30
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 23:08:00 -
[56] - Quote
Only tech 3 ships I would like to see is Battle cruisers and Battle ships.
There is already a large number of specialties of cruisers and frigs.
Some specializations I would like to see is but being exchangeable with subsystems are.
Covert BC (no null subsystem) Logistics BC Ewar BC
Logistics BS XL turret subsystem for BS (to help with cap and Scap blobs)
I am sure there are other specializations you could have but these are just some that come to mind.
I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees |

Nariya Kentaya
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
181
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 23:10:00 -
[57] - Quote
Lubomir Sakato wrote:Nariya Kentaya wrote:Jayrendo Karr wrote:I despide Tech 3 cruisers and what they stand for. The tengu/loki/proteus all need nerfs, tbh the Legion is what tech 3's should be. Adaptable to an extent but against a ship fit for the same role it should be subpar. your RIGHT, 700mil should buy you a ship that will NEVER outperform ANYTHING, it amkes perfect since, paying more for less, with the threat of insta-losing SP if you dont eject in time, is TOTALY gonna make people want to even own a T3 of any kind. In fact CCP put much emphasis on exactly this fact! Tech 3 is more versatile while at the same time less capable in each of this specialised roles than it-¦s tech2 counterpart. so maybe you should be prepared to see your soapbubble of imba-tech3 burst... not really burst, just save us money, soon as tech 3's egt nerfed to being noticably weaker then T2's, people will just stop suingt hem, as specializing with T2's woudl then be cheaper, not have the risk of losing SP when you die, as well as performing better.
honestly T3's are fine as they are, i've seen them die in droves because morons dont know what fits to use, if ANYTHING several subsystems need a buff to be viable as an alternative.
all nerfing T3's will do is make almost no one want them becuase theya re weak and expensive, ans the price they will ahve to be sold at to make them sellable will empty wormholes FAST sinc no one will want to bother with it. |

Felsusguy
Try-Cycle Mining Industry
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 02:39:00 -
[58] - Quote
Jayrendo Karr wrote:I despide Tech 3 cruisers and what they stand for. The tengu/loki/proteus all need nerfs, tbh the Legion is what tech 3's should be. Adaptable to an extent but against a ship fit for the same role it should be subpar. Let us examine this claim, shall we? A ship that costs five times as much (and more) as another hull should be less effective because... The more expensive ship is adaptable and modular? Anyone who thinks this is delusional, at least with the way Tech 3 ships currently work.
1. They, like all ships, can only have one fitting, and therefore one specialization, at once, regardless of adaptability. 2. If they are worse than a Tech 2 ship, then they will be equivalent to a slightly buffed up Tech 1 ship. 3. It would then be possible to get a single Tech 1 ship for every role instead of adapting a Tech 3 ship, at lower cost.
Therefore, it would be more viable to keep a collection of ships for each role than a single ship that can be adapted for different roles. If the purpose of the Strategic Cruiser wasn't to prevent that, what is it's purpose?
The only purpose it would serve is that you wouldn't have to get multiple ships into a wormhole, and if it's only minutely better than a collection of specialized ships, it would still be more viable to get said collection of ships.
It might be worth noting that you have to buy multiple subsystems (which is obviously more expensive) if you actually want to adapt your ship to change it's role, as well. |

Sunviking
The Shining Knights
46
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 07:12:00 -
[59] - Quote
In my mind, the best thing about Strategic Cruisers overall, is that you can fit them to fill the role of Logistics or Command Ship as part of a Black Ops fleet i.e. with a Cov Ops Cloak.
No Tech2 Ship can do that at the moment. |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 12:17:00 -
[60] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:In my mind, the best thing about Strategic Cruisers overall, is that you can fit them to fill the role of Logistics or Command Ship as part of a Black Ops fleet i.e. with a Cov Ops Cloak.
No Tech2 Ship can do that at the moment.
They still need to be able use use covert cynos IMO. |
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |