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

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 12:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
I have heard it mentioned as an idea for many months now but never stated as a feature coming out. I for one would really like to see it happen. I believe CCP can learn from the leasons of T3 cruisers and make the roll out even better this time. Can we get any word on this please?
PS We are still waiting for covert cynos on Covert T3 cruisers  |

Nirnias Stirrum
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
111
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 12:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
Wheres the dislike button? I cant find it! |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
934
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 13:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
there shouldnt be any other T3 ship type other than cruisers
ever My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 13:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nirnias Stirrum wrote:Wheres the dislike button? I cant find it!
You have been waiting to get me back huh. Hehe, good show. Thanks for the bump! |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 13:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
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. |

Nirnias Stirrum
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
111
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 13:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Shepard Book wrote:Nirnias Stirrum wrote:Wheres the dislike button? I cant find it! You have been waiting to get me back huh. Hehe, good show. Thanks for the bump!
Im not sure what your refering to to be honest with you :D Did you post in a topic i made at some stage? :P |

Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1581
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 13:20:00 -
[7] - Quote
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. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |

Lucas Schuyler
Mortis Noir. Ineluctable.
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 13:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
The problem with new Tech 3 ships is you need a really good plan for their capabilities. Just taking T3 Cruisers and doing the same thing but in a smaller hull is kind of pointless.
What is going to be the role of these modular... destroyers?
From where I sit, Cruisers work because they are already a very generalist ship class, Combat ships, Recon Ships, Logistics, etc. Cruiser hulls were already used for a wide variety of purposes. The gold standard of general purpose.
Destroyers are an anti-frigate platform and for interdiction... That is not a lot to work with for a modular design.
And on the PVE side... what Destroyer can be expected to stand up to Sleepers? It really doesn't have the requisite PVE niche. |

Hicksimus
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
99
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 13:53:00 -
[9] - Quote
I would love to buy a covert nullified destroyer with a sig radius of 1 and 150k ehp. But I'm not sure that would be good for anything other than trolling. Things I have realized from the EvE forums: Many people beleive cost means money and only money |

Michael1995
Lead Farmers Academy Kill It With Fire
9
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 14:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
Last I heard the next shipment of T3 goodies would be coming out in 2013 at the earliest, unless things have changed. One does not simply buy their way into Goonswarm. |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:46:00 -
[11] - Quote
Nirnias Stirrum wrote:Shepard Book wrote:Nirnias Stirrum wrote:Wheres the dislike button? I cant find it! You have been waiting to get me back huh. Hehe, good show. Thanks for the bump! Im not sure what your refering to to be honest with you :D Did you post in a topic i made at some stage? :P
I used same verbiage not to far back hehe
|

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:47:00 -
[12] - 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.
Yeah, Your right thanks and I will update it. Tech 3 all the way! |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Lucas Schuyler wrote:The problem with new Tech 3 ships is you need a really good plan for their capabilities. Just taking T3 Cruisers and doing the same thing but in a smaller hull is kind of pointless.
What is going to be the role of these modular... destroyers?
From where I sit, Cruisers work because they are already a very generalist ship class, Combat ships, Recon Ships, Logistics, etc. Cruiser hulls were already used for a wide variety of purposes. The gold standard of general purpose.
Destroyers are an anti-frigate platform and for interdiction... That is not a lot to work with for a modular design.
And on the PVE side... what Destroyer can be expected to stand up to Sleepers? It really doesn't have the requisite PVE niche.
Good questions. I have seen quite a few ideas in the CSM and features areas that could be incorporated. |

Jayrendo Karr
Suns Of Korhal Terran Commonwealth
61
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
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. |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:58:00 -
[15] - Quote
Hicksimus wrote:I would love to buy a covert nullified destroyer with a sig radius of 1 and 150k ehp. But I'm not sure that would be good for anything other than trolling.
Trolls gotta fly too hehe.
Interdictor along with stealth ships are my favorite ships TBH.
I am not sure I like the idea but a limited anti stealth destroyer is one idea for modular I could see working, Id like it to be a short range anti stealth bubble so it could still be countered though. Same size as current dictor bubble I think is a place for them but it should never make flying stealth obsolete. I believe we could take on the challenge as long as it is not grid wide. Maybe the same size as current bubbles could work though. I think it is important to remove local as an intel tool before any kind of counter or nerf to stealth comes in though.
Maybe even a mini command with one slot for a command module?
Id really like to see a T3 stealther dictor to be able to travel with Black Ops BS.
Just a few ideas. I am not claiming any as my own. |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 21:59:00 -
[16] - Quote
Michael1995 wrote:Last I heard the next shipment of T3 goodies would be coming out in 2013 at the earliest, unless things have changed.
Thanks for the heads up. I wish we could get some confirmation. |

ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
113
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 22:00:00 -
[17] - Quote
can we please get a teir 2 destroyer before we even consider "TECH 3" destroyer here? |

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 22:01:00 -
[18] - 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.
I have the skills ( Mains ) for all of them but mainly I have flown the Loki so can't say from personal experience but the trolls seem to talk about tengu a lot.
|

Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 22:02:00 -
[19] - Quote
ITTigerClawIK wrote:can we please get a teir 2 destroyer before we even consider "TECH 3" destroyer here?
Interdictors fill that role I thought.
|

Dbars Grinding
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
484
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 22:10:00 -
[20] - 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 me translate. "i am angry i didnt train for a tengu loki or proteus" I have more space likes than you.-á |

Belshazzar Babylon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 05:24:00 -
[21] - Quote
We don't even have Tier 2 destroyers hulls. I don't see Tech 3 destroyers coming soon. |

Corbin Blair
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
55
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 05:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:there shouldnt be any other T3 ship type other than cruisers
ever Care to offer a reason or did you just want to spam? |

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
2310
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 05:42:00 -
[23] - Quote
Dbars Grinding 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. let me translate. "i am angry i didnt train for a tengu loki or proteus"
I doubt it. I like my T3, but I don't like that I don't even have to think about whether or not to use them. They should be sub par to specialized ships, but be more adaptable. Currently they are more adaptable and often also better than the specialized ships, so why on earth would I fly something else, if my wallet can take it? A mix of T3 ability nerfs and boosts to specialized hulls should be enough to bring things in line and at least make using them a bit less obvious choice in some cases. |

Jayrendo Karr
Suns Of Korhal Terran Commonwealth
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 05:59:00 -
[24] - Quote
Dbars Grinding 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. let me translate. "i am angry i didnt train for a tengu loki or proteus" I could be in a tengu in less than an hour, but i refuse too. |

Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
353
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 06:06:00 -
[25] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:there shouldnt be any other T3 ship type other than cruisers
ever
I agreeee. I love the Tengu most and I hope there are never any new T3 ships added even in seven billion years.
Ferox #1 |

Nariya Kentaya
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
179
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 06:11:00 -
[26] - Quote
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. |

Nariya Kentaya
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
179
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 06:13:00 -
[27] - 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. 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. |

Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
353
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 06:38:00 -
[28] - Quote
For the person who said make them more adaptable but less efficient at specific roles. Only if you are able to change roles instantly anywhere in space with ease. Otherwise being able to dock and change roles is the same as switching to a new ship. Ferox #1 |

MotherMoon
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
574
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 07:01:00 -
[29] - Quote
the art for tech 3 frigates is rumored to be done, I'd like to see that. frigates as expensive as battleships, cool. |

Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 23:00:00 -
[30] - Quote
I would like to see new kinds of tech 1 destroyers. In particular Aegis destroyers. Please support my proposal. |

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] |