EVE Search - If T3 will be the wave of the future...

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

If T3 will be the wave of the future...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.05.13 05:15:00 - [1] Then T3 battlecruisers and battleships will be incredibly overpowered. Most T3 cruiser fits I've come up with are capable of command ship tank and dps. I think their projected price of 300 mill+ is completely justified for their performance. If CCP have any sense (and I'm sure they do), they won't stop at cruisers. T2 would have been severely limited if CCP only stuck to assault ships and hacs. I reckon we'll probably see T3 frigates and destroyers soon and battleships in several years as was the way of T2. I suspect they'd have black ops/marauder modules the way strategic cruisers have options for recon/hac/logistics systems. I think it's a good thing T3 is superior to T2. Technology is supposed to become more advanced over time, not just be "different". I also think CCP will have a hell of a time adding more t3 to the game without weathering a ****storm from the community. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Niccolado Starwalker Shadow Templars	Posted - 2009.05.13 06:32:00 - [2] Originally by: Arthur Frayn Then T3 battlecruisers and battleships will be incredibly overpowered. Most T3 cruiser fits I've come up with are capable of command ship tank and dps. I think their projected price of 300 mill+ is completely justified for their performance. If CCP have any sense (and I'm sure they do), they won't stop at cruisers. T2 would have been severely limited if CCP only stuck to assault ships and hacs. I reckon we'll probably see T3 frigates and destroyers soon and battleships in several years as was the way of T2. I suspect they'd have black ops/marauder modules the way strategic cruisers have options for recon/hac/logistics systems. I think it's a good thing T3 is superior to T2. Technology is supposed to become more advanced over time, not just be "different". I also think CCP will have a hell of a time adding more t3 to the game without weathering a **storm from the community. Although I love to see new ships, I am afraid that CCP might be making things more and more difficult. Both for us and not to mention for themselves. Its a fun concept making your own spaceship. But I am afraid we might come in a situation where we get too tailormade ships. And too expansive ships. Although I have some billions on my EVE online "bankaccount" I am like uncle Scrooge with them. They where hard earned. And earned in blood. And I cant see spending a billion isk on a ship is worth it really. As I follow the mantra dont fly what you cant afford to loose pretty literally I dont utilize such ships pretty often. No, what I want to see is cost effective and insurable worthy ships at a reasonable strength! Something in between T1 and T2 but at a T1 price. What I would like to hear from CCP is the average use of the latest added ships. Like black ops, rorquals etv. How common have they turned? How widely used are them? Originally by:** Dianabolic Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.05.13 06:55:00 - [3] You raise a very good point. T3 (and in my opinion, T2) is not worth risking in combat. The only really effective T2 ships worth pvping in are interceptors, recons and interdictors. Everything else is just expensive fluff with roles that T1 ships can perform cheaply and equally well. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Allahs Warrior Gallente I.M.M	Posted - 2009.05.13 07:01:00 - [4] Originally by: Arthur Frayn You raise a very good point. T3 (and in my opinion, T2) is not worth risking in combat. The only really effective T2 ships worth pvping in are interceptors, recons and interdictors. Everything else is just expensive fluff with roles that T1 ships can perform cheaply and equally well. Hi my name is Ishtar. And covops. And stealth bomber.
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.05.13 07:19:00 - [5] Originally by: Allahs Warrior Originally by: Arthur Frayn You raise a very good point. T3 (and in my opinion, T2) is not worth risking in combat. The only really effective T2 ships worth pvping in are interceptors, recons and interdictors. Everything else is just expensive fluff with roles that T1 ships can perform cheaply and equally well. Hi my name is Ishtar. And covops. And stealth bomber. Dominix does a better job than Ishtar but that's a subjective viewpoint of course. I forgot Covops, so thanks for reminding me. And I say Stealth Bombers are so far unproven in their new roles. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Travarica	Posted - 2009.05.13 07:38:00 - [6] HAC gangs are most commonly used roaming gangs in EVE. Because they are good for various reasons. Better then any other ship class for that purpose.
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.05.13 07:50:00 - [7] Originally by: Travarica HAC gangs are most commonly used roaming gangs in EVE. Because they are good for various reasons. Better then any other ship class for that purpose. I've seen far more roaming cruiser and BC gangs than hac gangs in losec and 0.0. They're cheaper and they do an almost equal job. I've seen plenty of complaints that certain hacs are bad at pvp or too expensive to justify their use. Here's a list of crappy hacs and the t1 ships which do a similar job more cheaply: Deimos < Thorax, Brutix Muninn < Rupture, Hurricane Eagle < Ferox (no srsly) Cerberus < Drake The only hacs that seem to be worth a damn are the Vagabond, the Ishtar, the Zealot and the Sacrilege. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.05.13 08:49:00 - [8] Originally by: Arthur Frayn You raise a very good point. T3 (and in my opinion, T2) is not worth risking in combat. The only really effective T2 ships worth pvping in are interceptors, recons and interdictors. Everything else is just expensive fluff with roles that T1 ships can perform cheaply and equally well. GROAN. What an idiotic and completely false statement. L2play, noob. 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. Cry some more.
Haks'he Lirky Burning Bright Inc.	Posted - 2009.05.13 08:57:00 - [9] Originally by: Vaal Erit Originally by: Arthur Frayn You raise a very good point. T3 (and in my opinion, T2) is not worth risking in combat. The only really effective T2 ships worth pvping in are interceptors, recons and interdictors. Everything else is just expensive fluff with roles that T1 ships can perform cheaply and equally well. GROAN. What an idiotic and completely false statement. L2play, noob. Oh, and your comment is the most intellectual and correct statement I have seen on today! T1 ships win when compared to T2 almost every time, the trick is to use the price as a variable.
Kesper North Caldari Epiphyte Mining and Exploration Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.05.13 08:59:00 - [10] Originally by: Allahs Warrior Originally by: Arthur Frayn You raise a very good point. T3 (and in my opinion, T2) is not worth risking in combat. The only really effective T2 ships worth pvping in are interceptors, recons and interdictors. Everything else is just expensive fluff with roles that T1 ships can perform cheaply and equally well. Hi my name is Ishtar. And covops. And stealth bomber. And Vagabond, and Zealot. (Mmmmmmmm... Zealot. <3)
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.05.13 09:07:00 - [11] Originally by: Vaal Erit Originally by: Arthur Frayn You raise a very good point. T3 (and in my opinion, T2) is not worth risking in combat. The only really effective T2 ships worth pvping in are interceptors, recons and interdictors. Everything else is just expensive fluff with roles that T1 ships can perform cheaply and equally well. GROAN. What an idiotic and completely false statement. L2play, noob. wat -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.05.13 09:08:00 - [12] Originally by: Haks'he Lirky Originally by: Vaal Erit GROAN. What an idiotic and completely false statement. L2play, noob. Oh, and your comment is the most intellectual and correct statement I have seen on today! T1 ships win when compared to T2 almost every time, the trick is to use the price as a variable. Please don't feed the troll. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.05.13 09:11:00 - [13] Originally by: Haks'he Lirky T1 ships win when compared to T2 almost every time, the trick is to use the price as a variable. I suggest you stop playing EFT and play EVE-Online on the actual tranquility server. In there you might see people who have a clue and use tech 2 ships like guardians and basilisks and AFs and HACs and stealth bombers, black ops, transport ships and commandships to GREAT USE. Find me tech one ships that can do what dual guardians do or what a damnation can do. Hey can a bunch of random tech 1 trash do what a well coordinated sniper hac fleet can do? I doubt it. 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. Cry some more.
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.05.13 09:13:00 - [14] Originally by: Vaal Erit GRRARR Qft. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Sniper Wolf18 Gallente A Pretty Pony Princess General Tso's Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.13 09:55:00 - [15] The reason you see t1 cruiser gangs disrupting 0.0 is because they are CHEAP and most people using cruiser gangs instead of HACs or command ships is because they KNOW they are geing to lose them. T2 ships are used to great advantage in the right situations. And to finish, thank you for reading my sig -------------------------------------------------- If you are still reading i would probably hav posted by now
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.05.13 09:58:00 - [16] Originally by: Arthur Frayn Originally by: Travarica HAC gangs are most commonly used roaming gangs in EVE. Because they are good for various reasons. Better then any other ship class for that purpose. I've seen far more roaming cruiser and BC gangs than hac gangs in losec and 0.0. They're cheaper and they do an almost equal job. I've seen plenty of complaints that certain hacs are bad at pvp or too expensive to justify their use. Here's a list of crappy hacs and the t1 ships which do a similar job more cheaply: Deimos < Thorax, Brutix Muninn < Rupture, Hurricane Eagle < Ferox (no srsly) Cerberus < Drake The only hacs that seem to be worth a damn are the Vagabond, the Ishtar, the Zealot and the Sacrilege. Can I see your 240Km range Drake fit please?
Mal'ol Soddo	Posted - 2009.05.13 10:03:00 - [17] Edited by: Mal''ol Soddo on 13/05/2009 10:04:27 Quote: black ops, transport ships and commandships to GREAT USE. Quote: black ops and commandships to GREAT USE. Quote: black ops to GREAT USE. Quote: black ops GREAT USE. No, I just don't see black ops and great use living happily anywhere near each other.
Grunanca Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2009.05.13 10:23:00 - [18] Originally by: Arthur Frayn Originally by: Travarica HAC gangs are most commonly used roaming gangs in EVE. Because they are good for various reasons. Better then any other ship class for that purpose. I've seen far more roaming cruiser and BC gangs than hac gangs in losec and 0.0. They're cheaper and they do an almost equal job. I've seen plenty of complaints that certain hacs are bad at pvp or too expensive to justify their use. Here's a list of crappy hacs and the t1 ships which do a similar job more cheaply: Deimos < Thorax, Brutix Muninn < Rupture, Hurricane Eagle < Ferox (no srsly) Cerberus < Drake The only hacs that seem to be worth a damn are the Vagabond, the Ishtar, the Zealot and the Sacrilege. Yeah because a heavy interdictor with infinite scram point and passive tank matching a battleship tank is not better than the tech 1 counterpart or a battlecruiser? I have a feeling you have never been in pvp. I also hope you once meet a gang with 4-5 basilisks or guardians, they are prob some of the best ships out there...
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2009.05.13 11:18:00 - [19] Edited by: Pohbis on 13/05/2009 11:20:03 Originally by: Malcanis Can I see your 240Km range Drake fit please? Travel time > Range ... but yeah, lots of T2 ships easily come in first for specific OPs, but when you're going out and don't plan to come back, T1 ships can fill most roles well. Especially when you factor in price/insurance payout.
Troye Gallente Intelligent Concepts Inc People for Organised Peace	Posted - 2009.05.13 11:34:00 - [20] This thread started off well before the OPs obvious lack of pvp knowledge de-railed it, to put it back on track. I don't see how tec3 battleships could ever be overpowered in a pvp situation when you consider the risks involved, as people above me have said loosing SPs when your ships pops is a major drawback not to mention the price. What does concern me though is other ships becoming obsolete because of tec3. Look at recon ships, a tec3 ship can outmatch them in DPS and tank in addition to fitting a cov ops cloak, people who wanted to go for recon ships are better off traing for strategic cruisers now. Personaly I can't wait till they bring out tec3 battleships, as long as they increase the penalties to put off everyone from having one and they shouldnt make other specialised tec2 ships obsolete. _______________________________________
Troye Gallente Intelligent Concepts Inc People for Organised Peace	Posted - 2009.05.13 11:36:00 - [21] Originally by: Pohbis Edited by: Pohbis on 13/05/2009 11:20:03 Originally by: Malcanis Can I see your 240Km range Drake fit please? Travel time > Range ... but yeah, lots of T2 ships easily come in first for specific OPs, but when you're going out and don't plan to come back, T1 ships can fill most roles well. Especially when you factor in price/insurance payout. Well ofc tec1 is the thing to fly if your going on a suicide op... Most people do plan on coming back alive though _______________________________________
Ratchman	Posted - 2009.05.13 11:52:00 - [22] Originally by: Vaal Erit GROAN. What an idiotic and completely false statement. L2play, noob. You may have a point, but you fail to quantify your assertion. Without a cogent argument to disprove the original statement, your statement becomes worthless. Besides anyone who uses the term "l2play, noob" shows nothing more than the most immature, elitist game snobbery. It's usually used by people as a way of justifying their own perceived greatness. But, if you have to self-promote your own ability, then you cannot be considered a great player. You're only considered good if other people perceive you that way, and unfortunately, such hackneyed internet speak just classifies people as idiots, and people will not listen to people who use these phrases. This isn't just an anti-youth-speak statement, as the evolution of language is inevitable, but it's the choice of statement and the context it is used in. I state this so that you can learn from it. You can choose to ignore it, but that would be foolish.
Ratchman	Posted - 2009.05.13 12:21:00 - [23] Originally by: Sniper Wolf18 The reason you see t1 cruiser gangs disrupting 0.0 is because they are CHEAP and most people using cruiser gangs instead of HACs or command ships is because they KNOW they are geing to lose them. T2 ships are used to great advantage in the right situations. The most sensible comment so far in this thread. T2 is undeniably better than T1, but the risk v cost equation doesn't always justify their use. In many situations, T1 is better, especially if you expect the chances of losing the ship to be high. I'm not sure whether there is a need to include T3 BC and BS types. This isn't so much for their place within the game, but the fact that there is a point that ships become just too expensive to risk. This can be seen by the fact that Strategic Cruisers just aren't seen that often, if at all. They may become more populous in the future as they price goes down, but they will never be as frequent as other ships. How much would a T3 BC cost? If 300 million is the projected cost for the cruiser level, would the projected cost be around 1-1.5 billion for a BC? Without insurance, this is a lot of ISK to lose in a single battle. Some people will say that capitals cost more, but they are deployed in a much more 'strategic' role, and are rarely rolled out without a damn good reason. It also sets a precedent of an escalating arms race for the game, that younger players will not seriously be able to achieve, and only people who have been with the game from the beginning will truly be able to keep up with. Progression is fine, but you have to raise the bottom level for it to remain equidistant from the top. If this is not done, fewer people will join, as the game is daunting enough to new players anyway. This will affect subscription rates, which is another reason why CCP would have to make the bottom levels easier. This kind of idea tends to cause controversy amongst older players, as they see it as making the game 'too easy', as they had to do more when they were younger. CCP have already acknowledged this with their introduction of new revenue streams and 'double-experience' for noobs. Sorry if it offends your sensibilities, but it has to happen for the game to attract new subscribers. I can see them doing T3 frigates in the future, but if they start raising the bar again, they will have to raise the floor again to match. CCP have done quite well with this balancing act so far (although sometimes at the expense of other aspects of game balancing).
Shani Mukantagara Amarr Trans-Solar Works Rooks and Kings	Posted - 2009.05.13 12:51:00 - [24] Tech 3 ships fail proof http://rooksandkings.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=287
Emerhyz	Posted - 2009.05.13 13:32:00 - [25] Originally by: Shani Mukantagara Tech 3 ships fail proof http://rooksandkings.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=287 Oh noes! It seems that Tech 1 is better than Tech 3's now!!! Forget comparing Tech 1 and Tech 2. Tech 1's seem to be WAY better than Tech 2's based on this kill mail. LOL You guys are arguing about something useless. Tech 2, based on how CCP made them, are Far better than any Tech 1 ship...that's what CCP wanted. When you take isk into account when comparing ships, Velators are the best. They are uber cheap (Free), and their dps is a drone. With 34958237458937 Velators, You can take down any Tech 3 ship. Think of it this way, would you use Tech 1 drones in a pvp fight? or Tech 2 drone.
Jesslyn Daggererux Gallente SRIUS BISNIS	Posted - 2009.05.13 14:14:00 - [26] t2 ships have a role. utilize that role or keep using t1 and be blown away by a better prepared pilot. 1.5b is 'alot' to some people, but if you dont lose the ship its not worth it. if theres a guy with almost 10 bil on his command ship, but he never loses a fight, is it a bad idea? i fly an ishtar almost every fight. ive had some close battles but still never had to replace it. oh, and the comment about new players unable to keep up with the arms race? bull. if you specialize and focus you can keep up with older players. it only takes a few months to fly every frig hull, and fly it just about as well as any 5 year player. ------------------------- Originally by: Jesslyn Daggererux GREAT CHINESE WALL OF TEXT
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2009.05.13 14:25:00 - [27] these thingies should be called "strategic battle cruisers" anyways... amount of slots, HP, speed, even recharge times are more like BC than CC all that's left is signature, really. the price would also drop considerably, if they required BC V. until then i don't see them getting ANYWHERE close to the projected levels for the next two years.
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.05.13 19:21:00 - [28] Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 13/05/2009 19:20:45 Originally by: Grunanca Originally by: Arthur Frayn Originally by: Travarica HAC gangs are most commonly used roaming gangs in EVE. Because they are good for various reasons. Better then any other ship class for that purpose. I've seen far more roaming cruiser and BC gangs than hac gangs in losec and 0.0. They're cheaper and they do an almost equal job. I've seen plenty of complaints that certain hacs are bad at pvp or too expensive to justify their use. Here's a list of crappy hacs and the t1 ships which do a similar job more cheaply: Deimos < Thorax, Brutix Muninn < Rupture, Hurricane Eagle < Ferox (no srsly) Cerberus < Drake The only hacs that seem to be worth a damn are the Vagabond, the Ishtar, the Zealot and the Sacrilege. Yeah because a heavy interdictor with infinite scram point and passive tank matching a battleship tank is not better than the tech 1 counterpart or a battlecruiser? I have a feeling you have never been in pvp. I also hope you once meet a gang with 4-5 basilisks or guardians, they are prob some of the best ships out there... Point out where I said the PHOBOS had a better T1 counterpart. I already said interdictors are among the few T2 ships which I consider excellent for PVP, you fucking moron. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Chris Liath Gallente Nex Exercitus Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.05.13 20:17:00 - [29] Overpowered is not a positive term. "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Turiel Demon Minmatar Shadow Reapers	Posted - 2009.05.13 20:25:00 - [30] ... then pigs will fly. Oh wait, I'm supposed to read the OP rather than reacting to the title right? Also, it has come to my attention that I'm really in need of a proper signature.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.