Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vagel
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 11:54:00 -
[1]
The reson to make the new shipclass was versitility. The ability to change a few subsystems without destroying rigs - to make the best of a given situation.
Well, the idea was good - but the implementation is... lacking in performance.
The places where you want to reconfigure your ship, is NOT in a station - it's in space. Why in the name of all holy, cant you switch subsystems at a carrier?
It just makes no sense at all - for the price of a t3 ship, you can have your ishtar, falcon, pilgrim, cerb, zealot rigged, fitted and ready at a station, why do you have to dock at a station to switch subsystems?
|
Rhohan
Minmatar Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 13:06:00 -
[2]
Looking for the "Swiss Army Knife" of ships?
|
Artassaut
Minmatar Oblivion Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 13:18:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Rhohan Looking for the "Swiss Army Knife" of ships?
The Typhoon is now confirmed to be T3. /O\ --- The Gate: Lol, try targeting me in a fleet fight. The Station: No U. |
Rhohan
Minmatar Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 13:23:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Artassaut
The Typhoon is now confirmed to be T3. /O\
Ok, you got me.
|
Bazuka
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 14:50:00 -
[5]
The cool factor of seeing your cruiser shapeshift in space is very appealing. Do it CCP! ___________
CareMyBear! |
Misanth
Reaper Industries
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 15:10:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Bazuka The cool factor of seeing your cruiser shapeshift in space is very appealing. Do it CCP!
Is that some shameful advertisement for Transformers? - I'd tell you why but then I'll have to kill you. And to kill you I'd have to log in. And to log in I'd have to stop browsing these forums. Both you and me knows that'll never happen. |
ShadowGod56
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 16:55:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Misanth
Originally by: Bazuka The cool factor of seeing your cruiser shapeshift in space is very appealing. Do it CCP!
Is that some shameful advertisement for Transformers?
Oh god no
|
Allahs Warrior
Gallente Brotherhood of Suicidal Priests
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 17:01:00 -
[8]
I thought it was exactly the OPPOSITE of versitility, that t3 was supposed to be even MORE specialized than t2, SO extremely specialized that you can make it almost useless in every other way by making it super uncatchable, or you can make it like a battlecruiser, but a CRUISER!
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 17:42:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Vagel The reson to make the new shipclass was versitility. The ability to change a few subsystems without destroying rigs - to make the best of a given situation.
Well, the idea was good - but the implementation is... lacking in performance.
The places where you want to reconfigure your ship, is NOT in a station - it's in space. Why in the name of all holy, cant you switch subsystems at a carrier?
It just makes no sense at all - for the price of a t3 ship, you can have your ishtar, falcon, pilgrim, cerb, zealot rigged, fitted and ready at a station, why do you have to dock at a station to switch subsystems?
I think the point was that your foes would never know how you were fit, adding the element of surprise.
Like, surprise!!! I decided to go with EHP and DPS.
|
Yonos
GK inc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 17:49:00 -
[10]
this
Originally by: Allahs Warrior making it super uncatchable
I have a whole region trying to kill my solo anti-bubble, cloaking loki. Fun to go afk in ratting systems and go take a nap.
I give it another year until they allow t3 fitting @ pos, bets anyone?
|
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 18:07:00 -
[11]
What disappoints me the most is the fact that the (arguably) best thing they could come up with was, drumroll, covert ops cloak and bubble immunity.
If you ask me thats almost admitting there are no real ideas on what to do with the ship class, so lets toss in a few "you cant kill me"-features and be done with it.
|
Muenen
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 18:13:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Omara Otawan What disappoints me the most is the fact that the (arguably) best thing they could come up with was, drumroll, covert ops cloak and bubble immunity.
If you ask me thats almost admitting there are no real ideas on what to do with the ship class, so lets toss in a few "you cant kill me"-features and be done with it.
Well what you had done to make these ships unique?
Even if you had ideas to make them unique doesn't that break their essential premise to be like other ships but your opponent can't tell what you are until you attack or use defensive mods? Giving them attributes that are too unique will pigeon hole them again into obvious roles.
|
FireT
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 18:23:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Misanth
Originally by: Bazuka The cool factor of seeing your cruiser shapeshift in space is very appealing. Do it CCP!
Is that some shameful advertisement for Transformers?
Tech 3 cruisers, more than meets the eye.
Also, can someone please explain how changing subsystems in space makes any benefits appear? I mean certain subsystems change your ship fighting style completely different. So wouldn't you suddenly need different stuff. I mean from a Gallente drone boat to a gunner makes things different.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 18:46:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Beverly Sparks Like, surprise!!! I decided to go with EHP and DPS.
Then again, they can surprise you in both the EHP and the DPS department if you fit them "right"…
Given their flexibility, there's always the temptation to fit one bonus of each kind and be crappy at just about everything (granted, a bit better than a normal ship with the same modules but still crappy overall) rather than push the limits in one or two areas.
Of course, that kind of surprise is fun to, like "Surprise!! Failmail!!" ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 19:58:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Muenen Giving them attributes that are too unique will pigeon hole them again into obvious roles.
Thats exactly what I'm saying. Since they have introduced the cloaky and nullifier subs, there is practically no t3 cruiser around not fitting those.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 20:12:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Muenen Giving them attributes that are too unique will pigeon hole them again into obvious roles.
Thats exactly what I'm saying. Since they have introduced the cloaky and nullifier subs, there is practically no t3 cruiser around not fitting those.
Mine doesn't… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Hiroshima Jita
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 20:34:00 -
[17]
LOL I remember when CCP Whisper flamed the **** out of some dude who clamed t3 ships would all be cookie cutter setups.
He was wrong. We have killed 19 t3 cruisers since their release. They all fit cloak and bubble immunity. Half of them we baited. The other half were caught by the one guy in alliance who only flys ceptors and has mastered the art of uncloaking them and pointing them before they go into warp. Out of the thousand+ people who inhabit our home we have one guy who can tackle a t3 ship when it jumps into our camp. Fun times.
Not a whine but t3 ships have been cookie cuttered And the role they currently fill is almost never getting ganked unless they accidentally engage some bait.
|
Mova B
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 21:04:00 -
[18]
As long they keep the 'loose ship, loose skill' feature, T3 cruisers never will be in wide use. Or any future T3. T3 frigates for example, they would be dropping like flies, who wants to keep skilling up all the time for same ship? NOBODY...
T3 is utter fail and I personally can't believe who was the tard in CCP to come up with this idea to lose skill with ship.
|
Katarlia Simov
Minmatar Cowboys From Hell
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 23:51:00 -
[19]
I totally agree about the cookie cutter thing.
If you are going to bother putting guns on something, then hell, you want it to do proper DAMAGE.
If you are going to bother put a tank on something then you want to give it a massive one.
If you have the option of a cov-ops cloak and bubble immunity, then hells yes, you will take them.
t3 versatility seems to mean 'well he MIGHT be using drones OR blasters' ... and thats not versatility. Either way it dps.
Also, there are so many combinations of subs that are lolably bad. Not just kinda crappy, but like seriously LOADS worse than HAC/Recon equivalents. So with that in mind, all you can do really is the uncatachable HAC.
You ever think that there's just not enough roles in PvP to facilitate versatility as such. Since fitting t3 as a recon is pretty fail, since they aren't really better, you just fit them as a damage dealer with a good tank.
|
Pater Peccavi
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 00:31:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Muenen
Well what you had done to make these ships unique?
One of the cooler ideas I saw was Cynoless jump drive.
On the topic of everyone using the cloaky-bubble immune setups, those really gimp the rest of the ship. I don't understand the point, unless people really want to use a super-expensive scout ship, instead of a cheap frigate. "Yay, I'm cloaked and immune to bubbles! That's all I can do! Yay!" So many better ways to fit these ships. ______ Why has the number of players online dropped from 50k to 25k? BECAUSE OF SWINE FLU |
|
Madner Kami
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 01:04:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Madner Kami on 03/08/2009 01:05:24
Originally by: Mova B As long they keep the 'loose ship, loose skill' feature, T3 cruisers never will be in wide use. Or any future T3. T3 frigates for example, they would be dropping like flies, who wants to keep skilling up all the time for same ship? NOBODY...
T3 is utter fail and I personally can't believe who was the tard in CCP to come up with this idea to lose skill with ship.
Personally, I'm not quite so sure, that it's only that. A factor? Sure, but not alone The price-tag makes the ship really unique first and foremost. Its like flying one of the rare faction ships, which you simply do not want to loose under any circumstances, especially since everyone is going to get you on a killmail at all costs.
And as for where this idea came from: If I remember correctly, the original plan was to have some sort of "ship-experience", the longer you fly it, the better you get with it and if it goes *boom* the experience is lost, since it was "stored" on the ship (some sort of AI-thingy, fluff-wise, eventually). I guess, but dunno, that the development was cut (due to time-reason?) and the skill-loss introduced instead. Not the brightest step, I think.
|
Xious
Caldari Phaze-9 Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 01:32:00 -
[22]
Until T3 are purely about versatility they will never be widely used. Don't bother with the skill loss, that wouldn't stop someone using it, its a rank 1 skill. While it might deter some and physically stops people for 4-5 days, it wont stop them completely.
Some sub-systems need to be buffed, others nerfed, its the life blood of MMO's, balance. When a super-freaking tank set-up is as vaiable or when an unlta-high DPS set-up is viable, or when a bubble immunity/cov-ops set-up is lessviable, more set-ups will be used, increasing the versatility of T3 ships, and thus, their surprise.
Its like an anti-frigate Caracal, any inty pilot would drool if they saw a caracal slow-boating to a gate, but pop that nuet and AML's on his ass and he's going to need a new pair. T3 should and can be like this, they need the element of surprise, and until they do, its like flying a faction BS, all ISK, no advantage.
|
Nito Musashi
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 01:39:00 -
[23]
level 5 t3 skills take about 5 days more or less to max out, scary stuff to the older player's whose skills are all like 22 days to 40 days a pop at level 5 *shudder*.
the skill loss is nominal and silly to say the lest, now if it was a t3 or more skill then it might be an omg this sucks i wont risk it thing.
its the price that makes it either a heart thumping thrill ride to risk it, or the price that makes it a omg i wont risk this ship. but lest with the t3s you can spend a billion on a fancy faction bs with a few billion in officer fittings and fly with a t3 cruiser you wont be primary your survivability meter just went up. so buy them silly over priced faction battleships and sucker into ganging with a t3. t3 fit their roles just fine.
|
Jack Jombardo
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 01:24:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 04/08/2009 01:25:44
Originally by: Nito Musashi
its the price that makes it either a heart thumping thrill ride to risk it, or the price that makes it a omg i wont risk this ship.
Funny think about this ... I made a Excel-Spreed and calculated the prices with ALL stuff bought (direct buy, no orders) from Amarr market and BPC over contracts. What do you belive subs cost you this way? Between 15 and 40 Millions!
Now consider the common price range from 90 to 150++ mils at the market atm. It's not CCPs fault, that T3 is that expensive atm. It's players fault!
I didn't do the calc for the hull, but I bet it might be around 100 mil or even less. So hull + 5 * subs might be around 300 mil MAXIMUM if you just buy the most expensive subs. With the cheepest 175 mil could be enough. Using buy orders outside of Amarr it should actual be posible, to build all the stuff for around 100 (cheep subs) to 200 (expensive subs).
Now taking this REAL build-cost + some win you might end with 250 to 400 mil for hull + 5 * subs. Well, I'd say this price is absolut fine for the performance of T3 ships.
Originally by: CCP Nozh Where do tech 3 ships fit in?The goal has always been to have them considerably cheap, around the price of tech 2 cruisers.
|
Cagot
Spelunkers
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 01:59:00 -
[25]
I was annoyed that I had to leave my POS and find a station to switch subsystems, but when I did I saw the reason: potentially reduced slots and drone bay. To do this in a POS or carrier they'd need to figure out where to dump the modules and enforce the drone bay limit -- in the station they put the modules in the items bay and refused to let me undock with all the drones.
Looks like a lot of code to check a lot of cases -- for example, a POS with a ship mtce hangar but no corp hangar and not enough cargo hold for spare drones. Having that capability at a POS would be a substantial code extension, I think.
|
Cagot
Spelunkers
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 02:37:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Jack Jombardo
I didn't do the calc for the hull, but I bet it might be around 100 mil or even less. So hull + 5 * subs might be around 300 mil MAXIMUM if you just buy the most expensive subs. With the cheepest 175 mil could be enough.
Last time I built a hull it took 52 NIMs, which according to EVE-Central are running 4.6M each. That would be 239 million just for the NIM requirements in the hull. However, I think the NIM requirement dropped with the last patch. Is it 32 now? If so, then the hull is still about 150 million just for the NIMs, which I think are about 65% of the cost of the hull.
There are a lot of "I thinks" in there, but they all come out to more than you're suggesting for the build cost.
|
Dagobert Dog
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 03:51:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Dagobert Dog on 04/08/2009 03:55:53
Originally by: Cagot
Originally by: Jack Jombardo
I didn't do the calc for the hull, but I bet it might be around 100 mil or even less. So hull + 5 * subs might be around 300 mil MAXIMUM if you just buy the most expensive subs. With the cheepest 175 mil could be enough.
Last time I built a hull it took 52 NIMs, which according to EVE-Central are running 4.6M each. That would be 239 million just for the NIM requirements in the hull. However, I think the NIM requirement dropped with the last patch. Is it 32 now? If so, then the hull is still about 150 million just for the NIMs, which I think are about 65% of the cost of the hull.
There are a lot of "I thinks" in there, but they all come out to more than you're suggesting for the build cost.
26 NIMs for the hull ans 52 NIMs for the complete cruiser with subsystems.
PS.: Currently the material price for a complete cruiser (they all need the same resources) with subsystems is about 500 million assuming jita sell order prices for salvage and polymeres.
|
Nikolay Tesla
Minmatar Nomadic Angels
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 07:33:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Mova B As long they keep the 'loose ship, loose skill' feature, T3 cruisers never will be in wide use. Or any future T3. T3 frigates for example, they would be dropping like flies, who wants to keep skilling up all the time for same ship? NOBODY...
T3 is utter fail and I personally can't believe who was the tard in CCP to come up with this idea to lose skill with ship.
Agree on that. I could train Loki skills to IV in 10 days, but I would rather spend that 10 days training a refining skills or something as usefull for pvp...
|
Diomidis
Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 12:46:00 -
[29]
Very-very few ppl don't wish to risk 800+M ships (some of them were bought more than 3-4 bill).
Most use the interdiction nullifier + cov cloak subs and travel around behind enemy lines doing nothing...just believing they are looking good in their T3s, and enjoying ppl trying to ambush them in vain.
Some build high EHP baits, to force ppl into agroing around gates or stations. Most of those are also cloaked / bubble-proofed, especially for Tengu.
High DPS / EHP or active tanked T3s I doubt will ever be used for PvP unless outside stations with proper support, or in blobs of highly capable ships and possibly with noob-corp alts flying Logistics - the usual ***go-tactics that most ppl use when they are unwilling to actually risk their expensive "PvP Beasts" - call those Marauders, T3s or whatever. Join the Biggest Greek Corp! www.Mythos-eve.com - Join Mythos Channel in game! |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |