EVE Search - T3 Frigate Discussion - what should they be, what should they not be?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

T3 Frigate Discussion - what should they be, what should they not be?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2009.10.10 09:49:00 - [61] Personally all I can think of is the logistic frigate and the cloaky warpy bubbler. All other niches are filled satisfactory. And while I contend fiercely that bubbles are hugely important in 0.0 I don't think a cloaky warping bubbler is neccesarily a good thing at all. I persoanlly think we will see a slew of nerf stealthbomber threads and sb are op threads in the next 6 months. I'm waiting for t3 BS so I can pay 2bil+ isk for the privilege of fitting a gangmod to one.
Artemis Rose Sileo In Pacis	Posted - 2009.10.10 10:08:00 - [62] I'm really guessing they would will be for the mini professions that do not have a specialist ship already. Hacking Salvaging Gas Harvesting Etc. Etc. Etc. In terms of combat, combat frigates aren't really affected by bubbles all that much and the last thing the game really needs is more cloaky/warpy ships that pack a relatively weak punch. As much as I'd hate to see it, the only real way you could set apart the T3 frigate class for pure combat would be a resistance to neuting. Possibily as well, command ship frigates that provide DIFFERENT bonuses than the current commandships. *** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats
Darthewok Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.10 10:37:00 - [63] Edited by: Darthewok on 10/10/2009 10:40:09 Or give T3 Frigs something like 8/6/8 high/mid/low slots but the ability to only use 4/3/4 (3 turrets/launchers) at a time and only enough CPU and PG to have to make choices what to online. (no cap requirements to online/offline slots but a 40 second time requirement). In other words, a frig which can fit cyno, probe launcher & bomb launcher but can only online one of them at a time (40 seconds to change) and can switch between a tackle inty fit to a combat inty fit and between an MWD fit and an AB fit. (40 seconds to change) The 40 seconds is so that the frig can't just change slots in combat (too powerful). However, it can look at potential prey on the scanner and at a safespot, switch to its best fit to attack/tackle it. Voila! High-tech configurable frig in keeping with the Lego mindset of T3. But it won't be more powerful than an inty/stealth bomber/cov ops. Its advantage is simply being able to adapt to combat situations at safespots beforehand without docking. hmm just some thoughts...
Troubadour The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.10.10 11:13:00 - [64] There are already enough frigates and frigate classes that people don't use. electronic attack ships are a good example. I think they shouldn't bother with t3 frigs until it's shown that CCP can make frigates more then pieces of paper that go fast and point things without creating an overpowered gimmick like the stealthbomber (which went from useless to useless except in one situation). CCP should focus on changing some of the stats on the current t3 cruiser subs and perhaps adding a 5th, and then a T3 BC and BS class would be nice. Maybe a T3 dessy class would be pretty cool as well.
Eli Porter Amarr Altruism.	Posted - 2009.10.10 11:33:00 - [65] I'd imagine they'd be like combat capable covert ops ships. Toughest ship to catch in the game. Can warp through bubbles, can warp cloaked, and has the Ceptor level speed, agility, and sig to get out of tough situations. All that with the potential of tanking and DPS ability of the Assault Frigs. Of course you can't have all of the above, just like T3 cruisers, and you decide what you want more of.
Nalena Arlath	Posted - 2009.10.10 12:39:00 - [66] Seeing some ship types for the mini professions like salvaging and such would be nice. Though they wouldn't really be T3 ships, just additions to T1 and T2. Just like we have astrio frig for scanning, add a ship with bonus to salvaging, hacking, et.c. More or less like a type of science ship. No guns and crap, just scan probing and scanning equipment. Maybe some drones for defense? I think that would be nicer than a whole bunch of T3 frigs.
Eli Porter Amarr Altruism.	Posted - 2009.10.10 12:47:00 - [67] I think we and CCP would all agree that more subsystems should come out in later expansions. Fun stuff like Rig bonuses, Salvaging bonuses and even Smartbomb bonuses would work well on T3 Cruisers just as well as T3 Frigs.
ropnes	Posted - 2009.10.10 12:57:00 - [68] Make a subsystem that adds passive armor reconstruction
Radcjk Caldari Failed Diplomacy	Posted - 2009.10.10 14:23:00 - [69] I think part of T3 that alot of people seemed to have missed is that it wasn't supposed to be the be-all, end-all ship. Every time a newb hits the forums and asks "What shipz is best types everz!?!11!" they all get the same response. There isn't one / Eve has no end game ship. So why are people upset that T3 hasn't come out as solopwnmobiles, especially after CCP stated they didn't want to see large amounts of ships as such ? (Gallente CS nerf, old ecm / nos nerf, nano nerf, etc...) T3 is based around flexibility. Witch exception to the interdiction nullifier module, anything a Tengu can do a Cerberus / Eagle (lol)/ Falcon / Basilisk / Drake / Vulture can do better. The same applies for the other races Strategic Cruisers. They are not the uber-boat you are looking for. T3 is about flexability, which is admittedly offset by the damn price of the ships and modules but that isn't the major case and point at the moment. T3 is about only having to drag one ship, vice 3-5, out into the great unknown and being able to use carriers or POS's or outposts to restructure it towards your current needs. Need a ganbk boat ? Refit it. Need a prober / scout / recon ? Refit it. Need an e-war plat form, or a bait tanker ? Refit it. It does all of these, but none of them as well as a specialized T2 platform. That said I have no bloody idea how the frigates will come out in relation to PvP, but liek the cruisers a SP loss at ship destruction coupled with cost to effectiveness / survivability ratio probably means they wont be overly common for some time.
Seringol Gallente	Posted - 2009.10.10 15:14:00 - [70] Things Id like to see T3 Frigs provide.. I really want a Frigate sized logistics boat, Command Bonus boat, and an immunity to EWar/Webs. Not at the same time, and set it up so we have to make choices on it. Do I want CovOps Cloak or a Bonus out? Am I tackling, do I need the Anti EWar piece? Will I have enough tank if I take it? Id love for T3 to be competitively priced enough that having a T3 Cruiser/Frig fleet is something completely viable and worth having, and that it could be completely rounded by being able to bring everything you would normally need. Especially if the T3 Cruisers are the ones bringing the big fight, and the Frigs take care of all the EWar/Logistics needs. And thats fairly cut and dry, now merge that fully capable fleet with a T1/T2 and who/what do you call primary? What is the biggest threat? I like the idea of downsizing the fleet fights, sorry. Let me bring the fight how I want while being 1/4 the size and price. Also, I hope that if you have the skills for Cruiser T3 you wont need to buy and train more for Frig. Also, no SP Loss.
Gallente Citizen1	Posted - 2009.10.10 15:27:00 - [71] I'd like to see more rock-paper-scisors in this game. Makes much more diverse team game. So i'd like to see subsystem that allows easy fitting of medium guns. Frigate size ship really needs something special to survive and with SP loss on ship destruction T3 is screaming for a imba feature! --> Allow customization of the ship on the fly! Example: Shield optimization subsystem, Allows pilot to adjust shield natural resistances. Has 50 resistance points to move around anywhere he wants. Kinda like scripts Reactor optimization subsystem, Allows pilot to specifically adjust where the power is directed. Adds 40% to either ship velocity, capacitor or shield recharge Hull optimization subsystem, Allows pilot to adjust fysiological elements of hull and armor. Adds 40% to either ship armor repair amount, hull resistances or -40% ship mass. (tiny note here, i don't know exactly how ship mass works and how big percent is too much)
Terranid Meester Tactical Assault and Recon Unit	Posted - 2009.10.10 15:32:00 - [72] I think a cov ops sub-system might be a decent idea, if you want to create a cov ops af for example. Drone subsystems for an interceptor completely dependent on drones? I think instead of an interdiction nulifier, a warp strength bonus sub-system (+5 warp strength) might be a good replacement and then you can combine that with a cov ops sub-system. Rocket sub-system and a bonus to cap sub-system so that neutralisers do not do as much damage. Signature radius subsystem? Module duration bonus subsystem. List goes on :P
Doctor Cal'torien	Posted - 2009.10.10 16:01:00 - [73] T3 Stealthbombers fitting 2 bomb launchers... bad idea but would eb a hell of a lot of fun
Madner Kami Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2009.10.11 02:53:00 - [74] Originally by: Radcjk I think part of T3 that alot of people seemed to have missed is that it wasn't supposed to be the be-all, end-all ship. Every time a newb hits the forums and asks "What shipz is best types everz!?!11!" they all get the same response. There isn't one / Eve has no end game ship. So why are people upset that T3 hasn't come out as solopwnmobiles, especially after CCP stated they didn't want to see large amounts of ships as such ? (Gallente CS nerf, old ecm / nos nerf, nano nerf, etc...) I doubt people are upset because they're no solopwnmobiles. I think people are upset by the high price, the skillloss and the lack in effectiveness. "A lack in effectiveness?" you ask? Aye, a lack in effectiveness. How so? Well, let me explain it with your own words: Originally by: Radcjk T3 is based around flexibility. It's based around flexibility. But what does flexibility mean in a game, where specialization usually is the best thing to do? What does flexibility mean in a game, where you can basically only change your ship's layout at a predictable place, like a starbase or a POS (correct me, if I'm wrong, but you can't reconfigure them even with a carrier around). What does your flexibility help you, if you have to carry your number of subsystems around in your own cargohold, both increasing the cost of the loss as well as gimping the cargohold available for ammo, loot and whatever? Imagine a Transformer, that has to drive into a garage to transform and has to carry spare parts around with it in his caravan... The praised flexibility of T3 is cool, no doubt, but it's worth nothing once the ship is launched from the docking-ring. In most cases you'll end up with a gimped ship, that tries to fill a role, which it is not supposed to be superb at. Once the ship's launched it is fixed to a role and that's a flaw of the design, because the whole concept of T3-ships is to not fill a role or be able to switch your role on-the-fly. Just look on the market. There are a few T3s around, that are quite praised, but what do they and the praised setups do? They fullfill a role of a T1 or T2 ship, but are better at it or fullfill the role in a slightly different approach or even out some nuisances on the usually used T1/T2 ship (slot-layout, stat-layout and bonus-combinations come to mind) or take on the only "role" that is available to T3 exclusively: Cloaky-Bubble-Avoider. On the other hand, we have T3s around, that are beeing scolded for their very existence, because they can do "nothing", not even the T3-exclusive role without beeing gimped into oblivion (Legion comes to mind - most fits are simply terrible, although there're some good ones around, but other ships can usually do it better). The whole concept of T3 is interesting, if not even totally awesome, but they can not fullfill that concept at the moment, really. Originally by: Radcjk Witch exception to the interdiction nullifier module, anything a Tengu can do a Cerberus / Eagle (lol)/ Falcon / Basilisk / Drake / Vulture can do better. The same applies for the other races Strategic Cruisers. They are not the uber-boat you are looking for. The whole gaming-concept of EVE is about taking on a role and specialization. T3 tries to break that paradigm, but is simply caught in a universe where you're close to nothing without focusing on a role or specialization. The concept is great, yet the implementation is flawed.
Madner Kami Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2009.10.11 03:09:00 - [75] Originally by: Radcjk T3 is about flexability, which is admittedly offset by the damn price of the ships and modules but that isn't the major case and point at the moment. T3 is about only having to drag one ship, vice 3-5, out into the great unknown and being able to use carriers or POS's or outposts to restructure it towards your current needs. Need a ganbk boat ? Refit it. Need a prober / scout / recon ? Refit it. Need an e-war plat form, or a bait tanker ? Refit it. Refit? Sure, why not. Let me dock at that Starbase over there, move my other subsystems to the hangar, reconfigure and refit my ship, pack the whole fuzz into the cargohold again and fly out. So where is this revolutionary? It's exactly as having a freighter/industrial/carrier around, dock, jump into another ship and do whatever you want to do after undocking. Moreso, most T3 combinations will not be able to do anything as good as a T2 ship. What T3 effectively managed to do is, it lowered the needed cargo-capacity to carry different shiptypes around. How overwhelimingly usefull in it's current incarnation... Originally by: Radcjk It does all of these, but none of them as well as a specialized T2 platform. If something else can do the job better, then you'd take that somethign else. It's easy as that. T3 would have to offer some sort of compensation for beeing a Jack-of-all-Trades, but where is that compensation? Don't tell me you see docking up and refitting a ship as a compensation, because I can do that with a Dominix or a Myrmidon just as well... Moreso, even cheaper that way... Ok, they won't have those more or less 10 specialized bonuses like the T3 would have but hey, seems like at least the Domi still outdoes any T3 in general acceptance. I wonder why... T3 really needs an overhaul to actually be versatile. One important part is to be changeable on the fly, without needing to dock or carry spare modules around. Else T3 simply acts too much like any other ship ingame.
Eli Porter Amarr Altruism.	Posted - 2009.10.11 03:14:00 - [76] If you have any solid suggestions for T3 subsystems feel free to post them at this thread
Zilberfrid	Posted - 2009.10.11 10:12:00 - [77] I, for one, really like the udea. There is a proteus, you cannot safely assume it has one specific role, even less so than regular ships. Similarely you can work with t3 frigs, there is a frig, you do not know wether it's a passable interceptor, ewar ship, speed fitted ship or the like. Another subsystem I'd like to see is a skin changing module: You activate it with a script, and towards normal scanners it looks like a ship of that type (up to a sensible maximum, for instance cruiser when you are frigate) This also increases signature to that ship. Ship scanners of course would void this. This would further the insecurety what you are facing.
Helicity Boson Amarr The Python Cartel.	Posted - 2009.10.11 11:10:00 - [78] I want a command frig that fits a single gang link. I dont care if people think that is balanced or not My noobish Khanid Pirate blog: http://helicityboson.blogspot.com/
Gneeznow Minmatar Ship spinners inc	Posted - 2009.10.11 12:00:00 - [79] AF type combat abilities + survivability and ewar subsystems and VERY LONG range jump drives hell yea
Lijhal Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.10.11 13:47:00 - [80] Edited by: Lijhal on 11/10/2009 13:48:43 i for one dont like the idea about t3 frigs b/c frigs, or to be clarify the base hull of a frig, isnt supposed to be the jack-@ss of all trades! what should a t3 frig do? do more dps than an AF? do more speed than an inty ? do more ew than an EAF ? salvaging-, smartbomb- and covert ops boat with 25au/sec and 400dps @ 30km? if they'll ever hit tq, we'll see threads like "damn ccp, my t3 frig cannot kill a tech1 bs" and so on ... I for one strongly believe, that tech3 battleships should be the next step in LEGO, no friggin frig base hull, no bc hull, only cruiser and bs's ... and then maybe in the near future (soon tm) t3 capitals long story short: NO for t3 frigs
Doctor Cal'torien	Posted - 2009.10.11 15:41:00 - [81] Originally by: Kadoes Khan My thoughts... not well fleshed out atm but whatever. 1) Logistics Frigates - Faster more mobile logistics, capable of supporting smaller gangs. 2) Anti-Ewar Frigates - Provide AoE ECCM, tracking links and sensor boosting 3) Command Frigates - Gang link capable and very durable ships(likely restricted to 1 ganglink) 4) Anti-CovOps Frigates - Capable of probing down and disabling cloaks on grid(incl CovOps ones)... this would likely take noticably longer than normal probing. 5) Anti-Bubble Frigates - Equipped with mods that can prevent dictors from launching bubbles as well as disabling ones already up. this
Overqueen Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.11 15:46:00 - [82] I would like to see a T3 frigate with an Offensive variant that has Marauder-type abilities. Give it 4 high slots but 2 weapons, with double the range and damage. Add a tractor beam and a salvager and it would make a very interesting ship for both PvP and PvE combats.
Kingwood Amarr Hello Kitty Pyjama Piwates Global Disorder	Posted - 2009.10.12 20:47:00 - [83] Edited by: Kingwood on 12/10/2009 20:47:52 No use arguing with CCP about what T3 frigs should and should not be. I sure hope they'll fail as much as T3 Cruisers did. I remember when I used to argue almost 2 years ago about the problems Titans and their DD's will pose when they become more common. Took 'em this long to change it. So yeah.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.10.12 21:25:00 - [84] Originally by: Dracoknight I rather want T3 destroyers than frigates... This. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2009.10.12 21:44:00 - [85] Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Dracoknight I rather want T3 destroyers than frigates... This. Looking at t3 cruisers some better t3 frig setups will be on par with HACs ...
Andrea Griffin	Posted - 2009.10.12 21:49:00 - [86] I, personally, would like something different than "It's fast, it's cloaky, it does uber DPS." That, quite honestly, is boring. We have enough of that. I would like to see the frigates have an emphasis on electronic warfare - not only giving it, but being able to resist it as well. A reduction in the effectiveness of incoming EWar - webs, disruptors, neuts, etc. - might be interesting. Fitting reductions might also be interesting, allowing a frigate to fit several cruiser-sized weapons instead of frigate weapons. An extremely small signature radius is a different kind of tanking that I think is underutilized. I would like to see all of them have the support of a drone or two - possibly a significant bonus to EWar drones, so that drones other than the ECM drones see the light of day. That combined with the ability to hold a small set of drones - even if only one can be used at a time - can give the frigate versatility in the EWar field without giving it too many slots. What about a logistics focus, or a gang boosting bonus? The ability to fit warfare links? Perhaps and enhanced version of the directional scanner that can reach out 50AU and can pick up cloaked ships, or gives you the distance to the object +/- an AU or two. As mentioned above, something dedicated to mini profession sites might also be very cool. An exploration module that provides an extra mid or two and an 100% access bonus. Really, anything other than "Oh, it's just another interceptor" or "Gee, all that money just to fly another assault frigate".

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: 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.