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

Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 02:52:00 -
[31] - Quote
Thrashers are dessies. Nice try.
1v1 a T2 still has the upper hand over a T1 of the same size class. All I hear is goons this and goons that, it's like you people are the villiagers from goons village. |

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
145
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 04:31:00 -
[32] - Quote
T3 ships aren't supposed to be more powerful than T2. T3 modules would be neat, but they wouldn't be like deadspace modules, rather they might have multiple scripts that allow them to serve multiple functions and could be changed in space. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |

Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
830
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 15:18:00 -
[33] - Quote
Linna Excel wrote:Thrashers are dessies. Nice try.
1v1 a T2 still has the upper hand over a T1 of the same size class. I'd like to see the Redeemer beat any T1 BS. |

Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
243
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 00:26:00 -
[34] - Quote
Moonasha wrote:T3 ships have been broken since their inception (tengu = god), how do you suspect this idea to even be feasible?
No they're not, at least not in general terms like you use. Seems every one agrees about command sub but after this no, it's not overpowered and has a perfect predator, learn to use it.
By your means then all faction/deadspace loot pi+Ĥatas missioning in high sec are far too much overpowered and need nerfs.
Back on topic: player made modules having similar performances to dead space NPC modules in an economic player driven content game it's not something unreasonable. What IS unreasonable is the amount of training required to use those T2 modules when same dead space one has 40 to 120% better performance, less skills required, and offer a larger fitting performance also.
Only drawback? -price, but let me say it for you, if price is not a balance argument when it comes to Tengus and other T3's then this argument is also valid for dead space modules vs player made ones in a player driven content game.
brb |

SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
451
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 02:41:00 -
[35] - Quote
Linna Excel wrote:Tippia wrote:Doing what, exactly? What would the add? What benefit would they provide? What purpose would they serve? Here's a random thought, use them to introduce a rock-paper-scissors nature to the game. Name have T3 equipped craft be weak on their own (so T1 beats them) but have bonuses when they are opposed to T2 ships. T2 would still have the upper hand over T1, but it'd have something with more oomph than it does. T1 could beat T3, but it's still underpowered compared to T2.
But the game is pretty much already like that as long as you know what counters what. |

Eternus8lux8lucis
New Eden Regimental Marines Rebel Alliance of New Eden
98
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 07:55:00 -
[36] - Quote
More Subs...sure. Not T3 modules. You dont need it, well unless the ship balancing fails miserably. What would be interesting is to change the null drops from the faction/officer loot to components that would go into a reverse engineer/invention style build requirements for said meta items built by players. Thereby killing off another aspect of seeded items and introducing more player built and driven economies.
I could see a division of null sec/WH and low sec items that would go into the production chains then perhaps limit production to high sec only to encourage "transportation" from one area to another and thereby increasing the likelihood of.... "interception" by those of the Yarr persuasion.
Then by changing where or how much drops where CCP can directly control the markets for said items.
Id also love to see a personal flare for the manufactured items to make them more one of a kind items. Having them loosely based on their meta named counterparts; Estamel, Cormack, Domination, Dread Guristas, etc, but with a player name for each item if wished. This would create another collectors status or goodwill style of value over and above the market or meta level value of the good in question. Strength isnt measured in numbers but in force of will. For if one motived willful individual stands many will fall around him that are weak.
http://tinyurl.com/YarrFace |

Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
255
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 09:39:00 -
[37] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:More Subs...sure. Not T3 modules. You dont need it, well unless the ship balancing fails miserably. What would be interesting is to change the null drops from the faction/officer loot to components that would go into a reverse engineer/invention style build requirements for said meta items built by players. Thereby killing off another aspect of seeded items and introducing more player built and driven economies. I could see a division of null sec/WH and low sec items that would go into the production chains then perhaps limit production to high sec only to encourage "transportation" from one area to another and thereby increasing the likelihood of.... "interception" by those of the Yarr persuasion.  Then by changing where or how much drops where CCP can directly control the markets for said items. Id also love to see a personal flare for the manufactured items to make them more one of a kind items. Having them loosely based on their meta named counterparts; Estamel, Cormack, Domination, Dread Guristas, etc, but with a player name for each item if wished. This would create another collectors status or goodwill style of value over and above the market or meta level value of the good in question.
Well, the first part I guess we will not agree because of "words" however you seem to also think player made items should be more valuable, witch leads me to the second part of your post.
Why not take 50-50? Instead of said items drop, just drop bpc's 1 copy with very bad ME/PE and requiring T3 components to justify those huge percentages above usual T2 mods?
AS you stated this would involve more player actions and also occasions for backstabbing/juicy ganks increasing small/solo pvp interest but also escort (however doesn't change whatever if BO's or JF's)
My only problems about those mods being that much overpowered is not being player made content, skills requirements unbalance and for some (like ships) the ridiculous amount of minerals to build them and no extra specific player made items (ship components or specific salvage/relics) brb |

Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
3770
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 10:00:00 -
[38] - Quote
How about not? My Gotan's Modified String Vest and Draclira's Modified Leather Cop Hat are working out just fine.
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |

Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
256
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 10:34:00 -
[39] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:How about not? My Gotan's Modified String Vest and Draclira's Modified Leather Cop Hat are working out just fine.
Why? *where the heck did I put that wipe* brb |

Annie Anomie
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
36
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 10:35:00 -
[40] - Quote
No. |
|

Jafit
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
234
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 10:47:00 -
[41] - Quote
T2 = specialization T3 = flexibility
T3 is not necessarily better than T2. A T2 module is a better than its T1 counterpart insofar as it's better at the one thing that the module does... But a T3 module doesn't really make sense imo, as the fundamental purpose of a module is to make your ship do one thing better. |

Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
629
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 11:31:00 -
[42] - Quote
Jafit wrote:T2 = specialization T3 = flexibility
T3 is not necessarily better than T2. A T2 module is a better than its T1 counterpart insofar as it's better at the one thing that the module does... But a T3 module doesn't really make sense imo, as the fundamental purpose of a module is to make your ship do one thing better.
Agreed.
I never advocated T3 as a "win button" as some lamebrains here have stated. Flexibility is the thing. It should never be "easy" to get to use or make either. The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |

Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
259
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 11:37:00 -
[43] - Quote
Jafit wrote:T2 = specialization T3 = flexibility
T3 is not necessarily better than T2. A T2 module is a better than its T1 counterpart insofar as it's better at the one thing that the module does... But a T3 module doesn't really make sense imo, as the fundamental purpose of a module is to make your ship do one thing better.
Actually Meta 4 Rolled Tungsten plates are better than T2 but there are also a lot of other mods in same scenario.
But this doesn't explain why so much difference in skills commitment for much less efficiency and why the heck those mods (dead space/officer standards) can't/shouldn't be done by players brb |

Jafit
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
235
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:22:00 -
[44] - Quote
Thorn Galen wrote:Jafit wrote:T2 = specialization T3 = flexibility
T3 is not necessarily better than T2. A T2 module is a better than its T1 counterpart insofar as it's better at the one thing that the module does... But a T3 module doesn't really make sense imo, as the fundamental purpose of a module is to make your ship do one thing better. Agreed. I never advocated T3 as a "win button" as some lamebrains here have stated. Flexibility is the thing. It should never be "easy" to get to use or make either.
Well how do you make a 'flexible' module?
The purpose of a T3 ship is to be a hull that can have a vast array of different uses depending on the subsystem and modules you put on it, as opposed to having a T2 ship with a predefined role with slots and bonuses already established. The purposes of a module is to increase one ship attribute at the expense of another while consuming fitting resources.
I don't see how that fits into the idea of T3, you can't have modules with sub-modules that define their purposes can you? The end product would be the same as a regular module, may as well just introduce more regular modules if there are gaps. |

Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
633
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:39:00 -
[45] - Quote
As an example, I would suggest a module such as the spoken-about "microwarp-jump" module.
T1 variant of it should not even exist. If it did, it should be very limited in ability to micro-jump.
T2 would allow a micro-jump of approximately 120Km in any chosen direction, give or take 10% added to range in accordance with various navigation skills.
T3 would allow a micro-jump, same as above, but have an additional 20% added to range, if and only IF it is supplied with a set amount of fuel.
There's no "win" button here, it's just a discussion about extending the function and use of existing and future modules. The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |

Jafit
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
236
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:45:00 -
[46] - Quote
Thorn Galen wrote:There's no "win" button here, it's just a discussion about extending the function and use of existing and future modules.
What you're talking about, i.e. better than T2, is already in the game in the form of faction, deadspace and officer modules. |

001100110011
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:47:00 -
[47] - Quote
I need a T3 car and a T3 house first :/ |

Doc Mulder
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:50:00 -
[48] - Quote
001100110011 wrote:I need a T3 car and a T3 house first :/ T3 girlfriend. You know, more "flexible" |

Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
634
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:53:00 -
[49] - Quote
Jafit wrote:Thorn Galen wrote:There's no "win" button here, it's just a discussion about extending the function and use of existing and future modules. What you're talking about, i.e. better than T2, is already in the game in the form of faction, deadspace and officer modules.
That's part of a problem. Yes, those modules are better than T2, but that's it then ? No enhanced use, no flexibility on very expensive modules ?
Industrialists with very high skills should be able to make modules, with difficulty, which match the efficacy and expense of the modules you note.
A T3 module should be standard-use T2 and enhanced T3 function by 'adding' something to it, whether it's fuel blocks or Cap boosters or paste, heck, I don't know, I'm not Indy, but something to "stretch" their useful function. Give Industrialists a fresh challenge and give players even more to look forward to.
The same rule which applies to "getting into a ship" should apply. Just because a player can "get into a battleship" does not mean the player can actually fly it well, nor utilise it to it's full potential - not until all the necessary skills and experience have come into play. The same goes for T3 modules. The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |

knobber Jobbler
182
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:57:00 -
[50] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:Jayrendo Karr wrote:T3 is already OP as ****, I vote delete all t3. you know to be honest i never understood what exactly is overpowered about T3 ships, i have flown T3 for a while and i found them quite underwhelming, not to mention extremely weak against Webbing, scramming and having quite low EHP. aside from the 100mn Tengu, but even so, all you have to do is dual web it or neut it, and it is a pretty normal ship. now back to the original topic, i aprove of T3 modules, but more than that, i would love to see Tech 3 Ammo, specially stuff like those sleeper missiles, the praedormitan missiles and alike or their crystals.
As you say, the Tengu is the only one that is over powered in anyway. The rest are just slight better than HAC's in some regards. |
|

Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
285
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 13:00:00 -
[51] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Actually Meta 4 Rolled Tungsten plates are better than T2 but there are also a lot of other mods in same scenario.
This is sadly all of the following: - true - broken - to be fixed with T2 bring 15% better one day when CCP greyscale gets given something (time, green light, patch?!?)
It's also a bit bollox ---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |

Jafit
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
237
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 14:53:00 -
[52] - Quote
Thorn Galen wrote:A T3 module should be standard-use T2 and enhanced T3 function by 'adding' something to it, whether it's fuel blocks or Cap boosters or paste, heck, I don't know, I'm not Indy, but something to "stretch" their useful function. Give Industrialists a fresh challenge and give players even more to look forward to.
The same rule which applies to "getting into a ship" should apply. Just because a player can "get into a battleship" does not mean the player can actually fly it well, nor utilise it to it's full potential - not until all the necessary skills and experience have come into play. The same goes for T3 modules.
Sounds like you just want modules that require fuel and you're using 'Tech 3' as a branding rather than sugsting a module that actually follows the T3 philosophy. I mean you say that T3 modules should use fuel blocks or cap booster charges... but the ancillary shield booster uses cap booster charges, triage and siege modules use strontium clathrates to run, yet none of them are considered T3 or even T2.
If you wanted a true T3 module it would have to be a module that has more than just an on/off state, it'd be a module that you can set to like 3 or more different modes and it would do something different depending on what mode it was in. That might be an idea worth exploring. |

Deise Koraka
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 22:02:00 -
[53] - Quote
*looks at title of thread -> laughs -> thinks you must be a Tengu pilot* ____________________________
I am a carebear, and I support High Sec ganking and PvP. Just please, don't blow up my Hulk. <3 |

Daemon Ceed
Jihad Squad from Riyadh Reckless Ambition
185
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 23:18:00 -
[54] - Quote
Thorn Galen wrote:
I am asking for T3 modules.
So....all T2 stuff requires technetium. What will T3 modules require? Unicorn blood? Post with your main or GTFO! The Sandbox = Play however the hell you want. |

Ager Agemo
Saturn Reaper
93
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 02:28:00 -
[55] - Quote
true about t3 mean to be a more all around stuf while T2 is specialized... but in that case, i find T2 ships sort of underpowered against their t1 counterparts, specially on battleship and command ship hulls. except for sleipnir, that thing is a beast...
but if T3 = generalization, then i want T3 Explosive damage crystals lower damage than T2, higher than T1, but work against explosive targets!
and omni damage missiles, higher than t1, lower than T2 but you dont have to choose an specific resistance. |

Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp AAA Citizens
105
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 02:43:00 -
[56] - Quote
Changing the Strat cruisers would just be a pain in the ass. why not go ahead and introduce a new Tech3 Ship. like Destroyers or better yet Battleships. oh oh oh i know Tech 3 Orca type ship.
This way if you make it a larger ship you can put more skill requirements needed and making production a nightmare. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |