EVE Search - T3 frigates

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

T3 frigates

» 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)
Gallians	Posted - 2010.12.05 01:49:00 - [1] Some time ago there were no T3 ships. Then there were. At the time it was said that in an expansion or two, T3 frigates (which were "done) would come out. I haven't heard anything more. What happened to this? Were they cancelled? Where are they? Requesting information on these most awesome vessels.
Istvaan Shogaatsu Caldari Guiding Hand Social Club	Posted - 2010.12.05 02:07:00 - [2] *******s to frigates, I want a t3 BS.
Jason1138	Posted - 2010.12.05 02:10:00 - [3] frigs are probably the worst class of ship to get bumped to t3 destroyers, bc's, bs's, miners, freighters, etc all would give us more for the money than frigs. we've already got inty's, af's, electronic attack frigs, cov ops, etc we don't have anything for destroyers at all. we don't have anything for BC's but command ships, which are just harder tanking bc's. wouldn't a fast bc or a cloaky bc, or whatever be nice? there's already frigs that do everything, leave them til later
Jamie Jin 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2010.12.05 02:11:00 - [4] I was really hoping for these as I like flying frigates more than anything else. The fact they're cheaper and easier to skill into (the t2 ones compared to their cruiser sized counterparts) is also a plus. You can become a frig specialist, having all the racial frigs to V and the t2 variants to V in an easily achievable timeframe. T3 frigs would add even more to it for frig lovers . I wanted it to happen, but anytime soon... I don't know, I wish.
Jenny Jihad Minmatar Republic Military Skool	Posted - 2010.12.05 02:13:00 - [5] Originally by: Jason1138 we don't have anything for destroyers at all. Destroyers... Interdictors... that was so hard to think of. Or did you just not know about those ships? They shoot magic bubbles and make everyone happy.
Jason1138	Posted - 2010.12.05 02:21:00 - [6] "Destroyers... Interdictors... that was so hard to think of. Or did you just not know about those ships? They shoot magic bubbles and make everyone happy." ok 1) Interdictors are terrible. actually worse than the t1 destroyers. When was the last time you saw a flycatcher? and 2) what i was talking about was that we don't have a cov ops destroyer, don't have an inty destroyer, don't have an AF destroyer, don't have an electronic attack destroyer in other words, "we don't have anything like that for destroyers". if you want a faster frig, a tankier frig, a cloaky frig, a bomber frig, etc etc you got it already. if you want a tankier destroyer, a faster destroyer, a cloaky destroyer, etc etc, you're screwed. Ditto with BC's, on everything but the tankier part, which obviously command ships fulfill so lets leave t3 frigs for awhile. did you follow it that time?
Jenny Jihad Minmatar Republic Military Skool	Posted - 2010.12.05 02:26:00 - [7] Edited by: Jenny Jihad on 05/12/2010 02:26:40 Originally by: Jason1138 "Destroyers... Interdictors... that was so hard to think of. Or did you just not know about those ships? They shoot magic bubbles and make everyone happy." ok 1) Interdictors are terrible. actually worse than the t1 destroyers. When was the last time you saw a flycatcher? and 2) what i was talking about was that we don't have a cov ops destroyer, don't have an inty destroyer, don't have an AF destroyer, don't have an electronic attack destroyer in other words, "we don't have anything like that for destroyers". if you want a faster frig, a tankier frig, a cloaky frig, a bomber frig, etc etc you got it already. if you want a tankier destroyer, a faster destroyer, a cloaky destroyer, etc etc, you're screwed. Ditto with BC's, on everything but the tankier part, which obviously command ships fulfill so lets leave t3 frigs for awhile. did you follow it that time? I view BC's and Destroys as a specialized Cruiser (BC) and Frigate (Dessie) in and of themselves in a way. I think giving them additional type kind of fits in with this. Also, making all those variants for Destroyers and BC's would make the Frigate t2's and the Cruiser t2's completely obsolete don't you think.
Gallians	Posted - 2010.12.05 02:31:00 - [8] The thing is that frigates are awesome, and destroyers can be awesome too I spose cause they are frigates too. But these had been announced/mentioned by CCP at some point. What I am wondering is what happened to them.
Sporked	Posted - 2010.12.05 02:46:00 - [9] Originally by: Gallians Some time ago there were no T3 ships. Then there were. At the time it was said that in an expansion or two, T3 frigates (which were "done) would come out. I haven't heard anything more. What happened to this? Were they cancelled? Where are they? Requesting information on these most awesome vessels. I can't see what role a T3 frig would actually fulfill tbh. I mean as it is AF are teetering between being slow heavy tackle inties and tankier destroyers, EAF have EWAR covered, covops are cloaky, bombers make bigger things go boom and inties are either supertackle or dogfighter depending on which you fly...just what would a T3 frig do other than possibly combine a couple of those roles into one ship (which arguably some of the AFs do already)? I'm with Mr. Shogetsu on this one. T3 BS would be amazing, T3 BC would probably be moreso but for the love of Dog, frigs are already specialised enough leave em alone.
Gallians	Posted - 2010.12.05 02:53:00 - [10] Originally by: Sporked Originally by: Gallians Some time ago there were no T3 ships. Then there were. At the time it was said that in an expansion or two, T3 frigates (which were "done) would come out. I haven't heard anything more. What happened to this? Were they cancelled? Where are they? Requesting information on these most awesome vessels. I can't see what role a T3 frig would actually fulfill tbh. I mean as it is AF are teetering between being slow heavy tackle inties and tankier destroyers, EAF have EWAR covered, covops are cloaky, bombers make bigger things go boom and inties are either supertackle or dogfighter depending on which you fly...just what would a T3 frig do other than possibly combine a couple of those roles into one ship (which arguably some of the AFs do already)? I'm with Mr. Shogetsu on this one. T3 BS would be amazing, T3 BC would probably be moreso but for the love of Dog, frigs are already specialised enough leave em alone. I disagree. You could say the same about cruisers, there were already plenty of specialized cruisers when T3 came out, and T3 overlap onto the roles of many of said cruisers. Their selling point is not unique role fulfilment, but rahter versatility and customization. BS and BC lack any real variations or role specialization, limiting the customization of these hulls. Not to mention the excessive cost that would make fielding them pretty prohibitive. No, I much prefer the idea of customizable frigates before moving to bigger ship classes.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2010.12.05 02:54:00 - [11] The day they release tech 3 frigates is the day I buy 2 1 year subscriptions up front, no questions asked.
Manji Lee Gallente First Flying Wing Inc ROMANIAN-LEGION	Posted - 2010.12.05 03:35:00 - [12] Screw tech 3 frigates. I want the Nathan beer ship. - Got any tinfoil?
Jason1138	Posted - 2010.12.05 03:46:00 - [13] "Also, making all those variants for Destroyers and BC's would make the Frigate t2's and the Cruiser t2's completely obsolete don't you think." I think T2 cruisers are already totally obsolete, because of T3 cruisers. T3 frigs would probably make all T2 frigs obsolete, yes. I could envision a role for t2 or t3 destroyers that has nothing to do with frigs or cruisers, because a destroyer is not either I would love to see a dedicated fleet ship that did nothing but kill frigs or drones 2 or 3 at a time, for instance. how would that impact any other ship type out there right now? it wouldn't I would love to see a cloaky BC, like a recon sort of. Or a faster BC. i mean sure you can argue that doing that would make something else obsolete but lets be honest and start off by saying that T3 cruisers made all t2 cruiser types obsolete and also totally invalidated T2 BC's, since you get better command bonuses out of T3's too. So i don't see that as a reason NOT to have a T3 BC. if anything its more of a reason to have a T3 BC than anything else would be As someone else just said, I dont' see a role for a T3 frig, at all. I just literally can't think of anything it would do unless they let it make its own WH's or something like that. all the bases seem to be covered by the other T2 frigs, while many other classes have no T2 variant at all, or only have 1 instead of 5 or whatever it is for frigs and cruisers so lets get some love on those ship types
Foofad Gallente	Posted - 2010.12.05 04:16:00 - [14] T2 cruisers obsolete? Of course not. A T2 fit T3 costs what, 500 million or higher to fit out? Until it becomes less prohibitively expensive to fit them, T2 cruisers will always be around. There's a reason AHAC gangs exist in large numbers and T3 swarms don't.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2010.12.05 04:32:00 - [15] So are you saying that tech1 frigates are obsolete because of tech 2 frigates? I personally will still fly a rifter if I don't want to lose something expensive, but your right, interceptors tackle better, AFs deal more damage, EAS do better Ewar. But in the end a tech 3 frigate would give a stronger role in PvP, and just in general be a lot more fun! I would still fly a wolf or a jog if I didn't want to lose 2/3 times the isk. If I want to a fly a frigate that can take out a typhoon 1v1 (or at least stalemate 3 of them) why shouldn't I be able to? that's awesome! Also If they ever put in subsystem targeting for capital ships, only small guns will be able to hit them. So that would be awesome. Plus right now a fighter , half the size of a frigate, is 5 times more powerful than a tech 2 frigate, whats up with that?
Sid Zero State Wh0re Academy	Posted - 2010.12.05 04:34:00 - [16] 1) Frig 2) Interdiction Nullifier 3) decent (for a frig) dps and tank, combined with the ability to fit a covops cloak 4) ??? 5) WEEEEEEE
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2010.12.05 04:38:00 - [17] Originally by: Sid Zero 1) Frig 2) Interdiction Nullifier 3) decent (for a frig) dps and tank, combined with the ability to fit a covops cloak 4) ??? 5) WEEEEEEE oh man or if one the subsystem let one pilot fit two bomb launchers? wet dreams
lag kills Voodoo Tactical Ghost Syndicate.	Posted - 2010.12.05 04:56:00 - [18] CCP haven't even finished assault frigates yet. plus, they'd be so easy to suicide gank.
Jamie Jin 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2010.12.05 05:11:00 - [19] Originally by: lag kills they'd be so easy to suicide gank. Yeah... how much does a hulk cost nowadays.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.12.05 05:19:00 - [20] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 05/12/2010 05:19:38 t3 frigs would make all other frigs useless. 500 mil is a lot for a cruiser, but in the era of the dramiel, 100 mil for a solo winmobile frig is completely acceptable. So, t3 frigs would be the death of whatever classes it imitates except for certain 'budget' applications, like probers. I think t3 bs would be more interesting. Not enough absurdly expensive, absurdly effective BS out there.
Jamie Jin 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2010.12.05 05:33:00 - [21] Edited by: Jamie Jin on 05/12/2010 05:34:38 Originally by: Emperor Cheney Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 05/12/2010 05:19:38 t3 frigs would make all other frigs useless. Implying you know how they'll work. Originally by: Emperor Cheyney 100 mil for a solo winmobile Implying you know how much they'll cost. Edit: Also Nobody uses rifters anymore for anything guise lolol amd no t1 frigs ever guise lolol
lag kills Voodoo Tactical Ghost Syndicate.	Posted - 2010.12.05 05:46:00 - [22] Originally by: Jamie Jin Originally by: lag kills they'd be so easy to suicide gank. Yeah... how much does a hulk cost nowadays. what's this even supposed to mean?
Jamie Jin 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2010.12.05 05:50:00 - [23] Originally by: lag kills Originally by: Jamie Jin Originally by: lag kills they'd be so easy to suicide gank. Yeah... how much does a hulk cost nowadays. what's this even supposed to mean? High cost, easy to gank, hulkageddon, hulks, easy, gank, expensive
TR4D3R4LT	Posted - 2010.12.05 05:50:00 - [24] I would prefer ccp works with "excellence" first and finishes their T3 cruisers with 5 promised subsystems. After that we can start thinking of additional T3 types.
lag kills Voodoo Tactical Ghost Syndicate.	Posted - 2010.12.05 06:28:00 - [25] Originally by: Jamie Jin Originally by: lag kills Originally by: Jamie Jin Originally by: lag kills they'd be so easy to suicide gank. Yeah... how much does a hulk cost nowadays. what's this even supposed to mean? High cost, easy to gank, hulkageddon, hulks, easy, gank, expensive it's a little different when there are skill points and most likely deadspace/faction mods involved.
Gallians	Posted - 2010.12.05 06:42:00 - [26] Originally by: TR4D3R4LT I would prefer ccp works with "excellence" first and finishes their T3 cruisers with 5 promised subsystems. After that we can start thinking of additional T3 types. What are the other subsystems?
Alara IonStorm Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.12.05 06:44:00 - [27] Originally by: Gallians What are the other subsystems? The Gallente Drone subsystem -- I am now on a Crusade to Fix the Omen! For Great Justice!
TR4D3R4LT	Posted - 2010.12.05 07:25:00 - [28] Originally by: Gallians What are the other subsystems? http://www.eve-search.com/thread/919090/page/2#35 I might be bitter vet but to me T3 is just another feature ccp brought in with huge promises and finished just 4/5th of it... or if you count in how the 5th set of each subsystem would increases possible permutations you might realize they left out majority of promised possible ship configurations, more then what the current t3 configurations allow. But hey, Apocrypha was only released as summer 2009 expansion. It's only been year and half so by thus far fix/promise keeping standards from CCP we're only looking at 6 months or so. After all they just fixed rockets that they broke winter 2008 so by that logic we'll SoonÖ see promised T3.
Gallians	Posted - 2010.12.05 07:34:00 - [29] Originally by: TR4D3R4LT Originally by: Gallians What are the other subsystems? http://www.eve-search.com/thread/919090/page/2#35 I might be bitter vet but to me T3 is just another feature ccp brought in with huge promises and finished just 4/5th of it... or if you count in how the 5th set of each subsystem would increases possible permutations you might realize they left out majority of promised possible ship configurations, more then what the current t3 configurations allow. But hey, Apocrypha was only released as summer 2009 expansion. It's only been year and half so by thus far fix/promise keeping standards from CCP we're only looking at 6 months or so. After all they just fixed rockets that they broke winter 2008 so by that logic we'll SoonÖ see promised T3. Yeah.. it seems safe to say that this isn't gonna happen :P In CCP's defense it sounds like they were just discussing it, not actually promising it.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2010.12.05 07:42:00 - [30] One of the reasons I quit actually was the 5th subsystem being left out. On top of doing the same thing to FW. It left a bad after taste, and then I watched as they did the same thing to PI. sure they are fixing a few things but I know they will introduce schools,homes, and population into PI now like they promised. It just gives a bad feeling about walking in stations. and how it will be like the rest of thw features CCP puts out. this expansion was going to be the final line for me when I saw the state of the character creator on SiSi. I know what ccp does. They take out every work in progress element in a new feature so that they have time to polish everything to be perfect. Like for instance in the character creator, the new non-functioning history bar on the bottom (for undo and redo) and other elements like hair and eye textures actually having different patterns (instead of just different colors) All of these things woul;d of been stripped out in favor of polish (you don't want to release a buggy piece of crap, and to CCPs cerdit even with issues the final products always.. look nice. But by removing all the "optional" things, like TREATIES (or store fronts), you remove depth, and then CCP puts it on a todo list and forgets about it, or the more realistic way to look at it, it becomes unrealistic to change a currently running live feature. If the character creator and incursions follow this same nose dive (despite the hope they re giving me by delaying it) I'm just going to take another 18 months off, because they'll just do it to walking in stations, and I've been looking forward to that for years. I've got such high hopes :(

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.