Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Anna Liebert
Thunders Claw Fleet Pangu Coalition
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 16:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
At first, I want to say that my national langue is not English and this is my first topic. So, you'll find many errors in my writing. You can point it straight. I'll glad to see it because it's good for my English.
Let's review a part of history.
"Wormhole" is a creative version. It provides a group of new ships called Strategic Cruiser. These ships need a new way to produce. The production need new material and the material only can be acquired from a new place - Wormhole.
If these things are the all, it's means nothing. Tech 2 is a reinforced Tech 1. It is reasonable. However, it obviously can't be accepted if Tech 3 is only a reinforcement of Tech 2. Tech 3 must have some new elements.
Now, we know what the new elements are. Strategic Cruiser can be a reinfored Heavy Assault Ship; Strategic Cruiser can be a Recon Ship with lower disruption skill but more HP and DPS; Strategic Cruiser can be a Field Command Ship also. Of course, if you want to explore, Strategic Cruiser can live in NPC sovereignty alone. I feel the last thing is the developer's main purpose because of the GÇ£Interdiction NullifierGÇ¥ subsystem.
Well, The question is appeared. Do we need a reinfored Heavy Assault Ship? I think I needn't. It's no help to EVE system. Do we need a Recon Ship or a Command Ship like that? Maybe need, but why not create a new Recon Ship or Command Ship? It's easier. So,I feel the last function is the main reason for creating such a ship. Hmm, I don't know what I should say.
I really want to know CCP's opinion about Tech 3. Regretful or proud? At last, thanks for CCP provide such a good game. I'm looking forward to retribution and ship balancing's furture.
|
Hathrul
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
131
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 16:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
tech 3 do all off the above, at 3 times the price of any of them. you pay for it if you loose them (sp loss....:( )
im not sure how much they are really used. the cost is very high and im not sure it warrants the increase in price over effectiveness in most areas of space.
i like em :) |
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Dark Therapy
1074
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 17:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
They need to be lowered so that they arnt better than a specialised ship that is designed entirely with that role in mind.
They are nice, and teh fact you can go out and do great things in them is superb, tehy are expensive and rightly so, but they shouldnt boost better than a CS, they shoudlnt recon better than a recon, they shouldnt tank better than a battleship with teh sig of a cruiser.. They need changing so that they stay great and worth teh price, BUT dont make other ships irrelevant. The swiss army knife after all can do a great many things, but it doesnt do them better than tools designed exactly for that role. Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
XxRTEKxX
Fenrir's Dogs of War Union 0f Revolution
20
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 17:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tech 3 is not a mistake. |
Tarvos Telesto
Blood Fanatics
44
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 17:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Anna Liebert wrote: Well, The question is appeared. Do we need a reinfored Heavy Assault Ship? I think I needn't. It's no help to EVE system. Do we need a Recon Ship or a Command Ship like that? Maybe need, but why not create a new Recon Ship or Command
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2162946#post2162946
Look at my post #14... Also i agree with you. T3 boost ships unification.
Cheers |
Demolishar
United Aggression
402
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 19:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hathrul wrote:tech 3 do all off the above, at 3 times the price of any of them. you pay for it if you loose them (sp loss....:( )
im not sure how much they are really used. the cost is very high and im not sure it warrants the increase in price over effectiveness in most areas of space.
i like em :)
Have you SEEN nullsec fleet compositions? They fly swarms of faction fit Tengus like they were tech 1 frigates.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2763
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 19:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Hopefully when they get teircided they will be more in line with cruisers rather than doing everything elses job short of capitals. |
TheBreadMuncher
Boxxed Up Industries EPIC Alliance
386
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 19:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rico Minali wrote:They need to be lowered so that they arnt better than a specialised ship that is designed entirely with that role in mind.
They are nice, and teh fact you can go out and do great things in them is superb, tehy are expensive and rightly so, but they shouldnt boost better than a CS, they shoudlnt recon better than a recon, they shouldnt tank better than a battleship with teh sig of a cruiser.. They need changing so that they stay great and worth teh price, BUT dont make other ships irrelevant. The swiss army knife after all can do a great many things, but it doesnt do them better than tools designed exactly for that role.
Let's be honest here - for 3x the price of a specialised ship they can bloody well do what they want. Tech 3s freshened up PVP by bringing power in a tiny package! Even a battleship will think twice before going mono a mono with a tech 3. Why shouldn't they be better than their T2 counterparts? "Oh specialisation > Generalisation" but, let's face it, apart from maybe swapping to a dictor-nullified fit occasionally, my proteus doesn't change. It'd still be cheaper to buy multiple specialised ships than have one generalised one and have subsystems and fits for all roles, and the fact that rigs can't be swapped out also adds to this. T3 should be > T2, much as T2 already is > T1. "We will create the introduction thread if that is requested by the community. Also, we will have an ISD Seminar about the CCL team in the coming weeks in which you can ask your questions about the CCL team and provide some constructive feedback to us." - Countless pages of locked threads and numerous permabanned accounts later, change is coming. |
Mars Theran
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
391
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
I do have to wonder if the reason a lot of players have a problem with Tech 3 is because they are made out of a Wormhole, rather than because they fill a specialized role a little better at 3-5 times the price.
Tech 2 > Tech 1 Tech 3 > Tech 2
Seems a pretty standard formula to me, and it worked for Tech 2s, although I wasn't around for the introduction and it may have involved an equal amount of complaints.
It costs more, it's more effective, and the risk and potential loss involved is greater. Null Fleets might have 'swarms' of them, but they also have swarms of Supercaps that they fly around like they're Cruisers too. People say Nullsec is unprofitable, yet that 10% of EVE has more ISK than twice the remaining 90% combined. Probably more than that, but they've mostly been playing longer too.
Point being, the loss is minor for them and they have plenty of ability to protect those fleets too.
So back to my original thought: Is it really just because Wormholes--those solitary and lonely dominions--are the only means of producing them? zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub |
|
CCP Falcon
634
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:48:00 -
[10] - Quote
Tech 3 is awesome
CCP Falcon -á-á||-á-áEVE Community Team -á|| -á-áEVE Illuminati -á || -á-á@CCP_Falcon -á || -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents
-á-- Disciple Of The Delicious Tea -- |
|
|
Hathrul
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
132
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:53:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Tech 3 is awesome
QFT! |
Higgs Foton
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:56:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Tech 3 is awesome
We need tech 4 ships
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 21:57:00 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Tech 3 is awesome
too awesome to the detriment of every other ship which is unfortunate because they have great potential to add something unique to the game of being a true multi-purpose ship. Hopefully the re-balance will do this they should be a support ship at its heart not some uber battleship in a cruiser disguise.
However i feel in order for this to happen and still remain viable the cost of the ship must be brought in line with T2 cruisers or thereabout. |
|
CCP Falcon
634
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 22:05:00 -
[14] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Tech 3 is awesome too awesome to the detriment of every other ship which is unfortunate because they have great potential to add something unique to the game of being a true multi-purpose ship. Hopefully the re-balance will do this they should be a support ship at its heart not some uber battleship in a cruiser disguise. However i feel in order for this to happen and still remain viable the cost of the ship must be brought in line with T2 cruisers or thereabout.
Tech 3 ships are just as vulnerable to attack and destruction as any other class of hull in the game.
Sure, they have an edge as they're far more versatile in terms of customization, but in the same respect you take far more risk flying them due to their cost and the fact you lose skill points when you get asploded.
CCP Falcon -á-á||-á-áEVE Community Team -á|| -á-áEVE Illuminati -á || -á-á@CCP_Falcon -á || -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents
-á-- Disciple Of The Delicious Tea -- |
|
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1201
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 22:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
Demolishar wrote:Hathrul wrote:tech 3 do all off the above, at 3 times the price of any of them. you pay for it if you loose them (sp loss....:( )
im not sure how much they are really used. the cost is very high and im not sure it warrants the increase in price over effectiveness in most areas of space.
i like em :) Have you SEEN nullsec fleet compositions? They fly swarms of faction fit Tengus like they were tech 1 frigates. Faction fitting fleet Tengus is an option most of us opt not to take. Standard T2 fit works just fine for what we do. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 22:23:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Tech 3 is awesome too awesome to the detriment of every other ship which is unfortunate because they have great potential to add something unique to the game of being a true multi-purpose ship. Hopefully the re-balance will do this they should be a support ship at its heart not some uber battleship in a cruiser disguise. However i feel in order for this to happen and still remain viable the cost of the ship must be brought in line with T2 cruisers or thereabout. Tech 3 ships are just as vulnerable to attack and destruction as any other class of hull in the game. Sure, they have an edge as they're far more versatile in terms of customization, but in the same respect you take far more risk flying them due to their cost and the fact you lose skill points when you get asploded.
wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost.... |
fukier
Flatline.
124
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 22:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Tech 3 is awesome
Tech III needs the New York Yankees...
Because it is going to take an entire team to nerf-bat them into balance... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
|
CCP Falcon
636
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 22:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost....
My job isn't to balance ships, so that's my personal opinion after having been a PvPer for best part of 10 years
CCP Falcon -á-á||-á-áEVE Community Team -á|| -á-áEVE Illuminati -á || -á-á@CCP_Falcon -á || -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents
-á-- Disciple Of The Delicious Tea -- |
|
Fix Lag
389
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 22:59:00 -
[19] - Quote
The only mistake here is your posting. |
Fix Lag
389
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 23:01:00 -
[20] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:My job isn't to balance ships, so that's my personal opinion after having been a PvPer for best part of 10 years
As soon as you log in to Eve Online, you engage in the mythical "Pee Vee Pee" that everyone so desperately seeks, so calling yourself a "PvPer" is entirely redundant and inherently a part of being a player in this game. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 23:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Harvey James wrote:wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost.... My job isn't to balance ships, so that's my personal opinion after having been a PvPer for best part of 10 years
Then its lucky for me it isn't your job but you do accept T3's are OP in nearly every way especially its amazing resists that only belong on CS? |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2167
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 23:05:00 -
[22] - Quote
ccp fozzie seems to have concluded that it's heavy missiles that are overpowered. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 23:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:ccp fozzie seems to have concluded that it's heavy missiles that are overpowered.
now that's a seperate argument which he is correct also |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
777
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 23:25:00 -
[24] - Quote
T3s are awesome. Generally people who complain about them come in 2 varieties:
1. people who have no clue how to fit them 2. people who can't afford them
it comes down to a similar argument as 'titans are overpowered, theyre so much better than dreads!!' |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
110
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 23:31:00 -
[25] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:T3s are awesome. Generally people who complain about them come in 2 varieties:
1. people who have no clue how to fit them 2. people who can't afford them
it comes down to a similar argument as 'titans are overpowered, they're so much better than dreads!!'
ofc they are it couldn't possibly be because they are correct ... god forbid you're in denial about there overpowerdness....
|
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
73
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 00:04:00 -
[26] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost....
They do, but that is a scaling thing coupled with diminishing returns. The higher you go up the power ladder, the less power additional ISK buys you.
It's not a no-questions-asked-design-religion, or every ship in EVE would cost the same and they could just throw out faction ships, since they are all about raw power increase at extra cost.
Anyway, you are hinting at things they mostly talk about when we discuss multi-billion ISK supercaps. When we are talking sub-caps, risk vs. reward is just as significant. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
110
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 00:07:00 -
[27] - Quote
Pohbis wrote:Harvey James wrote:
wow considering your CCP and CCP say balancing ships isn't based on cost....
They do, but that is a scaling thing coupled with diminishing returns. The higher you go up the power ladder, the less power additional ISK buys you. It's not a no-questions-asked-design-religion, or every ship in EVE would cost the same and they could just throw out faction ships, since they are all about raw power increase at extra cost. Anyway, you are hinting at things they mostly talk about when we discuss multi-billion ISK supercaps. When we are talking sub-caps, risk vs. reward is just as significant.
no i'm not talking about caps at all CCP have said that ship balancing isn't based on isk at all |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
902
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 00:18:00 -
[28] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Tech 3 is awesome too awesome to the detriment of every other ship which is unfortunate because they have great potential to add something unique to the game of being a true multi-purpose ship. Hopefully the re-balance will do this they should be a support ship at its heart not some uber battleship in a cruiser disguise. However i feel in order for this to happen and still remain viable the cost of the ship must be brought in line with T2 cruisers or thereabout.
Versatility, let me repeat it to you: VERSATILITY
Negative points: Command sub ->quite ridiculous this sub does not limit fittings and slots so they are not better than Command ships and still profit from some ridiculous sign radius still making them IMPROBABLE when you put the money for.
From expensive to extremely expensive if you want to get the best out of those
SP loss
Extra SP training
For the last part "uber battleship in a cruiser desguise" you clearly haven't flown battleships these days. Show me the T2 fitted Tengu with over 1K dps hands down and please explain me the mechanics and sign radius influence on applied dps.
You have about 1h and I want at least 10 pages. If you're good you'll get cookies.
brb |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
110
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 00:27:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Tech 3 is awesome too awesome to the detriment of every other ship which is unfortunate because they have great potential to add something unique to the game of being a true multi-purpose ship. Hopefully the re-balance will do this they should be a support ship at its heart not some uber battleship in a cruiser disguise. However i feel in order for this to happen and still remain viable the cost of the ship must be brought in line with T2 cruisers or thereabout. Versatility, let me repeat it to you: VERSATILITY Negative points: Command sub ->quite ridiculous this sub does not limit fittings and slots so they are not better than Command ships and still profit from some ridiculous sign radius still making them IMPROBABLE when you put the money for. From expensive to extremely expensive if you want to get the best out of those SP loss Extra SP training For the last part "uber battleship in a cruiser desguise" you clearly haven't flown battleships these days. Show me the T2 fitted Tengu with over 1K dps hands down and please explain me the mechanics and sign radius influence on applied dps. You have about 1h and I want at least 10 pages. If you're good you'll get cookies.
lol, i was referring more to its tank than its dps although there dps application is always better than a battleship and people can throw extra training and lots of isk at me all you want although besides the cruiser lv5 training subs is ridiculously easy and isk cost is because they are so OP to begin with and maybe raw cost is too high aswell.
|
Azrin Stella Oerndotte
The Nommo
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 00:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Tech 3 is awesome too awesome to the detriment of every other ship which is unfortunate because they have great potential to add something unique to the game of being a true multi-purpose ship. Hopefully the re-balance will do this they should be a support ship at its heart not some uber battleship in a cruiser disguise. However i feel in order for this to happen and still remain viable the cost of the ship must be brought in line with T2 cruisers or thereabout. Versatility, let me repeat it to you: VERSATILITY Negative points: Command sub ->quite ridiculous this sub does not limit fittings and slots so they are not better than Command ships and still profit from some ridiculous sign radius still making them IMPROBABLE when you put the money for. From expensive to extremely expensive if you want to get the best out of those SP loss Extra SP training For the last part "uber battleship in a cruiser desguise" you clearly haven't flown battleships these days. Show me the T2 fitted Tengu with over 1K dps hands down and please explain me the mechanics and sign radius influence on applied dps. You have about 1h and I want at least 10 pages. If you're good you'll get cookies. Because a battleship can totally apply full "1000" DPS on almost any ship and zip around at a couple of km/s with a tiny sig and a +80km range.
Most complaints I have seen about tech 3's is that killing them is bloody hard and that one of the best ways to kill another tech 3 is by using another tech 3. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |