| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
206
   |
Posted - 2013.06.11 17:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
All right, look. Tech 3s are going to change. Not soon, but we know it's going to happen. Speaking as a w-space person, I will miss the 5% booster T3 and the massive tank/mega gank brawler Proteus, among others, but it seems quite clear that Ytterbium wants to take T3s in a different direction.
From what he's said so far, T3s are supposed to be more versatile ships, doing things that other, more specialized ships can't do. Right now they aren't that, in fact most (but not all) of the time they are just better versions of other ships. My personal favorite, the heavy combat Legion, is basically just a Zealot with BS-sized tank.
Before the great nerf guillotine swings down on our beloved Tech 3s, I thought it would be worth getting ahead of Ytterbium a little bit and brainstorming what NEW roles a new kind of T3 could fill.
To start with, I wanted to look at the one type of T3 that actually genuinely fills a niche no other ship can: The heavy cloaky/scanny. Beloved of W-space, there is no other kind of ship that can fit a solid BC-sized tank, a covops cloak, an expanded probe launcher, and still put out decent DPS (there is such a thing as a 600dps cloaky Proteus).
First, I hope the rebalance will take it to heart that this is something Tech 3s should continue to be able to do, because at least in w-space it's an incredibly useful thing that no other ship can do. You can get partway there with a well-fit recon, but nothing can actually be a genuinely combat-capable (non-support) ship and still a cloaky/scanny.
Second, what other unique roles would we like to see filled, that no other ship in the game currently fills? Here's a couple of rough ideas I've been playing with:
- A mini-HIC. Bubble half the size, but faster and capable of using prop mods while bubbling. Can be scripted for a more mobile infinipoint because I feel no compassion for supercap pilots whatsoever.
- A cruiser that can fit an MJD. Granted this is kind of rendered irrelevant by the interdiction nullifier, but I don't know if that's on the chopping block or not. Also relies on mid-sized long-range weapons being non-terrible.
- An industrial subsystem. No, seriously. Cloaky miner? Dic-nulled hauler? There's potential here.
- The lesser Etana. Already sort of possible with the Adaptive Augmenter and Cloaky subsystem, but with no range bonus to reps the application is exceedingly limited.
- A smartbomb-bonused subsystem. The miniature, mobile firewall, or specialized drone-killer.
- Viable EWAR subsystems for all races. Right now you've got the ECMgu, which is pretty nasty, the neut Legion, and the web Loki. No TD bonused Legion, no damp bonused Proteus, and I'm just going to skip over target painters because seriously the web loki is better for that anyways.
- A minidread. Moreso even than the attack BC, a cruiser-sized siege module that actually REDUCES tank but does tremendous violence to stationary objects.
My goal for this thread is mostly to give CCP some ideas to chew over, because a straight nerf to Tech 3s would be very disappointing. They are unique, interesting ships and I would be content if they could do unique, interesting things. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
290
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 17:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
The title of the thread asks what I want from the T3 rebalance. I'll reply to that, since my thoughts on the matter aren't specific enough for OP's post.
I want the Legion to not suck compared to the other T3s.
I want the T2-fitted Loki to not have the tank of a T1 cruiser.
I want the Tengu to stop being a ridiculous, ubiquitous, overpowered beast that makes all T3s look ridiculous and overpowered even though every single other T3 pales in comparison to it.
I want the cloaking subsystem on the Proteus to not be strange and beyond bizzarre, resulting in truly hideous ships that I cannot even force myself to consider flying, let alone actually fly. Don't even start with me on aesthetics being important or not, your ship is right there in the middle of your screen all the time and some of us don't fly in full zoom-out mode. There are some things I'd like to be able to cloak and have drones for.
I suppose the Proteus being able to reach EHP levels on par with an unfitted carrier might be a bit wildly, ridiculously and completely out of line as well. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
226
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 18:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Well first of all T3 is meant to be generalization not specialization thus any subs that give it a unique role is the opposite of generalization so is not viable option.
The main thing for me is T3's should have navy cruiser like tank (default resists) whether that is achieved with rigs or just subs..
- i prefer just subs only i think rigs encourage more specialization and decrease flexibility like..
- say a Loki is shield fit but wants to swap to armour it atm has to destroy its rigs and buy new ones etc...
And to be able to do 2 roles well and maybe a third role at a slight reducement/stretch. at a level inbetween T1 and T2
-Logi and e-war or links and e-war etc.
make shield tanking more viable on proteus and legion so 3/4 T3's can switch between armour and shield tanking.
'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium
Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?-á ..projectiles should use capacitor.
ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
Trans-Stellar Industries
324
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 18:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
I want to see T3 industrial subsystems. Increased cargo bays, mining hardpoints, ore holds, tractor beam/salvager bonuses, gas/ice/ore mining bonuses, mining link hardpoints, mining drone bonuses, ore compressors, etc.
Put about two or three in each line. No benefits larger than what the t2 industrial focused on that line could do (don't let it mine more than a hulk, or carry more ore than an orca, etc). Let us mix and match industrial components in with the combat subsystems. Give the entire strategic cruiser line that extra bit of 'diversity' it needs to be truly unique.
If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that? |
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
106
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 22:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
A realization that most T3 fits are complete garbage and only a few are even worth of being called "T2" let alone T3.
|
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
481
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 23:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:The title of the thread asks what I want from the T3 rebalance. I'll reply to that, since my thoughts on the matter aren't specific enough for OP's post.
I want the Legion to not suck compared to the other T3s.
I want the T2-fitted Loki to not have the tank of a T1 cruiser.
I want the Tengu to stop being a ridiculous, ubiquitous, overpowered beast that makes all T3s look ridiculous and overpowered even though every single other T3 pales in comparison to it.
I want the cloaking subsystem on the Proteus to not be strange and beyond bizzarre, resulting in truly hideous ships that I cannot even force myself to consider flying, let alone actually fly. Don't even start with me on aesthetics being important or not, your ship is right there in the middle of your screen all the time and some of us don't fly in full zoom-out mode. There are some things I'd like to be able to cloak and have drones for.
I suppose the Proteus being able to reach EHP levels on par with an unfitted carrier might be a bit wildly, ridiculously and completely out of line as well.
QFT |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
1359
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 00:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
I just want something that doesn't obsolete HACs, yet is still actually useful in it's own right.
<_< |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
295
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 01:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:Well first of all T3 is meant to be generalization not specialization thus any subs that give it a unique role is the opposite of generalization so is not viable option.
The main thing for me is T3's should have navy cruiser like tank (default resists) whether that is achieved with rigs or just subs..
- i prefer just subs only i think rigs encourage more specialization and decrease flexibility like..
- say a Loki is shield fit but wants to swap to armour it atm has to destroy its rigs and buy new ones etc...
And to be able to do 2 roles well and maybe a third role at a slight reducement/stretch. at a level inbetween T1 and T2
-Logi and e-war or links and e-war etc.
make shield tanking more viable on proteus and legion so 3/4 T3's can switch between armour and shield tanking.
The "generalization" and "flexibility" aspects of T3 design refer to its ability to switch subsystems and change its purpose, not that the ship should be forever locked in a "can do everything but is terrible at everything" paradigm. You should be completely able to specialize your ship if that's what you want - you just shouldn't be able to do that specific thing as well as the relevant T2.
T2 resists don't specialize the ships or obsolete existing T2s, so they should keep those. The rig slots need to stay as well. Having to pull out all your shield rigs to switch to armor tank is what you get for putting in specialized rigs that aren't very universal.
You can already switch between armor and shield tanking on most of the T3s. The ship isn't guaranteed to be any good at the off-race tanking type though. A shield Proteus should be clearly inferior to a shield tengu or a shield Loki. A shield Legion should in fact be absurd, but possible. Fortunately, this is the way it already is.
I know you hate T3s, as shown by your signature, but please try to refrain from asking that they be watered-down into uselessness. |
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
Trans-Stellar Industries
325
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 01:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:Well first of all T3 is meant to be generalization not specialization thus any subs that give it a unique role is the opposite of generalization so is not viable option.
The main thing for me is T3's should have navy cruiser like tank (default resists) whether that is achieved with rigs or just subs..
- i prefer just subs only i think rigs encourage more specialization and decrease flexibility like..
- say a Loki is shield fit but wants to swap to armour it atm has to destroy its rigs and buy new ones etc...
And to be able to do 2 roles well and maybe a third role at a slight reducement/stretch. at a level inbetween T1 and T2
-Logi and e-war or links and e-war etc.
make shield tanking more viable on proteus and legion so 3/4 T3's can switch between armour and shield tanking. The "generalization" and "flexibility" aspects of T3 design refer to its ability to switch subsystems and change its purpose, not that the ship should be forever locked in a "can do everything but is terrible at everything" paradigm. You should be completely able to specialize your ship if that's what you want - you just shouldn't be able to do that specific thing as well as the relevant T2. T2 resists don't specialize the ships or obsolete existing T2s, so they should keep those. The rig slots need to stay as well. Having to pull out all your shield rigs to switch to armor tank is what you get for putting in specialized rigs that aren't very universal. You can already switch between armor and shield tanking on most of the T3s. The ship isn't guaranteed to be any good at the off-race tanking type though. A shield Proteus should be clearly inferior to a shield tengu or a shield Loki. A shield Legion should in fact be absurd, but possible. Fortunately, this is the way it already is. I know you hate T3s, as shown by your signature, but please try to refrain from asking that they be watered-down into uselessness.
In my opinion, the point is more that T3's, in their most optimized subsystem/module pairing, should not be as good at a specific role as the ships that are designed for it.
Take HAC's. IF a HAC's force output (tank/gank focus) is at a certain level, than a T3 should not be better than them at that role. This is a big IF, however, because it requires CCP to more specifically define which ships are for tanking (traditionally HIC's), which are for ganking (traditionally, HAC's), and which ships are for speed.
Without a bit more definition, T3's capabilities cannot truly be limited. However, when a T3 strategic cruiser can reach massive EHP's that supersede all HIC's AND HAC's ... that means it is doing the job of tanking far better than any of it's t2 counterparts.
Now, you fit a T3 with the tank almost reaching a HIC, with the gank almost meeting a HAC, and the ability to cloak or use command modules or repair others ... then you are achieving what I feel was the point of T3. Versatility, not simply in changing out subsystems, but in battlefield roles.
If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that? |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
296
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 01:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Absolutely. |
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy
The ROC
226
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 02:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
Quote:I want the Legion to not suck compared to the other T3s.
This. Balance this **** out, it's like the Legion got the leftovers of what the other T3s ended up with, especially the Tengu.
Someone else mentioned that only a few of their platform have EWAR. This is also a problem.
Basically, I suggest that we take out a lot of the under used (that being, the useless) subsystems, and turn them into more specialized options.
But, the thing with T3s is, that they are an interesting dichotomy with regards to their performance.
If they aren't tip top in performance, no one will use them in comparison to T2 cruisers, because if T3s aren't awesome, then they are just T2s that you lose skillpoints for dying in. No one will fly them if that happens.
Conversely, you have to make sure that the T3s do not outright invalidate the T2s at any role the T2 is supposed to excel at.
To this end, I would suggest that T3s not be permitted to fire Interdiction effects of any kind. They should be able to duck them, with their superior technology, but they should not be able to use them. The entire point of Interdiction vessels is their ability to use these mods, let them keep that ability.
Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
594
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 02:44:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ruze wrote:
In my opinion, the point is more that T3's, in their most optimized subsystem/module pairing, should not be as good at a specific role as the ships that are designed for it.
Then whats the point? You have to dock up to switch to a new config, so you can just as easily get a new ship, and it can be a ship that is better, costs less and doesnt cost skill points when you lose it. |
Gorgoth24
Sickology
8
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 03:29:00 -
[13] - Quote
I want T3 to lack rigs (but compensate with subsystems) so the changing of subsystems on-the-fly is more reasonable |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
174
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 03:50:00 -
[14] - Quote
Voith wrote:A realization that most T3 fits are complete garbage and only a few are even worth of being called "T2" let alone T3.
this basically.
Its not all t3 that are a menace to society. And in the actual t3 ship you can quite easily mix up some subs and mods to make utter crap fits real quick. You don't run in fear when you see hybrid tengu for example. CCP would have to fix medium hybrids for this to happen. How can you nerf that which is not even working well in the first place.
Why I have said it before and I'll sya it again...the mob roars nerf t3. I go which t3/sub/mod combo is your problem.
I know the common gripes. Linky t3...no more offgrid, loki is on grid, go kill em, problem solved.
Hardcode no more 100mn t3 somehow. They have a basis for this. SB's can fit torps but not cruise. Along time ago...frigs could fit cruise however. Guessing in the sb code that says -xyz% fitting need there is an IF-THEN-ELSE saying no sneaking in cruise missles (that would fit easy otherwise unless denied).
|
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
Trans-Stellar Industries
325
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 04:18:00 -
[15] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Ruze wrote:
In my opinion, the point is more that T3's, in their most optimized subsystem/module pairing, should not be as good at a specific role as the ships that are designed for it.
Then whats the point? You have to dock up to switch to a new config, so you can just as easily get a new ship, and it can be a ship that is better, costs less and doesnt cost skill points when you lose it.
Again, it's not just the versatility of swapping out subsystems. It's the versatility on the battlefield.
Having a machine with good dps, a cloak, and decent speed. Having a cruiser that has natural stabs and good armor plus command links. Having a beast of a tank that can drop a cyno and remote rep.
The idea isn't JUST that the subsystems allow one ship to do many roles by swapping them out. We all know that if you gotta swap subsystems, you might as well swap ships. But you can also do many roles at the same time on the battlefield ... just theoretically, not as good as the dedicated t2 counterpart.
Keep in mind, as well, the cost. With the latest T2 build cost changes, T2 ships cost considerably more. If they rebalance the T2 ships to reflect a more effective and specialized role on the battlefield, then the cost difference between T2 and T3 won't be as severe, and the role difference may be more appropriately realized.
All in all, it still comes down to a 'wait and see' mentality with what CCP's goal is.
If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that? |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
851
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 05:18:00 -
[16] - Quote
T3s cannot be balanced. In EVE, either you're the best at what you do, or you don't get flown. End of. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
144
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 06:08:00 -
[17] - Quote
I want to see Tengu's Acceleration Ejection Bay nerfed as it is out of balance compared to others: it gives 100% boost to DPS AND(!) damage projection bonus when maximum what other subs give is 60% + some damage projection. It needs its kinetic damage bonus removed and it'll be in line with other subs but still a bit OP due to damage type selection. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
29
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 06:19:00 -
[18] - Quote
Gorgoth24 wrote:I want T3 to lack rigs (but compensate with subsystems) so the changing of subsystems on-the-fly is more reasonable
no.... just make the rigs fit in the defensive sub not in the hull (and let em stay there if sub is "unfited" |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
5182
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 06:28:00 -
[19] - Quote
Paikis wrote:T3s cannot be balanced. In EVE, either you're the best at what you do, or you don't get flown. End of.
Even if true it's not an obstacle to the balancing T3. The ability to do many things with a good level of profiency is extremely valuable at times. It allows you to handle a wider range of targets and situations on a single ship. Slightly lower EFT numbers won't make them obsolete in actual combat situations, where an additional ability/bonus set can turn the situation in your favor again. Therefore they can easily remain better then specialized ships in many areas, but that advantage has to be gained through abilitites and stats, that fall outside the individual T2 specializations. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
429
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 06:31:00 -
[20] - Quote
Personally, I think T3's should get balanced with each other but not balanced against other ships. This is because:
1) They cost a fair amount and are by no means indestructible
2) I don't want WHs themselves nerfed. If T3's are balanced against other ships and so become jack of all trades, master of none, they won't get used as there will always be another, cheaper ship that is better at whatever you're doing. If this happens the price of T3 components will drop drastically in order to make T3's preferable by cost rather than power or people will just stop doing WHs as there wouldn't be any profit in it which would be a crying shame.
Just my twopence worth, anyway. |
|
|
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
144
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 06:38:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tchulen wrote: I don't want WHs themselves nerfed. If T3's are balanced against other ships and so become jack of all trades, master of none, they won't get used as there will always be another, cheaper ship that is better at whatever you're doing. If this happens the price of T3 components will drop drastically in order to make T3's preferable by cost rather than power or people will just stop doing WHs as there wouldn't be any profit in it which would be a crying shame.
WHs have steady income with blues that drop from each sleeper drone. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
430
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 08:26:00 -
[22] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Tchulen wrote: I don't want WHs themselves nerfed. If T3's are balanced against other ships and so become jack of all trades, master of none, they won't get used as there will always be another, cheaper ship that is better at whatever you're doing. If this happens the price of T3 components will drop drastically in order to make T3's preferable by cost rather than power or people will just stop doing WHs as there wouldn't be any profit in it which would be a crying shame. WHs have steady income with blues that drop from each sleeper drone.
That is a fair point, actually. I still think T3 are better as costly, powerful cruisers rather than a homogenized mediocrity, no matter how varied you can make them with the subsystems. |
Dual B
Duol's Corp
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 08:42:00 -
[23] - Quote
My humble opinion on the matter is that versatility is in and of itself not a solution to any problem. People don't fly ships that aren't the best at what they are designed to do, not withstanding cost. Look at what happened with the Retribution changes to frigates and cruisers. Many of them were poo before the changes, so what made them better? They were given role bonuses and appropriate configurations that allowed them to exploit those bonuses for specific tasks. While they still have the capability to be fit for other tasks people arent really doing so. It makes me think that CCP is a little off with its charts on versatility in relation to power.
In a sandbox game where people make their own fun they set out with a particular task in mind. They then find the best ship to do the job they want and train/skill/farm for it. Look at all the ships that are considered successfull. They aren't considered great beause they can do two or three things in one fitting, they are great because all aspects of the bonuses and fittings compliment each other to be devestatingly effective at a particular task.
I think DPS is pretty okay within the class of ships itself, perhaps the Tengu needs a further DPS or range nerf while the Legion and maybe Loki need a bit of love. Where I can see a problem is perhaps with their tanks. Particularly if one were to buff the DPS of the Legion it would need somewhat less tank. How about reducing tank while increasing speed? The result would be that they could still tank similar levels of damage, but would require careful management to do so. This would also make them less attractive to blobs and better for smallish gangs. Not 100% convinced by that but just throwing it out there.
In relation to T2 I can see that many races feel they have a problem particularly when comparing a HAC style T3 to an actual T2 HAC. Most of my experience comes from the Zealot and Legion as I am a somehwhat newer player and I cant really see too much of a problem. The Zealot is still fearsome but in quite a different way to the Legion, not to mention the difference in cost and potential skill point loss. In most cases it's a problem with T2 just being rubbish.
Unless we a find a way for versatility to actually be usefull on the battlefield I don't want to see T3's made more 'versatile' because then its not just a nerf to stats but a nerf to overal usability. Essentially what I'm asking for (and have yet to see) is for someone to suggest a way to construe the term 'versatility' in a way that people would actually want.
In short my opinion is that T3's are expensive and have the novel cost of skillpoint loss in addition to high hull costs and therefore need some power to justify undocking with such risks attached. |
Swiftstrike1
Interfector INC.
Fade 2 Black
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 09:02:00 -
[24] - Quote
Versatility? Add an engineering subsystem that allows you to remove rigs without destroying them. For balance purposes this should cost you a slot and/or weapon hardpoint. |
Dual B
Duol's Corp
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 09:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:What I want from a T3 rebalance...
Add an engineering subsystem that allows you to remove rigs without destroying them. For balance purposes this should cost you a slot and/or weapon hardpoint.
Remove the Skillpoint loss when you lose a T3. It's not consistent with the rest of the game.
FIX T3 INSURANCE
First of all, how would this work? Rigs attached to that subsystem? You can pull them off that subsystem without destruction? What happens when you remove that sub? Can you attach normal rigs to the ship again? What happens when you re-attach the variable rig system? Do the 'hard' rigs disappear? Destroyed? back to cargo hold?
Second, who would use this? I can have two or three ships each set up to perform a task optimally well. Or I can take your new sub and have one ship that I can fit and rig for a number of tasks whenever I'm in station except in each instance its going to perform worse than having one of each ship. Result is that most people will never use it and you've just added another useless sub to teh already long list. Remove the drawbacks and people might consider it, but your still giving up the other engineering bonus.
EVE is a game about min-maxing. Unless versatility affects something after you press undock it's pretty useless. |
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
109
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 10:08:00 -
[26] - Quote
I'm totally confident that the upcoming T2 revamp by (shp-balancing-team) will do a huge chunk of work towards balanced T3s, especially with command shpis in the focus - imo the strongest competitor for the very important AHAC role of Tech-IIIs. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
595
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 11:01:00 -
[27] - Quote
Ruze wrote:
Having a machine with good dps, a cloak, and decent speed. Having a cruiser that has natural stabs and good armor plus command links. Having a beast of a tank that can drop a cyno and remote rep.
They dont have good dps with cloaks.
They dont have natural stabs (with any subsystem).
They dont have good defenses with command links.
Battleships can have a beast of a tank, cyno and equal remote rep (they dont have the bonus, but they have up 8 highs)
|
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
113
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 12:54:00 -
[28] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:What I want from a T3 rebalance...
Add an engineering subsystem that allows you to remove rigs without destroying them. For balance purposes this should cost you a slot and/or weapon hardpoint.
Remove the Skillpoint loss when you lose a T3. It's not consistent with the rest of the game.
FIX T3 INSURANCE
My main 2 characters fly T3s primarily but:
No to the rig idea. It is fine as it is.
50/50 -Skillpoint loss sucks but it does help to make flying T3 a bit more risk to go with the reward
T3 insurance- absolutely fix. Makes no sense at all based on the skillpoint loss. Either skillpoint loss or fix insurance but not both.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
578
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:00:00 -
[29] - Quote
I want a heavy nerf of interdiction nullifier. Its OP too much.
Make both offensive subsystem so you cant fit cloak + nullifier for example. |
Dual B
Duol's Corp
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:20:00 -
[30] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:I want a heavy nerf of interdiction nullifier. Its OP too much.
Make both offensive subsystem so you cant fit cloak + nullifier for example.
Whenever I see such suggestions all I think is that you're complaining about AFK cloaking. Quite frankly if someone wants to take a 500 mil+ ship into hostile territory then let them take that risk. What are they going to do once there? Its not like they have the cargohold to really move truly valuable or useful cargo. Sure, maybe a few high value tiny items are worth it but what's the problem with having a ship that's adept at moving such things? Or are you just annoyed at bling skipping your insta lock gate camps?
Not to mention that I personally think the module was orginally designed so that T3s could perform hit and run attacks in null while avoiding being bubbled in... Not that it seems to be used that way. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |