| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
578
   |
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:29:00 -
[31] - Quote
Dual B wrote:
Whenever I see such suggestions all I think is that you're complaining about AFK cloaking.
no this has nothing to do with cloaking, there simply shouldnt be ship/module for almost absolutely safe travel across 0.0/WH. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1449
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:42:00 -
[32] - Quote
Make them versatile, not OP like they are now. Scripts for everything - MWD/AB script, EM/Therm/Kin/Exp Script for resistance modules, Speed/Agility script, etc.... They they will be truly versatile.
|
Dual B
Duol's Corp
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:48:00 -
[33] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Dual B wrote:
Whenever I see such suggestions all I think is that you're complaining about AFK cloaking.
no this has nothing to do with cloaking, there simply shouldnt be ship/module for almost absolutely safe travel across 0.0/WH.
As you stated, it's not completely safe, it is possible to be caught. To be honest with a little practice Cov ops frigates can pass through almost as easily. Sure there is higher chance of getting busted, but I don't feel its that much more difficult.
As for safe travel... What about jump bridges and clone hopping? There are plenty of easy ways to move around in hostile space without a T3. Correct me if I'm wrong but I am unaware of corps/alliance saying: "Alright folks, we have to get from A to B, but we want to avoid the bubbles so everyone hop into your T3's and off we go". So it doesn't eem to be used as a force projection tool or 'super sneaky get around you' tactics. The reason for this is because of the current layout, where to get both systems you have to sacrifice DPS bonuses and propulsion bonuses (not to mention fewer low slots, affecting tank/dps further).
I don't know if it was you but in the other thread in GD someone suggested moving Cov Ops in propulsion to avoid Cloack+Nullified. I laughed a little because that would result in 1k DPS proteus uncloaking at 3km. You suggestion is similar in that it would create other balance issues between subs and slot layouts.
Personally I don't use it a lot and think its something complained about far too much considering its limited value and capability. By all means tell me how it is negatively impacting play on a large scale to warrant significant changes, I would be interested to hear.
I think CCP put a lot of effort into balancing the subs in such a way as to avoid massively OP combinations appearing. It's also why many of the subs are poo, because to make them more powerfull would not make the OP in and of themself, but in combination with other subs would be too powerfull. Therefore any changes to the subs would have to take into account the macro balance picture of all subsystems. I don't think this is worth all the effort for something that. in my opinion at least, has such a limited impact on gameplay. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
578
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:07:00 -
[34] - Quote
Dual B wrote:
As you stated, it's not completely safe, it is possible to be caught.
yes it is not 100% but requires very very bad luck for the pilot, which usually doesnt happen. So it can be considered as absolutely safe practically.
Dual B wrote:
To be honest with a little practice Cov ops frigates can pass through almost as easily.
1) no, here is much more risk involved since a nice bubble + some decloak cans is death of a covert. Nullified T3 on the contrary, simply jumps and warps off.
2) so if covert ops are similarly safe in your opinion, then we dont need nullified coverts, right?? There is already a tool for this job. Right?
Dual B wrote:
As for safe travel... What about jump bridges and clone hopping? There are plenty of easy ways to move around in hostile space without a T3.
1) another argument for nullifier nerf. There are already means for safe travel.
2) In fact, clones work just once per 24h (which should be increased a lot IMO); you cant transort stuff in your clone. You can be caught at jump bridge and jumpable ships are not accessible for a broad mass of people, covert T3 is much more accessible -> more people travelling safely.
Dual B wrote:You suggestion is similar in that it would create other balance issues between subs and slot layouts..
which one exactly? It was just an example suggestion, not a final thought.
Someone asked what I expect from T3 rebalance, I put my thought into thread, thats all. |
Dual B
Duol's Corp
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:31:00 -
[35] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Snip
First of all, please don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say your ideas are 'stupid' or don't belong in this thread, as you rightly pointed out this thread is about potential T3 changes. Your suggestion comes up now and again in similar threads so I thought this might be an opportunity to discuss it?
Regarding bubbles and Cov Ops:
I would argue that considering a T3 costs 10-20 times more than a CovOps and will be slower if it makes a mistake is it so terrible that it should be even more difficult to catch? I agree that maybe the way I qualified my comparisons on how difficult it is to catch a CovOps with a T3 were a bit off.
Comparisons with other ways of moving around:
It seems you don't like the ease with wich players move around in general, not just limited to T3? Sorry but this is a entirely different kettle of fish which I feel would derail this a little. What I would say though is that your argument that it shouldn't exist because other ways already exist is a bit odd. I feel It's quite an expensive way moving around in comparison with bridging (A well managed titan should never be caught in the same way a well managed T3 should not be caught).
On accesability
I think this is your best point and one that I could agree with. It's too easy from a skillpoint/logistics standpoint to move around freely. What about special skill requirements for particular subs? Heavy navigation/science requirements on interdiction nullification? Something perhaps to consider in general with regard to T3 balancing.
My biggest issue is... Who cares? It's easy to move your character around but so what. What are you going to do once you get where you want to be? You can't carry much, can't DPS/tank reliably for the cost of the ship. I just don't see what one or two characters moving around through bubbles in expensive ships is really doing to hurt anyone. Intel? You can throw a lot of CovOps at a camp before a T3 is cost viable (not to mention skill differences). This is what I would most like to see addressed by you (or anyone) as I am happy to listen. Before this is addressed I would be reulctant to shake up the whole class and subsystem balance. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
579
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:42:00 -
[36] - Quote
Dual B wrote:
Regarding bubbles and Cov Ops:
I would argue that considering a T3 costs 10-20 times more than a CovOps and will be slower if it makes a mistake is it so terrible that it should be even more difficult to catch? I agree that maybe the way I qualified my comparisons on how difficult it is to catch a CovOps with a T3 were a bit off.
T3 arent that expensive, they are pretty cheapish, especially if they allow moving high value stuff practically invulnerable.
Dual B wrote:
What I would say though is that your argument that it shouldn't exist because other ways already exist is a bit odd..
No, I just reversed your own argument. You said T3 are ok because there are already other means of safe travel. I say - if there are, so we dont need T3 as another one, then.
Dual B wrote:I feel It's quite an expensive way moving around in comparison with bridging (A well managed titan should never be caught in the same way a well managed T3 should not be caught). .
why? T3 doesnt consume any fuel at all, you cant f*ck up cyno for your titan and bump and get killed, as happened to many carrier and JF pilots at stations who assumed full safety while jumping stuff. On the contrary, all you need when flying properly fitted, nullified T3 is set destination and keep clicking jump and cloak butans till you're there.
Dual B wrote:
My biggest issue is... Who cares? It's easy to move your character around but so what. What are you going to do once you get where you want to be?.
I care this is why I post here.
Its not about moving character but moving valuables safely. You had a chance to kill a covert (hauler)/recon hauling plex loot from 0.0 to empire in the past, nowadays they moving it in uncatchable T3 safely, whats wrong IMO. |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
1159
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:47:00 -
[37] - Quote
IMO certain aspects of the ship should be locked in by the hull and not the subsystems.
Drone Bay (but not bandwidth)
Slot layout (but not hard points) with the interdiction nullifier still being a -1 low slot.
Cargo hold
Gallente would be
H-6
M-4
L-6
Drone bay 225
Cargohold 300
Caldari would be
H-6
M-7
L-3
Drone bay 50
Cargohold 425
Amarr
H-6
M-3
L-7
Drone bay 200
Cargohold 325
Minmatar
H-6
M-6
L-4
Drone bay 80
Cargohold 275
Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
1159
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:59:00 -
[38] - Quote
On the topic of the nullifier, so far today (from what information I can get so far) there has been 43 T3s destroyed today.
Of that 15 were in low sec, from that 6 were cloaky.
19 were in null sec, from that 11 were nullified.
I did not bother with high sec kills, but the remaining 9 so far were there.
Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
dirtydebbs
Aperture Harmonics
K162
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 15:11:00 -
[39] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Dual B wrote:
Whenever I see such suggestions all I think is that you're complaining about AFK cloaking.
no this has nothing to do with cloaking, there simply shouldnt be ship/module for almost absolutely safe travel across 0.0/WH.
why not have them both fitted as it makes no sense once ur epointed u aint going no where at all the only thing that needs doing is loosing the right to fit stabbs with a nullified sub a insta lock ship cna ruin ure day in one easily, and if you cant catch one then ure not doing it right or u just not that interested in catching it that much.
there sallways two side of a coin take wh and gates yeh it can balst past the bubles and jump but then it sitll has to align and warp off on the other side thats hwo you catch them |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
579
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 15:18:00 -
[40] - Quote
dirtydebbs wrote:
why not have them both fitted as it makes no sense once ur epointed u aint going no where
this is where your plan fails.
dirtydebbs wrote:a insta lock ship cna ruin ure day in one easily
there is no such thing as instalock in eve.
Should we bet ISK on that? I come in a T3 and you catch me by instalocking.
dirtydebbs wrote:and if you cant catch one then ure not doing it right or u just not that interested in catching it that much.
well, the effort for catching a nullified T3 jump -> cloak clicker is through the roof for the simplicity and safety it offers.
The only way to do this is spamming million of drones in spawn sphere around a gate to prevent him cloaking too fast, this takes a while and is negated by GMs via simple petition in no time. |
|
|
Duol Arareb
Duol's Corp
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 15:46:00 -
[41] - Quote
Since you're concerned about cargo being moved from 0.0 to Empire (Who moves PLEX is a mystery to me) what about having the nullifier have a cargo penalty? 0.05 multiplier on the ships cargo hold? |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
206
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 16:30:00 -
[42] - Quote
This has gone slightly different direction than I thought, but speaking as a w-space resident, interdiction nullification really doesn't get you as far as you think it will. If someone wants to catch you, they will catch you. It imposes some penalties on maneuverability (compared to other propulsion subsystems) that slows your align, so someone with a fast-locking ship can still very easily nab you. Also kudos to the fellow who dug up KB data, those are very relevant numbers.
I'm glad to see people are at least interested in the problem. Hopefully CCP will be as well. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
113
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 17:23:00 -
[43] - Quote
Robert... you have some sort specific situation you are unhappy about. I'm not sure what it is. Trying to fix a tiny issue in EVE often leads to many unexpected/unwanted side affects.
T3s aren't expensive? That's an interesting perspective. ;) |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
273
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 17:38:00 -
[44] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:
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.
This a million times, the first thing I want to see happen is a deep and insightful look at what T3s do now both in capabilities and character. Theres a lot of changes that can be done to T3s but whacking them with the neft bat even if they were supposed to be more generalised originally only really furthers turning Eve into yet another bland MMO.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
579
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 18:25:00 -
[45] - Quote
Duol Arareb wrote:(Who moves PLEX is a mystery to me)
learn to read. I wrote (com)plex loot not PLEX.
jonnykefka wrote:This has gone slightly different direction than I thought, but speaking as a w-space resident, interdiction nullification really doesn't get you as far as you think it will. If someone wants to catch you, they will catch you.
it will get you whereever you want to and noone will catch you if you dont want to be caught.
Onomerous wrote:Robert... you have some sort specific situation you are unhappy about. I'm not sure what it is.
...
T3s aren't expensive? That's an interesting perspective. ;)
I thought I clearly stated whats the problem. 99.999% safe travel with very little effort is the problem.
I would say >80% of all T3 flying around are covert nullified, I dont see many T3 apart of blob warfare which arent nullified. It says it all.
Nah, T3 arent expensive. Someone who is living in 0 can rat one up in 2 days. If you ever farmed relic sites you know you would get home with >1b ISK of loot after few hours. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
273
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 19:10:00 -
[46] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:
it will get you whereever you want to and noone will catch you if you dont want to be caught.
Not really true tho, they are extremely useful for w-space and nullsec but I've seen caught and myself been involved in catching a fair few over the years where the pilot hasn't wanted to be caught. They are far from one sided uncatchable, tho they are very hard to catch, and I've come close to losing my own before through no fault of my own. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
579
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 19:13:00 -
[47] - Quote
well, they can be caught if the pilot is an idiot or at bad luck but too hard still. want it to be nerfed. |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
206
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 19:51:00 -
[48] - Quote
No bad luck at all really. With the align time of a dic-null cloaky legion, if there is a high-speed interceptor waiting for me that burns at me as fast as it can, it can easily decloak and lock me before I enter warp. If there are multiple such interceptors I'm quite screwed. That's just on gates, on a WH if I'm too close to the hole to cloak, I'm screwed nine ways to next tuesday interdiction nullification or not.
So, powerful yes, requiring nerf...mmmeh? Not what I would call the highest priority in a T3 rebalance.
To bring the debate on to something more constructive, when is versatility not just a downside in EVE? Are there any examples or is this just doomed to suck? |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
228
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 20:02:00 -
[49] - Quote
an example of versatility being useful is say..... a small gang that wants to use some e-war , links and logi ..aswell as tackle, dps.
- A loki = webs, links, logi
- atron
-drake and cane
now at the moment thats not possible as a boosting loki has crap tank and reps are short range and links/logi are both defensive subs i think so you have to pick one or the other.
But say a rebalance does allow for all 3 roles to be at 80% of the 3 T2 ships you would need .... how is this a bad thing???
'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 |
Dr Ted Kaper
Patriot Security Services
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 20:47:00 -
[50] - Quote
Tchulen wrote: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.
^This comment deserves to be repeated^ |
|
|
Dr Ted Kaper
Patriot Security Services
17
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 20:58:00 -
[51] - Quote
How about a subsystem that gives you a ship maintenance array, talk about versatility being able to refit to the perfect setup mid fight would be insane. Obviously this would need to be coupled with another bonus to be worthwhile but... |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
114
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 21:04:00 -
[52] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Duol Arareb wrote:(Who moves PLEX is a mystery to me) learn to read. I wrote (com)plex loot not PLEX. jonnykefka wrote:This has gone slightly different direction than I thought, but speaking as a w-space resident, interdiction nullification really doesn't get you as far as you think it will. If someone wants to catch you, they will catch you. it will get you whereever you want to and noone will catch you if you dont want to be caught. Onomerous wrote:Robert... you have some sort specific situation you are unhappy about. I'm not sure what it is.
...
T3s aren't expensive? That's an interesting perspective. ;) I thought I clearly stated whats the problem. 99.999% safe travel with very little effort is the problem. I would say >80% of all T3 flying around are covert nullified, I dont see many T3 apart of blob warfare which arent nullified. It says it all. Nah, T3 arent expensive. Someone who is living in 0 can rat one up in 2 days. If you ever farmed relic sites you know you would get home with >1b ISK of loot after few hours.
Too much hyperbole. 99.999%? >80%? T3 aren't expensive? Seems you want easy gate camp kills on expensive ships... |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1953
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 21:28:00 -
[53] - Quote
T3 rebalance is a minefield since there are already so many variables, but as well as some much needed balance tweaking of the no-brainer and no-hoper subsystem options I'd like to see a couple of things:
5th subsystems (Pirate faction?)
Significant penalties to slots/cpu/agility on covops and nullifier subsystems.
Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Tsubutai
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
209
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 23:09:00 -
[54] - Quote
Before T3s are reworked significantly, I'd like to see how HACs (and to a lesser extent, Command Ships) get rebalanced. Ideally, they'd find a way to let them coexist with current strategic cruisers in the same way as recons do at present, where there are valid use cases for both ship types that don't just come down to the tech 3 being more expensive and better in every meaningful way. Once that's done... tone down the two silliest tengu subs (cap regen matrix giving more PG than the power core multiplier, accelerated ejection bay having a double damage bonus *and* a range bonus), buff the legion's cloaky sub and the tengu hybrid subs, give the loki a proper missile subsystem, and maybe re-evaluate the supplemental coolant injector subs (does anyone actually use those?).
As for potential new subs, I'd kind of like a HIC sub that allowed you to use a short-range (maybe 10-15 km) focused point but not a bubble. Can't see it happening, though. |
Vassal Zeren
Uncontrollable Innovations
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 02:38:00 -
[55] - Quote
Ahhhh! Stay away from my Tengu! |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
50
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 03:09:00 -
[56] - Quote
I think after the link boosting nerf, combat orientated T3s are fine. They are already versatile as the OP stated. What needs work isn't T3s. But rather the T2s. A lot of the faction cruisers are now better than the T2 Cruisers even at their specialised role. And the Cerberus and Eagle were simply awful even before the cruiser/faction cruiser buff. Maybe T2s should get an assault frigate role bonus or something. But anyway, about T3s:
The Proteus IMO is fine. It has battleship-like tank but it doesn't have the range projection of Large Hyrbids so no issue there. It's also significantly slower than the Deimos so the Deimos can still fulfill the fast high DPS/anti-support role.
Tengu needs a lot of links/pimp to do what everyone QQs about so I'm fine with it. Hyrbid tengu is terribad but that's to do with medium rails being bad and the Blengu is overshadowed by the Proteus.
Legion as the OP correctly stated is just a Zealot with battleship-like tank. The exception being the HAM legion, which is overshadowed by the HAM tengu. I actually think a buff is in order for the Legion. Maybe TD bonus but keeps lasers so it's an arbitrator that doesn't rely on drones for damage - would be in line with Amarr race doctrine.
Loki is a tankier vaga/cynabal that's slower but makes up for it by having web bonus to keep things at bay/from escaping. Although it's primarily used for links, which have been nerfed.
I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
Buff T2s, they're ridiculously weak at the moment. T3s are where they should be. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1953
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 06:13:00 -
[57] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Buff T2s, they're ridiculously weak at the moment. T3s are where they should be.
Flatly buffing T2s from their current level would completely undermine the T1 rebalances that took place over the last couple of expansions.
Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Sigras
Conglomo
404
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 08:37:00 -
[58] - Quote
It is my contention that Eve doesnt allow for a ship that is "more generalized" than T1 and less powerful than T2
What does more generalized even mean? That it can fill multiple roles/lines? Thats useless if your ship has to dock to do it. Why not just have another ship in the station? especially if you have to carry around all of the subsystems/fittings to refit your ship anyway.
What I propose would be a massive undertaking, but it would definitely result in gameplay where T3 ships were more generalized and harder to use but very rewarding if you got them right.
1. change all T3 ships to be 8/8/8 ships and have subsystems turn on/off certain slots instead of giving/removing slots.
2. change all T3 ships to be worse than their T2 counterparts (ie an AHAC fit legion should be worse than an AHAC fit zealot)
3. allow all T3 ships to swap subsystems in combat
4. make a UI that says something like "your new configuration allows for 6 high slots 4 mid slots and 7 low slots; please select the slots you want to be active"
This is the only way youre going to get ships that are more generalized than T1 and less powerful than T2 |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
51
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 08:58:00 -
[59] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Buff T2s, they're ridiculously weak at the moment. T3s are where they should be. Flatly buffing T2s from their current level would completely undermine the T1 rebalances that took place over the last couple of expansions. What does "flatly" buffing mean? Do you mean buff everything by equal amounts? Well who said anything about that? That would be epically stupid. Clearly some HACs need less work than others, e.g. zealot probably only needs a speed buff, but the cerberus? That thing needs a lot of love.
Tiericide was meant to eliminate tiers, not make T2 obsolete. Interceptors are in dire need of rework. HACs needed work even before tiericide. If you object to this then I think you haven't undocked in a very long time. |
Tsubutai
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
210
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 09:13:00 -
[60] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Buff T2s, they're ridiculously weak at the moment. T3s are where they should be. Flatly buffing T2s from their current level would completely undermine the T1 rebalances that took place over the last couple of expansions.
That depends very much on what you mean by 'flatly buffing'. It's generally accepted that the current balance between T1 ewar/logistics cruisers, their T2 variants, and tech 3s is quite good: the T2s are generally straight upgrades over the T1s and have bonuses that enable them to do specific things that the corresponding tech 3s cannot (i.e. rep at range or have strong, long-ranged primary and secondary ewar). That balance doesn't really exist for HACs, however - by and large, anything useful that a HAC can do, a T3 can do better, and their performance advantages relative to T1 hulls are sigless clear-cut than those of the recons and logistics. If they're to be brought into line with the other T2 cruiser classes, they'll need a significant rebalancing and to have a defined role as a class that tech 3s cannot fully replicate. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |