| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
813
   |
Posted - 2013.09.10 15:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
The ship rebalance programme is progressing very nicely, and soon will be at the point where Fozzie et al are reviewing the Tech 3 Cruisers.
There are aspects of the T3's that need serious attention, in both buffing and nerfing
Both aspects, I believe, are required.
I am only going to address the Tengu in all of it's various roles, but the data presented will apply equally to the other 3 factions and as such does not need to be included, which keeps the post shorter.
The Role of a T3 Cruiser
CCP's original intent was for it to be versatile, able to assume to many different roles but specialising in none.
Currently the T3 cruiser fails in that role.
It cannot effectively and easily swap roles without additional pre-rigged base hulls for that different role.
It outperforms many of the specialised T2 hulls in that particular role.
Tengu Roles & T1/T2/T3 Progression
A Tengu is defined by the subsystems fitted to it. There should be a clear progression when compared to other base hulls in the game, which I will ouline below.
The Tengu can utilise roles from 3 hull classes, Frigate, Cruiser & Battlecruiser
Exploration & Scouting:
Heron -> Tengu -> Buzzard
Combat:
Caracal -> Tengu -> Cerberus
Moa -> Tengu -> Eagle
E-War:
Blackbird -> Tengu -> Falcon
Logistics:
Osprey -> Tengu -> Basilisk
Fleet Command:
Drake -> Tengu -> Nighthawk
Ferox -> Tengu -> Vulture
The nerf's
The above shows where the Tengu currently needs to be re-evaluated
e.g. In the Combat Role, it should perform better than the Caracal & Moa, but both the Cerberus & Eagle should outperform it
this would allow pilots of the specialised T2 classes to shine more in their chosen roles
many subsystems need to have their bonus % rates lowered
1% or 3% instead of 5%, 3% or 5% instead of 7.5%, 5% or 7.5% instead of 10%
this should see a more balanced performance from T3 pilots compared to their T1 & T2 counterparts.
The Buff's
For the multirole non-specialisation role to work, T3 Cruisers MUST be able to change rigging options in the same way that subsystems can swapped around.
The best way around this would be to introduce a new line of T3 (T3 hull only) rigs at the same time as the subsystem bonus' are adjusted downwards in the rebalance pass (when they receive it). |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
586
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 15:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
... or have T3 rig subsystems which take very little cargo capacity up so you can carry multiple configurations just as you do for the other subsystems and modules. That way you don't need to change rigs or add duplicate rigs into the game. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
495
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 15:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
I would remove rigs from T3's altogether its much simpler and saves isk.. T3's should be all about the subs not rigs
- reduce base hull cost
- make subs cheap 2mil a sub
- remove rigs completely .. more isk saved and increased versatility
- navy tank including T1 resists
- able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships
- remove interdiction nullifier .. should only be able to do what T1/T2 can do
- add new subs/ maybe a new category so 6 systems perhaps
- remove skillpoint penalty on ship loss and increase training time
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name
AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
813
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 15:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
The price point of subsystems or base hull isn't something that CCP can do that much about
The people that make them need to make a profit from doing so.
The people buying them will only pay as much as they think it's worth.
The marketplace is really just an economic balancing point between these 2 aspects.
Yeah I forgot about it's 6th role, Blockade Runner
But the Crane is already superior to the Tengu in this role 
Skills wise I think T3's are in a pretty good spot, yes it's annoying to lose points from 1 skill, but it's just 1 skill and its a skill with a lowly x1 multiplier. |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
Point Blank Alliance
918
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 15:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:The price point of subsystems or base hull isn't something that CCP can do that much about
What? Of course they can. Prices aren't random, they're functions of highly predictable factors. If CCP were to make subsystems drop from rats in hisec belts their price would plummet really, really fast.
CCP cannot wave a magic wand and specify an exact price point but they can easily make changes which will in turn bring down the cost... If they wanted to (not to say it's a good idea) |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
313
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 15:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
Very few people would actually bother flying them if those changes were made and/or if they changed that much you'd lose what is a shiny target from the game making it that much blander and people losing interest in the game that much quicker.
Generally I don't think changing that too much does many positive things for the game - things I do think need changing would be for instance extreme tank configurations should come with more appropriate penalties to sig, mobility, etc. stuff like that. |
Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
117
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 15:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
T3 are perfectly fine as they are right now.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
813
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 15:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
I don't really see the problem with the pricing ..
Buzzard 17.8m
Cerberus 226.9m
Falcon 149.5m
Basilisk 116.4m
Nighthawk 208.9m
Total Cost 719.5m
The average Tengu costs around 440m for a commonplace standard loadout of subsystems
It only seems excessive at the moment as you pretty much lock it into 1 role with rigs
If rigs were not on issue, then you have effectively 5 ships in 1 for almost half the price.
Arya Regnar wrote:T3 are perfectly fine as they are right now.
if by fine you actually mean "I fly T3's because they're OP!!!. CCP plz don't nerf my T3" ... then yes your right
fyi, I can fly a Cerberus and a Tengu
I find there is little reason to move the Cerberus out of the hanger. |
Ghost Phius
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 16:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
Yet another thread that makes it clear why the players cannot be trusted when it comes to game balance.
The devs are far from perfect but I will take their decisions over bias players ANY DAY. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
The Volition Cult
586
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 17:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:T3 are perfectly fine as they are right now. if by fine you actually mean "I fly T3's because they're OP!!!. CCP plz don't nerf my T3" ... then yes your right fyi, I can fly a Cerberus and a Tengu I find there is little reason to move the Cerberus out of the hanger.
Do you fly in high sec, by any chance?
Outside high sec there are very good reasons to fly a HAC instead of a T3 and that is loss cost. This has an effect on your wallet and your killboard.
In high sec you're quite correct. As long as you're sensible a T3 wins over a HAC any day but outside high sec, where you might actually lose your ship whether you're careful or not there is a reason to chose HAC over T3.
T3's aren't OP when you consider the value of them. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1199
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 17:57:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:T3 are perfectly fine as they are right now. if by fine you actually mean "I fly T3's because they're OP!!!. CCP plz don't nerf my T3" ... then yes your right fyi, I can fly a Cerberus and a Tengu I find there is little reason to move the Cerberus out of the hanger. Do you fly in high sec, by any chance? Outside high sec there are very good reasons to fly a HAC instead of a T3 and that is loss cost. This has an effect on your wallet and your killboard. In high sec you're quite correct. As long as you're sensible a T3 wins over a HAC any day but outside high sec, where you might actually lose your ship whether you're careful or not there is a reason to chose HAC over T3. T3's aren't OP when you consider the value of them. EDIT - if you want examples of other ships that are seriously better than their tech I and tech II counterparts take a look at the pirate faction BSs. They, like Tech III cruisers, are significantly more expensive to account for their increase in performance. EDIT 2 - Making Tech III ships average at doing lots of things is tantamount to removing them from the game. At the price they go for no one would use them when they can use a ship that's better at what they want to do (tech II) but significantly cheaper. The price would have to drop significantly to make their use viable. They would have to be 1/3ish of the price they are now if they were worse than their tech II counterparts.
Pretty much this.
Once out of high sec and pimp fits to kill pve fit war targets things get different, a lot different. T3s are currently excellent support ships, and by support it's not because of the amounts of dps they push but because of their survivability.
HACs dish far more dmg, are faster, have an excellent bonus to mitigate incoming dmg and thx to new improved HACs push more than decent amounts of EHP once every fleet bonus factored.
Non the less, each of these T3's have a huge target on their back on top of some very important weaknesses: they're all extremely cap dependent to keep most of their tank and utility/dps running. Once you get in range and neut them they just die like any HAC but prettier.
Before getting in to any further changes data is required to see how new HACs changed/impact T3s abilities from solo small/gang work to large fleets.
Imho if 100mn AB setups are still way out of whack in solo/small gang for fleets it was already something you really didn't wanted (or maybe some dude with a snowflake fit) -this can be easily fix by simply adding in the hull some variable without touching whatever sub or hull itself.
If something I'd like to see them loose completely command sub for a simple reason: comand ships require a fuckton of skills and dedication, compared to them T3's are quite easy to train just as easy as it is to get in to hacs lvl4 at least.
Logi sub is a bit "under the weather" but doesn't need to be as strong as a regular logi in terms of range, just be able to fit more reps and have cap adjustments. -all T3's need a good take a look at this sub
Cover sub is a bit weak, needs more dmg to make them real Uboats - Legion/Tengu/Loki/Proteus all need this sub to be look at and balanced in between them.
Dps sub, this is where things get a bit hard to discuss, right now T3s got relegated in a good spot thx to HACs changes.
All ships need a good take a look at these subs and a good balance in between them, not with T2 ones.
Prot drones dedicated sub is quite garbage, Legion Laser/hams need love, Tengu hybrid sub is total garbage, loki arty one is a bit "meh"
So much to say about these ships because they're all fantastic ships to fly, not exactly the best at something like many pretend they are but the best compromise for many gamers in between cost/performance/abilities, any change to these ships from now on will either relegate them to hangar queens or keep current status, once again, after HAC changes brought them to their right spot.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Icarus Able
Traverse Holdings
85
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 18:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I would remove rigs from T3's altogether its much simpler and saves isk.. T3's should be all about the subs not rigs
- reduce base hull cost
- make subs cheap 2mil a sub
- remove rigs completely .. more isk saved and increased versatility
- navy tank including T1 resists
- able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships
- remove interdiction nullifier .. should only be able to do what T1/T2 can do
- add new subs/ maybe a new category so 6 systems perhaps
- remove skillpoint penalty on ship loss and increase training time
Noone would fly them....... That would just remove them from the game completely. |
Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 18:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:T3 are perfectly fine as they are right now. if by fine you actually mean "I fly T3's because they're OP!!!. CCP plz don't nerf my T3" ... then yes your right fyi, I can fly a Cerberus and a Tengu I find there is little reason to move the Cerberus out of the hanger. Do you fly in high sec, by any chance? Outside high sec there are very good reasons to fly a HAC instead of a T3 and that is loss cost. This has an effect on your wallet and your killboard.
That is exactly right.
Different price range per usefulness is a justifiable reason for a stronger/weaker ship in general.
And cerberus is useful in pvp now from what I gathered.
It wasn't before though.
Oh and MUST I stress the point where you lose 4 days of training when you die in a t3, that is absolutely not negligible.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
499
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:46:00 -
[14] - Quote
Icarus Able wrote:Harvey James wrote:I would remove rigs from T3's altogether its much simpler and saves isk.. T3's should be all about the subs not rigs
- reduce base hull cost
- make subs cheap 2mil a sub
- remove rigs completely .. more isk saved and increased versatility
- navy tank including T1 resists
- able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships
- remove interdiction nullifier .. should only be able to do what T1/T2 can do
- add new subs/ maybe a new category so 6 systems perhaps
- remove skillpoint penalty on ship loss and increase training time
Noone would fly them....... That would just remove them from the game completely.
i think not.. infact CCP will probably do at least 50% of these suggestions
- navy tank including T1 resists .. this one they have already indicated they will do. along with this one
- able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships
They would be stupid not to do this one as leaving them at 450mil would make them largely unused after nerfs
- make subs cheap 2mil a sub
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name
AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise
Fatal Ascension
498
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 19:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Icarus Able wrote:Harvey James wrote:I would remove rigs from T3's altogether its much simpler and saves isk.. T3's should be all about the subs not rigs
- reduce base hull cost
- make subs cheap 2mil a sub
- remove rigs completely .. more isk saved and increased versatility
- navy tank including T1 resists
- able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships
- remove interdiction nullifier .. should only be able to do what T1/T2 can do
- add new subs/ maybe a new category so 6 systems perhaps
- remove skillpoint penalty on ship loss and increase training time
Noone would fly them....... That would just remove them from the game completely. i think not.. infact CCP will probably do at least 50% of these suggestions - navy tank including T1 resists .. this one they have already indicated they will do. along with this one - able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships They would be stupid not to do this one as leaving them at 450mil would make them largely unused after nerfs - make subs cheap 2mil a sub
Better make them free because they wold be totally useless with the resist profile |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
499
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 20:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:Icarus Able wrote:Harvey James wrote:I would remove rigs from T3's altogether its much simpler and saves isk.. T3's should be all about the subs not rigs
- reduce base hull cost
- make subs cheap 2mil a sub
- remove rigs completely .. more isk saved and increased versatility
- navy tank including T1 resists
- able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships
- remove interdiction nullifier .. should only be able to do what T1/T2 can do
- add new subs/ maybe a new category so 6 systems perhaps
- remove skillpoint penalty on ship loss and increase training time
Noone would fly them....... That would just remove them from the game completely. i think not.. infact CCP will probably do at least 50% of these suggestions - navy tank including T1 resists .. this one they have already indicated they will do. along with this one - able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships They would be stupid not to do this one as leaving them at 450mil would make them largely unused after nerfs - make subs cheap 2mil a sub Better make them free because they wold be totally useless with the resist profile
oh hardly ... a 150 mil ship able to do links maybe logi and e-war all at once is a pretty nice combo that's the problem with T3's atm they are all about the insane resists and battleship tank that a cruiser should never have been able to do.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name
AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
813
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 21:12:00 -
[17] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:Icarus Able wrote:Harvey James wrote:I would remove rigs from T3's altogether its much simpler and saves isk.. T3's should be all about the subs not rigs
- reduce base hull cost
- make subs cheap 2mil a sub
- remove rigs completely .. more isk saved and increased versatility
- navy tank including T1 resists
- able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships
- remove interdiction nullifier .. should only be able to do what T1/T2 can do
- add new subs/ maybe a new category so 6 systems perhaps
- remove skillpoint penalty on ship loss and increase training time
Noone would fly them....... That would just remove them from the game completely. i think not.. infact CCP will probably do at least 50% of these suggestions - navy tank including T1 resists .. this one they have already indicated they will do. along with this one - able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships They would be stupid not to do this one as leaving them at 450mil would make them largely unused after nerfs - make subs cheap 2mil a sub Better make them free because they wold be totally useless with the resist profile oh hardly ... a 150 mil ship able to do links maybe logi and e-war all at once is a pretty nice combo that's the problem with T3's atm they are all about the insane resists and battleship tank that a cruiser should never have been able to do.
Remember the Devposts back at the beginning of the rebalance process
where a dev stated the intention to nerf all t3's into oblivion
my thoughts are nowhere near as bad as oblivion
I fly a T3 in more than 1 place
but yes, the most common place for them is highsec & L4 mission running
and the reason for that is entirely due to an overly powerful combination of subs
part of the tengu problem is the rail-gu .. which even with the recent medium hybrid buff might still be infact the fail-gu
those 2 separate subsystems need changing
the missile subsystem needs nerfing as it's far too strong
the hybrid subsystem needs buffing until it's a viable alternative
and as far as im aware, all 4 T3's have their ugly duckling subs that barely ever see the light of day |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
480
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 21:53:00 -
[18] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:
fyi, I can fly a Cerberus and a Tengu
I find there is little reason to move the Cerberus out of the hanger.
rofl
you fail then just like this proposal
cerb is awesome
instead of nerfing combat tengu/other t3s , just boost its other mods, a 400+ mill ship with skill loss have to be better than t2, or it has no realy reason to be used, changing role in a station by refit doesnt cut it, when you can hop into another ship within a second
and remove rigs or make them able to unfit rigs, what is the reason behind modular ship when rigging makes it fix...
if ccp makes them shittier they need to drop its price cosiderably , which would cause many more problems imho |
zbaaca
POD Based Lifeforms
DarkSide.
44
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 22:01:00 -
[19] - Quote
meh... just another stupid topic about tengu(mainly) where half of ppl who never been in 0.0 and suggesting something and other that only seen it but didn't fly
for now with command buff to use t3 is not rational , as logi t3 most popular on AT. ewar tengu ? wut? just post how many have you seen. i was lucky and my count is 2
for smarties a have a task. fit as proposed "linked logi ewar tengu" . and post fit.
PS players proposals for changes of T3 gets boring
Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
183
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 23:23:00 -
[20] - Quote
How about just no. By the time we get through rebalancing everything else, T3s won't seem so under-balanced anymore...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Dr0000 Maulerant
Mu cows
17
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 01:21:00 -
[21] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:How about just no. By the time we get through rebalancing everything else, T3s won't seem so under-balanced anymore...
^This is the only way that would make any sense. T3's are expensive by nature of their construction requirements, as well as demand. The T2 cruisers certainly have their niche advantages, but they are generally lackluster IMO.
When I have to-
1. salvage sleeper components
2. build a POS with a special lab
3. reverse engineer said components
4. train all skills for above
to build something, it had better be awesome.
You can howl "EVE has consequences" without context or explanation at whoever you like. This will not make it true. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
183
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 01:31:00 -
[22] - Quote
Dr0000 Maulerant wrote:to build something, it had better be awesome.
Don't forget losing 4 days of skills every time you die (or eject).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 03:11:00 -
[23] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:I don't really see the problem with the pricing .. Buzzard 17.8m Cerberus 226.9m Falcon 149.5m Basilisk 116.4m Nighthawk 208.9m Total Cost 719.5m The average Tengu costs around 440m for a commonplace standard loadout of subsystems It only seems excessive at the moment as you pretty much lock it into 1 role with rigs If rigs were not on issue, then you have effectively 5 ships in 1 for almost half the price. Arya Regnar wrote:T3 are perfectly fine as they are right now. if by fine you actually mean "I fly T3's because they're OP!!!. CCP plz don't nerf my T3" ... then yes your right fyi, I can fly a Cerberus and a Tengu I find there is little reason to move the Cerberus out of the hanger.
You fly a 440m tengu? What's the point? |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
184
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 04:00:00 -
[24] - Quote
Gospadin wrote:You fly a 440m tengu? What's the point?
They look cool.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 05:25:00 -
[25] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Gospadin wrote:You fly a 440m tengu? What's the point? They look cool.
Haha, at least you didn't say that about the Legion. |
Karma Codolle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 07:03:00 -
[26] - Quote
This doesn't make any sense
You currently want ship progression to be Tech1 -> Tech3 -> Tech2
Why would tech 3 which is supposed to be highly advanced be worse than a simple tech 2? |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
186
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 09:29:00 -
[27] - Quote
Gospadin wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Gospadin wrote:You fly a 440m tengu? What's the point? They look cool. Haha, at least you didn't say that about the Legion.
The Legion also looks cool. ;)
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1201
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 10:02:00 -
[28] - Quote
Karma Codolle wrote:This doesn't make any sense
You currently want ship progression to be Tech1 -> Tech3 -> Tech2
Why would tech 3 which is supposed to be highly advanced be worse than a simple tech 2?
Because frustrated loud mouths with little brains said so.
And it will work like it worked on Gallente nerf to oblivion for almost 5 years, their logs showed nothing despite hundreds of pages and literally thousands of posts from players claiming how bad and nerf those ships were.
The answer was "our logs and graphics clearly show they're good, just look at", indeed we all know how good they were but never mind, they're supposed to be the ones knowing something about what they do right? -Eve history shows it's not always the case.
Yep, player feedback and stuff etc.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
126
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 10:11:00 -
[29] - Quote
Please Remove all Rig Slots for T3 Cruiser and give them another Submodule instead, rigs really cripling the possibilitys which are the Reason for a T3 in the first place. |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
407
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 10:18:00 -
[30] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:The Role of a T3 Cruiser
CCP's original intent was for it to be versatile, able to assume to many different roles but specialising in none.
Currently the T3 cruiser fails in that role.
And Gnosis is awesome at it? :)
I disagree that T3 cruisers fail at it. For instance, I can fly a nullified, covert Tengu explorer through null looking for sigs. When I find a combat site, I can park in an NPC station, swap modules and proceed to do the site without the need for a second combat ship. The only problem is, I can only do this swap in friendly or neutral territory. In my opinion, there should be a way to swap modules in a hostile territory as well, at least to some extent.
Beyond that, T3 hulls are perfectly fine. In fact, they may be the most balanced thing in game. The problem is solely with subsystems. Take for instance the Tengu. I think we all agree that the Ejection Bay is absolutely amazing. But when was the last time you saw a Tengu with Magnetic Infusion Basin? Those are the ones that need balancing and fixing before we start inventing the wheel. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |