EVE Search - Tech 3 Revamp

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Tech 3 Revamp

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kalel Nimrott Sky Fighters 429	Posted - 2013.11.30 12:37:00 - [1] - Quote https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3939735#post3939735 Basically, what is says is get rid of rigs for T3. They are an specialized item in adaptable ships. Get rework the bonuses so you don't loose performance. What do you think?
Ix Method Barrington-Smythe Victory War Goodness 75	Posted - 2013.11.30 14:49:00 - [2] - Quote If the rebalance was done with this is mind it'd probably be for the best tbh. Travelling at the speed of love.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 368	Posted - 2013.11.30 21:06:00 - [3] - Quote Have to say on balance I'd be against it - while I like it for HP increase rigs, etc. I find things like T2 burst aerator, nanopump, ewar and electronics, etc.rigs too useful to give them up.
Kalel Nimrott Sky Fighters 429	Posted - 2013.11.30 21:28:00 - [4] - Quote It wouldnt be too difficult to balance that with the current subsystems by improving the bonuses or adding new features to them.
Seranova Farreach Lion Squadron 457	Posted - 2013.12.01 00:35:00 - [5] - Quote wont work as the rigs are tied to the actual hull not the subsystems that you ADD to the hull.
Kalel Nimrott Sky Fighters 429	Posted - 2013.12.01 02:32:00 - [6] - Quote What? We are talking about getting rid of the rigs..., No more rig slots for Tech 3 ships.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 650	Posted - 2013.12.01 06:08:00 - [7] - Quote +1 not for nerfing purposes, but because tech 3s are complex enough with subsystems. I'd like to see them balanced around the idea of not having rigs. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's.
Gigan Amilupar No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad 78	Posted - 2013.12.01 08:31:00 - [8] - Quote Hmm, sorry, I don't like the idea of removing rigs from T3's. As for why, I'd say it's because: 1) Rigs offer benefits that subsystems don't, allow you to compensate for weakness and thus have more fittings, and overall improve customizability due to it. If they have a weakness on T3s it's because the inability to remove rigs doesn't make sense on a ship that can readily change it's major stats, but I don't think just taking rigs out of the equation is the solution to that. 2) Removing rigs doesn't actually deal with the imbalances in a T3. T3's are imbalanced in certain aspects because some subsystems are useless while others are almost mandatory. While there are some subsystems that will need to be buffed or reworked, and some may see nerfs, I don't really think that a buff across the board in exchange for being able to compensate for shortcomings with rigs is the solution. I would much rather see a comprehensive look at subsystems and possibly the ability to remove rigs without destroying them instead of simply taking them out of the situation. If anything, the complexity that a T3 can offer in terms of fitting is a strength, not a weakness. -1
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 1867	Posted - 2013.12.01 08:41:00 - [9] - Quote -1 Getting rid of the rig points solves nothing about the imbalance of T3 ships. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement
Zvaarian the Red Evil Leprechaun Brigade 117	Posted - 2013.12.01 10:07:00 - [10] - Quote Makes sense to me. Rigs + subsystems make no sense to me. If they combine that with an overall tweaking of subsystems so they are all viable choices it could make T3s much more interesting while at the same time less overpowered in certain configurations.

Demica Diaz The Scope Gallente Federation 85	Posted - 2013.12.01 11:08:00 - [11] - Quote Get rid of rigs and rebalance subsystems to compensate rig loss to boost subsystem specialization. Yes please.
StahlWaffe Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2013.12.01 11:12:00 - [12] - Quote Well, my proposal for bringing Tech3 in line is either, drop their rigslots to 2 like on Tech2 ships, or give Tech2 ships 3 rigslots. Then, split the bonuses of Subsystems onto SUBSYSTEM Level AND Strategic Cruiser Level. Upon loss, you lose 1 level of Strategic Cruiser and 1 level of the highest subsystem. This way, for getting maximum performance, you need Strategic Cruiser to 5. And if you lose it, your overall performance takes a significant hit. You have to make a decision: Keep the Tech3 skill at 4, so you don't lose tons of skillpoints in case you die and can quickly achieve the performance you had earlier, or do you want maximum performance and risk losing that performance for a month?
Ashley Animus Shadows In The Storm 0	Posted - 2013.12.01 12:07:00 - [13] - Quote This might become a problem with the tengu since some fits rely heavely on the rigs to increase missile projection or application or something.
Zvaarian the Red Evil Leprechaun Brigade 117	Posted - 2013.12.01 13:07:00 - [14] - Quote StahlWaffe wrote: Well, my proposal for bringing Tech3 in line is either, drop their rigslots to 2 like on Tech2 ships, or give Tech2 ships 3 rigslots. Then, split the bonuses of Subsystems onto SUBSYSTEM Level AND Strategic Cruiser Level. Upon loss, you lose 1 level of Strategic Cruiser and 1 level of the highest subsystem. This way, for getting maximum performance, you need Strategic Cruiser to 5. And if you lose it, your overall performance takes a significant hit. You have to make a decision: Keep the Tech3 skill at 4, so you don't lose tons of skillpoints in case you die and can quickly achieve the performance you had earlier, or do you want maximum performance and risk losing that performance for a month? They need to get rid of SP loss not make it even more punitive.
Kalel Nimrott Sky Fighters 430	Posted - 2013.12.01 14:48:00 - [15] - Quote Ashley Animus wrote: This might become a problem with the tengu since some fits rely heavely on the rigs to increase missile projection or application or something. Agree, but that is why besides loosing, rigs subsystems need to be tweaked so we dont loose configuratoions that are useful now, but we can gain new fits to use and more adaptability.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 606	Posted - 2013.12.01 15:52:00 - [16] - Quote what i would like to see happen is all the EHP and fittings/slots etc.. go into the hull itself... and use subs as a bonus only change 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.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 1870	Posted - 2013.12.01 16:14:00 - [17] - Quote Harvey James wrote: what i would like to see happen is all the EHP and fittings/slots etc.. go into the hull itself... and use subs as a bonus only change Certain other aspects would need to change with the subsystems, but yes that is probably the best way to balance them. Slots, power grid, CPU, cargo capacity, HP, and drone bay would be static features of the ships. Hardpoints, velocity, drone bandwidth, agility and bonuses should vary with each subsystem. And of course no matter what the interdiction nullifier should remove a low slot. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement
Kalel Nimrott Sky Fighters 430	Posted - 2013.12.02 03:51:00 - [18] - Quote But could Cpu be modified by an electronic subsystem?
Arthur Aihaken The.VOID 696	Posted - 2013.12.02 04:52:00 - [19] - Quote Kalel Nimrott wrote: Basically, what is says is get rid of rigs for T3. What do you think? Only if they finally balance/buff subsystems and allow us to swap-out subsystems on the fly without a 60-second penalty or the need for a mobile depot. Kalel Nimrott wrote: But could Cpu be modified by an electronic subsystem? We already have a CPU-based electronic subsystem. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 653	Posted - 2013.12.02 07:44:00 - [20] - Quote Zvaarian the Red wrote: StahlWaffe wrote: Well, my proposal for bringing Tech3 in line is either, drop their rigslots to 2 like on Tech2 ships, or give Tech2 ships 3 rigslots. Then, split the bonuses of Subsystems onto SUBSYSTEM Level AND Strategic Cruiser Level. Upon loss, you lose 1 level of Strategic Cruiser and 1 level of the highest subsystem. This way, for getting maximum performance, you need Strategic Cruiser to 5. And if you lose it, your overall performance takes a significant hit. You have to make a decision: Keep the Tech3 skill at 4, so you don't lose tons of skillpoints in case you die and can quickly achieve the performance you had earlier, or do you want maximum performance and risk losing that performance for a month? They need to get rid of SP loss not make it even more punitive. Howabout a 10% SP loss from all applicable subsystem skills as well as the strategic cruiser skill? More coverage, less total loss. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!

Zvaarian the Red Evil Leprechaun Brigade 126	Posted - 2013.12.02 07:47:00 - [21] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Zvaarian the Red wrote: StahlWaffe wrote: Well, my proposal for bringing Tech3 in line is either, drop their rigslots to 2 like on Tech2 ships, or give Tech2 ships 3 rigslots. Then, split the bonuses of Subsystems onto SUBSYSTEM Level AND Strategic Cruiser Level. Upon loss, you lose 1 level of Strategic Cruiser and 1 level of the highest subsystem. This way, for getting maximum performance, you need Strategic Cruiser to 5. And if you lose it, your overall performance takes a significant hit. You have to make a decision: Keep the Tech3 skill at 4, so you don't lose tons of skillpoints in case you die and can quickly achieve the performance you had earlier, or do you want maximum performance and risk losing that performance for a month? They need to get rid of SP loss not make it even more punitive. Howabout a 5% SP loss from all applicable subsystem skills as well as the strategic cruiser skill? More coverage, less total loss. How about they just get rid of it since they have now decided T3s shouldn't be any better than T2 cruisers?
Arthur Aihaken The.VOID 698	Posted - 2013.12.02 08:22:00 - [22] - Quote Zvaarian the Red wrote: How about they just get rid of it since they have now decided T3s shouldn't be any better than T2 cruisers? I imagine it'll be retained just to add insult to the nerf injuryGÇª When they say "not quite nerfed to the point of uselessness", you have to wonder exactly how close. It's ironic that the SoE cruiser probably out DPSs any Covert T3 configurations for basically the same price. Not looking forward to the 2014 nerf bat... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Swiftstrike1 Interfector INC. Fade 2 Black 363	Posted - 2013.12.02 10:50:00 - [23] - Quote I would like to see rig slots removed from T3 cruisers because it will increase their versatility. That said, every single subsystem needs rebalancing. Every. Single. One. EDIT: Some people are bound to think "omg what an idiot, removing rig slots does the exact opposite of increasing versatility". Here's why those people are wrong. As soon as you put rigs on a T3 they cannot be removed without destroying them and that limits you to fits with that exact rig layout. Fleet Bookmarks New Gravimetric Sites Med Clones 2.0
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 1873	Posted - 2013.12.02 11:18:00 - [24] - Quote Kalel Nimrott wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Harvey James wrote: what i would like to see happen is all the EHP and fittings/slots etc.. go into the hull itself... and use subs as a bonus only change Certain other aspects would need to change with the subsystems, but yes that is probably the best way to balance them. Slots, power grid, CPU, cargo capacity, HP, and drone bay would be static features of the ships. Hardpoints, velocity, drone bandwidth, agility and bonuses should vary with each subsystem. And of course no matter what the interdiction nullifier should remove a low slot. But could Cpu be modified by an electronic subsystem? If they do not change the subsystems that does that then yes. Taking the Proteus as an example: (of course these numbers are just the average of what we have right now so they are most likely either to high or to low) Slot Layout 6 High 4 Mid 6 Low Power Grid 1100MW CPU 390 Capacitor 1500 GJ/Recharge Time 415s Armor HP 3400 Shield HP 2200/Recharge Time 1620 Hull HP 1850 Cargo Capacity 280m^3 Drone Bay 225m^3 From here the subsystems would change things like velocity, agility, turret/launcher hardpoints, drone bandwidth, and bonuses that could/would effect the presented numbers. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement
Kalel Nimrott Sky Fighters 430	Posted - 2013.12.02 11:27:00 - [25] - Quote Kalel Nimrott wrote: But could Cpu be modified by an electronic subsystem? We already have a CPU-based electronic subsystem.[/quote] I was asking on his context. He specified that CPU Should be something fix in a revamped version of the T3s.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.