EVE Search - T3 Rebalance - general direction

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

T3 Rebalance - general direction

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill 83	Posted - 2014.02.11 12:30:00 - [1] - Quote Ok, so devs are surprisingly silent about whatGÇÖs coming up in the next expansion. We all estimate pirate rebalance and T3 to be on the way soon. So i decided to start up a discussion on T3 with concrete proposals. Disclaimer: my ideas should be treated as basis for discussion and reflect my views and experience with T3 (I fly all of them) - if u disagree say why and propose an alternative -donGÇÖt be a troll. As much as I like what CCP is doing, recently with Marauders and Nestor they have demonstrated that they sometimes lack the visions what a ship is supposed to do in practice. So this post is mostly here to define the role and general direction of T3 before devs decide to do that for us ;). The role: I thing that T3 should stay as they are - the high end, expensive ships which can be modified to carry out multiple tasks. They are a necessary ship in WH environment, and their power in null sec or low sec environment is countered by their massive price. The general balance: lest talk about the most common type of T3 - a dps one - we will make reference to other (utility/command/covert later). So two thing that are most important here is dps/tank factor. For dps I think we can agree itGÇÖs pretty ok - more than a HAC, but less than a Command Ship. What is broken with T3 is tank. ItGÇÖs simply too large. For gods sake those ships have sometimes better tanks than batlleships! The problem is that when you remove the tank, T3 pvp will hold i think, but sleeper pve may become problematic (capital spawns). That is why it is important not to make to harsh decisions here. So what to do? HOW TO FIX TANK? In my opinion the source of grief is the +10 % hitpoints subsystem. Scrap it. Entirely. Instead add a second +4% resists subsystem that instead of a high slot for rr would have a low slot for more tank. Yes guys Loki is the prototype here: it has a good tank, but not as massive as legion and proteus (since tengu is shield only letGÇÖs leave it out for now). This would give all t3 a tank on a level of ~Loki - very good resists not too much hp. If you say that current +4% sub is ok - you are wrong - its missing low slot, so the dps/tank ratio drops drastically, and is useful in limited spider tank operations. This is the main point of this post - others are lose ideas.
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill 83	Posted - 2014.02.11 12:30:00 - [2] - Quote Ok now for specific ships. This is all for dps version (the most common one) so say if you think it affects other versions too much. Here it goes: 1) Tengu - fine as it is. If missiles are unscrewed you may consider to change its +7,5 rof bonus to 5%. 2) Loki - unfu*k the resist profile. Loki: invariable to amarr - dies to everything else. It needs both pg and cpu as its is currently the hardest to fit. Or... se the end of post. 3) Proteus: has a little too much dps. It can reach the levels of Astarte while it shouldnGÇÖt. Be aware - donGÇÖt nerf the dps directly. Instead remove the option for 7th low slot. Why? Proteus should have the most dps and rightly so. But it also has the most tank thx to the 7th slot. Leave that to Legion. Then you cold chose either to still have ~1150 dps but weaker tank - or remove one magstab. 4) Legion: add option for 7 low slots, 3 mid slots version (4 mid for ecm sub, 3 mid for tactical targeting network). Rest is fine except u could add a +25 drone bay for laser sub (but not more), for the solo pve frigate clearing. ALTERNATIVELY: instead of buffing Loki pg and cpy nerf the cpu and pg on other T3. Why? Force people to use faction modules on them so that those ship while powerful, would be a lot of pain to lose. It fit quite nice with their theme: very powerful, but also requiring most expensive technologies to function properly. So what are you ideas on this?
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill 83	Posted - 2014.02.11 12:41:00 - [3] - Quote Last but not least. Visuals: T3 are generally very nice and well designed but some subsystems make them look weird to say the least. Proteus powergrid sub look like the ship was cut in half. The friction extension sub is just ugly. Leaser legion is damn sexy but putting other subs on it makes it look like it has something wrong with its geometry. Loki has some sexy modules (cloaky one is great), but mostly used, Projectile Scoping Array, makes it look like a sausage dog. Tengu is not that bad... for a caldari ship (but its cloaky version is so ugly). Fix that pls so that all subs are well connected together and make for a cutting edge looking ship. Also all T3 need new textures...
Icarus Able Revenant Tactical 341	Posted - 2014.02.11 14:05:00 - [4] - Quote Loki resist profile is fine. Its the same as all the other ships with T2 resists in the minmatar lineup and gets an equal resist bonus compared to the other races. Also Loki doesnt have a stupid 50% bonus to armor hp. Agree on the look of the subs. Some of them need a redesign.
Hanna Cyrus Spessart Rebellen 42	Posted - 2014.02.11 14:11:00 - [5] - Quote One Idea is, T3 are Sleeper technology. Leave them in the state they are now, adjust some unbalance (see good ideas in the posts 1-3). Make them work well in W-space, because all of the technology is calibrated for w-space and scale them down, if they leave w-space. Maybe 60% power (dps and tank lowerd seriously) in K-space, so they are ok, for what they designed for and dont perform too good in other niches.
Soldarius Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore 517	Posted - 2014.02.11 15:50:00 - [6] - Quote Why do T3 ships have T2 resist profiles? Shouldn't they be more balanced? Seems so to me. +1 for reducing EHP. Part of this is the fact that multiple subsystems give an enormous boost to PG and/or cap. Nerf plz. Fix Heavy Missiles plz. Also, Covert Proteus with 3 MFS and 5x HEavy Neutron Blaster IIs using Void gets 575 dps, whereas none of the other come anywhere close to that. Next best is the HAM Tengu at 438. I understand blasters vs everything else. But that's far and above everything else. It needs a slight nerf. The Proteus is basically a covert AHAC and does both roles better than every other covert cruiser or AHAC in the game at the same time. Tech 3 was supposed to be versatile, not do everything better than everything else all the time. tbh, just nerfing their PG would be a significant enough nerf to prevent them from being ridiculously better than everything. Free Ripley Weaver!
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 645	Posted - 2014.02.11 16:15:00 - [7] - Quote where too start .. there are many changes needed.. Changes - remove rigs .. to encourage sub switching - reduce prices on subs .. a 2-3mil encourages sub switching and keeps price down - remove T2 resists .. its not T2 after-all - move HP/fitting etc too the hull .. 15 slots fixed - less bonuses on subs - reduce skill requirements to lv4's from any lv5's - remove SP drop when ship is destroyed - add 6th subsystem to allow for more options .. a support set of subs .. for things like command links etc... 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2183	Posted - 2014.02.11 16:25:00 - [8] - Quote IMO The vast majority of the ship needs to be static leaving only fhe following variable: Bonuses from subsystems, weapon hardpoints, drone bandwidth. HP needs to be brought down to cruiser levels. Local Rep bonus needs to be brought down to 7.5% per level All offensive subsystems need to lose 1 hardpoint. Certain subsystems need to be redone to make them usable in a general fashion and not only in one configuration. Covert Reconfiguration and Command Processor need to switch places, giving the command processor a weapon bonus and remove the weapon bonus form the covert reconfiguration. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement
KiithSoban Big Johnson's PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS 31	Posted - 2014.02.11 17:30:00 - [9] - Quote I agree with scrapping the +10% tank. I agree with removing a low from the Prot, however a cloaky Prot is fine and needs to be kept the same. it would be very nice to have the Prot be able to have a "tanky damp" version. Lack of tank is really hurting the damp platform. However, this may be intentional similar to what has been done with ECM, but I don't think camps are so unbalanced. A type of tengu that has extra mids, very low dps, and a reduction in projected eccm cap use would be very good for the shield fleet meta. The dps for the cloaky legion could use a buff. In no way do any of them need a better resist profile than they already have. I want to see logi appear on killmails! (by just repping)-á See CSM "reasonable things"
Mournful Conciousness Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate 526	Posted - 2014.02.11 17:46:00 - [10] - Quote Cassius Invictus wrote: The role: I thing that T3 should stay as they are - the high end, expensive ships which can be modified to carry out multiple tasks. They are a necessary ship in WH environment, and their power in null sec or low sec environment is countered by their massive price. I agree with reducing ehp. However, the fact that T3s are necessary in w-space is a sad indication how overpowered they are in my view. I really enjoy w-space but the fact that it's a T3-or-nothing affair removes opportunity for variety of doctrines there. I think eve would be improved if the tanks were scaled back significantly - say to the level of HACs (which can survive an escalated c6 quite nicely). At the moment, a fleet of T3s can sit on a wormhole, immune to a bomber attack. This is wrong. There is no way for a small force to counter a large one. I'd like to see more emphasis on special abilities rather than brawling in T3s. Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Batelle Komm susser Tod 1658	Posted - 2014.02.11 17:57:00 - [11] - Quote as long as a combat fit t3 is twice the cost of a comparable hac, and also incurs a skillpoint loss, then that combat-fit t3 should have significant performance advantages over that hac, and should in no way be weaker in the areas of tank/dps/range. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!" Never forget.
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill 83	Posted - 2014.02.11 18:34:00 - [12] - Quote Batelle wrote: as long as a combat fit t3 is twice the cost of a comparable hac, and also incurs a skillpoint loss, then that combat-fit t3 should have significant performance advantages over that hac, and should in no way be weaker in the areas of tank/dps/range. Exactly. While I support nerf on T3 from one side i can't ignore the fact that in practice it's the most expensive PvP ship outside capitals, and the only one that is flown with all-faction fit on regular basis. I support making other hulls more competetive in relation to them but no to much. If you nerf T3 to a point of a HAC then why do you need T3 in a first place? For me it's HAC < T3 < Command. Its true now for DPS but not for tank. Nerf the tank, but removing T2 resists is bad. Why should we? Why T3 ship should be worse than T2? Maybe give then T3 resisit ? It is a fact that they are overpowered right now but its also a fact that it is countered by massive price which prevents massive use. And BTW if u say that its T3 or nothing than i say look at my killboard. I had more success with my Absolution in WH than in Legion. Anyway I thin we should give CCP options and let them decide the direction. If we sit quiet they may turn T3 into another transformer .
unidenify Caldari Provisions Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.02.11 18:50:00 - [13] - Quote Cassius Invictus wrote: Batelle wrote: as long as a combat fit t3 is twice the cost of a comparable hac, and also incurs a skillpoint loss, then that combat-fit t3 should have significant performance advantages over that hac, and should in no way be weaker in the areas of tank/dps/range. Exactly. While I support nerf on T3 from one side i can't ignore the fact that in practice it's the most expensive PvP ship outside capitals, and the only one that is flown with all-faction fit on regular basis. I support making other hulls more competetive in relation to them but no to much. If you nerf T3 to a point of a HAC then why do you need T3 in a first place? It is a fact that they are overpowered right now but its also a fact that it is countered by massive price which prevents massive use. Price is not part of balance issue, and can't be used to justify why ship need buff or don't deserve nerf. Second issue with price arguement is that CPP don't determine price, players do. And Players want T3 so bad so price for those go up. I believe CPP feel that T3 should be Jack of All Trade and Master of None. while T2 have very strong role for what it is designed for so in my opinion, this is what CPP think DPS HAC > T3 > BC Tank BC > T3 > HAC
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill 83	Posted - 2014.02.11 19:31:00 - [14] - Quote unidenify wrote: Cassius Invictus wrote: Batelle wrote: as long as a combat fit t3 is twice the cost of a comparable hac, and also incurs a skillpoint loss, then that combat-fit t3 should have significant performance advantages over that hac, and should in no way be weaker in the areas of tank/dps/range. Exactly. While I support nerf on T3 from one side i can't ignore the fact that in practice it's the most expensive PvP ship outside capitals, and the only one that is flown with all-faction fit on regular basis. I support making other hulls more competetive in relation to them but no to much. If you nerf T3 to a point of a HAC then why do you need T3 in a first place? It is a fact that they are overpowered right now but its also a fact that it is countered by massive price which prevents massive use. Price is not part of balance issue, and can't be used to justify why ship need buff or don't deserve nerf. Second issue with price arguement is that CPP don't determine price, players do. And Players want T3 so bad so price for those go up. I believe CPP feel that T3 should be Jack of All Trade and Master of None. while T2 have very strong role for what it is designed for so in my opinion, this is what CPP think DPS HAC > T3 > BC Tank BC > T3 > HAC Logistic Remote Shield/Armour Logistic Cruiser > T3 > other Hmm are u sure is that what u wanted to say? Currently its: DPS: Cruiser < HAC < T3 < BC < Command Ship Tank: Cruiser < BC < HAC < Command Ship < T3 So i imagine that T2 hull should have slightly more dps than T1 hull while having much more tank due to T2 resists. What you porpose would require rebalancing of other classes as well. What I propose is to put them in the middle: DPS: ok as it is Tank: Cruiser < BC < HAC < T3 < Command Ship Besides T3 are not versitile!!! It's a bad perception. Look at them as different ships that can be constructed from the common elements. Yes T3 can be a good dps/tank, covert ops, utility or even logistic. BUT NOT AT A SAME TIME. Take that into consideration. We should also keep in mind that other classes are also going to be rebalanced. So: Covert T3 < Force Recon Logi T3 < Logistic cruiser Utility T3 < ??? also Force Recon?
unidenify Caldari Provisions Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.02.11 19:41:00 - [15] - Quote I state that info I post is what I think that CPP want not what I want because I don't know much about cruiser class.
Dinsdale Pirannha Pirannha Corp 2236	Posted - 2014.02.11 19:58:00 - [16] - Quote While I applaud the effort by the OP for some intelligent discussion about the T3, it is a given that CCP will destroy any value it has. That has already been stated that they think the ship is over-powered in most cases, and it should be more for generic use. That, of course, is idiotic. But it will happen anyway. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook.
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1232	Posted - 2014.02.11 21:30:00 - [17] - Quote Can't wait for this rebalance pass, dam T3 ships have been overpowered for long enough. T3 shouldn't outperform specialized T2 ships, T3 should be a swiss knife type of ship, "Jack of all trades, master of none". The Tears Must Flow
Batelle Komm susser Tod 1663	Posted - 2014.02.11 21:36:00 - [18] - Quote Vaju Enki wrote: Can't wait for this rebalance pass, dam T3 ships have been overpowered for long enough. T3 shouldn't outperform specialized T2 ships, T3 should be a swiss knife type of ship, "Jack of all trades, master of none". Thats an overly simplistic way of thinking. If you make them much worse than HACs at dps, then they'll be reduced to glorified recon ships. Because its in the HAC role that they're mostly likely to die (meaning its in that role that cost matters), and their secondary ewar bonuses are not all that impressive. Its also not like they're jacking all those trades at the same time. T3s are not immune from needing to fit for a specific purpose, same as all other ships. Considering cost as the sole balancing factor is stupid. Its equally stupid to ignore it as a balancing factor. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!" Never forget.
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill 83	Posted - 2014.02.11 21:47:00 - [19] - Quote Vaju Enki wrote: Can't wait for this rebalance pass, dam T3 ships have been overpowered for long enough. T3 shouldn't outperform specialized T2 ships, T3 should be a swiss knife type of ship, "Jack of all trades, master of none". I hear this a lot, but does that mean? Jack of all trades - ok this is their unique future due to the subsystems. But master of none? Why - than whats the point of having ability to make multiple configurations of specialized modules and bonuses if another fixed hull does a better job? Am I the only one who thinks that T3 should be in some way better than T2? But only better and not broken... You know what is a "Jack of all trades, master of none"? The Nestor . It means it can't do anything right .
Ashlar Vellum 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 100	Posted - 2014.02.11 22:55:00 - [20] - Quote unidenify wrote: Price is not part of balance issue, ... Yes, but at the same time no. If price was not part of balance issue then navy Cane would not exist. unidenify wrote: I state that info I post is what I think that CPP want I use this when I talk about this issue http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/9129 (again it is 1 and half year old blog, so possible CPP change their view again) It's quite and old dev blog where bombardment ships are a thing and Geddon is considered to be an attack vessel etc.
Lloyd Roses Blue-Fire 500	Posted - 2014.02.11 23:04:00 - [21] - Quote my POV: Top priority is scrapping of rigslots (and incorporating necessary buffer/repamount lost to rigs into the respective subs, as example by removing rigslots and leaving buffersubs unchanged). Second is fixing sigradius. Third is fixing their cargo bays. So that my refits and a mobile depot fit at all. Then that SP-loss is annoying people ever since. Afterwards figure out into which category that warfare processor subsystem belongs, where the cloak/nullification should sit, and wether or not it was a wise idea to balance the overheat sub by making it worse in general and as good as other subs when overheating, regarding the effective weapon hardpoints you'll end up with. Very many of these subsystems are sweet and represent the racial ideology pretty damn well (like neutlegions, and tinysig-webbing lokis), just that the numbers on many of those subs are terribly borked. Every sub needs to be as noticable when installed like a buffersub, a fuel catalyst or the tengus missilesub. And no rigs please, refitting without limits! "I honestly thought I was in lowsec" Moving pictures: The Enyo
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 375	Posted - 2014.02.11 23:23:00 - [22] - Quote Advantage of T3 ships: -customization -multiple simultaneous skill bonuses This is fine as is, and should be used as a base for balance. These things mean that a t3 can do multiple things simultanesouly- tank + dps, etc. This is their purpose. What they should not be is better in any area of specialization then any specialized ship (T2), with comparable fitting space. IE, a T3 cruiser should not be able to do more DPS then the nearest comparable standard ship (depending on subsystem selection- 6 turret fits should be compared to BC, for example). The advantage is in matching other ships power in multiple roles simultaneously. This is already a huge level of power, and effectively balanced by price and the SP loss. There's no need for these ships to exceed the performance of others in the same areas of specialization. Examples: -If a Harbinger can do 500dps with 6 turrets, a Legion with 6 turrets should do 500dps. -If a Zealot can shoot with Scorch to 70km, a laser-specialized Legion should shoot with scorch to 70km. -If a Sacrilege with 6 low slots all fitted with tank modules can tank 500 rep/s, a Legion with 6 low slots all fitted with tank modules should tank 500 rep/s. -If a Pilgrim can do 300 DPS while carrying a covert cloak, a Legion should do 300dps while carrying a covert cloak. -etc Because of subsystems, a t3 will have access to multiple aspects of specialization at the same time. Fitting restrictions (ie, trading tank mods for DPS mods, etc) will emergently balance the ship from these baselines and prevent them from being full power in all areas at once. This is similar to their current state, but accounts for full specialization of subsystems. Number of slots will be the tricky part, since that can upset the balance from these baselines. Basically, it's a simple rebalance pass and not a redesign. The recent rebalance of T2 ships has already narrowed the gap, so that's enough. tl;dr These ships should be be able to do multiple roles with a single fit, not outclass all other ships outright. This preserves their current role and value without making them the outright best choice for any given purpose. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there?
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1059	Posted - 2014.02.12 02:00:00 - [23] - Quote cost does not balance ships when players set the price. when T3's were a year young u spent about 1bil just for the hull and subs. now they cost less than half that, are u suggesting they are less than half as powerful now? of course not. Cost is a deterrent, rather than balancing factor. faction ships are straight upgrades from their T1 brethren, i wouldn't say they were balanced, but they aren't much more powerful than their T1 versions either. they are just like faction mods, rare and with a little boost. T3's are not a little boost in power for more money. they laughably out perform T2 HAC's. What the jack of all trades and master of none means is that T3's can completely change what they do on the fly, and they can combine aspects of T2 ships without suffering as heavily for specializing. Consider: - a cloaky T3 built for combat. its not quite as tough as a HAC, but its not restricted to only E-war like recons or glass cannons like bombers. -e-war T3's. not as powerful e-war as recons, but they can chose to have more dps and tank, maybe at the expense of not cloaking as well. -logi T3's may not be as good as T2's, but they can cloak, have tougher tank and are a lot more resistant to enemy e-war. - a T3 that can use command boosts, probe down targets and fly through bubbles for an impressive cloaky scout. T3's have options that no other ships have. nerfs id like to see: less sensor str from disso sequ' less dps and hp from combat T3's less power grid lowered resist profile Buffs: logi T3's with logi-ish range hacking bonuses with the probey sub fewer 'more powerful' turrets for utility highs (and longevity in unfriendly space) rigs removed or replaced with a 6th sub a better drone proteus and legion better dual weapon loki no sp loss when destroyed EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Seranova Farreach Biomass Negative 661	Posted - 2014.02.12 02:20:00 - [24] - Quote as i recall speculation T3s were suggested to have their subs rebalanced/nerfed/buffed and rig slots removed that would reduce ehp considerably and make it easier to refit in space... IF we had more cargo space for carrying subs and additional gear. with the said removal of rigs i would like to see buff to logi sub.. maybe to be inline with t1 ->tech 3->tech 2 logi so tech 3 is middle ground but can still be useful like loki and proteus are the solo runners being akin to scimitar and oneros, self sufficiant cap and remote links and logi rep range, While tengu+legion being akin to guardian and basilisk get energy transfers and logi range but cant really be self sufficiant for cap (with out cap boosters or only running with 1 repper or something) tengu.. it needs a little love for its turret based sub and its covops+weapon. proteus as OP stated needs a bit of a nerf to dps legion.. not really flown it but perhaps a little buff to its missile AND lazor system to bring it in line with tengu and proteus loki.. needs some serious gunnery love, not tried missile sub so no comment there.. its great as an exploration ship though! (quad Warp core cloaky nullified prober trollface ) _______________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2184	Posted - 2014.02.12 03:46:00 - [25] - Quote T3s were initially intended for WormSpace and any balance pass needs keep that in mind. At first you could not re-sub in WHs but that has been fixed so that is also a big plus for them. The Jack-of-all-Trades comes into play most in WHs now even more so with mobile depots and personal hangar arrays, a T3 pilot can keep 2~3k m^3 worth of subs and modules to "switch ships" rather than each pilot having to keep a few million m^3 worth of ships in a SMA. All that being said, T3 are not supposed to be equal power to T2 because they are supposed to be able to switch roles completly. Some need help such as a Logistic role, and though it has been re-balanced the Warfare Processor sub needs help also as it makes the tank on the ship so weak it can't really go into batle. Some only need minor tweaks the Emergent Locus Analyzer comes to mind for this one, it could use a small salvage access chance bonus, maybe like 3% per level so that it can compete with the noctis but still remain worse. Some need big adjustments like the Offensive subsystems almost all out DPS there equivilant HAC counterparts. This is easily fixed by removing 1 hardpoint form all offensive subsystems. The Defensive capabilities of the ships is way to much also, they have the base HP of a battlecuriser and then have the options for a over buffed rep amount (10% per level) needs to go down to 7.5% per level, 10% HP per level with cruiser HP and Powergrid this sub system would not be so bad but as is it is OP. The Concept for a fixed slot layout will allow better fitting arrangements and also make the ships easier to balance while not effecting there versatility, in reality it makes them less broken and increases there versatility. So something like this could work Legion 6/3/7 Loki 6/5/5 Proteus 6/4/6 Tengu 6/6/4 Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill 83	Posted - 2014.02.12 07:12:00 - [26] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: my POV: Top priority is scrapping of rigslots (and incorporating necessary buffer/repamount lost to rigs into the respective subs, as example by removing rigslots and leaving buffersubs unchanged). Second is fixing sigradius. Third is fixing their cargo bays. So that my refits and a mobile depot fit at all. Then that SP-loss is annoying people ever since. Afterwards figure out into which category that warfare processor subsystem belongs, where the cloak/nullification should sit, and wether or not it was a wise idea to balance the overheat sub by making it worse in general and as good as other subs when overheating, regarding the effective weapon hardpoints you'll end up with. Very many of these subsystems are sweet and represent the racial ideology pretty damn well (like neutlegions, and tinysig-webbing lokis), just that the numbers on many of those subs are terribly borked. Every sub needs to be as noticable when installed like a buffersub, a fuel catalyst or the tengus missilesub. And no rigs please, refitting without limits! I think this is a great idea. Changing subs is nice but not cost effective caz u have fixed rigs that match only one configurtion. Then agian T# would have to be nerfed to compensate or their price would go up a lot. Still I think it's a good remark.
Lloyd Roses Blue-Fire 500	Posted - 2014.02.12 12:13:00 - [27] - Quote It's more like THIS many ehp has to be stopped. Every Jack-press-buttans can have a 160k ehp proteus rather easily. A fundamental issue is the increase in tank from Thorax --- Deimos -------------------------------------------------- big gap ------------ proteus. "I honestly thought I was in lowsec" Moving pictures: The Enyo
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 2758	Posted - 2014.02.12 12:28:00 - [28] - Quote My idea: Give each subsytem a SINGLE bonus. Allow players to pick and choose which bonuses they want so they end up with a ship with 4 hull bonuses and one role bonus, like T2 cruisers, only with more versatility and probably without T2 resists. Oh god.
SMT008 SnaiLs aNd FroGs 727	Posted - 2014.02.12 12:49:00 - [29] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: nerfs id like to see: less sensor str from disso sequ' less dps and hp from combat T3's less power grid lowered resist profile Buffs: logi T3's with logi-ish range hacking bonuses with the probey sub fewer 'more powerful' turrets for utility highs (and longevity in unfriendly space) rigs removed or replaced with a 6th sub a better drone proteus and legion better dual weapon loki no sp loss when destroyed Less sensor strenght : More like HAC-levels I suppose ? Less DPS and HP : How much less ? I would say HAC+ levels instead of BS+ levels. Less powergrid : Not really no, they are high-end cruisers, the most formidable and highly technological cruiser-sized ship. So let them fit high-end cruiser stuff, it's alright. Lowered resist profile : Mhmm, lower resists but better buffers than HAC. Or current resists with the same buffers HACs have. It's one of the two, else you're making them really worse than HACs. Logi T3s with logi-ish range : Yes, and some cap stability please. Some doesn't mean cap-stable in all situations, but if you could use them like the current Guardians/Oneiroses with some differences (Less range, more repping power and/or more tank ?), would be great ! Hacking bonuses : Yes Fewer more powerful turrets for utility highs : Yes, very much ! If that's how T3s become, then alright, PWG nerf is logical. Rigs removed : YES. That is what's stopping T3s from being ACTUALLY VERSATILE. I've got T2 rigs on all my expensive T3s, I ain't switching anything around, I just buy more T3s. Better drone Proteus and Legion : Yes, very much. Better dual weapon Loki : YES, and a better shield Loki too. Tengus are currently the only real shield T3 platform, every other shield-fitted T3 is really....bad. No SP loss when destroyed : Well yeah ok, why not. To that list, I would like to add one thing : Mobility/agility/speed. Most T3s, doesn't matter with wich subs, are very slow and/or cumbersome. Some T3 combinations (Like Armor Proteus/Loki/Legions) should be slow. But there should be skirmish T3 combinations that allow some T3s to perform reasonably good at HAC speeds. I would kill for a Vaga-like Loki !
Lloyd Roses Blue-Fire 500	Posted - 2014.02.12 13:54:00 - [30] - Quote Think people should start comparing T3s with CS instead of HACs, cause that's the powerlevel they have - regarding hardpoints, slots, mobility and ~ehp. "I honestly thought I was in lowsec" Moving pictures: The Enyo

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: 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.