Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 11:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
T3 are great. Love 'em. Like butter over warm bread.
But isn't the whole point that: they can be good at everything but not as good as the focused t2 version?
Should the t2 cmd ships be better than the t3 counterparts? Lets take a vote: (survey says: YYYYYNYYYYYYYYYYYNYYYY)
p.s.
Also, whats up with not needing to be on grid to give bonuses? No brainer fix right there, if CCP knows anything they are looking at this already |
Jenshae Chiroptera
186
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 11:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tier 1 or Tier 2 command ships? Ideas and CSM stuff No matter the changes, high sec people chose the safests. Lots of stick and they will leave. Half the problem is the players in null sec; we do not want to be there with you. |
Sakkar Arenith
PIE Inc.
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 12:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
I second the OP completely |
Sakkar Arenith
PIE Inc.
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 12:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Also, if you provide ganglink boni you should also be flagged for war targets, same as remote reppers |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 13:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Tier 1 or Tier 2 command ships?
I was discussing tech 2 vs tech 3, however if you feel there is room to discuss tiers by all means
Sakkar Arenith wrote:Also, if you provide ganglink boni you should also be flagged for war targets, same as remote reppers
indeed |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
136
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 13:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sakkar Arenith wrote:Also, if you provide ganglink boni you should also be flagged for war targets, same as remote reppers
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Red Templar
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
82
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 13:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
T3 are doing marginally better for thrice the price. And most t3 command fits i saw is crap for anything else than sitting on pos and giving bonuses. Their tank is so-so, and no dps whatsoever.
So i see no problem here. For Love. For Peace. For Honor.
For None of the Above.
For Pony! |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 13:41:00 -
[8] - Quote
Red Templar wrote:T3 are doing marginally better for thrice the price. And most t3 command fits i saw is crap for anything else than sitting on pos and giving bonuses. Their tank is so-so, and no dps whatsoever.
So i see no problem here.
Price doesn't enter into the discussion.
As far as sitting on POS, you only speak to my argument.
I thank god game balance doesn't hinge on what you do or don't see. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
136
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 13:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
gang boosting being only doable on grid would solve these problems. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Red Templar
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
82
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 13:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:Red Templar wrote:T3 are doing marginally better for thrice the price. And most t3 command fits i saw is crap for anything else than sitting on pos and giving bonuses. Their tank is so-so, and no dps whatsoever.
So i see no problem here. Price doesn't enter into the discussion. As far as sitting on POS, you only speak to my argument. I thank god game balance doesn't hinge on what you do or don't see. Price matters. Or otherwise you can say we should nerf titan bonuses as well, they are better than the ones command ships can give you.
And if you think t3 should do better things than their t2 counterparts, then you have to nerf entire t3 class concept. They are better at pve, pvp and probably anything else you can think of. The disadvantage is that they cannot do those things all at once. And they cost a tonn, and you lose skillpoints when you lose a ship.
So my answer - CCP shouldnt do anything to either command ships, or t3. They are fine as they are.
You wanted opinions, you wanted vote, you got one. For Love. For Peace. For Honor.
For None of the Above.
For Pony! |
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 14:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
IMO change boosting to be on grid only and you smooth out the differences automatically. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
303
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 14:15:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sakkar Arenith wrote:Also, if you provide ganglink boni you should also be flagged for war targets, same as remote reppers This. This is not as crazy as it sounds. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Lili Lu
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 14:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:IMO change boosting to be on grid only and you smooth out the differences automatically.
+1. If boosting was on-grid then we wouldn't get ridiculous T3 off gird fits with officer co-pros in lows and command processors in mids on T3s, or nullifier and eccm and/or cloaks meant to warp to a ss and boost while being nigh unscannable.
CCP really fuckedup the tech II utility for HACs, Recons, and Command ships. Commands the most because they flat out gave T3 a better boost percentage.
As to the fella who sees no problem because he pays half a billion or so for a T3 and command ships are roughly half that he's missing the real cost issue, which is a cost of sp. Also, he's missing the issue that this is a combat game. We really should not have a character and ship playing such an important part in a battle while sitting outside the arena and safe.
Now if CCP kept the bonus %s the same, but required on-grid to pass the buff, then T3s would have to tank their ships, and their tanks are adequate to do this while fitting one or maybe two better buffs, but not 3. That would preserve a job for command ships. It would also make fleet makeup, construction, and placement a true factor in a battle. T3s and commands could be shifted from fleet to wing to squad command positions to configure the best buffs for each class of ships in the fleet. These boosters would also be losable, and thus a big affect on the course of a battle. This would be a good thing for the game.
I could also live with a swapping of the T3 and command ship %s such that the command reattain their place as "command ships" and have the better buff to pass.
I fly command ships. I want to be in the battle and at risk of losing my ship as well. I don't want to be a stupid ridiculously fit command processored wimp sitting at a pos or ss. Please CCP get rid of this crap situation you created. |
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 17:45:00 -
[14] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Tier 1 or Tier 2 command ships? There are no tiers with command ships....? You have the combat-oriented one, and the less powerful one with more links. |
Katareena Starfire
Black Lion Brigade Velocitas Eradico
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 18:37:00 -
[15] - Quote
This is a terrible idea because it breaks something in the game that is clearly needed and not combat oriented, mining gang bonuses. Mining is already a bad way of making ISK, and only becomes remotely good with Orca/Rorqual bonuses in a large fleet of Hulks. While some would risk the Orca, nobody is gonna put a Rorqual in a belt.
Kat |
Griznatch
Xicron Syndicate
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 18:39:00 -
[16] - Quote
I dont know where you got the idea that a t3 with 3 links, no tank and a half a percent better boost is "better" than a cs with a full rack of links and a massive tank but maybe you and I have a different definition of better. My vote is leave it as it is. Speaking of votes, you seem to have quite a few more "votes" than there are posts in this thread so I guess we count different too.
Limiting boosting to on grid only would make t3 boosting utterly useless. Why bring a more expensive/less tanky/less links ship on grid with the fight? Nobody would use a t3 when they could use a command ship and be able to keep the links on for more than a few seconda after the fight starts.
What happens when you have a fleet reffin' a pos and you wanna spread your light tackle out on the gates to catch incoming hostiles, are you gonna set up a squad and command ship for each gate or do you just leave your light tackle without bonuses? Thats just one example why a fleet might not all be on the same grid.
This thread smacks of crying about unprobable booster alts which arent unprobable anymore and are paper thin and extremely expensice, which are pretty decent limiting factors. If you like to fly command ships straight into the fray go ahead, but trying to change the game to fit your personal idea of how the game should work isnt in the interests of the game. Dont wanna fight a gang with a t3 booster? Change systems and make em move the booster or do without.
Ps. If you have to run a bunch of officer co-pros youre doing it wrong. My tengu booster can run all 3 seige links, cloak, probes, ship scanner and passive targeter and it doesnt have a single co-pro on it. |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
142
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 19:06:00 -
[17] - Quote
I vote for Option C. |
Warzon3
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 19:11:00 -
[18] - Quote
Katareena Starfire wrote:This is a terrible idea because it breaks something in the game that is clearly needed and not combat oriented, mining gang bonuses. Mining is already a bad way of making ISK, and only becomes remotely good with Orca/Rorqual bonuses in a large fleet of Hulks. While some would risk the Orca, nobody is gonna put a Rorqual in a belt.
Kat
This is a very valid point you make. Altough how hard can it be to make combat boosters only work on grid. |
Liang Nuren
Perkone Caldari State
67
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 19:52:00 -
[19] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:T3 are great. Love 'em. Like butter over warm bread.
But isn't the whole point that: they can be good at everything but not as good as the focused t2 version?
Should the t2 cmd ships be better than the t3 counterparts? Lets take a vote: (survey says: YYYYYNYYYYYYYYYYYNYYYY)
p.s.
Also, whats up with not needing to be on grid to give bonuses? No brainer fix right there, if CCP knows anything they are looking at this already
Yes, but that's a terrible fix.
-Liang |
Kira Deschain
Minmatar Death Squad Broken Chains Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 19:55:00 -
[20] - Quote
Definitely agree that bonuses should only apply when the boosting ship is on-grid. |
|
Griznatch
Xicron Syndicate
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:37:00 -
[21] - Quote
Another thought I just had. If t2 ships are better than t1, it follows that a t3 should be better than t2. If theyre supposed to be less effective than t2 shouldnt they be t1.5 or something?
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 20:49:00 -
[22] - Quote
CS ships are useless.
If someone is going to be boosting a fleet, they're going to be doing it off grid anyways, which means they can risk the ISK which means they'll do it in the marginally better T3.
Either force boosting to be ongrid, thus risk the money or make CS's better at it, like they should, cause they take waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more training. |
Liang Nuren
Perkone Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:10:00 -
[23] - Quote
Haniblecter Teg wrote: Either force boosting to be ongrid, thus risk the money or make CS's better at it, like they should, cause they take waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more training.
Simply forcing the boosting to be on grid won't fix any problems with CS vs T3. Also, CS5 crew (x3) checking in.
-Liang |
Arbiter Reborn
Perkone Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 22:31:00 -
[24] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:T3 are great. Love 'em. Like butter over warm bread.
But isn't the whole point that: they can be good at everything but not as good as the focused t2 version?
Should the t2 cmd ships be better than the t3 counterparts? Lets take a vote: (survey says: YYYYYNYYYYYYYYYYYNYYYY)
p.s.
Also, whats up with not needing to be on grid to give bonuses? No brainer fix right there, if CCP knows anything they are looking at this already
the answer is a static mini titan bonus, ie sig, cap amount, shield hp etc..
off grid bonus nerf would help but the best answer is static bonus
ps im a epic member of cs5 crew |
Lili Lu
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 00:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
Griznatch wrote: I dont know where you got the idea that a t3 with 3 links, no tank and a half a percent better boost is "better" than a cs with a full rack of links and a massive tank but maybe you and I have a different definition of better. My vote is leave it as it is. Speaking of votes, you seem to have quite a few more "votes" than there are posts in this thread so I guess we count different too You obviously are not getting the point. Currently the T3 buff is better and tank is irrelevant due to bubble nullifier and/or warping cloaked subsystems and use of eccm mods to make the ship essentially unprobable, all of which can allow the no tank T3 to give a better boost from off-grid. As to your comment on votes I cannot decifer what the hell you are talking about here.
Griznatch wrote: Limiting boosting to on grid only would make t3 boosting utterly useless. Why bring a more expensive/less tanky/less links ship on grid with the fight? Nobody would use a t3 when they could use a command ship and be able to keep the links on for more than a few seconda after the fight starts. Again you are not getting the fact that on-grid would limit the T3 to one better link and a tank to live on. The command ship could fit the 3 links and it's tank but the buff would be less. Thus if you want your whole fleet to get the effect of that one better T3 link you make it the fleet booster. The command ship(s) would be wing, or vice versa, you have the whole fleet receiving the 3 command ship links and maybe one (or each) wing receiving those but also one better T3 link. This is the kind of calculus that on-grid boosting with tanked boosters would mandate. A T3 if fitting one link is not needing co-pros and command processors and thus can fit a good survival tank.
Griznatch wrote: What happens when you have a fleet reffin' a pos and you wanna spread your light tackle out on the gates to catch incoming hostiles, are you gonna set up a squad and command ship for each gate or do you just leave your light tackle without bonuses? Thats just one example why a fleet might not all be on the same grid. Precisely, it creates more care that needs to be taken with multiple fleet roles and positioning. Yes you put a skirmish booster of some kind at the gate(s).
Griznatch wrote: This thread smacks of crying about unprobable booster alts which arent unprobable anymore and are paper thin and extremely expensice, which are pretty decent limiting factors. If you like to fly command ships straight into the fray go ahead, but trying to change the game to fit your personal idea of how the game should work isnt in the interests of the game. Dont wanna fight a gang with a t3 booster? Change systems and make em move the booster or do without. Oh? it seems to me you are the one crying "but why can't my T3 booster alt be an alt i can ss and ignore anymore? Why must a T3 fit a tank and fight? Sounds like the whaaaaaa is on your part. Btw your unprobable alts are still pretty much unprobable since it takes a maxed prober with implants and sisters gear to have a slight chance of finding it. As to expense, I would like to see this game rewarding sp (time) investment, not ingame currency investment.
Griznatch wrote: Ps. If you have to run a bunch of officer co-pros youre doing it wrong. My tengu booster can run all 3 seige links, cloak, probes, ship scanner and passive targeter and it doesnt have a single co-pro on it. Well of course. The Tengu is once again the best of the lot, but it was probably loaded with cpu because CCP thought you would use that cpu to fit a friggin tank. Try fitting a Loki with multiple links and it is not so easy.
In the end I too would rather that the commands had the better buff to provide a fleet.
And no just because it was called tech III it was not the goal of the ships to do everything better than multiple classes of tech II. The idea was that the ships would be modular and by switching subsystems you could have one cruiser hull perform multiple roles. Tech II recons still get better range on webs or points than tech III, it is only in the realm of HACs and particularly command ships where tech III stupidly outstripped the abilities of tech II. |
Jack Miton
Lapse Of Sanity Narwhals Ate My Duck
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 01:43:00 -
[26] - Quote
You dont really get T3s if youre asking this question. T3 boosters are DIFFERENT to CS boosters.
eg: damnation flies into combat with the fleet cos it can tank, legion does not.
T3s either sit at safes running ECCM or at a POS running 6 links.
theyre used differently and are fine the way they are. |
Liang Nuren
Perkone Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 01:58:00 -
[27] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:You dont really get T3s if youre asking this question. T3 boosters are DIFFERENT to CS boosters.
eg: damnation flies into combat with the fleet cos it can tank, legion does not.
T3s either sit at safes running ECCM or at a POS running 6 links.
theyre used differently and are fine the way they are.
Its relatively underwhelming to bring a fleet command to a fight. And really, why bother when you can instead bring a mostly AFK alt that doubles as a scout in a smaller interdiction nullified hull? Really, the only reason I've ever been tempted to bring a CS over a T3 was when we actually needed an extra point.
-Liang |
Lili Lu
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 02:22:00 -
[28] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:You dont really get T3s if youre asking this question. T3 boosters are DIFFERENT to CS boosters.
eg: damnation flies into combat with the fleet cos it can tank, legion does not.
T3s either sit at safes running ECCM or at a POS running 6 links.
theyre used differently and are fine the way they are.
You don't get that you can do the same with a CS (fit 6 links on it) and safe place off grid. With either ship it is a stupid mechanic and stupid way to fit a ship. A legion could tank if is wasn't bastardized into fitting co-pros and command processors. It could fit one link and a fine tank, if it was forced to do so.
There is no reason to say to CCP do not change a feature you introduced perviously. I would prefer that CCP actually did follow up with balancing adjustments to T3, faction warfare, sov mechanics, incursions, etc. Only one of those things has been adjusted since being put on the server iirc. And, it still needs another adjustment badly.
This is supposed to be the balancing patch/expansion apparently. So this and other threads are for raising an issue that CCP has overlooked. Some people it seems look at each thing in the game as it presently exists, find a flaw to take advantage of, and say never change things. Others look at the game and prefer that it be dynamic and adjusted to make a better game. |
m0cking bird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 02:52:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP just needs to NERF off grid fleet boosting. Gang links should have a 100 - 120km effect range or something. I also think command ships should out boost t3's... |
Liang Nuren
Perkone Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 03:21:00 -
[30] - Quote
m0cking bird wrote:CCP just needs to NERF off grid fleet boosting. Gang links should have a 100 - 120km effect range or something. I also think command ships should out boost t3's...
Off grid boosting was never something people bitched about until interdiction nullified effectively unprobeable T3s came onto the scene. I think its probably a good idea to take a look at what's actually causing the problem instead of whining about something that's never really been an issue.
-Liang |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |