EVE Search - Tech 3 Rebalance Idea

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Tech 3 Rebalance Idea - Rigs are removable

» 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)
Lusty Muffins Throw More Dots Verge of Carebearing 1	Posted - 2014.05.18 21:45:00 - [1] - Quote You want Tech 3 to be modular and adaptable? Make a roll bonus that all tech 3 hulls can remove rigs instead of destroying them. Just a thought.
Karen Avioras Unsung Heroes The Volition Cult 632	Posted - 2014.05.18 22:02:00 - [2] - Quote That would make them even better...
Lusty Muffins Throw More Dots Verge of Carebearing 2	Posted - 2014.05.18 22:07:00 - [3] - Quote Karen Avioras wrote: That would make them even better... Apologies for not laying out the remaining 10 pages of re-balance ideas i have for them... The idea is that, when CCP Fozzie gets around to them for rebalancing, you will have all these new subsystems you wont swap out because your rigs are still static. Without a restriction on "i wish i could refit covert but my rigs are trimarks" then you will see Tech 3 actually being used as adaptable platforms.
Igor Wodkowicz Fast Animals Slow Children 1	Posted - 2014.05.18 22:09:00 - [4] - Quote Stop being poor, t2 med rigs are cheap now
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 189	Posted - 2014.05.18 23:09:00 - [5] - Quote although the idea fits with T3's it breaks the core tenet of rigs...... maybe remove rig slots from T3's? For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it WILL be.
Catherine Laartii State Protectorate Caldari State 183	Posted - 2014.05.18 23:26:00 - [6] - Quote As long as the resists on everything but the adaptive defensive subs are nerfed, and the loki and legion actually get decent missile subsystems...
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1544	Posted - 2014.05.18 23:58:00 - [7] - Quote Xe'Cara'eos wrote: although the idea fits with T3's it breaks the core tenet of rigs...... maybe remove rig slots from T3's? get rid of rigs and either give them a subsystem to replace often used rig combo's, or just leave it without rigs. 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"
Bohneik Itohn Periphery Bound 100	Posted - 2014.05.19 00:14:00 - [8] - Quote They said they'd be looking at ways to make rigging a T3 less of a commitment at fanfest this year. Which may also mean removing rigs and adding the bonuses of typical rig layouts to the appropriate subsystems. Or maybe rigging the subsystems and not the hull. Who knows. Igor Wodkowicz wrote: Stop being poor, t2 med rigs are cheap now It's not about being poor, it's about realizing, after you've destroyed your third or fourth set of rigs, that it's cheaper just to buy a new hull and fit the alternate set of rigs to that permanently. This removes some of the appeal of interchangeable subsystems and a fully customizable ship, because you're still using multiple hulls to achieve the same goal as if you were trained into a variety of different ships. So far I have about 7 or 8 T3's because of this very reason.... Also note that not everyone wants to haul 20 of each type of rig they use out to WH space just to junk'em all in a week because things have been busy lately. Part of the appeal of T3's to wormholers is that the versatility of the hulls means they don't have to keep as many ships in the POS, but that benefit is hamstringed by the fact that in order to get 100% out of the hull you need to swap rigs regularly or do what you were trying to avoid in the first place; move more ships/materials out to the wormhole, causing you to be less self-sufficient in an environment where that costs you more than just money. It's not a matter of ISK, it's a matter of giving the T3's the flexibility they were intended to have so that they can more comfortably fill one of the roles they are most popular for: The Wormholer's Swiss Army Knife. Or.... Anybody's Swiss Army Knife.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery 1446	Posted - 2014.05.19 00:57:00 - [9] - Quote Nope. Nope, nope, nope, nope. Nope. Shoot that which lieth before you and tackle that which runneth away - Ancient Minmatar proverb @_@ http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 139	Posted - 2014.05.19 01:09:00 - [10] - Quote T3s without rigs, its the future. Travelling at the speed of love.
Paikis Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 1217	Posted - 2014.05.19 01:41:00 - [11] - Quote Counter proposal: Remove rigs slots from T3s completely. Increase stats on some subsystems to (partially) compensate.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2352	Posted - 2014.05.19 03:24:00 - [12] - Quote Removing rigs slots and/or removable rigs will do very little in regards of balancing T3s -á --á
Lusty Muffins Throw More Dots Verge of Carebearing 3	Posted - 2014.05.19 14:31:00 - [13] - Quote The idea of rolling rig stats into the subsystems might work well but may reduce the idea of flexibility even further than current. OR instead of traditional rigs, have rig subsystems; brand new subsystems that are reverse engineered that specifically fit to a Tech 3. It may make prices go up further but it's a one time purchase for each rig subsystem, much like purchasing a rig itself. Keep in mind my original post wasn't a "this is all t3 need to be balanced" post. This was just a thought for CCP to consider whilst looking over the future of Tech 3.
Bohneik Itohn Periphery Bound 101	Posted - 2014.05.19 14:45:00 - [14] - Quote Fozzie said it's being worked on, I say let them work. They're also rebalancing all of the subsystems to fix the subs that aren't being used, and toning down the T3's in areas where they completely overshadow their T2 counterparts. T3's are getting a lot of changes soon, and we have no information on how those changes are being made. Suggestions for T3's are just an exercise of pissing in the wind until we know what exactly is being done to rebalance them.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 428	Posted - 2014.05.19 15:23:00 - [15] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Removing rigs slots and/or removable rigs will do very little in regards of balancing T3s its certain rig combo's that push them into op realms. And it be the 3 rigs that add some more power to that push. Removable rigs...would be yet a 3rd push. The catch to the current t3 menace is to cover several bases you need more than 1 of them. Someone too cheap to not have a "true" pvp backup for the say pve tengu, they may be rolling out in a less than optimal pvp tengu. Not a bad thing imo.
Bohneik Itohn Periphery Bound 103	Posted - 2014.05.19 15:29:00 - [16] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Removing rigs slots and/or removable rigs will do very little in regards of balancing T3s its certain rig combo's that push them into op realms. And it be the 3 rigs that add some more power to that push. Removable rigs...would be yet a 3rd push. The catch to the current t3 menace is to cover several bases you need more than 1 of them. Someone too cheap to not have a "true" pvp backup for the say pve tengu, they may be rolling out in a less than optimal pvp tengu. Not a bad thing imo. And it's certain rig combo's that make some T3 setups even feasible to fly. Taking out rigs without rebalancing breaks a lot more than it fixes. There really is no discussion to be had on this topic until CCP officially announces what they're doing to fix T3's, because they may be introducing some entirely new concept for all we know, so unless you want to theorize fairies and unicorns into this plan to rebalance T3's it's just an exercise in futility.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 811	Posted - 2014.05.19 15:30:00 - [17] - Quote it would help there versatility and reduce their price overall .. both things are needed too make T3's a jack of all trades.. 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.
Bohneik Itohn Periphery Bound 103	Posted - 2014.05.19 15:33:00 - [18] - Quote Harvey James wrote: it would help there versatility and reduce their price overall .. both things are needed too make T3's a jack of all trades.. Price is the last thing I would complain about regarding T3's. Hulls have been dropping rapidly in the last couple months. And really, the price premium is part of what offsets them being so useful, and so shouldn't be reduced without nerfing something else. You're shooting yourself in the foot here.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 633	Posted - 2014.05.19 15:35:00 - [19] - Quote honestly If they got rid of rigs on T3s then there would be more room for them to play with from stats, and you also wouldn't see the obscene tanks some of them get.
Lusty Muffins Throw More Dots Verge of Carebearing 3	Posted - 2014.05.19 17:24:00 - [20] - Quote If they are going to make them more in line with tech 2, please be sure to remove the SP loss with getting one destroyed.
Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn Querschlaeger 0	Posted - 2014.05.21 07:27:00 - [21] - Quote Removing rigs sounds fine to reduce the mess with T3 hulls in my hangar but IGÇÖm not sure if we really want that. Look at the freighter rebalance as an example but in the opposite direction. If T3s lose their rig slots weGÇÖll lose a lot of fitting options particularly in the area of tanking and energy supply. CCP would then have to distribute these losses on the base attribute or the bonuses which granted by the subsystems. Also, I have come to the conclusion that the unusable subsystems should be removed or merged with another rather than to make them useful. This would facilitate much. I have created an example based on the Proteus of how this could look without rigs. Please keep in mind that the Proteus with these attributes would be worse than it is now with rigs. The slot layout remains as it is. Proteus Defensive Adaptive Augmentor (per skill level) 4% bonus to all armor resistances per level 10% bonus to remote armor repair system effectiveness per level 40% (new) bonus to Remote Armor Repairer range 10% (new) reduction in Remote Armor Repairer activation cost With these adjustments the Proteus becomes an alternative Logistic for Black Ops Fleets and small scale brawling Fleets like in wormeholes without compete with the existing logistics. Augmented Plating (per skill level) 25% (is 10%) bonus to armor hitpoints per level 2% bonus to effectiveness of Armored Warfare, Skirmish Warfare, and Information Warfare Links per subsystem skill level Role Bonus: Can fit Warfare Links IGÇÖve thought about that very long but it looks to me that this is the way to go to give T3s on grid boosting abilities. DonGÇÖt worry about the 25% bonus to armor. The eHP will be nearly the same like a current Proteus with three T1 Trimarks. Warfare Processor Remove subsystem, convert existing into Augmented Plating Nanobot Injector (per skill level) 20% (is 10%) bonus to armor repairer effectiveness per level Proteus Electronics CPU Efficiency Gate Remove Subsystem and add some CPU to the Dissolution Sequencer, convert existing into Dissolution Sequencer Dissolution Sequencer Fine as it is Emergent Locus Analyzer Fine as it is Proteus Electronics - Friction Extension Processor Fine as it is Proteus Engineering Augmented Capacitor Reservoir 5% bonus to drone MWD speed per level < remove bonus 7.5% bonus to drone hitpoints per level +25 Mbit/s drone bandwidth and +50 drone bay to base stats That should make the Proteus a useful drone boat without special bonus to drones. Power Core Multiplier Fine as it is Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Fine as it is Supplemental Coolant Injector Remove subsystem, convert existing into Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Proteus Offensive Covert Reconfiguration Fine as it is Drone Synthesis Projector Fine as it is Dissonic Encoding Platform Remove subsystem, convert existing into Hybrid Propulsion Armature Hybrid Propulsion Armature Fine as it is Proteus Propulsion Gravitational Capicator Fine as it is Localized Injectors Fine as it is Wake Limiter Remove subsystem, convert existing into Localized Injectors Proteus Propulsion GÇô Interdiction Nullifier Fine as it is And stop talking about make T3s in line with T2. They are out of line because they are connected straight to the wormehole industry. As long as CCP not introduced something to the wormehole industry to compensate a T3 Nerf then there is no reason to talk about it.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2354	Posted - 2014.05.21 09:14:00 - [22] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Removing rigs slots and/or removable rigs will do very little in regards of balancing T3s its certain rig combo's that push them into op realms. And it be the 3 rigs that add some more power to that push. Removable rigs...would be yet a 3rd push. The catch to the current t3 menace is to cover several bases you need more than 1 of them. Someone too cheap to not have a "true" pvp backup for the say pve tengu, they may be rolling out in a less than optimal pvp tengu. Not a bad thing imo. I'm not necessarily saying removable rigs on T3s would be a bad thing. If T3s are left as is and are given removable rigs they would be become even stronger. They must have a proper balance pass done first then if it would keep them in reasonable realms add the ability to remove their rigs. -á --á

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.