EVE Search - Why we will never see tec 3

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why we will never see tec 3

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Judor	Posted - 2006.08.15 22:33:00 - [1] There needs to be a reasonable amount of time for new people to be able to fly a given ship. As new Tec's come out new people need to be able to get into them in a reasonable amount of time. In the current system, new tecs would only favor the veterans and cause an increased amount of discouragement for beggining players. So how do you progress Tec lvls while still making the game competitive for new players? Thats up or discussion, but i do like to get new toys to work towards every so often and i do want this game to continue to grow. possable solutions - Remove the learning tree - static stats for everyone... tricky to implement Periodic increase in stats- DNA mutators, whatever Cheaper prices for implants Discuss...
Pesky LaRue Minmatar L.O.S.T. Foundation	Posted - 2006.08.15 22:37:00 - [2] isn't this another "we need to make EVE easier for new players" thread, just geared towards T3? frankly, i wasn't ready to get into T2 stuff till I was ready to get into it - making it easier would have diminished the reward. sure, it'll take new players a long time to get into T3, when it comes out - and that's exactly how it should be. This message came from the Minmatar Messiah, accept no imitations Pesky LaRue, Minmatar Messiah Bringing Salvation To Your System Soon! ++ PRAY FOR PESKY ++
Locke DieDrake Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.15 22:40:00 - [3] There is no reason why a new player needs to be in a HAC within any particular period of time. And there is no reason why a new player needs to be able to access deep content (like cap ships) in any specific period of time. 6 months, 2 years, it doesn't matter. There are lots of reasons why Tech lvl 3 is problematic, but this is not one of them. IMO-T3 should be named T2 gear with or without extra skills. But it should be UBER. In the way that faction mods are uber when taken against a t1 variant of the same module. This also opens the door to actually use module "sets" in the way that implants have sets. You can see that they were thinking along these lines by the fact that there are "type e" "type d" modules that have basicly identical stats. Anyway, making another tech level of ships and gear serves no purpose. We already have 4 levels. T1 unamed. T1 named. T1 Faction. T2. We really don't need t3, at least not till we have t2 named and t2 faction. But if you look deaper into the development path, you see that CCP is trying to move towards players creating their own "named" gear from invention/re-engineering and a forumal. This in my opinion would by far be the best way to progress the "tech levels" of EVE. ___________________________________________ The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain. ___________________________________________
Karash Amerius Amarr O.E.C	Posted - 2006.08.15 22:46:00 - [4] Every game needs constant progression....I would assume that T3 components would only come after CCP realizes their dream of having some sort of planetary interface (either just additional control UI, or actually graphically going down to the planet.) T3 components would probably then be created from these sorts of gameplay progressions.
Zyper Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.08.15 22:47:00 - [5] tech3 dosen't need to be better, it could jsut be "diffrent" with lower skill req. than tech2 :P --
Ichabod Dirange Iscariot Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.15 22:54:00 - [6] Is there a rush for tech III, is it needed now?
Brastagi Caldari g guild	Posted - 2006.08.15 23:15:00 - [7] I'm quite happy with my Tech 2 frigates. Why should there be Tech 3? We haven't get Tech 2 battleships yet, or even Tech 2 Dread.... If ccp going to add another ship ingame let it be another "Tier ##" Tech 2 ship or something.. --------- For God sakes! I know it's a gorilla!
Sirkill	Posted - 2006.08.15 23:25:00 - [8] Isn't Tech 3 supposed to be associated with the ability to modify items slightly, to create unique branaded items?
Sorja E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.16 00:26:00 - [9] Originally by: Sirkill Isn't Tech 3 supposed to be associated with the ability to modify items slightly, to create unique branaded items? I think I read that somewhere in a devblog but some time ago... And, to the people who want further techs to be 'nber', it's the old syndrome of 'I suck so I rely on my gear and/or skillpoints'. Just LOL ____________________ Darko1107 > does anything in ascn space have tech II fittings? Quillan Rage > Iron ships
Dollar Menu	Posted - 2006.08.16 00:28:00 - [10] I can't see CCP ever creating Tech3 anything... As things stand, Eve is far too easy to play. Bringing in Tech3 will just make it even more so. From a Player versus the Enviroment standpoint: I'm only a few months old and I'm able to destroy any asteroid belt NPC BS spawn there is... non-special spawns of course, even though I can hammer many of them too.... All Agent LvL3 combat missions are of no challenge. I find many Agent LvL4's of little challenge too. I can only imagine how easy a Tech3 Cruiser or Battle Cruiser would be... I'm all for adding more creativity and expansion. More powerfull ships are not the answer.
Zeknichov Amarr Black Avatar Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.08.16 01:07:00 - [11] This is what tech 3 should be. Tech 3 is equivilent to tech 2 in terms of bonuses however they require tech 1 skills to use. This will benefit new players who have plenty of isk but not enough time time invested in their skills to use it all. It sucks having a BS, 500M isk and having to wait 3 months just to equip your BS in tech 2 equipment. To compete with tech 3, tech 2 prices would need to be lower than the tech 3 equivilent, thus tech 3 would drive the prices of tech 2 down and now pilots who have the skills to use tech 2 would benefit. In this scenario tech 3 benefits every player and not only the elite.
Sangxianc Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.16 01:12:00 - [12] Originally by: Zeknichov This is what tech 3 should be. Tech 3 is equivilent to tech 2 in terms of bonuses however they require tech 1 skills to use. This will benefit new players who have plenty of isk but not enough time time invested in their skills to use it all. It sucks having a BS, 500M isk and having to wait 3 months just to equip your BS in tech 2 equipment. To compete with tech 3, tech 2 prices would need to be lower than the tech 3 equivilent, thus tech 3 would drive the prices of tech 2 down and now pilots who have the skills to use tech 2 would benefit. In this scenario tech 3 benefits GTC buyers, ebayers and rookie corp mission runners and not only the elite. Anywho, I very much doubt that Tech 3 will be anything you have to worry about any time soon, and when it does, it won't just be better resistances and an extra set of bonuses. Have some faith in CCP. (KomradeVirtunov) I decided to google cat ****
Price Watcher	Posted - 2006.08.16 02:12:00 - [13] T3 Warp Core Stabilizers are coming with Kali upgrade. They will provide +8 warp strength and only use 25 CPU. It seems that CCP is tired of griefers and wants to give honest folks a chance. Earth First! We will strip-mine the other planets later.
Capt Harlock Band of Builders Inc. Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.08.16 03:25:00 - [14] Guess i'm one of those vet players that so many whiners mention. When I started i shut my mouth and trained my skills by doing that i was rewarded by beig able to fly SOME T2 ships recently i thought mmm maybe i'd like to fly another race now, currently training heavy missile lvl4 and caldari cruiser lv5 ooooh i'm uber you'll never catch up with that. Dunno why i even bother to reply as most of the thick skull posters don't seem to get it. Seriously if you don't like it that much why not play something else. Sorry if I sound harsh but i'm sick of hearing it.
Krin Malatai Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.16 06:19:00 - [15] I'm sure Tech 3 gear will be highly uber/cool/godlike. Whatever. As a mostly mission runner right now, I'd like to see some of the story lines advance so that there's more of a point to running missions, mining, producing, etc... The Governments most important function is protecting the rights of its Citizens. The Citizens rights end at impinging on other Citizens rights.
Matori Kar	Posted - 2006.08.16 06:33:00 - [16] Wrong wrong wrong, Tech 3 will exist. However, following CCPs handling of Tech 2, there will only be 2 people capable of producing it in game, their names are: IWINEVEHEHE and IWINEVEMOREHAHA, sadly both players will be in BOB thus solving the problem of who can 'use' Tech 3 as they will only supply to alliance mates
Moghydin Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2006.08.16 06:46:00 - [17] I don't have much faith in T3. Very likely that those who control T2 and have hundereds of billions of ISK will also control T3. The situation, where you'll have to use 0.0 facilities to produce T3 is also possible, and then it'll be the same old faces who will be using T3 gear at nearly buildprice and for everyone else it'll cost stupid amounts of ISK. T2 and high-end complexes have broken the game beyond repair, I don't think T3 will fix it, I don't think T3 will be a try to fix it. Just another generic update for the uber to feel even more uber and powerfull.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.08.16 06:56:00 - [18] Have you ever read any of the old info about T3? You haven't? Well then, lemme give you a summary of the last info given: Tech 3 will be tweaking the existing ships. We will not have Heavy assault frigs with 6 bonuses, or Uber heavy assault cruisers that do 2000dps. You will have a ship, and you will modify it, most likely making some parts better while others get worse. Rigs may play a part in T3. However, the last info given just mentioned it being the ability to tweak your ship's stats. Combine this with the 'overheat' idea from the drawing board, and that could make for some interesting stuff.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.08.16 07:00:00 - [19] So remember kiddies, Tech 3 will not be assault ships with 90 base resists accross the board, or interceptors with AF resists, or ships with half a dozen bonuses and more firepower than God. They will be existing ships that can be modified, same with mods. Sure you may make an uber alpha ship, with uber alpha strike mods, and end up with a 60 second ROF, but T3 will not just be 'better'. I do wonder if we'll ever see 'officer ships' though. Mmm, Estemel's Modified Raven, with 1k cpu, 20k grid, 20k shields, 8 his/mids, 6 lows, 8 missile slots, 50% velocity bonus to seige/cruise launchers, and 10% rof per level to seige/cruise launchers. Would be such a fun ship for NPCing.
Brastagi Caldari g guild	Posted - 2006.08.16 07:20:00 - [20] Why not we just call them player customized ship (ex. <insert your name here> caracal> instead Tech 3 then? Or just Custom for short. But in other notes, there will be Pimp-my-ship coming around... --------- For God sakes! I know it's a gorilla!
Ozmodan Minmatar Storm Industries	Posted - 2006.08.16 07:55:00 - [21] Edited by: Ozmodan on 16/08/2006 07:56:59 Oh yay, does that mean the tech 3 player gets to save his ammunition? I mean the blow me up in one hit now, so that means he only has to fire half his weapons with Tech 3? If CCP even considers putting Tech 3 items into the game, they need to look at what happened to DAoC when they added the super weapons for veterans. Most of the main population left. When you make the gap between the new players and the veterans so big that alot of players cannot reach it you will have no one around to blow up after awhile. The game does not need tech 3, it is an extremely bad idea. I personally like the direction they are taking with rigs, you improve one thing, but lower something else. Makes a ship both more powerful in one way and less in another. Learners permit still current
violator2k5 Caldari care bears have awesome vessals	Posted - 2006.08.16 08:55:00 - [22] Edited by: violator2k5 on 16/08/2006 08:58:33 imo that does sound good but what will be the problems is what im thinking? the idea of customising your own unique ship given that it follows a certain class of ships already exsisting in the game and the same model will make things a lot interesting indeed. my main concern is of a few things. will they allow us to use certain paint jobs / logo's on the ships so that we truely can have our own unique ship which can not be identical to any other. i say this cos it would be nice to actually fly with the corp / alliance banner on the side of the ship when you view it close up (similar to fighter planes in RL) The opportunity to tweak and adjust settings anytime we dock at a station to improve the ship resists or atk strengths What bout lag issues too? ive seen countless people moaning in local about the lag in certain areas and if this causes more then it may be a bad situation also with regards to current T3 and the need for it to be injected into the game, from what i saw someone actually had the chance to pick up a T3 large hybrid turret not to long ago which had a stronger dmg strength then exsisting T2 hybrid turrets. as for new players wanting to get into T3 straight away when kali is introduced as far as i know they are also going to introduce more learning skills so that will give the new players a chance at getting into T2 and T3 ships / modules faster then what we have done so, so far. They just need to go through the same path as we did with the learning skills then following a certain path till they reach their goal. previously there was mention of T2 battleships and T2 dreads. my thoughts on that is that what we have so far is adequate and we dont need them. the introduction of the new teir 3 bs's which will be introduced should cover that need for a new bs which a lot of you are craving for. obviously a bs with very good resistances would be good from a certain point of view and make things more easy to tank plus cause a lot of damage with certain mods. Have you considered the skills required? or the limitations, like if they do release it and your only option is T2 and nothing else. have you guys actually considered the pricing which they would be at following current pricing? im going to use caldari as a example as thats what im based in Frigs T1 = Merlin 250k T2 = Harpy 21mil 84 x more then merlin Cruiser T1 = Caracal 4mil T2 = Cerberus 250 - 280mil 62.5 - 70 x more then caracal Battlecruiser T1 = Ferox 24mil T2 = Nighthawk 158mil 6.6 x more then a ferox as you can see the pricing is deteriating a bit with BC's but when a BS is introduced even @ 3 x current pricing your looking at roughly 300mil for a T2 bs minimum and going by some peoples greed in game for isk that would probably be pushed up to something like 800mil just for a AF / HAC version of a BS (thats just a rough estimation) Need A Merc? ......... Hire Chav today got 20p for bus fare m8 :P
Hehulk 5punkorp Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.16 09:04:00 - [23] Except there won't be an AF/HAC version of a BS. CCP have stated this numerous times. It would be a plain, simple, IWIN button. ---------- Please choose one signature image, as per the forum rules. - Teblin
Katja Shade	Posted - 2006.08.16 09:15:00 - [24]
Cheyenne Shadowborn Caldari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.08.16 09:33:00 - [25] Originally by: Judor possable solutions - Remove the learning tree - static stats for everyone... tricky to implement Periodic increase in stats- DNA mutators, whatever Cheaper prices for implants Discuss... Cheyenne Shadowborns 101 on good game design: More "AD&D style" customization elements make a more attractive game. Static statistics make a sucky game (that will still sell to the playstation kids but not to me). I'd rather have more attributes than less. It means more professions, more specialization, more character options and hence a real need for corporation roles, specialists and teamwork. I don't think there's much wrong with tech 3 following tech 2 in the "old" way. No newbie (and I am still far from being a veteran myself) should fly tech 3 ships the first week. Without support skills they'd suck just as bad in a tech 3 ship after a six weeks as they'd suck now in a tech 2 ship after four weeks. (of course that only counts for all sorts of transports and combat ships, the barge skill requirements are screwed up either way, with the far biggest skill gap between Retriever and Covetor ... ) My proposal instead is to just flatten the entire curve by removing level 5 requirements on stuff and ditching the learning skills in exchange for a static +8 on all skills. But I am sure thats not going to happen for various cough two months training time makes money cough reasons. --
violator2k5 Caldari care bears have awesome vessals	Posted - 2006.08.16 10:53:00 - [26] Originally by: Hehulk Except there won't be an AF/HAC version of a BS. CCP have stated this numerous times. It would be a plain, simple, IWIN button. i know it was just a example of what it would be roughly price wise Need A Merc? ......... Hire Chav today got 20p for bus fare m8 :P
Sn4k3 3y3s	Posted - 2006.08.16 10:57:00 - [27] Originally by: Zeknichov Edited by: Zeknichov on 16/08/2006 01:16:19 This is what tech 3 should be. Tech 3 is equivilent to tech 2 in terms of bonuses however they require tech 1 skills to use. This will benefit new players who have plenty of isk but not enough time time invested in their skills to use it all. It sucks having a BS, 500M isk and having to wait 3 months just to equip your BS in tech 2 equipment. To compete with tech 3, tech 2 prices would need to be lower than the tech 3 equivilent, thus tech 3 would drive the prices of tech 2 down and now pilots who have the skills to use tech 2 would benefit. Yes, lets make tech II redundant! Huzzah for isk = I-win! Also, lets make faction loot redundant at the same time by doing that, hey? How does that sound? Tech 3, as stated by the devs, will be the ability to slightly modify items, such as an extra slot here and there on a ship in exchange for less CPU, or 5% more cap recharge on a cap recharger in exchange for higher fitting req's.
Moghydin Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2006.08.16 11:32:00 - [28] Originally by: Sn4k3 3y3s Originally by: Zeknichov Edited by: Zeknichov on 16/08/2006 01:16:19 This is what tech 3 should be. Tech 3 is equivilent to tech 2 in terms of bonuses however they require tech 1 skills to use. This will benefit new players who have plenty of isk but not enough time time invested in their skills to use it all. It sucks having a BS, 500M isk and having to wait 3 months just to equip your BS in tech 2 equipment. To compete with tech 3, tech 2 prices would need to be lower than the tech 3 equivilent, thus tech 3 would drive the prices of tech 2 down and now pilots who have the skills to use tech 2 would benefit. Yes, lets make tech II redundant! Huzzah for isk = I-win! Also, lets make faction loot redundant at the same time by doing that, hey? How does that sound? Tech 3, as stated by the devs, will be the ability to slightly modify items, such as an extra slot here and there on a ship in exchange for less CPU, or 5% more cap recharge on a cap recharger in exchange for higher fitting req's. You know, making T2 redundant or at least not that important would not be such a bad idea. Poorly developed T2 production and implementation had a disasterous impact on Eve. T2 made Eve ISK = I_WIN. Faction loot is ok as it is, it's just faction loot farming that is the problem. Ppl should not be able to print ISK in their private faction loot spawnpits. It should be extremely rare and not location dependant (yes, no to high-end complexes). Faction loot drops should be possible in any 0.0 system (depending on the rat faction). Complexes as a whole are a bad idea and should leave the game (even low end plexes too). Also, interesting, how this ship/module modification for T3 will be implemented. What skills will be needed for that, what components, what modules and structures. I have an impression, that if some kind of 0.0 player owned structure will be needed for T3, we'll have another redundant target except capital ship construction yard, as some ppl would do anything to reserve T3 only to the so called elite.
King Dave Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.16 11:48:00 - [29] Originally by: Zeknichov Edited by: Zeknichov on 16/08/2006 01:16:19 This is what tech 3 should be. Tech 3 is equivilent to tech 2 in terms of bonuses however they require tech 1 skills to use. This will benefit new players who have plenty of isk but not enough time time invested in their skills to use it all. It sucks having a BS, 500M isk and having to wait 3 months just to equip your BS in tech 2 equipment. To compete with tech 3, tech 2 prices would need to be lower than the tech 3 equivilent, thus tech 3 would drive the prices of tech 2 down and now pilots who have the skills to use tech 2 would benefit. Edit - To be honest I am not quite sure of the profit margin on tech 2 items. Considering that the BPOs are fairly limited I assume that it is very high. If tech 2 manufacterers are barely making a profit then forget the whole tech 3 driving tech 2 prices down and instead tech 3 prices would just be higher than tech 2 prices. I would however like to see tech 2 prices drop (possibly having a new way to "upgrade" tech 2 BPOs so that producing the tech 2 item requires less minerals if the profit margin on tech 2 items is fairly slim.) In this scenario tech 3 benefits every player and not only the elite. wrong wrong WRONG People who carebear too much, should definately not have the upper hand on player with skill and sp's. It is the whole point you have your "vets". It wud ruin the whole point of skillpoints if people can use the same level of item but with only 5 mill sp. ------------------------------- don't speak english... f1, f2, alt-q!
Zaldiri Caldari Automated Industries	Posted - 2006.08.16 12:11:00 - [30] Look guys, tech levels are not just constant improvements in the uberness of stuff. There meant to add a new facet to gameplay. Tech 2 didn't only add some very good items, but also added a whole variety of stuff like weapon specialisation and tech 2 items, which are more complex than the basic tech 1 items. On top of this tech 2 added a whole new and more interesting form of manufacturing. And people, not all tech 2 ships just simple improvements on their tech 1 counterparts, they usually are only improved in a specific area, for example the covert ops frigate is not much better than a tech 1 frig apart from its ability to cloak and its scanning bonuses. When thinking of a tech 2 ship, try not to jump straight to HACs, but think covert ops or logistic cruisers. Tech 3 could conceivably be only a very slight improvement over tech 2, but would add the ability to slightly customise your items (and thus even introduce player made "branded" items etc.). As for tech 4/5, they would add other forms of gameplay. For example, tech 4 could add items, which while powerful are highly unreliable, and could blow up (either just the item, or your whole ship) at any time. (That's just an example, don't comment on the specifics, it could be anything). ----------------------------------------------- Admiral of King Frieza's Super Saiyan fleet.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.