Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:45:00 -
[31] - Quote
Rowells wrote:.
How this will apply to destroyers? No idea. We may see an exception to the general rule here since the roles are limited
That really is quite simple. Tactical destroyers are to have 3 modes of operation.
The problem with slavery is that only half of the manacles are visible. The Holder, supposed master, is equally bound by the gilded chains of privilege and wealth. Sorrowful is the state of humanity, which shall never be free until all share equally in Liberty.
|
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1805
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:57:00 -
[32] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote:Xuixien wrote:Cost is not a balancing factor. Never was, never will be Are we talking about the same game? Look at officer, deadspace and faction items. Higher cost -> more powerful. T2 ships are more powerful than their T1 equivalent.... and more expensive.
This has more to do with supply/demand. There are also cases where the deadspace/faction is less powerful than tech2 but way more expensive. The same thing happened with meta/tech2. Argument invalid.
Jessica Duranin wrote:Xuixien wrote: Incorrect. Tech1 is about versatility, tech2 is about specialization. There are some very few exceptions to this rule,...
Yes, like pretty much every cruiser. HACs: a more powerful variant of their T1 hull (e.g. Vexor->Ishtar) Logistics: a more powerful variant of their T1 hulls (e.g. Augoror-> Guardian) HICs: doesn't have a T1 equivalent Recons: a more powerful (and versatile) variant of the T1 hull (e.g. Blackbird->Falcon) Why do people still use the e.g. Augorors instead of Guardians? Cost.
HACs are not a more powerful variant, they are a more specialized variant. You can still brawl in a Stabber, and kite in a Rupture but you try the same things in a VagabondMunin (or w/e it is) and you're gonna have a bad day.
Tech2 ships also get different bonuses than the tech1.
Tech2 logistics and tech1 logistics have different applications. There ARE times you want a tech1 over a tech2.
Recons are not more powerful and versatile, they're split (ie, SPECIALIZED) which is why there's TWO versions and a single tech1 version, with different bonuses. Epic Space Cat |
Hicksimus
Plan-It Xpress Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
371
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 22:11:00 -
[33] - Quote
Which one will they be in? I'm not very good at ship scanning. Guess I'll just shoot whichever Rhea CODE. shoots. Do you have it? |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations
2551
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 22:16:00 -
[34] - Quote
Though i'm frightened by the word.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 22:25:00 -
[35] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:This has more to do with supply/demand. There are also cases where the deadspace/faction is less powerful than tech2 but way more expensive. The same thing happened with meta/tech2. Argument invalid. Yes, there are useless officer and faction items. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of the expensive modules are more powerful than their cheaper variant.
Xuixien wrote: HACs are not a more powerful variant, they are a more specialized variant. You can still brawl in a Stabber, and kite in a Rupture but you try the same things in a VagabondMunin (or w/e it is) and you're gonna have a bad day.
Vagabond is superior to a Stabber in every way. More tank, more dps, more speed. Same thing with Rupture vs Munin.
Xuixien wrote: Tech2 ships also get different bonuses than the tech1.
Yes, on top of the tech1 boni.
Xuixien wrote: There ARE times you want a tech1 over a tech2.
Yes, when the T2 logi would be too expensive. |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1809
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 22:29:00 -
[36] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote: Vagabond is superior to a Stabber in every way. More tank
I'mma stop you right there and lol for a minute.
Jessica Duranin wrote: Yes, on top of the tech1 boni.
Not always. :)
Xuixien wrote: There ARE times you want a tech1 over a tech2.
Yes, when the T2 logi would be too expensive.[/quote]
Wrong, try again. Epic Space Cat |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
335
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 22:42:00 -
[37] - Quote
Silverdaddy wrote:Tear Jar wrote:As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited. CCP Fozzie said that he doesn't anticipate that tech 3 destroyers will ever be cost-effective for suicide banking, so you might be out of luck. That was because of the new weapons that are also coming, which have better DPS but reduce your resists to 0.
If it's cheaper to upgrade the guns to get the damage needed than to ship up into a bigger hull then they will be used heavily by suicide gankers. the Code ALWAYS wins |
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 22:56:00 -
[38] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Jessica Duranin wrote: Vagabond is superior to a Stabber in every way. More tank
I'mma stop you right there and lol for a minute. You can lol as much as you want, the Vagabond will still have more tank than a Stabber. (with an equivalent fit - ofc a buffer tanked stabber will have more ehp than an ASB Vaga)
Xuixien wrote: There ARE times you want a tech1 over a tech2. Jessica Duranin wrote: Yes, when the T2 logi would be too expensive.
Wrong, try again. No I wont. Everything the T1 logi does the T2 does better. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1600
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 23:13:00 -
[39] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote: Orly? T2 logi > T1 logi T2 ewar ships > T1 ewar T2 dps > T1 dps
Why do people believe that T3s should be an exception to that rule? The dev blog was about removing the progression within the Tiers.
CCP have specifically said that T3's are not better than T2's in a specialised role but should be capable of filling several roles at once. They just were so bad at actually balancing those combinations that people believe the current situation where certain T3's (Tengu's with 12 launchers) are king of the hill is intentional, rather than CCP's screw up they haven't worked out how to fix without thousands of tears yet. EVE T1-T3 Ship layout As reference. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
16339
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 23:29:00 -
[40] - Quote
Looks like a theme in design emerging.
They seem to share visual similarities in surface and angles to the mordu's legion ships.
Cool if that's the case. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
LAGL 4 LYF |
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5858
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 23:30:00 -
[41] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Jessica Duranin wrote: Orly? T2 logi > T1 logi T2 ewar ships > T1 ewar T2 dps > T1 dps
Why do people believe that T3s should be an exception to that rule? The dev blog was about removing the progression within the Tiers.
CCP have specifically said that T3's are not better than T2's in a specialised role but should be capable of filling several roles at once. They just were so bad at actually balancing those combinations that people believe the current situation where certain T3's (Tengu's with 12 launchers) are king of the hill is intentional, rather than CCP's screw up they haven't worked out how to fix without thousands of tears yet. EVE T1-T3 Ship layoutAs reference. ^^exactly this
also agreed thet the current t3's need a rebalance, even amongst themselves they don't work properly. =]I[= |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2501
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 23:47:00 -
[42] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules: 3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1402
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 23:49:00 -
[43] - Quote
Just in : T3 dessis will be able to fire 8 shots in 0.5 before concorded. TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
16344
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 23:50:00 -
[44] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:also agreed thet the current t3's need a rebalance, even amongst themselves they don't work properly. Fozzie has been fairly open about this too. CCP agree and seem to want to give more options for subsystem combinations.
If this no subsystem approach works, then I kind of hope they completely redesign the cruisers too so they are the same. I personally love my Proteus, but change would be good to open up other possibilities.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
LAGL 4 LYF |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10098
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:04:00 -
[45] - Quote
Huh. That looks awesome. Hopefully one of the three operating modes is a good match for Interceptors.
Might also be a clue in as to the future role of T3s. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
147
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:08:00 -
[46] - Quote
Silverdaddy wrote:Tear Jar wrote:As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited. CCP Fozzie said that he doesn't anticipate that tech 3 destroyers will ever be cost-effective for suicide banking, so you might be out of luck.
I dont expect to suicide gank in it, but it will be a good ship for me to take into null or low as I have all the skills anyway. |
KuroVolt
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
2168
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:15:00 -
[47] - Quote
On behalf of the Curatores Veritatis Alliance: AMARR VICTOR!!!! BoBwins Law: As a discussion/war between two large nullsec entities grows longer, the probability of one comparing the other to BoB aproaches near certainty. Phoebe: Remember remember the fourth of november. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1601
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:15:00 -
[48] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Huh. That looks awesome. Hopefully one of the three operating modes is a good match for Interceptors.
Might also be a clue in as to the future role of T3s. If it's a good match for interceptors then T3's are going to be OP again. Because T3's aren't meant to be as good as T2's at a specialised role.
So if one mode is a good match for Inties, then another will be a good match for another T2 etc, and you end up with a T3 that is once again too good.
Slightly better than a T1, not as good as the correct T2 in each config. but on the fly switching is what should happen. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5859
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:17:00 -
[49] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:also agreed thet the current t3's need a rebalance, even amongst themselves they don't work properly. Fozzie has been fairly open about this too. CCP agree and seem to want to give more options for subsystem combinations. If this no subsystem approach works, then I kind of hope they completely redesign the cruisers too so they are the same. I personally love my Proteus, but change would be good to open up other possibilities. true, love my legion but getting good performance out of it gets pricy, and the dps form the covops sub is sub par by any measure, this makes me sad. =]I[= |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10098
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:25:00 -
[50] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: If it's a good match for interceptors then T3's are going to be OP again.
I don't even come close to caring. Something needs to be able to reasonably take down an interceptor besides putting twenty smartbomber battleships on a gate.
Quote:Because T3's aren't meant to be as good as T2's at a specialised role.
That blithe platitude meant nothing when they first said it, and it means nothing now. Fortunately these won't have skill loss, since I doubt they will even push 20k hitpoints.
Quote: So if one mode is a good match for Inties, then another will be a good match for another T2 etc, and you end up with a T3 that is once again too good.
No one said that, not me and not CCP. I want a reasonable counter for interceptors, as one does not presently exist. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10098
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:26:00 -
[51] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:also agreed thet the current t3's need a rebalance, even amongst themselves they don't work properly. Fozzie has been fairly open about this too. CCP agree and seem to want to give more options for subsystem combinations. If this no subsystem approach works, then I kind of hope they completely redesign the cruisers too so they are the same. I personally love my Proteus, but change would be good to open up other possibilities. true, love my legion but getting good performance out of it gets pricy, and the dps form the covops sub is sub par by any measure, this makes me sad.
Not even going to lie, I have long since cribbed Feyd's Sacrilege fit. 85% of a Legion, 15% of the price. Cheap is a power all of it's own. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
80
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:27:00 -
[52] - Quote
God, what a ******* stupid idea. Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer] |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1601
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:29:00 -
[53] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: No one said that, not me and not CCP. I want a reasonable counter for interceptors, as one does not presently exist.
Then push for a T2 combat destroyer that is suitable for countering small sig ships but not powerful against large ones. Don't push for what would be an OP ship able to do everything well. And certainly don't push for continuing the T3 > all. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10098
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:33:00 -
[54] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Then push for a T2 combat destroyer that is suitable for countering small sig ships but not powerful against large ones.
Sounds pretty much like the "Sniper Mode", to me.
Quote: Don't push for what would be an OP ship able to do everything well. And certainly don't push for continuing the T3 > all.
I did neither of those things. Try actually reading it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1601
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:34:00 -
[55] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I did neither of those things. Try actually reading it.
I did, you specifically said you didn't care if what you were pushing for made it OP.... So yea......
|
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
83
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:38:00 -
[56] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Looks like a theme in design emerging. They seem to share visual similarities in surface and angles to the mordu's legion ships. Cool if that's the case.
That should be amarr if i am not mistaken.
And there is no theme emerging, eve seems to have just reached 2009-2010 in game graphics and everything will start to look like a tangle of random polygons with a bit more uneven shape for gallente, more shabby looking for minmatar... |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10098
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:39:00 -
[57] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I did neither of those things. Try actually reading it.
I did, you specifically said you didn't care if what you were pushing for made it OP.... So yea......
No, I said that I could not possibly care less if you label it "OP" because you take exception to the number following the T.
I want it to fill a niche that is currently not well served, to be able to reasonably defeat an interceptor.
Consider that Sniper Mode says it gives a weapon range bonus, lock range bonus and lock speed bonus, it looks like CCP agrees. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10098
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 00:49:00 -
[58] - Quote
Besides, a carebear like you should be celebrating, it looks to me like this thing could be great at popping gankers on gates. Even if it only ends up with six bonused guns, it could still two shot a Catalyst. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5861
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 01:05:00 -
[59] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:also agreed thet the current t3's need a rebalance, even amongst themselves they don't work properly. Fozzie has been fairly open about this too. CCP agree and seem to want to give more options for subsystem combinations. If this no subsystem approach works, then I kind of hope they completely redesign the cruisers too so they are the same. I personally love my Proteus, but change would be good to open up other possibilities. true, love my legion but getting good performance out of it gets pricy, and the dps form the covops sub is sub par by any measure, this makes me sad. Not even going to lie, I have long since cribbed Feyd's Sacrilege fit. 85% of a Legion, 15% of the price. Cheap is a power all of it's own. with links your talking " i cant believe its not T3", legion needs love =]I[= |
Mister Tuggles
Faceless Men
105
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 01:06:00 -
[60] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Carribean Queen wrote:
What is wrong with you.
T1 < T2 < T3
working as intended.
Incorrect. That is not the way the game is balanced at all. Have you ever read a single devblog about balance?
Have you ever read a single devblog about balance? They are all bullshit, and balance is non-existent.
Live with it.
Also t3's are balanced in the sense that they are A) More expensive to purchase than their t2 counterpart, B) Have a skill loss on destruction, and C) don't really outperform their t2 counterparts in their specific role.
Yes, you can get a t3 to do multiple roles at once, but it will not be as effective in a single role as their t2 counterpart. T3's are the Swiss Army knife where as t2's are specifically designed to fulfill one role. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |