Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
sereneabt
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
woop, more pew pew without the subsytems and skill loss,
Modes can be changed on the fly (after a cooldown)
Ohh and Amarr gets first pick since they won the race Love me... Hate me...
...as long as you pay me
|
Ama Scelesta
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
They can also change their ship bonuses in space on the fly with a cooldown. I guess sort of like subsystem change on demand. |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1798
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. Epic Space Cat |
Mag's
the united
18010
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Any link for info on this?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Velora Rasc
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
http://puu.sh/chx5n/d7cd11db4d.jpg |
Ama Scelesta
18
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. No they shouldn't. If we wait for everything to be rebalanced before we get new cool stuff, we're never going to get anything new.
Besides it doesn't quite sound like they're T3 in the current sense. CCP talked about a speed mode and a tank mode switch, so the changes between modes don't seem to correspond how current subsystems work. They seem to be something totally new and their introduction should not be tied down to other ship lines. |
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. No they shouldn't. If we wait for everything to be rebalanced before we get new cool stuff, we're never going to get anything new. Besides it doesn't quite sound like they're T3 in the current sense. CCP talked about a speed mode and a tank mode switch, so the changes between modes don't seem to correspond how current subsystems work. They seem to be something totally new and their introduction should not be tied down to other ship lines.
+1
The concepts underpinning the Tech 3 tactical destroyers seems pretty sweet. New ships give us something to look forward to. 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.
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1520
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 20:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
Info please
Don't destroy my dreams |
Jandice Ymladris
Aurora Arcology
949
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Upcoming holiday update shapes up to be a good expansion, adding new things to Eve! new ships, new shipline & new weapons! (Pocket highsec carrier, T3 destroyers & glasscannon guns that pump up damage at the cost of your resists!) Sansha fleets raiding deep space facilities! A summary of the ancient civilizations of New Eden |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
3869
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Better mean T3 Battleships are on the horizon... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Carribean Queen
Vadimus Quarrier Works The Big Dirty
56
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap.
How about no. T3's are fine as they are now and should be expanded upon, seeing as how they have yet to give us the remaining subsystems for them. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1600
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:07:00 -
[12] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. Agreed. They haven't worked out how to make configurable ships that are balanced yet. And the whole 'Small command ship' was never needed. People could warp rig T3 cruisers to easily keep up with Inty gangs. They just wouldn't be able to tank like a T3 normally could, but they didn't need to tank like normal if they are keeping up with Frigates. This is just a sop to people crying out rather than using the current tools in inventive ways. And will introduce more problems, not fix problems. |
Raelaem Eudain
Evil Turtles Chelonaphobia
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
ummm.... okay
I think I'd rather have new types of mods then ships tbh
they are just going to be super expensive in price just like any new ship
I don't feel like flying a 200-300mil destroyer.
I'd like to hear from CCP Rise on this |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1800
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:13:00 -
[14] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. No they shouldn't. If we wait for everything to be rebalanced before we get new cool stuff, we're never going to get anything new. Besides it doesn't quite sound like they're T3 in the current sense. CCP talked about a speed mode and a tank mode switch, so the changes between modes don't seem to correspond how current subsystems work. They seem to be something totally new and their introduction should not be tied down to other ship lines.
False Premise 1: We should get/need "new cool stuff". I could care less about "new cool stuff" - the game needs to be balanced first. False Premise 2: We'll never get new stuff if the devs focus on balancing existing ships. False. We've gotten new "cool" ships along with rebalances.
Your argument is garbage. Moving on.
Carribean Queen wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. How about no. T3's are fine as they are now and should be expanded upon, seeing as how they have yet to give us the remaining subsystems for them.
How about you're flat wrong. Tech3's are not fine as they are, and are in fact terribly balanced. When you fit them for combat roles, they outperform the tech2 combat variants. Obsolescence is not a smart balancing ideology.
Expansion and balance iteration are not mutually exclusive. This is another crap premise that another crap argument is being built on.
Epic Space Cat |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1521
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
I'm assuming that the fact they are even touching/creating T3s means a rebalance is on the way. Seems great oppurtunity to create definitive roles between the two classes. |
Ama Scelesta
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:15:00 -
[16] - Quote
Raelaem Eudain wrote:ummm.... okay
I think I'd rather have new types of mods then ships tbh
they are just going to be super expensive in price just like any new ship
I don't feel like flying a 200-300mil destroyer.
I'd like to hear from CCP Rise on this They're not going to be that expensive in the long run. As far as modules are concerned the biggest news was definitely the new weapons, that will drop all resists on your ship to zero to balance them out. They'll be more expensive though, since they don't want every highsec gank ship to be fitted with them. |
Carribean Queen
Vadimus Quarrier Works The Big Dirty
56
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:16:00 -
[17] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. No they shouldn't. If we wait for everything to be rebalanced before we get new cool stuff, we're never going to get anything new. Besides it doesn't quite sound like they're T3 in the current sense. CCP talked about a speed mode and a tank mode switch, so the changes between modes don't seem to correspond how current subsystems work. They seem to be something totally new and their introduction should not be tied down to other ship lines. False Premise 1: We should get/need "new cool stuff". I could care less about "new cool stuff" - the game needs to be balanced first. False Premise 2: We'll never get new stuff if the devs focus on balancing existing ships. False. We've gotten new "cool" ships along with rebalances. Your argument is garbage. Moving on. Carribean Queen wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. How about no. T3's are fine as they are now and should be expanded upon, seeing as how they have yet to give us the remaining subsystems for them. How about you're flat wrong. Tech3's are not fine as they are, and are in fact terribly balanced. When you fit them for combat roles, they outperform the tech2 combat variants. Obsolescence is not a smart balancing ideology. Expansion and balance iteration are not mutually exclusive. This is another crap premise that another crap argument is being built on.
What is wrong with you.
T1 < T2 < T3
working as intended.
|
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:17:00 -
[18] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Tech3's are not fine as they are, and are in fact terribly balanced. When you fit them for combat roles, they outperform the tech2 combat variants. Of course they do. They cost more, require more skills and you lose skills when your ship dies. If they wouldn't outperform HACs no one would use them in that role. |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1800
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:18:00 -
[19] - Quote
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?
Epic Space Cat |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1800
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:20:00 -
[20] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote:Xuixien wrote:Tech3's are not fine as they are, and are in fact terribly balanced. When you fit them for combat roles, they outperform the tech2 combat variants. Of course they do. They cost more, require more skills and you lose skills when your ship dies. If they wouldn't outperform HACs no one would use them in that role.
Cost is not a balancing factor. Never was, never will be. CCP tried that with Supers and look what the result was.
Skill point loss is also irrelevant to balance, although I do feel that is a stupid mechanic.
Last point is the problem with tech3's - the don't specialize enough when it comes to combat role. They outperform HACs, so people use them. If they didn't outperform HACs, people would use HACs. They should perform in a different way from HACs; there should be some disadvantage to using them.
Again, to reiterate; EVE is not balanced around "this ship is better than that ship so fly the better ship" and power creep will not help EVE.
Epic Space Cat |
|
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:21:00 -
[21] - 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? 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. |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1800
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:23:00 -
[22] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote: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? 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.
Incorrect. Tech1 is about versatility, tech2 is about specialization. There are some very few exceptions to this rule, but even then CCP has moved to change that (see: mining barges).
T2 DPS is also not always better than Tech1 DPS.
You have zero grasp on balance, and I'm talking about more than 1 devblog. But then again I've been reading devblogs since I started this game years ago so I can understand if some people aren't as well versed as others. Epic Space Cat |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
145
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited. |
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. Agreed. They haven't worked out how to make configurable ships that are balanced yet. And the whole 'Small command ship' was never needed. People could warp rig T3 cruisers to easily keep up with Inty gangs. They just wouldn't be able to tank like a T3 normally could, but they didn't need to tank like normal if they are keeping up with Frigates. This is just a sop to people crying out rather than using the current tools in inventive ways. And will introduce more problems, not fix problems.
They aren't going to be configurable in the dame way as strategic cruisers. CCP Fozzie stated at the Eve Vegas keynote that tactical destroyers will not have subsystems at all. but rather 3 distinct 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.
|
Raelaem Eudain
Evil Turtles Chelonaphobia
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:30:00 -
[25] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:Raelaem Eudain wrote:ummm.... okay
I think I'd rather have new types of mods then ships tbh
they are just going to be super expensive in price just like any new ship
I don't feel like flying a 200-300mil destroyer.
I'd like to hear from CCP Rise on this They're not going to be that expensive in the long run. As far as modules are concerned the biggest news was definitely the new weapons, that will drop all resists on your ship to zero to balance them out. They'll be more expensive though, since they don't want every highsec gank ship to be fitted with them.
new weapons? I missed the boat on that one, whats the deal with those?
|
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:32:00 -
[26] - Quote
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. 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.
|
Regnag Leppod
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
70
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:33:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited.
Right. CODE is going to gank in T3's. I can just see that happening. Kinda like I can see the sun rising in the west.
Unless CCP hits the Catalyst with a thermo-nuclear nerf bomb, my guess is you're going to be stuck with them. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1522
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote: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? 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. T3 is currently out of whack. Exceedingly better in some areas and worse than T2 in others.
The intention is: T1 is bonuses for a role T2 is even better in that role, but less flexible for others T3 is generalized. Can fill multiple special roles while not exceeding against any particular T2 in that particular role.
How this will apply to destroyers? No idea. We may see an exception to the general rule here since the roles are limited |
Carribean Queen
Vadimus Quarrier Works The Big Dirty
56
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:41:00 -
[29] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited.
A CHODE agent? a CHODE ENFORCER?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN? |
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
265
|
Posted - 2014.10.18 21:44:00 -
[30] - Quote
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.
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. |
|
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. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4042
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 01:08:00 -
[61] - Quote
The best way to think about the ships, is as if they had a built in seige/bastion module (or similar)
Hit a button, get one set of bonuses, hit another, get a different set. (I don't actually know how the UI will handle it. But conceptually, it's about what happens)
Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5861
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 01:11:00 -
[62] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The best way to think about the ships, is as if they had a built in seige/bastion module (or similar)
Hit a button, get one set of bonuses, hit another, get a different set. (I don't actually know how the UI will handle it. But conceptually, it's about what happens)
.... =]I[= |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1601
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 01:27:00 -
[63] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: 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.
No, it looks like CCP wants the sniper mode to be a quick dash mode so to speak. Until we see the numbers we won't see if CCP agrees with you that it should defeat an interceptor solo, or if it's simply a useful tool for a gang to defeat an interceptor. I've got nothing against that sort of role bonuses. But 1v1 if it's defeating Inti's in that mode with no problems, then there could be significant power balance issues. If it's simply acting as part of a gang and getting the initial tackle in that role to pin it while the heavies then get onto the inty, or in a gang of numbers, no problems at all. P.S. You really need to stop trying to label people as carebears any time they disagree with you. It makes your arguments much weaker since you are resorting to attacking the person. |
Nysandra Khashour
Syn Interstellar
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 01:28:00 -
[64] - Quote
How sweet, another do everything ship. With any luck we're only going to have like 5 used ships left in the game when they're done with all t3 classes .
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2380
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 03:27:00 -
[65] - Quote
Some of the people in this thread should read before posting. |
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 05:07:00 -
[66] - Quote
Nysandra Khashour wrote:How sweet, another do everything ship. With any luck we're only going to have like 5 used ships left in the game when they're done with all t3 classes .
Given that there's only 3 modes for a tactical destroyer, rather than the permutations of 5^4 subsystems, I wouldn't exactly call these new ships "do everything".
And yeah, what the guy above me said.... reading FTW. 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.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23163
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 05:08:00 -
[67] - Quote
dude I want a gundam ship so bad President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter | mk.III | Imgur-á | Evening Games Club: the EVE casino concept redefined | |
Serene Repose
1548
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 05:37:00 -
[68] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. No they shouldn't. If we wait for everything to be rebalanced before we get new cool stuff, we're never going to get anything new. This is why the list of wonky crap gets longer and longer...appealing to "oh look! shinies!"
I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man.-á |
Ama Scelesta
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 05:51:00 -
[69] - Quote
Serene Repose wrote:Ama Scelesta wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. No they shouldn't. If we wait for everything to be rebalanced before we get new cool stuff, we're never going to get anything new. This is why the list of wonky crap gets longer and longer...appealing to "oh look! shinies!" No. It's the reason you can't wait before doing new things. New issues and imbalances always crop up even with rebalanced/fixed ships and features. New demands to go over already rebalanced ships. It's an endless cycle. The frustration caused by this leads some people to the delusional conclusion, that if you ignore everything else and just run hard enough, the running in the hamster wheel will finally come to an end. It won't, so putting it as precondition to doing new stuff is an act of idiocy. |
Matcha Mosburger
Manu Fortius Bleak Horizon Alliance.
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 06:28:00 -
[70] - Quote
Ama Scelesta wrote:They can also change their ship bonuses in space on the fly with a cooldown. I guess sort of like subsystem change on demand.
Wait - what? I can fly through space and press a button to activate an ability which buffs a specific aspect of my play and it has a cooldown timer....
Hmmm how long before i have a "ability" bar across the bottom of my screen for all these cool downs, and when are they going to add more, and the bring me 25 wolf pelts quest?
Are they trying to go all WoW on us or is this an attempt to appease my girat transforming japanese robot fetish?
If it's the first one - **** off, do not want. Swapping subsystems in station isnt bad and gives you chance to adjust your fit tot he new bonuses at same time. Just use current system and remove the SP loss.
If it's second one - Me love you long time, please make the Megathron convert to giant gun wielding Gundam. P.s. see number one, I still dont want WoW cool downs. Just give me the changy shapy ships. |
|
Petri Palokarki
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 06:39:00 -
[71] - Quote
How about we split eve in two, and the other server can have only drakes and archons for the old farts to fly?
You don't like when eve gets new ships, then uninstall and give me your stuff. |
Neesa Corrinne
Sanctuary of Shadows
77
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 06:46:00 -
[72] - Quote
The ability to swap between three different modes on the fly. What could possibly go wrong trying to balance these? |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
1220
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 06:55:00 -
[73] - Quote
Neesa Corrinne wrote:The ability to swap between three different modes on the fly. What could possibly go wrong trying to balance these?
Switching to the wrong mode at the wrong time and going boom? You know like clicking jump instead of bridge, or removing yourself out of squad leader role and losing your bonuses and ship. |
Oxide Ammar
173
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 07:00:00 -
[74] - Quote
T3 destroyers will melt burner missions...just a thought. Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing. |
sereneabt
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 07:03:00 -
[75] - Quote
I am more curious to see the price of this ship once it hits the server. I remember when T3 hulls where first introduced. I think no one in their right mindset will by T3 Desi hull for 2 Billion Love me... Hate me...
...as long as you pay me
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 08:18:00 -
[76] - Quote
The fact that these ships will be pre-fit removing having the player think about how to fit the ship has me scratching my head.
|
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1403
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 08:53:00 -
[77] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Some of the people in this thread should read before posting. see...8 shots in 0.5 before concord ;-) You can gank 3 targets now with your lil fleet. TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
328
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 09:02:00 -
[78] - Quote
Not that one, the one before that one that labelled the features of T3 destroyers. |
Erin Crawford
312
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 09:26:00 -
[79] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Some of the people in this thread should read before posting. Hah! Awesome! Looking forward to more new ships!
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1604
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 09:49:00 -
[80] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:The fact that these ships will be pre-fit removing having the player think about how to fit the ship has me scratching my head.
Details on the pre fitting? The only thing I've seen was no subsystems. Removing the horrible combination possibilities that broke T3 Cruisers so badly. Might still be breakable of course. |
|
Plug in Baby
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
237
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 10:04:00 -
[81] - Quote
Carribean Queen wrote: T1 < T2 < T3
Obvious troll is obvious. This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main. |
alenotna
Gravity Mining and Manufacturing Inc Storm of Souls
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 10:10:00 -
[82] - Quote
New ships are good. Anything that keeps the game fresh is very welcome!! |
Alstevar Eastern
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 10:21:00 -
[83] - Quote
Hi all, choose models before CCP take the one you dislike.
Amar models picture
- Adapt the A concept for Gallente
- The D is perfect for Amarr
- Adapt the F for Caldari
Caldari models picture
I think a new topic for what's wrong with all the 12 can be interesting. |
Mag's
the united
18050
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 10:21:00 -
[84] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Some of the people in this thread should read before posting. Thanks for the link.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Mag's
the united
18050
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 10:24:00 -
[85] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The best way to think about the ships, is as if they had a built in seige/bastion module (or similar)
Hit a button, get one set of bonuses, hit another, get a different set. (I don't actually know how the UI will handle it. But conceptually, it's about what happens)
As long as we have tool tips covering all the important parts, we'll be fine.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Kaivar Lancer
Little Rat Company
562
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 10:59:00 -
[86] - Quote
As a pilot that specialises in destroyers / frigates, this sounds sweet. :D |
Elisk Skyforge
Night Raven Task Force Night Raven Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 11:14:00 -
[87] - Quote
They should've been called T2.5 rather than T3 I think.
|
Jandice Ymladris
Aurora Arcology
951
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 11:21:00 -
[88] - Quote
The Tech 3 destroyers look like they'll shake up things in smaller engagements. It also seems CCP is going for a new route for tech 3 ships? Transformation central instead of subsystem usage?
Still from all the info released on the Vegas stream about the tech 3 destroyers, there's still plenty of questions left, like slot layout, specific faction bonuses etc.
The result of the YC116 Sleeper data research race! A summary of the ancient civilizations of New Eden |
Remiel Pollard
Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds
5777
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 11:27:00 -
[89] - Quote
I only have one word for T3 destroyers.
Sploosh. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104 |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1845
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 12:20:00 -
[90] - Quote
Mister Tuggles wrote: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.
I'm not going to repeat myself by pointing out over and over that cost is not a balancing factor, so I'm just going to start hiding the posts from people who say that.
Epic Space Cat |
|
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1845
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 12:22:00 -
[91] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The best way to think about the ships, is as if they had a built in seige/bastion module (or similar)
Hit a button, get one set of bonuses, hit another, get a different set. (I don't actually know how the UI will handle it. But conceptually, it's about what happens)
How about an actual module, which produces the button, and this module only creates 1 of the three proposed changes, and you can only fit one, and it only operates for X amount of time with Y amount of cooldown.
You know, in line with everything else in EVE. Epic Space Cat |
Jandice Ymladris
Aurora Arcology
955
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 12:55:00 -
[92] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:The best way to think about the ships, is as if they had a built in seige/bastion module (or similar)
Hit a button, get one set of bonuses, hit another, get a different set. (I don't actually know how the UI will handle it. But conceptually, it's about what happens)
How about an actual module, which produces the button, and this module only creates 1 of the three proposed changes, and you can only fit one, and it only operates for X amount of time with Y amount of cooldown. You know, in line with everything else in EVE.
Your module proposal sounds alot like a subsystem implementation, just with 1 slot instead of 3. I do think CCP doesn't really know how to balance the tech 3 cruisers properly without them losing their versatility too much. Might be that these tech 3 destroyers not only serve as new content/shipline, but also as a way to collect more data on flexible ship usage in order to get a better idea on how to do the tech 3 cruiser balancing properly. The result of the YC116 Sleeper data research race! A summary of the ancient civilizations of New Eden |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
346
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 13:01:00 -
[93] - Quote
alenotna wrote:New ships are good. Anything that keeps the game fresh is very welcome!!
It will be entertaining for a few hours. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2705
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 13:39:00 -
[94] - Quote
This is probably a test so that they can have an easier time balancing the T3s we have now. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133 |
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1851
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 14:17:00 -
[95] - Quote
Jandice Ymladris wrote:Xuixien wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:The best way to think about the ships, is as if they had a built in seige/bastion module (or similar)
Hit a button, get one set of bonuses, hit another, get a different set. (I don't actually know how the UI will handle it. But conceptually, it's about what happens)
How about an actual module, which produces the button, and this module only creates 1 of the three proposed changes, and you can only fit one, and it only operates for X amount of time with Y amount of cooldown. You know, in line with everything else in EVE. Your module proposal sounds alot like a subsystem implementation, just with 1 slot instead of 3. I do think CCP doesn't really know how to balance the tech 3 cruisers properly without them losing their versatility too much. Might be that these tech 3 destroyers not only serve as new content/shipline, but also as a way to collect more data on flexible ship usage in order to get a better idea on how to do the tech 3 cruiser balancing properly.
No it's more inline with "bastion/seige/triage" or w/e. Epic Space Cat |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
1972
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 15:03:00 -
[96] - Quote
I'm really looking forward to this.
Switchable bonuses are a real new gameplay element to experiment and have fun with.
Fozzie also mentioned a 'short cooldown'. Depending on the duration, I'd assume you'll be able to switch just once during a short skirmish. For example, start a fight in kiting mode (speed, agility), then switch to either sniping mode to engage from afar or defensive mode for brawling.
Also, there apparently is no 'offensive mode' with extra damage, which sounds good.
Just queued Amarr Destroyer V... Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter! |
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 15:14:00 -
[97] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap.
You, and all your previous arguements are worthless. You think that everything needs rebalanced probably because you are a horrible player. You're the same kinda person that thinks the cure to null stagnation is all this SOV/cap ship rebalancing.
Players are adaptive and will always go with what works the best, this doesn't mean every module every ship needs to be changed every two months because a new favorite tactic is adopted. THAT IS HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO WORK. The fact that certain ship aren't as favorable is fine, its called natural selection. Suck it up and train for something else or get inventive and make those under utilized hulls work.
Point 2: new content is always good, because that is, in fact, what prevents this game and others from stagnation. It also is the cure to perferred ships type/fits. If something better is introduced then people will gravitate towards it. Problem solved.
Quit being a whiner and take your rebalancing talk to your psych. |
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 15:54:00 -
[98] - Quote
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. You, and all your previous arguements are worthless. You think that everything needs rebalanced probably because you are a horrible player. You're the same kinda person that thinks the cure to null stagnation is all this SOV/cap ship rebalancing. Players are adaptive and will always go with what works the best, this doesn't mean every module every ship needs to be changed every two months because a new favorite tactic is adopted. THAT IS HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO WORK. The fact that certain ship aren't as favorable is fine, its called natural selection. Suck it up and train for something else or get inventive and make those under utilized hulls work. Point 2: new content is always good, because that is, in fact, what prevents this game and others from stagnation. It also is the cure to perferred ships type/fits. If something better is introduced then people will gravitate towards it. Problem solved. Quit being a whiner and take your rebalancing talk to your psych.
The devs are constantly looking at balance. This game has more effort into balancing the existing mechanics than any other game. One of the selling points about the new dev cycle is they can now balance and make the changes needed more quickly.
The fact that you see new shinies as more important than balance makes everything you have to say irrelevant.
New content.....you are still flying around in a ship doing what you were doing before. The content stays the same. Now instead of having to buy multiple ships for specific roles, now you will just buy one. |
Jarod Garamonde
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
2080
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 16:07:00 -
[99] - Quote
Stop complaining. This is gonna be awesome. That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right... |
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
313
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 16:09:00 -
[100] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:T3 destroyers will melt burner missions...just a thought.
Because of their hidden fourth mode: Transforming into a frigate.
Wait no there is no such mode, your thought is stupid. |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8613
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 16:10:00 -
[101] - Quote
I honestly can't wait for these things, I've always loved destroyers and ever since they Added more Battlecruisers (the other forgotten ship class lol) I've been waiting for somehting like this. |
Celise Katelo
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 16:45:00 -
[102] - Quote
Sounds interesting, Destroyer with some sexy abilities
Does a "wiggle" & "Teke Teke" What more could you ask for?
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
240
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 17:12:00 -
[103] - Quote
I personally think your argument [the one about only having balance only] is garbage and not well thought out.
I believe there is room for T3 destroyers and rebalance of existing tech 3's too. You are just a negative nancy. Lot of assumptions in this thread. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8616
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:20:00 -
[104] - Quote
Terranid Meester wrote:I personally think your argument [the one about only having balance only] is garbage and not well thought out. I believe there is room for T3 destroyers and rebalance of existing tech 3's too. You are just a negative nancy. Lot of assumptions in this thread.
I understand where people are coming from, for YEARS we had CCP adding new stuff while letting existing stuff languish.
But I don't think that applies anymore. CCP has been doign wonderful things the last few years fixing things and rebalancing things (teircide). Truthfully, even for a super conservative type like myself (who prefers the core game be fixed rather than adding new nice looking 'fluff'), these new Tactical Destroyers are good addition, and right on time for a game that does from time to time need something truly 'new'.
If they work out, maybe CCP will get rid of the clunky current Tech 3 cruiser mechanics (which are supposed to be 'versitile' but that aren't because of rigs). These Tac Dessies sound like what Tech3s should have been in the 1st place. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5926
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:41:00 -
[105] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Any link for info on this? Mags, and anyone else that missed the EVE Vegas Keynote, I am sectioning out the various presentations on my YouTube site for the sake of convenience.
EVE Online Playlist
The section where Fozzie discusses the new T3 Tactical Destroyers (and shows concept art) is in the Keynote located here:
EVE Vegas Keynote If you like EVE Online and War Thunder content stop by my YouTube channel.-á
Ranger 1 Presents https://www.youtube.com/user/Ranger1Presents |
Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:49:00 -
[106] - Quote
Owen Levanth wrote: Because of their hidden fourth mode: Transforming into a frigate.
This made me LOL so hard... 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.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5895
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 18:53:00 -
[107] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Mag's wrote:Any link for info on this? Mags, and anyone else that missed the EVE Vegas Keynote, I am sectioning out the various presentations on my YouTube site for the sake of convenience. EVE Online PlaylistThe section where Fozzie discusses the new T3 Tactical Destroyers (and shows concept art) is in the Keynote located here: EVE Vegas Keynote Thank you ranger. "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."-á -á=]I[= |
Opertone
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 19:10:00 -
[108] - Quote
there is something called cost effectiveness and then man hours required to obtain certain level of quality.
To get a Cruiser fitted for action, you may need 30 mill isk. You can make 30 mill within 3 hours quite comfortably. You can replace the cruiser every 3 hours.
To get a HAC, you may need 300 mill. Aprox. 30 hours, or a week of 5 hour isk making session. You need a whole week to get a new one.
You may need upwards of 1 bill isk to properly fit a tech 3 cruiser. Sleeper tech ship requires that you harvest isk 90 hours, up to 3-4 weeks, 5 hours a day.
Then tech 3 performs marginally better than tech 1, but costs 30 times as much.
It is also extremely easy to loose a tech 3 ship in a PvP situation. TECH 3 becomes super risky, expensive toy, not a tool.
STOP complaining. Tech 3 is balanced. And do not bot for ISK. Then it will be alright. Also getting cheap ISK from selling PLEXes does not make game unbalanced for everyone. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1281
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 19:46:00 -
[109] - Quote
I think they might be interesting but without any similarities to current T3 ships I don't understand why CCP gave them the T3 tag. Perhaps just to shut up those that kept asking for other T3's?
The only stretch you could make is they are made from "Sleeper technology" with some sort of RP lore argument but I could do the same with Marauders or any other ship I guess. Lore is just something someone writes. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1610
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 21:54:00 -
[110] - Quote
IIshira wrote:I think they might be interesting but without any similarities to current T3 ships I don't understand why CCP gave them the T3 tag. Perhaps just to shut up those that kept asking for other T3's?
The only stretch you could make is they are made from "Sleeper technology" with some sort of RP lore argument but I could do the same with Marauders or any other ship I guess. Lore is just something someone writes. Or possibly as others have theorised, this is the test bed for how to fix the balance of T3 cruisers. Personally I'd have much rather they balanced T3 Cruisers first, which are so obviously out of balance it's not funny. But if they needed to test bed it first, Destroyers are a good place as there are only Interdictors for T2 Destroyers, so T3 destroyers aren't stepping on many toes at all. |
|
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
197
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 22:18:00 -
[111] - Quote
Woah woah woah. Now that's interesting! So my favourite ship class is going to get T3 variants, reconfigurable on the way? Holy mother of f*****g fruit baskets!!
I understand those who say the current T3 should be rebalanced before, but I think these destroyers could be a great opportunity for CCP to test rebalances and new stuff for the current T3. Let's give them this opportunity!
Ranger 1 wrote:Mag's wrote:Any link for info on this? Mags, and anyone else that missed the EVE Vegas Keynote, I am sectioning out the various presentations on my YouTube site for the sake of convenience. EVE Vegas PlaylistThe section where Fozzie discusses the new T3 Tactical Destroyers (and shows concept art) is in the Keynote located here: EVE Vegas Keynote
Thankie! |
Valkin Mordirc
307
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 03:21:00 -
[112] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Mag's wrote:Any link for info on this? Mags, and anyone else that missed the EVE Vegas Keynote, I am sectioning out the various presentations on my YouTube site for the sake of convenience. EVE Vegas PlaylistThe section where Fozzie discusses the new T3 Tactical Destroyers (and shows concept art) is in the Keynote located here: EVE Vegas Keynote
THANKIES DOOOOD! =D #DeleteTheWeak |
Luwc
Brodozers Inc.
248
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 06:30:00 -
[113] - Quote
As a FW scrub I like them.
pls make them fit into smalls so I can play with all those totally OP worms and garmurs :p http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif |
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
275
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 07:12:00 -
[114] - Quote
Opertone wrote:there is something called cost effectiveness and then man hours required to obtain certain level of quality.
To get a Cruiser fitted for action, you may need 30 mill isk. You can make 30 mill within 3 hours quite comfortably. You can replace the cruiser every 3 hours.
To get a HAC, you may need 300 mill. Aprox. 30 hours, or a week of 5 hour isk making session. You need a whole week to get a new one.
You may need upwards of 1 bill isk to properly fit a tech 3 cruiser. Sleeper tech ship requires that you harvest isk 90 hours, up to 3-4 weeks, 5 hours a day.
Then tech 3 performs marginally better than tech 1, but costs 30 times as much.
It is also extremely easy to loose a tech 3 ship in a PvP situation. TECH 3 becomes super risky, expensive toy, not a tool.
STOP complaining. Tech 3 is balanced. And do not bot for ISK. Then it will be alright. Also getting cheap ISK from selling PLEXes does not make game unbalanced for everyone. Where are you buying these things? Yes, a T1 fitted right is 20-40mil, but a HAC is 170-230mil after fitting, and a T3 work horse is only 400mil for most setups. I can say from living in low sec income I can replace a cruiser in half an hour, a HAC in a few hours, and a T3 in a few days of pretty relaxed play.
Even pretending that cost is a balance factor (and to a very small degree it is), balancing the game for 10mil an hour (1/3 a lax marauder) is a bad idea. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
5570
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 07:46:00 -
[115] - Quote
And I'll bet the Tech 3 destroyers will also be made of glass. Bring back DEEEEP Space! |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1459
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 09:25:00 -
[116] - Quote
They will fit through the new small wormholes. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Kousaka Otsu Shigure
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 09:46:00 -
[117] - Quote
Very nice, considering that the destroyer line had only 2 ships from back then, now we're looking at 4 hulls :)
Would like to see new T1 destroyers like, a ROF bonused one, a T2 blackops dessy, or a AOE ping destroyer-only module that will make bombers and whatnot appear in your scan or overview for a moment. |
Mag's
the united
18068
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 13:08:00 -
[118] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Mag's wrote:Any link for info on this? Mags, and anyone else that missed the EVE Vegas Keynote, I am sectioning out the various presentations on my YouTube site for the sake of convenience. EVE Vegas PlaylistThe section where Fozzie discusses the new T3 Tactical Destroyers (and shows concept art) is in the Keynote located here: EVE Vegas Keynote Thanks Ranger. Top man.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Solecist Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
11094
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 13:47:00 -
[119] - Quote
They should name the ship Dia ............ I am Sol. I cook my bacon naked, with sparkles of cinnamon on my skin. You are my content, my shiny content - you make me haaappy, when skies are greeeeyyy - you'll never know dear, how much I loooooove you - don't you take my content away! |
Tahm Cruise
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 13:54:00 -
[120] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:They should name the ship Dia ............
You should change your name to hure. |
|
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
98
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:00:00 -
[121] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Mag's wrote:Any link for info on this? Mags, and anyone else that missed the EVE Vegas Keynote, I am sectioning out the various presentations on my YouTube site for the sake of convenience. EVE Vegas PlaylistThe section where Fozzie discusses the new T3 Tactical Destroyers (and shows concept art) is in the Keynote located here: EVE Vegas Keynote
You are a scholar and a gentleman sir. o7 A bitter vet trying to start anew. |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
250
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:06:00 -
[122] - Quote
yesterday during DJ Accy's show on EVE Radio in the evening I talked to him and someone about the new things coming up. one thing we all agreed upon is the intrigue as to the method of switching modes with the new destroyers; will it be one button serving as a switch, or will we see a new type of module that follows the Marauders' Bastion Module?
Either way I cannot wait to play with these new destroyers.
on a side note: Tug looks like a brand new type of these Israeli-developed spqce potatoes and its name sounds like a fat american kid came up with it, so it should be reviewed and replaced by a name more suitable for the game of wits that is EVE Online.
I suggest the name "Queen Bee". A.K.A Hodor Von Grootenberg |
Solecist Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
11095
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:09:00 -
[123] - Quote
Tahm Cruise wrote:Solecist Project wrote:They should name the ship Dia ............ You should change your name to hure. Reported for personal insult. :)
Calling me a ***** is such a smart thing to do. You must be blessed with wisdom and intelligence... as your mails clearly have shown. :) I am Sol. I cook my bacon naked, with sparkles of cinnamon on my skin. You are my content, my shiny content - you make me haaappy, when skies are greeeeyyy - you'll never know dear, how much I loooooove you - don't you take my content away! |
Mag's
the united
18074
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:12:00 -
[124] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:Tahm Cruise wrote:Solecist Project wrote:They should name the ship Dia ............ You should change your name to hure. Reported for personal insult. :) Does he mean Ben Hur?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Yourmoney Mywallet
Jita Institute of Applied Monetary Manipulation
136
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:16:00 -
[125] - Quote
Tahm Cruise wrote:Solecist Project wrote:They should name the ship Dia ............ You should change your name to hure. I read this with the voice of a nine-year old boy who's just been taught this new word by his older brother in middle school and is now running around calling everyone he sees Hure when he doesn't really understand what he's talking about.
Also, dafuq. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10118
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:16:00 -
[126] - Quote
It's actually a League of Legends insult, from a while back. He's calling you a Brazilian. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
Mag's
the united
18075
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:20:00 -
[127] - Quote
Call me old, but I didn't see and have never seen it used.
I have though, seen that film many times.
Edit: Googled it, all clear now. What a muppet.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Solecist Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
11096
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:21:00 -
[128] - Quote
Or he's calling me a *****, because hure is german for *****.
But hey, stick to your weird belief. You might not have read all the mails he sent me and ramona, insulting us to a level beyond sanity.
Sqdly the ISD cleared them from the thread, but I cqn dig them out and forward them to whoever wants to read how sick he is. I am Sol. I cook my bacon naked, with sparkles of cinnamon on my skin. You are my content, my shiny content - you make me haaappy, when skies are greeeeyyy - you'll never know dear, how much I loooooove you - don't you take my content away! |
Mag's
the united
18075
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:24:00 -
[129] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:Or he's calling me a *****, because hure is german for *****.
But hey, stick to your weird belief. You might not have read all the mails he sent me and ramona, insulting us to a level beyond sanity.
Sqdly the ISD cleared them from the thread, but I cqn dig them out and forward them to whoever wants to read how sick he is. Yea that's what I assumed after the Google. Poor taste tbh.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10119
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:25:00 -
[130] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:Or he's calling me a *****, because hure is german for *****.
But hey, stick to your weird belief. You might not have read all the mails he sent me and ramona, insulting us to a level beyond sanity.
Sqdly the ISD cleared them from the thread, but I cqn dig them out and forward them to whoever wants to read how sick he is.
Well, ain't been back to the old country for a while. Didn't know that was how it was spelled.
Now, if he's sending emails with insults, petition it, and best of luck. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
|
Solecist Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
11097
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:28:00 -
[131] - Quote
lol he did. a lot. and i would petition but i got two open for a month already....
thanks. :) I am Sol. I cook my bacon naked, with sparkles of cinnamon on my skin. You are my content, my shiny content - you make me haaappy, when skies are greeeeyyy - you'll never know dear, how much I loooooove you - don't you take my content away! |
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
724
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:32:00 -
[132] - Quote
Solecist Project wrote:lol he did. a lot. and i would petition but i got two open for a month already....
thanks. :)
you can always edit and append those right? |
Solecist Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
11098
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:47:00 -
[133] - Quote
They're unrelated matters though. Tbh I am beginning to feel like they are just ignoring them on purpose. :/
ANYHOW ... back on topic!
Let me derail threads when *I* want to! *pouts*
;) I am Sol. I cook my bacon naked, with sparkles of cinnamon on my skin. You are my content, my shiny content - you make me haaappy, when skies are greeeeyyy - you'll never know dear, how much I loooooove you - don't you take my content away! |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10119
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:53:00 -
[134] - Quote
So, after some pondering on the subject, I believe that the most vital piece of information regarding T3 destroyers is still missing.
The cooldown of their "mode change" mechanic.
I suspect that the respective racial skill to fly these things will reduce this cooldown(if any), but some more concrete numbers would be really helpful. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
872
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 14:53:00 -
[135] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Incorrect. Tech1 is about versatility, tech2 is about specialization. I have one question for you. In what way is, for example, a Caracal more "versatile" than a Cerberus? And cost and skills are irrelevant, as you yourself said:
Xuixien wrote:Cost is not a balancing factor... Skill point loss is also irrelevant to balance.
A Cerberus literally outperforms a Caracal in all aspects (DPS, speed, tank, drone capacity, fitting, storage, etc). I haven't checked the stats for the other T2's. But I'm inclined to believe that they pretty much outperform their T1 counterparts in most if not all characteristics.
How do you come to the conclusion that T1 is in fact more versatile than T2 (besides CCP saying they are)?
Successfully doinitwrongGäó since 2006.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1721
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 15:24:00 -
[136] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:I haven't checked the stats for the other T2's. But I'm inclined to believe that they pretty much outperform their T1 counterparts in most if not all characteristics. The Eagle outperforms the Moa, the Zealot outperforms the Omen, the Deimos and Ishtar outperform the Thorax and Vexor, the Muninn and Vagabond outperform the rupture and Stabber.
The only exception is the Sacrilege and that's because it uses a different weapon system to its T1 variant so isn't directly comparable. HACs are all straight upgrades on their T1 variants with extra damage projection bonuses and their role bonus.
T2 isn't a sideways move from T1 it's diagonal, they ships get flat out better, but also gain additional specialist capability. |
Adira Nictor
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
152
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 15:30:00 -
[137] - Quote
I am looking forward to seeing what these T3 destroyers end up being, it will be a lot of fun to see how players use and abuse them, and the creative ways we will break them that CCP didn't expect. |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
99
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 15:30:00 -
[138] - Quote
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame wrote: on a side note: Tug looks like a brand new type of these Israeli-developed spqce potatoes and its name sounds like a fat american kid came up with it, so it should be reviewed and replaced by a name more suitable for the game of wits that is EVE Online.
I believe they said the Tug name was just a codename for now. I expect it will get a more lore-centric name closer to release.
Personally, I'm aiming for Loot Pi+¦ata, unless they actually give it a tank. A bitter vet trying to start anew. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
940
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 16:08:00 -
[139] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame wrote: on a side note: Tug looks like a brand new type of these Israeli-developed spqce potatoes and its name sounds like a fat american kid came up with it, so it should be reviewed and replaced by a name more suitable for the game of wits that is EVE Online.
I believe they said the Tug name was just a codename for now. I expect it will get a more lore-centric name closer to release. Personally, I'm aiming for Loot Pi+¦ata, unless they actually give it a tank. Totally Unintended Gankfood (TUG) |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1331
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 16:29:00 -
[140] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame wrote: on a side note: Tug looks like a brand new type of these Israeli-developed spqce potatoes and its name sounds like a fat american kid came up with it, so it should be reviewed and replaced by a name more suitable for the game of wits that is EVE Online.
I believe they said the Tug name was just a codename for now. I expect it will get a more lore-centric name closer to release. Personally, I'm aiming for Loot Pi+¦ata, unless they actually give it a tank. Totally "Unintended" Gankfood (TUG)
More to the point that way imo. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4060
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 17:16:00 -
[141] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Xuixien wrote:Incorrect. Tech1 is about versatility, tech2 is about specialization. I have one question for you. In what way is, for example, a Caracal more "versatile" than a Cerberus? And cost and skills are irrelevant, as you yourself said: Xuixien wrote:Cost is not a balancing factor... Skill point loss is also irrelevant to balance. A Cerberus literally outperforms a Caracal in all aspects (DPS, speed, tank, drone capacity, fitting, storage, etc). I haven't checked the stats for the other T2's. But I'm inclined to believe that they pretty much outperform their T1 counterparts in most if not all characteristics. How do you come to the conclusion that T1 is in fact more versatile than T2 (besides CCP saying they are)?
Skill for T1: lots of different types of ships. Skill for T2: specifc ship type (with racial variants) Skill for T3: variety of options, within a single ship Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Hengle Teron
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
2592
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 17:29:00 -
[142] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Xuixien wrote:Incorrect. Tech1 is about versatility, tech2 is about specialization. I have one question for you. In what way is, for example, a Caracal more "versatile" than a Cerberus? And cost and skills are irrelevant, as you yourself said: Xuixien wrote:Cost is not a balancing factor... Skill point loss is also irrelevant to balance. A Cerberus literally outperforms a Caracal in all aspects (DPS, speed, tank, drone capacity, fitting, storage, etc). I haven't checked the stats for the other T2's. But I'm inclined to believe that they pretty much outperform their T1 counterparts in most if not all characteristics. How do you come to the conclusion that T1 is in fact more versatile than T2 (besides CCP saying they are)? Skill for T1: lots of different types of ships. Skill for T2: specifc ship type (with racial variants) Skill for T3: variety of options, within a single ship Except every T1 ship variant has its improved T2 version |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4061
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 17:38:00 -
[143] - Quote
Hengle Teron wrote: Except every T1 ship variant has its improved T2 version
1 skill unlocks a bunch of different roles. 1 skill unlocks a single improved role. 1 skill unlocks a ship with a number of roles. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5928
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 17:42:00 -
[144] - Quote
Hengle Teron wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:
Skill for T1: lots of different types of ships. Skill for T2: specifc ship type (with racial variants) Skill for T3: variety of options, within a single ship
Except every T1 ship variant has its improved T2 version yeah, at its specific role. "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."-á -á=]I[= |
Hengle Teron
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
2592
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 17:49:00 -
[145] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Hengle Teron wrote: Except every T1 ship variant has its improved T2 version
1 skill unlocks a bunch of different roles. 1 skill unlocks a single improved role. 1 skill unlocks a ship with a number of roles. oh that's how you meant it...
well technically T3 is 6 skills :) |
somedudeinaship
Republic University Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 19:03:00 -
[146] - Quote
I am reading this thread and wishing I had popcorn to go with my Dr Pepper 10.
As per topic, if I had a memory lapse and already posted (and clearly just being lazy), I do like this idea of a new tech III ship without skill loss that can change on the fly.
Go go gadget sniper rifle! |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
872
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 19:05:00 -
[147] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Hengle Teron wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:
Skill for T1: lots of different types of ships. Skill for T2: specifc ship type (with racial variants) Skill for T3: variety of options, within a single ship
Except every T1 ship variant has its improved T2 version yeah, at its specific role. No. This is not true. The T2 variant, such as a Cerberus can do EVERY single role better than its counterpart, the Caracal. And it has specializations, yes. But the point is it does EVERYTHING better.
So I'm playing devil's advocate here. Why couldn't a T3 be better than the T2 at mostly everything?
Successfully doinitwrongGäó since 2006.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
872
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 19:05:30 -
[148] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Hengle Teron wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:
Skill for T1: lots of different types of ships. Skill for T2: specifc ship type (with racial variants) Skill for T3: variety of options, within a single ship
Except every T1 ship variant has its improved T2 version yeah, at its specific role. No. This is not true. The T2 variant, such as a Cerberus can do EVERY single role equal to or better than its counterpart, the Caracal. And it has specializations, yes. But the point is it does EVERYTHING (equal or) better.
So I'm playing devil's advocate here. Why couldn't a T3 be generally better when compared to the racial T2? After all, the T2 HAC already obsoletes its T1 variant. As far as I can tell, skills and cost are the only advantages of a T1 over T2, which are traditionally considered irrelevant when balancing.
Successfully doinitwrongGäó since 2006.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1341
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 21:04:03 -
[149] - Quote
I'm worried about the caldari model...
Its not a t3 Caldari, its a t3 Mordu's Legion. And I don't know about you, but I absolutely hate the Mordu's design. Not even mentionning the plastic-like blue paint.
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
ISD Cyberdyne
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1597
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 23:01:01 -
[150] - Quote
Personal Attack and disrespectful comments removed. Please adhere to the forum rules. Thanks!
Quote:2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
[b]ISD Cyberdyne
Lieutenant Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department[/b]
|
|
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
1055
|
Posted - 2014.10.20 23:27:51 -
[151] - Quote
New ships exploring the same old content...yay?
How about a new career and new ships to support that career? Wouldn't that be something!
And then make that new career very noob familiar and friendly to attract new players instead of creating a ship with a one year skill track to fully master....wow. Wouldn't that be something.
Another expansion...another plethora of wasted opportunity.
This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5941
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:04:10 -
[152] - Quote
Nexus Day wrote:New ships exploring the same old content...yay?
How about a new career and new ships to support that career? Wouldn't that be something!
And then make that new career very noob familiar and friendly to attract new players instead of creating a ship with a one year skill track to fully master....wow. Wouldn't that be something.
Another expansion...another plethora of wasted opportunity. Well, I read something the other day about some steps being taken up spice up exploration content, however I fully agree that there is room for more noob friendly occupations. There certainly is a lot of room for it.
If you like EVE Online and War Thunder content stop by my YouTube channel.-á
Ranger 1 Presents
https://www.youtube.com/user/Ranger1Presents
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10158
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:13:09 -
[153] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Nexus Day wrote:New ships exploring the same old content...yay?
How about a new career and new ships to support that career? Wouldn't that be something!
And then make that new career very noob familiar and friendly to attract new players instead of creating a ship with a one year skill track to fully master....wow. Wouldn't that be something.
Another expansion...another plethora of wasted opportunity. Well, I read something the other day about some steps being taken up spice up exploration content, however I fully agree that there is room for more noob friendly occupations. There certainly is a lot of room for it.
Oh Lord please no. EVERY time they touch exploration it gets worse than it was before. If they revisit it again there won't be anything left.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Hengle Teron
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
2594
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:16:04 -
[154] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Nexus Day wrote:New ships exploring the same old content...yay?
How about a new career and new ships to support that career? Wouldn't that be something!
And then make that new career very noob familiar and friendly to attract new players instead of creating a ship with a one year skill track to fully master....wow. Wouldn't that be something.
Another expansion...another plethora of wasted opportunity. Well, I read something the other day about some steps being taken up spice up exploration content, however I fully agree that there is room for more noob friendly occupations. There certainly is a lot of room for it. Oh Lord please no. EVERY time they touch exploration it gets worse than it was before. If they revisit it again there won't be anything left. lol, so true |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1153
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:34:04 -
[155] - Quote
Hengle Teron wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Oh Lord please no. EVERY time they touch exploration it gets worse than it was before. If they revisit it again there won't be anything left.
lol, so true
yah for some odd unfathomable reason ...
1. "Here is an awesome elite specialized career where you get to sneak around discovering awesome really rare stuff that makes you huge bucket loads of ISK"
PLUS
2. " here is a great noob career that is really easy to learn and skill up for and absolutely anyone and everyone can do it really easily"
has not worked out as a good combo for them. You would think those two things would just go together huh. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10158
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 01:39:11 -
[156] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote: yah for some odd unfathomable reason ...
1. "Here is an awesome elite specialized career where you get to sneak around discovering awesome really rare stuff that makes you huge buckets of ISK"
PLUS
2. " here is a great noob career that is really easy to learn and skill up for and absolutely anyone and everyone can do it really easily"
has not worked out as a good combo for them. You would think those two things would just go together huh.
"Can't make up their minds" is pretty much CCP's defining problem. Most of the problems in the game are a direct result of them attempting to have their cake and eat it too, caught between two fundamentally incompatible things and refusing to take a stand either way.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Garandras
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
242
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 02:00:43 -
[157] - Quote
I cannot believe the amount of tears this thread has made..
new ships YAY \o/
That is all |
Delban Crendalion
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 03:52:09 -
[158] - Quote
Big props to Ranger 1 for posting the vids! Man I need to get back to Vegas sometime...
Tech 3 Dessies... one of my favorite hulls gets an upgrade, hurray Beer!
TUG... useful for folks like me that tend to move around a lot, but would have been just as happy with a slight increase to the Orca SMB to give the same effect. Yeah yeah different roles for the Orca etc etc. Will be interesting to see the actual stats on the thing.
Exploration. Reserving judgment till I see it. Not a fan of the way it is now so any improvement on that gets a smile from me.
I like the new timeline for rolling out updates as well, as long as it turns out to be a Quality over Quantity thing. Been through the rush to market thing with other MMO's and overall it hurt far more than it helped, at least from my perspective.
Looking forward to seeing more as release dates get closer!
|
Tethys Luxor
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 09:56:30 -
[159] - Quote
It's good to see new usages of the T3 industrial chain. |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
482
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 14:23:23 -
[160] - Quote
There is no room at the low-end for any ships of power without stepping on another class of ships already in use.
Even when the "tier 3" battlecruisers were introduced, they stomped hard on the use of Battleships for many purposes those ships had previously been used for.
So I'm just wondering what ships this will make obsolete because some will go that route with any type of addition here. |
|
Kamahl Daikun
Hounds of War. Hashashin Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 16:14:07 -
[161] - Quote
Mocam wrote:There is no room at the low-end for any ships of power without stepping on another class of ships already in use.
Even when the "tier 3" battlecruisers were introduced, they stomped hard on the use of Battleships for many purposes those ships had previously been used for.
So I'm just wondering what ships this will make obsolete because some will go that route with any type of addition here.
Kinda sucks but I agree with this. As I understand, Dessies are supposed to be the gap between Frigs and Cruisers. What are T3 Dessies going to do, exactly?
The transformation option sounds like a swiss army knife. But what exactly is it useful for? If it has the speed and DPS of a Frig or Cruiser then it'll probably render either one irrelevant once prices stabilize. If it can't compare to the speed, dps, or tank of either then why bother?
Sounds like a bad solution to Explorer's whining about needing 2 ships. |
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 18:53:48 -
[162] - Quote
Kamahl Daikun wrote: Kinda sucks but I agree with this. As I understand, Dessies are supposed to be the gap between Frigs and Cruisers. What are T3 Dessies going to do, exactly?
The transformation option sounds like a swiss army knife. But what exactly is it useful for? If it has the speed and DPS of a Frig or Cruiser then it'll probably render either one irrelevant once prices stabilize. If it can't compare to the speed, dps, or tank of either then why bother?
Sounds like a bad solution to Explorer's whining about needing 2 ships.
Speed of a Frig with the tank and dps of a Cruiser, obviously. And if someone ships against you with planning and forethought, you can hit the Reship In Space button to counter their counter without all that "planning" or "logistics of reshipping" hassle.
|
Marcia en Welle
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 21:10:02 -
[163] - Quote
Only 3 operating modes, that is stupid... Dumbed down for the masses as usual. I hope they don't try and rebalance T3s and dumb down the current 1024 possible subsystem configurations to just 3. A proper T3 destroyer would have been much better, although I'm interested to see the details. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1621
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 21:56:36 -
[164] - Quote
Marcia en Welle wrote:Only 3 operating modes, that is stupid... Dumbed down for the masses as usual. I hope they don't try and rebalance T3s and dumb down the current 1024 possible subsystem configurations to just 3. A proper T3 destroyer would have been much better, although I'm interested to see the details. So how many of those 1024 combinations actually see any regular use? I'm betting 3 or 4 actually account for 99% of the use. And are the most broken ships in existence as a result. If they take this route for T3's they will need a higher number of different configurations, but 6 or 7 will cover everything T3 Cruisers can do currently without the minmaxing the current system allows which is what has created horribly OP ships. |
Marcia en Welle
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
83
|
Posted - 2014.10.21 22:11:53 -
[165] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Marcia en Welle wrote:Only 3 operating modes, that is stupid... Dumbed down for the masses as usual. I hope they don't try and rebalance T3s and dumb down the current 1024 possible subsystem configurations to just 3. A proper T3 destroyer would have been much better, although I'm interested to see the details. So how many of those 1024 combinations actually see any regular use? I'm betting 3 or 4 actually account for 99% of the use. And are the most broken ships in existence as a result. If they take this route for T3's they will need a higher number of different configurations, but 6 or 7 will cover everything T3 Cruisers can do currently without the minmaxing the current system allows which is what has created horribly OP ships. After watching the video, It seems there is a differentiation between "tactical" and "strategic" which is good, because I wouldn't want to see our beloved T3 cruisers dumbed down horribly as you suggest to only 6 or 7 combinations decided by Fozzie. Missed opportunity though with the destroyers, although these new ships will still be cool, but nothing on what a proper strategic destroyer could have been if they had gone with the subsystems. |
Freako X
Doom Inc
149
|
Posted - 2014.10.25 00:15:26 -
[166] - Quote
I'm not gonna lie ....
I was hoping for one of the T3 modes to be for small ship fleet boosts.
Of course, that would include on-grid buffing only ....
But that would be too much I guess. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1834
|
Posted - 2014.10.25 08:17:01 -
[167] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap.
Nope. You are shortsighted. THey need to add these new t3 to create more demand for wormhole stuff. OR wormhole communities will die. Why? Because they will nerf T3 to the GROUND and their demand will drop drastically.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1836
|
Posted - 2014.10.25 08:17:59 -
[168] - Quote
Freako X wrote:I'm not gonna lie ....
I was hoping for one of the T3 modes to be for small ship fleet boosts.
Of course, that would include on-grid buffing only ....
But that would be too much I guess.
They already cannot makepeopel use CS for that role... of all the dozens fo ships that can use luinks, only t3 are used. No need for more. Ont he contrary... several shoudl lose and leave that work for CS.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
BrundleMeth
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
288
|
Posted - 2014.10.25 11:46:12 -
[169] - Quote
Xuixien wrote: Your argument is garbage. Moving on.
Your constant whining is garbage.
T3's are fine the way they are. Don't care what you think...
Moving on...
|
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1868
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 02:01:13 -
[170] - Quote
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. You, and all your previous arguements are worthless. You think that everything needs rebalanced probably because you are a horrible player. You're the same kinda person that thinks the cure to null stagnation is all this SOV/cap ship rebalancing. Players are adaptive and will always go with what works the best, this doesn't mean every module every ship needs to be changed every two months because a new favorite tactic is adopted. THAT IS HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO WORK. The fact that certain ship aren't as favorable is fine, its called natural selection. Suck it up and train for something else or get inventive and make those under utilized hulls work. Point 2: new content is always good, because that is, in fact, what prevents this game and others from stagnation. It also is the cure to perferred ships type/fits. If something better is introduced then people will gravitate towards it. Problem solved. Quit being a whiner and take your rebalancing talk to your psych.
3/10.
[u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
|
|
Xuixien
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
1868
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 02:02:56 -
[171] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. Nope. You are shortsighted.
No, the shortsighted ones are the kids going "OOH SHINIES PUT IT IN THE GAME RIGHT AWAY".
[u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
|
Mithandra
Serene Vendetta Brawls Deep
207
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 05:50:16 -
[172] - Quote
Well the only thing I've pulled from reading this thread is some of you like hearing the sound of your own perceptions (or the visual equivalent at least).
Just because it's YOUR opinion doesn't make it the RIGHT opinion. Get over yourselves already.
Yes the game needs new content Yes the game needs rebalancing, and has done for 11 ish years.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm looking forward to messing with new ships and am on tenterhooks to see how the player base can exploit them for their own ends.
Eve is the dark haired, totally hot emo gothchild of the gaming community
|
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
150
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 07:37:18 -
[173] - Quote
I am exceedingly stoked about the new ships. I think some diversity in the destroyer line has been needed for a long time. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1841
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 10:11:35 -
[174] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. Nope. You are shortsighted. No, the shortsighted ones are the kids going "OOH SHINIES PUT IT IN THE GAME RIGHT AWAY".
Again.. helps if you are at least not so shortsighted and read the whole posts. IF they nerf T3 before they create more demand for t3 material , the wormhole economy collapses.
They are just using their brains.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1841
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 10:18:13 -
[175] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Jessica Duranin wrote:Xuixien wrote:Tech3's are not fine as they are, and are in fact terribly balanced. When you fit them for combat roles, they outperform the tech2 combat variants. Of course they do. They cost more, require more skills and you lose skills when your ship dies. If they wouldn't outperform HACs no one would use them in that role. Cost is not a balancing factor. Never was, never will be. CCP tried that with Supers and look what the result was. Skill point loss is also irrelevant to balance, although I do feel that is a stupid mechanic. Last point is the problem with tech3's - the don't specialize enough when it comes to combat role. They outperform HACs, so people use them. If they didn't outperform HACs, people would use HACs. They should perform in a different way from HACs; there should be some disadvantage to using them. Again, to reiterate; EVE is not balanced around "this ship is better than that ship so fly the better ship" and power creep will not help EVE. When a Tech3 variant has the same (or in some cases more) speed, tank, and DPS than the tech2 variant... that is a problem. When Tech3's perform on the level of a BC with a cruiser hull, you are in fact obsoleting over 20 ships.
Game being balance also does nto mean EVERYTHIGN being equaly usable. Extremes are to be handled (like osome of the t3 configurations might be), but some ships MUST be better than others. Or the game loses a lot of suspension of disbelief and reasosn for peopel to aim forward.
On your line of tought, a rupture should be as powerful as a vagabond. IT shall not and gladly will not be.
The thing that went wrong with t3 is that they combine beign EASIER to train than hacs and being stronger. IF they needed 2 times the tiem to triant aht hacs need they would be on same balance as hacs and t1 cruisers are.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
10284
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 13:33:17 -
[176] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: The thing that went wrong with t3 is that they combine beign EASIER to train than hacs and being stronger. IF they needed 2 times the tiem to triant aht hacs need they would be on same balance as hacs and t1 cruisers are.
They have other balancing factors besides this, you're just ignoring them.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5946
|
Posted - 2014.10.26 17:26:51 -
[177] - Quote
"If" these new destroyers work out, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see a retcon of existing T3 cruiser mechanics... which will likely be something that wormhole residents in particular would appreciate.
Balancing all of the subsystem capabilities available for T3 cruisers has to be a bit of a nightmare, one that I'm sure has made CCP reluctant to introduce the same mechanic to other ship lines.
When you consider that most people already gravitate to two or three basic configurations already, and CCP's capability for a ship to change configuration (both in capability and visually) on the fly has increased, it only makes sense that this path is being explored. If this works out well and is popular it elegantly solves many balancing issues (or at least simplifies them) and grants certain obvious advantages to the player base as well.
For my part I will be watching the development of these destroyers closely, with an eye to how these mechanics could possibly be applied to our current (and future) T3 ship classes.
If you like EVE Online and War Thunder content stop by my YouTube channel.-á
Ranger 1 Presents
https://www.youtube.com/user/Ranger1Presents
|
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
326
|
Posted - 2014.10.28 11:12:56 -
[178] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap. You, and all your previous arguements are worthless. You think that everything needs rebalanced probably because you are a horrible player. You're the same kinda person that thinks the cure to null stagnation is all this SOV/cap ship rebalancing. Players are adaptive and will always go with what works the best, this doesn't mean every module every ship needs to be changed every two months because a new favorite tactic is adopted. THAT IS HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO WORK. The fact that certain ship aren't as favorable is fine, its called natural selection. Suck it up and train for something else or get inventive and make those under utilized hulls work. Point 2: new content is always good, because that is, in fact, what prevents this game and others from stagnation. It also is the cure to perferred ships type/fits. If something better is introduced then people will gravitate towards it. Problem solved. Quit being a whiner and take your rebalancing talk to your psych. 3/10.
2/10 |
Arturisk Spinne
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 20:28:58 -
[179] - Quote
personally, i think if new t3 are going to be introduced, it should be in the frigate and battleship classes, even though a 100+m frig would be crazy, but, frigs seem to be the most popular class overall, so, would make sense
as far as the dessys go, i posted awhile ago about how it would be nice to see faction dessys(navy corax with 8 launcher slots anyone? :D ), and maybe a new t2 variant(corvette class?) that sacrifices some of the raw firepower for the speed to keep up with frigs
in that post i also mentioned something else that ill post again here cuz it would be awesome, a 'chameleon' module. as the name suggests, it would be a sort of watered down cloak, basically reducing the ships sig radius, making it harder to target and hit, while the ship using it could still attack and use other mods, while only receiving some of the negatives a normal cloak would incur, lower scan res, maybe make it cap heavy to balance it out?
seems reasonable, doable, and likely to be implemented eventually.... |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1801
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 20:48:04 -
[180] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:"Can't make up their minds" is pretty much CCP's defining problem. Most of the problems in the game are a direct result of them attempting to have their cake and eat it too, caught between two fundamentally incompatible things and refusing to take a stand either way. I'd have gone with the absolutely awful customer service, and treating players like the enemy or their total inability to admit mistakes as the number one problem, but the indecisiveness is definitely up there. |
|
Jarod Garamonde
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
2138
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 20:59:54 -
[181] - Quote
Carribean Queen wrote: How about no. T3's are fine as they are now and should be expanded upon, seeing as how they have yet to give us the remaining subsystems for them.
T3 ships are just as much better than T2 as between T2 and T1.
They're fine. Stop complaining and fly one. They're not even THAT expensive anymore, unless you bling them out like a mission-runner zombie's Marauder.
And, as has already been mentioned, we only got half the subsystems we were intended to have. It's because of tripe like this that we don't even have a T3 for every size category.
Now, bring on the T3 Frigs, BShips, Industrials, and *possibly* Caps (but don't go overboard on the caps.... I'd be happy with just an anti-subcap Dread)
That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
248
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 22:02:32 -
[182] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:Hengle Teron wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Oh Lord please no. EVERY time they touch exploration it gets worse than it was before. If they revisit it again there won't be anything left.
lol, so true yah for some odd unfathomable reason ... 1. "Here is an awesome elite specialized career where you get to sneak around discovering awesome really rare stuff that makes you huge bucket loads of ISK" PLUS 2. " here is a great noob career that is really easy to learn and skill up for and absolutely anyone and everyone can do it really easily" has not worked out as a good combo for them. You would think those two things would just go together huh.
And then again, they do go along really nicely. Running hisec datas and relics is accessible to new players, but running low and null DEDs on a regular basis actually requires a certain level of competence, and the high end ones decent kit too.
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
248
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 22:04:44 -
[183] - Quote
Oh and looking very much forward to D3s.
Their mode-based operation opens up new combat styles and tactics, which is the best kind of development.
|
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
66
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 18:33:23 -
[184] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Garbage, absolute garbage.
They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap.
Can't really balance something that's meant to be configurable to any pilots individual taste. T3's aren't better at any specific task that's a dedicated t2. They're just average in all things. Being average shouldn't be seen as op or unbalanced. I've seen so many guys get cheesed because their Hac just got wrecked by a T3 with dead space and officer(rarely) mods. Overall, a t3 is better than a t2. Not because it's just a higher tier, but because T3's are selective in their configurations. I mean really, it's modular. T3 owner can drastically change the stats over all functions of their ship. Precise control over ships design aspect. That is a t3 greatest asset.
Now, I can understand how some people feels about t3 being quicker to train for than the lower tiered T2s. This is true to some degree. The skill sets are a bit different. I know some time ago when I looked at what to train a particular Hac would take 45 days to train, while the t3 would take like 27 or so. T2's have some extra skills to train to IV and V, capacitor skills and other stuff. T3, require only training for the subsystems and racial cruiser. Most of this stuff gets trained to 5 when we first start eve. Navigation V for the propulsion subsystem for example. Power grid, electronics etc. Obviously, t2 weapons. I shy away from calling it unbalanced, but rather waste/ missuse of skill training. But, you loose skill points when you die in a t3. Anyway, you are training for the empty hull and subsystems.
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |