EVE Search - Tech 3 Battlecruisers (thats right, tech 3, not tier 3)

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Tech 3 Battlecruisers (thats right, tech 3, not tier 3)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tyrant's Bane The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore 7	Posted - 2011.11.27 09:19:00 - [1] - Quote It has been a while since the introduction of t3 cruisers, and after having flown them for over a year now, have come to the conclusion that we need more tech 3 variants. CCP has stated that they are working on tech 3 frigates, but IMHO these are unlikely to be overly popular due to how very fragile they are likely to be ( in combination with sp loss). I believe that T3 Battlecruisers and battleships are where CCP should focus next. What does everyone else think? On the matter of tech 3 battlecruisers, i ran across this gem from the deviant art contest....... http://silnys.deviantart.com/art/Peregrine-SBC-182293579
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 154	Posted - 2011.11.27 09:34:00 - [2] - Quote Would prefer to have the T2 BCs get some attention and then adding T3 modules (to be used on all hulls) as a way to burn money and T3 manufacturing resources. Extra bonus if the T3 modules provide bonuses like their T2 variants with an added extra effect (ex. webs with built-in TP effect for instance).
Liam Mirren 21	Posted - 2011.11.27 10:21:00 - [3] - Quote T3 BCs would be severely overpowered and be as gamebreaking as SCs are. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Elson Tamar Lion Investments 49	Posted - 2011.11.27 10:43:00 - [4] - Quote I like the idea or more tech 3 varients, but dosn't every ship have to have a role? Tech 3 cruisers make sense as it's a class that is very much about versitility already tech three command vessel maybe allowing differnt command modules that allow different warfare links and massive tanks to keep FC's alive? Tech 3 frigates would probably explode to much or you would see a lot of covertop/interdiction nullifyer stealth frigs or the unhittable wake limier interceptors. Which to be hoest if thats the case you may as well release two fixed module tech 3 frigs. BC's have a role as a vessel it's the stop gap between cruiser and battleship, the most logical choice would be the tech 3 battleship, however does the meta game need tech 4 battleships mission running? What would the purpose of a tech three battleship in a fleet be? With the SP loss no one would take it to a large fleet as it would be primary. The problem with Tech increase is that older hulls become redundent except for new players who cant join in the tech three game for a long time and will feel they cant ever be as good as that vet in his 'pwnmobile' (not my opinion. but.) Also when do we hear the call for tech 3 super caps? One of the problems of any game with multiple players be it MMO, roleplaying, wargames or LARP is power creep and percived power creep. I worry that Tech three power creep would lead to either lots of 'Nerf x OMG' or 'Such and such is weak OMG' posts, another rebalance followed by another round of 'OMG'. I like the teir idea, I also like the idea that the tiers have different ships geared towards different roles. More of that please. Edit: Oh and the last few pirate ships that you can't get yet two please.
Solstice Project Cult of Personality 205	Posted - 2011.11.27 10:45:00 - [5] - Quote T3 Frigates FTW ! You just have no ******* clue.
Arthur Frayn Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 51	Posted - 2011.11.27 10:57:00 - [6] - Quote We already have Tech 3 battlecruisers. They're called "Strategic Cruisers". They're small, fast, agile battlecruisers that can be reconfigured for many different roles and they make T1 and T2 battlecruisers obsolete. What we need are T3 frigates and T3 battleships.
n00n3r Malicious Destruction 4	Posted - 2011.11.27 10:57:00 - [7] - Quote personally, I think the best nomination for Tech-3 in regards to ship class would be the dreadnought. Of course my opinion on this may change depending on how nice the crucible dreadnought buff is. Battleships and battle cruisers fill their roles quite well currently. Interested in Incursions? Check out our recruitment thread!-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=12104&find=unread
Solstice Project Cult of Personality 205	Posted - 2011.11.27 11:04:00 - [8] - Quote Arthur Frayn wrote: We already have Tech 3 battlecruisers. They're called "Strategic Cruisers". They're small, fast, agile battlecruisers that can be reconfigured for many different roles and they make T1 and T2 battlecruisers obsolete. What we need are T3 frigates and T3 battleships. They are actually cruisers, not battlecruisers, although i see where you are going there.
Screenlag Beyond The Gates Tri Sol Syndicate 3	Posted - 2011.11.27 11:09:00 - [9] - Quote Nerf tech 3 cruisers, add tech 3 frigates and battleships. The problem is that tech 3 cruisers can replace all T2 cruisers (and even T2 BCs), the exception being Heavy interdictor (+ logistics). Let them be versatile, but do not make the T2 variants redundant.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet 162	Posted - 2011.11.27 11:12:00 - [10] - Quote n00n3r wrote: personally, I think the best nomination for Tech-3 in regards to ship class would be the dreadnought. Of course my opinion on this may change depending on how nice the crucible dreadnought buff is. Battleships and battle cruisers fill their roles quite well currently. If by best you mean the worst, then I agree. T3 at least was supposed to be about versatility and ability to do multiple tasks and roles using a single ship. Dreads on the other hand are extremely specialized ships, that are designed to do pretty much only one thing. Those two things just don't fit well together. I guess there could be a T3 capital ship, that can be made to fill carrier, dread and industry roles. What you seem to want is a T2 dread, that is basicly just better at doing what the dread already does.
n00n3r Malicious Destruction 4	Posted - 2011.11.27 11:15:00 - [11] - Quote no. I think you misunderstood. what I was stating is the need for a modular capitol ship, and since the dread has been locked into a single role for a very long time, it could do very well with that type of adaptability. Interested in Incursions? Check out our recruitment thread!-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=12104&find=unread
Jaroslav Unwanted Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 83	Posted - 2011.11.27 11:15:00 - [12] - Quote Liam Mirren wrote: T3 BCs would be severely overpowered and be as gamebreaking as SCs are. based on what solid information you make this conclusion ? they could be however they dont have to be. either way they are not gonna implement anything "brand new" until they figure up some role for it to plug some "hole" in game.
Jaroslav Unwanted Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 83	Posted - 2011.11.27 11:26:00 - [13] - Quote Screenlag wrote: Nerf tech 3 cruisers, add tech 3 frigates and battleships. The problem is that tech 3 cruisers can replace all T2 cruisers (and even T2 BCs), the exception being Heavy interdictor (+ logistics). Let them be versatile, but do not make the T2 variants redundant. well they are not. It just provide more to competition. You can kill T3 gank with same or even less number T2 gank. It just require more effort. And well T3 BC and T3 BS doesnt have to be "superior" to T3 cruisers. Just saying. Its all about role. Sure if they take T3 BC and make it that it would have triple the tank of drake with triple the dps of AC machariel then we have an problem, however there could be other variations .... Anyway to answer how and which variations.. I have only one answer : I dont know. which si probably the reason why nobody looks forward to add them.
Spider Fiona Thunder Mercenary Army 1	Posted - 2011.11.27 12:24:00 - [14] - Quote Arthur Frayn wrote: We already have Tech 3 battlecruisers. They're called "Strategic Cruisers". They're small, fast, agile battlecruisers that can be reconfigured for many different roles and they make T1 and T2 battlecruisers obsolete. What we need are T3 frigates and T3 battleships. T3 BCs =Strategic Cruisers=T3 Cruisers. Your mother language teacher is crying at the corner.
Lady Spank GET OUT NASTY FACE 204	Posted - 2011.11.27 12:37:00 - [15] - Quote What role would TIII BC fill that isn't covered by another ship class already without making existing ships obsolete? If you can't answer that then it's a worthless suggestion. TIII frigates would likely entirely kill off dogfighting as it currently exists. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ Get Out, Nasty Face ~ (a¦á_a¦â) Signature edited. Navigator.
Raven Ether Republic University Minmatar Republic 47	Posted - 2011.11.27 13:45:00 - [16] - Quote Balance and rework existing T3s. There are useless subsystems, or sub standard subsystem configurations (drone proteus to name one).
Hienz Doofenshmirtz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 11	Posted - 2011.11.27 13:51:00 - [17] - Quote how bout just more parts for the crusers we have now
Cozmik R5 Dock 94 57	Posted - 2011.11.27 14:05:00 - [18] - Quote Tech 3 frigates before anything else. T3 BC would be over-powered, and T3 BS would be ridiculously over-priced. Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.
Mr Kidd Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 178	Posted - 2011.11.27 14:10:00 - [19] - Quote Jaroslav Unwanted wrote: Liam Mirren wrote: T3 BCs would be severely overpowered and be as gamebreaking as SCs are. based on what solid information you make this conclusion ? they could be however they dont have to be. either way they are not gonna implement anything "brand new" until they figure up some role for it to plug some "hole" in game. You mean cruisers capable of out tanking a BS is not a sign of being over-powered? I'm not arguing for or against here, just playing devils advocate. We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX!
Teleni Pavle Republic University Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2011.11.27 14:11:00 - [20] - Quote Raven Ether wrote: Balance and rework existing T3s. There are useless subsystems, or sub standard subsystem configurations (drone proteus to name one). Or rail tengu.
Muestereate Two Geezers in Space 2	Posted - 2011.11.27 16:32:00 - [21] - Quote T3 exhumers. with drop down drilling platforms like the Startrek movie that collapse whole planets and blot out the sun. With OMG tank of course available too for those slow days or maybe a nullifier/cloak for that exciting adventure or two.
Amro One One. 42	Posted - 2011.11.27 17:41:00 - [22] - Quote Boring.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 383	Posted - 2011.11.27 17:50:00 - [23] - Quote Frankly, I'd prefer to see T3 Destroyers. They could easily deal with having a lot of the same capabilities as T3 cruisers in a more nimble platform without being overpowered. For unique abilities the option to fit it as a "Heavy Bomber" would be a good place to start. Heavy Bomber configuration would be something along the lines of. AF type tank. Reduced Sig Radius. Hard to kill when using AB. Multiple bomb capability. No cloak. To kill the enemy and break their toys! It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto.
Buzzmong Aliastra Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2011.11.27 18:07:00 - [24] - Quote Tbh, there's no room for more T3 ships currently, and I'm actually somewhat of the opinion that the current T3 were a mistake anyway (adding a very good jack of all trades shipclass when the game is geared towards making people team up and work together with specialised ships in defined roles). I'd much rather see CCP redo or remove the entire tier system to actually make a substantial amount of ships we already have worth flying again than to keep adding ships to the game.
Hungry Eyes Ministry of War Amarr Empire 220	Posted - 2011.11.27 18:17:00 - [25] - Quote introducing MORE new ships would be a disaster. are you insane? until the fix inter- and intraclass balance between the dozens of ships that exist now, it would be silly to add more unbalanced stuff in the mix. for example, why not fix the current t3 cruisers first? as most people know, there's no reason to fly anything else except a HML Tengu, and a Loki on occasion. why not make tier 1 BC's useful? AF's, EAF's, BO's? you get the idea. besides, i think it only makes sense that small ships are modular. frigates, cruisers, etc.
AkJon Ferguson JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance 25	Posted - 2011.11.27 19:10:00 - [26] - Quote Hungry Eyes wrote: introducing MORE new ships would be a disaster. are you insane? +1 (Anybody named 'Tyrant's Bane' needs to gbtWoW anyway.)
Warlord Shat The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated 2	Posted - 2011.11.27 20:37:00 - [27] - Quote The Idea behind t3 is that its a jack of all trades for Cruisers The Battlecruiser is already a Jack of all Trades
Nova Fox Novafox Shipyards 405	Posted - 2011.11.27 23:31:00 - [28] - Quote Tech 3 frigates first. Nova Fox Shipyards Inventory
Sarmatiko 206	Posted - 2011.11.27 23:37:00 - [29] - Quote Sometimes even developers must say "Stop, little pot". Tech 3 my ass
Vigdis Thorisdottir Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 37	Posted - 2011.11.27 23:52:00 - [30] - Quote We don't need any more T3 ships. The ones we have now are so good that for a lot of players there is little reason to fly anything else. When players are blitzing skills to get into one after being in-game for only a couple months, you might just have something powerful enough to be called "overpowered". I say this because I have 3 myself (got tired of switching subs/fittings, lol). Most of the time, my T3 is the BEST option available, and frankly, most players have so much cash that not even their high price is enough to justify using something else, because "something else" usually means "something worse". Also, I approve of new players who can barely fly (let alone fit) their T3's. They make tasty snacks for mine.
Klown Walk striving for excellence. 1	Posted - 2011.11.27 23:55:00 - [31] - Quote I would rather have them rebalance most of the ships before making new.
Liam Mirren 21	Posted - 2011.11.28 00:03:00 - [32] - Quote Klown Walk wrote: I would rather have them rebalance most of the ships before making new. Yup, do away with the ship tiers and make them all (per type) on par but with different specialisations, that way you increase the number of viable (and thus flown) ships, while not needing to introduce new models and all that. So it'sa easier and cheaper to do for CCP and we get more ships to play with. T3 is severely OP and I would hope that CCP learned their lesson regarding introducing OP stuff. I mean, if you extrapolate from T3 cruisers then T3 BC would have around 1 mil EHP with some 1200 dps, if you can't see anything wrong with that you need help. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Max Von Sydow Droneboat Diplomacy 64	Posted - 2011.11.28 00:33:00 - [33] - Quote Definitely not supported. First of all I don't think they are needed since they most likely obsolete Battleships and T3 Cruisers at the same time. Secondly I think that if we ever do get T3 BCs they should come after T3 frigates, BSs, Industrials, and capitals.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.