Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
896
   |
Posted - 2015.02.22 14:05:30 -
[1] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:I really hope the T3 nerfbat is tied into a buff to boosters which was mentioned a while back. T3s are punching above their weight and making some other classes redundant as a result, fair enough. But the player fascination with the class lies in their ability to customise, and make unique settups. I really think that should be extended, and it should tie into implants, skills and boosters in as complicated a way as possible to create the scope for genuinely original comps which might not be replicable.
Sylveria Relden wrote:I'm actually kind of liking the new system they introduced with flat bonuses with the T3 Destroyers recently, but being able to switch setups on the fly. If they did something similar with the T3 Cruisers, it would simplify them for balancing, but also still allow for multiple configurations. I wish they would have introduced the T3 Cruisers the same way, but alas hindsight is assuredly always 20/20.
Of course, those invested in building subs and T3's currently would of course disagree... but again, it's just another idea. (zomg, but I've got trillions of isk invested in building parts, etc.)
I honestly don't think they'll do much to change them, because they've already opened Pandora's Box with introducing the T3 Cruisers system the way it is... and no matter what someone is going to be disappointed with any changes they implement and scream bloody murder to try and counter the balances. (insert whines about "balance" and how everything should be different here, etc.)
Yeah one thing that should not be underestimated with any changes to them is that draw of building something relatively unique with the ability to a degree to put your own spin on something - I know quite a few players for who that is a large reason why they play eve and making strategic cruisers into basically the cruiser version of the destroyers would most likely mean they'd lose a lot of interest in the game and likely stop playing.
I do think that maybe strategic cruisers should actually be divested of the T3 moniker and become just strategic cruisers and the T3 moniker used to implement new and interesting lines of ships like the destroyers that don't necessarily have the same sub-system setup and all the knock on issues there and maybe adhere more to the original intentions of T3s.
The only changes that really need to be made to strategic cruisers is:
(A) making tank<>sig<>mobility/agility more of a trade off i.e. the extended buffer sub-systems should produce something that is more in line with commandship sig/agility than a HAC and if you want HAC like performance then would find the resist (or amplification node) defence systems a better choice without access to quite as large a buffer.
(B) Tweaks to some of the lesser used sub-systems - beyond the scope of this post really and I suspect the devs know better than I do what is what there and can come up with something interesting with them.
EDIT: Oh and possibly some changes to how rigs work with them as I know some people would prefer to be able to make more changes on the fly - personally don't really play a style where that would be much of an advantage as I tend to have several T3s of each type pre-fit for their intended role. I'd personally favour the ability to "rack" swappable (but not removable) sets of rigs. |