| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Keno Skir
1518
   |
Posted - 2017.04.14 13:53:43 -
[31] - Quote
Oooooh another T3 thread :)
Yada yada yada, boost battleships or nerf T3, preferably the first option.
There is some weight to the argument that T3 cruisers are too "end game" at the moment, even though i LURV all my various Protei. I love em because they eat everything else and that's not something a cruiser should be doing.
Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-
250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
578
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 14:14:46 -
[32] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Mr Mieyli wrote:4 subsystem slots with 3 choices seems a much easier to balance approach, with far fewer possibilities of hull. I'm glad they're looking in this direction with the changes to T3s. Thing is in pretty much every corp, etc. I've had anything to do with in Eve there has been a small, but not insignificant, number of people who utilise T3s for the esoteric option(s) which this change appears to not particularly cater for - hopefully its obvious where I'm going with that without having to spell it out. T3s should never be too finely balanced, too predictable or easy - that is what makes them interesting and engages a fairly sizeable group of players with the game (not just the alluded to ones above). Balance in terms of T3s should always come in the form of penalties not restrictions in their flexibility.
I get it man, I use T3s myself and customising is what they're known for, if they get rid of subsystems you might find the game less fun, luckily they are only reducing them. To me, I think the current number of T3 possibilities seriously limits the variety of ships that get used. Right now the Prot, Loki, Tengu, and Legion are 3rd, 4th, 5th and 10th for pvp kills respectively on zKill. Reducing the number of subsystems still leaves you with 81 varieties for each hull, or 324 spread over the races. If that doesn't sound very much to you consider that there are between 200 to 300 hull types in game and even more than that T3Cs. It's not surprising it can feel like T3s online at times.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1083
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 14:26:20 -
[33] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:[quote=Rroff]
Reducing the number of subsystems still leaves you with 81 varieties for each hull, or 324 spread over the races. If that doesn't sound very much to you consider that there are between 200 to 300 hull types in game and even more than that T3Cs. It's not surprising it can feel like T3s online at times.
I have 142 Tengu, 295 Prot, 346 Loki and 184 Legion fits in EFT :O
I still used plenty of other ships though - one of my alts used an Eos in PVP a fair bit and I was just getting started with a sleipnir with another before I quit. Would have liked to use a Kronos but one of the big draws there was the 90% webs now ditched :(
I think people underestimate how much T3 cruisers give Eve "texture" and character that doesn't happen when you have less options and too finely balanced game features which tend to make a game blander - many of the most memorable games in history were so because they had something(s) that stuck out. |
Keno Skir
1518
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 14:30:12 -
[34] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Would have liked to use a Kronos but one of the big draws there was the 90% webs now ditched :(
Get a Vindi?
Bastion sucks anyway 
Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-
250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
|
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
1083
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 14:44:20 -
[35] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:Rroff wrote:Would have liked to use a Kronos but one of the big draws there was the 90% webs now ditched :( Get a Vindi? Bastion sucks anyway
This was pre-bastion - I've always been a sucker for utility highs so Vindi didn't really appeal to me (and while it wasn't that big a boost the Kronos had a slightly higher base resist profile). Used to love that old Kronos did a bit of wormhole PVE in a PVP fit one but never got a chance to use it in PVP before the changes.
EDIT: I'd forgotten how much of an influence that had on me stopping playing - I loved that Kronos and just finally got all the skills and stuff maxed out and the ISK for a nice fit then they went and changed it dramatically. Not that I have anything against the new approach to marauders as such but having worked towards that goal for so long that kind of sucked. |
Arcturus Ursidae
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 22:42:07 -
[36] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Keno Skir wrote:Rroff wrote:Would have liked to use a Kronos but one of the big draws there was the 90% webs now ditched :( Get a Vindi? Bastion sucks anyway This was pre-bastion - I've always been a sucker for utility highs so Vindi didn't really appeal to me (and while it wasn't that big a boost the Kronos had a slightly higher base resist profile). Used to love that old Kronos did a bit of wormhole PVE in a PVP fit one but never got a chance to use it in PVP before the changes. EDIT: I'd forgotten how much of an influence that had on me stopping playing - I loved that Kronos and just finally got all the skills and stuff maxed out and the ISK for a nice fit then they went and changed it dramatically. Not that I have anything against the new approach to marauders as such but having worked towards that goal for so long that kind of sucked.
You can still fit a grappler, not quit as good I know but it's a pretty strong ship, utility highs and microjump drive give it quite a bit of flexibility given it can probably kill anything trying to scram it. |
Arcturus Ursidae
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 22:44:55 -
[37] - Quote
Subsystems may be getting simplified.
5 into four and four into three in each category. Can't help but try and theory craft something.
Defensive - varying subs with specific roles all used but with the adaptive augmented of dubious strength. The main thing of note is that a warfare link proteus does not get a tank bonus. With on grid boosts a tank bonus would seem useful so instead of deleting a sub from here moving the warfare processor into the electronics section would seem appropriate.
Augmented plating sub probably needs dropping back to 5%.
Rep bonus may fall back to 7.5%
Small range bonus for reppers on adaptive augmented sub may be appropriate.
Electronic
Warfare processor in here now just drop it in on top of the CPU efficiency gate, good model poor sub.
Dissolution sequencer and emergent locus analyser are fine but we need to lose a sub.
Friction extension processor, classic pvp bonus, save a subsystem by rolling this bonus into the hull. Good looking subsystem so swap it for the emergent locus analyser sub graphically.
Propulsion. Differing rolls, fairly well balanced, delete the wake limiter.
Removing a subsystem category sounded tricky at first but looking at fits often subs go hand in hand augmented capacitor reservoir with drone sub and power core multiplayer with hybrid subs. Combining these subs with each other removes a category.
Delete the supplemental coolant injector and the dissonic encoding platform. Perhaps roll some of the overheat bonus into the hull bonus.
This leaves the covert sub, this could be combined with the capacitor regeneration matrix but may need to be given a small drone bay and bandwidth.
The hybrid/power grid sub combo is the main problem when looking at DPS heavy fits, hopefully it will retain a sixth turret but drone bandwidth could be reduced to 25 to adjust this sub.
So something like that maybe.
Thing is, adjusting T3's does not make HAC's or battleships better basically restricts choice further, probably just to machs. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |