|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2265
   |
Posted - 2017.06.13 10:21:23 -
[1] - Quote
I don't like the 7.5% rep bonus for the cloak/probe subsystem. It will either limit the use too much or will be unused when the ship is part of a fleet. It would be much better to have a resistance bonus.
I'm very disappointing that CCP didn't take this opportunity to add a few new subsystems. I would like to see a set of industrial subsystems for industry which would have bonuses/roles for the following:
Gas mining amount bonus (offensive sub): This should enable the players to create the best gas mining ship in the game. i.e. better than the venture
Mass reduction (defensive sub): Reduces the mass of a T3 so that they can fit though a frigate hole but reduces the tank of the T3
Increase cargo hold (core): allows the T3 to be used as a transport ship or increases hole for mining
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2266
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 15:46:18 -
[2] - Quote
@ Dior Ambraelle, you are not wrong but all i would say is that even though you may feel the T3 industrial is not needed or that we already have suitable ORE alternatives, i feel that adding these would diversify the ship class and help maintain demand for T3 components.
Within wormhole space we would see more people gas mining (or ore/ice mining if they had bonuses) in expensive ships, which creates a much more worthwhile target over the 1mil isk venture.
Good idea moving the cloak/probe to the core sub.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2266
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 15:52:16 -
[3] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship...
Make the cargo sub a propulsion sub and don't give it anywhere near the capacity of a transport ship. Problem solved.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2266
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 14:28:19 -
[4] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.
I think the problem here is that people view the situation incorrectly. You have to remember that DPS and tank are not abilities exclusive to HACs so it is unfair for people to say that this makes the T3 a better HAC. The problem is that the majority of HACs are poorly designed (especially for close range combat) and need better bonuses/abilities.
Recon ships are already better at their job than a T3, so i'm not sure what the issue is here.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2267
|
Posted - 2017.06.17 18:36:22 -
[5] - Quote
Although it is not a problem for my play style, I think that people do have legitimate concerns with regards to the cloak and scanning roles being linked.
Again, I would suggest that a new line of industrial/pve subsystems are added and that the exploration roles could be tied to this. This would mean keeping the 5 subsystem model.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2267
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 13:47:04 -
[6] - Quote
So the drone Proteus that currently hardly gets used is going to be made worse? Good job guys!
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2268
|
Posted - 2017.06.19 10:24:01 -
[7] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Rek Seven wrote: So the drone Proteus that currently hardly gets used is going to be made worse? Good job guys! Give it specific bonuses to medium drones only, to make it unique. The Gila would like a word with you.
Fair point. I was thinking unique in the role of an armour drone boat.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2268
|
Posted - 2017.06.23 11:37:14 -
[8] - Quote
The tank on the covert options are garbage unless you fit a passive tank and to me, this alone indicates that the design choice behind this is flawed. So if CCP are going to stick with that, the DPS absolutely needs to be high! Don't forget that you are in a mush squishier ship that when you die in, you lose skill points.
Every ship needs to excel at on thing, otherwise people will always choose the the better alternative... And no. Flexibility isn't a compelling enough feature because you can't apply that flexibility on the battlefield.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2268
|
Posted - 2017.06.23 15:10:39 -
[9] - Quote
I have been messing around with the cloaky proteus fits and it seem under-powered in comparison to the tengu... The tengu gets great DPS at great range while the proteus gets ok dps at close range only. Armour vs shield tank is also uneven when you use ancillary reps, not only in power but in cap dependency.
Harvey James wrote:the command/logi or even e-war + etc... begs too differ.. very useful in small gang pvp when have limited pilots so 1 ship doing 2 jobs can be a big deal... also that cap stable shield boosting 1k dps tengu has enough tank.
I was talking about the flexibility the modular design of T3 supposedly offer, not the ability to do two jobs as that is not changing, fundamentally.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2268
|
Posted - 2017.06.23 15:58:11 -
[10] - Quote
I don't know if this idea has been suggested but T3C should work as follows...
The cruisers should be able to be refit without the use of a mobile depot (or similar) not under a combat timer. Saved fittings should be able to be instantly applied while in space providing there is not combat/weapons timer.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
|
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2269
|
Posted - 2017.06.27 22:52:03 -
[11] - Quote
@Focus group, am I reading right that Fozzie has moved the warp speed bonus to the nullification subsystem?
Why was it removed from the non-nullified sub? This removes the ability for a T3 to travel fast.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2269
|
Posted - 2017.06.28 16:48:55 -
[12] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:Rek Seven wrote:@Focus group, am I reading right that Fozzie has moved the warp speed bonus to the nullification subsystem?
Why was it removed from the non-nullified sub? This removes the ability for a T3 to travel fast. The logs linked in the first page show the reasoning. But there's a lot of discussion still around this. Essentially it's a tip to the nullified subs agility sucking.
I understand that the warp bonus is being added to the nullification sub because there were concerned that the align time penalty associated with that sub would kill hunter killer gameplay in null sec...
What i do not understand is why the warp speed bonus had to be removed from the chassis optimisation subsystem, at the same time?
This completely removes the ability for T3s to travel quickly across multiple systems. Currently on TQ the bonus to warp speed is too weak, so that sub hardly ever got used. With the re-balance it should have been buffed to something like 15% per level to make it a useful bonus... but instead it's just going to be removed?
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2269
|
Posted - 2017.06.29 21:06:03 -
[13] - Quote
Nah the only limitation would need to be that you can't activate it while you have a combat timer.
@ CCP & focus group - Glad to see that the warp speed bonus is being kept on the proteus chassis optimisation sub. However, don't you think it is a bit weak? The warp bonus is a great idea but Ithink it needs to be at least a 15% per level bonus to make it worth riging/implanting for.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
|
|
| |
|