EVE Search - swap T3 5% with CS 3% link bonuses

All Channels

Ships and Modules

swap T3 5% with CS 3% link bonuses

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Muad 'dib The Imperial Fedaykin 230	Posted - 2012.03.29 22:21:00 - [1] - Quote Every other role that infringes on other t2 specialized ships that the t3 can do, it does worse. eg EW bonuses are always less. Why are tech 3 ships so much better at links than CS (while command ships are obviously fore-filling no other role)? http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg
Diesel47 My Little Pwnys 7	Posted - 2012.03.29 23:07:00 - [2] - Quote Can a T3 run three links on grid and not get instapopped? Bad idea OP.
Joyelle State War Academy Caldari State 9	Posted - 2012.03.29 23:30:00 - [3] - Quote nope -1
Headerman Quovis CORE Alliance 848	Posted - 2012.03.29 23:33:00 - [4] - Quote -1 too. Why give a better bonus to a cheaper ship? The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why?
Muad 'dib The Imperial Fedaykin 231	Posted - 2012.03.30 00:13:00 - [5] - Quote Headerman wrote: -1 too. Why give a better bonus to a cheaper ship? because a tengu does out do a falcon because a loki doesn't out range a rapier etc why would a command ship for all its flaws and cheaper price also not out play a t3 http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg
Verocity 8 Virtues 9	Posted - 2012.03.30 00:41:00 - [6] - Quote This will be fixed in the upcoming ship re-balancing. CCP specifically mentioned (Fanfest) that T3 ships should have more versatility but should not outclass T2 ships that focus on a specific role. Be patient.
Jack Miton Lapse Of Sanity Exhale. 159	Posted - 2012.03.30 01:23:00 - [7] - Quote show me a T3 that can run 3-5 links with 200-400k EHP and then i'll agree theyre OP.
Belthazor4011 Battle BV 22	Posted - 2012.03.30 01:30:00 - [8] - Quote Verocity wrote: This will be fixed in the upcoming ship re-balancing. CCP specifically mentioned (Fanfest) that T3 ships should have more versatility but should not outclass T2 ships that focus on a specific role. Be patient. This...the fix is coming and its needed. Someone mentioned price, how about training and being role specific. It makes no sense a T3 boosts better then the 1 ship in game thats made for it.
Joyelle State War Academy Caldari State 9	Posted - 2012.03.30 01:55:00 - [9] - Quote It'll be to the benefit of all since we won't be needing really expensive and highly vulnerable T3s to give nice bonuses. Fit up the command ship then leave it at the POS.
Artemis Ahab Caldari Provisions Caldari State 11	Posted - 2012.03.30 02:05:00 - [10] - Quote Jack Miton wrote: show me a T3 that can run 3-5 links with 200-400k EHP and then i'll agree theyre OP. Edit: T3's need max skills AND billions in implants to probe down. Why do they need 200-400k to ehp?
Jerick Ludhowe Purification of Eden XIN DOA'ED 58	Posted - 2012.03.30 02:25:00 - [11] - Quote Headerman wrote: -1 too. Why give a better bonus to a cheaper ship? Because a Fleet Command ship takes far more sp to fly than a t3. Do the math, me thinks you may be a bit surprised.
FT Diomedes Factio Paucorum 18	Posted - 2012.03.30 02:35:00 - [12] - Quote I'd support this change - but it would make more sense to simply make the booster have to be on grid. If you want to put a T3 booster on grid, then you deserve having 5% bonuses coming from it. Or, you can put the 3% booster on grid and have a more survivable, less expensive ship.
James Amril-Kesh 144	Posted - 2012.03.30 05:08:00 - [13] - Quote Support forcing boosters on-grid! Support showing T2 and faction frequency crystal damage in the info window.
Roime Shiva Furnace 389	Posted - 2012.03.30 07:28:00 - [14] - Quote Price isn't really a factor here, SP requirements is. Currently people train T3s because you can never lose one, it's ** easy to train for compared to a CS and gives better bonuses. Bonuses need to be on grid only, and the ship that is harder to train for should give better bonuses. This makes my link alt a very sad panda, but it's such a **** mechanism it needs to go.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 3204	Posted - 2012.03.30 08:18:00 - [15] - Quote Roime wrote: Price isn't really a factor here, SP requirements is. Currently people train T3s because you can never lose one, it's ** easy to train for compared to a CS and gives better bonuses. Bonuses need to be on grid only, and the ship that is harder to train for should give better bonuses. This makes my link alt a very sad panda, but it's such a **** mechanism it needs to go. "never lose one"? You don't know what you're talking about. "Invulnerable" T3s get killed all the time. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Roime Shiva Furnace 390	Posted - 2012.03.30 08:25:00 - [16] - Quote Malcanis wrote: "never lose one" You don't know what you're talking about. "Invulnerable" T3s get killed all the time. Ok "never" was obvious exaggeration. Everything is killable. But compared to a ship that commits to the fight on grid, no, they don't get killed all the time, and without bubbles they are nearly impossible to catch.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities 111	Posted - 2012.03.30 09:19:00 - [17] - Quote Roime wrote: Malcanis wrote: "never lose one" You don't know what you're talking about. "Invulnerable" T3s get killed all the time. Ok "never" was obvious exaggeration. Everything is killable. But compared to a ship that commits to the fight on grid, no, they don't get killed all the time, and without bubbles they are nearly impossible to catch. Bubbles don't help with most T3s unless its a combat fit. 9/10 times you can count on them being nullified if its not someone's home system. ......and never look at our killboard, I think as an alliance we managed to blow up about 200 Tengus last month....that is the ones we lost.
Roime Shiva Furnace 390	Posted - 2012.03.30 10:04:00 - [18] - Quote Onictus wrote: ......and never look at our killboard, I think as an alliance we managed to blow up about 200 Tengus last month....that is the ones we lost. You lost 200 off-grid booster T3s?
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team 118	Posted - 2012.03.30 10:08:00 - [19] - Quote CCP already shown interest in this... Price in isk should never be a balancing factor and if you have seen the devblog about ship balance it is clear that T2 (commandships) are specialized in their roles where T3 (strategic cruisers) are versatile. As such the T2 ship should be better, however the T3 should have more options. Last I checked CCP were looking into switching the bonus%, however apply comandship bonus to 2 types of warfarelinks and apply strategic cruiser bonus to all 4 types... T3 ships should not be stronger because they cost more - They are honestly overpowered in many areas which is exactly why they cost so much... People buy them for dps, tank commandship bonuses and the option to cloak/nullify them. They are versatile alright, however atm they are ALSO more specialized than T2 variants... Pinky
Jerick Ludhowe Purification of Eden XIN DOA'ED 58	Posted - 2012.03.30 10:39:00 - [20] - Quote Pinky Denmark wrote: As such the T2 ship should be better, however the T3 should have more options. Last I checked CCP were looking into switching the bonus%, however apply comand ship bonus to 2 types of warfare links and apply strategic cruiser bonus to all 4 types... The problem is that t3 ships even w/o 4 bonuses are significantly more versatile than a specialized gang boosting fleet command will ever be... The truth of the matter is that t3s while supposedly being focused on versatility in truth are better at being specialized t2 ships than most specialized t2 ships excluding logi and recons of course. Take a look at some of the other bonuses they receive, example would be 10% active bonus... This is a bonus not found on "Specialized" ships with fewer slots, fewer bonuses, fewer rigs, and lower resists.... Where is this "jack of all trades, master of none" ship class t3 were suppose to be? All I see is a "jack of all trades, master of all".
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team 119	Posted - 2012.03.30 10:49:00 - [21] - Quote I don't disagree with you and neither did I write anything contradicting what you just wrote? CCP have ruined a lot introducing T3 ships. Just as the Tier 3 battlecruisers are focused towards being fun for people (attracting more subscribers) more than being balanced towards the core of Eve Online...
Jerick Ludhowe Purification of Eden XIN DOA'ED 58	Posted - 2012.03.30 11:01:00 - [22] - Quote Pinky Denmark wrote: I don't disagree with you and neither did I write anything contradicting what you just wrote? Not arguing, more or less directly agreeing with you. I know it's a rare day on eve-o forums when you get quoted for an agreement rather than a flame. My bad
Joyelle State War Academy Caldari State 9	Posted - 2012.03.30 19:22:00 - [23] - Quote Pinky Denmark wrote: I don't disagree with you and neither did I write anything contradicting what you just wrote? CCP have ruined a lot introducing T3 ships. Just as the Tier 3 battlecruisers are focused towards being fun for people (attracting more subscribers) more than being balanced towards the core of Eve Online... Nothing was ruined, my friend. You weren't exempt from training t3 skills in the first place or you might as well apply to work for CCP, since you are clearly aware of what and what not. With that aside, I have to add that I still do not agree with the OPs proposal given that command ships can easily fit 3 links, sustain a decent tank and also provide additional dps. This feat shouldn't be underestimated in small gangs. Also, Field command ships do pretty well in both the dps and tank department, and in some cases, they are noticeably better than t3s.
axxeessee Trade and Supplies Co. 2	Posted - 2012.03.30 21:45:00 - [24] - Quote People are really not thinking this change through. As much as it technically makes sense to have the dedicated t2 ship be better at it, when it comes to how it is actually used in game it would be terrible. Right now, small (and solo) players can safely roam with a T3 which gives them the advantage they need to be able to fight with odds against them. Giving the strong links to the T2 would mean that a small roaming gang would be at a disadvantage when they would go and fight off someone bigger, since the big fleet / defending fleet would be able to field the command ship, which would not be really possible for the small fleet / solo player. Only thing it would do is give an advantage to people that stay in their home system because they could park a Claymore/Vulture/etc on their pos or home station, and disadvantage the people actually coming to fight them. (Yes, you can have your T2 command ship in the fleet, but everyone knows their DPS is really subpar and youd rather have pretty much anything instead of them, and this applies specially for solo'ers, these kind of people will have to still take a t3 with them, and they will be already at a disadvantage going in against people). All in all, does it ''make sense with ship roles'', yes, would it be good for the game, not at all.
Muad 'dib The Imperial Fedaykin 235	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:09:00 - [25] - Quote But the extra subs for the t3s over the supposedly gang specialist ships mean it can make its self very hard to scan down, or have the covert sub for travel - the more skill intensive command ships not only lack this but have a worse bonus. Its not like anyones complaining about ONLY a CS boosting at 3% instead of a t3 at 5%, make the change and give command ships some love its silly. This is not a thread about weather links should give bonuses off grid, this is a change for the current no brainer t3 which shouldnt exist. compare a loki to a huggin and come back to me when you realise its not as good as a huggin and thats why people fly them still. poor poor command ships. http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg
Diesel47 My Little Pwnys 7	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:45:00 - [26] - Quote Command ship isn't fulfilling it's role?! Oh no! Better remove all warfare abilities from an osprey because I swore I saw one being used as a combat ship, oh God!
Diesel47 My Little Pwnys 7	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:47:00 - [27] - Quote axxeessee wrote: People are really not thinking this change through. As much as it technically makes sense to have the dedicated t2 ship be better at it, when it comes to how it is actually used in game it would be terrible. Right now, small (and solo) players can safely roam with a T3 which gives them the advantage they need to be able to fight with odds against them. Giving the strong links to the T2 would mean that a small roaming gang would be at a disadvantage when they would go and fight off someone bigger, since the big fleet / defending fleet would be able to field the command ship, which would not be really possible for the small fleet / solo player. Only thing it would do is give an advantage to people that stay in their home system because they could park a Claymore/Vulture/etc on their pos or home station, and disadvantage the people actually coming to fight them. (Yes, you can have your T2 command ship in the fleet, but everyone knows their DPS is really subpar and youd rather have pretty much anything instead of them, and this applies specially for solo'ers, these kind of people will have to still take a t3 with them, and they will be already at a disadvantage going in against people). All in all, does it ''make sense with ship roles'', yes, would it be good for the game, not at all. This guy is right. Basically you are nerfing the small gang pvp that still is alive in this game. Terribad idea OP.
Large Collidable Object morons. 1227	Posted - 2012.03.30 22:55:00 - [28] - Quote When offgrid boosting is finally fixed, the better bonus for T3s will be justified - they give a better bonus but can only fit one, maybe two links without getting instapopped. Guess that was the original reason why CCP gave them a better bonus in the first place without thinking of the offgrid cloaky nullified probing 3+ ganglink T3. morons- sting like a butterfly and-ápost like a bee.
zero2espect ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES 47	Posted - 2012.03.31 22:37:00 - [29] - Quote i completely agree with the OP. I also want the command ship and fleet bonuses to only apply on-grid. e.g. if the character giving bonuses is visible as "on grid" on the watch list, bonuses apply. but more than the OP i'd be nice for the t3s to be able to fit a wider array of command modules. e.g. a damnation can fit 3 links with massive buffs, maybe the t3 can fit more but less effective. this way, command ships and t3s can live up to their role properly. one gives big boosts with big tank. one gives nice boost with speed. everybody whining about their t3s losing boosts and saying that it will ruin small gang pvp if boosts have to be on grid, are the same guys that ruin small gang pvp because they have the alts logged in either sitting in a pos or "hard to probe" in a system. put the links on the grid and it will really drive up the skills required and give us back some nice juicy fights.
Muad 'dib The Imperial Fedaykin 236	Posted - 2012.03.31 22:44:00 - [30] - Quote Diesel47 wrote: axxeessee wrote: People are really not thinking this change through. As much as it technically makes sense to have the dedicated t2 ship be better at it, when it comes to how it is actually used in game it would be terrible. Right now, small (and solo) players can safely roam with a T3 which gives them the advantage they need to be able to fight with odds against them. Giving the strong links to the T2 would mean that a small roaming gang would be at a disadvantage when they would go and fight off someone bigger, since the big fleet / defending fleet would be able to field the command ship, which would not be really possible for the small fleet / solo player. Only thing it would do is give an advantage to people that stay in their home system because they could park a Claymore/Vulture/etc on their pos or home station, and disadvantage the people actually coming to fight them. (Yes, you can have your T2 command ship in the fleet, but everyone knows their DPS is really subpar and youd rather have pretty much anything instead of them, and this applies specially for solo'ers, these kind of people will have to still take a t3 with them, and they will be already at a disadvantage going in against people). All in all, does it ''make sense with ship roles'', yes, would it be good for the game, not at all. This guy is right. Basically you are nerfing the small gang pvp that still is alive in this game. Terribad idea OP. No that is not the point, you are missing it completely a small gang with LESS bonus is a GOOD thing, while a BIG bonus for BIG fleet is better. garmon agrees here and i know this is a different concept but i belive it to be a real and worth while trade. tasty full bonus (5%) are CS only and thus are harder to use with a light fleet, the T3 version with its 3% is way easier to use, safer and can keep up with a small gang. The idia is to change NOTHING about the T3 or the CS other than swap the bonus amounts to it makes more sense, more committed = biger bonus THATS eve - not the way it is now. wake up. http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,05s, ref 20250923/0743
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.