EVE Search - Tech 3 Ships

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tech 3 Ships

» 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)
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.10 19:35:00 - [1] I recently saw the link to pictures of all different components of T3 ships and how they are all combined and such (will search for the link) and I think it is shaping up to be AWESOME! Can we please get a large dev blog about them soon(tm). Also, please, please, please introduce these as pre-nerfed, as they have huge potential to completely outperform T1 and T2. --
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.11.10 19:50:00 - [2] Originally by: Marcus Druallis they have huge potential to completely outperform T1 and T2. no **** Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart
Jack Airron Gallente Universal Mining Inc Forged Dominion	Posted - 2008.11.10 19:57:00 - [3] Edited by: Jack Airron on 10/11/2008 19:57:52 Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: Marcus Druallis they have huge potential to completely outperform T1 and T2. no **** this -------- blarg
Furb Killer Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.11.10 20:13:00 - [4] Quote: please introduce these as pre-nerfed How about no?
Katarlia Simov Minmatar Cowboys From Hell	Posted - 2008.11.10 20:18:00 - [5] Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: please introduce these as pre-nerfed How about no? CCP do love to pre-nerf at the moment. I think its fair enough. Stops too much power creep.
Mr Ignitious R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2008.11.10 20:24:00 - [6] Originally by: Katarlia Simov Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: please introduce these as pre-nerfed How about no? CCP do love to pre-nerf at the moment. I think its fair enough. Stops too much power creep. prenerf is stupid... Look at black ops, and no QR isn't fixing them, its dancing around the issue, they need a complete rework.
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.11 00:05:00 - [7] Originally by: Mr Ignitious Originally by: Katarlia Simov Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: please introduce these as pre-nerfed How about no? CCP do love to pre-nerf at the moment. I think its fair enough. Stops too much power creep. prenerf is stupid... Look at black ops, and no QR isn't fixing them, its dancing around the issue, they need a complete rework. Would you rather T3 temp useless, or T1 and T2 useless?
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.11.11 00:12:00 - [8] Originally by: Marcus Druallis Would you rather T3 temp useless, or T1 and T2 useless? I would rather they were so different as to be incomparable directly, to prevent exactly the mindset you have exemplified.
Valan The Fated	Posted - 2008.11.11 00:13:00 - [9] Not all combinations will be allowed to prevent them form being over-powered. Hence they will be pre-nerfed. They don't even know which combinations yet. Considering they said March 2009 for release they better get moving lol Apparently the stuff will be available from unstable worm holes but thats a tall order before March.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.11.11 00:34:00 - [10] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 11/11/2008 00:34:32 Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: please introduce these as pre-nerfed How about no? How about yes. Granted, this is still way early, but the things they're hinting at have absolutely staggering potential to be ****ing broken. It would be very easy for T3 ships to completely out-class every single T1 or T2 ship in the game, once we figure out the perfect combinations. I'd much rather have them pre-nerfed than to have the game completely ruined by ships that would make the worst of the nano ships look like BattleBadgers.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.11.11 00:40:00 - [11] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 11/11/2008 00:34:32 Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: please introduce these as pre-nerfed How about no? How about yes. Granted, this is still way early, but the things they're hinting at have absolutely staggering potential to be ****ing broken. It would be very easy for T3 ships to completely out-class every single T1 or T2 ship in the game, once we figure out the perfect combinations. I'd much rather have them pre-nerfed than to have the game completely ruined by ships that would make the worst of the nano ships look like BattleBadgers. I want my dual ecm strenght covops cloaking drone bonused armour tanker for solo work, assuming we get only 4 bonuses to play with
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.11.11 00:47:00 - [12] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 11/11/2008 00:48:10 Originally by: Cpt Branko I want my dual ecm strenght covops cloaking drone bonused armour tanker for solo work, assuming we get only 4 bonuses to play with Even without the special support ship bonuses available, you can make some absolutely stupid stuff. Forget variety, you're looking at fleets of nothing but passive shield buffer tanked laser/missile gank ships. Consider the following: Pwnmobile BC: 8/6/4 layout, 7 guns bonuses: 5% laser damage, 5% laser ROF, 10% laser optimal, 5% shield resists 3x heatsink, 2x PDU MWD, injector, 2x LSE, invulnerability field, 24k point 7x heavy pulse II, gang mod or neut 5x Warrior II Oh hey, we just obsoleted every sub-BC ship in the game. The only question is whether they'll be allowed to have T2 resists, and be game-destroyingly broken, or be limited to T1 and merely massively overpowered.
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.11.11 00:48:00 - [13] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Cpt Branko I want my dual ecm strenght covops cloaking drone bonused armour tanker for solo work, assuming we get only 4 bonuses to play with Even without the special support ship bonuses available, you can make some absolutely stupid stuff. Forget variety, you're looking at fleets of nothing but passive shield buffer tanked laser/missile gank ships. Consider the following: Pwnmobile BC: 8/6/4 layout, 7 guns 3x heatsink, 2x PDU MWD, injector, 2x LSE, invulnerability field, 24k point 7x heavy pulse II, gang mod or neut 5x Warrior II Oh hey, we just obsoleted every sub-BC ship in the game. The only question is whether they'll be allowed to have T2 resists, and be game-destroyingly broken, or be limited to T1 and merely massively overpowered. Except if that suddenly becomes a BS class ship due to (insert handwavium token here), in which case does it still obsolete everything?
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.11.11 00:59:00 - [14] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 11/11/2008 01:01:41 Originally by: Captator Except if that suddenly becomes a BS class ship due to (insert handwavium token here), in which case does it still obsolete everything? Yes. I was balancing it as a BC, you'll note that it has the same number of slots as the existing BCs/command ships, and a pretty reasonable bonus choice of 2x damage, 1x range, 1x tank that plenty of real ships have. Unless you have CCP step in and arbitrarily change the ship class as players develop new and more overpowered layouts, none of those choices would bump it up a class. The difference is how perfectly optimized it is, while none of the choices are overpowered by themselves, but the combination is just way more efficient than any existing ship. But that's something you can't possibly predict in advance. It's just like how none of the speed tankers use missiles. A missile-armed Vagabond would be stupidly overpowered, able to speed tank while doing good damage with no tracking penalty from its own speed. The only reason we don't have something like that is because CCP released a limited number of designs, and made sure they didn't include overpowered combinations. However, you're talking about well over 5000 possible combinations here, way more than you can balance individually. Though honestly, even if it was a BB, it would still be insane. You're looking at 900 dps with medium gun tracking, with a pretty solid tank for a battleship if it gets T2 resists. Change the guns to large and add battleship-level base HP, and you have a ship that tracks worse, but is otherwise the most game-breaking solo pwnmobile ever imagined.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.11.11 01:01:00 - [15] Originally by: Captator Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Cpt Branko I want my dual ecm strenght covops cloaking drone bonused armour tanker for solo work, assuming we get only 4 bonuses to play with Even without the special support ship bonuses available, you can make some absolutely stupid stuff. Forget variety, you're looking at fleets of nothing but passive shield buffer tanked laser/missile gank ships. Consider the following: Pwnmobile BC: 8/6/4 layout, 7 guns 3x heatsink, 2x PDU MWD, injector, 2x LSE, invulnerability field, 24k point 7x heavy pulse II, gang mod or neut 5x Warrior II Oh hey, we just obsoleted every sub-BC ship in the game. The only question is whether they'll be allowed to have T2 resists, and be game-destroyingly broken, or be limited to T1 and merely massively overpowered. Except if that suddenly becomes a BS class ship due to (insert handwavium token here), in which case does it still obsolete everything? I dunno. Do you consider a battleship with more than 11 effective range bonused guns overpowered? The only way to counter such staggering firepower (and adequate tank) is something with equally staggering firepower - i.e. another T3 ship. If T3 is designed to be the best thing in the game ever then all is well and mission accomplished. If you want something resembling balance then arbitrary rules would have to be introduced governing the interactions of bonuses and whatnot to help ensure wacky things are not done.
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.11 01:36:00 - [16] In related Tech III news WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! More at 11, assmung the sky doesn't fall first. (Seriously, wait & see - we really don't know anything yet so why speculate up a storm with virtually no information?)
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.11.11 01:52:00 - [17] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 11/11/2008 01:54:16 Originally by: Joss Sparq (Seriously, wait & see - we really don't know anything yet so why speculate up a storm with virtually no information?) Because anyone who's ever played a pen/paper RPG knows just how game-breakingly overpowered a system like this can become. Min/maxing in an RPG isn't usually a problem, since it's a cooperative game with a primary objective of everyone having fun, and in the worst-case scenario the GM can just say "that's nice, now make something that doesn't overpower everyone else in the game". But in a competitive win-at-all-costs game like EVE? Incredible potential for disaster. You think the min/maxing of Achura characters is bad? Just wait until us pen/paper veterans get our hands on ship customization. There's a very delicate balance between "boring and underpowered" and "lol, my T3 Armageddon now has one mid slot, but 8 guns and 4x ROF bonuses", and I have zero faith in CCP's ability to find it. This goes double after the latest disaster of a balance attempt. ----------- Blaster sig removed for now, pending those "changes we've been working on all day". CCP, don't screw this up.
Troye Gallente Independant Enterprises	Posted - 2008.11.12 01:10:00 - [18] Originally by: Marcus Druallis I recently saw the link to pictures of all different components of T3 ships and how they are all combined and such (will search for the link) and I think it is shaping up to be AWESOME! Can we please get a large dev blog about them soon(tm). Also, please, please, please introduce these as pre-nerfed, as they have huge potential to completely outperform T1 and T2. Where is this link!? please show us! _______________________________________ "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics...Even if you win, you're still ****ed. "
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.12 01:30:00 - [19] BAM --
whisk Gallente Quam Singulari Warp to Desktop	Posted - 2008.11.12 02:52:00 - [20] who cares how overpowered they might be, they are going to cost ALOT, and still die to blob or falcon alt Adapt or Die
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.12 03:11:00 - [21] Originally by: whisk who cares how overpowered they might be, they are going to cost ALOT, and still die to blob or falcon alt Ummm.... Uhhh.... wasn't this the EXACT argument why it didn't matter how much nano's costed for the pilot. Do people not remember why they whine for nerfs? (I was pro nano). --
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.12 03:13:00 - [22] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Because anyone who's ever played a pen/paper RPG knows just how game-breakingly overpowered a system like this can become. Sorry, they're a bit before my time and I also rolled with a different crowd in school too. Originally by: Merin Ryskin You think the min/maxing of Achura characters is bad? Just wait until us pen/paper veterans get our hands on ship customization. Actually I don't think there is any real problem with Achura, certainly nothing even approaching the game breaking level. Well, the men are a bit too f'ugly for my liking. Originally by: Merin Ryskin There's a very delicate balance between "boring and underpowered" and "lol, my T3 Armageddon now has one mid slot, but 8 guns and 4x ROF bonuses", and I have zero faith in CCP's ability to find it. This goes double after the latest disaster of a balance attempt. I think I understand your point, but I think you're being far too negative about things. Just like I think the "lol, my T3 Armageddon now has one mid slot, but 8 guns and 4x ROF bonuses" crowd would be being far too positive. Again, I don't have any real problems (yet?) with the latest balance "attempt" so I guess my problem is that I'm approaching things from a different view point than you. In any case, thank you for your response.
whisk Gallente Quam Singulari Warp to Desktop	Posted - 2008.11.12 03:40:00 - [23] Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: whisk who cares how overpowered they might be, they are going to cost ALOT, and still die to blob or falcon alt Ummm.... Uhhh.... wasn't this the EXACT argument why it didn't matter how much nano's costed for the pilot. Do people not remember why they whine for nerfs? (I was pro nano). and? Adapt or Die
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.12 03:41:00 - [24] Originally by: whisk Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: whisk who cares how overpowered they might be, they are going to cost ALOT, and still die to blob or falcon alt Ummm.... Uhhh.... wasn't this the EXACT argument why it didn't matter how much nano's costed for the pilot. Do people not remember why they whine for nerfs? (I was pro nano). and? Well apparently it was deemed by the forums a flawed argument. --
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.11.12 04:00:00 - [25] Originally by: Joss Sparq I think I understand your point, but I think you're being far too negative about things. Just like I think the "lol, my T3 Armageddon now has one mid slot, but 8 guns and 4x ROF bonuses" crowd would be being far too positive. So my T3 Myrmidon with 2x ECM strenght bonuses (20% like the norm is), 8 mids, 1 high, 6 lows (even less slots then now), a covops cloak and drone hp/damage bonus is perfectly OK and not, like, slightly gamebreaking? ;) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
whisk Gallente Quam Singulari Warp to Desktop	Posted - 2008.11.12 04:00:00 - [26] Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: whisk Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: whisk who cares how overpowered they might be, they are going to cost ALOT, and still die to blob or falcon alt Ummm.... Uhhh.... wasn't this the EXACT argument why it didn't matter how much nano's costed for the pilot. Do people not remember why they whine for nerfs? (I was pro nano). and? Well apparently it was deemed by the forums a flawed argument. and since when do any one care what people on forum think? Adapt or Die
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.12 04:11:00 - [27] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Joss Sparq I think I understand your point, but I think you're being far too negative about things. Just like I think the "lol, my T3 Armageddon now has one mid slot, but 8 guns and 4x ROF bonuses" crowd would be being far too positive. So my T3 Myrmidon with 2x ECM strenght bonuses (20% like the norm is), 8 mids, 1 high, 6 lows (even less slots then now), a covops cloak and drone hp/damage bonus is perfectly OK and not, like, slightly gamebreaking? ;) The only thing you're kind of misunderstanding is that their is no such thing as a T3 existing ship. T3 is its own thing entirely. BUT, you're argument about bonuses and attributes is fine :) --
Ferocious FeAr THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.11.12 04:18:00 - [28] Originally by: whisk who cares how overpowered they might be, they are going to cost ALOT, and still die to blob or falcon alt Finally someone with a godamn brain on these forums. __________________ Built like a Rokh
Tolsimir Wolfblood X.S. Industries	Posted - 2008.11.12 04:55:00 - [29] Well they are going to be T3 sooo why wouldnt they pwn T1 and T2 ships? There has been a want for new ships. Now that CCP has given you the option to make your own u complain? Am I the only one confused here?
Triana Gallente Concordia Shipyards	Posted - 2008.11.12 06:39:00 - [30] seeing how we dont have any solid infos for the time being i dont see what all the fuzz about balancing is to e honest. Also ccp arent dumbs, if it was me considering how we get 5 modules, i would make it that way 1 module (lets call it central hull for sakze of argument) detemines a base number of slots 2 forward modules determines some bonus slots (or malus) for hi and mids and each 1 different bonus (oen might be sensor related, the other weapons and son on. 2 rear modules determine speed , cargo capacity (or that could be central hull come to think) some low and mid slots bonus or malus and each awarding a ship bonus, speed, handling or tank related. So seeing how i m not a game designer and such the potential to abuse a system tought out by some people developping the damn game wont allow for let say 4 weapon bonuses. just my 50 cents -- War is like any other bad relationship. Of course you want out, but at what price? And perhaps more importantly, once you get out, will you be any better off?

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