Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Kasumi Shinra
The Foundation Of Mammon
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 17:11:23 -
[91] - Quote
The draft looks way better than I first imagined - definitely opens up a lot more fitting options while also reducing raw pewpew numbers and keeping most unique roles intact. Heat bonus is also a very nice addition. Keep up the good job, guys.
The proposed cap subsystem distribution might be an issue worth considering though.
The regen bonus is vital for a couple of unique roles T3s currently fill. Especially with cloak now being an active tank defensive subsystem, both Tengu and Legion will struggle very hard to be a viable choice for their HK role. Same applies to the neut Legion.
Please consider unifying cap bonuses all across the board to either be pool or regen instead of making half of the boats feel unloved. Another option might be to diligently adjust the base cap values on them (which currently are kind of fine on Legion, but complete **** on Tengu) to make sure people can fix it with flux coils when needed.
Quote:[16:04] ccp_fozzie: Tengu Augmented Capacitor 51.46% [16:04] ccp_fozzie: Tengu Capacitor Regen Matrix 41.52% [16:04] ccp_fozzie: That's the most recent breakdown of popularity The current cap pool bonus is pretty much useless on all o T3s honestly, even moreso after the introduction of cap batteries. The only reason people pick it over the regen one is to get the additional hardpoint (these are most certainly PvE Tengus making it popular on your breakdown, Fozzie).
Scan res vs CPU and warp speed vs base speed preserve the current distinctions between these hulls, which is cool. |
Toobo
Project Fruit House Solyaris Chtonium
434
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 17:48:02 -
[92] - Quote
Plenty of people commenting here on the function, role and performance of new T3 balances.
Some have asked about clarification on the 'cost' issue, but I didn't see it addressed much yet.
I am not going to propose what should be done, but I think the following questions should be asked at this stage, maybe after that we can discuss more.
1. What does CCP and/or focus group think about the current price of T3s and their subs?
* There has been a dramatic drop in price. Everything has ups and downs, but the degree of nose dive T3s have taken over the course of past year or so is remarkable, probably related to many other game changes not specific to T3 ships themselves.
I do accept that it's free market, supply/demand, players will find the price balance, etc, but there is a reason why I ask what CCP/focus group think about the current prices of T3s
a) Strat cruisers are made from resources that are harvested from very specific and quite different form of space - WH. What the final end product of resources harvested in such specific space will be priced at will have some impact on the 'value' of such space. Blue loot is probably the main portion of income now and traditionally valuable WH stuff like melted nano ribbons are pretty much at their lowest price point I remember since release of Apocrypha.
b) This may be a bigger WH balance discussion if we cover the whole topic of resource harvesting and such from supply point of view, but what the T3s will end up as final product will have an impact on demand, and if the supply remained constant then the changes in demand (due to ship balancing) will play a role in the price. If there are both changes in supply and demand to some degree (as in 'increase in cost' expression mentioned here a few times), that will obviously also affect.
2. How wide spread/popular do you want T3cs to be in use?
a) This is tied to ship balance that is being actively discussed here, but also relates to supply and demand side of things too.
b) People have been saying that T3s are 'too good' at some things that T2 does, such as force recons and HACs roles. But have you seen such dramatic drop in price for force recon and HACs in the same period? T3s are 'too good' but their price has been crashing? What do you think about that?
c) Do you want these 'nerfed' or 'rebalanced' T3 cruisers to be flown a lot en masse? or become main stay of doctrines? Or do you want them to be a jack of all trades that has good utility for a very small gang with limited number of pilots but not necessarily needed in big numbers, etc.
d) Are we going for the early phase T3D scenario where T3 cruisers become cheap and jolly ships that you see everywhere in every space? Not necessarily as OP as some T3D had been but being so cheap and versatile that they can be a go-to ship for most pilots?
e) if 'price of a ship' is not a balancing factor, I do not know what is the reason to fly any T1 class ship for which there is a T2 version (except for BL Ops maybe), and I do not see any reason to fly T1 cruiser than any of the T3s, unless you nerf T3 to be somehow worse than T1 cruiser, which I don't believe will be the direction this is heading or neither has this ever been intended/implied.
On the pure merits of their performance, role and specialisation, yes, I can see scenarios where T2 could be preferred over T3 in some specific roles. But again, if price was not an issue, do you think balancing T3Cs will stop them from obsoleting many other ships that are not as specilised as T2 cruiser classes? (i.e. will the new T3 balance reverse how most of the BCs became not so desirable?)
TBH, I never bought this 'price is not a factor' argument. I have completely stopped flying T1 cruisers once I could fly HACs, Recons and Logistics. When T3s first came out and there was even less reason to look at T1 hulls and that remained the same even after all that tiercide stuff.
Price of a ship does matter, and I feel it has been proved multiple times, through situations like T3Ds having great value for money and pirate faction ships being so cheap, that high performance ships available for very cheap prices will have great effect on the kind of ships you see regularly in space.
so tl'dr;
1) What do people think about how easily available T3s should be? (in terms of supply, shortage/abundancy depending on demand, end product price, and their usefulness in terms of performance and role - all these things considered together)
2) in other but similar vein, how many T3s do you wish to see in space?
end note: I'm just curious what you think strategic cruisers' 'place' should be in the whole game meta, not just from pound per pound comparison with another cruiser hull in terms of role and performance only. The efficiency and quality of the end product (i.e. desirability - demand) after the balance will play a role, maybe as much as any changes in supply side could. Sorry to butt into a ship balancing topic with this but the visions you have and the end product that T3s become will have very wide spread implications.
If it cannot be answered I just wish to know that such things are being considered together, not just how many turrets or mid slots a ship should have.
Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!
|
Mr Floydy
Footloose Phoebe Freeport Republic
361
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 21:27:50 -
[93] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Cut the base damage bonus to 5% on non drone boats. Then give a overheat bonus that increases the effectiveness of overheating by 15% - 20% and you'll have a system thats synergizes a lot better with the overall overheating state of the strategic cruisers, and will have a little less impact on Hac's
I'd support this, overheating bonuses are a nice change! |
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
77
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 23:38:16 -
[94] - Quote
one big issue that i see here is the tengu missile kinetic damage bonus still remains.
I think this should just be a straight 5% damage, you have gotten rid of the specific damage bonus on many other caldari ships and this one should be no different. |
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 06:38:49 -
[95] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Kesthely wrote:Cut the base damage bonus to 5% on non drone boats. Then give a overheat bonus that increases the effectiveness of overheating by 15% - 20% and you'll have a system thats synergizes a lot better with the overall overheating state of the strategic cruisers, and will have a little less impact on Hac's I'd support this, overheating bonuses are a nice change! This can be good, but: 1) armor rep can be overheated rof 6 minutes, but 6 turrets + 1 hight slot - only 1min 33 sec. Owerheating is not so usefull here. 2) With base +10% bonus t3 have 150% normal damage and 172,5 (150*1.15) owerheated with +5% base bonus and 20% Heat Benefits t3 have 125% base damage and 147 (125*1.18) overheated for 1 minut and 33 sec. This nerf t3 dps greatly. |
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 07:16:32 -
[96] - Quote
Proteus/Tengu/Loki with EWAR sub dont need extra cap/PWG, but Legion with EWAR sub should fit neuts which require extra PWG and cap. But now Legion cannot use any cap/pwg sub with EWAR sub... |
Mr Floydy
Footloose Phoebe Freeport Republic
361
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 08:04:54 -
[97] - Quote
Bromum Atom wrote:This can be good, but: 1) armor rep can be overheated rof 6 minutes, but 6 turrets + 1 hight slot - only 1min 33 sec. Owerheating is not so usefull here. 2) With base +10% bonus t3 have 150% normal damage and 172,5 (150*1.15) owerheated with +5% base bonus and 20% Heat Benefits t3 have 125% base damage and 147 (125*1.18) overheated for 1 minut and 33 sec. This nerf t3 dps greatly.
I was thinking I like it more from an idea perspective, rather than necessarily agreeing with the numbers :) I'd hope that the overheated damage should this idea happen would be relatively on par with current overheated damage, and that standard damage would be lower.
Bromum Atom wrote:Proteus/Tengu/Loki with EWAR sub dont need extra cap/PWG, but Legion with EWAR sub should fit neuts which require extra PWG and cap. But now Legion cannot use any cap/pwg sub with EWAR sub... Good point. Something that needs to be looked at! |
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
35
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 13:07:18 -
[98] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Noxisia Arkana wrote:Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete.
And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing. It shouldn't be CCP's job to make sure the players have ships that do everything they want. It's the players who need to adapt. I would love if my Marauder had better resists or the ability to use a MJD when in Bastion, but CCP has rejected both those things. Why? Well, for balance. I don't believe a ship that can fit a covert cloak, interdiction nullification, and 6 bonused turrets/launchers is balanced. There's a reason Recon Ships don't have spectacular DPS and tank. There's a reason they don't have interdiction nullification. There's a reason Black Ops Battleships can't fit covert cloaks. All of that reasoning goes out the window with T3Cs though. It's as though every other ship in the game is balanced by one standard while T3Cs are balanced by another, and it certainly doesn't help that so many players support that. 1. T3Cs are Cruisers. They are not Battlecruisers. They are not Battleships. 2. Being T3 does not justify them being fundamentally broken in terms of balance. T3Ds were just rebalanced by CCP, and they seem to be in a good place. They are very much Destroyer hulls. They don't compete all that much with Cruisers, and they certainly don't compete with Battlecruisers. T3Cs should be very much the same, relative to their hull size. 3. Cost is not a proper balancing tool when used as an excuse to try and justify an unbalanced ship. We know this. Marauders are 10x as much as T1 Battleships, but CCP refuses to give them T2 resists -- they cost as much as Dreadnaughts, but don't perform anywhere near the same level. The same should be true of T3Cs. You shouldn't be paying all that extra isk for a brokenly powerful ship. You should be paying that isk for a ship that's versatile and can adapt to many different roles -- unlike T2 ships, which are limited to specific roles. This really all seems like common sense, but T3Cs have been so strong for so long that people simply aren't willing to admit that they need a much more extensive nerf than we're currently seeing. I think that this should be the goal.
Good post, T3D's are in a good spot people are still using them all but none are really that oppressive.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3613
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 14:43:28 -
[99] - Quote
I curious as to why CCP feels that the Skill Point loss is still a valid mechanic, we have skill injectors and recently have mini-skill injectiors. It just seems to be redundant any more. On the topic of skills also, I assume that the lost subsystem skill will be refunded?
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
808
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 16:12:41 -
[100] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:I curious as to why CCP feels that the Skill Point loss is still a valid mechanic, we have skill injectors and recently have mini-skill injectiors. It just seems to be redundant any more. On the topic of skills also, I assume that the lost subsystem skill will be refunded? Fozzie admited it's all about SP sinks and extractors market.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
|
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 16:34:03 -
[101] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:I curious as to why CCP feels that the Skill Point loss is still a valid mechanic, we have skill injectors and recently have mini-skill injectiors. It just seems to be redundant any more. On the topic of skills also, I assume that the lost subsystem skill will be refunded? Fozzie admited it's all about SP sinks and extractors market. SP sinks are really just isk and time sinks though, which already exist in getting another hull, set of subsystems, and modules.
The reality is that they want T3Cs to continue standing out over T2 ships so that more and more people use them, more and more people lose SP, more and more people purchase injectors, and more and more people purchase extractors to sell said injectors.
They're using gameplay mechanics as a way of making a profit instead of actually using them because they make sense. Why don't T3Ds have SP loss? They're T3 ships just the same as T3Cs. If it were truly a valid game mechanic, it'd apply to all T3 ships. |
Kesthely
Almost Dangerous Stranger Danger.
178
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 19:21:49 -
[102] - Quote
Bromum Atom wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Kesthely wrote:Cut the base damage bonus to 5% on non drone boats. Then give a overheat bonus that increases the effectiveness of overheating by 15% - 20% and you'll have a system thats synergizes a lot better with the overall overheating state of the strategic cruisers, and will have a little less impact on Hac's I'd support this, overheating bonuses are a nice change! This can be good, but: 1) armor rep can be overheated rof 6 minutes, but 6 turrets + 1 hight slot - only 1min 33 sec. Owerheating is not so usefull here. 2) With base +10% bonus t3 have 150% normal damage and 172,5 (150*1.15) owerheated with +5% base bonus and 20% Heat Benefits t3 have 125% base damage and 147 (125*1.18) overheated for 1 minut and 33 sec. This nerf t3 dps greatly.
With the right combinations and skills the proposed strategic cruisers can have -50% heat damage already wich will make the effectiveness of it a bit higher. Also i don't believe that "limiting" the burst high dps to 1 1/2 minutes is bad.
Also with a 20% overheat bonus per level the figures would be 150 normal [172 overheated] vs 125 normal [162 overheated]
|
Advenat Bedala
Facehoof Out of Sight.
192
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 00:14:40 -
[103] - Quote
Strait idea about T3C rig use.
Allowing them to unfit rigs feels like exception from exception and this is bad. Rigs that cannot be unfit from T3C bad too
So no rigs no troubles Just zero rig slots at T3C
It will reduce amount of work that should be done for balancing (lower variations for ships with insane number of variations) will save from insane tank multiplication from rigs (more than 70%) will allow to make insane things like +2 low/mid slots with less danger will give T3C bit more feelings of different technology |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
758
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 01:48:45 -
[104] - Quote
The crazy conspiracy theories about SP loss being maintained for infinite financial gain are just nuts. If CCP was that greedy for injector cash they would have given T3Ds SP loss. Nobody would have batted an eye.
Anyway the SP loss is no longer a good balancing factor. Just remove it and increase base hull cost instead.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Kenbones Valkyrie
Seventeenth Battalion Honorable Third Party
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 06:52:29 -
[105] - Quote
So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive. |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 11:59:55 -
[106] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:The crazy conspiracy theories about SP loss being maintained for infinite financial gain are just nuts. If CCP was that greedy for injector cash they would have given T3Ds SP loss. well t3cs had sp loss as a 'balancing' mechanism people said it was dumb and made no sense then t3ds came out with no sp loss because it was dumb and made no sense then extractors came out and t3cs get rebalanced and suddenly sp loss isnt dumb and makes sense funny coincidence |
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 12:14:59 -
[107] - Quote
Kenbones Valkyrie wrote:So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive. I'm not. I'm seeing some absolutely terrible ideas, like giving the RR + links subsystems bonuses for turrets/launchers.
T3Cs are not meant to take on multiple roles at once. They are meant to switch between roles as needed.
This is insane, people wanting their T3Cs to be able to do everything. They want the cloaking subsystem to also have great tank. They want the logi + links subsystems to also have good DPS. They also seem to want unique bonuses inherent to the hull -- a hull that's not meant to have a distinct role, but the ability to swap roles.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. All you guys want seemingly T3Cs to remain as oppressive as they are now, and you attempt to justify that with saying CCP would be removing "healthy playstyles" if they changed too much.
Yeah, those playstyles are not healthy. Isn't the entire point of the T3C rebalance to address how oppressive they are, and how much they overshadow the roles of T2 ships?
Certain playstyles need drawbacks. They need sacrifices. That's how all the T2 ships work. They give up something in order to do great at something else. T3C roles should be the same. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
808
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 12:19:37 -
[108] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:The crazy conspiracy theories about SP loss being maintained for infinite financial gain are just nuts. If CCP was that greedy for injector cash they would have given T3Ds SP loss. Nobody would have batted an eye.
Anyway the SP loss is no longer a good balancing factor. Just remove it and increase base hull cost instead. Sure conspiracy here you go with Fozzman thoughts about it.
Quote:Another is that SP sinks are something we consider valuable for a game like EVE. This was true before injectors and continues to be true after them. SP is our main form of progression and it's always a concern from our side that we won't be able to keep up with providing new things for people to do with it as fast as they gain it. Having a cost like this helps provide an outlet for SP from the entire ecosystem. Healthy market means more money for CCP. Why only T3C? Why not T3D or even interceptors to keep market healthy?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3941
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 13:28:27 -
[109] - Quote
The logi/dps combo idea sounds like a spider tanking nightmare. Please no. Or lower the effective turrets to 4-5. I hope im not the only one whos worried they are comparing the damage a logi T3 can do with what a full on combat T3 can do.
And for the love of god, remove rigs completely. Makes their adaptability more fluid and keeps their power in check. Especially now they have so many slots.
Remove sp loss.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3616
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 13:42:40 -
[110] - Quote
Quote:[18:50] ccp_fozzie One big one is that it's a form of cost that is unique and distinct from our other form of costs. Costs for ships can come in the form of minerals, moongoo, LP, ISK, special drops, and SP in the case of the T3Cs. In general we're looking to highlight and emphasize the differences between T3Cs and other ships rather than make them more similar. I just wonder do you feel that about 750M (approximate cost of a skill injector) is an appropriate cost for losing a T3 ship?
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
|
Toobo
Project Fruit House Solyaris Chtonium
435
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 13:47:33 -
[111] - Quote
TBH, putting in a game mechanic that brings financial gain obviously makes sense for any commercial company
Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!
|
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 13:51:42 -
[112] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Quote:[18:50] ccp_fozzie One big one is that it's a form of cost that is unique and distinct from our other form of costs. Costs for ships can come in the form of minerals, moongoo, LP, ISK, special drops, and SP in the case of the T3Cs. In general we're looking to highlight and emphasize the differences between T3Cs and other ships rather than make them more similar. I just wonder do you feel that about 750M (approximate cost of a skill injector) is an appropriate cost for losing a T3 ship? Just to add, what Fozzie said is complete, and excuse my language, bullshit.
The construction of T3Cs is already a unique process, and CCP is also thinking of adding "new faction-specific build components sourced from WH space" to that.
They're unique enough without the SP loss. CCP just doesn't want to give it up because they know adding it to other hulls would result in massive blowback, so they're fighting the easier fight by keeping it on the hulls that already have it. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3616
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 13:52:32 -
[113] - Quote
Toobo wrote:TBH, putting in a game mechanic that brings financial gain obviously makes sense for any commercial company Then they could bring back clone costs, that removed a lot of SP from the game from players who forgot to upgrade there clones. The constantly increasing costs of an older clone also guided players to purchase more plex or grind more causing more instances for ships to be lost which in turn could also make it more desirable to purchase plex.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3989
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 15:56:11 -
[114] - Quote
Would be nice to see the passive tengue possible have less buffer when compared to the others but lower relative recharge time
Ofc I'm also slightly bothered that ccp used "passive" to describe sub systems geared at buffer i know they don't play they're game by they could try to use terms that are less misleading
BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
226
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 17:23:10 -
[115] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Would be nice to see the passive tengue possible have less buffer when compared to the others but lower relative recharge time
Ofc I'm also slightly bothered that ccp used "passive" to describe sub systems geared at buffer i know they don't play they're game by they could try to use terms that are less misleading
Passive tanked anything are typically just buffer tanked ships with regen modules in place of damage for lows/rigs. Active tanked ships rarely fit buffer as they are fitting reps in their place (occasionally 1 extender to save you from alpha).
So I fail to see the problem. If a passive shield tank didn't fit buffer they would have crap all for peak regen, and their tank would be so thin a single alpha could quickly send them sub 30% (break your tank). |
Kenbones Valkyrie
Seventeenth Battalion Honorable Third Party
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 21:30:25 -
[116] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Kenbones Valkyrie wrote:So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive. I'm not. I'm seeing some absolutely terrible ideas, like giving the RR + links subsystems bonuses for turrets/launchers. T3Cs are not meant to take on multiple roles at once. They are meant to switch between roles as needed. This is insane, people wanting their T3Cs to be able to do everything all at the same time. They want the cloaking subsystem to also have great tank. They want the logi + links subsystems to also have good DPS. They also seem to want unique bonuses inherent to the hull -- a hull that's not meant to have a distinct role, but the ability to swap roles. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. All you guys seemingly want T3Cs to remain as oppressive as they are now, and you attempt to justify that with saying CCP would be removing "healthy playstyles" if they changed too much. Yeah, those playstyles are not healthy. Isn't the entire point of the T3C rebalance to address how oppressive they are, and how much they overshadow the roles of T2 ships? Certain playstyles need drawbacks. They need sacrifices. That's how all the T2 ships work. They give up something in order to do great at something else. T3C roles should be the same.
That's not what has been said at all. The discussion was for there to be some un-bonused turrets/launchers on the logi subsystem. Also with the resist nerf the effective tank on all the T3Cs will be reduced.
At the end of the day, no matter how much the T3Cs are nerfed it wont fix how bad most the HACs are or how little the other T2 cruisers are because there are better T1/Pirate ships that fill those roles. On the other had there are some roles that only the T3Cs fill and if are nerfed to ineffectiveness then that style of game play will have been effectively removed from the game. |
Cade Windstalker
1554
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 23:11:15 -
[117] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Kenbones Valkyrie wrote:So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive. I'm not. I'm seeing some absolutely terrible ideas, like giving the RR + links subsystems bonuses for turrets/launchers. T3Cs are not meant to take on multiple roles at once. They are meant to switch between roles as needed. This is insane, people wanting their T3Cs to be able to do everything all at the same time. They want the cloaking subsystem to also have great tank. They want the logi + links subsystems to also have good DPS. They also seem to want unique bonuses inherent to the hull -- a hull that's not meant to have a distinct role, but the ability to swap roles. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. All you guys seemingly want T3Cs to remain as oppressive as they are now, and you attempt to justify that with saying CCP would be removing "healthy playstyles" if they changed too much. Yeah, those playstyles are not healthy. Isn't the entire point of the T3C rebalance to address how oppressive they are, and how much they overshadow the roles of T2 ships? Certain playstyles need drawbacks. They need sacrifices. That's how all the T2 ships work. They give up something in order to do great at something else. T3C roles should be the same.
T3Cs have always had an element of fitting multiple sub-roles under the primary one, and these changes very clearly continue that. If they wanted to hard-restrict T3Cs to one role at a time they'd have either reduced the number of subsystem slots further (something like Primary/Defensive/Propulation, with current Offensive+Utility rolled into Primary) or they'd have gone with the T3D's mode switching scheme.
Nothing anywhere in this suggests that T3Cs are meant to swap roles on the fly in any significant capacity.
If you go back and look at what CCP have said about T3Cs and T3 vs T2 the whole point of T3s is that you give up a little effect in exchange for versatility. If T3Cs can only fit for absolutely one thing at a time then they're directly competing with the various T2 hulls and since they're more expensive they're now either worthless or OP, which is bad. |
Demica Diaz
SE-1
419
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 23:32:30 -
[118] - Quote
Finally, cant wait to see new T3's it will be either fun or I uninstall the game. But Id like to say that I do not like rigs on T3. Too much hassle even if you could remove em without destroying. I would prefer T3s be completely rigless. |
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement Limited Expectations
212
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 02:53:54 -
[119] - Quote
Cut the drone bonus from the Legion (it's not gonna be a drone boat with 50mbit anyway) and shift it more towards missiles. 6 launcher, application bonus or something. Atm. its lazors + missiles and drones (sort of). Too much.
Proteus, similar story. Secondary weapon thing, both blaster and drone part feel.... incomplete. Since the Tengu also can use blasters, go full drone on the Prot....
Actually drones could be the primary on Proteus. It's a gallente boat after all. And drones instead of missiles on the Legion as secondary, it would balance the primary/secondary theme for all hulls. At least for missiles and drones. As it is now 3 can use missiles (2.5 since Legion bonus doesn't match the others) and only 1 drones (1.5 counting legion)
Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
|
Gustav Mannfred
Summer of Mumuit
164
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 09:56:24 -
[120] - Quote
Any plans to allow T3 again to enter DED 3 and DED 4 sites? back the days this change happened, nothing changed, nowadays gilas and hacs are more popular than T3.
T3 are cruisers and should be able to enther any site where cruisers can enter
i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |