Ships & Modules

I don't think the eagle is capable of being good.

It's a cruiser who's main strength is range and range on cruisers is great, or at least it would be if bs's didn't exist and we didn't need to warp scramble our targets and you don't care about dps efficiency. This idea of making bs guns not hit small targets at range to fix one ship is just bound to **** up a dozen other things if it was implemented.

There isn't really anything you can fiddle with the eagle aside from general fitting/tank/dps/sensor boosts which will likely make it a second diemost which is double fail and still won't make it useful at it's actual role.

I think either it needs a redesign (into what??) or rails need something aside from range that it can work with. Don't try and mess with large turret tracking it will screw too many things just do something with rails they have more problems and won't screw around as much.




The leadership stuff with t2 vs t3 are similar we can't fix the balance between these two ships without messing with the mechanics they work with. Though honestly that system is ripe for an overhaul. It's too safe at poses, only 1 of each command link type and limits on the spots in your fleet that those flying those ships can fit in... there are definitely ways this could be implemented better. Tried to come up with a better system but I'm sure CCP could make a much better system than I could (looks at inventory) or a much worse system.

except that this intended flexibility is a complete failure. Considering you MUST have a station to dock at in order to swap subsystems.

So instead of flexibility, I must now haul in billions worth of T3's, one for each role i require, since it is impossible to change a T3's subsystem (and hence role) at a POS.

No, but you went on to talk about balance issues without pointing out that their intended role is a failure to begin with. IMO an important point as many people may come into this thread don't realize this aspect of T3's which can be important as we try to discuss balance issues.

Quoting this because it's actually an interesting discussion (as opposed to most of the other drivel spurting on in thread).

CS:

I belive you are overlooking what is happening to a gang as you scale down. In a medium-large general setting accumulating overall bonuses is usually better. Then a CS would be preferred, but isn't that what we want to achieve?

It's a general booster providing a stronger overall specific role. You have everything else covered, when you have the numbers to dedicate specialized boosters (if they are not typical alts), probers and whatnot.

It's the same reason why in most small-medium fights people don't primary CS or chase down off-grid boosters. They need the manpower on-grid and fights are decided after initial losses (with more lynchpins). A large gang chasing down a small gang, or two large gangs facing each other with abundant resources on grid - then neutralizing boosters become a much more obvious tactical choice. A small gang do not divide resources to neutralize a larger gang's boosters. It has nothing to do with being well composed by having probers. That only exist at respective scale or numerical superiority. The only time you divide like that is when you don't need people on grid. Once again, scale or superiority. It's also the same reason why off-grid boosting is popular on alts. They are not selections, they're spare, they'd add very little on grid.

I'm a bit unhappy with that explanation, but i hope you get the gist of it.


Tech III:

As you scale down (assuming the booster role do not remain an alt-fest where it's pointless having a main characters participating full on) you raise the demands on ships or players to carry out more roles and adapt. In those gangs being able to provide Links and fill additional needs rise. To provide gang-dependent specialist roles also become more important. The Tech III boosters fit nicely into this as they can provide isolated boosting with additional specialized roles at once. For example, they can boost, cloak and EW.

In that sense they become both specialized and 'modular' allround which is their intended role. Not as a better general booster over a CS but as an adaptable specialist, inline with the idea of most higher tech ships. A smaller high-tech mitigation oriented gang, like HACs with an odd Logi or two, benefit so much more from the resist link. Their repair-volume is usually not enough to make the active bonuses important, not until they scale up in numbers. It makes the Tech III the natural booster for Tech II gangs (who do not rely on allround performance) while the CS (as you mention) climb above for general fleet use.

To me that's balance and intended role.


Summary:

I understand if there's some confusion in the words here, so let me try to clear that up, as it also sum up my point: overall/general-specific role, and specialist-modular/allround role. The "HAC or Recon of boosting". Giving the CS stronger isolated volume (ie., more %) would be bad since you would provide better bonuses from/to ships intended for larger or more generalized gangs - while Tech III are intended or at least today function as support within other high-tech gangs. You won't run an Eos with cloaky Recons anyway; it can't cloak, it can't drop etc., so why should unbonused ships reap better EW bonuses? It doesn't make sense. We don't want to enable the ever-recurring Drakeblob with stronger bonuses, while the specialist Recon outfits (who can't tank, thus need no allround bonus accumulation) suffer more. That balance is already out of whack, seen here if nothing else, as people complain about HACs - yet don't seem to understand how that applies to boosting. The whole "Tech II should be better per definition, sod context" is a pretty stupid stance.

• It's that stupidity that keep feeding the blobs, and counteracting intended results. It would make HAC worse!
• It's the criticism CCP get regarding playing their game: understanding context. Why Tier 3 BC killed HAC, not Drake.
• That balance (isolated vs. accumulated) is what's skewered by off-grid boosting alts running multiple links.

Addendum:

Today, using alts for these roles is encouraged by every aspect of balance from gang size, to type to economy. I have perfect boosting skills on my main character, but i hardly ever use it for that anymore as it's a poor 'gang investment'. The total SP on the character is better spent elsewhere (on-grid) and the implant selection is pointless either per cost-efficiency, how clones work (something that actually do need attention) or locking up implant slots. This is also the biggest issue with Tech III and off-grid boosting as the combined specialist-specific total is extremely powerful - especially when you begin seeding links and run them on setups that benefit full-out from all six or more links (such as 100mn active boosters; reaping the benefit of six links getting faster, smaller, longer and harder with both better recovery and stamina). Booster alts are more out of whack than Logi alts or Falcon alts ever were, and that's what need to change - actual players should be encouraged to carry out the role(s). Removing the CoPro will achieve that much better than forcing people on-grid or flipping percentages. Are there better solutions? I'm all ears.

Well done for answering your own question.

Nice, you just did it again. Now no-one need be in any doubt.

Ships & Modules needs good contributors such as yourself to keep these threads on focus.

I feel that someone is forgetting that the purpose of t3 ships was for them to be a lot more versatile than t2, but overall worse than t2 in regards to specific tasks, at least that's what ccp INTENDED it to be. Instead, they gave us ships that can do most of the jobs the tech 1 and tech 2's can do and outpreform a decent amount of them at their roles, that and they outperform a higher tier shipclass aswell in regards to it's role.

Tech three cruisers weren't supposed to have a spesific role, they were thought of as having the abilty to preform any role. but being less good at it.

I too want to pay 5 times the price of a T2 ship for a ship that's not as good as any of the 5 T2 cruisers I could buy instead. I'm literally willing to pay that much simply to simplify my hangar.

Except that I won't be simplifying my hangar, because rigs are fixed, and I'll also need a dozen or so subsystems, plus the loose fittings, plus if I loose my potentially-mediocre-at-everything ship, then I don't have the "versatility" of jumping another pre-fitted ready to go ship, so actually I have to buy some or all of those 5 T2 ships anyway.

Or I could spend 5 times as much and have 4 more T3s ready for me to go and be mediocre in, that's a good option.

Yes sir, that's worth the money to me.

CCP will basically have to rejig the construction/materials costs of T3s to place them somewhere between T1 and T2 if they want to actually go with the "versatile-but-mediocre" model, because no-one is ever going to pay more than the cost of a T2 for a ship that's not as good as a T2 I don't know how to make it more clear than that.

Oh yeah and the skillpoint loss. Eh, if i'm putting 210k SP on the line, then it better be for a ship that does something worthwhile. So that would have to go as well.

I'm just saying that that's what their designed intention was. Rigs should be fixed so that subsystems can be swapped whilst the ship is still assembled. Their cost should also be reduced if they are to assume their intended role. A major part of the problem is how these modular and change on the fly ships are too expensive for that purpose and too difficult to change simply because people are being sad that they have to remove the rigs to change the subsystems. (Though quite frankly, how much do these rigs cost now again?)


The construction costs should still remain above t2, as they're more versatile and can be used for more different things than t2 ships, which are rather narrow at what they can achieve. Though they are rather high. But at the same time, I wonder who's keeping them that high? The suppliers of the components needed to make them perhaps? I'm sorry for the fact that your ship might be turned into what it was intended to be.

The problem is that versatility is something that is not entirely useful in a game where people would have specialized alts even for pooping if that skill existed.


The only niche T3's are currently fine at is solo (not multiboxing) exploration - I can have a ship probing like a cov ops frig whilst fielding enough tank and gank to take out most plexes I encounter and still have a codebreaker and analyzer fitted whilst being hard to probe down.

Other than that, they're either absurdly OP with some tengu fits or close to useless.

The problem is that if you want to specialize in a T3, it becomes better than its T2 counterpart. Maybe limiting their rig slots to 1 or even zero could help.