These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Tech 3 Revamp
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#21 - 2013-12-02 07:47:31 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
StahlWaffe wrote:
Well, my proposal for bringing Tech3 in line is either, drop their rigslots to 2 like on Tech2 ships, or give Tech2 ships 3 rigslots.
Then, split the bonuses of Subsystems onto SUBSYSTEM Level AND Strategic Cruiser Level. Upon loss, you lose 1 level of Strategic Cruiser and 1 level of the highest subsystem.

This way, for getting maximum performance, you need Strategic Cruiser to 5. And if you lose it, your overall performance takes a significant hit. You have to make a decision: Keep the Tech3 skill at 4, so you don't lose tons of skillpoints in case you die and can quickly achieve the performance you had earlier, or do you want maximum performance and risk losing that performance for a month?


They need to get rid of SP loss not make it even more punitive.

Howabout a 5% SP loss from all applicable subsystem skills as well as the strategic cruiser skill? More coverage, less total loss.


How about they just get rid of it since they have now decided T3s shouldn't be any better than T2 cruisers?
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#22 - 2013-12-02 08:22:24 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
How about they just get rid of it since they have now decided T3s shouldn't be any better than T2 cruisers?

I imagine it'll be retained just to add insult to the nerf injury… When they say "not quite nerfed to the point of uselessness", you have to wonder exactly how close. It's ironic that the SoE cruiser probably out DPSs any Covert T3 configurations for basically the same price. Not looking forward to the 2014 nerf bat...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#23 - 2013-12-02 10:50:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Swiftstrike1
I would like to see rig slots removed from T3 cruisers because it will increase their versatility. That said, every single subsystem needs rebalancing. Every. Single. One.

EDIT: Some people are bound to think "omg what an idiot, removing rig slots does the exact opposite of increasing versatility". Here's why those people are wrong. As soon as you put rigs on a T3 they cannot be removed without destroying them and that limits you to fits with that exact rig layout.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-12-02 11:18:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Kalel Nimrott wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
what i would like to see happen is all the EHP and fittings/slots etc.. go into the hull itself... and use subs as a bonus only change

Certain other aspects would need to change with the subsystems, but yes that is probably the best way to balance them.

Slots, power grid, CPU, cargo capacity, HP, and drone bay would be static features of the ships.
Hardpoints, velocity, drone bandwidth, agility and bonuses should vary with each subsystem.
And of course no matter what the interdiction nullifier should remove a low slot.

But could Cpu be modified by an electronic subsystem?

If they do not change the subsystems that does that then yes.

Taking the Proteus as an example: (of course these numbers are just the average of what we have right now so they are most likely either to high or to low)

Slot Layout
6 High
4 Mid
6 Low

Power Grid 1100MW
CPU 390
Capacitor 1500 GJ/Recharge Time 415s

Armor HP 3400
Shield HP 2200/Recharge Time 1620
Hull HP 1850

Cargo Capacity 280m^3
Drone Bay 225m^3

From here the subsystems would change things like velocity, agility, turret/launcher hardpoints, drone bandwidth, and bonuses that could/would effect the presented numbers.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#25 - 2013-12-02 11:27:37 UTC
Kalel Nimrott wrote:
But could Cpu be modified by an electronic subsystem?

We already have a CPU-based electronic subsystem.[/quote]

I was asking on his context. He specified that CPU Should be something fix in a revamped version of the T3s.

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7
Previous page12