These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tech 3 Destroyers coming in RHEA

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#161 - 2014-10-25 08:17:59 UTC
Freako X wrote:
I'm not gonna lie ....

I was hoping for one of the T3 modes to be for small ship fleet boosts.

Of course, that would include on-grid buffing only ....

But that would be too much I guess.



They already cannot makepeopel use CS for that role... of all the dozens fo ships that can use luinks, only t3 are used. No need for more. Ont he contrary... several shoudl lose and leave that work for CS.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
BrundleMeth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#162 - 2014-10-25 11:46:12 UTC
Xuixien wrote:

Your argument is garbage. Moving on.

Your constant whining is garbage.

T3's are fine the way they are. Don't care what you think...

Moving on...
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#163 - 2014-10-26 02:01:13 UTC
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Garbage, absolute garbage.

They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap.


You, and all your previous arguements are worthless. You think that everything needs rebalanced probably because you are a horrible player. You're the same kinda person that thinks the cure to null stagnation is all this SOV/cap ship rebalancing.

Players are adaptive and will always go with what works the best, this doesn't mean every module every ship needs to be changed every two months because a new favorite tactic is adopted. THAT IS HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO WORK. The fact that certain ship aren't as favorable is fine, its called natural selection. Suck it up and train for something else or get inventive and make those under utilized hulls work.

Point 2: new content is always good, because that is, in fact, what prevents this game and others from stagnation. It also is the cure to perferred ships type/fits. If something better is introduced then people will gravitate towards it. Problem solved.

Quit being a whiner and take your rebalancing talk to your psych.


3/10.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#164 - 2014-10-26 02:02:56 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Garbage, absolute garbage.

They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap.




Nope. You are shortsighted.


No, the shortsighted ones are the kids going "OOH SHINIES PUT IT IN THE GAME RIGHT AWAY".

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Mithandra
B.O.P Supplication For Glorious
Dracarys.
#165 - 2014-10-26 05:50:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mithandra
Well the only thing I've pulled from reading this thread is some of you like hearing the sound of your own perceptions (or the visual equivalent at least).

Just because it's YOUR opinion doesn't make it the RIGHT opinion. Get over yourselves already.

Yes the game needs new content
Yes the game needs rebalancing, and has done for 11 ish years.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm looking forward to messing with new ships and am on tenterhooks to see how the player base can exploit them for their own ends.

Eve is the dark haired, totally hot emo gothchild of the gaming community
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#166 - 2014-10-26 07:37:18 UTC
I am exceedingly stoked about the new ships. I think some diversity in the destroyer line has been needed for a long time.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#167 - 2014-10-26 10:11:35 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Garbage, absolute garbage.

They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap.




Nope. You are shortsighted.


No, the shortsighted ones are the kids going "OOH SHINIES PUT IT IN THE GAME RIGHT AWAY".



Again.. helps if you are at least not so shortsighted and read the whole posts. IF they nerf T3 before they create more demand for t3 material , the wormhole economy collapses.

They are just using their brains.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#168 - 2014-10-26 10:18:13 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Jessica Duranin wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Tech3's are not fine as they are, and are in fact terribly balanced. When you fit them for combat roles, they outperform the tech2 combat variants.

Of course they do. They cost more, require more skills and you lose skills when your ship dies.
If they wouldn't outperform HACs no one would use them in that role.


Cost is not a balancing factor. Never was, never will be. CCP tried that with Supers and look what the result was.

Skill point loss is also irrelevant to balance, although I do feel that is a stupid mechanic.

Last point is the problem with tech3's - the don't specialize enough when it comes to combat role. They outperform HACs, so people use them. If they didn't outperform HACs, people would use HACs. They should perform in a different way from HACs; there should be some disadvantage to using them.

Again, to reiterate; EVE is not balanced around "this ship is better than that ship so fly the better ship" and power creep will not help EVE.

When a Tech3 variant has the same (or in some cases more) speed, tank, and DPS than the tech2 variant... that is a problem. When Tech3's perform on the level of a BC with a cruiser hull, you are in fact obsoleting over 20 ships.



Game being balance also does nto mean EVERYTHIGN being equaly usable. Extremes are to be handled (like osome of the t3 configurations might be), but some ships MUST be better than others. Or the game loses a lot of suspension of disbelief and reasosn for peopel to aim forward.

On your line of tought, a rupture should be as powerful as a vagabond. IT shall not and gladly will not be.


The thing that went wrong with t3 is that they combine beign EASIER to train than hacs and being stronger. IF they needed 2 times the tiem to triant aht hacs need they would be on same balance as hacs and t1 cruisers are.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#169 - 2014-10-26 13:33:17 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

The thing that went wrong with t3 is that they combine beign EASIER to train than hacs and being stronger. IF they needed 2 times the tiem to triant aht hacs need they would be on same balance as hacs and t1 cruisers are.


They have other balancing factors besides this, you're just ignoring them.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#170 - 2014-10-26 17:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
"If" these new destroyers work out, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see a retcon of existing T3 cruiser mechanics... which will likely be something that wormhole residents in particular would appreciate.

Balancing all of the subsystem capabilities available for T3 cruisers has to be a bit of a nightmare, one that I'm sure has made CCP reluctant to introduce the same mechanic to other ship lines.

When you consider that most people already gravitate to two or three basic configurations already, and CCP's capability for a ship to change configuration (both in capability and visually) on the fly has increased, it only makes sense that this path is being explored. If this works out well and is popular it elegantly solves many balancing issues (or at least simplifies them) and grants certain obvious advantages to the player base as well.

For my part I will be watching the development of these destroyers closely, with an eye to how these mechanics could possibly be applied to our current (and future) T3 ship classes.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#171 - 2014-10-28 11:12:56 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Garbage, absolute garbage.

They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap.


You, and all your previous arguements are worthless. You think that everything needs rebalanced probably because you are a horrible player. You're the same kinda person that thinks the cure to null stagnation is all this SOV/cap ship rebalancing.

Players are adaptive and will always go with what works the best, this doesn't mean every module every ship needs to be changed every two months because a new favorite tactic is adopted. THAT IS HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO WORK. The fact that certain ship aren't as favorable is fine, its called natural selection. Suck it up and train for something else or get inventive and make those under utilized hulls work.

Point 2: new content is always good, because that is, in fact, what prevents this game and others from stagnation. It also is the cure to perferred ships type/fits. If something better is introduced then people will gravitate towards it. Problem solved.

Quit being a whiner and take your rebalancing talk to your psych.


3/10.


2/10
Arturisk Spinne
#172 - 2014-11-16 20:28:58 UTC
personally, i think if new t3 are going to be introduced, it should be in the frigate and battleship classes, even though a 100+m frig would be crazy, but, frigs seem to be the most popular class overall, so, would make sense

as far as the dessys go, i posted awhile ago about how it would be nice to see faction dessys(navy corax with 8 launcher slots anyone? :D ), and maybe a new t2 variant(corvette class?) that sacrifices some of the raw firepower for the speed to keep up with frigs

in that post i also mentioned something else that ill post again here cuz it would be awesome, a 'chameleon' module. as the name suggests, it would be a sort of watered down cloak, basically reducing the ships sig radius, making it harder to target and hit, while the ship using it could still attack and use other mods, while only receiving some of the negatives a normal cloak would incur, lower scan res, maybe make it cap heavy to balance it out?

seems reasonable, doable, and likely to be implemented eventually....

I, AM THE WALRUS
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#173 - 2014-11-16 20:48:04 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
"Can't make up their minds" is pretty much CCP's defining problem. Most of the problems in the game are a direct result of them attempting to have their cake and eat it too, caught between two fundamentally incompatible things and refusing to take a stand either way.

I'd have gone with the absolutely awful customer service, and treating players like the enemy or their total inability to admit mistakes as the number one problem, but the indecisiveness is definitely up there.
Jarod Garamonde
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2014-11-16 20:59:54 UTC
Carribean Queen wrote:

How about no. T3's are fine as they are now and should be expanded upon, seeing as how they have yet to give us the remaining subsystems for them.



T3 ships are just as much better than T2 as between T2 and T1.

They're fine. Stop complaining and fly one. They're not even THAT expensive anymore, unless you bling them out like a mission-runner zombie's Marauder.

And, as has already been mentioned, we only got half the subsystems we were intended to have.
It's because of tripe like this that we don't even have a T3 for every size category.

Now, bring on the T3 Frigs, BShips, Industrials, and *possibly* Caps (but don't go overboard on the caps.... I'd be happy with just an anti-subcap Dread)

That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...

    [#savethelance]
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#175 - 2014-11-16 22:02:32 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Hengle Teron wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Oh Lord please no. EVERY time they touch exploration it gets worse than it was before. If they revisit it again there won't be anything left.

lol, so true



yah for some odd unfathomable reason ...

1. "Here is an awesome elite specialized career where you get to sneak around discovering awesome really rare stuff that makes you huge bucket loads of ISK"

PLUS

2. " here is a great noob career that is really easy to learn and skill up for and absolutely anyone and everyone can do it really easily"


has not worked out as a good combo for them. You would think those two things would just go together huh.


And then again, they do go along really nicely. Running hisec datas and relics is accessible to new players, but running low and null DEDs on a regular basis actually requires a certain level of competence, and the high end ones decent kit too.

King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#176 - 2014-11-16 22:04:44 UTC
Oh and looking very much forward to D3s.

Their mode-based operation opens up new combat styles and tactics, which is the best kind of development.

Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#177 - 2014-11-20 18:33:23 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Garbage, absolute garbage.

They should balance the existing tech3's before introducing more wonky crap.


Can't really balance something that's meant to be configurable to any pilots individual taste. T3's aren't better at any specific task that's a dedicated t2. They're just average in all things. Being average shouldn't be seen as op or unbalanced. I've seen so many guys get cheesed because their Hac just got wrecked by a T3 with dead space and officer(rarely) mods. Overall, a t3 is better than a t2. Not because it's just a higher tier, but because T3's are selective in their configurations. I mean really, it's modular. T3 owner can drastically change the stats over all functions of their ship. Precise control over ships design aspect. That is a t3 greatest asset.

Now, I can understand how some people feels about t3 being quicker to train for than the lower tiered T2s. This is true to some degree. The skill sets are a bit different. I know some time ago when I looked at what to train a particular Hac would take 45 days to train, while the t3 would take like 27 or so. T2's have some extra skills to train to IV and V, capacitor skills and other stuff. T3, require only training for the subsystems and racial cruiser. Most of this stuff gets trained to 5 when we first start eve. Navigation V for the propulsion subsystem for example. Power grid, electronics etc. Obviously, t2 weapons. I shy away from calling it unbalanced, but rather waste/ missuse of skill training. But, you loose skill points when you die in a t3. Anyway, you are training for the empty hull and subsystems.
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!