These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

More Tech 3?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kalli Brixzat
#21 - 2012-06-06 03:07:05 UTC
As was said above, the carebear in me wants nothing more than a T3 BS to pimp out for L4 and L5 farming.

But...the reasonable player in me thinks that existing ships should be fixed before new ships are added.

Mastin Dragonfly wrote:
Only if they don't make them so completely ugly as a lot of the t3 cruiser set ups, especially the Legion and Proteus.


I find this funny...the Legion and Proteus are my two favorite T3's, aesthetically.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-06-06 03:12:37 UTC
are we not still waiting on the mystical 5th subsystems still?

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Kalli Brixzat
#23 - 2012-06-06 03:14:31 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:
are we not still waiting on the mystical 5th subsystems still?


You mean the one that will either be:

1. So good, you MUST fit it or be deemed a "bad"; or
2. Is so bad that it's not even really in-game.
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2012-06-06 03:24:16 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Rather see marauders loose salvage ability and win capital guns and tracking bonus, now this would be awesome !!


Yes please !
Kalli Brixzat
#25 - 2012-06-06 03:36:46 UTC
Cedo Nulli wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Rather see marauders loose salvage ability and win capital guns and tracking bonus, now this would be awesome !!


Yes please !


Oh for the love of fekk no...
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#26 - 2012-06-06 04:53:27 UTC
My wish-list:
- Marauders gaining actual sensor strength so they can be used in PVP
- Marauders losing their useless tractor beams (obsoleted by Noctis) to be replaced by enhanced EWAR bonuses (TP/ECM/Web/TD)
- An actual gas-sucking ship built for purpose (hello 20k cargo plus turret slots) / ship for ring mining combo deal

Interestingly, you can have logistic frigates. It's called remote-rep assault frigates. They work, they are fun, easy to train into. The small shield transporters, however, are seriously useless (wtf fitting requirements) however, so this is an armour-only dealybob.

T3 frigates? Seriously? The biggest problem will be restraining the powergrid and CPU and making the actual modular systems work on a frigate hull. It's not like you get many slots or PG/CPU to start with, so if it worked like the cruiser subsystems, you'd have 2 or 3 subsystems in each slot which didn't add a high/mid/low slot and just added capabilities.

Eg, take the current Merlin.3/4/3 layout for 7 slots total. If you have 5 subsystems, each subsystem can only give you one slot each, and only a couple could give you 2 slots. However, if you even give one subsystem in each category, someone can put together a T3 frigate with 10 slots total.

Whether or not you can fill those up on PG/CPU is another matter, but take your average Merlin. It has 225 Tf of CPU and 50 PG. So, your propulsion and engineering subsystems can only give you 25 PG each, and your offensive, defensive and electronics subs can only give around 80Tf each on average.

Spread 50 PG around 10 slots, and you can't fit much at all. Maybe a small extender, a smal booster. 225 Tf around 10 slots, you'll be restricted to passive hardeners, resistance plates...or you'll have to find a way of balancing things out.

And in the end you would end up with a frigate with HAC style DPS (cause, frankly, blaster Enyos already out-DPS Eagles), cruiser sized tanks (given the Merlin and Punisher already out-tank most 2nd and 3rd tier cruisers and out-DPS them by 50%), and BS sized cost. Yeah, that's the way forward! Though, of course, the idea of having people lose SP's to arty tornados and arty thrashers with the inevitable active-tanked FW grinding fits AFKing through hisec does have merit.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Kaikka Carel
Ziea
#27 - 2012-06-06 06:16:12 UTC
^ Loved the last part))

So taking those restrictions into consideration would a T3 Destroyer work? With actuall T2 ressists and not that crap dictors have.
ACE McFACE
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-06-06 11:04:32 UTC
Renier Gaden wrote:
T3 aside, the idea of a Logistics frigate sounds interesting.

Should of made the mining frigates into t1 logi frigates, then t2 counterparts of them

Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#29 - 2012-06-06 11:16:40 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Kalel Nimrott wrote:
Almost every role in the game is covered by a ship class or type, even the multiplataform role (T3 cruisers). Which possble role is yet to be fullfilled?

Extrapolating from the Tengu, Caldari T3 frigates would fill the role of having a battlecruiser tank with battlecruiser firepower on a frigate hull.



Ho noes "light missiles are overpowered" threads incoming. It's not like if those are just underrated Lol

brb
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#30 - 2012-06-06 11:22:01 UTC
ACE McFACE wrote:
Renier Gaden wrote:
T3 aside, the idea of a Logistics frigate sounds interesting.

Should of made the mining frigates into t1 logi frigates, then t2 counterparts of them

and then change scout sites to be frigate only and balanced to a 5man gang. that would be pretty awesome.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Unimaginative Guy
Dutch Squad
#31 - 2012-06-06 23:20:19 UTC
T3 Modular titans with t2 Resist and a subsystem that gives 5% Armor resistances/level
Apolyon I
Shadow of ISW
#32 - 2012-06-06 23:30:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Apolyon I
Trinkets friend wrote:
My wish-list:
- Marauders gaining actual sensor strength so they can be used in PVP
- Marauders losing their useless tractor beams (obsoleted by Noctis) to be replaced by enhanced EWAR bonuses (TP/ECM/Web/TD)
- An actual gas-sucking ship built for purpose (hello 20k cargo plus turret slots) / ship for ring mining combo deal

Interestingly, you can have logistic frigates. It's called remote-rep assault frigates. They work, they are fun, easy to train into. The small shield transporters, however, are seriously useless (wtf fitting requirements) however, so this is an armour-only dealybob.

T3 frigates? Seriously? The biggest problem will be restraining the powergrid and CPU and making the actual modular systems work on a frigate hull. It's not like you get many slots or PG/CPU to start with, so if it worked like the cruiser subsystems, you'd have 2 or 3 subsystems in each slot which didn't add a high/mid/low slot and just added capabilities.

Eg, take the current Merlin.3/4/3 layout for 7 slots total. If you have 5 subsystems, each subsystem can only give you one slot each, and only a couple could give you 2 slots. However, if you even give one subsystem in each category, someone can put together a T3 frigate with 10 slots total.

Whether or not you can fill those up on PG/CPU is another matter, but take your average Merlin. It has 225 Tf of CPU and 50 PG. So, your propulsion and engineering subsystems can only give you 25 PG each, and your offensive, defensive and electronics subs can only give around 80Tf each on average.

Spread 50 PG around 10 slots, and you can't fit much at all. Maybe a small extender, a smal booster. 225 Tf around 10 slots, you'll be restricted to passive hardeners, resistance plates...or you'll have to find a way of balancing things out.

And in the end you would end up with a frigate with HAC style DPS (cause, frankly, blaster Enyos already out-DPS Eagles), cruiser sized tanks (given the Merlin and Punisher already out-tank most 2nd and 3rd tier cruisers and out-DPS them by 50%), and BS sized cost. Yeah, that's the way forward! Though, of course, the idea of having people lose SP's to arty tornados and arty thrashers with the inevitable active-tanked FW grinding fits AFKing through hisec does have merit.


marauder is already awesome in pvp, sensor strength is irrelevant if you never got jammed
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#33 - 2012-06-07 01:30:33 UTC
Yup, no one ever Because of Falcon's or dumps 5 Hornet EC's on you. By that line of logic, you don't need a tank if no one shoots at you, so may as well fly gank Nados everywhere.

In hisec, Marauders can be pretty beastly because you can deploy neutral RR, alts out the wazoo for scouting, and have a very controlled situation. Lowsec, bringing out a marauder is a candle flame for piratical moths. Nullsec, if you've ever been there, is similar, except with ECM drone saturation. W-space...i've seen a dozen marauders, total, and most were blinged ratting boats in C3's that died horribly.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Garresh
Mackies Raiders
Wild Geese.
#34 - 2012-06-07 08:45:15 UTC
How about a dedicated exploration ship? I know we have T3s, but we don't have dedicated exploration ships that can do gas clouds. I'd like to see a ship type that can do all 4 of the main site types: grav, mag, radar, ladar, so you can actually explore without skipping half the **** you find.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Apolyon I
Shadow of ISW
#35 - 2012-06-07 09:33:42 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
Yup, no one ever Because of Falcon's or dumps 5 Hornet EC's on you. By that line of logic, you don't need a tank if no one shoots at you, so may as well fly gank Nados everywhere.

In hisec, Marauders can be pretty beastly because you can deploy neutral RR, alts out the wazoo for scouting, and have a very controlled situation. Lowsec, bringing out a marauder is a candle flame for piratical moths. Nullsec, if you've ever been there, is similar, except with ECM drone saturation. W-space...i've seen a dozen marauders, total, and most were blinged ratting boats in C3's that died horribly.

http://kb.eveaquila.com/?a=kill_related&kll_id=21725

kronos deal top damage on almost everything.

eft != real combat

http://rooksandkings.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=36368

here's the fit if you ask
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#36 - 2012-06-07 11:35:30 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
While they definitely look sexy; there are no extra tech 3 ships planned for now. Reasons for that are quite simple.


First, you need a role for them that can fit in our balancing composition while not making existing vessels obsolete. That is a big problem we face with current Tech 3 cruisers, best example being the Tengu / Tech 3 command subsystems being better than tech 2 counterparts, while the others tech 3 cruisers / subsystems are quite subpar. Before we introduce new tech 3 ships, we really want to define a purpose for them that is unique and revamp existing ships to match. Ideally, each of their configuration should be useful, but it is not the case in practice when only a few have practical applications.

Second, frigates are not really the best hull to base a tech 3 ship hull from. That's because tech 3 ships are, by nature, expensive to acquire, which conflicts with the frailty of a frigate as a whole. Frigates are supposed to be expendable and relatively straightforward to set up, but this directly clashes with the complex nature of selecting and getting subsystems. Also, frigates have a lot of variations already - navy, pirate, tech 2, you name it, we have it. Thus, the chance that a tech 3 frigate would bring something new to the table without creating the problem explained in the first paragraph remains very low, and we would setting ourselves up for the same problems we face with tech 3 cruisers at the moment.


Based on all of this, here is the ship priority plan for the time being:

  • Fix old hulls that are underpowered
  • If and when we need new shinies, create new tech 1 roles (tier 3 BCs) or, if needed, missing tech 2 variations
  • If we ever need new tech 3 hulls in the future, my vote would be to larger hulls, like battleships for the reasons explained above. Tech 3 battlecruisers are not a choice I would vouch for however, as they would conflict with tech 3 cruisers (same weapon system size) and without to say this ship class already is extremely popular, quite at the expense of the other hull sizes, so no need to aggravate the problem further.



Hope that clears things a bit.
TomyLobo
U2EZ
#37 - 2012-06-07 12:55:01 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
While they definitely look sexy; there are no extra tech 3 ships planned for now. Reasons for that are quite simple.


First, you need a role for them that can fit in our balancing composition while not making existing vessels obsolete. That is a big problem we face with current Tech 3 cruisers, best example being the Tengu / Tech 3 command subsystems being better than tech 2 counterparts, while the others tech 3 cruisers / subsystems are quite subpar. Before we introduce new tech 3 ships, we really want to define a purpose for them that is unique and revamp existing ships to match. Ideally, each of their configuration should be useful, but it is not the case in practice when only a few have practical applications.

Second, frigates are not really the best hull to base a tech 3 ship hull from. That's because tech 3 ships are, by nature, expensive to acquire, which conflicts with the frailty of a frigate as a whole. Frigates are supposed to be expendable and relatively straightforward to set up, but this directly clashes with the complex nature of selecting and getting subsystems. Also, frigates have a lot of variations already - navy, pirate, tech 2, you name it, we have it. Thus, the chance that a tech 3 frigate would bring something new to the table without creating the problem explained in the first paragraph remains very low, and we would setting ourselves up for the same problems we face with tech 3 cruisers at the moment.


Based on all of this, here is the ship priority plan for the time being:

  • Fix old hulls that are underpowered
  • If and when we need new shinies, create new tech 1 roles (tier 3 BCs) or, if needed, missing tech 2 variations
  • If we ever need new tech 3 hulls in the future, my vote would be to larger hulls, like battleships for the reasons explained above. Tech 3 battlecruisers are not a choice I would vouch for however, as they would conflict with tech 3 cruisers (same weapon system size) and without to say this ship class already is extremely popular, quite at the expense of the other hull sizes, so no need to aggravate the problem further.



Hope that clears things a bit.

Did I hear someone say, "CCP Ytterbium FTW" ?
Denuo Secus
#38 - 2012-06-07 13:14:55 UTC
TomyLobo wrote:
Did I hear someone say, "CCP Ytterbium FTW" ?

CCP Ytterbium FTW


I like this part:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
....Ideally, each of their configuration should be useful, but it is not the case in practice when only a few have practical applications.....


Blaster/Rail/ECM-Tengu anyone? It's so boring a Tengu is good in one config only. If I want to surprise or confuse my opponent with creative sub-system choice...I end up in a subpar ship atm :S
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#39 - 2012-06-07 13:21:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Second, frigates are not really the best hull to base a tech 3 ship hull from. That's because tech 3 ships are, by nature, expensive to acquire, which conflicts with the frailty of a frigate as a whole. Frigates are supposed to be expendable and relatively straightforward to set up, but this directly clashes with the complex nature of selecting and getting subsystems. Also, frigates have a lot of variations already - navy, pirate, tech 2, you name it, we have it. Thus, the chance that a tech 3 frigate would bring something new to the table without creating the problem explained in the first paragraph remains very low, and we would setting ourselves up for the same problems we face with tech 3 cruisers at the moment.



Hope that clears things a bit.


I understand your reasoning for this, but I think the T3 Frigate line could potentially hold options outside the scope of the current ships, which despite being fragile would fill niche roles, whose expense could be justified on some level, without breaking the whole scheme.

Rather than focusing on more DPS style subsystems, like T3 cruisers, you could have cloaky interceptors, non-cloaky interdiction immune exploration vessels, PVE science vessels (more archaeology+Hacking bonus, survivable setup).

The trick is to not make them "better". Instead of going for combat oriented T3 frigates, there's a whole scope of roles that frigates encompass that can by hybridized and be an order of magnitude more expensive than currently. I think the frigate hulls as a whole could actually benefit from this because many people avoid frigates for the reasons you mentioned, and there's not a lot of good options for non-combat frigates that people can learn to appreciate. Thus, by using the T3 frigates for niche roles that they will learn to use the other frigates as well. So less PEW PEW for T3, and more utility and function.

i.e. Maybe I can get a frigate subsystem that gives me 1,000 m3 cargohold, and make myself a little speed hauler for carrying stuff that doesn't quite need a hauler, but doesn't quite fit in a normal ship.

Where I am.
Crellion
Nano Rhinos
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#40 - 2012-06-07 13:26:42 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
While they definitely look sexy; there are no extra tech 3 ships planned for now. Reasons for that are quite simple.


First, you need a role for them that can fit in our balancing composition while not making existing vessels obsolete. That is a big problem we face with current Tech 3 cruisers, best example being the Tengu / Tech 3 command subsystems being better than tech 2 counterparts, while the others tech 3 cruisers / subsystems are quite subpar. Before we introduce new tech 3 ships, we really want to define a purpose for them that is unique and revamp existing ships to match. Ideally, each of their configuration should be useful, but it is not the case in practice when only a few have practical applications.

Second, frigates are not really the best hull to base a tech 3 ship hull from. That's because tech 3 ships are, by nature, expensive to acquire, which conflicts with the frailty of a frigate as a whole. Frigates are supposed to be expendable and relatively straightforward to set up, but this directly clashes with the complex nature of selecting and getting subsystems. Also, frigates have a lot of variations already - navy, pirate, tech 2, you name it, we have it. Thus, the chance that a tech 3 frigate would bring something new to the table without creating the problem explained in the first paragraph remains very low, and we would setting ourselves up for the same problems we face with tech 3 cruisers at the moment.


Based on all of this, here is the ship priority plan for the time being:

  • Fix old hulls that are underpowered
  • If and when we need new shinies, create new tech 1 roles (tier 3 BCs) or, if needed, missing tech 2 variations
  • If we ever need new tech 3 hulls in the future, my vote would be to larger hulls, like battleships for the reasons explained above. Tech 3 battlecruisers are not a choice I would vouch for however, as they would conflict with tech 3 cruisers (same weapon system size) and without to say this ship class already is extremely popular, quite at the expense of the other hull sizes, so no need to aggravate the problem further.



Hope that clears things a bit.



- Fix tengu (and all T3) command bonus imbalance = easy = make 3% a 5% and 5% a 3% and you are done. Surprised you are still mulling it over.

- Problem with making a T3 frig because its not surviveable... rly need eeemmaaginasiiooonnnn. Make it invulnerable to neut and nos and with a lot of cap and in all other respects same as existing AFs. They will be selling like pop corn...


Dude I have told you this again in another thread... I love you for the effort and attitude but you must find the time to actually pvp with your non dev alts to make it all come together where it counts...

Just my two cents...

(I am nto saying we should have T3 frigs just that the reasons offered are inadequate)