These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
#61 - 2012-06-08 16:03:15 UTC
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.


If CCP is indeed reworking ship balancing on the very meta core of the hulls, then indeed, new things may be possible for them to answer as they could never before.

I wouldn't expect anything new until they finish the very awesome endeavor they've already started working on.
Bossy Lady
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#62 - 2012-06-08 19:42:50 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.


Now that



that is a devpost.

Posting on this character because apparently some people get upset when they're asked difficult questions. M.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#63 - 2012-06-09 04:21:42 UTC
SeenButNotHeard wrote:
I am no doubt in a minority of 1 here......

I have thought, since I trained and flew my first Tengu, that it would be awesome if ALL ships were fitted in the same way as T3 Cruisers.

This would create Tech 1 and Tech 2 variants such as we currently have, but with a range of subsystems available for both - T2 variants boost the strength of subs in their own unique way above and beyond the T1 variants.

It would certainly shake up the "cookie cutter" fleets we see atm.

The complexity in designing it, balancing it and the players coming up with doctrines........blows my mind. I can imagine new players just melting in the face of that level of difficulty - though personally it gives me a semi. I like complexity!

Sometimes the current restrictions in fittings (whilst necessary) are obvious.

Nice fantasy, though little more than that.


Actually, this sounds ideal to me as well. It shouldn't be just a fantasy, it should be CCP's medium-to-long term roadmap for ship balancing.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Diablo Ex
Nocturne Holdings
#64 - 2012-06-09 06:39:26 UTC
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?
Answer me that question and not what mods would you like to use and you have your new ship type.
But I don't think it would be another multiplataform T3.


I'm waiting and hoping for a dedicated exploration ship, that has probes, a full codebreaker/scanner suite, and the combat capability of at least a cruiser, capable of handling most exploration tasks on it's own.

Diablo Ex Machina - "I'm not here to fix your problem"
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
#65 - 2012-06-09 09:04:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Iria Ahrens
SeenButNotHeard wrote:
I am no doubt in a minority of 1 here......

I have thought, since I trained and flew my first Tengu, that it would be awesome if ALL ships were fitted in the same way as T3 Cruisers.

This would create Tech 1 and Tech 2 variants such as we currently have, but with a range of subsystems available for both - T2 variants boost the strength of subs in their own unique way above and beyond the T1 variants.

It would certainly shake up the "cookie cutter" fleets we see atm.

The complexity in designing it, balancing it and the players coming up with doctrines........blows my mind. I can imagine new players just melting in the face of that level of difficulty - though personally it gives me a semi. I like complexity!

Sometimes the current restrictions in fittings (whilst necessary) are obvious.

Nice fantasy, though little more than that.


We don't have cookie cutter fleets because other options aren't available, we have cookie cutter fleets because other options are sub-par or laughable. And there's a bit of EFT whoring in there too. T3 is for later, fixing all modules and current ships so they are effective and valued is definitely something that should precede any t3 additions.

My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
#66 - 2012-06-09 09:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Iria Ahrens
Diablo Ex 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?
Answer me that question and not what mods would you like to use and you have your new ship type.
But I don't think it would be another multiplataform T3.


I'm waiting and hoping for a dedicated exploration ship, that has probes, a full codebreaker/scanner suite, and the combat capability of at least a cruiser, capable of handling most exploration tasks on it's own.



This seems like a good point to recommend a point for faction ships other than more pew pew. A sister's Ishtar with a bit more cpu or a fitting bonus for an expanded launcher would be awesome.

I also think t3 frigates are a terrible idea because it will make new players feel that much more overwhelmed. One of the great things about eve is that new players can contribute a worthwhile role in any fleet. T3 frigates will just expand the gap between the newbie and the veterans.

My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
kyrv
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-06-09 09:08:00 UTC  |  Edited by: kyrv
I think t3 frigates is wrong option & personally I search the current options of ships and there's very little except the frigates there is lots of variety.

New players would be astonished and let down by longer training times for what is a smaller skill set in terms of availability of mid and large scaled ship classes.

here I've made a graph of skill set's and availability of what I've found ship classes done vertically:

[Frigates]
I----------------------------------------------------Pirate
I------------------------------------------Shocked
I-------------------------------P
I--------------------Cry
I---------------Roll
I---------- Oops[Cruisers]
I----------Blink
I------------Straight
I-------------------Ugh
I---------------------------Big smile
I-------------------------------Bear
[Super Capitals]
marVLs
#68 - 2012-06-09 09:15:22 UTC
Tech3 frigates? no no no no no that's just stupid
But Tech3 Battlecruisers... that's badass Cool

Add minicarriers and mini siege mode for tech3 Battleships (tech3 BS with different philosophy than tech3 cruisers so we won't get ~10bil BS with tank like carrier and in the same moment dps like dred)
Kunming
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2012-06-09 09:55:37 UTC
Back in 2003 more than half of the ships and mods were useless, now looking 9 years into the future, the situation is no different. Although back then it was because the lack of bonus', now its because of overlapping roles and the rest of the attributes determining the better ship.

I'm not for new ships until all the existing ones find at least 1 niche role for which you would choose it over another ship.

Also, T3 was a horrible idea IMO, they perform better at a chosen role than the specialist T2 variant, I wished that they would be more like a wild card, a bit of everything but not better at everything.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#70 - 2012-06-09 11:15:33 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.


One of your best posts I've seen lately, just one thing missing: "fix ships that are currently too good" like the Angel ships, ships like that make for a boring playingfield just like the old nano ships did. You either fly one or you don't and if you don't you're probably going to lose. Stuff doesn't have to be the same, but they do have to be balanced as that makes for a far more interesting and diverse universe.
Headerman1
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#71 - 2012-06-09 12:11:09 UTC
Personally i am of the opinion that roles can be created if creativity is used.

Take for instance the huge step between BSs and capitals. A big learning curve for Navigation and Spaceship command skills, and once up in a capital, the skills for BSs are automatically obsolete unless you get back into a BS of course.

So why not combine the SPs of the BS hull, guns engineering and mechanic side of things with some good things that caps can do? Jumping, sieging, portals etc.

Blops are one example of this. In effect it is like a mini titan, bridging in DPS and ability to use its own guns.

So how about the equivelent of a dread?

Dreads are a lot of fun to use, they are powerful, can be vulnerable and they vary a lot. What about a Tech 2 BS that can do all these things as well, but with BS sized modules?

'Siege Green' with 1400's/425s/Tachs, jump and engines disabled for 5 minutes, DPS goes up a few hundred percent, cool things happen and things get blown up.

And like a Blops, it can straddle the gouge between a BS and a capital.

On a downside though it would indeed overlap and make some ships redundant, people might not like it etc. It may also give an incentive to some people to start pushing for a mini carrier.

Anyway, this is just an example of how easy it is to put a new option up for debate.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#72 - 2012-06-09 15:29:35 UTC
Headerman1 wrote:
Personally i am of the opinion that roles can be created if creativity is used.

Take for instance the huge step between BSs and capitals. A big learning curve for Navigation and Spaceship command skills, and once up in a capital, the skills for BSs are automatically obsolete unless you get back into a BS of course.

So why not combine the SPs of the BS hull, guns engineering and mechanic side of things with some good things that caps can do? Jumping, sieging, portals etc.

Blops are one example of this. In effect it is like a mini titan, bridging in DPS and ability to use its own guns.

So how about the equivelent of a dread?

Dreads are a lot of fun to use, they are powerful, can be vulnerable and they vary a lot. What about a Tech 2 BS that can do all these things as well, but with BS sized modules?

'Siege Green' with 1400's/425s/Tachs, jump and engines disabled for 5 minutes, DPS goes up a few hundred percent, cool things happen and things get blown up.

And like a Blops, it can straddle the gouge between a BS and a capital.

On a downside though it would indeed overlap and make some ships redundant, people might not like it etc. It may also give an incentive to some people to start pushing for a mini carrier.

Anyway, this is just an example of how easy it is to put a new option up for debate.


Black Ops should really become the unavoidable way for force projection, restrain JB's fuel/ship size and Titan bridging would make those ships more useful, however if today all you have to do is log your Titan in some pos to bridge thousands of players this should not be possible with BO's and require mechanic changes so those are permanently on the field.

JB's and Titan bridges are really bad for the game, they should be simply removed from the game.

brb
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#73 - 2012-06-09 19:21:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
Glad to see Ytterbium come out and say that T3 frigates are a bad idea and CCP has no intention of making them any time soon while the existing frigate range is in its current state - I've been making that argument for years.

If the T3 concept needs expanding, what about the introduction of T3 modules? The modules would be less powerful than their T2 equivalents, but the versatility we see in Strategic Cruisers could be represented by a heavy use of scripting, where the modules could have a multitude of compatible scripts to plug in rather than the one or two we see currently, as well as scripts for module types that don't currently have access to them (like guns?).

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#74 - 2012-06-10 04:10:01 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.



i would base tech III battleships to be like a battlestar concept... make it so they can be a mix up of dread/carrier/rorq

one role they would fill is killing high sec poses since you cant get dreads or carriers in high sec...

another would be that they are lower mass then cap ships so you could assault worm holes in a new way...

would be a lower entry point for new players to the cap level...

plus i would like to see a 5th versions of subsystem for t3 cruisers please that are mining/industry based ... i still have the eon when they explained about t3 and at the time it was planed to have 5 versions of substems but we only eneded up with 4 without a valid explanation... i think mining/industrial based 5th subsystem would fit in nicely

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
#75 - 2012-06-10 07:04:27 UTC
Headerman1 wrote:


So why not combine the SPs of the BS hull, guns engineering and mechanic side of things with some good things that caps can do? Jumping, sieging, portals etc.

Blops are one example of this. In effect it is like a mini titan, bridging in DPS and ability to use its own guns.

So how about the equivelent of a dread?

Dreads are a lot of fun to use, they are powerful, can be vulnerable and they vary a lot. What about a Tech 2 BS that can do all these things as well, but with BS sized modules?

'Siege Green' with 1400's/425s/Tachs, jump and engines disabled for 5 minutes, DPS goes up a few hundred percent, cool things happen and things get blown up.

And like a Blops, it can straddle the gouge between a BS and a capital.



Blaps are a mechanic to be avoided not encouraged.

Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:

Black Ops should really become the unavoidable way for force projection, restrain JB's fuel/ship size and Titan bridging would make those ships more useful, however if today all you have to do is log your Titan in some pos to bridge thousands of players this should not be possible with BO's and require mechanic changes so those are permanently on the field.

JB's and Titan bridges are really bad for the game, they should be simply removed from the game.


There should be no unavoidable mechanics for force projection. Eve is about calculated risk, not I Win buttons.

My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#76 - 2012-06-10 11:23:30 UTC
Iria Ahrens wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:

Black Ops should really become the unavoidable way for force projection, restrain JB's fuel/ship size and Titan bridging would make those ships more useful, however if today all you have to do is log your Titan in some pos to bridge thousands of players this should not be possible with BO's and require mechanic changes so those are permanently on the field.

JB's and Titan bridges are really bad for the game, they should be simply removed from the game.


There should be no unavoidable mechanics for force projection. Eve is about calculated risk, not I Win buttons.




However there are far too many mechanic exploit witch is the same since intention is to avoid the mechanic. But it's CCP, you can publicly tell someone to suicide irl, insult people on forums or in game, spam local with pornographic pics/links including the most fragile beings like children, read in local/forum paedophilia dreams etcetera etcetera etcetera

Nice stuff...

brb
Nivo Green
Stac Enterprises
#77 - 2012-06-13 22:57:11 UTC
I think a Tech III ORE ship would be a nice addition. Not really a "next step" in T3 stuff, but I'd say it should have been done with their introduction.
Aaron Greil
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#78 - 2012-06-14 04:17:20 UTC
I'm kinda tired of seeing the devs' response in these threads. Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate the feedback, but there are a few things that the devs can't seem to get into their heads.

so let me scream this at the top of my lungs:
Why aren't you (CCP Ytterbium, and others responsible for balance) first fixing the ships that the player base is screaming for you to deal with?

For example:
Tengu needs nerf, legion needs buff (Proteus finally got a buff)
blackops need buff
marauders need role adjustment
cane and drake need nerf
pretty much all missile weapons need overhauled
projectiles slight need nerf
caldari rail platforms need buff

I liked inferno, it shows steps in the right direction, but it isn't near aggressive enough. five frigates wasn't nearly enough. If it was the entire frigate line up, I'd be happy, but what proportion of players actually use those ships. Even people who love the rifter more than likely have outgrown it and fly meaner ships.

Players cry for balance, CCP yawns and looks casually in that direction. C'mon, get your butts in gear and do something.
Dom Analema
Dom's Shaved Ice Shack
#79 - 2012-06-14 06:10:48 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Glad to see Ytterbium come out and say that T3 frigates are a bad idea and CCP has no intention of making them any time soon while the existing frigate range is in its current state - I've been making that argument for years.

If the T3 concept needs expanding, what about the introduction of T3 modules? The modules would be less powerful than their T2 equivalents, but the versatility we see in Strategic Cruisers could be represented by a heavy use of scripting, where the modules could have a multitude of compatible scripts to plug in rather than the one or two we see currently, as well as scripts for module types that don't currently have access to them (like guns?).



I like the idea of Tech 3 modules. The scripting idea you have is also great. Being able to change resistances on plating in space with a script, or changing the functionality of a turret from being a close range system to a long range system, on the go, is also interesting. The possibilities could be really cool and make for a plethora of customization that could be achieved with out having to dock.

I do believe that there needs to be more balance issues worked out before they get to the Tech 3 modules but this is definitely something CCP should keep in the back of their minds while moving forward.

Tasiv Deka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#80 - 2012-06-14 23:18:35 UTC
Iria Ahrens wrote:
Headerman1 wrote:


So why not combine the SPs of the BS hull, guns engineering and mechanic side of things with some good things that caps can do? Jumping, sieging, portals etc.

Blops are one example of this. In effect it is like a mini titan, bridging in DPS and ability to use its own guns.

So how about the equivelent of a dread?

Dreads are a lot of fun to use, they are powerful, can be vulnerable and they vary a lot. What about a Tech 2 BS that can do all these things as well, but with BS sized modules?

'Siege Green' with 1400's/425s/Tachs, jump and engines disabled for 5 minutes, DPS goes up a few hundred percent, cool things happen and things get blown up.

And like a Blops, it can straddle the gouge between a BS and a capital.



Blaps are a mechanic to be avoided not encouraged.

Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:

Black Ops should really become the unavoidable way for force projection, restrain JB's fuel/ship size and Titan bridging would make those ships more useful, however if today all you have to do is log your Titan in some pos to bridge thousands of players this should not be possible with BO's and require mechanic changes so those are permanently on the field.

JB's and Titan bridges are really bad for the game, they should be simply removed from the game.


There should be no unavoidable mechanics for force projection. Eve is about calculated risk, not I Win buttons.


youve made a couple mistakes the post you quoted was talking about Blops(Black Ops) not Blaps(Capital blobs i am assuming is what you meant) which black ops shouldnt be avoided its a valid tatic and actually could stand for some more fleshing out

and what they mean about force projection is in getting your ships behind enemy lines which i wholly agree with however i disagree with him over removing titans and jump bridges... possibly nerf them but dont remove them... anyways i digress your claim about eve being about calculated risk is accurate however you do seem misguided as to a few terms

Oh, Do go on... no seriously ive got nothing better to do then listen to all the petty arguments and feeble trolling attempts... 

The sad thing is i'm not sure if i'm telling the truth.