These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Back to T3 ejections - so intended or not?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MisterAl tt1
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2012-12-05 10:43:02 UTC
Guys, again, I'm not that concerned with the nerf, but with what CCP told about it, which turned out to be not true at all.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2012-12-05 10:44:16 UTC
Emu Meo wrote:
Exactly, dont fly them if you cant take the loss, I completely agree.

Why are you for people not flying and getting stuff blown up?

Emu Meo wrote:
As for the consequence that this now means we wont see 30 man blob fleets of T3 cruisers,,,,, is that meant to be a bad thing?

No, it won't, because unless your FC happens to be Makalu Zarya your T3 cruisers are actually pretty safe in a blob, and if you were going to die you wouldn't have time to eject with or without the weapons timer changes in Retribution.

It's the solo T3 pilots you'll be seeing less of.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#23 - 2012-12-05 10:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Anderson
This is the reason that the tech3 SS skills are only rank 1. They take absolutely no time to train and it isn't a big deal if you lose them.

Hell I have every tech3 SS of all four races trained to 5, and I'm pretty sure the combined training time of ALL OF THEM still wasn't as long as one of the SINGLE higher ranked skills I've maxed out. .
Archdaimon
Merchants of the Golden Goose
#24 - 2012-12-05 10:47:39 UTC
I don't mind either way as long as CCP takes balancing into consideration.

Time is the single most valuable source in EVE (and elseweyr) thus skillpoint loss combined with the price of a t3 needs to make it significantly more favourable than say t2's.

They currently are, but nerfing t3's to hard might simply make them unjustifiable compared to their costs.

(And no, look at NoHo's kb, we're not afraid to lose expensive ships!)

Wormholes have the best accoustics. It's known. - Sing it for me -
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-12-05 10:57:50 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Emu Meo wrote:
Exactly, dont fly them if you cant take the loss, I completely agree.

Why are you for people not flying and getting stuff blown up?

Emu Meo wrote:
As for the consequence that this now means we wont see 30 man blob fleets of T3 cruisers,,,,, is that meant to be a bad thing?

No, it won't, because unless your FC happens to be Makalu Zarya your T3 cruisers are actually pretty safe in a blob, and if you were going to die you wouldn't have time to eject with or without the weapons timer changes in Retribution.

It's the solo T3 pilots you'll be seeing less of.


I'm very happy with ships getting blown up, but with T3's they were meant to be a highly effective and expensive ships that people would think twice before committing due to the drawback of losing SP. If people don't fly T3's and start flying more reasonable ships such as stabbers and hurricanes through low sec, then possibly we'd actually see a lot more ships getting blown up and more fights to be had.
Taria Katelo
Doomheim
#26 - 2012-12-05 10:57:53 UTC
MisterAl tt1 wrote:
We have before risen a question of CCP removing the ability to eject from T3 while in battle, so that to prevent SP loss.

The answer was this:

CCP Masterplan wrote:

This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place


Now, thanks to some guys ho have found it and posted, but here is a three-year old devblog stating the following:
Quote:
Ejecting or self-destructing does prevent the penalty, giving players an incentive to abandon ship from time to time.


By this I would like to accuse CCP Masterplan and CCP in general in openly lying to their playerbase with an intention to justify their ill-thought over design changes.

PS. Will this topic be deleted - you are minus 5 accounts.



OMG MINUS 5 ACCOUNTS, OMG.... plz delete this topic just for the fun of it.

btw that devblog never said it was intentional, they just said that its at that time possible to eject from a t3 blabla, that doesnt mean it was intentional, for all you know it could be that they just didnt have the ability yet to prevent it because they had to rework the crimewatch/flag system for it first.

now shut up and get back to WoW
JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#27 - 2012-12-05 11:02:29 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Anderson
There is a storyline reason behind the sp loss as well. I read awhile back that the tech 3 cruisers and their interface with the capsuleer is vastly different than other ships. Being in one while it blows up causes quite a bit of wear and tear on the pilot due to the strong link between him/her and the tech3 ship. Essentially its a shock to the system, when that link is suddenly broken.

This is why it was said that ejecting allows you to avoid the SP loss, since you are cutting that link on your own prior to the ship blowing up while you are still linked to it.

Nobody at CCP lied about anything in relation to all of this.

3 years ago things were different, and we didn't see the large number of pilots taking advantage of the game mechanics the way that they do now. Namely, I'm talking about the Orca on field tactic mentioned above. Essentially, the tech3 mechanics are an in-direct casualty of a fix that was intended to prevent further exploitation and the ability to bypass much of the risk involved.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#28 - 2012-12-05 11:30:07 UTC
Agreed.
I saw these camps frequently in LowSec and they were very annoying since 99,9999% risk free although they could use the most expensive ships.

You have a T3 that can instalock frigs, get gang link boni from the Orca which is sitting at 0m to the gate. The T3 can freely engage anything (including kill all frigs).
If trouble shows up or he is losing, he'll just store the T3 in the Orca, warp away in the pod. The Orca is neutral and will jump into HighSec if threatened.
You have virtually no risk if you do it right. Unless someone gives the Orca a really good bump (and you can't really surprise a vet with that) or someone turns up with kill rights on the Orca pilot (completely unlikely).

So I completely approve the change. Power comes at a cost.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-12-05 11:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
On the bright side, you can still eject from your T3 right before combat Big smile

oh and can I have your stuff?

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#30 - 2012-12-05 11:53:08 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
On the bright side, you can still eject from your T3 right before combat Big smile


^^
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
#31 - 2012-12-05 11:54:42 UTC
You accepted the potential loss in sp when you boarded your T3.

Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.

I invented Tiericide
Shylari Avada
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2012-12-05 11:59:21 UTC
MisterAl tt1 wrote:


By this I would like to accuse CCP Masterplan and CCP in general in openly lying to their playerbase with an intention to justify their ill-thought over design changes.

PS. Will this topic be deleted - you are minus 5 accounts.


CCP has a history of making changes that go against their original implementation, when I started playing in 2003, Ghost Training was listed as a feature, then in 2007 they removed this 'feature' and required you to have an active account. Pretty sure that big wall of text (a.k.a. EULA) that you 'accept' after a patch pretty much entitles them to change any aspect of the game they wish, at any time they wish, without needing to specify a reason.

Instead of being a mouthbreathing whiny baby about it, either adapt or **** off.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-12-05 12:00:14 UTC
Edward Olmops wrote:
Agreed.
I saw these camps frequently in LowSec and they were very annoying since 99,9999% risk free although they could use the most expensive ships.

You have a T3 that can instalock frigs, get gang link boni from the Orca which is sitting at 0m to the gate. The T3 can freely engage anything (including kill all frigs).
If trouble shows up or he is losing, he'll just store the T3 in the Orca, warp away in the pod. The Orca is neutral and will jump into HighSec if threatened.
You have virtually no risk if you do it right. Unless someone gives the Orca a really good bump (and you can't really surprise a vet with that) or someone turns up with kill rights on the Orca pilot (completely unlikely).

So I completely approve the change. Power comes at a cost.


That was a flaw in the mechanics wiht the Orca, not with T3's.

However I accept T3's coming with a cost in SP. Just have objections on how this fix is implemented as it affect so much more, such as ejecting to save your pod. It also makes it harder to leave the T3 behind as loot for the winner of the fight.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#34 - 2012-12-05 12:00:56 UTC
Shylari Avada wrote:
MisterAl tt1 wrote:


By this I would like to accuse CCP Masterplan and CCP in general in openly lying to their playerbase with an intention to justify their ill-thought over design changes.

PS. Will this topic be deleted - you are minus 5 accounts.


CCP has a history of making changes that go against their original implementation, when I started playing in 2003, Ghost Training was listed as a feature, then in 2007 they removed this 'feature' and required you to have an active account. Pretty sure that big wall of text (a.k.a. EULA) that you 'accept' after a patch pretty much entitles them to change any aspect of the game they wish, at any time they wish, without needing to specify a reason.

Instead of being a mouthbreathing whiny baby about it, either adapt or **** off.


Hah. I like how you are very reasonable in your first paragraph, it gives the second paragraph all the more effect.
JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#35 - 2012-12-05 12:01:13 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Anderson
Shylari Avada wrote:

when I started playing in 2003, Ghost Training was listed as a feature, then in 2007 they removed this 'feature' and required you to have an active account.


Oh god that was the threadnought to end all threadnought's before or after it.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#36 - 2012-12-05 12:03:00 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Edward Olmops wrote:
Agreed.
I saw these camps frequently in LowSec and they were very annoying since 99,9999% risk free although they could use the most expensive ships.

You have a T3 that can instalock frigs, get gang link boni from the Orca which is sitting at 0m to the gate. The T3 can freely engage anything (including kill all frigs).
If trouble shows up or he is losing, he'll just store the T3 in the Orca, warp away in the pod. The Orca is neutral and will jump into HighSec if threatened.
You have virtually no risk if you do it right. Unless someone gives the Orca a really good bump (and you can't really surprise a vet with that) or someone turns up with kill rights on the Orca pilot (completely unlikely).

So I completely approve the change. Power comes at a cost.


That was a flaw in the mechanics wiht the Orca, not with T3's.

However I accept T3's coming with a cost in SP. Just have objections on how this fix is implemented as it affect so much more, such as ejecting to save your pod. It also makes it harder to leave the T3 behind as loot for the winner of the fight.


Leaving a T3 behind as loot to the winner? Are you playing eve?
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#37 - 2012-12-05 12:05:35 UTC
Taken from the same thread as the quote in the OP.
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Sun Win wrote:
That's unfortunate, given that when you guys announced Tech 3 on the Dev Blog, you said:

Quote:
Ejecting or self-destructing does prevent the penalty, giving players an incentive to abandon ship from time to time.


Now you've made it so that Tech 3 pilots can't abandon ship. It's not a huge deal, most Tech 3 ships go down fighting. But this was something that you originally included as an interesting gameplay choice that you are now removing.

"From time-to-time" is not the same as "In the middle of combat that isn't going your way"
If you were suprise-ganked and weren't shooting, you can eject as you wish. But once you make an attack, you are committing yourself, for good or for bad.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2012-12-05 12:06:09 UTC
Emu Meo wrote:


Leaving a T3 behind as loot to the winner? Are you playing eve?


That's what used to happen when you ejected and bailed out of combat to avoid skill point loss. The winner of the fight got a free t3, if he was quick enough to stop shooting at it. Some of us actually use them in proper fights and don't stick around doing risk free wannabe-pvp.
Shylari Avada
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2012-12-05 12:06:41 UTC
JC Anderson wrote:


Oh god that was the threadnought to end all threadnought's before or after it.


Goes back to the days before Over Forum Moderation, Zymurgist's 'Yellow Pen', CAOD fueling all our drama needs and generally New Eden feeling much larger than it does today.
Shylari Avada
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2012-12-05 12:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Shylari Avada
Emu Meo wrote:
Hah. I like how you are very reasonable in your first paragraph, it gives the second paragraph all the more effect.


I've found that a strong dose of logic and reasoning suits well for the first paragraph followed by a strong, threatening and ultimatum based closing sentence will typically alleviate the need to endlessly repeat yourself for pages on end, because the OP is either Illiterate, Incompetent, or just Argumentative for the sake of being Argumentative (which they will claim as 'trololololing').

God forbid wormholers might have to find a way around using 200 anchored t2 large bubbles and interdiction nullified ships as the be all end all for POS defense.