These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#41 - 2012-12-05 12:10:38 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
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.


Even if giving a Tier 3 to the enemy is simply to circumvent the skill point loss, its still not going to look good when they turn up and kill you in the fleet of tier 3's your group ejected from the night before. At first I thought you were talking about giving the winner a T3 as some kind of gesture of honour.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-12-05 12:16:14 UTC
Emu Meo wrote:
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
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.


Even if giving a Tier 3 to the enemy is simply to circumvent the skill point loss, its still not going to look good when they turn up and kill you in the fleet of tier 3's your group ejected from the night before. At first I thought you were talking about giving the winner a T3 as some kind of gesture of honour.


Heh, good luck with that. T3's the boats themselves are just as disposable to me as stuff like Drakes are to the nullsec dwellers. I don't care about the isk side one bit, but the time spent training is an entirely other matter. It's also tech 3, not tier 3, not that you seem to understand the issue otherwise either. Forget the scope of low sec scum tossing their shinies safely inside orcas to protect them, and look at how T3's are used elsewhere in places where you have no bail out buttons like that. At times your implant sets and hardwires are worth much more to you than the 1-2B or whatever you pay for the T3 and the fitting.

The ejection trick, once the ship scooping issue is fixed, still came with a loss to you which was the ship. On top of that, like you suggest, the winner of the fight that results in a t3 left behind, gets much more value wise in that t3 than in whatever the loot fairy would've given him.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#43 - 2012-12-05 12:19:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Emu Meo
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Emu Meo wrote:
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
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.


Even if giving a Tier 3 to the enemy is simply to circumvent the skill point loss, its still not going to look good when they turn up and kill you in the fleet of tier 3's your group ejected from the night before. At first I thought you were talking about giving the winner a T3 as some kind of gesture of honour.


Heh, good luck with that. T3's the boats themselves are just as disposable to me as stuff like Drakes are to the nullsec dwellers. I don't care about the isk side one bit, but the time spent training is an entirely other matter. It's also tech 3, not tier 3, not that you seem to understand the issue otherwise either. Forget the scope of low sec scum tossing their shinies safely inside orcas to protect them, and look at how T3's are used elsewhere in places where you have no bail out buttons like that. At times your implant sets and hardwires are worth much more to you than the 1-2B or whatever you pay for the T3 and the fitting.

The ejection trick, once the ship scooping issue is fixed, still came with a loss to you which was the ship. On top of that, like you suggest, the winner of the fight that results in a t3 left behind, gets much more value wise in that t3 than in whatever the loot fairy would've given him.


I know the loss of isk isn't a major issue for most nullsec alliances, but then also losing a couple of days of training off an already almost maxed out combat pilot surely isn't much of a big deal either. After all, 4 T3's are worth roughly the same as a capital, so losing a large fleet in a null alliance would still be the equivalent of losing capitals.

Also you say T3s are just as disposable to you as drakes are disposable to null sec dwellers, so I take it your a WH inhabitant then.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2012-12-05 12:23:02 UTC
Emu Meo wrote:

I know the loss of isk isn't a major issue for most nullsec alliances, but then also losing a couple of days of training off an already almost maxed out combat pilot surely isn't much of a big deal either. After all, 4 T3's are worth roughly the same as a capital, so losing a large fleet in a null alliance would still be the equivalent of losing capitals.


I'm not a nullsec dweller, but a wormhole dweller. Either way, the fix that I'd have liked for that orca scooping thing would've adressed the actual issue rather than break other things that were about choices. To me it makes sense to leave the both the player about to lose the t3 a choice on whether to bail out and leave the ship to the agressor as a reward, or to stay in and lose the SP with it, both actions have consequences, neither of which are exactly good for the one losing that t3, but one rewarding the winner with a killmail and the loot drops and the other rewarding him with a shiny new boat. Win-win in my books, CCP didn't seem to think so.

That is what I was after.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#45 - 2012-12-05 12:28:54 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Emu Meo wrote:

I know the loss of isk isn't a major issue for most nullsec alliances, but then also losing a couple of days of training off an already almost maxed out combat pilot surely isn't much of a big deal either. After all, 4 T3's are worth roughly the same as a capital, so losing a large fleet in a null alliance would still be the equivalent of losing capitals.


I'm not a nullsec dweller, but a wormhole dweller. Either way, the fix that I'd have liked for that orca scooping thing would've adressed the actual issue rather than break other things that were about choices. To me it makes sense to leave the both the player about to lose the t3 a choice on whether to bail out and leave the ship to the agressor as a reward, or to stay in and lose the SP with it, both actions have consequences, neither of which are exactly good for the one losing that t3, but one rewarding the winner with a killmail and the loot drops and the other rewarding him with a shiny new boat. Win-win in my books, CCP didn't seem to think so.

That is what I was after.


Yes I guessed you were a WH dweller above in the edit ^^ And looking at your corp name it should have been obvious anyway. T3's are made for WHs and that is where I expect to see them used more reguarly, both in the lore, and in terms of gameplay. But its the null sec and low sec fleets of T3s and solo T3s which I am mainly against. Although I am still in agreement with CCP that T3's pilots should lose the SPs, there is just no really good reason why they should not other than people don't like losing SP.
Shylari Avada
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2012-12-05 12:32:58 UTC
Emu Meo wrote:

Yes I guessed you were a WH dweller above in the edit ^^ And looking at your corp name it should have been obvious anyway. T3's are made for WHs and that is where I expect to see them used more reguarly, both in the lore, and in terms of gameplay. But its the null sec and low sec fleets of T3s and solo T3s which I am mainly against. Although I am still in agreement with CCP that T3's pilots should lose the SPs, there is just no really good reason why they should not other than people don't like losing SP.


With the cost of Technetium where it's at, the Tiericide Happening of 2012 making current T2 Ships undesirable, T3's are not only solid bang for the buck, but relatively on par with well fitted HACs now; and often performing greater in the field.

The actual cost of the ship, both in terms of skillpoints and isk is negligible. Introducing more risk will always have more people vocally upset, because the people that can either thrive under the new changes or are excited for them are busy doing other things, like killing ships rather than posting about potentially getting killed.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#47 - 2012-12-05 12:41:36 UTC
I think T3s were always meant to be very good bang for the buck even in comparison to their high cost. Even though the cost in isk is high, the utility and specialisation both at the same time is worth much more to most players. Hence the reason why I think the SP penalty need to be implemented. That way T3s can remain efficient killing machines and CCP wont need to nerf them due to the whole of new Eden being swarmed with them. Null sec players dont really care to much for the SP loss, but most other players do and so I think it would beneficially cut the number down.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2012-12-05 12:45:20 UTC
Shylari Avada wrote:
Emu Meo wrote:

Yes I guessed you were a WH dweller above in the edit ^^ And looking at your corp name it should have been obvious anyway. T3's are made for WHs and that is where I expect to see them used more reguarly, both in the lore, and in terms of gameplay. But its the null sec and low sec fleets of T3s and solo T3s which I am mainly against. Although I am still in agreement with CCP that T3's pilots should lose the SPs, there is just no really good reason why they should not other than people don't like losing SP.


With the cost of Technetium where it's at, the Tiericide Happening of 2012 making current T2 Ships undesirable, T3's are not only solid bang for the buck, but relatively on par with well fitted HACs now; and often performing greater in the field.

The actual cost of the ship, both in terms of skillpoints and isk is negligible. Introducing more risk will always have more people vocally upset, because the people that can either thrive under the new changes or are excited for them are busy doing other things, like killing ships rather than posting about potentially getting killed.



I don't think you can even find a proteus fit so bad that it would be outperformed by the Diemost :P Ditto for Legion vs Zealot, Loki vs Vagabond and Tengu vs whatsitsname.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#49 - 2012-12-05 12:47:49 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Shylari Avada wrote:
Emu Meo wrote:

Yes I guessed you were a WH dweller above in the edit ^^ And looking at your corp name it should have been obvious anyway. T3's are made for WHs and that is where I expect to see them used more reguarly, both in the lore, and in terms of gameplay. But its the null sec and low sec fleets of T3s and solo T3s which I am mainly against. Although I am still in agreement with CCP that T3's pilots should lose the SPs, there is just no really good reason why they should not other than people don't like losing SP.


With the cost of Technetium where it's at, the Tiericide Happening of 2012 making current T2 Ships undesirable, T3's are not only solid bang for the buck, but relatively on par with well fitted HACs now; and often performing greater in the field.

The actual cost of the ship, both in terms of skillpoints and isk is negligible. Introducing more risk will always have more people vocally upset, because the people that can either thrive under the new changes or are excited for them are busy doing other things, like killing ships rather than posting about potentially getting killed.



I don't think you can even find a proteus fit so bad that it would be outperformed by the Diemost :P Ditto for Legion vs Zealot, Loki vs Vagabond and Tengu vs whatsitsname.


Yes, but with regards to pure isk efficiency you could buy 2/3 hacs for the cost of a T3.
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
#50 - 2012-12-05 13:16:58 UTC
OP wrote:
WAAAAHHHHH I can't gank low sec entry gates in my insta lock T3 and eject and scoop to high sec when someone engages me
To that I say.

SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac
Karig'Ano Keikira
Tax Cheaters
#51 - 2012-12-05 13:39:45 UTC
You lose skill points from dying in a ship
that is supposed to cost you SP on dying?
Sounds like working as intended.
Dach Starwind
Mine and DIne Corporation
#52 - 2012-12-05 19:56:41 UTC
Karig'Ano Keikira wrote:
You lose skill points from dying in a ship
that is supposed to cost you SP on dying?
Sounds like working as intended.


Sounds like lazy coding or cutting features because of coding difficulties. Sounds like contradicting dev blogs - valuable source of information. Sounds like removing one of ways to save pod because of exploit.
Sounds like I want to hear dev answer about it.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#53 - 2012-12-05 20:04:59 UTC
It has very little to do with orcas. It has more to do with Ghost Heavy Interdictors and Carriers where a player would cyno in a carrier, Jump into his HIC, then lock his carrier to prevent someone else from boarding it. With a group of people, you can get the benefit of 2 ships at once while gaining more and more hics whenever you please by trading out 1 carrier. Was a pretty horrible exploit of mechanics where this was never the intention of either ship.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2012-12-05 20:07:35 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
It has very little to do with orcas. It has more to do with Ghost Heavy Interdictors and Carriers where a player would cyno in a carrier, Jump into his HIC, then lock his carrier to prevent someone else from boarding it. With a group of people, you can get the benefit of 2 ships at once while gaining more and more hics whenever you please by trading out 1 carrier. Was a pretty horrible exploit of mechanics where this was never the intention of either ship.


Yes, but wouldn't it make sense to prevent these exploits rather than mess with things that have much wider impact?
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2012-12-05 20:13:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
You might have a point about the ~CCP IS LYING~ thing if CCP Masterplan was the one who wrote that 3 year old devblog. As it stands, given the insane shake-up CCP has gone through between that old devblog and now, there's a very good chance that anyone responsible for the old "design choice" of T3 ejection isn't even around anymore (the dev who wrote the blog isn't - click his name and see). Also, if CCP dev characters are any rough indicator of when someone started working at CCP, Masterplan literally wasn't even working here when that old dev blog came out.

I guess maybe CCP Masterplan could come out and amend his statement or tell us what the deal is with that old reasoning (i.e. was it documented well enough internally for anyone to have reasonably known about it today), but why bother? The change is staying the same, and it's pretty clear you're more upset about the change itself than a contradiction between a 3 year old devblog and a recent one.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Zelda Wei
New Horizon Trade Exchange
#56 - 2012-12-05 21:20:44 UTC

The FP is NOT evidence of lying, lying requires intent, no intent proven
Accusing CCP of lying without evidence is it'self dishonest and uncivil

OP should be banned for lying himself and being a whiney brat.
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#57 - 2012-12-05 21:30:29 UTC
CCP claiming something is a feature, until it's a bug, is nothing new.

At least they seem more prone to admitting something really isn't intended, but they don't have a mechanic to fix it, these days - instead of going all "ghost training" on us Lol
Fryhilda
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#58 - 2012-12-05 21:31:48 UTC
You may de-aggress for 60 seconds and eject to save your precious SP.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#59 - 2012-12-05 21:32:14 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
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.



QFT!!!!

Op.... grow up.... CCP didn't LIE... and you should man up and delete your childish rabble rousing topic...
Casirio
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2012-12-05 21:38:40 UTC
Archdaimon wrote:
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!)



yeah my problem is CCP running around saying t3's need the nerf bat.. when the price tag is so high (SP.) They need to balance/buff t2 cruisers (especially with the t1 buff, t2 in between t1 and t3 cruisers dont look so good at the moment.)