These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

T1/T2/T3.... Standards?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MichaelWest
The Athenaeum
#1 - 2011-10-28 18:05:58 UTC
Ok forgive me for asking a bit of a basic question, and the fact it does have to do with the new ships even though half the new threads are about them.

Anyhow when it comes to ships you have three levels. T1/T2/T3 and generally they are described as follows (at least in my own simple way they are)

T1 Ships: These are basic ships that can be used for a multitude of rolls. Each ship has some advantages over others and are better for some things over other, but generally speaking you have some freedom with their rolls.

T2 Ships: Very Specialized ships. Each ship has a very specific roll they are designed to excel at.

T3 Ships: No explanation really needed. Modular ships designed by you for you.


Now, with the new tier 3 ships coming out, and if everything shown about them is true (Big assumption there) Wouldn't this be a T2 BC rather than a Tier 3 T1 BC?

It just seems like such a specialized ship, it would fall into the T2 category?


Now on a completely separate thought. What is up with T2 ammo? In the description it says only for "tech level II+" guns.... So is this hinting at T3 weapon systems?

Anyhow sorry for the random rambling, just something I was wondering about.
Mia Restolo
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2011-10-28 18:14:53 UTC
MichaelWest wrote:
...
Now, with the new tier 3 ships coming out, and if everything shown about them is true (Big assumption there) Wouldn't this be a T2 BC rather than a Tier 3 T1 BC?
...


What the heck are you talking about... the new ships are tier 3 battlecruisers, not tech 3.

ie. you need battle cruiser skill to level 3 to fly them.
Gavin DeVries
JDI Industries
#3 - 2011-10-28 18:35:19 UTC
The problem is one of abbreviations. Many ships have tiers, progressively increasing skills required to fly them. There are three tiers of racial frigates, 2 tiers of battlecruisers (currently) and 3 of battleships (probably 3 of cruisers but damned if I can remember at the moment). There are also three different tech levels. Most people abbreviate tech levels with a capital T and tiers with a lower case t, but if you capitalize at the beginning of a sentence it can cause confusion. These are tier 3 battlecruisers, probably should be referred to as t3 ships rather than T3.

PVP is a question with no single right answer, but a lot of wrong ones.
Borgone Susa
S.H.I.E.L.D Corporation
#4 - 2011-10-28 18:57:07 UTC
Mia Restolo wrote:
MichaelWest wrote:
...
Now, with the new tier 3 ships coming out, and if everything shown about them is true (Big assumption there) Wouldn't this be a T2 BC rather than a Tier 3 T1 BC?
...


What the heck are you talking about... the new ships are tier 3 battlecruisers, not tech 3.

ie. you need battle cruiser skill to level 3 to fly them.


he clearly knows the difference between tech 3 and tier 3, that is not what he is asking....

i kinda agree, they seem to make more sense as a specialized tech 2 ship, but they said they wanted it to be easy to fly (also one of the reasons they are not bs) so i guess that could be why

dunno about the ammo, but i doubt there will be T3 guns anytime soon if ever
MichaelWest
The Athenaeum
#5 - 2011-10-28 20:16:45 UTC
Borgone Susa wrote:
Mia Restolo wrote:
MichaelWest wrote:
...
Now, with the new tier 3 ships coming out, and if everything shown about them is true (Big assumption there) Wouldn't this be a T2 BC rather than a Tier 3 T1 BC?
...


What the heck are you talking about... the new ships are tier 3 battlecruisers, not tech 3.

ie. you need battle cruiser skill to level 3 to fly them.


he clearly knows the difference between tech 3 and tier 3, that is not what he is asking....

i kinda agree, they seem to make more sense as a specialized tech 2 ship, but they said they wanted it to be easy to fly (also one of the reasons they are not bs) so i guess that could be why

dunno about the ammo, but i doubt there will be T3 guns anytime soon if ever



Yeah, I really shouldn't count on everyone's reading comprehension. :D

It really makes sense to have them as T2 ships. I know nothing will change them now with them coming out around the corner, I was just wondering if anyone had the same thought I did.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-10-28 21:04:42 UTC
Agreed, they should be made as new type of T2 ships - Battle Destroyers, cause its what they are really, its a destroyer on BC hull.

Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Amsterdam Conversations
Doomheim
#7 - 2011-10-28 21:29:59 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
Agreed, they should be made as new type of T2 ships - Battle Destroyers, cause its what they are really, its a destroyer on BC hull.

Yeah, because field command ships aren't already bad enough for their price.
Fireflyb1
Walden 2.0
#8 - 2011-10-28 23:19:10 UTC
Yeah I remember in the files on the new ships, I took a brief look at the armor resists and they seemed to be the t2 equivalent resists.

T2 would make a lot more sense, IMO.