These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Proposal: Deny 3/10 for the tech3 cruisers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko
#1 - 2013-05-07 17:49:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Paul Clancy
As per subject. I'm proposing to disallow the entrance in 3/10 deadspace complexes (and similar unrated complexes) for the tech 3 cruisers. Yes, I know, they are technically cruisers. But still you have the tank and DPS rivaling these of battleships, and as such 3/10 became an easy cake for tech 3. It's illogical and somehow imbalanced.

Also, there (in 3/10) you may find pretty stuff as Dread Guristas Invulnerability Field. In hi-sec. With zero risk (and maybe even defense against suicide attack with use of LSE)

Well, if there IS a limitation for ship types allowed to enter the complex (basic ones allowing just frigates and destroyers for example), and if these limitations are set for the risk//reward purpose and difficulty reasons, then why tech 3 ships allowed for 3/10 if they are effectively better than battleships?

P. S. Post inspired by Tandi, thanks!
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2013-05-07 18:03:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
Really expensive ship that causes skill loss on death is a massive gank target, even in highsec, expecially with rats all over it.

0/10

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#3 - 2013-05-07 18:07:01 UTC
You have a point, this would also ensure that more even ships meet in low sec. T3 are quite OP compared to other cruisers or even BS due to their speed and normal tank and DPS. This is minor thing but still supported.

+ 1 supported
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#4 - 2013-05-07 19:17:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Sentamon wrote:
Really expensive ship that causes skill loss on death is a massive gank target, even in highsec, expecially with rats all over it.

0/10

Skill loss and price are poor balancing factors when it comes to ships.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-05-07 19:49:48 UTC
personally i can't wait for these ships to be nerfed.
i can't believe the devs gave them so much tanking ability to begin with i mean they have T2 resists.. hello !! how does that make sense?
Also i hope they remove rigs from them this further reduces their tanking/ 100mn tengu nonsense fits.... Also whats the point in having the ability to swap subs that
1 - are so expensive it clearly discourages what they want to achieve
2- stops switching from armour to shield tank quickly and cheaply if you don't want to destroy your rigs.

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#6 - 2013-05-07 19:55:40 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Really expensive ship that causes skill loss on death is a massive gank target, even in highsec, expecially with rats all over it.

0/10

price is a poor balancing factors when it comes to ships.

Fixed, skill loss is quite literally time gone forever.

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
DeLindsay
Galaxies Fall
#7 - 2013-05-07 21:10:07 UTC
Are you sure you don't mean 4/10? Last time I checked you cannot bring a Hac/Logi/Recon into a 3/10 and if you can't bring a T2 Cruiser there's no good reason CCP should allow T3 Cruisers either.

But if you DO mean 4/10 then there's no good reason CCP should STOP allowing them into a plex that BC's can enter.

The Operative: "There are a lot of innocent people being killed in the air right now".

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: "You have no idea how true that is".
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#8 - 2013-05-07 22:12:51 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
personally i can't wait for these ships to be nerfed.
i can't believe the devs gave them so much tanking ability to begin with i mean they have T2 resists.. hello !! how does that make sense?
Also i hope they remove rigs from them this further reduces their tanking/ 100mn tengu nonsense fits.... Also whats the point in having the ability to swap subs that
1 - are so expensive it clearly discourages what they want to achieve
2- stops switching from armour to shield tank quickly and cheaply if you don't want to destroy your rigs.


Who writes your arguments? Everything I see assosciated with your name is nonsense. Being extremely expensive limits them from being literally the only thing people ever use. Believe it or not they have drawbacks. Second, What T3 is it that can switch from shield to armor tanking by changing subsystems?
...
...
...
The Loki? Uh. Last time I checked, this one wasn't regarded as the top of the pile. Further- they can cost upwards of a billion ISK fully fit- the T2 resists are justified. They're tough, but they're not invulnerable, and they're constructed with components you need to get from wormholes.

A lot of people also seem to be griping about how their 'battleship level' tank and DPS encroaches on battleships.

Yeah why not fu cking buff battleships instead? They NEED it at this point, with these odyssey changes; the Caldari ones are sitting literally at the bottom of the pile in terms of ships IN GENERAL, I'm pretty sure.

T3 cruisers should be unreasonably expensive and the best possible blend of damage, mobility and defense. Battleships should be cheaper, but be even more solid in terms of damage and defense (hahaha the Raven will never pull that off, ever), but tend to greatly lack mobility.
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko
#9 - 2013-05-07 23:11:00 UTC
DeLindsay wrote:
Are you sure you don't mean 4/10? Last time I checked you cannot bring a Hac/Logi/Recon into a 3/10 and if you can't bring a T2 Cruiser there's no good reason CCP should allow T3 Cruisers either.

But if you DO mean 4/10 then there's no good reason CCP should STOP allowing them into a plex that BC's can enter.


Confirming I mean 3/10 there.
DeLindsay
Galaxies Fall
#10 - 2013-05-08 09:12:39 UTC
Quote:
Confirming I mean 3/10 there.


Alright I checked today (closest DeD 3 I could find) and I can confirm you CANNOT take a T2 Cruiser past the first accel gate. I checked it with Hac/Logi/Recon (sorry I don't have a Hic to try). It states which ship types are allowed when you can't pass but I tried anyway. However, it DOES NOT list Strategic Cruiser as an acceptable ship so if indeed T3 are entering those sites then CCP should stop it (I also don't have a T3 available atm to check if it could enter).

To verify where I tried it was in the system Inder in Metropolis. It's listed as DeD 3/10 here: http://eve.grismar.net/complexes/index.php and when you pull up the star map, hover over Inder it shows "Contested Minmatar Military Depot (DED: 3)". So both CCP and an outside source say it's a 3/10.

I agree 100% that T3 should not be allowed into any complex that a T2 ship cannot enter. But if it allows T2 then T3 should also be allowed in. I'm not sure if there are 3/10's that are exception sites to the T1 Cruiser and below policy.

The Operative: "There are a lot of innocent people being killed in the air right now".

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: "You have no idea how true that is".
Sylvia Nardieu
Super Serious Fight Club
#11 - 2013-05-08 10:33:52 UTC
Well, here's my suggestion to "Tech 3s are so OP" crybaby crew: TRAIN FOR ONE (and then buy and properly fit it).
Also, remove 3 and 4/10 ded's from hisec. All problems solved, plus the rivers of tears on forums would be delicious.
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko
#12 - 2013-05-08 15:24:31 UTC
DeLindsay wrote:
Quote:
Confirming I mean 3/10 there.


Alright I checked today (closest DeD 3 I could find) and I can confirm you CANNOT take a T2 Cruiser past the first accel gate. I checked it with Hac/Logi/Recon (sorry I don't have a Hic to try). It states which ship types are allowed when you can't pass but I tried anyway. However, it DOES NOT list Strategic Cruiser as an acceptable ship so if indeed T3 are entering those sites then CCP should stop it (I also don't have a T3 available atm to check if it could enter).

To verify where I tried it was in the system Inder in Metropolis. It's listed as DeD 3/10 here: http://eve.grismar.net/complexes/index.php and when you pull up the star map, hover over Inder it shows "Contested Minmatar Military Depot (DED: 3)". So both CCP and an outside source say it's a 3/10.

I agree 100% that T3 should not be allowed into any complex that a T2 ship cannot enter. But if it allows T2 then T3 should also be allowed in. I'm not sure if there are 3/10's that are exception sites to the T1 Cruiser and below policy.


Great, now you have found one 3/10 what doesn't allow t2-cruisers. I, on the other part, thought mostly about http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Guristas_Guerilla_Grounds what allows for tech3.
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko
#13 - 2013-05-08 15:25:09 UTC
Sylvia Nardieu wrote:

Also, remove 3 and 4/10 ded's from hisec. All problems solved, plus the rivers of tears on forums would be delicious.


That will be fine too.
monkfish2345
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-05-08 15:39:42 UTC
honestly more concerned with complex invuls being available in high sec. move them to 7,8,9/10.

but t3's probably shouldn't be allowed into 3/10's. they are vastly overpowered for the complex, which is the main reason there are restricted gates. but then considering the capabilities of a t3 it then becomes hard to argue that they are balanced in a 4 ,5 /10 either.
Kurgadesh Maladash
Protection of Underground Resources
#15 - 2013-05-08 16:10:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kurgadesh Maladash
DeLindsay wrote:
Quote:
Confirming I mean 3/10 there.


Alright I checked today (closest DeD 3 I could find) and I can confirm you CANNOT take a T2 Cruiser past the first accel gate. I checked it with Hac/Logi/Recon (sorry I don't have a Hic to try). It states which ship types are allowed when you can't pass but I tried anyway. However, it DOES NOT list Strategic Cruiser as an acceptable ship so if indeed T3 are entering those sites then CCP should stop it (I also don't have a T3 available atm to check if it could enter).

To verify where I tried it was in the system Inder in Metropolis. It's listed as DeD 3/10 here: http://eve.grismar.net/complexes/index.php and when you pull up the star map, hover over Inder it shows "Contested Minmatar Military Depot (DED: 3)". So both CCP and an outside source say it's a 3/10.

I agree 100% that T3 should not be allowed into any complex that a T2 ship cannot enter. But if it allows T2 then T3 should also be allowed in. I'm not sure if there are 3/10's that are exception sites to the T1 Cruiser and below policy.


The DED 3 in Inder is a STATIC DED 3 (also known as COSMO site) and doesn't allow either T2 or T3 hulls inside.

On the other hand, exploration DED 3 sites allow both T2 and T3 cruisers in it.
Also, the tank and DPS superiority iof the T3 ships in DED 3s is mostly irrelevant as the end target is an overseer frigate that can be killed with one volley of a T1 cruiser (except for the Sansha DED 3 that hte overseer is a litle bit sturdier and the Serpentis DED 3 which the objective is a structure, but let's face it, your tears are because of the Guristas DED 3 and the Minmatar DED 3 which are the ones with the best loot).

Regarding tanking and DPS, there are good alternatives to the T3 cruisers (think Gila or Ishtar for instance). But the problem is that you still need to train and invest isk in the ship and fitting and your tears are because you want to do the same that pilots with 20+ mil SP and that invested at least 600 mil in the ship do but with 2 mil SP and spending 10 mil isk in a random T1 cruiser instead.

In my opinion you have 2 choices:

1 - Adapt and find ways to keep up with the competition.

2 - Downsize to DED 2s where no Cruiser can enter and there's still good isk to be made (unless you are one of those that take 1h to lock one signature, in which case I would suggest option 3: Give up exploration and go mine some veldspar or run missions).

Suming it up, stop whinning and deal with it (although your tears are sweet).
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#16 - 2013-05-08 21:47:39 UTC
Paul Clancy wrote:
Also, there (in 3/10) you may find pretty stuff as Dread Guristas Invulnerability Field. In hi-sec. With zero risk (and maybe even defense against suicide attack with use of LSE)!



There is always a risk. Its falls on the potential ganker(s) to determine just how bad they want the ship. Case of t3 for example, I guess its has fallen off the grid but back when agents had a quality rating and gankers could sit on high quality level 4 agent stations they often took the chance on blind t3 ganks. Could be nice items in the wreck drop, could be a more sensible t2 based fit that made them burn a coupls gank pests and not worth it. Chance taken because if they waited the t3 might gtfo while scanning it.
DeLindsay
Galaxies Fall
#17 - 2013-05-08 21:54:42 UTC  |  Edited by: DeLindsay
Quote:
The DED 3 in Inder is a STATIC DED 3 (also known as COSMO site) and doesn't allow either T2 or T3 hulls inside.


I kinda figured that was going to be the answer and after the OP listed what site he was referring to I knew it was an explo site. Now I'm gonna refer back to what I said before that if T2 Cruiser can enter T3 Cruiser should also be able to enter, even in exlpo sites, sorry OP.

Quote:
Also, remove 3 and 4/10 ded's from hisec


Static DeD 3/4's cannot be removed unless CCP wants to change the entire Cosmos Agent system and the associated lore with it which is a stupid idea. Besides those sites don't have shiny Faction drops anyway. They already removed Static DeD 1/2's (which weren't Cosmos) for the very reason of camping the last room and added them to explo. Taking explo DeD 1-4 out of Highsec entirely is stupid and undermines CCP's entire attempt to get more players out there exploring like they're doing with Odyssey.

The Operative: "There are a lot of innocent people being killed in the air right now".

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: "You have no idea how true that is".
Sylvia Nardieu
Super Serious Fight Club
#18 - 2013-05-09 15:06:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Sylvia Nardieu
DeLindsay wrote:
Quote:
Also, remove 3 and 4/10 ded's from hisec


Static DeD 3/4's cannot be removed unless CCP wants to change the entire Cosmos Agent system and the associated lore with it which is a stupid idea. *snip*.


Where do you see me talking about static sites? I'm talking about 3 and 4 DED complexes, not Cosmos stuff.


Quote:
Taking explo DeD 1-4 out of Highsec entirely is stupid and undermines CCP's entire attempt to get more players out there exploring like they're doing with Odyssey.

Again, who said anything about removing 1 and 2's? As for incentives, if you want 600mil modules dropping from your plexes, you should put something on the line, preferably your ship and pod unlike current 10-20 minutes of your time in complete safety.
Imho, the distribution of explo plexes should go something like 1-2 - only in hisec, 3-7 - lowsec, 6-10 - nullsec.