These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

"More Generalized" T3 Ships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#41 - 2013-06-20 19:00:55 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
max ericshaun wrote:
A spork is a free utensil you get with your chalupa at taco bell. A strategic cruiser is a ship that at minimum is double the price of it's T2 variant that runs the risk of you retraining a skill. Next analogy please.


Way to incorrectly oversimplify. Congratulations, my first facepalm of the day goes to this post. Also, I never get sporks with my chalupas. Should I be talking to the manager about this?


Moving on..

Now that CCP has taken the approach of requiring various support skills at Lv5 for T2 ships instead of requiring that you first have trained other T2 ships, I think we've got a good model in place for re-defining the skill tree required for T3 hulls.

  • Electronics Upgrades 5
  • Signal Analysis 5
  • Energy Grid Upgrades 5
  • Energy Management 5
  • Long Range Targeting 5
  • Science 5
  • Advanced Weapons Upgrades 5

These and more seem like excellent skills to put into the T3 cruiser's requirements. Especially AWU5. They would serve to make a T3 ship a significantly higher SP investment while also ensuring not only that you have nearly optimal skills for fitting them but also the basic ability to fly the T2 ships they're intended to mimic.

Whether these skills are put into the prerequisites for the main skill itself or into the subsystem skills is immaterial as you cannot train the hull without having the subsystems already trained and so it ends up the same either way.

I am, however, completely and utterly in steadfast opposition to the horrible idea that T3 ships should require having T2 ships trained. That's the exact kind of convoluted and annoying silliness that CCP just went through the process of removing from the T2 tree.

Requiring Command Ships at all in order to fly a T3 is just nonsense and has no place in a serious discussion.


Well atm T3's require cruiser lv 5 which when you think about it makes no sense as they will no longer be a specialization infact any lv5 skill is a specialization so T3's should only need lv4 skills at most.

'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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2013-06-21 03:19:49 UTC
It's not specialized if it requires core skills at 5. But it shouldn't require any of those specialized skills at 5, and it shouldn't require any tech 2/advanced skills at all.

Here's what I'd set for the skill requirements on Legion subsystems:
DEFENSIVE
Adaptive Augmenter: Remote Armor Repair Systems 4
Augmented Plating: Hull Upgrades 4
Nanobot Injector: Repair Systems 4, Hull Upgrades 3, Nanite Operation 3
Warfare Processor: Armored Warfare Specialist 4

ELECTRONIC
Dissolution Sequencer: Radar Sensor Compensation 4
Energy Parasitic Complex: Energy Emission Systems 4
Tactical Targeting Network: Targeting 4, Signature Analysis 4
Emergent Locus Analyzer: Astrometric Pinpointing 2

ENGINEERING
Augmented Capacitor Reservoir: Energy Management 4
Capacitor Regeneration Matrix: Energy Systems Operation 4, Energy Grid Upgrades 3
Power Core Multiplier: Energy Grid Upgrades 4
Supplemental Coolant Injector: Thermodynamics 3

OFFENSIVE
Assault Optimization: Heavy Assault Missiles 3, Rapid Launch 3, Missile Bombardment 3
Drone Synthesis Projector: Combat Drone Operation 4
Liquid Crystal Magnifiers: Medium Energy Turret 3, Controlled Bursts 3, Sharpshooter 3
Covert Reconfiguration: Cloaking 4

PROPULSION
Chassis Optimization: Navigation 4, Acceleration Control 3
Fuel Catalyst: Afterburner 4, Acceleration Control 3
Wake Limiter: Acceleration Control 3, High Speed Maneuvering 3
Interdiction Nullifier: Evasive Maneuvering 4, Warp Drive Operation 4
_______________________________________

This is an example of how I think the skill requirements should be setup. I tried to get everything as close as I could to costing a little bit more than a 2x at level 4. Covert Reconfiguration requires Cloaking 4 (a 6x skill), and the Covert Ops cloak requires even more. The real reason the subsystem carries this requirement is both to give it a requirement at all, and to give non-cloakers something to train for if they're just using it to skate the energy turret skill requirement. I apologize if any skill requirements are absurd, or if I have miscalculated their totals. I did this quickly.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#43 - 2013-06-21 20:44:43 UTC
If you want a more accurate graphical representation of the current ability of tech 3, take it from it's current position in that chart, move it all the way to the top, and stretch it out so it reaches all the way left and all the way right.

nerf strat cruisers. less grid, more sigrad, less boosting.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#44 - 2013-06-21 21:05:35 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
If you want a more accurate graphical representation of the current ability of tech 3, take it from it's current position in that chart, move it all the way to the top, and stretch it out so it reaches all the way left and all the way right.

nerf strat cruisers. less grid, more sigrad, less boosting.


NERF them ...NERF them into the ground !!!!

And then from their ashes should arise flexibility incarnate ... m'kay :)

'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

max ericshaun
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2013-06-21 21:30:31 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
It's not specialized if it requires core skills at 5. But it shouldn't require any of those specialized skills at 5, and it shouldn't require any tech 2/advanced skills at all.

-list of very short training times-
_______________________________________

This is an example of how I think the skill requirements should be setup. I tried to get everything as close as I could to costing a little bit more than a 2x at level 4. Covert Reconfiguration requires Cloaking 4 (a 6x skill), and the Covert Ops cloak requires even more. The real reason the subsystem carries this requirement is both to give it a requirement at all, and to give non-cloakers something to train for if they're just using it to skate the energy turret skill requirement. I apologize if any skill requirements are absurd, or if I have miscalculated their totals. I did this quickly.


I'm sorry but this strikes me the OPPOSITE of what specialized means. When I think of someone as highly specialized, I think of years of school and training. A neurosurgeon is highly specialized and spends close to a decade training. You can get a job at a gas station without graduating high school. Training to fly a T3 should be one of the most skill intensive subcaps in the game. I will admit I should not have mentioned T2 ship skills as requirements. I typed it as I thought it and decided it was a bad idea once I had a chance to think it over.

As for the cries to nerf them, DON'T. Improve T2 and then see how they compare to T3. If CCP does it right, I think people will be pleasantly surprised at how the two compare.

Lost in space
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2013-06-22 00:28:18 UTC
I disagree. As a highly generalized ship, it should not have hefty skill requirements. Its price tag pays for its fitting options, it should not be better than tech 2 and it should not cost as much training time as tech 2.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
max ericshaun
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2013-06-22 03:55:32 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I disagree. As a highly generalized ship, it should not have hefty skill requirements. Its price tag pays for its fitting options, it should not be better than tech 2 and it should not cost as much training time as tech 2.


This is a debate that will never end... There will always be an argument as to whether T3 should be better than T2 or not. Personally I'd never fly a T3 if a T2 ship could do it better. What's the point? Yes I get they can be reconfigured. So what? If I want to fly a recon instead of a hac, I'll buy a recon, not a now comparatively worthless T3 (under the assumption they were to get nerfed). And honestly, I don't reconfigure my T3's anyway. I have multiples for different functions. The T3 should be better than it's T2 counterparts, and should require skills above and beyond it's T2 counterparts. There's no other reason to fly a T3.

Lost in space
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#48 - 2013-06-22 04:52:36 UTC
So, question. Why do t3 cruisers receive more bonuses, better bonuses, more normal slots, and more rig slots compared to Hacs? Oh yeah, why do they take less sp too?
Sigras
Conglomo
#49 - 2013-06-22 05:41:34 UTC
max ericshaun wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I disagree. As a highly generalized ship, it should not have hefty skill requirements. Its price tag pays for its fitting options, it should not be better than tech 2 and it should not cost as much training time as tech 2.


This is a debate that will never end... There will always be an argument as to whether T3 should be better than T2 or not. Personally I'd never fly a T3 if a T2 ship could do it better. What's the point? Yes I get they can be reconfigured. So what? If I want to fly a recon instead of a hac, I'll buy a recon, not a now comparatively worthless T3 (under the assumption they were to get nerfed). And honestly, I don't reconfigure my T3's anyway. I have multiples for different functions. The T3 should be better than it's T2 counterparts, and should require skills above and beyond it's T2 counterparts. There's no other reason to fly a T3.

what if it could switch roles in combat as your fleet needed? I feel like this would be a useful thing that T2 ships just cannot do.

Picture this scenario:
Youre in a small to medium sized fleet of say 20 legions and 10 guardians and you get jumped by a battleship fleet of 40 ships, they have little to no RR support so you think you can take them, but they begin to put out far more DPS than your 10 guardians can keep up with. Luckily for you, your fleet was prepared for this and half of your legions are carrying RR subsystems with them. They refit mid combat and supplement your failing guardian force.

Your enemy, seeing that you are now tanking their damage calls in an archon which drops into triage and begins RRing the battleships. Again your fleet adapts and 4-5 of your remaining DPS ships switch to curse mode and begin cap draining the triage archon. Once it is cap dry 3 of them switch back to DPS mode and focus it down with relative ease then proceed to destroy the remaining battleship fleet.

Yes, T2 ships in those specific roles would be better, but your fleet doesnt know ahead of time what exactly it is going to be facing, so that point is moot; yes a zealot may do more DPS, and a guardian may rep more, and a curse may cap drain more, but the legion is the only one that can do all of those things on the fly as the fleet needs.
max ericshaun
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#50 - 2013-06-22 14:42:50 UTC
I don't think that kind of on the fly refitting should happen, but even if it changed to something like that, T3's need to be more skill intensive.

Lost in space
Sigras
Conglomo
#51 - 2013-06-24 18:32:46 UTC
Isnt that the best kind of skill intensive? player skill intensive . . .

Can you give me a good reason why this wouldnt work for the rebalance? it does everything CCP said they want, it would make them less powerful than T2 and more generalized than T1 while retaining a unique aspect of modular ship design.

Also if they were nerfed to say 80% of the effectiveness of their T2 counterparts, I dont think that they'd be out of balance. Especially if you only had 8/8/8 slots to work with, you could only fill 2-3 roles at a time, and even that would take advanced fitting planning. Also you'd have to carry those subsystems around with you so you're also increasing your risk, and making a loss more expensive.
max ericshaun
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2013-06-24 19:03:14 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
So, question. Why do t3 cruisers receive more bonuses, better bonuses, more normal slots, and more rig slots compared to Hacs? Oh yeah, why do they take less sp too?

Raise the skill requirements for T3's. A lot.

Lost in space
Vic Teishikuro
Tactical Chaos Corp
#53 - 2013-06-24 19:50:19 UTC

T3ès are very very expensive and require lots of skill trainning. not to mention there are heavy used in w-space and any changes that would lower ehp or dps wout greatly effect there useability and would not be worth flying.

1) For over 1 bil and months more of skill trainning if you lower t3 dps to less than a hac, people will fly it less. and it will hurt wh-spacers and plexers

2) any reduction to ehp will again hurt the use of them soo much that they wont be worth the cost or trainning to fly and we will see more people jumping to either battleships or orther stuff..

T3s need a buff not a nerf. or people will just start buying hacs and recons for everything since... well you can only reconfig a t3 in station but it costs soo much why not just by the t2 ships if there gunna be better




Sigras
Conglomo
#54 - 2013-06-24 20:01:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
because your zealot cannot become a guardian on the fly if your fleet needs more RR, with this proposal, it would take some forethought but your legion could.

that flexibility in an of itself is worth far more than a billion isk . . .
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#55 - 2013-06-24 23:43:22 UTC
I'm not going to say T3s need a buff, but I don't think they specifically need a nerf either. They need to have their subsystems looked at, with the unpopular or unviable ones being reviewed to see why they aren't used. Likewise, the hugely popular systems need to be looked at as well, to see why they're so popular - whether it's because the subsystem is overpowered or genuinely well-designed.

The "generalization" and "flexibility" offered by T3s represents a staggering amount of power that a T2 ship cannot hope to match. Ever. Therefore, a T3 ship should indeed have very hefty skill requirements, just like what I listed previously.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2013-06-25 04:58:15 UTC
I'd like tech 3 components to be cheaper to collect, but for there to be a difficulty in getting the stuff back to known space. hat way, tech 3 ships would not need to be super powerful to be economically viable in wormhole space, but they would be an uncommon hull type elsewhere.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Sigras
Conglomo
#57 - 2013-06-26 00:38:48 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I'm not going to say T3s need a buff, but I don't think they specifically need a nerf either. They need to have their subsystems looked at, with the unpopular or unviable ones being reviewed to see why they aren't used. Likewise, the hugely popular systems need to be looked at as well, to see why they're so popular - whether it's because the subsystem is overpowered or genuinely well-designed.

The "generalization" and "flexibility" offered by T3s represents a staggering amount of power that a T2 ship cannot hope to match. Ever. Therefore, a T3 ship should indeed have very hefty skill requirements, just like what I listed previously.

It is my contention that T3 ships provide no flexibility that cannot be had by a few T2 ships, and that cannot be changed without allowing them to refit in combat.

Picture this:

you have a loki with all the subsystems and all relevant modules in a station

In that same station, i have a vagabond, a scimitar and a rapier with all the relevant fittings.

Now, which of us is more flexible? It's at least a wash. You choose a role and undock, and I choose a role and undock.

The difference is that my ships were cheaper and dont blow up all together. The main fit you see in combat is the "better than a HAC fit" because they arent actually more flexible, theyre just used in one particular aspect, and in that aspect, they make the ship they're replacing completely obsolete.

This is why I said that T3 ships either need to be straight out better than T2 ships and thereby make them obsolete, or they need to be able to refit in combat to provide actual flexibility.
Sigras
Conglomo
#58 - 2013-06-29 05:23:52 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
If you want a more accurate graphical representation of the current ability of tech 3, take it from it's current position in that chart, move it all the way to the top, and stretch it out so it reaches all the way left and all the way right.

nerf strat cruisers. less grid, more sigrad, less boosting.


NERF them ...NERF them into the ground !!!!

And then from their ashes should arise flexibility incarnate ... m'kay :)

you guys seem not to be listening. Yes, nerf T3s so theyre worse than T2 ships, then give them the ability to switch roles mid combat which is something that T2 ships cannot do. This is the only way to make them flexible.

Seriously think about it; right now, as it stands, T3 ships are no more flexible than having a few T2 ships in your hanger.
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#59 - 2013-06-29 14:48:09 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
If you want a more accurate graphical representation of the current ability of tech 3, take it from it's current position in that chart, move it all the way to the top, and stretch it out so it reaches all the way left and all the way right.

nerf strat cruisers. less grid, more sigrad, less boosting.


NERF them ...NERF them into the ground !!!!

And then from their ashes should arise flexibility incarnate ... m'kay :)

you guys seem not to be listening. Yes, nerf T3s so theyre worse than T2 ships, then give them the ability to switch roles mid combat which is something that T2 ships cannot do. This is the only way to make them flexible.

Seriously think about it; right now, as it stands, T3 ships are no more flexible than having a few T2 ships in your hanger.


No. You really need to think about this and see why
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2013-06-29 20:16:22 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Picture this:

you have a loki with all the subsystems and all relevant modules in a station

In that same station, i have a vagabond, a scimitar and a rapier with all the relevant fittings.

Now, which of us is more flexible? It's at least a wash. You choose a role and undock, and I choose a role and undock.

The difference is that my ships were cheaper and dont blow up all together.
You forgot that the Loki can fly as one ship and carry all of its subsystems with it.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."