These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Tech 3 Revamp
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#1 - 2013-11-30 12:37:17 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3939735#post3939735

Basically, what is says is get rid of rigs for T3. They are an specialized item in adaptable ships. Get rework the bonuses so you don't loose performance.

What do you think?

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7
Ix Method
Doomheim
#2 - 2013-11-30 14:49:46 UTC
If the rebalance was done with this is mind it'd probably be for the best tbh.

Travelling at the speed of love.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#3 - 2013-11-30 21:06:58 UTC
Have to say on balance I'd be against it - while I like it for HP increase rigs, etc. I find things like T2 burst aerator, nanopump, ewar and electronics, etc.rigs too useful to give them up.
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#4 - 2013-11-30 21:28:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Kalel Nimrott
It wouldnt be too difficult to balance that with the current subsystems by improving the bonuses or adding new features to them.


Edit: You are also eliminating their penalties. Something else to add to the mix.

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#5 - 2013-12-01 00:35:26 UTC
wont work as the rigs are tied to the actual hull not the subsystems that you ADD to the hull.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#6 - 2013-12-01 02:32:35 UTC
What? We are talking about getting rid of the rigs..., No more rig slots for Tech 3 ships.

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2013-12-01 06:08:24 UTC
+1

not for nerfing purposes, but because tech 3s are complex enough with subsystems. I'd like to see them balanced around the idea of not having rigs.

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."
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2013-12-01 08:31:14 UTC
Hmm, sorry, I don't like the idea of removing rigs from T3's. As for why, I'd say it's because:

1) Rigs offer benefits that subsystems don't, allow you to compensate for weakness and thus have more fittings, and overall improve customizability due to it. If they have a weakness on T3s it's because the inability to remove rigs doesn't make sense on a ship that can readily change it's major stats, but I don't think just taking rigs out of the equation is the solution to that.

2) Removing rigs doesn't actually deal with the imbalances in a T3. T3's are imbalanced in certain aspects because some subsystems are useless while others are almost mandatory. While there are some subsystems that will need to be buffed or reworked, and some may see nerfs, I don't really think that a buff across the board in exchange for being able to compensate for shortcomings with rigs is the solution.

I would much rather see a comprehensive look at subsystems and possibly the ability to remove rigs without destroying them instead of simply taking them out of the situation. If anything, the complexity that a T3 can offer in terms of fitting is a strength, not a weakness.

-1
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2013-12-01 08:41:28 UTC
-1
Getting rid of the rig points solves nothing about the imbalance of T3 ships.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#10 - 2013-12-01 10:07:26 UTC
Makes sense to me. Rigs + subsystems make no sense to me. If they combine that with an overall tweaking of subsystems so they are all viable choices it could make T3s much more interesting while at the same time less overpowered in certain configurations.
Demica Diaz
SE-1
#11 - 2013-12-01 11:08:40 UTC
Get rid of rigs and rebalance subsystems to compensate rig loss to boost subsystem specialization. Yes please.
StahlWaffe
Doomheim
#12 - 2013-12-01 11:12:56 UTC
Well, my proposal for bringing Tech3 in line is either, drop their rigslots to 2 like on Tech2 ships, or give Tech2 ships 3 rigslots.
Then, split the bonuses of Subsystems onto SUBSYSTEM Level AND Strategic Cruiser Level. Upon loss, you lose 1 level of Strategic Cruiser and 1 level of the highest subsystem.

This way, for getting maximum performance, you need Strategic Cruiser to 5. And if you lose it, your overall performance takes a significant hit. You have to make a decision: Keep the Tech3 skill at 4, so you don't lose tons of skillpoints in case you die and can quickly achieve the performance you had earlier, or do you want maximum performance and risk losing that performance for a month?
Ashley Animus
7th Temporal Lounge
#13 - 2013-12-01 12:07:33 UTC
This might become a problem with the tengu since some fits rely heavely on the rigs to increase missile projection or application or something.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#14 - 2013-12-01 13:07:14 UTC
StahlWaffe wrote:
Well, my proposal for bringing Tech3 in line is either, drop their rigslots to 2 like on Tech2 ships, or give Tech2 ships 3 rigslots.
Then, split the bonuses of Subsystems onto SUBSYSTEM Level AND Strategic Cruiser Level. Upon loss, you lose 1 level of Strategic Cruiser and 1 level of the highest subsystem.

This way, for getting maximum performance, you need Strategic Cruiser to 5. And if you lose it, your overall performance takes a significant hit. You have to make a decision: Keep the Tech3 skill at 4, so you don't lose tons of skillpoints in case you die and can quickly achieve the performance you had earlier, or do you want maximum performance and risk losing that performance for a month?


They need to get rid of SP loss not make it even more punitive.
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#15 - 2013-12-01 14:48:34 UTC
Ashley Animus wrote:
This might become a problem with the tengu since some fits rely heavely on the rigs to increase missile projection or application or something.


Agree, but that is why besides loosing, rigs subsystems need to be tweaked so we dont loose configuratoions that are useful now, but we can gain new fits to use and more adaptability.

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#16 - 2013-12-01 15:52:22 UTC
what i would like to see happen is all the EHP and fittings/slots etc.. go into the hull itself... and use subs as a bonus only change

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-12-01 16:14:13 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
what i would like to see happen is all the EHP and fittings/slots etc.. go into the hull itself... and use subs as a bonus only change

Certain other aspects would need to change with the subsystems, but yes that is probably the best way to balance them.

Slots, power grid, CPU, cargo capacity, HP, and drone bay would be static features of the ships.
Hardpoints, velocity, drone bandwidth, agility and bonuses should vary with each subsystem.
And of course no matter what the interdiction nullifier should remove a low slot.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#18 - 2013-12-02 03:51:03 UTC
But could Cpu be modified by an electronic subsystem?

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#19 - 2013-12-02 04:52:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Kalel Nimrott wrote:
Basically, what is says is get rid of rigs for T3. What do you think?

Only if they finally balance/buff subsystems and allow us to swap-out subsystems on the fly without a 60-second penalty or the need for a mobile depot.

Kalel Nimrott wrote:
But could Cpu be modified by an electronic subsystem?

We already have a CPU-based electronic subsystem.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2013-12-02 07:44:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
StahlWaffe wrote:
Well, my proposal for bringing Tech3 in line is either, drop their rigslots to 2 like on Tech2 ships, or give Tech2 ships 3 rigslots.
Then, split the bonuses of Subsystems onto SUBSYSTEM Level AND Strategic Cruiser Level. Upon loss, you lose 1 level of Strategic Cruiser and 1 level of the highest subsystem.

This way, for getting maximum performance, you need Strategic Cruiser to 5. And if you lose it, your overall performance takes a significant hit. You have to make a decision: Keep the Tech3 skill at 4, so you don't lose tons of skillpoints in case you die and can quickly achieve the performance you had earlier, or do you want maximum performance and risk losing that performance for a month?


They need to get rid of SP loss not make it even more punitive.

Howabout a 10% SP loss from all applicable subsystem skills as well as the strategic cruiser skill? More coverage, less total loss.

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."
12Next page