Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is not a reasonable argument. You don't see a lot of ships in a lot of different types of space. No one flies HIC's or dictors in high sec (dictors don't even get seen in low). You don't see T1 frigates in null beyond the first couple systems in. Pirate factions are just sprinkled about like a dash of salt in null, perhaps 1 or 2 per hundred, etc...

Different ships have different uses, and some of those uses are more practical in some areas of space where players and fleets are more prone to different types of behavior. It has nothing to do with whether Maelstroms are more or less expensive than T3's, and everything to do with whether a Maelstrom has a role that people find useful in WH's and null.

Its in the ship chart they brought out at the start of teircide. Its also not daft to have specialised ships that are better than none specialised ships in whatever they are specialising in.

What is daft is having a cruiser with the tank of a battleship, the firepower of a hack the sig of a light cruiser and the speed of a fast cruiser. Seriously, outside of the Ishtar why would you fly any hac over a tengu? And then we have the daftness that is fitting both a cov ops cloak and a nullifier at the same time.

the 'jack of all trades, master of none' does not make a ship crap in eve.

falcons and rooks are ECM specialists but ECMgu's are used in some engagements for their tougher tank and other options they provide despite their weaker ECM strength.

covert ops and e-war resistant logi (once they have a decent logi sub) would be another useful option even if they are not as powerful logi as T2.

so i only anticipate (and hope for) a nerf to the raw combat abilities of T3's. Some areas will get buffed and i hope T3's in general get a lot more freedom and ease of use (i.e. get rid of SP loss and rigs)

Maybe not quite the best way of putting it but - for instance there is a lot more interest in killing a shiny tengu say than a drake, water t3s down too much and that is largely reduced or goes away leaving less interesting things in the game.

more options are always a good thing .. this is what the crux of the T3 debate is about .. more options .. moving away from the uber battleship like stats that T3's use all the time .. bar the cloaky WH type fits

i wouldnt say the act of so many players blinging their ships because their much less likely to die makes anything interesting. i think its more indicative of something being too difficult to kill.

if you look at pirate ships, where its key modules and equipment that are blinged out to get that extra important edge. i feel thats much more healthy and interesting than blinging every mod, even ones where gains are (edit- almost) negligable, just because you know it takes a disproportionate force to capture and kill you.

A Battleship is obviously going to have a problem with any cruiser sized hull due to the fact a cruiser can get under the large guns, but granted a proteus has ridiculous EHP, but other then that if bring a T1 Battleship to fight a legion or something you deserve to lose it.



That's because a T3 can bring far more diversity to a Wormhole, a Maelstrom is only capable of doing one thing. Also a T3 is by far smaller then a battleship.




Battleships don't really need to be buffed or nerfed, Battleships sit pretty nicely in the roles they are supposed to fill.


EDIT: Just replied to an old post because I'm blind and didn't see that there was a second page. >.<

I don't entirely disagree with you - not every t3 needs to be an uber tanked, uber pimped ship and the ability to do things like make something that was an approximation of a guardian but trade some repping ability for increased ewar resistence for instance as touched on earlier would be a good thing but I don't want to see those kind of changes happen to t3s and come part and parcel with savaging their current capabilities.

I don't think that being able to battleship tank a t3 cruiser is a bad thing but I do think that being able to battleship tank a t3 cruiser should come with much closer to battleship (though as its not a battleship not the same level) sacrifices to things like sig and mobility and likewise if you want a configuration that has uber low sig and/or extreme mobility then it should be in the shape of something that is closer to HACs (though personally I think HACs are in a bad bad place and shouldn't be used as a measurement of anything) and so on for other areas where you can get extremes.

Regarding rigs personally I'd like to see it so that each level in the strategic cruiser skill gave you an extra set of rig slots - with the ability to have 1 of those (upto) 5 sets of 3 rigs active at any one time - so for instance on a loki you could have 1 set with 3x trimarks and another set with 3x shield extenders and the ability to swap between them - obviously no ability to remove rigs other than destroying them. Could be some technical issues with that though.

Not aimed at you specifically but my opinion on this is if your worried about the ISK costs you probably shouldn't be flying a t3 and I'd like to see it stay that way.


EDIT: I've also rarely if ever seen a need for that level of on the fly versatility aside from occasionally refitting a stranded t3 for the cloaky sub-system to get it out of hostile territory.

I guess I have a very different play style to you - I can't really see it from your perspective.