These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Improving Risk/Reward in Wormholes (Idea thread)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2014-09-03 12:31:16 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
What value would t3 frigs actually bring to the game?

Are you jokers being serious? I could see the argument for making T3's different to what they are now, or even increasing the mineral/manufacturing requirements of them to consume some of the huge surplus of materials...

but really if you want to stimulate T3 production markets and make them actually expensive to fly again - my suggestion would be remove the SP loss for starters. Encourage actual risky use of T3's first before you go an make changes to how they're built. Lower EHP values over all would also be a good step. This is a thought for a T3 rebalance.


Stop talking, you're embarrassing yourself. .


Ha- no. CCP design team already ruled out T3 frigates years ago during crucible/retribution time period. Ytterbium himself can be directly quoted as saying the add no value to the game and would be impossible to balance.

So you stop talking and do some research first, mate.


The thread is about our ideas, not what CCP intend to do... So again, stop talking and read.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#22 - 2014-09-03 12:37:54 UTC
Don't try and reinvent the wheel with more time-sink bullshit then. I'm not interested in T3 frigates because the premise of their idea is terrible and you have yet to make a quantifiable justification in making them. It's already been considered at a design level from the people who program the game and been deemed a bad idea. Why do threads about T3 frigates continue to be made? Let me propose a question to you:

is the argument for removing T3 cruisers stronger than the argument for making new T3 ships (of any class)?

I think there's plenty of reasons to remove T3's outright and expend that energy elsewhere. I find very little reason to introduce new T3 SHIPS but I will concede that T3 RIGS could be viable replacement and much more easily balanced.
Billy Hardcore
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-09-03 12:56:29 UTC
I wants me a t3 BATTLESHIP

#BillyFleet
Meytal
Doomheim
#24 - 2014-09-03 12:59:27 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Rroff wrote:
A little off topic but IMO there are so many options with frigs as is t3 ones seem a bit silly. t3 destroyers with some overlap of the frig role could be interesting though potentially extremely OP.


The problem with that is, it makes no sense when you look at cruiser class hulls. There are a variety of T2 cruisers and frigates and although a T3 ship can do the job of a T2 ship ok, they can't do it as good. Their strength is in the ability to do multiple jobs at once. Basically the frigates will be smaller, less powerful versions of the cruisers and you could get somthing like to loki with less web range and tank/dps. The only T2 destroyer is and interdictor and there is no middle ground in how good you launch a bubble.

... So i disagree that it's silly and actually think that it makes a lot of sense.

Ranged bubble placement: lock a target 30km away, launch bubble at target. Sort of like bubble bombs. Way overpowered, but can you imagine how much fun that would be? :)
Borsek
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2014-09-03 13:03:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Borsek
Another bad but better than other ideas by ccp devs at fanfest was t3 industrials, don't ask me in what form, we wanted t3 dreads and battleships - making the amount of salvage required for building higher thus balancing the market, and giving wormholers more expensive crap to blow up, and smaller corps more force multipliers.

But of course, this will never get implemented, and we'll get t3 PI instead.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#26 - 2014-09-03 13:08:36 UTC
You'll get nothing of the sort because anything the small player can use, the big players can game for larger benefit.

I believe it's called the Malcanis' law.
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know
#27 - 2014-09-03 14:00:44 UTC
Ok. Some more ideas.

Sleeper pos modules
Sleeper implants
Sleeper industrial ships (t3 industrials or somewhat something)

Basicly. Some more stuff that make use of the sleeper salvage. Doesnt matter what, but something that increase the demand for it.

~Bringer of happiness

http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2014-09-03 14:23:32 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Don't try and reinvent the wheel with more time-sink bullshit then. I'm not interested in T3 frigates because the premise of their idea is terrible and you have yet to make a quantifiable justification in making them. It's already been considered at a design level from the people who program the game and been deemed a bad idea. Why do threads about T3 frigates continue to be made? Let me propose a question to you:

is the argument for removing T3 cruisers stronger than the argument for making new T3 ships (of any class)?

I think there's plenty of reasons to remove T3's outright and expend that energy elsewhere. I find very little reason to introduce new T3 SHIPS but I will concede that T3 RIGS could be viable replacement and much more easily balanced.


Only a simpleton would think removing an entire ship class would be a good idea... never mind that the wormhole economy relies on T3 cruisers.

But yeah, anything T3 (rigs or mods) will do as long as it achieves the two goals outlined in my earlier post.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#29 - 2014-09-03 14:46:37 UTC
umnikar wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Angsty Teenager wrote:
Nobody runs sites with open statics so your idea is dumb and bad.

they actually do. a lot and often.


are they all dumb then?


Especially with all the new holes popping up you spend more time crashing than actually running sites. So no just put scouts on as many holes as you can and spam dscan.
Marox Calendale
Xynodyne
The Initiative.
#30 - 2014-09-03 14:59:21 UTC
Borsek wrote:
..., we wanted t3 dreads and battleships - ....

What about Dreads with the mass of a Battleship but without jumping ability... Hopefully those will never come Lol

Ok some serious suggestions:

- What about T3 Burner Sites?

- Add some more Ships to C4 Sites, quite enough that they´re not be doable for a single marauder. Their value should be like HS Incursions.

Blake Nosferatu wrote:
C1's through c4's need to be rebalance aka add more valuable blue loot to the sites. In c4's on top of the slight increase in blue loots add a single carrier escalation wave. The addition of the single c4 carrier escalation wave will mean more carriers out in triage for roaming party's to kill and a reason for the residents to build them in their hole.I think it would also allow people to finally truly agree they are a high class wh instead of just... c4's are sorta high class but not really. :)


All Wormhole Sites should have Capital Escalations! Why only add them to C4? Even after Cruis you still need about 16 days to build one and after that you can´t get them out. So no possibility for day trippers but for those who settled in low class WH. This would increase low class site values and would also force cap kills.


Some things to build by sleeper stuff:

- T3 Outpost. Would look like a sleeper enclave. Destroyable. You can only anchor 1 at the sun of a WH system. I still like the idea of having an "alliance home". Right now we´re all living just in our own houses, but a town hall for our little village would be nice. No need for any upgrades. Its use should be like a meeting or trading point.

- T3 Rigs, T3 Implants, T3 Haulers there are much possibilities
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#31 - 2014-09-03 15:57:32 UTC
Not really specific to w-space, but the best fitting to bring to kill rats should not be so far from the best fitting to fight other players.

Right now, fighting sleepers requires almost the exact opposite abilities than fighting another player:
-sleepers do low damage (individually) but have huge amounts of hitpoints to chew through; players generally have lower hp (except Proteus) but do more dps
-sleepers shoot from long distance, players usually fit short-range weapons
-sleepers basically immobilize your ship with tons of webs, players usually don't
-sleepers are very resistant to ECM and immune to other ewar, players are susceptible to it
-sleepers never run away unless you leave the grid; threatened players warp off if you don't point them

The overall effect is of course that whenever you try to make isk you are in a ship that can only be the victim and almost never the victor of a pvp fight.

CCP should change this. Make all rats outside of hisec fight similar to players. Especially the sleepers.

Most important is that we should need to point them or they will warp off when low on hp. If it is necessary to point rats, then everyone has to fit a point, thus already using the most crucial part of a pvp ship and also making sure that you don't gimp your ship for its main purpose, which is still making isk. Currently, you can fit a point to a pve ship, but it puts you at a competitive disadvantage against those who don't.

Make good pve fits rely less on cap stability and range and more on buffer/burst tank and high dps, because that is what you need to fight player ships. For example, sleeper sites could have smaller waves of stronger sleeper ships, and in between waves there is a delay where you have time to reload your AAR or ASB. So total time for site completion remains the same.

This way, bears learn from the beginning how to fit well (or at least, not horribly bad), and because they will be engaged anyway, they will have the ability to fight back, and will start to like it. And in any case, people will be more inclined to run sites even with hostile activity nearby, because they always have a chance to win or least take some enemies down with them.

But really... this idea is totally obvious, and surely has been brought up a thousand times over the years, and still nothing like that happens. So apparently CCP likes this strict separation between pve and pvp, for whatever reason.

.
Previous page12