These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Tech 3 *utility* - not so much power.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenshae Chiroptera
#21 - 2015-05-24 14:28:29 UTC
Sespria Secantus wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
can we get the other T3s that are already in game balanced b4 adding more?
Precisely this. Too many new ships too soon = a recipe for disaster. CCP should just focus on balancing the current ships for the moment, especially the BC's.
This isn't a new ship thread. Roll

This is a design concept thread that could go toward balancing those ships already in EVE.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2015-05-24 14:43:59 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Agree on being docked up.


So screw the WHers, the people that use them most?

No thanks Lol
Jenshae Chiroptera
#23 - 2015-06-06 13:58:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
afkalt wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Agree on being docked up.
So screw the WHers, the people that use them most?
No thanks Lol
Actually, with the new POS structures and attaching ships planned they could be "docked up" (mobile depots might suffice probably with some sort of timer to expose them to risk as they are probably invading). I have also always felt that worm holes should be able to build stations.

(I also feel stations should have three exists you can choose from and be able to look outside them visually the way you see the outside of your ship)

Added to OP about the damage that power creep is doing to this game.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Alexis Nightwish
#24 - 2015-06-06 15:15:11 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Going to work with the idea of T3 Frigates first because they would be cheaper, faster to train and get less whining than Cruisers, BCs or BSes.


Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Sespria Secantus wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
can we get the other T3s that are already in game balanced b4 adding more?
Precisely this. Too many new ships too soon = a recipe for disaster. CCP should just focus on balancing the current ships for the moment, especially the BC's.
This isn't a new ship thread.Roll

This is a design concept thread that could go toward balancing those ships already in EVE.

Wut?


Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Then you chose a hull bonus by popping in a sub-system:
- 15% bonus to Shield / Armour Transporter boost amount, capacitor use 700% bonus to range (vs 10% and 500% for T1)
- 15% dmg, 10% tracking, 15% optimal, -65% MWD sig penalty (vs 5% dmg, 7.5 tracking, 10% optimal, 5% dmg, -50% MWD sig penalty for T2)

.... you get the general idea.

Now, here is one of the keys to this - the base stats remain almost the same as T2 frigates (hull, armour, shields, resists, speeds, etc)

-1

See, here's the thing that a lot of people don't get, including CCP: A Tech 3 ship's power must come from its adaptability and/or flexibility. NOT from raw stats. They need to be just above Tech 1 at any role they perform, and noticeably below Tech 2 because Tech 2 ships are focused on a specific role and thus must be superior at that role.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Jenshae Chiroptera
#25 - 2015-06-06 15:51:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
... CCP: A Tech 3 ship's power must come from its adaptability and/or flexibility. NOT from raw stats. ....
That is what I am saying.
T3 frigate was being use as a design example to show the concept.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Alexis Nightwish
#26 - 2015-06-07 16:39:19 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
... CCP: A Tech 3 ship's power must come from its adaptability and/or flexibility. NOT from raw stats. ....
That is what I am saying.
T3 frigate was being use as a design example to show the concept.
Then why the hell do your examples have significantly higher stats than T2?

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
- 15% dmg, 10% tracking, 15% optimal, -65% MWD sig penalty (vs 5% dmg, 7.5 tracking, 10% optimal, 5% dmg, -50% MWD sig penalty for T2)

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Jenshae Chiroptera
#27 - 2015-06-07 16:58:10 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Then why do your examples have higher stats than T2?
Aim was a minor boost that would stop people whining and people look at them face value would feel there is something worth getting about them.

Title of the thread is original and has no change. That is the main thrust.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Previous page12