Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Technology and Research Center » Player Features and Ideas Discussion » T3 need to be looked at..

Topic is locked indefinitely.

T3 need to be looked at..
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Jonas Sukarala

Deep Core Mining Inc.

Caldari State

Likes received: 309

#41 - 2013-05-30 17:03:14 UTC

if they drop the sp loss them surely they will have to up the training skill time somewhat to compensate.

'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

Scan Stakan HOLD MY PROBS 144
PavlikX Scan Stakan HOLD MY PROBS Likes received: 144	#42 - 2013-05-30 17:28:18 UTC I don't think so. In case that they will continue with "nerf" of t3, buff t2 cruisers, it will be not so necessary to increase training time.

Sergeant Acht Scultz

School of Applied Knowledge

Caldari State

Likes received: 1,711

#43 - 2013-06-01 00:26:00 UTC

Goldensaver wrote:

Oh, but I do agree that they're probably fine for the most part, simply HAC's need to be less ******. Some subs are a little overpowered, maybe, but some are absolute trash and need to get fixed. I mean, the Tengu's Power Core Multiplier? Gives less PG at level 5 than the Cap Regen Matrix and is worse in literally every other way...

You can't even fit rails or blasters on Tengu without pimp it and still make an awful expensive blaster ship because of that stupid sub.

Cover sub is just plain crap for exploration.

Yet everyone claims "WAAAAA TENGUS"

Roll

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne


Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State Likes received: 1,711	#44 - 2013-06-01 00:35:59 UTC Onomerous wrote: Too many funny responses. Very entertaining. Cost is not a balancing factor... interesting. Cost of fleets/pvp is a balancing factor for players, that's all that matters. Everything else is just blahblahblah and e-awesomness removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Higgs Maken

The Metal Box Company

Likes received: 22

#45 - 2013-06-01 04:36:17 UTC

Agustice Arterius wrote:

"Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose." - CCP Ytterbium

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1889852#post1889852

"We would also like to reply on the comments about tech3 ships being balanced for their cost and skill requirements. This should not be a factor for balancing most EVE vessels," - CCP Ytterbium

I lost the link for that second one.

I think they kinda both apply now, even more so considering Navy BCs are coming out, which is what he was talking about.

Popularity is an gauge for balance, thus cost is an element of balance. Let say after nerfing T3, they perform like a HAC when fitted for dps. The price tag would forbid people from flying them, they will become some obsolete and under use ship which require developers' attention.

In a theoretical world, yes we can agree with Ytterbium, price and skill shouldn't be a factor for balancing; but this is the real world.

GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5,563
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation Likes received: 5,563	#46 - 2013-06-01 05:22:48 UTC Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Onomerous wrote: Too many funny responses. Very entertaining. Cost is not a balancing factor... interesting. Cost of fleets/pvp is a balancing factor for players, that's all that matters. Everything else is just blahblahblah and e-awesomness Is that why no-one owns a supercap? They're just too expensive?