These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

"More Generalized" T3 Ships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-06-16 21:29:24 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Also, how do you give a ship bonused e-war without giving it a bunch of mid slots that can be re-purposed. Say you make a proteus as a carbon copy of a deimos except it does 10% less damage but has +2 mid slots and a sensor dampening bonus. People would say "screw the damp bonus, im shield tanking this ship" and you'd end up with a shield tanked deimos with extra damage mods/TEs in the lows
Why give it +2 mid slots? Why not leave it with the same net number of slots as the Deimos, maybe with more total mids but less lows to balance it out. It doesn't even necessarily need that. It could have the same slot layout as a Deimos, 2 hybrid bonuses instead of 3, a sensor damp bonus, and have a strong advantage over a Deimos. The Deimos can fit one or two sensor dampeners too, but it/they won't be nearly as effective.

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."
Sigras
Conglomo
#22 - 2013-06-16 22:46:11 UTC
be honest, would you really fly that ship? a deimos that looses you SP when you die in it, costs 3x as much and has a sensor damp bonus?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-06-16 22:48:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
You had me at Deimos with sensor damp bonus. Gimme gimme.

To be honest, I personally would not fly it in most situations, but then I wouldn't really fly a strategic cruiser at all anyway. This has more to do with my inability to keep ships alive than anything else.

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."
Sigras
Conglomo
#24 - 2013-06-16 23:07:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
well, maybe the deimos was a bad example cause pretty much nobody wants to fly that ship anyway . . . its nickname is "the die-most" for a reason

That being said, the general consensus in ship fitting is "make your ship do one thing really well" this is why we dont see falcons with mag stabs in the lows, and why we all fit either short ranged or long ranged guns. Years of ship fitting have told us that being flexible isnt as good as being good at what you do, so we make specialized fits for specialized roles; we have dedicated tackle and dedicated e-war ships.

The T3 ships would need a serious incentive to break out of this idea, and I just dont see a ship bonus being that incentive.

We already have ships that ignore some of their bonuses in favor of a more focused ship:
the falcon (ignores damage for more jamming)
the myrmadon (shield tank fit)
the brutix (shield tank fit)
the hyperion (shield tank fit)
the HICs (ignore damage for additional tank)

This is why I propose being able to switch subsystems mid combat; this would allow the ship to retain it's focused fit, but it would also be able to change what that focus was based on the battlefield.

Now of course you would only have 8/8/8 modules so you could only change to the extend that you prepared for when you undocked, but you could effectively fill 2-3 roles I think.

This would make for some seriously powerful ships, but really expensive as you would be losing all 24 modules + rigs + all the subsystems you were carrying with you at the time.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2013-06-16 23:33:37 UTC
Maybe T3s should just be ships flown by eccentric master PVPers who know how to properly use them. Maybe they should be rare. MOST people have learned to specialize their ships. This is not because flexible fits are bad, it's because most people can't figure out how to set one up.

Commander Ted can show you a nice Arbitrator fit which makes a great solo pvper. That's a ship with inadequate tank and inadequate dps using its EWAR bonus along with the other two to shine.

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."
Sigras
Conglomo
#26 - 2013-06-18 10:12:53 UTC
I feel like the elite PvPers all specialize their ships. Looking at the fits of the top PvP groups and individuals, ive seen specialized fit after specialized fit. I am of the opinion that a specialized ship is usually better.

Like I mentioned before, nobody would fit both railguns and blasters to their ship. This would make it more flexible and more versatile but in reality it just makes your ship less effective in the best of circumstances, and marginally less terrible in the worst of circumstances.
max ericshaun
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2013-06-18 12:58:18 UTC
This debate is getting tiresome. I can understand making some of the subsystems more useful. I can even see making some slightly less powerful, but why on earth should a T2 ship be better than a T3? Doesn't T3 mean more technologically advanced than T2? A T3 cruiser fit up as a HAC should be better than a T2 cruiser fit up as a HAC. If anything, increase the skills needed to fly the T3s. Make them much more skill intensive. A good FC with a good fleet of pilots can honestly hold their own in thoraxes against both AHAC fleets and proteus fleets with fairly even numbers. I've been on both sides of that. Stop crying about how over powered they are. The cries for the nerf bat to hit ships that you can't kill is so damn annoying.

Lost in space
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2013-06-19 05:04:32 UTC
In many instances, specialized ships are better. It's highly situational. But most "elite pvpers" are pretty close-minded about fits too.

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."
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#29 - 2013-06-19 09:51:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
max ericshaun wrote:
...Doesn't T3 mean more technologically advanced than T2?...

Yes and no. Advancement is not always vertical, sometimes it goes off to the side.

T3 is the Spork, a sideways evolution of the most basic utensils .. it can function as either a Spoon or a Fork but will always be inferior to the real deals as either.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#30 - 2013-06-19 10:04:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
That is a wonderful analogy. The spork is the personification of T3 ships, made into something suitable for eating my dinner with. The spork serves sufficiently to replace the spoon and the fork, but manages to do so without obsoleting them. For all its versatility though, the spork is not modular. In fact, this is what makes it so useful in the first place. You can eat all kinds of things with it and you don't actually have to touch it (well you do, but..) or modify it in any way. It's just ready to go, all the time.

I wonder if properly capitalizing on the "flexibility" aspect intended for V3s will require going completely back to the drawing board. Perhaps the key to proper T3 flexibility is to assign generalized, well-rounded bonuses to the hull itself. From there, you then add your subsystems, whose bonuses are completely redesigned around the notion of giving certain stats or abilities a nudge this way or the other, with some stripping away a bonus, heavily penalizing a bonus/stat or simply adding a new function/altering the weapon platform with no change to the hull's basic stats.

Such an approach might also include standardizing a slot layout, so that each T3 has its own specific slot layout and only certain subsystems have the ability to move a slot from here to there with no other significant effects, while other powerful subsystems remove a slot entirely as a way of balancing what they do.
max ericshaun
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2013-06-19 11:50:47 UTC
A spork is a free utensil you get with your chalupa at taco bell. A strategic cruiser is a ship that at minimum is double the price of it's T2 variant that runs the risk of you retraining a skill. Next analogy please.

Lost in space
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-06-19 13:14:57 UTC
You people are arguing around bad perceptions.

T3's are not OP, HACs are shite, that's all.

NO T3's can't do anything the specialized counter parts can't do better except in 2 specific cases, Command subs that need to be removed from the equation or nerf to the ground and in HAC's playground because HAC's are terrible.

For any other role the specialized versions are better or you guys are doing it wrong. After T2 cruisers rebalance T3's will require a lot of love on top of what they already have not nerfs, or you guys don't fly them and are moaning about shite you know nothing about.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Ramirez Dora
Neckbeards International
#33 - 2013-06-19 13:16:23 UTC
We've got a discussion similar to this going on at FHC (I'm sure you can find it) so whilst I won't reiterate all the good points made there, I will say this:

1) The main T3 skill is relatively useless (just a 'nice to have') and so many people fly around in T3s with the main skill at 2-4

2) You can not remove their obscene tank without a review to the skill loss applied, or nobody will fly them (to quote "gold-leaf paper bags"). To merge with number 1 above, adding a 15% per level chance reduction of skill loss per level (to a max of 75%) would not be a bad thing on the main skill.

3) The subsystems have silly requirements (read: none). EWAR subsystem should require IV (preferably V given the T3 nature) of the respective EWAR skill(s). That might mitigate the need for drastic capability nerfing, and increase the room you have to nerf/boost the various subsystems so all can be utilised.

2.5 cents
max ericshaun
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2013-06-19 13:55:00 UTC
Ramirez Dora wrote:


3) The subsystems have silly requirements (read: none). EWAR subsystem should require IV (preferably V given the T3 nature) of the respective EWAR skill(s). That might mitigate the need for drastic capability nerfing, and increase the room you have to nerf/boost the various subsystems so all can be utilised.

2.5 cents

The subsystems should all require significant lvl V prereqs that revolve around their capabilities. That should stop quite a bit of the moaning about T3's. It might also be interesting to include some T2 spaceship command requirements prior to flying T3's, such as Recon IV or V, HAC IV or V, and maybe even command ships IV or V. I'm not saying make this a requirement... I'm just thinking out loud as I type. Smile

Lost in space
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#35 - 2013-06-19 23:12:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
max ericshaun wrote:
A spork is a free utensil you get with your chalupa at taco bell. A strategic cruiser is a ship that at minimum is double the price of it's T2 variant that runs the risk of you retraining a skill. Next analogy please.


Way to incorrectly oversimplify. Congratulations, my first facepalm of the day goes to this post. Also, I never get sporks with my chalupas. Should I be talking to the manager about this?


Moving on..

Now that CCP has taken the approach of requiring various support skills at Lv5 for T2 ships instead of requiring that you first have trained other T2 ships, I think we've got a good model in place for re-defining the skill tree required for T3 hulls.

  • Electronics Upgrades 5
  • Signal Analysis 5
  • Energy Grid Upgrades 5
  • Energy Management 5
  • Long Range Targeting 5
  • Science 5
  • Advanced Weapons Upgrades 5

These and more seem like excellent skills to put into the T3 cruiser's requirements. Especially AWU5. They would serve to make a T3 ship a significantly higher SP investment while also ensuring not only that you have nearly optimal skills for fitting them but also the basic ability to fly the T2 ships they're intended to mimic.

Whether these skills are put into the prerequisites for the main skill itself or into the subsystem skills is immaterial as you cannot train the hull without having the subsystems already trained and so it ends up the same either way.

I am, however, completely and utterly in steadfast opposition to the horrible idea that T3 ships should require having T2 ships trained. That's the exact kind of convoluted and annoying silliness that CCP just went through the process of removing from the T2 tree.

Requiring Command Ships at all in order to fly a T3 is just nonsense and has no place in a serious discussion.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2013-06-19 23:59:22 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Whether these skills are put into the prerequisites for the main skill itself or into the subsystem skills is immaterial as you cannot train the hull without having the subsystems already trained and so it ends up the same either way.
Absolutely not. Those requirements should be on individual subsystem types, not on the subsystem skills, and certainly not on the main hull.

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."
max ericshaun
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2013-06-20 13:48:38 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
max ericshaun wrote:
A spork is a free utensil you get with your chalupa at taco bell. A strategic cruiser is a ship that at minimum is double the price of it's T2 variant that runs the risk of you retraining a skill. Next analogy please.


Way to incorrectly oversimplify. Congratulations, my first facepalm of the day goes to this post. Also, I never get sporks with my chalupas. Should I be talking to the manager about this?


Moving on..

Now that CCP has taken the approach of requiring various support skills at Lv5 for T2 ships instead of requiring that you first have trained other T2 ships, I think we've got a good model in place for re-defining the skill tree required for T3 hulls.

  • Electronics Upgrades 5
  • Signal Analysis 5
  • Energy Grid Upgrades 5
  • Energy Management 5
  • Long Range Targeting 5
  • Science 5
  • Advanced Weapons Upgrades 5

These and more seem like excellent skills to put into the T3 cruiser's requirements. Especially AWU5. They would serve to make a T3 ship a significantly higher SP investment while also ensuring not only that you have nearly optimal skills for fitting them but also the basic ability to fly the T2 ships they're intended to mimic.

Whether these skills are put into the prerequisites for the main skill itself or into the subsystem skills is immaterial as you cannot train the hull without having the subsystems already trained and so it ends up the same either way.

I am, however, completely and utterly in steadfast opposition to the horrible idea that T3 ships should require having T2 ships trained. That's the exact kind of convoluted and annoying silliness that CCP just went through the process of removing from the T2 tree.

Requiring Command Ships at all in order to fly a T3 is just nonsense and has no place in a serious discussion.


Well analogy aside, it seems we are more or less on the same page with a need for tougher requirements to fly T3's. As I stated previously, I'm not saying T2 ship training should be a requirement. Mostly I brought them up due to the roles T3's are usually used to fill. The list you have is certainly a minimum that should be added. That list could easily be doubled in length with various support skills.
Bottom line, instead of people insisting that T3's in general be nerfed, beef up the T2 variants and severely intensify the skill training involved in flying T3's.

Lost in space
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#38 - 2013-06-20 13:58:53 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Whether these skills are put into the prerequisites for the main skill itself or into the subsystem skills is immaterial as you cannot train the hull without having the subsystems already trained and so it ends up the same either way.
Absolutely not. Those requirements should be on individual subsystem types, not on the subsystem skills, and certainly not on the main hull.


Certainly, if you agree to take a substantial nerf on the hull itself that will bring it in line with how quickly you can train for it.

T3s really are much too easy to get into, and I say this as a pilot who has specialized almost solely in T3s to the detriment of being able to fly anything else.
Onomerous
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#39 - 2013-06-20 15:01:55 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Whether these skills are put into the prerequisites for the main skill itself or into the subsystem skills is immaterial as you cannot train the hull without having the subsystems already trained and so it ends up the same either way.
Absolutely not. Those requirements should be on individual subsystem types, not on the subsystem skills, and certainly not on the main hull.


Certainly, if you agree to take a substantial nerf on the hull itself that will bring it in line with how quickly you can train for it.

T3s really are much too easy to get into, and I say this as a pilot who has specialized almost solely in T3s to the detriment of being able to fly anything else.


Getting into it and being adequately trained to fly it are not the same. To get into a full T2 fit T3 hull with adequate subsystem skills is not too easy. Then you lose some of it if you get killed...
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#40 - 2013-06-20 18:41:11 UTC
Onomerous wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Whether these skills are put into the prerequisites for the main skill itself or into the subsystem skills is immaterial as you cannot train the hull without having the subsystems already trained and so it ends up the same either way.
Absolutely not. Those requirements should be on individual subsystem types, not on the subsystem skills, and certainly not on the main hull.


Certainly, if you agree to take a substantial nerf on the hull itself that will bring it in line with how quickly you can train for it.

T3s really are much too easy to get into, and I say this as a pilot who has specialized almost solely in T3s to the detriment of being able to fly anything else.


Getting into it and being adequately trained to fly it are not the same. To get into a full T2 fit T3 hull with adequate subsystem skills is not too easy. Then you lose some of it if you get killed...

Actually, yes they are easy to master... and the skill point loss that terrifies everyone is at most a few days to retrain.

Keep them easy for newish people to get into.
Reduce their price.
Balance them as proposed (more flexible, yet still effective... not as good at a particular thing as a T2 vessel specialized for that task).
Consider making the size of the sub systems a bit smaller, to facilitate easy transport to forward bases and WH.

I'm sorry, but making them transformers in space doesn't make much sense. Making them easy to move to a forward base or WH is a very nice advantage they have that could be built upon.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.