These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tech 3 Destroyers coming in RHEA

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#41 - 2014-10-18 23:50:37 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
also agreed thet the current t3's need a rebalance, even amongst themselves they don't work properly.

Fozzie has been fairly open about this too. CCP agree and seem to want to give more options for subsystem combinations.

If this no subsystem approach works, then I kind of hope they completely redesign the cruisers too so they are the same. I personally love my Proteus, but change would be good to open up other possibilities.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#42 - 2014-10-19 00:04:47 UTC
Huh. That looks awesome. Hopefully one of the three operating modes is a good match for Interceptors.

Might also be a clue in as to the future role of T3s.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#43 - 2014-10-19 00:08:33 UTC
Silverdaddy wrote:
Tear Jar wrote:
As a CODE agent who has spent the last year training up everything destroyer related, I am excited.


CCP Fozzie said that he doesn't anticipate that tech 3 destroyers will ever be cost-effective for suicide banking, so you might be out of luck. P


I dont expect to suicide gank in it, but it will be a good ship for me to take into null or low as I have all the skills anyway.
KuroVolt
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2014-10-19 00:15:17 UTC
On behalf of the Curatores Veritatis Alliance: AMARR VICTOR!!!!

BoBwins Law: As a discussion/war between two large nullsec entities grows longer, the probability of one comparing the other to BoB aproaches near certainty.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#45 - 2014-10-19 00:15:39 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Huh. That looks awesome. Hopefully one of the three operating modes is a good match for Interceptors.

Might also be a clue in as to the future role of T3s.

If it's a good match for interceptors then T3's are going to be OP again.
Because T3's aren't meant to be as good as T2's at a specialised role.

So if one mode is a good match for Inties, then another will be a good match for another T2 etc, and you end up with a T3 that is once again too good.

Slightly better than a T1, not as good as the correct T2 in each config. but on the fly switching is what should happen.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#46 - 2014-10-19 00:17:04 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
also agreed thet the current t3's need a rebalance, even amongst themselves they don't work properly.

Fozzie has been fairly open about this too. CCP agree and seem to want to give more options for subsystem combinations.

If this no subsystem approach works, then I kind of hope they completely redesign the cruisers too so they are the same. I personally love my Proteus, but change would be good to open up other possibilities.

true, love my legion but getting good performance out of it gets pricy, and the dps form the covops sub is sub par by any measure, this makes me sad.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#47 - 2014-10-19 00:25:18 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

If it's a good match for interceptors then T3's are going to be OP again.


I don't even come close to caring. Something needs to be able to reasonably take down an interceptor besides putting twenty smartbomber battleships on a gate.

Quote:
Because T3's aren't meant to be as good as T2's at a specialised role.


That blithe platitude meant nothing when they first said it, and it means nothing now. Fortunately these won't have skill loss, since I doubt they will even push 20k hitpoints.

Quote:

So if one mode is a good match for Inties, then another will be a good match for another T2 etc, and you end up with a T3 that is once again too good.


No one said that, not me and not CCP. I want a reasonable counter for interceptors, as one does not presently exist.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#48 - 2014-10-19 00:26:25 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
also agreed thet the current t3's need a rebalance, even amongst themselves they don't work properly.

Fozzie has been fairly open about this too. CCP agree and seem to want to give more options for subsystem combinations.

If this no subsystem approach works, then I kind of hope they completely redesign the cruisers too so they are the same. I personally love my Proteus, but change would be good to open up other possibilities.

true, love my legion but getting good performance out of it gets pricy, and the dps form the covops sub is sub par by any measure, this makes me sad.


Not even going to lie, I have long since cribbed Feyd's Sacrilege fit. 85% of a Legion, 15% of the price. Cheap is a power all of it's own.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#49 - 2014-10-19 00:27:01 UTC
God, what a ******* stupid idea.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#50 - 2014-10-19 00:29:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

No one said that, not me and not CCP. I want a reasonable counter for interceptors, as one does not presently exist.

Then push for a T2 combat destroyer that is suitable for countering small sig ships but not powerful against large ones. Don't push for what would be an OP ship able to do everything well. And certainly don't push for continuing the T3 > all.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#51 - 2014-10-19 00:33:09 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Then push for a T2 combat destroyer that is suitable for countering small sig ships but not powerful against large ones.


Sounds pretty much like the "Sniper Mode", to me.

Quote:

Don't push for what would be an OP ship able to do everything well. And certainly don't push for continuing the T3 > all.


I did neither of those things. Try actually reading it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#52 - 2014-10-19 00:34:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

I did neither of those things. Try actually reading it.

I did, you specifically said you didn't care if what you were pushing for made it OP.... So yea......
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2014-10-19 00:38:17 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Velora Rasc wrote:
http://puu.sh/chx5n/d7cd11db4d.jpg

Looks like a theme in design emerging.

They seem to share visual similarities in surface and angles to the mordu's legion ships.

Cool if that's the case.


That should be amarr if i am not mistaken.

And there is no theme emerging, eve seems to have just reached 2009-2010 in game graphics and everything will start to look like a tangle of random polygons with a bit more uneven shape for gallente, more shabby looking for minmatar...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#54 - 2014-10-19 00:39:08 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

I did neither of those things. Try actually reading it.

I did, you specifically said you didn't care if what you were pushing for made it OP.... So yea......


No, I said that I could not possibly care less if you label it "OP" because you take exception to the number following the T.

I want it to fill a niche that is currently not well served, to be able to reasonably defeat an interceptor.

Consider that Sniper Mode says it gives a weapon range bonus, lock range bonus and lock speed bonus, it looks like CCP agrees.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#55 - 2014-10-19 00:49:00 UTC
Besides, a carebear like you should be celebrating, it looks to me like this thing could be great at popping gankers on gates. Even if it only ends up with six bonused guns, it could still two shot a Catalyst.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#56 - 2014-10-19 01:05:01 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
also agreed thet the current t3's need a rebalance, even amongst themselves they don't work properly.

Fozzie has been fairly open about this too. CCP agree and seem to want to give more options for subsystem combinations.

If this no subsystem approach works, then I kind of hope they completely redesign the cruisers too so they are the same. I personally love my Proteus, but change would be good to open up other possibilities.

true, love my legion but getting good performance out of it gets pricy, and the dps form the covops sub is sub par by any measure, this makes me sad.


Not even going to lie, I have long since cribbed Feyd's Sacrilege fit. 85% of a Legion, 15% of the price. Cheap is a power all of it's own.

with links your talking " i cant believe its not T3", legion needs loveOops

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Mister Tuggles
Dickhead Corner
#57 - 2014-10-19 01:06:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister Tuggles
Xuixien wrote:
Carribean Queen wrote:


What is wrong with you.

T1 < T2 < T3

working as intended.


Incorrect. That is not the way the game is balanced at all.

Have you ever read a single devblog about balance?



Have you ever read a single devblog about balance? They are all bullshit, and balance is non-existent.


Live with it.



Also t3's are balanced in the sense that they are A) More expensive to purchase than their t2 counterpart, B) Have a skill loss on destruction, and C) don't really outperform their t2 counterparts in their specific role.

Yes, you can get a t3 to do multiple roles at once, but it will not be as effective in a single role as their t2 counterpart. T3's are the Swiss Army knife where as t2's are specifically designed to fulfill one role.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#58 - 2014-10-19 01:08:16 UTC
The best way to think about the ships, is as if they had a built in seige/bastion module (or similar)

Hit a button, get one set of bonuses, hit another, get a different set. (I don't actually know how the UI will handle it. But conceptually, it's about what happens)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#59 - 2014-10-19 01:11:04 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
The best way to think about the ships, is as if they had a built in seige/bastion module (or similar)

Hit a button, get one set of bonuses, hit another, get a different set. (I don't actually know how the UI will handle it. But conceptually, it's about what happens)


Shocked....StraightTwisted

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#60 - 2014-10-19 01:27:20 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

No, I said that I could not possibly care less if you label it "OP" because you take exception to the number following the T.

I want it to fill a niche that is currently not well served, to be able to reasonably defeat an interceptor.

Consider that Sniper Mode says it gives a weapon range bonus, lock range bonus and lock speed bonus, it looks like CCP agrees.

No, it looks like CCP wants the sniper mode to be a quick dash mode so to speak.
Until we see the numbers we won't see if CCP agrees with you that it should defeat an interceptor solo, or if it's simply a useful tool for a gang to defeat an interceptor.
I've got nothing against that sort of role bonuses. But 1v1 if it's defeating Inti's in that mode with no problems, then there could be significant power balance issues. If it's simply acting as part of a gang and getting the initial tackle in that role to pin it while the heavies then get onto the inty, or in a gang of numbers, no problems at all.
P.S. You really need to stop trying to label people as carebears any time they disagree with you. It makes your arguments much weaker since you are resorting to attacking the person.