EPTdammit evemon
EVE Corporation - Page 1564
| Forum Index > General Games |
tofucake
Hyrule19186 Posts
dammit evemon | ||
|
vrmr
21 Posts
On June 10 2013 11:28 Ryndika wrote: Annoying to set up a amarr farmer. Minnies seem to get no LP with t1.  you can still afk capture points for LP? didn't they say something about changing that? i haven't played eve for over a year, but a friend bought it in a steam sale or something and is pretty clueless. From your comment i assume amarr is at t3/t4 at the moment? So i can just tell him to make a amarr alt, get a a frig, fit the right tank and go for gall or min minor plexes and afk capture? or did they change something? | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary: Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative. Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on. Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops. Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems. Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14062 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43376 Posts
| ||
|
vrmr
21 Posts
what fit do u need for a frig to do the minor fw sites if above information i got is correct? and is this short rundown of what to do still accurate? make alt -> get skills for cheap frig fit -> join fw for highest tier faction -> go into contested territory -> gate -> orbit -> wait for timer to run out ( warp if neutral / flashing enters plex)-> stack LPs Edit: Forget what i wrote, someone filled me in. User was warned for this post | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On June 11 2013 00:45 KwarK wrote: I have literally no clue how CCP mean to give tech 3s overlapping roles with tech 2s while at the same time not being better than them while at the same time not having obsolete subsystems. They do know that people can just own multiple different specialised hulls, right? Let's all join CCP in glossing over the fact that T3s are more expensive than T2 ships and the only thing which justifies this price difference is performance difference, much like Cynabals vs. Navy Canes. | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
On June 11 2013 00:45 KwarK wrote: I have literally no clue how CCP mean to give tech 3s overlapping roles with tech 2s while at the same time not being better than them while at the same time not having obsolete subsystems. They do know that people can just own multiple different specialised hulls, right? By nerfing them out of usefulness entirely, would be my guess | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
On June 11 2013 05:26 DefMatrixUltra wrote: Let's all join CCP in glossing over the fact that T3s are more expensive than T2 ships and the only thing which justifies this price difference is performance difference, much like Cynabals vs. Navy Canes. Oh Def, you should see some of the arguements they use in that thread. Literally: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3174526#post3174526 .…and a HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi and Fleet Command ship is going to set you back just over one billion. That means the T3 costs 0.5–0.7× what the T2 equivalent would do — not 4–5× as much. You're off by almost an order of magnitude. If you stupidly choose to ignore the versatility — the neat trick you actually pay for — and thus disqualify yourself from making any kind of sensible comparison, it's still only maybe 2× for a single function, as Riot Girl points out… If you want to add the 500M worth of vanity fittings that people put onto their T3s, then we'll have to do the same to the T2 cruisers to maintain a reliable point of comparison, at which point they will close in on 1.5–2bn. That's the number you need to compare against. And we haven't even gotten to the ridiculously short training path and the vastly simplified logistics the much cheaper price of a T3 buys you. Confirming that if you buy a HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi, and Command ship it would be more expensive than a t3, therefore nerf pls ![[image loading]](http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv286/Body_Shield/New%20Album%202/kzXvt_zpsbc953653.gif) | ||
|
Omigawa
United States1556 Posts
of all the eve videos i could have chosen, i randomly got this one TL space famous imo | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19186 Posts
Big Monkey, in FA, in a basi.... | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
| ||
|
Mandini
United States1717 Posts
On June 11 2013 05:26 DefMatrixUltra wrote: Let's all join CCP in glossing over the fact that T3s are more expensive than T2 ships and the only thing which justifies this price difference is performance difference, much like Cynabals vs. Navy Canes. You obviously are paying for the privledge to be bad at a bunch of different things separately. The flexibility of the ship isn't actually ever felt on the battlefield, because that flexibility is in the subsystems. When you fit up your Loki for webs back in your station/pos, you are locking it into a role until you can go back and refit it. You don't get to refit mid fight, so you just end up being a bad rapier until you can go back and refit to be a bad cynabal. A possible way to fix this would be to have each sub give some base attributes, something like half of the bonus of each sub of that class, and then the full bonus of one of the attributes you pick. You could actually be bad at a whole lot of things at the same time, and maybe the combination would end up being desirable. Or I could just be having bad ideas. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On June 11 2013 05:26 DefMatrixUltra wrote: Let's all join CCP in glossing over the fact that T3s are more expensive than T2 ships and the only thing which justifies this price difference is performance difference, much like Cynabals vs. Navy Canes. Yeah that's a problem that needs to be addressed in their philosophy, but it seems to me they could make some changes that might address it. 1) They could reduce the cost of T3 ships, probably by increasing availability of components. Downsides would be the impact on viability of living in and farming wormholes. 2) They could find a way forward that makes mixed-role fits stronger for T3s while weakening min-maxed fits aimed at a single role. So, in a large fleet context, you probably wouldn't want to replace T2 ships with T3s, but when flying alone or in a small group, a T3 could fill more than one role a little less well. Downside would be that the cost differential would still need to be a lot smaller to make this seem viable. 3) They could even do something like (as suggested in that thread) enabling on-the-fly swapping of subsystems or fits. In this scenario, a T3 might be able to switch from an exploration/covert ops cloaking fit to a straight-up combat fit at the cost, say, of running the capacitor down to 5% from full. This could be a pretty compelling capability for someone who doesn't want to multibox even if those two configurations were weaker than T2 alternatives, and even at much higher cost. Point being that there are game design options other than simply reducing T3 stats and making them irrelevant to get to a point that flexibility rather than raw stat power is a real selling point. From that CCP post, it doesn't sound like they assume that it'll be easy to get there, and that tells me that they're not likely to just change some stats around and call it done. | ||
|
Galdo
United States338 Posts
On June 11 2013 06:25 Lysenko wrote: 3) They could even do something like (as suggested in that thread) enabling on-the-fly swapping of subsystems or fits. In this scenario, a T3 might be able to switch from an exploration/covert ops cloaking fit to a straight-up combat fit at the cost, say, of running the capacitor down to 5% from full. This could be a pretty compelling capability for someone who doesn't want to multibox even if those two configurations were weaker than T2 alternatives, and even at much higher cost. Perhaps if each subsystem stored what modules are in each of the slots it gives, and you can swap them between a specialized cargohold and equipped as long as your pvp timer is more than 5 minutes elapsed, and your weapons timer is nonexistent? (along with a slight cost reduction on subs, since you are now expected to carry more than 5, and thus more will be destroyed when a t3 explodes) | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
I think we know what that will end in. | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
| ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On June 11 2013 06:25 Lysenko wrote: Yeah that's a problem that needs to be addressed in their philosophy, but it seems to me they could make some changes that might address it. 1) They could reduce the cost of T3 ships, probably by increasing availability of components. Downsides would be the impact on viability of living in and farming wormholes. [1] 2) They could find a way forward that makes mixed-role fits stronger for T3s while weakening min-maxed fits aimed at a single role. So, in a large fleet context, you probably wouldn't want to replace T2 ships with T3s, but when flying alone or in a small group, a T3 could fill more than one role a little less well. Downside would be that the cost differential would still need to be a lot smaller to make this seem viable. [2] [1] The real downside here is that the killmail for a Tengu would be a lot less desirable and awesome. [2] I need to interject here that we keep saying T3 in this discussion when what we really mean is Tengu. The other T3's are extremely niche and perform their ultra-specialized roles reasonably well - i.e. they are better models of what a T3 should be than a Tengu. It just so happens that the Tengu can perform in too many diverse roles with one fit and that the other T3's are marginalized by the degree to which they are performing a very specific role (and sucking at other roles). Really the problem with T3's is that the Tengu has a set of subsystems that is too good. Why can it be extremely fast and have shitloads of tank and lots of damage projection all at once? If they removed the Tengu from the game, this "problem" of T3's being better than T2 ships would disappear immediately. | ||
|
Shootemup.
United States1044 Posts
On June 11 2013 06:13 tofucake wrote: weird Big Monkey, in FA, in a basi.... Michael, Kwark, and Johnny all died at the end of the video trying to kill Garmon. | ||
|
DiracMonopole
United States1555 Posts
On June 11 2013 08:12 Shootemup. wrote: Michael, Kwark, and Johnny all died at the end of the video trying to kill Garmon. If kwark had fit a 2nd web instead of a sebo for the linkboat's pod we would have killed him | ||
| ||
