EVE Corporation - Page 1564

On June 10 2013 11:28 Ryndika wrote:
Annoying to set up a amarr farmer. Minnies seem to get no LP with t1.

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The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.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.

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?

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?

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.

.…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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

On June 11 2013 06:13 tofucake wrote:
weird
Big Monkey, in FA, in a basi....

On June 11 2013 08:12 Shootemup. wrote:

Michael, Kwark, and Johnny all died at the end of the video trying to kill Garmon.