open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked My frustration and dissapointment with T3
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.15 21:46:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Syn Fatelyng on 15/08/2011 23:09:27
I'm not sure where to begin, or if this is even an attempt to be informative instead of some bitter-vet rant. But I do ask that you read what I have to say with an open mind, and offer your own corrections and insight.

Tech 3 cruisers allow a wide variety of flexibility due to the nature of subsystems and in some situations they can outperform more expensive, more skill-intensive ships. At least, this is how it was explained to me many years ago and this perspective was something I passed on to those around me.

But as with most things in EVE, eventually I grew curious and begin to theorize, analyze, and calculate the information to compare it with both my personal experience and common opinion. The results were annoying, and I was angry at myself for having followed the mainstream public without adhering to my normal method of cynical testing before usage.

Without delving into specifics, so as to avoid derailing this into EFT warrioring, my conclusion was: Due to the inflexible nature of riggings, a Tech III ship would either be optimized for a specific role (thus negating the touted flexibility) or rigged so generically that under-performs when compared to the pure-roll class of ships.

To remain brief: A typical mission running Tengu, with HMLs, will have a similar effective tank (where both speed and EHP are considered) and slightly less dps output to a Nighthawk. An typical exploration Tengu, without a covert ops cloak, will have a similar slightly more effective tank, slightly higher dps output, and equal midslots for all exploration needs in comparison to a Drake.

There are more examples, many of which I'm sure people would like to argue, but the results are the same. Across the board, Tech III ships will typically be outmatched by role-specific ships by either skill requirements or ISK cost. In the case of the former, the older a player becomes in EVE and the more skillpoints they amass, the more those skill-heavy ships become a wiser router than Tech III.

Granted, there are exceptions where Tech III shine very brightly but those are few and far in between, and not the typical-use case for the EVE community. The nail in the coffin is not the performance of Tech III, it is that their shining attribute of flexibility is intrinsically tied to the riggings installed. For now, the cost of swapping out Tech II rigs daily is out of the question for the majority of the playerbase, and the concept of swapping out Tech I rigs daily quickly becomes just as expensive. Some would recommend multiple Tech III ships, at that point. However that would only raise the cost dramatically and again discourages against the natural, flexible design of Tech III.

I'm not sure how to end this, or where to go with it. But after I review my own skillpoints and experience in EVE, I am dissapointed and frustrated with how nearly every other ship will serve me better, on top of the lack of easily managing rigs on a Tech III.


Edit added for future eve-searches: An amazing post to counter my concerns. Thanks so much Arazel - http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1566070&page=1#14

NoLimit Soldier
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:01:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: NoLimit Soldier on 15/08/2011 22:03:32
Quote:
To remain brief: A typical mission running Tengu, with HMLs, will have a similar effective tank (where both speed and EHP are considered) and slightly less dps output to a Nighthawk


I quit reading right there.

To much thought went into this for it to be a troll, so please just delete this thread for the sake of people who don't know better.

Oh and one more:
Quote:
Due to the inflexible nature of riggings, a Tech III ship would either be optimized for a specific role (thus negating the touted flexibility) or rigged so generically that under-performs when compared to the pure-roll class of ships.


So by flexibility you want it to do all things better in its "flexible" than pure roll class? I don't think you understand what flexibility means. It sounds like you want a covert cloaking 1000 dps, 4000 omni tank 100mn burner of death with a probe launcher and shield RR.

Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:09:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: NoLimit Soldier
To much thought went into this for it to be a troll, so please just delete this thread for the sake of people who don't know better.
I recommend reviewing this photo, please: http://i.imgur.com/k0q83.jpg (Note: I have the setting enabled to recalculate dps using reloading times, as well)
Quote:
So by flexibility you want it to do all things better in its "flexible" than pure roll class? I don't think you understand what flexibility means. It sounds like you want a covert cloaking 1000 dps, 4000 omni tank 100mn burner of death with a probe launcher and shield RR.
Not at all, so I'll clarify my statement:

I want a cloaky exploration ship equal to the drake one day, a level IV mission runner equal to the Machariel another day, and a command ship equal to the Vulture on the last day. Separate days, separate roles. In order to maximize each day (or week, everyone's duration is different) it would require constantly replacing riggings.

SomeoneStrange
Total Grief
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:18:00 - [4]
 

Well, quite frankly, if a single Tech III cruiser could do EVERYTHING just as well as a Tech II or Faction ship without any sort of penalty, would be just a smidge unfair - it would practically render Tech II/Faction ships obsolete. On the other hand however, it's vastly cheaper to buy a new set of Tech I rigs than it is to buy a whole new Machariel.

Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:19:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: SomeoneStrange
Well, quite frankly, if a single Tech III cruiser could do EVERYTHING just as well as a Tech II or Faction ship without any sort of penalty, would be just a smidge unfair - it would practically render Tech II/Faction ships obsolete. On the other hand however, it's vastly cheaper to buy a new set of Tech I rigs than it is to buy a whole new Machariel.
Just to make sure we're on the same page, you're aware I'm not talking about an all-in-one fitting, correct? But having multiple fittings for multiple roles?

I also agree with your last point if it wasn't for the Mach out-dpsing the Tech IIIs by a fair margin Neutral

Maureen Biologist
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:20:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Syn Fatelyng
Originally by: NoLimit Soldier
To much thought went into this for it to be a troll, so please just delete this thread for the sake of people who don't know better.
I recommend reviewing this photo, please: http://i.imgur.com/k0q83.jpg (Note: I have the setting enabled to recalculate dps using reloading times, as well)
Quote:
So by flexibility you want it to do all things better in its "flexible" than pure roll class? I don't think you understand what flexibility means. It sounds like you want a covert cloaking 1000 dps, 4000 omni tank 100mn burner of death with a probe launcher and shield RR.
Not at all, so I'll clarify my statement:

I want a cloaky exploration ship equal to the drake one day, a level IV mission runner equal to the Machariel another day, and a command ship equal to the Vulture on the last day. Separate days, separate roles. In order to maximize each day (or week, everyone's duration is different) it would require constantly replacing riggings.


your thread makes my head hurt. the tengu is flexible because you can skill up for ONE SHIP and it can do ALL OF THOSE THINGS. but not at the same time. buy 3 tengus and you can do all 3 of those things, and you can be training whatever the hell while you do it. whereas to do all of those things without training tengu you would have to train the drake + cloaking skills, then minmatar+gal bs 4-5 + t2 large ac's, then command ships which is an insane train.

are you freaking stupid or what? the tengu takes NO TIME ATALL to train into compared to that entire collection of things, and THE SKILLS THEMSELVES give you the flexibility to do everything you want.

no ship in the game would ever be literally that flexible on one hull without having to change rigs, how ******edly op would that be.

op you're an idiot. seriously.

mxzf
Minmatar
Shovel Bros
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:24:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Syn Fatelyng
I recommend reviewing this photo, please: http://i.imgur.com/k0q83.jpg (Note: I have the setting enabled to recalculate dps using reloading times, as well)


Um, fail fits are fail. That's your issue there.

The Tengu can do all of those things you mentioned. And you don't have to replace all the rigs to do that, you just have to think about what rigs will do well for all of those roles before just fitting with whatever seems best at the time (or just buy new rigs, Cruiser-sized rigs aren't horribly expensive if you can afford a Tengu).

Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:28:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Maureen Biologist
your thread makes my head hurt. the tengu is flexible because you can skill up for ONE SHIP and it can do ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
But none of them very well, that's the tradeoff and that's a large portion of my disappointment.
Quote:
but not at the same time. buy 3 tengus and you can do all 3 of those things
But now you're debating on dangerous ground. You submit that it takes fewer SP to become Tech III ready, and I agree. For lower SP players the Tech III may prove more useful to them more quickly. However, you then mention buying three tengus to do three different roles and ignore the ISK cost that would have to someone who has relatively low SP.
Quote:
whereas to do all of those things without training tengu you would have to train the drake + cloaking skills, then minmatar+gal bs 4-5 + t2 large ac's, then command ships which is an insane train.
I'll quote my own post, to help clear things for you.
Originally by: Syn Fatelyng
In the case of the former, the older a player becomes in EVE and the more skillpoints they amass, the more those skill-heavy ships become a wiser router than Tech III.
I have 64m SP on this character, and over 109m SP on another. My perspective is coming from already having the training in place for alternative ships and I made that very clear, multiple times in my post, how having more SP gave Tech III less of an appeal in comparison to role-specific ships.

Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:31:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: mxzf
Um, fail fits are fail. That's your issue there.
They have identical number of launchers and BCUs, as well as identical ammo. If you faction fit both of them the same, or use Tech II ammo on both, the results will not change.
Quote:
The Tengu can do all of those things you mentioned. And you don't have to replace all the rigs to do that, you just have to think about what rigs will do well for all of those roles before just fitting with whatever seems best at the time (or just buy new rigs, Cruiser-sized rigs aren't horribly expensive if you can afford a Tengu).
I'll quote my original post to address the latter:
Originally by: Syn Fatelyng
For now, the cost of swapping out Tech II rigs daily is out of the question for the majority of the playerbase, and the concept of swapping out Tech I rigs daily quickly becomes just as expensive.
And they do, especially when someone (like myself) may swap roles 4-5 times a day. While I could find rigs that fit the majority of those roles, the issue remains that it will perform even more subpar when you swap to a role using suboptimal riggings.

Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:40:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Syn Fatelyng
I want a cloaky exploration ship equal to the drake one day, a level IV mission runner equal to the Machariel another day, and a command ship equal to the Vulture on the last day. Separate days, separate roles. In order to maximize each day (or week, everyone's duration is different) it would require constantly replacing riggings.


So what? Medium rigs are cheap compared to the T3 hull, T3 subsystems and the usual faction or deadspace modules people like to fit their T3 with.

Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:43:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Syn Fatelyng on 15/08/2011 22:43:55
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
So what? Medium rigs are cheap compared to the T3 hull, T3 subsystems and the usual faction or deadspace modules people like to fit their T3 with.

That is correct, but I'll quote my original post as a response.
Originally by: Syn Fatelyng
For now, the cost of swapping out Tech II rigs daily is out of the question for the majority of the playerbase, and the concept of swapping out Tech I rigs daily quickly becomes just as expensive.
The end cost of constantly swapping rigs, on top of the fittings, hull, and subsystems does not always offer an improvement above or beyond role-specific ships. By buying and replacing riggings, there is a point reached rather quickly where it is cheaper (and still numerically wiser for dps or tank) to choose a second, or different, role-specific ship.

Edit: readability

Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:46:00 - [12]
 

Why does the inflexibility of rigging mean T3's are a disappointment? IDGI. The explanations offered have nothing whatsoever to do with T3's and everything to do with rigging.

So I'm gonna conclude: 9/10. Fooled most of 'em = good troll.

Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:49:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Syn Fatelyng on 15/08/2011 22:50:25
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Why does the inflexibility of rigging mean T3's are a disappointment? IDGI. The explanations offered have nothing whatsoever to do with T3's and everything to do with rigging.
The points I'm trying to make are confused and not clearly expressed, I'm aware. My apologies for that. Neutral

My point is: Most roles that a T3 can fill, a role-specific ship can do better for cheaper and in some cases less training. Ergo the important factor for T3, in my eyes, is their flexibility, which I feel is discouraged (and expensive over time) by replacing rigs two or three times a day/week.

I hope that clarifies things a bit more.

Edit: Spelling

Arazel Chainfire
The Awakened Armada
Apex United
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:59:00 - [14]
 

You seem to be missing the biggest point of flexibility. It isn't flexibility of a fitted/rigged ship, its flexibility of skill training. Lets take the tengu as an example, as it seems to be what you have fixated on.

Roles:
Mission Running
Exploration
PvP
incursions
wormholing
cloaky fun

So lets see. We train up for a tengu for mission running. We hop into it, start spewing out 495dps out to 120km (the tengu's actual damage before using faction mods, implants, faction/t2 ammo etc.) To get a similar ship, we are looking at either a drake or a nighthawk - the tengu obviously outperforms the drake, but is pretty on par with the nighthawk (you can argue it either way, but generally nighthawk is better pure t2, and tengu is better pimped, but both will serve your purpose).

So you run missions for a bit, then decide to do the whole exploration thing. Well, if we didn't have the tengu, we would pretty much be using the drake if we were trying to do all in one, or a covops ship + dps ship. Note, additional skill training, that you already have by being able to fly the tengu.

Then you decide to try incursions, the only caldari ship that is actually useful in them is the tengu, but all caldari ships are second teir options here.

Then you decide to go into wormholes, which leaves you with the drake and nighthawk again as the only other 2 effective options... and the drake can manage c2's and struggles in C3's, while the nighthawk is good in c3's but kinda useless in higher ones, but then you have the tengu that can run c3's, kinda sorta solo c4's, and is the subcap ship to use for c5's/c6's. Do note that these are some vastly different setups at each level (c3's and under use self rep and some c4's, remote rep fleet for c4's, c5's, and c6's). Do note, that if you were running c5 or c6 sites without t3's, you would be forced to use logistics ships to be even remotely effective, and you would be looking at either the cerb, the raven, or the nighthawk to actually run the sites with, not to mention needing a covops ship to probe things down.

Then you look at cloaky toys, and you see that you have the tengu, the falcon, the stealth bomber and the probing ship. Well, the tengu can manage probing very well, does a bit less dps than the bomber when in cloaky dps config when shooting kinetic, but much more with any other damage type, can kinda do the falcon's job (though not as good as the falcon does) but more importantly can manage to have ALOT more buffer than any of the other cloaky ships, which makes it alot more survivable if you go for anything other than a sudden gank.

Lastly you decide that you want to look at just plain general PvP. And you see that the HAM tengu is actually viable (unlike the HAM nighthawk), and vastly outperforms the HAM drake. It has as much damage as most of the caldari BS's, better damage application, more EHP, and more manuverability. If you go with a heavy missile fit, you still do more dps than a range fit battleship, maintain the manuverability, EHP, and damage application.

Now take a look at the other t3's and you will see similar things. Yes, none of the others is as good as the tengu in all the fields, but some are better in the tengu in some. But in every case you will see that while the t3 isn't the best in class, it allows you to compete in that class without needing to train up those specific T2 skills. So if you already have all the t2 ship skills, you aren't going to notice much of a difference. But if you are a new character, you cant do better than to train up the best generalist ship, then focus on the specialist ships later.

-Arazel

Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:06:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Arazel Chainfire
You seem to be missing the biggest point of flexibility. It isn't flexibility of a fitted/rigged ship, its flexibility of skill training.
That clears up everything for me. Someone higher in the thread mentioned how it was much faster to hop into a Tech III for a variety of roles when compared to the role-specific ships, but I dismissed it because I was still too focused on the ship subsystems and riggings to be the highlight of flexibility. My apologies to that poster.
Originally by: Arazel Chainfire
So if you already have all the t2 ship skills, you aren't going to notice much of a difference. But if you are a new character, you cant do better than to train up the best generalist ship, then focus on the specialist ships later.
That's perfectly worded, and I really do appreciate how you took the time to help me see that aspect of things. Sometimes I can become too cynical, and tunnel visioned, for my own good. Chances are I'll just end up linking to your post for future T3 discussions with my friends and rookie players.

Cheers. I owe you a pint if we meet.

Pr1ncess Alia
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:24:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Syn Fatelyng
Originally by: Arazel Chainfire
You seem to be missing the biggest point of flexibility. It isn't flexibility of a fitted/rigged ship, its flexibility of skill training.
That clears up everything for me. Someone higher in the thread mentioned how it was much faster to hop into a Tech III for a variety of roles when compared to the role-specific ships, but I dismissed it because I was still too focused on the ship subsystems and riggings to be the highlight of flexibility. My apologies to that poster.
Originally by: Arazel Chainfire
So if you already have all the t2 ship skills, you aren't going to notice much of a difference. But if you are a new character, you cant do better than to train up the best generalist ship, then focus on the specialist ships later.
That's perfectly worded, and I really do appreciate how you took the time to help me see that aspect of things. Sometimes I can become too cynical, and tunnel visioned, for my own good. Chances are I'll just end up linking to your post for future T3 discussions with my friends and rookie players.

Cheers. I owe you a pint if we meet.


as a specialized t2 ship user... I never looked at it from this aspect.

That makes a ton of sense now, actually.

RavenPaine
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:45:00 - [17]
 

So, Are you saying you would recommend...

Training for a Nighthawk. (and fittings)
90 days and 250 mil

Training for a Drake.
60 days and 50 mil

Training for a Machariel.
120 days and 1 bil+ (T2 guns or gtfo)

The isk alone tells me that you could change a LOT of rigs for that price. It's not like theres a huge choice.Extenders, CCC, Resist, or Damage rigs about cover it.
The training time for those ships would overlap somewhat, and I was conservative in the times, but I hope you see my point. Tengu isn't MEANT to REPLACE any of those ships. It was added as an alternative.

Side Note: Comparing any Cruiser hull to any Pirate BS is out of line anyway.

Major Point: Try putting a Covert Ops or Nullifier on your Mach/Drake/Nighthawk.


Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:49:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: RavenPaine
So, Are you saying you would recommend...
No, as revealed in post #14, I would recommend a Tech III to low-SP pilots and nearly everything else for nearly everyone else. The exception to the rule on that is, as you pointed out, the interdiction nullifier. That, alone makes it unique in role and useful for that particular need.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.16 00:25:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Syn Fatelyng
Originally by: NoLimit Soldier
To much thought went into this for it to be a troll, so please just delete this thread for the sake of people who don't know better.
I recommend reviewing this photo, please: http://i.imgur.com/k0q83.jpg (Note: I have the setting enabled to recalculate dps using reloading times, as well)


Your Nighthawk DPS includes drone DPS.

Tengu missile: 565
NH missile: 476
NH+Hobgobs: 575

That's a 10 DPS difference on paper, however, when you take into account drone travel time, that 10 DPS advantage will disappear.


As for rigs restricting a Tengu's role in PvE, I don't see it. Why would you use anything but damage rigs on a PvE/exploration Tengu? (rigor, flare, and bay loading accelerator rigs)



Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.16 00:35:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux
Your Nighthawk DPS includes drone DPS.
That is correct, and it will continue to be a legitimate form of dps addition until we bring heavy drones into this discussion. A hobgob II travels only slightly slower than a bonused heavy missile, but once on target they can continue to deliver dps for an excellent projection increase. On top of that, anyone with moderate experience in drones will move the drones to the next-closest target (from previous, not from pilot) to reduce travel time even further and in most cases putting damage onto the target before missiles could arrive.

Anything further regarding drones is a disagreement in our first-hand experience, and I'm well aware that we both have equally long and extensive amounts of it.
Quote:
As for rigs restricting a Tengu's role in PvE, I don't see it. Why would you use anything but damage rigs on a PvE/exploration Tengu? (rigor, flare, and bay loading accelerator rigs)
Because this isn't a pure PvE discussion, and another reason why I feel the drone logic above is inherently flawed. When I move the Tengu over to covert-op pvp the rigs are going to be different for my dps to same-sig or higher targets, in comparison to PvE where I would want rigors and flares for interceptor rats. Or when I'm rigged for acting as a command ship and need the additional buffer tank. The variations are endless because my interests are varied Smile

BearJews
Posted - 2011.08.16 00:44:00 - [21]
 

You're needs a ridiculous for a single ship that can be trained VERY easily. Not only is it easy to train to, but by training those skills it opens you up to a wide variety of ships. No ship should out preform ships designed for a specific function. You have no argument other than you wish there was a ship that would make all other ships obsolete.

Ineka
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.08.16 00:57:00 - [22]
 

@Op

My pve HM tengu has about 750DPS, uses RF 10MN AB and can tank enough to full clean DED6 fingers in the nose.

The same tengu with pvp setup can make a lot of people run away just by seeing you in the system with.

Now this is only possible with a Tengu, all other T3 lack a lot of small bonus or riggs work to be that versatile and effective.

Has someone said, the T3 is not a "win" button, it's just an excellent tool and deadly one in experienced hands (witch I'm not).
Maybe something is wrong on your fit for 'x' purpose or just maybe you don't have enough experience how to use it in "y" situation, but at least for the Tengu I'll take it every day in lvl4 and + missions/sites than my navy mega or fleet pest.
Now for pvp, seems the Tengu fleets are awesome vs blobs, does it worth it when you watch the isk war? -not sure
For solo pvp he's sure not the best but hell, you can make run away half of the system just by showing up on grid (not everywhere OC)

Seriously, of all T3's I'm flying the Tengu and Proteus so I think I can have some objective point of view at least regarding these two ships. I'd like my proteus to have at least the tengu versatility even if I loose some dps (since combat brawling is almost extinguished unless you catch noobs or afk people)

Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:07:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Ineka
My pve HM tengu has about 750DPS, uses RF 10MN AB and can tank enough to full clean DED6 fingers in the nose.
My Rattlesnake does around 717 DPS and can run Vs. Cheaper than the Tengu but more skill intensive.
Quote:
The same tengu with pvp setup can make a lot of people run away just by seeing you in the system with.
The same could be said for my neut-heavy curse or Sleip, both cheaper but more skill intensive.
Quote:
Maybe something is wrong on your fit for 'x' purpose or just maybe you don't have enough experience how to use it in "y" situation, but at least for the Tengu I'll take it every day in lvl4 and + missions/sites than my navy mega or fleet pest.
It isn't that Smile As we discussed earlier, this is an issue of: People who have the SP to fly role-specific ships will find the T3 rather lackluster. People who do not have the SP to fly multiple role-specific ships will find the Tengu to be a godsend.

So long as you can grasp that, you should understand where my current stance is thanks to http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1566070&page=1#14

Also: I'm glad to hear the Tengu is working out so well for your intentions! T3 is now something I'll be recommending to my lower SP friends for role flexibility, while they train up the SP needed for the role-specific shios.

Ineka
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:20:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Ineka on 16/08/2011 01:25:14
Originally by: Syn Fatelyng
Originally by: Ineka
My pve HM tengu has about 750DPS, uses RF 10MN AB and can tank enough to full clean DED6 fingers in the nose.
My Rattlesnake does around 717 DPS and can run Vs. Cheaper than the Tengu but more skill intensive.
Quote:
The same tengu with pvp setup can make a lot of people run away just by seeing you in the system with.
The same could be said for my neut-heavy curse or Sleip, both cheaper but more skill intensive.
Quote:
Maybe something is wrong on your fit for 'x' purpose or just maybe you don't have enough experience how to use it in "y" situation, but at least for the Tengu I'll take it every day in lvl4 and + missions/sites than my navy mega or fleet pest.
It isn't that Smile As we discussed earlier, this is an issue of: People who have the SP to fly role-specific ships will find the T3 rather lackluster. People who do not have the SP to fly multiple role-specific ships will find the Tengu to be a godsend.

So long as you can grasp that, you should understand where my current stance is thanks to http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1566070&page=1#14

Also: I'm glad to hear the Tengu is working out so well for your intentions! T3 is now something I'll be recommending to my lower SP friends for role flexibility, while they train up the SP needed for the role-specific shios.


Don't be angry, is not good for your health Laughing

I've never said the Tengu is the best ship out there, I just said he's versatile and can be very efficient in some particular role.
I never said he was better for specific roles vs specific ships in said role but we can discuss about it if you want to since a lot of specific role ships are crappier than T3's.
Not because T3's are that awesome, just because balancing the game and ships is not the strongest point of CCP.

And to finish with this misunderstanding discussion: would like to know what is your own definition of low sp to be able to buy and fit any T3. Then be sure your "low sp" friends can use credit cards to buy full fitted Tengus or maybe they know people giving them 1.2 to 1.5B without skills books to fly those.

Edit: Yes it's easier to jump in to some T3 than in some specific role ship, you don't have to come from Oxford or whatever university to understand that, just use Evemoon.

Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:24:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Syn Fatelyng on 16/08/2011 01:28:04
Originally by: Ineka
Don't be angry, is not good for your health Laughing
Angry? I'm sorry to hear my words have come off that way. I'm not, I assure you.
Quote:
And to finish with this misunderstanding discussion: would like to know what is your own definition of low sp to be able to buy and fit any T3. Then be sure your "low sp" friends can use credit cards to buy full fitted Tengus or maybe they know people giving them 1.2 to 1.5B without skills books to fly those.
A simple tengu, tech 2 fitted, will not cost 1.2B, but around 600-700m. My "low sp friends" are those who have only played for a few years and may have 5-15m SP, to answer your question. Obtaining the 600-700m ISK with relative ease considering how my alliance, corporation, and surrounding friends interact with one another.

It's all about perspective, hence my reference to post #14

Edit: For your edit
Quote:
just use Evemoon.
Remember, I have a 60+m SP character and a 100+m SP character. My perspective on EVEMon training isn't useful because I can already fly those role-specific ships. Does that explain a bit more?

Ineka
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:33:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Syn Fatelyng
A simple tengu, tech 2 fitted, will not cost 1.2B, but around 600-700m. My "low sp friends" are those who have only played for a few years and may have 5-15m SP, to answer your question. Obtaining the 600-700m ISK with relative ease considering how my alliance, corporation, and surrounding friends interact with one another.

It's all about perspective, hence my reference to post #14


About the cost yes you're right, the hull+riggs is about 600M.
Now about the sp: my alt industrial toon has one year in september and is already over 17M can fly tengu hulk orca freighter and other t2 stuff, can research/invention all T2 mods and all this in 1 year training.

I can't understand quite well if your opinion is that T3's should be more skill intensive for the variety of roles they can fill (I'm not saying they can do it better than specific ships heh) or if you think they are better when they shouldn't at specific roles than T2 specific ships in said role.

(sry getting late here)

Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:39:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Ineka
I can't understand quite well if your opinion is that T3's should be more skill intensive for the variety of roles they can fill (I'm not saying they can do it better than specific ships heh) or if you think they are better when they shouldn't at specific roles than T2 specific ships in said role.
In an ideal world I'd like them to be able to swap out rigs for free, to keep them flexible. In a practical world, I want nothing about them changed. Now that I view them as the low-sp alternative, jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, class of ships I think they are pretty well off the way they are.
Quote:
(sry getting late here)
Sleep well, when you do. And thank you for the discussion.

Nezumiiro Noneko
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:54:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Syn Fatelyng
People who do not have the SP to fly multiple role-specific ships will find the Tengu to be a godsend.


I'll take the bait...why would someone train vulture if tengu capable when tengu command sub'ed give better bonuses. Can keep its pve rigs even so when op is done they can resub and hit maze solo. Vultures hybrid bonus....maze solo...not getting warm fuzzies there.

You are picking and choosing in your arguments. Since a hardon for caldari t2 over t3....it technicall takes you 2 command ships to do the roll of 1 tengu. You need your nh for the pve (it can fit links, but unbonused). No bonus...whats the point of links really. If into that, technically drake > NH....has the same feature and muuuuch cheaper. And you need your vulture for the fleet boosting but its pve potential limited vice NH. Its a range bonus to hybrids, not damage like NH's missile bonus....enought threads on hybrids, not even going there here.


Syn Fatelyng
Dathmora
Redanni
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:59:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Nezumiiro Noneko
I'll take the bait...why would someone train vulture if tengu capable when tengu command sub'ed give better bonuses. Can keep its pve rigs even so when op is done they can resub and hit maze solo. Vultures hybrid bonus....maze solo...not getting warm fuzzies there.
As mentioned above, the T3's excel at being better command ships but with a massive reduction in on-grid tanking capability (leading a fleet while calling out overview primaries). If there was a command-ship need where it could sit at a PoS or just outside a station, then I'll happily agree how the T3 will end up with larger bonuses. However, if (with my experience) the FC is on-grid calling primaries and is giving off bonuses while needing a massive tank, then I'd recommend the Vulture.

You are accurate in pointing out the bonus difference. Interdiction nullification and the ability to have a higher command-ship bonus are two things that the T3s have unique. That does not, however, change the original post or how post #14 clears up my misunderstanding.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2011.08.16 08:58:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 16/08/2011 09:07:32

So many mistakes here, I'll name just few:

Comparing NH to Tengu and saying NH is somehow on pair or even better is just plain stupid. You're focusing at DPS while neglecting anything else. Weird and just wrong, but ok, let's talk about damage projection.

- Your Tengu has x1.5 missile speed and missile range
- Your Tengu does not lose 100 DPS when drones are suddenly instapopped by a smartbomb (or other external factors like simple gunfire plus webbing) and you don't need to keep an eye on your significant chunk of DPS when you're going to warp out. I'd gladly swap those drones for your missile subsystem.
- Your Tengu has 3 fking rig slots instead of 2 at my NH, so you can almost negate the bonus NH has yet having the ability to choose something else instead which is yet another reason tech3 are so flexible.
- Your Tengu has much better scan resolution, locking range and sensor strenght - all these improve your ability to project damage and resist EW.
- Your Tengu has an option of fitting heavy assault missiles, unlike my NH.

And this is us talking about just damage dealing.

Your desire to have a mission-running Tengu equal to a Mach was just hillarious Laughing Would you like to have an option to fit jump portal and a doomsday, too?


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only