Apocrypha - Tech 3 (CSM)
All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt
Raised by: Pattern_Clarc
Submission Date: 14-03-2009
Issue ID: To be indexed
Issues with t3:
- Questionable Concept
- Lack of sisi testing
Although giving players the tools to create there own stuff is the holy grail of a sandbox game, the context surrounding how it's been implemented in this situation is vital in understanding why t3 is underwhelming. For a long time, I understood that when designed, tech 3 would be performance wise, as good as t2 with a similar cost, with a similar complexity of resourcing/manufacturing with different capabilities and niches. However:
- Tech 3's manufacturing process is intrinsically more complex with added risk at every stage
- Tech 3 ships generally have much increased EHP making then *better than* t2
- Tech 3 ships have an asymmetric penalty/detractor (sp loss) without asymmetric rewards
- Unlike tech 2, which introduced warping cloaked, interdictors, HIC's, stealth bombers and black ops, tech 3 ships don't actually do anything new tactically. Although the added complexity in the fittings mini game is nice, it was less needed than additions tot tactics and game play in pvp.
- Subsystems and choice do little to prevent cookie cutter setups, which revolve around loading on to one ship as many overpowered modules and fitting combinations along with *moar damage* and *moar tank* as possible. And with around a fifth of the subsystems being inferior, slot layouts having little deviation, and with bonuses being racial, and obvious, t3 fits are total no brainers.
The result? Overpriced cruisers that only merely exceed t2 without offering new tactical options; with SP loss, whilst having very little variation in how there flown or what roles they achieve.
Faction ships could have provided most of what tech 3 has accomplished but with a massive reduction in resources used. What's more unfortunate is that this has been obvious as soon as SP loss was announced, and because the W-space economy is intrinsically, almost completely tied to the success of Tech 3, with reports now stating the inevitable, it's only a matter of time before w-space popularity plummets because of tech 3. 
The disparity between the bonuses of subsystems and the capabilities of ships between races is stunning. Far too often, many racial concepts are taken on board without any consideration as to whether they really would apply for that ship class or to what amount the bonuses would have to be to be attractive... (IE 5% reduction in signature radius per level on the loki's defensive bonus compared to the interceptors 15% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty for instance)... if certain concepts actually work at all (split weapons). This only adds to the likelihood of the cookie cutter, and in this case, unused subsystems equates to hundreds of manhours in the art department.
With a concerted effort, many of these issues can be identified by the sisi player base on sisi however, not only has the cycle of feedback between the CCP and the player base been extremely poor on this occasion, sisi testing of most of the subsystems has been impossible as they have yet to be seeded on the markets after the last mirror...
As is the fear with unfinished or prenerfed features, will there be any garrenttee that Strategic Cruisers will ever be completed? As the development cycles always seem to immediately switch focus, new features introduced uncompleted or broken, never seem to progress unless extremely long periods of time have passed. However, with the number of man hours put into developing these new ships and subsystems, would it really be wise to leave t3 unfinished, thus cementing alot of the "CCP have ADHD" and "No new features" sentiment aired by a lot of the community.
Quite simply, what the hell?? Even to this day we can't test them, is there any reason why the ISD's can fly all of the subsystems, but the player base can't??
Relevant Forum Threads