EVE General Discussion

There are some things to note in this context.

1. atm there is absolutely no need for a tech3 destroyer when not even tier2 destroyers exist. First things first...

2. CCP dedicated themselves to remove the whole "tier"-concept and want to start this rebalancing process soon(TM)

3. Before even thinking about new tech3 ships they should and mostly will try to finish the above mentioned rebalancing process and the in this context necessary tuning of all existing shiplines including allready existing tech2 and tech3. that might take a wile, so no tech3 destroyer on the horizon i think.

In fact CCP put much emphasis on exactly this fact! Tech 3 is more versatile while at the same time less capable in each of this specialised roles than it´s tech2 counterpart.

so maybe you should be prepared to see your soapbubble of imba-tech3 burst...

I wonder if Eve needs more fancy ships atm. Look at Tiericide, this should happen first. Ok maybe some add ons for the industrialists, but the pew pew side is already stuffed.

The Naga is fine - some people actually think it is a little too good, although not as obviously OP as the Tornado.

The Rokh fails because it is lacking that damage bonus - it needs its tanking bonus switched to a damage bonus, so that it has identical bonuses to the Naga.

There.

"No Sir, I didn't like it."

Regardless, they need to find an actual current ROLE for the T1 Dessies before adding yet more ship types to the game. And the role for many other ships as well. Too many loose ends still out there.

Dessies already fill the role of antifrig better than most ships. Yes a couple are bad, the catalyst & cormorant, and yes specific cruisers tear through frig gangs. However they are effective for the isk and skill investment if they are deployed correctly. It's unfortunate that they are tin cans but that can be remedied easily with some base stat changes.

As you pointed out before many ships need to be evaluated and tweaked if necessary but going off on a tangent and pushing aside the discussion of a new class of ships just to make your poor opinion about the Naga known is hardly the way to do it.

Only tech 3 ships I would like to see is Battle cruisers and Battle ships.

There is already a large number of specialties of cruisers and frigs.

Some specializations I would like to see is but being exchangeable with subsystems are.

Covert BC (no null subsystem)
Logistics BC
Ewar BC

Logistics BS
XL turret subsystem for BS (to help with cap and Scap blobs)

I am sure there are other specializations you could have but these are just some that come to mind.

Let us examine this claim, shall we? A ship that costs five times as much (and more) as another hull should be less effective because... The more expensive ship is adaptable and modular? Anyone who thinks this is delusional, at least with the way Tech 3 ships currently work.

1. They, like all ships, can only have one fitting, and therefore one specialization, at once, regardless of adaptability.
2. If they are worse than a Tech 2 ship, then they will be equivalent to a slightly buffed up Tech 1 ship.
3. It would then be possible to get a single Tech 1 ship for every role instead of adapting a Tech 3 ship, at lower cost.

Therefore, it would be more viable to keep a collection of ships for each role than a single ship that can be adapted for different roles. If the purpose of the Strategic Cruiser wasn't to prevent that, what is it's purpose?

The only purpose it would serve is that you wouldn't have to get multiple ships into a wormhole, and if it's only minutely better than a collection of specialized ships, it would still be more viable to get said collection of ships.

It might be worth noting that you have to buy multiple subsystems (which is obviously quite a bit more expensive) if you actually want to modify your ship later, to change it's role, as well.

They still need to be able use use covert cynos IMO.