Ships & Modules

You need to select a Proteus with your mouse and click Approach (Q), then it indeed does approach a Proteus.

As what comes to dps race, not other T3 does nearly as much damage at those ranges. Doesn't even need to be an EFT fit, the normal 700dps that hits at full damage at 0-110km is way better than the others, especially when you consider the selectable damage type.

On topic: idk why CCP doesn't just switch the command bonuses in the next patch? All of EVE agrees with it, very easy thing to do.

show me where i claimed it did. keep trying to build a strawman, i'm sure one day you'll get it.

Reading through this, I'm not sure I agree that HACs in particular should be better than T3s. If they were, you'd never see T3s, because you can buy 3-4 T2 cruisers to perform all of your intended roles for less isk.

I think perhaps they should be balanced out to be roughly equal, if a bit different. HACs could perhaps use a boost, given their somewhat low cost effectiveness atm.

I can understand a lot of the points here. I think it is important to remember that it is certain subsystem combinations that are overpowered and it is through the subs T3’s should be balanced.

I would be wary of balancing HACS against T3’ this will result in a direct nerf or a massive boost to HACS, HACS should be a cheaper faster DPS alternative. Balancing combat performance against command ships gives a much closer match in capabilities with the T3 being a bit faster and smaller, yes the command bonus needs changing, but a number of T3 subs are underused.

It seems like the role of the T3 was to be able to go into WH's solo and still survive. Modularity was the key point behind the T3s. Why not make that modularity more of the focal point than it currently is. Make it so that you can fit multiple subsystems to one ship and that you can swap fittings on the fly with some kind of time penalty/vulnerability/etc. This makes it so that you don't have to buy more than one T3 for multiple fits. Maybe have the subsystems cheaper so that you can justify loading more onto one ship.

They shouldn't be allowed to have better capabilities at one role than the specialized T2s since that does negate the purpose of them.

If command ships are such a joke either we need to revamp them or merge their capabilities into the T3s

I see the T3s as more of an amorphous ship that can shift its role as needed. It will never be good enough to fully fill the role of a web boat, RR, tank, etc. Maybe however it can provide that cutting edge on the battlefield where your RR goes down or you need more webs and it would take too long to bring in another ship you can just shift your role in your T3 so that you can hold out.

Or even give it some kind of role that makes it unique so that it doesn't overlap the T2's. Anomaly effects generation for example, or nullification. Allowing you to make the battlefield favor your fleet.

CCP needs to ask its self what do they want T3's to actually do and how are they unique compared to T2's without making them obsolete.

LOLOL There's your problem. I take it you're also the type who likes to fit armor rigs on gallente boats, too? **** speed, yeah?

Here's a hint ... the races were each originally designed around basic concepts. Gallente weren't really designed around railguns. Or for heavy armor tanking, for that matter. Hence all of the bonuses that help most with short range, high speed, gank playstyles. If you're going to judge railguns, try putting them on Caldari gunboats first.

And yes, I do think rails still need some looking into. The whole turret damage formula in general needs a redo, really, to better take into account ranges and ship sizes.

As I said above, T3s have to exceed at something. No one is interested in a "versatile" ship that has the ability to be mediocre at a number of roles; it's the niche equivalent of split damage bonuses that made those "versatile" pirate faction ships useless for so long.

A good example is the Loki and proteus web and scram bonuses: they're good enough to be very worthwhile, but still considerably less than the equivalent Recons. However, because they can be combined with very high armour EHP, they give those T3s the role of heavy armour fleet tacklers, which combat recons are worthless for. If you dial back their ability to have high EHP to match their T2 counterpart, then they're simply double-price, skillpoint-losing pointers and webbers whom no one will ever fly in that role. Why should they when they can just use cheaper Huginns and Lachs that also don't cost you 4 days training when you're inevitably primaried?

T3s don't have to exceed T2 cruisers in their specific specialisation (eg: extreme web range, ECM strength, remote repair, etc) but they most definitely need to be able to exceed T2 in a number of roles, or they're simply pointless. And for the most part, this is in fact what we see. Logis and Force & Combat Recons are not obseleted by T3s, it's only some of the HACs that have a problem. And in the case of those HACs, it's that they were bad even before T3s were introduced - the Deimos was being called "The Diemost" long before the Proteus was introduced.

A further benefit of having "good" T3s is that players have an alternate source of advanced ships that isn't reliant on the insanely imbalanced Technetium bottleneck - this applies to pirate cruisers also. I think that this is an absolutely vital consideration when we're discussing both T3s and faction ships.

EDIT: To amplify on this, let's look at the T2 Cruisers

Logistics ships: these are still very widely used - no problem whatsoever with T3s here. The T3 RR subs are practically useless, except for very specific PvE tactics, because they don't give a range bonus. The sub is only used for getting more EHP.

Heavy Interdictors: There's virtually no intersection between T3s and HICs at all.

Force Recons: these two are still widely used, the recons still get a better specific EW bonus than the T3s and although they're much more fragile, they're often used for extreme-risk roles where cost (and skillpoint loss) genuinely is a balancing factor.

Combat Recons: these are also still widely used, in fact they're even used as fleet tacklers for shield fleets, as shield Proteus and Lokis barely have more EHP than their Recon equivalents and have lower web/point range to boot.

Heavy Assault Cruisers: This is where the problem lies, but which HACs specifically are trespassed on by T3s? Well the Zealot is still fine, as is the Vaga and the Muninn, and the Ishtar is still as widely used as it ever was. As for the rest... well let's have a look:

Sacrilege: I guess the HAM Legion treads on the Sacrilege's toes, but neither are common, and the Sac wasn't exactly wildly popular before the Legion was introduced either.

Deimos: Similarly, the Deimos is definitely outclassed by the Proteus, but this is at least as much because the Deimos is bad to start with. The Proteus resolves the problems of an in-your-face balls-to-the-wall blaster cruiser role by having enough EHP to carry it off. Nerfing the Proteus won't make the Deimos good and people won't suddenly say "oh well now I don't have a good ship for this role, I guess I'll use a bad one". At best, they'll just switch to the Vigilant.

The Eagle: we could delete the Tengu from the database entirely and people still won't use it. You'd have to pretty much delete every other large (and most medium) turret ship to achieve that.

The Cerb: Slightly better than the Eagle, but it still wasn't exactly wildly popular before the Tengu was introduced, was it? We didn't see Cerb fleets or widespread use of the Cerb as a PvE ship (although it did OK as a Guristas ratter). What previously popular Cerb roles has the Tengu usurped, exactly? I honestly can't think of one. The role of "extreme range HML chucker" to deter Falcons still remains, and the Cerb can also utilise the Rapid Standard Launcher or whatever it's called now to make it a frigate-murderer, which the Tengu can't. The Cerb's actual in-game roles are largely the same as they always were.

To summarise: T3s only "obselete" T2 cruisers which were bad in the first place.

With respect to Fleet Command ships, they do still get used too, because being able to survive on grid is still a big advantage for mobile fleets, but I definitely agree that they should give better bonuses than T3s.

With respect to Field Command ships, the Absolution and the Sleipnir are fine tyvm. The Nighthawk and Astarte are heavilty trespassed on by the Tengu & Proteus, and this should be looked at - but again, let's remind ourselves that neither were popular before T3s were introduced.

Why should I spend half a bil and risk a week of training to fly a mediocre-at-everything ship when I can fly something cheaper and more effective for any conceivable role?

Hint: people don't fit their ships to juggle multiple roles at once. Well, no one outside of highsec at least.

Why? DPS isn't the Drake's thing, there are T1 cruisers that easily outdamage the Drake.

You gotta realize that its not really the ship themselves that make the improvement over T2 or Tech 1, its also INVESTMENT.

Its the amount of money you put into these ships that really make them shine.

For PVP purposes do you really see anyone fit a faction module on their Tech 1 ship? Absolutely not, because that faction mod will most likely exceed the cost of the entire ship. Do I really want to fit a 100million mod on a ship that's worth 20 million? Absolutely not.

For Tech 2 ships? Maybe but only one or two at most, until the cost of the modules exceed the ship by a good bit. The only time one really fits faction mods on tech 2 is if its really need or significant. E.g. RF disruptors that are 150 mil on Arazus for 60km points. 2-3X 70 mil Fed Navy Webs on Rapiers for 56km range, etc.

Now for Tech 3 ships are faction modules smart? ABSOLUTELY. Since you already put 500 million into the ship, you might as well protect and improve your investment with faction and deadspace modules. That while most PVPer's will fit expensive modules on their Tech 3 ships. A lot of Tech 3 fits easily reach over a billion isk. Faction shield hardeners/enams, faction damage mods, more faction/deadspace stuff.


With all the faction and deadspace mods you put on the ship it becomes better by a significant amount. And of course it should be, you just spend .5 -1 billion on the ship, you better damn well get something good out of it.

Not to mention people who have the isk to fly tech 3 and fittings have a tendency to have money for expensive implants, drugs, and gang boosts.

As a result you make a ship and setup that is significantly better than tech 2 or tech 1.

Not because of the ship itself, but the investment put in on it.


Are you people suggesting that we nerf faction modules, implants, drugs, etc, just because a few newbies in their scrapheap hurricanes worth a mere 70 mil in fittings can't solo a Billion isk Tech 3?

I don't think so. If you start nerfing tech 3, you might as well start nerfing tech 2 as well because Cost and skills should not be a balancing factor according to reason.

Tech 3 ship are fine in cost and performance. They should be able to solo a lower class ship one and one, but die when they get swarmed. They have a small increase for a high cost.

Tech 3 ships are only a bit better than tech 2, its only much better when you put expensive modules on them, that you normally don't put on tech 2 ships.

Would you a deadspace mwd on your tech 2,, probably no. What about a tech 3, probably yes.