Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I don't fly T3's (yet) but I don't really like this idea and I'll explain why.

#1 Doesn't really have any point unless paired with #3 which I'll get to in a minute.

#2 Effectively ruins T3's. No one is going to fly a Legion fit for heavy assault and risk losing SPs on death when they can fly a cheaper zealot that does a better job and doesn't carry that risk.

#3 Subsystems come across to me as some pretty serious hardware so it doesn't seem like switching them out readily is something that is reasonable. Were talking about millions of ISK in advanced hardware that controls the very processing power and power distribution abilities of your ship; it's not like changing a light bulb.

4# No comment, it's just a popup pertaining to #1 and #3.

When CCP says that T3 is supposed to be more generalized I don't think that means T3 ships are supposed to be highly adaptive platforms on the fly. I think it means that the hull itself has lots of different capabilities and can be set up in different ways, although not always in ways superior to a specialized tech 2 hull. For example, as far as warp technology goes a T3 can become immune to non-targeting warp interdiction via an interdiction nullifier and thus be more flexible, but there is no subsystem that allows a T3 to launch interdiction bubbles or use infinite point. And while yes it is true that a T3 might be superior to a HAC in terms of offensive power or by combining covops and an interdiction nullifier be better at running blockades then a blockade runner, in the case of HACs there is more risk involved in flying the T3 (due to aforementioned SP loss) and in the case of blockade runners your probably not going to see a T3 with more cargo space then a BR. While I don't know enough to make any sort of argument that T3's are balanced in relation to other ships in the game (they are without a doubt strong and many players complain about them being OP, although that could just be tears) I can say that T3's are on a delicate ground where CCP has to try and keep them balanced in terms of strength, cost and risk while simultaneously avoiding overlap with other ships (namely T2's) and it's difficult to strike a balance with a ship that is inherently stronger and more versatile in comparison to many others; and I think the T3s current restrictions and risks does a good job of that. If T3s are greatly overshadowing another hull in a particular specialization then that should be a call to revisit THAT hull before deciding whether or not to nerf its T3 counterpart. But that's just my opinion.

I believe that some t3 setups give far too much gank to overshadow Hacs, that being said, I don't think it should be outputting t1 cruiser DPS. Though now that has kind of grown considerably. Generalization without being better than another role means that a t3 should be able to put out respectable dps while performing ewar while performing evasion, though not doing any of those better than a ship that is specialized to do them individually.

However folks let's get to the point where we can realistically balance t3's
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=248338&find=unread

more generalization for T3's mean performing multiple roles at the same time i would expect a jack of all trades..
- e-war and links
-logi and e-war

possibly even able to do 3 things at a time ... at 80% of T2 level .. but they need to be on the same price scale as T2 cruisers or less
-remove SP loss
-increase training time on subs and hull
-remove rigs to allow subs to switch between shields and armour easily.. encouraging versatility
-make subs cheap so it doesn't cost 500mil or more too buy all the subs which atm discourages versatility and sub switching.

All 4 of those things were ideas to implement together, but in response to #2 no, nobody would fly a legion when a zealot is a better, cheaper less risky ship, but would you fly a legion fit like a zealot that could turn into a guardian or pilgrim on the fly if thats what the fleet needed? I certainly would.

I agree that more generalization means performing multiple roles on the battlefield at the same time, but how do you do that without being able to switch subsystems on the fly?

If you gave it 8 high slots, a double damage bonus, a RR bonus and 4 turrets so it could both DPS and RR at the same time, most people would just fit neuts in the utility highs for a better combat ship.

if you gave it a bunch of mids and lows with a TD bonus most people would just shield tank it and use the lows for damage.

Switching subsystems mid combat is the only way to make the T3s more generalized.

Also I agree that if they do this, they should remove the SP loss but i think they should keep the price the same

The generalization aspect is in having five different types of subsystems. Pick any one subsystem you like, it should not do its role better than a whole ship oriented in that direction. You can now customize the other 4 subsystems to have what you want in conjunction with the one.

Setting up a T3 is about having effective combinations of subsystems. Every subsystem should be balanced to by itself be quite effective though less effective than an entire tech 2 ship streamlined into the same role. A HAC can shoot a bit harder than a tech 3 and maybe tank better, but the tech 3 maybe also has bonused EWAR on it at the same time, or is using interdiction nullifiers to get past a blockade, or maybe just has the specific type of tank/slot setup you want with your particular offense type.

Have to dock to swap subsystems? So what, you can secure a station system deep in enemy territory and do skirmishes around there, hopping back to the station to make quick refits. I feel that any fitting service should be able to swap subsystems though, so that includes a POS or ship fitting service. So you jump a carrier into a system, refit your T3s super fast, then jump it back out again.

That's the way T3s should be, that's what CCP sees in them and I agree. They are already sort of that, but a lot of the subsystems are ****, and a lot of others are overpowered. So the current T3s have "right" setups and everyone uses them as a specialized better-than-tech-2 ship.

I went out and bought a Vagabond. Haven't bothered with my Loki since. From what I can tell on Singularity, it'll be the same thing with my Tengu after I buy a Sacrilege.

Vagabond can't get a target painter bonus.

Yeah that one. Vagabond doesn't get it.

Loki should have a target painter bonus option though.

This would be ideal, but right now, the T3 ships outclass HACs in every way (except for the edge cases of the Cerberus range and the Ishtar's drones)

Also, how do you give a ship bonused e-war without giving it a bunch of mid slots that can be re-purposed. Say you make a proteus as a carbon copy of a deimos except it does 10% less damage but has +2 mid slots and a sensor dampening bonus. People would say "screw the damp bonus, im shield tanking this ship" and you'd end up with a shield tanked deimos with extra damage mods/TEs in the lows


If you're going to go through the trouble of returning to the station, why not just come back with a different ship specialized for what you want it to do? its cheaper and less risky

Even if youre going to jump in a carrier to refit, why not just bring in the ship you need?

Basically as I see it, there are two options:
1. T3s must be straight better than T2 or nobody will fly them given their cost
2. T3s must be able to refit in combat meaning they arent as good as T2 but can do something T2 ships cant.