Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Loosing SP is always something that discouraged me from using T3 ships.
5 days is not much , but always some time that i prefer to put to some other LVL 5 skills.

Still i agree , only thing that makes T3 not to OP ships is this SP loose : risk vs reward.

Reserving this post here for a much larger reply in a few minutes.

1. You don't need any of the things you have just suggested, also the mobile depot is your 1 minute timer and finally it has 3000m3 room when unpacked. If you want to argue that it's a liability due to things like combat probes or whatever be my guest but that's been discussed before in other threads and I recommend you take it there.


2. The rigs argument is pretty flimsy. I would wager an overwhelming majority of ships are fit with resist/hp rigs and/or a damage rig. The whole point of T3's is the subsystems are the part you swap, not the rigs. Realistically T3's shouldn't even have rigs at all, they're a design oversight and add little value.


3. T3's working solo is the only practical design they possess. If you want to swap out to a T2 from your starbase or whatever it's a cost issue or a doctrine issue. T3's are the amongst the last ships to be balanced because they're not meant to be better than T2. Your perception of the issues of their relative power is skewed and off balance. They are functional in wormholes (or in lowsec if you wish) just fine because you're not meant to be taking everything, you take what you need. Mobile depot, salvagers and tractor beams and a cloak. Done and dusted. Mobile depots have their advantages and their disadvantages. They're meant to be a locked chest or a tent, not a pallisade or a fort. If you're a solo pilot then you travel smart and you travel light. Not because of the cost of what you may lose but because carrying around 1000 different things introduces functional redundancies.


4. Carriers are flexible in that they can rep smaller ships as well as larger ships. If logi modules acted like missiles with their effectiveness affected by sig radius interactions then things would be very different, wouldn't they? Also carriers require a ridiculous amount of SP in support modules not the least of which includes needing Logi V to run t1 triage modules. Carriers also don't get used for what they're supposed to (talking about wrecking ball) and hey presto! they're also on the ironing board soon so please don't compare pre-balance ships against each other. It is only proper to compare pre-balance to post-balance since the post-balance ships are what they'll be competing with in the end anyway. See? Ships have been rebalanced by roles and this is important because the role of the T3 is to be flexible which means it must make sacrifices for the advantage of not automatically having a hard-counter, unlike neuts vs a zealot or TD vs blasters, etc.


5. My impression of Wormhole life and why sieging of larger groups doesn't occur is more a matter of culture and not a matter of practicality. Wormhole corps think they're some kind of space-SAS and that others are inferior. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=2934 <--- actually go here and take a look some time. Beneath the veneer of wanting more players (whom they openly call targets) they cry about how boring and static their part of the game is. They're so hungry for action that they're poisoning their own wells, clawing at themselves at the chance to kill someone new and then most hilariously of all the dichotomy of yelling at one another for killing new corps while simultaneously adding those same corps to 'eviction lists' when they refuse to play by 'the rules' of wormhole space which the subtext suggests is just "please whelp your entire corps assets against my fortress of overtanked T3's and capitals".

I think T3s should be true jacks of all trades. Where is the mining subsystems, the hauling subsystems, the PI subsystems etc etc. So then you have a ship that's no where near as good as a 'real' ship made to purpose, but one that can pop up a mobile depot, change on the fly and be at least somewhat useful in a given task.

This reply of your doesn't really make a lot of sense but I'll address what I can get from it.

The 2v1/1v2 is supposed to be a losing situation for the 1 in straight-up combat. T3's are not meant to steamroll entire fleets. In having said that, bringing the right gear to kill something is also prudent and a contextually blank comparison is a poor platform for making this suggestion. Part of the reason why I said in my OP to make synergy bonuses for subsystems and skills was to simplify balancing and hopefully avoid future extemporanerous efforts like RLML/RHML being repeated.

The skill multipliers still add up. I see where you're coming from I just don't agree with it. I think it's a relic from an earlier design ideology that CCP no longer follows and it's something they can fix now.

The skillpoint loss has no precedent anywhere else in the game. It's not a "fun" mechanic and doesn't promote the use of T3's in scenarios where their loss is a fair probability except by those who take huge risks poorly evaluated anyway. For these people they by and large make it through on luck or as you said "I have popped a few t3 to pebcak errors".

The precedent for T3 synergy skills I based off of capital ships. You specialise and have the bonuses roll over to other parts of the game (logi skill affecting both capitals and T3's) and this helps I think create two unique lines of thought where capitals are strictly a fleet vessel with incredible power and T3's slip through the cracks and become difficult to define exactly. By letting them gain some kind of internal progression with bonuses supplied from T2 skills from elsewhere you can create a more definable and personal kind of uniqueness to the T3. Certainly we may say that only players with many dozens of millions of SP invested in specifically these things will be the only people who have the stats on this ship maxed out including synergies while its a paltry 20 days or so to train a t3 to maximum effectiveness from all 4 to all 5 now?

Using boosts/links as an example anywhere is just ridiculous. They're a horribly broken mechanic and should be deleted from the game until they're working properly (on grid).

You're telling me that the cerb overtook the tengu pre-rlml nerf and that post rlml nerf the tengu took back over? What is the lesson here? That CCP balancing is schitsophrenic? It was never that the Tengu was weaker than the cerb, it was that the cerb could fit tengu tank and a hilariously long sustained damage profile on a budget of 200m instead of 600m. Also don't forget that the two ships are by and large the same animal - any skills that benefit one benefits the other except for obviously subsystem skills or the strat cruiser skill itself. Also everyone knows how broken some T3 subs are so that was a contributing factor there too. Did you also know that post-rebalance that the cerb is quite a bit faster? Lots of little things. Wife calling. Long replies again tomorrow if I have time.

93% resists across the board 120k ehp and great tackle from a loki, the thing can tank a fleet long enough to kill a few ships and for your friends to get on grid. the sp loss isnt a big enough deal for me not to use one

I do think that t3 could stand to have a larger cargo bay at minimum. My cerb has something like 600m3? Or whatever while my tengu gets a glorious 250 or so.

I think there is a pretty defined end game and certain groups are in it already. What else is there for them to do/achieve after this? At the point you run out of milestones to achieve you can be said to have reached the endgame.

At no time should simply dying in a particular ship lead to SP loss, its a horrible mechanic that needs to go.

And thats part of what I am getting at. Th sp loss should be removed as part of a more comprehensive rebalance.

Including some of the stuff I have raised previously