Player Features and Ideas Discussion

remove rigs is key factor too promote the versatility that is the point of the ship.. there are many other things they need, some being

- remove T2 resists .. they don't belong on T3's at all (tactical destroyers have partial for some reason)
- make subs cheap too make which links into rig removal and promoting the main point of strategic cruisers
- nerf the tanky subs
- 2 bonuses per sub max .. 3 is too many

- make subs bonus only , build stats/fittings etc. into hull..
-- makes comparing base hull stats possible in game
-- is more consistent with the rest of the ships in eve
-- makes swapping subs and fitting easier

They are currently OP because they have battleship level tank and cruiser level maneuverability.

If you don't rely on cost as a balancing issue.

T3s are better at being armour hacs than armour hacs.
They're more tanky with slightly less range than recons.

Add drawbacks to subs.

I think cost is definitely a balancing point than most believe vis a vis T3s. With cost, there is also the requirement of availability. Even if I wanted to switch a shield Loki to an armor-oriented one on a whim, I still need to get the junk from Jita because, unless I want to T1 rig it, you can't really count on T2 trimarks and CDFEs being available in your area's corner store.

The alternative? I either pony up the ISK for separate armor and shield-rigged hulls, or I live with just having one of the two. Considering the amount of crap-fit T3s out there, I would wager that cost is definitely a consideration in the typical pilots' mind.

As for T3s vs. Armor HACs, people use T3s instead of Armor HACs where it makes sense - where a Zealot might get volleyed off the the field, a beam/rail T3 might not. The cost? Much higher, and if you do die, you'll need to skill again - especially if you lose SP that prevents you from flying the thing. You'll need to live with a higher sig and lower agility to boot.

Drawbacks are already present. You can't exactly mount up a covert+nullified Legion and expect to go out and pwn face anywhere near reliably as you could with a non cloaky+nullified one, or even just a cloaky one. What I see happening here is that people are too enthralled with absolutes.

I'd like to add something, regarding esteemed space pilot Larkonis's example of T3s and how they compare, from a performance POV, to Armor HACs. But what I'm going to say here disregards comparing numbers on hulls. It's more related to comparing numbers of hulls.

Throughout this whole rebalancing process, and especially with the many discussions around T3s in particular, I think people are getting too done up over A/B'ing specific ships and their stats relative to each other, and in the process are missing the broader picture.

We all care about fleet numbers, right? How many times throughout the many years of Eve have you seen Side A gripe about Side B not fighting because they didn't have enough to blob or whatever, right?

Let's take a current-day example. HERO/BNI's main doctrine are rail Eagles. It's a skilling goal for the entire coalition. They can, on a good weekday night, field over 100 of these and their lower-SP rail Moas counterparts if enough can be persuaded to log in. The ship aside, in pure numbers alone they can be very effective no matter what they're in. It could be arty Ruptures or Cerberuses. The point is, there comes a point when their numbers are more important than which particular ship they're sitting in.

So what do you do if you're 50 dudes looking take on ca. 150 of them? Most wouldn't, and we'd see yet another reddit post with someone gloating about how so-and-so docked up and didn't bring a fight. A fight with 50 Zealots vs. 150 Eagles isn't "interesting', it's a slaughter. Fancy footwork will get you only so far, but when you're trying to vey over an objective, cutting and running is not as easy a decision to make versus being in a just-for-fun fleet where making a tactical withdraw is nbd.

What do you do at that point? You look for a force multiplier, something that makes your smaller number of meatbags individually more effective than any one pilot of the opposing side. This is where T3s fit perfectly, and always have. They have their drawbacks (I would actually use the term "punishments" - for your SP and your wallet) but they serve as a balancer, and indeed, an enabler of fights. Otherwise this game will be about who can bring the most meatbags to the field, for sure.

Loads of threads on removing rigs from T3s. Personally not a fan as you can't really roll the possibilities back into the sub-systems and personally the possibilities with T3s is one of the things that keeps me playing the game.

Do agree though that the main problem with T3s is the lack of appropriate penalties to match specific bonuses.



Mach still has BS sized sig (well almost) unless you go mad with halos and skirmish links while T3s often have big tanks and tiny sigs which IMO is a little too far - don't personally have a problem with T3s having big tanks but in that kind of configuration they should be more like battlecruisers/commandships for manoeuvrability and sig.

Or how about fixing the real problems instead. It's not the poor Tengu's fault that it's the best choice in a universe of OP bomb mechanics, ISBOXER, and LOLBATTLESHIPS. At least with the upcoming resist and defense buffs that recons are getting, we will hopefully see more of them show up in fleet doctrines, and thus more variation.

Machariels are also easier to bomb and they track smaller targets fairly poorly at ranges where tengus volley them off the field. Machariels are also way more expensive even if you count into the possible skill loss as opportunity cost, they require longer training to become as effective and they cannot be fitted into slippery pete type of shenanigans.

This is a decent list but I do have some things to say.

- T2 resists should be available but only to either one or a small handful of subs or be a bonus on a sub (which will be mentioned further in a sec)
- I agree with making the subs cheaper and removing rigs but with that should come some level of versatility that they currently don't have to offset the rig removal. An idea on that in a minute.
- I don't think they should necessarily be nerfed but rather put in line so that if a tanky build is chosen, a dps build is less viable. The issue isn't that the proteus has 450k ehp tank, but that it also deals around 1k dps while doing so. I wouldn't mind that 450k ehp if the ship could only do 500 max dps, or that it could deal 1k+ damage so long as its tank doesn't go above 75 or 100k ehp or something.
- I don't think so, depending on how they focus the rebalance more couldn't necessarily hurt. They could add role bonuses (like giving a sub T2 resists) or synergy bonuses when two or more sub systems are used together. The bonuses might be nice but the subs to group them would be set so that it wouldn't over power the ship. For instance boosting drone HP and damage but the offensive sub system only allows for a bay of 50m3 and control of 25mb.

- This not so much a good idea yes? Some sub systems provide a larger bonus then their skills allow and that is the addition of extra slots, either low, high or mid. This is one of the largest factors in what niches a T3 can fill if you really want it to. Though for the most part it couldn't hurt to jumble around the stats of some sub systems to lower their effectiveness if they are too... well effective. For instance a sub system with increased cap recharge bonus will likely have a larger capacitor then other subs which basically doubles the bonus compared to the others.

As for adding further versatility and with the rig slots being removed allow two mode slots. There could be a handful of these and they would function how destroyers currently do however instead of 10 second cool downs it would likely be closer to a minute or 30 seconds. The ship can already change into almost any role, it doesn't need to be able to adjust modes rapid fire in addition to that.

The downside with that idea however is that it would require far FAR more rebalancing to implement and would make it feel like a larger T3 destroyer instead of the unique thing it is now.

Overall I'm still just very curious as to how CCP will go about balancing these. It would be nice to hear at least how they intend to approach it otherwise threads like these are just pissing in the wind, guesswork and hopeful thinking.

I don't see a problem with this.