Ships & Modules

As our game EVE ONLINE is moving slowly to the small guys at the moment, I think that a T3 MINING Barge could be really cool and useful for small groups in eve that want to gather resources from null sec or a wormhole. With sub systems similar to the current t3 cruiser sub systems able to refit for cloaky, nullified, agility, and even for ice harvesters, ore harvesters and deep core mining. Plus it will give some the challenge of catching one for a tasty killmail. It could have a sub system for smaller industrial core where it can extract rsources at a much higher rate and could make it tankier aswell so it's not an entirely sitting duck with drone bonuses and a pretty decent sized drone bay depending on the sub system chosen.

I am just throwing out an idea for industrialists and for pvp for the killmail. I would like to know what others think about this please coment with your thoughts or just this is a terrible idea. I think it would be a cool addition to EVE with the Industrial Arrays coming out this fall.

why t3 so unbalanced?
t3d
t3 cruiser

we only need t3 bs to balance the game and it's gg
no need to nerf anything

To stay on topic no to a T3 mining ship.


T3C concept was for a ship you could use to perform many different roles simply by changing sub systems. These ships were supposed to have capabilities in all of the various roles that put them somewhere between the T1 and T2 counterparts does this sound to you like the T3C ships we have in the game right now?

I have no idea what CCP was trying to do with the T3D ships.
Something just a little more than the T1 destroyers, something with about the same tank and DPS but in a smaller and more agile platform was where the AF class of ships fit. In a fit of stupid CCP gave us the T3D class, ships with at or near T1 cruiser class tank and DPS all in a smaller and more agile hull and instantly the entire AF class is rendered virtually useless.

If these are not enough to convince you that the T3 line up needs a mauling at the hands of the nerf bat then perhaps there is nothing that anyone can say.

Here is how it supposed to work:

http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech.jpg

How it is supposed to work:

- Tech 1 ships are the "baseline."

- Tech 2 ships are supposed to be "specialized" versions of Tech 1 ships with better stats., but some drawbacks (see: they are not always "better" than Tech 1 ships)

- Navy and Pirate ships are supposed to be more powerful (in terms of stats and bonuses) but are more "generalist" in terms of what roles they can play.

- Tech 3 ships are supposed to be more "generalist" (see: more flexible) versions of Navy and Pirate ships with slightly more power than a Tech 1 ship.
Essentially, they should have bonuses like a Tech 2 ship... but none of the bonuses or stats should step on the toes of Tech 2, Navy, or Pirate ships.


What we actually have:

- Navy and Pirate ships are more specialized in what they can do. While some of their bonuses makes them very unique, they have other bonuses (along with other stats) that kinda step on the toes of Tech 2 ships.
Example: There is no point in bringing an armor fit Huggin when you can bring along an Ashimmu. The Ashimmu may have less webbing range versus the Huggin, but it can tank FAR more and has some nasty neuting bonuses.

- Tech 3 ships by and large stick to their more "generalist" ideals in terms of bonuses (for the most part)... however it is their stats and the subsystem combinations you can pull off that makes them "out of balance" compared to other ships.
Example: Between a Huggin and a Loki, it is generally better to bring a Loki that has been fitted to web. The Huggin has more range, but the Loki can tank an order of magnitude more. The Huggin can fly (slightly) faster, but the Loki has more bonuses, slots, and can deal more damage... giving it much more tactical flexibility.

Tech 3 Destroyers are weird in that they step on the toes of multiple classes at the same time. They can do what Assault Frigates can do... but better and with more flexibility. They may have less tank than a Cruiser, but their small "Sensor Footprint" means that it is difficult to apply damage to them... which, when combined with their mobility, makes them stronger than a cruiser in most situations outside of brawling.



tldr; the point is that there is not supposed to be "one class that is better than the rest." Everything should have tradeoffs and weaknesses. Right now... T3s are as good (or better) than some classes of ships as they do not possess the same weaknesses as those classes.





If you are serious about a Tech 3 Mining Barge then it needs to adhere to the following:

- it cannot outmine the Hulk (it should not even come close). Being the kind of mining yield is the Tech 2 specialty of this ship.

- It cannot out-tank a Skiff.

- It cannot be more mobile than a Skiff (don't even suggest the Venture or Prospect... those are frigates).

- It cannot hold more ore than a Mackinaw.


Allowing a Tech 3 barge to do any of these well... or even 80% well all at the same time... makes this ship far more ideal compared to any of the current barges.

After all... why have a Hulk when you can mine 80% as effectively as one with 80% of ore bay of a Mack (28,000 m3) and 80% of the tank of a Skiff (100k ehp)?

Price should never be a balance factor

Because money and time are not good balancing factors.

Eventually, these factors can be overcome and what you end up with are many, many people flying the same thing... because it is better than everything else (see: it obsoletes other ships).


Instead, you ideally want all ships to be able to compete with all other ships in some form.

A good example of this is the relationship between capital ships and subcapitals.

Subcapitals are relatively generalized and cheap with relatively low skill investments.
Capitals are extremely specialized and require large investments of time and resources.

Capitals have VERY high stats... but a single subcapital can be a potential threat to them by being smaller than their weapons or mobility can cope with.
Example 1: a single Tech 1 Frigate can almost indefinitely "pin" a Dreadnought or Carrier. However, the Frigate by itself can't kill a Dred or Carrier.
Both sides will need help from others to get an edge.

This is balanced.



This is actually the problem exactly. They should not be "better than anything else."

They should be good at many things, but not so much so that you will not consider using a "specialist" ship for a specific job.


And? An officer module can cost anywhere from several hundred million to several billion ISK.

On average, they only give 10 to 20% better bonuses than a Tech 2 module... which costs only about 500 to 1 million isk.


Being more expensive should not make something (anything) overpowered.
You want to maintain a healthy balance between all ships... giving some advantages to older, richer players without allowing them the ability outright curbstomp younger, poorer players.

you got me

We already have a cloaky mining ship that has high agility.

It's been the only ship I mine in for a while now

Sometimes people forget, that if a t3 performed worse than a t2 no one would ever fly one.

Every fit on a t3 is a compromise, yes there are massive tanks available, on pyfa etc but those become quick lossmails. Lasting more shots but dying anyway.

Actual practical fits are more realistic, yes better than t1 cruisers and thank god for that! They bloody should be.

And there is a reason neuts are called T3 killers.

Rock paper scissors applies more to t3 than almost any other class

Edit for clarity, Nothing in this post refers to TD3 they are a whole different thing.

This is demonstrably incorrect. Price must always be a balancing factor.


However, it shouldn't ever be the only balancing factor.