EVE General Discussion

Are there plans for nerfs (I haven't seen them) or are they simply going to consolidate subsystems?

You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass.

T3 cruisers are fine (well there are some minor tweaks they could do with). The only changes that need to be made is increasing the usefulness of 1-2 sub-systems and slightly tweaking the balance of tank so that higher resist/lower sig combinations have slightly less EHP (more towards HACs in a general sense) and higher EHP configurations have slightly bigger sigs/slightly less mobility (more towards commandships in a general sense).

Correct. I have a proteus that has 200,000hp and does 1000DPS.

I have BS that do more in both areas obviously, but to make up for the increase in sig over the Prot they really have to do a lot more than that, which limits the options. The Proteus is approx 700M fully fit which is another bonus over most decent BS.

I think a small nerf to T3 tank and DPS, along with a boost to Battleship tank (but not DPS) would do much to alleviate the issue without having to then balance a bunch of other classes either side too much.

I bolded and underlined the relevant part for you there. Also, as i mentioned my Prot is 700Mil all included so it's not mega blingy though yes it has faction magstabs.

Sorry for triggering the BS defence in you there, but what i'm saying is not max fit theorycrafting to try to beat "your" bs theory. I already admitted i have BS that have better stats, but the difference in sig makes the prot tank harder than a BS with double the HP in almost every situation.

I still fly BS too, but T3 are a little OP quite evidently

To quote Gandalf; "What does your heart tell you?"

Yeah, Strategic Cruisers could have been done better, but they have waited far too long to balance them.

I think CCP should clearly map out expected EHP and DPS ranges for the various classes and stick to it, even if it means expanding T1 BS to over 1200 dps to make room for future advancements in Med turret ships in the future.

No med turret hull should have dps close to a lg turret regardless of tech level.

Of course that would mean a re-vist of nearly all ships DPS output.

Ideas:(with full short-range turret loadout with 1-3 dmg mods + std drones for hull)

Sm turret hulls: up to 400 dps, t1 baseline 250 dps.

Med turret hulls: up to 900 dps, t1 baseline 550 dps.

Lg turret hulls: up to 2000 dps, t1 baseline 1250 dps.



Of course that damage range could be expanded even more to give more room between med hull max dps and the t1 Lg turret baseline.

The ability to remove riggs from them is interesting. Although I think it would be cool to have the riggs get turned into special riggs that can only be re-installed into t3 cruisers.

They just need to be a little less effective in any given role than the T2 specialist ship for that role. They can do all the fleet roles- just not as well as the dedicated hulls. Let em boost, but not as well as a Command Ship. Let them remote rep, but not as well as a Logi. Let them DPS but not as well as a HAC.

Right now I'd put the T3 on par with the battleship line. They should be slightly weaker than T2 cruisers.

I think the critical factor for T3 cruisers should be on-the-fly refits. Make it cheap enough to carry half a hangar worth of refit modules and rigs so losing the ship isn't crushing. Then you have a choice- take standard T2 specialist ships but are limited in their engagement envelope, or take T3's with slightly softer ships but the ability to adapt to changing conditions.

Same for PvE uses. Maybe give T3's a dedicated cargo hold for fitting modules/rigs so you still have room for loot. T3's should be able to operate away from POS/stations, and should be able to refit without a mobile depot.

There are better parts of the forum to go into more detail really, none of what you say is really an issue if the appropriate penalties are in place which updating the compromises/penalties to reflect the Eve of today atleast seems to be something Fozzie has in mind - sig radius is definitely one that needs to be carefully addressed.