EVE General Discussion

Injectors is only relevant to people that can afford them, T3s will likely be cheaper after rebalancing, injector cost has opportunity cost, ie you are giving up space ships to PVP with to buy the injector, etc, etc. Again, old players, new players different issues.



Yes and I might have level ******* 4 in all of the ******* subroles because I'm not the ******* specialist, and I wouldn't care if I carried a bunch of t1 solaces with me, its just better to have 10 dps ships and a logi than 11 dps ships even if the logi isn't the worlds greatest logi and hasn't spent all the SP on it, and no they are currently super relevant for small gang as is, ie nothing changes if they stay relevant for small gang.

And at the moment, there is relatively little role in fleet pvp for most hacs.

I'm really glad I started this character from scratch and went through the process again, because I suspect that it ruins the perspective of a lot of people to have a complete character or to just lean on the complete characters resources to wallpaper over effort.

Ive been following discussion on reddit (shameful, I know) and there is far more resistance there to what comes across here as a "we" argument for removing SP loss or where T3Cs should be after re-balance.

The discussion there is also savy to the meta issue of T2 proliferation (or rather T3C attrition) increasing moon goo value, at the expense of WH gas/sleeper salvage.

1j The wealth of a player to replace a T3C, is not material to balance.
The wealth of a player to replace ANY ship, is immaterial to balance.
If you cant afford to replace it, dont fly it.

2) Removing SP loss from T3Cs CATEGORICALLY only improves the situation of older players as no longer having to suffer an SP % replacement malus through injectors compared to newer players. Removing SP loss does not improve the status quo of newer players, at all.

3) The reason some people want SP loss removed from T3Cs, is so that they can justify a harder nerf for T3Cs without it.
They perceive the SP loss mechanic as a counterbalance for the current admitted/apparent OPness of T3C tanks.
That is false.
The SP loss mechanic is a counterbalance to the unique subsystem mechanic.
That subsystem mechanic is what makes T3Cs different from T2s, as offset by SP loss mechanic.

The OPness of T3C effective tank is already heuristically guaranteed to be reduced to T2 rough equivalency.
The SP loss mechanic is NOT a counterweight to that OPnessnof current stats.
The SP loss mechanic is a counterweight to the subsystem mechanic.

4) Its a hypocrisy.
They claim T3C SP loss only benefits the rich, whereas the fact is that removing SP loss only benefits the rich.
They claim they want T3Cs to be better for newer players, but:
A) T3Cs are not, and will not be, better for newer players. They cant be.
B) Newer players do, and will, lack the developed and wide skill sets to fly T3Cs offered versatility effectively.
C) T2s are, and will remain, the preferred choice for a the specific role of that T2. Especially for T2s that T3Cs cannot emulate.

5) They desperately want SP loss removed, inorder to justify collapsing T3Cs as far as possible.
They argue "this should be removed, cos Im so rich it means nothing to me", whereas in the aftermath of their proposals, T3Cs will matter less than nothing to them. Either in cost, or in incentive to use them.

6) Result would be a T3C that these "rich" players no longer use, and which newer players have no use for instead of a T2.

7) The real practical solution is very simple.
-T3C subsystem bonuses that do not overstep T2 bonuses in their roles and incur SP loss.
-HICs/Combat Recon are not overstepped. T3Cs cannot field bubbles or DScan immunity.
-Force Recon are not overstepped. T3C subsystem stats will be different.
-T2 Logi are not overstepped. T3C subsytem stats will be different.
-Command Cruiser will not be overlapped, as none exists, and T3C CC will far short of T2 BC.
-HACs are not overstepped, T3Cs have no MWD/sig bonus, lesser PvP fit application and HACs incurr no SP loss.
-Stratios is not overstepped, rather their are options from T3Cs.

It is critically important to retain T3Cs at rough T2 equivalency.
Crucial to that, is retaining SP loss as a universal penalty for both newer and older players.

If they intend on the flexible ship playing the flexible balancing role, then yeah thats going to happen. But you can expect that people who are swinging between roles to not actually have trained everything for every role. They are a backup person you use when the specialist isn't around, with a backup ship.



With this character I have bought at least 15 injectors out of the isk this character has made from scratch, and after the serpentis event until a couple of months ago this character wasn't played either so its really not had as much training time as the age suggests. I do not for a moment think the average player with 1 subbed account is going to inject their way past the T3 to get a T2 even if the T3 is weaker than T2 at the specialist role. Plenty of competing alternatives, including training towards battleships, battleship weapons and capitals. Honestly I think over the typical 9 months of a sub, a typical player might average 2 or 3 injections total. Also I expect the T3 to get cheaper, and as I pointed out before, I'd probably bring cheaper stuff for the refit.



Its just bad debating to guess at peoples motivations, you'll be wrong doing it, as you are right now.

I use the proteus for PVE. I'm not asking for any improvement in proteus PVE capabilities, and I'm not expecting it. You can see from early posts in this thread that it was my initial concern, and I'm not repeating anything here that isn't what other players are suggesting should happen, I've simply come to accept that its sensible to make it work that way.

The value of a ship doesn't justify it being over powered, but it's not immaterial to balance. There's always a cost to benefit analysis in play when deciding what you should or should not field against an opponent, not just the raw power of the ship. If something provides too much benefit for its cost then it's over powered, if it provides too little then it's under powered.

This is why things like the Serpentis Capitals or Alliance Tournament Ships are not considered OP. It's also why the Pirate Battleships have suddenly become a problem despite not having their stats change in any significant or meaningful way, they've simply increased in supply and dropped in price enough that they're causing a mess in the Null Fleet meta.



It really really doesn't. This has been explained six different ways by six different people now. The older player is more likely to have access to lots of injectors, is less affected by the SP loss in the first place, and is less likely to lose the ships in the first place on top of that.

Just looking at SP loss as a percentage of total SP clearly shows why SP loss hurts newer players more than older ones, even with the penalty to injector use for an older player.



If the versatility is balanced correctly it really doesn't need an additional counterbalance, especially not one that runs anywhere from equal to the cost of the hull to several times its cost depending on how low on the SP totem pole you are.

At the very least I think we can agree that the SP loss isn't an effective counterweight to the current OP state of the hulls, but that's more because cost does a poor job of balancing something this OP.



Yes they can, myself and others have explained why. You insist that you can't fly a T3C without being able to use all of its subsystems. That's ridiculous and is like saying that you can't train Caldari Battleships without being able to use ECM because of the Scorpion.

This is also false, given the subsystems sets we've seen you can fit a T3C for a single purpose with secondary subsystems being dedicated to core skills like Navigation, Tank, or Damage.

That's the hope, yes, but there will likely be situations where a hybrid role is preferable, either because that combination of stats isn't available on another hull or because it plugs some weakness in the base hull at the expense of primary-role effectiveness.



I can't speak for anyone else here, but personally my part of this "they" you keep referring to thinks that if the ships are actually balanced the SP loss is unneeded, regardless of how "far" they get "collapsed". Personally I don't hate T3Cs, quite a few of my friends are in Wormholes and quite like them. I'd just like to be able to fly one without feeling dirty, and fly any of the various hulls they kick the **** out of without feeling dissatisfied.

The argument here is that the SP loss really only matters to newer players and the small minority who treat their skill queue like a Progress Bar Game (cookie clicker anyone?). Thus if the ships are balanced for older players, who weigh the cost of the SP loss very very low, then they're over-priced compared to their performance for a newer player who needs every point of SP they can get to progress their character (personally I'd say you don't get out of this phase until around 60m SP, which is around 3 years of play, far from being a newbie).

This isn't complicated. Subjective opportunity cost is a well established economic concept. It's one of the cornerstones of trade, where one party gives away something with a lower value for them in exchange for something with a higher value for them. Ideally the other party in the exchange receives something they perceive to have a high value in exchange for something they value less.

Shameless, obvious shills everywhere.
Its worse here than I thought.
Unbelievable amount of twisting and spinning on clear facts.

This is no longer about balance, its purely about agenda.

Ironically, this is case where I hope CCP looks at reddit feedback instead.

Here, its just balls to wall shilling.
Unbelievable extent of contrivance.

See you in the official thread when/if it occurs.
I resign from this one in abject disgust.

Now you're just conjuring ad-hominem out of thin air rather than actually trying to defend your points.

I'm not pushing anyone's agenda here, I honestly believe that SP loss is bad for T3Cs and that it's in no way needed for them to be balanced ships and honestly hurts their usability.

I'm certainly not shilling for baltec1. I have a fair amount of respect for the guy, he knows his ****, but I've been on the opposite side of about as many arguments as we've agreed on over the last few years. This just happens to be one where we agree.

EDIT: Oh and this is the top comment on any T3C rebalance thread I can find on Reddit, it's a hypothetical from 2 months ago, and it has "remove SP loss" as the second thing on the list: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5yn7kf/t3c_rebalance_serious_general_discussion/derduwv/

Volume of subsystem is 40. Too much IMO.

And what you're being told, and have been told repeatedly, is that your fits are not a solution to the problem being proposed. They're either impractical, overly expensive for a worse result, or simply don't work the way you seem to think they do.

Your fits seem to either rely on a specific situation or are completely ignoring the actual discussion you're inserting them into. For example that Onyx might work for you, but that doesn't mean that it's actually better than a T3C doing the same job. It's certainly not OP, and it's not hard to counter. Any 15 man gang, frigate or otherwise, that ran from that did so out of ignorance or incompetence, not because your fit is godly.

A fit that only works in a specific situation is fair enough, but not when you throw it out and say that it beats out a fit that works in *far more* situations or that your fit just straight up loses to in comparison. Either in cost, effectiveness, or both, as every fit you've thrown up here has done.



That's the same list that we saw from the Fanfest slides, it doesn't even have stats or the context the fanfest presentation offered.

Also as things go SP loss is fairly easy to add or remove and tweak the balance of the ships accordingly. Unless you have a link where Gorski is flat out quoting CCP saying SP loss isn't going anywhere then there's *always* room for debate.

Dont see you signing up, Jenn.

Re: Focus Group

The way this appears to be being organized doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me. Just asking for people to randomly sign up is a recipe for getting a stacked deck. The first couple people volunteering are wormholers who fly the things in wormholes as a matter of course. It's like... do you think they will want their bread and butter nerfed?

I'm not jumping the gun or pronouncing judgment. But I will say if they aren't careful as hell in choosing who the focus group members are, this is going to be a disaster.