EVE General Discussion

No one is saying T1 should be as good as T2 or T3. Look at the chart.

Honestly m8, i prefer to kill T3 with T1 than T1 with T3.
And its till possible, because of piloting, fits and stuff.
I dont want a win button, in the case you didnt understood. I just want that when i take my T3 out, its for a reason, not just to say "look guys, im in a shiny ship"

And anyway, if what you say was true, and T3 was so OP we would see more T3 out than T1.
I would love to see moar T3 arouns, it would mean moar shiny kills, sadly, its not the case.

Stop trolling *****. You cant be so stupid.

I'm not actually disagreeing that t3's need some nerfs, just about the sentiment that a t3 shouldn't be more powerful overall than a t1 or a t2 boat. The special role t2 boat should be superior in that specific purpose sure, but there are other means to accomplish this ranging from that removal of rigs to stuff like including drawbacks to the subsystems. Much like we already see with rigs.

For example if you wish to use the Power Core Multiplier subsystem so that you can fit a double plate or something else that normally could not be reasonably fitted to a cruiser size, your base speed would slow down considerably; much like it is with battleships that pack a tank of similar size. This quickly thought up change to this subsystem alone would make HACs again the top choice for the fast heavy hitting style of combat, while leaving the proteuses and the legions as the hard hitting heavy tanking cruisers and thus not taking away their role.

Similarily if you fit your boat in such way that it's possible to run the 100MN fit, it should have a drawback of reducing your tank to bare minimum, possibly by excluding some subsystem configurations from working with each others. All kinds of different methods that could be used to prevent the overpowered fits that are currently possible. And yes, I do admit that there are some.

The single biggest OP role that does obsolete a t2 boat entirely is the cov ops subsystem together with the Emergent Locus Analyzer. Couple that with the possibility of Interdiction Nullifier sub and you have the perfect scout, one that can pack damage as well as a pretty hefty tank to go with it. While the proteus with this exact setting is one of the favorite boats I fly and I'd hate to lose that option, it's still something that I just can't help but admit that it does way too many things well simultaneously. 400dps with 140k ehp on interdicted cloaky that can pack 100m3 of drones (possibly adding another 100dps) and scanning strength being very close to the cov opses (typical fit uses 1 scanning rig and 2 trimarks, while the cov ops generally has 2 scanning rigs).

Pretty surprising this thread is still going. As mentioned previously, and as CCP has stated multiple times even in this thread, tech II offers specialisation, tech III offers flexibility. People suggesting the flexible ship should be better in every area than a specialised ship really need to stay away from game balance.

He's not trolling, nor is he stupid. He's just pointing out to you that EVE has paper-scissors-rock-style balancing, not the banal and braindead “bigger is better” (not-actually-)balance of level-based games such as WoW. Now, your misapprehension that EVE does or should fall back on that obsolete design principle on the other hand…

T2 and T3 are not higher-level gear. They're just gear with a different purpose. Therefore, T1 should most definitely be viable against both of them.

come on, do I really need to do it this way for you?

ok here it goes.

you can't have T3's outperform everything when they are made to be able to do everything at the cost of specialization. T2's are the specialized hulls. they better be doing what they are tailor-made to. This means that they (T3) can't perform as well as a T2 in said T2's field, but at the same time they can do more than said T2 by adding up something that it doesn't have.

Incidentally, you can't, however, make them perform worse, or equal. Now that is dumbing down. Same as having a ship better than the rest. That is also dumbing down. True balance is achieved in a way that X is useful, but doesn't step on toes of Y, while still being effective on Z.

So, you neithet can't have the whole cake and eat it, nor have everyone eat the same cake, and that's why balance stuff in a game like EVE is ******* hard. And that's why CCP is doing Tiericide by stages and not changing the whole damn thing in one swoop.
And that's why we can't have a one thing beats anything in this game.

OH and then you say "pfah! I paid elevently-five billion for a ship I expect it to be a instant-I-PWZ0R-YOU button!"
Cost is not a goddamn balance factor, as Tippia painstakingly said more than once in this very thread, and with proof of fact in it.

Cmon, thats the ccp statement. And you see my point dont try to procrastinate.

Not necessarily, no. T3 should offer something different that T1, and whether it's better or not will depend on the context — not the ship.

Nope. It's a single consistent line. The problem is perhaps that you're being lifted out of the simple world of line-land and into the (still fairly simply) flatland…

…for our next trick, we'll pull you of that and into 3D space — hope you're not prone to vertigo.

Rather than overly nerf T3s, why not just give t2's a decent boost so they are slightly better then t3s, and get rid of that ******** off grid boosting.

If they do decide to nerf T3s hard, then remove the Skill loss on loss. Overly nerfing with no compensation will alienate a lot of players who rather like their t3s. Its easily one of the most fun ships in the game, that won't take you 4 years to skill into *cough caps cough*