These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Chart is confusing, please correct the chart.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#301 - 2013-06-11 06:46:51 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
ClusterFook wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
[quote=ClusterFook]The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships?


Lets try an exercise so we can get on the same page. lets say T3's are downgraded to match their T2 hull counterparts they have the exact same stats.


I'm interested in the responses you get as some are pushing for worse stats and/or euthanasia. Because, ya know, Drake > Tengu is only logical.

I didn't know drake could warp cloaked through bubbles.

They can also warp while cloaked and use covert cynos.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Amarra Mandalin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2013-06-11 06:59:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarra Mandalin
Lexmana wrote:
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
ClusterFook wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
[quote=ClusterFook]The Problem with the thinking T3's are for versatility is that who uses generalized ships?


Lets try an exercise so we can get on the same page. lets say T3's are downgraded to match their T2 hull counterparts they have the exact same stats.


I'm interested in the responses you get as some are pushing for worse stats and/or euthanasia. Because, ya know, Drake > Tengu is only logical.

I didn't know drake could warp cloaked through bubbles.


It twas /sarcasm derived from page 11 or so.
Thought it was obvious.
Mistaken.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#303 - 2013-06-11 07:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.

The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.

In summary:

  • Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
  • Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
  • Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
  • Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.


Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.


Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.


Just remember that no one is going to pay any premium for ships that are mediocre at several roles. Remember the glory days of "flexible" pirate ships with split weapon bonuses?

If we're putting a quarter of a million SP on the line, then that ship damb well better do something better than anything else. Otherwise I'll simply buy the 2-3 racial T2 ships instead.

The other huge barrier to "flexibility" is rigs. If I have to destroy the rigs every time I "flexibly" change my T3s role, then it very very quickly becomes cheaper and easier to simply have multiple ships. In fact people have multiple T3s now because of this.

The idea of owning a "flexible" multi-role hull that you can refit to your immediate purpose sounds appealing on the face of it, but there are a large number of game mechanics that make it rather unappealing.

(1) The relative cost of subsystems
(2) Rigs
(3) Price premium (including SP loss)
(4) The need to have multiple fitted ships ready to go in any case in case of ship loss
(5) The ease of resupply/reshipping

Basically to make the "flexibility" concept really attractive you have maybe 2 options

(1) Allow T3s to self-refit subs and modules dynamically in space (this would actually be a useful advantage)
(2) Go back in time to around and stem the wealth boom that has meant that it's easy to afford large numbers of fitted ships.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Amarra Mandalin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#304 - 2013-06-11 07:06:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarra Mandalin
Alavaria Fera wrote:

They can also warp while cloaked and use covert cynos.


Yeah, well gives you something to wait for along with the passive Tengu fleet.
Of course, you might be waiting a long while while people fumble with the fit.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#305 - 2013-06-11 07:12:24 UTC
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:

They can also warp while cloaked and use covert cynos.

Yeah, well gives you something to wait for along with the passive Tengu fleet.
Of course, you might be waiting a long while while people fumble with the fit.

I actually do not have a character anywhere near skilled for a Tengu fleet. I know, I've missed out on so many structure shooting ops with Boat.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Amarra Mandalin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#306 - 2013-06-11 07:16:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarra Mandalin
No, no, silly, I meant this.

Alavaria Fera wrote:
[
I'm waiting for the TEST passive tank tengufleet now.


I need to go to bed. - my sense meter is off.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#307 - 2013-06-11 07:33:42 UTC
ClusterFook wrote:

apples and oranges. .


Sorry, no thats not the way it works, if you're using price as justification for ability then the most expensive ships in the game should be the most powerful and thats not the case, and shouldn't be the case, and never will be the case.

You can make any set of arguments you want, no matter who flawed and misplaced, or 'spoiled rotten brat' type of arguments they may be, but the second you bring up price in any way you're simple flat out wrong.

As per CCP's own words, price will never be taken into account where balance is concerned.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#308 - 2013-06-11 07:55:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Grath Telkin wrote:
ClusterFook wrote:

apples and oranges. .


Sorry, no thats not the way it works, if you're using price as justification for ability then the most expensive ships in the game should be the most powerful and thats not the case, and shouldn't be the case, and never will be the case.

You can make any set of arguments you want, no matter who flawed and misplaced, or 'spoiled rotten brat' type of arguments they may be, but the second you bring up price in any way you're simple flat out wrong.

As per CCP's own words, price will never be taken into account where balance is concerned.


And yet T3s have a non-ISK price associated with them as well.

EDIT: also you're wrong in any case. Price can never be the sole balancing factor, agreed, but it most definitely can be A balancing factor, especially for ships which can be killed in routine engagements without the extraordinary effort required to down eg: a Titan. Or else how could navy faction ships ever be balanced with their T1 basic equivalents?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Oxide Ammar
#309 - 2013-06-11 08:04:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Oxide Ammar
Ironically, everyone was bitching about cost doesn't translate to more powered ship yet everyone forgot that all nerf happened to T1 BC was reverted back in the new Navy BC tier which proves that more you pay the better results you are suppose to get. Yesterday I was doing 4/10 plex and sadly there was Cynabal blitzing the whole site before me so I sat and watched its performance in 4/10, It was blitzing like any T3 before the patch yet T3 were the only who got excluded from 4/10. are we seeing incoming nerf to pirate cruisers ? no...because this what you expect from pirate version of cruisers, an enhanced version. This applies to all navy/pirate (don't make me start talking about Vindi and Mach) and especially T3 cruisers since on top its cost the SP you lose if you lost your T3.

Someone mentioned before in this thread that route to T3 is the shortcut to perform well in different aspects of the game like doing missions, exploring and pvp. It cuts sometimes a year or 1.5 year of training to excel on these aspects of this game together and believe me you don't want every god damn new player to take this route to see some results at the end. It kills any interest in the game, I know we all have to take this route eventually but CCP needs to leave shortcut for players to breath.

Let's not forget that CCP laziness to fix HACs, Command ships derived many people to T3 and as I noticed everyone is OK with it, some HACs are horribly designed and its bonuses sometimes aren't convenient with CPU/ PG/ layout. And my first question in my mind when I played EVE was asking what is the role of HACs in game ? dps and die?

IMO this is sensitive topic which affects most of EVE players, many people spent/lost a lot of ISK / SP and CCP will open can of worms if they dealt with their alleged fixes in not smart way.

Sorry English is not my first language.

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#310 - 2013-06-11 09:01:33 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:


Let's not forget that CCP laziness to fix HACs, Command ships derived many people to T3 and as I noticed everyone is OK with it, some HACs are horribly designed and its bonuses sometimes aren't convenient with CPU/ PG/ layout. And my first question in my mind when I played EVE was asking what is the role of HACs in game ? dps and die?


It's not "laziness". The ship rebalancing program is being done in a coherent sequence, with the T1 ships being reworked before the T2.

It would be nonsensical to rebalance the T2 "specialised" ships before the fundamental roles of the T1s are sorted out.

(Not to mention that the T1 Frigate/Cruiser rebalance was a significant factor in making Retribution the most successful expansion ever.)

Yes, everyone agrees that HACs desperately need a rework. It sucks that they couldn't be among the first classes to be fixed, but there is a good reason for it, and they're basically next up, along with the T2 Frigates (EAFs and Combat Interceptors are even worse off than HACs!)

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#311 - 2013-06-11 09:23:24 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
ElQuirko wrote:
you're still paying 4-5x the cost of the T2 hull.

My Zealot costs 232m isk, my Legion costs 480m isk. That's roughly twice as much.

and at that price, their stats are pretty similar tbh. legion will just have more tank.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#312 - 2013-06-11 09:26:40 UTC
55k vs 112k. Twice as much tank for twice as much isk.

Oh god.
Oxide Ammar
#313 - 2013-06-11 09:57:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Oxide Ammar
Malcanis wrote:
Oxide Ammar wrote:


Let's not forget that CCP laziness to fix HACs, Command ships derived many people to T3 and as I noticed everyone is OK with it, some HACs are horribly designed and its bonuses sometimes aren't convenient with CPU/ PG/ layout. And my first question in my mind when I played EVE was asking what is the role of HACs in game ? dps and die?


It's not "laziness". The ship rebalancing program is being done in a coherent sequence, with the T1 ships being reworked before the T2.

It would be nonsensical to rebalance the T2 "specialised" ships before the fundamental roles of the T1s are sorted out.

(Not to mention that the T1 Frigate/Cruiser rebalance was a significant factor in making Retribution the most successful expansion ever.)

Yes, everyone agrees that HACs desperately need a rework. It sucks that they couldn't be among the first classes to be fixed, but there is a good reason for it, and they're basically next up, along with the T2 Frigates (EAFs and Combat Interceptors are even worse off than HACs!)


When 10 years have been past from EVE's age and this is the state of HACs then you have 2 options you need to pick one from:

- If they tried to buff/ fix HACs in the past 10 years and this is the result, we call it a Failure.
- If this is the state of HACs since EVE launch and after 10 years they are in queue line to start thinking about fixing them, we call it Laziness.

Since the overall trend of CCP is being slow to fix things, I don't want in 20th year anniversary CCP reverting the nerfs they will apply to T3 in the upcoming expansion because clearly I don't want T3 to be option 1 above.

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Alexsis Solette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#314 - 2013-06-11 10:00:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
ElQuirko wrote:
The hull and subs on your average T3 is going to set you back around 500-700mil.
…and a HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi and Fleet Command ship is going to set you back just over one billion. That means the T3 costs 0.5–0.7× what the T2 equivalent would do — not 4–5× as much. You're off by almost an order of magnitude. If you stupidly choose to ignore the versatility — the neat trick you actually pay for — and thus disqualify yourself from making any kind of sensible comparison, it's still only maybe 2× for a single function, as Riot Girl points out…

If you want to add the 500M worth of vanity fittings that people put onto their T3s, then we'll have to do the same to the T2 cruisers to maintain a reliable point of comparison, at which point they will close in on 1.5–2bn.

That's the number you need to compare against. And we haven't even gotten to the ridiculously short training path and the vastly simplified logistics the much cheaper price of a T3 buys you.


Just gotta say, what are you smoking? You pay 4-600m for the tech 3 HULL AND SUBSYSTEMS. a Tech 2 cruiser HULL will not cost you 1b. You can certainly achieve 1b with fittings added, but then again so can a tech3 and in fact my arazu is my only tech 2 cruiser that even comes within 500m of my typical tech 3 fits.

And what do you mean ridiculously short training path? For both tech 2 and tech 3s you need to get the cruiser V skill, and then for tech 2s you need a speciailized skill such as hac or hic etc. But for a tech 3 you have 6 skills. 1 for the ship and then 1 more for each of the 5 subsystems.
And although strategic cruiser is only 5x to the Heavy assault ships 6x, the additional 5 1x skills ends up taking you much longer to get everything to 5.
Donedy
Lulzsec Space
#315 - 2013-06-11 10:03:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Donedy
To the guys that says the price shouldnt be taken in account at all, invoking that no matters the price everyone will buy the most powerfull ships to fight and go to pewpew (and we are speaking about subcaps here) and that Tech 3 are so much OP, you are totally wrong. Why?

For several reasons :

1.) Everyone would be flying T3s atm if it was the case, cause according to you T3s are SOOOO MUCH OP
2.) Not everyone can afford it
3.) You forgot you're in eve and that every ship you put on the field no matters if its a T3 or a Vindi, you can lose it. People dont like losing ships, even less when they are expensive, so rare are the people flying expensive ships for pvp. (Tell me the last time you saw a fleet of Vindicators?)
4.) Having deadspace/faction modules sometimes nearly double your caracteristics, but most of people (neraly everyone actually) fits T2 for pvp, surprising eh?

Snuff Box is one of the only corps flying Machariel fleets. I think everyone would agree to say Machariels outgun/outrun/outdistance/outetc most of the subcaps (with exceptions in some situations of course...). So why other people dont fly with fleets of Machs? Ive some ideas here :
- Its expensive, people dont wanna take the risk to lose so much money in pvp (WE TAKE THIS RISK)
- They are not confident into winning the fight and fear the blob
- For every ship you lose, you have to kill like 10 in front or more to be "efficient", so i dont think there is a lot of FC wanting to take this risk

So yeah, please stop yelling "NERF T3S" when you fly only in drakes or whatever scrubby BC for PVP because its the one of the cheapest ships in the game and because you dont wanna take any risk.

I am not saying T3s dont need rebalance, i totally agree with the linkylinky nerf/reabalance part.
But the "recon" subsystems are fine, the tank is mostly fine, the dps is mostly fine according to the price of the ship.
I agree that some subsytems need rebalance, because they just dont make sense.
I agree that 100mn tengus are a bit OP, but nothing dramatic.

And, if you think its not normal that tengus do better job than drakes, go kill yourselves. Its not because you're to scared to fly in expensive ships that other ships need nerfing. What i see is just people willing to fly in cheap ships and be able to defeat easylee shiny stuff.

You're so wrong, for obvious reasons. (Yes price, risk and stuff you scrublord)

How you say it in english? In french its "Vouloir le beurre, l'argent du beurre, et le cul de la crémière", well apparently according to google, the english version is something about not being able to have a cake and eat it. The french version is so much better so i let it.

EDIT : Tippia whats your main please? http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=343188 cause thats not your main, and i guess you do a bit of pvp to spend all your time on forums after.
dirtydebbs
the wreking crew
#316 - 2013-06-11 10:12:12 UTC  |  Edited by: dirtydebbs
as its already be mentioned I am just going to highlight some aspects that makes the t3 good v bad


they are meant to be adaptable?

how can a ship be adaptable when to do this you would have to carry or store a tone of rigs! you cant possibly make a op ship to the situation you need without having to change rigs constantly and in the long run it not worth it so you then have to fit a t3 and make another t3 to fit a different role,

maybe the answer to that question is to

a) remove rigs on them altogether
b) have the rigs fit to the sub system ( ie a energy rig is fitted to a engineering sub and a shield/armour rig fitted to a defensive sub) but still only giving you 3 rigs max, that way the hull is adaptable as you can change you're subs to suite with fitted rigs?

t3s were in my eyes on primarily introduced for wh space hence the tanks and dps of bigger ship's but then less mass why not make them so they are useless out side of wh space?

I am well up for the looking at all sub systems as there are some that are totally worthless or are no longer in line with current ideas ( yes im looking at you loki-hard point efficiency! shouldn't this be changed to only missiles and not split system )

don't get me wrong the tengu was OP for a very long time but with the missile nerf it brought it into line this was a good nerf tbh

as it stands the gains that people seem to see is the fact we have to spend over a bill some time son fittings just to make it worth while as a base t3 is ruffly not that much more or in some cases VERY poor to its t3 counter part,

if they nerf them to be less than a t2 counter part in all cases and at the moment they are if you disregard tank and dps

for the tank and dps subs they have come from sleeper tech ( im not saying there fine but some shipps could do with a slight nerf in these aspects but not by much )

people who talk about 500+ dps cloak nullified ships please send me your fits now !!!Shocked

and for us to get the right ship fit takes months of sp training to be worth while and then when we do get popped we then have to re train the sub skills again and again and again.


please ccp don't go batshit crazy on this everything apart from dps and tank on some ship would need to be tweak very slightly as all other fits and subs system combinations to make them equivalent to cruiser hulls t1 and t2 variety's in game are still VERY below par right now or to get them close to the t2 variety we need to spend billions in isk to get even sub par.


example

ECMGU - ROOK/FALCON

the ECMGU is no where near as effective as there t2 counterpart but what they do bring to the field is more tank but still no where as near as any other t3.


running out of time to do all the t2 ships and the t3 counter set up but if you are going to do it you need to do this pick a t2 hull fitted ofc then ge ta t3 and fit it to do the same role then compare the price and the effectiveness of the end product, what you will find is 90% of the fits would either be better tank but poor bonus or almost as good bonus but poor tank or no where in between and the fact you might find that the t3 in some cases has no equivilant in game for what it can do.


and then after all that take into acount the sp loss
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#317 - 2013-06-11 10:18:01 UTC
Alexsis Solette wrote:
Just gotta say, what are you smoking?
Are you familiar with the conjunction “and”?

Quote:
a Tech 2 cruiser HULL will not cost you 1b.
…and no-one said it did. I said that “a HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi and Fleet Command ship is going to set you back just over one billion.”

Notice that conjunction in there?

Quote:
And what do you mean ridiculously short training path?
I mean, for a T3:

Cruiser V (×5), Mechanics / Shield ops V + III (×1), Electronics V (×1), Engineering V (×1), [weapon class skills] V + III (×1), and Navigaion V (×1) = 10 ranks to V, plus miscellaneous.

For the T2 equivalents:
Cruiser V (duh, ×5), Energy Grid Upgrades V (×2), Weapon Upgrades V (×2), Spaceship Command V (×1), Energy Management IV (×3), Propulsion Jamming V (×3), Graviton Physics V (×5), Science V (×1), Engineering V (×1), Battlecruiser V (×6), Warfare Link Specialist 4 (×6), Leadership V (×1), Armored Warfare V (×2), Information Warfare V (×2), Siege Warfare V (×2), Skirmish Warfare V (×2), Cloaking IV (×6), Signature Analysis V (×1), Electronics Upgrades V (×2), Long Range Targeting V (×2) = 40 ranks to V, 15 ranks to IV.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#318 - 2013-06-11 10:22:38 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Oxide Ammar wrote:


Let's not forget that CCP laziness to fix HACs, Command ships derived many people to T3 and as I noticed everyone is OK with it, some HACs are horribly designed and its bonuses sometimes aren't convenient with CPU/ PG/ layout. And my first question in my mind when I played EVE was asking what is the role of HACs in game ? dps and die?


It's not "laziness". The ship rebalancing program is being done in a coherent sequence, with the T1 ships being reworked before the T2.

It would be nonsensical to rebalance the T2 "specialised" ships before the fundamental roles of the T1s are sorted out.

(Not to mention that the T1 Frigate/Cruiser rebalance was a significant factor in making Retribution the most successful expansion ever.)

Yes, everyone agrees that HACs desperately need a rework. It sucks that they couldn't be among the first classes to be fixed, but there is a good reason for it, and they're basically next up, along with the T2 Frigates (EAFs and Combat Interceptors are even worse off than HACs!)


When 10 years have been past from EVE's age and this is the state of HACs then you have 2 options you need to pick one from:

- If they tried to buff/ fix HACs in the past 10 years and this is the result, we call it a Failure.
- If this is the state of HACs since EVE launch and after 10 years they are in queue line to start thinking about fixing them, we call it Laziness.

Since the overall trend of CCP is being slow to fix things, I don't want in 20th year anniversary CCP reverting the nerfs they will apply to T3 in the upcoming expansion because clearly I don't want T3 to be option 1 above.



You're forgetting that HACs have been extremely popular and successful for much of the time that they've been in game (which is in turn less than 10 years)

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#319 - 2013-06-11 10:27:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Alexsis Solette wrote:
Just gotta say, what are you smoking?
Are you familiar with the conjunction “and”?

Quote:
a Tech 2 cruiser HULL will not cost you 1b.
…and no-one said it did. I said that “a HAC, HIC, Force Recon, Combat Recon, Logi and Fleet Command ship is going to set you back just over one billion.”

Notice that conjunction in there?

Quote:
And what do you mean ridiculously short training path?
I mean, for a T3:

Cruiser V (×5), Mechanics / Shield ops V + III (×1), Electronics V (×1), Engineering V (×1), [weapon class skills] V + III (×1), and Navigaion V (×1) = 10 ranks to V, plus miscellaneous.

For the T2 equivalents:
Cruiser V (duh, ×5), Energy Grid Upgrades V (×2), Weapon Upgrades V (×2), Spaceship Command V (×1), Energy Management IV (×3), Propulsion Jamming V (×3), Graviton Physics V (×5), Science V (×1), Engineering V (×1), Battlecruiser V (×6), Warfare Link Specialist 4 (×6), Leadership V (×1), Armored Warfare V (×2), Information Warfare V (×2), Siege Warfare V (×2), Skirmish Warfare V (×2), Cloaking IV (×6), Signature Analysis V (×1), Electronics Upgrades V (×2), Long Range Targeting V (×2) = 40 ranks to V, 15 ranks to IV.


I've never heard of anyone using the T3 logi for anything to do with RR, because it doesn't get the all important range bonus.

The Loki and Proteus don't tread all that hard on the Huginn/Lachesis's roles because they work in different fleets; Web Lokis and Tackle Prots support heavy armor fleets; Hugs and Lachs go in shield skirmish fleets.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the +5% warfare link bonus is worth keeping in anything like its current form. The whole fleet boosting ship concept needs to be reworked anyway.

The big advantage that the T3s have is the covops/nulli combo which needs to die, and the EHP subsystems. I'm OK with the EHP subs, especially if the HACs are getting a sig/speed buff, which will help their damage mitigation a lot - none of the T3s are fast compared to HACs even now. But if CCP are keeping the skillpoint loss mechanism, then the EHP subs should definitely stay also.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#320 - 2013-06-11 10:30:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
Lexmana wrote:
SMT008 wrote:
Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.

You might have solved most of the rebalancing right there. Simple and effective. Time to call Fozzie ...


There's always the possibility of another option ..

shameless plug



[edit]
As for the T2 Specialisation vs T3 Flexibility point ..
T2 ships haven't yet received the rebalance that T1/Faction ships have had
When T2 hulls are redone, then T3's can be looked at and adjusted upwards, or downwards depending on what is needed

Right now there is little point speculating what exactly needs to change with T3's, as we can't currently compare them to finalised T2's
We just have to play the waiting game for the moment.