EVE General Discussion

Whats the problem with the covops/nulli sub? That you cant catch them in gate camps? The ships fitted like that do so poor dps, its just fine for scouting. and its an expensive ship for scouting.

I really dont see anything to complain about that.

why should it need to die? do you think a covert ops v a covert nullified t3 woudl survive a proper wh/gate camp?

tbh i would much prefer to use the covert ops over a t3 version for scouting as it is much much faster to align and warp out than a clumbersum t3, ok it can warp to 0 but what going to happan on the other side? insta lock or a good finger clicking will soon declock or point it compared to a covert ops.. the only real benifit a covert ops t3 has over a covert ops is holding point due to tank scan strength is not as good as a covert ops and its locking time is much slower

the one thign i woul dliek to point out is that maybe if you have a nullified sub fitted then you should not b abel to fit stabs

Besides the Interdiction Nullifying sub, clearly there's a hidden Interdiction Projection sub you didn't know about.

…and those subs may very well be fine. It doesn't change the fact that the T3 can fill a wide variety of the T2 specialist roles, and that it's pretty misleading to simply do a 1:1 comparison with a ship that can do all of that and just one of the T2 ships. If all T3s could do was to be HAC++:es, then maybe they'd have a point when complaining about costs and training (actually, not even then would training be a balancing factor in favour of the T3s), but they can do so much more and provide heavily a bonused hull with a single training path.


Not really, no. I'm simply comparing what's needed to get the hulls that can fulfil the roles. The notion that, somehow, T3s are expensive and hard to train for requires some pretty huge blinders in order to overlook what it is you get for your SP and ISK. There's a reason why thee T3s were hailed as complete n00bships when they were first introduced…


T2 have HIC; T3 have anti-HIC. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to equate the two in terms of ability.

Not really.

It's a versatile ship but not a specialized ship. That flexibility comes at a price.

It's like in MMORPGs those who multi-class have a penalty, while the pure classes enjoy full class perks. Pures trade the versatility for the benefits of specialization.

This is a win for those specializing in particular careers, and rewards those willing to put the time into it.

Sure, but just because there's cookie cutter fleet fits out there (which alter ever so often anyway) doesn't mean that a T3's main feature isn't about being adaptable. Not being "held back" by earlier rig choices helps in that regard, and it also helps in making them more balanced.

T3's are not flexible in the manner to which you speak. The can't be all things at the same time. Besides what you're suggesting would make them subpar in all categories. If so, then please CCP, make sure it performs all roles at the same time. Then I would be ok with it being subpar in every role.

hmmm maybe sorta.

Because if cost isn't a viable factor in T3 balance, then it's not a viable factor in arguing against why I would simply use T2 specialist ships for any given job rather than a T3 if the T3 isn't superior for anything.

It might be instructive to put up a list of exactly which specialist roles T3s are outperforming the T2 ships on. Which T2 ships are being "obsoleted" by T3s: let's get some more facts and less generalisations into the discussion.

I'll start off with the most obvious one:

- The Cerberus. The Missile Tengu totally dominates the Cerb, no question. It's superior in every way bar ultra-extreme range missile spamming, which is a job that nobody needs doing these days.

Yeah that's kind of what I mean by "this would actually be a useful advantage".



It's about the only scenario I can think of where "flexibility" actually means flexibility, rather than "You have a wide choice of which role your ship can be fixed into filliing in an inferior way until you can redock and swap your fit out, taking more time than the T2 pilots do to just change their ship".



That's where this whole "flexibility" thing falls down at the moment. You're actually no more flexible in practice than a guy who's just trained HAC IV, Recon IV and Logi IV and bought 3 T2 Cruisers.

You know how many people use their T3s "flexibly" right now, even with the currently overpowered subs?

None. Zero. Nada.

Hangar-based flexibility is a dead concept. It has gone to meet it's maker. It is not pining for the fjords, it is a dead concept. It's in a little concept grave pushing up little concept poppies, mourned and sadly missed by Mrs Concept and the little Concepts.



Rebalance the overpowered subsystems by all means. The Accelerated Ejection Bay is ridiculously good, everyone agress that T3 gang link bonuses are too good and so on. But don't forget to leave a ship that's actually worth flying by the time you're done

Oh, misunderstand me correctly…

…I'm not saying that they're good arguments. I'm saying that even if hull cost and skill investment were reasonable balancing factors, the T3s would still be unbalanced because they are actually cheaper and quicker than the alternatives. So the whole “hurr burr half a bil” sulking ignores huge portions of what that money actually buys and falls on its own sword.