EVE General Discussion

Malcanis sums it up very well here. (+1 from me )

From my point of view - and I believe that at least some people share it - T3s are not really "adaptive" or "flexible". When I fit a T3 I always do the same I do when fitting any other ship: I try to find a good fit for the intended task. The only difference from fitting a T1 or T2 is that the T3 has subsystems, which means you need to put some more thought into it. If I'm able to get a better (=more dps or more tank or more specials or being cheaper while being as good) result with another ship I will get that other ship instead. Unless I no longer need the T3 for the original task I would never change the subsystems to fit it for another task; instead I simply buy a second T3 (or T1 or T2 if they are better suited for the task).

I'm not saying that T3s aren't in need of a rebalance. But I believe it will be very difficult to rebalance them without making them obsolete. Maybe it would be a good idea to think out of the box here. I liked the ideas about removing the rig slots and giving T3s the ability to self-refit subs and mods. Imagine flying your explorer T3 in a scanner setup, refit it to a fighting setup on finding a combat site, refit to a PvP or a cloaky fit on noticing neutrals (or reds) on dscan. Yes, this might open a new can of worms and if not done right could make the T3s OP. But that way you would get a truly unique ship type, a jack of all trades but master of none.

Come to think of, as long as T3s are still tough enough to deal with sleepers I would actually like to have such a versatile ship and wouldn't care if they have the best dps/tank or not.

Ah f*ck it, T3's should have their damage projection and tank nerfed and bought back into line, somewhere between Navy Cruiser and Battlecruisers.

In return they should carry the ability to be able to refit off each other (or by themselves perhaps).

Yes it does. Stop blatantly lying and saying they perform the same role when they very obviously don't.

The thing is that that half a bill doesn't save you from buying several t2 ships because no one is using their T3s "flexibly". If you want to replace a Command Ship and a HAC and a Recon and a Logi and a HIC with your T3s, you have to buy 3 T3s and a Logi and a HIC, (because T3s can't actually do the Logi or HIC roles). And you usually end up buying a Commandship as well, because safespotting T3s boosters are less useful for mobile fleets, so you want both.

It either buys you a HAC that actually works, or a heavy armour tackle recon that doesn't otherwise exist or a SS linkbooster. The fittings, subsystems and rigs for each role are different; all they have in common is the hull, and by the time you've paid for all the rest, you might as well just get a couple of extra hulls and save yourself the refitting time (not to mention the expense of new rigs).

Most of the T3 emo is because HACs are bad and outdated. Lets see those T2 medium ships fixed and given useful roles, then we'll see how badly T3s actually tread on their toes in everyday situations.

I'll take your word for it, but if true, then (1) That's a very niche role indeed and (2) it's not something that T2 Logis can do anyway.



Ah, that weaselist of weasel words: Reasonable

What's reasonable to you might be outrageous to me. And as I said... if you're going to all the time and trouble of making sure that you have the correct fittings saved, and all the rigs and modules present and all the subsystems and yadda yadda... where's the flexibility advantage over just having pre-fitted T2 ship ready to go with a single right-click -> make active?

If flexibility was all that awesome, we'd be using it now. We're not. T3s need to be able to do things that other ships can't or they're pointless; sucking at several roles isn't a role in itself.

Your example of the covops logi is actually a good one - A role that's too niche to justify a ship class of its own that the T3 can sorta of half-ass do.

But complaining about (for instance) the web/tackle subs is erroneous.

Again, lets see a list of exactly which T2 ships are being made useless by T3s.

No point making them cheaper if they're not still useful.

I mean unless you want W-space to be depopulated ofc.

Have we made any progress yet on the topic?
Nope. Okay.
Have a nice day.

ETA:

Oh, and new signature:

"T3s need to be able to do things that other ships can't or they're pointless; sucking at several roles isn't a role in itself." --CSM Malcanis

Sounds entirely reasonable (there we go again ).

If the “good” subs (and let's face it, they will always exist) cost enough calibration to effectively render rigging of those ships impossible, then re-regging becomes a non-issue because you can't fit them anyway. Meanwhile, rigs allow you to make up for the “lesser” subs' shortcomings.

…of course, the tricky bit is to properly identify which is which and calibration-price them accordingly.

usage stats would be a good first-pass approximation

Another wild, drunken idea. Get rid of rigs in tech3s, let the changable sub-systems be the "rigs".