Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This has gone slightly different direction than I thought, but speaking as a w-space resident, interdiction nullification really doesn't get you as far as you think it will. If someone wants to catch you, they will catch you. It imposes some penalties on maneuverability (compared to other propulsion subsystems) that slows your align, so someone with a fast-locking ship can still very easily nab you. Also kudos to the fellow who dug up KB data, those are very relevant numbers.

I'm glad to see people are at least interested in the problem. Hopefully CCP will be as well.

This a million times, the first thing I want to see happen is a deep and insightful look at what T3s do now both in capabilities and character. Theres a lot of changes that can be done to T3s but whacking them with the neft bat even if they were supposed to be more generalised originally only really furthers turning Eve into yet another bland MMO.

Not really true tho, they are extremely useful for w-space and nullsec but I've seen caught and myself been involved in catching a fair few over the years where the pilot hasn't wanted to be caught. They are far from one sided uncatchable, tho they are very hard to catch, and I've come close to losing my own before through no fault of my own.

No bad luck at all really. With the align time of a dic-null cloaky legion, if there is a high-speed interceptor waiting for me that burns at me as fast as it can, it can easily decloak and lock me before I enter warp. If there are multiple such interceptors I'm quite screwed. That's just on gates, on a WH if I'm too close to the hole to cloak, I'm screwed nine ways to next tuesday interdiction nullification or not.

So, powerful yes, requiring nerf...mmmeh? Not what I would call the highest priority in a T3 rebalance.

To bring the debate on to something more constructive, when is versatility not just a downside in EVE? Are there any examples or is this just doomed to suck?

^This comment deserves to be repeated^

Too much hyperbole. 99.999%? >80%? T3 aren't expensive? Seems you want easy gate camp kills on expensive ships...

Before T3s are reworked significantly, I'd like to see how HACs (and to a lesser extent, Command Ships) get rebalanced. Ideally, they'd find a way to let them coexist with current strategic cruisers in the same way as recons do at present, where there are valid use cases for both ship types that don't just come down to the tech 3 being more expensive and better in every meaningful way. Once that's done... tone down the two silliest tengu subs (cap regen matrix giving more PG than the power core multiplier, accelerated ejection bay having a double damage bonus *and* a range bonus), buff the legion's cloaky sub and the tengu hybrid subs, give the loki a proper missile subsystem, and maybe re-evaluate the supplemental coolant injector subs (does anyone actually use those?).

As for potential new subs, I'd kind of like a HIC sub that allowed you to use a short-range (maybe 10-15 km) focused point but not a bubble. Can't see it happening, though.

I think after the link boosting nerf, combat orientated T3s are fine. They are already versatile as the OP stated. What needs work isn't T3s. But rather the T2s. A lot of the faction cruisers are now better than the T2 Cruisers even at their specialised role. And the Cerberus and Eagle were simply awful even before the cruiser/faction cruiser buff. Maybe T2s should get an assault frigate role bonus or something. But anyway, about T3s:

The Proteus IMO is fine. It has battleship-like tank but it doesn't have the range projection of Large Hyrbids so no issue there. It's also significantly slower than the Deimos so the Deimos can still fulfill the fast high DPS/anti-support role.

Tengu needs a lot of links/pimp to do what everyone QQs about so I'm fine with it. Hyrbid tengu is terribad but that's to do with medium rails being bad and the Blengu is overshadowed by the Proteus.

Legion as the OP correctly stated is just a Zealot with battleship-like tank. The exception being the HAM legion, which is overshadowed by the HAM tengu. I actually think a buff is in order for the Legion. Maybe TD bonus but keeps lasers so it's an arbitrator that doesn't rely on drones for damage - would be in line with Amarr race doctrine.

Loki is a tankier vaga/cynabal that's slower but makes up for it by having web bonus to keep things at bay/from escaping. Although it's primarily used for links, which have been nerfed.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Buff T2s, they're ridiculously weak at the moment. T3s are where they should be.

It is my contention that Eve doesnt allow for a ship that is "more generalized" than T1 and less powerful than T2

What does more generalized even mean? That it can fill multiple roles/lines? Thats useless if your ship has to dock to do it. Why not just have another ship in the station? especially if you have to carry around all of the subsystems/fittings to refit your ship anyway.

What I propose would be a massive undertaking, but it would definitely result in gameplay where T3 ships were more generalized and harder to use but very rewarding if you got them right.

1. change all T3 ships to be 8/8/8 ships and have subsystems turn on/off certain slots instead of giving/removing slots.
2. change all T3 ships to be worse than their T2 counterparts (ie an AHAC fit legion should be worse than an AHAC fit zealot)
3. allow all T3 ships to swap subsystems in combat
4. make a UI that says something like "your new configuration allows for 6 high slots 4 mid slots and 7 low slots; please select the slots you want to be active"

This is the only way youre going to get ships that are more generalized than T1 and less powerful than T2

That depends very much on what you mean by 'flatly buffing'. It's generally accepted that the current balance between T1 ewar/logistics cruisers, their T2 variants, and tech 3s is quite good: the T2 logis are straight upgrades over the T1s while the recons have unique and very powerful secondary ewar bonuses (and also tank a lot harder in shield setups). In addition, both recons and T2 logis have bonuses that enable them to do specific things that the corresponding tech 3s cannot (i.e. rep at range or have strong, long-ranged primary and secondary ewar). That balance doesn't really exist for HACs, however - by and large, anything useful that a HAC can do, a T3 can do better, and their performance advantages relative to T1 hulls are less clear-cut than those of the recons and logistics. If they're to be brought into line with the other T2 cruiser classes, they'll need a significant rebalancing and to have a defined role as a class that tech 3s cannot fully replicate.