EVE General Discussion

Agree 100% with one line deleted

And why on earth not? You're telling me, that tens thousands of people are going to buy a ship that costs 700 million and serves no purpose? What utter bullshit.

If it has a high price tag, it should be useful, not some billionaires play thing (hint: titans/supercarriers)

You gave me a headache... I agree to disagree.

Why someone would buy a more expensive ship that is worse than a cheaper ship is beyond me. What is wrong with people? ;)

It is quite odd that T3's have been out for what, 3 years now, with zero changes, and no one complained much about them being OP, but suddenly, there is this huge push to wreck them.

It has been said before, and I will say it again.
T3 mfg is essentially the purview of wh's, as the materials come from there.

The null sec cartels can't control that income stream, because, well, it is wormholes.
Hence the propaganda campaign by null sec to nerf the T3's.

Lowered T3 performance = lower demand = lower T3 prices = lower income for wh players = more wh players moving to null sec = higher tax income for the null sec cartel leadership .

CCP won't wait for the December release to wreck T3's. The standard methodology is the null sec cartel propagandists start a campaign, usually of multiple threads, using non null sec chars. They bombard the thread with alts claiming this is good for the game, and throw in the occasional comment from null sec. Typically, about 3 months after they start the campaign, CCP will announce "we have read the forums, and are responding" and then do precisely what was called for in the forum threads. Of course, they vet the changes with the CSM, but we already know where the CSM's allegiances lie.

This is precisely the methodology that was used to wreck the drone AI, and to wreck high sec mining, and will be used to wreck T3's. I guess goons and pl have decided that Tengu fleets are just too expensive to use in battles. Of course, CCP might only ruin the PVE capabilities of T3's. (Not that they have already not nerfed them with the resist bonus nerf.)

Fozzie is the expected dev to maim T3's sometime after the CCP summer break. Expect the hammer to come down in Aug/ Sept.

because it's not how good things are that makes them cost more. it's the demand they have.

market 101: if something is needed and supply stays the same, said thing will have his price increased, because demand drives the prices up.

ergo, price is an indicator and a consequence, not a factor.

I'd wait for the t2 rebalance before you start worrying about the t3 rebalance. There is currently little evidence/info aside from the hypothetical ganglink nerf as to how the t2 rebalance will play out in terms of numbers or performance.

As of now, all of the rebalancing has been done within the same tech level. We have no frame of reference to judge what CCP plans to do outside of that, so wait and see.

the point of T3 is to have a flexible platform able to replace several T2 ships at the same time, but not able to outperform a T2 ship in it's role. for example to mix a bit of HAC role with recon role, but not surpassing the HACs nor the recons in their specific roles.

problem is tho, they do outperform cruisers (in both their T1 and T2 incarnations), trample over battlecruisers range and even touch battleship range.

TL;DR:

T1 ships = baseline
T2 ships = role-specific specialist hulls
T3 ships = less-than-specialist multi-purpose hulls

first of all, as said numerous times again and again and by CCP itself since time immemorial: cost is not a balance factor. CCP does say what goes in what ship, but in the end it's the player that makes the price, not the ship. if cost was a factor, as I said more than once, the more expensive ship would win all the time. kinda akin to a freighter winning a fight against 5 interceptors because the freighter's cost is more than those 5 interceptors combined.

and second, T3's are supposed to do more than T2, but not better than T2. T2 are specialized hulls that can only do one thing well. T3's are (supposedly) to be able to perform in a wider variety of roles, something that T2's aren't able to.

granted however, nobody wants to make T3's suck. but making the rest of the hulls obsolete just by them existing is not the right approach either.

Players taking cost as a factor doesn't relate to balance because cost isn't static and reacts to demand. Nerfing a ship reduces demand which causes a reduction in price. In time they will come to rest at a price that reflects their performance. Will this have a negative effect on WH isk making? Probably. Is the detriment to WH a greater concern that the overall ship balance? I think opinions will vary on that but in my opinion, no.

The point of a T3 isn't getting a ship that does a single specialized job worse, but a ship that does the job of 2 (or more) other ships at the same time, though not as good at either specialization as the specialized ships.

Yep, that's why Marauders are so cheap, right?



You are totally overlooking the fact that, no matter how low the demand for T3s might fall, they are still more costly by far than the production of a T2. So if a T2 overshadows a T3 in this regard, then it's not a matter of their price reflecting their performance, it's a matter of no one will fly a T3.