EVE General Discussion

CCP dont.

For what it's worth (basically nothing), I don't agree either. I've seen several very strong Legion builds that perform well in many roles.

You haven't paid any attention to the Ships and modules of Feature and ideas forum have you?



Whatever medication you take, you need to double that dosage. The reason no one takes you seriously is the same reason no one takes any conspiracy theorist seriously. Conspiracy Theorists are, basically , mentally ill. A poster in that link hit the nail right on the head:

As Schultz says, it's pointless to try and discuss T3 until the T2 medium range has been reworked.

It's obvious that the t3 link boosters are going to be thoroughly changed, and once they're removed from the equation, the situation is much less clear-cut than some make it out to be.

You could consider T3s a class of its own.

Game balance > fluff

They don't invalidate any class above them, at all or the person doing and thinking this does it wrong.

Would you take my T2 rage ham 850 dps Tengu over your 800 T2 rails mega for POS /structure bashing? -no? why???

Would you take your 800DPS 130k EHP mega to tank The Maze over my 850 dps ham rage Tengu? -no? why???

Again, there's a task to achieve, you have a bad tool for it, a good tool for it and the perfect tool for it, not because CCP said so but because players spent time theroycrafting about it and came up with results CCP couldn't even expect or think possible despite their numerous spreadsheets and beautiful graphs.

If at some point some ship class is over performing many others the first question to ask is "what makes the difference?"

ATM for T3's is clearly pretty simple: HACs are shite and Command ships are double shite because of a bad game mechanic poorly implemented.

Would that be a problem T3 command subs being a bit more powfull if they had to be on grid? -of course not
Who would put hundreds of millions in faction command processors full highs of links for a ship once all this fitted would have at best the EHP of a Navy Caracal?

The command ship would still be the best choice because of a larger tank still able to deal some dmg, drop drones and for sure a much better bait tank.

Again the ship it self or the sub needs changes but every single aspect needs to be considered and I'm sure at the end of the day some player will come out with something completely unexpected and a valuable choice.

Lets talk about T2 ships, lets talk about what they need to achieve the tasks they're designed for and eventual hulls to complete lacking roles, but for god sake leave T3's alone for now the last thing they need is that someone starts messing with without any clue what he's doing about and totally ruin such an awesome addition in this game.

This. It surprises me that people do not understand this - T3s are not overpowered, but HACs are UNDERPOWERED!

Interesting... so you'd rather have 5 ships specialized for 5 separate things and pay more than it would cost to have 1 T3 that you can simply rotate out different subsystems?

Granted the T3 would not perform "as well" as a specialized ship... but it is a handyman's tool when it comes down to having a single ship versus an entire garage based on your needs.

As a pilot who likes ewar and cap warfare over straight guns (I like drones too), I find the Legion a ton of fun to fly.

Much easier for me to fufil a cloaky role, a neut role, drone role, or pure laser, or even pure ham while maintaining the same dps as a bc that would be specifically fit for that job and still not have the penalities associated with a bc.

Subsystems are extremely cheaper for me (and easier) to manage over a specific # of ships parked all over the place.

Here's the issue as I see it:

Strategic Cruisers were intended to be generalized ships that were good at doing many things at once, rather than great at any one task.

Instead, they inadvertently ended being great at several things at once, which invalidated (at least partially) several of the T2 ship classes. This is the overall issue with T3 - they're a lot better than they should be given their intended purpose. Note I use the term intended purpose, as in intended by CCP, not what the players are actually using them to do.

As far as cost, T3s cost as much as they do because of the availability of the raw materials.

I will say this slowly and clearly:

The cost of producing a T3 ship (or any ship for that matter) is not a fixed cost.

Let me say that again:

The cost of a T3 hull and subsystemsIS NOT A FIXED COST. The only thing that is fixed is the required amount of materials, not the cost of those materials. The cost of the materials is determined by market relations, and if T3s become less desirable ships, the demand for those materials will fall, as will the prices. Eventually a new production cost equilibrium is reached, that reflects the perceived desirability of the ship combined with the rarity of the raw materials. This is why cost is not a balancing factor, but a result of the balancing efforts.

Also, it is more or less useless to worry about the incoming changes to T3 cruisers until we know the details of those changes. We can all run around screaming "Oh god oh god they're cutting the tank by 50%", but we're all going to look very very silly if it's only reduced by 5%. I'd prefer to wait and whine until I have some facts to actually whine about.