Wormholes

First of all you can't change subsystems or rigs at a pos/carrier/orca/rorq at the moment so that point is not valid.
Second people will just have more then 1 ship, no one will warp away in the middle of a battle and change stuff you don't have the time. That isn't even an option in a fight especialy if you nerf the EHP fights won't go on for long anyway.
Even now people just have several T3's .
And in a fight most people just have 1 role unless you are using some form of RR,cap transfer,... .
Eve fights are never so dynamic that you change in the middle of the fight.
The only place you have that is in capital warfare, so if you want that you should make T3's have capital EHP's... .
Beside, who even have the time to refit just before a fight? In w-space you need to react fast.
Making them 80-90% worse then T2's would make em worse then BC's and navy ships and even T1's would destroy em with ease.
Wich in turn would make T3's unused , who would wan't a worse ship where you loose skillpoints and is a lot more expensive.
Seems to me that you just want to nerf womehole income to just blue books.... .

agreed but you saw my rebalance idea? basicly make T2 better in everything but HAC role that one T3 should have less DPS then HAC but more tank, that way you can mix HACs and T3s in sites a welcome change

You sounds like you own a few moon goo moons and a T2 ship BPO.
All you want to do is nerf T3's into the ground .
If T3's would be 80-90% effective to t2's they would have been called T1's... .
Reading your proposals it looks like you never fought in w-space in a fleet... .

So, let me get this straight, you want to make a ship that is the singular reason that there is an economy in w-space and make it worse in everything it does than all the rest of the T2's except the one T2 that the general consensus of it is that it lacks the stats to have a role thereby the HAC and the T3 can make friends and play nice?

This is your idea?

See, the HAC doesn't have a role because it's a DPS/TANK cruiser that is out classed by BC's and T3's. Now, you can say what you want. But nerfing the T3 into stats that, when compared to BC's and HACs, it no longer would have a role being supplanted by BC's and HACs really only serves to kill the w-space economy having long reaching negative effects for the entirety of w-space. You can try this little mental exercise: What would happen if all of T2's were nerfed to do everything worse than a T3 and that T3's were given all those roles in a justified and true omfgwtfpwnjoo manner? Aside from the obvious effects to PVP, the economic effects would collapse the null economy since all that moon-goo would become worthless, people would SD their T2's in mass resignation and the Mittani would fling himself out the window of the nearest skyscraper that he could find like so many stock traders of the 1920's.

The reason that this hasn't happened in nullsec given the mass outcry that T3's are omfgwtfpwnjoo overpowered is exactly as everyone who flys T3's is already telling you, except in a few specific fits, the T3 is not over powered, are more expensive, require more SP to produce, have SP loss when lost and suffer from scarcity in the market place. Combined with Null's ability to project force, this is exactly why null still has an economy and role specific T2's are the ship of choice out there. The only ship lacking, IMO, is the HAC. But that's not the T3's fault, nor should it be gimped to compensate for CCP's lack of foresight.

There's really only one direction that a T3 "nerf" can be taken to alleviate the concerns of both parties.

The DPS/TANK envelop needs to be expanded and modified. CCP could buff tank and DPS for all combat ships up the line from BC through BS and decrease their ability to land significant volley damage shots on smaller ships except for HAC and T3. Then buff the HAC DPS/TANK by a certain percentage and give them more utility and decrease their ability to land significant volley damage on similar hull types and lesser, except T3. Nerf T3 highest non-cloaky DPS/TANK by a certain percentage. But in no way should they be equivalent to or lower than a HAC. The reason being is that T3's are more difficult to produce, require more SP to produce, are more expensive to produce, have SP overhead when they're lost and will always be more scarce in the game due to the lack of people producing them in w-space as compared to the numbers in nullsec producing T2's. As to other roles for T3's that T2's are specifically designed to fill, given the cost involved in all things T3's, as described above, I believe they should have equivalent but definitely not superior abilities in neuting, ecm, boosting, and the subs as such should give them equivalent or better tank while gimping DPS to equivalent of the DPS of the other respective role specific T2's.

As for cloaky T3's, as far as DPS/TANK, they're fine. The reason that's fine is due to the specific role cloaky T3's play in w-space. In Null, due to force projection (bridges/cynos) they effectively have a cloaky fleet. It means that fleet can't be intelled via dscan. Null may have local but due to force projection fleet numbers and fleet composition can remain strategically hidden many systems away and then projected at the appropriate time to a specific location. Effectively, it's the same as having a cloaky fleet which is the basis for most pew in w-space due to lack of local. Without a cloaky DPS/TANK ship, w-space would effectively become null without force projection. Either you're going to hide your DPS fleet multiple systems away increasing their response time to uselessness or you're going to have it in system to be intelled into defeat.

Otherwise, having a ship that costs more in many other ways than only isk, that can't fight effectively when fitted with a cloak and can't do anything "as good or better" than a plethora of cheaper ships only really serves to kill the w-space economy having far reaching effects beyond wallet size.

CCP won't. They have one dev comparing T3's to rabid dogs which the only solution is to kill it and another dev stating that it is over powered and shouldn't overlap with T2's. So, where does the T3 go from there....gimpitude.

I don't know what kind of dps/tank you're wanting but I just pulled the first cloaky legion off BC that I could find, threw it in EFT, fit it T2 instead of faction/deadspace as was originally fit and came out with a equivalent tank that I have with my cloaked proteus, dual webs and about 100 less DPS using blasters, as originally fit and with cap booster. I'd fly it and use it exactly for what I use my proteus for, cloaky tackle and attack. But then I don't use my proteus without support except in very specific circumstances because compared to non-cloaky ships, it's rather vulnerable, especially to neuts and there's a lot of tanks out there I can't break solo. You should have heard me call for moar dps on a PVE fit Tengu I scrammed the other day......moar dps! MOAR DPS NOAW!!

Granted, I didn't put much work into but could probably be able to ditch a mid, add a low and beef up dps leaving ehp the same. Doesn't mean it would have the DPS of a proteus but then again it's a lazor/neut boat, I don't shoot lazors....maybe you could get more dps?

A HAC is supposed to be a tough but maneuverable ship, so wish granted.

you missed tha A which stands for Assault so no but it was a nice try i give you that

I'm going to throw an example at you here: F15 vs F22. One on one which one wins? Right. The F22. Singularly, it's a more capable fighter than the F15. However, it's expensive, more complicated to produce and requires more extensive training for its pilots. There are many many more F15's in the world than F22's because they're cheaper, easier to produce and easier to train pilots to fly them.

As a class the F15 is the better aircraft since you can field more of them in more roles and more easily replace them and their pilots than you can the F22.

It's not hard to see similarities in the two arguments.

As a singular ship the T3 is and should be a more capable weapons platform because it's more expensive, there are fewer of them and it has a higher overhead than T2's.

Even still, one on one, given the right pairing, a T2 will kill a T3. They're not the "I win" button people make them out to be.

As for command bonuses....IDK....I don't have those skills.

HAC and tough in the same sentence? Are we looking at the same HAC changes?