EVE General Discussion

T3 cruisers are based on sleeper tech so of course they should be equal to ordianary battleships, or even better. The sleeper tech is thousands or at least hundreds of years more advanced. **** game balance, lore driven gameplay ftw.

Because you're being pretty slippery yourself.

Bold assertions are made like "T3s obsolete all T2 cruisers", but then no one can say which. Then it's "T3s replace battleships" but no one can explain why battleships are still more widely used. Then comparitive arguments are made like "T3s should be balanced against battleships" - presumably this doesn't mean that T3s should have 5x as much cap or be able to fit 8 large turrets, but again, no actual explaination or comparitive metrics are forthcoming. The whole argument seems to be based on treacherous and unreliable foundations like "everyone knows..." and "it's obvious that..." and bold unsupported assertions that are phrased like accusations. OMG fleets of tengus!!! that must be a problem because I said 'OMG' and used exclaimation points.

In terms of what you actually seem to think is wrong with T3s, so far as I have been actually able to read in words posted, there are 2 things

1) T3s can be fitted to have quite a lot of EHP if you pimp them out
2) People are flying them

If you want to "balance" T3s against battleships, sure, OK, let's take a look at what that means. T3s have BS class EHP, do they? Well, if they're fitted and configured the right way, yeah. But then they sure don't have battleship class damage projection as well, or BS class fittings allowing eg: heavy neuts? Or BS class drone bays. And so on.

So I guess what I'm asking you to explain clearly and precisely, ideally using actual facts and even numbers, is what your problem with T3s is other than the 2 points I've already inferred.

Never heard this one.


Haven't heard that one either.


Yeah, this is one I just made up myself. Basically, it's just, why should T3s be allowed to breach the thresholds of three separate classes? Why should they be allowed to diminish the usefulness of three separate classes simply by existing?

I suppose at this juncture, the question I have to ask myself is, would the game be better if T3s never existed? Unfortunately, my imagination lacks the scope to comprehend how the meta would look if T3s didn't exist. I'd be interested to hear some thoughts about that.

I do not know if people fly more battleships or T3 but I want to say that:
-T1 BS do not require some support skills at V to be piloted, so people tend to hop into them sooner than T3 with skills at IV;
-T1 BS do not have added racial systems skills beyond the ship-class racial skill, so they are perceived as requiring less skill time to be effective.
In both cases, T3 are much like T2 toward T1 but in a more and also less adaptable way.

Mostly its an issue with the massive EHP numbers these ships get that pushes them into mid BS range coupled with HAC level damage, small sig and fast speeds. The big reason why not a lot of T3 fleets are kicking abou is due to the fact that just about everyone has moved onto drone fleets, which T3 do poorly.

T3s are fast by battleship standards, but slow compared to HACs and t1 cruisers.

Not much slower.

Actually my observation has been that in general it is the Battlecruisers with resist bonuses per BC level like the Drake and Prophecy that are good.

Then there is the 'nado ....

No, I actually think most of them are better since rebalancing. They still suck though. I'm not sure how much of that is due to T3s being the way they are. I'd like to think that after T3s are rebalanced, BCs could find a role where they can be useful again. I'm not sure if they will though.

I've never stated that T3s make other ships useless and I'm not sure why you and Malcanis keep trying to trick me into saying it. I do feel many ships are greatly overshadowed by T3s in their current form and I feel that is detrimental to tiericide efforts.