Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Proposed vision:

Strategic cruisers, when similarly fit, would always be better than a T1 for that role.
Strategic cruisers, when similarly fit, would never be better than a T2 for that role.
The strategic cruiser's strength comes from its adaptability, not raw stats. IE, they can do any one thing at any one time well, but multiple things at the same time will be poor performers, and they should never outperform T2 hulls at their focused role.


Proposed hull changes:

• Remove hull overheat bonus.
• Remove one rig slot.
• Remove SP loss on ship destruction.
• Add a new type of "cargo hold" called Subsystem Storage to all strategic cruisers which can only hold subsystems. Base size is 200m3.
• Add role bonus: Rigs may be removed from strategic cruisers without destroying them.
• Add role bonus: Strategic cruisers can refit modules, rigs, drones, subsystems, etc. while in space without the need of a fitting service. However to do so they cannot have any active modules or deployed drones, nor can they be target locked or in warp.
• Add bonus to strategic cruiser hulls: 20% reduction per level of racial strategic cruiser to the capacitor cost of onlining modules.
• Add bonus to strategic cruiser hulls: +20% per level of racial strategic cruiser to the capacity of Subsystem Storage.

Subsystems changes:

I'm not going to go through all the subs and determine what should be changed. That's CCP's job. However, balancing them should be a fairly simple, if somewhat time consuming task if applying the vision above. For example if building a Tengu with ECM focus, balance its subsystems against the Blackbird, the Rook, and the Falcon.


EDIT: Just to reiterate, I propose that subsystems are nerfed down to the point that the ship performs at a level between a comparable T1 and T2 hull. For example if a Tengu is built to be a kiting missile boat, it should be stronger than a Caracal, but weaker than a Cerberus. This is why I would have the SP loss removed, as this loss is currently the only thing leveraging any sort of balance in light of the ships' current power. If such power is removed, so should the SP loss.

I endorse this product and/or service, with a small caveat. The per-level bonus that scales down onlining cost should be lowered; a 100% reduction would be overpowered. Perhaps a 20% flat reduction as a role bonus instead?

+1 Agree on everything but the sp loss as that would require the subsystem skills to be rebalanced to a higher multiplier. As for the ability to refit in space, i believe that during the discussion of adding an sma on the nestor to give it the refitting ability to those nearby a dev explained that the code currently didn't support the feature without adding an sma so there might need to be a bit of fancy coding involved with this.

If my fantasy world of balanced T3s became a reality, their power would be heavily nerfed down to a level between T1 and T2. Were they to be at that level, I do not feel that SP loss would be needed any longer.

If they did not lose a rig slot, the subsystems would need to be made even weaker than what I proposed, or alternatively, reduce the ships' calibration to 350 or even as low as 300.

The power level you're looking for is called "Navy ships" and that's exactly where CCP said they want T3s to be... last time they actually said anything about it.

Ah, that magical idea where (after heavy t3 power nerfs) swapping subsystem in space other than to/from a covert ops/nullifed travel fit would actually be useful.

Often I am flying through space thinking "You know, what I really need right now is not the expensive yet poor version of a t2 ship that I brought to start with, but really to be a poor version of another t2 ship.

And by pure chance, I happen to have the other 200 mil in subs+mods for the desired ship, on top of the original 500ish mil in hull and subs, so I can barely do a better job than a 40 mil isk t1 cruiser.


People seem to worship at the idea alter of "versatility" while at the same time playing a game where highly specialized ships are the standard for pulling weight in a fleet or gang.

Can anyone give me a combat situation where you would seriously choose to bring a highly expensive underperforming ship that has the opportunity to be another underperforming ship, at 3x+ the cost of a single role ship that is significantly better than the multipurpose tool?

+1. I'm under the impression that people who want to nerf T3 are those who never flown one and were possibly ganked by one.

T3 need one nerf: to their buffer tank. They don't need a nerf in dps (maybe prot...) but BS need a buff to their dps. The other thing left is to rework useless subsystems. Thats it. If you nerf T3 to the level of Navy ships i will just fly command ships instead.

BTW: If anyone thinks T3 are hard to kill look at my killboard :).

Poorly thought out counter proposal:

Give T3 Cruisers the same mode swapping as T3 Destroyers.
Make the 3 subsystems installed determine the 3 modes it gets.
Rework the existing subsystems around this idea of speed subsystem, Travel, Sniping, Brawling, Tank, Scanning, etc.

Just leave them as they are and reduce their base shield and armor HP. Their problem is that they are small and have high resists making them too difficult to kill. There shouldn't be any cruiser in the game capable of achieving the rediculous EHP numbers that are currently happening.

Sure sure, tweak some subsystem values here and there for balancing specific problems, but it the rediculous EHP and tiny size that is the real underlying problem. As much as I dislike blobbing, there shouldn't be a cruiser in the game that can live through 20,000 HP of alpha damage. It's just wrong.

Keep the current concepts. There is no reason or need to change the modular t3 cruiser concept to match the t3 destroyer. Different is good in this case. It allows for 2 distinct and interesting pvp dynamics. You have to recognize the T3 cruiser fit to understand what you're fighting so that's cool and interesting. You have to be able to adjust to the 3 modes of T3 destroy operation on the fly - which is also cool and interesting.

Losing some SP if you lose your ship is on the label when you buy it. If you can't handle the SP loss, then don't buy the ship. It one of those eve decisions that have consequences - which is what makes the game super D duper!

T3 are broken, not obsolete. Broken = fix. Obsolete = redesign.

But now another sticky situation rears it's ugly head. WH space.

Because let's be serious. If you swap t3's so that they are worse than t2 in each role, the use of them in PvP is going to drop like a rock. There may be a few exceptions. Covert T3's may be bridged in places then refit, but that would still be only a very very tiny usage level compared to current. And people might use them to travel their PvE t3 fleet around in cloaky nullified versions before swapping to the PvE fit for running sites in potentially hostile space.

But overall, the instant t3's become across the board worse at all roles than t2, once they are no longer used as a main fleet ship in combat, or as boosters, or as scanners, the rate at which people lose them would drop by (and this is a guess number pulled out of a hat) 90%.

Anyone want to guess what happens to all the people living in the space that provides the gas, the salvage, and the invention parts for the creation of t3's?

Instant overnight wasteland, as people flood away from WH space after the income is cut by a moderate 25%ish at the least ( for small c5 groups that only run escalations and thus only lose salvage money), down to 90% or more (of the non PI income) for occupants of C4-1, who gain the majority of their isk through the value of the salvage since the blue loot is so pathetic.

After all, I have seen nothing that reduces the massive amount of effort it takes to make a t3 (that now sells at HAC prices or less).

And if it then takes less materials or becomes easier to make t3's, they are then doubly hit by low prices, low demand, and an even greater supply then before.

TLDR: Collateral damage is a *****.