EVE General Discussion

I dislike too much toying with subs and hulls. Tis where my bankroll comes from. Unless, of course, whatever they do to them...only makes people want to buy them more. Then I'm k with that.

I'm actually kind of liking the new system they introduced with flat bonuses with the T3 Destroyers recently, but being able to switch setups on the fly. If they did something similar with the T3 Cruisers, it would simplify them for balancing, but also still allow for multiple configurations. I wish they would have introduced the T3 Cruisers the same way, but alas hindsight is assuredly always 20/20.

Of course, those invested in building subs and T3's currently would of course disagree... but again, it's just another idea. (zomg, but I've got trillions of isk invested in building parts, etc.)

I honestly don't think they'll do much to change them, because they've already opened Pandora's Box with introducing the T3 Cruisers system the way it is... and no matter what someone is going to be disappointed with any changes they implement and scream bloody murder to try and counter the balances. (insert whines about "balance" and how everything should be different here, etc.)

terrible idea!

in fact recent changes to materials used to construct them have just made half of them more expensive. this i support.

In answer to your question, we don't know about any Planned changed to T3's atm, BUT, CCP has kept adjusting them. CCP wants T3's to be a 'Jack of all Trades, Master of None'. So if the T3 is well above it's T2 Counterpart for that role, expect nerf bat at some point in the future.. as they did during the Command Ship/Boosting rebalance.

That said, training a T3 is never wasted time. 90% of the SP is core systems that are good for everything, rest are Subs that don't take much training time at all, and the Hull which only needs to be trained above 1 if you plan to pvp in it.

Yes if only they did indeed introduced the T3 cruisers in the same fashion as the D3 at first then I recon the D3 format would be even better now. Instead CCP now have no choice but to go ahead and expand on the current T3 format with subsytems in tow. Another option is to use both T3/D3 formats and branch them into 2 separate Tech 3 classes like: Tactical class with the modes and Strategic class with the subs.

Nah, that's what people wanted with the Marauder rebalance, but CCP wisely choose not to listen to them.

Yeah one thing that should not be underestimated with any changes to them is that draw of building something relatively unique with the ability to a degree to put your own spin on something - I know quite a few players for who that is a large reason why they play eve and making strategic cruisers into basically the cruiser version of the destroyers would most likely mean they'd lose a lot of interest in the game and likely stop playing.

I do think that maybe strategic cruisers should actually be divested of the T3 moniker and become just strategic cruisers and the T3 moniker used to implement new and interesting lines of ships like the destroyers that don't necessarily have the same sub-system setup and all the knock on issues there and maybe adhere more to the original intentions of T3s.

The only changes that really need to be made to strategic cruisers is:

(A) making tank<>sig<>mobility/agility more of a trade off i.e. the extended buffer sub-systems should produce something that is more in line with commandship sig/agility than a HAC and if you want HAC like performance then would find the resist (or amplification node) defence systems a better choice without access to quite as large a buffer.

(B) Tweaks to some of the lesser used sub-systems - beyond the scope of this post really and I suspect the devs know better than I do what is what there and can come up with something interesting with them.

EDIT: Oh and possibly some changes to how rigs work with them as I know some people would prefer to be able to make more changes on the fly - personally don't really play a style where that would be much of an advantage as I tend to have several T3s of each type pre-fit for their intended role. I'd personally favour the ability to "rack" swappable (but not removable) sets of rigs.

I think the best way to balance ships is to get rid of them altogether, bring in WIS and let us all have a space invaders machines in our rooms....

well, according to CCP's set-in-stone "they will be nerfed" stance, they have no idea WHEN itll happen, but probably not until they can release it with something that will encourage womrhole groups to not pack up and leave

but face it, there wont eb arebalance of subsystems, they will be nerfed 60-70% and then rebalanced a couple years later to be usable

CCP's stated goal is for them to bring in every aspect than a T2, tank/dps/speed/ewar/logi, and have already stated that they think using a mobile depot is acceptable to say they ARE "versatile", aswell as because of so much whining from the anti-t3 crowd, they will ALSO have their rigs removed completely.

so prepare to have a ship barely on par with a faction cruiser, that you have to haul a depot plus 3-4 ships of mods/subs to have the "versatility" theyre being "rebalanced" around.

in other words, expect a ship that will require the same isk investment as now, just spread out across cargohold/depot/fitted instead of just fitted, all while having MAYBE 30-40% of the ability it does now.

or in other words, dotn expect to see these in space once the rebalance comes around.

If CCP sees the system as so broke. I'd rather they just make the absolute change than try to piecemeal patch it up. If my arm is rotten and dead, don't spend a year cutting pieces off of it, just lop it off so I can stop complaining about going into the doctors office every 6 weeks asking.

Not saying that balancing out t3 and the subsystems can't happen, just make a decision on where t3's will go.