Player Features and Ideas Discussion

That's a lot. Not counting capital skills, there's only a little over 15 "kk" in missile skills to have, and some of that is in skills that aren't really used, like Auto-Targeting Missiles and Defender Missiles. I have 3.4 million SP in missiles, but I have been able to "start talking" about them since back when I was shooting tech 1 missiles from a Drake and didn't even have 3.4 million SP on my character in total. Yes, the missile support skills make a difference. No, you do not need to train them all to 5 to understand it.

Most importantly, the missile support skills are similar enough to turret skills in how much they alter damage projection that having both turrets and missiles trained to a similar level, regardless of what level that is, does qualify you to compare missiles to turrets.



EHP nerf, HM nerf, yep. That's what hit the Tengu harder than the rest. Sure, they nerfed medium rails but Tengu wasn't using those even when they were OP--and any Tengu sure would have been OP using rails back then (they still are today) but they were more OP using missiles and still are today.

This makes sense. Any change to T3s has to include specific consideration of wormhole space. A very slight tone-down to the most used subsystems might be in order but I think it's actually more important for the overall health of the ship type to bring the least used subsystems up to snuff.

10kk -11.5kk sp in missiles is a threshold when you can compare and learn how to use them. not just get HAML with HAM L4 and load some navy missiles , and forget , just because you basically have no choise .
11.5kk is all support 5 with all subcap missile spec4 (exept defenders , fof , and bomb dep) . (10kk is without torps)



LOL. nope

why use marauder when you can do it on drake ?

I don't think T3Cs need a damage nerf. If anything I'd give them a slight damage buff or leave as is. What they really need is an EHP nerf. Right now, the Proteus can fit a 200k tank with a tiny sig, which is just way too much. Even my Navy Megathron struggles to hit that number, and it's way larger, way slower, has worse tracking, and locks slower. They are immune to bombers as well. There needs to be a way to nerf the EHP potential of T3Cs all around, but the Proteus and the Legion are the two worst offenders. That means you either have to target fitting power or buffer subsystems, or both, with the nerfs. I don't have any problem with T3Cs bringing world ending DPS for their class, as that is what makes them viable solo, but they shouldn't be able to tank for days.

This seems entirely reasonable. The EHP that T3C can attain is a large part of why they obsolete so many different ships across the board.

Whatever CCP is going to do with T3C, I just wish they'd get it over with. I'm training everything except T3 ships because I'm waiting for CCP to get them (mostly) where they want to be, before I start training them. I've had the misfortune of almost everything I've trained into gets nerfed mere days later. It's not even that I'm chasing FOTM either, I just cross-train ships that look fun or new roles that might break up monotony, without any imput from other players or deep research into the subject. Then, days after I finish training, BAM! Nerfs. It's frustrating. So, I'm waiting for these things to get into place before I decide what I want to do with them.

I think the only things that got buffed after I trained them were Electronic Attack ships and Recon ships.

same happened with me only once , but Heavy Missiles were too good then .

ccp touched t3c only once with fairly reasonable nerf . so be calm , and train tengu







and everyone should be flying t3c ... oh wait...

you know why t3c used in c5-6 ? and why not t2 or BS ?

T3 cruisers are not versatile at all so I'm not sure where that notion comes from. Sure you get greater fitting options because of the different configurations but many of the less popular configurations are not viable because there is often a better solution in a T2 or faction ship. The T3 alone is never OP, it is only when you combine them with logistic support.

The main reason that T3 cruisers are considered OP is due to two subsystems; the hitpoint defensive sub and the high damage offensive sub. If you take these away T3 cruisers are not worth using. However, if you buff the RR and local rep subs and increase the turrets/missile and high slots, it could work.

I have been flying and designing fits for T3 cruisers for years and IMO they need to be the best at doing something or they need a complete redesign.

It's not just the power, the mass is a factor too.

Something else to consider is that actually we tend not to see much in the way of T3 fleets these days. They're out there, to be sure, but they're used pretty infrequently next to the likes of cerbfleet and in my recent experience when people need the big blingy guns to draw upon, the armor machs come out. Alpha out the ass to neuter logi by proxy, substantially higher EHP (links and implants scale like a *****) and most relevant - half the price and one can reship instantly on loss, not so with the cruisers.

I would expect greater proliferation if they were that overpowered. Now don't get me wrong, they are pretty brilliant but tbh a sig increase or a very small ehp drop is probably about all they really need.

Or the one thing I've never seen suggested yet, and that's crank the subsystem skill rank up to 2 or 3. Make a loss hurt more.

I do not believe that these are sufficiently overpowered that we should crash low end wormhole income along with whole sections of the economy as well as nerf the hulls into effective uselessness. Already they are semi-unpopular next to the other heavy lifters, it really wouldn't take much at all the push them into the "who flies them anyway" bracket.


People get hung up on the "battleship" tank, yet somehow seem to forget that in every other thread the common wisdom is that bigger is not always better. I mean, compared to a "standard" machariel, a T3 has less EHP, less DPS (when AC fit, although most are arty because of the alpha taking reps out the game feature), less range but a better sig (115 vs 229 links in both cases). Yet this comes at double the cost with SP on the line to boot.

Honestly, it's not that unreasonable. I find it exceptionally hard to give a crap that a T1 "battleship" is outclassed by a T3 strategic cruiser at the cost and SP stakes involved.

Something will always be the best choice in a given situation, currently we do not (imo) see T3s being the best choice in "most" situations. They are a long way from the H1 2015 ishtar.

About 30 arty machs will volley a linked proteus with a single web on it. The T3s won't ever break the mach fleet because they lack the alpha to break reps. Not bad for an old and busted battleship with less DPS at half the price eh?

That's laughable. How exactly do you propose to coax T3Cs to fly into your blaster range?