EVE General Discussion

We used rail prots quite a bit after the introduction of tier 3 battlecruisers, etc. separate to that personally I used to fly around wormhole space quite a bit with this ship:

http://imgur.com/oo8tXD6

(If you check one of the POS bashes in the killboard record for Rroff where I used a Prot you can see the faction railguns on there - this was before the changes to railguns where the faction variety had a slight advantage in actual damage application at range).

You assume a ton about me that couldn't be further from the truth - as I mentioned before I spent long enough in the game I had the skills and ISK to turn to other options if the strat cruiser wasn't there (even if that meant putting slaves on a ship that you really shouldn't) so personally I'm not really that bothered what happens to them in that regard despite you thinking I'm being protective of them out of self interest.

I don't even play the game any more and unlikely to again - but I still have an interest in the game and a semi-professional (done some video game development, modding and private beta testing) passion for game balance/design.

This is something a lot of people seem to gloss over - there is a lot of nuance to the tank aspect - ultra high resist combined with big EHP, small sig and high mobility has to go but that doesn't mean just savaging EHP blindly to balance them - higher resists should be a trade off with EHP and produce something more inline with HACs while bigger EHP should result in something that is more like commandships with bigger sig, etc. etc.

Pretty sure a good few of the posters above would like nothing better than to see T3Cs nerfed until no one uses them and then move straight onto griping about whatever ship emerges as the next to stand out from the pack repeat.

You seem to assume that I care if you're being protective out of self interest, I really don't care if you're playing devil's advocate or arguing for purely selfish reasons. What I care about is the quality of your arguments and what they are, and so far yours are repetitive and lacking.

So far you've mostly:

• Made vague claims about this role that only these ships can fill which eventually boiled down to "High DPS, High EHP fleet pwn-mobile" which appears to be based off of some misguided idea about what Medium Blasters should or should not be able to do.


• Made repeated vague insinuations about all of the people that will quite the game if T3Cs are nerfed, with no stats to back it up or other facts of any kind beyond that these people (probably) exist and that they will definitely (maybe, you think) quit the game if T3Cs are nerfed to the level CCP have said they're going to nerf them. All in all lots of fluff, no substance to be found so far.


• Run up a list of ships that these things eclipse, and generally provided a strong argument for nerfing the **** out of them.

Consider me unconvinced and unimpressed with the quality of your points here.

I will say that you at least seem to be debating in good faith though, so thank you for that.



I don't think anyone with an actual clue wants T3Cs to be nerfed out of use completely. There's plenty of interesting potential there, but they *desperately* need a nerf and have for years now. That doesn't mean blindly changing *anything* but the current combination of EHP, DPS, tank, projections, and utility is ridiculous and over the top.

The primary benchmark for DPS and Tank should be HACs. They're the class that T3Cs have basically sat on for the last six or eight years, and the easiest ruler to measure the rebalance by. If they're beating the HACs too significantly in any of DPS, Tank, or Mobility or beating them at all in all three at once then they're probably OP, especially considering that a T3C will have some additional Utility a HAC won't even if it's just in something like the Nullifier subsystem.

Because that's the problem with them? These are ships that are, in almost every way, somewhere between slightly and ridiculously too strong. I mean, they used to be worse back when you had multi-million EHP Legions and what-not, but the crux of the issue here is too much DPS and too much tank. That's why the overshadow the HACs and even a lot of Battleships, and it's why when you throw them into a Utility role they overshadow a lot of specialist ships, even ones that do the specialist part of the job a little better, because bringing twice or more the EHP to the party is a *really* strong advantage.

I'm really not sure what your counter argument to this is. All the numbers, data, and statements by CCP and *tons* of different players known for their fitting and fleet knowledge support this. Even your own arguments in this thread flatly admit that the T3Cs have more DPS and EHP than any other remotely comparable ship.



So, first off, I disagree with your assessment of HACs. There are HACs that are good fleet boats and HACs that are good active-tanked solo and small gang ships. In both cases the T3C is the flat out better option. The HIC is a specialist and has high EHP as a result of its role, it is not in any meaningful way comparable to a T3C as a combat ship. The HACs are the ship that had the largest section of usage taken from them by T3Cs and for them to have any future as a ship class they need to get that back, which means the T3Cs need to perform worse than the HACs at the things the HACs do. Since they're mostly fast tanky DPS boats that kinda puts the HAC as the closest point of comparison for the T3Cs' combat performance.

There's some room here for them to have more raw EHP but to take damage worse than HACs, and CCP have already said they're planning on increasing the sig radius, but that only goes so far, and doesn't do anything about the DPS which is going to be equal to or better than a similarly fit and skilled HAC.

The Proteus for example can get the same Damage and Falloff bonuses the Deimos gets, a 2.5% per level better active rep bonus, one extra turret, an extra low slot, about 50% more *base* EHP, a slightly better drone bay, an extra rig slot, its choice of about 75% of a longer Point and Scram, more CPU, or longer targeting range and better sensor strength, AND a choice of either half the MWD bonus the HACs get or way better MWD or AB cap use. Total tradeoffs vs Deimos: 25-50% MWD sig radius and one mid slot.

It can't *quite* do the same thing to the Ishtar, but only by dint of not being able to get a 5th Heavy Drone. The bonuses are still as good or better and it gets gun damage on top of them.

Second, the Augmented Plating is being removed in its current form if you've seen the chart from the Fanfest presentation. The Defensive subsystems are being reduced to:

• Cloak
• Passive Tank
• Active Tank

Given the issues these ships have with EHP I highly doubt that will include a resist bonus and an EHP bonus on the passive subsystem. Which they choose will likely depend on what they want to do with fitting space and how much base HP the hull has post-rework.

Gilas and HACs are not an alternative for deepspace nomads to run combat sites with in hostile space.
No other ship class has the versatility of T3Cs.
I wish there was, but there isnt.

Arguably the submodule system should have been implemented on BC hulls in the first place, as a more appropriate step between cruisers and BS, which lacks the small size/speed of cruisers, and the raw firepower/ehp of BS. Also would have encouraged more training into BCs which are universally pretty unpopular and lack luster.

I agree its sad a Tengu can fit as much dps as a Sleipnir, with comparable raw tank, yet smaller sig/ better, speed, and the refit versatility ontop. Arguably thats a problem with BCs though, not T3Cs.

Im not against nerfs per se.

Im pointing out they need to be made with this playstyle in mind.
Its exactly the capacity to refit for specific purposes which makes the T3Cs optimal for this.

If T3Cs are nerfed so hard they cant, for example, clear a 5/10, there is therafter very little use for a T3C in PvE.

See what I mean?

Totally agree with this, I gave up on my solo small gang life because CCP had made it a pain in every area of the game.

I think they are perfectly fine as they are, in fact the real issue is that Battleships are too weak in terms of tank.

One way to go about it, might be to specialise the 4 different T3Cs further, differently, at the expense of other specialisations.

Lokis for example currently make very poor solo PvE ships, but have web bonuses for gangs and group PvE.

Something laterally similar to the rather cool diversity among the 4 factions haulers having bonuses for ammo, PI,more and mineral transport, respectively, although not as clear cut.

This way T3Cs would remain useful, stats can be arranged appropriately, and you skill into/use the one that best suits your playstyle/content, rather than them being as much of a "catch-all" type (althpugh arguably they already arent, as they are bonused for different weapon systems, mods, resist profiles etc already).

I think most players would understand that and be ok with that.

---

I dont think a T3BS is a good direction at this point.
BS already have internal balance issues, where some hulls are almost obsolete.
BS can be improved without a T3 option, which would make the rest even more redundant.

If there is to be more T3 lines, BC would be the next logical step, and would be less power-creep.

BC are conveniently wedged between cruisers and BS, much the same way dessies are between frigates and cruisers.
They are a good half-step, which has an averaged out min/max of +/-ship classes on either side.

Would also make sense as a lateral BC option, considering there are no faction BCs except the Gnosis.
I havent run a count, but off the top of my head BC hull options are something like 14/-1/5 of other classes.
Thats pretty crappy.

I think the game would benefit from more BCs.

I agree with Rorrf.

HACs and T3Cs are not comparable.

Their functions are different.
HACs are heavy assault cruisers, T3Cs are strategic cruisers.

HACs are elite frontline combat cruisers.
T3Cs are refittable expensive ships with SP loss risk, that fulfill a wide variety of tasks.

That T3Cs are prevalent or present in mass combat, is a result of the inordinate wealth/SP of players choosing to field them who can shrug off the loss, not of the class itself.

If anything, many HACs are underperforming, possibly in large part because of the rather limited versatility of the MWD role bonus universal to the class.

Im a big proponent of more ship diversity, and its always chafed me that the HAC MWD role bonus is a lazy universal.
Id much prefer that different HACs had a different role bonus, especially since it doesnt scale with SP thus putting a cap on OPness, but making different HACs better for different tasks.

The problem is the ship class, not the wealth. The ship can do the job better in mass combat than its alternatives, so they spend the wealth on that particular ship. If it couldn't, they would spend the wealth on something else.