EVE General Discussion

Only thing I would change is the size of subsystems from 40 to 10.

That's what I was responding to, if they're just as good as T2 then that has to be offset by a premium price. That would make them mostly not worthwhile for most players since the appropriate T2 hull would cost far less. As I said, CCP are not generally in the business of making ships for extremely niche playstyles, and the ability to change classes without a station is absolutely niche.

Also this runs contrary to CCP's own statements on where they want the T3Cs to sit in terms of ability. T3Cs aren't supposed to perform at the level of T2 hulls.

I'm also personally not seeing why this is in any way superior to what CCP have shown us of the direction they're taking with the T3C rebalance.




Attaching passive aggressive postscripts to your posts doesn't really feel like you're overlooking anything.

Regardless you seem to have taken a much more negative slant on my words than was intended. As I said previously I think your suggestions have a better chance of being adopted if you at least started with what CCP have already presented as a baseline and worked from there, whether that's explaining why you don't like CCP's idea or building off of it.

Certainly not looking for points with you either. Your reputation precedes you here, I have no delusions about the likelihood of you changing your mind or coming around to someone else's point of view here.

1) I think you underestimate the popularity of T3Cs for non-fleet combat roles. Its not a tiny niche, and that is not entirely due to OP stats, its due primarily from the refittability.

2) T2s would be less expensive and involve no SP loss, making them the preferred choice for a specific T2 role.
If I want a HACs role, I will fly a HAC. If I want a HAC I can refit to run exploration as well, Ill get a T3C at greater cost and SP loss risk.

3) CCP says many things, and very rarely carry through on them.

4) Nothing is set in stone yet. Discussion of alternatives should be encouraged, not quashed.

5) Imo situating T3Cs between T1 and Navy will kill the class, and especially the WH economy that supplies it.

For example in baltec1s proposal, T3C cost would be dropped to <10% of current value, to fit between T1 and Navy.
That would be catastrophic for the WH sourced gas/sleeper salvage market.
I think its completely unreasonable to expect T3Cs with stats beneath Navy to result in a 900% increase in demand for them to offset that, not to mention overcoming the flood of supply as people sell their existing ship/subsystem/WH material stockpiles.

This would also wreck other T3 markets, which would flood with surplus.
T3D prices would collapse dramatically.

This is further corroborated/exacerbated by baltec1s statement that if the change goes through as he proposed, his alliance would no longer field T3Cs at all, which obviously means demand for T3Cs will plummet.

6) Making T3Cs into T2 equivalent multitools is nerf enough from their current OPness (especially regarding effective tank).

7) T3Cs would still remain as Cruiser Command ships, incapable of filling HIC/Combat Recon roles, and roughly equivalent to HACs/Force Recon/Stratios, albeit at higher cost and risk of SP loss. I dont think T3Cs should make effective Logi.

That is all existing T2 cruiser class types accounted for, and ensures no overlap.
Faction Cruisers remain largely unaffected, as their balance relationship is largely towards T2s, which are reconciled with T3Cs above.

8) Situating T3Cs between T1 and Navy also makes little sense as compared to T3Ds.
T3Ds clearly outclass T1 destroyers (far surpassing what a Navy Destroyer would be), albeit at greater cost.
Though T3Ds dont have subsystems per se, they are the nearest comparison to T3C.

9) You've engaged in passive-aggressive barbs multiple times. People see those for what they are.
You arent doing yourself any favors by resorting to them. Im not offended or bothered by them, except as a waste of my time, the readers and yours.

Have we all agreed to just delete t3s? Because now we need t3 battleships and t2 capitals. Then you'll need to make t4 cruisers and then we need t4 battleships and t3 capitals than can use all doomsdays while cloaked and off grid. Then you need t5 cruisers to shoot from other systems with super long range ammo.

Only if I get to DD through a cyno again.

Incorrect.

It would be roughly equivalent to T2 specialised ships for those roles, but more expensive and risk SP loss.
The answers to your question are all in the post you quoted.

that was a stupid plan then. why would anyone want to spend so much time training and then spend so much more isk buying and fitting a t3 if it's just going to be weaker than a faction cruiser?

if they nerf t3's to such an extent doesn't this kill wormhole economy? i think they need to be cautious about this change

1) SP loss matters. Removing it just makes T3Cs more attractive, not less.

2) I think a full V HAC/Force Recon should perform better than a full V T3C fit to fulfill that role.
This can be achieved by nerfing subsystem bonuses to where they are less than T2 of that role.
This also is why Im for removing rigs from T3Cs, as T2s could further augment their efficiency with rigs, whereas T3Cs could not.

3) If anything, material costs for T3Cs/subsystems should be increased, not reduced.

---

Result:
-T3Cs roughly match HACS/Force Recons for stats, but have less bonuses for that role.
-T3Cs cannot emulate HICs/Combat Recons, so the T2 specialised hulls remain optimal.
-T3Cs no longer have Logi bonuses, making T2 Logi preferable.
-T3Cs offer an alternative to Stratios as explorers, albeit with non-drone/energy/armor bonuses.
-T3Cs fill the Command Cruiser role, as if it was a T2 Command Cruiser.
-T3Cs/subsystems cost more materials, and risk SP loss.
----Options:
------No rigs
------Subsystem swap delay
---------Hull tanked during subsystem refit.

1) How much money you or I have is not relevant to balance.
The cost is the same for everyone.
How much SP you have, or how rarely you use T3Cs, is again not relevant to balance.
The loss and duration of recouping the loss is the same for everyone, in proportion.

Youve already said that if T3Cs are changed per your proposal, your alliance wont field T3Cs at all.
That makes the SP issue redundant.
If you wont use them even without SP loss, then whatv s the point in removing it, or that you have more wealth, or that you currently only fly them once a week?

You wont be using them anyways.

2) Its easier to balance T3Cs around subsystems, without complicating the matter with rigs (much less, refittable rigs)
T2s will be able to fit rigs to push past T3C subsystem bonuses for fulfilling that role.
The abnormally high tank and CPU/PG will be changed anyways, so its a non-issue, and discussion should consider that as understood and tabled.

3) This isnt a "nerf" per se, its a re-balancing. T3Cs have arguably cost too little materials as is. If they are roughly brought inline with T2s, the material cost should exceed that of T2s by a substantial margin.

You propose they be changed to worse than Navy, and want the price adjusted accordingly downwards.
I propose them changed to rough T2 equivalence, and want the price adjusted accordingly upwards.

1) Its not Malcanis Law.
That NS entities have the isk/SP to build and field Keepstar/Titans does not make them unfair to less wealthy/experienced players.
How much money you or I have is not relevant to balance.
Neither is the amount of SP you or I have.
They are universal and apply to everyone.

2) If you will no longer use T3Cs, then the SP loss is irrelevant to you.
That is no justification to remove SP loss.

Youve already said repeatedly that the cost/SP loss is irrelevant to you EVEN NOW.
So that makes it doubly irrational that you would argue for adjusting them in any direction.
You are contradicting yourself.

3) Its a re-balance, not a nerf.
As you pointed out, T3Cs are already too cheap compared to T2s.
Once they are brought inline roughly with T2s, the cost should be adjusted so that they cost substantially more than T2s.
That is as rational as your proposal to nerf them to <10% of value, as less than Navy hulls.

However:
Your proposal would utterly obliterate the WH market on gas/sleeper salvage, as well as T3D prices.
My proposal makes T3Cs more expensive than T2s, to offset the versatility, and maintains the WH market status quo.