EVE General Discussion

Tell that to the people who do not have access to super carrier ratting.



Its not to remove T3C from fleets, its to stop them overshadowing the specialist T2 ships. Again, I'm thinking of others not just myself or my alliance interests.



You said they would equal T2, that means they are just as good but with the added abilities that t3 bring. That makes them better than T2.



Good thing I never said that then.


There are other ways to increase WH material usage than just T3C. The new moon mining structures for example, CCP are also looking at making meta mods buildable and a teircide of mods in the summer. You can also look at capital build materials too for this.

Increasing the cost/SP loss only does one thing. It makes it unaffordable to many which means those that can afford it have an advantage, I'm one of those people. Increasing the SP loss and cost only benefits us and hinders everyone else we face.

1) If they dont have super carriers, that is their own issue for lack of isk/sp to field them.
It has nothing to do with super carrier balance.

How wealthy someone is, or how much SP they have, is not relevant to balance.
I can right now buy 100 PLEX, and become a wealthy player with a ton of SP.
Will that change the balance of the ships I fly?
No. Ofc not.

2) In my proposal, T3C stats wont overshadow T2 specialised hulls. Furthermore they will cost more, and incur SP loss.

3) I said roughly equal T2s. I said they wont have bonuses that exceed those of T2s specialised hulls towards their roles.

4) Nobody will fly T1 equivalent T3Cs, that take 2 months longer to skill into, cost 4-5x as much, and lack tank/dps to run any content that a T1 would not be able to.

5) WHs dont have moon mining. Your notion that meta mods or caps would involve T3 mats is nowhere on the drawing board, whilst your proposal of reducing T3Cs to <10% of current value would utterly obliterate WH markets and economy on gas/sleeper salvage which are WH exclusive.

6) Demand for your T1C equivalent T3Cs that take 2 months to skill into, and which cant run any content better than a T1C that costs 20% of the T3C, would have to increase by 900% to offset the loss in value. There is ZERO chance of that happening. Furthermore, the T3D market would get utterly wrecked as T3 mats flood into T3D production instead.

7) Wake up, man. Your proposal is ludicrous.

lol, exaggerate much ? ded 3s are by and large trivial for a cruiser, I've also done more than one races in a catalyst, a hecate, an ishkur, comet and astero.

Can run all ded 4s with a vexor, though scout outpost is hard and excavator really hard. Also fairly sure it can run most level 4s where its possible to avoid being webbed or kill the web tower right away. With 3 garde IIs, it deals ~430 dps @ 30km which is sufficient to break all mission tanks, and it can be made be only fighting partway into fall off at 63km. ie it can be made to deal ~75% of 430 dps at 63 without needing to go away and change drones. I also used both blaster/heavy drone and rail/sentry vexor fit to belt rat in syndicate, and it can run serp port anoms too (which esc to ded 7).

As I've stated if the proteus keeps its t2 resists and has a similar rep bonus to the deimos (currently its bigger), it will be fine. ie you are going off the deep end with respect to Baltecs opinion which is in any case is not the same as CCPs opinion.



A good proportion of the WH econ is blue loot, sold the same way we sell overseers boxes. CCP already added pirate hacking to low WHs to make them more attractive to day trip, its not inconceivable they'd monitor the results and have something else planned. Who knows, refineries might need something from high end holes, in any case its an easily solved problem.

1. It really really isn't, because the refitability has been hampered by rigs. Most specific T3C roles require at least slightly different rig setups, especially switching between PvE and PvP. The only reason to use a T3C over something else right now is the power level, the number of people that do any kind of in-space refitting or even do more than minor subsystem swaps in a station or Citadel, the same way any other ship swaps Reactor Controls for Damage Mods for different fits, is tiny. I have literally never, in all my time in Eve Uni or hanging out in various newbie chats, channels, or vet hangouts heard anyone recommend training into or using a T3C for any reason beyond it being the best tool for the job. If you have some hard evidence to the contrary here I'd be interested to see it, but until them I am more than a little skeptical of this claim.

2. At which point we're kinda back to the "why would anyone use T3Cs at all?" question, outside of the niche few who want to refit in-space, since you'll no longer be able to make any unique combinations of stats under your proposal.

3. This I just flatly disagree with. There's a big difference between them stating some high level goal or anything prefaced with "we'd like to" and them sharing their current plans for a rebalance they've announced. They have a very long history of following through on the latter kind of announced plans, and I would be very surprised if the eventual blog post and/or forum thread doesn't hew pretty close to what was in that presentation.

4. Again, not disagreeing, but so far you've got a really simplistic idea and no particularly strong reasons why it's preferable to the path CCP have already indicated they're going down.

5. And again, that's baltec1 saying that's where they're going to land, not CCP. CCP has them at Navy power level but more generalized than T2, which functionally puts them above the slightly more specified Navy hulls. IMO your plan has a better chance of killing use of the class than what we've seen of CCP's plan so far does.

6. But it also substantially changes how the class plays, what you can do with it, and in general takes it quite a distance from its current resting point, not just in terms of power but in terms of role and utility. That's something CCP tend to avoid doing quite heavily, especially for a ship class with a lot of usage like the T3Cs see.

7. T3Cs are largely unused as command hulls, since the bonus amount is lower and there's little that they do that a true Command Ships can't do better. The DScan immunity of Combat Recons is extremely niche and not really relevant, as is the HIC's point in most cases. It would also completely kill their role as cloaky Logi for Black Ops bridged fleets. Also Logi is one of the few places the balance around T3Cs is generally considered to be good since they trade range for rep effectiveness which makes them harder to use.

8. Again, that's baltec1's proposal, not the direction CCP seem to be taking. Also I think you're somewhat underestimating what a Navy Destroyer would look like given what the Navy Frigates already do, but that's me.

9. *shrugs* you are free to think what you want. I simply think that by failing to address or take into account CCP's proposal you're limiting the usefulness of your feedback to them, and setting yourself up for nothing but disappointment since given past trends it's highly unlikely they're going to change their current direction without a very strong reason to do so.



I think what you've missed here is that Salvos is basically binning entirely everything in CCP's proposal, and everything about T3Cs currently in terms of numbers, and just kind of waving a wand that says "no combination of subsystems shall perform better than a flat T2 ship" or something like that.

I honestly have no idea how he plans to preserve the subsystems mechanic while doing that either, but I think that's the less fundamental flaw in his plan and engaging him on it is likely to just result in more hand waving since there's no detail there to begin with.

I know many wormholers that are so afraid of losing skillpoints that they don't fly T3 cruisers.

If wormholers can't use battleships due to hole mass limits you can forget the battleships from the comparisons.

T3 rebalance?

Add SP loss to all ships, lets see what people pick after that.
or
Limit the number of ships in kspace fights by their mass, stupid idea but that is what wormholers face every day.
what if
T3 cruisers are for wormholers only, nerf them in kspace. Add effect -30% to all stats if used outside of wspace.

I don't know... having a ship that tanks and hits like a battleship, travels and runs exploration like a covert ops, nullifies like an interceptor and boosts like light command ship... with just a mobile depot needed to switch between those roles... that seems like it would be the favored choice of anyone doing any of those things. Just because you can also do the other things.

To avoid that and have people run the other ships... you'd probably want it to be somewhat less that being "just as good" at all of those things. If you're at 90% of the top level at all of those... the ship still has lots of value. But specialists will probably still choose the specialized ship.

Wormholes are not the only conditions under which any ship's balance must be considered, let alone T3Cs.

T3Cs are in no way only intended to be used in W-Space, limiting them in K-space is a ridiculous idea.

Wormholers use dreadnoughts and carriers, its a daft argument to be making there.

They can travel, that's how invasions happen.