These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Strategic cruiser balance pass

Author
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#621 - 2017-05-04 06:41:18 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Not all valid information is "fresh" especially when you're talking about the time scales tiericide has happened on. CCP's original post put T3s at around Navy level but more flexible. CCP seem to have taken this as "Navy level bonuses/stats but more options" and they've targeted the T3Ds *about* there in terms of base stats. The main problem T3Ds have is being quite fast and essentially getting extra bonuses over other hulls while being a size above their primary competitors, Pirate and T2 Frigates.

With the general Cruiser balance, and the various T3 tweaks over the years, we've only seen CCP push the ships towards "not as good as T2" in terms of specialization, and while I agree we've yet to see hard stats so far, everything CCP has said about the T3Cs and their plans for them puts them pretty solidly in the region I noted above.

So while this is certainly speculation, it's pretty well informed speculation and that's a long way from "anything goes" or not having any idea. We have an idea, it's just a fairly vague one, but it's better supported by the available evidence than anything else we've got so far.

At the same time CCP wants to keep SP loss on that hulls. Another "fresh" info. Navies level hull with SP loss, a bit overnerfed don't you think?

Guys please stop this whole: "worse than T2 but with flexibility". If they will be nerfed to the level of navies hulls the choices will be: bring a navy hull or T3C? Not T2 hull or T3C because they will be incomparable. How many times fleets were changing fits after undock, apart from caps which was nerfed? Flexibility of those is overrated, at least in huge fleets. It's already a FCs nightmare from what read and hear.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Salvos Rhoska
#622 - 2017-05-04 07:28:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
So far, from what we have collated from CCP stuff past and present:

-They will be Navy equivalent, or between T1/Navy, depending on interpretation.
-They will keep SP loss.
-They might have refittable rigs.
-Sig increase.
-There is a proposed slot layout.

Did I miss anything?
An-Nur
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#623 - 2017-05-04 13:31:37 UTC
What would be the point on increasing the signatures on t3c's if they are glorified navy cruisers? Unless they are keeping close to there HP's as is, that's just slow dead ducks in the water.
I don't buy retaining skill point loss if these are glorified navy cruisers. That just doesn't make sense if there are many more more comparable/effective ships.
Are we talking comparable EW to there current iteration?
If your a solo or wh pilot why would you fly one of these over a stratios? If the comparison is navy cruisers, surely the cloaked version is going to be even worse.
I can't see how navy cruiser is a good comparison unless bonuses/roles are really revamped
Cade Windstalker
#624 - 2017-05-04 14:05:13 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Yes please quote these repeated statements that T3C are supposed to be equiv to Navy Faction.

Also unless you missed the years and years of Tengu being bleh for PvP and then suddenly being able to tank small to medium fleets I point you to the introduction of battleship sized cap batteries and large and X-large boosters.


What are you even on about here?

Large and XL Shield Boosters and Large Cap Batteries pre-date the introduction of T3Cs by *years*. The Tengu has always had the ability to fit an absurd DPS tank, in fact it used to be *more absurd* before they reduced all resist bonuses for 5% to 4%. Other things changed to make using the ship like this desirable and viable.

You have either been grossly misinformed or you're just making stuff up to support your theories.

Jeremiah Saken wrote:
At the same time CCP wants to keep SP loss on that hulls. Another "fresh" info. Navies level hull with SP loss, a bit overnerfed don't you think?

Guys please stop this whole: "worse than T2 but with flexibility". If they will be nerfed to the level of navies hulls the choices will be: bring a navy hull or T3C? Not T2 hull or T3C because they will be incomparable. How many times fleets were changing fits after undock, apart from caps which was nerfed? Flexibility of those is overrated, at least in huge fleets. It's already a FCs nightmare from what read and hear.


I do, and personally I'm rather hoping CCP either means to tone down the SP loss considerably or can be convinced to do away with it entirely.

You also seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by Flexability. Only a few people in this thread are focusing on refitting while out on a fleet, the rest of us are talking about stuff like the ability to fit a more tanky but less effective EWar ship, or a Command Burst hull that can EWar or something like that. Given what CCP have shown us that's the sort of niche they're targeting for the T3Cs.

This does not mean that the overall power level of the hulls is going to be at the level of a Navy ship, it means the bonus levels and possibly the base stats will be, but the ability to combine bonuses in interesting way should make them more attractive than the Navy hull.
Phaade
Proioxis Assault Force
Rogue Caldari Union
#625 - 2017-05-04 20:26:40 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Keno Skir wrote:
Rroff wrote:
T3Cs have a huge following that goes beyond the one dimensional fact they are powerful or overpowered.


No they don't.

The is the only reason people fly them, because of how good they are at doing things people want to do with them.

The Nerf crowd say they are too good at doing these things and should be less good to make other ships viable. This statement is backed up by data collected on ship types used in PvP, which showed T3 cruisers holding 4 of the top 6 positions or something similar.

The Don't Nerf crowd say they are just good enough at doing things, and should be left as is. This statement is not backed up by anything aside from peoples investment in skills to fly T3 cruisers.

The third group, the Change Everything Except T3 Cruisers crowd might have something interesting to say but it's just not going to go that way. I might even be one of these people if i thought it would help.

As it stands the only realistic team to be on is the top one, because their postulation is backed up by research and their answer is potentially possible (neither other option can boast either).

I love flying my various Protei, because they're incredibly powerful and for most jobs they just work better than other ships. This is why things must change, so that people like me have to fly different ships for different jobs again.


It's funny how things repeat over and over again in EVE.

CCP makes something that is too good and leaves it in the game for WAY too long. People get used to it to the point of feeling ENTITLED to it. When CCP moves to actually fix the thing that TBH they should have never put into the game to begin with, people come up with all kind of nonsense justifications about WHY it should be left alone or else [insert BS doomsday talk here, like quiting or new players growing horns].

Just off the top of my head:

Capitals/super capitals ("look at all the time i spent training these things, you can't nerf them!!!")

Passive income like moon goo ("you are going to break EVE and a t2 medium gun will cost like 17000 plex if you do this CCP")

high sec lvl 5 missions ("if you take lvl 5s out of high sec, most PVE players will quit, nevermind that most pve players never did them!!!")

high sec incursions ("if you nerf them, the players that prefer co-op play will quit, never mind that they didn't quit even when you super nerfed them in 2011")

And now T3Cs ("but they are unique things that fit the lore and people fly them because they are cool, not because they are so overpowered they have skewed the game's balance for the last 6 + years"!)



Peoople have said that EVE is a social experiment, but hell, it's also a PSYCH experiment. You can see clearly how people behave, how they become irrational, when you threaten to take away an advantage, even when they should clearly be able to see how that advantage is unfair to other people".




Jump fatigue is another such example of snowflakes melting down over something that will make the game better.

T3's are belligerently overpowered. It's hilarious when people try to claim otherwise. Likewise "tactical" destroyers.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#626 - 2017-05-05 05:27:23 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
You also seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by Flexability.

I don't think you now either. T3C are flexible now. I can use covops, nulllified subsytem, have good tank and dps, few roles in one ship at the same time. Problem is that flexibilty overshadow other cruisers.
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Only a few people in this thread are focusing on refitting while out on a fleet, the rest of us are talking about stuff like the ability to fit a more tanky but less effective EWar ship, or a Command Burst hull that can EWar or something like that. Given what CCP have shown us that's the sort of niche they're targeting for the T3Cs.

Good but in comparison to what? There are not specialized navy hulls and T1 are too weak to begin with. Obviously they must be in par with T2 cruisers. Please don't use the word "niche". Niche in EvE = useless. Like AF.
Cade Windstalker wrote:
This does not mean that the overall power level of the hulls is going to be at the level of a Navy ship, it means the bonus levels and possibly the base stats will be, but the ability to combine bonuses in interesting way should make them more attractive than the Navy hull.

It doesn't matter when they will begin as hulls (it may be at navy level), what matters when they will land after fitting and rigging and as you already wrote it should be at T2 level. Cade it's good in theory but very hard to balance. CCP has hard time balance single hull, balancing every-role single hull cruiser to be worth flying and not nerfed too much will take years. I would like them exactly at the level of T2 with the role I choose. Then T3BS would enter...

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#627 - 2017-05-05 06:05:07 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Yes please quote these repeated statements that T3C are supposed to be equiv to Navy Faction.

Also unless you missed the years and years of Tengu being bleh for PvP and then suddenly being able to tank small to medium fleets I point you to the introduction of battleship sized cap batteries and large and X-large boosters.


What are you even on about here?

Large and XL Shield Boosters and Large Cap Batteries pre-date the introduction of T3Cs by *years*. The Tengu has always had the ability to fit an absurd DPS tank, in fact it used to be *more absurd* before they reduced all resist bonuses for 5% to 4%. Other things changed to make using the ship like this desirable and viable.

You have either been grossly misinformed or you're just making stuff up to support your theories.

Its not my job to educate you about EvE but I'll humour you with a question. You get a cookie if you get it right.

In 2016, What battleship sized module had its fitting drastically reduced, had its cap bonuses significantly increased and had a resist to cap drain added that enabled it to he fitted to Tengus making them largely immune to no bonused nueting and enable the Tengu to pump out in excess of 2000 DPS tank with 80 - 90% resists while being cap stable at around 70%??

Its a tough one so I'll give you a few weeks.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Salvos Rhoska
#628 - 2017-05-05 08:22:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
I think much of this boils down to what kind of equivalency with other Cruisers this will result in for T3Cs.

1) T1 or less than: Out of the question.

2) Navy or less than: Result would be a refittable Navy.

3) T2 or less than: Result would be a refittable T2.

Choice between 2 and 3 is the hard part.
Opinions are strongly divided on this.

There are strong arguments for both, but they approach what they see as the values/roles of T3C from diametrically opposed perspectives. Both make sense based on their own priorities.

Its a glass half full/half empty style situation, as viewed from each camp towards the other.
The pros/cons are viewed inversely by the other camp.



1) I use the existing framework of T2 classes/roles as a reference point for comparison.
-HICs and Combat Recon roles cannot be filled by T3C, thus are not overstepped.
-There is no T2 Command Cruiser, so T3C can fill that role without overstepping a T2 cruiser hull.
-The Stratios is drone/energy/armor only. T3Cs can offer an alternative covops explorer cruiser for different weapon systems/tank, albeit at greater SP.
-T2 Logi should outperform T3C logi fits for bonuses related to repair.

2) That leaves HACs and Force Recon classes:
-It shouldnt be difficult to adjust bonuses in the new simplified subsystem layout, such that full V HACs/Force Recon outperform full V T3Cs that emulate them, especially in PvP fits.

3) Furthermore, looking at the proposed T3C layout, its unclear whether T3Cs will even be able to fit covert (or otherwise) cynos anymore, which means they would no longer overstep Force Recons either. Can anyone clarify this?

4) SP loss issue.
CCP made no indication of removing it, rather citing it again as a unique and interesting diversifying design.
Some players think it should be removed, but the fact is it is a core mechanic of T3Cs, and no matter how wealthy in isk or sp you are, its still an additional cost to losing one. Its an inbuilt counterbalance.

5) Rig refit is arguably to offset loss of subsystem diversity, and not a "counterbalance" against T2C classes.
Certainly not since T2s dont need to refit rigs, as they set out to perform a class specific role.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#629 - 2017-05-05 09:49:32 UTC
While T3C's lack the d-scan immunity, they are used in fleets to replace recon's (both combat- and force -recons) due to their ability to tank much better than any recon.

Wormholer for life.

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#630 - 2017-05-05 10:31:34 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I think much of this boils down to what kind of equivalency with other Cruisers this will result in for T3Cs.

1) T1 or less than: Out of the question.

2) Navy or less than: Result would be a refittable Navy.

3) T2 or less than: Result would be a refittable T2.

Choice between 2 and 3 is the hard part.
Opinions are strongly divided on this.


Yes.

The main question seems to be 1) what the potential is for this thing 'stepping on' other ships, and 2) whether the person evaluating that question cares.

If we go with your choice 2 above, I haven't heard anyone express worry that T3C will step on Navy cruisers. Perhaps people simply haven't thought about it, but I will assume (unless someone speaks otherwise) that a Navy cruiser is so far down on the power/cost spectrum that it wouldn't make much sense to train T3Cs just so you could fly around in a refittable Navy. Bottom line - risk to Navy cruisers (correctly or incorrectly) is evaluated as low.

If we go with choice 3 above, here is where the big disagreements happen. Many believe the T3C will simply continue to step all over T2C, just as they are doing now. The other side is some mixture of "this won't happen" mixed with "I really don't care, I just want my OP ship" (naturally this latter sentiment is kept silent). Bottom line - the "nerf T3C" crowd evaluates risk to T2C as high.
Salvos Rhoska
#631 - 2017-05-05 11:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Wander Prian wrote:
While T3C's lack the d-scan immunity, they are used in fleets to replace recon's (both combat- and force -recons) due to their ability to tank much better than any recon.


I think its clear T3C tank will be nowhere near the current magnitude, post-change.

Force Recons would remain specialised covops cyno EWAR cruisers.
Combat Recons would remain specialised DScan immune EWAR cruisers with more combat capacity (albeit less than HAC).

The specialised T2 Force/Combat Recons would still have covert cyno/DScan immunity, and better EWAR bonuses over T3C.

Thus there is no outright overlap.

It may happen that T3Cs still have a stronger tank in some forms than Force Recon/Combat Recon, but that would be offset by less EWAR bonuses at V, SP loss on death, cost and lack of covert cyno/DScan immunity capacity.

CCP also seems to be looking at increasing sigs on T3Cs.
Salvos Rhoska
#632 - 2017-05-05 11:33:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Snip


T2 popularity is already substantial, as is Navy popularity, as is T3C popularity.
Alphas have increased T1 popularity substantially.
The popularity of each is for specific purposes and in specific contexts.

I dont think the changes to T3C should be approached as a "threat" to either Navy or T2 cruisers, or evaluated on that basis.

The point is to rebalance them to fit better into the existing Cruiser lineup options.

To me, that means bringing T3C subsystem bonuses to the state that they dont overlap and/or exceed T2 specialised hulls at their roles, especially at V.

T3C cant emulate HICs. No bubble.
T3C cant emulate Combat Recon. No DScan immunity.
T3C cant emulate Force Recon. No covert cyno.
T3C cant emulate T2 Logi. Repair bonuses fall short.
T3C can offer an option to Stratios, with different weapon/tank bonuses, at more training.
T3C can operate as T2 equivalent Command Cruisers, for which no other option exists.
T3Cs can roughly emulate HACs, albeit at risk of SP loss on destruction and a larger sig.

That is all T2 cruisers reconciled.
No overlap. No capacity to exceed the specialised roles/stats of T2s without sacrifice.

Note: Pirate Cruisers already largely overshadow HACs in many ways.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#633 - 2017-05-05 12:56:59 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
T3C cant emulate Force Recon. No covert cyno.

You mean like now or after change because now they can use covert cyno.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Salvos Rhoska
#634 - 2017-05-05 13:04:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
T3C cant emulate Force Recon. No covert cyno.

You mean like now or after change because now they can use covert cyno.

After change.

This should be a Force Recon role.
We dont need T3Cs to do this, Force Recon can do it, and T3Cs with cloak/nulli fits are too easy to infiltrate for this purpose.
An-Nur
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#635 - 2017-05-05 13:10:49 UTC
So basicalky there's no role for t3c's other than some vague notion of command cruiser? Itll be slower, fatter in sig, loose sp's for no apparent reason, and will not be worth producing as it its material value has it competing with navy cruisers?
Salvos Rhoska
#636 - 2017-05-05 13:21:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
An-Nur wrote:
So basicalky there's no role for t3c's other than some vague notion of command cruiser? Itll be slower, fatter in sig, loose sp's for no apparent reason, and will not be worth producing as it its material value has it competing with navy cruisers?


Depends who you ask.

I posted a half-time summary and a lineup of what we know from CCPs ideas previous in this thread (I forgot to mention sig increase).

My goal is a T2 equivalent T3C that doesnt overstep any of the T2 specialised hulls/roles.
Ive posted how that is possible as weighed against the existing T2 lineup.

But there are people here that want them brought down to T1-Navy equivalence.

The material value is an issue the further they are brought down from T2>Navy>T1> equivalency.
CCP has stated they have an idea to introduce a new unspecific WH material required for T3 production.

baltec1 proposed reducing T3C efficacy to less than Navy, and cost to 40-50mil including subsystems.
So a reduction to <10% of current value. Slap him for that, if you wish.

I think that proposal was absolutely ridiculous considering:
-His impetus is singularly removing T3Cs from fleets. He doesnt care about the rest.
-It would utterly wreck the gas/sleeper salvage market of WH economy, as well as bleed into T3Ds prices.
-He seems to believe that demand for the new T1-Navy equivalent T3C would increase by 900% to offset that.
-A T1-Navy equivalent T3C would be incapable, statwise, of performing much PvE content.
-T3C training would not make sense, as taking 2months+ over a T1/Navy.

Basically, he wants WH economy completely wrecked, and T3Cs completely wrecked, just so he doesnt have to bother with T3Cs in fleet combat.

NS has a vested interest in T2 production, due to moons, which WHs cant, for some reason, mine.

I encourage people to read between the lines, and consider whom benefits most from what changes.
An-Nur
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#637 - 2017-05-05 13:42:50 UTC  |  Edited by: An-Nur
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
An-Nur wrote:
So basicalky there's no role for t3c's other than some vague notion of command cruiser? Itll be slower, fatter in sig, loose sp's for no apparent reason, and will not be worth producing as it its material value has it competing with navy cruisers?


Depends who you ask.

I posted a half-time summary and a lineup of what we know from CCPs ideas previous in this thread (I forgot to mention sig increase).

My goal is a T2 equivalent T3C that doesnt overstep any of the T2 specialised hulls/roles.
Ive posted how that is possible as weighed against the existing T2 lineup.

But there are people here that want them brought down to T1-Navy equivalence.

The material value is an issue the further they are brought down from T2>Navy>T1> equivalency.
CCP has stated they have an idea to introduce a new unspecific WH material required for T3 production.

baltec1 proposed reducing T3C efficacy to less than Navy, and cost to 40-50mil including subsystems.
So a reduction to <10% of current value. Slap him for that, if you wish.

I think that proposal was absolutely ridiculous considering:
-His impetus is singularly removing T3Cs from fleets. He doesnt care about the rest.
-It would utterly wreck the gas/sleeper salvage market of WH economy, as well as bleed into T3Ds prices.
-He seems to believe that demand for the new T1-Navy equivalent T3C would increase by 900% to offset that.
-A T1-Navy equivalent T3C would be incapable, statwise, of performing much PvE content.
-T3C training would not make sense, as taking 2months+ over a T1/Navy.

Basically, he wants WH economy completely wrecked, and T3Cs completely wrecked, just so he doesnt have to bother with T3Cs in fleet combat.

NS has a vested interest in T2 production, due to moons, which WHs cant, for some reason, mine.

I encourage people to read between the lines, and consider whom benefits most from what changes.




I understood the sig increase to compensate for the high buffer/repping abilities they currently have, with specific reference to there use in fleets and the ability to hit and kill the damn things. It probably goes further than that (?) in terms of where they end up, but that's at least what I thought the first level of reasoning was.

If they end up comparable to navy cruisers I'm lost how things like being slow, large sig, loss of sp's, and not comparable to ew of recons or strength of hacs, makes them viable let alone what traits distinguish them other than switching subs?

The comparison with a stratios puts them into pirate class, and if not less viable than a recon.

I guess I'm at a bit of a loss what people see this ship doing that you wouldn't choose a hac or recon or pirate cruiser for
Salvos Rhoska
#638 - 2017-05-05 14:18:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
An-Nur wrote:
Snip

1) Sig increase is fine, especially to incentivize HACs. Note: Musnt overnerf the Loki for Minmatar typical sig/speed characteristics. Halo implants already suck enough. I finally trained Cybernetics V and only dropped like 5 meters in sig for a full medium Halo set. That sucked, but my own fault for not running the numbers...

2) I agree Navy equivalence is an over-nerf. Not only considering SP involved, but also practically what content the ship can run, and being in all cases inferior to a T2, even in the few roles it can emulate that Navies cant anyways.

Thats why I outlined a proposal for rough T2 equivalency that doesnt overstep T2 roles in my previous posts.

3) The Stratios, as SoE ships are overall, are an anomaly. Not just because of their bonuses, but because they cost less SP to use. BUT. The Stratios is only one drone/energy/armor covops explorer cruiser. It makes sense that T3Cs should offer an alternative and superior non-drone/energy/armor covops explorer, albeit at greater SP cost and risk of SP loss.

4) Exactly.
If you want a HACs stats without SP loss, use a HAC.
If you want a HIC, use a HIC. T3Cs cant bubble.
If you want a Force Recon, use it. T3Cs shouldnt be able to covert cyno.
If you want a Combat Recon, use it. T3Cs cant DScan immunity.
If you want a Logi, use T2 Logi. T3Cs wont have equivalent rep bonuses.
If you want a Command Cruiser, use a T3C. No option exists otherwise.
If you want a T3C explorer, use any 4 of them instead of Stratios, albeit at more SP cost and risk of SP loss.

Above is all T2 cruisers and roles covered without any overlap.

And all this without:
-Wrecking the WH gas/sleeper salvage economy
-Any T3C fit overstepping a T2 role without commensurate sacrifice.

Fair. Simple. Easy.
Cade Windstalker
#639 - 2017-05-05 14:59:55 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I think much of this boils down to what kind of equivalency with other Cruisers this will result in for T3Cs.

1) T1 or less than: Out of the question.

2) Navy or less than: Result would be a refittable Navy.

3) T2 or less than: Result would be a refittable T2.

Choice between 2 and 3 is the hard part.
Opinions are strongly divided on this.


I kind of disagree with these dividing lines here.

It's more like Below Navy, Navy or up to just below T2, or equal to or better than T2, since the ability to combined different roles is going to result in something stronger than the sum of the parts.

Also, even ignoring the combination factor, being less than T2 is significantly different than being equal to them, so that at the very least needs to be distinguished here.


Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) I use the existing framework of T2 classes/roles as a reference point for comparison.
-HICs and Combat Recon roles cannot be filled by T3C, thus are not overstepped.
-There is no T2 Command Cruiser, so T3C can fill that role without overstepping a T2 cruiser hull.
-The Stratios is drone/energy/armor only. T3Cs can offer an alternative covops explorer cruiser for different weapon systems/tank, albeit at greater SP.
-T2 Logi should outperform T3C logi fits for bonuses related to repair.


Couple of points to pick out from here.

Command Ship fitted T3Cs still need to not out-perform Command Ships, which was one of the big original problems before the Command Ship rework gave those BC hulls a new lease on life. Just because there's no Cruiser command ship doesn't mean they get an automatic free pass here. Though as long as the boost amounts are lower I don't think we'll have much of an issue here.

The SP required to train into a T3C isn't much greater than that required for a Stratios. The T3C skills are fairly low multiplier and you only need one race's ships trained to fly their T3C while the Stratios requires both Amarr and Gallente skills. I don't think this is a big deal, but I think people are consistently over-estimating how much SP training into a T3C actually takes, especially to get the ship to the point most people fly it at, which is Attack and Defense at 5 and the rest at 4, with the ship skill at 4 until you get it trained to 5 eventually.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
2) That leaves HACs and Force Recon classes:
-It shouldnt be difficult to adjust bonuses in the new simplified subsystem layout, such that full V HACs/Force Recon outperform full V T3Cs that emulate them, especially in PvP fits.

3) Furthermore, looking at the proposed T3C layout, its unclear whether T3Cs will even be able to fit covert (or otherwise) cynos anymore, which means they would no longer overstep Force Recons either. Can anyone clarify this?


They've got a covert subsystem, they'll be able to fit a covert cyno. It's possible CCP will break this rule but I find that somewhat unlikely.

I also think it's going to be harder than you think to balance the subsystems to the point where they're not over-stepping anywhere. Easier than before, certainly, but I doubt this is going to be a one pass and done balance experience.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
4) SP loss issue.
CCP made no indication of removing it, rather citing it again as a unique and interesting diversifying design.
Some players think it should be removed, but the fact is it is a core mechanic of T3Cs, and no matter how wealthy in isk or sp you are, its still an additional cost to losing one. Its an inbuilt counterbalance.

5) Rig refit is arguably to offset loss of subsystem diversity, and not a "counterbalance" against T2C classes.
Certainly not since T2s dont need to refit rigs, as they set out to perform a class specific role.


IMO the introduction of Injectors make it effectively just another ISK cost to running and losing the ship, like an expensive module or a type of ammo that's only lost on ship death.

Agreed on the rigs, here, I think it's mostly to remove frustration factor over having a ship that should be this multitool but suddenly you've got things you need to unscrew in English, Metric, and Imperial Russian units, so you need way more multitools than you think you should...

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

After change.

This should be a Force Recon role.
We dont need T3Cs to do this, Force Recon can do it, and T3Cs with cloak/nulli fits are too easy to infiltrate for this purpose.


A lot of people really do want T3Cs to do this though, and have invested into T3C training specifically for use with cloaky doctrines. They're also the only RR bonused ships that can take a Black Ops Jump Bridge, making them extremely useful for any sort of Black Ops drop that expects any kind of return fire.

They don't get the bonus to covert cyno time, so they're not completely eclipsing the Force Recon role by any means. If the combination of Covert Cyno and Nullification is too strong then just make an overriding bonus on the Nullification subsystem that prevents equipping a Covert Cyno.

You could still pull it off by swapping around at that point, but that's a pretty significant trade-off, since you need a depot, the fuel for the cyno, the cyno itself, the other subsystem, and the uninterrupted minute sitting around waiting for the depot to anchor, and you'll either have to do that in the same system as your target and hope they're blind, or do it multiple jumps out and hope there are no bubbles.
Cade Windstalker
#640 - 2017-05-05 15:08:01 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its not my job to educate you about EvE but I'll humour you with a question. You get a cookie if you get it right.

In 2016, What battleship sized module had its fitting drastically reduced, had its cap bonuses significantly increased and had a resist to cap drain added that enabled it to he fitted to Tengus making them largely immune to no bonused nueting and enable the Tengu to pump out in excess of 2000 DPS tank with 80 - 90% resists while being cap stable at around 70%??

Its a tough one so I'll give you a few weeks.


The Tengu has always been able to fit a large tank, the cap battery changes helped a bit, but the general effect there was pretty clearly intentional on CCP's part, considering they actually lowered the fittings from their initial proposal in response to player feedback.

Also absolutely nothing changed with the L or XL Shield Boosters, so I'm still not sure what you're talking about there.

Beyond that that doesn't even affect the majority of Tengu fits beyond PvE, where they're still getting outcompeted by the Rattlesnake and Gila, and a few solo fits that while hilarious aren't the worst abuse of the Tengu by far.

Overall this still looks like you trying to twist the facts to fit your narrative. You had about half a point with the Cap Batteries but the other half just kinda dropped off somewhere and died. Large Cap Batteries aren't what's making the Tengu OP, and they've had little effect on the other T3Cs that I've seen.

So please, try again if you want to try and justify this little pet crusade of yours.