EVE General Discussion

Cade Windstalker:
You've written a lot of critique on the views of others, but have not yet presented a coherent, comprehensive and exhaustive option yourself.

Clearly you are very opinionated on the issue and know what you do/dont think works.

---

What is YOUR proposal for T3C changes?

Please also consider the 30page background against which you make your proposal, as you have been constantly involved in critiquing everyone else.

Give us the chance too, reciprocally and fairly, to critique your proposal.

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.

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.

Snip

Snip.

Love it. Go take a look at my alt L DOPA's Regengu loss on Zkill vs NC. My ship survived a fleet of HACs, standard T3s, and various assorted other faction ships then they dropped a Rag on it, still didn't die, finally died after dropping the second super.

Tengus could never do that until they changed things so it could fit easily the BS booster and cap battery. Tengu had a very good tank prior to the buff for PvE, after the buff it became insanely OP. They didn't change the Tengu they changed its ability to fit BS sized mods

Therefore it is the oversized mods and not the hull that makes it OP.

1) As I outlined in my breakdown of T2 classes before, T3Cs can be re-balanced to fit between them so that they dont overstep any T2 role.

2) Running 10/10s will go away. This was a "privilege" of T3Cs running the risk in deep hostile space, but the existing T3C tank stats for that purpose are irreconcilable compared to that builds uses elsewhere. It has to go. I think everyone sees that.

3) All things considered, HACs is what it boils down to, as the hardest common denominator that resists change for T3Cs. Especially since T3C pilots need HAC stats to fulfill cost effective PvE content, and inversely fleets have to choose between T3C and HACs.

Imo, as long as T3Cs still carry SP loss, they are balanced against equivalent HACs.
Because of the cost of SP, either as time or via injectors, this is always still a constant and universal cost.

Given the choice between a T3C that might cost me SP, and an equivalent HAC without the SP loss, and I have no intent to refit for another role, Id choose the HAC every-time. Who wouldnt? Just makes sense.

4) If the balance changes go through as I propose, I would rather fly a HAC in PvP than a T3C, because I dont risk the additional cost of SP loss, and still get the rough equivalent output, and dont need the T3Cs versatility to fulfill other roles that existing T2 ships perform better anyways.

Yet you feel the need to post essays critiquing everyone else's proposals.
None of us are working for CCP either.

That doesnt add up.

Put your money where your mouth is.
Ante up, and post what you're proposal is for T3C change.

You presume to critique what others stick their neck out on.
Lets us see what you have so we can do the same.
Put your cards on the table for us to see.

Quid pro quo.
You are not delivering.
We have. You havent.

Post what your proposal is for T3C change.

Except that no other hull can do anything close to that even fitting blinged out Faction, Deadspace, and Officer mods.

It's the ship, not the oversized modules that's causing the problem. CCP have balanced these ships and the fitting requirements of the modules to include being able to up-fit ships with larger mods. That's why the PG and CPU of ships and their guns don't progress in a linear manner and Battleships tend to sink a bit more of their total PG and CPU into guns than smaller hulls do.

As to your alleged example, there is no kill on zKillboard matching that description. There's three Tengu losses, on L DOPA's killboard only two of which fit the fitting description given.

There's this one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/56277280/

Died to Red Alliance, 8 pilots on the KM, about half tackle, 1 NM, 1 Slephnir, 2 Navy Cruisers.

Then there's this one to NC.: https://zkillboard.com/kill/56294942/

That one has two *supercarriers* on it, but only 12 pilots total and zero Rags. Most of the DPS coming from an Aeon.

Again, the issue is with the ships no the modules. No other hull can do anything close to that, oversized mods or no, even a HIC can't tank that well even if fit for basically nothing else. Oversized mods are just fine on every other hull in the game and quite a few rely on them to perform at a reasonable level against larger ships, let alone against ships of their own class, whether due to restrictive slot layouts or the ships simply assuming large mods (HICS, for one).

If you don't want people to tell their opinions, don't post on the forums. We don't owe you or anyone else anything. If your ideas are bad, I'm going to say it.