EVE General Discussion

SP loss was put in to try to justify T3C power. Remove that power and you have no excuse to keep SP loss.

It hurts poorer and newer players a lot more than it does the older players and doesn't work at limiting T3C use among alliances like mine because we can simply bypass it. It doesn't work and it won't be needed after the nerfs.



I just trained up citadel cruise missile specialisation V because I have nothing better to train for. I can also throw money into skill injectors because I have much better income than a new player. SP loss benefits older players because we don't need to be training into new ships because we generally have everything already and we are far richer. Newer player are far more hurt with SP loss than older players. This is Malcanis' Law in action, SP loss is of benefit to older players because it limits newer players ability to use T3C while having no impact on older players because we can avoid it.

Unless there is something 'special' about t3c's I can't see the point of sp loss. Merely being able to swap subs/rigs doesn't cut it for me. If they are sub hacs, and sub ew recon bonuses, they're just another cruiser, and for that reason sp loss doesn't make sense to me.

I'm really hoping CCP can pull one out of the hat with this rebalance. T3C's were a great idea, and offer(ed) up great possibility for individual design/use. I'm hoping they can bring about something closer to their original intention, and not just a cruiser that can just change subs.

Salvos I just want to throw this out here really quick. To your point about being "more skill intensive" you realize that's a load of crap right?
Training all of a single T3C's subsystems to 5 would take my alt just over 17 days (its remapped for int/mem atm).

Are you forgetting these are all x1 multipliers? Are you forgetting all HACs also require lvl 5 cruiser, which means you can't use that in your argument.

SC skill has a x5 multiplier.
HAC has a x6.
Recon has a x6.
Logi has a x6.
HIC has a x6. (unrelated really but mentioning)

SC is by no means detrimental if it is not trained to 5 unless you make heavy use of overheating.
HAC directly effects your performance while piloting every HAC.

Therefore, comparatively you must compare the HAC skill itself to the subsystem skills. Therefore taking SC to 4 and all subs to 5, still puts you at less of a train than HAC 5. When you factor in training all races SC skills to 4 you come out with slightly more training required out of T3Cs. If you're ocd about the 5% overheat, then you are correct, it will take longer. But again, if were comparing a single hull to anther that still only comes out to about a 2 week difference. If you factor in Recon/Logi then cruisers pull ahead again, but this time by more than a month of training.

Modules skills are another thing you cannot factor in when looking at train times of T2C vs T3C. Since to use that role on the T2 variants are identical to those on the T3C...

So in the end, depends on what you want to compare. Because if you're wanting to look at overlapping roles, you're wrong. It's actually very similar in training (ignoring HIC, since T3C have no comparison).


I just don't see you're argument on skill requirements, not even a little. If it was about SP loss, then I'm with Cade, I want to see this removed. It's nothing more than a deterrent for players new and old to fly the ship. Nobody likes having to retrain skills, no matter if you're at 20m sp or 200m.

Salvos Rhoska

Not really my point with A. It's not that I want them to be a new player ship, it's that I think that any mechanic that adversely punishes newer players compared to older ones is a bad one. Yes, an older player is going to be more skilled than a newer player, and will have other advantages, but that's different from a newer player feeling disincentivized from flying a ship because it will materially harm his advancement if he loses it.

1&2

This I just have to disagree with here. The subsystem skills are 4 days and change each on an optimal remap to get to 5. The main ship skill is a 5x where as every T2 Cruiser skill is a 6x, so it takes longer to train. On top of that the actual racial strategic cruiser skill (RSC skill) is not nearly as important to get to 5 as the various T2 Cruiser skills since the only benefit to the RSC skill is a 5% bonus in module heat damage taken, which is on the whole a much more minor bonus compared to tank, or damage, or any of the actual subsystem bonuses, all of which can be gotten to 5 in about 20 and a half days.

Throw in the Strategic Cruiser skill to 4 and you have a total training time of 24.5 days.

It takes 27 days to get any of the T2 Cruiser skills to 5.

Even the prerequisites aren't that bad, considering most of them are basic fitting skills, where as the T2 Hulls require things like Energy Grid Upgrades 5 on the HACs, Cloaking on the Recons, and both Signature Analysis and Long Range Targeting to 5 on the Logistics Cruisers, all skills that many players comfortably leave at 4 for months in favor of higher priority skills.

Oh, and with only 4 subsystems that's 4 days off the total for the T3Cs.

#3

Yes, but you still only need the one hull, where as if you were to train into each T2 Cruiser plus that base of skills you would have an extra couple of months of training on top of the basic skills in order to get into just the three main T2 Cruiser Hulls. Plus you don't actually need to be able to do everything a T3C offers to fly it effectively starting out. For example someone looking to fly a T3C in fleet ops can forgo Cloaking starting out quite easily, where as Recon Cruisers require it.

#3 the next one

See above for why I disagree that these ships take more training to fly.

On top of that even if they *did* that does't make them "the pinnacle" of anything. They're supposed to offer another option, not stand above the other options.

#4

See above again.

To add a little to that. That you don't need to be able to use every subsystem is part of why they're good. You don't need to train everything, you can train the hull and the subsystems and then train into individual roles to see what you like without having to invest in all of the prerequisites and other requirements for the full T2 hulls.

Skipping 5, it's pretty much repeating previous stuff.

#6

I kind of just disagree with all of this. T3Cs shouldn't be T2 equivalent, they should offer more options but worse in-role performance, and possibly some unique combination roles as a result. IMO all of these things make them more attractive for newer and intermediate players as opposed to older ones who can push a specialized hull to its limits.



HICs, sure.

Recons not so much. The DScan immunity isn't as defining a trait as the EWar power that both Recon classes share and that's always been where T3Cs end up stepping on Recons because they bring way more tank and almost equivalent EWar.

There's still a serious risk of them stepping on Command BCs though, and they did before CCP nerfed the link strength in favor of more link options.

T3Cs actually have a repair bonus but don't have range. Almost everyone I've talked to considers this a good example of T3C balance because they're not actively stepping on Logi, they're offering a different option.

HACs: This just seems really vague. What is "PvP fit suitability" even supposed to mean here? Less tank? Less Gank? What?

Stratios isn't likely to get stepped on but serves as a pretty good bench mark for a utility combo's power.

---

Let me see if I can explain this a different way.

In real life someone can be fined $10,000. If they're poor that can be crippling, if they're rich they barely feel it. Even if it's a percentage fine the same thing applies because of what percentage of someone's total income is disposable.

What I'm saying here is that the same thing applies to SP loss. If I have 20mil SP the loss of half a million stings a lot more than if I've got 100m SP because that 500k represents a bigger percentage of my total investment. Further it also cuts more into my "discretionary spending" or in this case future training. Someone who is debating another Carrier skill to 5, or Large Beam Spec 5 doesn't really care about swapping training for a few days, someone working through Advanced Weapon Upgrades 5 does and will feel the sting of the opportunity cost more.

Also at least some of your thinking here is dependent on the idea that T3Cs are going to be equivalent in performance to T2 hulls. That's an assumption, and one that runs counter to the limited information we have from CCP.

I have the SP and the isk to not care about SP loss and can avoid it very easily.

Newer players are still having to train into a lot of ship and do not have the same level of income as older players so cannot afford to either throw isk at injectors or spend the time training T3C skills again over other things they need.


Newer players are clearly at a much bigger disadvantage than older players in terms of SP loss. There is also no reason at all to keep it from a balance point of view, T3C would be below t2 cruisers in terms of power so why keep a system of punishment that no other ship in this power range has?

Its an analogue concept to a regressive tax, which I'm sure wikipedia will help you understand.

1) SP loss on T3Cs is not equivalent to a tax.

SP loss on T3Cs is equivalent to buying a high performance car, crashing it, and incurring brain damage that takes either time or money to recover from.

2) T3Cs with subsystem bonuses that do not exceed those of the few T2 specialist hulls/roles they overlap with, is sufficient re-balance.

3) The point is to rebalance T3Cs. Not to pander to player groups.
Ie: Not according to NS fleet doctrine preferences (arbitrary, depending on alliance) or making them "newer player friendly" (which T3Cs are not, and should not be).

You are just flat out wrong here.



This on the other hand is a terrible analogy full of holes, They lose a defined quantity of a simple well understood resource, which is inherently dissimilar to a brain injury.



its not the important issue. I've pointed out that for my use case, ie pve with a proteus for gurista / serpentis, it wouldn't matter if it was brought into deimos scale, but its not important.



Actually I remember CCP stating that they wanted them to be easier to train to cover a couple of roles than specialist t2s and a good choice for newer players coming through.

Secondly I don't believe baltec is an actual PL mouthpiece, ie heads up you are going to have to live with you being quite unpersuasive on that matter.

Lastly the way doctrinal fleets work (as far as I understand it) is that if you can fly the thing, you fly it, if not, then there is a second choice, and if not there is a third choice.

ie the ideal outcome is that if a line pilot goes to join an armor hac fleet, their first choice is a t2 hac, t2 logi or heavy dictor, the second choice is a t3 setup for dps, logi or tackle as per the role they intend doing, the third choice is a t1 dps or logi cruiser or some other smaller tackle.

At the moment the choice is the other way round and that means training for specialist t2s isn't a progression.

Players that have been playing for 10 years, all have access to whatever they want, there isn't anything anyone can do about that.

Players that haven't, view a month as a long time, and they'd view 3 months to cover 3 roles as a very long time, particularly if its delaying battleships and capitals by 3 months, so you'd expect that if they needed to cover a different role, the t3 would be the fall back that avoided them needing to stop training other things for quite some time.

Also when I go on roams, we sometimes lose 1 ship, rather than the fleet, or someone has to log, so being able to refit a t3 to change role is pretty good, at the moment, that is very difficult because of cargo space and rig issues.

Can someone share those fits with 200k eph tank, 1k+ eph/s, 1k dps on 60km range at same time? Without spending sum worth as much as fitted titan?
Yes, T3C hull isn't now worth much more than T3C but if I'm correct it wasn't a thing earlier. Solely Melted Nanoribbons needed for hull was worth as much as whole hull now, but their price dropped form 7m to 1.3-1.5m. Subsystems need next 30 MNR, there is a 250m drop in price of ship.
If mentioned by CCP "new component" needed for T3C production increase they price by this sum, we can again get 2 HAC hulls in price of one T3C. By it i means that price problems touch not only factional BSs but i would rather say everything except T2 ships.

Ok, lets leave isk efficiency of T3C.

When we see T3C it's a multipurpose tool for solo trips into dangerous, wormhole environment, capable to sneak pass enemy territory, refit, scan his way, refit and fight. What make fall in love with my overpriced Tengu is this ability to daytripping into wh, with cargohold extenders (allowing me to haul with me mobile depot, mtu, some alternate fittings and ammo) and cloak. With knowledge that if I **** something up I gonna fight using very bad fit and in ship worth with cargo about 2.5-3b.

What I don't like is ability of T3C to adapt to nullsec fleets. Their high resist tanks and subsystems increasing incoming remote repair are awesome for this. We get recently a new fighters mechanics forcing players to give them much more attention than before. T3D have their modes allowing players to make tactical decisions during fights. T3C lost their "snowflakness" in moment of leaving station or range of mobile depot. I think they should get something making blind following FC commands impossible, as it sucks when /ship with superior technology/ acts as next tool for F1 mokeys.

In my opinion it would be great to give T3C ability still being awesome as expensive solo/small gang ship but lose ability of being a part of big fleets? Maybe by making a emphasis on overheat mechanic or by making them ineffective for fleet usage by giving them less resists but more raw hp for buffer tanks and less buffer for active tank?