EVE Information Portal

I don't think anyone (from the players side) in here can give you valid instuctions on what to do in this occasion, simply because we don't have a clue.
Only the devs know for sure but i doubt that they will tell you something more than what is already revealed.
In my opinion follow your instincts in cases like this and hope for the best. At least you have the luxury , at this point, to wait end see and then decide.Most of us don't.

My personal request: dual tank all the things! Shield legion for the win! (Maybe with a Sansha subsystem?)

Let me tell you about T3 cruisers.

In Providence every night the Tengus roam through our territory. They can't be bubbled, can't be locked, and are cloaked. They carry cynos. They are the perfect scout ship. They lurk around, completely uncontested, like drones over Afghanistan. until they find a miner to pick on. Then they cyno in a fleet of 20 and hotdrop on the guy. Then as quick as they came, they cyno out, and the tengu persists to terrorize our region. We set up frigate camp with double sensor boosters and scripts for insta-lock, with heavy dps fleets. I haven't caught one yet We were in a fleet of 200 and we just had to pass by, because there wasn't a thing we could do to catch it. It is completely unfair to have a ship that powerful with the attributes of an interceptor. Even interceptors can't fit covert ops cloak. I am not even talking about their tank or firepower, just their inability to be caught. The nerf to the sig radius and mass will help our fast lock interceptor pilots tackle these things in a fair fight.

One solo pilot said he enjoys flying though gatecamps unharmed. Maybe there should be a cloaky nullified exploration ship. Just make it a frigate that can't fit cynos. Why should a cruiser fill the role of a scout in the first place?

No ship this powerful should be allowed to blast through our backyards terrorizing us without a way for us to defend ourselves.

I mean, if you can't comfortably afford to buy a t3c / train into t3cs right now, guys... wait and see never hurts. But you have about 6 weeks to try out the "old" t3c system right now... which could be fun, or could just be frustrating once the patch day in July hits.

As for the skills themselves, the ACTUAL ship skill (Gal/Cal/Min/Amarr Strategic Cruiser skillbooks) are probably fine to train. I doublt they'll be removing or changing those, though the bonuses they give to each ship could change. Right now they're only useful to train up to 4 or 5 to reduce overheat damage. As most of the bonuses to t3cs come straight from the subsystem choice + your subsystem skill levels.

And on that note, the subsystem skills might be the place to not worry about getting them all to 5 since one of them is presumably going to be refunded or changed into something else we can't predict like they did with an indy skill back at Krius and like they did with the leadership/wing command/fleet command skills last November with the on-grid-boosters-only Ascension update. We're mostly assuming they'll be refunding either Engineering or Electronics but they might end up turning whichever of them into a new "overall subsystem effectiveness" support skill or something. I wouldn't put it past 'em, they love to recycle suddenly useless skills into something else rather than refund them all (some exceptions, such as the learning skills, ofc do exist).



Indeed. After all, every single ship in the game besides t3 cruisers has less subsystems... but I don't think we all constantly cry about how no ships in the game are worth flying besides t3cs because they're so damned simple and lack any complexity. Subsystems are cool, but they're not the be-all end-all of ship fitting, period.



If CCP tweaks the t3cs and still feels like there's too much overlap with HACs, then that would be cool... I would love more DPS on my HACs, I trained into all 8 of 'em on my main, probably my fave ship class (though I do love Marauders, Pirate BSes, Pirate cruisers, and t3cs + t3dds as well).

But I doubt it will happen. I think a (hopefully gentle) nerf for t3cs will have them feeling like any overlap with HACs has been reduced enough.

Another option that they sometimes use with different ships (highlighted by how they added range to the battlecruisers during their recent-ish balancing) is that maybe one class of ship will have more deeps but the other class will have more range. Half of the HACs are already sniper ships with one or TWO range bonuses sometimes, so... not sure they'd want to remove that. Give the HACs even more range (for the long-range ones) or application (for the brawlers) and let the t3cs keep the deeps advantage at the cost of range/application.

So basically you are saying Nullification and ability to us a Cyno should be mutually exclusive? I can see that argument in that.

I have also long been an advocate of a specialized exploration ship which is cloaky, nullified and carrier an interceptor like vessel where the pilot can choose to launch and use the frigate to run sites while the 'mother vessel' sits cloaked, providing bonusses for analysis and hacking.. But that is a completely different topic..

In my opinion, the mass of the subsystems should be smaller too, that way you can have some capacity to change them out while out on a trip, maybe added cargo space so that such changes could be done using a mobile depot.

FACTION SUB-SYSTEMS!

Very good idea.

CCP at its best...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_ofPVUhO3U

I forgot this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDvgL58h_Y

Maybe it might be better to make the subsystems a 'chassis' with different components being plugged in on a hot-swap basis to provide the different functions. The components would be sized so that you could only carry 2-3 full changes of configuration for all subs.

This would be modeled as scripted modules in code with the chassis being the module and the components being the scripts (with appropriate reload times). Fix the slot layout for each hull and let the scripts apply % bonus and/or effects as required.

Make the components the expensive part of theT3C build and you have increased risk/reward around how many you carry. 3 full changes would mean you can effectively take 3 ships with you (like the t3d's), but get caught in the wrong config and you effectively lose 3 ships.

This should also be balanced to maintain the current WH exploration and industry or even boost it.

I'd like to reiterate here two excellent point I've heard elsewhere in the debate:

the point of shrinking down the subsystems is to create more possible combinations. A lot of subsystem combinations simply weren't used. Remember, there are a total of 4^5 = 256 possible configurations per race; how many of those actually see regular use? I'd wager fewer than a dozen. If the stated goal is achieved, we'd have 3^4 = 81 possible combinations, but many more of them would be viable choices. I'd *much* rather see that world.

Second: what if, as part of the SP loss on death, there was a chance to drop a mini injector for some portion of the SP? That would make T3Cs much more attractive targets as primaries, would reward attacking them, but might also help the pilot who lost it potentially recoup some SP if their gang holds the field. That, too, would be an interesting gameplay change I'd like to see.

Lastly, something I'd like to suggest (someone upthread mentioned it as analogous to the Nestor, maybe?): give T3Cs a dedicated subsystems bay to carry rigs and SSs, and allow them to provide fitting services to other T3Cs. Then, if you have a gang of them, and are packing enough spare parts, you can re-fit SSs along with everything else on the fly, allowing T3Cs to fill their role of being adaptable and versatile, even while in enemy territory with no docking available.