Wormholes

My concern is what happens to wormhole income when the only product of them (T3s) is no longer in demand (or just less demand)... a lot of us have multiple accounts to plex.

Brutix, prophecy, ferrox, and cyclone could use a little love.

Tengus are not really that OP they are just a great ship that can fill a large amount of roles.

Heavy Missiles on the other hand need to be nerfed hard...

I'd like to see some subsystems and combinations be brought into the "well this may actually be useful for something" area, but as far as them "overlapping" with other ships or doing role x better than a ship designed specifically for role x... I don't necessarily see a problem. They cost far more isk, you lose SP, etc as a trade off for picking the T3

Since we're crossposting, my reply to the OP from the other thread in S&M -

This issue (tech III v tech II) is more complex. The "whine" as you cast it is not "simply groundless" as you state erroneously nor is it universally correct, as you provide some examples. Tech III hictors is a red herring. They don't exist, why even mention this?

CCP knows they f'd up with the command subsystems. I think their original idea was for example what harm can one better link on a Loki do to the usage of a Claymore. What they didn't consider was the abulity of players to construct extreme fits. So hey how nifty did the cov warping, eccm'd ss-ing, command processored for multiple links, no tank and cpu-moded to fit all that small-gang or solo "dishonor" booster alts become? Very nifty and used a lot. This is the real area where tech III obsoleted tech II, in command boosting. Better bonuses + off-grid from tech III links was a huge mistake. That will change, thankfully, finally.

Tech III logis haven't proliferated due to lack of a range bonus. And the fact that where you might use them, in a balck ops gang, most of the ships you'd be wanting to rep (bombers) are simply not constructed for or meant to tank. However, it is true that this is one area where such an ability does not obsolete any tech II logi. If anything there might be room for a slight boost with this tech III configuration. Although one would have to be delicate with it or else all you would ever see are black ops gangs dropping and killing everything in sight.

Tech III shield recon configurations don't really obsolete tech II shield recons because of the cost factor. Why construct a Tengu, Proteus, or Loki for this when your ecm, long-pointing, and webbing can be done cheaper.

Tech III recons do obsolete the idea of the solo hunter/killer recons that Arazus, Rapiers, and Falcons might have aspired to. Why? Because of the ability to retain better dps and tanking abilities with the cov ops cloak and or ewar. With one exception, the Legion v Pilgrim. Why construct a Legion for this when a Pilgrim does about the same cheaper. This is not to say that the Pilgrim is overpowered, but that the Legion is lacking.

However, Tech III recons do have a niche in an armor configuration with an armor fleet. Proteuses and Lokis can be made as beefy enough armor tankers to be used with armor fleets, particularly AHAC gangs (which still survive as small/mid size gangs particularly in lowsec). You simply can't fit the Lach or Hugi, Razu or Rapier recons to have a meaningful armor tank for doing webbing and pointing. The tech II recons work in shield configurations and fleets because of plentiful mids and retaining mobility.

Field commands are frankly all rather weak for the sp and isk invested compared to alternatives, except maybe the Sleip, especially now with ASBs. Also, the role-hybridization of Tech IIIs are something that field commands can't do. Field commands may need a slight buff.

HACs see little use because tier 2 BCs are so much better in a power/cost consideration. Tech IIIs again displace them because of the hybridization ability with roles (cov ops, ewar subsystems in addition to damage and tank retention). Tier 3s killed off any vestige of sniper HACing.

The HAC that still sees a good amount of use is the Zealot in an AHAC gang. Why? Because of having 7 low slots to fit a good enough armor tank and still have room for damage mods, still have enough grid and range on dps because of pulses and scorch. Is the Zealot overpowered? No. For one thing it has no drones. But it has a niche and it's competitors/colleagues are deficient in one way or another (Deimos, Ishtar, Munnin).

The Cerb and Eagle both are deficient because they were constructed for a niche, extreme range, that is no longer viable. In general HACs are in a sorry state only partially due to tech IIIs. It will be a tricky manuever for CCP to get the balancing right with any tech III or HAC alterations. Buffing HACs will be a delicate business lest they dominate BSs again. Nerfing tech III combat systems must be selective (Tengu rof, etc).

So there is not "rabid blabbering" as you call it. It is a complex picture. The tech III complaining is due to op command subsystems with off-grid ss-ing, or combat tech IIIs being better than tech II ships in class + having hybrid powers at the same time.

CCP will be altering tech IIIs or at least certain subsystems. There is nothing wrong with reexamination of any ship or ship class in game. Nothing is likely to survive in their current state if everyone knows they are too good at some thing. Tengus in particular get a lot of use and not because people like the name or something else innane. No, they get used because they have advantages, advantages that it appears will be trimmed. Deal with it.

I think that T3 tank bonuses are too high (Exception: Loki), rivaling battleships. I say lower buffer bonuses to 5% on all defensive subsystems, but leave the RR and local rep bonus's should at 10%

I say its not the Tengu that is OP with HML, but the HML itself. Though there's a 10% bonuses that seem unnecessary, 120km range projection with full damage application? C'mon, really?

The HML itself, 700 DPS with a medium long range weapons is insane, since artillery, railguns, and beam lasers cant get nearly 700dps, even with implants and fully bonused hulls.
Nerfing the HML would also serve the added bonus of nerfing the Drakeblob *cough* Goons *cough* which in the CSM minutes was stated by CCP as something that "shouldn't be a viable fleet comp" for sov warfare. Fingers crossed it would also take the steam out of Goons' new TCU ALL THE SYSTEMS! campaign.

If they nerf my sleipnir il be sad

Drake, cane, harby, myrm..... Those are all t1 ships there brochacho.

I don't understand how every downplays SP loss so much. SP in EVE is unique to most other MMO's. You can't grind it back. You cant buy it back with plex. You simply have to wait to train it again. And T3's are the ONLY ships in the game where you lose it.

And it adds up. Only 4 days? Well let's use you Doddy as an example. According to eve-kill, you are 451/123. Pretty good stats it seems in the ballpark of many serious PVP'rs

So let's say as an example that you flew all T3's instead. And by flying these OP ships you had 90% fewer losses. That would be pretty sweet right? so instead of 123 losses, you'd have 12. 12*4 = 48 days of retraining time. So about a month and a half of training lost simply retraining skills you already had. Maybe I wouldn't use the word "major" but that also isn't an insignificant amount of time. I can think of lots of other skills I would have rather trained during that 48 days.

Given SP loss for T3's was implemented from the beginning I'd bet CCP knew these ships were going to be a bit OP. I mean you can lose a big 27bil Nyx and not lose SP.

TLDR: As long as I have to keep retraining skills over and over for the priviledge of dying in a T3, I don't have a problem with them being a little OP.

Tengu could use a nerf but other t3s not so much.. High cost plus SP loss for a reason.