EVE General Discussion

Yes. As soon as they figure out any reason to add them and a way of doing it without taking away roles and uses from any existing ships.

I.e. not any time soon (or even Soon™).

I didn't expect you to agree or even understand. Luckily, CCP does.

Because there are no T3 battlecruisers. There are some tier 3 ones, but those are still T1.

T3 Freighter: +50% shield/armor/hulll resistance to talos.

j/kin ofc

ccp said a while ago that they are not going to do tech III frigs... even though everyone wants them... They did say that if they did ever do more tech III ships they would more then likely be BS sized hulls... Though i would not expect CCP to do them untill atleast 2015 as the art department will be extreamly busy till then and thats when ccp will be done ship rebalance... so expect that they will say they will do them in 2015 but expect them to be for 2015 winter expansion or 2016 summer expansion...

though i would not mind tech III bs as there are several missing bs hulls like ewar for non caldari or attack for caldari or logistics for all 4 races...

What wrong with you people, more ships with specific roles and spetial bonuses is good for industry and choises depend pilots needs, but (all in one suck hard) imagine tech 3 with 10 modiefied subsystem slots, its like removing all existed ships in game.

I like t3 cruisers but form other perspective i hate them.

Cost is never relevant for game balance. If it's an OP ship, people will grind the isk using whatever means they have, then in Eve, use the OP ship to grind more isk faster for their next one.

I'm hoping that for this years SASS that my Santa is an EVE player, because I'd like a Nyx as opposed to the random sports crap I've received the past few years.

I'd fly that.

I'm good with Tech 3 everything. Think of it as the advancement of technology, making things better than before. Would you rather drive a 1989 Toyota Corolla, or would you prefer a 2010 Hybrid? Most people will go for the 2010 model.

I think the current balancing initiative will actually help with this. Getting rid of the Tier system and setting up solid roles for all the ships, then rethinking and balancing the Tech 3 ships will help make everything viable. Once that is done, I think the introduction of new Tech 3 ships will be much simpler, with a clear idea of the role they are intended to fill.

Either way though, there is no reason to stop them from overlapping roles entirely, or even being better in some ways. They cost more, are more difficult to make, and involve more risk. Nobody ever complained about Tech 2 taking over roles for Tech 1 ships. Sure, they are specialized rather than versatile, but they still cover some of the same roles as the Tech 1 ships, while doing it better.

Primary difference is, you have to buy all of them to cover most of the potential roles of the more generalized Tech 1s. Tech 3, you just need to buy more Subs, although that is made awkward by the need to rebuild them in stations, so the benefit is marginal at best. ..and still, the Tech 3 ships have been almost completely limited to 2 variations each, being Covert Ops and Combat.

I don't see much difference personally, as there is a scaling cost with some individual Subs costing as much as different Tech 2 Cruisers, and the ships are not so much better as to be worth that extra expense to everyone. Certainly, they die just as fast in many cases.

That said, I'd go for Tech 3 Frigs and Battleships, even Destroyers, but I'd like to see the Indy ships get Tech 3 variations too, and probably sooner, or even first. Not a big Indy flyer, but I think everyone uses them from time to time, and it would be fun to have some configurable designs to play with.