EVE General Discussion

So where do I go to find a linkable image version of this?

EDIT: I also thought of something actually constructive to say. I want to quote someone from CSM7 - "Don't throw the Legion out with the Tengu bathwater."

Tell me more:

https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_battle.php?start_time=2013-06-04%2002:17:00&end_time=2013-06-04%2002:47:00&system=C3N-3S



You mean kind of like HACs have been shelved since T3's were released, and anytime anybody DOES engage a T3 fleet with a HAC fleet it gets murdered?

Tell me what role you see HAC (which take more training than t3's, way more training, T3= Train Cruiser 5, pick up sub skills and t3 skil, and go, HACs have a huge list of prereqs) filling since you expect T3's to outperform them.



My nerfed titan called and said that CCP will never balance ships around cost.

Yay! Death to wormhole pvp!

If Tech2s are always better than Tech3s then some subsystems will always never be used (unless maybe the ship itself is way cheaper), because some roles kind of depend on a certain level of bonus to make them work. You wouldn't - for instance - use a Loki as a webber over a rapier/huginn if it was worse than both of them.

For sure. The sweet spot could be made a bit wider though if they added some unique qualities on the field like some limited shapeshifting capabilities in space.

Speaking from a W-space perspective, T3s are used because they bring decent (not necessarily world class) firepower with a strong tank. If you take away the tank, there is usually little reason to bring a T3 over a T2. It's that simple. Drastic changes are needed for this to be different.

The cost, while not a complete balancing factor, is still a factor. You can buy 3-4 T2s for the price of a similar T3. And there is the skillpoint loss issue. But really, because of the tank difference between the two, the (ISK) costs need to be where they are. Sure, if time is no issue, ISK costs are irrelevant. But not everyone can field and replace as many T3s as they could T2s or as fast.

In most cases, I will fly a T2 instead of a T3 because of those reasons. The DPS is good, mobility is better than a T3, and the tank is enough for you to take a little bit of a beating so you can last until Logi finds you. Only if it's a full-on fleet battle where every tiny bit counts that is also fielding competent Logi will I be willing to risk the SP loss. In these situations, there is more than enough DPS to go around; you just need to be able to stay on the field longer. My T2 ships are disposable; my T3 ships are not. Again, different situations require different ships.

Recently I compared a (Laser) Legion to an Absolution. If I wanted DPS, I'd bring the Abso, but if I needed extra tank/buffer then I'd bring the Legion. In every equal situation, a well-fit Abso could best a similarly well-fit Legion in raw DPS output. But the Legion could out-tank the Abso and could engage larger fleets with heavier-hitting opponents. Overall, I would say the two are equal and useful for different purposes ... except one costs 3x as much and includes an SP loss. I can't judge between Gallente or Minmatar ships yet, and, well, Caldari ships are a joke.

At this point, I would say that DPS Strategic Cruisers are comparable to DPS Command Ships, and that is acceptable to me.

And really, the flexibility doesn't matter since you can't refit in the field unless there are capitals involved or you can nip out to a friendly POS/station. If you're waiting to refit until you are near a capital, you deserve to lose the T3. Make it possible to refit a T3 in the field (including subsystems) without a SMA nearby, and THEN you'll have something truly unique that can counter nerfs to DPS or tank potential.

I shelved my HAC when your boys and Shadow started small gang cap warfare in lowsec Since then, i haven't been in a fleet that supported a (an Amarr) HAC properly.. Meh, I should just go back to the Blue Donut because that is the only PvP that counts.

I feel sorry for new people though. It was so exciting to get (and be well-trained for) a T3 and no one can take away that feeling. What's there to get excited over now, with T1s being so decent?

And that t3 can perform all the jobs those 3-4 t2's can so in that regard its cost is balanced.





Why would you compare a cruiser to a battlecruiser, why wouldn't you compare the Legion to a Zealot and an Omen?




And here we have the basics of it all, the Legion is doing damage a ship class order higher than the other cruisers, and considering a HAC takes more training than a t3 cruiser why would you ever bother flying the HAC, who's role should be specialized?

T3's got it right in 2 areas right now.

Logis: T3's can rep more than a standard t1 or t2 Logi but without the added range, thus ensuring that the t2 hulls retain their specialized nature doing their job better than the T3 that can take on many roles.

Recons: T3's can use one of their two racial ewars but not as effectively as the more specialized t2 counterparts, having roughly 2/3s the strength of the specialized hulls.


Then you have HACs, the allegedly specializd t2 cruisers whos area of expertise is tank and damage. In this area you have the t2 specialist ships completely outclassed in every possible way by the t3 cruisers.

Finally you have the command ships, who currently are massively overpowered by their t3 counterparts, even though the Command Ships take massive amounts of training that the T3's do NOT require.


One t3 hull can do any of the jobs that 4 other types of t2 specialist hulls (that require WAY more training) can do, but in 2 of 4 cases they do the job slightly worse, as it should be, than the specialist hulls.

Fixing the other 2 areas will bring T3's perfectly in line, which will be achieved by a slight buff and change to T2 HACs and CS, and a slight downward adjustment in T3 Hulls.

For example if you wanted a hard tanking t3, it shouldn't be able to come near the DPS of a HAC, or if you wanted a high DPS t3 it shouldn't be able to touch the tank levels of a HAC.

Perhaps you wanted to mix 2 hull types so you have a Loki that webs, but not as good as a rapier, while doing DPS, tanking, and mobility that doesn't quite touch a Vagabond, while warping cloaked (I fly a Loki thats similar to this now),

And a tier-3 BC can do BS damage.

Honestly one of the easiest changes they could make to keep t3's viable after a nerf would be to make its rigs removable* so that you could swap the rigs around to adjust for whatever new job you wanted, as well as making them refitable in space so that their versatility wasn't hung up on the crutch of needing a station.


*removable without destroying them.