EVE General Discussion

They can also change their ship bonuses in space on the fly with a cooldown. I guess sort of like subsystem change on demand.

Any link for info on this?

No they shouldn't. If we wait for everything to be rebalanced before we get new cool stuff, we're never going to get anything new.

Besides it doesn't quite sound like they're T3 in the current sense. CCP talked about a speed mode and a tank mode switch, so the changes between modes don't seem to correspond how current subsystems work. They seem to be something totally new and their introduction should not be tied down to other ship lines.

Info please

Don't destroy my dreams

Better mean T3 Battleships are on the horizon...

Agreed. They haven't worked out how to make configurable ships that are balanced yet.
And the whole 'Small command ship' was never needed. People could warp rig T3 cruisers to easily keep up with Inty gangs. They just wouldn't be able to tank like a T3 normally could, but they didn't need to tank like normal if they are keeping up with Frigates.
This is just a sop to people crying out rather than using the current tools in inventive ways. And will introduce more problems, not fix problems.

False Premise 1: We should get/need "new cool stuff". I could care less about "new cool stuff" - the game needs to be balanced first.
False Premise 2: We'll never get new stuff if the devs focus on balancing existing ships. False. We've gotten new "cool" ships along with rebalances.

Your argument is garbage. Moving on.



How about you're flat wrong. Tech3's are not fine as they are, and are in fact terribly balanced. When you fit them for combat roles, they outperform the tech2 combat variants. Obsolescence is not a smart balancing ideology.

Expansion and balance iteration are not mutually exclusive. This is another crap premise that another crap argument is being built on.

They're not going to be that expensive in the long run. As far as modules are concerned the biggest news was definitely the new weapons, that will drop all resists on your ship to zero to balance them out. They'll be more expensive though, since they don't want every highsec gank ship to be fitted with them.

Of course they do. They cost more, require more skills and you lose skills when your ship dies.
If they wouldn't outperform HACs no one would use them in that role.

Cost is not a balancing factor. Never was, never will be. CCP tried that with Supers and look what the result was.

Skill point loss is also irrelevant to balance, although I do feel that is a stupid mechanic.

Last point is the problem with tech3's - the don't specialize enough when it comes to combat role. They outperform HACs, so people use them. If they didn't outperform HACs, people would use HACs. They should perform in a different way from HACs; there should be some disadvantage to using them.

Again, to reiterate; EVE is not balanced around "this ship is better than that ship so fly the better ship" and power creep will not help EVE.

When a Tech3 variant has the same (or in some cases more) speed, tank, and DPS than the tech2 variant... that is a problem. When Tech3's perform on the level of a BC with a cruiser hull, you are in fact obsoleting over 20 ships.