Player Features and Ideas Discussion

ok, so, this is a stripped down version of what I actually wrote (deleted it myseld, duh >.<):
How about if T3c were't actually good in everything, or flexible, but actually even more specialised in one thing than t2 ships, and also should every ship have a very special own identity. Right now, every ship has 4 defense subsystems that are kinda the same, all have the same cloak and interdiction nullificatin subsystem, a cap recharge, a cap amount, a pwg subsystem, and so on.

My idea is that there only a total of, say, 3 subsystems per ship, and those give very strong bonuses to only one task. For example, one legion subsystem could be a heavily tanked (per level: 15% armor hp and 5% armor resistances), very slow (-70% m/s, -40% reduction to speed boost of prop mods), heavily damaging ship. (amarr = slow, heavy tanked laser race) one proteus subsystem could be a very high drone damage, speed, range, hp bonus, and the ship itself gets nearly no tank. (gallente = drone focused race)

not that great examples, indeed, nor well balanced, but how about the idea?

Why nerf T3, boost T2 cuz they suck at tank/dps/speed per isk.
D'ya all wanna fly sucking ships with paper tank and boring dps?

In fact, t3 logi is quite balanced. Yes, they are tanked, yes, they out the same amout of ehp/s as a logistic cruiser, but they don't have the range, which is a quite okish tradeoff. logi is probably the most balanced out of the roles.

Anyone could argue any stance in this thread all day and everyone is going to disagree with it.


There is literally no 'right' answer, as everyone sees and uses T3's differently.

For instance, I'm okay with them keeping some of their current traits, bit of a nerf to EHP or sig or both sure, but most their 'Ship of the line' stats, but would rather just drop the Command ship and scanny roles off them completely. That being said, I'm also a pretty much perfect links character with an absolute perfect links alt, and enjoy command ships.


Rather than arguing 'Oh do this to fix it'(because we're NEVER going to agree on that) it would seem more productive to come up with a list of problems most people agree with that we would like to see fixed with T3's. I'm sure my vote of just delete T3D's won't be on there, but still. Then from there we'll just have to see how CCP resolves it.


For instance, their EHP is too high. Okay, is this a problem with the actual armor HP number, or the combination of low sig and high resists?

Okay so we feel they have too low a sig, with too high resists, enabling them to have a tank they shouldn't have. or whatever.


Their Recon role is too strong. Okay, why? Does reducing their EHP reduce their recon effectiveness? No? Okay, does reducing their range?



Etc


Etc



Etc






Just my 2 isk. Could literally spend here til 2020 all of us with our own opinions on 'fix them in this specific way' arguing back and forth why my way is better than yours and you're an imbecile for thinking that way will work.

Fair enough.




T3's are too good at links.

There are very few reasons to use a command ship. CCP has implied these issues will be addressed with the changes they are making to links, the whole AoE thing requiring the links ships to be on the field to give links. When that change happens(soon*TM), this issue will likely be resolved.


T3's are too tanky.

Everyone agrees they're too tanky. There are 1,001 different ways we could suggest to fix it. Reducing their tank(Be it through higher sig, lower resists, or plain smaller buffer numbers) would go a long way to resolving their issues in other areas as well. It's less important to argue why it's better to remove their rigs or modify their base stats or whatever than it is to come to an agreement that they are too tanky, and potentially what it is about them that makes them too tanky. For me, I used to have vexor fit I could get to about 20k armor HP(If memory serves). I'm okay with T3's armor number. Personally I think they have too small of a sig radius, letting them sig tank too much incoming damage. I can specifically remember an RVB event where my mouse was playing up, and I was sat still, at 0 on the edge of a dreadnaught cluster(mouse woes). They primaried me, and I just loltanked the RVB fleet and their caps because of sig penalties/resists. Now I'm sure someone else is going to have the opposite opinion. That's fine. More important to come to some sort of agreement on whether they're too tanky in their roles or not, IMO.



I don't have many other problems with T3's. Personally I feel their only real problems are that stupid 4 co-pro cloaky scanny nullified link fit, and they tank too well. That cloaky, nullified scanny fit would be okay if it couldn't also do links on top of it. Everything else about them should 'fall in line' when that tank and links issue is resolved. I'm not going to get into a debate on 'the only way to do it is this way.' That's pointless. I also appreciate that others may have other problems with them. Which is fine. Again, more important to agree on what the problems are with them than to argue why this way is better to fix that problem that no one else may view as a problem. *deposits 2 more isk*

True. But a command ship can't fit 3, be covert, Nullified, and still provide nearly on par links with command ships. To be able to do all 3 of those things makes them too good at links in my eyes.

I vote we let CCP that has a ton more metrics available to them than you do balance ships !

One of the joys of T3's is the ability to use them to move around 0.0, of course the easy kill merchants don't like that.

There are other ships to move around in. Fly them.

Cost is never a good balancing option. Especially now that SP loss (A bad mechanic to begin with that should have never been implemented as an excuse for OP ships) is simply a cost via skill injectors anyway.

Command ships come with a set of downsides, namely mobility problems. And baring one particular CS don't have the same sort of tank as a T3 in tank mode anyway (and that one has terrible DPS instead), especially once Sig is taken into account. So it's nowhere near as much of an issue if people jump into command ships instead of T3's.

Especially if T3's get put where they are meant to be which is versatile in space. The current subsystem arrangement does not create a versatile ship since it's so hard to refit in space. If the subsystems gave access to tactical modes, then you would be looking at a more suitable versatile in space ship, that should be between T1 & T2 at a particular role when in the right mode, at T1 power level when in the wrong mode, but since it can change modes it's more adaptable than any particular T2 to the current need. That is the slot CCP placed T3's in on their desired power/versatility chart. And still leaves reasons to fly a T3, but also to fly a T2.