EVE General Discussion

You keep comparing ships bonus for bonus, when I'm talking about their actual uses. Sure. T3C's don't have a d-scan immunity, but they are USED to replace recons in a fight due to their better tank. Even if you nerf the tank, they would still have a better tank than recons do.

I'm not gonna go away from here, too many ****** ideas to not post comments on.

Wat?

The whole purpose of what I propose, is that a T3C operating subsystems to emulate a Force Recon role would have comparable tank to a T2 Force Recon.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

If you want to play at the table, pay up your ante.
Post your own proposal for how to fix T3Cs, or gtfo.

Ok, bored phone-posting one-liner gish alt identified.

You have nothing to put on the table.

Post your own proposal instead of shiptoasting those of others.

Ive watched the full presentation and viewed your linked image.

So what are your points?

Then wait :)

You are like a guest that picks at what others have served to the table saying "I dont like it", but without explaining why, and having brought nothing yourself.

---

Imo T3Cs would best be balanced such that they operate roughly equivalent to whichever T2 specialisation/role they are currently emulating with subsystems.

The T3C identifying versatility to change between those T2 equivalent roles, is offset by SP loss and higher base cost from materials, as compared to T2s.

In this way T3Cs would largely follow the same logic of being essentially a more skill intensive (pending SP losses) T2, at higher cost, but with versatility, to parallel the relationship between T1s and T2s, as basically "upgraded" T1s with greater cost and skill requirements.

---

That would mean that if you have a specific role in mind, you are better off flying the T2 (at less cost and no SP loss).
However, if you want the versatility to swap between T2 roles, fly the T3C (albeit at more cost and SP loss).

Result would be nomads and players that want the versatility, can field T3Cs, at cost and risk of SP loss.
Whereas other players, such as those in PvP fleets, can fly the T2 hulls for the same role, at same efficiency, at less cost and no SP loss.

This way everyone should be happy.

---

Something similar to the diagram below:

http://imgur.com/SOVuHDl

Note:
-T3Cs cannot emulate HICs or Combat Recons. (No bubbles or DScan immunity)
-I forgot to include T3Cs as essentially the cruiser class Command ship equivalent with boosters.
-Explorer is roughly a Stratios equivalent.
-The Hybrid is to cover multitask subsystem arrangements that underperform specialised T2s.
-The "1-4" represents the 4 separate T3Cs being defined from each other by subsystem bonuses.

T3Cs would be T2 equivalents in the roles those ships T2 ships fill (HACS, Force Recon and Stratios basically).
Notably however, there is no T2 Cruiser Command ship, so T3Cs fill that indirectly.
Noteable also that T3Cs cannot emulate HICs or Combat Recons, so those remain T2 specific.
I think we can agree that T3Cs will not replace T2 Logi.

Cloak/nulli T3Cs can be engaged once they refit to fulfill some other role.

As long as they are cloak/nulli fit, you dont have to worry about them anymore than you do any other cloaked ship in your system.

As to nullification, lets be real. JFs cyno past LS gatecamps everyday. Gatecamps are not really an argument for or against this.

Guy who cant differentiate between what T3Cs are now, and the purpose of this thread, as to what they will be after change.

Guy who also cant offer his own proposal, whilst sitting at the table picking at everyone elses.

"Yes T3C's are used to do the same job as force/combat recons even if they don't have all of their bonuses. "

So what. Then they are worse than the T2 options. No problem there.
Also, T3Cs cant operate as combat recons. So you failed again, categorically.

Are you drunk?

1) Not sure why equivalence is needed (note that 'needed' is not the same as 'wanted').

2) Not sure this would stop T3Cs from stepping on HACs or the other ships you listed. I want the problem solved, I don't want another 5 years before CCP decides to re-investigate after a failed rebalance.

Given CCP's track record, the risk is under-nerf, not over-nerf. If they over-nerf, T3Cs just don't get used. I could live with that. If they under-nerf, we have to live with this crap for years more to come.

I don't know enough to know whether I support JFs having this ability or not (who knows... maybe it's a special case). But I do know enough to know I don't want many ships to have this ability, and I certainly don't want any ship having this ability without a good argument or reason for it.

So far, the arguments I've seen for T3Cs having this ability are:

1) "It's convenient for us T3C pilots to have this ability."

Of course it is. But who cares what you find convenient?

2) "It allows us to bypass gate camps so we can run content and run sites."

Of course it does. But why should I want you to have this luxury? I don't have this luxury with any of the ships I fly. Why should you?

3) "I want to bypass gate camps so I can light a cyno for a drop or whatever."

Use another ship.

You are correct, I see why you think the way you do, and was of a similar opinion before I saw how heavily CCP was looking to reduce the possible combinations of subsystems. I also wasn't looking at rigs as an existing and balanced black-box system that can be added to a ship and interacts almost entirely with its base stats.

To each his or her own though, I think CCP have already made their decision.

Personally I care less that anyone is persuaded and more about the general quality of discourse on the forums. In my opinion that would be improved at least a bit if everyone was presenting realistic and practical ideas for changes and improvements to the game. That's all.





I think CCP has a very different idea for these ships in mind.

It seems like CCP wants the nomad and in-flight switching to be very much secondary on the ships and for their ability to combine different specializations on the same hull to be a primary draw. For example the ability to be a more tanky but less effective EWar hull, or a Command Ship and EWar hull at the same time.

If they wanted this kind of pure role switching they'd likely have gone with a mode switching mechanic rather than subsystems.

---

Personally I feel like this kind of switching would only really be attractive to nomads and other very very niche play-styles, which is why CCP didn't go with it. There's little point in having a ship, especially one this design and art intensive to maintain, that serves a very niche role. The only time CCP have put in very niche ships like this is when they serve some useful and needed role, like hauling.

Which is why I have evolved my proposal, to the ends that T3C would essentially become T2 emulators that can switch between roles with roughly equivalent stats as T2s of that role.

Though the following is an abstraction, it is a framework of sorts regarding cruiser classes:
-There is currently no cruiser class Command ship. T3Cs can fill that role.
-T3Cs cannot emulate HICs or Combat Recons, as they lack DScan immunity and bubbles.
-T3Cs can be rebalanced as Stratios equivalents for exploration/probing.
-I dont think T3Cs should be able to emulate T2 logi.
-That leaves HACs and Force Recons, both of which it should not be difficult to balance T3C subsystem fits to emulate.
-The cloak/nulli fit is harmless, except for gatecamp penetration. As is the case with other covops ships, as long as its cloaked, it is harmless.

---

The result would be that if you have a specific role to fill, you are better off with a T2, as they are cheaper and incur no SP loss:
-T3Cs would remain the cruiser class Command ship version to fill the lack of one (albeit, at T2C stats)
-HICs/Combat Recon are not overlapped by T3Cs.
-Stratios is drone/armor/energy weapon specific. The 4 T3Cs can offer options for exploration/probing around the Stratios stats, at equivalent efficiency.
-T2 Logis would remain optimal with better bonuses.
-HACs/Force Recon remain optimal as equivalent and cheaper and without SP loss.
-Cloak/nulli fits are harmless. They are gimped if they take any action with this fit, and can be aggressed when they refit to sonething else.

---

Ideal, is that T3Cs become basically a T2 equivalent multitool.
No more efficient at any task than a specific T2 tool, but versatile.
That versatility is offset by cost and SP loss.

If you want one tool, use a T2 at less cost and no SP loss.
If you want multiple tools, use a T3C at T2 equivalency, but pay more and risk SP loss.
In anycase, your ship will only have one fit at any given time.
Its not like T3Cs will be HAC AND Force Recon equivalents, all at once.
Just one or the other.

PS: I chose to overlook you turning your previous "persuasive writing" spike into this passive-aggressive barb that I am not suggesting practical and realistic improvements/changes to the game.. I am Finnish, but I'm not stupid. Crap like that means nothing to me, like water running off a ducks back. Dont bother. Its not earning you any points either.