Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Both Astero and Stratios are able to fulfill their roles in exploration without interdiction nullification. There's no reason T3Cs need it for a similar role.

If we're talking about using T3Cs to drop covert cynos on targets for Blops bridges, I'm still not a fan. I can see why people would want to keep that functionality for T3Cs, but there's simply too little risk involved for the potential reward.

Covert Ops and Recon Ships are all expected to move through space without interdiction nullification. Surely there must be balance reasons for that, so I don't see why T3Cs should be exempt.

Perhaps one of the developers could chime in and explain why no other ships in the game (save for Interceptors) were given interdiction nullification. I would love to have it on my Panther or Deimos, honestly.

I don't think it needs to be removed, just heavily penalized -- for both Interceptors and T3Cs. There should be a loss of offensive capabilities and the ability to fit or light cynos.

The latter of which will make people riot, of course. I imagine people are already looking for me in-game or writing up death threats for simply putting it out there as a suggestion.

We already have a ship that can fit covert cloaks and has bonuses for cynosural fields: Force Recons. They aren't being used for that because T3Cs do a much better job and, again, they don't have interdiction nullification.

So I'm curious as to why CCP thought those T2 hulls didn't deserve interdiction nullification while T3Cs do.

Because everything need counter-measure, and no cloak is not a counter-measure for interdiction bubbles.

Your own words:

+ SP loss. You already answer your own question.
T3C will be worse in any given role than T2 counterparts.
BTW do you fly T3C, because you sound like theorist.

I have no idea what you are writing about. You want a premium price for a hull that is worse than T2 but have some abilities that their counterparts won't have (interdiction nullifiing I presume). Did you ever bother to read proposed changes to T3C, because I don't think so. Tank resists will be nerfed below T2, nullifing sub will have serious drawbacks, cloak will have less than average tank. The only thing that may be usefull is interdiction nullifing subsystem to travel.
Nobody will fly a hull that will cost fitting+spare subsystems = rook+basilisk+nighthawk+cerberus. That will be 1,5 bil ISK and it's not guarantee that you'll use all that stuff. It won't be worth it. The fact you think T3 are so versatible or will be so shows you have very to none experience to them.

I think you guys are getting off topic, or a little extreme. Nobody is suggesting T3C's should be 1.5B a pop. What most people are saying or implying is they should be a bit more expensive.

Currently they cost approximately: 115mm for the hull and 140mm for the subsystems, so lets call it 250mm.

My read is most people think we should drop the SP loss and increase the upfront cost, i would assume to the tune of 375mm-500mm for the hull plus subsystems.

To me that kinda makes sense. Especially since the rigs can be removed and swapped. (they only are destroyed on death) and especially since we are going from 5 to 4 subsystems, if prices stay the same we are talking a decrease in the cost by 1 subsystem.

all the bonuses just seem too strong on the WIP... although its harder too know without the base stats etc..

I would like too know CCP Fozzies views on the cost increase thats mentioned and why?

Also are you trying too achieve the jack of all trades at a navy level or is that no longer the goal? .. and in that case what is the outcome you're trying too achieve here? and where will these fit in compared too T1/T2?

I'm not really seeing any significant nerfs here... only buffs really

also strongly feel that the versatility aspect isn't going too happen when you have all the stats/slots in the subs instead of baked into the hull and still keeping rigs and you're talking about a price increase aswell ...

Reading quite a bit of these slack chats. Interesting stuff being bounced about. Cheers for this transparent access.

Just one thing. I am pretty sure 8 slots for high, mid or low is going to be overpowered on any of the T3C's. Especially the mids and lows. Though I am saying this without seeing full stats obviously so if they get "rebalanced" enough it will be ok.

There are already very few ships with 8 slots in a given rack and they tend to be BS's or just the high slots. I think this is for a particular reason. 8 slots is very powerful.

[EDIT] - One more thing actually. Faction sub systems? Pirate ones? Just a thought. ;p

Hi

I wish notice couple things, and mentions things i wish to see with t3c rework

One is Loki offensive subsystem with missiles, i wish to see version with pure missile damage, making it hybrid missile, turret, drone damge subsystem is almost the same what it is now, i wish mention that this type subsystem\weapon system is almoust not use at all, u can go to killboard and chceck kills how often this is use, and how this work now,
Loki with missile subsystem now; there is alomoust no one who use it
https://zkillboard.com/ship/29990/losses/
and Typhon Navy with turret and missiles, in all cases ppl use additional hi slots for utility slots not for duble weapon system
https://zkillboard.com/ship/32311/losses/
in this two cases u can see, if you check 100 or more killmails that this subsystem now and combination of this weapon system is not use at all, and sometimes when someone use it, he prabobly not use it any more, so it's waste, and making it this in that way, kill this subsystem, like it is now.
Also if you put 5 launcher and 2 turrest, when u wish to get max dmg build for something, you lose 1 hi slot that means that all others can fit 1 utility more, neut or proble launcher, cloak or something, becouse they need only 6 turret/missile point, 6 hi slots, not 7, also you are not able to get damage amplifiers to all this weapon system on one ship, not mention that u can't fit also mods to accurity of all this weaopn systems, so damage lose is very big, and you lose a lot more dmg becuse u have explo velo bonus not dmg bonus, so your total damage is much lover, becouse u can't rise total damage cap, i think this will not work with this subsystem.
Other thing i wish to see, wich i think is fine now, is old legion offensive missile subsystem, with focused missile weapon system, i think is no need to change it, adding drones is not very nice idea, becouse it will be secend scarlige, what is point making secend exacly the same ship?
one more thing in this two things is that, drones are not cool choice i think, drones are not very good for pve, dies very often, so its big waste of DMG, take a lot of time to drop them and pull back when they are attacked, it is big dps lose to, pull full agro at exploration combat plex-s, wich is very big pain, so it may do, that we don't see this ships at ded combats sites at all or in wormholes sites.
i play eve over 11 years, i know this from expirence, and i think this are better options then this from spreadsheet.

Would like to see a 25 m3/mbit drone bay/bandwidth on the Amarr laser sub. Only makes sense, Amarr being drone focused as well. Minmatar is not and they get drones on all subs. And while were at it can we kill the cap bonus and get something useful instaed?