Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

SP sinks are really just isk and time sinks though, which already exist in getting another hull, set of subsystems, and modules.

The reality is that they want T3Cs to continue standing out over T2 ships so that more and more people use them, more and more people lose SP, more and more people purchase injectors, and more and more people purchase extractors to sell said injectors.

They're using gameplay mechanics as a way of making a profit instead of actually using them because they make sense. Why don't T3Ds have SP loss? They're T3 ships just the same as T3Cs. If it were truly a valid game mechanic, it'd apply to all T3 ships.

Strait idea about T3C rig use.

Allowing them to unfit rigs feels like exception from exception and this is bad.
Rigs that cannot be unfit from T3C bad too

So no rigs no troubles
Just zero rig slots at T3C

It will reduce amount of work that should be done for balancing (lower variations for ships with insane number of variations)
will save from insane tank multiplication from rigs (more than 70%)
will allow to make insane things like +2 low/mid slots with less danger
will give T3C bit more feelings of different technology

So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive.

I'm not. I'm seeing some absolutely terrible ideas, like giving the RR + links subsystems bonuses for turrets/launchers.

T3Cs are not meant to take on multiple roles at once. They are meant to switch between roles as needed.

This is insane, people wanting their T3Cs to be able to do everything all at the same time. They want the cloaking subsystem to also have great tank. They want the logi + links subsystems to also have good DPS. They also seem to want unique bonuses inherent to the hull -- a hull that's not meant to have a distinct role, but the ability to swap roles.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. All you guys seemingly want T3Cs to remain as oppressive as they are now, and you attempt to justify that with saying CCP would be removing "healthy playstyles" if they changed too much.

Yeah, those playstyles are not healthy. Isn't the entire point of the T3C rebalance to address how oppressive they are, and how much they overshadow the roles of T2 ships?

Certain playstyles need drawbacks. They need sacrifices. That's how all the T2 ships work. They give up something in order to do great at something else. T3C roles should be the same.

The logi/dps combo idea sounds like a spider tanking nightmare. Please no. Or lower the effective turrets to 4-5. I hope im not the only one whos worried they are comparing the damage a logi T3 can do with what a full on combat T3 can do.

And for the love of god, remove rigs completely. Makes their adaptability more fluid and keeps their power in check. Especially now they have so many slots.

Remove sp loss.

TBH, putting in a game mechanic that brings financial gain obviously makes sense for any commercial company

Then they could bring back clone costs, that removed a lot of SP from the game from players who forgot to upgrade there clones. The constantly increasing costs of an older clone also guided players to purchase more plex or grind more causing more instances for ships to be lost which in turn could also make it more desirable to purchase plex.

Passive tanked anything are typically just buffer tanked ships with regen modules in place of damage for lows/rigs.
Active tanked ships rarely fit buffer as they are fitting reps in their place (occasionally 1 extender to save you from alpha).

So I fail to see the problem. If a passive shield tank didn't fit buffer they would have crap all for peak regen, and their tank would be so thin a single alpha could quickly send them sub 30% (break your tank).

T3Cs have always had an element of fitting multiple sub-roles under the primary one, and these changes very clearly continue that. If they wanted to hard-restrict T3Cs to one role at a time they'd have either reduced the number of subsystem slots further (something like Primary/Defensive/Propulation, with current Offensive+Utility rolled into Primary) or they'd have gone with the T3D's mode switching scheme.

Nothing anywhere in this suggests that T3Cs are meant to swap roles on the fly in any significant capacity.

If you go back and look at what CCP have said about T3Cs and T3 vs T2 the whole point of T3s is that you give up a little effect in exchange for versatility. If T3Cs can only fit for absolutely one thing at a time then they're directly competing with the various T2 hulls and since they're more expensive they're now either worthless or OP, which is bad.

Cut the drone bonus from the Legion (it's not gonna be a drone boat with 50mbit anyway) and shift it more towards missiles. 6 launcher, application bonus or something. Atm. its lazors + missiles and drones (sort of). Too much.

Proteus, similar story. Secondary weapon thing, both blaster and drone part feel.... incomplete. Since the Tengu also can use blasters, go full drone on the Prot....

Actually drones could be the primary on Proteus. It's a gallente boat after all.
And drones instead of missiles on the Legion as secondary, it would balance the primary/secondary theme for all hulls. At least for missiles and drones.
As it is now 3 can use missiles (2.5 since Legion bonus doesn't match the others) and only 1 drones (1.5 counting legion)