Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

òAll defensive subsystems have T2 resistances.

---

Originally by: keepiru

---

So there is light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully its not an incoming train.

Eagerly awaiting a build that has the actual bugs wrt STRACs (cap recharge, turret hardpoints after leaving/entering ship) fixed, so that actual testing can occur. The clock is ticking.

---

Originally by: Perry

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

òAll defensive subsystems have T2 resistances.

---

Well the Amarr Defensive Subsystem 2 has none!

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

Where do tech 3 ships fit in?

Most simple way I can put it:
Tech 2 û Focused.
Tech 3 û Broad.

WeÆre trying to allow players to play multiple roles, without overshadowing tech 2.

---

Originally by: keepiru

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

Where do tech 3 ships fit in?

Most simple way I can put it:
Tech 2 û Focused.
Tech 3 û Broad.

WeÆre trying to allow players to play multiple roles, without overshadowing tech 2.

---

Where "Broad" currently reads as "HACs with 1 recon bonus", is that the final design?

---

Originally by: Capa

---

So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

---

Originally by: keepiru

---

What kinda market price range are you planning for these things anyway?

We've gotten conflicting developer input on this during the course of development.

---

Originally by: Elisabeth Dakar

---

Originally by: keepiru

---

What kinda market price range are you planning for these things anyway?

We've gotten conflicting developer input on this during the course of development.

---

Since T3 production is relying on a complete new material chain no one will be able to predict pices of t2 ships at the moment. The only thing which can be said is that they will be very expensive in the beginning and than get cheaper. Not even the devs can predeict how the market will be developing in the next few months.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

Electronic Subsystems no longer have one subsystem with different sensor strength, was it by design? Can we have it back?

It was by design yes, do you really want it back?

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

ò All defensive subsystems have T2 resistances.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

ò Mass distributed to subsystems û WeÆll possibly use this for tweaking later on.

---

Originally by: Elisabeth Dakar

---

Since T3 production is relying on a complete new material chain no one will be able to predict pices of t2 ships at the moment. The only thing which can be said is that they will be very expensive in the beginning and than get cheaper. Not even the devs can predeict how the market will be developing in the next few months.

---

Originally by: Sphynx Stormlord

---

Originally by: Elisabeth Dakar

---

Since T3 production is relying on a complete new material chain no one will be able to predict pices of t2 ships at the moment. The only thing which can be said is that they will be very expensive in the beginning and than get cheaper. Not even the devs can predeict how the market will be developing in the next few months.

---

CCP could, however, estimate the amount of player time required of competent players to build each hull/component.

And if that time is around 3 hours per hull+subsystems, then they will be of a comparable pricing to t2 ships at the moment.
If it is more like 30, then they will not be worth flying.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

Electronic Subsystems no longer have one subsystem with different sensor strength, was it by design? Can we have it back?

It was by design yes, do you really want it back?

---

Originally by: Elisabeth Dakar

---

you forget resource gathering and market mechanics. only because u need X hours to build a ship doesnt mean you can predict its price, not even with a big error.

---

Originally by: Perry

---

Okay i allready found a flaw in amarr subsystem design:

The Ship Combination 11111 gives 2 med slots and 3 low slots. Although the 7 rof bonused turrets make up for a lower count on slots, this config is in no way viable for anything. This is a result of the way too harsh penalty on the whole subgroup 1, which is starving for slots, leaving the ship nothing to do besides exploding fast. I would like you to reconsider nerfing a resist bonus with less slots while the similar powerful repair boost bonus gets more slots to play with.

I would like you to tweak this a bit by giving all modules similar power and similar slottage, so there is no way to gimp the ship beyond hope. Right now the improvements are there, but still the balance is missing! ccp to the rescue!!!

---

Originally by: Elisabeth Dakar

---

Who said that 11111 has to be viable?

---

Originally by: Perry

---

Okay i allready found a flaw in amarr subsystem design:

The Ship Combination 11111 gives 2 med slots and 3 low slots. Although the 7 rof bonused turrets make up for a lower count on slots, this config is in no way viable for anything. This is a result of the way too harsh penalty on the whole subgroup 1, which is starving for slots, leaving the ship nothing to do besides exploding fast. I would like you to reconsider nerfing a resist bonus with less slots while the similar powerful repair boost bonus gets more slots to play with.

I would like you to tweak this a bit by giving all modules similar power and similar slottage, so there is no way to gimp the ship beyond hope. Right now the improvements are there, but still the balance is missing! ccp to the rescue!!!

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

also the heat bonus should be 7.5% per level :)

---

Originally by: Amarr Holymight

---

You should consider giving the Neut/Vampire a range bonus to make it useful this is one of the areas the Pilgrim suffers, but at least they can use a Covert ops cloak.

---

Originally by: Aya Vandenovich

---

Originally by: Amarr Holymight

---

You should consider giving the Neut/Vampire a range bonus to make it useful this is one of the areas the Pilgrim suffers, but at least they can use a Covert ops cloak.

---

The pilgrim also doesn't have half a dozen pulse lasers and a decent armour tank, the neut/nos effectiveness bonus is fine. A range bonus might be a bit imbalanced.

---

Originally by: Capa

---

So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

---

Originally by: Aya Vandenovich

---

Originally by: Amarr Holymight

---

You should consider giving the Neut/Vampire a range bonus to make it useful this is one of the areas the Pilgrim suffers, but at least they can use a Covert ops cloak.

---

The pilgrim also doesn't have half a dozen pulse lasers and a decent armour tank, the neut/nos effectiveness bonus is fine. A range bonus might be a bit imbalanced.

---

Originally by: Cailais

---

Originally by: Aya Vandenovich

---

Originally by: Amarr Holymight

---

You should consider giving the Neut/Vampire a range bonus to make it useful this is one of the areas the Pilgrim suffers, but at least they can use a Covert ops cloak.

---

The pilgrim also doesn't have half a dozen pulse lasers and a decent armour tank, the neut/nos effectiveness bonus is fine. A range bonus might be a bit imbalanced.

---

No. But it does have E-War in the form of TD's and actually its tank isn't too bad. The reason the Pilgrim is viable as a short range nos / neut platform is its cloak. Without this its a trivial matter to disable one. A range / amount bonus is a must imho - although that wouldnt prevent a slot modifier being applied or some other minor drawback.

C.

---

Originally by: Amarr Holymight

---

... there isn't enough diversity in the layouts from what I can see.

---

Originally by: Aya Vandenovich

---

That's the point though. It's not a Pilgrim, it's essentially a HAC with T2 resists, four other subsystem bonuses, and a heat bonus. It wouldn't need to rely on nos/neuts as one of its primary weapons, hence why it only gets effectiveness right now, and giving it all of the Curse's nos/neut bonuses would be as imbalanced as giving the Pilgrim a range bonus.

---

Originally by: Capa

---

So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

---

Originally by: Aya Vandenovich

---

That's the point, though. It's not a Pilgrim, it's essentially a HAC with T2 resists, four other subsystem bonuses, and a heat bonus. It wouldn't need to rely on nos/neuts as one of its primary weapons, hence why it only gets effectiveness right now, and giving it all of the Curse's nos/neut bonuses would be as imbalanced as giving the Pilgrim a range bonus.

---

Originally by: Laszlo Ozawa

---

Edited by: Laszlo Ozawa on 25/02/2009 23:04:42

Originally by: Aya Vandenovich

---

That's the point, though. It's not a Pilgrim, it's essentially a HAC with T2 resists, four other subsystem bonuses, and a heat bonus. It wouldn't need to rely on nos/neuts as one of its primary weapons, hence why it only gets effectiveness right now, and giving it all of the Curse's nos/neut bonuses would be as imbalanced as giving the Pilgrim a range bonus.

---

lets think outside of currently-existing conventions for a moment, why does the ship effectively have to be a HAC or a pilgrim? Are no roles to fill or ways to balance the class that they've to be locked into some kind of a red-headed stepchild of those two?

---

Originally by: Capa

---

So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

---

Originally by: Cailais

---

Because HACs / HICS and RECONS are the T2 cruiser class its against these that all T3 cruisers will be compared.
C.

---

Originally by: BlackHorizon

---

Warfare links:
I'd also like to see some subsystems with a bonus to fitting gang warfare links. Some subsystem combinations are well into battlecruiser-class signature radii anyway, so adding this bonus wouldn't be extraordinary.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

So far I haven't been able to build a T3 ship that isn't out-performed by a similar HAC, Recon, HIC or Tier 1 BC (yes, it's absolutely fair to compare them to a BC, particularly when cost and training is involved).

T3 ships (so far) are still *very* traditional cruisers with respect to how to optimally fit them for combat and what tactics work best while flying them. The overall designs (balance wise, not art wise) are very conservative and middle of the road.

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

So far I haven't been able to build a T3 ship that isn't out-performed by a similar HAC, Recon, HIC or Tier 1 BC (yes, it's absolutely fair to compare them to a BC, particularly when cost and training is involved).

T3 ships (so far) are still *very* traditional cruisers with respect to how to optimally fit them for combat and what tactics work best while flying them. The overall designs (balance wise, not art wise) are very conservative and middle of the road.

---

Haven't tried the Proteus yet, but I must say that tengu is looking good right now (try it if you can, whioch I guess you can), some very nice slot layout even if penalized in the lows. Good suggetings anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Minmatar Def Subsystem 1 - Rez + 5% sheilds and armor per lvl
Minmatar Def Subsystem 2 - Rez + 7.5% Armor Repair Bonus per lvl
Minmatar Def Subsystem 3 - Rez + 7.5% Shield Boost Bonus per lvl

---

Originally by: Capa

---

So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

---

Originally by: Winterreign

---

Edited by: Winterreign on 26/02/2009 01:57:15
Next up engineering space. I've added somthing a little new in so much that The Eng subsystem 3 adds an additional rigging slot.

Amarr Eng Sub 1 - 5% Power Output per lvl
Amarr Eng Sub 2 - 5% Capacitor recharge + cargo space
Amarr Eng Sub 3 - 5% cap capacity + bonus rig slot

Caldari Eng Sub 1 - 5% Power Output
Caldari Eng Sub 2 - 5% Cap recharge + cargo space
Caldari Eng Sub 3 - 5% Cap capacity + bonus rig slot

Gallente Eng Sub 1 - 5% Power Output
Gallente Eng Sub 2 - 5% cap recharge + cargo space
Gallente Eng Sub 3 - 5% cap capacity + bonus rig slot

Minmatar Eng Sub 1 - 5% Power Output
Minmatar Eng Sub 2 - 5% cap recharge + Cargo space
Minmatar Eng Sub 3 - 5% Cap capacity + Bonus rig slot

Last up is propulsion systems. I tweaked this a little bit to provide more flavor. The Sub system 3 does indeed add a one time +1 bonus to your warp strength for amarr, everyone else has a scale they can build up for warp disrupter scrambler immunities, giving you @ lvl1 a warp strenght of 1 and at lvl 5 giving you 2.5 warp strength. If we were to add more systems you could start adding in bonus's for immunity to Stasis Webs

Amarr Propulsion Sub 1 - 5% Afterburner cap/speed bonus
Amarr Propulsion Sub 2 - 5% MWD sig/cap reduction bonus
Amarr Propulsion Sub 3 - 5% cap capacity per lvl +1 warp str

Caldari Propulsion Sub 1 - 5% Agility Bonus
Caldari Propulsion Sub 2 - 5% MWD Sig/cap reduct Bonus
Caldari Propulsion Sub 3 - .5 warp str per lvl (ship starts with .5 warp strength so that at lvl 1 u have 1 warp str and at lvl2 u have 1.5 all the way up to 2.5 which means you can escape from scramblers)

Gallente Propulsion Sub 1 - 10% MWD Signature Radius Penalty Reduct
Gallente Propulsion Sub 2 - 5% Afterburner / MWD Capacitor Use Reduction
Gallente Propulsion Sub 3 - .5 warp str per lvl (ship starts with .5 warp strength so that at lvl 1 u have 1 warp str and at lvl2 u have 1.5 all the way up to 2.5 which means you can escape from scramblers)

Minmatar Propulsion Subsystem 1 - 10% Velocity Bonus
Minmatar Propulsion Subsystem 2 - 5% Agility Bonus
Minmatar Propulsion Subsystem 3 - .5 warp str per lvl (ship starts with .5 warp strength so that at lvl 1 u have 1 warp str and at lvl2 u have 1.5 all the way up to 2.5 which means you can escape from scramblers)

These are not the end all be all, mearly suggestions to get CCP think'n and cranking out. Tech3 should be better then Tech2 in just about every way, however like all things in Eve you have to train skillz to acheive this.

-W

---

Originally by: Turiel Demon

---

With all the changes going on on the T3 ships over the last few weeks, it seems to me that with all the work that has gone into creating them, the actual thought as to how they were going to work in the game (bonuses, slot layout, purpose in general) was left until last.

Is this an illusion? If not, it does rather give the impression that the design process went something like 'hey, we need T(n) ships, lets A: announce them B: make them look good C: finish off the models and the physics for them D: work out the skill plans for them E: did we forget something? Oh damn, that's right...'

---

Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk

---

as things stand now it appears T3 ships are pretty much worthless from a practical viewpoint, some people will buy them just to have the latest toy, but producing them is going to be really far from worthwhile considering the hassle involved

some radical changes are needed, these ships have to be good enough for people to be willin to fly them in pvp despite the really stupid system involving skillpoint loss

it's frankly appalling how far from finished their balancing is, somebody really dropped the ball and let it fall down into the sewer system

---

Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk

---

Edited by: Tyrrax Thorrk on 26/02/2009 03:12:06

Yeah, good idea, release a terrible basically worthless feature that the entire patch is designed around and to support
then make it good if people use it despite it being horrible ??

lol .. you're an alt of the guy who designed this aren't you

---

Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans

---

Sorry, no. You have to go into wormholes and get farmed by the new AI NPCs like everyone else...

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

Boo hoo. Cry some more.

---

Originally by: Mica Swanhaven

---

Edited by: Mica Swanhaven on 26/02/2009 03:10:14

Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk

---

as things stand now it appears T3 ships are pretty much worthless from a practical viewpoint, some people will buy them just to have the latest toy, but producing them is going to be really far from worthwhile considering the hassle involved

some radical changes are needed, these ships have to be good enough for people to be willin to fly them in pvp despite the really stupid system involving skillpoint loss

it's frankly appalling how far from finished their balancing is, somebody really dropped the ball and let it fall down into the sewer system

---

dude, no one dropped the ball. They have to wait to see if they are successful on TQ before releasing more parts and THEN make them useful.

I mean why spend time making them useful, and something people would want to use, if we don't know if people want to use them?

you have to remember, you 1st need to see if people are willing to use it, before putting more development time into it.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Originally by: Mica Swanhaven

---

Edited by: Mica Swanhaven on 26/02/2009 03:10:14

Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk

---

as things stand now it appears T3 ships are pretty much worthless from a practical viewpoint, some people will buy them just to have the latest toy, but producing them is going to be really far from worthwhile considering the hassle involved

some radical changes are needed, these ships have to be good enough for people to be willin to fly them in pvp despite the really stupid system involving skillpoint loss

it's frankly appalling how far from finished their balancing is, somebody really dropped the ball and let it fall down into the sewer system

---

dude, no one dropped the ball. They have to wait to see if they are successful on TQ before releasing more parts and THEN make them useful.

I mean why spend time making them useful, and something people would want to use, if we don't know if people want to use them?

you have to remember, you 1st need to see if people are willing to use it, before putting more development time into it.

---

#1, how do you know no one dropped the ball? Tyrrax could be completely correct (and he probably is). You don't know one way or the other. His opinion could be just as correct as any.

#2, waiting to see if anyone likes them and THEN making them good? LOL? If there was ever a COMPLETELY WRONG WAY TO DO THINGS, that's it.

You have to remember, you 1st need to build something worth a f#ck before anyone will f#cking use it, before anyone will put any time into bothering with it. You have it completely backwards.

---

Quote:

---

404: sense of humor not found

---

Originally by: Mica Swanhaven

---

to quote a famous person in the linked thread

Quote:

---

404: sense of humor not found

---

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Where to start...

The new changes to the stats are an improvement. At least now there are a higher number of workable slot combinations. There are still a very large number (percentage wise) of slot combinations for all four ship types that are either totally unworkable or just useless/redundant for one reason or another.

I find myself mixing/matching subsystems in order to get a workable slot combination first and then seeing what bonuses/hardpoints I'm left with, which is a really bad thing.

Players aren't thinking "Ok, I'd like to have a ship with a neut bonus, some guns and a resistance bonus." Instead it goes something like "Hmm, this slot layout sucks, this one sucks too, ok, this one isn't bad, let's see what kind of stats I have... ok, that's not totally horrible, I'll go with that."

And the stats/capabilities that do end up on the ships when you get a decent/workable layout are fairly mundane and just not that interesting/exciting. Not only are we not seeing any sort of performance advantage over a HAC or Recon of a similar role, but I'm actually seeing less overall performance with respect to total tank/DPS, speed, lock times etc. And fitting the EW bonused electronics subsystem totally gimps the ship when compared to other fittings, and totally isn't worth the small EW bonus that it provides.

Have I actually started using the T3 ships in combat yet? Nope. Not until some game breaking bugs can be fixed, like the cap regen being broke, ships not retaining their fits after exiting them, etc. etc.

What we need at the moment is a concise list of the current subsystem bonuses, not just a 'ROF bonus' but an actual number to the bonuses '10% ROF per level' as an example. Why make us guess at what the bonus is by reverse engineering when you can just give us a list? There isn't really any point in discussing the value of the subsystem bonuses without knowing just how much the bonus is going to affect the end performance now is there? And it's really pointless to force us to reverse engineer 60 subsystems worth of stats when you could just tell us.

---

Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk

---

as things stand now it appears T3 ships are pretty much worthless from a practical viewpoint, some people will buy them just to have the latest toy, but producing them is going to be really far from worthwhile considering the hassle involved

some radical changes are needed, these ships have to be good enough for people to be willin to fly them in pvp despite the really stupid system involving skillpoint loss

it's frankly appalling how far from finished their balancing is, somebody really dropped the ball and let it fall down into the sewer system

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Originally by: Mica Swanhaven

---

to quote a famous person in the linked thread

Quote:

---

404: sense of humor not found

---

---

I can't find anything in your original post to have a sense of humor about. Nothing you said was funny, sarcastic or even facetious.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Originally by: Mica Swanhaven

---

to quote a famous person in the linked thread

Quote:

---

404: sense of humor not found

---

---

I can't find anything in your original post to have a sense of humor about. Nothing you said was funny, sarcastic or even facetious.

---

Originally by: Caile Sathinor

---

My Wall of Text

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

Where do tech 3 ships fit in?

Most simple way I can put it:
Tech 2 û Focused.
Tech 3 û Broad.

WeÆre trying to allow players to play multiple roles, without overshadowing tech 2.

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

they aren't better than tech 2 ships

---

Originally by: Mioelnir

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

they aren't better than tech 2 ships

---

That's the sole crux of T3.

When T2 was introduced, it was a success because T2 is plain better than T1. That was before my time. In the 2 years I play now, CCP is trying really hard not to introduce another technology tier/ship/... that is simply better. 'Same but different' seems to be desired.

Problem: when "should not be better than T2" is your main design criteria, the outcome will invariably suck, because you will always tone it down when you get the feeling one aspect might slightly surpass T2.

---

Originally by: Keigari

---

Dear CCP

I like most stuff of your new expansion, many things are well tought. However i get the bad feeling that it will utterly fail since the core of it the T3 ships are totally uninteresting at the moment.

Why i think they are totally uninteresting? Its by design, from my standpoint of view the subsystem would need a 100% overhaul to be interesting.
At the moment t3 cruisers are what? If we get lucky beefed up T2 cruisers with a heat bonus.
Why should i fly a t3 cruiser, that has the stats of a t2 bc, the size of a cruiser for the price of a carrier?
All in all you promised thousands of combinations. Um i dont see anything exciting in that. What should i do with 1000 combinations if 999 of them are just the same variation but with slightly changed fitting stats. (What is the real difference with a cruiser with a 4/3/4 layout with 100 pg and 100 cpu against a 3/4/4 layout with 99pg and 99cpu (this is my current impression of t3)

Please try something totally different even if it might delay the expansion. Introduce a system where 2 different subsystems combined would give a uniq bonus.

Example, Weapon Subsystem 1 and Engineering Subsystem 1 will give your ship a role bonus for Exploration, better chances for scanning better chances for analyzers/codebreakers ect.

Weapon Subsystem 1 + Engineering Subsystem 2 would give you a bonus in mining and a bonus in cargo capacity.
Weapon Subsystem 1 + Engineering Subsystem 2 + Proplusion 1 would give you a bonus to warp scramble range

This would give you the opportunity to really introduce thousands of different ships. Because their role would be altered by the subsystem combination. And not defined by the one subsystem.

What is the difference?
Atm for example Weapon 1 + Engineering 2, would give you more damage on weapon subsystem and warp scram bonus
Weapon 2 and Engineering 2 would give you rof bonus and warp scram bonus
Weapon 3 and Engineering 2 would still give you dam/rof bouns and warp scram bonus.
This is how it is now, in my view boring because you dont provide any really new combinations on that. Prupose of weapon is more damage purpose of engineering is more scram bonus

You think while giving us 10.000 combination it will make t3 broad like statet in the 1st post, that is developer thinking. We players will always bring it down to 10 combinations that prove mot effective and are focused on a role. Because you cant use the t3 cruisers in a broad role. I can not make a armor tanked ecm boat that is a drone monster.

Or a laser shooting fast tackling shield tanker. simply not possible by design. It will always, always come down to min-maxing.
Why min-maxing, especially on t3 ships, they will be expensive, risk is much higher than in 0.0 (heck i do believe that 0.0 for the right alliance is the safest place to be anyways, with delayed w-space it will be mayhem. So while i can ninja rat in 0.0 for 30 mil / hour with 100% safety. Id only go to w-space for like 50-70 mil / hour because i can be shot anytime have to check system scanner always ect.)
So you cant just use some stupid combination that is funny, it will come down to whats the utmost effective. Why should i bother flying a 500 mil t3 cruiser when i just can buy me 4 isthars rigged fitted and ready to roll for the same price. And the isthar is a swiss knife and only will cost a fraction of it.

---

Originally by: Kaulis

---

I think everyone has an understanding of the general appeal of T3 -- "it sux fix it nowz kthxbye"

While that helps in its own way, CCP needs to come up with ways to make it less "sux," its not all that helpful when actually balancing.

It'd probably be more beneficial and get more done if everyone could test specific setups then come back and post what they think is wrong with them (making sure to document the setup as well as any other competing ones that you think does the job better). That way CCP knows where to look and how to begin to balance these things.

As long as I didn't completely trash my math here, its 1440 different ships CCP has to try and make a role for. General broad statements really don't help and are probably being ignored since those broad statements really probably don't apply to every situation as the suggester suggesting them may think. Try to be a little more specific and things may get done.

---

Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk

---

HELLO CCP, MAKE T3 SHIPS STOP BEING TERRIBLE, THANKS IN ADVANCE

PS; prefnerfing is extremely dumb
PPS; skillpoint loss is also extremely dumb
PPPS; could you guys be any more out of touch with how the game / community works ? I don't think so.

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

Second, a gentile is a non jewish person

---

Originally by: Jan'z Kolna

---

I'm rather amused by all that whining and complaining....

-You can build cruiser with t2 resists and 19 slots (as much as battleship)
-You can build cruiser with sensor strenght 60, unjammable for all practical purposes,with t2 resists and dps
-You can build cruiser tanking better than battleship
-You can build cruiser tanking like HAC with racial ewar range 50% of racial recon
-You can build cruiser with t2 resists and dps almost doubling HAC

---

Quote:

---

Please , stop doing that.T3 ships are NOT better HACs or better recons.
They excel in one aspect, while remaining pretty good at everything else.

---

Originally by: Jan'z Kolna

---

@Shadowsword:
1.tank,gank,speed....no ship can have it all

---

Originally by: Jan'z Kolna

---

2.t3 ships are already better than t2, they simply don't fit into single category

---

Originally by: Jan'z Kolna

---

what's that obsession with labels and roles anyway?

---

Originally by: An Anarchyyt

---

For some other person who posted in this thread, the idea that T2 is better than T1 is entirely not true in terms of ships. T2 is more SPECIALIZED than T1.

---

Originally by: An Anarchyyt

---

Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk

---

HELLO CCP, MAKE T3 SHIPS STOP BEING TERRIBLE, THANKS IN ADVANCE

PS; prefnerfing is extremely dumb
PPS; skillpoint loss is also extremely dumb
PPPS; could you guys be any more out of touch with how the game / community works ? I don't think so.

---

Unfortunately, if they listened to the "community" we would have World of New Eden.

For some other person who posted in this thread, the idea that T2 is better than T1 is entirely not true in terms of ships. T2 is more SPECIALIZED than T1.

---

Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans

---

Sorry, no. You have to go into wormholes and get farmed by the new AI NPCs like everyone else...

---

Originally by: Shadowsword

---

Edited by: Shadowsword on 26/02/2009 16:33:00

Originally by: Jan'z Kolna

---

I'm rather amused by all that whining and complaining....

-You can build cruiser with t2 resists and 19 slots (as much as battleship)
-You can build cruiser with sensor strenght 60, unjammable for all practical purposes,with t2 resists and dps
-You can build cruiser tanking better than battleship
-You can build cruiser tanking like HAC with racial ewar range 50% of racial recon
-You can build cruiser with t2 resists and dps almost doubling HAC

---

Yes, and you can have all of this at the same time...

---

Originally by: Potrero

---

Can someone explain how these ships are supposed to fit into the current ship roles?

---

Originally by: Potrero

---

Broad versus specific doesn't mean very much when the ship is completely configurable.

---

Originally by: Potrero

---

It would be nice if CCP could answer the question: What role? Assuming prices are similar, when would you ever fly a T2 ship over T3?

---

Originally by: Caesar DeSahar

---

We also have to take in consideration the price, I don't have confirmed information but thinking about supply and demand I expect that for the first 4-5 months it won't be possible ot get a T3 for less than 1b isk, and the price will always remain very high compared to T2 cruisers.

I think they deserve to be better than T2 ships! and I am don't mean extremely better, but T3 should outperform T2 slightly less than T2 outperforms T1.

---

Originally by: Capa

---

So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

---

Originally by: Pattern Clarc

---

In stead of roles, what about mechanics? (last minute perhaps but w/e)

---

Originally by: Pattern Clarc

---

What if;

T3 ships acted like learning implants? You had to be in one to gain the benefit of the +1-+2 skill point learning but as you lose sp for getting one blown up, it would make sense, and kinda set them apart from other ships...

---

Originally by: Pattern Clarc

---

What if T3 ships (racial strat cruiser skill) had some sort of cap reduction bonus or cpu reduction bonus to a "mega module" called a Cyrocell(tm) an active heat sync, say a 300 cpu high/mid slot module of 2-3 flavours that gave it 50% bonuses to overloading duration, or overloading strength? Dropped from sleepers, it could be used on t1/t2 ships but would use up around about the cap of an x-large shield booster...

---

Originally by: Pattern Clarc

---

However, unspecialised ships on there own, regardless of the number of ways they could be customised, arn't going to do it, unless there allot better than t2. Some fits have the potential to be, especially with the number of slots...

---

Originally by: Cailais

---

If we're looking for different capability for T3 Id suggest 2 potential subsystems:

Propulsion V - Warp Core Strength +1 (with targeting penalty that drops to 0 as you reach Lvl V subsystem skill).

Engineering V - Warp Scramble Strength +1 (with cap recharge penalty that drops to 0 as you reach Lvl V subsystem skill).

Id also suggest that the Electronic Subsystems (e.g sig rad / scan resolution) included profession bonuses to mining, archaeology, salvage and hacking.

C.

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

At this stage I don't see major changes in the mechanics of T3 ships, unfortunatlly. I would put alot of emphasis on overheating I guess.

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

An other options left open for the future is have T3 modules which can be only mounted on the T3 hulls (-99% bonus to CPU use or somthing like that, like its allready doen on other modules), these T3 modules would perform similar to T1 (or meta4/T2) but have a bonus towards overheating or other weird effects.

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

this would render T3 ships almost useless until the future when these modules are released.

---

Originally by: Laszlo Ozawa

---

sometimes the proposed cures appear worse than the disease. this whole thread is moot until nozh deigns it worthy of his time to a) provide documentation for changes being implemented and b) provide rationale for his vision of t3 ships, assuming this isn't frantic groping in the dark as m10 draws near.

---

Originally by: Reatu Krentor

---

CCP Nozh, your attention pls.
is it intended game design that subsystem bonuses are stacking penalized against modules or should I bugreport that?
When I use Minmatar defensive subsystem 3 on Loki the shield boost bonus appears to be stacked against the shield boost amplifier's bonus, I get 411.5 boost(which happens to match up with +36% from sba and +26.xx%. Either the boost amount bonus is some odd number(like 5.xxx) or it's stacking penalized against the shield boost amplifier.

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

Originally by: Reatu Krentor

---

CCP Nozh, your attention pls.

---

WOW that is VERy critical. I woudl suggest bug report asap. Something simple as that may be the whole difference between being useless and great.

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

Boo hoo. Cry some more.

---

Originally by: Karrade Krise

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

Originally by: Reatu Krentor

---

CCP Nozh, your attention pls.

---

WOW that is VERy critical. I woudl suggest bug report asap. Something simple as that may be the whole difference between being useless and great.

---

I get the feeling you're trying to be scarcastic...however your statement isn't too far from the truth.

---

Originally by: Laszlo Ozawa

---

Originally by: Cailais

---

If we're looking for different capability for T3 Id suggest 2 potential subsystems:

Propulsion V - Warp Core Strength +1 (with targeting penalty that drops to 0 as you reach Lvl V subsystem skill).

Engineering V - Warp Scramble Strength +1 (with cap recharge penalty that drops to 0 as you reach Lvl V subsystem skill).

Id also suggest that the Electronic Subsystems (e.g sig rad / scan resolution) included profession bonuses to mining, archaeology, salvage and hacking.

C.

---

great stuff, likely already proposed and discussed. in the end, there isn't enough variability to the bonuses, but proposing individual things like that is like giving someone tylenol to treat multiple stab wounds. the design is fundamentally crippled in the way bonuses are assigned.

---

Originally by: Capa

---

So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

At this stage I don't see major changes in the mechanics of T3 ships, unfortunatlly. I would put alot of emphasis on overheating I guess.

An other options left open for the future is have T3 modules which can be only mounted on the T3 hulls (-99% bonus to CPU use or somthing like that, like its allready doen on other modules), these T3 modules would perform similar to T1 (or meta4/T2) but have a bonus towards overheating or other weird effects.

But this would render T3 ships almost useless until the future when these modules are released.

---

Originally by: Cailais

---

So a Tengu could select any of these five, as could a Loki. Applying this concept across all the subsystem brackets and you could have a very appealing, complex system of choices.

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

On topic... there is a large amount of combinations which make non sense, like Tengu with 75m3 dronebay and 0 bandwith, fix that plz.

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

On topic... there is a large amount of combinations which make non sense, like Tengu with 75m3 dronebay and 0 bandwith, fix that plz.

---

Originally by: Capa

---

So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

Will we see a Khanid Amarr offensive subsystem?

It’s being considered as Subsystem 4 at the moment.

---

Originally by: Vaal Erit

---

Spread your arms out and go "Brrrrrrrrrr" and then "fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap" Then takeoff!

---

Quote:

---

Minmatar Offensive Subsystem 1 - Projectile Rate of Fire / Damage Bonus

Minmatar Offensive Subsystem 2 - Projectile Rate of Fire / Falloff / Optimal Range Bonus

Minmatar Offensive Subsystem 3 - Projectile / Missile Rate of Fire Bonus

---

Originally by: Vaal Erit

---

Spread your arms out and go "Brrrrrrrrrr" and then "fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap" Then takeoff!

---

Originally by: Laszlo Ozawa

---

it sounds more like a defect, i think primary reason for the thread is in design-level issues. defects do make it difficult to test and balance things properly though, point taken.

Originally by: Karrade Krise

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

Originally by: Reatu Krentor

---

CCP Nozh, your attention pls.

---

WOW that is VERy critical. I woudl suggest bug report asap. Something simple as that may be the whole difference between being useless and great.

---

I get the feeling you're trying to be scarcastic...however your statement isn't too far from the truth.

---

---

Originally by: Virgo I'Platonicus

---

@CCP and OP.

Don't you think EVE hass too many different ships already? Your sandbox is being overflowed by shiptypes ... where in fact a bit of balancing between classes could take place.

I Like the tech 3 mind you. I've only tried it with a couple of ships, I like the customizations and general idea, however i fail to see the motive behind it, other than "keep old players by giving them mroe to try out".

(tbh that reason is quite solid, but could you please take a look into black ops?)


V.

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.

---

Originally by: Vaal Erit

---

Spread your arms out and go "Brrrrrrrrrr" and then "fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap" Then takeoff!

---

Originally by: K1RTH G3RS3N

---

is it just me or do these ships have way too much powergrid and not nearly enough cpu? i need to fiddle with it more i think.

---

Originally by: Vaal Erit

---

Spread your arms out and go "Brrrrrrrrrr" and then "fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap" Then takeoff!

---

Originally by: CCP Chiliad

---

On the concerns on Tech 3 ship prices, you might want to keep up with the T3 Production thread. A lot has changed there in the past two weeks, a more recent estimation:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=995617&page=6#161

---

• Powergrid, especially for the engineering subsystems 2 and 3
• Cap: losing it way too quickly, even with the subsystems that have cap bonuses

Originally by: Destrim

---

Edited by: Destrim on 27/02/2009 16:02:40
Maybe it's been said already... I wasn't about to dig through all 5 pages of lengthy posts.

The amarr have a SERIOUS issue with cap stability, and powergrid. One must consider that lasers tend to soak up more CPU/PG than the other weapons, and therefore have higher fitting requirements.

This being said, the T3 amarr ships tend to be severely lacking in PG unless you use the Engineering Subsystem #1... which has HORRIBLE capacitor problems, and makes it impractical for lasers! Any typical PvP fit will have Guns+MWD+Med.Cap-booster+MAR II, and there just isn't enough PG on the amarr T3 ships to fit guns, MWD, and 1xMAR II. That's with the engineering subsystem skill for amarr at lvl 4, and the strategic cruiser skill at 3.

Let's make a comparison: a Zealot, with my skills and no PG mods/rigs, will give me 1475 PG (enough to fit 5 pulses, a MWD, and a MAR II), while the amarr T3 ship (using the 1st engineering subsystem with the boost to PG) gives me 1650. Using the type 2 engineering subsystem (second most PG), you get significantly less: 1262

Now, at first, this may not seem all too bad... until you consider it gives an additional 2x turret hardpoints, and has the most ****astic cap of all the engineering subsystems. If one makes use of the additional turret hardpoints (bringing it to 6x turrets), then you WILL NOT have enough PG for all turrets and a MWD, let alone a cap booster or MAR II. Additionally, your cap dissappears after a few salvos, making the fit ******ed without a cap booster (which you can't fit).

Considering the amount of PG received in either of the other two engineering subsystems makes using more than 4 turrets impractical (you almost can't do anything without fitting a reactor control II, or ancillary current router rig), thus removing offensive subsystem 1 as an option, I believe this requires more attention.

Here's an example, using a 2/1/2/3/1 setup (going in order of Ele. Def. Eng. Off. Prop.): 4x Heavy Beams uses-up 990 of my 1262 PG. Mind you, I have advanced weapon upgrades at lvl 5, so it would be more painful for anyone else without such. This leaves enough room for either a MWD, a MAR II, or a Med. Cap-Booster... but only ONE of these. Meaning, I can't fit a MWD+MAR II, or MWD+Med.Cap-Booster, or MAR II+Med.Cap-Booster. This, frankly, sucks. Even when only using 4 guns (which gimps damage somewhat), I can't get a decent fit... and my cap still disappears very quickly.

So, those are two things that require a strong look-over on the amarr T3 ships:

• Powergrid, especially for the engineering subsystems 2 and 3
• Cap: losing it way too quickly, even with the subsystems that have cap bonuses

---

Originally by: CCP Chiliad

---

Edited by: CCP Chiliad on 27/02/2009 14:48:54
On the concerns on Tech 3 ship prices, you might want to keep up with the T3 Production thread. A lot has changed there in the past two weeks, a more recent estimation:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=995617&page=6#161

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

PS.
I'm falling in love with Proteus 13131 (fitting screen top to bottom).

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

one simple question.

if they won't be better than tech 2 (even when over heating) then why skill point loss?

I thought that was added risk for reward... can you explain your design goals with this? so far you've said nothing about how this fits in.

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

Second, a gentile is a non jewish person

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

Where do tech 3 ships fit in?

I think I have to answer this in more detail and explain our current limitations and goals.

Stuff...

---

Originally by: An Anarchyyt

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

one simple question.

if they won't be better than tech 2 (even when over heating) then why skill point loss?

I thought that was added risk for reward... can you explain your design goals with this? so far you've said nothing about how this fits in.

---

Since this doesn't seem to ever stop coming up, I thought I'd point out something.

SP loss, both real and theoretical (future based) currently exists in Eve.

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

yes, yes it does, good job pointing out eve has skill loss.

now like I was saying, what is the design goal to have skill loss on ship loss? This seems to me like you want to make the ships more valuable, as NO SHIPS IN EVE give you skill loss other than pods. Why this personal connection?

This isn't a whine, it's just you have not linked the ships role with this new mechanic.

I wouldn't honestly like to know what warrants it, or what you get in return for it.
Please, tell me why Me and my ship are so close... IS this an unfinished feature? Some sort of... tech 3 ships will get bonuses from your attributes thing?

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

Second, a gentile is a non jewish person

---

Originally by: An Anarchyyt

---

And I'm pointing out why is this skill loss so much different than other skill loss?

And I do believe, like most other things, they get bonuses based on level.

---

Originally by: Finnroth

---

Originally by: An Anarchyyt

---

And I'm pointing out why is this skill loss so much different than other skill loss?

And I do believe, like most other things, they get bonuses based on level.

---

How often do you lose your pod, and how often your ship? If you don't get into a bubbled engagement there's more or less a certainty to safe your pod from harm. This is a constant, and a basic of the risks within EVE.

Now lets see, you lose SP when loosing the ship - this happens pretty much very often within an engagement, especially if you consider the habit and personalty of most EVE players. They will target T3 just because it hurts more than losing "just" your standard T2 ship.
This means, there's more at stake, the loss is higher, the risks far greater (or more or less a certainty, if you get into a T3 vessel, better be prepared to lose some of your SP). That which is missing is more gain out of the ships to compensate for the higher risk of loss.

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

Second, a gentile is a non jewish person

---

Originally by: An Anarchyyt

---

hogwash

---

Originally by: An Anarchyyt

---

And I'm pointing out why is this skill loss so much different than other skill loss?

And I do believe, like most other things, they get bonuses based on level.

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

I'm asking WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

prices of Strategic Cruisers. The goal has always been to have them consi

Originally by: Karrade Krise

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

I'm asking WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY

---

So that T3 wont become Mainstream such as T2 and the like.

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

If you eject you don't lose SP, I'm doing it all the time. You won't have time against a blob though (more with lag), but these ships are not to be used in blob warfare.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

prices T3. goal around the price of tech 2 cruisers

---

Originally by: Sarin Adler

---

Edited by: Sarin Adler on 27/02/2009 22:44:03
If you eject you don't lose SP, I'm doing it all the time. You won't have time against a blob though (more with lag), but these ships are not to be used in blob warfare.

---

Originally by: keepiru

---

If it doesn't become mainstream the whole expansion will tank, because the almost totality of its content is depending on sufficient demand for T3 ...

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

because I can die 1000 times in my faction fitted CNR, or a rifter and never lose skill points out of skills that only pertains to that one single ship?
....
I'm asking WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY

---

Originally by: Vaal Erit

---

Spread your arms out and go "Brrrrrrrrrr" and then "fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap" Then takeoff!

---

Originally by: Camdim

---

remove turrents and lauchers

---

Originally by: Zhulik

---

I thought Premium graphics were supposed to fix that bug where people were trying to salvage Minmatar ships.

---

Originally by: Jack Jombardo

---

Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 28/02/2009 01:39:48
Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 28/02/2009 01:38:17

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

because I can die 1000 times in my faction fitted CNR, or a rifter and never lose skill points out of skills that only pertains to that one single ship?
....
I'm asking WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY

---

You got the problem allready.
Buy GTC for real money, sell ingame for ISK, suizid gang without thinking about how to refinanz your ship.

You know this?: "EvE is all about risk vis reward!!" <- hear this all the time from wannabe PvP/Pirtas

Tell me where the "risk" is when suizid in a T1 ship? NOWHERE as you have 130% insurence!
There is a bit of "risk" with T2 but who cares if you simplay can sell another GTC?

Now T3 provides a real "risk" for all you hauler-gangers or hot-drobbers !
Failed to gang? Failed to Hotdrob? take the RISK of losing SP!
Next time you'll try it you might first think about YOUR "risk".

---

Originally by: Farrellus Cameron

---

The only difference amongst the propulsion subsystems is speed and there's no reason to not just pick the fastest one since there is another stat that is effected. Why would anyone pick the slower version when there's no penalty for picking the fastest version?

---

Originally by: Kyvon

---

i was trying to play around with them on singularity so i bought 100 hulls...and started assembling random setups based on the setups...then i went to fittin screen and saw you could try to change out the subsystem from the fitting screen but it gave a warning and said 'drag a new one here' but i tried and it didnt work? or am i doing it wrong by just trying to drag/drop or right click -fit to active ship

---

Originally by: K1RTH G3RS3N

---

Originally by: Kyvon

---

i was trying to play around with them on singularity so i bought 100 hulls...and started assembling random setups based on the setups...then i went to fittin screen and saw you could try to change out the subsystem from the fitting screen but it gave a warning and said 'drag a new one here' but i tried and it didnt work? or am i doing it wrong by just trying to drag/drop or right click -fit to active ship

---

correct it doesnt work for me either

---

Originally by: Lijhal

---

Originally by: K1RTH G3RS3N

---

Originally by: Kyvon

---

i was trying to play around with them on singularity so i bought 100 hulls...and started assembling random setups based on the setups...then i went to fittin screen and saw you could try to change out the subsystem from the fitting screen but it gave a warning and said 'drag a new one here' but i tried and it didnt work? or am i doing it wrong by just trying to drag/drop or right click -fit to active ship

---

correct it doesnt work for me either

---

me too :(

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Originally by: Lijhal

---

Originally by: K1RTH G3RS3N

---

Originally by: Kyvon

---

i was trying to play around with them on singularity so i bought 100 hulls...and started assembling random setups based on the setups...then i went to fittin screen and saw you could try to change out the subsystem from the fitting screen but it gave a warning and said 'drag a new one here' but i tried and it didnt work? or am i doing it wrong by just trying to drag/drop or right click -fit to active ship

---

correct it doesnt work for me either

---

me too :(

---

That specific feature is bugged in the latest patch. It was working the patch previous, AFAIK it's going to be fixed in the next patch.

---