How to replace non-blue loot wormhole income then?

Nerfed T3s will devalue w-space.

They have not stated any plans to nerf T3s in any way. They have announced plans to change how T3s work for boosting. A battleship puts out more DPS at a longer range for less cost than a T3 ship, they are in no way OP except that people need something to whine about.

wtf have T3s got to do with the value of WH space? :S

Nanoribbons are only important because they are a bottleneck in T3 production. Gas is used in T3 production. mag site loot is used in T3 production.

Everything that comes out of wormholes (except gas a blue loot) is used to make T3s. If T3s get nerfed then the value of everything goes down, thus reducing the value of wormholes.

blue loot is around 85% of WH value, 85% of 'as much as i want' is 'all that i need'.
i think i'll manage tbh.

blue loot is around 85% of WH value, 85% of 'as much as i want' is 'all that i need'.
i think i'll manage tbh.

If all you do is capital escalations, then yes, blue loot is the majority of your income (Not sure 85% is accurate, but whatever). If you're just one guy in an alliance of 100+ active players and you need to do more than simply escalate the 2 sitesy ou have in your home system, then blue loot is considerably less.

Instrumental Core Reservoir: 60mil in blue loot, 0-40mil in salvage, 410mil of gas.
Vital Core Reservoir: 65mil in blue loot, 0-50mil in salvage, 450mil in gas.

etc.

Blue loot is only enough if you have only a handful of people in your hole.

How to replace non-blue loot wormhole income then?

Nerfed T3s will devalue w-space.

I'm not even sure if CCP Fozzie will seriously consider w-space when re-balancing T2 / T3 ships.

The nerf is coming, no matter how much it is going to suck. Too many people complaining about them for CCP to not nerf them. At least there will still be blue loot.

EDIT: Gas prices are down, mag loto prices are down, Radars have been crap for quite some time. W-Space is drying up :(

How to replace non-blue loot wormhole income then?

Nerfed T3s will devalue w-space.

I'm not even sure if CCP Fozzie will seriously consider w-space when re-balancing T2 / T3 ships.

They have not stated any plans to nerf T3s in any way. They have announced plans to change how T3s work for boosting. A battleship puts out more DPS at a longer range for less cost than a T3 ship, they are in no way OP except that people need something to whine about.

Better information from the Minutes released today:

you use the term 'better' a bit loosely here i think...

As for T3, the problem is they are not generalized, they are just generally good.

They mostly offer the same bonuses as the specialized t2 ships, just with everything else better than the t2 variant. Add to that their small mass, and you have the perfect WH ship.

Yeah and Absolution is plainly better than Harbinger, that's why one is called T2 and another T1, the former costing 4 times the later.

Two step explained that people in wormholes currently use T3s for heavy, reasonably high DPS platforms and that he thought this dynamic was good. Ytterbium disagreed completely and argued that T3s have a very high EHP, very good damage, and a good maneuverability. This combination, he continued, was simply too good.

Narzis,

my HAC Proteus:

1100 dps
142K EHP

Do we need a cheap T2 cruiser with no SP loss that has higher stats? Really?

there does need to be movement in both directions, but personally I'm worried about a potential change to T3 that might mean they have less dps/tank than a HAC, whilst being 4x the price AND having a skill loss.

Narzis,

my HAC Proteus:

1100 dps
142K EHP

Do we need a cheap T2 cruiser with no SP loss that has higher stats? Really?

I`m surely missing something here. Versatility Vs. Specialization. But how can I make a T3 versatil if I can`t change its subsystems?
I`m sure Nullsec dwellers have it a little more easy than us, but still...

EDIT: Gas prices are down, mag loto prices are down, Radars have been crap for quite some time. W-Space is drying up :(

EDIT: Gas prices are down, mag loto prices are down, Radars have been crap for quite some time. W-Space is drying up :(

I run a Proteus, so I'm pretty sure this thing costs more then a freaking Dred or a Carrier fully fitted :D, so this kind of makes up for the high stats, and let's admit that it can't do what a cap ship can... but it costs the same.. I don't see why it is an issue that we can afford to fly them..

they are not better then a BS hull

Comparable BS has much more range, utility, and sensor strength bit higher dps and less tank when you count in the sig. Unfortunately this comparable BS has 5 times more mass, if you need to get ******** amounts of gank with as much EHP as possible on the field, nothing really compares to a Proteus.

Paid approx 1.18bil, pyfa shows 1.4bil.

Totally agreeing with this ^.

I was comparing the T3 hull with BS hull from overall game perspective, were mass is not an issue.



My point, can't you buy a cap ship for 1 bil these days?

Imo, T3's are fine as they are, but CCP obviously disagrees. All I can do is hope that when they nerf them, it's not so hard that they make the ships -and therefore whspace- utterly worthless.

It actually increases wh value, because it will take some time for many to reorganize in new ships/fleet, and run stuff properly.
This will result in fewer ops with a longer time to complete, we all know how long it takes to do it in BC's.
So by economic definition the offer of wh stuff will drop on the market, as the wh resources will take longer to get on the markets, which results in less and less wh stuff on the market and so prices for wh resources will increase, slowly at first as many have great stashes of stuff, but eventually prices will go up.

With t2 cruisers being sandwiched in the middle of super cheap buffed t1 cruisers, and jack of all trade heavy tanked T3s of course people are going to fuckin whine about T3 being OP. T2 haven't been balanced.. why the hell would I fly a Muninn when its ****?

Personally, I don't really care about the argument of the T3 vs. the HAC. I care about the argument of the T3 vs. the damn command ship...

Lets compare fits that are generally designed to be equivalent (aka, not worrying about interdiction nullification, covops cloaking, scanning, and command links, which CCP already is planning to address).

Loki v Slepnir
Loki:
can be effectively armor tanked
can have web range bonus
speed/agility advantage
sig advantage
better EHP
Slepnir:
more dps
a better active tank (maybe...)

In this comparison, the big thing that needs to change is that the slepnir should be able to manage better EHP than the loki. Maybe it should have to choose between having more EHP or more DPS than the loki, and only get 1 or the other, but as it is if you want EHP to see you through a fight, you fly a loki. It is slower, hit harder (with its larger sig), and the loki can have the web range bonus. I'm not sure whether or not the slepnir should have the opportunity to armor tank.

Proteus V Astarte
Proteus:
more ehp
point/scram range bonus
smaller sig
more agility/speed
better active tank
Astarte:
more dps

umm... well. Why the hell would you ever fly an astarte? Actually, I can't tell you the last time I saw one. And the additional dps of the astarte is kind of lost with the reduction in the ability to get in range to apply it (and of course the significanly less EHP available to survive getting in range). Once again, the astarte needs to have SOME reason to make it worth flying over flying a proteus.

Nighthawk V tengu
Tengu
dps is about even with missile fit
can actually fit HAM's
missile range bonus
speed/agility
sig radius
active tank
EHP (this is kind of close, but the tengu can generally manage better EHP)
Nighthawk:
Has drones...

Ok, so the nighthawk barely compares favorably even to a drake, and can't really even fit HAM's either. It really is an insult to even try to compare it to the tengu - lets just leave it at the nighthawk needs ALOT of love, but it really needs the ability to actually put HAM's on a viable fit, and it really needs to be able to manage either noticeably more dps and/or noticeably more tank than the tengu.

Lastly, Legion V Absolution
Legion:
Range
speed/agility
sig radius
active tank
buffer tank
Absolution:
Dps
drones

In this case, you may actually manage to get an absolution with better EHP than a legion (though it will loose its dps advantage if it attempts to do so). This may or may not be acceptible. However, the absolution encounters difficulties in actually applying its dps, as it suffers from 50% less range than the legion, as well as less maneuverability. Absolutions are at least more common to see than astarte's, though I still can't remember the last time I actually saw one being used. The absolution needs a buff, but probably less so than either the astarte or the nighthawk.

Conclusion - I don't care if the T3's are better than HAC's at everything. What needs to change is the T3's being better than command ships at pretty much everything. The command ships niche got pushed back with the introduction of teir 2 BC's, but it got absolutely destroyed by the introduction of T3's. I believe that it is far past time to bring them back.

Ok, I will admit though, I do have command ship 5 because of slepnir... and I hate flying T3's due to that possibility of skillpoint loss.

-Arazel

Command and conquer

When we're finished with tech 1 hulls we are going to start looking into more advanced roles, starting with Command ships. They are seriously lacking at the moment for two reasons: first, regular tier 2 battlecruisers mostly fill the same combat role for less expensive operational costs, and second, tech 3 hulls are just plain better at gang link boosting.

Our goal is to make them appealing to fly as a whole, not something you keep inside a POS forcefield while watching your favorite TV show. For this reason, we want:

- Tech 3 ships to be able to carry more gang links at once than Command Ships, but with less effect
- Tech 3 ships to be able to carry some gang links while still maintaining some combat capability
- Command Ships to carry fewer types of gang links than Tech 3, but with stronger effects (specialization over generalization) - if fitted with gang links, they have less combat capability than Tech3 hulls.
- All Command Ships to have a combat role on the field on top of having the possibility to be fit for a pure fleet commanding platform.

What does that mean in practice? We are removing the distinction between GÇ£fleetGÇ¥ and GÇ£fieldGÇ¥ Command Ships. All of them will now have 3% bonuses to two Warfare Link fields and be able to fit three warfare link modules simultaneously (instead of 3 for fleet versions only). That also means that the previous fleet Command Ships will be rebalanced to fit combat roles. Want to use an Eos as a truly effective drone ship? You can. Or the Damnation as a sexy Khanid missile platform beast? Be our guest. All that matters is the specialization choices you make before undocking by deciding to fit gang links or not, not something forced to you from the arbitrary "field" versus "fleet" hull.

Tech 3 treatment will focus on making them more generalized. Their Warfare Link bonuses will be reduced from 5% to 2% effectiveness; however they will have bonuses to three racial Warfare Link fields while being able to fit three Warfare Link modules simultaneously.

As a side note, as we announced a while ago, we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid. Command and Tech3 ships providing that much of an advantage should commit to an engagement instead of being safely parked inside a POS bubble.

[...]
Loki v Slepnir
Loki:
can be effectively armor tanked
can have web range bonus
speed/agility advantage
sig advantage
better EHP
Slepnir:
more dps
a better active tank (maybe...)
[...]
-Arazel

try comparing 1xT3 with 3xCS, because that's how the numbers play out if you factor in ISK.

Here's what CCP thinks about CS vs T3:
...

...

a good t3 ship also cost 800mill-2bill....there is a reason they are good, they cost a **** lot, and just 420mill when not fittet...

Higher price = better ship, they are better than t2 and so it should stay, but also cost a fu*k lot more tbh.

Sorry, my stats we're off my head, these are checked from pyfa with my skills and implants, (all Vs are even higher):

1224 dps w/Void+heat & Hammers (1247) at point blank (3.8km), w/Null and Hammers deals about 700 dps @ 15km (834)
143K EHP (149)

Paid approx 1.18bil, pyfa shows 1.4bil

Fairly standard issue AHAC Proteus if you ask me, can fit either MWD or AB. Non-pimped stats are dangerous when discussing T3s, they are not as impressive, but also not as common on Tranquility.



Comparable BS has much more range, utility, and sensor strength bit higher dps and less tank when you count in the sig. Unfortunately this comparable BS has 5 times more mass, if you need to get ******** amounts of gank with as much EHP as possible on the field, nothing really compares to a Proteus.

And this is why simple "buff Deimos dps & EHP" without nerfing Proteus is not really a realistic option IMHO- if we stick to the principle that T2 > T3 in specialized role, which I assume in this case is dealing damage while receiving reps. Question remains whether simply making HACs even more mobile, but with weaker tank/gank would be enough to make them viable options.

Maybe, at least different and possibly more fun.

can you just give me your fit please that does this

When will people get this:
Price is not a balancing factor!
Especially not in a playerdriven economy with functioning supply/demand.
Otherwise we would still have titans with aoe-doomsday.

Quoting this because it needs to be said again.

those are stock standard triple mag stab proteus stats mate.

this view is ignorant in the extreme.
ignore T3s for a sec. what are these ships, all filling the same role, balanced on:

thorax
brutix
deimos
astarte

yeah, skill requs and ISK. note the isk.
if isk was not a balancing factor, these ships should all cost the same.

I understand why T3's might be popular, but between cost and the skill point loss if you lose them they seem balanced, perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why they are the go to ship with these drawbacks when compared to T2 cruisers and BC's?

Skill points.

It takes a lot less skill points to train up to fly a T3 competently than it would to fly HACs + Recons + CovOps + Command ships etc.

Thus especially for alt accounts or rich pilots, where the player has access to a significant isk pool, T3s are the go to ships because they are significantly faster to train for.

I have no objection to T3s being better than T2s, but not at their specialties, and not in the complete package they are currently.

Skill points.

It takes a lot less skill points to train up to fly a T3 competently than it would to fly HACs + Recons + CovOps + Command ships etc.

Thus especially for alt accounts or rich pilots, where the player has access to a significant isk pool, T3s are the go to ships because they are significantly faster to train for.

its less skill points till you start repeatedly losing level 5 subs

the ONLY thing T3s currently do outright better than t2 (not counting covops) is tank and boosts.
the combat CSs do more DPS and recons have MUCH better ewar.
boosts are already being addressed.

Also note that those two ships are probably not made for the same role. If you want to shieldtank, I'm not sure if the Loki compares that well to the sleip. However, if those two went up against each other, both fitted with an X-large sb, my bets are placed on the sleip.

Aside from that, shieldtanked T3s really are damn fast. Even armor T3s are moving rather rapidly.

Armor t3s are funny, don't they have only 2500-3500 armor HP to start with? Now a plate and three trimarks and you already have around 12k. Paired with great resists... you end up with 80k+ armo-EHP even on a 500 mil fit.

And there are those superspecialized subsystems: amplification node and nanobot-injector with 10% to active reps -- why?

T3's take a huge investment in time, and isk to be flown effectively. You lose up to 4 days of SP when you get popped. If you want to nerf T3's to be more in line with t2's you should drop the SP loss completely. Then you can nerf it to be only slightly better, and you won't hear many complaints. From my understanding the SP loss was put in place to keep everyone in the game from flying them, and that did not work at all since most people train for t3's as soon as possible.

Source for plates/armour tanking changes?

T3s don't take a huge investment of time. They take less time than HACs, and MUCH less time than command ships.

The SP loss was a gimmick, and it needs to go no matter what happens. I would have thought CCP would have learned from other ships, people will fly what is best, costs be damned. (see: super caps)

So you're saying that its OK to have ships that completely out-class anything in their size range (cruiser) because they cost more? I'll also point out that a T3 cruiser requires LESS skill points than a HAC (HAC V vs all subs to V) and also much less skill points than a Command Ship.

So both HACs and Command Ships should just be flat out better than T3s by your own logic?

Price does come into it, but it needs to be AFTER the ships are balanced, and not as a justification for the ship being above and beyond anything else in it's class.

I have no objection to T3s being better than T2s, but not at their specialties, and not in the complete package they are currently.

The skill point loss feature on T3s isn't anywhere as nasty as it was three years ago when they were first introduced.

Nowadays the majority of capsuleers and their alts are refining level 5 skills at 7-14 days +

4-5 days to get back a T3 L5 skill isn't a hardship.

Skillpoint loss was one of those typically clever short-term ideas which CCP should be forgiven for.

Dump that silly feature, remove T3 boosting altogether, make cross-the-board sig radius reduction subsystems instead.

The skill point loss feature on T3s isn't anywhere as nasty as it was three years ago when they were first introduced.

Nowadays the majority of capsuleers and their alts are refining level 5 skills at 7-14 days +

4-5 days to get back a T3 L5 skill isn't a hardship.

Skillpoint loss was one of those typically clever short-term ideas which CCP should be forgiven for.

Dump that silly feature, remove T3 boosting altogether, make cross-the-board sig radius reduction subsystems instead.

When will people get this:
Price is not a balancing factor!
Especially not in a playerdriven economy with functioning supply/demand.
Otherwise we would still have titans with aoe-doomsday.

not sure if trolling or just insanely stupid.

If ship cost isn't a balancing factor, aren't all faction ships gloriously op? A cynabal is easier to get into then a HAC, but arguably better than at least most of them.

Not sure if NPC trolling or just too insanly stupid to get how economy or even just this game works.

Hey, i just want to add a small side to this. I Can't fly a t3 ship. All i can fly that is of any potential and isk vs risk in WH space is a hurricane. I run solo, i know i don't have much to argue on becuase of that.. but if i can not solo in bc then why can a cruiser do it ;/.

The problem i find, is.. not only is the hurricane realy, realy hard to do anything with in c2 ( and i have almost maxed it's skills out) .. it also have no chance vs a t3 cruiser. Ofc, it's rarely a 1v1 in this blob fest of a game, but the T3 ships are so powerfull i have seen plenty going solo with huge success. They have very little to worry about, i don't think that's right. I remember the days you had to know the strengths of every ship, and quickly work out your strat for chance of vicotry/escape. This T3 just feels like ''Yeah I'll give it a go.. then warp out if i start to lose #T3''.

I had left the game, and when i did their was none of the T3 stuff. I don't knock change.. but it does feel like so many other ships have been put on the back burner, and not a viable option for the new content. Yes you can say the T3 cost a lot?.. but so does a well fitted BS. The issue is.. jumping a BS into WH space solo is just a bad idea. We all know a cruiser (even if it cots more) is at far, far less risk. The T3 is all the pro's of a cruiser.. the tank of a BS. This leaves a solo BC/BS where?.

I just think it's wrong that a player can train for less time than it took me to get this cane upto what it is.. and then spank the living day light out of me... before proceeding to afk clear up the rad site i was working.

All i can think of when i look at these T3 ships is ''Pay to win''.

P.s, no i have not been spanked by a T3 ship, so this is not a butthurt rant. The fact is, it would happen though.

Hey, i just want to add a small side to this. I Can't fly a t3 ship. All i can fly that is of any potential and isk vs risk in WH space is a hurricane. I run solo, i know i don't have much to argue on becuase of that.. but if i can not solo in bc then why can a cruiser do it ;/.

The problem i find, is.. not only is the hurricane realy, realy hard to do anything with in c2 ( and i have almost maxed it's skills out) .. it also have no chance vs a t3 cruiser. Ofc, it's rarely a 1v1 in this blob fest of a game, but the T3 ships are so powerfull i have seen plenty going solo with huge success. They have very little to worry about, i don't think that's right. I remember the days you had to know the strengths of every ship, and quickly work out your strat for chance of vicotry/escape. This T3 just feels like ''Yeah I'll give it a go.. then warp out if i start to lose #T3''.

I had left the game, and when i did their was none of the T3 stuff. I don't knock change.. but it does feel like so many other ships have been put on the back burner, and not a viable option for the new content. Yes you can say the T3 cost a lot?.. but so does a well fitted BS. The issue is.. jumping a BS into WH space solo is just a bad idea. We all know a cruiser (even if it cots more) is at far, far less risk. The T3 is all the pro's of a cruiser.. the tank of a BS. This leaves a solo BC/BS where?.

This leaves the solo BS/BC as a nice, cost effective alternative to flying a strategic cruiser or other expensive site running ships.

I would argue a battleship fit properly could clear low class wh sites faster than several of the T3's. Sure, it's big and slow and dies if it gets caught. Who cares? It's cheap as hell. In all honesty, T3's aren't even that good for these low class wormholes, they're just what most people use because they're fairly easy to train into and they're standard. Don't fret the T3's. When lost, they'll cost minimum about 20 times what your Hurricane costs, as well as make the pilot lose 4-5 days of skill training. On some levels, cost is a balancing factor, and it's one that works well for T3's in the current meta.

Yes they have. Watch Fanfest 2012 ship re-balancing video on CCP youtube.

Also mentioned in a dev blog something about putting T3s down like the "rabid dog" that it is.

No specifics mentioned so far, just an incoming nerf.

The only thing that spreadsheetwarrior Fozzie considers while balancing stuff is the drone bay, and if a ship doesnt fits the one thing he wants it to do exactly he randomly adjusts the drone bay size.

As for T3, the problem is they are not generalized, they are just generally good.

They mostly offer the same bonuses as the specialized t2 ships, just with everything else better than the t2 variant. Add to that their small mass, and you have the perfect WH ship.