You might have solved most of the rebalancing right there. Simple and effective. Time to call Fozzie ...

I guess am not a superstar

My crazy idea for "flexible but not overpowered" would be:

- give the ship plenty of slots
- give the ship a zillion different bonuses, but all small
- have the ship have an amplified stacking penalty effect so you cannot take any one stat to ludicrous levels via modules

This should promote installing everything and the kitchen sink in your solomobile, without making a solopwnmobile.

Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.

The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.

In summary:

• Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
• Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
• Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
• Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.

Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.


Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.

What I really hope is that CCP realizes that EVE isn't "Tengus Online". It seems that everyone bases the status of T3's off of the admittedly overpowered Tengus, but they fail to even look at the performance of other T3's...

How about you start with nerfing the Tengus rather than just breaking every other T3? The Legion is already fine as it is, nerfing all T3's would maintain the imbalance between the Tengu and everything else. What you want to break is the overpowered status of the Tengu, but why ruin the Legion and Proteus?

If CCP just nerfed everything in a T3 and increased them in the name of "flexibility", no one in their right mind would use a T3 in the first place. T3's are useful because they are tanky and powerful - why would I spend 700M ISK on a T3 if I could be outperformed by a HAC? Because I can keep another 1.4bn ISK worth of subsystems in my cargo? Thinking so is ludicrous.

Malcanis sums it up very well here. (+1 from me )

From my point of view - and I believe that at least some people share it - T3s are not really "adaptive" or "flexible". When I fit a T3 I always do the same I do when fitting any other ship: I try to find a good fit for the intended task. The only difference from fitting a T1 or T2 is that the T3 has subsystems, which means you need to put some more thought into it. If I'm able to get a better (=more dps or more tank or more specials or being cheaper while being as good) result with another ship I will get that other ship instead. Unless I no longer need the T3 for the original task I would never change the subsystems to fit it for another task; instead I simply buy a second T3 (or T1 or T2 if they are better suited for the task).

I'm not saying that T3s aren't in need of a rebalance. But I believe it will be very difficult to rebalance them without making them obsolete. Maybe it would be a good idea to think out of the box here. I liked the ideas about removing the rig slots and giving T3s the ability to self-refit subs and mods. Imagine flying your explorer T3 in a scanner setup, refit it to a fighting setup on finding a combat site, refit to a PvP or a cloaky fit on noticing neutrals (or reds) on dscan. Yes, this might open a new can of worms and if not done right could make the T3s OP. But that way you would get a truly unique ship type, a jack of all trades but master of none.

Come to think of, as long as T3s are still tough enough to deal with sleepers I would actually like to have such a versatile ship and wouldn't care if they have the best dps/tank or not.

Just remember that no one is going to pay any premium for ships that are mediocre at several roles. Remember the glory days of "flexible" pirate ships with split weapon bonuses?

If we're putting a quarter of a million SP on the line, then that ship damb well better do something better than anything else. Otherwise I'll simply buy the 2-3 racial T2 ships instead.

The other huge barrier to "flexibility" is rigs. If I have to destroy the rigs every time I "flexibly" change my T3s role, then it very very quickly becomes cheaper and easier to simply have multiple ships. In fact people have multiple T3s now because of this.

The idea of owning a "flexible" multi-role hull that you can refit to your immediate purpose sounds appealing on the face of it, but there are a large number of game mechanics that make it rather unappealing.

(1) The relative cost of subsystems
(2) Rigs
(3) Price premium (including SP loss)
(4) The need to have multiple fitted ships ready to go in any case in case of ship loss
(5) The ease of resupply/reshipping

Basically to make the "flexibility" concept really attractive you have maybe 2 options

(1) Allow T3s to self-refit subs and modules dynamically in space (this would actually be a useful advantage)
(2) Go back in time to around and stem the wealth boom that has meant that it's easy to afford large numbers of fitted ships.

T3's themselves are not OP.

Seriously tho.

Yes, some subsystems need rebalancing. Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.

Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.

The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.

In summary:

• Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
• Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
• Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
• Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.

Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.


Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.

This is a big issue with T3s. CCP wants T3s to be all versatile by changing out the sub systems, but you have to destroy the rigs each time you change sub systems to get best use out of the fit most of the time.

REMOVE RIGS from T3 HULLS

CCP should rework sub system bonuses to compensate for losing rigs.

No. The reason they're popular is because they outperform T2 ships for a fraction of the cost (and training time), and that is what CCP wants to fix since the intended design is that they should be adaptable and flexible, but not as good at any one thing as T2 ships are.

I agree with the fact it negates the purpose of them being flexible but why not make t3s the only ships that can change rigs without them getting destroyed. problem solved.

That CCP is nerfing the current top dog irks me because of the investment I've made in skilling for those hulls. Once T2's become the top dog CCP will then again want to nerf those hulls devaluing any investment in time and isk I've made there and so on and so on.

And nobody would want to fly such a "master of none" ship, would they? I know I wouldn't.

I agree with the fact it negates the purpose of them being flexible but why not make t3s the only ships that can change rigs without them getting destroyed. problem solved.

Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.

The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.

In summary:

• Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
• Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
• Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
• Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.

Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.


Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.

Yeah, because at +1bil for a fit ship doing two jobs, you could have 2 ships at half the cost doing each of those jobs with twice the tank/dps. And when you die in a ball of fire flying that amazing dual role T3 you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, "Yeah! I'm amazing, I just lost +1bil and a subsystem level in skills!" Makes perfect sense.

Yes because you have say in the design process, sorry thats not the way it works, I know what the CSM is and how it works, and I know what your limitations are.

Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose.

The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.

In summary:

• Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative.
• Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on.
• Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops.
• Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems.

Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly.


Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas.

tl;dr - sell your T3 ship now because soon they'll be worthless.

Thats because you chase the FOTM.

Is this even an argument? And no I don't, its just basic logic. Why would I want to fly a ship that is weaker than everything it faces with no edge whatsoever?

ps. I don't even play this game anymore..