No, it really doesn't. Care to explain your point?

Give me one reason why a cruiser should have the firepower, sig and speed of a zealot while sporting a buffer an apoc would be happy with and still have room for tackle gear.

You get linear increase in performance for exponential increase in cost

false. you get linear increase in performance with linear decrease in availability. cost is, as tippia said correctly, a by-product of the offer-and-demand market.

if an X-type shield hardener had the same availability as a T1, cost would drop to levels of said T1.

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The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.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

think about it, how many HACs can fly cloaked, with 100mn ABs, doing 500dps on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances? its just completely broken that a tengu can be a recon, a hac, a mini transport an interceptor at the same time and be superior on all the roles to all those ships togheter.

price is NEVER a performance measurement, if it was, marauders would be destroying capital ships like they were frigates and would be impervious to any sub capital ship.

Rigs should be removed from T3, maybe, that would truly make them adaptable.

How many T3 can fly cloaked, with 100MN ABs, doing 500 DPS on ham, while being immune to interdiction cap stable and with a resist bonus on top of native higher resistances ? None.

Can a Tengu be a Recon, a Hac, a minitransport and an interceptor at the same time ? No.

You got it backwards. Your "corrected" chart describes the current situation of one ship to rule them all. That is not good game design so they are fixing it. One day you will understand.

The sad truth being his correction is fairly accurate. I'd expect any T3 to kill any pirate cruiser.

Naah ... If there were equal number of x-type and T1 put on the market (i.e. equal availability before accounting for demand) the X-type would cost more. If there were equal numbers of T1 and x-type available on the market (i.e. after demand has been taken into account) the x-type would still cost more.

My Zealot costs 232m isk, my Legion costs 480m isk. That's roughly twice as much.

by a very small margin, because T1 would drop even further in price to be able to compete vs the X-type.

offer and demand.

What are you talking about?

It is almost impossible for T1 and x-types to have the same price on the market and for it to happen x-type need to have much higher availability than T1. Interestingly though I think there also need to be quite restricted supply of both for anyone to even consider buying a T1 in such scenario.

My point is that availability does not set the price of a product, not even after demand has been taken into account.

it does. if any item that has a limited supply had more availability for the same demand, price would drop accordingly. increased supply means more people able to supply the market, price wars would drop the price further.


unless, of course, you include cartelization.

you would like to know wouldn't you...

Then it's probably time to start adjusting your expectationsGǪ

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.

The popularity of a T3 comes from exactly what is saying needs to be fixed: adaptability & flexibility. These are exactly the reasons they're popular and yet CCP wants to fix that.

CCP is in the habit of re-writing their own history. T3's are no different. They are meant to be what they are.

T3's need tweaked in the areas that they're truly overpowered. Tank and DPS is not it.

Tank and DPS are most certainly it, since the T3 ships have absolutely no problems outperforming their equivalent T2 damage dealing cruisers (HACs).

The popularity of a T3 comes from exactly what is saying needs to be fixed: adaptability & flexibility. These are exactly the reasons they're popular and yet CCP wants to fix that. I can only assume the fix will require some modification that encumbers them to all but specialty roles.

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).

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.

Right, because having a ship that performs worse than another makes it flexible and adaptable.

Seriously, lets call it what it is. It's definitely a nerf

So you are saying that if there were the same number of T1 available on the market as x-types they would have the same price?

Having a ship that can decide what area it wants to perform in makes it flexible and adaptable.

Right, because having a ship that performs worse than another makes it flexible and adaptable. Seriously, lets call it what it is. It's definitely a nerf and not going to make T3's flexible and adaptable because they already are which is exactly why CCP wants to nerf them.

Sure, they might be able to perform a number of roles but we can all be sure it will be subpar....can't exactly say it will fill those roles.

My pleasure derived at flying a T3 is in the fact that I'm not flying a hull that I consider subpar and limited as I do with T2. Some hull has to be on top. It has to be top dog. 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. This is a case where CCP needs to leave well enough alone beyond a few tweaks.

Surely there are more creative solutions than just admin override 'click' and banned from h-sec sites.

Why exactly do you think a cruiser should have more buffer than a navy megathron?