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The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here.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

Heh.

"Nerfing T3's"

Look CCP, I sincerely hope that you realize that T3's do not need a nerf, particularly with the BS rebalance. There are virtually no situations outside of gang boosting (which I concede should be rebalanced so CS ships are better than T3's), where T3's are the best ship for the job.

Tengu used to be great for missioning, but that was due to heavy missiles being overpowered. Furthermore, it was also due to large missile weapon systems being hilariously terrible (and technically still are, though the cruise change is a step in the right direction).

The Legion, Loki, and Proteus have never been good ships outside of very niche roles (i.e. heavy tackle proteus, or armor web loki) in fleets, where they simply fill a role that their counterparts (huginn/lach) cannot fill because the huginn and lach do not have the low slots available to field a suitable armor tank.

In any sort of small gang pvp, T3's are in most cases outclassed by other ships in terms of price/effectiveness as well as how "scary" they are considered. 100mn AB tengus used to be the exception, but again, this was because, one, heavy missiles were very good, and two, nobody knew how to deal with them. Nowadays, nobody flies the setup because it's impossible without getting instantly countered by a rapier/huginn. People have adapted.

I feel that a general nerf towards T3's would simply make them even less used than they are now, and that an appropriate balance pass on T3's would actually involve buffing the subsystems that are trash on the ships right now to make them more viable in roles outside of the extremely niche ones the have right now. Ultimately the design of T3's to be a "jack of all trades" and thus cost more will never be one that players will buy into simply because it is more convienent to buy a number of hacs/BC's and have them in your hangar rather than buy a bunch of new subsystems and mods to refit the T3 multiple times (not to mention you can't change the rigs).

T3's shouldn't be balanced around the fact that they can do multiple things, because they cannot swap these things on the fly. T3's offer barely any advantage at the moment and essentially fill the heavy recon role in most cases. Nerfing this aspect will simply cause them to never be used. I would never choose to use a ship that was not ideal for the scenario. I would simply buy the best ship for each job I needed and then swap as required. IF I needed multiple T3 setups, I would not buy one T3 and bring subsystem changes, I would simply buy two T3's.

Despite the fact that I've said this multiple times in many other posts, I suspect CCP won't agree, and I can only hope that HACs are buffed enough to be usuable and I can just forget T3's altogether. Becuase frankly it's a stupid ship class. I mean, SP loss? What a joke, they're not even worth the risk at the moment and the only reason I use them is because they fill a role no other ship can. Remove that, nobody will fly them.

from a numerical stance. 3 is larger than 2. and therefore should be better by that fact alone.

You can't (shouldn't) passive tank a Tengu.

I guess we don't need the drake then...oh wait, yes we do. It's easier to skill for and cheaper and drake blobs are (were) win.

And at a stroke you instantly lose all credibility.



Drakefleet gets torn apart by tengu fleet.

A less skilled fleet of anything should be torn down by the more skilled fleet, unless the latter is flown by morons. Where is the problem here?

T3's shouldn't be balanced around the fact that they can do multiple things, because they cannot swap these things on the fly.

And at a stroke you instantly lose all credibility.



Drakefleet gets torn apart by tengu fleet.

And you failed to answer the question (aside from some mostly agreed upon adjustments, like off-grid boosting) WHY is there a problem that the Tengu is a superior ship?

HAC does need love though.

[quote=Amarra Mandalin]

The problem is that they do not fit into their class of hull. Much like the dram pre nerf they are simply far too good compared to everything else. So good that they even out class ship hulls above them, the drake is just one example of a BC that is outclassed at its own job by a t3 cruiser.

Most HACs don't look nearly as bad when you take t3s out of the picture.

Until the Black OPs BS can cloak in warp I think they will be White elephants in any fleet or hanger

[quote=Grimpak]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.

And at a stroke you instantly lose all credibility.

That's not how it's works here on EVEO GD.

I'm waiting for the TEST passive tank tengufleet now.

The Legion, Loki, and Proteus have never been good ships outside of very niche roles (i.e. heavy tackle proteus, or armor web loki) in fleets, where they simply fill a role that their counterparts (huginn/lach) cannot fill because the huginn and lach do not have the low slots available to field a suitable armor tank.

In any sort of small gang pvp, T3's are in most cases outclassed by other ships in terms of price/effectiveness as well as how "scary" they are considered. .

You've got to be really careful with this rebalance. If you nerf the T3s too much, people won't use them.

You say that 2 things costing a price with a 10 factor should have the same capabilities.
.

That's bull.

Chances are, the T1 would actually cost more because: (1) It is refinable to more minerals so it has a higher intrinsic price floor built-in and (2) Absolutely no one would ever make them since X-Type is so much better, in every way, then T2 and invention would be the only reason to make meta 0 T1 mods.

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.

So where do I go to find a linkable image version of this?

EDIT: I also thought of something actually constructive to say. I want to quote someone from CSM7 - "Don't throw the Legion out with the Tengu bathwater."

Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance.

The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible..

so, a conclusion can be drawn from all this mess, to wich I also helped a bit to create:

1 - T2's specialized role is where they must shine, and they better be damn good at it;
2 - T3's flexibility cannot beat T2's in their turf, but they must be attractive nevertheless.
3 - people still think that cost is a balance factor.

all this means that CCP is gonna have a hard time to get to the sweet spot.