I don't fly T3's (yet) but I don't really like this idea and I'll explain why.

#1 Doesn't really have any point unless paired with #3 which I'll get to in a minute.

#2 Effectively ruins T3's. No one is going to fly a Legion fit for heavy assault and risk losing SPs on death when they can fly a cheaper zealot that does a better job and doesn't carry that risk.

#3 Subsystems come across to me as some pretty serious hardware so it doesn't seem like switching them out readily is something that is reasonable. Were talking about millions of ISK in advanced hardware that controls the very processing power and power distribution abilities of your ship; it's not like changing a light bulb.

4# No comment, it's just a popup pertaining to #1 and #3.

No one is going to fly a Legion fit for heavy assault and risk losing SPs on death when they can fly a cheaper zealot that does a better job and doesn't carry that risk.

more generalization for T3's mean performing multiple roles at the same time i would expect a jack of all trades..
- e-war and links
-logi and e-war

possibly even able to do 3 things at a time ... at 80% of T2 level .. but they need to be on the same price scale as T2 cruisers or less
-remove SP loss
-increase training time on subs and hull
-remove rigs to allow subs to switch between shields and armour easily.. encouraging versatility
-make subs cheap so it doesn't cost 500mil or more too buy all the subs which atm discourages versatility and sub switching.

That's the way T3s should be, that's what CCP sees in them and I agree. They are already sort of that, but a lot of the subsystems are ****, and a lot of others are overpowered

So the current T3s have "right" setups and everyone uses them as a specialized better-than-tech-2 ship

I went out and bought a Vagabond. Haven't bothered with my Loki since. From what I can tell on Singularity, it'll be the same thing with my Tengu after I buy a Sacrilege.

The generalization aspect is in having five different types of subsystems....

The generalization aspect is in having five different types of subsystems. Pick any one subsystem you like, it should not do its role better than a whole ship oriented in that direction. You can now customize the other 4 subsystems to have what you want in conjunction with the one.

Setting up a T3 is about having effective combinations of subsystems. Every subsystem should be balanced to by itself be quite effective though less effective than an entire tech 2 ship streamlined into the same role. A HAC can shoot a bit harder than a tech 3 and maybe tank better, but the tech 3 maybe also has bonused EWAR on it at the same time, or is using interdiction nullifiers to get past a blockade, or maybe just has the specific type of tank/slot setup you want with your particular offense type.

Have to dock to swap subsystems? So what, you can secure a station system deep in enemy territory and do skirmishes around there, hopping back to the station to make quick refits. I feel that any fitting service should be able to swap subsystems though, so that includes a POS or ship fitting service. So you jump a carrier into a system, refit your T3s super fast, then jump it back out again.

Also, how do you give a ship bonused e-war without giving it a bunch of mid slots that can be re-purposed. Say you make a proteus as a carbon copy of a deimos except it does 10% less damage but has +2 mid slots and a sensor dampening bonus. People would say "screw the damp bonus, im shield tanking this ship" and you'd end up with a shield tanked deimos with extra damage mods/TEs in the lows

...Doesn't T3 mean more technologically advanced than T2?...

3) The subsystems have silly requirements (read: none). EWAR subsystem should require IV (preferably V given the T3 nature) of the respective EWAR skill(s). That might mitigate the need for drastic capability nerfing, and increase the room you have to nerf/boost the various subsystems so all can be utilised.

2.5 cents

A spork is a free utensil you get with your chalupa at taco bell. A strategic cruiser is a ship that at minimum is double the price of it's T2 variant that runs the risk of you retraining a skill. Next analogy please.

Whether these skills are put into the prerequisites for the main skill itself or into the subsystem skills is immaterial as you cannot train the hull without having the subsystems already trained and so it ends up the same either way.

Way to incorrectly oversimplify. Congratulations, my first facepalm of the day goes to this post. Also, I never get sporks with my chalupas. Should I be talking to the manager about this?


Moving on..

Now that CCP has taken the approach of requiring various support skills at Lv5 for T2 ships instead of requiring that you first have trained other T2 ships, I think we've got a good model in place for re-defining the skill tree required for T3 hulls.

• Electronics Upgrades 5
• Signal Analysis 5
• Energy Grid Upgrades 5
• Energy Management 5
• Long Range Targeting 5
• Science 5
• Advanced Weapons Upgrades 5

These and more seem like excellent skills to put into the T3 cruiser's requirements. Especially AWU5. They would serve to make a T3 ship a significantly higher SP investment while also ensuring not only that you have nearly optimal skills for fitting them but also the basic ability to fly the T2 ships they're intended to mimic.

Whether these skills are put into the prerequisites for the main skill itself or into the subsystem skills is immaterial as you cannot train the hull without having the subsystems already trained and so it ends up the same either way.

I am, however, completely and utterly in steadfast opposition to the horrible idea that T3 ships should require having T2 ships trained. That's the exact kind of convoluted and annoying silliness that CCP just went through the process of removing from the T2 tree.

Requiring Command Ships at all in order to fly a T3 is just nonsense and has no place in a serious discussion.

Absolutely not. Those requirements should be on individual subsystem types, not on the subsystem skills, and certainly not on the main hull.

Certainly, if you agree to take a substantial nerf on the hull itself that will bring it in line with how quickly you can train for it.

T3s really are much too easy to get into, and I say this as a pilot who has specialized almost solely in T3s to the detriment of being able to fly anything else.

Getting into it and being adequately trained to fly it are not the same. To get into a full T2 fit T3 hull with adequate subsystem skills is not too easy. Then you lose some of it if you get killed...

Way to incorrectly oversimplify. Congratulations, my first facepalm of the day goes to this post. Also, I never get sporks with my chalupas. Should I be talking to the manager about this?


Moving on..

Now that CCP has taken the approach of requiring various support skills at Lv5 for T2 ships instead of requiring that you first have trained other T2 ships, I think we've got a good model in place for re-defining the skill tree required for T3 hulls.

• Electronics Upgrades 5
• Signal Analysis 5
• Energy Grid Upgrades 5
• Energy Management 5
• Long Range Targeting 5
• Science 5
• Advanced Weapons Upgrades 5

These and more seem like excellent skills to put into the T3 cruiser's requirements. Especially AWU5. They would serve to make a T3 ship a significantly higher SP investment while also ensuring not only that you have nearly optimal skills for fitting them but also the basic ability to fly the T2 ships they're intended to mimic.

Whether these skills are put into the prerequisites for the main skill itself or into the subsystem skills is immaterial as you cannot train the hull without having the subsystems already trained and so it ends up the same either way.

I am, however, completely and utterly in steadfast opposition to the horrible idea that T3 ships should require having T2 ships trained. That's the exact kind of convoluted and annoying silliness that CCP just went through the process of removing from the T2 tree.

Requiring Command Ships at all in order to fly a T3 is just nonsense and has no place in a serious discussion.

If you want a more accurate graphical representation of the current ability of tech 3, take it from it's current position in that chart, move it all the way to the top, and stretch it out so it reaches all the way left and all the way right.

nerf strat cruisers. less grid, more sigrad, less boosting.

It's not specialized if it requires core skills at 5. But it shouldn't require any of those specialized skills at 5, and it shouldn't require any tech 2/advanced skills at all.

-list of very short training times-
_______________________________________

This is an example of how I think the skill requirements should be setup. I tried to get everything as close as I could to costing a little bit more than a 2x at level 4. Covert Reconfiguration requires Cloaking 4 (a 6x skill), and the Covert Ops cloak requires even more. The real reason the subsystem carries this requirement is both to give it a requirement at all, and to give non-cloakers something to train for if they're just using it to skate the energy turret skill requirement. I apologize if any skill requirements are absurd, or if I have miscalculated their totals. I did this quickly.

I disagree. As a highly generalized ship, it should not have hefty skill requirements. Its price tag pays for its fitting options, it should not be better than tech 2 and it should not cost as much training time as tech 2.

This is a debate that will never end... There will always be an argument as to whether T3 should be better than T2 or not. Personally I'd never fly a T3 if a T2 ship could do it better. What's the point? Yes I get they can be reconfigured. So what? If I want to fly a recon instead of a hac, I'll buy a recon, not a now comparatively worthless T3 (under the assumption they were to get nerfed). And honestly, I don't reconfigure my T3's anyway. I have multiples for different functions. The T3 should be better than it's T2 counterparts, and should require skills above and beyond it's T2 counterparts. There's no other reason to fly a T3.

So, question. Why do t3 cruisers receive more bonuses, better bonuses, more normal slots, and more rig slots compared to Hacs? Oh yeah, why do they take less sp too?

I'm not going to say T3s need a buff, but I don't think they specifically need a nerf either. They need to have their subsystems looked at, with the unpopular or unviable ones being reviewed to see why they aren't used. Likewise, the hugely popular systems need to be looked at as well, to see why they're so popular - whether it's because the subsystem is overpowered or genuinely well-designed.

The "generalization" and "flexibility" offered by T3s represents a staggering amount of power that a T2 ship cannot hope to match. Ever. Therefore, a T3 ship should indeed have very hefty skill requirements, just like what I listed previously.

NERF them ...NERF them into the ground !!!!

And then from their ashes should arise flexibility incarnate ... m'kay :)

you guys seem not to be listening. Yes, nerf T3s so theyre worse than T2 ships, then give them the ability to switch roles mid combat which is something that T2 ships cannot do. This is the only way to make them flexible.

Seriously think about it; right now, as it stands, T3 ships are no more flexible than having a few T2 ships in your hanger.

Picture this:

you have a loki with all the subsystems and all relevant modules in a station

In that same station, i have a vagabond, a scimitar and a rapier with all the relevant fittings.

Now, which of us is more flexible? It's at least a wash. You choose a role and undock, and I choose a role and undock.

The difference is that my ships were cheaper and dont blow up all together.

You forgot that the Loki can fly as one ship and carry all of its subsystems with it.

T3s that outclass their T2 counterparts (What we have right now)

T3s are not supposed to be straight better than T2s thats ridiculous . . . if thats the case why even have T2?

T3s are not supposed to be straight better than T2s thats ridiculous . . . if thats the case why even have T2?

That's the whole point. They're T3s. How about this:

5. T3s are generally fine, but need a few tweaks to the Proteus and Legion.

T1... T2... T3... notice a pattern here? Um, because T2s are cheaper than T3s?

you mean other than the fact that you're completely ignoring CCP's stated design goals? and that youre ignoring all of the principles of good game design . . . seems legit

Oh and price is not enough of a balancing factor; we saw that with supercarriers and titans . . . the cost difference between a HAC and a T3 is like the cost difference between a can of pepsi and a 2 liter of pepsi . . . sure if I dont need the extra soda ill go with the can, but price isnt my determining factor.

Lastly, T3s that are "combat fit" are in most cases comparable to the command ships of that race and in some cases better . . . this means they're outclassing command ships (being smaller faster and just as good if not better) and completely obsoleting HACs.

Then people get on and say we need to tweak Loki and Tengu. All of them need some tweaking, some a bit more than others. I really do wonder though if some of the people even fly T3s (based on their posts).