While "billions and billions" seems a bit much, I agree that T3's in their current form could cost a bit more to balance for their capabilities. This might cause a decline in the amount of exploration T3's, though, which I'm not sure if CCP wants...

Am I the only one who didn't get the memo with details of T3 balancing? Subject of the thread and OP suggest Fozzie & Rise already started to hammer some nerfs into strategic cruisers but no sticky on F&I forums seems to exist?

So, how do you know what to whine about?

If you lower the EHP on the Legion and don't give it more DPS it'll remove what little value the Legion has over the other T3s.

I don't see how this is beneficial in any way...

Agree 100% with one line deleted

And why on earth not? You're telling me, that tens thousands of people are going to buy a ship that costs 700 million and serves no purpose? What utter bullshit.

If it has a high price tag, it should be useful, not some billionaires play thing (hint: titans/supercarriers)

This. The people that will be hurt the MOST by the T3 nerf will be the people who PvE, the people in wormholes, the people in incursions... the nullsec cartels will simply move on to another FOTM and when that gets too expensive, have that nerfed too...

The Tengu, a strategic cruiser, is not nor should it be balanced against a T1 battlecruiser.

So what if the Tengu performs better than the Drake? It's thrice as hard to skill for, costs 10-15 times as much, and you lose skillpoints if you die in it. It damn well better be superior.

And we all know that the T2 cruisers need help, so that argument doesn't hold water either. Especially given that they are pretty much the subject for the next major rebalancing effort, the current state between them should not be a primary concern for future balancing of T3s, which will be worked on AFTER T2s get a revamp.

And a Cerberus is better at being a Caracal than the Caracal. And a Zealot is a Omen with a 40k+ buffer.

Just because they cost more, doesn't mean anything!

Nerf T2 cruisers too. And T2 frigates. They cannot be better than their T1 counterparts!

I agree with this

Problem is that it seems that CCP is against one ship being BETTER than another ship. I see nothing wrong with one ship being better if you spend the training time and ISK on it. Otherwise NO ONE will fly a Zealot over the Omen, or Vagabond over SFI, etc.

If a T3 is not meant to over perform a T1 hull what's the point of it?

You could consider T3s a class of its own.

Game balance > fluff

They don't invalidate any class above them, at all or the person doing and thinking this does it wrong.

Would you take my T2 rage ham 850 dps Tengu over your 800 T2 rails mega for POS /structure bashing? -no? why???

Would you take your 800DPS 130k EHP mega to tank The Maze over my 850 dps ham rage Tengu? -no? why???

Again, there's a task to achieve, you have a bad tool for it, a good tool for it and the perfect tool for it, not because CCP said so but because players spent time theroycrafting about it and came up with results CCP couldn't even expect or think possible despite their numerous spreadsheets and beautiful graphs.

If at some point some ship class is over performing many others the first question to ask is "what makes the difference?"

ATM for T3's is clearly pretty simple: HACs are shite and Command ships are double shite because of a bad game mechanic poorly implemented.

Would that be a problem T3 command subs being a bit more powfull if they had to be on grid? -of course not
Who would put hundreds of millions in faction command processors full highs of links for a ship once all this fitted would have at best the EHP of a Navy Caracal?

The command ship would still be the best choice because of a larger tank still able to deal some dmg, drop drones and for sure a much better bait tank.

Again the ship it self or the sub needs changes but every single aspect needs to be considered and I'm sure at the end of the day some player will come out with something completely unexpected and a valuable choice.

Lets talk about T2 ships, lets talk about what they need to achieve the tasks they're designed for and eventual hulls to complete lacking roles, but for god sake leave T3's alone for now the last thing they need is that someone starts messing with without any clue what he's doing about and totally ruin such an awesome addition in this game.

Were all of you whining about power creep when they introduced T2 ships and guns too?

T3 are also expensive.

Boosting T3s are too good. This is accepted and the Devs have already stated that this will change. But all their other configurations need either huge amounts of bling to fit/work or they just aren't that good.

A moderate rebalance is on the way.

What?

If price is not an issue, why don't people consider the vindicator OP in comparison to the megathron? It is accepted that the Vindi performs better because of the higher price and skill requirement.

You described a snowflake to support your argumentation, nothing else, bravo.

Tell me more about uber Tengu fleets with 200K EHP and awesome dps, are they going to start fitting 3 Estamels and faction extenders?




Edit because it's worth the effort: with 3 Estamels I'm sure they can get about 250

You can say it a thousand times more, if you wish. It won't make it true though.
I did see your argument. It's just so logically flawed that I simply ignored it.

So t3 will still be slightly better than HAC after changes?

The f*ck? T3 cloaky OP? Show me a cloaky Legion or Tengu fit that is "overpowered"..

I don't think T3 are overpowered, I think Recon ships are underpowered. Except for some niche applications, they have been made redundant by T3.

I would expect a ship that is highly specialized, and even needs some skills that a T3 doesn't, to excel at its task.

Recons are already better at their job than T3 but they could do with a slightly better tank.

At the end of the day, a lot of it is situational and down to player skill as a pilgrim can kill Proteus quite easily.

Why shouldn't T3's have a better tank than a pilgrim or a HAC for that matter?

As i said, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. I don't know what kind of noobs are flying around null sec these days but only retards would fit a ship like that and if they did, the performance of that ship would be absolutely terrible.

I seems that all you care about is being able to catch someone on a gate camp. CCP can get rid of the interdiction nulli for all i care as only clowns use it anyway.

I just hope they listen to the people who have experience in flying and killing T3's instead of people whose idea of PVP is bubbleing a gate to **** and then insta blabbing anything that passes through.

Pilgrims can probe down targets.

Answer the question.

You are just just stuck on a name. If T3 weren't classed as cruisers, you'd have no point to make. BCs can achieve a BS tank and dps but i don't see you crying about that.

They are. Price is a factor of balance

Yeah probably to the point where i quit but so what, it's been a long time coming.

You continue to talk as if you know everything but the fact is, CCP have not changed T2 ships yet so your arguments hold no weight. Come back after the HAC and Command ships have been buffed and we'll see if people still think T3's are op in the dps and tank role.

anyways, when will we stop about arguing about something we don't know yet? do we need a lock in this thread or something?

I thought this was obvious, but I am saying that CCP takes cost into account when balancing a ship as they know how desirable it could be.

I would hate to see a world where CCP nerfs the T3s to oblivion under the banner of "generalization". It would absolutely kill incursions, destroy the wormhole business, harm thousands of missioners, and make everyone's current T3s worthless. I am fine with command bonus nerfs, but lowering the tank bonuses ships like the Legion get would be horrible.

That's more about Battleships bad design than T3's, the EHP jump from frigates to cruiser is really huge, from cruisers to BC's fair engough, from bc's to battelships meh, then from battleships to Capitals is an absolutely gigantic jump.

Again the problem lies somewhere else but it's easier to point at an easy prey. A chimaera with 1.250 million EHP looks at the 20+M EHP of a super carrier and cries.

T3's have a lot of defaults, a lot of qualities but for the few roles they are good it's by design and worth the extra training while training from BC for a battleship is certainly not.
Fixing stuff that doesn't need and keep badly designed stuff because lol, CCP and its players since 2003. Welcome.

T3's are not simply cruisers. When fitted for a battleship tank, they will get one; when fitted for battleship DPS they will get it. But since Odyssey, T3's can't get near any faction battleship or better in terms of tank or DPS.

Judging by the HAC changes, I have doubts about the T3s hopefully they change the skill tree so I can get the SP for the three I can fly back.

You mean train alliance doctrine?

Because you know, your alliance uses recon T3s with all doctrines.....and has both Tengu and Loki specific fleet doctrines.

My last alliance used basically nothing but Tengu for a year, and the hell with flying full time logi.