Given the results so far its a safe bet CCP will not mess this up but you and other like you who don't want to lose their FOTM (speak English) ships are going to be very upset.

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.

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.

Also this... Before complaining T3 are OP, do the T2 rebalance first. Maybe they won't be so OP after T2 rebalance.

to the point where i quit

Being the important part.

Recon ships have a rather high training requirement. For example, I just trained an alt for Tengu and now I wanted to get him into a Falcon. Considering the similarities between those ships, I had expected that I just could put in the Recon ships book and get going. But I actually have to train Electronic Upgrades V first.

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

value is a consequence of availability versus demand, not the other way around.

FALSE.

The fact is that some people pay a premium for a machine that is better than everyone else's. Should Ferrari make slower cars because Honda can't build something just as fast? The answer is NO. And the reason for that answer is "That's why Ferraris cost 150,000 bones, and a Honda S2000 is only 38k, fully loaded."

How do you justify the cost of your product being worst than your competitor and far more expensive?

This single point is the only truth in a poor economical system, the true economical good system is based on free competition and/or tuning.

How do you justify the cost of your product being worst than your competitor and far more expensive?

How much does it really cost the product and how much are you ready to put on, why would you buy a sub product more expensive than a good one achieving the same purpose for a fraction of the cost?

Vanity.

Availability vs. demand. There is less demand for obsolete products and so their availability declines (meaning people who want it are willing to pay more to get it) while markets for relevant products stay competitive and cheap.

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

Nah, another will spawn to take its place. Might as well let us have our fun with the panicking mob

The good thing about forums and threads is that you don't have to post, share your opinion or argue against others opinions.

Fell free to do whatever you like, that's why this forum exists.

Availability vs. demand. There is less demand for obsolete products and so their availability declines (meaning people who want it are willing to pay more to get it) while markets for relevant products stay competitive and cheap.

as you indicated

Interesting points you all have brought up about supply and demand being the reason for cost, as opposed to cost as a balancing factor. While I'm not exactly sure on how much of a role supply and demand plays, and how much of it is a balancing factor, I stand by my earlier points to rebalance T2 cruisers before rebalancing T3s.

Did we establish that cost is not a balance?

So there was too many whiney posts in the thread. Couldn't catch up reading it.

Did we establish that cost is not a balance? And also that the cost is based on the balance.

In this case a Tech III ship is on the overpowered side of balance. Because of that the ship is highly desirable and because the ship is desirable the demand is high and because demand is high it is very expensive.

So in simplistic terms: its expensive because its good, its not good because its expensive.

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.

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.

Oh my god, that girl is hilarious.

God forbid you have to use battleships to get battleship tanks.

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.

Thank you for constructively contributing to the discussion.

CCP dont nerf my ship, buff everything else!

The very fact you are trying to argue that CCP should buff battleship tanks because 4 cruisers are tanking in the same ballpark is yet another fine example of how badly balanced these ships are.