It would create tiny monsters who are called the "Power Creeps". They are related to Cavity Creeps but are immune to Floride based toothpastes.

This. It surprises me that people do not understand this - T3s are not overpowered, but HACs are UNDERPOWERED!

Yep, and it was horseshit before, and it's still horseshit now.

Because to the players, cost is a factor.

If you can pay 1/3 as much for a ship that does the job just as well (or, as you suggest, better), guess what? You will do just that.

At which point, you can just remove T3s from the game. (And, since they are the backbone of the WH economy, you can just remove that too)

What you fail to realize is that there are far reaching implications to nerfing some ships, that just are not present in Empire space. Whatever petty concerns or resentment people have about getting owned by someone in a T3 doesn't even come close to the repercussions of the nerfs some people have been proposing.

Please note, I am all for the total removal of off grid boosting, that needs to die in a fire, but it does not need to take T3s with it.

I see it all the time. It's the easiest way to move them station to station. Surely you don't suggest that someone hire a freighter/JF just to move a few extra subsystems?

long as we have the attack battlecruiser HACs basically have no role.

has very little to do with the T3s.

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.

Pretty much sums it up. The only people who are against T3 rebalancing are people who care more about their own selfish concerns than the overall health of the game and the experience it offers to everyone.

Should a Ferarri be put in a race against a Honda?

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

then I expect my multi-trillion fully officer fitted rifter to kill at the very least 2 titans by itself by just sneezing at them.


since cost is a balancing factor and all that.

ABCs own the sniper role but HACs can do more than snipe.

I mean that cost is a balancing factor, with limits. Some ships naturally are more costly, whether it is seed rates in WH or DED complexes, or mineral costs. I never said cost is the ULTIMATE balancing factor. If cost was not a balancing factor, everyone would be flying DED Machariels or full officer fit Aeons or completely faction fit Dramiels...

Yep, and it was horseshit before, and it's still horseshit now.

Because to the players, cost is a factor.

If you can pay 1/3 as much for a ship that does the job just as well (or, as you suggest, better), guess what? You will do just that.

At which point, you can just remove T3s from the game. (And, since they are the backbone of the WH economy, you can just remove that too)

What you fail to realize is that there are far reaching implications to nerfing some ships, that just are not present in Empire space. Whatever petty concerns or resentment people have about getting owned by someone in a T3 doesn't even come close to the repercussions of the nerfs some people have been proposing.

Please note, I am all for the total removal of off grid boosting, that needs to die in a fire, but it does not need to take T3s with it.

Yet people are flying T2 frigates over T1 hulls.

For what it's worth (basically nothing), I don't agree either. I've seen several very strong Legion builds that perform well in many roles.

It would create tiny monsters who are called the "Power Creeps". They are related to Cavity Creeps but are immune to Floride based toothpastes.

As Schultz says, it's pointless to try and discuss T3 until the T2 medium range has been reworked.

It's obvious that the t3 link boosters are going to be thoroughly changed, and once they're removed from the equation, the situation is much less clear-cut than some make it out to be.

More people need to be reading this, so I'm quoting it.

Once OGB finally dies the death it's needed for a while, T3s won't seem anywhere near as powerful as they do now.

At that point, T2s need to be the focus anyway, they are coming first, then we can balance T3s around the new T2s, not the current ones.

indeed it's the best approach.

TL;DR: T3s are NOT overpowered - rather, HACs are UNDERPOWERED. Buff HACs rather than nerfing T3s...

what changes to T3s?

seriously cant find anything in dev blogs patch no9tes or features and ideas

wtf are you all talking about?!

There is nothing about it, just speculation and hyperbole.

You just based an entire argument upon comparing a cruiser with battleships, command ships and battle cruisers. Right there is all the evidence needed to show just how unbalanced these ships are.

Buffing everything else in not the answer and once again, isk cost is never a way to balance things.

What is the problem here? Are there entities out there that use T3s for PVP and consistently dominate everyone else?