Didn't they just rebalance T2 cruisers?

Which is why I only see Proteii ruling highsec/lowsec/nullsec...............

Prots are slow and have next to no range.
Not to mention they're armor tanked and who armor tanks these days, am I right?

A slight EHP reduction (on Prot, maybe Legion, definitely not Loki) is the only nerf I'd support.
Other than that the crappy subs need a buff and T3s will be fine.

not all of them. they still have to get recons, logistics (not sure if necessary), and Hictors (also not sure if necessary)

... various points made, including an assertion than I am no insane, which is comforting, Thank you...

... A lot of your fights happen at 0. That favors brick-tanked brawlers....

They won't be happy until every class of ship can be wiped out by bombing fleets...

1. Most T3 subs need a buff and not a nerf
2. A t3 fleet vs a t2 fleet has an outcome roughly equivalent to a t1 vs t2 fleet

Cost does not mean crap when balancing ships. T3 are supposed to be on par with navy ships in terms of power, but have the ability to swap roles.
A T3 should never have higher DPS than a HAC, should not have better EWAR than a recon ship, should never boost better than command ships, they do full some unique roles such as exploration and covert combat cruiser.

Some subsystems need a buff, such as the logistic style one, others need a nerf such as most combat related ones.

They won't be happy until every class of ship can be wiped out by bombing fleets...

1. Most T3 subs need a buff and not a nerf
2. A t3 fleet vs a t2 fleet has an outcome roughly equivalent to a t1 vs t2 fleet

And they aren't "outright better" as T2 ships can do things that T3 can't just like T1 vs T2.

If you just look a stats and pretend that the two classes of ship are going to be brawling at point blank range, then of course T3 will look better but this is not what happens in game.

If someone can point me to a corp or alliance that only uses T3 and are unbeatable, I'll admitt that T3 needs a nerf but until then I'll consider myself right in this argument.

They should never tank more than the tanky hacs (i.e sacriledge and eagle (when fit for tank with blasters) )

The ship rebalance programme is progressing very nicely, and soon will be at the point where Fozzie et al are reviewing the Tech 3 Cruisers.

There are aspects of the T3's that need serious attention, in both buffing and nerfing
Both aspects, I believe, are required.

I am only going to address the Tengu in all of it's various roles, but the data presented will apply equally to the other 3 factions and as such does not need to be included, which keeps the post shorter.

The Role of a T3 Cruiser
CCP's original intent was for it to be versatile, able to assume to many different roles but specialising in none.
Currently the T3 cruiser fails in that role.
It cannot effectively and easily swap roles without additional pre-rigged base hulls for that different role.
It outperforms many of the specialised T2 hulls in that particular role.




Tengu Roles & T1/T2/T3 Progression
A Tengu is defined by the subsystems fitted to it. There should be a clear progression when compared to other base hulls in the game, which I will ouline below.

The Tengu can utilise roles from 3 hull classes, Frigate, Cruiser & Battlecruiser

Exploration & Scouting:
Heron -> Tengu -> Buzzard

Combat:
Caracal -> Tengu -> Cerberus
Moa -> Tengu -> Eagle

E-War:
Blackbird -> Tengu -> Falcon

Logistics:
Osprey -> Tengu -> Basilisk

Fleet Command:
Drake -> Tengu -> Nighthawk
Ferox -> Tengu -> Vulture

The nerf's
The above shows where the Tengu currently needs to be re-evaluated
e.g. In the Combat Role, it should perform better than the Caracal & Moa, but both the Cerberus & Eagle should outperform it
this would allow pilots of the specialised T2 classes to shine more in their chosen roles
many subsystems need to have their bonus % rates lowered
1% or 3% instead of 5%, 3% or 5% instead of 7.5%, 5% or 7.5% instead of 10%
this should see a more balanced performance from T3 pilots compared to their T1 & T2 counterparts.

The Buff's
For the multirole non-specialisation role to work, T3 Cruisers MUST be able to change rigging options in the same way that subsystems can swapped around.

The best One way around this would be to introduce a new line of T3 (T3 hull only) rigs at the same time as the subsystem bonus' are adjusted downwards in the rebalance pass (when they receive it).

I disagree. I'm always hearing people say "tech 3 was not supposed to be better than t2" but there is nothing to back that statement up. Just because you believe it to be so doesn't mean you are right.

Nerfing T3 below the ability of t2 would be tremendously stupid and imbalanced... Tell me, why would you fly a t3 designed for tank and dps if a t2 can do the job better?

Cost does matter in balance because it creates a barrier to entry and limits a ships use. Losing a t3 also costs the players time due to the loss of skill points

^ Oh yeah that's the evidence to back up your statement that i was looking for

Seriously, show me an official statement or a eve wiki link that describes Tech 3 as worse than T2 but more versatile.

bro you just don't seem to get it. Have you actually missed every related presentation and blog on the topic for 2 years?

I must have... Please provide links as i'm not interested in personal opinion or off handed dev comments.

I must have... Please provide links as i'm not interested in personal opinion or off handed dev comments.

On mobile so I won't make the links pretty.
Tech progression
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg
Source
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/9129

You really don't want huginns or rapiers in a WH fleet fight at range 0!

I don't see T3s as solopwnmobiles - solo they are very beatable, as is anything.
What I do see is that when 2 similarly-sized fleets meet, one in T2 and one in T3s, both with logi support, the T3 fleet won't lose a ship.
The T2 fleet will have all the low ehp Ewar ships stripped away, allowing the T3s to get to work on the logi and then the DPS.

Granted, most of my pvp experience is high-end wormholes. Money is simply not a consideration. You either field a T3 fleet with logi or you lose.

Well if nothing else you'll be one of the people caught out when the nerfs come.

You would fly a t3 because HACs can't warp through bubbles w/ covops cloak, then deploy scan probes and still deal a solid 400-500 dps while tanking an entire room.

Assuming the nerfs aren't too extreme of course.

Generalization doesn't mean better or worse i just mean unspecified and fit for multiple purposes.

That is pretty much how it is now. I only skimmed through that blog but i didn't see it mention that HACs should do more dps than combat T3.

Yes I'm seeing the issue here, you've ignored the signs for years that it is coming. The changes are subtle but each one individually is adding up.

Let's observe just a couple that come to mind:
a) nerfed out of highsec 4/10's : not a direct nerf on its own merits but this is an outright statement that they're OP and belong being used elsewhere, also that they're far too common.
b) command link nerfs: had to happen and far overdue. They had no right to be giving more bonuses than command ships.

and FWIW it stands to reason that a HAC should do more dps than a T3 because the specialisation of a HAC is kinda in the name... dps and tank...

The real question I have is why my cerb can do 825 dps vs my ravens 1000 when the difference in training time is so heavily favoured to the raven? Not to mention damage application. Obviously you can't have battleships running around pulling 2k dps everywhere BUT that's not to say battleship weapons need significantly worse application in addition to being more skill intensive.

T3's are fine generally. I think they just need to be more balanced against each other. Currently one particular T3 is much better than the other three.

I'm not really understanding what you are saying here.

Basically i'm getting:

3. HAC actually stands for "can do more dps than a T3" instead of it just implying a better version of the t1 variant.
4. You don't understand that medium weapons have better damage application than battleship weapons and things like speed and sig radius are irrelevant when talking about ship balance.

Did i get that right?

I know the balancing pass is coming to tech 3 ships, i just don't want them to be nerfed into the ground, rendering them obsolete. The issue is not as simple as some of you are making it out to be.