The price point of subsystems or base hull isn't something that CCP can do that much about

T3 are perfectly fine as they are right now.

if by fine you actually mean "I fly T3's because they're OP!!!. CCP plz don't nerf my T3" ... then yes your right

fyi, I can fly a Cerberus and a Tengu
I find there is little reason to move the Cerberus out of the hanger.

Do you fly in high sec, by any chance?

Outside high sec there are very good reasons to fly a HAC instead of a T3 and that is loss cost. This has an effect on your wallet and your killboard.

In high sec you're quite correct. As long as you're sensible a T3 wins over a HAC any day but outside high sec, where you might actually lose your ship whether you're careful or not there is a reason to chose HAC over T3.

T3's aren't OP when you consider the value of them.

EDIT - if you want examples of other ships that are seriously better than their tech I and tech II counterparts take a look at the pirate faction BSs. They, like Tech III cruisers, are significantly more expensive to account for their increase in performance.

EDIT 2 - Making Tech III ships average at doing lots of things is tantamount to removing them from the game. At the price they go for no one would use them when they can use a ship that's better at what they want to do (tech II) but significantly cheaper. The price would have to drop significantly to make their use viable. They would have to be 1/3ish of the price they are now if they were worse than their tech II counterparts.

I would remove rigs from T3's altogether its much simpler and saves isk.. T3's should be all about the subs not rigs

- reduce base hull cost
- make subs cheap 2mil a sub
- remove rigs completely .. more isk saved and increased versatility
- navy tank including T1 resists
- able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships
- remove interdiction nullifier .. should only be able to do what T1/T2 can do
- add new subs/ maybe a new category so 6 systems perhaps
- remove skillpoint penalty on ship loss and increase training time

Do you fly in high sec, by any chance?

Outside high sec there are very good reasons to fly a HAC instead of a T3 and that is loss cost. This has an effect on your wallet and your killboard.

Noone would fly them....... That would just remove them from the game completely.

i think not.. infact CCP will probably do at least 50% of these suggestions

- navy tank including T1 resists .. this one they have already indicated they will do. along with this one
- able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships

They would be stupid not to do this one as leaving them at 450mil would make them largely unused after nerfs
- make subs cheap 2mil a sub

Better make them free because they wold be totally useless with the resist profile

oh hardly ... a 150 mil ship able to do links maybe logi and e-war all at once is a pretty nice combo that's the problem with T3's atm they are all about the insane resists and battleship tank that a cruiser should never have been able to do.

fyi, I can fly a Cerberus and a Tengu
I find there is little reason to move the Cerberus out of the hanger.

How about just no. By the time we get through rebalancing everything else, T3s won't seem so under-balanced anymore...

to build something, it had better be awesome.

I don't really see the problem with the pricing ..

Buzzard 17.8m
Cerberus 226.9m
Falcon 149.5m
Basilisk 116.4m
Nighthawk 208.9m

Total Cost 719.5m

The average Tengu costs around 440m for a commonplace standard loadout of subsystems

It only seems excessive at the moment as you pretty much lock it into 1 role with rigs
If rigs were not on issue, then you have effectively 5 ships in 1 for almost half the price.




if by fine you actually mean "I fly T3's because they're OP!!!. CCP plz don't nerf my T3" ... then yes your right

fyi, I can fly a Cerberus and a Tengu
I find there is little reason to move the Cerberus out of the hanger.

You fly a 440m tengu? What's the point?

They look cool.

Haha, at least you didn't say that about the Legion.

This doesn't make any sense

You currently want ship progression to be Tech1 -> Tech3 -> Tech2

Why would tech 3 which is supposed to be highly advanced be worse than a simple tech 2?

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.

And Gnosis is awesome at it? :)

I disagree that T3 cruisers fail at it. For instance, I can fly a nullified, covert Tengu explorer through null looking for sigs. When I find a combat site, I can park in an NPC station, swap modules and proceed to do the site without the need for a second combat ship. The only problem is, I can only do this swap in friendly or neutral territory. In my opinion, there should be a way to swap modules in a hostile territory as well, at least to some extent.

Beyond that, T3 hulls are perfectly fine. In fact, they may be the most balanced thing in game. The problem is solely with subsystems. Take for instance the Tengu. I think we all agree that the Ejection Bay is absolutely amazing. But when was the last time you saw a Tengu with Magnetic Infusion Basin? Those are the ones that need balancing and fixing before we start inventing the wheel.

At Gnosis: Apple and Oranges.

But your right the Nullifier is a Prime Example for Advanced Technique without OP Combat Abilitys.

It gives so immunity for Bubbles but costs a slot and some speed in comparison to other Submodule, thats truly a Tech 3 Feature.

No **** Sherlock!

Try to compare Nulifier Sub with Afterburner Sub and then come back and Share your thoughts again.

I agree with the guy who said it is good that CCP doesn't let players balance the ships. I have to wonder if some of the posters in this thread even read what they put down.

T3's aren't OP when you consider the value of them.

So what you're saying is that price should be considered as a balancing factor? No, it shouldn't. Some pilots can barely afford T1 cruisers while others buy and sell super-capitals on a daily basis. Price should never be a balancing point because the distribution of wealth in Eve is itself unbalanced.

There's really only one change you need to make to Strategic Cruisers:

GÇó Eliminate rigs and calibration

Yes, I'll miss the occasional engineering rig as well - but it wouldn't fundamentally change the class (other than making it less OP on the extreme end of things). The ability to carry and swap-out subsystems and components is already extremely advantageous, despite the associated costs. And you can still do goofy things like run 100MN afterburners - it just makes it less feasible and more of a sacrifice since you'll be using those lows for reactor controls, power diagnostics or capacitor power relays.

As has been previously mentioned, some of the offensive subsystems do need some buffing, such as the Magnetic Infusion Basin (+5% rate of fire per) and Rifling Launcher Pattern (+5% kinetic damage per) on the Tengu.

you propose that i loose damage application(or range) and gain nothing.

bad idea. for example. i fly haml tengu with 2x t2 rigors and t2 flare(or maybe 2x thrusters 1 flare). you propose that i loose damage application(or range) and gain nothing. for now there is only 1 way to buff application , painter . to buff range there are none except rigs. let's say that i run solo 10\10 where i dont have spare meds. and what we will get ?

500k ehp on a proteus is ridiculous, 2k/s active tengu tanks are also ridiculous.
Yes, I am a T3 user. I'd rather have more versatile, less OP T3s. It will make a better, more interesting game.

500k ehp on a proteus is ridiculous, 2k/s active tengu tanks are also ridiculous.

Could you please share me a fitting with these stats?

Could you please share me a fitting with these stats?

At the moment, there is no decision to make - T3 damage beats T2 hands down, as does local rep amount and/or total EHP.

Just caught this before I jump in the car for a 3 hour trip. will post fits when I arrive. In the meantime, have a look on battleclinic - it's full of them.

Nope, not anymore

As for missiles, they've indicated launchers will gain a new module similar to tracking computers for turrets, so I imagine that will address some of the explosion radius, velocity and range shortcomings currently present (expect to see the range of some missiles adjusted as a result though, ie: cruise and heavy missiles).

Could you please share me a fitting with these stats?

I would remove rigs from T3's altogether its much simpler and saves isk.. T3's should be all about the subs not rigs

- reduce base hull cost
- make subs cheap 2mil a sub
- remove rigs completely .. more isk saved and increased versatility
- navy tank including T1 resists
- able to perform up-to 3 roles from sub combos less effectively than T2 ships
- remove interdiction nullifier .. should only be able to do what T1/T2 can do
- add new subs/ maybe a new category so 6 systems perhaps
- remove skillpoint penalty on ship loss and increase training time

Just caught this before I jump in the car for a 3 hour trip. will post fits when I arrive. In the meantime, have a look on battleclinic - it's full of them.

At the moment, there is no decision to make - Proteus damage beats T2 hands down, as does local rep amount and/or total EHP.

As requested. Here is a tengu fit that's cap stable, pvp capable and self reps for 1953dps without crystals, 3000 with crystals. No overheated necessary, no gang links and no drugs.

I'm not saying it's the best fit. I am sure there are other better ones. The use of gist shield modules as you know is to make it cap-efficient.

This one will cost about 2Bn to put together. For the record, I don't have a problem with fits that can tank this much while being pvp-capable (a hyperion can do it too, if you spend 4Bn isk). But I do have a problem with a ship being:

* cap stable
* mobile
* able to project full dps
* and able to tank more than any single ship can possibly deal out (ignore dreads, they can't hit it).

I think it's an overpowered pvp, pve, pwn-everything-unless-it's-a-dedicated-anti-t3-fleet ship. I'm sure it's fun to fly - for about 5 minutes. I just don't think it adds anything to the game of eve that this kind of fit is possible.

Note: there is no Tech-2 equivalent of this fit - the cerberus does not have the powergrid for the x-large shield booster, lacks a slot for the shield boost amplifier + hardeners + tackle + prop - and cannot be made cap stable even with a gist xl.

Fit:

[Tengu, permatank]

Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Power Diagnostic System II
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Damage Control II

Gist X-Type X-Large Shield Booster
EM Ward Field II
Gist X-Type Shield Boost Amplifier
Caldari Navy Adaptive Invulnerability Field
10MN Afterburner II
Domination Warp Disruptor

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile

Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II
Medium Warhead Flare Catalyst II

Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
Tengu Electronics - CPU Efficiency Gate


EDIT: updated tank numbers with post-odyssy 1.1 numbers.

Prices go up and down. Cost is eve is actually never a limiting factor. Making the 2 or 3 billion you need to kit this ship out takes about a day in a cat 5 wormhole if you are keen to do it.

I think the important issue is not whether it's cheap or expensive, but that this abomination is possible. The Tengu (in this case) simply has too much powergrid, capacitor recharge and cpu available - allowing the player to fit a ship that completely overshadows and obsoletes its nearest T2 counterpart.

This is my complaint with T3s - in any specific role they actually make their T2 equivalents redundant.

Fixed that for you. Legion is outdamaged by the Sacrilege in HAM config and is only 40 DPS more than a Zealot in pulse config. Tengu is outdamaged by the Cerberus in any kind of viable PvP fit (5 launchers) and the Cerberus also has a better tank because its fittings aren't gimped. The Loki is pretty even in damage with the Cynabal, it does slightly more if they both use Void but the damage is identical if they both use Barrage.

T3s mainly excel in having really huge tanks, they are slower than and do not outdamage HACs. The Proteus is the only one that really needs a nerf, due to how skirmish links make missiles in general suck and really restrict range advantages.

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

tengu with 6 HAMs and 3 ballistics : 836dps to range 25.2km, 58.3k unheated EHP, target painter (or even web!)
cerberus with 5 HAMs and 3 ballistics: 696dps to range 37.9km, 33.7h unheated EHP

overheated, these numbers are:
tengu: 983dps, 67.2k ehp
cerberus: 819dps, 38.3k ehp

The tengu is still the better gank ship by 20% while enjoying 175% of the EHP - this is before the ability to overheat for 30% longer than the cerberus. If you take this into account the disparity grows.

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

tengu with 6 HAMs and 3 ballistics : 836dps to range 25.2km, 58.3k unheated EHP, target painter (or even web!)
cerberus with 5 HAMs and 3 ballistics: 696dps to range 37.9km, 33.7h unheated EHP

overheated, these numbers are:
tengu: 983dps, 67.2k ehp
cerberus: 819dps, 38.3k ehp

The tengu is still the better gank ship by 20% while enjoying 175% of the EHP - this is before the ability to overheat for 30% longer than the cerberus. If you take this into account the disparity grows.

*sigh* I meant the Cerberus has 6 launchers and the Tengu has 5. Every respectable Tengu PvP fit I've ever seen has only 5 launchers, you can't fit 6 launchers and a MWD on a Tengu without a grid mod, let alone any shield extenders or shield boosters.

*sigh* I meant the Cerberus has 6 launchers and the Tengu has 5. Every respectable Tengu PvP fit I've ever seen has only 5 launchers, you can't fit 6 launchers and a MWD on a Tengu without a grid mod, let alone any shield extenders or shield boosters.

Nevertheless, in WH pvp you really have no other choice. Lack of choice is bad for the game because it makes pvp a less rich and interesting experience. I really want to use the T2s in skirmishes, particularly in wormholes. wormhole pvp is some of the best there is - everyone has limited resources and there are no cyno-lolganks to spoil everyone's fun.

Let's make it better.

Granted, but we all don't live in wormholes are aren't attacking off of probe ins.


You have a totally different environment than 90% (at least) of the playerbase.

This I accept. And if what you say is true, and that nullsec fleet warfare no longer uses T3s, then modifying T3s to bring them in line with their multi-role objective while removing their omni-role OP-ness will:

* positively affect 10% of the playerbase while,
* not negatively impacting anyone else (except perhaps a few lowsec and hisec trolls).

Would that be a reasonable observation?

I posted an example fit that has 6 launchers, shield extender, target painter, 2 damage application rigs and 175% of the EHP of an equivalent T2. It has a grid mod and a grid rig... and still outperforms the cerberus easily.

If I was going to bring a shield cruiser to a gank, this is what I'd optimally bring (I might actually dump the target painter for another invulnerability field if I know someone else is bringing a web).

Not really, what null fleets usually use t3s for are recon roles, a lach or huggin can't tank 100 dps ships hitting it at once.

A Loki or Proteus can.

Just wait until Genolution CA-3 and CA-4 come out. If they're the same price as the other two you can make some absolutely ridiculous Cerb fits for relatively cheap. For example:

This surely is an example of a T3 making a T2 obsolete.

Single application, that is full fleet engagements, and again, these usually have a 2bil or so pricetag attached.

In anything smaller than full fleet style engagements lach and arazu do it better, particularly since the booster nerf.


Plus loki doesn't get a a painter bonus like huggin and neither gets the cyno fuel bonues, they aren't obsolete, they are slightly different roles.

With respect, this is a single application out of a very long list in which a T3 is more suitable than a T2 for a given function, which is why the OP thinks that T3 ships need rebalancing - and why I agree with him.

The huge tanks are the biggest culprits here, as you have alluded to.

I think we can accept huge damage with a light tank, or a huge tank with no damage (although the huge-tank-cyno-bait is a problem IMHO). I think we can accept multi-role that is a little worse than the dedicated T2.

In short, lower bonuses, subsystems that buff abilities at the expense of nerfing others and the ability to reconfigure on the hoof would, in my view, make T3s more balanced, less OP and arguably more desirable for forward recon-style roles such as exploration, scouting, wormholes etc.

Hisec use does not really need to be factored in here since in hisec we can just choose the best tool for a given job with ease, being only maximum 1 jump from a friendly station at all times.

Is it possible that with the all of rebalancing to command ships and HACs, strategic cruisers are less in need of a massive overhaul? I still like the idea of simply eliminating rigs and buffing some of the underpowered offensive subsystems.

In short, lower bonuses, subsystems that buff abilities at the expense of nerfing others and the ability to reconfigure on the hoof would, in my view, make T3s more balanced, less OP and arguably more desirable for forward recon-style roles such as exploration, scouting, wormholes etc

As requested. Here is a tengu fit that's cap stable, pvp capable and self reps for 1953dps without crystals, 3000 with crystals. No overheated necessary, no gang links and no drugs.

I'm not saying it's the best fit. I am sure there are other better ones. The use of gist shield modules as you know is to make it cap-efficient.

This one will cost about 2Bn to put together. For the record, I don't have a problem with fits that can tank this much while being pvp-capable (a hyperion can do it too, if you spend 4Bn isk). But I do have a problem with a ship being:

* cap stable
* mobile
* able to project full dps
* and able to tank more than any single ship can possibly deal out (ignore dreads, they can't hit it).

Yes, I fly the new HACs and I am very enthusiastic about them.

Against a correctly fitted equivalent T3 fleet, they are still, on the whole, dead in the water.

When comparing T3s with Recons the problem is worse.

Logistics ships correctly outperform the T3 equivalents because the remote repair bonuses easily outstrip the utility of the T3's huge buffer.

Damned forums ate my post. Short version:


It also stresses wormholes a whole lot less than any battleship, so you can field more of 'em offensively and run the hole much more aggressively.

I'd like to see many of these come to null pvp, why don't we see more of these actually? -good old style at the sunset 1v1 against that I'm all for it, yes please bring it.

Better at T2 role than T3's?

-logistics hands down

-reccon hands down

-interdiction hands down

-DPS not really hands down but at least half of them yes. (Cerberus Deimos Ishtar Zealot and the outsider Eagle)

Travel cloak nullified: nope T2 can't do this but it's maybe a T3 special ability that actually makes it T3, I don't know, maybe heh

Stop with the NERFING already.

By the time a player can fly something worthwhile, someone decides to make it unusable. CCP should learn to content balance, rather than nerf to balance. ALL other games have a clear upward path for players to strive for. You have T1 gear all the way up, and when they run out of player content, they make more content that is more difficult and the cycle continues. When you make something and put it out there, players skill for it......and it takes A LONG TIME to do that. It's a game, not a job!

In regard to the OP's post.

T3 Cruisers should be the target for most cruiser pilots to aspire to. The fact that dying in one takes about 5 days or more of SP training right off your skill sheet, is enough to have them a little Over powered in comparison to HAC's. Not even considering the cost is almost 3x the price with subs. Risk = reward!

Except that Eve isnt about linear progression, its about choices. Them being expensive, or hard to train doesnt balance them. If your losing 5+ days when you lose one your doing it wrong. Anyone who doesn't understand how theyre need nerfing hasnt flown a properly fit one yet.

The only truth you need is to look at WH PVP, theyre the only fleets used. Why? Because theyre significantly better than every other choice out there. I welcome you to bring a HAC fleet to my WH to "show me how much better HACs are", youll whelp the entire fleet for probably 0 kills.

The only truth you need is to look at WH PVP, theyre the only fleets used. Why? Because theyre significantly better than every other choice out there. I welcome you to bring a HAC fleet to my WH to "show me how much better HACs are", youll whelp the entire fleet for probably 0 kills.

I found some and... your right allout 750k+ EHP just, wow...

Oh my, some people are in for a shock, prehaps they didn't see the 'rabid dogs' thing.

Yup, T3s are gonna be nerfed, particularly the proteus and tengu.

When you buy a T3 you buy a scanner, booster, combat, covert ops ship, even if you don't do all those things with it. That's where your 400 mil and SP is going, the ability to respec your ship relatively easily as opposed to buying all those hulls.

The more useless subsystems will be getting changed though so should be interesting.

Yup, T3s are gonna be nerfed, particularly the proteus and tengu.

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).

In my opinion as long as the skill loss mechanic remains, the logic of this post just doesn't hold up. For that matter, as long as T3s cost what they do the logic of this post just doesn't hold up. If CCP follows through with such an approach T3s will no longer be seen anywhere.

In the case of T3, I believe it is better to look at why someone is using a certain ship than why they are not using another ship.

a: T3 provide alot more EHP, with a smaller sig, then any other other ship class in the game. This makes them harder to bomb then battleships and allows them to stay on field longer then HACs. This is the main reason people use T3s right now.

b: So should they be nerfed? Well that is relative to other possible changes in the game.

Most HACs are not up to snuff when it comes to survivability. Frankly I think the HAC balance was underwhelming, the MWD bonus is just not a good bonus. It isn't big enough to matter, no one is looking at HACs and seeing how much they can tank with their MWD on. It is just a useless bonus that only benefits a skirmish role.

We end up with most of the HACs being skirmisher and the two most popular HACs still being the zealot and the ishtar, the only two none skirmish/sniper HACs.

I could get into more specifics about each ship, but I think the point is clear. T3s provide something only a few other ship can provide. It would better if they where used as a benchmark for other changes then something that, "needs to be nerfed into none use."

The problem as I see it is that a T3, except under exceptional circumstances, is essentially unkillable by one other similarly-sized ship. This seems to me to be a poor benchmark for designing anything.

I'm happy to see a proteus (being a perfect proteus pilot) being able to put out 1000dps, but it should be at a large cost to ehp in my view (say 50k, not 150k+). This then makes it as offensively powerful as a navy cruiser while retaining versatility.

I'm also ok with a 750dps HAM tengu, but not when it has a huge dual-asb tank or huge numbers of hitpoints.

I'm less ok with seeing a 2k dps/s perma-tank tengu because it's simply immune to 90% of the hardware available in eve - only neuts or a fleet can take it down, and there is no specialised HAC that can perform a similar feat.

Similarly with the legion and loki. They are almost as offensively dangerous as the recon equivalents but have 3-4x the EHP.

That's not right.

Apparently you didn't see subsequent posts. One of the devs said they would be keeping nerfs minimal and instead making useless subsystems who's name I can't think of because nobody uses them useful.

... various comments ...

I hear where you're coming from but in practice it makes no difference that a rapier has a 20km range bonus over a loki. Almost all combat in wormholes takes place at range 0. The rapier will have to warp out or die. The loki won't.

150kehp and 1000dps on a proteus does not require slaves (although many WH fleet pilots will fit them).

2000dps tank tengu can perma-tank (cap stable, not ASB). it's pricey, but that's not the point. This is too much for anything to perma-tank.

Despite the fact that recon ships have paper advantages over T3s, it's only T3s that are used. This is, as has been mentioned before, because of their Herculean survivability.

2000dps tank tengu can perma-tank (cap stable, not ASB). it's pricey, but that's not the point. This is too much for anything to perma-tank. Despite the fact that recon ships have paper advantages over T3s, it's only T3s that are used. This is, as has been mentioned before, because of their Herculean survivability.

There's a huge difference between a 250k+ EHP passive brick and a 2000+ DPS active tank. Namely that you'll be absolutely massacred by even a medium neutralizer or vampire.

Of course there is a difference. 250k ehp is not good for a cruiser to have - it's in pirate battleship territory. A 2k perms-tank is worse because at least another ship has an opportunity to eventually work through the 250k hit points. Against a 2k perms-tank, nothing has a reasonable chance of damaging the tengu unaided.

I have already pointed out that the only way to kill this ship in a 1:1 is with a neut ship. To anything else, it's essentially immune to the other ship's presence.

This is wrong. No pvp-capable ship should be able to perma-tank every subcap in the game indefinitely.

Not disagreeing. I think the only solution is to remove rigs, much as I'll miss them personally. They take a great concept and make it extremely OP, because most of the subsystems are already balanced. It's not until you combine them with rigs and implants that things take a really bizarre turn for the surreal...

I hear where you're coming from but in practice it makes no difference that a rapier has a 20km range bonus over a loki. Almost all combat in wormholes takes place at range 0. The rapier will have to warp out or die. The loki won't.

150kehp and 1000dps on a proteus does not require slaves (although many WH fleet pilots will fit them).

2000dps tank tengu can perma-tank (cap stable, not ASB). it's pricey, but that's not the point. This is too much for anything to perma-tank.

Despite the fact that recon ships have paper advantages over T3s, it's only T3s that are used. This is, as has been mentioned before, because of their Herculean survivability.

and that is why I think t3 should loose all 3 rig slots. Since rigs slots are mostly used for tanking purposes.

If it was up to me, I would fix the ASB situation by making it so you could only fit one. That would fix Eve as a whole quite a bit. I don't think it is necessary, but I would not be sad if 100mn AB T3's were no longer possible.

As I said, I don't really have a problem with 100mn AB fits (or 10mn AB destroyers). I'm just not sure there is enough of a drawback to fitting 100mn AB Tengus. If it was up to me, I would make 100mn AB's better and harder to fit.

I like the freedom CCP gives us with oversize prop and tank mods, but I wouldn't cry too hard if I couldn't fit MASB's or MSE's on a frigate or a 100mn AB on a Vexor. Eve wouldn't be quite as wacky, but it would be easier to balance.

I am not advocating these changes, but I think it makes more sense than trying to balance a cruiser around a 1600mm plate. It would also be a huge boost to active armor tanking. That is a totally different topic.

Slots, power grid, CPU, cargo capacity, HP, and drone bay would be static features of the ships.

Yeah, I like the variable aspect of T3s as it keeps things a bit interesting (and you can run some unique fits).

By unique are you refering to the OP ones, or the completly useless ones?

Note - I don't fly T3's in PVP. I just don't want to see them nerfed again. Tengus already took a beating from the HML nerf.

If it was up to me, I would fix the ASB situation by making it so you could only fit one. That would fix Eve as a whole quite a bit.

Also, let's not underestimate the effect a T3 nerf will have on WH income. Will there be anyone to hunt or fight in WH space if it isn't lucrative?

Which ones are completely OP? The flying bricks?

Proteus, with 122K EHP, and 600 DPS while being T2 and meta 4 fit sounds balanced for a cruiser right? Or is that just unique? No implants, drugs, or OGB either.

So Proteus and Legion bricks. How do you propose to address those without removing rig slots?

Without rigs a proteus does 600dps with T1 ammo and runs 101k tank. Rigs are just nice things to have on T3s, they aren't where the force is coming from.

I presume you mean pve tengus? All the tengus I ever encountered in pvp were either HAM/shield or ECM/armour. Did people use HM tengu fleets in 0.0 for long range dps? If so, I'd say this nerf was welcome. Ranged missile dps should be realm of the Raven etc.

[quote=FT Diomedes]

With that said, if T3's (meaning Tengu's) are nerfed to the point where they suck at high-end PvE, the price will crash.

Proteus, with 122K EHP, and 600 DPS while being T2 and meta 4 fit sounds balanced for a cruiser right? Or is that just unique?
No implants, drugs, or OGB either.

HML Tengus were a 0.0 doctrine prior to the HML nerf. It was the expensive version of Drake-fleet.

Tengu's are still a null doctine they are just rocking 250mm rails now because the 20% damage that HMLs lost, the rails got in return.

Of course there is a difference. 250k ehp is not good for a cruiser to have - it's in pirate battleship territory. A 2k perms-tank is worse because at least another ship has an opportunity to eventually work through the 250k hit points. Against a 2k perms-tank, nothing has a reasonable chance of damaging the tengu unaided.

I have already pointed out that the only way to kill this ship in a 1:1 is with a neut ship. To anything else, it's essentially immune to the other ship's presence.

This is wrong. No pvp-capable ship should be able to perma-tank every subcap in the game indefinitely.

you're kind of skipping over there main strength ... T2 resists combined with resist bonused subs/ HP bonuses/ spider tank

So Proteus and Legion bricks. How do you propose to address those without removing rig slots?

The only kind of versatility that is valuable IMO is if I get to change my T3 fit while in space (with a combat timer on changing the fit so people can't exploit it by swapping their lows for warp core stabs mid-fight when they realise they can't win).

Otherwise I see no reason why I should risk double-triple the isk and a week's worth of skill training flying something that is crappier than a HAC. If it requires docking to change fits, I'd rather dock up and change into a HAC.

Mobile Depot?

Yeah, the heavy missile nerf made complete sense...

There was NOTHING in the medium world even close to equivalent. Now buffing medium rails to where Brutix puts up 800DPS was a little heavy handed on both ends.....but yeah, heavies are pretty bad.

drakes were doing battle ship DPS

Oh **** off.

At the time it certainly did, the fact was that if you didn't have a panic geddon or pulse poc drakes were doing battle ship DPS at better than short range battleship range with equivalent tanks.

There was NOTHING in the medium world even close to equivalent. Now buffing medium rails to where Brutix puts up 800DPS was a little heavy handed on both ends.....but yeah, heavies are pretty bad.

as a TECH3 it needs to be superior to the Tech 2 varients but thats because of the higher cost.

and that would make all T3s half billion isk trash

The only kind of versatility that is valuable IMO is if I get to change my T3 fit while in space (with a combat timer on changing the fit so people can't exploit it by swapping their lows for warp core stabs mid-fight when they realise they can't win).

Otherwise I see no reason why I should risk double-triple the isk and a week's worth of skill training flying something that is crappier than a HAC. If it requires docking to change fits, I'd rather dock up and change into a HAC.

So what's the solution for the bricks then?

drakes.. i remember the old drake barely hit 450 dps. with hams which sacrifices alot of tank had to be OH'd to get to maybe 700ish dps.

i like the new nighthawk cause its come into line with sleipnir though sleppy is still the king but both can now do a modest 800-900 dps depending on fit/shineys.

havnt tried navy drake yet but i have my reservations about its effectivness, its most probably a mid range between drake and NH.

gank brutix gets like 1300 dps so i dont know what your smokeing.

Would not.. specially because you missed the part about buffing some of the subsystems. It woudl fix the major problem with T3.. insane buffers and active tanks and how easy they circunvent their intended limitations (fittings for example).

I have already pointed out that the only way to kill this ship in a 1:1 is with a neut ship. To anything else, it's essentially immune to the other ship's presence.

Not a fan of T3's because though they can not beat their T2 counterparts directly in their fields, they can beat them indirectly. This is because, between subsystems bonuses and the stats of the ship along with a greater variety of ways to fly them in head to head combat that they have enough bonuses to make up for it.

For example
Legion vs HAC - favor hac
2x legion vs 2x HAC - favor legion
5x HAC vs 5x legion + guardians for both - favor legion

Granted this just looks at the legion and the isk-risk ratios are way skewed but the HAC should be outperforming the legion here regardless as is its role

It is ONLY rigs. that proteus is still strong but no where nearly a monster as a proteus with rigs. It will die to a well used and well fit battleship if it simply uses it old tactic of sit and fire everything without bothering about the incomming damage.! And that is a HUGE improvment

It also promotes a ship that wil b exchanged into other cofnigurations much more often

Which is exactly what we said during the HAC rebalance the issue isn't the T3s, its the HACs.

Not really, legions can spider tank and that lets them compete with the HACS. Coupled with cloaking, command bonuses, interdiction nullification... Giving HACs the same bonuses so they can compete would be a disaster. Thinking of HACs ignoring bubbles just seems way way OP for one.

And here we find the failing in the OP's logic. Nothing in EVE is, or should be, balanced around 1 vs 1 "honourable" combat. EVE is balanced around my group fighting your group.

The HACs shouldn't match the T3s in versatility, there were already two hulls per race, there should have been a skirmisher, fast big damage and a fleet version slow big ass tank for each.

Instead we got an MWD bonus and sensor and cap boosts, so while they were buffed across the board it didn't go far enough

Most HACs already outperform battleships in a straight fight and are therefore not underpowered.

I agree that T3s should be able to compete successfully with HACs on tha battlefield, but it should be through versatility brought about by their multi-role bonuses rather than raw firepower and strength.

To use an old D&D analogy, your HACs are your dwarven fighters while your T3s are the difficult-to-master-but-oh-so-powerful elven fighter/magic-user/clerics.

... am I showing my age?

No I played D&D as well.

...as it stands HACs "might" beat a battleships in an even fight. Fleet for fleet though they have counters, that is fine. That can go either way depending on comps.

The daddy of them all...



I thought this too until I started flying a dual prop, dual rep ishtar (no damage mods) with 3 small neutrons and a nosferatu.

1v1 it kills every battleship except a vindicator. (it actually also breaks the HAC/T3 mould by being able to kill a proteus)

1v2 it kills most (dual cruise ravens will kill it).

The most dangerous ships for it are actually the navy battlecruisers (except the rubbish navy drake).

Not what I worry about, honestly. You are going to be hard pressed to catch me alone in a battleship, and if you do you likely have me, because battleships are **** alone.

Now put a 10-15 man BS gangs against HAC gangs and you have a different story, specially with active reppers....the HACs go away or get smashed.

It has more to do with the insane amounts of starting HP the subsystems have.
Proteus Augmented Plating : 3650 Armor HP
Most Gallente T2 ships have about 2000 HP

With all skills at level 5
the Augmented Plating subsystem gives the Proteus 7031.2 HP with no rigs.
if you reduce the base HP to 2100 like normal advanced cruisers, it will reduce the Brick aspect of them. Using 3 T2 armor pump rigs and all skills at level 5 with 2100 HP, the armor HP ends up being 6804.

The rigs are not the problem, it is how the subsystems were initially designed.

Yup, that's fair. And of course it's telling that the equivalent T3 gang does not have to go away. And here is pretty much the nub of the T3 problem.

Not really, legions can spider tank and that lets them compete with the HACS. Coupled with cloaking, command bonuses, interdiction nullification... Giving HACs the same bonuses so they can compete would be a disaster. Thinking of HACs ignoring bubbles just seems way way OP for one.

Most HACs already outperform battleships in a straight fight and are therefore not underpowered.

I agree that T3s should be able to compete successfully with HACs on tha battlefield, but it should be through versatility brought about by their multi-role bonuses rather than raw firepower and strength.

Yeah 450 @ 75km and that was heavy missiles

More than a Baltec mega, more than most fleet dominix builds, more than an pulse baddon all while MWDing around.

...and like hell they had to sacrifice tank

You are wrong.

Hml drakes were modified to have 10% less raw missile dps and gained from 8.75 to 9 effective launchers with kinetic ammo. Simple math gives us 355 dps for a pre-nerf hml drake with 2 BCS and navy scourge ammo. Your light drone dps is irrelevant at 70km. A perfect skill pilot could reach ~70km hml range but in fleet engagements the fc would have to more realistically stay at 60 or under to apply full dps (lol drake pilots having all 5 skills). Similarly in a fleet engagement CFC drakes sacrificed a large amount of tank and only had around 55k EHP prelinks in order to fit cap mods so they could MWD around.

Right now today a CFC megathron gets 385 railgun dps at 72+39 with CN thorium and an optimal script, beating the old drake at its best range with only a single damage mod. The megathron can also continue engaging all the way out to 150km and its dps is going to get far higher than the old drake's if it's any closer than 70km since it can use better ammo and its superior drone bandwidth.

It also has almost triple the EHP of the old kiting drake fit that 'totally made no sacrifices by fitting CCC rigs and a cap power relay'.

In conclusion, you are completely full of ****.

Not really, legions can spider tank

ps, they are doing t2 and pirate first. and then mostlikly capitals befor they touch t3s.

How are T3's supposed to compete successfully through versatility? That makes no sense. Versatility is good when it lets the player focus his setup. T3's are good when they pick the right combination of subsystems that lets them perform a specific role well. They are versatile before they undock, not in the middle of the fight.

At the current price point T3's, in a focused pimped configuration, should be better at tank and gank than a HAC is at the current price point. Otherwise they are not worth the ISK and SP loss. In this focused configuration, they cannot do any of the cool T3 things (no cloaky-nully, no links, no e-war, and no drones). If they could, that would be OP.

Being able to refit the same ship to do five roles poorly is not worth the ISK or SP loss. I'd rather fly five ships fit specifically for the job and avoid the SP loss risk. Then again, I have HAC V, Recon V, Logistics V, CS V, and etc.

If the Cerberus was as good at tank/gank/damage projection as a Tengu, I would be happy., but they would be OP without increased price. The SP loss also really helps keep T3's in check because people hate losing SP.

^ This. Which is why I'm tiring of these threads, it's been beaten to death and there isn't going to be anything new to talk about until after everything else is balanced.

Pretty sure CCP stated somewhere that the current plan is T2->Pirate->T3->Cap ships, but I can't remember where.

I don't think so Alvatore, no.

Currently having the slot layout determined by the subsystems fitted means you have consequences to your choices
You have to make trade offs to get 1 aspect over another, and that to me makes a lot of sense.

if all T3's had 6/6/4 slots irrespective of the subsystems fitted it would be bad imho.

If they were to get static features, which I believe is the best way to balance them, it would think slot layout could be something like this:
Legion 6/3/7
Loki 6/5/5
Proteus 6/4/6
Tengu 6/7/3

One change I would support is to make it so that T3's could not be cloaky-nully. Nullification is bad enough, but combined with cloaky warpy is just silly.

I think if we're going to fix slots, it should be more along the lines of this:
Legion ... 6/4/6
Loki ... 6/5/5
Proteus ... 6/4/6
Tengu ... 6/6/4

If you fix the slots they definitely become easier to balance. Unfortunately they also become much less interesting to fit and lose some of their flexibility (which is supposed to be what they are all about according to CCP). So I tend to think it's not a great idea. I do support the removal of rigs and the addition of subsystem bonuses that would at least somewhat replace them. Rigs run completely counter to the whole flexibility theme.

I imagine there are many ways that versatility can compensate for not being the absolute best in class. Only having to buy one hull rather than 5 is a start.