The Stratios isn't nullified, which is a very big deal. Having T3's be subpar to Covert Ops and the Stratios will create an actual choice when optimizing your exploration vessel.

Frankly, because T2 Resists are one of the major reasons these ships are overtanked. Perhaps that is the solution to the augmented plating conundrum. Make the ship resist profile dependent on the defensive subsytem it utilizes. Augmented plating == t1 resists, which would put that subsystem on par with the others!

well CCP have already said they will remove T2 resists .. if they remove rigs aswell then the current HP is fine even with the 10% HP subs..

well having 1 ship do the job of 2 ships is useful if
1. you're in a small gang
2. you are short on T2 specialist ships/skilled players (particularly if they reduce skill requirements from cruiser 5 to lv4)
3. spreading out your key roles i.e. 3 logi capable ships are harder to kill than 1 spreading your eggs out rather than putting them in one basket.

I just hope they balance T3s dead last, after everything else (Pirates, capitals, etc.)

I agree, fittings should either be normalised or have a choice of four slot layouts, defined by particular subsytems.

Yeah that idea could work. What I had in mind was basically a choice of four static slot layouts, with one subsystem associated with each slot layout. It might also be possible to have a role bonus for each slot layout, like an ewar bonus etc, but I feel that T3s would lose a lot of versatility if certain slot layouts were required for certain tasks.

if not a cruiser what else is it?

Tldr T3s =\= HACs, and balancing T3s to be on par with HACs neither makes sense (since HACs aren't specialized), nor would it be beneficial to either class as they would overlap.

CCP didn't go far enough with the HACs when they were ballancing them....there were a number of us that were screaming about it.

T3s are fine, the HACs suck.

Lets start with role. We've had several presentations and posts and dev blogs now which explain that tech 1 is general and tech 2 is specialized. While this is certainly our high-level goal, it will be compromised occasionally when the specifics of a certain project have other goals that pull in another direction. HACs are an example. The reality is that when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct 'specialization', but they were nowhere near as specialized as something like Recons or Stealth Bombers.

With the rebalance effort here, we discussed entirely new roles or specializations that would be more in-line with the high level ideas we have laid out for all EVE ships, but ultimately decided that it wasn't worth completely throwing out the ships we had. Not only do they have a lot of history in the game, which leads to attachment, but they also have a lot of legitimate use already which we wanted to avoid disrupting if possible.

Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.

Reading its fundamental.

Do you have a screenshot of your fits? Without implants and links, for ease of comparison. Also otherwise you can just throw numbers around and for all we know you just made them up.

If the Proteus was so OP why isn't everyone flying it? That is the recurring theme, OP ships are flown by everyone, but T3s aren't popular. Its because of the Proteus's **** damage application, a top range of 10km on a good day; and the fact that it moves about 1000m/s in an age where you have to project to 30k, and move 2km/s to compete with kiting ships.

And for the record, I live in lowsec. WH space actually tried to kill my alliance by burning down our WH that we moved out of months ago, and failed, if you keep up with any EVE news sites.

Sounds like you're a bit mad that two triage Archons, costing 2b each, managed to save a ship that you (TEST alliance) were unable to kill. I'll hold off on any further jokes about TEST. HACs aren T3s fill different roles, and T3s cost 3x more, have SP loss, etc etc etc beating a dead horse.

Not stronger than HACs but still usable... so, instead of kiting like HACs, they should brawl. Like they do now. If you want to balance them against HACs you need to lay off whatever you're smoking because that would be impossible.

Recon style T3s aren't bad at all.. Lokis, Prots, arguably the Legion, are useful, but not more useful than their Recon counterparts. It is a well balanced use. Slot layout isn't a problem, except maybe for the ECMgu, with which I am largely unfamiliar.

I kind of agree about the Command Ship subsystem. Its bonus was stronger than the T2 counterpart, Command Ships, which the "Nerf T3" crowd chants about so much. Now they are not superior to command ships. Heed this warning about balancing T3s compared to a T2 ship, if not done right it will make T3s useless. Command Ship subsystem does need some kind of tank bonus so as to provide useful boosting ability, with that I agree. (In b4 comment about us agreeing )

I like that you post specific rebalancing numbers for subsystems rather than just raging about how the Proteus is or isn't OP, for that you gain a lot of respect from me, I don't have the patience, plus nobody ever rants about the Loki (yay favoritism, and screw you CCP for nerfing Minmatar ships to be worse than every Caldari ones thus far!).

Now, for numbers. 3 to 4 turrets is basically nothing, even with drones, which are only useful for DPS when sentries.
5 lows is also too low for a decent armor tank, 6 is the generally accepted minimum (DCU Plate 2 hardeners 2 damage mods) and I feel that the Proteus's tank could be better reigned in by reducing the base HP on the Adaptive augmenter by 500-1000 HP and reducing the bonus to 5%/level, allowing for more flexible use of slots.

The idea of a static slow layout with subsystems changing those slots is interesting though...its better than a single rigid slot layout that some people have suggested, and it has the potential to fix weird slot layouts that make some subsystems awkward to use, but what worries me is the Loki, which can both armor and shield tank, getting screwed by such a slot layout plan.

Proteus gets a point bonus
Loki gets a web bonus

.......and everyone says that cost isn't a balancing factor

Yet we aren't all flying around in Vindi's and Machs all day everyday.

It's a 100% arbitrarily chosen number. I don't happen to have T3 loss figures, which is what I suggested could be used a a baseline for production. (25% of the average number currently lost in a day could possibly be built.) If they become too rare, push the number up a little, if there aren't rare enough, push it down.