Because you aren't trying to give them a niche, you want to nerf them into oblivion next to HACs.

Buff the useless subs and T3s will be perfect.

Heavy Assault Cruiser. Its a T1 cruiser with T2 resists, 2 extra bonuses, and and it costs 10x more than its T1 counterpart.

No I don't. The would devalue the role of HACs.

Buff any ship enough and it will be perfect. I don't want perfect ships.

2 extra bonuses which specialise its role.

If T3s are so useless, why are you against seeing them be rebalanced so that they might find a more fitting niche?

You're basically saying that while EFT shows the ships are way overpowered for their class and the numbers are completely out of whack, it doesn't count because numbers aren't important.

1 A. Can we reply to quotes with
1:
2:
3:
etc. rather than massive quoting? Forums only let there be 5 quotes per post. Its a massive pain.

1 B: So we agree, T3s and HACs should not be similar. Someone was saying T3s should be brought in line with HACs, honestly all the names sound the same after a few hours in the swampland that is F&I .

2: Perfectly balanced, not perfect as in OP.

3: So 2 damage bonuses means specialization now? Well look out everyone, Thorax is specialized now!

HACs don't have a role, and CCP has stated so in the HAC rebalance thread. When they rebalanced them, they gave HACs more cap and sensor strength, so they did not have a role before the rebalance, and they still lack one now.

if you fail to see OP here discussing the issue with you is a waste of time

If T3s are so useless, why are you against seeing them be rebalanced so that they might find a more fitting niche?

its simple T3s should either be changed to BC with some small changes or they remain cruisers and are nerfed because they are OP and then some

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

1 A: you noticed it too, check

1 B: In line and similar is not the same.

2. that is your opinion i do think that T3s need a nerf on some points and MAYBE a small buff on other parts
i consider buffing it on agility and maybe speed and nerfing tank and some ridiculous fitting stuff like 100mn AB

3. 2 extra bonuses and you ignored the role bonus so if you mock something at least keep your facts straight a T1 cruiser has 2 bonuses and a HAC has 5 bonuses

So we agree, T3s and HACs should not be similar.

So 2 damage bonuses means specialization now? Well look out everyone, Thorax is specialized now!

HACs don't have a role, and CCP has stated so in the HAC rebalance thread. When they rebalanced them, they gave HACs more cap and sensor strength, so they did not have a role before the rebalance, and they still lack one now.

2 extra bonuses which specialise its role.

Cap and sensor strength bonuses aren't specialization.

Cap and sensor strength bonuses aren't specialization.

where too start .. there are many changes needed..

Changes
- remove rigs .. to encourage sub switching
- reduce prices on subs .. a 2-3mil encourages sub switching and keeps price down
- remove T2 resists .. its not T2 after-all
- move HP/fitting etc too the hull .. 15 slots fixed
- less bonuses on subs
- reduce skill requirements to lv4's from any lv5's
- remove SP drop when ship is destroyed
- add 6th subsystem to allow for more options .. a support set of subs .. for things like command links etc...

You however are not asking for a rebalance, you are asking for a massive series of nerfs

that would leave them in a state \\\used even less often than they currently are, without a clearly defined role. (No, sub-par psuedo-HAC with useless ewar bonuses is not a role)

As such, heavily armored, poor damage projection, slow ships like most t3's are nearly useless outside of situations where both damage projection and mobility are unimportant. Remove tank and all you have left is poor damage application and lack of mobility.

So basically you're saying T3s suck as cruisers, while vehemently arguing that they shouldn't be balanced against cruisers. GG.

What we really need to not happen is to have t3's become psuedo swiss knives that cannot be excellent at anything at all, always playing second fiddle to more adept specialized ships.

1. Ding ding: Straw man argument detected.
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

2. No, I'm arguing that the heavy tank is the trade off in exchange for having poor mobility, poor damage application, high cost, high SP requirements, and SP loss. That any large reduction to tank must be accompanied by increases to mobility, to damage application, removal of SP loss, and reduction in price, while at the same time maintaining demand for WH products.

3. Maintaining that last bit while preventing t3's from being generally much better at HAC's jobs that HAC's are will be a major challenge.

4. What we really need to not happen is to have t3's become psuedo swiss knives that cannot be excellent at anything at all, always playing second fiddle to more adept specialized ships.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Thats exactly what is going to happen. T3s will become much more versatile to fit and use, will not have SP loss, but it will not be possible to min max a ship that tramps T2 ships in their respective niche.

No, I'm arguing that the heavy tank is the trade off in exchange for having poor mobility, poor damage application, high cost, high SP requirements, and SP loss.

any large reduction to tank must be accompanied by increases to mobility, to damage application, removal of SP loss, and reduction in price, while at the same time maintaining demand for WH products.

2 things.

1. T3s are going to get nerfed, not simply "re-balanced". Get over it, or get ready for the threadnaught. Either is good.
2. T3s will probably have no skill point loss after getting nerfed, and will be able to alternate subs more easily to fit the application at hand among other things. CCP is going to stress versatility vs min maxing.

1. So if they are at the same level as HAC's t2 resist and tank wise, but do less combat damage than a HAC, ewar worse than a recon, logi worse than a logi, poorer at combat scanning than a covops, what occupation is present for them aside from "Still sturdier than a Lachesis tackle Proteus" and "Still sturdier than a Huginn webbing Loki"?

2. Why will I fly them?

3. Why will eve fly them?

4. Why will eve fly them in great enough numbers to drive enough continued production that harvesting C320 in a c6 WH is more valuable than mining veldspar in highsec?

5. Will it be enough to make high level WH relic sites worth running? To make sleepers worth salvaging? Gas worth mining? To make t3 invention of comparable profit to t2? To justify the massive expenditure of time and effort it takes to live in a high class WH to obtain these resources?

6. There are thousands of player who depends directly upon the non blue-loot resources of WH's for their income. Any plans for t3's absolutely must include keeping them at a level of demand that fosters colonization of J-space, an area that makes Great Wildlands look absolutely crowded in comparison.

In otherwords they are going to be crap.

Gotcha

In otherwords they are going to be crap.

Gotcha

1. a swiss army knive that can do all those tasks pretty good but not best and is highly flexible and adaptive. without SP loss

give me a solid reason why a T3 cruiser should outperform a T2 specialized cruiser that cant do anything but what its specialized in go ahead amuse me

No, they are going to be balanced. Now they are not.

Got it?

1) CCP said straight out that they weren't specializing the HACs
2) Skill point loss
3) HACs are the ONLY T2 that don't outperform the T3s at their role.