-1 too.

Why give a better bonus to a cheaper ship?

This will be fixed in the upcoming ship re-balancing. CCP specifically mentioned (Fanfest) that T3 ships should have more versatility but should not outclass T2 ships that focus on a specific role.

Be patient.

show me a T3 that can run 3-5 links with 200-400k EHP and then i'll agree theyre OP.

-1 too.

Why give a better bonus to a cheaper ship?

Price isn't really a factor here, SP requirements is.

Currently people train T3s because you can never lose one, it's **** easy to train for compared to a CS and gives better bonuses.

Bonuses need to be on grid only, and the ship that is harder to train for should give better bonuses.

This makes my link alt a very sad panda, but it's such a ****** mechanism it needs to go.

"never lose one"

You don't know what you're talking about. "Invulnerable" T3s get killed all the time.

Ok "never" was obvious exaggeration. Everything is killable.

But compared to a ship that commits to the fight on grid, no, they don't get killed all the time, and without bubbles they are nearly impossible to catch.

......and never look at our killboard, I think as an alliance we managed to blow up about 200 Tengus last month....that is the ones we lost.

As such the T2 ship should be better, however the T3 should have more options.
Last I checked CCP were looking into switching the bonus%, however apply comand ship bonus to 2 types of warfare links and apply strategic cruiser bonus to all 4 types...

I don't disagree with you and neither did I write anything contradicting what you just wrote?

I don't disagree with you and neither did I write anything contradicting what you just wrote?

CCP have ruined a lot introducing T3 ships. Just as the Tier 3 battlecruisers are focused towards being fun for people (attracting more subscribers) more than being balanced towards the core of Eve Online...

People are really not thinking this change through. As much as it technically makes sense to have the dedicated t2 ship be better at it, when it comes to how it is actually used in game it would be terrible.

Right now, small (and solo) players can safely roam with a T3 which gives them the advantage they need to be able to fight with odds against them.

Giving the strong links to the T2 would mean that a small roaming gang would be at a disadvantage when they would go and fight off someone bigger, since the big fleet / defending fleet would be able to field the command ship, which would not be really possible for the small fleet / solo player.

Only thing it would do is give an advantage to people that stay in their home system because they could park a Claymore/Vulture/etc on their pos or home station, and disadvantage the people actually coming to fight them.

(Yes, you can have your T2 command ship in the fleet, but everyone knows their DPS is really subpar and youd rather have pretty much anything instead of them, and this applies specially for solo'ers, these kind of people will have to still take a t3 with them, and they will be already at a disadvantage going in against people).

All in all, does it ''make sense with ship roles'', yes, would it be good for the game, not at all.

This guy is right. Basically you are nerfing the small gang pvp that still is alive in this game.


Terribad idea OP.

i completely agree with the OP.

"everybody whining about their t3s losing boosts and saying that it will ruin small gang pvp if boosts have to be on grid, are the same guys that ruin small gang pvp because they have the alts logged in either sitting in a pos or "hard to probe" in a system."

this applies specially for solo'ers, these kind of people will have to still take a t3 with them

Quoting for amusement.

but thats the point, more mobile safer hard to probe = not the best bonus.

Balls out CS with gang = top link bonuses for the t2 specialist focused bc

Actually I agree with you. I was amused at the fact that "solo" these days means "dps ship + T3 link alt +falcon alt +cyno alt in case things go pear shaped".

It's really the combination of factors that makes it unbalanced. Mobility + nigh improbability + higher boosts and all with a lower training time is kind of ridiculous. If isk wasn't a factor with supercaps what makes these people think it's a factor with T3 link alts?

People calling for this change SEVERELY underestimate the benefits of being able to have your booster on field.

Super capitals have specific roles and were meant to be expensive right from the get go which was why isk wasn't a considerable factor during the balance discussions. The only problem with said super capitals was that it filled more roles than intended. T3 links, on the other hand, is working as it should be. It would be simply uncalled for, if CCP made T2 ships better than T3s at everything.

Not sure how helpful on grid-boosting is when how you have to do is a little grid -fu. Don't know what that is you say? Google it...

Super capitals have specific roles and were meant to be expensive right from the get go which was why isk wasn't a considerable factor during the balance discussions. The only problem with said super capitals was that it filled more roles than intended. T3 links, on the other hand, is working as it should be. It would be simply uncalled for, if CCP made T2 ships better than T3s at everything.

why are people discussing on grid boosting when this thread as got FUnK ALL TO DO WITH FUnKING ON GRID BOOSTING I DO NOT GIVE A STINKING RATS ASS ABOUT ON GRID BOOSTING.

The difference is by swapping the boost levels of the t3 and the CS you FORCE people who want the better boost to WORK for it, they DO NOT need to on grid to get them but they WILL need to keep them safe while moving etc

christ you people are annoying can you not read a single damned post.

omg swap t3 and cs boost levels LETS SPAM ABOUT WEATHER OR NOT THEY ARE ON GRID..... sigh

Tech III alt tears. It's coming.

CCP is saying - no it hasn't been working as intended. So, don't give a rat's ass what you think.

Just wish they weren't so glacial in recognizing and changing these unintended consequences with introducing new stuff to the game, even when warned about it. Tech III obsoleting tech II ships, Drakes Tengus and Heavy Missiles for a very long time topping kills by a huge margin, Technetium bottleneck, etc. Seriously, they need to get faster at fixing **** ups or things that are out of balance.

Like titans tracking AB cruisers with XL guns? And supercarriers raping everything on the field?
Ho, waaaii...

it's also an exploit, gw.

The point was, if something is OP it needs to be changed. Nigh unprobability, mobility, better bonus than dedicated T2 command ships. Pick two.

Edit fir clarification: if T3 boosters were made as vulnerable as command ships I could see only bringing the CS bonus to 5% and leaving the T3 bonus as is. As it stands now there is absolutely no reason to fly a command ship over a T3 booster. None whatsoever.

I'll give you reasons to fly command ships since you are new to the game. They are sleipnir, astarte, absolution, nighthawk, damnation, vulture and claymore... and guess what? you can buy any three of these for the price of one T3 so obviously, the reason you fly a command ship over a T3 booster is because one can't afford to acquire a T3 and it's easier to dispose a command ship ... same reason you fly a T1 over a T2 ship.

I'd like to know the T2 ships that are being made obsolete by their T3 counterparts. It's also sad that you can't figure out why heavy missiles are topping most kill mails. You definitely aren't informed.

The point was, That only makes sense if you actually plan to lose a ship. Which you never should with the current state of T3 off-grid boosters. Under the current game mechanics, there is no reason to use a CS as a booster. A more expensive ship that does a more effective job, which you never lose, is better than a cheaper ship you can lose.

That only makes sense if you actually plan to lose a ship. Which you never should with the current state of T3 off-grid boosters. Under the current game mechanics, there is no reason to use a CS as a booster. A more expensive ship that does a more effective job, which you never lose, is better than a cheaper ship you can lose.

why are people discussing on grid boosting when this thread as got FUnK ALL TO DO WITH FUnKING ON GRID BOOSTING I DO NOT GIVE A STINKING RATS ASS ABOUT ON GRID BOOSTING.

The difference is by swapping the boost levels of the t3 and the CS you FORCE people who want the better boost to WORK for it, they DO NOT need to on grid to get them but they WILL need to keep them safe while moving etc

christ you people are annoying can you not read a single damned post.

omg swap t3 and cs boost levels LETS SPAM ABOUT WEATHER OR NOT THEY ARE ON GRID..... sigh

That only makes sense if you actually plan to lose a ship. Which you never should with the current state of T3 off-grid boosters. Under the current game mechanics, there is no reason to use a CS as a booster. A more expensive ship that does a more effective job, which you never lose, is better than a cheaper ship you can lose.

There IS a reason to use a CS as a booster. Just because you have not thought of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The reason to use a CS as a booster is when you are running max sized fleets against each other. Large fleet battles you want your Booster ships where they can get reps. If not, you can be sure that someone will have a maxed out prober that WILL probe out your T3 booster and pop it.

I do agree that in small gangs a T3 off grid booster is effective, but don't make absolute statements unless you know all there is to know about a subject.

@ FT Diomedes
are you asserting that t3 boosting ships can't be found and killed?
one shotted boosting t3
If my noob corp than do it ... .A command ship won't go down in one shot and would be simply ignored until the end of the fight in most cases.

@ Lili Lu
Your comment has a **** ton of rant which clearly shows that you really have an idea of what you are talking about. Please, do come back when you are back to your senses and for the record, I'm not arguing with anyone here. I'm expressing my thoughts and anyone is free to relate to it however they deem necessary or move on.

@ ahab
didn't you know? that anyone in a NPC corp is a noob. *shocked*

@ FT Diomedes
are you asserting that t3 boosting ships can't be found and killed?
one shotted boosting t3
If my noob corp than do it ... .A command ship won't go down in one shot and would be simply ignored until the end of the fight in most cases.

@ Lili Lu
Your comment has a **** ton of rant which clearly shows that you really have an idea of what you are talking about. Please, do come back when you are back to your senses and for the record, I'm not arguing with anyone here. I'm expressing my thoughts and anyone is free to relate to it however they deem necessary or move on.

@ ahab
didn't you know? that anyone in a NPC corp is a noob. *shocked*

No you. It's you that are full of ****.

But really, is it so hard to post with your main?

He definitely mad.

oh snap!

Not mad, like i said, sad for your impending loss. I will hold you when the end comes.

I don't fly large fleets, so forgive me if i'm wrong, buy won't a fleet large enough that "they WILL probe out your T3 booster" (your absolute statement) also have enough dps to pretty quickly pop even a CS? Like I said, I don't fly fleets that large, so i don't know.

It depends on how many logistics ships you have. That is also why they are generally fit with the largest buffer with the highest resists that you can generally manage. They are generally so heavily tanked that it is usually a better idea to take out the opposing DPS, logistics or tackle before hitting the Command ships.

On grid Commands should always be target ed before sub cap dps..... The increase in tank of all ships on the field can be increased by 70+ % through increased resists and significant reductions in the duration of RR modules. Furthermore, a large fleet with several hundred sub caps will be able to nearly insta kill almost anything on the field, and yes this includes a super brick Fleet Command.

Having your gang links on grid is always a liability as it significantly increases the chance of loosing your super powerful tank bonuses. Higher bonuses + off grid is a much more intelligent approach... You're reaching for reasons that are nearly non existent Alua Oresson... Thankfully ccp agrees with the op as changes are already slated to happen.

No that is not the point, you are missing it completely a small gang with LESS bonus is a GOOD thing, while a BIG bonus for BIG fleet is better.

garmon agrees here and i know this is a different concept but i belive it to be a real and worth while trade.

tasty full bonus (5%) are CS only and thus are harder to use with a light fleet, the T3 version with its 3% is way easier to use, safer and can keep up with a small gang.

The idia is to change NOTHING about the T3 or the CS other than swap the bonus amounts to it makes more sense, more committed = biger bonus THATS eve - not the way it is now.

wake up.

Id really like you to tell me how a small gang with less bonus is a good thing. I mean, youre with 3 friends in BCs and you go attack the main system of a big alliance, why should they have the upper hand, on top of actual numbers and possibility to reship/refit, youre already at a pretty good disadvantage in my opinion. Giving CS the bigger bonus gives a defenders advantage, which seems ''logical'' yes, but is pretty bad for the game.

Right now, small (and solo) players can safely roam with a T3 which gives them the advantage they need to be able to fight with odds against them.

Giving the strong links to the T2 would mean that a small roaming gang would be at a disadvantage when they would go and fight off someone bigger, since the big fleet / defending fleet would be able to field the command ship, which would not be really possible for the small fleet / solo player.

I mean, youre with 3 friends in BCs and you go attack the main system of a big alliance, why should they have the upper hand

I mean, youre with 3 friends in BCs and you go attack the main system of a big alliance, why should they have the upper hand