Actually, I prefer chicken soup 
@CCP_Fozzie I was wonderingā¦ Would it not be sensible to use a single static model from the old āDefense subsystemā art if the intention is to reduce permutations on the art front. It would leave a single consistent area to apply kill marks and wipe out 12 further elements.
I have concerns that pairing up the old defence/electronic variations leaves some odd forms, particular on the Lokiās nuclear reactor paired with a projectile scoping leaves this very elongated ship.
Sounds like a good change to me. No high-end content should be risk-free. Inb4 talking about ISK compared to other, much less active play-style, PVE content: that is a completely different topic and should be adressed separately. If you want to be āCap stableā as in less active style of managing your modules, it should cost you in other areas.
Of course they could take away the +1 highslot from the CovOps Defensive Sub and put it into the mids, but that might make them too oppresive in PVP.
1 Like
Unless I missed something, there is no subsystem bonus for tractor beam range & velocity anymore (old emergent locus analyzer).
Using T3 Cruisers as covert salvagers in wormhole\null space was one of the most gratifying aspects of their versatility.
I implore you to not take that away. Let us still be able to make a dedicated covert T3 salvager after the rebalance.
@CCP_Fozzie
Seeing as my previous post was ignored, can we get any comment on the Lokiās Launcher Efficiency Subsystem?
Launchers clipping into each other canāt be in the interest of the graphics department (again, here). Either bring back Hardpoint Efficiency graphics (which iād prefer, since the new missile sub is obviously its spiritual successor) or at least switch the subsystem graphics with the Support Processor.
also, core subsystems on Legion (diss seq + reactor) and weapon subsystems on the Proteus (drone + support) - why havenāt they been brought back in line?
and finally, please get rid of the old Capacitor Regeneration on the Loki. It looks so bad, and Iāve never heard of anyone who likes it.
As a frequent T3 pilot, I personally see no problem with rig modification. Too often in wormhole space we have different fits for different comps, so instead of having 4 versions of a ship I just need the subsystems, weapons, rigs and ammo and can interchange as required.
1 Like
The argument that there should be risk is simply laughable as there is plenty risk as it is and it really shows you do not understand nor know the content referred. Exploration is virtually the only game play component which does not have a viable alternative for the top end sites which as was referred earlier actuality were created to provide content for the platform now being nerfed. Itās simply a matter of the risk/reward now going completely out of whack.
But then again, it would appear that is basically the intent besides to promote (if not push) fleet/ganking play styles over solo.
Just a quick question.
Is that a typo or does the Loki really have a base EM resistances of 50%?
Look like massive buff compared to the other three.
I just asked fozzie about this. I think someone on the focus group raised an argument that because they (T3s) wouldnāt be using MTUs, theyād be too hard to catch while inside a site because theyād be moving.
We didnāt ignore it, we did flag it internally. Thanks for the report.
The launcher efficiency and support processor graphics are being switched to solve that problem.
As for other concerns, theyāve been brought up to the relevant parties but as far as I understand no other graphics changes are planned at this time. If that changes weāll pass the info along to this thread.
Been following the focus group chat and playing around with some setups both on Sisi and with EFT. Bit out of the loop to comment on balance right now but looks like there will be some interesting new roles with these, plus happy to report that the Legion I like flying for WH exploration / pve content should still work fairly well. Plus it looks great, particularly with the new skins. The cargo size changes, space for subsystems and smaller loot all sound fantastic for that nomad approach.
Some of the visuals on the other ships are a bit odd though. Really not a fan of the Proteus defence sub that looks like a carrying handle! I kinda miss the old Legion tactical targetting sub too, but I like all 4 of the current electronic subs so accept Iām going to lose something I like the look of there ;p
Thanks for this information.
I hope devs reconsider some aspects (like tractor bonuses) before the final release. In one form ore another we need more tractor beam utility, perhaps in the form of rigs or even modules? Just a suggestion.
Question, when i kill the red house monkeys in their shinny active fit T3, will their extra subsystems drop in the loot?
That and: will the rigs drop too?
1 Like
I couldnāt help but notice āWarning: On ship destruction the pilot will lose one random subsystem skill levelā This reminds me of way back in the day if you forgot to update your clone you could lose a boat load of skill points. This was a big drawback for new players and everyone who played Eve online. It certainly didnāt help in growing the Eve Online player numbers or keeping players long term. I feel that this could have a negative impact for those stats. Not as severe as the skill points loss of the past. This feels more like a involuntary skill rebalancing more than it does any type of ship rebalancing. As time goes on I think it could be hard to get around and diminish the joy of owning at T3 cruiser and possibly alienate some of the player base. As far as the other stats. I would willing to accept any stat changes that you all and the community feel acceptable. At the end of the day I hope that you donāt move forward on anything that will result in the loss of skill points.
@CCP_Fozzie pls can i have one Loki Offensive Subsystem with 99% reduction on Large Projectile Powergrid? Covert Nados should be a thing.
This is a great point! I recall a vague explanation of how T3C changes were supposed to reflect a separation of similarities between it and various T2C counterparts, ultimately to prevent T3Cs from āoutshiningā them. And yet, if you tally these new bonuses, it would seem the āoutshiningā gap between T3C and HAC is not only still around, but it got considerably bigger.
Kyral seems to think that itās so bad, there might be upcoming HAC changes just around the corner to offset it. Personally, I recall a vague mention of increased T3C mass/size, and perhaps lack of agility and speed will create sufficient separation from various T2C counterparts.
Regardless, Kyralās question is being ignored, and it shouldnāt. If permitted, Iād like to ask it another way:
What separates these new T3C changes from impacting HAC usage/performance?
Or asked another way:
Why would anyone want to fly a HAC in place of the upcoming T3Cs?
Or asked another way:
What justifies the higher skill point investment for HACs over a T3C?
Note: please donāt say ISK. Anyone flying these ships isnāt worried about the cost of them, and the difference in price is marginal anyhow.
2 Likes
Whilst Iāve not gone and compared 10s of like for like fits, from what Iāve seen the T3s are much slower than HACs and have a much bigger signature in exchange for the extra tank. The T3s seem to be fitting in somewhere between HACs and Command Ships for the most part.
1 Like
Well, letās hope T3C donāt start outshining CSs in place of HACs. >.< lol
Well letās be fair, previously T3s managed to outshine both at the same time fairly consistently. If we get to a point where they can only outshine one or the other itās a step in the right direction! 
1 Like