I might have a small concern between the new Projectile scoping array and the Muninns dwindling identity in the game.
Well i guess only thing left is to thank you as well for receiving and not listening to feedback great job
Good to know that amassing amount of thinking and reasoning went into picking those Miamatar subs( as in none) because your ppl failed to see simple asset graphic clipping awesome job guys.
Unfortunately my money situation is opposite of where i want it to be because i would gladly pay pal some fancy 500-600 usd dinner for guys in charge of this so they can feel specialâŚbecause they are.
behold the end result ship that have oversized and/or disproportional front / top / back / sides a case study really how to completely do something wrongâŚwell saving grace somehow they forgot to put rotating balls on the bottom.
Wouldnât say that combo looks too bad! Ok the bit sticking out the top isnât great but Iâm sure you can make a far worse looking Loki! At the end of the day itâs subjective, I massively prefer the look of that over the long thin projectile subsystem!
1 Like
[quote=âKyral_Kujan, post:137, topic:8414â]
youâre not paying for a better shipâŚ
[/quote]that statement is somewhat debatable, considering that some T3 use-cases are vastly more proficient in their specific instances than any T2 counterpart can get close too. Much of it is directly due to the versatility.
Cost in this sense is being used to help T2 be given a bit more breathing room in terms of usefulness to pilots when deciding between two similar cases.
Iâm very, very disappointed to see the covert cloak with 5 second delay and interdiction nullification remain. Cloaky, interdicted T3s are an unstoppable cancer. At a minimum, fitting the interdiction nullification should increase the cloaking delay and uncloaking targeting delay.
A little more than a month ago, in a another forum, I made the prediction that based on CCPâs recent past actions, the wormhole community was about to be handed the isk printing press until the redesigned T3s become oppressive, at which point the nerfbat will come out. I see nothing in these changes that makes me change that opinion.
This^^
The best instance of this is to return to the discussion of the ECM Tengu. In comparison to the Falcon, itâs not only cloaky but interdicted, has double the structure and armor HP and nearly 1k more base shields, a similar resist profile, has better optimal range for ECM than a Falcon with 2 SDA fitted, still has room to fit something more than a lol tank, and can still pump out respectable cruiser dps. In regards to jam strength, the Falcon wins on base numbers but the Tengu catches up with it with all of the overheating bonus, and can hold that overheat for far longer. My Falcon pilot doesnât currently fly T3 but I can tell you, his skill training queue will change today.
I predict the next meta will be fleets of cloaky nullified T3s moved around via Blops with their own organic logistics / command burst and ewar wings. Canât stop them. Canât probe them. Can move fair distances quickly due to jump fatigue reduction. For a real fight, drop your mobile depot and refit.
Still out-HACs a HAC, out-Recons a Recon, and out-Covops a covops. Looks to me like T3 pilots traded sig tanking ridiculous ehp ahacT3 fleets for a lot of improvements and possible uses. With the warp speed changes and jump fatigue slowly but surely choking off the use of battleships and battlecruisers as fleet metas, there wonât be much reason to fly anything else.
1 Like
[quote=âRowells, post:246, topic:8414â]
that statement is somewhat debatable, considering that some T3 use-cases are vastly more proficient in their specific instances than any T2 counterpart can get close too. Much of it is directly due to the versatility.
Cost in this sense is being used to help T2 be given a bit more breathing room in terms of usefulness to pilots when deciding between two similar cases.
[/quote]It seems âbetterâ was the wrong word to use.
Youâre paying more for a ship that can do more, not for a ship that can do what other ships do, only better. Thatâs more or less what I meant.
When you buy T2, youâre paying a premium for ships that are the absolute best at what they do, period. That is the entire point of their existence.
The premium youâre paying on T3 ships is for versatility. So youâre not paying more for a ship that outperforms T2 ships (which is what some people believe), youâre paying more for a ship that isnât locked into a single role like T2 ships are. The trade-off there is that, while T3 ships can be fit for many different roles, they will never perform at those roles better than the T2 ships that exist purely to perform them.
So many people seem to get caught up on 3 being a bigger number than 2, so they think T3 should always be better than T2. It isnât that simple.
T3 are more or less upgrades over T1 hulls, just like T2 ships are. Only they go in a different direction than T2. They are not upgrades over T2.
1 Like
Plain and simple: youâre wrong mate.
[quote=âzluq_zabaa, post:249, topic:8414â]
Plain and simple: youâre wrong mate.
[/quote]He really isnât wrong. The T3Cs all get better bonuses and at least as many slots as their HAC counterparts. They can active tank better, they can passive tank better, they do can everything better. The increase in signature doesnât matter much when theyâre sporting more tank to begin with, and the slower speed is irrelevant when they can project better than HACs and travel via Blops bridges before refitting.
And yes, T3Cs can EWAR better than Recon Ships. And they recon better than Recon Ships. Even if you can push the range further on Recon Ships, theyâre all easily volleyed off the field in a matter of seconds. What little they do better than T3Cs is instantly irrelevant because they canât survive long enough to do it.
The same goes for dedicated logi. While Logistics Cruisers can push their reps further by default, T3Cs can rep harder. And they get bonuses to overheating. And they have much more tank. And they can travel easier. Oh, and they can fit command bursts.
LOL! I have killed hundreds and hundreds of cloakey, nullifide, T3âs! Maybe your tactics and skill are whats in question!
You do have a nice killboard with a number of T3 kills. However, in the past 6 months youâve killed exactly two cloaky, interdicted T3s, both Tengus, and only one of those was on a gate in nullsec.
Methinks your âhundreds and hundredsâ might be a bit of an overstatement.
Iâve attempted to catch cloaky, nullified T3âs with a superboosted 4k scan res interceptor. It appears to boil down to the server tick and where you are located in the world relative to London on whether this can be done or not. This is not good gameplay, in my opinion.
1 Like
Canât wait to see if big fleets will still use T3C instead of BSs ! (i hope not)
Also, could this be the first step towards more Battleship variation in the future ? (I want my Khanid Abaddon with Torpedos !!!)
See, now the cloaky T3Cs will get a hit to their align time, which will help you to catch them.
We might now have a chance of decloaking them before they warp. Locking and disrupting them before they enter warp, less of a chance.
With mobile depots and the ability to swap rigs without destruction, Iâm not giving much credence to any agility reductions. There will simply be a move to travel fits with warp core stabs and nanos and polycarbon rigs if there is actually any real danger.
50% of the people in this thread state T3Cs are being too strong, still.
50% of the people in this thread state T3Cs not being strong enough anymore.
Seems like a succesful rebalance tbh.
2 Likes
PLz have covert ops subs and nullified subs in same groups⌠or the covert ops cynoing will be too strong as its now âŚ
there is practically not risk at all to move around with covert + nullified subs
so if u have them in same group they have to choose wither go cloaky or go nullified
1 Like
Havenât got much of an opinion on this as I havenât read the changes in detail however my main thought is why are t3câs getting revamped while t3dâs much more urgently need it?
Theyâve all but obsoleted use of AFâs and majorly hurt use of t1 cruisers and destroyers too for little more expense than AFâs/ceptors. At their current effectiveness they should be at least twice as expensive.
I suppose you could argue that t3câs have done the same to HACâs/Recons but usage is less common. T3câs also have the sp loss cost and subs cost that make the risk of using them:effectiveness ratio more balanced.
HAC redesign was actually part of the T3 cruiser discussion if you bother to read the logs. HACS will be better at their specific jobs than T3âs. CCP does actually have a plan so stop the panic. They started with T3âs because they are breaking the meta the most. Wouldnt be surprised to see HACâs adjusted by winter release.
So I went and tested my fit on Sisi, and it looks like the T3 resistance has been removed from Sisi. Will that also happen on tranq during the switch over.
It looks like the Old Tengu gets 27,000 EHP with a 67 87 79 65 resistance.
After the changes a similar tengu fit gets 18.000 EHP with a 61 73 69 65 resistance profile.
Is this correct?
So I guess
Shield Em Damage Resistance 0 %
Shield Thermal Damage Resistance 80 %
Shield Kinetic Damage Resistance 70 %
Shield Explosive Damage Resistance 50 %
Has been changed to Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60 / 55 / 50.
So T3s are more in line with glass cannons now in exchange for being able to fit a probe launcher instead of having to carry a mobile tractor Unit?
Just seams like the Effective HP is really low on such a ship. You still are keeping the skill loss then?
[quote]Lets get back to this HAC thing. The first HAC proposal raised discussion around tons of topics (you can find it HERE if you donât believe me). Common ones included our overall design for tech levels, the way HACs intersect with tech 1, tech 3, and faction ships and of course specific input on ship-by-ship stats and performance. I want to try and cover as much of this as possible so get some tea or something.
Lets start with role. Weâve 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 âspecializationâ, 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 wasnât 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 didnât 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.[/quote]
So, the role of HACs is to be tough and resilient, but mobile Cruisers that can take a lot of punishment.
If the idea is to make them better at that than T3Cs, they need to be a lot more durable than T3Cs. Yes, the same T3Cs that can still fit monstrous tanks, EWAR resistance, greater capacitor capacity, and have bonuses for overheating and module repair.
How would that work, exactly? If HACs have to be even better than T3Cs when it comes to those things, itâll be HACs that are broken.
Honestly, itâs HACs (and AFs) that should have gotten the bonuses for overheating. Itâs their role to be resilient and tough â what better way to show that than by allowing them to overheat and repair their modules more efficiently than every other ship? HACs also should have gotten bonuses for EWAR and capacitor warfare resistance. Not T3Cs.
But since T3Cs now have those bonuses, what is CCP going to give to HACs to make them stand out? Because I canât think of anything other than better bonuses â which, again, would be broken and boring.
1 Like