[quote=“Wander_Prian, post:487, topic:8414, full:true”]
As I said, they have always had a trait of being better at overheating. CCP is just emphasizing it with this rework.
[/quote]Since this is the T3C rework, it’s the best time to remove it.
The role of HACs, as per CCP, is to be tough and resilient, but mobile ships. That sounds like they’re the best hulls in the game for an overheating bonus. What better way to make them resilient? They don’t need crazy EHP – that’s what HICs are for. No, the survivability of HACs could rely mostly on overheating bonuses, EWAR and capacitor warfare resistance, and strong capacitor to begin with. Dial it down for the active tanking ships, but make up for it with better mobility.
Then you’ve got two strong platforms for each race that help counter the EWAR/neut meta. Pass those same bonuses on to AFs and you’ve suddenly fixed 99 problems.
But no, they’d rather T3Cs be special snowflakes while the other Cruiser hulls are left to rot.
Adding overheating bonuses to the HAC and AF class ships would help them a lot, along with the EWAR and cap resists bonuses. Taking those bonuses away from the T3Cs is going a bit far, unless a k-space nerf is wanted, then the T3C overheat bonuses could be made to work in w-space only.
The way T3Cs are now, most of them will be running around with +150mm ISK in spare subsystems and modules, the dropped loot and lost ISK does add to the risk of using such ships.
Perhaps if HACs and AFs also had a jump fuel use and endurance bonus, they might become preferred for k-space use.
That’s basically like saying “Giving HACs all the bonuses would help them a lot”. You’re technically correct, but the base concept is still ridiculous for what I hope are obvious reasons here.
This seems like a rather ridiculous set of statements. Some T3Cs will run spare modules and subs in the hull, but most of the time the ship you undock with is the ship you’re looking to fly, and you’re either close enough to a dockup to refit or you’re not.
There’s zero need for any kind of jump fuel based bonus on AFs and HACs. That’s ridiculous and niche, and not at all one of the problems either of those ship classes suffers from. In fact with how hard T3Cs are getting hit on tank with this change it’s very possible HACs will start to see use in HAC fleets again.
And on anything that’s 10au or more away? A specific case-area where the time to target is lower does not mean “effectively removed” in any sense. It’s slower for the shorter warps, but that’s not removed.
Uhhh, maybe i missed something, but when did you decide to back off on the subject of nullifier subsystem agility penalti? Right now on sisi i get 3.92 sec align on my covert nullified loki. With artillery and 40k passive ehp (with disruptor and web). AND warp speed bonus on top of that.
yes you fly with the concurrence registry, because it has the better bonuses. CCP is mistakenly taking the model from the scoping array, where only one of the new bonuses on the new offensive sub is shared by the old scoping array.
For all intensive purposes, the new offensive subsystem IS the concurrency registry, it has most of its bonuses shared with the old registry.
CCP Leboski told me the reasoning behind the current sub appearences was to maintain consistency with the old subs. If this is true, then it only makes sense that the new offensive turret sub use the model of the concurrence registry.
Congratulations CCP you have just destroyed all W-space T3 recons and turned them into active tank, POS, red house monkey garbage! WHY don’t you just remove W-space completely, make EVE it safe of everyone! This is the worst thing you guys have ever done!
[quote=“Ket_Viliano, post:490, topic:8414”]
Taking those bonuses away from the T3Cs is going a bit far, unless a k-space nerf is wanted, then the T3C overheat bonuses could be made to work in w-space only.
[/quote]The idea is to make T2 ships better at doing those roles than T3Cs.
If T3Cs can get equal bonuses to HACs, then HACs aren’t better at their role – being tough and resilient, but mobile – than T3Cs, which defeats the purpose of T2 ships.
The bonuses T3Cs get now are pretty good. I don’t think giving HACs even better bonuses would work, so giving HACs similar bonuses and dialing back on the T3C bonuses would be the best route to take. Or changing things up a bit with the bonuses each hulls get so that T3Cs aren’t filling the same exact role as HACs.
I though the T3s are suppose to be to combat and battle sleepers in wormhole space… not to be some kind of fun thing for 0.0 and known space people to nerf into some kind of half baked T2 like ship.
The fact that T2s cost much less to use than a T3C fitted counterpart balances it out, and being a multipurpose starship of a higher technological level, why shouldn’t it be able to fill exact roles of T2 cruisers with equal (subjective to pilot’s skill) capability?
If anything, the devs could simply balance it with slightly increased difficulty to train into thereby diverging it from ‘garden variety’.
like this maybe, it’s 40k ehp without the dcu. This is basically a covert nullified cynabal. A week ago such fitting would hahe 8 seconds align without prop mod. Now it is under 4.
I like what I see and am eagerly anticipating the Tengu-class major retrofit on Tuesday. The only worry I had when the revamping was announced was that the Strategic Cruiser would be nerfed into a glorified Large Tactical Destroyer. Things have to change, part of life, and I understand it’s quite a difficult trick juggling all the ships in some form of balance pleasing to the majority.
Each player wants things their way and it’s relatively impossible to please everyone. All the same, good job thus far!
