Yeah, I understand that. In my opinion, T3Cs should instead be T3BCs, and they should be given modes similar to T3Ds.
If you look at the number of hulls for each class, Frigates, Cruisers, and Battleships have the most. Destroyers and Battlecruisers have the least. So it would make the most sense to have T3 Destroyers and Battlecruisers because there are less hulls you have to balance around.
Anyway, T1 hulls are cheap and do a decent job while T3 hulls are expensive and do an amazing job. I donāt see where T2 hulls fit in if theyāre more expensive than T1 and less effective than T3, especially when T2 hulls are only able to do one thing effectively.
If T3 hulls were better than T2 hulls, but you only have the ISK to purchase a T2 hull, youād be better off buying multiple T1 hulls or just saving up for a T3 hull. So why even keep T2 hulls in the game? You may as well remove them.
If T2 hulls were just general upgrades over T1 hulls, then yeah. I could see them working as the intermediate hulls for each class. But that isnāt the case. They arenāt just general upgrades. Theyāre highly specialized ships for specific roles. That, to me, means that they should be better than any other ship in their class at those roles. Otherwise, thereās no reason for them to exist.
T3Cs should be the best in wormholes, T2Cs everywhere else.
The difference between HICs and HACs is their role: HICs are heavy tacklers with a unique module, while HACs are just dps ships, with some defense bonus on half of them. The reason why HICs arenāt overshadowed by T3Cs is because they donāt have a subsystem that allows the use of the warp disruption field generator modules.
Also, T3Ds are much more simple. Destroyers are one of the most self-explanatory classes in the game. Cruisers and frigates have various roles, destroyers are high damage low tank ships. Battle cruisers are command ships, battleships have high damage, big tankā¦ and thatās about it.
Frigates and cruisers become better in their various roles with their T2 upgrades, while destroyers, battle cruisers and battleships learn a few new tricks.
Really? Heavy interdictors? Since when can an T3c load an infinipoint? Not a vaild comparison
The problem with HACs is they suck. For what you get the Pirate cruisers do it better, and the Battlecruisers do it with more tank AND damage if they go a little slower. We brought this up when they rebalanced the HACsā¦and low and behold, no one uses HACs because they are a lot of isk for not a lot of preformance (except for Ishtar which DID eclipse the damage of the BCs).
No one uses Logi T3cs in fleet work that I have ever seen, they are to range restricted and expensive, the dedicated logi cruisers do it better for a fraction of the price. Since I have been playing I have NEVER seen someone bring a T3c in logi trim to anything, not even when I was portalling around blops parties.
You can make the argument for recons, but then again, take say an Arazu, yeah loki gets a simliar web bonus, Arazu, but loki doesnāt get the painter bonus, but then brining a recon to a fleet flight is brave to start with when there are 300 people on field that can basically alpha you, and you are in a high value assetā¦yeah they get nuked.
Likewise the booster T3s. cloaky, nullified, hard to scan down, they already got the Fozzie love when everything got pushed on gridā¦previously the boosters also doubled as scouts, the first ships into system because they were nullified and they were the boosters for the rest of the fleet. Still without the tank there is no reason to ever use the hull, maybe in small gangs. They were actually a little stronger than the actual command ships mainly becuase the command ships are ALL active tank bonusedā¦outside of the allaince tourney that isnāt really a viable fleet PvP build because logi.
So it becomes a chicken before the egg argument.
But seriously if you donāt know the difference betweeen a HIC and a Reconā¦
So, tomorrow is the day that ā ā ā ā will hit the fan.
Frankly I am extremely disappointed, but not really surprised, that @ccp_fozzie has completely ignored the many calls for a response on the nerfs killing of the only option explores have to run high end sites with an acceptable risk/reward balance.
All the changes are obviously geared towards the fleet/gang/high DPS desires whispered in to CCPās ears by the mighty powers that basically decide what does or does not go. The Focus Group, on several occasions, has clearly shown their intent has been to minimize the effort or risk needed to catch T3C pilots not aligned with their game play style by pushing for changes that would remove the āhard to getā factor in those instances.
Yet, DPS based fits seem to be very powerful, flying a cloaky, nullified, cap stable and high DPS fleet of T3Cs into a system (no need for a brigde or BLOP) and then sneaking up to a single target to then decloak, unleash a massive amount of DPS and GFTO is now a realityā¦ no doubt weāll see this happen within days if not sooner.
As an explorer, I am losing the ability to come in to a system, run a site and get out. I have to choose between maintaining my covops module or lose my hacking bonus for tank where needed and still will not be able to maintain cap stability.
There are several options to deliver high DPS and plenty of blobbing options, the game really did not need another one, yet there is no alternative with regards to exploration and high end sites, they simply become to risky to run and this will probably be left untouched.
But heyā¦ who cares right, itās a āPVP centricā game after allā¦
Of course it is!
The worst thing that can happen is the lack of PVE will reduce the supply of the shiny stuff that PVP players like to use (including T3 components) and soon T2 and LP will be the best available option, both for ships and for fits.
Compare it to how it is pre-update against how it will be post-update, and then consider why it was added to the new nulli subsystem and you will see why it can be thought of as removed.
Why is there such a massive PWG difference? when in some cases the Missile launchers will require more PWG than the guns, railguns excluded? Edit 2: Wouldnāt even be as much as an issue as it is Except for the fact that the Tengu gets the lowest starting PWG by 250 points less than the next ship which is the loki even when the loki only gets 10 less cpu than it, you are needlessly hamstringing the Tengu without any real explanation.
Edit: in that same coin the CPU being such a small difference more when that doesnt really account for the significant cost difference in CPU from Hybrid turrets to missile launchers with HAML T2s using 50 cpu vs at most using T2 250MM railguns having 42 cpu and everything else closer to 33 or less.
Edit 3: This leads to a Tengu aka a strategic cruiser with the second lowest PWG out of any caldari cruisers with only the Osprey support cruiser being worse in PWG, I mean hell a Caracal with 1 less missile slot than the Missile tengu gets 20 PWG more than said Tengu . . . .That isnt really excusable and a Cerberus T2 Cruiser gets 190 more PWG than the Tengu missile fit.
Except that it is not possible. T3 ships provide a huge range of bonuses regardless of their configuration because each subsystem provides a bonus of some kind. There will always been combinations of bonuses that are possible in T3 that arenāt on any other kind of ship. It allows them to be fitted in ways that itās not possible to fit other ships. Those combinations allow T3 cruisers to be surprisingly good in areas that other T2 ships are supposed to be good at. The only way to come even close to making T2 cruisers better than T3 cruisers is to nerf the hell out of T3 so they are worse even with lots of ISK and effort spent on them to the extent that T3 cruisers become pointless.
A typical HAC has 2 sets of 2 bonuses and a role bonus fixed by the ship.
A typical T3 cruiser has 2-3 bonuses per subsystem and several role bonuses which can be cherry picked by the player. The minimum number of bonuses it is possible to have even with the new Loki above is 15.
Being able to quickly switch fits is useful but isnāt a combat advantage; people just own many ships anyway. If you can afford a T3 cruiser then you can afford 2-3 T2 cruisers. The only advantage of a T3 cruisersā flexibility is that opponents donāt know what to expect before it acts; unless you have spent significant effort in memorising the subsystem models for visual identification.
The whole idea behind T3 cruisers is different to anything else within EVE and by introducing them CCP backed themselves against this wall. The goal of having every ship within the game fill a useful niche is flawed. Some ships will always be stepping stones to better ships as a player progresses.
and this is part of what is wrong with the design philosophy
there shouldnt be any stepping stone ships
there should only be 2 types of ships
those which are good
and those which are good and specialised
Listen I took a big break from eve as soon as the sisters of Eve stuff came out, I exclusively and for years played in wormhole space when you needed 3 or 4 variations of the same t3 cruiser to get the job done. Also at a time when you would see Legions, Tengus and Lokiās running Wormhole sites and you were always afraid of a cloakie proteus.
This path as is of T3s being veristal is a gimic and suited for high sec exploration or idiots that like to sit on 0 on mobile depots and spent a hour doing site completion.
These stats in its current form are not suited for wormholes, a poor gimmick for people that want to spend money in 0.0 or highsec. No one in their right mind wants a cloaking scanning ship that has the align time of a battleship with nanos.
Show me a PVE fit that is vaiable with t2 gearā¦ (To make T3 work itās battleship sized power in a cruiser sized platform to keep mass limitations in checkā¦ )
Iām gritty sure Apocrypha kicked ass, sorry you missed it. Is the focus group made up of people like you? It makes sense then holy crap what happened to this game!
Sorry Fonzy, I repeatedly asked for viable fits to test out on sisiā¦ got nothingā¦ You are not going to get input to improve wormhole life by ignoring people that use to play it in its prime.
Did you cherry pick the applications for the focus group on people that expressed ideas of making T3 little bit crappier version of T2?
@CCP_Fozzie Looking back of your experience with T3 Cruisersā¦ Did you remember to remove your Game Master Exclusive implants before testing them? When you ran T3s on tranquility those implants gave you a crazy boost.
If versatility is the goal, but people donāt value it, CCP could make subsystems and fits hot swappable without a depot and maybe 1min cooldown. Would like that feature.
In general I agree to the design goal to make T3Cs a bit worse in roles which are already occupied by other ship classes: recons, explorers (Stratios), logistics, command boosts, etc. As a compensation they have the overheat bonus, plus some unique roles (hopefully not killed) like HK.
Regarding HACs, their role in game is not clear to me. Straight upgrade from T1? Then T3C in āDPS modeā should be similar but with slightly worse performance.
I remember when T3Cs came out and the best choice for running The Maze was a Tengu. So Iām for toning down their power in PvE.
As far as one more mid slot rather than a high slot on the Covert Ops sub, that would give the Tengu 9 midslots with the right arrangement of subs. Pretty sure that would break a lot of things.
To be fair, I could simulate a T2 PVE fit Tengu, both in the current and the new system, that has the same 100+k ehp with high resistances and 500+ dps that I could achieve with my T2 fit Rokh - except for the guns, they are prototype, I canāt use T2 large rails yet. The Tengu has half the range, but also half the size, so itās okay. And my subsystem skills are level 3 I think.
And by PVE I mean no web or scram, only shields, sensor boosters and weapon upgrades on the mids.
[quote=āLeto_Atal, post:543, topic:8414ā]
Except that it is not possible.
[/quote]It is possible. The problem is that CCP is making the wrong changes to T3Cs.
The role of HACs is to be tough and resilient, but mobile Cruisers. Currently, they really arenāt. So they need to be changed in the future.
How do you change them? By giving them overheating bonuses, EWAR resistance, capacitor warfare resistance, etcā¦
ā¦ but you canāt do that in the future if youāre already giving those bonuses to T3Cs now. Because you then either need to nerf T3Cs in the future, which means this rework was pointless, or you need to give better bonuses to HACs ā which will be too much.
The bonuses T3Cs are getting now should be the bonuses HACs get later. So donāt give them to the T3Cs now. Come up with something else.
At least, thatās how I would do it. If people keep pushing Fozzie to buff HACs in terms of DPS and EHP in order to compete with T3Cs, then weāre just going to end up with needless power creep.