Pretty much as title…
Remove T3C SP loss, because it’s become just plain dumb after all the nerfs…
BUT!
Add some sort of SP loss (25,000 or more) to a random skill for Capsule death 
= More (but still very low) risk and loss.
1 Like
Ah yes, so the weak get weaker… the newbs get newbier… the ragequitting gets rage-ier…
1 Like
Sure, I can go for that.
Didn’t we get rid of that already with the whole clone upgrades thing?
1 Like
That was way worse! 25k, is tiny though, a mere drop - just liked the idea of small consequences of death 
Yeah, the T3 skill loss is dumb. It is especially dumb that the T3 destroyers don’t have it.
SP loss from podding was removed for a reason.
2 Likes
Oh man I totally forgot about that… yeah, let’s not go back to that 
As for removing T3C SP loss… it should be removed, but not without rebalancing T2Cs vs T3Cs first. We don’t want a situation where T2Cs are underutilized just because T3Cs can now be used without penalty. When T3Cs were released, CCP explicitly stated that T3Cs were not intended to be better than T2Cs, only different. If T2Cs vs T3Cs can be rebalanced so that T2C performance meets or exceeds T3C performance using comparable “straight up combat” subsystem configurations, and/or if the industry requirements of T3Cs could be altered so T3Cs are a bit more expensive than T2Cs to make (hull + subsystems), then removing the SP loss would be justified since T2Cs would continue to be relevant alongside T3Cs on the basis of performance and cost. The reason why we don’t have this problem with T2 vs T3 destroyers is because they have role differences - but when it comes to T3Cs, a straight-up combat fit T3C can easily one-up a T2C when it shouldn’t be able to… it goes against CCP’s “not better or worse, just different” intention.
When T3Cs were introduced they were massively OP - now they are far more balanced, or nerfed into very niche roles, which makes a mockery of the idea of T3Cs
2 Likes
Agreed. CCP has balanced T2Cs vs T3Cs considerably lately. There is still room for more more balancing - even if it’s just a matter tweaky indy requirements - before the SP loss penalty could be dropped. And the “niche roles” isn’t a bad thing - like I said, T2C performance should meet or exceed comparably fit T3Cs… so for a T3C to have an advantage, it has to be fit in a non-comparable fashion.
The advantage is in versatility.
When you meet a T2 you know what you are getting.
When you meet a T3 you have to guess, because they can be fit in so many different ways. It might not be superior to the right T2 fitted in exactly the same way, but it isn’t meant to be.
This means you can get things like pure T3 fleets, where all you see on overview is a single hull and you have to have someone manually going in and looking for logi, Ewar, etc ships in the fleet to try and target them. And that is it’s own advantage.
In regards to the OP, I agree, T3C SP loss is past it’s removal date now. What it does is keep newer people who are still trying to gather skills from flying them, while not impacting on older pilots since they have all the skills they really care about so can just reskill whenever they lose one.
4 Likes
Must be why all elite pvpers fly those. Having a powerful ship with interdiction nullification is paid for by risking SP. If you don’t like it use some other ship.
Far more balanced doesn’t mean it’s not still powerful. It means it’s no longer worth 4 other ships. only 1.1.
2 Likes
How is it “elite PVP” if they are just running away?
Right now T3Cs are among the best scouting ships and in case of the Loki, best solo (shield) logi, rather than being excellent at everything. Sacrilege compares to legion, deimos to proteus, and tengu to cerb and eagle, however none massively outperforms the T2 equivalent as they did before. Their agility or PG has been hammered, so most of the abusive fits are no longer possible with the exception of the loki (100mn with HMLs and 100mn links/solo logi that still manages to fit the ECCM-sub).
Given the available alternatives both for cloaky and non-cloaky gameplay, they just don’t strike me as terrifying anymore. If you wish to capitalize on their traits, you have to sink quite a bit of money into them already - and with the SP-ISK ratio, losing a sub at V is a noticeable addition to the loss of the ship.
This, the risk is now really around ISK - how much you spend to make your T3C ‘better’ = there is no need for the T3C SP penalty
T3Cs are scary. Nightmare ensue from them
why you necro bro
I think the T3C sp loss mechanic needs to be toed lightly because of how flexible the hulls are. I’ve never liked the penalty, but I’ve never believed that much freedom should be cost free. I suppose it depends on what the balance between all the cruisers ends up being - pirate hulls probably shouldn’t be factored out because many of them offer similar performance to T2C’s. I’d have to see some real balance across all the cruisers before I’d say yes, get rid of the penalty.
Flexibility only impacts before you undock.
Once you undock in a fit, it’s usually comparable or occasionally inferior to a T2C specialised into that line of work.
1 Like
Because I can’t read dates they are upside down in Australia