Remove T3C SP loss, add SP loss for being Podded

[Renge_Ukyo]

@Nevyn_Auscent

Once you undock in a fit, it’s usually comparable or occasionally inferior to a T2C specialised into that line of work.

I’ve noticed. That’s why I kinda want to see there being a definitive reason for a T3C other than “buy one hull get 4 cruisers”. I mean I see it, but I’m not sold on it. Especially because of what you said, these days sometimes they’re worse than the T2C they emulate. Not always. I mean the proteus always out tank the Arazu, but it won’t ever have ewar support (when last I checked anyway). So what do we do? If you need an Arazu to do Arazu things, bring that. But if you’re just up to Bloppy things? Eh… Rapier’s tend to dominate. Long webs seem to be worth more than the point range. No need for a long range point on a cloaky proteus unless you’re Cap hunting. Carriers hate T3C’s since they can tank long enough for the rest of the drop to show up and get some T2C logi on em.

I guess to me the T3C seems more about Cap ship support than anything these days. There are other, cheaper ways though. It takes 1 cyno to blobber a carrier or dread, and it does not have to survive… A plated Maller is probably the better spend ya know?

T3C’s are sweet, but I just can’t find a need for them with my EVE career based on my niche. Some will argue they’re still OP, which I think is wrong, but from what I can tell they’re both too flexible and too costly (isk/sp penalty) to be a daily flyer for all but the most specialized niches in the game. Maybe that’s where they belong. Dunno.

I’d like to see them out more but it’s a murky business because of what you mention.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Renge_Ukyo

T3C’s are sweet, but I just can’t find a need for them with my EVE career based on my niche

To me this is a fair assessment. They have places and sweet spots, but no longer have the insane OP nature they launched with, which means the SP loss is no longer justified to my eyes.

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

@Renge_Ukyo all of your concerns were already addressed in an earlier post in this thread:

@Archer_en_Tilavine

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.

The concern in the past was that anything a T2C could do a T3C could do better - CCP as been incrementally rebalancing ships so that this is no longer the case, and as such the SP loss penalty on T3Cs can be justifiably removed. Even you agree that the statement that T3Cs are OP is no longer true. Whether or not there is a need or niche for them to begin with is irrelevant to the conversation.

[Xeux]

I think CCP wants to discourage people from flying T3 cruisers because it is overly difficult to make skins for them.

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

@Xeux let the cat out of the bag.

HAPPY CAKE DAY

[Xeux]

Thanks. It has been a good year.

I finally found an outlet for some of my less agreeable personality traits. I no longer feel the need to troll friends and coworkers - I can just log on here and watch people go nuts.