So you’re saying there’s a higher than 0 chance? That means your previous statement is wrong! Careful with those absolutes. 
No, it isn’t.
1 Like
They used to be. It was a problem. They got nerfed.
1 Like
I know that, but I would like to see T3Cs to be a powerful ship choice worth the heavy drawback, rather than removing the drawback to making all ship losses equal.
I also understand that ship balancing is tough, but I would like to see T3Cs as equally powerful as alternatives in combat, worth the extra drawback because of the flexibility of the ship.
If you think that T3Cs aren’t equally powerful as the alternatives in combat, then I would like to see T3Cs buffed, rather than the SP loss removed.
If you think that T3Cs are equally powerful as the alternatives in combat, but do not think the flexibility is worth the SP loss, I don’t agree.
1 Like
I’m gonna toss in an agreement here. Mainly because imho the only thing that really gives t3c an edge is the modular nature and heat mechanics. The main reason most t3c have monster moments is because of blingfits. It feels silly to keep them at this level of massive loss after they’ve been dethroned.
The whole drawing point to t3c is adaptability, jack of all trades sort of ship. It does everything…just not as good as the other t2 options. This gives unique advantages and disadvantages. It’s time to stop the SP punishment just because someone wants versatility over specialization.
2 Likes
Signed.
Surprised it’s still a thing.
2 Likes
Whenever you lose a pod you should lose all skillpoints and have to start over.
3 Likes
You mean, play as if we’re not capsuleers but regular people?
Would make EVE incredibly boring when nobody dares take a fight.
All the alphas throwing spears at the guy who dropped $300 for the machine gun
EVE hardcore mode, I like it. Maybe allow skill points to “drop” from pod kills so that the skill point economy still exists, and everyone isn’t forced to use minimum-skill frigates in perpetuity.
Of course, we can also have a hardcore+ mode (with prestige), in which if you die in-game, CCP Seagull shows up to your house, silently smokes a cigarette for a few minutes, then puts it out on your face before shooting you execution-style with a silenced pistol.
Always a “pleasure” to see your input…the pair of you.
(big brain time: SP siphon module that sucks SP from another player and deposits it to you as unallocated SP) 
I’m sitting on almost 3 million unallocated and I still take the, what, three days to retrain instead of waste that resource. I can’t even imagine paying for that SP.
That said, I can see both sides of this argument. On the one hand T3Cs no longer need an arbitrary drawback. They’ve been kicked in the teeth and while they’re still flyable, they aren’t overwhelmingly great.
But on the other hand, making them powerful enough to justify risking the SP wouldn’t be a bad thing. It wouldn’t take a massive boost that invalidates flying other ships to make them worthwhile again, just a nudge here and there. Maybe drop sig back down and then tweak some of the subsystem bonuses.
Hell, if you really want to emphasize SP loss, add secondary bonuses on each subsystem from a different subsystem skill. Add something to offensive subsystems that reduces weapon fitting cost based on core subsystem skills. Or add a signature radius reduction to defensive subsystems based on propulsion subsystem skills.
That would make SP loss worthwhile and encourage players to recoup that SP as fast as possible.
4 Likes
I stopped using T3’s even before the nerf. (I called it the “Swiss cheese nerf”) I found that a hac was almost as good and cheaper. No way would I even bother to fit up one now.
1 Like
Just saying:
Ban the Dots!
Honestly i wouldnt mind the getting rid of SP loss…
The rest of the drivel though…
LMAO
I have a tengu fit that i use on occasion that has 64k EHP, with the lowest shield resist being 77%, just a hair over 800 m/s, and 1076 DPS at a range of 36km…and the damn thing has shown to be no more than 425million for the past 18 months.
I don’t. You just end up with a ship that is blatantly overpowered and not fun to fight against (because if it isn’t overpowered nobody will use it), “balanced” by the penalty of a 3-5 day cooldown every time you lose one. The balancing drawback isn’t part of combat so it doesn’t help ship vs. ship balance, and it takes an incredibly frustrating form that discourages people from using it at all and promotes boring risk-averse behavior. That kind of endgame content is fine in a PvE game where the NPCs don’t care how overpowered your character is, it isn’t appropriate at all in a PvP game like EVE.
3 Likes
It wasn’t the sp lose that stopped me from flying them, it was the cost. A few days training for this toon doesn’t matter. But like I said, a hac is such a close 2nd to me that I went with that at the time.
Good argument with some well thought out points.
I mean, this was originally why the SP loss was placed on the hulls in the first place. CCP was experimenting with alternative “costs” for losing the ship, since ISK and minerals were starting to become fairly trivial for large alliances.
That said, I agree with destiny here. This is, at best, a loose rule. For example a Kronos hull costs 1.2b ISK, but outside of a few niche scenarios it’s mediocre at PvP and the Rattlesnake, which is less than half the cost, is an equal or better PvE boat in most cases as well. It has it’s uses, but at the very least cost is not scaling particularly linearly with performance here.
I think the key point to make here, if indeed OP’s point is correct, is to look at what else you can get for the same ISK cost at present and how that compares to the T3Cs, while trying to make the comparisons as realistic as possible.
Basically for PvP and PvE look at the T3C and ships that both perform the same role and cost about the same and fit into similar niches (like site running) and make the argument that the T3Cs have better options.
Note that “this is almost as good but cheaper” is kinda “working as intended” here. ISK cost goes up exponentially for linear increases in performance and that’s 100% by design.
(I’d love to do the math here, but I don’t have time and I’m out of tune with what T3Cs are actually being used for post-nerfs)