Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Sisters of EVE faction ships

First post First post First post
Author
#1941 - 2013-10-24 14:56:53 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:

Yes! Thank you.
Explorers love you!

Are you trying to speak for all of us again? Stop that.

That said, the Stratios still looks like a good ship, even with one less heavy. Despite the outcry, it's sensible that the pinnacle of drone abilities should be left to the drone race.
C C P Alliance
#1942 - 2013-10-24 15:02:28 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
TrouserDeagle wrote:

Can't we just have a good ship that doesn't have a cloak, instead of a bad one that does?


Ishtar

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Minmatar Republic
#1943 - 2013-10-24 15:08:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Kellath Eladrel
The ishtar was already the better combat ship...but it can't be hot dropped. I would much rather they remove the ability to blops the SoE ships and buff them back to where they were. 4 unbonused lasers and 4 sentries is...weak.

The SoE proprietary warp designs are incompatible with covert cyno fields. Easy.

Edit: I will say the range bonus to lasers is a much nicer bonus for the role of exploration. But having a full flight of sentry dps is more important for some of the tougher overseers.

Five card stud, nothing wild, and the sky's the limit.

#1944 - 2013-10-24 15:11:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, after a lot of feedback and discussion I'm going to share what will likely be the last set of tweaks to the Stratios and Astero before launch.

We feel that while there are significant weaknesses in the cruiser that do balance it against major abuse, it's simply too strong in its current state. The combination of the covert cloak, black ops portal access and extremely high damage potential make for a ship that does a bit more than we are comfortable with. To tone it down slightly we are going to lower the drone bandwidth to 100mb/s and the drone bay to 400m3.

The ship will still have very high damage potential and will certainly still be very powerful overall.

This also makes me feel better about some other small changes that improve the ship, so we'll also be increasing the virus strength bonus to +10 and changing the laser cap use bonus to a medium energy turret optimal range bonus of 50%. We will also extend the virus strength bonus to the Astero.

Please post with feedback, but keep in mind that these changes are made after processing tons of feedback from the forums, my visit to EVE Vegas and a lot of internal discussion.

Thanks



On paper it sounds like a reasonable change but for me, you have just made me go from looking forward to flying a ship other than T3s to being completely uninterested in the SOE hulls...

You had the chance to mix things up in wormhole pvp a little with these new ships but this most recent change makes is utterly impractical. Most of the cloaky T3's will be able to out-dps this ship while having double the tank and stronger ew ability/defense.

You should have left the drones as they were and got rid of turret slots along with the stupid energy turret bonus... The only thing that justifies the stratios being such a boring, under-performing ship is if you plan to release a battle ship version.
Pandemic Legion
#1945 - 2013-10-24 15:13:51 UTC
Thanks for toning down the drones, it really needed it with all the other strength it brought to the table (I did like the 500m3 of drones though if only to break the old 400m3 paradigm for the ships yet to be balanced)
Minmatar Republic
#1946 - 2013-10-24 15:17:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Sparkus Volundar
Kellath Eladrel wrote:
4 unbonused lasers and 4 sentries is...weak.


No, with shields this cruiser hull will still manage 800 DPS at 30 km (Scorch, plus 3 DDAs and Garde IIs) from a nano Cane-style tank alongside a covert ops cloak. Lower DPS with armour being offset by a solid tank and 5 mids. Its a strong ship and a sensible change.

Nice one, CCP Rise.

.

Goonswarm Federation
#1947 - 2013-10-24 15:23:13 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:

You had the chance to mix things up in wormhole pvp a little with these new ships but this most recent change makes is utterly impractical. Most of the cloaky T3's will be able to out-dps this ship while having double the tank and stronger ew ability/defense.


I hope that CCP nerfs T3s into the ground so people like you stop pretending "ridiculous tank for a cruiser combined with capabilities that match or exceed their Tech II counterparts" is a reasonable metric for balancing.


Also, four ogres alone match or exceed everything but a max DPS covert HAM tengu and the proteus, and it can easily exceed both, so you're wrong on the DPS factor anyway.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

#1948 - 2013-10-24 15:24:39 UTC
Wow so the SoE ships (cruiser in particular) just went from awesome to mediocre in one fell swoop. If these are supposed to be cloaky drone based exploration ships why not keep the 125 bandwidth and remove some/all turret points? And if these are supposed to be laser based exploration ships why not just remove the drone bandwidth even more and give them better laser bonuses?
Caldari State
#1949 - 2013-10-24 15:25:58 UTC
Perhaps you could make a ship with a role bonus of having 2-3 Loot grapplers instead of 1.

Or a role bonus that allows Tractor Beams to give this same bonus if installed on the ship.
Gallente Federation
#1950 - 2013-10-24 15:36:21 UTC
Thank you for toning it down a little, but I would suggest giving others who don't wield the mighty laser an option to use these ships.

I would change the optimal range to a tracking enhancement for all turrets, so now people can decide to use lasers, or go with another option.

But I get the reason why the laser direction.

Yaay!!!!

#1951 - 2013-10-24 15:46:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
mynnna wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

You had the chance to mix things up in wormhole pvp a little with these new ships but this most recent change makes is utterly impractical. Most of the cloaky T3's will be able to out-dps this ship while having double the tank and stronger ew ability/defense.


I hope that CCP nerfs T3s into the ground so people like you stop pretending "ridiculous tank for a cruiser combined with capabilities that match or exceed their Tech II counterparts" is a reasonable metric for balancing.


Also, four ogres alone match or exceed everything but a max DPS covert HAM tengu and the proteus, and it can easily exceed both, so you're wrong on the DPS factor anyway.


I don't think you know what you are talking about really. If CCP nerf t3s into the ground, it will destroy wormhole pvp or just turn it into a blob fest like in k-space.

My cloaky proteus can do 719 dps with a 78k tank while having the ability to web and scram a target. The Stration might be able to reach that damage by wrongly fitting it with a shield tank but it will still be a piece of shite that is only good for ganking and blobbing. If you fit it correctly with an armour tank and drone tracking mods, you will be lucky to get 500 applied dps out of it.

For your information, no T3 can outperform a T2 ship in it's specialized role. Personally, i think the standard Tech 3 fits are fine but if you don't agree, you are entitled to that opinion.
Shadow Cartel
#1952 - 2013-10-24 15:47:42 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:

Can't we just have a good ship that doesn't have a cloak, instead of a bad one that does?


Ishtar


One with actual lowslots and a tank. Also frigate-sized.
Pandemic Legion
#1953 - 2013-10-24 15:52:39 UTC
Ishkur (this is easy)
Minmatar Republic
#1954 - 2013-10-24 15:53:48 UTC
Sparkus Volundar wrote:
Kellath Eladrel wrote:
4 unbonused lasers and 4 sentries is...weak.


No, with shields this cruiser hull will still manage 800 DPS at 30 km (Scorch, plus 3 DDAs and Garde IIs) from a nano Cane-style tank alongside a covert ops cloak. Lower DPS with armour being offset by a solid tank and 5 mids. Its a strong ship and a sensible change.

Nice one, CCP Rise.


No, 800 dps doesn't matter. I can get a Vexor Navy Issue to well over 800 dps if I fit it single-mindedly, and it will apply that dps much better due to tracking bonuses. The Ishtar is even farther ahead. As of the change, the Stratios falls between the Vexor and the NVexor, with its only redeeming quality being the covops cloak.

You also have to consider that the Stratios doesn't have the high slots to fit probes, cloak, and 4 turrets without using Space Yurts.

That in my opinion makes it a weak ship for exploration, especially when you fit it for exploration.

It's not about DPS at all, it's about the covops cloak and the worry that all of a sudden you can have a fleet of Stratios appear out of nowhere and apply cruiser-level dps. Even billion-isk T3s sacrifice a lot to be able to do that.

But T3 subs can be switched. I don't want the Stratios to have to sacrifice its effectiveness at exploration permanently and would rather they directly nerf the non-exploration effectiveness of the ship, by preventing it from jumping to covert cynos, increasing the sensor calibration time on the cloak, or something like that.

PS. Do you see how annoying it is to start forum posts with No.

Five card stud, nothing wild, and the sky's the limit.

Shadow Cartel
#1955 - 2013-10-24 15:55:31 UTC
Destoya wrote:
Ishkur (this is easy)


If I wanted to be as slow as a cruiser and cost 40m, I'd fly a cruiser.
Rote Kapelle
#1956 - 2013-10-24 15:57:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Andendare
Matthias Vilmet wrote:
Perhaps you could make a ship with a role bonus of having 2-3 Loot grapplers instead of 1.
Please no. The argument here should be to remove the idiotic scatter mechanic altogether. It's not fun and doesn't add anything to the hacking minigame. The game play in hacking is the minigame itself (what path to choose, which node to fight, etc.).

It doesn't make sense that when you "successfully" hack a container you are then penalized by having your earned loot fly off in every direction. If that wasn't bad enough, you're already highly penalized by failing a hack with the container explosion, resulting in zero loot. So, riddle me this Batman, if there is such a severe penalty on failing the hacking game play, why, then, am I doubly penalized when I succeed?

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

#1957 - 2013-10-24 16:02:45 UTC
both ships need to lose a mid slot to be balanced and to be fair too other drone boats .. the whole -1 slot for a drone boat

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

#1958 - 2013-10-24 16:04:42 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
both ships need to lose a mid slot to be balanced and to be fair too other drone boats .. the whole -1 slot for a drone boat

Losing a mid slot would wreck them for exploration.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

#1959 - 2013-10-24 16:07:30 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
both ships need to lose a mid slot to be balanced and to be fair too other drone boats .. the whole -1 slot for a drone boat

Losing a mid slot would wreck them for exploration.


hardly

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Rote Kapelle
#1960 - 2013-10-24 16:07:49 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Thank you for toning it down a little, but I would suggest giving others who don't wield the mighty laser an option to use these ships.

I would change the optimal range to a tracking enhancement for all turrets, so now people can decide to use lasers, or go with another option.

But I get the reason why the laser direction.
It's a AMARR/Gallente Pirate faction. It's designed around being able to sustain itself on long-lasting expeditions. It makes sense that it'd use lasers, with their literally infinite ammo, in order to be able to have sustain power.

I do think that changing it to an optimal bonus, however, does hurt the ship. Here's why: It's a ship that's supposed to have sustain potential, BUT it is designed around a cap-hungry armor tank. An armor tank typically uses cap boosters for long-lasting sustain, which then creates a dwindling resource pool, which seems contrary to the "sustain itself over the long haul" design mentality.

While the laser cap use bonus is "meh" for some pilots, in this case it makes a ton of sense. It cuts down on very energy-hungry weapons' cap use, and this in turn helps the sustain potential of the armor tank. Additionally, pilots can just use Rise's new-and-improved beams if they want long-range damage application on this ship (and the mids have plenty of room for a tracking computer, if pilots want longer optimals). Further, with the introduction of the Depot, it's a trivial matter to swap weapons from close range pulse lasers to long range beams, depending on the pilot's taste or needs at the moment.

So, overall, the cap use bonus made more sense on this ship, given its design intent, it's many free midslots, and taking into account the recently updated (and improved) beam lasers.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Forum Jump