Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
 

Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread

First post
Author
#281 - 2017-06-19 12:07:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Cartheron Crust
Ele Rebellion wrote:
@ CCP Fozzie

I'm looking at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q0HSnCO8ZF5L_VdoIqPRBPqexbWAj2LPWJhhRh7BALk/edit

3 Midslots for proteus!?! This will completely kill it.

My Current Tackle Proteus Setup
HighSlots
-Covert Cyno
-Cyno
-Sisters Core Probe Launcher
-A-Type Small Nos
-Cover Ops Cloak

Midslots
-B-Type 50mn MWD
-True Sansha Warp Scrambler
-True Sansha Warp Scrambler
-Federation Navy Stasis Web
-Sensor Booster II

Lowslots
-Damage Control II
-Imperial Navy Enam
-Imperial Navy Enam
-Dark Blood Energized Explosive
-Federation Navy 1600
-Federation Navy 1600

Subsystems
-Graviational Capacitor
-Covert Reconfig
- Cap Regen Matrix
-Augmented Plating
-Friction Extension

Slot Layout
H5
M5
L6

I understand reducing the tank of the tackle proteus. But to cut it down to 3 midslots removes any effective role it could have as a tackler. I was ok with the original plan to go 7/4/6 layout (even though I didn't like it)

Also you are proposing a 9 Highslot layout with those subsystems in the link above. Did you realize this?


+1 Three mid slots is terrible. Likewise three/two low slots for the loki in some configurations is also very bad. It would make sense to drop some highs (1-2) from the command/RR subsystem and drop them into mids/lows.

Also lol at nine high slots being possible. How much would this break the game?
Gallente Federation
#282 - 2017-06-19 12:43:00 UTC
Cartheron Crust wrote:
Also lol at nine high slots being possible. How much would this break the game?

I don't think this would break the game, only the UI of the fitting window. Having 8 slots of anything is a decision of design, not the limit of the engine.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

#283 - 2017-06-19 16:16:20 UTC
These look like they will out tank and out DPS HACs still.

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

#284 - 2017-06-19 17:08:53 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
These look like they will out tank and out DPS HACs still.


i agree.. i think removing rigs is the best answer here.. as the ability too put on 3 T2 rigs means they always will have better EHP than HAC's, and since T3's are getting even better OH bonuses on active mods like hardeners and reps surely they don't need such high hp numbers now..

plus reducing the cost of a build by at least 60mil is necessary too improve the have multiple builds option

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

Gallente Federation
#285 - 2017-06-19 17:12:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Dior Ambraelle
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
These look like they will out tank and out DPS HACs still.

Yes, and this seem to be the continuous problem of the T3Cs, but if you have a ship of the same class and same role that costs more, wouldn't you expect it to be better?
Maybe the real problem isn't the overlapping roles, but the too easy access. What if we would increase the skill requirements of the strategic cruiser skill by adding the recon ships IV, HACs IV, HICs IV and logistics cruisers IV to it's required skills list? I know this would make the T3Cs inaccessible to a lot of people including me, but wouldn't it be logical? If you want to have a ship that can combine the others, you should be quite good with the others firs. I know that T3Cs aren't supposed to be an upgrade on the T2 variants, but wouldn't it be better that way? Currently we're trying to find an incredibly thin line between not making T3Cs useless (aside from the nullification) while keeping the T2 versions important.
Or even top this with advanced spaceship command IV and advanced weapon upgrades V maybe. At this point you would have a legit reason to go wild with some of the subsystems.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

#286 - 2017-06-19 18:52:22 UTC
What about the industry side of things? Where and how will we see increased costs.
Gallente Federation
#287 - 2017-06-19 19:10:06 UTC
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:
What about the industry side of things? Where and how will we see increased costs.

They want to add new WH materials if I get it right.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

#288 - 2017-06-19 20:03:16 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs .

a small correctionShocked
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#289 - 2017-06-20 01:50:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
They really should consider changing these to require BC 5 and just label them as BCs. Increase the build cost a little further and call it good. I'd still call for a nerf to speed with this regardless but at least doing this everything will begin to actually line up with their power.
Central Omni Galactic Group
#290 - 2017-06-20 02:03:19 UTC  |  Edited by: BESTER bm
Eustise wrote:
An explo update on the new numbers. Here's a sheet i've been working with: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KHX0UbkcCTQRtfmL1xIQ8TC8UytrS6N5Tm-jpCJsUDI/edit?usp=sharing

In short, we will enjoy bigger locking ranges, even with the -20km from the nullification system, given that we'll be able to fit the +locking range sub now compared to most c.


In short, this will kill the Tengu for use in Superior Sleeper caches. It will not be able to tank those anymore. It will not allow you to tank the damage in either solar or Sentries room from what I see and two back2back Massive Shockwaves in Archive room will kill lthe ship as it evaporates the shield with no time to regen. RIP explo Tengu

The reason why covert was in offensive is because in most case when used it will be used instead of weapons. Now, being in defensive it basically kills the ability to create a viable and well tanked explorer. When I come into a system cloacked and nullified, I am still seen (briefly) when coming in.. It's justa matter of combat probing to find me while refitting..

Basically negates the purpose of both Cloak and Nullification.. But then, that seems to be the whole idea.. Give the PVP crowd their pewpew.
#291 - 2017-06-20 02:12:44 UTC
BESTER bm wrote:
Eustise wrote:
An explo update on the new numbers. Here's a sheet i've been working with: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KHX0UbkcCTQRtfmL1xIQ8TC8UytrS6N5Tm-jpCJsUDI/edit?usp=sharing

In short, we will enjoy bigger locking ranges, even with the -20km from the nullification system, given that we'll be able to fit the +locking range sub now compared to most c.


In short, this will kill the Tengu for use in Superior Sleeper caches. It will not be able to tank those anymore. It will not allow you to tank the damage in either solar or Sentries room from what I see and two back2back Massive Shockwaves in Archive room will kill lthe ship as it evaporates the shield with no time to regen. RIP explo Tengu

The reason why covert was in offensive is because in most case when used it will be used instead of weapons. Now, being in defensive it basically kills the ability to create a viable and well tanked explorer. When I come into a system cloacked and nullified, I am still seen (briefly) when coming in.. It's justa matter of combat probing to find me while refitting..

Basically negates the purpose of both Cloak and Nullification.. But then, that seems to be the whole idea.. Give the PVP crowd their pewpew.


Not bieng able to perform their role is a definite fail. Unchain exploration from cloak.

Also the stats need more work than the deadline is going to allow at the current rate, I've got a gamebreaker or two to abuse til the next rework.
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
#292 - 2017-06-20 03:29:59 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here.

Rare, pirate faction subsystems.

One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only.
Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus.

Actually having one subsystem of the T3Cs themselves, particularly either an offensive, defensive or electronic sub being a single faction variant would facilitate the entire idea of faction T3Cs which people have been screaming about for ages. And only a single sub giving different pirate faction bonii wouldnt be a hard balance issue and could be mitigated by rarity, manufacturing costs and costs overall.

Another idea would be that these subs could be placed on each T3C as well but this would be more of a balance issue and a bit of a stretch imo.

Making this sub rare, putting them as ultra rare ghost site drops or sleeper site drops wouldnt mean overfarming nor fleets of such ships running around.

Ironically tying SP loss to only these subs would also be a good balance issue while removing the SP loss for the general T3C hull.

So +1 for you on this one.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.

Amarr Empire
#293 - 2017-06-20 05:02:19 UTC
Uriam Khanid wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs .

a small correctionShocked

seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses
balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash
#294 - 2017-06-20 05:05:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
These look like they will out tank and out DPS HACs still.


They will have heavily nerfed t3 mobility by the looks of things. Like someone said, you could class them as bc's,

Edit, nvm no they wont and their sig still looks tiny.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

#295 - 2017-06-20 08:07:48 UTC  |  Edited by: zbaaca
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
What if we would increase the skill requirements of the strategic cruiser skill by adding the recon ships IV, HACs IV, HICs IV and logistics cruisers IV to it's required skills list? I know this would make the T3Cs inaccessible to a lot of people including me


interesting idea . but it will work only if u give bonuses from skills to hull. as i must remind you that before commands req was overhauled non of them required any links , now many dont have them now , and and able to train and fly comms

Nasar Vyron wrote:
They really should consider changing these to require BC 5 and just label them as BCs. Increase the build cost a little further and call it good. I'd still call for a nerf to speed with this regardless but at least doing this everything will begin to actually line up with their power.


and old players benefit again , like ones that got free sp when destr and bc skill splitted into racial . what would you do if you are able to fly t3 one day and never-ever bothered to learn bc and anything beyond because they have no place in your game style , and now you have to get bc to 5 and you cant play your shiny ship untill you get skill , and sp inj will give you only 150k

both of options will impact fresh players only . and both are bad

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

#296 - 2017-06-20 09:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Uriam Khanid
zbaaca wrote:

and old players benefit again , like ones that got free sp when destr and bc skill splitted into racial . what would you do if you are able to fly t3 one day and never-ever bothered to learn bc and anything beyond because they have no place in your game style , and now you have to get bc to 5 and you cant play your shiny ship untill you get skill , and sp inj will give you only 150k

both of options will impact fresh players only . and both are bad


ShockedShockedShocked
you mean old casual player that weeping on forums when CCP rework his presious overpowered ship?


+1 to consider T3 as BC. it will remove a lot of claims.
BC desigh to kill cruisers. so yes, they outperforms a T2 ship. they are battlecruisers!!!
#297 - 2017-06-20 10:06:02 UTC
As much as i applaud finding ways too reduce the T3's power level im not sure making there sig as big as an attack battlecruiser is quite the way, after all they are cruisers.. i tend too worry what the tengus sig will be after the change aswell... if its part of the cloaky interdiction issue then just nerf that subs sig instead,

i would much prefer the rigs being removed as the way of keeping there tank down too decent levels along with the resist nerf, and the nice side effect is it will encourage more multi builds as the cost and space issue is dealt with..

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

Pandemic Legion
#298 - 2017-06-20 10:33:53 UTC
JC Mieyli wrote:
Uriam Khanid wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs .

a small correctionShocked

seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses
balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash


No that's good balancing, bad balancing is buffing everything else to match the 4 problem ships. We call that power creep and it's very damaging to the wider game.
Pandemic Legion
#299 - 2017-06-20 10:35:59 UTC
BESTER bm wrote:
Eustise wrote:
An explo update on the new numbers. Here's a sheet i've been working with: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KHX0UbkcCTQRtfmL1xIQ8TC8UytrS6N5Tm-jpCJsUDI/edit?usp=sharing

In short, we will enjoy bigger locking ranges, even with the -20km from the nullification system, given that we'll be able to fit the +locking range sub now compared to most c.


In short, this will kill the Tengu for use in Superior Sleeper caches. It will not be able to tank those anymore. It will not allow you to tank the damage in either solar or Sentries room from what I see and two back2back Massive Shockwaves in Archive room will kill lthe ship as it evaporates the shield with no time to regen. RIP explo Tengu

The reason why covert was in offensive is because in most case when used it will be used instead of weapons. Now, being in defensive it basically kills the ability to create a viable and well tanked explorer. When I come into a system cloacked and nullified, I am still seen (briefly) when coming in.. It's justa matter of combat probing to find me while refitting..

Basically negates the purpose of both Cloak and Nullification.. But then, that seems to be the whole idea.. Give the PVP crowd their pewpew.


If no other cruiser can run these sites then why should t3c?
Gallente Federation
#300 - 2017-06-20 11:17:27 UTC
zbaaca wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
What if we would increase the skill requirements of the strategic cruiser skill by adding the recon ships IV, HACs IV, HICs IV and logistics cruisers IV to it's required skills list? I know this would make the T3Cs inaccessible to a lot of people including me


interesting idea . but it will work only if u give bonuses from skills to hull. as i must remind you that before commands req was overhauled non of them required any links , now many dont have them now , and and able to train and fly comms

I don't think the hull bonuses are necessary, but significantly increasing the skill requirement would make sense. T3Cs are kind of supposed to be "end-game" ships, and I think it isn't logical to try to squeeze them into a place where they can't fit, based on a conception/rule that they always were ignoring.
According to EVE Uni the logistics cruisers need 48 days to learn, followed by the T3Cs with 60.5 days, then recon ships with 61.5 days, HACs with 63 days, and finally HICs with 71 days. It literally makes no sense to learn any T2 ships instead of the T3C, except the HICs.
Increasing the skill requirement by all T2 cruiser skills would mean that you can have a ship that's better than the rest, because you actually have to learn the rest first. Adding advanced weapon upgrades V will place these closer to marauders' learning time, and at that point you are allowed to be OP.
But instead of rethinking wether or not the rules are valid, we try to nerf these ships to not step on the toes of the T2 line, and as a result their only valuable function will be the nullification.

The explorer fits are already being killed with low EHP and painfully few mid slots on armored ships. This means you either pick the cloak to have a chance of a successful hack, or pick a tank to survive when every second container blows up, while constantly going back to the depot to switch between data and relic analyzers because 3 slots isn't enough to have both with a propulsion mod and an utility like a cargo scanner or a scrambler.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Forum Jump