Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
23 PagesFirst pagePrevious page212223
 

Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread

First post
Author
#441 - 2017-06-29 21:06:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Nah the only limitation would need to be that you can't activate it while you have a combat timer.

@ CCP & focus group - Glad to see that the warp speed bonus is being kept on the proteus Hyperspatial sub. However, don't you think it is a bit weak? The warp bonus is a great idea but I think it needs to be at least a 15% per level bonus to make it worth riging/implanting for.
Central Omni Galactic Group
#442 - 2017-06-30 10:43:10 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Blazemonger wrote:
One of the suggestions seen here that I miss in the discussion on the FC is the option to allow T3C to refit without the need for a Mobile depot.


Making them able to refit on their own would give them a huge advantage over everyone else. There should be serious limitations for this.

.


I do not agree on this being a huge advantage. the nerf will in many cases where a refit would (now) be needed be a penalty compensated by this option IMO.

That there needs to be a balance is obvious but I think these should be sufficient:

  • Use of this option will have a cooldown of 30 minutes before it can be used again
  • Immobility for 30 seconds post refit (call it recalibration or whatever)
  • Not possible while on (aggression) timer
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#443 - 2017-06-30 13:41:35 UTC
SP losses remained...

So besides losing a ship that will cost probably around 500m if not more, I will need to pay additionally 1,5 b Isks to recover a SP loss or wait around 5 days training again the same skill...

Good move CCP. Guess I will pass again. 2B to fly a ship in small gangs is not worth it.

Tec3 were good for hotdrops or the blob warfare. Guess they will continue to be good for that but not for my kind of play.

Another nail in the coffin I guess... What?
#444 - 2017-06-30 19:17:08 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone! If you've read the previous thread asking for applications or our recent dev blog you'll know that we have spun up another community focus group to help refine plans for a Strategic Cruiser rebalance this summer. We almost have the whole group in the channel now and we're starting in earnest.

The basic outline of our goals and early plans can be found in the balance presentation from Fanfest as well as the dev blog.

We'll be using this thread as a location for general community discussion and Q&A as we go through this process.

Anyone can observe the logs of the discussion in the focus group slack through https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/

We'll also link other working documents in this thread as we go forward so the whole community can take a look.

Thanks!

#445 - 2017-06-30 19:21:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone! If you've read the previous thread asking for applications or our recent dev blog you'll know that we have spun up another community focus group to help refine plans for a Strategic Cruiser rebalance this summer. We almost have the whole group in the channel now and we're starting in earnest.

The basic outline of our goals and early plans can be found in the balance presentation from Fanfest as well as the dev blog.

We'll be using this thread as a location for general community discussion and Q&A as we go through this process.

Anyone can observe the logs of the discussion in the focus group slack through https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/

We'll also link other working documents in this thread as we go forward so the whole community can take a look.

Thanks!

Every single fit for T3 cruisers need a choice of active or passive tank! just because some F1 monkey cant deal with it you have to remove it?
#446 - 2017-06-30 19:31:53 UTC
Pflepsen wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone! If you've read the previous thread asking for applications or our recent dev blog you'll know that we have spun up another community focus group to help refine plans for a Strategic Cruiser rebalance this summer. We almost have the whole group in the channel now and we're starting in earnest.

The basic outline of our goals and early plans can be found in the balance presentation from Fanfest as well as the dev blog.

We'll be using this thread as a location for general community discussion and Q&A as we go through this process.

Anyone can observe the logs of the discussion in the focus group slack through https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/

We'll also link other working documents in this thread as we go forward so the whole community can take a look.

Thanks!

Every single fit for T3 cruisers need a choice of active or passive tank! just because some F1 monkey cant deal with it you have to remove it?

The T3 cruisers ARE for Wormhole space! Not for some F1 monkey to shoot red houses! Cloaky, probing, nullified, PASSIVE TANK!!!
General Tso's Alliance
#447 - 2017-07-01 00:30:26 UTC
I am voiceing my distress over the visual changes to t3c mostly toward the tengu. It at the moment appear you guys have chosen to make the pvp setup tengu a collection of the worset looking subsystems. For one i dont understand why you need to change the visuals. Secoundly why have you chosen to keep the uglest looking subsystems over getting rid of them. The tengu offensive system visual for coverops was the only one that didnt fit with the caldari down ward slopeing design. the 100mn PVP wh PVE fit i currently use is still viably with the new bonuse and subsystem layout but currently on the test server this set up makes the tengu look the uglyest it can be, This maybe a petty complaint to some of you but visuals and gfx are a big thing these days to get people intrested in a game, If you make the most popular layouts the worst looking layouts it depresses people and makes them less intrested. I understand the ships are being balanced and we are exspecting to see more covert ops set ups but again i dont understand why you have chosen to make the non cloaky pve set up the unglest thing ive ever seen rather then getting rig of the uglyest missmatched sub systems, Pleese tell me they are just place holders and what we see visualy right not is just a place holder. I realy dont want to be flying a ship i cant bear to look at. CCP have so far done a good job in remodeling some of the older designed ships but this seems like a giat leap backwards,,,, what gives? If players don't find the game asteticly pleaseing they are more likely to go ealse where for there ezscapeisum and relaxation. I personally have never flown a buffer tengu so the blance to me is just a huge bufff to the cloaky tengu, it would have been nice to see the visuals kept the same and mabye an improvement on the looks rather then a buff to an underused set up and a slap with an ugly stick to the most used. If the changes on sisi are correct visualy i realy am starting to loose intrest.
#448 - 2017-07-01 14:12:21 UTC
Fozzie asking for feedback with visuals when there are already SKINs for them on SiSi. Legit as f***.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

#449 - 2017-07-01 17:03:33 UTC
visialy T3C sucks! very sucks!!! especially Loki !!!
SKINs are OK.
Gallente Federation
#450 - 2017-07-01 17:31:25 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Fozzie asking for feedback with visuals when there are already SKINs for them on SiSi. Legit as f***.

Those are probably test skins, they are using the basic ship pattern masks like the old skins.

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.

Amarr Empire
#451 - 2017-07-01 22:11:58 UTC
Any chance we are going to be able to see Tech 3 cruisers able to enter 3/10 plexes again in the future?
#452 - 2017-07-02 02:03:39 UTC
So is there any way for those of us not part of the focus group to see what's being decided? I've been looking at some gdocs linked on an earlier page, but keep hearing new changes not shown on them.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Central Omni Galactic Group
#453 - 2017-07-02 05:10:22 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
So is there any way for those of us not part of the focus group to see what's being decided? I've been looking at some gdocs linked on an earlier page, but keep hearing new changes not shown on them.


Try the link to the FG loogs on the first post
#454 - 2017-07-02 06:30:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
Concerning Loki visuals

Example

Please consider keeping missile subsystem as is in example to me at least it redistribute mass a lot better it offset heavy ship front with slim middle and again somewhat exaggerated back so ship avoid looking like toothpick and generally unappealing and weakish.

Missile hard points look really amazing on it, as well as it reminds me of some kind of ballast tanks and since space ship submarines nothing further need to be said it only need to be respected.

Lastly but "worstly" both tank subs should have that slick combat ready look to it like augmented durability have nothing sticks out all is tucked and behind armor plates so that tumor of a sub ie camel hump move that sub from adaptive defense to covert reconfiguration because it needs more space for advanced equipment and ....whatever just remove it from tank subs.

Even better delete it from all servers and logs last remaining data copy of it toss in nuclear testing area nuke it for 5 years hard than if any atom of it remained launch it to sun and when it gets there destroy the sun just to be sure.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

#455 - 2017-07-02 09:20:57 UTC
still not seeing any mention about the dps being OP still in the slack group especially on the cloaky HK versions.. there just obsessed with tank

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

#456 - 2017-07-02 17:43:11 UTC
Blazemonger wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
So is there any way for those of us not part of the focus group to see what's being decided? I've been looking at some gdocs linked on an earlier page, but keep hearing new changes not shown on them.


Try the link to the FG loogs on the first post


I did, and it's not that useful. I appreciate the offer, but I'm not really into the idea of sifting through a mountain of broken convo logs that so far have hardly any concrete data mentioned. By the time I have a clear enough picture of what's going on, it'll be on TQ at that rate. There's still a number of recent changes mention here that are not even discussed in those logs.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

#457 - 2017-07-03 12:36:00 UTC
Cypherous wrote:
The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc

I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration

Too stupid to figure out how to counter anything! F1 monkey!
C C P Alliance
#458 - 2017-07-03 14:03:01 UTC
Hey folks, we've moved this discussion thread over to the new forums.

The new version of the thread has the most recent version of all the stats and bonus plus information on industry, I highly advise checking it out.

I'll lock this thread now and direct all discussion over to the new forums.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

23 PagesFirst pagePrevious page212223
Forum Jump