EVE General Discussion

 
38 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

Strategic cruiser balance pass

Author
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2017-04-16 11:35:35 UTC
Are there plans for nerfs (I haven't seen them) or are they simply going to consolidate subsystems?
End of Life
#2 - 2017-04-16 11:40:05 UTC
Yes there are plans for rebalance, not only consolidation of subsystems.

No one has seen any details yet.
#3 - 2017-04-16 11:46:44 UTC
You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass.
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2017-04-16 12:43:26 UTC
Rroff wrote:
You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass.


Good. How the things remained as OP as they are for so long is beyond me.
#5 - 2017-04-16 13:02:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Rroff wrote:
You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass.


Good. How the things remained as OP as they are for so long is beyond me.


T3 cruisers are fine (well there are some minor tweaks they could do with). The only changes that need to be made is increasing the usefulness of 1-2 sub-systems and slightly tweaking the balance of tank so that higher resist/lower sig combinations have slightly less EHP (more towards HACs in a general sense) and higher EHP configurations have slightly bigger sigs/slightly less mobility (more towards commandships in a general sense).
Solitaire.
#6 - 2017-04-16 14:17:51 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Rroff wrote:
You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass.


Good. How the things remained as OP as they are for so long is beyond me.


T3 cruisers are fine (well there are some minor tweaks they could do with). The only changes that need to be made is increasing the usefulness of 1-2 sub-systems and slightly tweaking the balance of tank so that higher resist/lower sig combinations have slightly less EHP (more towards HACs in a general sense) and higher EHP configurations have slightly bigger sigs/slightly less mobility (more towards commandships in a general sense).


I've been told they do equal damage compared to battleships.
That needs to go too.
#7 - 2017-04-16 14:31:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Keno Skir
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
Rroff wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Rroff wrote:
You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass.


Good. How the things remained as OP as they are for so long is beyond me.


T3 cruisers are fine (well there are some minor tweaks they could do with). The only changes that need to be made is increasing the usefulness of 1-2 sub-systems and slightly tweaking the balance of tank so that higher resist/lower sig combinations have slightly less EHP (more towards HACs in a general sense) and higher EHP configurations have slightly bigger sigs/slightly less mobility (more towards commandships in a general sense).


I've been told they do equal damage compared to battleships.
That needs to go too.


Correct. I have a proteus that has 200,000hp and does 1000DPS.

I have BS that do more in both areas obviously, but to make up for the increase in sig over the Prot they really have to do a lot more than that, which limits the options. The Proteus is approx 700M fully fit which is another bonus over most decent BS.

I think a small nerf to T3 tank and DPS, along with a boost to Battleship tank (but not DPS) would do much to alleviate the issue without having to then balance a bunch of other classes either side too much.

Pirate
#8 - 2017-04-16 14:34:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:

I've been told they do equal damage compared to battleships.
That needs to go too.


For the most part only if you compare a fully blinged T3 against a T2 fit battleship - even then the battleships have higher range projection of that damage

Keno Skir wrote:


Correct. I have a proteus that has 200,000hp and does 1000DPS.

I have BS that do more in both areas obviously, but to make up for the increase in sig over the Prot they really have to do a lot more than that, which limits the options. The Proteus is approx 700M fully fit which is another bonus over most decent BS.

I think a small nerf to T3 tank and DPS, along with a boost to Battleship tank (but not DPS) would do much to alleviate the issue without having to then balance a bunch of other classes either side too much.

Pirate


Your prot likely has faction mag stabs, etc. while a mega or hype will sit at over 1000dps with 2x T2 magstabs and if you put even half the bling on them of a 1000+dps prot they'll easily exceed 1300dps.
#9 - 2017-04-16 14:53:54 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:

I've been told they do equal damage compared to battleships.
That needs to go too.


For the most part only if you compare a fully blinged T3 against a T2 fit battleship - even then the battleships have higher range projection of that damage

Keno Skir wrote:


Correct. I have a proteus that has 200,000hp and does 1000DPS.

I have BS that do more in both areas obviously, but to make up for the increase in sig over the Prot they really have to do a lot more than that, which limits the options. The Proteus is approx 700M fully fit which is another bonus over most decent BS.

I think a small nerf to T3 tank and DPS, along with a boost to Battleship tank (but not DPS) would do much to alleviate the issue without having to then balance a bunch of other classes either side too much.

Pirate


Your prot likely has faction mag stabs, etc. while a mega or hype will sit at over 1000dps with 2x T2 magstabs and if you put even half the bling on them of a 1000+dps prot they'll easily exceed 1300dps.


I bolded and underlined the relevant part for you there. Also, as i mentioned my Prot is 700Mil all included so it's not mega blingy though yes it has faction magstabs.

Sorry for triggering the BS defence in you there, but what i'm saying is not max fit theorycrafting to try to beat "your" bs theory. I already admitted i have BS that have better stats, but the difference in sig makes the prot tank harder than a BS with double the HP in almost every situation.

I still fly BS too, but T3 are a little OP quite evidently Pirate
#10 - 2017-04-16 15:04:45 UTC
Keno Skir wrote:


I bolded and underlined the relevant part for you there. Also, as i mentioned my Prot is 700Mil all included so it's not mega blingy though yes it has faction magstabs.

Sorry for triggering the BS defence in you there, but what i'm saying is not max fit theorycrafting to try to beat "your" bs theory. I already admitted i have BS that have better stats, but the difference in sig makes the prot tank harder than a BS with double the HP in almost every situation.

I still fly BS too, but T3 are a little OP quite evidently Pirate


Don't disagree that T3s are a little OP but most of the comparisons have their own flaws and as much as anything I think BS are a little underwhelming.

Largely though if I had my way the only changes I'd make to a potential 200K EHP, 1000DPS prot would be that as fit it would have 7% slower base speed, 7% slower align time and 40% increased sig.
#11 - 2017-04-16 15:11:53 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Are there plans for nerfs (I haven't seen them) or are they simply going to consolidate subsystems?

To quote Gandalf; "What does your heart tell you?"

Amarr Empire
#12 - 2017-04-16 18:44:56 UTC
Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:

To quote Gandalf; "What does your heart tell you?"


My heart tends to be pessimistic on most things. I would have guessed no nerfs, or hell, even buffs.
Caldari State
#13 - 2017-04-16 19:32:56 UTC
Yeah, Strategic Cruisers could have been done better, but they have waited far too long to balance them.

I think CCP should clearly map out expected EHP and DPS ranges for the various classes and stick to it, even if it means expanding T1 BS to over 1200 dps to make room for future advancements in Med turret ships in the future.

No med turret hull should have dps close to a lg turret regardless of tech level.

Of course that would mean a re-vist of nearly all ships DPS output.

Ideas:(with full short-range turret loadout with 1-3 dmg mods + std drones for hull)

Sm turret hulls: up to 400 dps, t1 baseline 250 dps.

Med turret hulls: up to 900 dps, t1 baseline 550 dps.

Lg turret hulls: up to 2000 dps, t1 baseline 1250 dps.



Of course that damage range could be expanded even more to give more room between med hull max dps and the t1 Lg turret baseline.

#14 - 2017-04-16 20:02:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
They are on a chopping block so il wait for a official thread on that and to see who's on their strat cruiser focus team(really that worked last time?ok).

At this point when nothing is known balance side i am more interested in which sub systems are going bye bye forever(visually) and which remain will they be updated to new tech and will they get some more animation for example any combination that provide ship with drone bay should have a drone bay on a model stuff like that.

Is complete sub redesign in plan or just chopping off some to be able to implement skins... stuff like that.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Gallente Federation
#15 - 2017-04-16 21:10:26 UTC
The ability to remove riggs from them is interesting. Although I think it would be cool to have the riggs get turned into special riggs that can only be re-installed into t3 cruisers.
#16 - 2017-04-16 21:18:02 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Rroff wrote:
You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass.


Good. How the things remained as OP as they are for so long is beyond me.


T3 cruisers are fine (well there are some minor tweaks they could do with). The only changes that need to be made is increasing the usefulness of 1-2 sub-systems and slightly tweaking the balance of tank so that higher resist/lower sig combinations have slightly less EHP (more towards HACs in a general sense) and higher EHP configurations have slightly bigger sigs/slightly less mobility (more towards commandships in a general sense).


This is a pretty massive oversimplification of the issues here.

T3s have, for their size, more EHP, mobility, DPS, tank resists, fitting space, and utility than any other ship. Almost all of that is going to give in some way or other.

Also there was a little detail in The Ship and Module Balance presentation from Fanfest that goes into stuff like increasing sig radius and some high level details on the subsystems.
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2017-04-16 21:20:23 UTC
They just need to be a little less effective in any given role than the T2 specialist ship for that role. They can do all the fleet roles- just not as well as the dedicated hulls. Let em boost, but not as well as a Command Ship. Let them remote rep, but not as well as a Logi. Let them DPS but not as well as a HAC.

Right now I'd put the T3 on par with the battleship line. They should be slightly weaker than T2 cruisers.

I think the critical factor for T3 cruisers should be on-the-fly refits. Make it cheap enough to carry half a hangar worth of refit modules and rigs so losing the ship isn't crushing. Then you have a choice- take standard T2 specialist ships but are limited in their engagement envelope, or take T3's with slightly softer ships but the ability to adapt to changing conditions.

Same for PvE uses. Maybe give T3's a dedicated cargo hold for fitting modules/rigs so you still have room for loot. T3's should be able to operate away from POS/stations, and should be able to refit without a mobile depot.

#18 - 2017-04-16 21:24:23 UTC
this is the main idea of what they want to do with t3c http://i.imgur.com/GKOCa3H.png

Also there was an art guy saying the reduction in complexity would result in the ability to add skins and whatever other graphical updates to t3cs.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

#19 - 2017-04-16 21:56:43 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Rroff wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Rroff wrote:
You can pretty much bet there will be sizeable nerfs in the consolidation pass.


Good. How the things remained as OP as they are for so long is beyond me.


T3 cruisers are fine (well there are some minor tweaks they could do with). The only changes that need to be made is increasing the usefulness of 1-2 sub-systems and slightly tweaking the balance of tank so that higher resist/lower sig combinations have slightly less EHP (more towards HACs in a general sense) and higher EHP configurations have slightly bigger sigs/slightly less mobility (more towards commandships in a general sense).


This is a pretty massive oversimplification of the issues here.

T3s have, for their size, more EHP, mobility, DPS, tank resists, fitting space, and utility than any other ship. Almost all of that is going to give in some way or other.

Also there was a little detail in The Ship and Module Balance presentation from Fanfest that goes into stuff like increasing sig radius and some high level details on the subsystems.


There are better parts of the forum to go into more detail really, none of what you say is really an issue if the appropriate penalties are in place which updating the compromises/penalties to reflect the Eve of today atleast seems to be something Fozzie has in mind - sig radius is definitely one that needs to be carefully addressed.
Teros Hakomairos
#20 - 2017-04-17 01:00:43 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Yes there are plans for rebalance, not only consolidation of subsystems.

No one has seen any details yet.


Calling a nerf "rebalalnce" is sweet.....nonsense but sweet....

A rebalance would be a new skin....

A nerf creates more problems than it solves than it creates another uber ship somerwhere else.....an another,and another...you see the problem?

Nerfs are bullshit....adapt to the new situation and find tactics to solve the "uber status".....

Whine post ingame and in the forum are childish.....
38 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump