# July Release - Strategic Cruisers **URL:** \ **Category:** Upcoming Features & Changes\ **Tags:** july, ships\ **Created:** [July 3, 2017, 11:21am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414 "2017-07-03T11:21:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Kyral\_Kujan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kyral_kujan/32/57229_2.png) [@Kyral\_Kujan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kyral_Kujan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/552 "2017-07-10T15:45:36Z")
[quote=“Onictus, post:535, topic:8414”] Really? Heavy interdictors? Since when can an T3c load an infinipoint? Not a vaild comparison [/quote]Yeah. I know T3Cs can’t fit an interdiction field generator. That’s my point. T3Cs _can’t_ do what HICs do, so why are they justified in being able to do with HACs do? CCP could just as easily give T3Cs the ability to fit the interdiction field generator – why haven’t they? They seem to feel that T3Cs should be able to replace HACs completely, so why is the line drawn there? Why aren’t they able to replace HICs as well? There has to be some rigidity here. Either T3Cs should be able to replace **ALL THE T2C HULLS** or **NONE OF THE T2C HULLS**. It shouldn’t be situation where they can replace some, but not others. Again, things need to be logical and consistent. When you’re talking to a new player, you shouldn’t have to explain that T2 hulls are good, unless it’s a Zealot or a Vagabond, then it’s garbage and T3C is better… and also, T3Cs can perform on par or better than Logi and Recons, but they can’t perform like HICs… and also, they are basically like BCs, but more mobile. That makes no sense. It’s confusing. There should be absolutes that can be passed on: if you want to do a specific job, _use T2_. If you want a versatile hull, _use T3_. If you just want a hull, _use T1_. Simple. Easy to understand. No nonsense rules with nonsense exceptions to said nonsense rules. ---
**Author:** ![Leto\_Atal](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/leto_atal/32/203398_2.png) [@Leto\_Atal](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Leto_Atal)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 3:54pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/553 "2017-07-10T15:54:52Z")
> [@JC\_Mieyli](#): > > and this is part of what is wrong with the design philosophy > there shouldnt be any stepping stone ships > there should only be 2 types of ships > those which are good > and those which are good and specialised And this is where what you say diverges from reality. You might think it a worthy goal but with a system as large as EVE it is impossible to balance everything. However I don’t even think that it is worthy. An established part of MMO is character progression. As you gain skills new options should open up and be better than what was previously available; otherwise what is the point of progression at all? This becomes all the more important when you consider that there is now a free to play option. We have basic tech 1 ships. They fill certain roles and are easy to access. Faction ships and tech 2 ships provide the next step in capabilities at the cost of increased skill requirements and ISK. And then we are supposed to believe that the whole progression thing stops? Are capitals really the only choice for a skill point sink for older players? Think that T3 cruisers are being used disproportionately? Then how about adding T3 battlecruisers or battleships. The addition of T3 destroyers mixed things up. People will still use T2 where appropriate just like people still use T1 ships. Everything in EVE is costed. It’s not enough for a ship to merely be good, it needs to be good/isk. There is nothing wrong with T3 ships being better than T2 in capability, it can always be balanced with cost. ---
**Author:** ![Kyral\_Kujan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kyral_kujan/32/57229_2.png) [@Kyral\_Kujan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kyral_Kujan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/554 "2017-07-10T15:55:17Z")
[quote=“Dior\_Ambraelle, post:531, topic:8414”] The difference between HICs and HACs is their role: HICs are heavy tacklers with a unique module, while HACs are just dps ships, with some defense bonus on half of them. The reason why HICs aren’t overshadowed by T3Cs is because they don’t have a subsystem that allows the use of the warp disruption field generator modules. [/quote]So why can’t T3Cs fit interdiction field generators? Why don’t they have a subsystem for that? That’s my point. Why is it acceptable for T3Cs to replace HACs, but not HICs? Why are they able to beat HACs at their role, but not able to also beat HICs in theirs? It would be simple. Just give them the ability to fit the interdiction field generators. Boom, replaced. Easy as that. … yet they can’t. T3Cs can’t do it. Why? Why is the line drawn _there_, of all places? They can fit covert cloaks and covert cynosural fields, like Force Recons, right? So why not interdiction field generators? Again, things need to make sense. They need to be consistent. T3Cs should be able to replace every T2 hull or no T2 hull. It’s one or the other. It can’t be a mix. T2 needs to be T2. You can’t have HICs be better at being T2 than HACs. They all need to be the same. T2 needs to be the best **OR** T3 needs to be better. ---
**Author:** ![JC\_Mieyli](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jc_mieyli/32/242789_2.png) [@JC\_Mieyli](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/JC_Mieyli)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/555 "2017-07-10T15:55:58Z")
> [@Kyral\_Kujan](#): > > just going to end up with needless power creep. feels like i have to explain this all the time but its not power creep when it doesnt exceed the current power limit which is pirate bses pirate bses are the power creep and now the rest of the meta needs to be balanced around that instead of nerfing stuff even more in the wrong direction this nerf doesnt improve the meta it just makes pirate bses even more dominating ---
**Author:** ![Kyral\_Kujan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kyral_kujan/32/57229_2.png) [@Kyral\_Kujan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kyral_Kujan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:00pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/556 "2017-07-10T16:00:33Z")
[quote=“JC\_Mieyli, post:555, topic:8414”] feels like i have to explain this all the time but its not power creep when it doesnt exceed the current power limit [/quote]… except it is. Frigates -\> Destroyers -\> Cruisers -\> Battlecruisers -\> Battleships. The further along that line you go, the more DPS and EHP you see. However, you also see less mobility, greater mass, and larger signature. That’s how it works. That’s the point of having classes. If it didn’t work like that, there’d be no reason to have Frigates or Battlecruisers. You’d simply call everything “Spaceships”. So what happens when the Cruisers start to perform better than the Battlecruisers? Well, the Battlecruisers need to be buffed. If they’re outperformed by Cruisers, there’s no reason for them to exist, right? But then the Battleships are being outperformed, so they need a buff as well. That’s power creep. It doesn’t have to result in the current power limit being exceeded, it just has to result in the distinctions between class of ship being eroded. ---
**Author:** ![JC\_Mieyli](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jc_mieyli/32/242789_2.png) [@JC\_Mieyli](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/JC_Mieyli)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:00pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/557 "2017-07-10T16:00:49Z")
> [@Leto\_Atal](#): > > it is impossible to balance everything no it isnt thats a very short sighted statement > [@Leto\_Atal](#): > > An established part of MMO is character progression. As you gain skills new options should open up and be better than what was previously available; otherwise what is the point of progression at all? eh? this isnt wow and you know you still gotta train skills if you wanna go from a frigate to a bs to a carrier those arent stepping stones thats just working up to bigger ships bigger ships arent the endgame > [@Leto\_Atal](#): > > There is nothing wrong with T3 ships being better than T2 in capability, it can always be balanced with cost. no it can never be balanced with cost capability can only be balanced with capability ---
**Author:** ![Metharius\_Endares](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/metharius_endares/32/6228_2.png) [@Metharius\_Endares](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Metharius_Endares)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:01pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/558 "2017-07-10T16:01:13Z")
> [@Kyral\_Kujan](#): > > T3Cs should be able to replace every T2 hull or no T2 hull. absolutly **NOT** , that s how you create **dead content.** ---
**Author:** ![Kyral\_Kujan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kyral_kujan/32/57229_2.png) [@Kyral\_Kujan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kyral_Kujan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:03pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/559 "2017-07-10T16:03:48Z")
[quote=“Metharius\_Endares, post:558, topic:8414”] absolutly NOT, that s how you create dead content. [/quote]No, it’s how to create balance. The whole point of T2 ships is to have hulls that are the best at what they do. If you have T2 hulls that aren’t the best at what they do, there’s no reason for them to exist. Literally the only reason they are in the game is to be able to do whatever is they were made to do – if another hull that’s the same class of ship can do a better job, then the T2 hull is **dead content**. Again, there needs to be consistency. T3Cs should be able to replace all T2 hulls **or** no T2 hulls. Since the former would result in T2 hulls being useless, then the obvious answer is the latter: T3Cs should **NOT** be able to replace T2 hulls. ---
**Author:** ![JC\_Mieyli](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jc_mieyli/32/242789_2.png) [@JC\_Mieyli](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/JC_Mieyli)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:05pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/560 "2017-07-10T16:05:01Z")
[quote=“Kyral\_Kujan, post:556, topic:8414”] That’s power creep. It doesn’t have to result in the current power limit being exceeded, it just has to result in the distinctions between class of ship being eroded. [/quote]tbh its the distinction between ship classes that causes the most problems with the meta frigates so small and fast compared to a bs the disparity is too great and causes a load of crap it makes no sense for a frigate to be a tiny little fly its a warship and it should act like one the disparity between classes in this game is ridiculous and those distinctions need to be eroded for a the meta to ever be healthy im not saying a frigate should be the same size as a bs but it should be a lot closer to the size of a bs maybe 1/4 or 1/2 the size ---
**Author:** ![Kyral\_Kujan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kyral_kujan/32/57229_2.png) [@Kyral\_Kujan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kyral_Kujan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:07pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/561 "2017-07-10T16:07:20Z")
That’s just how it works though. You have different ships for different jobs. Sometimes you only ever need a tiny little fly. Sometimes you need a massive Battleship. They all exist to provide you with options, and the idea is to make them all viable in one way or another. In order to do that, they’re given roles and purpose. That’s why roles are important. If you have a ship that exists solely to perform a role, but it’s outmatched by another ship, then you have a problem. ---
**Author:** ![JC\_Mieyli](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jc_mieyli/32/242789_2.png) [@JC\_Mieyli](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/JC_Mieyli)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/562 "2017-07-10T16:09:05Z")
how many ships in the game have combat roles a lot how many of those ships are outmatched by a rattlesnake all of them ---
**Author:** ![Kyral\_Kujan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kyral_kujan/32/57229_2.png) [@Kyral\_Kujan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kyral_Kujan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/563 "2017-07-10T16:18:32Z")
[quote=“JC\_Mieyli, post:562, topic:8414”] how many of those ships are outmatched by a rattlesnake [/quote]Yeah, for a reason. The game divides ships into classes. Then it divides them into roles. It doesn’t matter if a Rattlesnake outperforms an Enyo – they aren’t meant to be compared role-wise because they are different class-wise. So lets look at class: does the Rattlesnake boast more DPS than an Enyo? Yes. Does it boast more EHP? Yes. Does it boast more mass, less mobility, and a greater signature? Yes, yes, and yes. So that’s all good. Next, we’ll check roles within the class. What is a Rattlesnake? It’s a pirate Battleship. That puts it above T1 hulls in general capability, but it can still be beaten in other roles. Are there better brawlers? Yes. Are there better alpha platforms? Yes. Are there ships with greater active tanks? Yes. Are there more mobile ships? Yes. So while the Rattlesnake performs well, it doesn’t outclass every ship in every role. There are plenty of circumstances where you would not use a Rattlesnake. ---
**Author:** ![JC\_Mieyli](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jc_mieyli/32/242789_2.png) [@JC\_Mieyli](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/JC_Mieyli)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/564 "2017-07-10T16:35:34Z")
[quote=“Kyral\_Kujan, post:563, topic:8414”] It’s a pirate Battleship. That puts it above T1 hulls in general capability [/quote]which is an issue i have with balance it shouldnt be so much better as it is fair enough its a faction hull so it should have better fittings and maybe a specialised role bonus it shouldn’t have infinite health and 2-3 times as much dps as a t1 bs t1 bses should be comparable to faction bses just with inferior fittings and no specialised role [quote=“Kyral\_Kujan, post:563, topic:8414”] Are there better brawlers? Yes. [/quote]um no name one [quote=“Kyral\_Kujan, post:563, topic:8414”] Are there better alpha platforms? Yes. [/quote]fair enough arty is better for alpha fleets but we are comparing individual ships not entire fleet comps any ship can be made good in the right fleet doesnt mean the ship is good [quote=“Kyral\_Kujan, post:563, topic:8414”] Are there ships with greater active tanks? Yes. [/quote]okay maybe sni has slightly better tank but it still sucks compared to rs and sni is a faction bs too [quote=“Kyral\_Kujan, post:563, topic:8414”] Are there more mobile ships? Yes. [/quote]mobility is meaningless to a rattlesnake ---
**Author:** ![Jeremiah\_Saken](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jeremiah_saken/32/266740_2.png) [@Jeremiah\_Saken](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jeremiah_Saken)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/565 "2017-07-10T16:40:07Z")
Kyral Kujan, you must be new here. It’s min-max community. If something is below MAX it’s unusable. Why everybody are flying faction BSs? Why every class of ships has most usable hull? You can’t balance every hull in the game to be flown at the same rate. If you want to nerf T3C below T2 HAC, nobody will flew HACs suddenly, nobody will flew T3C, everybody will fly faction Cruisers. Problem with HACs are not T3Cs, problem are HACs. ---
**Author:** ![Metharius\_Endares](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/metharius_endares/32/6228_2.png) [@Metharius\_Endares](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Metharius_Endares)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 5:58pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/566 "2017-07-10T17:58:57Z")
> [@Kyral\_Kujan](#): > > The whole point of T2 ships is to have hulls that are the best at what they do. If you have T2 hulls that aren’t the best at what they do, there’s no reason for them to exist thats my point. that s why i said no to “make T3 cruiser better than t2 hull” ---
**Author:** ![Noir\_Ruda](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/noir_ruda/32/13537_2.png) [@Noir\_Ruda](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Noir_Ruda)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/567 "2017-07-10T18:03:13Z")
Isn’t the proteus quite a lot behind in terms of speed compared to the other three? Is there any reason to that it doesn’t get that much more tank or lowslots it even 1 less than the legion in a combat layout but is like depending on the fit 700 to 1000 m/s slower with propmod ---
**Author:** ![Ket\_Viliano](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ket_viliano/32/146035_2.png) [@Ket\_Viliano](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ket_Viliano)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/568 "2017-07-10T18:04:57Z")
That subsystem bay is there for a reason. Think about it. ---
**Author:** ![NextDarkKnight](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nextdarkknight/32/171101_2.png) [@NextDarkKnight](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/NextDarkKnight)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 7:41pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/569 "2017-07-10T19:41:18Z")
Share your fit… The baseline should be a Tengu can do all but one C3 anoms without warping out in a acceptable time with T2 fit… and faction or dead space should be able to do them all. I’m at 482 DPS right now but with crap damage application. Using a rail gun fit and its looking like it will be smoked in even the easiest C3 anom. ---
**Author:** ![Pflepsen](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/pflepsen/32/448161_2.png) [@Pflepsen](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Pflepsen)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/570 "2017-07-10T22:04:14Z")
Question? If i kill a T3 will their extra sub-systems drop in the loot??? ---
**Author:** ![Dior\_Ambraelle](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dior_ambraelle/32/393685_2.png) [@Dior\_Ambraelle](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dior_Ambraelle)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 10:05pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414/571 "2017-07-10T22:05:57Z")
![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/2X/0/05d628c49c1702b7628961c23c4ade9befe7238d.png) > **current T2 Tengu** > > Damage Control II > Magnetic Field Stabilizer II > Magnetic Field Stabilizer II > Magnetic Field Stabilizer II > > 10MN Afterburner II > Tracking Computer II > Adaptive Invulnerability Field II > Adaptive Invulnerability Field II > Large Shield Extender II > Large Shield Extender II > > 200mm Railgun II > 200mm Railgun II > 200mm Railgun II > 200mm Railgun II > 200mm Railgun II > 200mm Railgun II > > Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II > Medium Core Defense Field Extender II > Medium Core Defense Field Extender II > > Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer > Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening > Tengu Engineering - Power Core Multiplier > Tengu Offensive - Magnetic Infusion Basin > Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/2X/5/5d83529e47543a6e52db71e341e1a9ff69837ecb.jpg) > **new T2 Tengu** > > Damage Control II > Magnetic Field Stabilizer II > Magnetic Field Stabilizer II > Magnetic Field Stabilizer II > > 10MN Afterburner II > Adaptive Invulnerability Field II > EM Ward Field II > Large Shield Extender II > Large Shield Extender II > Adaptive Invulnerability Field II > > 250mm Railgun II > 250mm Railgun II > 250mm Railgun II > 250mm Railgun II > 250mm Railgun II > 250mm Railgun II > Expanded Probe Launcher II > > Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II > Medium Core Defense Field Extender II > Medium Core Defense Field Extender II > > Tengu Core - Augmented Graviton Reactor > Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening > Tengu Offensive - Magnetic Infusion Basin > Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/2X/1/18652dd9aca0cfba134303f3757913128e8e2946.jpg) > **almost T2 Rokh** > > Damage Control II > Magnetic Field Stabilizer II > Magnetic Field Stabilizer II > Magnetic Field Stabilizer II > Power Diagnostic System II > > 500MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive > Adaptive Invulnerability Field II > Adaptive Invulnerability Field II > Large Cap Battery II > Large Shield Extender II > Large Shield Extender II > > 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun > 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun > 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun > 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun > 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun > 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun > 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun > 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun > > Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I > Large Core Defense Field Extender I > Large Hybrid Discharge Elutriation I The new T2 Tengu has bigger guns and able to use propulsion mod while being cap-stable, unlike the current version and the Rokh, and it even has probes too. The range is not half but third of the Rokh though. Defensive and offensive subsystems are on level 4. > **PS** > > I love the options of this new forum! Sometimes they don’t seem to work though. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414.md?page=27) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/july-release-strategic-cruisers/8414.md?page=29)