July Release - Strategic Cruisers

EVE Technology and Research Center Upcoming Features & Changes
,
510

[quote=“Ramius_Decimus, post:507, topic:8414”]
The fact that T2s cost much less to use than a T3C fitted counterpart balances it out, and being a multipurpose starship of a higher technological level, why shouldn’t it be able to fill exact roles of T2 cruisers with equal (subjective to pilot’s skill) capability?
[/quote]The cost of T3Cs is reflected by the ability of T3Cs to swap roles. That is why you’re paying more. You are not paying for a better ship. You’re paying for a more versatile ship. The greater levels of technology allow it to achieve that goal.

Say I live by myself in a system. I want to rat, but I also like exploration. Of course, I need a good ship for defense as well, and I need a ship for traveling.

So I can either buy 4 ships, one for each of those roles, or a single T3C. That is the role of T3Cs – to be able to take on multiple roles. The drawback, of course, is that they cannot fill those roles as well as the T2 ships that are dedicated to them.

So HICs should always be better at being HICs than T3Cs. Same goes for Logistics Cruisers, Recon Ships, and HACs. Even though T3Cs cost more, T2 should always be the best at their role – it’s literally all they’re good for.

Using cost to justify imbalance doesn’t work. If you don’t have enough ISK for a T3C, you’re not going to use a T2 Cruiser instead – why spend 200m+ on a ship that can only do a single thing when you can just save a bit more ISK for a ship that can do nearly everything? You’re just going to use a T1 Cruiser if you’re that “poor” and need a ship. That’s why T3Cs can’t be all-powerful with a greater pricetag. It doesn’t work.

1 Like
511

Hmm, something is definitely bugged with that fitting simulation. You’re showing a little under half of the mass that the Loki should have (which is the source of the align time oddness you’re describing). When you actually fit out the ship on SISI what mass value does it show?

512

Yeah, you are right. 6540t simulated, 13800 real. So it’s a simulation bug

513

Does this happen with every Loki fit you simulate (even new fits created from scratch) or is it limited to that saved fit? I haven’t been able to get that particular bug while playing around with Loki fits on SISI today. If you could please create a bug report with whatever details you can think of that might be relevant we’d appreciate it.

1 Like
514

I’m kind of in the middle here, while I agree that T2 ships should be the best (by default), I wouldn’t mind T3Cs being significantly better in w-space, but in known space T2 should be at least slightly better for their roles.
I also agree that the skill requirement is too low, in my opinion the strategic cruiser skill should require the current HAC, recon and logi skills at least level 4. Maybe even top it with advanced spaceship command and/or weapon upgrades 5.

1 Like
515

It’s not limited to loki, in fact. Every t3 has wrong mass in the simulation right now. No specific steps to reproduce on my side: both starting new simulation from empty hull and opening saved fitting results in a simulation with halved mass. (not exactly halved, but close) Also not machine specific, i think: tested on 2 pc’s, result is the same.

I will duplicate this into a bug report shortly

1 Like
516

Are you just getting this with T3Cs, or with all ships?

1 Like
517

Only t3 cruisers. Other ship types seem to be working correctly

518

Oh I agree, for the T2s’ designated role the actual T2 ship should be superior in filling it but the next step down should definitely be the T3 counterpart.

Or, along with the skills,… the T3C could be reclassified as a Tech III battlecruiser, seeing as it functions well enough under the same multimission principle and thereby instantly nullifying any comparison to other cruiser classes (given the limited scope of the battle cruiser type, would actually be a boon)…

519

So, i tried to submit a bug. First i could not upload screenshots into attachments due to unknown error, then after i pressed submit, the form was closed, but the bug report was not created.

I already has this when i tried to report bug about fax models clipping heavily inside the stations (which is still open btw). I know this isn’t the subject, but im a little annoyed by the bug report form bugging out so often. :disappointed: Will try again

EDIT: worked second time, bug report is submitted

520

firstly hacs dont have a role
secondly hacs suck
making t3cs worse than hacs doesnt suddenly make hacs good
it just means even more ships suck
eve meta is dead

3 Likes
521

[quote=“JC_Mieyli, post:520, topic:8414”]
firstly hacs dont have a role
[/quote]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263720

[quote]Lets get back to this HAC thing. The first HAC proposal raised discussion around tons of topics (you can find it HERE if you don’t believe me). Common ones included our overall design for tech levels, the way HACs intersect with tech 1, tech 3, and faction ships and of course specific input on ship-by-ship stats and performance. I want to try and cover as much of this as possible so get some tea or something.

Lets start with role. We’ve had several presentations and posts and dev blogs now which explain that tech 1 is general and tech 2 is specialized. While this is certainly our high-level goal, it will be compromised occasionally when the specifics of a certain project have other goals that pull in another direction. HACs are an example. The reality is that when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct ‘specialization’, but they were nowhere near as specialized as something like Recons or Stealth Bombers.

With the rebalance effort here, we discussed entirely new roles or specializations that would be more in-line with the high level ideas we have laid out for all EVE ships, but ultimately decided that it wasn’t worth completely throwing out the ships we had. Not only do they have a lot of history in the game, which leads to attachment, but they also have a lot of legitimate use already which we wanted to avoid disrupting if possible.

Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn’t go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.[/quote]Sounds to me like the role of HACs is to be tough and resilient, but mobile Cruisers.

And no, I don’t think CCP should make T3Cs weaker than HACs in their role in order to make HACs more common. I think it should be done because it’s how things are meant to work.

T2Cs > T3Cs in their role. That is how it should be, period.

522

tough and resilient and mobile isnt a role
any cruiser can do that
sorry but i dont think its how things should work just because you say so
even if ccp say so i still dont care because they are clueless when it comes to the overall meta
thats why this game is going down the crapper
they think good meta means making more ships useless
instead of making more ships useful

1 Like
523

It’s ment to be that T3s are created from Wormhole space to battle in wormhole space… It should not even be on the same level at a T2 cruiser, period. (I said period does that make this dramatic enough :joy: )

Its truly a shame that null sec fleets had made crazy T3 blob fleets … I mean all that needs to happen is T3 resistance needs to be removed outside wormhole space and T3s do not get fleet assist bonuses and the majority of the problems are solved.

From a lore perspective, Sleepers and Drifters are on a entirely differently level then T2 Moon created junk those t2 cruiser carry. They shouldn’t be able to hold a candle against sleepers and drifters.

524

[quote=“JC_Mieyli, post:522, topic:8414”]
tough and resilient and mobile isnt a role
[/quote]It is a role, and not any Cruiser can do it.

The toughest, most resilient T2 Cruisers right now are HICs, at least in terms of resists and EHP. But are they mobile? Nope.

So that is where HACs are meant to shine. Not just by having the same EHP as HICs. No, that would be boring, and would put the two types of Cruisers too close to one another. So instead, HACs could be tough and resilient in other ways – such as being able to overheat modules more efficiently than others, having EWAR resistances, and being better able to deal with capacitor warfare. That would make them tough and resilient in their own way.

They’re fairly quick and agile already, and they don’t have a large signature bloom when using MWDs, so there you go. Tough, resilient, mobile. Altogether, more than any other Cruiser is capable of.

Save for T3Cs. That is why T3Cs should not be able to do the same. They simply cannot be afforded the ability to push T2 ships out of their intended roles. It cannot happen, else balance may as well be tossed out the window.

T2 ships need to be the absolute best choice for their roles, period. It has to be. Otherwise, there’s no point in T2 ships at all – there’s simply no reason for them to exist.

T3Cs have their own role – to be able to take on different roles, to not be locked into singular roles. That is their role. Their role is versatility. But that versatility needs to come at a cost. It needs to have restrictions, such as not being able to compete with T2 ships in their specific roles.

This isn’t about making ships useless. It’s about game balance. It’s about logic and consistency.

1 Like
525

What are these “logic” and “consistency” things?
Can I eat them? Do they taste good?

526

[quote=“NextDarkKnight, post:523, topic:8414”]
It’s ment to be that T3s are created from Wormhole space to battle in wormhole space… It should not even be on the same level at a T2 cruiser, period. (I said period does that make this dramatic enough :joy: )
[/quote]They were better suited for wormholes because of their ability to swap roles.

Can you imagine the nightmare of having to have 5 different ships to be able to operate inside a wormhole? The logistics of even getting them there to begin with… ugh, it’s just so terrible.

So what if you could just use one ship instead? Just a single hull?

Oh… but you can! There is a single hull that is able to do the work of multiple hulls! It exists! Can you believe it?!

That is where T3Cs shine. They are the versatile hulls. They are the answer to wormholes. Rather, they were. It was a nice idea on paper, but it really isn’t all that practical. See, the intent was affording players the ability to just use a single hull for everything. Instead of buying a bunch of different ships for a bunch of different roles, you could just buy a single T3C and multiple subsystems. That way, you could do everything you needed to do with just one ship. Want to rat? Fit subsystems for it. Want to explore next? Fit subsystems for that. Oh, someone else in your hole? Fit some other subsystems. Damn, need to safely transport something? There are subsystems for that as well! All on the same hull. Can’t do that with HACs. Or HICs. Or any T2 hull.

Neat, right? Except no. Because players are lazy and boring and bland. Instead of using just one hull for all of that, they just buy multiple hulls and keep them fitted for specific roles. The ships that were meant to be versatile are being locked into singular duties because it’s easier, and because they were so strong. When you shouldn’t have bought T2 because you had a versatile ship to do a decent enough job, you were instead ignoring T2 because your versatile ship could be fit to do an even better job – so you did that, and you just left it fit that way. When you needed to do another job, you just bought another ship.

That wasn’t how it was meant to work, but it is how it worked. And it’s how it currently works. It’s also so effective that hundreds of players have become utterly reliant on it for nearly everything they do in the game.

I’m sorry, but it can’t work like that anymore. It’s disrupting game balance in an unacceptable way. The whole T3C experiment was fun, but it needs to end. They need to be reined in. If there are ways of making them better without affecting the T2 hulls, by all means, speak up. But the idea that they need to be the best is garbage, and it needs to end.

527

The problem isn’t the fact that these ships are good and being used in w-space, but they also being used everywhere else.
We didn’t have the ability to tie stats to security status before, but now we have: both citadels and CONCORD ships are using this mechanic, so we could keep T3Cs strong in w-space and make T2 a better choice everywhere else.

528

I know this view is expressed a lot and has always been expressed by CCP.

The issue, especially given the continued use of subsystems, is that if a specific T2 should be better than a potential T3 fit, then there is no real value in T3s at all.

Multiple T2 ships will be the best option to own.

Had T3C been changed to be like T3D (with mode switching rather than subsystems), then I’d agree, since the T3C would be multiple options in a single ship.

As it is, subsystems just make it a single ship that should perform worse than the role specific T2.

So I understand the sentiment, but I just don’t see how this could even work and T3C still be viable while subsystems are used to configure a fit.

529

I understand that, and it could probably be done in a meaningful way that makes most people happy.

My issue is that you’re… I’m not sure how to explain it. Can T3Cs replace HICs? No, they can’t. In no way can they replace HICs.

So how would it make sense for them to be able to replace HACs? What makes HACs inferior to HICs that they can be replaced? What makes HICs superior to HACs that they cannot be replaced?

The idea is that all T2 hulls should be consistent – are they the absolute best at what they do, or not? What you’re suggesting is for T3Cs to be superior to HACs, equal in some ways to Logistics Cruisers and Recon Ships, and inferior to HICs.

… that doesn’t make sense to me. It’s all over the place. There’s no logic or consistency involved. You’re basically throwing spaghetti on the wall and seeing which noodles stick.

Either all T2 ships should be the best at what they do, or none of them should be. And if none of them are, why keep them in the game?