These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

A balancing thought on Strategic Cruisers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2015-06-21 12:14:14 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:


SFM Hobb3s wrote:
TBH I have a feeling that sometime this year t3 cruisers are going to change entirely over to the platform that t3 destroyers are now on. No subsystems, just three 'modes'. When you weigh this against all the trouble they are having adapting t3 to the new pbr...well...


i have the same feeling, this is why they launched these T3 destroyers before rebalancing T3 cruisers to see how it goes and how they can use it to balance T3 cruisers. CCP said long time ago that the rebalance of T3 cruisers and capitals is a pain in the ***

It has been stated by CCP this is not what is going to happen.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#22 - 2015-06-21 13:15:21 UTC
Wishlist:

Turn useless or broken subs into viable choices
Bring Loki (and to an extent prot/legion) up to tengu level of performance
Remove rigs and buff subs to compensate mostly

Give very spacious refit-hold for modules and sub-systems (Cause we're totally cramping a cap booster fit, a cloak fit, associated mods and charges into a 320m³ hold)
Humang
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#23 - 2015-06-21 13:16:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Humang
I could get behind this idea, and it does make a funny kind of sense with the T3 destroyers.

It would help justify the advantages - in terms of capability - they have over T1 and T2 cruiser hulls (Tank, DPS, Utility) and it would shake up the meta a little (always a good thing IMO)

A balance pass would still need to be done though, like you said, but if anything it would open up the subsystems in terms of balance possibility, they could be changed to give the newly BC sized T3's back cruiser stats in terms of Sig-Raduis or Mass.

AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#24 - 2015-06-21 13:53:49 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:

Remove rigs and buff subs to compensate mostly


Removing Rigs from T3 would go a long way in terms of reducing their cancer IMHO.
Not sure if buffing to compensate is really needed. Maybe only to make subs viable which are crap right now to promote new kinds of setups.
To mare
Advanced Technology
#25 - 2015-06-21 14:18:11 UTC
remove rigs slot from strategic cruiser and they are balanced.
also make sense T1 = 3rigs, T2 = 2rigs, T3 = 0/1 rig
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-06-21 14:40:03 UTC
Removing rigs will do nothing but limit the options that players have to customize there ship.

Where as the massive amount of powergrid and base hit points needs to be addressed before considering removing rig slots.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2015-06-21 15:35:55 UTC
Humang wrote:
I could get behind this idea, and it does make a funny kind of sense with the T3 destroyers.

It would help justify the advantages - in terms of capability - they have over T1 and T2 cruiser hulls (Tank, DPS, Utility) and it would shake up the meta a little (always a good thing IMO)

A balance pass would still need to be done though, like you said, but if anything it would open up the subsystems in terms of balance possibility, they could be changed to give the newly BC sized T3's back cruiser stats in terms of Sig-Raduis or Mass.



I like the last part of your comment here.
That's a good idea.

Certain sub systems that reduce sig, mass, increase velocity, meaning you can turn it back into a cruiser sized vessel, but with actual cruiser fitting capabilities so it's not OP win boat.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#28 - 2015-06-21 17:25:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:

Remove rigs and buff subs to compensate mostly


Removing Rigs from T3 would go a long way in terms of reducing their cancer IMHO.
Not sure if buffing to compensate is really needed. Maybe only to make subs viable which are crap right now to promote new kinds of setups.


The compensation was mainly when looking at some niche fits and lokis. My biggest dislike for rigged T3s comes from cheap triple T2 trimark/CDFE fits... and from my POV those ******** amounts of buffer should go, while resists/sigtank (and with that viability for small gangs/pve) should stay.

With sufficiently pink goggles, we had legions that can be zealots (instead of zealots with +% ehp) and refit a travelfit for convenience or turn into a mini-bhaal on the fly, that'd be some strategic aspect! If they even wanted to hand some modes to T3s, we'd need a refit-mode (= velocity set to 0m/s or such) and a regular one Pirate

(I wonder if they could do something like the new anchoring effects with nanobots building the sub when you refit)
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#29 - 2015-06-21 17:28:15 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:

Remove rigs and buff subs to compensate mostly


Removing Rigs from T3 would go a long way in terms of reducing their cancer IMHO.
Not sure if buffing to compensate is really needed. Maybe only to make subs viable which are crap right now to promote new kinds of setups.


The compensation was mainly when looking at some niche fits and lokis. My biggest dislike for rigged T3s comes from cheap triple T2 trimark/CDFE fits... and from my POV those ******** amounts of buffer should go, while resists/sigtank (and with that viability for small gangs/pve) should stay.

With sufficiently pink goggles, we had legions that can be zealots (instead of zealots with +% ehp) and refit a travelfit for convenience or turn into a mini-bhaal on the fly, that'd be some strategic aspect! If they even wanted to hand some modes to T3s, we'd need a refit-mode (= velocity set to 0m/s or such) and a regular one Pirate


So, the answer to the triple buffer rigs is to remove the excess grid to fit BC/BS tank mods, and/or remove/reduce the 35% increase in raw HP without stacking penalty from the subsystems on those fits.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#30 - 2015-06-21 17:57:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
James Baboli wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:

Remove rigs and buff subs to compensate mostly


Removing Rigs from T3 would go a long way in terms of reducing their cancer IMHO.
Not sure if buffing to compensate is really needed. Maybe only to make subs viable which are crap right now to promote new kinds of setups.


The compensation was mainly when looking at some niche fits and lokis. My biggest dislike for rigged T3s comes from cheap triple T2 trimark/CDFE fits... and from my POV those ******** amounts of buffer should go, while resists/sigtank (and with that viability for small gangs/pve) should stay.

With sufficiently pink goggles, we had legions that can be zealots (instead of zealots with +% ehp) and refit a travelfit for convenience or turn into a mini-bhaal on the fly, that'd be some strategic aspect! If they even wanted to hand some modes to T3s, we'd need a refit-mode (= velocity set to 0m/s or such) and a regular one Pirate


So, the answer to the triple buffer rigs is to remove the excess grid to fit BC/BS tank mods, and/or remove/reduce the 35% increase in raw HP without stacking penalty from the subsystems on those fits.


No, BS-sized mods is fine since even T1 cruisers do it without much hassle, XL-ASB/LSE blaster moa for example. Just shave off the rigging bit and let them fall between HACs and CS regarding tankiness. That'd be something you could call *progression* in the respective lines they fit.
So you'd go from a
Zealot to a Legion to an Absolution. Fits just for comparisons sake, Damps can be fitted instead of TCs obviously. Also you could see that the legion CRM* sub should have 3% more PG or *rigless* would eliminate that particular fit.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2015-06-21 18:08:37 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:

Remove rigs and buff subs to compensate mostly


Removing Rigs from T3 would go a long way in terms of reducing their cancer IMHO.
Not sure if buffing to compensate is really needed. Maybe only to make subs viable which are crap right now to promote new kinds of setups.


The compensation was mainly when looking at some niche fits and lokis. My biggest dislike for rigged T3s comes from cheap triple T2 trimark/CDFE fits... and from my POV those ******** amounts of buffer should go, while resists/sigtank (and with that viability for small gangs/pve) should stay.

With sufficiently pink goggles, we had legions that can be zealots (instead of zealots with +% ehp) and refit a travelfit for convenience or turn into a mini-bhaal on the fly, that'd be some strategic aspect! If they even wanted to hand some modes to T3s, we'd need a refit-mode (= velocity set to 0m/s or such) and a regular one Pirate


So, the answer to the triple buffer rigs is to remove the excess grid to fit BC/BS tank mods, and/or remove/reduce the 35% increase in raw HP without stacking penalty from the subsystems on those fits.


No, BS-sized mods is fine since even T1 cruisers do it without much hassle, XL-ASB/LSE blaster moa for example. Just shave off the rigging bit and let them fall between HACs and CS regarding tankiness. That'd be something you could call *progression* in the respective lines they fit.
So you'd go from a
Zealot to a Legion to an Absolution. Fits just for comparisons sake, Damps can be fitted instead of TCs obviously. Also you could see that the legion CRM* sub should have 3% more PG or *rigless* would eliminate that particular fit.

I always reference the Proteus when I talk about massive HP as it is the worst problem child.
It can get 7 low slots, around 1800 power grid, starts with 3650 HP plus 7.5% per level and still you get your 5% per level of hull upgrades skill.

Rigs are clearly the problem.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2015-06-21 18:09:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Just a bit on me, I can and do occasionally fly t3's, so don't assume this suggestion is to Jeff (lol, auto-correct's version of nerf, I think I'll leave it) the guy that kills me.
I'm just looking for a way to balance t3's that will be easier for CCP (thus less headache of us) as well as keep them somewhat powerful as I'm afraid that if CCP tries to balance them in line with cruisers, it's gonna hurt their capabilities quite bad...
Previous page12