These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread

First post
Author
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#81 - 2017-06-01 07:12:53 UTC
Can we have maximum targets locked increased to 7? Even destroyers have more.

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

Gungrifin Revoria
Talli Ara
#82 - 2017-06-01 08:31:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gungrifin Revoria
We need to have a talk about the tank on the 8low legion.

http://i.imgur.com/hJJt9lg.png

This is using some modified subsystems in pyfa in order to get the slot layout correct. It is simulating the Passive Tank/Cap-PWG/RR-And-Burst/Speed-Agility subsystems. I tried my best to leave all of the rest of the numbers on the subsystems the same as they are currently on TQ seeing as we dont actually know what those are going to be yet.

This legion has High-Grade Slaves, 6% armor HP HG-1006, and max armor Damnation links applied to it. I would like to point to the base armor amount on the Augmented Plating that im using here. Yes, you read that right, I set that to 0.

This legion with an 8low pure tank loadout is getting 413k EHP from just a 1600mm Imp Navy plate. If we were to set the armor from the subsystem back up to the base 3750 it would come out to around 698k EHP or something else insane like that.

This thing can repair like 5-10% less hp/s than a guardian, while having a hilariously beefier tank on it.

Going back to just the plate and 0 armor in the subsystem, it'll still hit 170k EHP easy if we take away the damnation+Implants. Replacing the trimark rigs with ancills (To combat some extreme nerfs to its pg) takes the EHP down to 104k and 90k with faction ENAMs instead of A-types. You can problably decrease that even further by swaping the damage control for a capacitor module but this is STILL better than the guardian's tank by a wide margin and we have yet to add the subsystem's armor back on.

Lets say we do add the base armor back on. You only need 2625 base armor to hit these same numbers with just an 800mm Imp Navy plate. All in all we are talking a cut of like 33-40% to both armor amount and powergrid here. Even then I can still see ways to get armor/PG back from that.

Now im sure that they wont even remotely operate the same, but I have absolutely no idea what it would take to keep this monster in line as-is and not completly neuter the ham/neut/laser legions.

Im afraid a cursory look at the proteus reveals a similar story aswell.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#83 - 2017-06-01 09:18:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
tengu should have the kinetic damage removed .. versatility and all and just leave the Rof and velocity bonus.. the dps on all T3 cruisers needs too drop somewhat .. they can kill a battleship afterall with the dps -EHP+ low sig- high resists they have

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

Mr Floydy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2017-06-01 10:19:18 UTC
Caught up on the overnight chat.... Re: Cargo, I'd love to see a dedicated bay for subsystems and potentially even deployables. Something I used to do regularly when more active was solo wormhole roaming with a Legion, carrying the appropriate refit subsystems to run a full covops setup for moving around was really tight to do and hugely limited your ability to actually carry any loot from sites. Doing the same sort of thing with a Tengu was nigh on impossible due to the amount of cargo you need just for enough missiles to clear a site. Having the dedicated cargo space for subsystems would open up this nomadic gameplay some more without really having any negative impact on a pure pvp stats perspective.

Something I also saw queried in the chat was what happens to leaving a covops cloak fitted when you remove the cloaky subsystem - it stays fitted and offline, so you don't need the cargo space for it.

I'm really hoping these changes don't impact the stats to the point where a solo wormhole site roamer becomes impossible.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#85 - 2017-06-01 11:40:13 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
tengu should have the kinetic damage removed .. versatility and all and just leave the Rof and velocity bonus..

Interesting point on the kinetic lock and versatility. I suspect that a lot of folks would gladly trade some raw kinetic DPS for lower-but-any-damage-type DPS, and this would be in line with the whole notion of T3 flexibility.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#86 - 2017-06-01 11:40:39 UTC
Is tractor beam range/velocity on covop really that usefull? Maybe it could be switch for 10%/level hacking module range?

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

Bromum Atom
Outplayed.
#87 - 2017-06-01 12:05:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Bromum Atom
Legion/Loki -10% MWD Sig Bloom sub withot base speed or mwd speed bonus is useless. With less speed (then with +5% Speed, +5 Agility sub) and less sig ship will recieve same damage from missles and fighters. Can 50mn fit be usefull in fighting vs carriers but not only 100mn?
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#88 - 2017-06-01 13:19:14 UTC
Jimy F wrote:

Hi

I wish notice couple things, and mentions things i wish to see with t3c rework

One is Loki offensive subsystem with missiles, i wish to see version with pure missile damage, making it hybrid missile, turret, drone damge subsystem is almost the same what it is now, i wish mention that this type subsystem\weapon system is almoust not use at all, u can go to killboard and chceck kills how often this is use, and how this work now,
Loki with missile subsystem now; there is alomoust no one who use it
https://zkillboard.com/ship/29990/losses/
and Typhon Navy with turret and missiles, in all cases ppl use additional hi slots for utility slots not for duble weapon system
https://zkillboard.com/ship/32311/losses/
in this two cases u can see, if you check 100 or more killmails that this subsystem now and combination of this weapon system is not use at all, and sometimes when someone use it, he prabobly not use it any more, so it's waste, and making it this in that way, kill this subsystem, like it is now.
Also if you put 5 launcher and 2 turrest, when u wish to get max dmg build for something, you lose 1 hi slot that means that all others can fit 1 utility more, neut or proble launcher, cloak or something, becouse they need only 6 turret/missile point, 6 hi slots, not 7, also you are not able to get damage amplifiers to all this weapon system on one ship, not mention that u can't fit also mods to accurity of all this weaopn systems, so damage lose is very big, and you lose a lot more dmg becuse u have explo velo bonus not dmg bonus, so your total damage is much lover, becouse u can't rise total damage cap, i think this will not work with this subsystem.
Other thing i wish to see, wich i think is fine now, is old legion offensive missile subsystem, with focused missile weapon system, i think is no need to change it, adding drones is not very nice idea, becouse it will be secend scarlige, what is point making secend exacly the same ship?
one more thing in this two things is that, drones are not cool choice i think, drones are not very good for pve, dies very often, so its big waste of DMG, take a lot of time to drop them and pull back when they are attacked, it is big dps lose to, pull full agro at exploration combat plex-s, wich is very big pain, so it may do, that we don't see this ships at ded combats sites at all or in wormholes sites.
i play eve over 11 years, i know this from expirence, and i think this are better options then this from spreadsheet.



Agreed and i mention i am sick of this kinda thinking behind split weapon systems while i don't like pure missile system missile drone combo should be ok maybe 50m/bit for drones like legion but without drone dmg bonus or something, just don't repeat same mistakes like with typhoon no one capable of straight thinking will put guns on it or use last two high slot to put 2 guns on it.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#89 - 2017-06-01 14:54:01 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
tengu should have the kinetic damage removed .. versatility and all and just leave the Rof and velocity bonus..

Interesting point on the kinetic lock and versatility. I suspect that a lot of folks would gladly trade some raw kinetic DPS for lower-but-any-damage-type DPS, and this would be in line with the whole notion of T3 flexibility.

I know I would. Whole versatility with missiles is a lie. The most versatile weapon system are drones.

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

Kesthely
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#90 - 2017-06-01 16:07:02 UTC
I don't know why everyone is so focused on the kinetic damage of the missile Tengu. Most other subsystems of all races get a 10% damage bonus (with exception of missile legion and Hybrid Tengu) The missile tengu gets 7.5% damage bonus for 3 damage types and 12.5% bonus for Kinetic. So slightly less, or slightly more depending on damage type.

Overall the damage output of these changes seems a bit much anyway. Shortrange they all seem to be able to get 700+ paper dps.

My Proposal:

Cut the base damage bonus to 5% on non drone boats. Then give a overheat bonus that increases the effectiveness of overheating by 15% - 20% and you'll have a system thats synergizes a lot better with the overall overheating state of the strategic cruisers, and will have a little less impact on Hac's
Kasumi Shinra
The Foundation Of Mammon
#91 - 2017-06-01 17:11:23 UTC
The draft looks way better than I first imagined - definitely opens up a lot more fitting options while also reducing raw pewpew numbers and keeping most unique roles intact. Heat bonus is also a very nice addition. Keep up the good job, guys.

The proposed cap subsystem distribution might be an issue worth considering though.

The regen bonus is vital for a couple of unique roles T3s currently fill. Especially with cloak now being an active tank defensive subsystem, both Tengu and Legion will struggle very hard to be a viable choice for their HK role. Same applies to the neut Legion.

Please consider unifying cap bonuses all across the board to either be pool or regen instead of making half of the boats feel unloved. Another option might be to diligently adjust the base cap values on them (which currently are kind of fine on Legion, but complete **** on Tengu) to make sure people can fix it with flux coils when needed.

Quote:
[16:04] ccp_fozzie: Tengu Augmented Capacitor 51.46%
[16:04] ccp_fozzie: Tengu Capacitor Regen Matrix 41.52%
[16:04] ccp_fozzie: That's the most recent breakdown of popularity
The current cap pool bonus is pretty much useless on all o T3s honestly, even moreso after the introduction of cap batteries. The only reason people pick it over the regen one is to get the additional hardpoint (these are most certainly PvE Tengus making it popular on your breakdown, Fozzie).

Scan res vs CPU and warp speed vs base speed preserve the current distinctions between these hulls, which is cool.
Toobo
Project Fruit House
#92 - 2017-06-01 17:48:02 UTC
Plenty of people commenting here on the function, role and performance of new T3 balances.

Some have asked about clarification on the 'cost' issue, but I didn't see it addressed much yet.

I am not going to propose what should be done, but I think the following questions should be asked at this stage, maybe after that we can discuss more.

1. What does CCP and/or focus group think about the current price of T3s and their subs?

* There has been a dramatic drop in price. Everything has ups and downs, but the degree of nose dive T3s have taken over the course of past year or so is remarkable, probably related to many other game changes not specific to T3 ships themselves.

I do accept that it's free market, supply/demand, players will find the price balance, etc, but there is a reason why I ask what CCP/focus group think about the current prices of T3s

a) Strat cruisers are made from resources that are harvested from very specific and quite different form of space - WH. What the final end product of resources harvested in such specific space will be priced at will have some impact on the 'value' of such space. Blue loot is probably the main portion of income now and traditionally valuable WH stuff like melted nano ribbons are pretty much at their lowest price point I remember since release of Apocrypha.

b) This may be a bigger WH balance discussion if we cover the whole topic of resource harvesting and such from supply point of view, but what the T3s will end up as final product will have an impact on demand, and if the supply remained constant then the changes in demand (due to ship balancing) will play a role in the price. If there are both changes in supply and demand to some degree (as in 'increase in cost' expression mentioned here a few times), that will obviously also affect.

2. How wide spread/popular do you want T3cs to be in use?

a) This is tied to ship balance that is being actively discussed here, but also relates to supply and demand side of things too.

b) People have been saying that T3s are 'too good' at some things that T2 does, such as force recons and HACs roles. But have you seen such dramatic drop in price for force recon and HACs in the same period? T3s are 'too good' but their price has been crashing? What do you think about that?

c) Do you want these 'nerfed' or 'rebalanced' T3 cruisers to be flown a lot en masse? or become main stay of doctrines? Or do you want them to be a jack of all trades that has good utility for a very small gang with limited number of pilots but not necessarily needed in big numbers, etc.

d) Are we going for the early phase T3D scenario where T3 cruisers become cheap and jolly ships that you see everywhere in every space? Not necessarily as OP as some T3D had been but being so cheap and versatile that they can be a go-to ship for most pilots?

e) if 'price of a ship' is not a balancing factor, I do not know what is the reason to fly any T1 class ship for which there is a T2 version (except for BL Ops maybe), and I do not see any reason to fly T1 cruiser than any of the T3s, unless you nerf T3 to be somehow worse than T1 cruiser, which I don't believe will be the direction this is heading or neither has this ever been intended/implied.

On the pure merits of their performance, role and specialisation, yes, I can see scenarios where T2 could be preferred over T3 in some specific roles. But again, if price was not an issue, do you think balancing T3Cs will stop them from obsoleting many other ships that are not as specilised as T2 cruiser classes? (i.e. will the new T3 balance reverse how most of the BCs became not so desirable?)

TBH, I never bought this 'price is not a factor' argument. I have completely stopped flying T1 cruisers once I could fly HACs, Recons and Logistics. When T3s first came out and there was even less reason to look at T1 hulls and that remained the same even after all that tiercide stuff.

Price of a ship does matter, and I feel it has been proved multiple times, through situations like T3Ds having great value for money and pirate faction ships being so cheap, that high performance ships available for very cheap prices will have great effect on the kind of ships you see regularly in space.

so tl'dr;

1) What do people think about how easily available T3s should be? (in terms of supply, shortage/abundancy depending on demand, end product price, and their usefulness in terms of performance and role - all these things considered together)

2) in other but similar vein, how many T3s do you wish to see in space?


end note: I'm just curious what you think strategic cruisers' 'place' should be in the whole game meta, not just from pound per pound comparison with another cruiser hull in terms of role and performance only. The efficiency and quality of the end product (i.e. desirability - demand) after the balance will play a role, maybe as much as any changes in supply side could. Sorry to butt into a ship balancing topic with this but the visions you have and the end product that T3s become will have very wide spread implications.

If it cannot be answered I just wish to know that such things are being considered together, not just how many turrets or mid slots a ship should have.

Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!

Mr Floydy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#93 - 2017-06-01 21:27:50 UTC
Kesthely wrote:
Cut the base damage bonus to 5% on non drone boats. Then give a overheat bonus that increases the effectiveness of overheating by 15% - 20% and you'll have a system thats synergizes a lot better with the overall overheating state of the strategic cruisers, and will have a little less impact on Hac's


I'd support this, overheating bonuses are a nice change!
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#94 - 2017-06-01 23:38:16 UTC
one big issue that i see here is the tengu missile kinetic damage bonus still remains.

I think this should just be a straight 5% damage, you have gotten rid of the specific damage bonus on many other caldari ships and this one should be no different.
Bromum Atom
Outplayed.
#95 - 2017-06-02 06:38:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Bromum Atom
Mr Floydy wrote:
Kesthely wrote:
Cut the base damage bonus to 5% on non drone boats. Then give a overheat bonus that increases the effectiveness of overheating by 15% - 20% and you'll have a system thats synergizes a lot better with the overall overheating state of the strategic cruisers, and will have a little less impact on Hac's


I'd support this, overheating bonuses are a nice change!

This can be good, but:
1) armor rep can be overheated rof 6 minutes, but 6 turrets + 1 hight slot - only 1min 33 sec. Owerheating is not so usefull here.
2) With base +10% bonus t3 have 150% normal damage and 172,5 (150*1.15) owerheated
with +5% base bonus and 20% Heat Benefits t3 have 125% base damage and 147 (125*1.18) overheated for 1 minut and 33 sec. This nerf t3 dps greatly.

Kasumi Shinra wrote:
The current cap pool bonus is pretty much useless on all o T3s honestly, even moreso after the introduction of cap batteries. The only reason people pick it over the regen one is to get the additional hardpoint (these are most certainly PvE Tengus making it popular on your breakdown, Fozzie).

Cap bonus is same as cap regen bonus, you will have 6.5% less GJ/sec peak recharge and large cap pool.
Bromum Atom
Outplayed.
#96 - 2017-06-02 07:16:32 UTC
Proteus/Tengu/Loki with EWAR sub dont need extra cap/PWG, but Legion with EWAR sub should fit neuts which require extra PWG and cap. But now Legion cannot use any cap/pwg sub with EWAR sub...
Mr Floydy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#97 - 2017-06-02 08:04:54 UTC
Bromum Atom wrote:
This can be good, but:
1) armor rep can be overheated rof 6 minutes, but 6 turrets + 1 hight slot - only 1min 33 sec. Owerheating is not so usefull here.
2) With base +10% bonus t3 have 150% normal damage and 172,5 (150*1.15) owerheated
with +5% base bonus and 20% Heat Benefits t3 have 125% base damage and 147 (125*1.18) overheated for 1 minut and 33 sec. This nerf t3 dps greatly.


I was thinking I like it more from an idea perspective, rather than necessarily agreeing with the numbers :)
I'd hope that the overheated damage should this idea happen would be relatively on par with current overheated damage, and that standard damage would be lower.

Bromum Atom wrote:
Proteus/Tengu/Loki with EWAR sub dont need extra cap/PWG, but Legion with EWAR sub should fit neuts which require extra PWG and cap. But now Legion cannot use any cap/pwg sub with EWAR sub...

Good point. Something that needs to be looked at!
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#98 - 2017-06-02 13:07:18 UTC
Novor Drethan wrote:
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete.

And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing.

It shouldn't be CCP's job to make sure the players have ships that do everything they want. It's the players who need to adapt.

I would love if my Marauder had better resists or the ability to use a MJD when in Bastion, but CCP has rejected both those things. Why? Well, for balance.

I don't believe a ship that can fit a covert cloak, interdiction nullification, and 6 bonused turrets/launchers is balanced. There's a reason Recon Ships don't have spectacular DPS and tank. There's a reason they don't have interdiction nullification. There's a reason Black Ops Battleships can't fit covert cloaks.

All of that reasoning goes out the window with T3Cs though. It's as though every other ship in the game is balanced by one standard while T3Cs are balanced by another, and it certainly doesn't help that so many players support that.

1. T3Cs are Cruisers. They are not Battlecruisers. They are not Battleships.
2. Being T3 does not justify them being fundamentally broken in terms of balance. T3Ds were just rebalanced by CCP, and they seem to be in a good place. They are very much Destroyer hulls. They don't compete all that much with Cruisers, and they certainly don't compete with Battlecruisers. T3Cs should be very much the same, relative to their hull size.
3. Cost is not a proper balancing tool when used as an excuse to try and justify an unbalanced ship. We know this. Marauders are 10x as much as T1 Battleships, but CCP refuses to give them T2 resists -- they cost as much as Dreadnaughts, but don't perform anywhere near the same level. The same should be true of T3Cs. You shouldn't be paying all that extra isk for a brokenly powerful ship. You should be paying that isk for a ship that's versatile and can adapt to many different roles -- unlike T2 ships, which are limited to specific roles.

This really all seems like common sense, but T3Cs have been so strong for so long that people simply aren't willing to admit that they need a much more extensive nerf than we're currently seeing. I think that this should be the goal.


Good post, T3D's are in a good spot people are still using them all but none are really that oppressive.
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#99 - 2017-06-02 14:43:28 UTC
I curious as to why CCP feels that the Skill Point loss is still a valid mechanic, we have skill injectors and recently have mini-skill injectiors. It just seems to be redundant any more.
On the topic of skills also, I assume that the lost subsystem skill will be refunded?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#100 - 2017-06-02 16:12:41 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
I curious as to why CCP feels that the Skill Point loss is still a valid mechanic, we have skill injectors and recently have mini-skill injectiors. It just seems to be redundant any more.
On the topic of skills also, I assume that the lost subsystem skill will be refunded?

Fozzie admited it's all about SP sinks and extractors market.

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